Should all drugs be legalised?

[Q]

In the Weekly Worker of this week the point is defended that indeed all drugs should be legalised. Discuss.


Fatuous, dangerous, utterly irresponsible

We call for the immediate legalisation of all drugs, writes Eddie Ford

Few issues generate so much irrationality as the question of drugs. Rather we get tabloid-driven, moralistic sound and fury, where small things like facts and evidence are blindly ignored - indeed, themselves become objects of righteous condemnation. Naturally, the government - and, of course, the Tory government-in-waiting - is compelled to join the ‘anti-drugs’ mob, locked as it is into the unwinnable ‘war on drugs’, a prisoner of its own myths and desperate rhetoric.

Hence on becoming prime minister, Gordon Brown promptly - and stupidly - declared that cannabis was “lethal” and, following a media frenzy about the supposed dangers of ‘skunk’, insisted that cannabis be re-reclassified from its then current official governmental status as a class C drug back to the more ‘dangerous’ class B it had been prior to David Blunkett’s 2004 regrading (or downgrading). While the ‘anti-drugs’ Daily Mail was cock-a-hoop at this development, this Alice-in-Wonderland comment set the tone for the Brown administration’s thoroughly backward and reactionary approach to the whole issue - which, in just about every respect, has been more irrational than the one pursued by Blair or the previous Tory government (yes, including Margaret Thatcher).

So we get the sacking last week of the government’s chief drugs adviser, professor David Nutt, from his unpaid position as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Not only that: home secretary Alan Johnson - rounding up the usual tabloid posse - has conducted a furious, high-profile media vendetta against Nutt, denouncing him for “interfering” in the policy-making process and “campaigning against government decisions”.

Indeed, some of Johnson’s allies have suggested that the professor - one of the UK’s leading NHS psychiatrists and pharmacologists, it should be noted - is a bit of a crank, so whatever he says should not be taken too seriously. Thus, right on rabid cue, Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail launched, cutlass in hand, right into David Nutt, underneath the gloriously frothy headline: “Fatuous, dangerous, utterly irresponsible - the Nutty professor who’s distorting the truth about drugs”. According to Phillips (or ‘mad Mel’, as she is affectionately known), the “entire bien-pensant world appears to have decided that Nutt is a martyr to free speech” - when, in reality, he was “playing politics”, with the professor’s remarks helping to “create a culture of social acceptability for illegal drug-taking”, which can only lead to more young people getting “sucked onto the drug escalator”.

In fact, Phillips darkly argues, the ACMD itself is “part of a trillion-dollar global campaign to legalise drugs”, which has seen “virtually the whole of the drug-related voluntary sector succumbing to the siren song of the legalisers”: with their insidious “discourse” about “harm reduction”, being for Phillips a mere “camouflage for legalisation” - and for years the home office has “supinely gone along with” this permissive tide. But at last, Phillips concludes, the home office has “fought back” and for this “small chink of sanity” the home secretary “deserves praise” - though, she warns, with the ACMD and its supporters “piling on the pressure”, Alan Johnson and the government as a whole “must hold his nerve”.1

But what exactly was Nutt’s terrible crime, deserving of a public scalping by the government and new-found Johnson-groupies like Phillips? The professor committed the near unforgivable sin of telling the truth - that is, he pointed out the simple fact that cannabis and ecstasy cause far less harm than those perfectly legal and easily available drugs, tobacco and alcohol. To this effect, a few days before being fired as ACMD chairman, Nutt gave a lecture at King’s College, London, where he attacked the “artificial separation” of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.

Therefore, for Nutt, the government’s entire approach to those substances that are presently illegal is disastrously mistaken - as perfectly evidenced by Brown’s imperial dismissal of the ACMD’s recommendations on cannabis, which, of course, was that it remain a class C drug (nor did it give any credence to the ‘skunk scare’). Tellingly, this was the first time since the ACMD was formed in 1971 that its propositions have been brushed aside or that a drug - cannabis - has had its status shifted from a less to more dangerous category.

In other words, as Nutt - quite correctly, of course - never misses an opportunity to highlight, the government’s attitude towards drugs policy is not “evidence-based” but rather irrationally “politicised”. Or, as communists would put it, the UK government has absolutely no regard whatsoever for any notion of scientific objectivity or genuine ‘harm reduction’ with regards to drugs but instead adopts a narrowly ideological stance - driven as it by naked short-term expediency and the mortal fear of alienating ‘popular opinion’ (ie, the fickle prejudices and bigotry of ‘middle England’).

No wonder then that professor Nutt has openly castigated government ministers for “devaluing and distorting evidence”, and described his sacking as a “serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government”. Furthermore, Nutt refuses to “mislead” the public about the effects of drugs in order to merely convey a “moral message” - as opposed to a scientific or rational one - on behalf of the government, nor will he desist from outlining the mountain of evidence which amply shows that there is only a “relatively small risk” of developing a psychotic illness from smoking cannabis.

As Nutt writes in The Guardian, the current evidence “suggests a probable, but weak, causal link between psychotic illness and cannabis use”, so cannabis smokers “are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers”. However, as Nutt goes on to say, you need to consider that statistic in perspective - it is essentially the same as saying that “you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don’t”. But then tobacco smoking is perfectly legal, isn’t it? (Interestingly enough, in the same article, Nutt also claims - maybe paradoxically to some - that schizophrenia “seems to be disappearing”, even though cannabis use has “increased markedly in the last 30 years”.)2

Of course, Nutt is a repeat offender as far as the government is concerned. Hence in January the professor - in a lengthy paper for a scientific journal - made his now famous comparison between ecstasy-taking and the practice of horse-riding. Entitled ‘Equasy, an overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms’, the article examined how society assesses - or not - various risks and perceived risks. Quite logically, Nutt explained that the harm from illegal drugs has to be compared, or ‘equalled’, to the harm that can be potentially inflicted when engaging in other legal or non-drug-related pursuits - hence his invented term “equasy”, or “equine addiction syndrome”.

