Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Selling illegal drugs

Rate this topic


mke

Recommended Posts

To argue something like, "Well, you don't want to live in a society of idiots and whim followers," can open up a whole range of arguments. "You should provide housing for the poor because it's not in your self-interests to live in a society of homeless." "You should pay for others' health care because it's not in your self-interests to live in a society of sick people." And on, and on, and on.

You should provide housing for the poor and pay for others' health care. You have just given the appropriate rationale for charity. The key is that you should not be FORCED to do so, and you should not do so if it will come before other values that are more pressing. If you see that your neighborhood is crumbling and falling apart and your neighbors are in dire straits, and you happen to be a billionaire, the benevolent thing to do would be to help them (but again no one can FORCE you). On the other hand, if you are a starving artist and you have your last fifty dollars to spend on essential art supplies that will finish your breakthrough masterpiece vs. give it to a soup kitchen, it would be totally immoral not to buy the art supplies. Concern for others' well-being for their own sake can be a rational value, it just doesn't come as high in the hierarchy of value as the altruists would have you believe. It is totally in your self-interest to not have drug-addicts running around in the streets posing a threat to you and the population at large. It is up to you to shape the kind of society you want to live in, it's just not a duty or an all-consuming responsibility like the "activist" types make it out to be.

Oftentimes I find that when singlemindedly pursuing your rational values you end up effecting change in your general social vicinity in a positive direction, as a happy byproduct. Certainly this will be so for me, for instance, when I start my teaching career. I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, self-interest does not require you to try to "put one over" on others, or reality for that matter. I think this is what RationalBiker and David are trying to say as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this is the right answer. I can't see how the Trader Principle, and an objective morality, precludes a moral trader from trading with an immoral trader. As long as they both are allowed to independently determine their own self-interests for that trade, then the trade is moral. They may both be rational, both irrational, or one of each. But as long as they interact with each other "by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment," (AR) then the trade is moral.

You're still not understanding that quote. "an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgement" does not mean that both parties have to think they benefit from the exchange, even if they don't really benefit. It means that both parties have to actually benefit from the trade, and also realize it.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us return to the original issue, which is the question of morally evaluating people who sell illegal drugs (with the implicit understanding that purchase and sale of drugs should be legal). The question is important, because it distinguishes Objectivist philosophy from libertarian evasion — libertarians lack a category of “properly legal yet immoral” actions, because their only moral theory is “liberty is man’s ultimate value”.

The question is then about evaluating a career. What then is a career, and how can one be good versus bad? Objectivism does have a position on that:

In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose . . . A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find. “Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

“Productive work” does not mean the blind performance of the motions of some job. It means the conscious, rational pursuit of a productive career. In popular usage, the term “career” is applied only to the more ambitious types of work; but, in fact, it applies to all work: it denotes a man’s attitude toward his work.

The difference between a career-man and a job-holder is as follows: a career-man regards his work as constant progress, as a constant upward motion from one achievement to another, higher one, driven by the constant expansion of his mind, his knowledge, his ability, his creative ingenuity, never stopping to stagnate on any level. The Ayn Rand Letter “From My ‘Future File,’”The Ayn Rand Letter, III; 26, 3

In order to morally evaluate a career choice, the proper question to ask is, how does this career further my productive central purpose in life; does this choice reflect my highest values? Are those objective values — values that should be pursued, given the facts of reality? The good is not a subjective whim, it is an objective fact, discovered in a knowledge context.

An Objectivist does not evade knowledge. He does not rationalize creating and selling an inferior product on the grounds that he is not initiating force by selling the product. That drops the context that his career is properly an upward motion, that is is striving to create the best output that he can, that his product is a reflection of his mind. An Objectivist must be able to evaluate what he creates and see how it is an objective value, something that others can recognise, by simple reference to reality, as being a thing worthy of gaining and keeping. An Objectivist takes pride in his product, because it is a reflection of his mind and because it is a value that he has created. He offers the product of his mind to other rational men, who recognize the value of his product and who have something of value in return.

What the drug dealer has to offer is self-destruction, and the customers of a drug dealer are profoundly irrational, not the virtuous men whom traders seek out. Self-destruction is not a rational value, it is the antithesis of value. Evading the reality of the product and the men you must deal with does not make such a career moral, because evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about cigarettes?

