Drugs. [Archive]

Lenina Rosenweg

11th June 2010, 22:44

Its complicated. In the US the 40 year "war on drugs" is a war against poor people. It provides a rational for vast police repression in ghettos, a very high incarceration rate, and imperialist interventions in Latin America and elsewhere. The WOD has proven so costly for local police and security that marijuana is being tacitly legalized in parts of the US, after a long period of official "zero tolerance" repression.

We are programmed to get high. People do drugs because its satisfying. This has to do w/receptor sites in the brain, neuro-transmitters, etc.Alcohol is widely used but has done far more damage than marijuana. Weed, while having complex effects, seems to be harmless, far more so than booze.

Its insane that in the US somewhat over half the population have smoked weed, and a third smoke on a regular basis, but any open discussion of it is not allowed in public life. Micheal Phelps did bong hits at a party but was forced to lie about it.

Ideally perhaps people would rely on "natural" self produced highs-meditation, biofeedback, dancing, etc.Be that as it may under capitalism large numbers of people self medicate as a way of coping with "the real world of shitty jobs".People should be able to do whatever they want to their body and mind.

Soft drugs should be legal but I'm not sure if pro-legalization campaigns would lead to greater class consciousness.(maybe other states of consciousness, but that's another story).

Leon Trotsky was "straightedge", he didn't drink and probably would not have smoked weed.There may be a need for revolutionary self discipline.

Blake's Baby

11th June 2010, 22:49

Lenin famously gave up cigarettes and chess. I think probably a certain revolutionary self-discipline is indeed required.

Never knew Trotsky was straightedge. That makes him more scary. TROTSKY! Like Woody Allen cossed with HENRY ROLLINS! GRR! :thumbup1:

Obs

11th June 2010, 22:49

I'll purge your ass if you try and take my weed.

Stranger Than Paradise

11th June 2010, 22:49

Excellent post Lenina. Definitely the stigma that exists is terrible and just serves to further stereotypical media portrayals of drugs and their effects. At school my friends knew absolutely nothing about what drugs did, I remember once I was talking to my friend about marijuana and he said "don't do cannabis that's worse than weed". More openness on the subject is needed absolutely.

Blake's Baby

11th June 2010, 22:57

Maybe he was making a distinction between weed on the one hand and solid/resin on the other. Maybe he was scared that the resin was mixed with other stuff.

Stranger Than Paradise

11th June 2010, 23:06

Maybe he was making a distinction between weed on the one hand and solid/resin on the other. Maybe he was scared that the resin was mixed with other stuff.

Possibly but I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what resin is. Most likely he has listened to some strange propaganda which has come from the shock factor media.

leftace53

11th June 2010, 23:07

I've done a few drugs here and there, and I enjoy them. Education should most definitely be a large aspect when it comes to drug "control" in a communist society, but forced anything has no place there. Like someone else here said, addictions should be helped, not punished. The crime that comes with drug scenarios should be dismantled within a communist society because they won't be illegal (I hope).

Also 100th post in almost 3 years of being a member, go me :)

scarletghoul

11th June 2010, 23:08

Communist State?

Again with the forcing of people into things... :rolleyes:

YES you are alone
Also, communist state?
Im starting loosing it when i reply to you.Too many contradictionsYou people need to chill out. Does such trivial issues of terminology really mean that much to you ?? Honestly, every time someone ever mentions a 'communist state' or even communism in practice in general, there's a million completely fucking useless irrelevent replies saying "blar blar no such thing as communist state communism is classless and stateless blar blarh". Most people refer to them as communist states, its a standard term, so even if you think its technically incorrect you dont need to get all arsey about it.

Apart from the important fact that it is a minor issue of wording.. It's also not incorrect to talk of a 'Communist state'-

The word 'communism' has 2 meanings - 1. the stage in history, and 2. the ideology/theory/movement. Communist states are those which embrace communist ideology, usually Marxism-Leninism, so they are communist states because they are trying to move towards communism. Just like us as individuals- none of us are classless stateless societies, but we are communists because we aim for communism.