On this basis, Nutt’s paper argued, “equasy” is responsible for 10 deaths a year and over 100 traffic accidents - more or less equivalent to the amount of death and damage caused every year by ecstasy, in so far as these things can be quantified in such a manner. When asked by The Daily Telegraph to expound on his thesis, professor Nutt stated that there was “not much difference” between the harm caused by riding and that by ecstasy - thereby demonstrating that society did not always “adequately balance” all of the nearly endless risks posed just by being alive. After all, he told the newspaper, “making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms” - so why does not society, or the government, go ahead and do so? The refusal to prohibit horse-riding, ventured Nutt, immediately “raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use”.3 Needless to say, the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith, was outraged by Nutt’s eminently reasonable argumentation and demanded that he apologise. He did not.

Much to the government’s embarrassment, Nutt’s dismissal sparked off a rebellion by other members of the ACMD. So both Dr Les King - senior chemist and a previous head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service - and Marion Walker - clinical director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust’s substance misuse service and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s representative on ACMD - resigned in solidarity. Indeed, King told the BBC that the very existence of the ACDM itself was in grave danger - given that the government now treats the council purely as a “rubber stamp” organisation, coming as it does with a “predetermined agenda about drug classification”. Even more damaging for the government, its chief science adviser, professor John Beddington, has come out in explicit support of Nutt’s position - declaring that the “scientific evidence is absolutely clear-cut” as to the damage caused by cannabis/ecstasy vis-à-vis alcohol and tobacco misuse.

Yes, communists too share this disgust at the “devaluing” of scientific evidence, if not science in general - especially as we subscribe to Engels’s dictum: “The more ruthlessly and disinterestedly science proceeds, the more it finds itself in harmony with the interests of the workers.”4 Just for a minute ponder upon that fully legal and easily available drug - ie, alcohol. I expect many readers will have consumed some of the stuff over the last few days and in all likelihood will do so again over the next few. Now, if ever there was a candidate for a drug being “lethal” - or at least responsible for inflicting the greatest amount of harm and damage to society out of the current crop of drugs - than surely it is this one.

So peruse the NHS statistics for “drinking-related ill-health and mortality” - or drugs overdosing, to put it more bluntly. Hence in 2007 in England there were 112,267 prescription items for the treatment of alcohol dependency prescribed in primary care settings - an increase of 20% since 2003, when there was 93,241 prescription items. In 2006-07, there were 57,142 NHS hospital admissions with a “primary” diagnosis specifically related to alcohol - and this number has risen by 52% since 1995-96. Of these admissions, 4,888 (9%) involved patients under 18 years of age.5 By any yardstick, that legal drug, alcohol, has the potential to inflict great damage upon society - and would surely deserve to be categorised as a ‘class A’ drug if it were judged and evaluated in a similar manner to those such as cannabis/ecstasy. Self-evidently, any attempt at consistency when it comes to the application of drug laws has totally gone to pot.

Clearly then the government’s ‘anti-drugs’ strategy - if you can call it that - is in total disarray, lacking any moral or scientific legitimacy. After 40 years of waging war on drugs, all we have seen is abject failure - to the extent that in the late 1960s, when the ACMD was being set up, there were some 2,000 registered drug addicts, plus maybe a similar number of unregistered addicts. Now there are 360,000 ‘problem’ drug-users, who are vulnerable to dangerously adulterated substances selling at massively inflated prices - making global entrepreneurs out of the ruthless drugs cartels and barons, who every year make an absolute killing.

Here then we have the bitter fruits of the pointless ‘war on drugs’ - enriching gangsters and monstrously criminalising large swathes of society along the way. Just like with prohibition, the ‘noble experiment’ in the US between 1919 and 1933. Not to mention, of course, being a supreme exercise in hypocrisy - we all know that the majority of government ministers, as well as Tory shadow cabinet members, have in their callow youthful past indulged in the “lethal” habit of cannabis smoking (and more besides), yet all miraculously remain alive.

Therefore, do communists call for the ‘equalisation’ of legal and illegal drugs? Yes, but not by calling for a demented consistency - as once expressed by Arthur Scargill and not a few others on the puritanical left over the years - that looks forward to the outlawing of the currently legal drugs such as alcohol. Obviously, that way would lead to authoritarian madness - if not the breakdown of society, with virtually everyone becoming criminals overnight (even Daily Mail readers). No, rather, we in the CPGB unequivocally call for the immediate legalisation of all drugs - not just cannabis or ecstasy. Openness, legality and full, uninhibited, debate provide the best conditions for the assessment of the relative dangers of this or that drug, habit, practice or pastime - and, where necessary, what would constitute the most effective course of treatment and rehabilitation: not stigmatisation or punitive measures.

Drinking a pint of beer or smoking a joint poses no inherent dangers - either to yourself or society as a whole. Any more than horse-riding or kite-flying. Hence for communists the crucial struggle is for the socialisation of drug-taking - whether it be alcohol, cannabis or ecstasy. In that way, ‘drugs’ can help us to live a full, rounded, joyful life - as opposed to diminishing or even destroying us.

Notes

Daily Mail November 2.
The Guardian November 3.
news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8334948.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8334948.stm)
F Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm)
www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/alcohol08 (http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/alcohol08)

[Proletarian]

have you seen the effects of drugs, no they should not be legalized:rolleyes:

[h0m0revolutionary]

have you seen the effects of drugs, no they should not be legalized:rolleyes:

Have you seen the effect of drug de-criminalisation, for example in Portugal?

[Proletarian]

its wrong to let people get hooked and die on drugs, social equality will stop people using, not legalizing smack to turn people into the living dead, anyone advocating the legalization of drugs is either crazy or has never seen a grown man in tears begging for money with cuts all over his face from smoking meth.
Drugs are so harmfull to the working class and it pisses me off so many lefts seem to think it is ok to take drugs

[communard resolution]

Thanks for posting the article, though I think that Eddie Ford is stating the obvious - of course all drugs should be legalised. Goodbye drug crime and drug prostitution, goodbye bad drugs, goodbye drug mafia - hello drug education, hello prevention of diseases, hello control of our own bodies.

