This is really the bastard child of another thread on the Steroid board. It’s here because this isn’t what I’d consider a steroid question.
I pose this situation to you:
Mr. X purchases AAS from Mr. Y.
Mr. Y cooks up the AAS in his own house. The only drugs he sells are AAS. He makes a point of meeting the people face to face, and advising them whether or not steroid use is a good option for them. He provides sterile needles etc. and all the neccesary PCT drugs via a contact at a major pharmaceutical company. His family also knows about his “second job”, but are OK with it.
Mr. X only uses AAS and the occasional Marijuana.
The Marijuana is made by Mr. A. Mr. A grows the weed in his basement and ONLY SELLS WEED.
Now for the purpose of this scenario, Mr. X has had years of training under his belt, is more than ready for AAS use and only uses Marijuana with a vaporizer.
Is there anything that you would consider unethical about this situation (apart from the illegality) and do you think anyone is hurt from this situation?
Are any of these people doing something that you’d consider morally wrong? Keeping in mind that not all law is written based on morals.
Post your answer, but please give a reason.
I know I’ll get attacked for this, but format and spell check your posts. If you don’t, odds are most people will just skip it and any useful information you could have offered will be ignored.
EDIT: Thanks to LIFTICVSMAXIMVS for this. The purchase is voluntary, and there is no fraud. Mr. X is made aware of the cost of producing/procuring said drugs and is aware that profit is being made too.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Now for the purpose of this scenario, Mr. X has had years of training under his belt, is more than ready for AAS use and only uses Marijuana with a vaporizer.
Is there anything that you would consider unethical about this situation (apart from the illegality) and do you think anyone is hurt from this situation?
[/quote]
Is the exchange voluntary?
Is the exchange free from fraud by either party.
If yes is answered for both questions then the exchange is ethical. Whether or not some outside party disagrees with what is being exchanged is beside the point.
I think there is no morale problem with the actions of either guy, if it was in the UK then Mr. Y (I would have made him Mr. B) can legally import the powders, so his only criminal action would be the selling of ASS.
The point made in the first post is that buying illicit substances fuels a national criminal economy and increases crime in the country.
I think it is the buyers of drugs that cause the majority of crime to help pay for the drugs.
How does putting money into the hand of a dealer increase general crime rates?
Does a dealers other criminal activities increase with his profits? Does he spend all his money on importing guns and hookers?
I don�??t think so, the distinction was also made that is is OK to buy stuff off AAS dealers but not coke dealers? This is very wrong, my convo’s with the originator of this idea led to me concluding that to make a morale and justifiable purchase of any illegal substance you should first interview and inspect the dealer and assess where the money is going and how it will be spent, if the dealer is of questionable morality and is likely to indulge in other criminal activates then you should go buy elsewhere, and then hold your head up very high and look down your nose at other less perspicacious drug buyers.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Haha I knew you could not resist.
Ha ha, mate don’t take it as a dig at you. It’s more at Ready-2-Not-Learn.
I fully believe if a guy sells AAS and something like meth then purchasing from him would be wrong.[/quote]
So if a guy was selling meth and fish tacos, would it be wrong to buy fish tacos from the guy? The argument why it would seems straightforward if the both things are coming from the same criminal supplier network, but if they aren’t?
[quote]etaco wrote:
So if a guy was selling meth and fish tacos, would it be wrong to buy fish tacos from the guy? The argument why it would seems straightforward if the both things are coming from the same criminal supplier network, but if they aren’t?[/quote]
Interesting point. Are the profits from the fish tacos being used to aid the manufacture or sale of the drugs?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
etaco wrote:
So if a guy was selling meth and fish tacos, would it be wrong to buy fish tacos from the guy? The argument why it would seems straightforward if the both things are coming from the same criminal supplier network, but if they aren’t?
Interesting point. Are the profits from the fish tacos being used to aid the manufacture or sale of the drugs?[/quote]
They are probably being used merely as an aid to launder his money and help him diversify his risk.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Surely not. One action causing this reaction. If they choose to smoke where no one has to put up with the smell of burning stuff, then fine.
[/quote]
This is why property right are important to understand. I intentionally used the phrase invasion of property to denote it is unwanted behavior. It is not an invasion of property if someone allows it. Therefor it is completely ethical.
If a proprietor wants to allow smoking in his place of business then that is his business and no one else’s. As a customer one is free to leave.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is why property right are important to understand. I intentionally used the phrase invasion of property to denote it is unwanted behavior. It is not an invasion of property if someone allows it. Therefor it is completely ethical.
If a proprietor wants to allow smoking in his place of business then that is his business and no one else’s. As a customer one is free to leave.[/quote]
Fair enough. Then that would fall under ethical behavior.
