Is drug dealing unethical/immoral?

[Soso78]

There’s different levels of dealers too. The guys moving big weights and the runner getting paid in gear and all in between.
The guy living in luxury that shifts kilos is affecting more lives than the junkie being exploited to do drops for his fix. Would u think the same of both? Or is one more immoral than the other?

 

[JessFR]

There’s different levels of dealers too. The guys moving big weights and the runner getting paid in gear and all in between.
The guy living in luxury that shifts kilos is affecting more lives than the junkie being exploited to do drops for his fix. Would u think the same of both? Or is one more immoral than the other?

Mmm, it's a good question. Generally though I still don't think dealing in and of itself is immoral. In the same sense as I don't blame the owners of large liquor companies for people's alcoholism.

In practice, a lot of the people higher up on the food chain probably are indeed immoral because of other, genuinely immoral behaviors such business entails.

Another issue I have, is I don't like making moral judgements of entire groups of people. Because I know so little about the specifics of how the people in that group came to find themselves playing that role.

I find it hard to blame people for doing things that it's inevitable that people in general will do.

So long as there's a market, there will always be someone there trying to fill it. Because we all need some way to support ourselves in life.

Which is why I focus my anger about how people are hurt by drugs on societies leadership.

Because there is one way, and one way only in reality that we could stop most of the harms of the illegal drug market. And that's to provide an alternative.

We have had decades of focusing on dealers, and blaming criminals or users for all the harm done. It doesn't work, it doesn't get us anywhere.

The answer, or the closest there is to a single answer, is to accept that people will do drugs, and form a more caring and compassionate society that's more interested in helping people than blaming people.

Which is why I'm not inclined to blame or make moral judgements on the people who have no singular ability to affect such change.

But in terms of the hypothetical "is it moral" question. If dealing is in itself immoral, then I figure so must selling tobacco, or alcohol.

Is the girl barely 18 years old selling me my cigarettes immoral for doing so? She's participating in the sale of a product that kills.

Are the people who worked at the pawn shop who provided me a way to easily sell all my stuff for drug money immoral for facilitating my destroying my life?

I don't think so. I'm an adult. I made my choices. They were choices made under duress yes, but they were still my choices.

If I blame them, I gotta blame myself first and foremost. I'd rather not blame anyone and just accept that it is what it is. And that solutions to these problems broadly are up to those leading society. Not those in the ground in the middle of it.

 

[Soso78]

Alcohol and tobacco are legal and kill far more people every year than all other drugs combined.
so that has to fall on the government and producers. Which in this case are the dealers. peoples lives/health is secondary to money. As usual.

 

[JessFR]

Alcohol and tobacco are legal and kill far more people every year than all other drugs combined.
so that has to fall on the government and producers. Which in this case are the dealers. peoples lives/health is secondary to money. As usual.

Well just to be clear, when I say I want the government to provide a legal alternative in order to stop the destruction of illegal drug trafficking. I am absolutely not suggesting we treat heroin like tobacco or alcohol.

Franky I'm not sure we should be treating alcohol like we treat alcohol.

What I would be advocating, is the government having drugs made under license, and provided at low cost to addicts.

I absolutely am not saying there should be people advertising heroin (it's bad enough that they're allowed to advertise any drugs at all).

The point is to deprive organized crime of the vast majority of the market, and to reduce the harm caused to addicts by impure drugs of varying potency, and the harm caused to society by addicts by enabling them to get their drugs without having to do shitty stuff to make the money all the time and associate with criminals.

That's what I want.

 

[Soso78]

Are there any countries that have done that? I know some countries have de criminalised class a but that’s not going as far as what your on about.
Do you know how it’s worked out in countries that have de criminalised drugs?
number of addicted gone up or down?
ods more or less common?

iim not convinced cheaper and easier to obtain purer drugs would be a good thing.
I’d prob still be a heroin and crack addict if I’m honest.

 

[JessFR]

Are there any countries that have done that? I know some countries have de criminalised class a but that’s not going as far as what your on about.
Do you know how it’s worked out in countries that have de criminalised drugs?
number of addicted gone up or down?
ods more or less common?

iim not convinced cheaper and easier to obtain purer drugs would be a good thing.
I’d prob still be a heroin and crack addict if I’m honest.

It's been tried in some countries in various ways. Not to the extent I'm suggesting, but to lesser extents.

The UK for instance provides legal heroin to addicts.

And yes, these kinds of approaches have generally been shown to be successful.

But if nothing else, the status quo is NOT working. And more compassionate policies like these have generally done more good than more punitive ones.

So if nothing else, ideas like mine are worth trialing.