It's a good enough piece, but personally I would have liked to know more about the reasons why the ruling class outlaw certain drugs, about the 'lumpen bourgeoisie' behind the current drug trade, and about the conflict of interests between the official capitalists who fight a war on drugs and the outlaw capitalists who run the illegal drug market.

[Red Isa]

I am still undecided on my viewpoint. I mean, we would still of course discourage drugs as a society. We could educate children about the dangers. (more so than we are allowed now) I think that there should be laws to protect minors from drugs. Minor children are not as responsible as adults, and still have developing brains. But of course if we do set a minimum age for drugs then at that age many people will leap at their first chance to get high or whatever... so it's complicated.

[FSL]

"In that way, ‘drugs’ can help us to live a full, rounded, joyful life - as opposed to diminishing or even destroying us."


Why should alcohol or cannabis be used to help us have a happy,full life when there is such an abundance of wonderful anti-depressants and sleeping pills? Probably with more mild adverse effects too.


Let's make happy pills and distribute them freely to everyone.

[Crux]

So riddle me this, how would this wonderful legalization, with reduction of crime, education for all, rainbows and unicorns and what else you have been talking about be possible when the outcome of a legalization would also mean commercialization? Never has the term pipe dream seemed more apt.

[communard resolution]

So riddle me this, how would this wonderful legalization, with reduction of crime, education for all, rainbows and unicorns and what else you have been talking about be possible when the outcome of a legalization would also mean commercialization? Never has the term pipe dream seemed more apt.


I don't understand this one at all. Could you rephrase please?

Aren't drugs already 'commercialised', with incredibly high prices for bad product leading to crime, drug prostitution etc?

[IrishWorker]

Not this shite again.

If you pro druggies spent all the time you spent on here talking about legalizing Drugs on real world activism maybe things might be a bit different.

Don’t talk shite don’t legalize drugs they destroy people and community’s.


THE END...

[Spawn of Stalin]

All middle class socialists want to legalise drugs, because it's easy enough to call decriminalisation when you didn't grow up in a drug ridden neighbourhood, just as it is easy to call yourself a socialist when you earn £50,000 per year.

[bcbm]

have you seen the effects of drugs, no they should not be legalized:rolleyes:

which drugs? certainly drugs like meth, heroin and crack are destructive, but keeping them illegal does more to harm their users and the rest of society than decriminalizing them and spending drug war money on, say, decent rehab programs.


So riddle me this, how would this wonderful legalization

decriminalization would be better than legalization, actually.


Not this shite again.

If you pro druggies spent all the time you spent on here talking about legalizing Drugs on real world activism maybe things might be a bit different.

Don’t talk shite don’t legalize drugs they destroy people and community’s.

the war on drugs arguably destroys more people and communities, at least in the us. it would be much better for the working people in those communities if a sensible drug policy were enacted that didn't involve millions of people going to jail, or keeping violent gangs in power. all you've got going for your argument is some vague emotional appeal about the effects "drugs" have on communities. well, yes, some drugs are certainly more anti-social than others but their continued criminalization is just as destructive as the drugs themselves and does nothing to solve the problems they create while putting more profits into the hands of the prison industry.

[communard resolution]

All middle class socialists want to legalise drugs, because it's easy enough to call decriminalisation when you didn't grow up in a drug ridden neighbourhood, just as it is easy to call yourself a socialist when you earn £50,000 per year.

This was so stupid, Red Son (no offence, you can do better than that and I've seen it). How do you know the author is middle class and what neighbourhood they grew up in?

Personally, I've seen a lot of drug crime and I would kind of like it to end. I'm sure this is the intention of the author too. Have you ever considered that it's not drugs that make people commit crimes, but the fact that they are so hard to come by?

[Comrade Gwydion]

Luckily, neigbourhoods here aren't that divided by class....
so yeah, i've seen drug ridden neighbourhoods, and yeah I've got friends who are wasting their life on taking to much weed but fuck it.
I'm loosing my mother to alcohol. Not to marihuana. Not to hash. Not to mushrooms. What this article states is clear: the divide between alcohol, tobacco and marihuana is meaningless.
Even stronger: Drinking alcohol makes you want to drink more alcohol. When you get slightly drunk, you want more. You get wasted drunk. What do druk people do? Depends. Some sleep. Some puke. Some dance. Some get depressed. Some get angry. Some go kick random heads in because they're drunk.
What do stoned people do? They giggle. And they eat. A lot. And sometimes they even hug.

And back to the people who loose themselves on marihuana? It's terrible. But it's not about the drug, it's about the people. I've seen people loose themselve in exactly the same way on World of Warcraft. Heck, even on reading so much political theory books that they forget their real life.

My suggestion?
Legalise softdrugs. Mariuana (in all forms), mushrooms, other shit I don't know about. Hard drugs? (coke, meth, heroine) Keep it illegal. But just as illegal as it is illegal to put a stamp picturing the british monarchy up side down on an envelope.
Yeah, that is illegal.

[FSL]

Have you ever considered that it's not drugs that make people commit crimes, but the fact that they are so hard to come by?


Maybe for some people it isn't the fear of getting mugged for drug money that makes them oppose the use, but the fact they 're against dug use in the first place. Making them easy to come by would help with that how?


Also, there are 2 kinds of people/arguements that call for legalization. Those that suggest it will make it easier to help people not fall in too deep, like rob to get money, get in jail for using drugs, die because of its low quality etc. This is a respectable, though in my opinion wrong, stance.
It's the "It's my body and I 'm free to do whatever I want with it" crowd that is unbearable.



so yeah, i've seen drug ridden neighbourhoods, and yeah I've got friends who are wasting their life on taking to much weed but fuck it.
I'm loosing my mother to alcohol. Not to marihuana. Not to hash. Not to mushrooms. What this article states is clear: the divide between alcohol, tobacco and marihuana is meaningless.


That seems a reason to add limits to daily alcohol and tobacco intake (or better weekly or monthly to allow for the occasional slip), rather than make more ways of ruining one's self available.

