Legalize or Decriminalize, or Keep illegal. [Archive]

Verix

16th June 2009, 04:51

i voted "I am under 20- legal" but it really depends on the drug, pot and LSD are harmless. crack and heroine will screw you life up, and PCP will make you eat your girlfriend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lurch) now i dont think people sould be throwen in jail for using stuff like crack cocain it does not help anybody, however i dont think it sould be sold in stores because it ruins lives and gives capatalists another grip over workers, i think if caught using crack heroin any "bodyfuck" drugs you sould be sent to mandatory rehab till your clean, as for pot and LSD, exatsy, mushrooms etc they are harmless and sould be sold to anyone 15 or older (there sould be laws against using them and driving ofcourse particually for people under 21) as for cocain, liquor, and tabbaco, i think the current laws for liquor and tabbaco are good and sould also apply to cocain, there sould also be free rehab for anybody who is addicted to one of these and wants to get clean.

jake williams

16th June 2009, 05:10

Probably the best thing would be some sort of regulation - of varying degree - but decriminalize at very least.

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 05:39

I do hereby thank my adoring fans. I extend the love back at ya, you are my heroes!:D

bobroberts

16th June 2009, 06:51

All drugs should be legal, while access to them is controlled based on addictiveness, intoxication, and health impact. Cannabis should be as legal as NyQuil, while heroin or meth should be available in controlled environments where addicts can have access to doctors and rehabilitation programs if they choose.

The only way to blunt the negative impact of drugs is to undercut those who try to profit from their sale and promotion, and to make efforts to ensure that people are using them safely. Deny the illegal and legal markets the ability to sell them for profit.

Illegality stops no one, unless you establish an intrusive and oppressive police state. Decriminalization merely allows the black markets to flourish, although generally with less violence. The only real solution is legalization and appropriate regulation.

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 06:51

PCP will make you eat your girlfriend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lurch) e .
Oh My God!:scared:

teenagebricks

16th June 2009, 09:03

Decriminalise everything, people need freedom, and they certainly don't need babysitting, but drug abuse should be discouraged. I don't want crackheads smoking their pipes outside schools and things but if they want to do that in private i.e. in their homes or in a field somewhere then that's fine.

In an ideal world softer drugs like marijuana, LSD, ecstacy, etc. would be as socially acceptable as alcohol and tobacco.

Angry Young Man

16th June 2009, 10:10

I voted decriminalised but I probably mistook what it meant. They should be legal, I think, and available in rationed quantities.

Sasha

16th June 2009, 10:27

i'm an bouncer and looking at all the agresive fucks on booze (and a lot of times in combination with coke and speed) @ my work and i wish we could sell quality XTC at the bar, it would make my work so much easyer (although maybe obsolete :))

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 17:08

mykittyhasaboner

16th June 2009, 17:13

We should de-criminalize Captain Jack.

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 17:23

We should de-criminalize Captain Jack.
:laugh:

I full heartedly agree. People should have the right to do me with out fear of prison!:laugh:

Panda Tse Tung

16th June 2009, 17:54

since when did LSD turn into a softer drug?

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 17:58

since when did LSD turn into a softer drug?
I don't know about softer, but it certainly isn't as bad as say heroin or crack cocaine. It is mainly a drug used to expand consciousness, and I am not sure, but I believe it is not as addictive as the other before mentioned substances.

piet11111

16th June 2009, 20:31

24 decriminalise

i am hesitant to make hard drugs easily available because they have clear health hazards.

soft drugs should be just as easy to get as cigarettes.

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 21:03

soft drugs should be just as easy to get as cigarettes.
Totally agree, pot should be sold at 7-11 in my opinion.

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 21:57

Drugs are bad mkay? (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103414/)
No kay.

Qayin

17th June 2009, 00:32

Ive done the majority of Psychedelics and a few others.

Who in a leftist society would enforce a moral view to keep them illegal?

