[Poll] Would you sell drugs?

You have been isekai’d to another universe and you’re poor with no cheats.

This world has a battle arena (think Roman gladiators), which is the primary sport and form of entertainment for typical people.

The battle arena is highly dangerous (often fatal), but it has the potential to be highly lucrative.

Gladiators are willing to spend an enormous amount of money on supplies and equipment, as long as it gives them an edge.

Shortly after arriving in this world, you made a friend who recently invented a drug that provides a powerful 100X strength buff.

However, the drug is highly addictive and can kill people if they overdose on it.

Would you join your friend with selling this drug to gladiators?

Note: Assume all varieties of drugs are legal in this world.​

1. Would you ever sell a drug that has the potential to kill people when abused?

2. Should drug manufacturers be responsible for the deaths from their drug?

3. Do you believe in banning or making drugs illegal? Would you support an effort to ban drugs?

4. If a drug was mostly safe, would you take one yourself?

 

<_<
I still like the term street alchemist

 

Hella yes I would put my self first over strangers also it would be mainly the consumers fault if they still take the drug despite the warnings, the best drug dealers are the ones that hate the drug itself so they themselves wouldn't use the product.

 

No
Definitely. I’d do this in a heartbeat to that Perdue family
Hmm that’s tricky because then the black market usually takes up selling it and gets people addicted to lower quality for higher prices
If by drugs you mean medicine I would if I have to. I hate taking drugs and would rather drink boiling lava than drink peptobismal

 

You need to add the option "yes- but I would fail miserably from getting high on my own supply" for me lol

 

Meh. They're gladiators anyway. They will use that shit in order to get a small chance of survival and to regain their freedom

 

Sure, why not? You can kill yourself through so many ways, even with many medicines that can be bought freely, so it shouldn't really matter (as long as you don't distribute to the mentally retarded and children)

No, unless they do as I said above. They should only be held accountable for the primary distribution.

I wouldn't support either, but I would make distribution much stricter and also make some places where you can go for a rehab that are affordable by the poor workers mostly paid for by the government. Other than that, selection of the fittest.

Maybe. Once or twice or when I need it to come out unhurt of something. Would try my best to not get addicted tho and refrain from even coming close to it until I can safely say I am not addicted (like, a few months without craving it)

 

I sell them like they sell cigarettes...

with "addiction warning" labels. If u still overdose... well... I did warn you, so not my fault. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

What if your friend argues with you and says he doesn’t want the warning labels because it will reduce sales — and he needs to get rich as fast as possible?

 

Sell it as a forbidden medicine (something not lightly used and only during life and death moments)
I would still sell it, the buyers knows its effects. 100x without consequences? Keep dreaming, the body might just explode before you even kill the opponent.
Dilute it and partner up with a merchant guild

 

Never heard of such warnings denting sales (not where I live, at least), and will try to make my friend believe that. If they disagree, will call the partnership off.

 

I wouldn't sell something like that. Why? Because with such a force multiplier, it guarantees that every gladiator would have to use it every time if they want to have a chance at winning. So basically, you're guaranteeing that the entire gladiator population would become addicted and likely suffer major health consequences and, likely, death, regardless of if they ever make it big there. It's basically saying, I want to screw over an entire population of people, just so I can make some money. That is unambiguously morally wrong in my opinion.

 

In my country, cigarette companies spend an extraordinary amount of money (in the millions range) fighting against the laws requiring the warnings on the box.

That should tell you that the projected loss in sales at the minimum is greater than the amount of money the companies spend lobbying.

 

1. Would you ever sell a drug that has the potential to kill people when abused?
If I'm poor in another world, it also means I have no financial outs or people I can rely on for basic human necessities. In times like this, self-sufficiency takes precedence. Since it's the gladiators that are purchasing equipment, this means they aren't traditional slaves. If it's their choice, I won't have any guilty conscience.

I'd be sure to warn them of the side effects, though, even if I could make more money by conveniently ignoring it. I'd also sell until I'm rich, because in these types of societies, even middle class wealth can place a target on your back which nobles can abuse.

And for the real life equivalent: pharmaceutical drugs can be addicting and lead to overdose, but they unarguably help us. Most things, even good things, can end our lives if taken in excess. That being said though, I wouldn't sell them. I wouldn't want to be even second-handily responsible for someone's gravestone.