[Comrade Gwydion]

That seems a reason to add limits to daily alcohol and tobacco intake (or better weekly or monthly to allow for the occasional slip), rather than make more ways of ruining one's self available.

No, actually the argument is this: it's all about dosage. Gaming, alcohol, fat food, sugar, marihuana: it's all alright, if not in to high a dosage.

[Omi]

Limits on the use of a substance? So big brother is going to watch what you consume and punish you if you do not fit the required social role? Sounds like a capitalist wet dream.

[communard resolution]

By the way, I met a guy from South Africa the other day whose name was Paul Pot - honestly. I know this if off topic, but I thought I'd mention it.

[Q]

have you seen the effects of drugs, no they should not be legalized:rolleyes:
Should alcohol be banned too then? It is much more harmful then your typical drug after all.

If you say yes, please consider that this was already tried, in the US, between 1919 and 1933. It gave rise to one of the largest waves of organised crime ever. The romanticised image we get from Hollywood about US maffia is almost exclusively from this era.


All middle class socialists want to legalise drugs, because it's easy enough to call decriminalisation when you didn't grow up in a drug ridden neighbourhood, just as it is easy to call yourself a socialist when you earn £50,000 per year.
What a petty personal attack. I expect better from you.

Also, my argument on an extreme raise of criminality when banning alcohol also works the other way around for drugs. If you legalise drugs, then the criminal market collapses overnight.

And there is even another point to add. When alcohol is banned or made prohibitively expensive, people are going to brew their own, with all the harmful consequences. There are plenty of cases in Russia today where people die from alcohol poisoning. Now, if we legalise drugs, it stands to reason we can also regulate it better, add laws to make it safer to use, do checkups to enforce these rules. You can't do all of that in a black market.

@Nero: This debate is obviously very emotionally ridden. There is nothing quite obvious about the stance Eddie takes in the article. Even when Eddie makes a good case for it, my "gut feeling" still quite disagrees with legalising hard drugs like XTC and heroin.

[FSL]

Limits on the use of a substance? So big brother is going to watch what you consume and punish you if you do not fit the required social role? Sounds like a capitalist wet dream.


I'm sure that if that ever happened you'd be the first to become alcoholic to demostrate your resistance.



No, actually the argument is this: it's all about dosage. Gaming, alcohol, fat food, sugar, marihuana: it's all alright, if not in to high a dosage.


Sugar or fat food are necessary up to a point so they differ in that regard. But yeah, how do you propose we go on with achieving the "alright" amount. Have candy bars next to vegetables in school and let kids choose what they 'll do to their body?

I don't think people addicted to drugs should be send to prison but they should be send to rehab. Anyone making profits from it does belong to a cell. Whether someone drinks a glass of wine with their lunch or smokes a joint once in a blue moon isn't a huge deal and from what I've seen punishments regarding possesion are never applied when we 're talking about a case like that.
The idea that it's an "alright" thing to do can hurt people however. In the same way drinking or smoking or junk food isn't "alright".

[communard resolution]

Maybe for some people it isn't the fear of getting mugged for drug money that makes them oppose the use, but the fact they 're against dug use in the first place

If they're against drug use, they shouldn't take drugs - simple as.


Also, there are 2 kinds of people/arguements that call for legalization. Those that suggest it will make it easier to help people not fall in too deep, like rob to get money, get in jail for using drugs, die because of its low quality etc. This is a respectable, though in my opinion wrong, stance.Why is it wrong in your opinion?


It's the "It's my body and I 'm free to do whatever I want with it" crowd that is unbearable.
If you find that crowd unbearable, avoid them. You are certainly not going to tell me what to do with my body.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Neither option is preferable for the working class in my opinion. Drug legalisation will lead to a monopoly on drugs and an industry similar to the tobacco industry will be created.

[Spawn of Stalin]

This was so stupid, Red Son (no offence, you can do better than that and I've seen it). How do you know the author is middle class and what neighbourhood they grew up in?

What a petty personal attack. I expect better from you.
My comment wasn't exactly directed at the author, I don't know him personally and he is entitled to his opinion regardless of class. It was more of a generalisation than anything else, of course there are working class Marxists who want to see drugs legalised and they often have very legitimate reasons for this but from what I've seen people are far more likely to oppose legalisation if they have seen the damage it can do to a community. I grew up in an area which suffers from drug crime and alcoholism, very little was done about it by the council and the police, things just got worse and worse and for that reason I think that decriminalisation wouldn't make much of a difference, at least not on a community level, yes we would be able to mop the floor of organised criminals but socialism would deal with them anyway. I'd be very much in favour of decriminalising or even legalising marijuana, I went through a phase of a couple of years where I smoked it at least three or four times a week, I have members of my family who smoke joints like they smoke cigarettes, it's safe, it's enjoyable, it fairly socially acceptable, I don't see why it should be any more illegal than alcohol. But legalising substances like meth and crack cocaine? No chance, the only purpose they serve is to wreck families.

[Irish commie]

Neither option is preferable for the working class in my opinion. Drug legalisation will lead to a monopoly on drugs and an industry similar to the tobacco industry will be created.

Even so they will be more easily regulated and therfore less harmful. Also turf wars and drug related deaths are less likely to happenand, crime will go down. Furthermore taxes on them can pay for heathcare and education about drugs. The war on drugs also gives the USA and excuse to continue its imperialistic policies.

I am undecided on hard drugs like heroin and crack however.

[bcbm]

my "gut feeling" still quite disagrees with legalising hard drugs like XTC

i don't think mdma is a particularly hard drug. it isn't very addictive. the primary problems with it stem from the quality at street level and abuse of the drug by taking it too frequently.


But legalising substances like meth and crack cocaine? No chance, the only purpose they serve is to wreck families. i think it makes more sense to decriminalize them and spend the money that would typical go to the police or jails on building community programs to undercut drug abuse. as you say, the police don't do shit in most communities wrecked by drugs, so why funnel money to them for a drug war that is accomplishing nothing?


