Editor, RE: “Drug abuse: Who is to blame; the seller or the consumer?” (The New Times, January 15). Neither is to blame — for very simple and obvious reasons. As mentioned in the article, poor economic conditions drive dealers to hustle and provide what addiction prone individuals need. So blaming and shaming is the exact opposite of how we need to look at this rather complex issue and put our efforts in helping both because they both are in dire conditions. Ali Baba *************************** The cause-and-effect relationship between supply and demand is complicated and not always as clear-cut as some might think: supply can sometimes create its own demand. As they say, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Drug suppliers and their consumers are in a symbiotic relationship, and neither would exist without the other. They are like the corrupt and the corrupters, you need both categories to create a market for both behaviours. Fighting addiction (or corruption) requires acting simultaneously on both sides. Helping the addict to kick the habit, and preventing newer addictions through supportive social policies and programmes targeting addicts and those most susceptible to drift into addiction, i.e. young people. But it also requires action to stem the supply of the negatively addictive supplies, including punitive action. Society cant afford to simply throw up its figurative arms, which is what would happen if we acted on only one side of the problem and absolved the other as a blameless economic agent supplying an existing demand, or seeing the addict as merely a victim of uncontrollable urges she or he is completely incapable of controlling. Society needs to simultaneously help addicts to kick the habit and to act to prevent new addictions, while also stemming the efforts of suppliers to create, safeguard and expand their market. Mwene Kalinda