I'm not sure. I know that cigarettes typically have a long term detrimental health effect, but for the sake of consideration, cutting minute or hours of you life may be "worth it" IF there is some other rational gain from smoking cigarettes that is gained over years worth of time.

However, personally speaking, I came home one day when I was around 13 years old and went into the bathroom to throw up some blood. I'm not 100% sure if that was due to the moderate amount of smoking I had been doing for the short time before that, but I decided then to quit and I've never smoked cigarettes again.

It simply can't be the case that selling illegal drugs is objectively moral and objectively immoral.

Quite right. However, determining who is right may sometimes be difficult when you are dealing with complex facts and a multitude of facts which cannot necessarily be pinned down by either party. That is when we get into the realm of opinions based on experience, application of principle and sometimes conjecture. We are all forced to operate within the context of our knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the drug dealer has to offer is self-destruction, and the customers of a drug dealer are profoundly irrational, not the virtuous men whom traders seek out. Self-destruction is not a rational value, it is the antithesis of value. Evading the reality of the product and the men you must deal with does not make such a career moral, because evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices.

I appreciate you going into depth on this, David. I just wonder about two aspects of the debate:

1) Are all customers of drug dealers irrational necessarily, or just the majority? Is it drug dependent (e.g. cancer users of marijuana are rational, but no meth user is rational)? Is it dependent upon the fact that the drugs themselves are illegal? And by this I don't mean they should be illegal, only the fact that they are illegal puts the user (and seller) at risk of a life in prison.

2) What of other products which can only result in self-destruction (e.g. tobacco)? Are these users also irrational and their sellers immoral? What about products a great many users abuse (e.g. high fat foods)? Would a moral man not sell a fatty cheeseburger to a fat man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still not understanding that quote. "an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgement" does not mean that both parties have to think they benefit from the exchange, even if they don't really benefit. It means that both parties have to actually benefit from the trade, and also realize it.

"Actually benefit from the trade" by who's standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Actually benefit from the trade" by who's standard?

Here's a conundrum for you to try and solve:

How is it possible for Ethics to be objective (same for everyone, and based on the nature of reality), and values to be relative (different for everyone, based on their own concrete situation)?

Here's the path to the solution:

What's the difference between Ethics and values?

Where does context of a person's life come into, the applications of a moral principle, or the formulation of one?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are all customers of drug dealers irrational necessarily, or just the majority?
You should be able to figure out the answer. We have already covered the marginal good uses of drugs such as for chemo patients. You ought to be able to distinguish the moral from the immoral. You should especially be able to grasp the fact that even if these drugs were legal, their use is immoral. Assuming that you have a grip on these issues, then you ought to be able to perceive the facts of reality, as it pertains to drug users. Perhaps you are under the impression that most drug users are cancer patients seeking relief from their pain. I don't have a specific recommendation as to how you might discover the true nature of drug users, except to seek them out and observe their actions.
2) What of other products which can only result in self-destruction (e.g. tobacco)?
I know for certain, though not personal experience, that some forms of tobacco have an enjoyable flavor. I won't try to defend tobacco as some kind of virtuous product, but it is clear that using tobacco is not the same degree of immorality as using drugs, because of the central fact that the purpose and effect of drugs is to destroy man's proper means of survival.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard in Objectivism is always reality. Believing one is benefiting from something is different from one actually benefiting from something.

We're getting far afield of the OP, so I'll drop this here. Thanks for the discussion, RationalBiker.

You should be able to figure out the answer.

I would argue all sellers of illegal drugs are immoral. They've chosen a career where they are constantly trying to avoid capture. They're living life under threat. Certainly that isn't a rational way to live. Were illegal drugs simply drugs - i.e. not illegal - then the seller's morality would depend upon his knowledge of how that drug is used by his buyers.

I would argue illegal drug users' morality depends upon whether the drug objectively serves his life. The drug serves the life of the chemo patient, therefore he is moral; the casual drug user's life is not served by the drug, therefore he is immoral; the drug destroys the life of the addict, therefore he is immoral.

