[pyre]

I think that you should refrain from calling them "evil actions." He was just a pot dealer/smuggler that got rich, then got caught because a rival 'kingpin' decided to escalate things to the next level. If anything it was the guy that escalated things (and ended up dead) that should be pointed to as the 'evil' one as well as the guys that he hired to hit his rivals.

If they had moved into dealing harder drugs, I might agree with calling their actions 'evil,' but not much comes out of pot other than a possible psychological addition.

> One of the main characters regrets nothing of leading a life of crime, and the author is willing to give him the final say. This is moral laxity.

You're also reading an article written for Rolling Stone magazine. Have you never heard the term "Sex, Drugs and Rock'n Roll?" Is it any wonder the tone of the article? I don't turn on Fox News and expect to hear things with a liberal slant to them.

You also seem to be falling into the trap of reading an article that has a spin on it that is the opposite of your own principles and wishing the article author to write the article with a spin on it that you approve of. Shouldn't we just be looking for journalism that has no (or little) bias in it rather than arguing which is the correct bias to use?

{update} As an addendum, do you consider the people that ran illegal alcohol operations during Prohibition to be evil people? What about the people that run/ran legal alcohol operations after Prohibition? Does your definition of 'evil' come down to "what the government deems to be legal/illegal?"

[mrtron]

Ah, evil. Such an interesting concept. What is right and wrong, not only now but what will be looked upon as wrong in the future?

I would bet that pyre is right - these dealer/smugglers will not be considered evil if you look back on the situation in 100 years. Just as we do not consider someone running a speakeasy during Prohibition to be evil.

What will be considered evil is a very interesting concept. International oppression for resources, drastically different living standards based on luck and geography, over-consumption and waste?

But perhaps other items that you would not even expect. Elimination of languages and distinct cultures? Holding dolphins in captivity if we discover they are as intelligent as us but just lack the ability to use tools? The use of plastics?

Whatever the answers are - what the government deems to be legal/illegal is irrelevant when looking from that perspective.

[Snark7]

In this article, Rolling Stone abused its cultural influence by glorifying career criminals. Young people read this magazine, and the technical quality of the articles is very very high. In my opinion, if you are going to write a crime story, then you have a moral obligation to conclude that crime does not pay. The article concludes that crime is an exciting adventure! Ridiculous!

Articles like this give pundits on the right fuel for the argument that liberals lack morals.

Making millions of dollars by dealing drugs, wasting money, and buying guns to protect your illegal operations is wrong.

[pyre]

> In my opinion, if you are going to write a crime story, then you have a moral obligation to conclude that crime does not pay.

What if you are writing an article about a criminal that got away with their crime due to gaming the system? Do you have a moral obligation to lie/distort the truth to try and show your audience that "crime does not pay?" Is so, then how is that any different than rewriting the history books to suit the social agendas that you want to achieve?

[Daniel_Newby]

"In this article, Rolling Stone abused its cultural influence by glorifying career criminals."

<snort> Hunter S. Thompson.