Survey. A family members boyfriend is a prescription drug dealer. I should allow my 6yr old daughter to spend the nigh there because: [insert your answer].
To wit, I’m curious if anyone can come up with an argument that that alone is not enough to say no.
I’d swing in the direction of “no sir” on this one. If he is actually dealing out of the house, that becomes a hard no pretty damn quick.
For me it all comes down to legality — but not just from a moral perspective (though it is funny that it wouldn’t quite seem as morally dubious to me if he was selling something like marijuana instead of pharmaceuticals.) It’s the risk of police intervention that could possibly traumatize my child if that person got busted. Which would still be a factor even if he was “only” selling weed. Not an appropriate environment for a child — I would let my kid hang out at a marijuana greenhouse way before I’d let them spend the night at a weed dealer’s house. Doubly so for someone selling (presumably stolen) pharmaceuticals, which is a far more dangerous game for everyone involved.
So that’s going to be a no for me dawg.
Very good. Now remember how I’m trying to frame the question. Put differently, if you just focus in on that one context/factor of the overall situation…is there any reason to say yes? I don’t think there is. I think it sticks out like a really sore thumb and all else considered is more that good enough reason to say no. But since I’m Integral and like to make sure I’m not missing any important perspectives, I’m checking myself and throwing it out there.
Possible context one. We live in abject poverty and selling prescription drugs illegally is one of the only options for income and actually provides good or better things for the child economically? I don’t think it’s a good argument. That situation actually makes it way more dangerous! It’s also not the case.
Possible context two. We’re all living in a peaceful, nonviolent and nurturing second tier culture and…someone is still doing this… I don’t see how that changes it either (and also not the case). It’s still illegal. It’s still morally questionable how or whether you’re fueling addiction, health harm, overdose in others, operating unethically and dangerously for your own gain. It’s not Right Livelihood. Like you said this still likely involves stealing even if someone else is the stealing supplier. It’s still a TERRIBLE example all around to have a child exposed to, potentially influenced by, harmed by…
There’s no getting around it as far as I can see except to ignore it, look the other way, or downplay the significance of it.
But again, I’m open if anyone has any ideas!
Ah, okay, I see your frame now
Reasons to say “yes” to your daughter staying at a prescription drug dealer’s house:
“Prescription drug dealer” is actually a weird euphemism for “licensed pharmacist”.
The dealer is actually selling placebo sugar pills as an ongoing performance art project to help people confront and dislodge themselves from their addictions.
You are having a medical emergency and really need someone to watch your kid, but everyone else in a 500 mile radius is literally high on meth right now.
Your daughter really needs prescription drugs, but your insurance does not cover them
Man, I am having a really hard time coming up with a realistic justification here. However, I do feel sympathy for your first scenario — if we live in an impoverished ghetto, and this is the only way to put food on the table. As a kid who grew up in the projects, I’ve seen that story played out many times, and usually because it was the least-horrible-but-still-pretty-damn-awful option.
Right, thank you and very funny.
I posted this because I was imagining posing the exact same question to them. Why is this a yes?
I can’t imagine there is any good answer. But these same folks are notoriously manipulative (and successful at it) and I wanted to make sure I was prepared and clear.
Some things sort of muddy the perspective even on that one point.
On the poverty level again there’s also that ‘what is the greater morality’ question that seeps in: steal loaf of bread or let child starve? (Or maybe closer, steal med or allow someone to die?) So we might from second tier begin with considering those types of various perspectives on crime. But none of that is going on here! Plus, this isn’t about any of that FOR the child. Rather, it’s about allow the child to be close to that? Much less under the supervision?
Another, which you bring up with the weed example, is that I’ve (and I suspect many here) have been for the legalization of drugs for over 20 years. i.e. end black market, tax, regulate, better than current system that doesn’t work at all anyway and just further destroys people’s lives. …But that’s not the issue here either! One, these drugs are already legal and regulated…so what the fuck exactly are you doing? With the added crime of playing doctor…so much else.
Yeah, no, 6 yr old ain’t going.
But I’m still curious…can ANYone come up with a good answer.