...using tobacco is not the same degree of immorality as using drugs, because of the central fact that the purpose and effect of drugs is to destroy man's proper means of survival.

Then, it seems a casual user could argue, "I'm not as immoral as an addict." Is that really a valid distinction? I mean, something is either immoral or it is not, correct? I don't think a drug user starts taking drugs with the purpose of destroying their lives, any more than a smoker starts smoking in order to destroy their lives. The effect of both is the same - life destruction. Is the distinction that drugs destroy a Man's reason, his proper means of survival, in a way that cigarettes do not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue all sellers of illegal drugs are immoral. They've chosen a career where they are constantly trying to avoid capture. They're living life under threat. Certainly that isn't a rational way to live.

Living life under threat of capture doesn't imply immorality; otherwise, you would be saying resistance fighters in Nazi Germany are immoral. Fighting against such evils is a very rational way to live. Besides, that kind of lifestyle is because of the laws put in place by our irrational government systems. You should be blaming them.

Were illegal drugs simply drugs - i.e. not illegal - then the seller's morality would depend upon his knowledge of how that drug is used by his buyers.

I don't see how it would be any different if they were illegal. In an ideal world, the laws should reflect rational morality. Our world, unfortunately, is not the case. We cannot always guarantee that if something is illegal in our society, it is, therefore, immoral, and vice versa. So, we have many strange laws that are based on irrational moral thinking (which is usually rooted in the self-denying Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Civilization).

I would argue illegal drug users' morality depends upon whether the drug objectively serves his life. The drug serves the life of the chemo patient, therefore he is moral; the casual drug user's life is not served by the drug, therefore he is immoral; the drug destroys the life of the addict, therefore he is immoral.

This is the assumption that drug use always leads to addiction and becomes ruinous to your life, which is false.

Then, it seems a casual user could argue, "I'm not as immoral as an addict." Is that really a valid distinction? I mean, something is either immoral or it is not, correct? I don't think a drug user starts taking drugs with the purpose of destroying their lives, any more than a smoker starts smoking in order to destroy their lives. The effect of both is the same - life destruction. Is the distinction that drugs destroy a Man's reason, his proper means of survival, in a way that cigarettes do not?

A man's life is an egoistic one. For example, if one makes the choice to indulge in the pleasures of smoking casually then that is his right. If he weighs out the pros and cons and still thinks smoking casually is something in his self-interest then he may do so. You speak of actions like smoking as if they are destructive to life because it is merely unhealthy. I think if you are going to take that puritanical of a view of life, then you might as well say merely being alive is destructive to life, since we are all going to die anyways. With this view, of course you cannot make any distinctions for many activities. In this view, getting stoned every now and then is equivalent to a bank robbery, which is silly.

Of course, I'm not telling anybody to just jump in and do drugs. That would be just as irrational. I'm talking about responsible, enjoyable use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living life under threat of capture doesn't imply immorality; otherwise, you would be saying resistance fighters in Nazi Germany are immoral. Fighting against such evils is a very rational way to live. Besides, that kind of lifestyle is because of the laws put in place by our irrational government systems. You should be blaming them.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Living life under threat of punishment for breaking the law is not the same as being a resistance fighter in Nazi Germany. The drug dealer is not working toward his own rational self-interests. If he believes selling drugs should not be illegal, then the rational thing to do is to get them legalized. The irrational thing to do is to start selling illegal drugs and hoping you don't get caught. Assuming the resistance fighter is fighting against the conditions which make it impossible, or even difficult, for him to live as a human being, then he's entirely moral in doing so. The drug dealer is under no such conditions - there are other things he can do, at least in this country, besides sell drugs.

I don't see how it would be any different if they were illegal.

I have to assume you meant, "I don't see how it would be any different if they were legal." If drugs were legal then the rational man doesn't have the threat of punishment to evade. He would have to base his decisions upon whether whom he's selling to is using the drug to destroy his life.

This is the assumption that drug use always leads to addiction and becomes ruinous to your life, which is false.

I have no idea how you would get that from what I wrote. Could you explain it, please?

