Hive General Discourse

	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links
	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links

	1 Online, 0 Active		You are not logged in

This is a historical archiveThe forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

	General Discourse

All 18 posts Subject: The ethics of drug manufacture and distribution Please login to post Down

riemann
(Stranger)
11-03-04 21:31
No 539501
      The ethics of drug manufacture and distribution

To begin, we all know that Hive Bees have never manufactured or distributed illegal substances. But the question stands, what are the ethical issues that should considered in regards to these actions?

There seems to be a consensus here that experimentation with psychoactive materials is perfectly acceptable - the onus of their use falls entirely on individual responsibility.

The argument could also be made that the sale of drugs to other fully educated individuals is morally sound - they know the risks drug use entails, and are prepared to deal with them.

However, when drugs are sold to a party or individual who intends to further distribute them, no assurance can be made on the responsibility of that seller - he or she could readily lie about the quantity, purity, acceptable dosages, which drug is being sold, or even sell drugs to person who is clearly an addict, possibly leading to disaster. This form of drug sale pervades the illicit manufacture industry. Certain drugs discussed on these forums have been rigorously demonstrated to possess the potential to ruin, and potentially end, the users' lives via long term abuse, overdose, vehiclar accidents, drug related crime, etc.

If you intended to manufacture and distribute drugs commonly perceived to 'ruin lives' (methamphetamine for example), would you first have to make some sort of moral resolution in such a way that you could live with the consequences of you actions? What is the Hive's view on the ethics of manufacture and distribution in general? Do your views differ from drug to drug (i.e. more 'benign' hallucinogens')? Where do you stand?

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
11-03-04 21:37
No 539504
User Picture       > Certain drugs discussed on these forums...

> Certain drugs discussed on these forums have been rigorously demonstrated to
> possess the potential to ruin, and potentially end, the users' lives via long
> term abuse, overdose, vehiclar accidents, drug related crime, etc.

Are you talking about alcohol?

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

riemann
(Stranger)
11-03-04 22:02
No 539509
      Definately. Alcohol causes more net harm than...

Definately. Alcohol causes more net harm than all of the drugs discussed on these forums combined. However, the issue stands. I didn't intend to discuss it because of its legal status, but it is certainly a drug of concern.

Xaja
(Hive Bee)
11-03-04 22:06
No 539510
User Picture       You asked for it

However, when drugs are sold to a party or individual who intends to further distribute them, no assurance can be made on the responsibility of that seller - he or she could readily lie about the quantity, purity, acceptable dosages, which drug is being sold, or even sell drugs to person who is clearly an addict, possibly leading to disaster.

Do you suppose this could be a direct consequence of drugs being illegal and the culture being forced underground, thus making monitoring impossible??

If you intended to manufacture and distribute drugs commonly perceived to 'ruin lives' (methamphetamine for example), would you first have to make some sort of moral resolution in such a way that you could live with the consequences of you actions?

A close friend of mine lost his leg while riding his motorbike while drunk, he hit a truck. This is honestly a true story. I wonder how the guy at the wholesaler who sold him the alcohol should feel??

There seems to be a consensus here that experimentation with psychoactive materials is perfectly acceptable - the onus of their use falls entirely on individual responsibility.

Correct. It does, unless someone forces you to take something at gunpoint or whatever.

Where do you stand?

I believe in a free world, where the safety of people is put first, not politics. Sadly this is a long way from how it is. frown

What, may I ask riemann, is your view on tobacco companies making squillions of dollars from an alkaloid (nicotine), sold via a delivery system that torches your lungs while being ingested???

Do your children smoke cigarettes?

Are you aware that cigarettes are sold freely all over the world?

Have a nice day. smile

What? The Land of the Free? Whoever taught you that is your enemy! - Rage Against The Machine

riemann
(Stranger)
11-03-04 22:53
No 539518
      Re: You asked for it Yup, I knew what was...

You asked for it

Yup, I knew what was coming.

Do you suppose this could be a direct consequence of drugs being illegal and the culture being forced underground, thus making monitoring impossible??

Indeed, this is an unfortunate consesquence. However, the perversion of the truth that sometimes occurs in [illicit] drug distribution is a reality in our current situtuation. While the monitoring you're suggesting sounds appealing, it is purely hypothetical and unlikely to be implemented in the near future.

A close friend of mine lost his leg while riding his motorbike while drunk, he hit a truck. This is honestly a true story. I wonder how the guy at the wholesaler who sold him the alcohol should feel??