Possible Context Three?: Supposing said “family member” is the child’s mother, AND said “notoriously manipulative (and good at it)” people are under the auspices already of legal authorities (Child Protective Services/Welfare and/or Probation/Parole and/or Custodial Court Orders); AND said authorities require child visit mother’s home on a court-ordered schedule AND claim alleged prescription drug dealer has been investigated with no current legal proof of actively dealing, AND said child welfare/social servicesworker/court is consciously or unconsciously biased, believing mother over father, and places maternal bond/care as the utmost priority, AND suspects father of unresolved anger/resentment towards mother, and ulterior motive in resisting child’s visitation with mother.
In which case, father either complies with legal mandates and risks the child’s safety, or, father is prepared to risk his own freedom by disobeying legal orders to prevent possible endangerment of the child (in which case, call in the lawyers).
The prescription drug dealer is only selling human euthanasia drugs to folks who can provide documentation for an incurable medical condition with a short timeline toward dignity-robbing death in a region where doctor-assisted suicide is still illegal?
The prescription drug dealer is only selling medication abortion drugs to folks who can provide recent documentation of a pregnancy that they wish to terminate in an area where medication abortion is illegal?
Both cases would indicate the likelihood of a “deal” or police intervention happening while the child is staying over would be lower than if the dealer is distributing prescription drugs for recreational purposes. Not that it would automatically be a “yes”, just that I might require additional information before making a decision.
Minha companheira estava morando longe numa situação de completo desamparo e teve de comprar remédios psiquiátricos do traficante de medicamentos. Foi uma situação de necessidade absoluta em que o traficante teve papel primordial. Não fosse ele, talvez minha companheira tivesse morrido. Isso não faz dele uma pessoa boa e confiável o bastante para deixar minha filha com ele. Porém, é preciso considerar que o Estado, ao não fornecer o medicamento, deve, de alguma forma se desculpar do traficante que deu provimento no seu lugar.
If the prescriptions were being provided to folk in great need, those buying knew exactly what they needed (or like Coda mentioned, having documentation of previous/current prescription) for greatly improving health and/or quality of life (the drug was needed for survival, ease of chronic illness), who don’t have insurance or who otherwise can’t afford them?
For example: person A has a family member that passes, that family member had a large supply of a medicine which helps with a chronic illness. Person A could dispose of this medication or they could sell it to person B our prescription drug dealer, who then connects the prescriptions to person C the patient who otherwise cannot afford their medication.
To mirror what others have said, that wouldn’t make the decision a yes for me, but it would be something I’d take into account.
There doesn’t seem to be any mention of the agency of the child? To what extent do we want to accept that the child has a point of view? e,g,: “Why can’t I go stay with Grandma? We play together and we do our homework together and I always feel so safe when I’m with her.”
Let me throw another one at you - 14 year old girl repeatedly raped by her father. She discloses and he is arrested. Mum is off the scene having recognised that she has failed to protect. You are the family member that has space to care for her. She says to you that she has repeatedly thought of suicide. She has a boyfriend with whom she has never had a sexual relationship. She says to you that she needs to make love to her boyfriend just the once so that the last and most recent experience she has of sexual intercourse is a loving one from a loving partner, that it will give her a reason to live. What do you do?
This is old but I’m just getting back to it. You are correct the agency if the child is not mentioned in post and I super appreciate you mentioning it.
But in reality, and for me at least, implicit, her agency is there. That’s what actually creates some of the deepest parts of the struggle. She loves them, wants to go with them, …but does not understand what might be a danger to her, what might not be in her own best interests for her healthiest development. It’s my job to guide that until she can for herself. Children are agency with …18 or more years of ever more emerging independence. Or, independence with which they won’t kill themselves or otherwise bring about their own demise. That’s just the evolutionary way.
I personally know the prescription drug dealer and they are a trained pharmacist, but due to their recognition of the inaccessibility that many under privileged people have of accessing adequate health care resources, they quit their legal work for this. The only reason he/she is in the business is because of the lack of access for low income and homeless people to access adequate healthcare effectively.
She/He keeps all of his/her drugs in an enforced and locked room and only distributes by appointment during the day when the kids are at daycare/school.