6 ms·

You state: "But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap

by mcslee 18y ago

You state: "But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap between our views on morality can be bridged." Do you believe that liquor stores, grocery stores, corner shops, restaurants, and bars are all immoral? Should their owners refuse service to any customers that they believe to be at risk of alcoholism? Should pharmacies do background checks on customers purchasing Tylenol to determine whether or not they are addicted to painkillers? I think this argument boils down to legality, not morality. I think the point originally being made was that a significant portion of drug dealers are NOT intentionally enabling people into addiction. Certainly this varies by drug dealer, and there is a big difference between selling marijuana and selling heroin or crack. A lot of these dealers are simply supplying people with a product that they are purchasing for personal use because they think it makes their life better. I think it's also important to recognize that morality is subjective, and that it's one of America's founding principles not to legislate morality. Your belief that something is immoral, or even the belief of the majority, is not significant justification for legislation.

newt0311 18y ago
"Should their owners refuse service to any customers that they believe to be at risk of alcoholism? Should pharmacies do background checks on customers purchasing Tylenol to determine whether or not they are addicted to painkillers?" Yes. We can establish some clear legal standard and create systems to enforce this. For example, if somebody is brought in for alcohol overdose 3 or more times, they get a skull and cross-bone tattooed on their right arm and selling alcohol to them is a criminal offense. You can switch that to some federal database if the social stigma of a tattoo is a problem for you (though to me, its a feature, not a bug). "I think this argument boils down to legality, not morality." We are talking about laws here. Morals have no place in the discussion except for determining the end goal of the laws. After that, its an engineering process to determine exactly what laws and enforcement policies will get us closes to our moral ideal. In that sense, your statement is right but rather trivially so. "I think the point originally being made was that a significant portion of drug dealers are NOT intentionally enabling people into addiction. Certainly this varies by drug dealer, and there is a big difference between selling marijuana and selling heroin or crack. A lot of these dealers are simply supplying people with a product that they are purchasing for personal use because they think it makes their life better." I have a problem buying that. Addiction is undeniably a part of the drugs business model. Quite a few dealers even adjust pricing for that purpose. That even companies in the legal truge trade (tobacco et al.) try to leverage addiction makes you statement seem ludicrous. Do you have any evidence to back this up? "I think it's also important to recognize that morality is subjective, and that it's one of America's founding principles not to legislate morality. Your belief that something is immoral, or even the belief of the majority, is not significant justification for legislation." Nice way of saying that anything goes. Not something that I think any reasonable person could agree with. Besides, my argument is not a moral one. My argument is that addiction is a serious market failure and when there are no mitigating circumstances (medical uses etc.), addictive drugs should be banned. I advocate the death penalty because that is the only thing that seems to work in this case -- If you are going to have some law, it should be enforced rigorously or removed from the books (and yes, I know that a lot of current laws fail this test. They should either be repealed if they are not worth the enforcement effort or strictly enforced with the penalties necessary to curb infractions. As I have stated previously, I think that anti-drug laws are worth the enforcement costs).

by mcslee 18y ago

newt0311 18y ago

"Should their owners refuse service to any customers that they believe to be at risk of alcoholism? Should pharmacies do background checks on customers purchasing Tylenol to determine whether or not they are addicted to painkillers?" Yes. We can establish some clear legal standard and create systems to enforce this. For example, if somebody is brought in for alcohol overdose 3 or more times, they get a skull and cross-bone tattooed on their right arm and selling alcohol to them is a criminal offense. You can switch that to some federal database if the social stigma of a tattoo is a problem for you (though to me, its a feature, not a bug). "I think this argument boils down to legality, not morality." We are talking about laws here. Morals have no place in the discussion except for determining the end goal of the laws. After that, its an engineering process to determine exactly what laws and enforcement policies will get us closes to our moral ideal. In that sense, your statement is right but rather trivially so. "I think the point originally being made was that a significant portion of drug dealers are NOT intentionally enabling people into addiction. Certainly this varies by drug dealer, and there is a big difference between selling marijuana and selling heroin or crack. A lot of these dealers are simply supplying people with a product that they are purchasing for personal use because they think it makes their life better." I have a problem buying that. Addiction is undeniably a part of the drugs business model. Quite a few dealers even adjust pricing for that purpose. That even companies in the legal truge trade (tobacco et al.) try to leverage addiction makes you statement seem ludicrous. Do you have any evidence to back this up? "I think it's also important to recognize that morality is subjective, and that it's one of America's founding principles not to legislate morality. Your belief that something is immoral, or even the belief of the majority, is not significant justification for legislation." Nice way of saying that anything goes. Not something that I think any reasonable person could agree with. Besides, my argument is not a moral one. My argument is that addiction is a serious market failure and when there are no mitigating circumstances (medical uses etc.), addictive drugs should be banned. I advocate the death penalty because that is the only thing that seems to work in this case -- If you are going to have some law, it should be enforced rigorously or removed from the books (and yes, I know that a lot of current laws fail this test. They should either be repealed if they are not worth the enforcement effort or strictly enforced with the penalties necessary to curb infractions. As I have stated previously, I think that anti-drug laws are worth the enforcement costs).