I have done "quick papers" before, in the sense that they didn't require as much time or effort to produce as most of my other publications. But there are some important reasons for this. In particular, these papers were almost always the result of my becoming aware of a very specific publishing opportunity which serendipitously overlapped with research that I was already conducting at the time, and which was being arranged by a venue that was much more specialized in scope than the top-tier conferences and journals I usually aim for.
For example, my colleagues and I recently developed a method for automatically assessing rhetorical devices in a particular type of text, and we published a paper on this in one of our field's top conferences. A few months later, we coincidentally read a call for papers for a shared task for the evaluation of methods like ours, albeit on a somewhat different text type. It was no great effort to adapt our method to deal with the new text type, run some experiments on the data provided by the organizers, and then submit our results along with a description of our system. The development and experimental work took only about a week, and it took only a day to write the paper.
Despite the minimal effort we expended, we don't consider ourselves to be "dishonest" or "ignorant". First of all, this wasn't a junk conference: the call for papers came from a workshop associated with an established and respectable conference organized by a national scholarly association. The conference is certainly not the most prestigious in the field, but that is more down to its niche and regional focus. Second, we weren't just resubmitting the same paper to another venue. We (anonymously) cited our previous method and made it clear that the system we were describing was a modification of it. The paper therefore focussed on the nature of these modifications and on a quantitative/qualitative error analysis. We believe that this constitutes an important (albeit not particularly groundbreaking) contribution to the state of the art. Because it was specifically targetted to a rather narrow audience, the paper is probably not going to rack up a very high citation count, but neither is it going to pass entirely unnoticed. In short, we think the impact of the paper will be commensurate with the effort we put into it, neither of which was negligible. We don't regret taking a week of our time to work on it.
Of course, this is not to say that this sort of "quick paper" approach should be the sole focus of one's research career. As I previously mentioned, my colleagues and I aim for (and frequently achieve) publication in our field's top-tier "broad church" venues. But sometimes an opportunity presents itself to spin off a strand of our main research into a relatively quick contribution to a more specialized but still-respectable venue. In these cases we'll certainly consider the cost–benefit tradeoff.