There doesn't need to be a threat, you're pulling that out of your ass.

Entrapment defences in the United States, have evolved, mainly through case law. Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

That's because entrapment

is the conception and planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer

Use of force or threat is not required.

A threat is an example. If someone has a gun to you, an average law abiding citizen tends to listen to what they say.

Simply having debt would not be enough to cause the average person to do drug deals. No judge would accept that.