Taking this from more of an ethical point of view, some people see the drug dealer as already in the wrong (by providing a known harmful substance for his/her own profit) however, to the buyers, the dealer is just providing their needs.
Therefore it’s hard to decide what is right, as they have a dependent relationship.
Stealing in any situation is not moral,no matter if you’re stealing from the rich (drug dealer) or the poor (buyers). It may be easily thought that taking from the rich as ‘revenge’ for them being so rich evens out the scales. However, in this situation it would also affect the poor, and directly taking from the poor is seen as unfair. Therefore, since their roles rely on each other, it is hard to tell if stealing from the rich, which indirectly steals from the poor is moral.
Stealing from one drug dealer wouldn’t effect the ‘drug world’ in the slightest, however bringing authorities to the dealer, and possibly a leader of a specific cartel, would have a more damaging effect on the production/actions as they both are hindered through the legal action of punishment in prison.
In terms of the societal effects of drugs, illegal drugs do exist, and there is an endless supply of them especially through Mexico and their cartels.
Mexico’s impoverished state and corruption lead its population to extremes like using drugs as weapons, and using weapons as a means to secure status.
Most people who end up in the drug business in Mexico have been born into poverty, which can be surpassed by the money gained from selling drugs. Also, more and more children are becoming drug dealers in this way, to provide for their families.
Using this tragically true example, is it immoral to supply a product to a willing taker, to gain money which betters a community?
Also, what first made an impoverished child want to sell something illegal?