• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Am I "hurting" parents if I sell crack to their 18+ children?

W

whateverdude

Banned
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
356
Reaction score
45
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.

However, some still argue that there is a social problem, which is when families lose loved ones from drug overdoses. It's not a direct harm, but you are indirectly harming people who are not involved in the drug trade by destroying their loved ones

My question is this...

Should a child be allowed to come out as gay with homophobic parents? Because to say they can is to allow parents to be harm. It's not a direct harm, but niether is selling drugs.
But you are creating an emotional harm for your parents if you come out of the closet. And you could argue it's direct harm because it's coming from you and not a 3rd party.

So how is a gay child coming out of the closet any less harmful than someone who sells crack? Both are hurting families indirectly through non-violent means.
To me, there's no moral difference
 
With the sale of crack, there is no good outcome that could come from the situation. Even if someone uses crack "responsibly" they are still damaging their body. A gay kid coming out of the closet still allows for the possibility that the parents will change their mind and come around to not abusing their child. I wouldn't really consider this a good comparison.
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.

However, some still argue that there is a social problem, which is when families lose loved ones from drug overdoses. It's not a direct harm, but you are indirectly harming people who are not involved in the drug trade by destroying their loved ones

My question is this...

Should a child be allowed to come out as gay with homophobic parents? Because to say they can is to allow parents to be harm. It's not a direct harm, but niether is selling drugs.
But you are creating an emotional harm for your parents if you come out of the closet. And you could argue it's direct harm because it's coming from you and not a 3rd party.

So how is a gay child coming out of the closet any less harmful than someone who sells crack? Both are hurting families indirectly through non-violent means.
To me, there's no moral difference
Click to expand...

Whatever dude...
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.

However, some still argue that there is a social problem, which is when families lose loved ones from drug overdoses. It's not a direct harm, but you are indirectly harming people who are not involved in the drug trade by destroying their loved ones

My question is this...

Should a child be allowed to come out as gay with homophobic parents? Because to say they can is to allow parents to be harm. It's not a direct harm, but niether is selling drugs.
But you are creating an emotional harm for your parents if you come out of the closet. And you could argue it's direct harm because it's coming from you and not a 3rd party.

So how is a gay child coming out of the closet any less harmful than someone who sells crack? Both are hurting families indirectly through non-violent means.
To me, there's no moral difference
Click to expand...

Let me pose a question to you:

If I give "free samples" to an 18 year old kid...and then, when he wants more...but cannot afford the asking price...suggest he gets (steals) the money from his parents.....am I hurting the kid or his parents? Am I responsible for the fist fight that happens when Dad catches the kid in his mother's purse?
 
ajn678 said:
With the sale of crack, there is no good outcome that could come from the situation. Even if someone uses crack "responsibly" they are still damaging their body. A gay kid coming out of the closet still allows for the possibility that the parents will change their mind and come around to not abusing their child. I wouldn't really consider this a good comparison.
Click to expand...

There is good outcome, for the drug dealer, not really for the user. And the user does gain in terms of pleasure. The drug makes them feel good. Who is to say that their euphoria is objectively not worth potential death or health loss?

Mycroft said:
Let me pose a question to you:

If I give "free samples" to an 18 year old kid...and then, when he wants more...but cannot afford the asking price...suggest he gets (steals) the money from his parents.....am I hurting the kid or his parents? Am I responsible for the fist fight that happens when Dad catches the kid in his mother's purse?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're hurting anyone as you're not using force or deception. You suggest that he steals, but it's not a command.
He could mow lawns or get a part time job to pay for his drugs. Nobody's making him steal from his parents
 
whateverdude said:
There is good outcome, for the drug dealer, not really for the user. And the user does gain in terms of pleasure. The drug makes them feel good. Who is to say that their euphoria is objectively not worth potential death or health loss?



I don't think you're hurting anyone as you're not using force or deception. You suggest that he steals, but it's not a command.
He could mow lawns or get a part time job to pay for his drugs. Nobody's making him steal from his parents
Click to expand...

Not using deception?


Exactly what words are you using to describe the effects of your product to potential buyers?
 
whateverdude said:
There is good outcome, for the drug dealer, not really for the user. And the user does gain in terms of pleasure. The drug makes them feel good. Who is to say that their euphoria is objectively not worth potential death or health loss?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you speak to any recovering addict in regards to their opinion on this.
 
KevinKohler said:
Not using deception?


Exactly what words are you using to describe the effects of your product to potential buyers?
Click to expand...

That this **** will get you fuuuuuuuuuucked uuuuuuuup... which is a true statement.
It's also well-understood that drugs are harmful. Do ABC employees have to state for the record that alcohol can kill before every single purchase?

It's not my responsibility as a drug dealer to inform the buyer upon every purchase that drugs are dangerous

ajn678 said:
I would suggest that you speak to any recovering addict in regards to their opinion on this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they'd all say that it's undoubtably bad for people.
But in the end, I'm honestly more concerned about the drug dealers freedom to make profit than the health of drug addicts
 
whateverdude said:
That this **** will get you fuuuuuuuuuucked uuuuuuuup... which is a true statement.
It's also well-understood that drugs are harmful. Do ABC employees have to state for the record that alcohol can kill before every single purchase?

