Is it moral to be in the drug business?

[RationalBiker]

so the individuals at bristolmyerssquib and pfizer et al are productive because they wear the white collar when they sell "legal" drugs?

Do you honestly see no other context in the difference between someone selling for example, Heroin and someone else selling Celebrex?

One drug is used almost exclusively to escape reality (which should be abhorrent to an Objectivist) and the other is used to help people with arthritis.

[Edit for clarification - RC]

Edited May 18, 2005 by RationalCop

[dawn_w]

Do you honestly see no other context in the difference between someone selling for example, Heroin and someone else selling Celebrex?

One drug is used almost exclusively to escape reality (which should be abhorrent to an Objectivist) and the other is used to help people with arthritis.

[Edit for clarification - RC]

yes there is a difference in the drugs-but it is not that black and white-"legal" drug companies also manufactur drugs to escape reality (valium, xanax e.g.) and make an enormous amount of money on just the drugs that help one escape reality.

i do not believe just because they make and sell "good" drugs cancels out the fact they also make and sell addictive reality-escaping ones also.

do you believe it does?

ty.

[manavmehta]

Are you certain that Valium and Xanax are not prescribed by doctors in certain situations? It could be that the companies manufacture the drugs purely for medicinal purposes. The fact that the drugs can be misused is not the company's fault. The intent to create value means everything when you are running a business.

If there is no medical situation that warrants the use of these drugs, then the companies are indeed being immoral by manufacturing them.

[Nxixcxk]

So, I don't think the kid is worthy of admiration for running a business that caters to the vices of people, instead of indulging in a more productive activity.

So long as the vices do not interfere with your rights, why do you care? The kid also used his money to further that which he valued (videotaping interesting stuff, etc.), so I see no reason to give him contempt.

[manavmehta]

So long as the vices do not interfere with your rights, why do you care?

I don't care, but I don't admire the kid either. Admiration should be reserved for virtues, not vices. To cater to people's vices is a vice, no matter how efficiently you do it.

The kid also used his money to further that which he valued (videotaping interesting stuff, etc.), so I see no reason to give him contempt.

What he did with his money is immaterial to judging whether he earned it through virtue or vice.

[RationalBiker]

i do not believe just because they make and sell "good" drugs cancels out the fact they also make and sell addictive reality-escaping ones also.

do you believe it does?

ty.

First, I think manavmehta provided an excellent response to the first part of this post.

However, where do you derive that I would disagree with the above statement from my previous post? And again, the context under which those drugs are produced and dispensed is important.

[Nxixcxk]

To cater to people's vices is a vice, no matter how efficiently you do it.

Would you mind elaborating, since I cannot find a reason to agree so long as the vices people practice do not conflict with my right to live. If people want to buy knives specially made for tearing apart flesh and I, as a knife builder, make knives that fit this endeavor efficaciously, what is wrong in me doing so?

What he did with his money is immaterial to judging whether he earned it through virtue or vice.

Agreed. Simply b/c I save one thousand people does not justify the fact that I unjustly killed one. However, the kid simply sold marijuana; he wasn't selling babies for prostitution.

A particular reason for why I admire the kid is b/c he had the audacity to sell contraband--which SHOULD not be illegal to trade. I admire him for the same reasons for why I would admire one selling gin or tobacco or any other "illegal/highly taxed good" back in the 1700s.

[manavmehta]

Would you mind elaborating, since I cannot find a reason to agree so long as the vices people practice do not conflict with my right to live.

It is a vice to sell something which you know for a fact can never ever be used in any way that is of value to a human being. It does not matter if it affects you or not. The fact that it personally does not affect you doesn't mean that you do not have the right to condemn it for the evil it is.

If people want to buy knives specially made for tearing apart flesh and I, as a knife builder, make knives that fit this endeavor efficaciously, what is wrong in me doing so?

Everything, if you know beyond any doubt that the knives you are making are going to be used for skinning people alive. The same principle applies if you are making a home made bomb and selling it to a suicide bomber. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with you making the bomb because the suicide bomber wants it and is paying you for it, and because you are doing a great job at it.

This argument can be extended to innumerable things. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with selling copies of the Bible or the Koran or the Gita because people want to buy them, but the fact is that these books have inflicted irreparable harm to mankind. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with being a catholic priest, or a contract assasin, or a pimp, or a prostitute. But the fact is that the practitioners of these professions cannot be relieved of moral judgement just because they are only providing what people want from them, because somebody wants their services.

