Jim is a pharmacist who works for a pharmacy chain in a large city. Jim developed a business that illegally solicited bets on sporting events. He promoted this to patients, and several patients would place bets with Jim while getting their prescriptions filled. Jim profited handsomely from this business until he was ultimately caught. Because the search by the officers was illegal, however, Jim’s criminal case was dismissed. Nonetheless, the state board of pharmacy brought a licensure hearing against Jim and revoked his license based upon unprofessional conduct charges. Jim challenged the board’s decision in court, arguing that the state statute does not specify that what he did was unprofessional conduct. Therefore, he argued, his constitutional due process rights were violated because he could not know that what he did was unprofessional conduct.

Take both sides of this argument. Is it unfair to revoke Jim’s license on the basis of a vague charge like unprofessional conduct? Assuming it is not unfair, is Jim’s illegal act unprofessional conduct? Why or why not?