Is it moral to be in the drug business?

[manavmehta]

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. 

How could a dealer ever know if his product is being consumed by rational consumers, short of stalking every consumer to find out how they are using his or her product?

The above is the reason why I consider (1) to be a sufficient criteria for determining the morality of a profession.

[Serpens]

Selling illegal recreational drugs is ethically similar to selling McDonalds food to obese people. They know it hurts them, and they don't care: they still buy the product.

If the person selling drugs simaltaniously fits the Objectivist definition of what constitutes a "good" person, I don't see how selling drugs makes him "evil."

[Hal]

Selling illegal recreational drugs is ethically similar to selling McDonalds food to obese people.

Yes, exactly. Selling pretty much anything is moral (with the obvious exception of nuclear weapons and the like), and I'd include heroin and cocaine in that without a second thought. The seller isnt morally responsible for the damage the buyer does to himself through irresponsible use of the product.

[Oakes]

How could a dealer ever know if his product is being consumed by rational consumers, short of stalking every consumer to find out how they are using his or her product?

The above is the reason why I consider (1) to be a sufficient criteria for determining the morality of a profession.

But it is moral to use marijuana medically, so #1 is met. Does that make a pot-seller moral? If we include #2 as a criteria, it would not be moral, because people seeking marijuana's medicinal value (a rational reason) presumably do not buy it covertly on the streets.

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.

I've never smoked a cigarette, much less pot, and I never plan to. However, I find it hard to imagine that one can "recreationally" use marijuana the same way one recreationally drinks. One drinks or smokes a cigarette for the taste; one uses marijuana to get high.

[Oakes]

Selling illegal recreational drugs is ethically similar to selling McDonalds food to obese people.

The two aren't similar at all. Anything you sell can be used immorally; the question is whether you are selling it to people you know will use it immorally. Those who sell joints on the street sell exclusively (as far as I know) to those who want to use it for non-medical uses; McDonalds sells food to a large variety of people.

Yes, exactly. Selling pretty much anything is moral (with the obvious exception of nuclear weapons and the like), and I'd include heroin and cocaine in that without a second thought. The seller isnt morally responsible for the damage the buyer does to himself through irresponsible use of the product.

I find it hard to imagine that you really believe this. You think it's okay to sell an item to someone you know will use it immorally. How does this measure up to the virtue of justice, whereby you are to reward those who do good and punish those who do bad? Have you inverted this principle?

Additionally, one might wonder whether you would extend this to include selling items to people you know will use it illegally. Is it okay to sell webspace and camera equipment to child pornographers?

[Hal]

I've never smoked a cigarette, much less pot, and I never plan to. However, I find it hard to imagine that one can "recreationally" use marijuana the same way one recreationally drinks. One drinks or smokes a cigarette for the taste; one uses marijuana to get high.

Who on earth drinks alcohol primarily for the taste, and why havent they been introduced to McDonalds milkshakes or Mountain Dew?

[Hal]

I find it hard to imagine that you really believe this. You think it's okay to sell an item to someone you know will use it immorally. How does this measure up to the virtue of justice, whereby you are to reward those who do good and punish those who do bad? Have you inverted this principle?

My actions here are outwith the domain of justice, since I am neither rewarding nor punishing anyone. I am simply giving them use of a product. As long as they are not going to harm others with it, what they choose to do to themselves is not my concern. This doesnt mean that I endorse their actions, simply that I dont care enough to oppose them.

Additionally, one might wonder whether you would extend this to include selling items to people you know will use it illegally. Is it okay to sell webspace and camera equipment to child pornographers?

I wouldnt say there's anything intrinsically wrong with performing an illegal action so no, it wouldnt matter if they were going to break the law. But what is important is whether their action is going to hurt others. In the case of the child pornographer, selling him webspace would be immoral since his actions are harming children. But at the same time, a camera salesman cannot be expected to run extensive background checks on all his clients.

It's not whether an action is legal that matters; its whether it is moral (and I use moral here in the restricted sense of initiating force against others, since as I said, it is not my concern what others do to themselves even though I may pass moral judgement).

[Oakes]

Who on earth drinks alcohol primarily for the taste,

Is there another reason I am missing?

and why havent they been introduced to McDonalds milkshakes or Mountain Dew?

Presumably because they don’t have alcohol in them.

My actions here are outwith the domain of justice, since I am neither rewarding nor punishing anyone. I am simply giving them use of a product. <snip>

<snip> In the case of the child pornographer, selling him webspace would be immoral since his actions are harming children. <snip>

You just got finished saying that selling someone a product they will use immorally is not helping them be immoral, yet you wouldn’t knowingly sell webspace to a pervert because that would help him hurt children. Maybe you can explain this seeming contradiction.