It's not my responsibility as a drug dealer to inform the buyer upon every purchase that drugs are dangerous



I'm sure they'd all say that it's undoubtably bad for people.
But in the end, I'm honestly more concerned about the drug dealers freedom to make profit than the health of drug addicts
Click to expand...

You sound like a kid who's parents stole his weed stash and he's trying to find validation on the internet.
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.

However, some still argue that there is a social problem, which is when families lose loved ones from drug overdoses. It's not a direct harm, but you are indirectly harming people who are not involved in the drug trade by destroying their loved ones

My question is this...

Should a child be allowed to come out as gay with homophobic parents? Because to say they can is to allow parents to be harm. It's not a direct harm, but niether is selling drugs.
But you are creating an emotional harm for your parents if you come out of the closet. And you could argue it's direct harm because it's coming from you and not a 3rd party.

So how is a gay child coming out of the closet any less harmful than someone who sells crack? Both are hurting families indirectly through non-violent means.
To me, there's no moral difference
Click to expand...

And the award for Worst Comparison Ever goes to...
 
Well this OP took a turn I wasn't expecting.
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.

However, some still argue that there is a social problem, which is when families lose loved ones from drug overdoses. It's not a direct harm, but you are indirectly harming people who are not involved in the drug trade by destroying their loved ones

My question is this...

Should a child be allowed to come out as gay with homophobic parents? Because to say they can is to allow parents to be harm. It's not a direct harm, but niether is selling drugs.
But you are creating an emotional harm for your parents if you come out of the closet. And you could argue it's direct harm because it's coming from you and not a 3rd party.

So how is a gay child coming out of the closet any less harmful than someone who sells crack? Both are hurting families indirectly through non-violent means.
To me, there's no moral difference
Click to expand...

If somebody has 18 or more children then they already have some serious problems...
 
TheGoverness said:
And the award for Worst Comparison Ever goes to...
Click to expand...

Do you mean that selling crack to a kid is not analogous to a kid being gay? Say it ain't so! :lol:
 
Mycroft said:
Let me pose a question to you:

If I give "free samples" to an 18 year old kid...and then, when he wants more...but cannot afford the asking price...suggest he gets (steals) the money from his parents.....am I hurting the kid or his parents? Am I responsible for the fist fight that happens when Dad catches the kid in his mother's purse?
Click to expand...

Wait... you are responding to this OP in a serious manner?
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay. Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle.
Click to expand...

The non-aggression principle is a policy that is use with regards to the roll of government in determining if something should be legal/illegal or regulated. It is not a premise to morals.

For example, NAP means that it wouldn't be illegal for a business to refuse service to a certain race but that still makes them morally bankrupt assholes.
 
Am I "hurting" parents if I sell crack to their 18+ children?
Click to expand...

why would you care, if you are peddling dope before it is legal you have already justified this and crossed the road into no return...

to me there are soft drugs and hard drugs...this is a hard drug

I understand we all make choices....then we must live with them
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.

However, some still argue that there is a social problem, which is when families lose loved ones from drug overdoses. It's not a direct harm, but you are indirectly harming people who are not involved in the drug trade by destroying their loved ones

My question is this...

Should a child be allowed to come out as gay with homophobic parents? Because to say they can is to allow parents to be harm. It's not a direct harm, but niether is selling drugs.
But you are creating an emotional harm for your parents if you come out of the closet. And you could argue it's direct harm because it's coming from you and not a 3rd party.

So how is a gay child coming out of the closet any less harmful than someone who sells crack? Both are hurting families indirectly through non-violent means.
To me, there's no moral difference
Click to expand...

I heard someone say once, that drug dealers selling poison to anyone, should get the death penalty. I like the way that person thinks.

A doped up society, is an ignorant society and easy to control.
 
whateverdude said:
But in the end, I'm honestly more concerned about the drug dealers freedom to make profit than the health of drug addicts
Click to expand...

You are concerned about drug dealer's freedom to make a profit off of drug sales?
 
Mario said:
I heard someone say once, that drug dealers selling poison to anyone, should get the death penalty. I like the way that person thinks.

A doped up society, is an ignorant society and easy to control.
Click to expand...

Death! Death! Death!
 
whateverdude said:
I argue not only that drugs ought to be legal, but that selling drugs is morally A-okay.
Selling drugs is okay because non-aggression principle. So there is no social problem involved in drug use because if there's no violence or deception than it's automatically morally justified.
Violence occurs due to the black markets monopolization of drugs, which is the result of it being illegal.

For me the problem with drugs is violence and lies. If drugs were legal, companies would have to follow advertising laws and would engage non-violently in the legal market.
Thus eliminating all problems associated with drugs.
Click to expand...

No. Addiction takes away an individuals ability to participate rationally in a free market. Dealers operate by threatening customers with the physiological harm caused by drug withdrawal. The commercial dealing of addictive substances is coercive by nature, and not in line with the non-aggression principal.
 
whateverdude said:
It's not my responsibility as a drug dealer to inform the buyer upon every purchase that drugs are dangerous
Click to expand...

If, as you propose drugs became legal and were regulated, it almost certainly would be your responsibility to inform the buyer how dangerous your product is. After all, alcohol and tobacco products are required to have warning labels on them. Why would you think crack, meth, or heroin would be any different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom