3 ms·

No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. The law may be responsible for creating an environment that

• wayneftw 6y ago
  > No, what is actually funding those organizations would be the profits of the drugs they are selling. No, that's a nonsensical sentence. Profits are funding. What I said is correct: The law is what is actualizing the profits (or the funding). Without the law there would be no profits, no funding. Ergo, the law is causing the funds to happen. Profits are not self-caused. They don't just happen by themselves. > But an unjust law doesn't make it morally permissible to work with violent criminal organizations. Yes it does. Morals are subjective. I'm absolutely fine with it. These criminal organizations are far less violent and less criminal than my own government which I fund by paying taxes. Furthermore, the vast majority of people buying illicit drugs are not buying directly from violent criminal organizations or even non-violent criminal organizations. They're buying from a friend who buys from a friend who buys from a friend who might buy from a criminal organization (who might be violent). > In any case I think it is unreasonable to downvote someone who is arguing in good faith simply because you disagree with their premise. You (and them) made poor arguments based on your ill-formed opinions and presented no evidence. You both deserve the downvotes.