Legalization of drugs in US.

[Il Medico]

Alright, in the UK smoking ban thread there has been a debate going on, so I decide to open a thread on the topic. The question is should we legalize drugs like cocaine, pot, heroin, and acid, or keep it illegal? I say the benefits of Legalization out way the possible negative effects.

Cheers,
Captain Jack

[9]

I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning of anyone who would vote "no". Keeping them illegal only fuels misinformation, addiction, harmless people going to prison, etc. I see, literally, not a single benefit in their status as illegal.

[Tomhet]

Legalize all drugs, let no governing power dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your own body! Provided, it does not endanger others (driving while impaired, etcetera). Prohibition is hardly an effective deterrent for drug users, if I want to use drugs, if somebody wants to use drugs, drugs will be used. It also causes FAR more crimes then if legalization took place (I hesitate to use the word legalization, as it implies government intervention/acceptance based on deciding what an individual can and cannot do in their life). I've debated this subject to death numerous times, and i'll be happy to do it here.

~ Alex

[mikelepore]

Every kind of individual behavior that doesn't directly endanger other people or infringe on the rights of other people should be legal, without exception; therefore: yes.

Obviously, driving while intoxicated, babysitting while intoxicated, etc., would endanger other people.

[9]

Destroy capitalism first.:cool:

I think it might be an easier task with large numbers of comrades, many of whom are serving decade+ sentences for selling some pot, out of prison.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yes. Even if you are against personal drug use when it comes to more hardcore drugs, numerous data supports the idea that the legalization of drugs does more to decrease usage than making it illegal.

However, if we are willing to put the money into proper rehabilitation, there may be arguments for mandatory rehabilitation. Once someone is clean from drugs, medically speaking, we can let them decide whether they want to continue using, perhaps. You can hardly trust a heroin addicts judgment about whether they are better off using drugs or not.

[which doctor]

I advocate the legalization of all drugs on the simple premise that we should be allowed to do with our bodies what we wish. Besides, the prohibition of drugs is far more damaging on society than the effects of the drugs themselves.

Interestingly enough, we seem to be heading towards the possibility of cannabis legalization in the United States. At least the topic is finally getting the serious attention it deserves. I've always thought drug legalization was still off in the distant future, but increasing violence on the border and the recession has made the issue more pertinent than ever. As much as I like to disregard bourgeois politics, I'm curious to see where this'll go.

[Revy]

Legalize all drugs.

However, all drugs are not equal and some are more extreme than others. Crack, heroin and meth can seriously mess up a person's health and life and behavior towards others. So I support rehabilitation programs, not sure about whether they should be mandatory....

[Klaatu]

First, we must try to circumvent (that is, plan around) this "endangering of others" effect.
People are autonomous, and have freedom of choice, but also, think about the effect that
a possible drug addiction might have on your family and friends. (Consider others too.)

I have been called a "puritan," but I am an alcoholic myself, and only wish to preach to
those who will listen. (And please don't shoot the messenger)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

For some reason I thought this was only dealing with marijuana, which is why I voted yes. I wouldn't have done so if I'd realized it was also referring to cocaine, heroin, etc. I'd support decriminalizing it however.

[Tomhet]

ethanol is much, MUCH more dangerous then cocaine or alcohol, and slightly more dangerous then (methamphetamine), in withdrawal, alcohol can produce delerium tremors, grand mal seizures, and extremely high fever, alcohol withdrawal can kill you.
Cocaine withdrawal is all psychological, (meth)amphetamine is mostly psychological, heroin and other opioids, while you may feel like you are dying, cannot kill you.
It's highly neurotoxic, physically addictive, and physically damaging (liver damage, etcetera). I drink alcohol occasionally, and I think it should be legal.
But if alcohol is legal, it does not make sense to criminalize other psychoactives. This is selecting which drugs are 'worse' then others, while ignoring the factor of individual sensitivity, body reactions, to specific psychoactives. The reason it is legal is solely due to borgeouis-'financial' reasons, it can be taxed.



@ Eco Marxist, I can vouch for the success rate of rehabilitation over incarceration. A good friend of mine had an addiction to Heroin and Morphine. He was a poor lad, and a had a good heart and mind. He had been locked up before, which only increased his drug abuse. The staff actually cared about him, showed him other outlets for whatever caused drug abuse in the first place, offered excellent services. And, ultimately rehabilitated him completely, he's been totally clean for a year and a half. Rehabilitation is a far superior alternative, no matter which angle you view it at. I can understand why 'lower-class' folk use psychoactives, to escape the dreadful drone of this modern 'society' and it's lone wolf isolationism. It's certainly not the correct answer, but,I do believe the correct answer is to fix the initial problem that causes drug abuse in the first place. Which, in my opinion, is directly related to class inequality and struggle.

[Il Medico]

I think and FR has said this before, that the legalization of drugs will necessitate the implementation of 'Drug' safety education, to properly explain the risk associated with each drug and also to perhaps, help prevent overdosing. The current school systems seem to focus on scaring kids into not doing drugs. That is about as valid as abstinence only Sex Ed. While I support legalizing drugs, I agree that we must focus on addiction prevention and plan for possible negative effects.

With much love comrades,
Captain Jack

[JohnnyC]

In socialist society, of course all drugs must be legal, after all, humans should be free to do what they want with their minds and bodies as long as they don't directly endanger anyone.Unfortunately, in present time, capitalist states control what you can or cannot do to yourself, and its going to be like that for as long as class society exist.Only society in which humans can have complete individual freedom is communist society.

[Klaatu]

"ethanol is much, MUCH more dangerous then cocaine or alcohol, "
OOps, ethanol IS actually alcohol. Same thing.

[IrishWorker]

Sad result on this poll, it shows the caliber of people the workers have representing them pot smoking middle class lefties.
Has anyone ever seen the damage Drugs do to Working Class communities at first hand?
It’s not a pretty sight.
Recreational Drugs are just another weapon in the capitalist arsenal to oppress the Workers.

[9]

Sad result on this poll, it shows the caliber of people the workers have representing them pot smoking middle class lefties.
Has anyone ever seen the damage Drugs do to Working Class communities at first hand?
It’s not a pretty sight.
Recreational Drugs are just another weapon in the capitalist arsenal to oppress the Workers.

Your line of logic makes no sense. "Recreational Drugs are just another weapon in the capitalist arsenal to oppress the Workers" you say. So why is it, then, that the capitalists are keeping the drugs illegal? If their legalization would only further their use and - as a result - the oppression of the workers, then wouldn't it be in the interest of the capitalists to make them legal instead of keeping them illegal? Are the good capitalists, with their damning laws and their "tough on drugs" rhetoric trying to protect the worker? I think not.
It is foolish to conflate the belief that drugs should not be illegal with the belief that people should use drugs. We do not believe they should be legal because we want more people to use them! It is because their status as "illegal" does nothing to prevent their use. It only serves to punish users (overwhelmingly poor minorities) with prison sentences, and when they get out of prison, they go right back to using because no money goes toward rehabilitation. It creates a situation where those who are physically-addicted will ultimately resort to theft and violent crime in order to sustain their addiction because criminalization offers no real alternative. If these substances were decriminalized, all the money that currently goes into incarcerating drug users could be redirected to go into education, prevention, and rehabilitation - a real solution. Because if you think these laws - along with "the war on drugs" - exist to protect the worker, you're living in an alternate reality.

