T O P
BigZahm

No. Individuals should be free to voluntarily associate and engage in unrestricted trade.


ZeusThunder369

As long as I'm transparent on the chemical makeup of what I'm selling, should I be able to freely trade poison that has an extremely high chance of killing the person who takes it?


GoldAndBlackRule

Yup. Even [water is a poison](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication) beyond certain doses. Should people be forbidden trading or sharing water?


ZeusThunder369

What if I trade a poison, that will kill with a very small amount, to a person with severe mental issues?


GoldAndBlackRule

If the other party cannot exercise self-agency? Like a toddler? Yeah, that is a no-no.


ZeusThunder369

No, an adult that has mental issues that make them less capable, but still able to function in society of their own agency.


GoldAndBlackRule

Which is it? Severe mental issues rendering them incapable of making an informed choice or a bit slow but otherwise capable of functioning in society? The straw man you are erecting is unclear.


ZeusThunder369

The latter. A bit slow. Clearly less capable than the average adult. Not sure how this is a strawman argument. I'm really just trying to establish if there is any line at all.


GoldAndBlackRule

A line? Probably not. A spectrum? Sure. This is why arbitration by seasoned, professional jurists are a thing in any sufficiently advanced and complex society. If someone can demonstrate harm has happened, then they have some standing to argue a case. Of course, *mens rea* and *actus reus* are also important components of the argument. If you are asking libertarian free market anarchists, then this process of arbitration is how people in a society *discover* law, rather than rely on a king, religious leader or politician to *dictate* law. Similar situations, applying principles like *starè decisis*, should lead to similar outcomes in arbitration and those *causing* demonstrable harm will be made to compensate their victims.


GrizzledLibertarian

> lets assume that drugs are definitely bad for your health Let's not. If we are going to discuss, then we are not going to start out lying... > do you think drug dealing should be illegal No.


MrZotalot

it is legal for pharmacists


GrizzledLibertarian

Is that really what you think OP was talking about?


CodeNPyro

It's a hypothetical... "Let's assume"


GrizzledLibertarian

Oh, ok, if we're assuming.....Gandalf will swoop in on giant eagles and save the day!


King_Yautja

No. I don't think you are harming someone else if you sell drugs. They chose to buy them, they chose to take them. I agree drugs are mostly quite harmful, and I would strongly advise against taking them, but at the end of the day as you said you'd only be harming yourself, and it is only you harming yourself. The reverse makes no sense if you think about it. If a drug dealer is harming a user who voluntarily buys from them, are McDonalds harming you by selling you unhealthy food? What about a boxer who knocks out his opponent? What if you are into some kinky bedroom antics? The whole premise that other people can still bear liability even after you consent, full well knowing the consequences, that way madness lies.


WilliamBontrager

I believe Walmart and Walgreens and Target should be able to sell drugs. The issue we have is that they are illegal meaning that quality control is being looked after by a cartel or a criminal and likely a violent criminal at that. There are no lawsuits you can file and no authority you can call if that violent criminal sells you poisonous, impure, or fake product so there is no real incentive, outside of not drawing attention to themselves, to do anything but maximize profit. If drugs were fully decriminalized, you would have the ability to sue/file a complaint/give a bad review if your junk was cut with fentynal, it had mold in it, or it was not what the label stated. You would also bankrupt the cartels and gangs that use drugs as funding and no one aspires to be a broke gangbanger. It's not about if drugs are harmful, it's a question of a black market being more harmful than a free market.


Whole_Financial

No.


PlatosCaveBts

“Deal drugs and fuck animals!”


stupidrobots

No of course not


HLMenckenFan

No. Dealing drugs should not be illegal.


skylercollins

Individual choice.


mrhymer

Selling drugs to consenting adults through voluntary trade should be legal. The term "drug dealing" implies many many bad actions.


[deleted]

Hell dude this already happens on grocery shelves and in some drug stores. On practicality, no it's not going to be illegal.


BBQCopter

Prohibition didn't work for booze, and it doesn't work for other drugs either.


Puercoespine_Negro

Who has the natural right to decide that I may not sell drugs to someone else?


Drake_0109

No lol


GoldAndBlackRule

Except for unconscionable contracts (fraud and theft, to broadly name a couple of cases) no trading should be illegal. And before you bring up slave trade or other human trafficking, re-read the first sentence in this comment.


Allodialsaurus_Rex

Banning the sale of drugs is *more* harmful to society, look at how powerful the Cartels have become because of the black markets our prohibition has created. People are still getting their drugs anyway so it's all for naught.


clsec9

No. Think about it, alcohol and tobacco is legal and it hurts and kills way more people than most drugs