I wouldnt say there's anything intrinsically wrong with performing an illegal action so no, it wouldnt matter if they were going to break the law. But what is important is whether their action is going to hurt others.

Since the only illegal actions under a rational government are initiations of force, there absolutely is something wrong with performing an illegal action.

[manavmehta]

I've never smoked a cigarette, much less pot, and I never plan to. However, I find it hard to imagine that one can "recreationally" use marijuana the same way one recreationally drinks. One drinks or smokes a cigarette for the taste; one uses marijuana to get high.

People who smoke Marijuana might also do it for the taste. I don't see why taste would be a factor in smoking, but not in the use of mind-altering drugs like Marijuana. I don't know for a fact that Marijuana doesn't taste good, and if what Eric Mathis is saying is true about the use of Marijuana, then it is possible to smoke it without getting high, and I can even envision rational people deriving some value from Marijuana - it can be used recreationally the same way alcohol and cigarettes are used.

I smoke cigarettes because they relax my nerves when I am stressed out at work. I drink because I enjoy the taste of beer, and because it relaxes my nerves and therefore helps me to unwind after a hard day's work. So taste is not the only factor determining recreational value.

But it is moral to use marijuana medically, so #1 is met. Does that make a pot-seller moral? If we include #2 as a criteria, it would not be moral, because people seeking marijuana's medicinal value (a rational reason) presumably do not buy it covertly on the streets.

Point taken. Both #1 and #2 are criteria, assuming that you can determine easily whether your consumers are deriving the value you intended from the product. If not, I don't see how #2 can be applied.

Taking your particular example, there is a non-medical, recreational use for Marijuana, so the pot dealer is not immoral for selling it -- although a majority of Marijuana users probably use it to get high, a pot dealer's intent may be for it to be used rationally for recreational purposes.

[Nxixcxk]

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).

Yes I do, and I believe his actions did negatively effect me (quite indirectly if I may say so). He killed others unjustifiably and thus, b/c I too do not deserve to be murdered, he effected my life, since an unjustifiable attack on someone's right(s) is an indirect attack on mine.

A piece of paper is a nice innocuous example

Thanks, I thought so too .

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)

No. Legally yes, but that doesn't concern me for the law is at many times outside of logic. I simply sold him a product and cannot be held responsible for the use/misuse of it. If 75% of the population decides to misuse resume paper (hah, a little stronger now ), attacking each other violently with it, it is still not the sellers fault that people are dying via resume paper (his product).

And I agree you with about the vast effects, of what are commonly referred to as "vices," have no our society, but, as I'm sure you will agree, it's the USER who is to blame, not the product.

How could a dealer ever know if his product is being consumed by rational consumers, short of stalking every consumer to find out how they are using his or her product?

If a dealer's business is relatively small and done under the table, there's no way to know if your consumers are "rational" or not--which is another reason why the dealer can not be at fault.

However, I find it hard to imagine that one can "recreationally" use marijuana the same way one recreationally drinks. One drinks or smokes a cigarette for the taste; one uses marijuana to get high

So 'taste' is the standard by which a drug's use is determined moral/immoral? What happens if marijuana becomes tasteful? (P.S...some of my weed-smoking friends have said they can taste the difference b/t high quality and low quality weed)

I think we all agree that IF you know, with absolute certainty, that the buyer is going to use your product wrongly, then you ought not to sell him your product. (In this context, "wrongly" is used to mean that which violates the right(s) of another person.) (But what business wants to screen all its users for rationality? And what consumer wants to be screened for rationality?--where is the practicability in any of this?)

My Argument:

P1) You do not know how the buyer will use the product.

P2) You do not know in what context the buyer will use the product

P3) The tendency of a product to be misused has no bearing or relevance to the selling of the product.

C) Selling marijuana is not wrong.

[Oakes]

I smoke cigarettes because they relax my nerves when I am stressed out at work. I drink because I enjoy the taste of beer, and because it relaxes my nerves and therefore helps me to unwind after a hard day's work. So taste is not the only factor determining recreational value.

I didn’t mean to suggest that it was the only factor, but I draw the line when you (mis)use a substance to alter your consciousness. I’ve never heard of marijuana being used for any other reason to get high, so I’m not convinced that you can use it recreationally as you would alcohol or cigarettes.

So 'taste' is the standard by which a drug's use is determined moral/immoral? What happens if marijuana becomes tasteful? (P.S...some of my weed-smoking friends have said they can taste the difference b/t high quality and low quality weed)

Read my answer to manavmehta above.

I think we all agree that IF you know, with absolute certainty, that the buyer is going to use your product wrongly, then you ought not to sell him your product. (In this context, "wrongly" is used to mean that which violates the right(s) of another person.)