I should also mention that my brother was addicted to heroin and OxyContin when I was in middle and high school. So YES, I have witnessed firsthand the destructive nature of drugs. And I resent your baseless assumption that, because we are in favor of decriminalizing drugs, we must be middle class pot-smoking lefties who are too ignorant to have possibly witnessed firsthand the fact that drugs are destructive. Try asking questions and engaging in dialogue before you make sweeping generalizations about everyone's background.

[Tomhet]

OOps, ethanol IS actually alcohol. Same thing.
I know, I made a typing error.

[Agrippa]

Talking about certain behaviors (driving, baby-sitting, etc.) while "intoxicated" ignores the fact that many people have such naturally unbalanced constitutions that they need consciousness-altering substances such as coffee and tea (in the case of a very fat, sluggish person) or marijuana and hops (in the case of a very skittish, hyperactive person) to function at a "normal" level of consciousness.

We should also look at this from a revolutionary rather than civilian perspective. Legalized drugs means more taxmoney for the government (our enemy) and more revenue for multinational agricultural and drug corporations, (also our enemy) however, the "illegal tax" already fattens the pockets of the black market bourgeosie (our enemies as well) and helps the law enforcement apparatus (definitely our enemies) in many ways, since while it costs resources to arrest and jail people, it is usually outweighed by the profit in doing so.

Thus, I abstain from voting. It's a bad situation either way. Instead we should focus on seceding from the capitalist system so we can consume whatever we want. However, I can't imagine a communist system of production leading to the production of things such as crack, crystal meth, etc.

[Il Medico]

Sad result on this poll, it shows the caliber of people the workers have representing them pot smoking middle class lefties.
Has anyone ever seen the damage Drugs do to Working Class communities at first hand?
It’s not a pretty sight.
Recreational Drugs are just another weapon in the capitalist arsenal to oppress the Workers.
I am a middle class leftie? My parents are on unemployment and food stamps, I work as a new paper carrier 7 days a week and get paid shit. I am a middle class hypocrite because I want my friends not to go to jail on some petty possession charge? The illegality of drugs is what they use to oppress the working class. It cause many harmless people to be thrown in prison, it creates a ruthless criminal market, and creates an atomsphere of fear and addiction. It is a completely ridcoulous statement you made, drugs don't damage working communities, the crime that results from it illegality does. I know your type man, and you piss me off. Your some kid from the suburbs and you got lost in the bad part of town once and now your riding a high horse. Piss off. And be happy, you succeeded in pissing me off, a honor that is usually reserved for Nazis.

Love,
Captain Jack.

[IrishWorker]

Your line of logic makes no sense. "Recreational Drugs are just another weapon in the capitalist arsenal to oppress the Workers" you say. So why is it, then, that the capitalists are keeping the drugs illegal? If their legalization would only further their use and - as a result - the oppression of the workers, then wouldn't it be in the interest of the capitalists to make them legal instead of keeping them illegal? Are the good capitalists, with their damning laws and their "tough on drugs" rhetoric trying to protect the worker? I think not.
It is foolish to conflate the belief that drugs should not be illegal with the belief that people should use drugs. We do not believe they should be legal because we want more people to use them! It is because their status as "illegal" does nothing to prevent their use. It only serves to punish users (overwhelmingly poor minorities) with prison sentences, and when they get out of prison, they go right back to using because no money goes toward rehabilitation. It creates a situation where those who are physically-addicted will ultimately resort to theft and violent crime in order to sustain their addiction because criminalization offers no real alternative. If these substances were decriminalized, all the money that currently goes into incarcerating drug users could be redirected to go into education, prevention, and rehabilitation - a real solution. Because if you think these laws - along with "the war on drugs" - exist to protect the worker, you're living in an alternate reality.

I should also mention that my brother was addicted to heroin and OxyContin when I was in middle and high school. So YES, I have witnessed firsthand the destructive nature of drugs. And I resent your baseless assumption that, because we are in favor of decriminalizing drugs, we must be middle class pot-smoking lefties who are too ignorant to have possibly witnessed firsthand the fact that drugs are destructive. Try asking questions and engaging in dialogue before you make sweeping generalizations about everyone's background.

Heroin addiction leads to crime and violence, and it is working class communities who have to bear the brunt of it. It kills people. It is an anti-social drug.
Cannabis is proven to cause schizophrenia paranoia etc there is no positive effecting recreational drugs.
All Recreational Drug usage is detrimental to society in different ways I for one want to live in a world where nobody will 'need' to escape from reality through self-destructive addiction.

[Tomhet]

Heroin addiction leads to crime and violence, and it is working class communities who have to bear the brunt of it. It kills people. It is an anti-social drug.
Cannabis is proven to cause schizophrenia paranoia etc there is no positive effecting recreational drugs.
All Recreational Drug usage is detrimental to society in different ways I for one want to live in a world where nobody will 'need' to escape from reality through self-destructive addiction.
HAHAHAHA, Marijuana causes schizophrenia? get real, you made that up. Not one bit of sound evidence supports that nonsense. I'll reply to agrippa when I have the chance, but this stood out in it's utter ignorance. Heroin addiction doesn't cause crime, the bourgeois system allows real crimes to happen. Addicts have an illness, they are people like you and I. You cannot speak for the entire world population about psychoactive usage.

[NoMore]

Heroin addiction leads to crime and violence, and it is working class communities who have to bear the brunt of it.

The violence and crime caused by heroin is an affect of heroin being illegal. If heroin were legal then the stupid fucks who want to do it, could just go to a heroin den or where ever, not around the public, and do it at their own expense.
Also, do you really think that making drugs illegal does anything to stop people from doing drugs. I mean ya it might if a drug dealer gets busted, but it only lasts for a day or two because you cant catch all of the drug dealers.

[NoMore]

HAHAHAHA, Marijuana causes schizophrenia?
No Marijuana does not cause schizophrenea, but it has been said that it can exacerbate Preexisting mental conditions, but so can a number of prescription and even over-the-counter drugs have the ability to do that.

[khad]

I'm guessing that most people here have not had to deal with meth and crackheads. Decriminalization of such harmful substances, maybe, but people are foolish to think that intensely addictive hard drugs like that are able to be consumed "safely."


The violence and crime caused by heroin is an affect of heroin being illegal. If heroin were legal then the stupid fucks who want to do it, could just go to a heroin den or where ever, not around the public, and do it at their own expense.This is simply ridiculous. I thought socialists were supposed to care about the general welfare of the public.


I know your type man, and you piss me off. Your some kid from the suburbs and you got lost in the bad part of town once and now your riding a high horse. Piss off. And be happy, you succeeded in pissing me off, a honor that is usually reserved for Nazis.Get off your high horse first. Drug dealers in Northern Ireland get kneecapped and executed by republicans, and working-class communities appreciate the service. They have their experience with this stuff.

[Tomhet]

Actually, for the majority of my life I lived around cocaine and heroin addicts. Poor people, down and out, victims. Their alledged 'crimes' are based upon the fact that the bourgeoise tyrants have created a 'society' in which drug addiction will flourish, because, said society is highly undesirable and highly unfair and unjust to a large amount of people. I was also a victim of Heroin addiction for a short time in my life, I have learned ways to cope, I have been clean over a year. I know that using psychoactives to solve problems is not going to work. I have learned this, and have moved on with my life. I solve the initial problem, rather then throwing a blanket on it. Drug related crimes exist solely because of the borgeouise laws and 'societal standards' against drug use in general.

