Yes it indeed complicates questions of morality.johneffay said:That's true, but it would make morality based upon need which would be a very tricky path to negotiate, because you would then have to entertain the possibility that addicts were less immoral than other purchasers of illicit drugs because they had a genuine need for them and yet addicts are likely to spend more bouying up the drugs trade than occasional users.
What could be said perhaps, is that drug addicts become addicted by deciding themselves to take drugs, knowing the risk of becoming addicted. Their own choice, to a certain degree. Many patients in need of medicines cannot be 'blamed' for their illness, like addicts can be blamed for their addiction.
There is also another difference between patients in need of medicines and addicts in need of drugs. In many cases, the patients won't have an alternative treatment to choose (the pharma company has patented the only effective drug for their disease), while drug addicts could switch to methadon, go to a clinic etc. So the addicts are not forced to keep buying drugs, while the patients may have no choice but buying their tainted medicine.
Yes that would be immoral in the case of a pharmaceutical company with bad ethics. Still, I think this has less detrimental effects than buying illegal drugs.johneffay said:There's also the question of using the products of pharmaceutical companies for recreation...