Alcohol is legislated in such a way that it is impossible to be a functioning adult capable of purchasing it and not know of its intoxicating effects.

What, may I ask riemann, is your view on tobacco companies making squillions of dollars from an alkaloid (nicotine), sold via a delivery system that torches your lungs while being ingested???

Do your children smoke cigarettes?

Are you aware that cigarettes are sold freely all over the world?

I'm not a fan of tobacco use personally. However, the truth is out there for those who chose to smoke it. I don't have children. I'm aware that cigarettes are sold freely all over the world.

Have a nice day. smile

You too. tongue

While tobacco and alochol are interesting to discuss, I didn't intend for the discussion to sway this way. I think the issue of the numerous other [illicit] drugs is more suited to the tastes of the Hive.

Xaja
(Hive Bee)
11-03-04 23:34
No 539523
User Picture       Ok

Sure, thats fine. Any dicussion around here regarding ethics is bound to incur this response primarily, so is it probably a good thing to get those points out of the way as you seem to be in for a good reasonable discussion.

I apologise if my initial response seemed abrupt and unreasonable, sometimes these sorts of posts are attacks rather than genuine attempts at real discussion or mature debate.

So, welcome and I'll give a quick account of my view (I have to leave but will check thread later.)

Ok, personally I like to take recreational drugs. I don't feel that this harms anyone and I get upset at the notion that I may be punished for doing something like this to myself. Am I not free to decide what I can and cannot do with my own body and mind?? (Within reason anyway.)
But you see, if no one made or sold drugs then how would I have ever discovered them or aquired them for use?? And as I believe I have benefitted from them (even if only by enjoying myself, but that is what life is for in my view) then this creates the problem that if they are not available then 1) I can't benefit from them anymore, and 2) how will other people find out they too may enjoy and benefit from drugs?

Of course there are all sorts of moral issues surrounding this, I am glad I am not a politician when I look at it that way!!

Looking forward to more discussion later.

What? The Land of the Free? Whoever taught you that is your enemy! - Rage Against The Machine

embezzler
(Hive Addict)
11-03-04 23:52
No 539526
User Picture       seems relevant

Post 503416 (Cadenza: "Ethics of Addictive Drug Synthesis", General Discourse)

chemically enhanced.

riemann
(Stranger)
11-04-04 00:03
No 539529
      Re: Ok, personally I like to take recreational

Ok, personally I like to take recreational drugs. I don't feel that this harms anyone and I get upset at the notion that I may be punished for doing something like this to myself. Am I not free to decide what I can and cannot do with my own body and mind?? (Within reason anyway.)

I agree. Absolutely, you should have this freedom.

But you see, if no one made or sold drugs then how would I have ever discovered them or aquired them for use?? And as I believe I have benefitted from them (even if only by enjoying myself, but that is what life is for in my view) then this creates the problem that if they are not available then 1) I can't benefit from them anymore, and 2) how will other people find out they too may enjoy and benefit from drugs?

I'll asume the perspective of the person who sold you these drugs. There are two cases that could arise:

1. I know that you're a reasonable, well educated drug user. I have no qualms selling drugs to you (I'm assuming this is true in your case).

2. I have no clue who you are. You might be some 16 year old girl in a club, that knows the drug that I'm selling you by some strange name that entirely misrepresents the substance. Perhaps I'm selling you GHB, and tell you you'll need 10g of it to have fun dancing tonight. You end up in a coma, or dead. Some chemist somewhere, who envisioned responsible use of the GHB he produced for getting to sleep at night, ends up having indirectly causing a death of some girl who was under the impression that 10g was a safe dose.

Get my point? Are you the chemist that sells his product to your drug educated friends, or sells it to some morally perverse dealer somewhere looking for dollars above all else?

riemann
(Stranger)
11-04-04 02:13
No 539559
      An excellent thread. Its focus (as I ...

Post 503416 (Cadenza: "Ethics of Addictive Drug Synthesis", General Discourse)

An excellent thread. Its focus (as I understand) is primarily the act of synthesis. However, I'd like to better understand where the Bees of the Hive draw their respective lines in regards to distribution to trusted and untrusted persons.