[Tomhet]

Heroin addiction leads to crime and violence, and it is working class communities who have to bear the brunt of it. It kills people. It is an anti-social drug.

No drug kills people, a drug is a chemical molecule, without opioids such as diacetylmorphine (heroin), chronic pain would be untreated, and many would suffer.. It is what you choose to do with said chemical, that can potentially decide your fate..

[IrishWorker]

I am a middle class leftie? My parents are on unemployment and food stamps, I work as a new paper carrier 7 days a week and get paid shit. I am a middle class hypocrite because I want my friends not to go to jail on some petty possession charge? The illegality of drugs is what they use to oppress the working class. It cause many harmless people to be thrown in prison, it creates a ruthless criminal market, and creates an atomsphere of fear and addiction. It is a completely ridcoulous statement you made, drugs don't damage working communities, the crime that results from it illegality does. I know your type man, and you piss me off. Your some kid from the suburbs and you got lost in the bad part of town once and now your riding a high horse. Piss off. And be happy, you succeeded in pissing me off, a honor that is usually reserved for Nazis.

Love,
Captain Jack.

Thank you for your kind words.

[IrishWorker]

HAHAHAHA, Marijuana causes schizophrenia? get real, you made that up. Not one bit of sound evidence supports that nonsense. I'll reply to agrippa when I have the chance, but this stood out in it's utter ignorance. Heroin addiction doesn't cause crime, the bourgeois system allows real crimes to happen. Addicts have an illness, they are people like you and I. You cannot speak for the entire world population about psychoactive usage.


Please dont post whilst stoned chara:)

[Agrippa]

Cannabis is proven to cause schizophrenia paranoia etc there is no positive effecting recreational drugs.

Not to be that guy, but "Schizophrenia" is basically a social construct created by the medical establishment. The DSM definition of a schizophrenic is so vague, it's meaningless. (It basically defines a schizophrenic as anyone who sees something other people do not) Conditions described as "schizophrenia" are likely widely-varying psychotic conditions with widely-varying biological and environmental causes. Same with other categories such as "Autism".

Also, cannabis does not cause paranoia in everyone who smokes it, and paranoia is a very mild negative side-effect of the drug, not something that justifies the substance's prohibition

[IrishWorker]

Not to be that guy, but "Schizophrenia" is basically a social construct created by the medical establishment. The DSM definition of a schizophrenic is so vague, it's meaningless. (It basically defines a schizophrenic as anyone who sees something other people do not) Conditions described as "schizophrenia" are likely widely-varying psychotic conditions with widely-varying biological and environmental causes. Same with other categories such as "Autism".

Also, cannabis does not cause paranoia in everyone who smokes it, and paranoia is a very mild negative side-effect of the drug, not something that justifies the substance's prohibition



So lets all look forward to the Big Revolution when humanity takes its next step in evolution into communism and we can all sit around smoking hash and injecting heroin into ourselves FFS lads do yous ever listen to yourselves do yous even live in the real world.
Where I come from High level traffickers and Dealers get shot for what you people are supporting.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/feb/15/inla-claims-responsibility-for-murder-of-derry-dru/

[Madvillainy]

Where I come from High level traffickers and Dealers get shot for what you people are supporting.

Why is that something to be proud of? Also how is that tactic working out?


btw the people here are supporting the legalization of drugs, they're not supporting drug dealers you muppet.

[Agrippa]

we can all sit around smoking hash and injecting heroin into ourselves

Well, what do you propose we do with the people who want to smoke hash and inject heroin after the revolution? Shoot them.

Marijuana has lots of appropriate medical uses, there are plenty of people who consume marijuana on a regular basis with only positive medical effects. Marijuana is more harmful to other people, because everyone's body responds to certain plants differently. Some people die from eating peanuts. The most harmful thing about marijuana is that smoking is the most popular method of consuming it, but people have been smoking on both hemispheres for hundreds of thousands of years. It doesn't destroy the greater society. It just destroys the individual's lungs. It's the individual's responsibility, the individual lives with the consequences, thus it's an individual choice. We're talking about taking five years off your life here, not completely destroying yourself and traumatizing your loved ones, like with crack, meth, heroin, etc.

And even heroin has certain medical uses. As far as ultra-potent painkillers go, it's one of the safest. Are you saying it's wrong for a dying woman in chronic, horrific pain shouldn't be allowed to shoot up if it makes her last days on Earth more enjoyable?


FFS lads do yous ever listen to yourselves do yous even live in the real world.
Where I come from High level traffickers and Dealers get shot for what you people are supporting.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/feb/15/inla-claims-responsibility-for-murder-of-derry-dru/

Dealers and traffickers get shot everywhere. Hell, I live in the US, where the state actually lets us all have guns. How often do you think people got shot in the urban neighborhoods I grew up in?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It only serves to punish users (overwhelmingly poor minorities) with prison sentences, and when they get out of prison, they go right back to using because no money goes toward rehabilitation. It creates a situation where those who are physically-addicted will ultimately resort to theft and violent crime in order to sustain their addiction because criminalization offers no real alternative. If these substances were decriminalized, all the money that currently goes into incarcerating drug users could be redirected to go into education, prevention, and rehabilitation - a real solution. Because if you think these laws - along with "the war on drugs" - exist to protect the worker, you're living in an alternate reality.


Legalization and decriminalization are not the same. There is a difference between legalizing production of heroin and making it no longer punishable by a prison sentence.


It is foolish to conflate the belief that drugs should not be illegal with the belief that people should use drugs. We do not believe they should be legal because we want more people to use them! It is because their status as "illegal" does nothing to prevent their use.It's fairly easy to make that conclusion when you support a policy that will make drugs cheaper, more potent, and far more available to the average person. Then we shall see how much money that goes towards dealing with drug-users.


btw the people here are supporting the legalization of drugs, they're not supporting drug dealers you muppet.
I think that big corporations spending millions to figure out the best ways to market heroin and produce it at the cheapest prices and largest quantities would surely qualify as drug dealers...

[IrishWorker]

Well, what do you propose we do with the people who want to smoke hash and inject heroin after the revolution? Shoot them.

Marijuana has lots of appropriate medical uses, there are plenty of people who consume marijuana on a regular basis with only positive medical effects. Marijuana is more harmful to other people, because everyone's body responds to certain plants differently. Some people die from eating peanuts. The most harmful thing about marijuana is that smoking is the most popular method of consuming it, but people have been smoking on both hemispheres for hundreds of thousands of years. It doesn't destroy the greater society. It just destroys the individual's lungs. It's the individual's responsibility, the individual lives with the consequences, thus it's an individual choice. We're talking about taking five years off your life here, not completely destroying yourself and traumatizing your loved ones, like with crack, meth, heroin, etc.

And even heroin has certain medical uses. As far as ultra-potent painkillers go, it's one of the safest. Are you saying it's wrong for a dying woman in chronic, horrific pain shouldn't be allowed to shoot up if it makes her last days on Earth more enjoyable?



