The Ethics of Drug Dealing

[Offtheastro]

As a libertarian I do believe that all drugs should be legal, at least for adults. But would you say it is unethical to deal drugs, particularly those that are extremely addictive (aka. a "pusher")? I'm talking about people who sell everything from dope, coke/crack, and crystal on the street or tobacco and alcohol in a convenient store. Basically, these people are profiting off of the self-destructiveness of their addicted customers. Sure it's all about supply and demand, and people will always get their hands on drugs one way or another, but what moral virtue or pride is their in enabling somebody's demise? How can a dealer feel like they're doing something right? A job is an expression of ones life. Holding one is a part of the choices one makes relative to their values. I don't see how helping people so blatantly destroy their lives is a long-term advancement of ones values,.. certainly not rational values.

 

[qwe]

>>How can a dealer feel like they're doing something right?>>

it'd be easier for an enlightened LSD or MDMA dealer obviously

but heroin and benzos and stimulants help in various ways. not all addictions are self destructive by far, and most users are not dependent/daily. in fact a small percentage gets hooked daily compared to, eg, alcohol and tobacco

so if you're a dealer, you probably understand that you are helping people keep from being dopesick, keep calm, kill anxiety or depression (most addictions are self medicative i think, even if we don't know it) or give motivation/focus (opiates or stims)

like you said, they'll get their hands on the drug... a dealer could feel pride in his work if he knows he's the one good clean dealer with noncut stuff i suppose

i don't like even considering moral issues with drugs. "morals" (as opposed to ethics) has really messed up how we think about drugs, society literally panicked about it. it's a medicine/product/chemical pattern like anything else

 

[alasdairm]

if you support the demand side of the equation, how can you have a problem with the supply side of the equation? that's such an odd disconnect.

in your libertarian idyll, where people are free to use drugs legally, where do they get them?

alasdair

 

[qwe]

the reason i'm not totally libertarian is there are some cases where gov can step in... like marketing recreational drugs to children. the reasons being obvious

 

[Vader]

"morals" (as opposed to ethics)

Could you elaborate on the difference please? I thought they were synonyms.

if you support the demand side of the equation, how can you have a problem with the supply side of the equation? that's such an odd disconnect.

in your libertarian idyll, where people are free to use drugs legally, where do they get them?

Thinking something should be legal doesn't mean you think it's right. I think abortion should be legal, but I'm not sure that it's morally justifiable. The whole point of libertarianism is that people should be allowed to do things even if we think those things are wrong.

 

[alasdairm]

^ i understand that. so if you think that people should be allowed to do drugs, where are they supposed to get them?

it just seems very black and white to me - if you believe that using drugs should be allowed then, by extension, buying those drugs should be allowed which is the same as saying selling drugs should be allowed. yes? no?

alasdair

 

[peer.review]

What sorts of ethical duties do drug dealers have to their suppliers, their clients, the community, and to society at large?

 

[Vader]

if you believe that using drugs should be allowed then, by extension, buying those drugs should be allowed which is the same as saying selling drugs should be allowed

Yes, it should be permitted. That doesn't mean it's ok. Just because we don't prohibit a behaviour, it doesn't mean we condone it. In the "libertarian ideal", users are allowed to buy from dealers, johns allowed to visit prostitutes etc. That doesn't mean that selling drugs/your body is moral. The question here isn't whether drug dealing should be legal, it's whether or not it's ethical.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

People who sell extremely addictive substances like opiates or cocaine are providing an easy way for people to ruin their lives. I don't think there is anything morally justifiable about making your money getting people hooked on powerful chemicals, even if you do use that money to help fund your sick kid's hospital bills.
While it's clearly up to the individual to make the choice not to get addicted in the first place, its the dealer that provides the temptation, and allows the cycle of addiction to continue. What is the ethics of this? The whole "individual responsibility" argument is often used by dealers to justify what they do and avoid feeling guilty about having a hand in a lot of people's personal downfalls. It just feels wrong, sorry if that's not a good ethical argument.
I am an opiate addict so this may seem hypocritical, and I certainly don't blame anyone but myself for being the way I am.
Compare a weed dealer to a hard drug dealer, and the hard drug dealer almost always is a scumbag who will jack up prices if he knows you are withdrawing, or do some other stuff to rip you off: like say one thing over the phone, then change the deal last minute when you are right about to give him the money so that it feels almost too late to back out. Or telling you a pill or powder is one thing, when it's really something else. (thank god for the internet for that last one) This is using real life examples that I've had to deal with. It might not be true for the hard drug dealers in your town, but that's how it is here. Being a dealer of hard drugs seems to always make people just that much more of a douche bag. Even in the worst periods of my addiction I never sold anything that would be considered a "hard drug," and I refuse to.

I think selling weed or the occasional psychedelic is fine. In the case of psychedelics, the dealer has the responsibility to tell the people the truth about the actual substance, and what to expect from the trip so the user doesn't get totally overwhelmed if they aren't used to tripping. I think a psychedelic dealer has the obligation to ask stuff like "have you tripped before?" and warn about set and setting because those factors are ESSENTIAL when talking about a trip. I can't stand irresponsible psychedelic users that feel like anyone can just take acid or shrooms at any time with no adverse effects.
Weed is just weed. I don't think it's morally right to sell it, but I don't think it's morally wrong either. It's just another commodity. I sold it before, and I'd do it again.