BabylonHoruv

17th June 2009, 00:58

I notice two things here. One, people on this board are really young. I seem to be one of only two people to respond over the age of 30. Two, people don't know shit about drugs. MDMA (extasy) is a derivative of Methamphetime which is one of those eat your girlfriend drugs. It is physically highly destructive and has been shown to cause serious physical damage to the brain when used in a chronic fashion (MDMA that is, not just Meth).

I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs, including methamphetemine, Heroin, PCP and whatnot, however it is vital that there also be adequate education regarding the real effects of using them.

Il Medico

17th June 2009, 02:54

Qayin

17th June 2009, 03:19

MDMA (extasy) is a derivative of Methamphetime which is one of those eat your girlfriend drugs. It is physically highly destructive and has been shown to cause serious physical damage to the brain when used in a chronic fashion (MDMA that is, not just Meth).

bullshit its not even in the same chemical class.
And the neurotoxity is highly disputed

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_faq.shtml
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity.shtml

Klaatu

17th June 2009, 03:36

Drugs should remain against the law, but be decriminalized. For example, my state (Michigan) formerly had a "650 gram lifer law" which imposed a life sentence on anyone in possession of >650 g of controlled substance. The thing is, the only ones getting caught were the "mules," those stupid enough to transport this large amount. A dope dealer could hire some poor stooge to "drive this package across town" for some small fee, and when caught, it was then the carrier who suffered the brunt of the penalty, and the drug kingpin could avoid trouble all together. A public outcry has forced the state to repeal this stupid law. The U.S. Federal Government is also set to repeal excessive fines for freebase (crack) cocaine.

In fact the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

However, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise:

Harmelin v. Michigan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmelin_v._Michigan

Which ultimately led to this:

Michigan Legislature Repeals Draconian Sentences
http://www.famm.org/ExploreSentencing/StateSentencing/MichiganFAMMCampaign/MichiganPressReleases/MichiganLegislatureRepealsDraconianSentences.aspx

Qayin

17th June 2009, 04:19

Drugs should remain against the lawwho would enforce this is a stateless classless society?

I wouldn't mind a Netherlands type of decriminalization due to the fact it works compared to this shit American system. Theirs a documentary I watched on showtime called American Drug War: The last white hope. I suggest you all watch it,its easy to find on torrent networks.

The U.S. Federal Government is also set to repeal excessive fines for freebase (crack) cocaine.
Good,it was a racist fucking law.

Klaatu

17th June 2009, 05:50

I don't buy that stuff about the crack law being racist. There are plenty of white people smoking crack. They just tried to put a spin on it by calling it ray-cyst. The reason they increased penalties was (A) frustration, and (B) freebase is a cocaine salt, which is more soluble (in the bloodstream) than the slightly-soluble alkaloid cocaine. Fast solubility makes all the difference in drug effectiveness. That is why pharmaceutical drugs are always salts (e.g. Benedryl is "diphenhydramine•HCl") not just "diphenhydramine" alkaloid, which is far less effective.

LOLseph Stalin

17th June 2009, 06:04

I had to say decriminalized due to the fact that certain drugs such as Meth can be extremely harmful. Of course, the people who are already addicted and such shouldn't be convicted as criminals. They can't help that they had addiction problems. Instead they need to get help. Mosts drugs should be decriminalized with the exception of Marijuana which should be completely legal as it can also have health benefits. Many of the people who use Marijuana use it as a pain killer for pain that won't go away otherwise. With most other drugs, they're used due to addictions and once again these people shouldn't be punished because they have addiction problems.

Il Medico

17th June 2009, 19:38

who would enforce this is a stateless classless society?

No one, but we are discussing the legalization of it now.

BabylonHoruv

18th June 2009, 00:29

[QUOTE=xAMKx;1467905]bullshit its not even in the same chemical class.
And the neurotoxity is highly disputed

/QUOTE]

(I can't post links, so, just look it up in wikipedia for the reference)

Note the fact that the name includes methamphetemine, as it is, in fact, a derivative of methamphetemine. Both are amphetemines and they are chemically quite similar.