Dealers and traffickers get shot everywhere. Hell, I live in the US, where the state actually lets us all have guns. How often do you think people got shot in the urban neighborhoods I grew up in?


Nobody is disputing there medicinal properties.

[Agrippa]

Nobody is disputing there medicinal properties.

So after the revolution we're going to have a legislative bureaucracy that's responsible for determining which uses are "medical" and which are "recreational", and punishing the latter while encouraging the former? That's just asking for trouble.

[Tomhet]

Legalization and decriminalization are not the same. There is a difference between legalizing production of heroin and making it no longer punishable by a prison sentence.

It's fairly easy to make that conclusion when you support a policy that will make drugs cheaper, more potent, and far more available to the average person. Then we shall see how much money that goes towards dealing with drug-users.
If by cheaper you mean not being monopolized into vicious lone wolf cycles, then yes.
If by more potent you mean a purer, thus higher quality product, then yes. A large percentage of drug related overdoses are due to impurities in contaminated product.
More available? that's ridiculous, I don't see how you could say that. Legalizing drugs means simply that, it does not advocate central promotion of psychoactives.

[Tomhet]

So after the revolution we're going to have a legislative bureaucracy that's responsible for determining which uses are "medical" and which are "recreational", and punishing the latter while encouraging the former? That's just asking for trouble.
That's asking for more then trouble, that entire system would span in identical fashion besides the use of psychoactives in other factors of society. It would be devastating. I do not believe one should be dictated what they can and cannot do to their own bodies, if it harms noone else.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

If by cheaper you mean not being monopolized into vicious lone wolf cycles, then yes.
If by more potent you mean a purer, thus higher quality product, then yes. A large percentage of drug related overdoses are due to impurities in contaminated product.
More available? that's ridiculous, I don't see how you could say that. Legalizing drugs means simply that, it does not advocate central promotion of psychoactives.

So what, you're going to legalize the use of the drug but not it's production? Follow your argument to it's logical conclusion.

[Agrippa]

make drugs cheaper, more potent, and far more available to the average person.

Those could all be percieved as positive things.

"Cheaper" means less money stolen from the working-class addict's paycheck, in other words, more food for groceries and rent.

"More potent" means that, as a general rule, people will have to consume less to get the "high" they want. It also means less dangerous, unnecessary additives.

"more available to the average person" means less risk of physical danger in obtaining it, and less acts of desperation to get it.

As I said before, I don't support legalization, per se, but I can see the good and bad of both situations.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Those could all be percieved as positive things.

"Cheaper" means less money stolen from the working-class addict's paycheck, in other words, more food for groceries and rent.

More than likely it just means they will buy more of it.


"more available to the average person" means less risk of physical danger in obtaining it, and less acts of desperation to get it.

It also means far more people using it, far more resources devoted to rehabilitating all these new users, etc.

[Agrippa]

From a revolutionary perspective, it's a good thing if our opponents waste resources.

And coffee is very cheap and legal. Most caffeine-addicts don't drink 20 or 30 cups of coffee though. (well, there are obvious exceptions, like my dad) A garden-variety pot-head is not going to smoke 20 or 30 joints just because weed is cheep and legal. People usuallly overdose on heroin and coke and shit because they don't know how potent it is and they accidentally use too much of it. That's less likely to happen if capitalists legalize and regulate the substances (I'm not advocating that as a solution, obviously)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

From a revolutionary perspective, it's a good thing if our opponents waste resources.

Less money towards social spending is not good from any perspective except that of the capitalists.


And coffee is very cheap and legal. Most caffeine-addicts don't drink 20 or 30 cups of coffee though. (well, there are obvious exceptions, like my dad) A garden-variety pot-head is not going to smoke 20 or 30 joints just because weed is cheep and legal. People usuallly overdose on heroin and coke and shit because they don't know how potent it is and they accidentally use too much of it. That's less likely to happen if capitalists legalize and regulate the substances (I'm not advocating that as a solution, obviously)

Comparing a caffeine addiction to a cocaine or heroin addiction is absurd, and as I said I'd support legalizing marijuana. Legalizing heroin or cocaine within the framework of capitalism means millions spent on marketing and producing heroin at the cheapest price and largest quantity possible, and making it as available as possible.

[Agrippa]

Less money towards social spending is not good from any perspective except that of the capitalists.

Capitalists are the ones who implemented policies of "social spending" in the first place, tho...


Comparing a caffeine addiction to a cocaine or heroin addiction is absurd, and as I said I'd support legalizing marijuana. Legalizing heroin or cocaine within the framework of capitalism means millions spent on marketing and producing heroin at the cheapest price and largest quantity possible, and making it as available as possible.

All these things are true, but certain material conditions would also be alleviated, for example, less prisoners, less police raids, more hygienic needles, slightly better health and safety standards, less power for organized criminals, etc. Like I said, I can see the bad and good in both situations, hence why I don't have a preference either way, and would rather communists focus on confronting capitalism rather than making ridiculous "demands", especially when we're not in a material position to demand anything...

[khad]

Dealers and traffickers get shot everywhere. Hell, I live in the US, where the state actually lets us all have guns. How often do you think people got shot in the urban neighborhoods I grew up in?
They get shot by republican and socialist paramilitaries for their exploitation of working class communities. They know what they are doing.

[9]

They get shot by republican and socialist paramilitaries for their exploitation of working class communities. They know what they are doing.

I've yet to see you make any argument on this topic aside from "don't argue with people from Northern Ireland, they get shot, they know what they are doing". Being from Northern Ireland doesn't give you a free pass to make stupid arguments and have everyone accept them as correct.

[pastradamus]

Personally I can only support the legalisation of Marijuana. Drugs like heroin should never be allowed to be widely available to people en masse IMO.

[khad]

I've yet to see you make any argument on this topic aside from "don't argue with people from Northern Ireland, they get shot, they know what they are doing". Being from Northern Ireland doesn't give you a free pass to make stupid arguments and have everyone accept them as correct.
I'd side with the communities taking action, doing what needs to be done, as opposed to internet "leftists" prescribing their theoretical politics. Yes, drug dealers get kneecapped and killed over there. And no, it's not stupid.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Drug dealers in Northern Ireland get kneecapped and executed by republicans, and working-class communities appreciate the service. They have their experience with this stuff.

I dont think that its only in the occupied six counties that drug dealers are rightly seen (they are after all business people) as class enemnies by working class people.

Drugs have been a very effective weapon of class war in the hands of the rich.

[khad]

I dont think that its only in the occupied six counties that drug dealers are rightly seen (they are after all business people) as class enemnies by working class people.

Drugs have been a very effective weapon of class war in the hands of the rich.
Historically, most revolutionary movements have taken a very tough stance on these substances and their dealers. I won't categorically accuse the people on this forum, but from my personal observations of the drug legalization crowd, a good many of them are middle class white potheads who can't even begin to imagine the human degradation and misery caused by crack cocaine and crystal meth. I have a friend who is African American who grew up in a somewhat rough area, and they used to have vigilante patrols against drug pushers. And here people are talking about making the government into the drug dealer, with the full support of the security apparatus of the state. Forgive me for being skeptical of the potential "social benefits."