Neither option is preferable for the working class in my opinion. Drug legalisation will lead to a monopoly on drugs and an industry similar to the tobacco industry will be created.this is why decriminalization makes the most sense; its basically a middle road.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The CPGB, like most left groups, has too much liberal affections on the question of general crime and punishment, including drugs that wreck working-class families (as mentioned above).

[Irish commie]

The CPGB, like most left groups, has too much liberal affections on the question of general crime and punishment, including drugs that wreck working-class families (as mentioned above).

I presume thats becasue they see that crime usually stems from problems within capitalism and is caused by the system of capitalism therefore blaming the offender is somewhat unfair considering what we all think of capitalism. also imprisonment and harshness in punishment usually lead the offender to reoffend and doesnt deal with the key issues causing the crime.

stick that in your pipe and smoke it. :laugh:

[ComradeOm]

I can only imagine that anyone who believes that heroin should be legalised has never seen with their own eyes the damage that it can do to both a person and an entire community. Few drugs are as dirty and destructive and, in my own opnion, there is no justification whatsoever for its legalisation

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sometimes, conservatives and populists have things right on the question of ordinary crime and punishment. Any independent proletarian party should consider this.


I presume thats becasue they see that crime usually stems from problems within capitalism and is caused by the system of capitalism therefore blaming the offender is somewhat unfair considering what we all think of capitalism. also imprisonment and harshness in punishment usually lead the offender to reoffend and doesnt deal with the key issues causing the crime.

stick that in your pipe and smoke it. :laugh:

It would be reductionist to think that every criminal situation stems from a problem within bourgeois society.

[bcbm]

I can only imagine that anyone who believes that heroin should be legalised has never seen with their own eyes the damage that it can do to both a person and an entire community. Few drugs are as dirty and destructive and, in my own opnion, there is no justification whatsoever for its legalisation

its just your imagination. i've had too many friends get addicted to heroin and ruin their lives. a few have even od'd and died. i think if heroin were decriminalized and more resources available to diminish the reasons people turn to it and to help those who become addicted kick the habit, i might still have those some of those friends.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It would be reductionist to think that every criminal situation stems from a problem within bourgeois society.

But what is your view on drugs then? Do you think that the stranglehold that drugs have on some working class communities is coincidence and not related to Capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

its just your imaginationSorry but did you just say that its "my imagination"? WTF? Are you telling me that I've simply imagined those working class communities that have almost literally been decimated by this drug? Perhaps the hundreds (if not thousands) of young Dubs who have died of heroin and related diseases are similarly figments of my imagination? If you want to visit Dublin I'll show you first hand the scars that the city still bears from that epidemic

Edit: In fact you can go into those same working class neighbourhoods that have been campaigning, on a community basis, for decades against the drug and tell them yourself why you think it should be legal to sell heroin on their streets

[Q]

Sorry but did you just say that its "my imagination"? WTF? Are you telling me that I've simply imagined those working class communities that have almost literally been decimated by this drug? Perhaps the hundreds (if not thousands) of young Dubs who have died of heroin and related diseases are similarly figments of my imagination? If you want to visit Dublin I'll show you first hand the scars that the city still bears from that epidemic

Edit: In fact you can go into those same working class neighbourhoods that have been campaigning, on a community basis, for decades against the drug and tell them yourself why you think it should be legal to sell heroin on their streets
I think a slight miscommunication is in order here and bcbm mean "it isn't just your imagination", considering the rest of his post.

[bcbm]

Sorry but did you just say that its "my imagination"? WTF?

yes, in response to you imagining that anyone who does not believe heroin should be illegal has never seen the effects of heroin. i think if you had maybe re-read your post that i quoted and finished reading my post it would have become clear that was what i was responding to.

[Sasha]

i debated this topic ad naseum but i'll give it one more (short) go...
the damage done by heroin isn't cause by the substance it self but with the consequent social and economic surcomstances. The high prices lead to theft, neglect of health, social stigma and ultimitly to homelessnes.
the drug it self, although highly adictive, is when used with care, less damaging to your body than alcohol.
look only to all those doctors with morphine adiction, they can live long and contributing lives.
or look at the experiment here in amsterdam to give free, medical grade heroin to junkies who are past being able to go clean. after years of them dying by huge numbers during the law and order crackdown we suddenly have to build special elderly homes for them.
and the availebility argument?
on this moment i can score some heroin as fast as i can bike to the paharmacy to collect some subsribed medicine so i think legalising its sale through some "coffeeshop meets pharmacy" would more likely decrease it availebility than increase it.
besides, giving people acces to lab-grade heroin made from opium or speed produced with real ether or pure MDMA might stop people from taking carbattery meets catlitter meets matches meets breakfluid etc etc chit that is homebrewed crystal meth or GHB.

clasification of drugs should go on two priniciples: damage (to your self and the general public) and addictiveness.

what the consequenses of this clasification should be i dont now either but illegalisation is for sure not the answer.

[communard resolution]

I fully agree with Psycho and bcbm. Like bcbm, I have seen the effect the criminalisation of heroin has with my own eyes, I saw fundamentally good people turn into criminals and prostitutes because of the legal situation, and you could say I've been a victim of drug crime when a former friend burglarised my flat.

Because of this, and for other reasons (e.g. the brutality of the illegal drug market), I support the legalisation of hard drugs.

@ComradeOm: You claim that people who support the legalisation of drugs couldn't have possibly experienced the misery of it. But in fact, there exists a phenomenon that when a crime occurs, observers that are not directly affected by it will foam at the mouth shouting for retribution and tougher laws. The victim, meanwhile, will often assume a much cooler, more rational position without feelings of revenge, moral outrage, or the wish for draconic legal measures. I experienced this myself in the situation I mentioned above.

[FSL]

If you find that crowd unbearable, avoid them. You are certainly not going to tell me what to do with my body.


Actually, if a law prohibiting drug use is active people get to exactly tell you what you can or can't do with your body everywhere on the planet.

Remember, it's you guys crying over and over for legalization, so keep the defiant tone down a bit, ok?

