• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is drug dealing unethical/immoral?

Also. You've missed my point. My whole point is that it's not my fault that buying cocaine results in money going to Colombian drug laws.

The politicians and public who support the war on drugs, this situation is their doing. They are the ones responsible. It doesn't have to be this way.
 
JessFR said:
Also. You've missed my point. My whole point is that it's not my fault that buying cocaine results in money going to Colombian drug laws.

The politicians and public who support the war on drugs, this situation is their doing. They are the ones responsible. It doesn't have to be this way.
Click to expand...

I agree 100 percent with this. The government is responsible for so many deaths and so much needless incarceration over the years it's insane. And they've had all these years to see that prohibition is never going to work, and that it causes way more harm than any good it does, yet they still refuse to even budge an inch and consider an alternative. It's so sad.
 
I think it depends how we "weight" bad actions. Cocaine trade would 'hurt' more people (though bptubbs makes a good point re: employment of people) than kiddie porn, yet society generally considers violation of children to be more egregious than most other criminal acts.
 
This is all for argument's sake, folks, I'm not trying to piss people off. (Well, maybe Jess eventually.)

Prohibition creates black markets, and that leads to crime. Sure, but that doesn't give the person in the black market moral justification. And it's the same excuse used by people who illegally dump toxic waste into streams or hide their money in offshore accounts--they'll say regulation doesn't work.

You watch your supplier execute a dozen guys with a chain saw cause one of them might work for a competitor. You then turn around and distribute it on your own terms, and pretend your hand are clean, cause you only threaten to shoot people who rip you off.

That's not extreme, that's how the trade works. At some point you have to say, how much blood is worth having a good time on Friday night?


Edit: I'm not trying compare activities, I'm trying to say you can't pretend dealing drugs is an ethical activity, as it's done today, in reality, no matter what kind of angel about it you are.
 
Simply put the war on drugs isn't working. People have free choice and regulations would make the choices people make safer imho.
 
Scrofula said:
This is all for argument's sake, folks, I'm not trying to piss people off. (Well, maybe Jess eventually.)

Prohibition creates black markets, and that leads to crime. Sure, but that doesn't give the person in the black market moral justification. And it's the same excuse used by people who illegally dump toxic waste into streams or hide their money in offshore accounts--they'll say regulation doesn't work.

You watch your supplier execute a dozen guys with a chain saw cause one of them might work for a competitor. You then turn around and distribute it on your own terms, and pretend your hand are clean, cause you only threaten to shoot people who rip you off.

That's not extreme, that's how the trade works. At some point you have to say, how much blood is worth having a good time on Friday night?


Edit: I'm not trying compare activities, I'm trying to say you can't pretend dealing drugs is an ethical activity, as it's done today, in reality, no matter what kind of angel about it you are.
Click to expand...

Why would you be trying to piss me off.
 
Is it the meth or the person selling the meth that is wrong or bad? I have been at many levels in the game in my 50 or so years on this planet. In all of that time I never indulged in much of what I sold. To me it was always about the dollars and the skill set you develop in that industry. I was able to apply what I learner to many other parts of my life. It allowed me to support my self and people close to me in times of economic downturns. I generally made moral choices in the 5 Ws and could sleep soundly at night. After doing it for so long I had to come to terms with my choices and decided who I could let into my life fully. I had people who had zero idea what I did on that side and people I dealt with would have been shocked to know what my day time job was.


Eventually you get to a place where you find a balance and you no longer worry about what others do or think. My wife knows me and she respects the life that I live in. Even though she never had any affiliations to the black market world. She does respect the values I place on what is important like her and our family. She can trust me more I think because I have been honest with her about everything. She doesn't ask to many questions because she trusts me and sees how others trust me on both sides of the line.
 
I'm not trying to piss you off Jess, it just feels like it sometimes.

Wolf, you're selling something that can be harmful to adults who know the risks. They're giving you money to have a good time, knowing that it might cause problems for them down the line. In that sense it's no worse, or not much worse, than selling cigarettes or ice cream. Neither the molecule, the seller or the buyer is inherently bad.

It's one thing to sell alcohol to people, knowing that some will get drunk and some may beat their kids. Most people would find it immoral to continue selling to a guy who you know routinely gets drunk and inflicts violence.