I voted for the decriminalization of marijuana in my state, but this thread is proposing the legalization of cocaine, heroin, and meth. I've heard such talk before, mostly from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I'd side with the communities taking action, doing what needs to be done, as opposed to internet "leftists" prescribing their theoretical politics. Yes, drug dealers get kneecapped and killed over there. And no, it's not stupid.

The reality is that heroin has created death and havoc in working class communities in the south. And the police have been a lot more interested in targeting ordinary people striking back against the scumbags making money off their estates going too hell than the pushers...surprise, surprise...

Its all very well to be liberatarian in the abstract when its not your road thats suddenly unsafe to walk down and its not your mam's house that isnt being broken into.

Most victims of crime are working class.

[9]

Historically, most revolutionary movements have taken a very tough stance on these substances and their dealers. I won't categorically accuse the people on this forum, but from my personal observations of the drug legalization crowd, a good many of them are middle class white potheads who can't even begin to imagine the human degradation and misery caused by crack cocaine and crystal meth.

I voted for the decriminalization of marijuana in my state, but this thread is proposing the legalization of cocaine and meth. I've heard such talk before, mostly from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Is there some reason that you insist on taking the Zionist-esque position that anyone who disagrees with your opinion can be categorically dismissed because they are a ? Is it really [I]that hard to state your opinion without making some attempt to discredit the argument of others based on reasons that have nothing to do with the actual argument they're making?
I live two miles away from a community of squatters who are almost all addicted to meth. Drug addiction is everywhere, and the violence and destruction that results from it (particularly from its criminalization) is everywhere as well, so knock of the holier-than-thou bullshit.

[which doctor]

The reality is that heroin has created death and havoc in working class communities in the south. And the police have been a lot more interested in targeting ordinary people striking back against the scumbags making money off their estates going too hell than the pushers...surprise, surprise...
This "death and havoc" you speak is a result of the war on drugs and socio-economic conditions, not the drugs themselves. It is possible to sustain a heroin habit in reasonably safe manner if you have the means to support it and are not affected by the war on drugs. Not all heroin addicts are miserable, wretched black people in the ghetto who have to cop on the street.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Is there some reason that you insist on taking the Zionist-esque position that anyone who disagrees with your opinion can be categorically dismissed because they are a [insert stereotype here]? .

You dont seem to understand that in a lot of working class neighbourhoods there is a struggle between ordinary people and pushers who are essentially business people dealing death and destruction.

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10134

Let trendy lefties be as liberatarian as they want but what about the liberty of ordinary people to bring up their kids in safety and know that their elderly parents will be safe at night from drug created psychopaths?

Khad I think is right to persume what he does given the knowledge of what drugs do to working class communities. I dont know how anyone could persume otherwise.

Again the struggle against the pushers is part of the class struggle. Its not accident that the smashing of the national liberation movement of the capitave african nation in the USA coincided with the influx of drugs into those communities.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

This "death and havoc" you speak is a result of the war on drugs and socio-economic conditions, not the drugs themselves. It is possible to sustain a heroin habit in reasonably safe manner if you have the means to support it and are not affected by the war on drugs. Not all heroin addicts are miserable, wretched black people in the ghetto who have to cop on the street.

We are not talking about sociopathic self-indulgent middle class brats. Such scum do you think will honestly be allowed to carry on in their fucked-upness in any type of socialist society?

We are talking about real communites that for all their problemns were a lot better off without real, actual addicts preying off them and the pushers (who are business men after all) preying off the addicts.

Do you agree or disagree with working class militants putting bullets in the kneecaps of drug-dealers in the context of the actual reality we live in or not?

[9]

You dont seem to understand that in a lot of working class neighbourhoods there is a struggle between ordinary people and pushers who are essentially business people dealing death and destruction.

http://www.iwca.info/?p=10134

Let trendy lefties be as liberatarian as they want but what about the liberty of ordinary people to bring up their kids in safety and know that their elderly parents will be safe at night from drug created psychopaths?

Khad I think is right to persume what he does given the knowledge of what drugs do to working class communities. I dont know how anyone could persume otherwise.

Again the struggle against the pushers is part of the class struggle. Its not accident that the smashing of the national liberation movement of the capitave african nation in the USA coincided with the influx of drugs into those communities.

You don't seem to understand that the "pushers" and the "influx of drugs into [african american] communities" in the US didn't occur in an environment where drugs were legal. All of the very real problems that you are identifying are a result of the criminalization of drugs. What about that are you not comprehending?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

You don't seem to understand that the "pushers" and the "influx of drugs into [african american] communities" in the US didn't occur in an environment where drugs were legal. All of the very real problems that you are identifying are a result of the criminalization of drugs. What about that are you not comprehending?

Heroin and cocaine have the same destructive effects on people's personality whether they are legal or illegal. I am sure that the Black Panther Party if it hadnt been smashed by the state would have had the exact same attitudde to scum (whether legally or illegally) peddling that pioson in their communities as working class militants in Ireland do now. I am undecided about whether cannibis should be tolerated but liberatarian arguments about drugs that ignore the social nature of people will never convince me of anything.

[Il Medico]

I'm guessing that most people here have not had to deal with meth and crackheads. Decriminalization of such harmful substances, maybe, but people are foolish to think that intensely addictive hard drugs like that are able to be consumed "safely."
I never said it would be safe, but neither is drinking or smoking tobacco. It is a personal choice, and yes some people get hooked. If I want to sort cocaine that is my business. And legalizing it will allow a safety net for people who overdose, for their companions will no long have to chose between a lengthy prison sentence and taking their buddy to the hospital. It will also allow for real drug education, keeping it illegal is foolish and only creates more of a public hazard. Oh, by the way, three house down from me is a crack house, so piss off I have to deal with addicts everyday.



This is simply ridiculous. I thought socialists were supposed to care about the general welfare of the public.
We do, that's why we advocate legalizing it. It will allow real education on the topic, get the thousands of working class people in jail for possession out, and it will put the violent fucking drug dealers out of business.



Get off your high horse first. Drug dealers in Northern Ireland get kneecapped and executed by republicans, and working-class communities appreciate the service. They have their experience with this stuff.
I would love for some republicans to come over here and kill some drug dealing scum. I never said I supported drug dealers. And I don't see how you could come to that assumption. However, instead of killing the drug dealers, most of which, where I live anyways, come from the same neighborhoods they sell to and are working people turned to crime to make a living. Make it legal and they will have to stop being violent pricks and make an honest living, or if they keep their ways, then they'll be out of business.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I never said it would be safe, but neither is drinking or smoking tobacco. It is a personal choice, and yes some people get hooked. If I want to sort cocaine that is my business. And legalizing it will allow a safety net for people who overdose, for their companions will no long have to chose between a lengthy prison sentence and taking their buddy to the hospital. It will also allow for real drug education, keeping it illegal is foolish and only creates more of a public hazard. Oh, by the way, three house down from me is a crack house, so piss off I have to deal with addicts everyday.

Getting rid of prison sentences and having rehabilitation programs and real drug education do not require the legalization of those drugs, just their decriminalization. Totally different.


It will also allow for real drug education, keeping it illegal is foolish and only creates more of a public hazard. You haven't justified that at all.



We do, that's why we advocate legalizing it. It will allow real education on the topic, get the thousands of working class people in jail for possession out, and it will put the violent fucking drug dealers out of business.You've yet to explain why any of that requires legalization. Why would we be interested in replacing one set of violent fucking drug dealers for another?