EDIT: it occurs to me that you're probably from the UK. Class A Is usually a UK term. I noticed you also used the term "mate" earlier.

Regardless. I think there's another country that has tried something similar too. I forget which exactly but I believe it was a European country. Norway I think.

Again though, it's worth a try.

 

[Soso78]

You say that the uk provides legal heroin to users it they don’t. Technically they do but in practical terms they don’t. It’s a very small number of chronic addicts that have exhausted every other avenue of treatment such as sub and methadone.
a drop in the ocean in terms of heroin addict getting legal prescribed diamorphine. So much so u can’t really state it in the way u did. “the uk for instance provides legal heroin to addicts”

 

[JessFR]

You say that the uk provides legal heroin to users it they don’t. Technically they do but in practical terms they don’t. It’s a very small number of chronic addicts that have exhausted every other avenue of treatment such as sub and methadone.
a drop in the ocean in terms of heroin addict getting legal prescribed diamorphine. So much so u can’t really state it in the way u did. “the uk for instance provides legal heroin to addicts”

There are many who would have said that even providing heroin to addicts at all would be unthinkably destructive.

As I said the UK isn't the only one. And these kinds of policies generally have had a lot better success than punitive ones.

People said similar stuff about harm reduction policies, clean free needles, etc.

These kinds of policies have a good track record. Much better than the alternative.

All I'm suggesting is taking it to the next step.

Just because it's a big step doesn't mean it's a bad step. Again it'd be worth trialing.

The statistics have repeatedly shown that punitive approaches, trying to just stop people using, don't work. We already know much harm related to drugs is due to its legal status as much as the drug itself.

And approaches of tolerance and compassion have had generally very good success by comparison.

And imagine all the lives, all the people who've died from overdoses or infections from dirty drugs that we could have potentially saved by providing a clean, regulated alternative.

 

[Soso78]

There are many who would have said that even providing heroin to addicts at all would be unthinkable destructive.

As I said the UK isn't the only one. And these kinds of policies generally have had a lot better success than punitive ones.

People said similar stuff about harm reduction policies, clean free needles, etc.

These kinds of policies have a good track record. Much better than the alternative.

All I'm suggesting is taking it to the next step.

Just because it's a big step doesn't mean it's a bad step. Again it'd be worth trialing.

Ye I agree, I think the uk could learn a lot from countries that have decrimalised drugs. Portugal seems to have had success with it.

 

[Xorkoth]

In college, a friend of mine took it upon himself to buy weed and psychedelics in small quantity, and distribute them to our group of friends and acquaintences for a small profit. Someone had to do it, since we all wanted drugs. I can't see how he was doing anything immoral as he was providing a service to known individuals and not ripping us off, or being predatory, or anything like that. He's an example of a dealer who was acting without immorality, IMO.

 

[JessFR]

In college, a friend of mine took it upon himself to buy weed and psychedelics in small quantity, and distribute them to our group of friends and acquaintences for a small profit. Someone had to do it, since we all wanted drugs. I can't see how he was doing anything immoral as he was providing a service to known individuals and not ripping us off, or being predatory, or anything like that. He's an example of a dealer who was acting without immorality, IMO.

I don't think most people here see anything wrong with that kinda drug dealing. No doubt some people do, but this is bluelight... So rather than arguing is drug dealing bad, we argue which drug dealing specifically is bad.

 

[Foreigner]

Considering the role that substances fill in most human's lives, I don't think drug dealing is bad. The human social conditions around the distribution of substances are questionable, but the human need to use substances is not. Our physiology did not evolve to live without nature. A lot of the stuff that people are taking on the daily is to support their life equilibrium. A lot of people are just self-medicating, a term that I loathe because it implies that someone else should be in control of the distribution of medication; when really, it's not about "medication". It's about biochemistry and supporting one's spirit.

When my kidneys are sluggish I take nettle. When my mind is slow I take nootropics. When my heart is broken I take herbs to nourish my spirit. When I want to party and feel good for the pure joy of it, I take stimulants.

I think in order to address the ethics question of "drug dealing", you have to look at what is being dealt, and why. Humans have used substances for all of recorded history. They've dug up mummified corpses from 5000BC of mountain men carrying mind altering herbs in their leather satchels.

The modern world has such a fucked up, dim view of this topic, mostly thanks to government. Drug dealers wouldn't exist if some other agent weren't trying to tell us when to take a piss and where.

 

[LordFran]

Drug selling = People get substances that they can do "crime" against themselves = nothing immoral in that

To cause harm to people is inmoral, weither it be directly or inderectly. In this case its directly, because they are proffiting off human suffering (I am speaking about selling coke and heroin and meth, crack/paco, sniffing bags of glue, etc)

As for your point foreigner...It just isnt like that.