(There's also the fact that the first stage of communism, ie state socialism, is also called communism by some. In this sense they can be called communist states too, but usually it is for the above reason.

So yeah, these outbursts whenever someone talks about a communist state are 1. pointless and 2. wrong.

Robocommie

11th June 2010, 23:13

I'll purge your ass if you try and take my weed.

Ganja be the healing of the nation.

11th June 2010, 23:20

Obs

11th June 2010, 23:21

Ganja be the healing of the nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hVfEwezy4

durhamleft

12th June 2010, 00:10

nuisance

12th June 2010, 00:21

I have no problem with drug users.

I don't like drug dealers but every single 'war on drugs' has failed and caused more shit.

We should legalise them all.
The reason the 'war on drugs' has never suceeded is because it doesn't try to tackle the root causes of drug use, outside of recreation, which is created via a wide range of social conditions that can't be adequately addressed in a profit driven world system which neccessitates the maintence of social control.
To quote 2pac 'Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs, so the police can bother me'.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/2pac/changes.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeMKM-eQPB4

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 00:39

no the reason the war on drugs never suceeded is that banks who engage in whitewashing( i am not sure this is the term for it in english) are not prosecuted as strongly as they should and also drug dealers simply have too much money compared to cops so it is very hard to resist corruption. also they can take the drugs they found and sell it instead of getting promoted for their work.

beside, prohibition didn't work either. what are the benefits of reducing drug use? the health and brain damage risk are over stated and much of it could be avoided if users could know how the drugs they buy are pure and how much to take.

another problem with the drug wars is that young juvenile who sell drugs are usually the one fighting for the older and more powerful bosses. they also take all the risks.

durhamleft

12th June 2010, 00:40

The reason the 'war on drugs' has never suceeded is because it doesn't try to tackle the root causes of drug use, outside of recreation, which is created via a wide range of social conditions that can't be adequately addressed in a profit driven world system which neccessitates the maintence of social control.
To quote 2pac 'Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs, so the police can bother me'.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/2pac/changes.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeMKM-eQPB4

Even if what you're saying is right, drugs should be legalised. If a consenting adult wants to shoot smack, fair enough, I have no problem with it, nor shoudl anyone else.

nuisance

12th June 2010, 00:44

nuisance

12th June 2010, 00:47

Even if what you're saying is right, drugs should be legalised. If a consenting adult wants to shoot smack, fair enough, I have no problem with it, nor shoudl anyone else.
Fair enough I'm not saying you're wrong, that is the obvious answer of a leftist. However, we are also social revolutionaries that don't believe that society can merely reformed.

NGNM85

12th June 2010, 01:06

Im not sure if I was being trolled but in another thread one person told me that young leftists (Im in my 20s so Im hardly old) take lots of drugs and I even had a Maoist contact me who seemed to be saying that smoking cannibis is okay...

Am I really alone here in my views on drugs (that they should be illegal and that drug dealing should be dealt with ruthlessly by a Communist state and that drug takers should be forced into rehabilitation and re-education)?

I don't think anyone should be forced into reeducation, but I'm not a communist.

I also trust you already know America's prohibition against cannabis was inspired by racism, and had nothing to do with the drug, itself.(?)

I would suggest you take a lesson from America's 'War on Drugs' it's an abject failure. It's not making a dent in the traffic, it's hemorraging money, it's not curbing addiction, and it's putting a lot of people in prison for no good reason. Rehab programs are proven to be more effective, and they cost less. We need to treat drugs like a medical problem. The brute force approach is the fast track to nowhere.

The Red Next Door

12th June 2010, 01:26

As Communist you should support the legalization of weed.

Obs

12th June 2010, 01:31

Palingenesis, I'd really like to know WHY you think cannabis should be "dealt with ruthlessly". What, exactly, is the massive, unforgivable crime that lies in smoking it?

TheSamsquatch

12th June 2010, 01:43

Saorsa

12th June 2010, 02:37

Even if what you're saying is right, drugs should be legalised. If a consenting adult wants to shoot smack, fair enough, I have no problem with it, nor shoudl anyone else.