And that, in a nutshell, is what my point is - that you are what you do - and you must prepare to be judged for it. Intent is everything.

[Eric Mathis]

It is a vice to sell something which you know for a fact can never ever be used in any way that is of value to a human being. It does not matter if it affects you or not. The fact that it personally does not affect you doesn't mean that you do not have the right to condemn it for the evil it is.

I once worked as a bartender. Am I evil for having done so?

This argument can be extended to innumerable things. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with selling copies of the Bible or the Koran or the Gita because people want to buy them, but the fact is that these books have inflicted irreparable harm to mankind.

I own all three of the above books. Is the shopowner who sold them to me evil?

[manavmehta]

I once worked as a bartender.  Am I evil for having done so?

No. Because alcohol can be consumed without escaping reality, and it has both recreational and medicinal value, depending on how you want to consume it. I did not say that the product you sell has to fulfil a necessity of human life - it must just be something that a rational person would value.

I own all three of the above books.  Is the shopowner who sold them to me evil?

This might have been the wrong example to illustrate my point, but it doesn't invalidate the point that what you do should be of value to a rational person.

[Eric Mathis]

No. Because alcohol can be consumed without escaping reality, and it has both recreational and medicinal value, depending on how you want to consume it. I did not say that the product you sell has to fulfil a necessity of human life - it must just be something that a rational person would value.

Then, returning to the movie under discussion here, the teenage pot dealer did not do anything worse than a bartender. Like alcohol, marijuana has both recreational and medicinal value. It can be valued by rational people.

And, for what it's worth, I hated American Beauty.

[manavmehta]

Then, returning to the movie under discussion here, the teenage pot dealer did not do anything worse than a bartender.  Like alcohol, marijuana has both recreational and medicinal value.  It can be valued by rational people.

And, for what it's worth, I hated American Beauty.

Intent is everything. When you were bartending, I am sure you were aware of the fact that people could get stone drunk on what you sell, but I assume that was not your intention in selling the alcohol.

The teenage pot dealer in this movie is not innocent because he is aware of the most common use of a substance like marijuana, especially in the context in which he was selling it. So it couldn't have been his intent for people to use it for anything other than escaping reality. If people want marijuana for medicinal use, they will buy it from a drugstore after taking a prescription from a doctor, not from a pot dealer. The people who do buy it from a pot dealer don't intend to just take small whiffs of it to relax (assuming that was possible with a substance like marijuana) - they intend to get seriously stoned and your teenage dealer couldn't have been innocently ignorant about this fact!

I may be mistaken about this, and perhaps I am just inexperienced in the use of controlled substances, but it is also my understanding that substances like marijuana cannot be taken for recreational purposes without an adverse effect on your level of alertness. Alcohol on the other hand is something you can just take a few shots of and still be alert enough to drive, or even to do intellectual work. The value you gain from those quantities of alcohol you take in small quantities is that it helps you to relax.

Edited May 19, 2005 by manavmehta

[Eric Mathis]

Intent is everything. When you were bartending, I am sure you were aware of the fact that people could get stone drunk on what you sell, but I assume that was not your intention in selling the alcohol.

The teenage pot dealer in this movie is not innocent because he is aware of the most common use of a substance like marijuana, especially in the context in which he was selling it. So it couldn't have been his intent for people to use it for anything other than escaping reality.

Both alcohol and marijuana alter one’s consciousness. When considering a martini drinker and a pot smoker, it would be disingenuous to suggest that only one of them is “escaping reality.”

The people who do buy it from a pot dealer don't intend to just take small whiffs of it to relax (assuming that was possible with a substance like marijuana) - they intend to get seriously stoned and your teenage dealer couldn't have been innocently ignorant about this fact!

With a similar leap of logic we could conclude that anyone who purchases a two-liter bottle of vodka intends to get seriously drunk -- and anyone who sells such a large quantity of alcohol cannot be ignorant of this fact.

I may be mistaken about this, and perhaps I am just inexperienced in the use of controlled substances, but it is also my understanding that substances like marijuana cannot be taken for recreational purposes without an adverse effect on your level of alertness. Alcohol on the other hand is something you can just take  a few shots of and still be alert enough to drive, or even to do intellectual work. The value you gain from those quantities of alcohol you take in small quantities is that it helps you to relax.