I am not disputing that there is undoubtedly a great deal of misinformation being put out by the anti-drug forces at a government level, and that MDMA can be used productively without serious risk of harm. However, considering it as a harmless fun drug is an attitude that can get a lot of people killed. It is a powerful intoxicant and should be approached with respect.

(Off to post some spam so that i will be allowed to post links.)

Qayin

18th June 2009, 01:24

Note the fact that the name includes methamphetemine, as it is, in fact, a derivative of methamphetemine. Both are amphetemines and they are chemically quite similar.

Its not an amphemine MDMA is a class of its own with other MDxx analogue drugs

RedAnarchist

18th June 2009, 02:37

I am 20-30- legal

Rather than teaching children from a young age that drugs are bad (which is only going to encourage people), I think that we instead teach people about the effects of drugs and about the responsibilities of using drugs and allow them to make their own choice. Alcohol is legal, yet most people know to be responsible drinkers.

Uppercut

18th June 2009, 21:45

Legalize!!!!

Il Medico

18th June 2009, 23:00

. Pot should not only be legalized, it should be mandatory.
You can not force someone to use a drug if they don't want to comrade. :closedeyes:

BabylonHoruv

19th June 2009, 03:53

You can not force someone to use a drug if they don't want to comrade. :closedeyes:

They do it to school kids all the time. Usually ritalin.

MarxSchmarx

19th June 2009, 08:08

You can not force someone to use a drug if they don't want to comrade. :closedeyes: They do it to school kids all the time. Usually ritalin.

That hardly makes it right.

Revy

19th June 2009, 08:15

I voted "I am 20-30- legal"

it was a confusing poll though. :unsure: It felt like the 2000 election all over again! (florida joke!:))

Il Medico

19th June 2009, 08:19

I voted "I am 20-30- legal"

it was a confusing poll though. :unsure: It felt like the 2000 election all over again! (florida joke!:))
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!:laugh::thumbup::D:lol:

Sorry mate. I was criticized before for it not being thorough enough, so. Love the Florida joke btw.

Klaatu

19th June 2009, 22:10

"Mosts drugs should be decriminalized with the exception of Marijuana which should be completely legal as it can also have health benefits."

I will have to strongly disagree. Inhalation of ultrafine particulate matter (smoke) has absolutely no health benefits. The opposite is true. Smoking is bad for health.

It is safer to eat pot in a salad or brownies. You can drink cannibis, in the form of tea.

Verix

20th June 2009, 05:15

i heard smoking it in a bowl is harmless too

20th June 2009, 06:30

i heard smoking it in a bowl is harmless too

It is not harmless, as long term smoking (of anything) is bad for the lungs. That said, there are many non-harmful alternatives to smoking it: eating it (not by itself, of course), drinking it (teas, shakes, etc), or using a vaporizer. I guess the vaporizer might still be "considered" smoking by some, though you are inhaling vapor instead of smoke, therefore bypassing all the negative health effects that result from inhaling smoke.

reddevil

20th June 2009, 23:48

to be frank, if i can't smoke dope it ain't my revolution

Killfacer

21st June 2009, 01:01

Im 19 and voted legal. Anyone who disagrees is a fucking idiot.

LOLseph Stalin

21st June 2009, 04:39

It is safer to eat pot in a salad or brownies. You can drink cannibis, in the form of tea.

I didn't specifically say "smoking marijuana has health benefits", but "Marijuana has health benefits. It has several uses and because of this it should not be made illegal. In various forms it can be used as a natural health product for one. Definitely way healthier than using prescription drugs all the time.

Klaatu

21st June 2009, 07:45

"Im 19 and voted legal. Anyone who disagrees is a fucking idiot."

Seriously?

Il Medico

21st June 2009, 07:55

Seriously?
Don't bother with him. That's just the way Killfacer rolls.

Klaatu

21st June 2009, 08:30

InsertNameHere

There are some pain-killer benefits to THC. Again, cannibis tea is a much safer alternative than "smoking."