I would love for some republicans to come over here and kill some drug dealing scum. I never said I supported drug dealers. And I don't see how you could come to that assumption.Well, legalizing heroin use but not heroin production wouldn't make much sense, so it's only logical to assume that you support allowing business to produce and sell drugs, and if you don't then you're effectively just supporting decriminalization. They'd be more accountable to the public, sure, but still drug dealers.


However, instead of killing the drug dealers, most of which, where I live anyways, come from the same neighborhoods they sell to and are working people turned to crime to make a living. Make it legal and they will have to stop being violent pricks and make an honest living, or if they keep their ways, then they'll be out of business.And then the people with the necessary capital get to take up their position as violent pricks making a dishonest living.

[khad]

Oh, by the way, three house down from me is a crack house, so piss off I have to deal with addicts everyday.
And hypothetically if you had a family and these pushers turned them into a bunch of crack-addled cripples, would you complain?

No, wait, crack is legal and these people have the full protection of the cops.

All legalization (we're not talking about decriminalization) does is allow hoodlums to become "legitimate" businessmen. The big fish will set up shop with their shiny new corporate licenses.

[Il Medico]

And hypothetically if you had a family and these pushers turned them into a bunch of crack-addled cripples, would you complain?

No, wait, crack is legal and these people have the full protection of the cops.

All legalization (we're not talking about decriminalization) does is allow hoodlums to become "legitimate" businessmen. The big fish will set up shop with their shiny new corporate licenses.
So what? If my family was stupid enough to use crack and get hooked how is it my bad? It's their fault and that could happen if it is illegal anyways. And yes, it called capitalism, of course the bourgeois will make a market out of it (the more violent already have). The rest make a killing off of it being illegal, the court system is a racket, and all the working class people going to jail for using are lining the bourgeois pockets anyways. At least the bourgeois business men are somewhat responsible to the public. The Cartels don't care, they will gut you and leave you in an alley, it is nothing to them. Those guys thrive because of it being illegal, in the same way Mafia thugs thrived when alcohol was illegal. Plus, when since do leftist get off on telling people what they can and can't use? So what if it is bad? If I or anyone else wants to do it, we should be able to.

[Klaatu]

Interesting things about heroin

It was marketed by Bayer, (the same company marketing aspirin) in the 19th century

It was thought to be more effective as a painkiller than morphine

But turned out to be five times as addicting as morphine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin

[Jimmie Higgins]

Drugs (as illegal substances) are used in the US to justify imperialism abroad and class war at home.

Aside from simply locking people up, drugs fit an ideological need for US capitalism: our rulers tell us that capitalism is perfect and the problems in society come from people who can't control themselves and do drugs.

There was a wholsale attack on unions and urban blacks in the 1980s by the US government. So was suffering in cities the result of racism in housing, cutting social programs at the same time as industry is leaving for non-union states in the southern US? No it was because black people like crack according to our government.

The illegality of drugs allows cops to pull over any group of young, black, or latino males in "routine stops"; it gives cover to racial profiling and the huge prison system.

Decriminalizing drugs would be a huge blow against the power of the state and the ideological power of the system; working class communities would be measurably better-off just by the fact that cps would be robbed of their favorite excuse for cracking heads. Additionally, decriminalizing drugs would also necissarily open a debate about having real health care in the US and how to treat additiction.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So what? If my family was stupid enough to use crack and get hooked how is it my bad? It's their fault and that could happen if it is illegal anyways.

I think you should remove that "Marxist" title from under your name. This is idealism, not Marxism. You sound like a libertarian.


And yes, it called capitalism, of course the bourgeois will make a market out of it (the more violent already have). The rest make a killing off of it being illegal, the court system is a racket, and all the working class people going to jail for using are lining the bourgeois pockets anyways. How does people going to jail line the pockets of the bourgeoisie? Why do you continuously ignore the difference between legalization and decriminalization?


At least the bourgeois business men are somewhat responsible to the public. The Cartels don't care, they will gut you and leave you in an alley, it is nothing to them. Those guys thrive because of it being illegal, in the same way Mafia thugs thrived when alcohol was illegal. Yes, and they also have the capability to turn it into a much larger problem. I can just see you sitting there after millions have been spent making sure heroin is twice as cheap and advertised everywhere, hundreds of thousands have become addicted, and millions that would have been going to more productive social programs are being spent on rehab: "It's their fault because they're stupid."


Plus, when since do leftist get off on telling people what they can and can't use? So what if it is bad? If I or anyone else wants to do it, we should be able to.The point isn't to prevent people from using it, it's to keep it from being available in the first place. Decriminalization would not punish people for using it, but legalizing it would make sure it's pretty much shoved right in your face. Since when do leftists get off on telling the bourgeois what they can and can't produce? It's their property! They have individual rights!

[9]

So you would be of the view, then, that capitalist society has drug laws in place in order to prevent capitalist society from making a profit off of selling drugs.
"How does people going to jail line the pockets of the bourgeoisie?" The prison-industrial complex.
You should read this: http://dailyuw.com/2007/2/14/panel-encourages-legalization-of-drugs/
And, in particular, you should consider our violent offensives throughout South America in the name of the "war on drugs".

[IrishWorker]

As socialists we should be setting a example we should be moral and strive for equality we should be persons who people look to for guidance as a alternative to the Establishment or Religion.
The people on here supporting the legalization of certain recreational drugs are misguided I have seen the damage heroin dose as many of you probably have and believe it would be a social disaster to legalize it wide spread legal use of Recreational Drugs would lead to more poverty and misery just look at the damage alcohol dose.
Wise up lads.

[khad]

How does people going to jail line the pockets of the bourgeoisie? Why do you continuously ignore the difference between legalization and decriminalization?
Because it nullifies their argument. None of the pro- crowd has addressed this distinction.

I think this thread illustrates just how pervasive libertarian brainwashing has become.

They claim not to support drug dealers, but then they support legalization which would make the state and its corporations into the biggest drug dealers in existence. As the saying goes, the market will sort it out. :ohmy:

[Sasha]

didnt read the whole thread so i might kick in some open doors but:



The people on here supporting the legalization of certain recreational drugs are misguided I have seen the damage heroin dose as many of you probably have and believe it would be a social disaster to legalize it wide spread legal use of Recreational Drugs would lead to more poverty and misery just look at the damage alcohol dose.


but you work on the presumption that legal drugs would lead to an increase in drug use, first of all, no one thats pro-legalisation here is arguing that you should be able to buy smack in the supermarket and that it will be promoted in apealing advertisements on primetime television, no it would be availeble from for example pharmacys and advertisemnt would be banded like it should be for tabacco and alcohol.
If i step now out of my house and bike to the "bad" neighboorhood i'm already able to scrore heroin from an dealer within 15 minutes, just about the time it would take me to go to the pharmacy if it was legal. So i dont see how legalisation would lead to an increase other than through it maybe getting social more acceptable, but drinking alacohol is social acceptable but being an alcoholic is not, so i think that deterent would still be in place.
and like i said before, no one is saying that legalisation would mean that we should take drugs lightly, it should still be serious buisness and getting it at the pharamcy instead of your local drugdealer would only increase that because at the pharamcy i would get an good flyer explaining the risks, adresses for help in case of adiction and good quality stuff.

