I have some reactions to Becker's chapter four now. This chapter attempts and does a good job of describing group processes and sanctions concerning the use of marijuana. From a criminological perspective this maybe seen as morals, but in my view this is a limited view of morals. "A friend with weed is a friend indeed" suggests that supplying some one with weed is a good act. Do you see where I am going with this? I mean morals and ethics are about doing good deeds, only in criminology do morals mean acting in the approval of group values. This is, in fact, Becker's main point in this book Outsiders. He defines deviance via groups. Also, one defintion of law is that it supports social ordering, in other words behaviour is approved by group agreed values. Other readings in this course suggest this idea of law is falling apart in late modernity, but that's a side point here. Philosophy does not always need a group to suggest morals. Only really cultural relativism suggests groups have power over morals. Ok, maybe the Kantian universal is a socially derived ethic but the Kantian is better known as against the relative and setting absolutes for ethical behaviour. I think I want to look more at the consequential ethical view of crime.

In fact, marijuana dealing could be considered as it lies in ethical behaviour fully analysed. Does giving some one pot help them? What of other acts such as say, painting someone's house for them including smoking pot at the end of the day of painting? Ethical behaviour could be associated with the drug users but might not include the drug directly. In fact, I have found that marijuana users as an in-group that Becker identifies well, have a certain in-group solidarity which could cause and does cause some to behave ethically, that is behave in a good and helpful way to other in-group members. People in the in-group would rather work for, do favours for, support other in-group members. All these support actions could be considered to be good acts and thus morally and ethically proper in their own right, but Becker does not open up the word morals very widely to see all this. He does leave it possible in his book to make further conlusions but he only really looks at morals as creating sanctions against use. This is about as narrow a view as the stereotype he gets this idea from.

Of course, a broader look at the musicans would look at thier productivity in bringing music to the world as a good act. Productivity is the thing supposed to be lacking in the moral view of the stereotype. Yet, many of our best and most popular rock 'n' roll music has been made by drug users. Also, the creation of the in-group solidarity is by itself a good thing in that it produces an ordering and this is a difficult enough task that it should be applauded when it has happened like in the case of dance hall musicians. Numerous are the stories of musicians overcoming their drug problems because they got help from other musicians to get clean. Creating social solidarity is, as far as, I can see apriori a good act.