You are mistaken. Both alcohol and marijuana impair one’s ability to drive. However, if I had to choose between being driven by someone had consumed two martinis and one who had smoked two joints, I’d go with the pothead in an instant.

[manavmehta]

Both alcohol and marijuana alter one’s consciousness.  When considering a martini drinker and a pot smoker, it would be disingenuous to suggest that only one of them is “escaping reality.”

I disagree. I sometimes have have upto three pints of beer when I visit a bar, and I don't feel drunk. And I still retain my capacity to think, and I certainly think I would be able to drive a car as well as (and perhaps better than) someone who hasn't had a single drink. I always stop at three pints, because I know anything beyond that would alter my capacity for clear thought. That is my standard in determining where I should stop. I don't think I am escaping reality by doing what I am doing.

With a similar leap of logic we could conclude that anyone who purchases a two-liter bottle of vodka intends to get seriously drunk -- and anyone who sells such a large quantity of alcohol cannot be ignorant of this fact. 

Disagree again. The person who bought the vodka could be storing some of it for future use, or he could be entertaining guests, or it could simply be possible that he could drink all of that vodka without getting drunk (different people have different capacities for retaining alcohol).

[Bryan]

With a similar leap of logic we could conclude that anyone who purchases a two-liter bottle of vodka intends to get seriously drunk -- and anyone who sells such a large quantity of alcohol cannot be ignorant of this fact. 

I thought I would throw in my two cents and bring this thread further off-topic. Your above comment makes me wonder what goes through the liquor store cashier's head when my alcoholic mother stumbles in there at 8am and writes a check for a handle of cheap vodka.

You are mistaken.  Both alcohol and marijuana impair one’s ability to drive.  However, if I had to choose between being driven by someone had consumed two martinis and one who had smoked two joints, I’d go with the pothead in an instant.

I don't think that marijuana and alcohol are even in the same realm of comparison. Alcohol is a much more serious drug than marijuana. Marijuana just gets a "bad wrap" because the only people who use it regularly are drug addicts. If marijuana was accepted socially the same way alcohol is, there would be a lot of people who could use it semi-responsibly the same way they do with booze.

Give hard-core drug addict an unlimited supply of weed, he'd live a boring unproductive life for several years. Give that same drug addict an unlimited supply of alcohol, and he'd be dead in six months.

[Eric Mathis]

I disagree. I sometimes have have upto three pints of beer when I visit a bar, and I don't feel drunk. And I still retain my capacity to think, and I certainly think I would be able to drive a car as well as (and perhaps better than) someone who hasn't had a single drink. I always stop at three pints, because I know anything beyond that would alter my capacity for clear thought. That is my standard in determining where I should stop. I don't think I am escaping reality by doing what I am doing.

Having tried both marijuana and vodka, I can state that the former does not take one any further from reality than the latter. Furthermore, a pot smoker can be just as adept at measuring what his limit is as you are with beer.

Disagree again. The person who bought the vodka could be storing some of it for future use, or he could be entertaining guests, or it could simply be possible that he could drink all of that vodka without getting drunk (different people have different capacities for retaining alcohol).

And why does a person who buys an ounce of pot from our teenage dealer have to smoke it all at once?

[Nxixcxk]

It is a vice to sell something which you know for a fact can never ever be used in any way that is of value to a human being.

And what is this something that you've found that can NEVER be used for a helpful effect?

It does not matter if it affects you or not. The fact that it personally does not affect you doesn't mean that you do not have the right to condemn it for the evil it is.

If it does not effect me, how can it be evil?

Everything, if you know beyond any doubt that the knives you are making are going to be used for skinning people alive. The same principle applies if you are making a home made bomb and selling it to a suicide bomber. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with you making the bomb because the suicide bomber wants it and is paying you for it, and because you are doing a great job at it.

Agreed. But if the suicide bomber is simply using the bomb to blow himself up and no one else, am I still at fault?

...but the fact is that these books have inflicted irreparable harm to mankind.

So guns kill people--people don't kill people?

And as a side note, the expenses and time that one must go through in order to get a proscription for pot from their doctor is extremely costly I would imagine. No one wants to jump through 50 hola-hoops in order to procure something that should be absolutely legal.