 

[qwe]

>>its the dealer that provides the temptation>>

the temptation isn't the drug itself, it's in the user's brain...

any product that has demand will be sold on the black market. dealers are no different than anyone selling alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, etc

>>the hard drug dealer almost always is a scumbag who will jack up prices if he knows you are withdrawing>>

IME drug dealers don't ask whether you're in withdrawal when you make a purchase. i'm sure people do that to people, but how could a store owner do it? it's just another problem with illegalizing selling drugs. most of the problems stem from the prohibition itself, including the unseemly people youve met dealing drugs

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

I agree with your points about the idea of prohibition leading to more problems than they solve, but I find it hard to believe that even with legalization it's just gonna be common practice that cocaine or heroin gets sold at 7/11 or Rite Aid.
Any form of restriction on availability whatsoever (like in the form of prescription vs OTC) will provide incentive for a black market to form in order to increase availability. Then the problems with the unseemly folk come into play.

 

[Offtheastro]

Thinking something should be legal doesn't mean you think it's right. I think abortion should be legal, but I'm not sure that it's morally justifiable. The whole point of libertarianism is that people should be allowed to do things even if we think those things are wrong.

Yes, it should be permitted. That doesn't mean it's ok. Just because we don't prohibit a behaviour, it doesn't mean we condone it. In the "libertarian ideal", users are allowed to buy from dealers, johns allowed to visit prostitutes etc. That doesn't mean that selling drugs/your body is moral. The question here isn't whether drug dealing should be legal, it's whether or not it's ethical.

Exactly Yerg--thanks for clearing that up. Libertarians usually espouse to the primacy of individual liberty emphasized in John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, which typically begins with a fundamental premise around self-ownership--individuals have full ownership rights over themselves--and to what limits such ownership rights can be exercised. Primarily, individuals are fully permitted to control their property (themselves and what they rightfully own) to the extent at which it conflicts with another person's (or living being's) individual liberty. And like Yerg said: since libertarians are committed to maximizing individual liberty (consistent with the liberties of all), libertarians tend to oppose restrictions or regulations on pornography, prostitution, gambling, businesses and the market, drugs (usage and sale), sexual orientation, etc. This still doesn't imply that libertarians are morally supportive of these things; rather they are opposed to externally imposed limitations on individual freedom.

the reason i'm not totally libertarian is there are some cases where gov can step in... like marketing recreational drugs to children. the reasons being obvious

Many libertarians are opposed to selling drugs to minors in one way or another. Must would see it as an issue for local government if distributors don't already enforce their own age restrictions.

it'd be easier for an enlightened LSD or MDMA dealer obviously

What do you mean by "enlightened"? Someone who is more experienced taking the drug? A psychedelic guru? And how is that better or easier? These drugs are very powerful and have the possibility of inducing mental/neurological trauma such as psychosis and serotonin syndrome.

Another question comes to mind as well: is taking a psychoactive substance as a vice morally justifiable, especially with the intention of negating ones reality and life? Isn't it just escapism?

 

[alasdairm]

so what does it mean in practice to be pragmatically supportive of something while believing it to be morally wrong? is it a question of helping one sleep at night?

it requires a little double-think for sure but it's also a completely academic distinction...

alasdair

 

[Vader]

it requires a little double-think for sure but it's also a completely academic distinction...

No it doesn't and no it isn't. Not going out of your way to stop people doing something is not the same as pragmatically supportive of something. Imagine a vegetarian who believes that the eating of meat is wrong. There seems to be no double think in them not believing that meat ought to be banned, and the distinction is clear- it is the distinction between regulating one's own behaviour and regulating the behaviours of others. Do you think that any behaviour that you personally believe to be wrong should be illegal? If you do, can you not see how someone could hold a different view?

 

[alasdairm]

If you do, can you not see how someone could hold a different view?

of course i can see that.

i'm just interested in understanding what this all means in practice. for now, as i see it, the distinction is somewhat meaningless.

that said, again my problem is not with that distinction at all - it's with the idea that one can support the demand side of the equation without automatically supporting the supply side. that's all.

alasdair

 

[Vader]

I rather hoped that the vegetarian example would illustrate that... it means that, although we hold something to be immoral and so would not personally do it, we allow others to. Contrast that with someone who both permits other to do an action, but believes it to be right and does it himself. Has that made it any clearer? Also, you talk as if banning an action were the only way to show your disapproval of it. You can protest, write letters to the editor, make inflammatory pirate radio broadcasts, invest in companies that refuse to engage in it, without coercing someone with the threat of violence (which is essentially what making something illegal and instituting a penalty for it is).

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Well if we are talking about actual practice, I don't see how it's ever going to be the case where cocaine, meth, or heroin, will ever be sold at the corner store along side blunt wraps and lotto tickets. Therefore there will always be a black market, and that will always lead to the same problems that hard drugs lead to today.

The one thing I could be in support of are clinics designed to maintain an addict, like methadone, but with the aformentioned street drugs, in addition to counseling and group therapy to try and wean the people off of drugs. That way quality could be assured, and people could get the help they need. The problem with this is that, currently, it's easier to fake an injury and get prescribed Oxycodone, than try and legitimately get onto a Suboxone program. There is a messed up view in our society because of the outright prohibition that causes mental problems to be highly stigmatized by close-minded people.

 

[Vader]

I don't see how it's every going to be the case where cocaine, meth, or heroin, will ever be sold at the corner store along side blunt wraps and lotto tickets.

It used to be the case before the Pure Food and Drug act...(well, not the meth, but only because no-one had thought of it yet).

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

yes but I don't see how the current political climate, or even a way more progressive political climate, would ever allow that to happen again.
Imagine the politicians actually lobbying for such an act. They'd get mocked relentlessly.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Depends how you go about selling the drugs IMO. If you let it be known you're in possession of said addictive/destructive chemicals and don't hound people to purchase, then you're basically just providing a product for people to buy. Some people can use heroin, meth, coke, etc. responsibly and some can't. What about people who work at ABC stores in respect to alcoholics?