wich brings me to my second point; the health and social problems with drugs are not caused by the drug it self but by the quality, the price and the lack of availebility of healthier alternatives.

let me explain:

price - with most drugs its not the drug that hurts but the economics behind it, morphine is almost identical to heroin (its has for sure the same health risks) yet all those doctors with an morphine adiction can perform perfectly for an long long time yet poor smack junkies wither away. why? its not beacuse of the different dope, look at the rock stars that took more heroin than most junkies could ever take, they might look an bit shitty in the end buth i dont see iggypop or keith moon dying anytime soon yet poor junkies do. so again why? because of the price, poor junkies barely can pay the high prices and so dont take care of themselfs anymore because all their money goes to dope instead of good food, shelter, medication etc etc (this explains the personal health damage) also they have to resort to stealing (social damage).
legal drugs would mean dropping prices wich would mean putting the dealers out of buisness wich would mean that a. junkies can spend their money on take care ofthemself instead of on drugs and b. make them more availble to help.

quality - drugs like heroin cocain, xtc are not dangerous from it self but from the stuff they are cut up with/made with:
again look at addicts of morphine wich is basicly realy good heroin or look at the difrence between an crack/basecoke junkie and an cocain adicted yuppie.
or even better whats the big diference between aderol/ritalin and speed? its not the basic chemical propertys thats is almost identical, no its that the former are made in a labority and the other in a dinky shed out of flares, kittylitter and old car bateries.
quality matters plain and simple.
legalisation would enable the goverment to guard quality and prevent contamination.

alternatives - why would anybody do fore mentioned speed if they can get aderol? they cant get aderol without perscription.
why is meth so populair when its so dangerous? because its cheap, its the best buzz most people their money can buy
why would anybody do shit low grade crack if they could get grade A cocain?
why are people turning away from XTC and onto the very dangerous GHB? because xtc is getting more and more contaminated and good xtc very hard to find.
again, legalisation (and the consequently lower prices & better quality) would change all that.

anyway all this sound arguments aside, prohibition clearly isn't working so lets try sommething difrent.
banning drugs is as usefull as trying to ban people from having sex

[Jimmie Higgins]

The real question here for marxists and radical anarchists is why are drugs illegal and what role does their illegality play for the capitalist state.

The capitalists do not care about our safety or health - the country with the biggest war on drugs and highest incarcerations is the US and we don't even have universal health care.

All temperance movements come from bourgeois ideology: drinking is bad, they reason, it causes poverty and unhappiness among workers. Radicals understand that it's the misery of life under capitalism leads them to the bottle (not to mention that capitalism is the real cause for poverty, not drug and alcohol problems).

[IrishWorker]

didnt read the whole thread so i might kick in some open doors but:



but you work on the presumption that legal drugs would lead to an increase in drug use, first of all, no one thats pro-legalisation here is arguing that you should be able to buy smack in the supermarket and that it will be promoted in apealing advertisements on primetime television, no it would be availeble from for example pharmacys and advertisemnt would be banded like it should be for tabacco and alcohol.
If i step now out of my house and bike to the "bad" neighboorhood i'm already able to scrore heroin from an dealer within 15 minutes, just about the time it would take me to go to the pharmacy if it was legal. So i dont see how legalisation would lead to an increase other than through it maybe getting social more acceptable, but drinking alacohol is social acceptable but being an alcoholic is not, so i think that deterent would still be in place.
and like i said before, no one is saying that legalisation would mean that we should take drugs lightly, it should still be serious buisness and getting it at the pharamcy instead of your local drugdealer would only increase that because at the pharamcy i would get an good flyer explaining the risks, adresses for help in case of adiction and good quality stuff.

wich brings me to my second point; the health and social problems with drugs are not caused by the drug it self but by the quality, the price and the lack of availebility of healthier alternatives.

let me explain:

price - with most drugs its not the drug that hurts but the economics behind it, morphine is almost identical to heroin (its has for sure the same health risks) yet all those doctors with an morphine adiction can perform perfectly for an long long time yet poor smack junkies wither away. why? its not beacuse of the different dope, look at the rock stars that took more heroin than most junkies could ever take, they might look an bit shitty in the end buth i dont see iggypop or keith moon dying anytime soon yet poor junkies do. so again why? because of the price, poor junkies barely can pay the high prices and so dont take care of themselfs anymore because all their money goes to dope instead of good food, shelter, medication etc etc (this explains the personal health damage) also they have to resort to stealing (social damage).
legal drugs would mean dropping prices wich would mean putting the dealers out of buisness wich would mean that a. junkies can spend their money on take care ofthemself instead of on drugs and b. make them more availble to help.

quality - drugs like heroin cocain, xtc are not dangerous from it self but from the stuff they are cut up with/made with:
again look at addicts of morphine wich is basicly realy good heroin or look at the difrence between an crack/basecoke junkie and an cocain adicted yuppie.
or even better whats the big diference between aderol/ritalin and speed? its not the basic chemical propertys thats is almost identical, no its that the former are made in a labority and the other in a dinky shed out of flares, kittylitter and old car bateries.
quality matters plain and simple.
legalisation would enable the goverment to guard quality and prevent contamination.

alternatives - why would anybody do fore mentioned speed if they can get aderol? they cant get aderol without perscription.
why is meth so populair when its so dangerous? because its cheap, its the best buzz most people their money can buy
why would anybody do shit low grade crack if they could get grade A cocain?
why are people turning away from XTC and onto the very dangerous GHB? because xtc is getting more and more contaminated and good xtc very hard to find.
again, legalisation (and the consequently lower prices & better quality) would change all that.

anyway all this sound arguments aside, prohibition clearly isn't working so lets try sommething difrent.
banning drugs is as usefull as trying to ban people from having sex


And this is why you and your politics are irrelevant to the workers.
Wise up and look at the many community against drugs movements throughout the world. Are they just *****in for the sake of it?
No................they are *****in because peoples lives have been ruined family’s have been torn apart youth has been tainted and the war againt drugs has been lost.
FFS catch yourselves on and stop having your joints and talking shit on here My left group is better than your left group and people who strive for a Marxist Ireland are nationalist ejits???????????????????
I am disappointed in the left for this vote it shows me how many people we has to disassociate from the left in Ireland to make a difference.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And this is why you and your politics are irrelevant to the workers.
Wise up and look at the many community against drugs movements throughout the world. Are they just *****in for the sake of it?
No................they are *****in because peoples lives have been ruined family’s have been torn apart youth has been tainted and the war againt drugs has been lost.
FFS catch yourselves on and stop having your joints and talking shit on here My left group is better than your left group and people who strive for a Marxist Ireland are nationalist ejits???????????????????
I am disappointed in the left for this vote it shows me how many people we has to disassociate from the left in Ireland to make a difference.



Are you arguing that alcohol should be outlawed too? By your logic it should because there are temperance movements.

I live in a working class area of Oakland California and people do not like drug dealers or addicts, but do you know who they like less? The police who use the war on drugs to brutalize people and pull over any young black man they want and fill our prisons with young minorities. The drug war is nothing but a disguised class war in the US and most working class people I know realize this and are angry about it.

Clearly drug and alcohol abuse are problems, but are they they cause of misery in capitalism or a symptom of the system?