Better in that combustion creates many undesirable byproducts, such as benzene (thought
to cause leukemia,) formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, fine particulates, etc (who needs all that?)

Bitter Ashes

21st June 2009, 10:55

I voted to legalise and I'm 24.
Who are our 50+ year olds? XD

21st June 2009, 13:59

All drugs should be freely available and instead of being wankers and saying NO THE PROLETARIAT ARE VULNERABLE THEY NEED PROTECTING.. we should be saying we'll build a society where people don't want to take drugs to get out their heads because their life is made shit by Capitalism.

Il Medico

21st June 2009, 15:13

I voted to legalise and I'm 24.
Who are our 50+ year olds? XD
FR is over 50.

Klaatu

21st June 2009, 19:34

Originally Posted by Ranma42
I voted to legalise and I'm 24.
Who are our 50+ year olds? XD
FR is over 50.
That's right. The younger folks here may not have seen much tragedy in their young lives. I've seen a lot of it. Not just from drugs, either. Years ago, I worked in a machine shop. I've actually witnessed guys get hands trapped in hydraulic presses, seen fingers ripped out of their sockets (blood everywhere) I've seen men suddenly keel over with a heart attack while on the job. I am not making this up. I've seen this and more.

We need to have workplace protections preventing worker injury. We cannot just say to the worker: "If you don't like this dangerous occupation, don't work here."

This whole thing about "free-choice" only goes so far anyway. What of those that are too naïve to protect themselves? For example, who would choose to work in a place where clearly dangerous conditions exist, but without protections of any sort? So shouldn't we have protections for restaurant and bar workers from second hand smoke? Shouldn't we have restrictions on dangerous drugs? No one would knowingly eat tainted food. Shouldn't we have restrictions on food safety? For driving, we have seat belts in cars. We have speed limits. Shouldn't we have protections for drivers?

Safety: It's all the same thing.

22nd June 2009, 02:26

That's right. The younger folks here may not have seen much tragedy in their young lives. I've seen a lot of it. Not just from drugs, either. Years ago, I worked in a machine shop. I've actually witnessed guys get hands trapped in hydraulic presses, seen fingers ripped out of their sockets (blood everywhere) I've seen men suddenly keel over with a heart attack while on the job. I am not making this up. I've seen this and more.

We need to have workplace protections preventing worker injury. We cannot just say to the worker: "If you don't like this dangerous occupation, don't work here."

This whole thing about "free-choice" only goes so far anyway. What of those that are too naïve to protect themselves? For example, who would choose to work in a place where clearly dangerous conditions exist, but without protections of any sort? So shouldn't we have protections for restaurant and bar workers from second hand smoke? Shouldn't we have restrictions on dangerous drugs? No one would knowingly eat tainted food. Shouldn't we have restrictions on food safety? For driving, we have seat belts in cars. We have speed limits. Shouldn't we have protections for drivers?

Safety: It's all the same thing.

Can you tie this in to your position on drugs? "Safety: It's all the same thing" doesn't address the complexity of this issue. For instance, with regard to this particular matter, one person might say safety means clean needles, pure product, and comprehensive drug education/rehabilitation whereas another person might say safety means banning all psychoactive substances.
In closing, I just want to say that this issue is not black and white and, though I am certainly of the opinion that drugs should be legal, both sides have legitimate points. I think we all ought to give both sides a fair hearing instead of resorting to the petty name-calling that was commonplace in the previous thread on this subject.

Klaatu

22nd June 2009, 03:40

"Can you tie this in to your position on drugs?"
My opposition to marijuana is really just the practice of "smoking" it. Eating or tea-drinking methods, OK.

Absolutely no driving a vehicle under the influence of it.

As long as THC is non-addicting, non-habit forming, and non-health threatening (including mental
health) I am precariously OK with pot. (Although I have not consumed any since the 1970s)

But definitely not anything psycho-active like LSD or PCP. Definitely not damaging drugs cocaine and heroin.