I support drug legalisation, but at the same time as that this sentence is bullshit. I have very big problem with people shooting up, it literally destroys their mind and body and it's a destructive poison in working class communities. I don't think people should be punished for simply taking drugs, and that's hardly a message that is going to win much support or respect amongst young people... but to take such a flippant attitude toward heroin of all things is just bizarre.

28350

12th June 2010, 02:42

How much liberty should we extend and entrust to people before they destroy themselves?
I mean, when should we (who?) step in?

McCroskey

12th June 2010, 02:43

I see some people arguing that the war on drugs is useless because it has not been won. It is precisely for that very reason that it is immensely useful. It is a war that CANNOT be won, because it is not a means to an end, the WOD is the end itself.

The war against drugs provides the justification to the actions of capitalist states. How would they justify otherwise the military spending, the intervention in potentially revolutionary areas, such as south america, by providing military equipment, backing and training, as well as military presence, to states like Colombia, their ally in the reactionary oposition to emerging democracies? How would they morally justify state terrorism? What reason would they give the world for their military presence in the third world?

Also, they depend on an endless supply of drugs to justify the marginalisation and repression of the "surplus" population. They have to be illegal to generate crime in areas in which they need to have a strict police control. The best proven way to fight drug addiction and crime is progressive de-criminalisation and education. That´s why they won´t go down that way, for sure, because it MAY work. They need to make sure that the part of the population more likely to spark revolutionary action (ie the part of the population excluded from the general wealth distribution) is under control, and they can justify this by the war on drugs. But if you are a black youngster in a poor neighbourhood and you are caught with a bag of weed, you are likely to get minimum six months. On the other hand, they turn a blind eye to the tons of cocaine and crystal meth consumed every day in Wall Street, and if you are a City banker and you a caught with a bag of cocaine, more than likely you´ll get away with a caution or a fine equivalent to what you spend normally on a night out. In London, young kids in Brixton, Peckham or Hackney are likely to go to jail if they are caught smoking spliffs and petty-dealing to some friends, but if you are Pete Doherty, you can be caught dozens of times with crack, heroine or cocaine, and be arrested dozens of times for theft, abuse, burglary and dealing, and be spared jail and given another opportunity. to "clean" yourself.

Drugs are here to stay. As far as I am concerned, drug consumption is the same as alcochol consumption: as far as it´s done responsibly without it being harming to one self or other people, it is not a problem. When it is self-harming and a danger to other people, then it becomes a problem and has to be dealt with. But as long as the fight against drugs is the moral justification for state terrorism and criminalisation of potentially revolutionary sections of the population, it will never be won. Capitalist states need drugs, even more than an addict needs drugs. You wouldn´t give up such a wonderful and accepted device for repression, would you?

Os Cangaceiros

12th June 2010, 02:44

Am I really alone here in my views on drugs (that they should be illegal and that drug dealing should be dealt with ruthlessly by a Communist state and that drug takers should be forced into rehabilitation and re-education)?

Hopefully.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 06:20

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 06:21

Hopefully.

Someone was saying in another thread that they believe alcohol should be banned.

Â¿Que?

12th June 2010, 06:35

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if someone has already raised this point, but I would first wish to ask what the rationale is to make drugs legal or illegal. It seems many times with authorities of different sorts that they operate under one of two assumptions: a moral assumption or a public good assumption. With drugs there seems to be a bit of both. So the first thing to ask is what motivates an authoritarian view of drug criminalization, public safety or moral concerns.

I think it's important because moral concerns go against what the left seek to accomplish. We are communists because our rationale is materialist, thus the public good or safety has to be the only justification for any type of drug regulation.

That's not to say communists don't have to be morally upright people. But morality should never be used to justify communism. Morals are ideas determined by the stage of economic development, they are basically just a sign of the times, and are liable to change as conditions do.

So, I would say, if you don't end up creating a large black market where it becomes even more of a public threat than decriminalization, then I'd be all for it as a communist. Otherwise, your only justification is moral, and that's not very socialist to me.