[manavmehta]

Having tried both marijuana and vodka, I can state that the former does not take one any further from reality than the latter.  Furthermore, a pot smoker can be just as adept at measuring what his limit is as you are with beer.

Are you saying that after smoking one joint of Marijuana, you retain the capacity for clear thought?

If yes, then I was mistaken in my judgement of narcotics use, because that would mean that it could be something that could be enjoyed for recreational purposes by a rational person who uses it not to get stoned but to relax.

If no, then how can you say that alcohol takes one as much away from reality as marijuana?

And why does a person who buys an ounce of pot from our teenage dealer have to smoke it all at once?

He doesn't. But how much does he really have to smoke before his consciousness is altered? The vital question is this - is it possible for a rational person to derive value from narcotics? If yes, then your teenage dealer does not deserve condemnation.

[RationalBiker]

If it does not effect me, how can it be evil?

Can you please clarify this for me. Is it your assertion that nothing or no one can be judged evil by you unless it/they personally have some affect on you?

[Nxixcxk]

Can you please clarify this for me. Is it your assertion that nothing or no one can be judged evil by you unless it/they personally have some affect on you?

In a way, yes. If I sell a piece of paper to Man X so he can slit his throat, knowing fully that that is what he's going to use the paper for, then I see no harm in doing so (so long as his death only effects him and puts no burden on any others). If I know that the piece of paper I am selling to Man X will be used to kill Person B unjustifiably, then I am at fault for doing so, since the unjustifiable killing of Person B is an indirect infringement upon my right to life.

[Brule]

This thread has taken quite the turn. I came in to post on American Beauty but can't help myself.

If yes, then I was mistaken in my judgement of narcotics use, because that would mean that it could be something that could be enjoyed for recreational purposes by a rational person who uses it not to get stoned but to relax.

The use of the word "narcotic" is very loaded and in my opinion not accurate. Narcotic should refer to opioids/opiates or related analgesics having a similar action. Its use in relation to other drugs is political, not scientific. Cannabis can relax muscle tension with less side effects than any muscle relaxant on the market. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug for a variety of reasons.

That said I personally don't find cannabis interesting in any way. I do enjoy beer and to a lesser extent harder drinks from time to time. I'm currently working on an argument for rational drug use, but it is in an early stage. If there's interest I'll gladly post a condensed version on these forums.

Now back to the movie which I really enjoyed. The acting was excellent which is not uncommon for Kevin Spacey. His desire to start living again was great although his direction was certainly skewed. The plastic wife reminded me of too many people I've met in my life and she is shown the harsh consequences of her actions. (self-destruction)

It had several things going for it: an appreciation of beauty, a love of life, a critique of the "ideal" family. It also had many failings: nihilistic/zen mood, horrible twist, a dancing bag(?). It would have been average except for the look inside a "perfect" family which really hit home. That actually caught me off guard the first time I watched the film as I know a woman who acts exactly like Annette Bening's character.

[RationalBiker]

In a way, yes.

Do you allow yourself to pass moral judgement on someone such as Hitler? You never aided him in any way (I assume), nor did his actions affect you (again I assume).

If I sell a piece of paper to Man X so he can slit his throat, knowing fully that that is what he's going to use the paper for, then I see no harm in doing so (so long as his death only effects him and puts no burden on any others).

A piece of paper is a nice innocuous example. Certainly the argument could be made that he may intend to slit his throat with a piece of paper, but in almost all probability one can't seriously take their life with a paper cut to the neck. But I think that you mean whether or not the instrument is actually capable of carrying out the task is immaterial so the principle should hold true if you substitute a knife in the place of the paper. Do you think that it would still have no affect on you if you sold a knife to him with knowledge beforehand that he was going to slit his own throat with it? (Hint: Liability and/or Dr. Kevorkian) I think there is a very real chance it can have an affect on you.

Let me be perfectly clear that I don't support the illegality of drugs. That causes a considerable moral dilemna for me (rarely) given my occupation.