2. Should drug manufacturers be responsible for the deaths from their drug?
Only if the drug itself is synthetic. You wouldn't arrest the patent author for a lawn mower if someone died from user error and not a design flaw, right?

Then again, I suppose you could argue that a drug being able to kill someone is a design flaw. It's a tough question.

3. Do you believe in banning or making drugs illegal? Would you support an effort to ban drugs?
It puts more people in jail. In the States at least, we have too many people imprisoned for petty crimes, and the criminal justice system is milking a profit by creating for-profit prisons where the goal is to keep inmates in their facilities as long as possible.

I don't think we should make drugs illegal—but I do think we should stop using them (the recreational ones that are harmful, at least). We should educate people and reduce poverty in order to fix this flawed cycle we've created. But ideas like the "War on Drugs" ended terribly, so how do we start? I honestly can't say.

4. If a drug was mostly safe, would you take one yourself?
Coffee is a drug, right? I love coffee, so yes!

 

Maybe the consumer base is different in your country? Here, all packets come with a mandatory warning, which is almost always (from my limited understanding) ignored. Besides, we r talking about drugs which could drastically tilt the playing field, in an arena of life and death for desperadoes. If one takes it, others WILL also be forced to, in order to remain competitive.

The warning is just a balm for my not-so-guilty conscience, and a way of avoiding (or trying to avoid) possible repercussions. I may be EVIL, but the warning has to stay (even if there r certain losses), or I'm out.

 

1. Would you ever sell a drug that has the potential to kill people when abused?
All drugs have the potential to kill people when abused after all the difference between medicine and poison is the dosage. So Yeah, I would have no problems selling the drug as long as I provide accurate instructions on how to take it.

2. Should drug manufacturers be responsible for the deaths from their drug?
It depends on the circumstances. If the reason for the deaths is their fault like they did not put appropriate warning labels or misinformed consumers then they should be held responsible. However, if the consumers overdosed or the people distributing/selling the product messed up than the manufacturers should not be held liable.

3. Do you believe in banning or making drugs illegal? Would you support an effort to ban drugs?
I believe in that to a certain extent. For example, banning highly addictive drugs or highly dangerous drugs or drugs that are difficult to take safely (small dosage difference between poison and medicine) is fine. Otherwise, it's up to individuals to make informed decisions on what they want to do about drugs since the ones impacted are themselves and those close to them.

4. If a drug was mostly safe, would you take one yourself?
It depends on its effects and just how safe it is. If the drug is not addictive, is not harmful, is hard to overdose on, and its effects are beneficial then sure. Otherwise, it would depend on how harmful it is but past a certain point I would not take it.

 

1. Would you ever sell a drug that has the potential to kill people when abused?
Considering that there's substances that are vital to life that can kill/injure you if they're abused (such as fat soluble vitamins such as vitamin A & D). I don't see how this hypothetical drug would be any worse.

2. Should drug manufacturers be responsible for the deaths from their drug?
Not gonna make the manufacturer responsible for other peoples stupidity.

3. Do you believe in banning or making drugs illegal? Would you support an effort to ban drugs?
You're getting into the realm of "I don't like X, therefore X should be banned territory." Same general principle applies (depending upon society) to sex, nudity, religion, etc. I don't want to go there. My general belief is that if the activity doesn't hurt me or mine, I don't care what someone else does.

4. If a drug was mostly safe, would you take one yourself?
Depends upon if I have a need for it. Generally, I don't need, nor desire chemical enhancements.

 

No.

 

1. Would you ever sell a car that has the potential to kill people when abused?

2. Should car manufacturers be responsible for the deaths from their car?

3. Do you believe in banning or making cars illegal? Would you support an effort to ban cars?

4. If a car was mostly safe, would you drive one yourself?

Chemical addiction is over-rated.

I've known too many people who repeatedly do the same stupid shit without the benefit of addiction as an excuse.

I've also known a few people who just casually stopped their chemical addiction without any side-effects. Some of them just had a change in their circumstances and quit their chain smoking or alcoholism without a 2nd thought. A number just switched from smoking cigarettes to non-nicotine vaping without any problems. One guy could switch between smoking, drinking and drugs whenever he felt like it. The neurochemistry of their addiction isn't even the same!

That said, I wouldn't sell these performance enhancement boosters. I'm just no good at sales.

The production side is a different matter, though, especially if it's government regulated. Unregulated high margin industries tend to be overly exploitative of their workers.