Fastandbulbous
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 02:45
No 539570
User Picture       You can never know

Looking at the issue from the point of view of someone who manufactures drugs (not just chemical synthesis, but any proceedure that isolates a drug preparation from a plant source), even if you think that all of the people that you know, who you would be willing to supply, are safe sensible people, how could you ever be certain that any of your product would never end up damaging the life of a third party? Unless you were to do something akin to a background check (and who's going to do that anyway), how would you know that the person you're supplying isn't a very plausable sociopath, who has only ever had his eye on the money making potential. If it later transpired that the person supplied the drug to someone who subsequently died, developed a serious psychiatric illness or broke up a family unit as a direct consequence of the drug, would you absolve yourself by saying that you had been fooled by the person so it wasn't your fault, or would you feel responsible as without your actions, the drug would never have been manufactured, so these negative consequences could never have come about.

The reason I ask is because in the past, I have known a couple of people that I would have characterized as falling into the "OK to supply" category, who consequently allowed the mask to slip, and showed themselves to be essentially amoral, selfish and practised in manipulation. In that I mean that they knew of your concerns, but knew how to make all the right noises to placate your anxieties. How far are you intending to hold yourself responsible for the actions of others?

Obviously, certain drugs are more likely to attract the selfish, hedonistic, sociopathic personality than others (eg cocaine, opiates etc), but if their only concern is how they can benefit, regardless of the cost to others, they will occour in all drug populations because of the potential for money making and exerting power over people.

Putting it in a very basic form, unless you were to supervise the consumption of every dose of the drug you manufactured, how do you know that the people you perceive as decent intelligent people really are? And should you take any responsibility if they fool you as to their intentions?

That is right, the Mascara Snake: Fast and bulbous

jboogie
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 04:10
No 539583
      decent question...

I'd like to better understand where the Bees of the Hive draw their respective lines in regards to distribution to trusted and untrusted persons.
i think that depends on the original reason the synth started. i beelieve you either do it for the drugs or the money... if you dont do it, you sell it. nobee just whips out batches to give away(well, maybee once laugh ), they do it for a reason. i beelieve this is where the ethics begin to differ. if you rely on the sale of illicit narcotics produced by yourself...hmm.. what im trying to say is i think that the more you keep this chemistry a hobby and less like a source of income, the more selective you are about clientel. you dont need strangers money.
there are so many individual factors that account for the unscrupulous behavior of some of the members of our counter culture. the question, while very interesting, now leaves me with many more. a one paragraph answer would bee vastly insufficient for a topic of this magnatude. i hope more bees with some refined insight on this conundrum take a minute to comment as well. smile

Don't you think if I had something intelligent to say, it would bee in my post?

Xaja
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 04:21
No 539587
User Picture       Issues

I have no clue who you are. You might be some 16 year old girl in a club, that knows the drug that I'm selling you by some strange name that entirely misrepresents the substance. Perhaps I'm selling you GHB, and tell you you'll need 10g of it to have fun dancing tonight. You end up in a coma, or dead. Some chemist somewhere, who envisioned responsible use of the GHB he produced for getting to sleep at night, ends up having indirectly causing a death of some girl who was under the impression that 10g was a safe dose.

This is the sad reality of life. Yes people who do such things (supplying 16 girl in club with overdose, in your example) deserve bad things to happen to them.

Are you the chemist that sells his product to your drug educated friends, or sells it to some morally perverse dealer somewhere looking for dollars above all else?

I don't have a product. I'm too busy these days. My support to this cause is purely moral at present. But even if I did, its pretty irrelevant, someone could sell it to someone who could sell it someone who could sell it to kids. Once its out there anything can happen.

The focus here has traditionally been on small time stuff for personal use, not synthesis for profit. Drugs are made to be enjoyed in my view, people should not attempt to profit from this. Make it and take it or give it away. cool cool cool

What? The Land of the Free? Whoever taught you that is your enemy! - Rage Against The Machine

Empaligon
(Stranger)
11-04-04 14:19
No 539652
      You can never know & hobby

Putting it in a very basic form, unless you were to supervise the consumption of every dose of the drug you manufactured, how do you know that the people you perceive as decent intelligent people really are? And should you take any responsibility if they fool you as to their intentions?

As the topic of your reply already stated: You can never know. I think it is quite understandable that a chemist of mind altering substances uses his/her own products by him/herself and shares it with some (probably) carefully selected friends. Creating drugs solely with the purpose of making money, is something a lot of chemists with (psychedelic)drug-experience would put down as 'wrong', since they know what these substances can do with the person taking them. The best way is, in my opinion, to educate and warn the friends/persons who you are supplying, and well... If one did his/her best to educate and warn, than you did your best, and that's all you can do. You don't have the possibility or capacity to warn everyone who might, in some way or another, get in contact with your drugs. It's just something you can never know.

i beelieve you either do it for the drugs or the money... if you dont do it, you sell it. nobee just whips out batches to give away(well, maybee once), they do it for a reason. i beelieve this is where the ethics begin to differ. if you rely on the sale of illicit narcotics produced by yourself...hmm..