That said, I do support the moral condemnation of drug use. I think one would either have to be incredibly naive to think that any given other person's use of drugs has "no affect" on them. That, or a serious case of "plausible deniability". There are so many problems in our society today that result from "recreational" drug use, and I'm not referring to it's illegality, only it's use. Yes, the legal issue represents a whole host of other problems in and of itself, but I'm looking only at usage. And yes, I'm including alcohol and marijuana as well as the "hard drugs". Drunk drivers, murders, burglars, robbers, assaults, sexual assaults, domestic abusers, insurance rate hikes, tax increases, loss of real estate values, increased senseless legislation, etc. etc. etc. I think there is a fairly reasonable probability that anyone reading this is or has been individually affected by one or more of the things I just listed. And they all have a strong and direct coorelation to drug (and alcohol) usage.

I'm sure liquor store clerks, bartenders, and dealers have a clear conscience that they aren't contributing to any of the above problems, at least not directly. They certainly can't predict that the nice "responsible" guy they just sold that martini to will go out and crash into a newlywed couple, killing them both. And the kid in the movie sells weed to the nice guy who probably breaks into someone's home because he can't hold a job because he's stoned half the time. These are just acceptable side affects to the business I guess.

I personally think they DO contribute to the problem. I base this largely on the evidence of my experience relating to the number of police calls for service I go to and how frequently drugs (and alcohol) are invovled in the problems. And in my view, alcohol is far and away the worst offender because it is so much more widely used, and it's problems are much more subtle and far reaching. That is one of several reasons I stopped drinking entirely many years ago. And I was a "responsible" drinker.

To summarize, I'm agree with manavmehta in NOT admiring the kid selling dope.

[JMeganSnow]

I've been advised that I should get drunk, just once, because it makes you so very happy. I find this advice peculiar considering that all the stories I hear from my friends that drink are along the lines of:

1. I was so sick!

2. I couldn't go to work!

3. They took me to the hospital to have my stomach pumped!

4. You wouldn't believe the stupid thing I did!

and so on. The first three don't appeal to me in any way, and the fourth one kind of caps it all off. I'm an uptight person socially; I don't even like to consider how much embarrassment/disgust I'd suffer if I got drunk and acted like an idiot. I certainly lose respect rapidly for anyone that does consider this state to be desirable.

I think an important factor in evaluating whether someone is moral/immoral in their use of drugs is WHY they find it desirable to exist in a state of inebriation. In any case I've ever seen (and I mean EVER, no exceptions) it was because they found a full, cogent, human method of dealing with life or some aspects of life to be too demanding in some fashion. It was easier to let the booze (or whatever) steer. Thus my response, as ever, has been: Can't you think of ANYTHING better to do with your time?

And you don't NEED medication to relax unless you have a medical problem that should be addressed by a professional. My personal method of relaxation is to read a book or watch a movie.

[DavidV]

To answer the question posted by the initial post, I think the morality of being a drug dealer depends on the context of the situation. The two criteria I would consider when evaluating the morality of a profession are (1) does it produce something of value to rational consumers, and (2) is the value being created actually consumed by rational consumers.

In the case of both alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, the answer to the first question is a definite yes – under the right context, these drugs can be a rational value to some people. The answer to the second question depends on the context of the situation. If the majority of your customers are benefiting from the values you create, then a positive moral valuation is due – and vise versa.

In the case of illegal drugs such as marijuana and quasi-legal drugs such as alcohol and prescription pills, it is the primarily the nature of our legal system and dominant philosophy, not the drug itself that is responsible for such a prevalence of irresponsible use. Nevertheless, as unjust as our legal system is, the fact of the irresponsible use must be taken into consideration when judging the character of the typical drugs dealer. This means that the majority of illegal drug dealers are immoral individuals, while a majority, or at least a large minority of quasi-legal drug dealers are moral individuals. At the same time, the minority of drug dealers who are moral (such as those who provide medicinal marijuana) deserve our respect and gratitude for standing up to an unjust system.

[Eric Mathis]

Are you saying that after smoking one joint of Marijuana, you retain the capacity for clear thought?

Yes.

He doesn't. But how much does he really have to smoke before his consciousness is altered? The vital question is this - is it possible for a rational person to derive value from narcotics? If yes, then your teenage dealer does not deserve condemnation.

Like alcohol, the effect of marijuana on a user will vary from person to person. But it is possible to smoke a moderate amount of marijuana and still retain motor skills and higher brain function. And, yes, a person can use marijuana moderately for recreational purposes and remain rational.