Drugs: Decriminalization, yes. Full and complete legality, no. You are right, this is a complex issue.

Comrade Anarchist

22nd June 2009, 03:50

i am under 20 and legal because people can show basic discretion to know pot LSD salvia are okay and crack, herione will fuck you up

Il Medico

22nd June 2009, 03:57

I think something everyone here could agree on is that along with choice and freedom comes responsibility. Like everything else that has inherent risk associated with it, it is the communities responsibility to try to insure the safest possible use of it. Education about the choice so that people don't kill themselves, is a necessity. I feel the illegality of this (an hence the don't do it approach to education on the matter) does more damage then the drugs themselves would do. I support legalization and at least decriminalization.

Love,
Captain Jack.

BabylonHoruv

23rd June 2009, 01:01

Quote:
[quote=
CaptainJack]You can not force someone to use a drug if they don't want to comrade. :closedeyes:
They do it to school kids all the time. Usually ritalin. That hardly makes it right.

That doesn't make it right

My point wasn't that it was right, my point was that it can be done, and is done routinely.

Jazzratt

23rd June 2009, 04:25

Safety: It's all the same thing.

No it isn't. Safety at work is very different from paternalistically seeking to keep people "safe" from drugs; I'm an absolute loss to think of the last time someone made an informed decision to willingly be involved in a car crash. People do, however, choose to take drugs all the damn time - whether or not you and your mates in the various war on drugs organisations want them to or not. Drugs, in fact, are the only thing I have seen where the way safety with them is not dictated by ways of mitigating things going wrong (like seatbelts in cars or cooling rods in nuclear reactors) but by prohibiting the action instead (the only parralell is the view that a lot of conservatives take that the only way to have safe sex is to have none at all. We all know how well that one pans out).

If you have any genuine concern for the safety of drug users you would support legalisation so that drugs can be provided at a certain standard rather than being the 70% active ingridient 30% plastic-bags-and-other-assorted-detritus bollocks they are now. Prohibition does nothing for the saftey of the user - think of moonshine and bathtub gin -- that's the level illegal drugs are at.

But definitely not anything psycho-active like LSD or PCP. Definitely not damaging drugs cocaine and heroin.

All recreational drugs (be they booze, pot, acid or whatever) are psychoactive, they mess with your breain chemistry which is why your mentality changes whilst under the influence. Still, using psychoactive to mean "hallucinogens & dissasociatives" as it seems you are I would argue that your ideas make no sense. LSD for instance is not, in and of itself, harmful (good luck consuming anywhere near the LD50) morons that take it and don't have someone there to look after them if they freak out or try to rugby tackle buses are what make it dangerous. But morons make everything dangerous, that's why they're morons and they generally wise up very quickly if they survive. Cocaine, admitedly, is much more likely to fuck your shit right up - I will admit that here and now - but so will alcohol and other readily available drugs which makes me wonder if you would ban them too and, if so, how the lessons of the prohibition era managed to sail so gracefully over your head.

Coggeh

23rd June 2009, 15:36

I voted under 20 and decriminalise , I believe marijuana and other 'soft' drugs should be legal . But drugs such as Heroin should be regulated in such a way that is progressive and actually works , rather than under the current tactics .

Sam_b

23rd June 2009, 15:45

I don't understand what age has got to do with this, really.

Jazzratt

23rd June 2009, 17:42

I don't understand what age has got to do with this, really.

Well as we all know older people automatically have more authoprity on these matters because being over 50 means you can never be largely ignorant of drugs and won't ever support idiotic/reactionary policies. Similarly being 20 or below means that you know nothing about drugs and spend all your time taking them so your opinion is invalid.

Or something.

Klaatu

23rd June 2009, 18:49

Klaatu

23rd June 2009, 18:53

Jazzrat, being young does not mean that one's opinion is invalid.
And being old does not mean that one's opinion is somehow superior.