Saorsa

12th June 2010, 06:36

People recover from heroin abuse though physically and psychologically. The longterm effects of cannibis abuse are much worse.

While I'm no expert on the long term effects of cannabis or heroin, I'm sure that's rubbish.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 06:44

While I'm no expert on the long term effects of cannabis or heroin, I'm sure that's rubbish.

Faith is a beatiful thing....:rolleyes:

Ele'ill

12th June 2010, 06:52

Im not sure if I was being trolled but in another thread one person told me that young leftists (Im in my 20s so Im hardly old) take lots of drugs and I even had a Maoist contact me who seemed to be saying that smoking cannibis is okay...

Am I really alone here in my views on drugs (that they should be illegal and that drug dealing should be dealt with ruthlessly by a Communist state and that drug takers should be forced into rehabilitation and re-education)?

I'm not anti-drug. I've done drugs. At this stage of my life I prefer to not do drugs or be around those that do them- I won't even act as a sitter for very close friends.

The war against drugs will never be won because there are too many instances where those supposedly against drugs succumb to greed and want a piece of the market. It's something that would have to be fought with 100% effort for an extended period of time and in my opinion that simply isn't possible. The easiest way to get rid of cartels is to legalize everything. This would create all kinds of other issues.

I don't think a Communist state will be able to handle drugs any better than the current one.

Saorsa

12th June 2010, 07:10

I'm not fighting for an authoritarian state that will arrest and lock kids up in re-education camps for smoking a joint.

Maybe you are, but I sure as hell ain't.

The Intransigent Faction

12th June 2010, 07:13

Ban 'em. Ban 'em all! :mad:

Okay, now seriously, I'm no expert on the subject of the War on Drugs or the long-term effects of cannabis/heroin/cocaine/whatever.

Does solely making them illegal solve drug abuse problems? Clearly not. As others have pointed out, there are deeper issues at the root of that abuse that we can all agree should be addressed.

Treating "shooting smack" as if it is not a problem, however, is asinine. Drug abuse has serious, damaging effects on people and whether or not it is "their choice", we shouldn't just sit back apathetically, but should at least discourage it and as was said, address the factors that lead to drug abuse.

In a Socialist/Communist society there will be public health care accessible to all. Thus, not only would it be beneficial to an individual's health to avoid drug abuse, but a key point is that when people are ill, it's not just treated as "their problem". An individual's poor choices regarding drug use is an issue for society, not a mere individual preference.

Now as for marijuana specifically...I've discussed this with a couple of friends who have some experience with cannabis...Is it true that marijuana is not physically addictive and that it's less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol?

RedSonRising

12th June 2010, 07:14

The war on drugs and the incarceration of non-violent users, as opposed to serviced rehabilitation, is not something any social-revolutionary should support- but to propose the idea that allowing individuals within a society to succumb to dangerously addictive substances such as heroin is in fact preserving their autonomy is very stupid. The irony is blaring.

soyonstout

12th June 2010, 09:06

Is it true that marijuana is not physically addictive and that it's less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol?

I haven't read much scientific literature about this, but I've looked at a few articles here and there and frankly there are two problems with much of what I've read:

1.) because of the illegality of marijuana in many places, people don't often ask about it and I really don't think it is still studied nearly as much as it needs to be. Besides THC there are [from what I've read] like maybe 60 (someone correct this number if it's wrong) other cannibinoids in wild-grown skunk (as opposed to synthetic stuff) that help to get you high. Generally studies about things like drug interactions are about THC and this or that other drug. But again, who will pay for all this research on a drug that is illegal? Because of this lack of information, or lack of readily published information, people really have very little idea of what weed does. Many opponents have never done it and there really is an appalling paucity of convincing science about it, from my own very brief attempts at research. I think for most people, they grew up thinking that it was illegal for a reason or that it was really bad for them, they started drinking at some point and learned to deal with how much they should engage in a potentially fatal poison which is widely available, and then they tried weed, had a blast, and a day later (at the latest) were completely back to normal mentally (it seems this is not always the case with people with pre-existing severe psychological illnesses)