A man's life is an egoistic one. For example, if one makes the choice to indulge in the pleasures of smoking casually then that is his right. If he weighs out the pros and cons and still thinks smoking casually is something in his self-interest then he may do so. You speak of actions like smoking as if they are destructive to life because it is merely unhealthy. I think if you are going to take that puritanical of a view of life, then you might as well say merely being alive is destructive to life, since we are all going to die anyways. With this view, of course you cannot make any distinctions for many activities. In this view, getting stoned every now and then is equivalent to a bank robbery, which is silly.

No one has discussed anything about any rights. We're discussing the morality of illegal drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're getting far afield of the OP, so I'll drop this here. Thanks for the discussion, RationalBiker.

Thank you as well.

They've chosen a career where they are constantly trying to avoid capture. They're living life under threat.

I would add to this something related but at least equally important; the drug dealer has abandoned any form of legal recourse for business disputes. He has abandoned essential forms of legal protection from dissatisfied customers or aggressive rival business operatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living life under threat of capture doesn't imply immorality;

JeffS has already pointed out that you are changing significant context in the example that follows.

I don't see how it would be any different if they were illegal.

Then you are not considering all of the very real differences which come with dealing in an illegal business trade, in this case drugs.

In an ideal world, the laws should reflect rational morality. Our world, unfortunately, is not the case.

As you recognize, we don't live in an ideal world. Therefore, in considering what is or is not moral activity, one must consider things as they are, not simply as they should be.

We cannot always guarantee that if something is illegal in our society, it is, therefore, immoral, and vice versa.

But you cannot ignore the legal status of something when considering the moral question relating to that something, regardless of whether or not that something should or shouldn't be illegal.

So, we have many strange laws that are based on irrational moral thinking

That has been universally recognized in this thread. We are discussing the morality of drug use, not the legality.

A man's life is an egoistic one. For example, if one makes the choice to indulge in the pleasures of smoking casually then that is his right.

There is no dispute that a man should have the right to put whatever he wants into his body. The discussion is about whether or not such activity is moral; more specifically whether or not the sales of illegal drugs is a moral activity for a man. A person can have a right to do something that is still immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JeffS,

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Living life under threat of punishment for breaking the law is not the same as being a resistance fighter in Nazi Germany. The drug dealer is not working toward his own rational self-interests.
You are blaming somebody for merely living a life "under threat of punishment" as irrational. I provided a counter example of somebody living under threat of punishment that was rational.

If he believes selling drugs should not be illegal, then the rational thing to do is to get them legalized. The irrational thing to do is to start selling illegal drugs and hoping you don't get caught.
Why can't you do both? Why can't you sell/provide a supply of drugs if he sees it to be in his own interest, if he weighs out the pros and cons for himself? Danneskjold had to evade capture but his actions were moral.

It seems you can only accept an activity if it is legally sanction by a given society. But why do you legitimize society's irrational sanctions?

Assuming the resistance fighter is fighting against the conditions which make it impossible, or even difficult, for him to live as a human being, then he's entirely moral in doing so. The drug dealer is under no such conditions - there are other things he can do, at least in this country, besides sell drugs.
Why can't a human being want to sell/provide drugs if that's what he wants to do?

I have to assume you meant, "I don't see how it would be any different if they were legal." If drugs were legal then the rational man doesn't have the threat of punishment to evade. He would have to base his decisions upon whether whom he's selling to is using the drug to destroy his life.
I meant illegal because I don't believe the laws we have concerning drug use are justifiable, so the morality of the dealer's decisions has always been based upon the dealer. The legal status of an activity doesn't alter if people think about it or not. The law doesn't necessarily make people think. Thinking for oneself is dependant on the individual.

I have no idea how you would get that from what I wrote. Could you explain it, please?
Sorry, I'm mistaken to assume you had an anti-drug stance.

No one has discussed anything about any rights. We're discussing the morality of illegal drugs.
The law is built to protect people's rights, which all should reflect rational morality (from rational philosophy: Objectivism). These concepts are all related, and since it's all related you can reread my quoted paragraph and substitute my use of the word "right" for "morally sanctioned action" and it would still have the same effect.