Interesting point, but don't you think there's a way somewhere between the two extremes? I think it would be perfectly possible and sane to produce your own drugs, share them with some (educated and warned) friends. And through the act of sharing making a little money (maybe just enough to be capable of producing some other drugs of interest), to keep the cycle going. Thus seeing it primarily as a hobby would be something very good.

Electric Doom Synthesis

jboogie
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 14:57
No 539660
      morals....

but don't you think there's a way somewhere between the two extremes?
i think everyone in this position deals with this delimia. i have a few rules that i follow in an attepmt to bring morality into this slippery-slope argument...

1) id never give anyone anything they havent already done. the first time you do meth, it wont bee mine. or smack or mdma or anything.

2) i wont let you waste your mind before you have one. i think that just as there are age limits for alcohol and tobacco, the same should apply for all drugs. unfortunatly since the drugs in question here are illegal, there will never bee any guidelines to restrict this beehavior.

3) i wont take someones last dollar. i wont take moneyies recieved from theft or other nafarious acts. this only encourages the crackhead metality.

Do i think these make a difference in the local counter-culture? no. but they make a difference to me, and thats what is important. if it helps you sleep at night, then fuck it. there is always gonna bee some jackass that sells dope to kids who stole money from there moms purse but i can gar-in-fuckin-tee it wont bee me!

For some it doesnt matter which one you are; all drugs are bad. therefore all people who associate with drugs are bad. its this kinda mentality that keeps anything productive from beeing done about the situation. as soon as they hear the word drugs, they immedantly turn the other cheek and say "well that doesnt affect me!" if they took a minute to listen to the valid points beeing raised, they might realize it affects them more than they are aware.

Creating drugs solely with the purpose of making money, is something a lot of chemists with (psychedelic)drug-experience would put down as 'wrong'
i agree whole-heartedly... unfortunatly i dont think the people turning out the majoraty of synthysised street drugs are chemists at all but more like cooks. they can follow directions, but this lack of higher education is what renders them uncapable of making a decision like that. this may not always bee true; im just giving an example. i dont know what percentage of the market is made up by people like this. i must assume there are more "cooks" that have no qualms with their dealings out there than discerning home chemists that "interview" prospective clients. maybee thats one positive thing about the GAKS of today. they interfere with the uneducated cooks trying to make a living off addiction.

Look foward to the next posts, this has turned out to bee a stimulating point of interest to swim. smile

Don't you think if I had something intelligent to say, it would bee in my post?

tina_craig
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 19:27
No 539690
User Picture       Ya know, think about all the tweakers that...

Ya know, think about all the tweakers that geek out thinking they are being watched and having paranoia and shit like that, doesn't this all stem from the drugs legalities? (ie: Amphetamine psychosis) Would this condition even exist otherwise?

Tina Craig worked for me!!

buz
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 21:45
No 539713
      ethics and more:

i would never give drugs of any kind to teenage girls that were involved in a competitive fellatio contest, and needed someone to practice on, even if they begged me simultaneously and happened to bee identical twins, and virgins.

i would sooner bee 'taken advantage of' by said females, than to risk the appearnce of an impropriety.

ethics give me a boner

jboogie
(Hive Bee)
11-04-04 22:24
No 539722
      the buz man always sheds new insight on issues

the buz man always sheds new insight on issues of extreme moral controversy. he makes me laugh, too. laugh

hey buz:where do they hold these contests?

Don't you think if I had something intelligent to say, it would bee in my post?

StraightEdge
(Hive Addict)
11-05-04 07:16
No 539816
      It is a catch-22. Some people will suffer...

It is a catch-22. Some people will suffer either way. If they can't buy drugs, they will be unhappy, but not at as much risk for overdose. If they can buy drugs, they will be happier (at least in the short term) but at higher risk for overdose or other drug related problems.

Many things are like this. There is no way out that will avoid all problems. You can certainly try to lessen them, but sometimes even that is very difficult.

	https://the-hive.archive.erowid.org	the-hive@erowid.org



Powered by Commodore 64 v.7.00.0 early alpha, 2019, Offensive Products. All rights reserved.
Links Erowid Rhodium

	All 18 posts		Subject: The ethics of drug manufacture and distribution		Please login to post		Down

All 18 posts	End of thread	Top