2.) I can't help but think that 20 years ago the people who are now focusing on health effects were the people saying that getting blazed would make you a violent criminal, whereas it is somewhat obvious that the usual side effect is laughing, hunger and sometimes horniness. In this way, some of the current anti-weed campaigns remind me of "intelligent design," which is nothing more than creationism 'back to the drawing board' after having lost the last debate. The most recent anti-weed arguments I've heard have been:

a) that getting stoned everyday for a long period of your life can have long-term effects on how smart you are, which seems borne out by the very unscientific personal observation of people i know that I've done. But this is again no reason to totally avoid something--marijuana stays in the body longer than alcohol, and if you were drunk for 8 years straight you would also have some serious long-term damage in both your liver and your brain (wouldn't be identical but i'm sure it would be at least comparable if not worse from being drunk literally constantly for 8 years)

b) that there's more tar and lung damage in a joint than a cigarette. this ignores a very obvious fact that the bulk of habit smokers are doing it more than 10 times a day on average, whereas even 'stoners' generally don't need to get high more than once or twice a day. so for it to be worse to get high once a week or once a month than to be addicted to cigarettes, 1 joint would have to do more damage than 70 or 300 cigarettes, respectively.

c) in the US the anti-marijuana campaigns still can't be taken very seriously because they are always full of the most unreasoned arguments around. perhaps they say one or two things that are true, but the fact that they still rely on shit arguments seems to point both to their dishonesty and the lack of solid consensus in whatever science they're using. the most idiotic one you hear is "if marijuana is legalized, people will be driving, operating heavy machinery, flying airplanes while high! think of the children!" replace that word with alcohol and realize that it can be legal to consume a substance and still illegal to do many things while there is a certain amount of it left in your body, and there can even be stiff penalties for the latter that discourage it in a huge number of users.
as recently as five years ago, there were commercials in the US paid for by the federal government about how "marijuana's not really as harmless as they say" and did any of them use scientific arguments? No. The first one involved driving while high and hitting a kid, the second involved two kids who were stoned and playing around in their father's study and they found a fun and were joking around with it and one kid wound up shooting himself--this is an argument against keeping a loaded gun anywhere that a child has access to, or keeping a loaded gun in the home period--not an argument against getting high. The third one was actually about how a kid got arrested for having weed on him, and then the announcer came on and said "still think weed is harmless?!" As if to say, "know why marijuana is illegal? Because bad things can happen if you use it--the worst of which is you might get arrested!":eek:

3.) there certainly are habitually frequent marijuana users, what i've read is that it is not physical addiction but rather that a person likes getting high and they therefore want to do it all the time. in my mind this is not dissimilar chronic masturbation is young teenagers (although of course I think the masturbation would have to be far more frequent than the marijuana use to be considered "chronic"), but many people move on, realize that you won't have time for many other things in life if you masturbate (or get high) all the time, and these people "reign it in" so to speak, and get back to their schoolwork, or go to bed so they don't miss work, or do whatever else they have to do to keep functioning normally. So I think there are people who get high every day, and then there are people who get high every week or every month, and then those that only do it maybe once or twice a year.

I am open to being shown medical studies in peer reviewed journals that aren't initially focused on or funded by marijuana-use reduction advocates that show how terrible it is for you, but the fact that the anti-weed lobby hasn't ditched the "creationist-style" arguments completely implies that more research needs to be done, studies must be verified, etc., or there would be no need for any of the shittier arguments against it.