RationalBiker,

I would add to this something related but at least equally important; the drug dealer has abandoned any form of legal recourse for business disputes. He has abandoned essential forms of legal protection from dissatisfied customers or aggressive rival business operatives.
Exactly, so should anybody enter the 'business,' they must acknowledge these risks. The choice is up to them.

Then you are not considering all of the very real differences which come with dealing in an illegal business trade, in this case drugs.
I don't think I understand. Are you comparing the illegal business to the legal business? There are many forms of illegal businesses, and, in the case of drug dealing, that comes in many forms as well. I don't think casually smoking pot for the weekend is a terrible travesty to humanity. But, of course, there are some illegal businesses which deserve to be acted against like human trafficking. It would be wrong to generalize all illegal businesses as the same, and being equally illegal.

But you cannot ignore the legal status of something when considering the moral question relating to that something, regardless of whether or not that something should or shouldn't be illegal.
Depends on the context. Are we talking ideals? Then the laws should reflect rational morality. Are we talking about today? Well, since the laws do not accurately reflect rational morality, we shouldn't pretend that they do. We should still be thinking about what is rationally moral, and allowing that to override any irrational law that we confront. But, since law is connected with punishment, this is tricky because it means that we must be careful not to get caught.

There is no dispute that a man should have the right to put whatever he wants into his body. The discussion is about whether or not such activity is moral; more specifically whether or not the sales of illegal drugs is a moral activity for a man. A person can have a right to do something that is still immoral.
I know that there are a lot of stereotypes about drug dealers being big, macho, gangster guys out to degrade people and be a menace to society. They are clearly immoral. But, there are more responsible drug dealers too that care about what they sell, want to make sure it is good quality, check up on whether somebody has been doing too much, and just generally want to provide something so that people can have a good time. I see nothing immoral about this.

Ever been to an outdoor rave party? Ever danced under the stars, had intellectual and philosophical discussions with people around a campfire while smoking "the stuff"? These are not activities worthy to be labeled immoral nor criminal. Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA under the influence of LSD. Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice is up to them.

Sure it is, no one is arguing they can't choose to do something immoral.

Are you comparing the illegal business to the legal business?

You do understand that the specific context of this conversation involves the morality of illegal drug sales, correct? I'm comparing the choice to engage in illegal drug dealing with the multitude of other choices one could make to be involved in legal business ventures.

I don't think casually smoking pot for the weekend is a terrible travesty to humanity.

Okay, but the measure of morality (with respect to Objectivism) has nothing to do with whether or not an act is a terrible travesty to humanity. Do you have an understanding of Objectivism's morality?

Are we talking ideals?

No. How much of the thread have you read from the beginning?

Are we talking about today?

Yes, today (reality) is the context.

But, there are more responsible drug dealers too that care about what they sell, want to make sure it is good quality, check up on whether somebody has been doing too much, and just generally want to provide something so that people can have a good time.

In my 24 years of law enforcement experience, I've never met this guy.

Ever been to an outdoor rave party?

Yes, but to break them up.

Ever danced under the stars, had intellectual and philosophical discussions with people around a campfire while smoking "the stuff"? These are not activities worthy to be labeled immoral nor criminal.

By what system of morality are you making this judgement?

Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA under the influence of LSD.

So are you asserting that scientists should use LSD? Are you saying that Crick's discovery of DNA structure was dependent on his use of LSD? What is the purpose of this statement?

Think about it.

That's kinda what I've been doing since I joined this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm arguing that drugs are not necessarily immoral, that they can provide a good to someone's life. (I'm using Objectivist morality as I understand it. If I'm in error than correct me.) Our laws ought to recognize this and punish only those who use them and profit from them immorally. Our laws should not put both the moral and immoral users/providers in the same bag. Our laws should not regard somebody who uses LSD to come up with the structure of DNA as the equivalent to a bank robber. No, I'm not telling all scientists to take LSD. I'm merely saying that if somebody can use/provide drugs responsibly and in a beneficial manner then he ought to be allowed to.