Some parts of the black market require you to handle and sell material that you know post-fact involved the murder of people. I'm just saying that can't be neatly dismissed "because drug laws".
 
It kind of can man, if it weren't for drug laws, that wouldn't exist. If prohibition wasn't a thing, there would be no reason for drug violence.
 
That's true but doesn't make us innocent. There is a difference. You can't wipe the blood off the bindle you bought just because Nixon started a drug war.
 
I'm not saying you can, I quit dealing for a couple reasons, that was a big one, but to the little guy I wouldn't say it's immoral. The big shots? Hell yeah they are.
 
Exactly. Even if the small time drug user has any moral culpability at all, it's so drowned under the crimes of those truly responsible and mitigated by the way addiction damages free choice that it's barely worth consideration.
 
No argument, I just want folks to realize a tiny stain is still there. Drug wars are evil, and we're not part of that, but we can't take a righteous stand just because they're evil.

We're close to innocent, but not innocent.
 
Scrofula said:
Wolf, you're selling something that can be harmful to adults who know the risks. They're giving you money to have a good time, knowing that it might cause problems for them down the line. In that sense it's no worse, or not much worse, than selling cigarettes or ice cream. Neither the molecule, the seller or the buyer is inherentbab s".
Click to expand...

I never felt much guilt for my choices. I did switch products eventually to more pharmaceutical products to enhance performance which made more stable clients.
 
Scrofula said:
No argument, I just want folks to realize a tiny stain is still there. Drug wars are evil, and we're not part of that, but we can't take a righteous stand just because they're evil.

We're close to innocent, but not innocent.
Click to expand...

No one is innocent.

The thing about drug prohibition is that it basically criminalised a whole bunch of non-european cultural practices and psychoactives.
It's simply immoral and wrong.

Now, there are some appalling things that happen in the illict drug industry - cocaine has an especially deleterious social, environmental and political effects - but such a trade would not exist, were it not for prohibition.
Not thag it excuses anything that the cartels or whoever do - but governments could destroy the cartels' whole business model over night if they wanted to....
But i really think it's in the "best interests" of certain nation states that these people exist in the capacity they do; the presence of such cold blooded, vicious killers around. It helps justify the existence of militiarised police and so on,

So, yeah - there's that end of the illicit drug trade.

But then there's all the amazing acid and weed dealers out there, who i sincerely believe are doing something of a public service.
I don't think it's totally fair to lump all "dealers" into the same category...the law does that already :\

I do think there is something distinctly shady abouy people profiting off of addiction, compulsion and misery - but i'd put tobacco and alcohol sellers in the same category.

I think that over all, my opinion is that dealing drugs in and of itself isn't wrong or immoral - it's the violence and corruption that goes along with organised crime that i have a problem with.


Interesting thread topic :)
 
I would say no. No more so than selling alcohol or cigarettes. The only time I see it as unethical is if someone isn't honest about the drug(s) they are selling and/or do not ensure that it's what it's purported to be and/or relatively safe (or as safe as can be) either by testing it or taking it themselves. Unless there is some negligent action on the part of the dealer, I think people are free to make their own choices.
 
In my opinion what is immoral and hypocritical is to stigmatize pharmaceuticals as "drugs", patients as "junkies" and vendors as "dealers"
I guess I'm just sensitive on the issue of peer pressure and nomenclature, having lost so many diamonds in the rough to social stigma and prosecution.
Love,
Tez
 
Tzcatlipoca said:
In my opinion what is immoral and hypocritical is to stigmatize pharmaceuticals as "drugs", patients as "junkies" and vendors as "dealers"
I guess I'm just sensitive on the issue of peer pressure and nomenclature, having lost so many diamonds in the rough to social stigma and prosecution.
Love,
Tez
Click to expand...

I love that here in Australia, the warning labels the government putsch medicine...

If it's just an ordinary prescription, it's called a medicine, but if it's a controlled substance it's called a drug.

They are careful and deliberate with making sure they always use the word medicine for any substances that are considered goodl and drug with any substance considered addictive.

It's all about image and branding. Like how narcotic as a word now means any drug deemed a bad drug. But beyond that has no clear meaning at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top