Jazzratt

24th June 2009, 01:59

In as far as alcohol goes, prohibition was a bad idea, in and only because of the way it was imposed on the public. The 21st Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Repeal) repealed prohibition, which also gave individual states the authority to regulate manufacture and sale of alcohol. It does not so much regulate the use of it. Hence we have a rash of drunk drivers (killing people) alcohol-related broken families, liver disease, and deaths. Don't think we would not have these goodies under legal narcotics.

Most ordinary drinkers, though, do not drive under the influence. They do not break up their families because of "the demon drink" (and quite frankly placing all of the blame at the feet of alcohol is a lazy tactic.). They don't even die of liver failure all that often (given that liver problems only occur in people that drink too much.). Similarly what you don't get outside of prohibition is people going blind or getting mercurary poisoning from dodgy moonshine. You don't see the mob getting so involved in alcohol either, do you?

The car crash analogy is a good one, because we are effectively putting ourselves into some potential danger every time we get behind the wheel (especially if we drive too fast, drive drunk, or otherwise drive recklessly.) Same with drugs: in consuming them, we put ourselves in potential danger too.Drugs are dangerous and their may be negative consequences but that is never a reason to deny them to adults. To stretch the car analogy to breaking point we still allow people to use cars, we don't simply ban them and expect people to get dodgy cars which are prone to explosion or missing basic safety features off of street gangs.

Comparing LSD to THC is ridiculous. Apples and oranges. No comparison at all.LSD & THC are both psychoactive chemicals (which is broadly what this discussion is about), much as apples and oranges are both fruits [I'm aware "apples and oranges" is shorthand for "incomprable due to vast differences" but in this case I don't think its true]. They act on the brain in different ways but neither are particularly dangerous, even to the habitual user.

Oh and:

Jazzrat, being young does not mean that one's opinion is invalid.
And being old does not mean that one's opinion is somehow superior.

My post was meant to be ironic. I thought the over the top tone helped illustrate that.

Trystan

24th June 2009, 02:07

Legalise them all without exception.

Klaatu

25th June 2009, 02:02

Jazzratt

"Most ordinary drinkers, though, do not drive under the influence."

That may be true in England. But here in the U.S., most people who drink, drive too. It's ridiculous. For example, here is a bar, with a large parking lot, full of cars. Almost no one coming out of that building has zero alcohol in their system. So they drive home. There is encouragement to use "designated driver," but almost no one does (ever been a passenger in a car with a drunk driver? It's a chilling experience, believe me.) The police sometimes lay in wait to catch these drunk drivers, but it is really only to collect the cash cow of fines. It's as if they don't want to stop drunk driving itself, for concern of losing the easy money...

"You don't see the mob getting so involved in alcohol either, do you"

I'll give you that one.

"My post was meant to be ironic. I thought the over the top tone helped illustrate that."

I'll give you that one, too.

Jazzratt

25th June 2009, 03:26

That may be true in England. But here in the U.S., most people who drink, drive too.It's ridiculous.

Hmm. It could be a simple fact of geography. Where I live all the pubs are so close as to make driving a car there a monumental waste of time and petrol and, of course, a lot of people get their drinking done in their own homes. Another example is london where you'd be absloutely insane to want to drive anywhere.

For example, here is a bar, with a large parking lot, full of cars. Almost no one coming out of that building has zero alcohol in their system. So they drive home.

Well there is a problem right there, I always thought it was odd to have a car park near bars, pubs and the like. Taxi bays, staff parking & busstops all seem reasonable but a car park always seemed like a tacit approval of drunk driving to my mind. But I do get your point, perhaps a targetting of car-culture and/or the universalisation of those breathalyser activation doodads I hear they give to drink-driving repeat offenders.

There is encouragement to use "designated driver," but almost no one does (ever been a passenger in a car with a drunk driver? It's a chilling experience, believe me.)

I've never been in a car with someone that was utterly battered but I have been with someone over the limit. After that I took waiting/sleeping at a train station for 5 hours over a lift home with a drunk driver, the experience is definately not something I would recommend to anyone, you're right.