And with substances forced by the government to be underground and taboo, like drugs, it's no wonder that bad people can readily get a hold of them, and it's no wonder bad people give it a bad name. I've seen my fair share of nasty drug dealers. It's dirty business, and the people are the largest scum. But, that doesn't mean those moral drug dealers don't exist. I wonder, as a law enforcer working with our current laws (under our current cultural perspective on drugs), do they ever show you that there can be a distinction or are they more interested in arresting anybody caught with drugs indiscriminately? I respect law enforcers, and I'm on your side when you bust those bad drug dealers. Law enforcers are essential to civilization, but they are only as good as the laws they enforce. Which is why I say we should be overriding any rules, laws, or regulations with rational morality.

(Man, you guys broke up the last rave I was at :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm arguing that drugs are not necessarily immoral, that they can provide a good to someone's life. (I'm using Objectivist morality as I understand it. If I'm in error than correct me.)

And my position would be that you are arguing for the exception, not the rule.

Our laws ought to recognize this and punish only those who use them and profit from them immorally.

Whether or not something is immoral is not a determining factor as to when it should be illegal according to Objectivist politics. Objective law only concerns itself with whether or not an action initiates force in violation of another person's rights. Selling or using drugs immorally is too broad to indicate whether or not anyone's rights are being violated and as such is too broad to base a legal prohibition on such action. So if a person wants to sell pure cocaine for people to snort, he should be able to do it as long as he does not misrepresent what it is he is selling or what it can do. But again, the argument is NOT about what people should or shouldn't be able to do, the argument is about whether or not the sales of illegal drugs is moral given today's context.

Our laws should not regard somebody who uses LSD to come up with the structure of DNA as the equivalent to a bank robber

Even our current laws do not do that.

I'm merely saying that if somebody can use/provide drugs responsibly and in a beneficial manner then he ought to be allowed to.

He should be allowed to do it even if it kills him. No one is arguing otherwise. The argument is NOT about whether or not people should have the legal choice to use or sell drugs, it is about the MORALITY of selling illegal drugs given today's context. Please try to understand and stick to the context of the conversation.

I wonder, as a law enforcer working with our current laws (under our current cultural perspective on drugs), do they ever show you that there can be a distinction or are they more interested in arresting anybody caught with drugs indiscriminately?

Which 'they' are you referring to? Addtionally, are you assuming that I am just swallowing what "they" say instead of using my own mind to evaluate the facts and come to my own independent conclusion? Just because I am a law enforcement officer does not mean I checked my brain at the door when I walked into the police department.

I respect law enforcers, and I'm on your side when you bust those bad drug dealers.

I'm on my side when we bust people who have actually initiated force against another person in violation of our rights. That does not always include "bad drug dealers". I bust "bad drug dealers" when the law dictates I have no other lawful choice. Past that, I am pro legalization of ALL drugs. I don't even think doctors should hold the key on whether or not I can get an antibiotic when I'm sick. However, again, none of this matters within the parameters of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is NOT about whether or not people should have the legal choice to use or sell drugs, it is about the MORALITY of selling illegal drugs given today's context. Please try to understand and stick to the context of the conversation.

I see, then I'm arguing that it is possible to be involved in selling illegal drugs (in today's context) and be moral at the same time. I say this is moral because I think one could possibly benefit from drugs in some manner, whether it's for responsible fun (celebration of life) or to open awareness and perception of things in some way that may be beneficial to you, perhaps therapeutic in some sense. On the contrary, it is possible to sell illegal drugs immorally, in a way that is destructive in a reason-neglecting, long-term sense.

I didn't read this thread from the beginning. I pounced on this topic assuming most of the members here have an unfavorable view of drugs in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, then I'm arguing that it is possible to be involved in selling illegal drugs (in today's context) and be moral at the same time.

Okay. If you are interested in what I or anyone else has to say about that please refer to what has already been posted as you may be asking or discussing something that has already been addressed.

I pounced on this topic assuming most of the members here have an unfavorable view of drugs in the first place.

Forgetting for a moment the dangers of such assumption, you may find that if you read their input first (read the thread), they may have provided reasons for why they have an unfavorable (or otherwise) view of drugs. Some folks find it quite tedious to have repeat something they already wrote when someone jumps into the middle of a conversation without knowing what transpired before they got there.

So please, if you are going to participate in a conversation (which I by no means wish to discourage), take the time to read what was posted before you entered the fray in consideration for the other forum members, not to mention how it may give the appearance of intellectual laziness on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...