If for every little thing, every little FEELING, we have we have to take something...its not OK. Its a diservice to ourselves. It is called addiction, poly substance abuse, addiction to altering the natural chemistry and homeostasis we have.

Remember how it was being a child...? Remember? It was pure. And candy was peddled on us, forced upon us--and that candy made us too edgy. I personally sold my gameboy advance and Dragon Ball Z comics at 8 years old to buy loads of sugary candy (bad move, the kind of move an addict makes.)

But i distinctly remember when I would feel my emotions and deal with them naturally, by playing games, by talking to people, by riding a bike, by sitting in the grass...by learning, not indluging in stimulant taking.

In the real natural world before the unaturality of society drugs wouldnt even exist for a small family or tribe since its nearly impossible to cultivate plants sustainibly given all the preassure of nature and natural life. Drug use is the cause of agriculture, which in turn is the cause of capitalism which lead to mass production.

This is important: IF YOU TRULY LOVED YOURSELF, YOU COULD NEVER HURT ANOTHER.

We dont love, not ourselves or others, hence why we just came out of two world wars and thousand countless other little wars and injustices; there are people willing to sign up for war and kill. This is all the same problem; we have no compassion for other humans. Its all just a means to make money, to futher our own self interest. This agressive and disgusting tendecy even corrupts families now, as the father is after his own sucsess and pleasure, the wife hers, the children theirs...etc. endless cycle of not caring and of not putting effort in the right place.

 

[LordFran]

Just had this conversation at the trap house with my dealer over a joint and some music.

ME: Hey...I've been playing with the idea of trying a Perc. You think I can get hooked if I do it just once?...

HIM: Well, it opioids dude, so yeah youll get hooked.

ME: hehe, oh yeah you are right.

I think the man is really really cool. I'm glad I didnt get one, I dont need that in my life. Im happy as is.

He also gave me 10grams of these dope ass enormous flowers;

20191222-004411 hosted at ImgBB

Image 20191222-004411 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Is drug dealing unethical/immoral?

If I might expand this a bit and ask, is it immoral and unethical to break any law?

The answer is obviously yes but then the question turns to the degree.

Was it right to murder Liberty and his ilk?

Who should I kill?

Say Trump please.





Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

To cause harm to people is inmoral, weither it be directly or inderectly.

B.S.

Hitler would die if I could make it so and that killing would be moral to those who would judge me.

As Martin Luther said, sin a lot and repent.

Sin, as Christians sing of Adams sin, is a happy fault and necessary to god.

Regards
DL

 

[JessFR]

Law and morality are totally separate.

If you are trapped in North Korea and they're gonna execute you because you didn't cry hard enough at the dear leaders funeral, to attempt to escape that fate would be illegal.

So would it be immoral to attempt to escape? Of course not. It would be illegal though.

 

[SpunUp]

I believe that selling drugs isn't unethical thing in wrong thing to do. Although I understand the argument that people get them some way or another. It is what we all choose to do with ourselves that we have control over or not. Anybody else? When I have sold drugs in the past. A little Dicky inside for the reason why is because I'd rather touch people's lives in a positive healing loving. Uplifting way mini negative and destructive way.

 

[Gormur]

There are many who would have said that even providing heroin to addicts at all would be unthinkably destructive.

As I said the UK isn't the only one. And these kinds of policies generally have had a lot better success than punitive ones.

People said similar stuff about harm reduction policies, clean free needles, etc.

These kinds of policies have a good track record. Much better than the alternative.

All I'm suggesting is taking it to the next step.

Just because it's a big step doesn't mean it's a bad step. Again it'd be worth trialing.

The statistics have repeatedly shown that punitive approaches, trying to just stop people using, don't work. We already know much harm related to drugs is due to its legal status as much as the drug itself.

And approaches of tolerance and compassion have had generally very good success by comparison.

And imagine all the lives, all the people who've died from overdoses or infections from dirty drugs that we could have potentially saved by providing a clean, regulated alternative.

Switzerland uses it like other countries use methadone. You go in, get your shot and go home. They don't give you take homes though

 

[JessFR]

Switzerland uses it like other countries use methadone. You go in, get your shot and go home. They don't give you take homes though

Wait a sec..hang on.. How's that supposed to work?

Heroin is not gonna keep you well for a full day. It's just not. And with no take homes it becomes way too disruptive to regular life if you had to go multiple times to be much of a therapy. It would have to be a twice daily visit at the least. And it'd have to be morning and night. And you'd almost certainly be noticeably sick by the time you get your next shot. But I suppose that could work provided getting the shot doesn't take long.