Agreed. So do you. So do I. But the point is, when society grants all the privileges of adulthood (e.g. voting), it also requires the duties of adulthood. You can't suddenly backpedal and say, "Oh, well, he's only a kid." If he's an adult in the context of rights, he's an adult in the context of responsibilities.
No, being young doesn't relieve him of his duties, and I didn't say that it does. That's a straw man argument. His young age simply helps explain his poor choices since it's more common for young people to make mistakes like selling drugs. This is a very simple concept to understand, so try harder next time.
Amazing. So you are able to "put his behavior in it's [sic] proper social and moral context" but I am not?
Yes, because I study ethics and you don't. Your flawed arguments make that obvious. Thanks for catching that misplaced apostrophe, though. If only you were as competent at scrutinizing ideas as you are syntax.
And how do you demonstrate this miraculous ability of yours? Simply asserting it does not make it so, and the fact that your opinion agrees with you is a bit circular to use as proof.
Simply asserting it does not make it so, but thoughtful argumentation does. It's clear that our drug laws have been flawed for the past one hundred years, which is compelling evidence that they don't dictate what is moral. Further evidence is provided by case studies of individuals engaging in drug-related crimes that don't have a negative impact on society, such as personal marijuana cultivation and consumption for medical purposes--a clear violation of federal law. From a utilitarian standpoint, their consumption of marijuana for medical purposes is the right thing to do since it maximizes utility.
Nor did I suggest any such thing. To refresh your memory, look here.
In other words, you're aware that your statement is false from a clinical standpoint, and you're pivoting to "casual" definitions to save your argument. Nice try but unfortunately your argument still fails. I've already established that just because something is illegal doesn't make it unethical, so whether or not selling illegal drugs is unethical varies on a case-by-case basis. Just because selling illegal drugs "tends" to destroy society--a highly speculative claim since most people who buy marijuana aren't harmed--doesn't mean that it always does. There are cases where no harm is caused to anyone whether directly or indirectly.
The word "illegal" should be a sure tipoff to you that the activity is socially abhorrent.
Most Americans disagree. I could cite other evidence, but I'll let you off easy.
This has nothing to do with the topic. You are merely demonstrating your heavy biases in this area.
Actually, it has a lot to do with the topic. It's evidence that the drug laws in this country are flawed and don't serve as ethical guidelines. So despite your insistence that violating them is wrong, that's clearly not the case. If you're not happy where your claims are leading this discussion then perhaps you should refrain from making them.