[Crux]

I don't understand this one at all. Could you rephrase please?

Aren't drugs already 'commercialised', with incredibly high prices for bad product leading to crime, drug prostitution etc?
Certainly so, a black market is still a market. Now consider how the drug industry would be run, if legal, and by whom.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

All middle class socialists want to legalise drugs, because it's easy enough to call decriminalisation when you didn't grow up in a drug ridden neighbourhood, just as it is easy to call yourself a socialist when you earn £50,000 per year.

I have a drugs house at the end of my road along with the gang that occupies it. So don't act as if your the proleist most downtrodden and god like figure on earth because thats me.

Seriously if people want to take drugs its not exactly hard and the price's are rather affordable while in employment.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm not downtrodden at all, I'm sure lots of people here have lived in nasty areas. Stop being picky about things like that, it's not worth it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Are you the best person ever? No I am. End of.

[Radical]

Should alcohol be banned too then? It is much more harmful then your typical drug after all.


Actually alcohol has been proven to be good for you in moderation.

[#FF0000]

Actually alcohol has been proven to be good for you in moderation.

I'm pretty sure the occasional joint or LSA sandwich would do wonders for a headache as well.

[Comrade Anarchist]

there really shouldn't any state what so ever so everything would be legal, but at the end of the day it comes up to personal choice. If you decide to do hard drugs thats your problem.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"You're wrong about drug use when it's not abuse." - NOFX

I have to stop quoting bands to make my points..../sigh

[MarxSchmarx]

Sometimes, conservatives and populists have things right on the question of ordinary crime and punishment. Any independent proletarian party should consider this.Consider it, certainly.

But keep in mind that issues of crime and punishment have historically been real gold mines to divide the working class. In America, for instance, race relations are typically crouched in terms of criminal justice issues (e.g., gang injunctions and crack sentencing disparities). This is also happening in a lot of developed countries where "populist appeals" on these matters are really just "look at all those criminal immigrants, who bring their crimes like drug dealing, we should deport them".

Given these concrete realities, the left must realize that it is playing with fire viz. popularizing these issues. There are, to be sure, plenty of crazy jerks out there who intend harm. But we must realize that the criminalized class serves a very distinct purpose for the capitalists, e.g., as compliant strike breakers. To the extent that capitalist governments fail to distinguish between "the genuine crazies, addicts, etc... and the proverbial "misguided kid", they have a system in place that reproduces the existing power relations.

Anything less would be a dereliction of duty on their part.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is also happening in a lot of developed countries where "populist appeals" on these matters are really just "look at all those criminal immigrants, who bring their crimes like drug dealing, we should deport them".

Or in my very local case, gang wars (not just a couple of isolated gangs here and there) related to both drug dealing and arms trade - three problems in one package! That isn't just a gold mine, but a platinum mine! :(

[The Deepest Red]

its wrong to let people get hooked and die on drugs, social equality will stop people using, not legalizing smack to turn people into the living dead, anyone advocating the legalization of drugs is either crazy or has never seen a grown man in tears begging for money with cuts all over his face from smoking meth.
Drugs are so harmfull to the working class and it pisses me off so many lefts seem to think it is ok to take drugs

Have you seen the effect legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco have on people? Favouring legalisation or (at the very least) decriminalisation of illegal drugs does not mean one condones substance abuse. I think tackling the source of the problem (corrupt governments and law enforcement agencies, drug cartels and the various psychological difficulties that cause people to use drug abuse as a crutch) is a lot more effective than telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Anyone who supports a woman's right to choose but believes they have a right to tell others what substances they can and cannot consume is a fucking hypocrite.

[The Deepest Red]

So riddle me this, how would this wonderful legalization, with reduction of crime, education for all, rainbows and unicorns and what else you have been talking about be possible when the outcome of a legalization would also mean commercialization? Never has the term pipe dream seemed more apt.

I suppose like many issues Marxists tend to base their opinions on what ought to be in a socialist society as opposed to what is under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. :(

[The Deepest Red]

Not this shite again.

If you pro druggies spent all the time you spent on here talking about legalizing Drugs on real world activism maybe things might be a bit different.

Don’t talk shite don’t legalize drugs they destroy people and community’s.


THE END...

So how would you tackle the substance abuse problem and do you believe ordinary people using drugs for recreation or because they're addicts should be imprisoned or otherwise penalised by the state?

[Patchd]

its wrong to let people get hooked and die on drugs, social equality will stop people using, not legalizing smack to turn people into the living dead, anyone advocating the legalization of drugs is either crazy or has never seen a grown man in tears begging for money with cuts all over his face from smoking meth.
Actually, I have, and I do drugs, and I support the de-criminalisation of drugs. Fact of the matter is, you've taken a very generalised view and imposed it upon everyone. People do drugs for a reason, many for fun, but many use it as a crutch (in the same way that religion is) to help them get through life in a bit more high spirited way.

Many issues lead people to do drugs:

- A hard, boring work lifestyle (ie. many workers, if you work you may notice this in your workmates.)
- Psychological hardships, relationship breakups, sexual orientation 'issues', gender 'issues' etc.)
- Medical reasons (medical drugs are drugs, whether you're fond of the idea that taking calpol, or morphine is actually "doing drugs!!!1111oneoneleven" or not, they have good effects, but many also have longterm downsides.)
- Recreational (yes, alcohol and nicotine being an example of two already legal drugs, as you seem to base your argument on problems created by Capitalism, you should also see the blatant hypocrisy here. Alcohol is physically more damaging than pure heroin and the latter can't kill you from withdrawal, unlike the former.)

The point isn't that people are doing drugs, so long as they are doing it without it actually affecting people (and I don't mean, your family's going to be sad because you died) harmfully, it isn't your problem. If you have a personal issue about doing drugs, then there is no wrong in you not taking them. People who harm others on drugs should be considered individual cases, and should be treated and rehabilitated, they obviously cannot handle it and should switch or give up entirely.