[khad]

To those who are claiming that coke and heroin habits can be "safe," crap like this doesn't even need to be dignified with a rebuttal.

[Nakidana]

wich brings me to my second point; the health and social problems with drugs are not caused by the drug it self

Drugs such as cannabis, tobacco and heroin are bad for your health. Nothing to do with being a purist, it's a fact based on epidemiological research. The physician might have access to cleaner drugs but they're still unhealthy. Same thing with medication. It might be "clean" but it still has side effects that will degrade your health. (In other words don't take medication for no reason)

My point is just because you legalise drugs and make them more "clean" it doesn't change the fact that they're still fundamentally bad for your health, especially if you get an addiction.

I thanked your post because I agree that currently getting hold of drugs is almost as easy as going to the supermarket which makes the illegality of it absurd. Also I agree that legalisation should go hand in hand with an informational campaign against drugs.

[Sasha]

And this is why you and your politics are irrelevant to the workers.

whoooo cheap empty "WORKER!" sloganeering, maybe you should actualy try and have an informed debate instead of dribbeling this kind of meaningless statements.
anyway i'm not an worker activist i'm an community activist, and i see that the war on drugs is hurting the community way more than the actual drugs, and that aside. again, i think we can agree that prohibition clearly doesn't work, so lets try sommething else.


Wise up and look at the many community against drugs movements throughout the world. Are they just *****in for the sake of it?

no, but they might be missinformed, atacking the wrong enemy.
dont forget there are also many "community against those pesky darkies who come and live our street" or "community against homosexuals" movements througout the world.


No................they are *****in because peoples lives have been ruined family’s have been torn apart
yes, lives has been ruined, but if you would have taken the effort too read my coherent arguments thats not because of the fundamental nature of THA DRUGZ!!! but thanx to the complex social, political and economical dynamics around it


the war againt drugs has been lost.
yay! sommething we can agree on, and its not only lost but it also cant be won, so again, lets try sommething else



FFS catch yourselves on and stop having your joints and talking shit on here bla bla bla, shouldnt dignify this with an response but lets take the opertunity and point out that i and my fellow dutch smoke far less pot than people in most other western country's although weed & hash is legal here and for sale on almost every corner of the street. i think that that is an strong backing of my argument


My left group is better than your left group
i'm an autonomist, i'm not part of an group (other than topic based iniatives)




To those who are claiming that coke and heroin habits can be "safe," crap like this doesn't even need to be dignified with a rebuttal.


Drugs such as cannabis, tobacco and heroin are bad for your health. Nothing to do with being a purist, it's a fact based on epidemiological research. The physician might have access to cleaner drugs but they're still unhealthy. Same thing with medication. It might be "clean" but it still has side effects that will degrade your health. (In other words don't take medication for no reason)

My point is just because you legalise drugs and make them more "clean" it doesn't change the fact that they're still fundamentally bad for your health, especially if you get an addiction.


offcourse there are negative apects for your health, i never said there werent, but its complex.
yes smoking canabis is bad for you (it contains tar and other shit like tabaco) but THC (the most important "drug" chemical) is not. So lets spend time and money trying to develop more healthy/less damaging ways of taking THC, and there are already, spacecake is not bad for you, smoking an vaporiser is not bad for you.

and yes heroin is bad for you, i wouldn't want to look like keithmoon or iggy pop but its not as bad as people would want you to believe, again its the socio-economics behind it that do the most damage. Its used to be so that the dutch heroin addicts were droping like fly's, the average live span was measured in years not decades, since the dutch goverment started giving them free, medical grade heroin a few years ago we now have to start building special elderly homes for them. (and both the amount of addicts and the social dammage they cousse have dropped dramaticly btw)
yes an heroin adiction is bad for your health, but in essence i doesnt have to be more bad for your health than eating too much junkfood, and no one calls to start an war on the local chippy now do we?

and lets not forget, with legalisation would come an organised scientific effort to find safer ways to take drugs with less negative side effetcs and less chances to addiction.
this wile prohabition only helps encouring finding ways to make drugs more easy and cheaper (so made of junk) and more addictive (look at the development of crack or the way XTC went from "quite safe, pure laborety grade MDMA produced by bayer"stuff from back in the days to the "you never now what they put in there in that shed might be MDMA might be ratpoison" that you get now)

again, not much damage in taking medicaly produces aderol/ritalin orally but injecting amephetamins made out of flares, catlitter and car batteries yes, thats not very healty.

[Coggeh]

Sad result on this poll, it shows the caliber of people the workers have representing them pot smoking middle class lefties.
Has anyone ever seen the damage Drugs do to Working Class communities at first hand?
It’s not a pretty sight.
Recreational Drugs are just another weapon in the capitalist arsenal to oppress the Workers.
And the 'drug war' is doing anything to stop it ? making them illegal is exactly why its causing so much crime in working class areas . Making it illegal just drives it underground it doesn't deal with the problem in any way .

Your attack that anyone who voted yes is some 'middle class lefty' is infantile and dumbfounded .

And if you really believed in your own argument you'd be calling for the banning of alcohol as that even though it is controlled still destroys families . Image what it would do if it was illegal .

[NoMore]

this is sort of a late reply...

I
This is simply ridiculous. I thought socialists were supposed to care about the general welfare of the public.


1.)Making drug illegal causes a war and hurts more people than if drugs were legal. The illeagalization of drugs is futile and a waste of valuable time and resources. It has been proved with many other prohibitions over the course of human history.

2.)I care deeply about people, but I also care about the liberties that they are supposed to have including the freedom to be stupid as long as they don't hurt anybody else. I think that society should do everything possible to prevent people from using drugs through education.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that people who want to use drugs are going to use them whether there is a law against it or not, and we should use more effort for prevention than reaction.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I think drugs should be legalized. Here are my thoughts:

1. If drugs were legalized then the risk taken by drug-users would be reduced. Things such as clean syringes would be available and there could be regulations put in place to stop drugs being cut with potentially lethal substances, e.g. horse tranquilizer.
2. Being imprisoned for possession of drugs is interfering with a person's right to do what they want with their own body.
3. In 'gang territories', so much of the trouble is fuelled by drugs - legalization doesn't make these problems go away, but it removes the shame of being a 'druggie' and the fear of being imprisoned.
4. For actual addicts, the constant threat of jail looms over their heads and makes their situation far worse than it needs to be. They need support, not punishment.
5. A lot of young people are drawn into taking drugs as an act of rebellion or because of the mystery surrounding them. The fact that they're illegal probably appeals to many teenagers' wish to be daring.
6. It would hopefully alleviate some of the hysteria and blind panic that Middle America (well actually...most of America) treats drug use with. Once this is done, people will be able to see things clearly and talk openly and sensibly about drug use as a choice, rather than a sin. Rather than sending out a message 'DRUGS KILL, DON'T TOUCH DRUGS, DON'T TOUCH DRUGS', young people could actually be given level-headed and useful information so that they can make the decision for themselves. Not only would it reduce risk and stigma, it could possibly reduce the number of drug addicts.

I actually don't agree with taking drugs; they have messed up so many people's lives, especially drugs like heroin or cocaine. But even I can see that the benefits of making drugs legal outweigh the disadvantages. I'm still in favour of discouraging drug use, but this hysteria surrounding it is just insane. Some people take drugs - get over it!