Amelius Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 While selling drugs does not violate the non-aggression principle and passes UPB, it still seems to me to be intuitively shady, to say the least.(By "drugs" I'm referring to the demonstrably dangerous ones, not substances like Marijuana).What is your take on the selling of drugs? Isn't the dealer taking advantage of the addiction and "weakness of the will" of the consumer? In what way is the consumer really "free"?...and other than arguments from consequantialism, how is this fundamentally different than a guy selling, say, McDonald's burgers to an obese kid who eats there almost everyday?I understand Stefan's position on the TAKING of drugs(that it is merely the immediate gratification of symptoms that are the result of some sort of childhood trauma), but I'm interested in the ethical behavior of SELLING drugs.
Rob_Ilir Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 There was a study done on lab mice, and free roaming mice, the cage had normal water and heroin/water, same set-up with the free roaming ones. Most of the caged took the drugged version, none of the free took the drug version. As for the selling, it is no different than selling a knife set for the kitchen, it cant be or be immoral, I dont think there would be an actual market other than hobby growers/makers.
MrCapitalism Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 Isn't the dealer taking advantage of the addiction and "weakness of the will" of the consumer? Any pharmacist selling antibiotics can fall prey to this criticism.
Josh F Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 While selling drugs does not violate the non-aggression principle and passes UPB, it still seems to me to be intuitively shady, to say the least.(By "drugs" I'm referring to the demonstrably dangerous ones, not substances like Marijuana).What is your take on the selling of drugs? Isn't the dealer taking advantage of the addiction and "weakness of the will" of the consumer? In what way is the consumer really "free"?...and other than arguments from consequantialism, how is this fundamentally different than a guy selling, say, McDonald's burgers to an obese kid who eats there almost everyday?I understand Stefan's position on the TAKING of drugs(that it is merely the immediate gratification of symptoms that are the result of some sort of childhood trauma), but I'm interested in the ethical behavior of SELLING drugs. Yeah I mean it must require a lack of empathy to participate, so it can hardly be affirmative or good, at best it is amoral. Especially when you'retalking about heroin and crack and things like that
Pepin Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 I think you have to assume certain outcomes to make any sort of a negative attribution to drug dealing. Alcohol for instance is a drug that some percentage of the population becomes addicted to, while the majority has no issue with moderate and safe use. It appears to be the same with harder drugs. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, 32 percent of people who try tobacco become dependent, as do 23 percent of those who try heroin, 17 percent who try cocaine, 15 percent who try alcohol and 9 percent who try marijuana. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/health/personal-health-addiction-a-brain-ailment-not-a-moral-lapse.html There seems to be a mix of genetic predisposition combined with the childhood environment correlated with those that become addicted. I believe the case I am attempting to make is that drug dealing is not inherently shady due to a minority becomes addicted, rather that drug dealing to people you know to be addicted is shady because the dealer is willing to profit at the expense of another's health.
Recommended Posts