The police sometimes lay in wait to catch these drunk drivers, but it is really only to collect the cash cow of fines. It's as if they don't want to stop drunk driving itself, for concern of losing the easy money...

A civil authority that doesn't give a fuck about the community? I am shocked, sir, shocked. Campaigns against drunk driving really have to start in the communities, naming and shaming that kind of thing. If you can swing it that they get barred from drinking establishments that would be all the better. Fines don't mean shit.

I'll give you that one.

I'll give you that one, too.

Well thank you :)

anticap

25th June 2009, 03:48

I don't understand what age has got to do with this, really.

Me neither, which is why I didn't vote, because I'd rather not disclose my age, because I like to avoid being filed away in people's mental boxes where they can dismiss me in the future based on preconceived notions. Not that comrades would do so intentionally, but it's something almost all of us do unintentionally. One great thing about the Internet is that the pseudo-anonymity it provides allows us to avoid some of the inconveniences of meatspace, which can allow for greater openness and insights. (Sorry, I don't mean this to turn into a nit-picky rant.)

More importantly, the poll doesn't specify whether it refers to the society I ultimately wish to live in, or some transitional one (my answer wouldn't necessarily be the same). I'll assume the former...

As a communist, I of course desire a stateless, anarchist society. The whole point of communism/anarchism is liberty. Not absolute liberty of course, not the kind meant by the bourgeoisie, which is just a euphemism for unchecked power over others (despite their insincere rhetoric about non-aggression).

Thus, if others wish to engage in risky behavior as an expression of the liberty afforded them by a communist society, then I don't see how that society can justify stopping them, much less accomplish it. However, a primary tenet of such a society is defending the community against destructive forces (like capitalism, landlordism, etc.) where one person's actions constitute power to harm others. This means that if a drug addict destroys herself, she is not entitled to drag others down with her. One of the most immediately obvious, and controversial, implications of this, is that the community will be justified in protecting her children from her.

So, among other things, one of the risks a self-destructive drug user would run would be the forfeiture of parental rights. These risks would of course be clear to everyone living in a free and open society, which would be a much happier and healthier society (without those negative forces which compel people to abuse drugs as an escape or coping mechanism in our alienated capitalist societies), so I doubt that there would be the same level of recreational drug use.

Klaatu

25th June 2009, 04:06

Hmm. It could be a simple fact of geography. Where I live all the pubs are so close as to make driving a car there a monumental waste of time and petrol and, of course, a lot of people get their drinking done in their own homes. Another example is london where you'd be absloutely insane to want to drive anywhere.

I wish we had neighborhood drinking establishments like you have in London. In fact, I wish we had more stores within walking distance. Here in the U.S. most people (except those living in large cities) must get in their car to go anywhere. That is why we have the largest gasoline consumption of any country in the world. And we love our BIG CARS too. We are the energy hogs of the world.

( I personally own a small-sized car)
BTW I think London is a cool city. I would like to visit there someday.

cheers
FR

fiddlesticks

25th June 2009, 06:45

I think that if all drugs were made legal, a lot of the thrill of doing something illegal will be removed. If people wanted to try it they could, and they would be able to know exactly what they are getting into try it once and not do it again. If they get hooked they can buy the drugs excessively for the rest of their lives and money would be made from the taxes on said product.

EqualityandFreedom

25th June 2009, 07:09

I believe all drugs should be legal. Also as far as I see it the more dangerous a drug is the greater the need for it to legal and of the hands of criminals.

mikelepore

25th June 2009, 07:29

Hence we have a rash of drunk drivers (killing people) alcohol-related broken families, liver disease, and deaths. Don't think we would not have these goodies under legal narcotics

If those are reasons for having drugs be illegal, then, by a parity of reasoning, we should probably outlaw the manufacture of baseball bats, because occasionally someone hits someone else over the head with a bat. We should definitely outlaw the manufacture of kitchen silverware, because every once in a while someone uses a kitchen knife to assault another person. And let's outlaw eating chicken, since some people choke on the bones.