Do you think that implementation of a Portuguese style drug policy is a good idea?

[AK]

In a future socialist state, of course.

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

[Q]

In a future socialist state, of course.

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

Why only under socialism? Decriminalisation over the use of drugs would be a real improvement of the living condition of the working class and an issue worth fighting over.

Also, what does this have to do with strategy?

[AK]

Why only under socialism?
It would be a goal for any socialist state, as well as any state now.


Also, what does this have to do with strategy?
I didn't really know where to put it. But I thought it fit here so yeah.

[revolution inaction]

no, drugs should not be restricted at all*. and no one should be expected to attend therapy just because they like taking drugs.

*for adults able to making decisions

[Forward Union]

no, drugs should not be restricted at all*. and no one should be expected to attend therapy just because they like taking drugs.

*for adults able to making decisions

You think someone who has a chemical addiction to heroin and spends their days vomiting stomach lining and crying for death when they're sober shouldn't be made to take therapy lessons?

[h0m0revolutionary]

You think someone who has a chemical addiction to heroin and spends their days vomiting stomach lining and crying for death when they're sober shouldn't be made to take therapy lessons?

But it's all relative, where do you stop?

Is heroin so extra-ordinary that we allow for restriction on someone's freedom, or is it the suffering that person endures?

In which case by what authority do we infringe another's personal liberty, taking them into our 'help'? It's conceivable surely that an addiction to many opiates can become so bad the person ensures mind-battering and suffering like we can only imagine, who decides what narcotic abuse is?

[(A)narcho-Matt]

You think someone who has a chemical addiction to heroin and spends their days vomiting stomach lining and crying for death when they're sober shouldn't be made to take therapy lessons?


There should be no restirictions on drug use, and people who indulge in drug use shouldnt be penalised, or have the state or society force them into therapy. However if people want to quit then therapy etc should be there if they want it...

[Sleeper]

I believe that the current drug policies of the United States are appropriate, except the criminal sentencing might be a little too harsh. That, and marijuana should be legalized.

You guys, in my humble opinion, are not thinking of the children who do not get to choose what their parents do.

[bcbm]

I believe that the current drug policies of the United States are appropriate, except the criminal sentencing might be a little too harsh. That, and marijuana should be legalized.

You guys, in my humble opinion, are not thinking of the children who do not get to choose what their parents do.

how does imprisonment of parents benefit their children?

[Sleeper]

how does imprisonment of parents benefit their children?

Well, it doesn't necessarily. However, if the parents are drug addicts to such an extent that they fail to provide food for their children, or fail to serve as an adequate role model or pay children an adequate amount of attention, then maybe such a parent being imprisoned would benefit the child.

Of course, even if we were to keep them (drugs) illegal, I think that the attempt to rehabilitate the parent (s) should be made before making the decision to permanently remove the child from the custody of the parent. For instance, if the parent successfully rehabilitates after x amount of time, then the person could be reintroduced to society and after x more amount of time re-claim custody of their kid (s) without all the legal hoopla. In the event that the parent becomes a repeat drug offender, the parent could then permanently lose custody of the child and would face a mandatory prison sentence.

That's not to say that drug users that are not parents should not be given the chance to rehabilitate and be reintroduced into society first, because I think that they should.

[9]

^I think imprisoning drug addicts is absurd. It does not even begin to address the root causes of the addiction; quite the contrary, it provides the person with a horrifying life experience on top of being a drug addict, which will only give them more of a reason to want to start using again as soon as they get out of the can.
Whether or not treatment (methadone/suboxyn/etc. + therapy) ought to be mandatory for certain kinds of drug addictions is something I'm far less decided on.

[FreeFocus]

Drug decriminalization should be a major plank of any leftist platform, given the effects of things like the War on Drugs, particularly in minority communities. Drug addiction is a mental and physical problem. Just as we no longer lock up those who suffer from mental problems, drug addicts shouldn't be locked up. Often, capitalism creates and exacerbates the drug problem, both for individuals and communities.

In a socialist society, though, I don't think treatment should be voluntary, it should be mandatory and enforced by the community. There is a danger posed to society by drug addiction, and it's serious. The only way to have the freedom to completely ruin yourself is to atomize humanity to ensure that one's decision affects only them. Of course, this is impossible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think treatment should be mandatory in a socialist society for the simple reason that mandatory treatment doesn't work. I think workers will have to decide what to do about certain behaviors that might arise from alcohol or drug addiction (such as not being able to complete occupational tasks or show up for shifts or anti-social acts), but mandating drug treatment will alienate people from their own recovery process.

Addicts who are not convinced and on-board with their treatment will simply bullshit their way through the process which will make it hard for the people supervising the treatment as well as people who sincerely want to overcome their problems.

I think most addicts who begin to have trouble functioning normally go through periods where they sincerely want to stop or wish they were no longer so dependent and so I think treatment must be easily available and without stigma and more people would want to take advantage of that. Plus all the things that tend to pull addicts back into addiction will be largely removed from everyday life - no boring alienating work, no financial stress, and so on.

[Sleeper]

^I think imprisoning drug addicts is absurd. It does not even begin to address the root causes of the addiction; quite the contrary, it provides the person with a horrifying life experience on top of being a drug addict, which will only give them more of a reason to want to start using again as soon as they get out of the can.
Whether or not treatment (methadone/suboxyn/etc. + therapy) ought to be mandatory for certain kinds of drug addictions is something I'm far less decided on.

I'm willing to bend on the imprisonment to the extent that people can be drug addicts if they really want to provided that custody rights can be taken away from parents who are drug-addicts to the extent that it is clearly detrimental to the child, or the child is not being properly taken care of.

As long as we take care of the kids on this one, I suppose I would then only suggest mandatory treatment if the person wishes to retain custody of the children, or if the person is clearly bothersome to general society as a result of this drug use, or commits a different crime in relation to the drug use. Of course, if a different crime is committed, the person would also have to be tried for that crime and I don't think temporary incapacity should be allowed as a defense.

EDIT: In this scenario, though, I would still wish for drugs to be illegal, by the books. What I mean is I don't want someone to be able to walk into the corner carry-out and pick up some crystal meth or anything like that. I still support legalizing marijuana.

[Forward Union]

But it's all relative, where do you stop?

Is heroin so extra-ordinary that we allow for restriction on someone's freedom, or is it the suffering that person endures?

No. I am saying there are cases where someone is incapable of making clear decisions for ones self. Mentally retarded people require care to, not in a patronising or dehumanising way, simply to allow them to make the best of their situation.

Ignoring the fact that heroin is more of a horific, harrowing, life crushing and community destroying symptom of capitalist poverty (which would dissapear post-capitalism) rather than an expression of freedom, as middle class liberals who have probably never met a heroin addict might say. Once people get addicted to heroin they are not really making free choices to take it, because it's chemically addictive. You need it in much the same way you need food (except you can be weened off heroin), and once you are addicted you have a choice between getting help or eventually dying from it.


In which case by what authority do we infringe another's personal liberty,Heroin addiction is not a liberty, it's slavery.


who decides what narcotic abuse is?Science, Biology, Chemistry,