What is it with you people trying to redefine a moral breach to mean initiating force? Morality is not just about vice, it’s also about virtue - namely, indepedence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.

And what consumer wants to be screened for rationality?--where is the practicability in any of this?)

I’m talking about situations where it is obvious. If you want to evade the obvious and pretend that you “do not know how the buyer will use the product,” go ahead and sell some joints.

[Hal]

You just got finished saying that selling someone a product they will use immorally is not helping them be immoral, yet you wouldn’t knowingly sell webspace to a pervert because that would help him hurt children. Maybe you can explain this seeming contradiction.

I differentiate between immoral acts which initiate force against others, and those which dont. Using the word immoral to describe them both can sometimes gloss over an important distinction. I couldnt care less what others do to themselves as long as they dont harm others while doing so.

Since the only illegal actions under a rational government are initiations of force, there absolutely is something wrong with performing an illegal action.

No. There is something wrong with helping others perform an immoral action. Under a rational government all illegal actions would be immoral, but the objection to helping someone perform them would be their immorality, not their illegality.

[Oakes]

I differentiate between immoral acts which initiate force against others, and those which dont. Using the word immoral to describe them both can sometimes gloss over an important distinction. I couldnt care less what others do to themselves as long as they dont harm others while doing so.

I realize you are making that distinction, and that's what troubles me. You're essentially saying that you don't judge the actions of others unless they are initiations of force. This is completely at odds with Objectivism. When the virtue of justice tells you to not to reward the bad, it isn't just talking about those who initiate force; it's talking about those who are immoral.

So I ask my question again: Since you've indicated that selling webspace to those you know will use it illegally would help them commit their crime, why can't you also admit that selling drugs to those you know will use it immorally would help them commit their moral crime?

No. There is something wrong with helping others perform an immoral action. Under a rational government all illegal actions would be immoral, but the objection to helping someone perform them would be their immorality, not their illegality.

I'm confused by what you meant here so I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that helping someone do something illegal should be immoral, but not illegal?

Edited May 26, 2005 by Oakes

[Bryan]

I didn’t mean to suggest that it was the only factor, but I draw the line when you (mis)use a substance to alter your consciousness. I’ve never heard of marijuana being used for any other reason to get high, so I’m not convinced that you can use it recreationally as you would alcohol or cigarettes.

It is possible to use marijuana recrationally/socially/moderately (however you want to phrase it). The reason that you've never heard of people using other than to get real high is because most people (especially younger people) are not going to go the risk of obtaining marijuana, transporting it, and smoking it unless they want to get real high. The cost/benefit ratio is way too high for most recreational users.

I would imagine that during prohibition, the average drinker consumed a lot more alcohol in one sitting than in times before and after prohibition.

[Bryan]

I differentiate between immoral acts which initiate force against others, and those which dont. Using the word immoral to describe them both can sometimes gloss over an important distinction. I couldnt care less what others do to themselves as long as they dont harm others while doing so.

There's a difference between indifference and active support.

No. There is something wrong with helping others perform an immoral action.

In a previous post you said, "elling pretty much anything is moral (with the obvious exception of nuclear weapons and the like), and I'd include heroin and cocaine in that without a second thought." Selling them heroin and cocaine would definitely help them perform an immoral action, specifically the action of destroying their mind and body.

[Styles2112]

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?

A bit late in the game for this, but I wanted to add it. I have a friend who smokes pot purely to relax. His a very jittery person and he'll have one in the evening to calm down. He never smokes at parties or any such things because he hates the whole "smoking to get stoned" thing. He is responsible with such substance (i.e. not driving after smoking), or at least as one can be responsible with an illegal substance.

However, I do fully agree with the INTENT issue. If he's selling, fully aware of people who want it for nothing more than to get really high, I have to question the ethics there.

[dondigitalia]

Who on earth drinks alcohol primarily for the taste, and why havent they been introduced to McDonalds milkshakes or Mountain Dew?

*Raises hand*

I love the taste of a rich glass of Merlot, or a thick, stout ale. My intention is never to get drunk, or even buzzed (although, that has been my intention in the past). It is perfectly rational to drink an alcoholic bevarage for taste, in amounts that do not cause drunkenness.

Perhaps they have been introduced to McDonald's milkshakes and Mountain Dew and enjoy them as well, at times. Or maybe they don't enjoy them at all.

You might ask, "Why not drink 'virgin' drinks?" Because, it's just not the same; alcohol does add a certain kick to the drink.

[backpacker]

what abut LSD that expand your mind

and is not drugs if not used to much like walk in the woods after hard rational work ?(get a quit moment to rest and new ideas)

[dondigitalia]

In what way does LSD "expand your mind?"

A walk in the woods does not destroys neither ones mind nor body. Drug/alcohol abuse destroys both - at first only temprarily; after a while, permanently.