De-criminalisation has been shown to help, people are going to do drugs whether you like it or not, and most importantly, whether it's criminalised or not. If people are doing it in a criminal environment, then they will be forced into a criminal (even if in part) lifestyle, the drugs they use if they purchase it off the black market will be connected to crime, exploitation, murder, unrestricted capitalism (except for when dealers go down, although another will just take their place) etc... Due to the lack of restrictions in what actually goes into drugs, and because that black market exists within the larger Capitalist market, it is a capitalist one also, and due to the lack of restrictions and the need for a high profit margin, prices shoot up and complete shit goes into drugs. Hence why heroin has the sort of reputation it does, not because pure heroin is bad, pure heroin is quite clean, with the exception of a high addiction rate, but then this can also be put forward to the user before they actually take the drug.

Without any fear from being stigmatised by your neighbour, or people like you, or from the state, these people can easily find information on what they're taking. Deciding for themselves, once reading about it, whether they want to go ahead and take it or not. If drugs were regulated, people could even ask a trained professional how to take it, what it may feel like, what to do if something goes wrong, and what dosage they should take. It would make things much more safer, and simpler, rather than your authoritarian and illogical suggestion of ban ban ban!!!


Drugs are so harmfull to the working class and it pisses me off so many lefts seem to think it is ok to take drugsNo, Capitalism and the problems it creates is so harmful to the working class, and it pisses me off how so many 'leftists' can sit so fucking high on their pedestal that they think they know best about how I should use my body, I wonder how far that pedestal is up your own arse. Let me tell you, I do drugs, and I can still function within society, I am holding, and have previously held jobs, and I am active in politics in my free time. Your generalisation doesn't belong on this board.


For anyone wondering:
http://www.erowid.org/

[Josef Balin]

Only a "socialist" who hasn't grown up in a neighborhood destroyed by the drug war or makes $100,000,000,000 a day would say they want drugs illegal!

For the idiots making the emotional appeals. Making drugs illegal does nothing. It makes the drugs infinitely worse (I'm reminded of the guy who mentioned "XTC" as a hard drug; MMA in and of itself is a pretty safe drug, it's the methamphetamines pumped into it by the dealers who want more profit and can get away with it because of the lack of regulation that make it a dangerous drug), does nothing to stop them from wrecking families/getting into the hands of children, makes them seem more "taboo" and "cooler" to the children, and make gangs stronger.

[Comrade Gwydion]

on a side track:
Say, drugs were legalised:
Would a planned economy actually direct recourses to drug production? (remember the porn thread?)


By the way, there was once an idea here in holland of growing 'muncipal weed', so that the quality and legality could be regulated^^

[IrishWorker]

So how would you tackle the substance abuse problem and do you believe ordinary people using drugs for recreation or because they're addicts should be imprisoned or otherwise penalised by the state?

Tackling substance abuse within a capitalist society is futile as the system inadvertently promotes drug abuse and drug dealing through consumerism low wages materialism etc.

But in the context of a United Marxist Ireland the only way to stop drug abuse and trafficking is simple really.

1. Forced rehabilitation of the addicts.

2. Death to the traffickers who poison the workers.

The Pro Drugs wankers are so out of touch with the working class that it is shocking.
I have never ever once heard any working class person support the legalization of poison ever.

[Jazzratt]

But in the context of a United Marxist Ireland the only way to stop drug abuse and trafficking is simple really.

1. Forced rehabilitation of the addicts.

2. Death to the traffickers who poison the workers.

So you mean continuing with pretty much exactly the same policies that are oh so effective now. The idea of taking the war on drugs (you know that clusterfuck that is battering the thrid world) and painting it red is fucking disgusting. Also I'd be careful about using words that have a technical meaning for your emotional appeals; or are you not aware that this neurotoxin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol) is a "poison".


The Pro Drugs wankers are so out of touch with the working class that it is shocking.
I have never ever once heard any working class person support the legalization of poison ever.

Again there you are using a word without considering what it means. Then again your whole thing is a massive fallacious appeal and for it to be remotely true you have to assume that every "pro drug wanker" that has posted so far isn't a worker, but that puts you in the idiotic position of assigning a class to someone based on their views on drugs. You haven't got a damn leg to stand on so you're just lashing out with personal attacks based on fuck all.

People who see communities wrecked by drugs and who actually think for five fucking seconds rather than relying on pathetic emotional kneejerk reactions tend to support drug legalisation specifically because easy access to pure drugs cuts out a lot of the secondary effects of drugs. It also hamstrings demand for drugs like crystal meth; a drug popular because it's easy to make (all you need is brown iodine and a load of home cleaning products), cheap and easier to acquire than other, safer, drugs (like MDMA). With drugs out of the shadows it would also be much easier to deal with people who have problems - consider how much easier it is today to get out of alcoholism or nicotine reliance than a crack habit. I daresay we would see a lot less people lost to heroin if it were legal to manufacture, say, a methadone patch.

[Sasha]

But in the context of a United Marxist Ireland the only way to stop drug abuse and trafficking is simple really.

1. Forced rehabilitation of the addicts.

2. Death to the traffickers who poison the workers.



can anyone remind me why we dont consider this an reactionary position?

[Jazzratt]

can anyone remind me why we dont consider this an reactionary position?

Because it's an emotionally satisfying piece of rhetoric. As a policy it's moronic and unworkable not to mention, as you say, reactionary but it feels nice to boil down a complex issue to "kill the poison traffikers!". I doubt the people who espouse it give a monkey's toss that it makes no sense whatsover.

[Patchd]

Tackling substance abuse within a capitalist society is futile as the system inadvertently promotes drug abuse and drug dealing through consumerism low wages materialism etc.

But in the context of a United Marxist Ireland the only way to stop drug abuse and trafficking is simple really.

1. Forced rehabilitation of the addicts.

2. Death to the traffickers who poison the workers.

Why do you think that you have the sole golden path, and that involves being teetotal? I'd like to see you employ this tactic to the alcohol drinking community too, ie. go and smash up a few pubs, perhaps shoot a few landlords and force drinkers/alcoholics (alcoholics being the ones who go to meetings) to get rehabilitated. Afterall, alcohol is a drug, do it and see how much 'in touch with the working class' you'll be.


The Pro Drugs wankers are so out of touch with the working class that it is shocking.

I have never ever once heard any working class person support the legalization of poison ever.Yeah, fuck off you stuck up prick. I've never met another working class person who had never known someone who did/do drugs, and who didn't know anyone who supported the de-criminalisation of drugs. I like how for you it's, "let's see what working class people do around me ... " because frankly you're taking a few experiences and applying them to every working class person.

Wow, you feel the need to have to 'relate' to the working class and be in touch with them, in the sense that you're going to base your already shitty politics on your own experiences of working class 'culture', norms and practices, disregarding that all these differ from worker to worker. There are certain working class areas in Britain that have a very strong loyalist, and British nationalist sentiments, but if someone from there said they wanted to get in touch with the working class, and therefore to do so, they'd support loyalism and British nationalism, you'd go nuts.

Being working class doesn't make you right, nor does it make your practices right either. Get off your fucking pedestal you little moron and stop trying to tell others what to do with their lives, moreover, start taking note that taking guns onto the streets to murder drug pedallers won't solve the actual problem at hand.


Because it's an emotionally satisfying piece of rhetoric. As a policy it's moronic and unworkable not to mention, as you say, reactionary but it feels nice to boil down a complex issue to "kill the poison traffikers!". I doubt the people who espouse it give a monkey's toss that it makes no sense whatsover.

It allows little boys with inferiority issues to think they're growing a dick and becoming a man. It's macho posturing on the internets.

[bcbm]

drug abuse

define this.


the addicts.

define this.


poison

define this.

do you mean all drugs? are all drug users addicts? is all drug use abuse?


I have never ever once heard any working class person support the legalization of poison ever.

the irish working class opposes alcohol being legal than?

[IrishWorker]

Yawn same old same old tobacco is bad alcohol is bad using emotional language to get a point across slabber slabber.

The views I hold come strait from the working class community which I live in, without an acceptable police force.
We are left to police ourselves and this is the type of community justice that the people call for.


If you sell drugs to make a quick profit whilst destroying the community then you should be dealt with as harshly as the community can i.e. killed.

If you are a victim of substance abuse you should be forcibly rehabilitated.

Its not to hard for you to get you’re head around.

[Sasha]

the irish working class opposes alcohol being legal than?

havent heard about the famous st. patricksday pub landlord massacares? ;)


(gets vision of someone trying to convince a bunch of irish lads that their guiness is poison and anti-working class)

[bcbm]

Yawn same old same old tobacco is bad alcohol is bad using emotional language to get a point across slabber slabber.

what emotional language? i asked you to define your terms and answer a few simple questions. and i didn't say alcohol is bad but it has destroyed more communities and lives than heroin. that's reality and if you want to be consistent than you should push for liquor store owners and pub owners to be shot in the streets too and drunks rounded up and sent to rehab.

i also wonder why you can't posit a decent argument against what people are saying regarding decriminalization and alternative methods for helping to end drug abuse and trafficking.

[Jazzratt]

Yawn same old same old tobacco is bad alcohol is bad using emotional language to get a point across slabber slabber.

Here's a fun thing for you to try, although I will warn you in advance it will involve climbing down off that high horse of yours: engage the fucking points. Say something logical as opposed to emotional. Illustrate the difference between alcohol, tobacco and whatever drugs you are railing against.


The views I hold come strait from the working class community which I live in, without an acceptable police force.
We are left to police ourselves and this is the type of community justice that the people call for.

While that's terrible it doesn't make your views correct. You've not actually made any intelligent points, you've stormed in here shat your ignorance all over us and answered any criticism with prolier than thou appeals to your community. I can't decide what's worse: that you think this actually lends validity to the bollocks you're preaching or that you feel you have to use your community as a means for cynical point scoring on the internet.


If you sell drugs to make a quick profit whilst destroying the community then you should be dealt with as harshly as the community can i.e. killed.

Why? I don't see you hanging coernershop owners or pub landlords.


If you are a victim of substance abuse you should be forcibly rehabilitated.

And what if you just happen to use drugs?


Its not to hard for you to get you’re head around.

It's not the actual ideas we have a hard time "getting our heads around" it's the reasons for them. So far you've presented no logically consistent arguments but have instead resorted to bawling the same points over and over again. You should be embarassed.

[Patchd]

Yawn same old same old tobacco is bad alcohol is bad using emotional language to get a point across slabber slabber.
Hi, you're a cock, pick up a book and start reading, you may begin to learn.

[The Red Next Door]

marijuana yes, crack,meth, herion, all the shit that will kill ya. FUCK NO

[MarxSchmarx]

marijuana yes, crack,meth, herion, all the shit that will kill ya. FUCK NO


Unlike tabacco or alcohol. :rolleyes:


Or in my very local case, gang wars (not just a couple of isolated gangs here and there) related to both drug dealing and arms trade - three problems in one package! That isn't just a gold mine, but a platinum mine!


I hear your region's major city's position as the "most livable city on earth" is in danger on account of this. Still, you should be grateful you don't have the problems of places like LA or Ciudad Juarez.

Having said that, none of these issues would exist if it weren't for the capitalist prohibitionist policies on both sides of the border.

[The Deepest Red]

Tackling substance abuse within a capitalist society is futile as the system inadvertently promotes drug abuse and drug dealing through consumerism low wages materialism etc.

But in the context of a United Marxist Ireland the only way to stop drug abuse and trafficking is simple really.

1. Forced rehabilitation of the addicts.

2. Death to the traffickers who poison the workers.

The Pro Drugs wankers are so out of touch with the working class that it is shocking.
I have never ever once heard any working class person support the legalization of poison ever.
Your two point plan doesn't seem all that Marxist to me. "Forced rehabilitation"? You're going to force sick people to get better? Good luck with that. Killing dealers has never worked and it never will work, no more than killing the odd cop or soldier would liberate the North or offing a few capitalists would put an end to capitalism.