-soyons tout

(apologies for the long post)

Lacrimi de Chiciură

12th June 2010, 09:18

Only wacky illegalists smoke weed. Law-abiding communists smoke k2. Legal budz yo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLtSuQ1qehA

bcbm

12th June 2010, 11:37

one love you fucking assholes

BeerShaman

12th June 2010, 12:21

No this is not right. Only very few revolutionaries take drugs. And cannabis is a "light" drug. However, the tormentors of the communist soldiers (EAM) in Greece after the ww2 took cannabis and other drugs and felt no shit at all while inflicting hell's pain to these brave men (marxists, but respect). Thus, and because drugs reduce one's thinking, makes someone addicted and because the state and capitalists use them and sell them, like CIA (Michael Ruppert says so) and other cops who do dirty business (I've been in a cop station in Athens, where it smelled smoked cannabis), I hate drugs and I would gladly take a shotgun and kill every last one of them, drug dealers.:mad:
During the revolution they must be hunted down and not just be given another chance (addicted, yes let them have their chance, dealers, no). They should be executed, I'd say. They also maintain a huge part of capitalist economy. You know, like an anacho-christian friend said "if we are about to destroy capitalism we also must destroy the <<night>>". And then, like a leninist friend said, "drug users keep their heads down, by misery, revolutionaries keep their heads up, by pride" (pride, lol, anyway, that's what he said):lol::)

Jazzratt

12th June 2010, 12:27

Nearly every anti-drug nutjob I've encountered has an immensly inconsistent line on drugs because I don't see them supporting firebombing pubs or hanging people who work at offliscences. Just look at the fuckwit above me:

I hate drugs and I would gladly take a shotgun and kill every last one of them, drug dealers

And yet his name suggests he takes alcohol regularly and his avatar even glorifies it.

BeerShaman

12th June 2010, 12:28

And about the state and making them illegal, as by disagreeing with the matter of the state and by taking under consideration that (in my ideology) the state (and it's a fact) is a means of oppression, I say no legal prohibition of anything. Just that we must make efforts to influence the people to turn against drugs, and that by our initiations as revolutionaries we must hunt them down violently and continuously.:(

:cool:Take this under serious consideration please, drugs and the drug market hurt as more than many others.

BeerShaman

12th June 2010, 12:33

Nearly every anti-drug nutjob I've encountered has an immensly inconsistent line on drugs because I don't see them supporting firebombing pubs or hanging people who work at offliscences. Just look at the fuckwit above me:

And yet his name suggests he takes alcohol regularly and his avatar even glorifies it.
Oh come on, drinking a beer is like no drug. Alcohol is not deug. And personnaly I never get drunk. How about this? And beer brewing is a great type of production. Are you comparing drugs to my 100 miligrams of alcohol?

Jazzratt

12th June 2010, 12:59

Oh come on, drinking a beer is like no drug.
It's exactly like quite a few drugs, especially other depressents. It's relatively strong, can be addictive and causes long term damage to various organs. It also acts as a muscle relaxant and affects brain chemistry.

Alcohol is not deug.
This has to be a position borne of utter ignorance.

And personnaly I never get drunk.
Good for you.

How about this? And beer brewing is a great type of production.
I don't disagree, I've brewed my own beer before and it is a very satisfying process. This is, however, totally and utterly irrelevent.

Are you comparing drugs to my 100 miligrams of alcohol?
Your 100 miligrams of alcohol is a drug...

BeerShaman

12th June 2010, 13:14

It's exactly like quite a few drugs, especially other depressents. It's relatively strong, can be addictive and causes long term damage to various organs. It also acts as a muscle relaxant and affects brain chemistry.

This has to be a position borne of utter ignorance.

Good for you.

I don't disagree, I've brewed my own beer before and it is a very satisfying process. This is, however, totally and utterly irrelevent.

Your 100 miligrams of alcohol is a drug...

Way to say things. A bottle of beer has about 25 milgrams of alcohol. (I usually drink one or two, and this happens 1-3 times a week, it's not that I'm addicted but I just love it). Even by drinking 4 (100 milgrams) my mind is not effected. And yes, you are right generally. But, it's just a bit silly to turn against me, when I like beer, while being anti-drug.
It's more beneficial if we say yes, drugs are bad, than saying oh look who's talking. I've heard a man, ready to die from heroine, advising me never to get addicted.
Like this, my father is diabetic and drinking a glass of wine every day is good for him. So alcohol does good things too. Cannabis doesn't at least not practically, neither any other drugs.
And sorry if I was a bit bluntly stupid, yes alcohol is a form of drugs, but the normal thing can't be compared. Still a drug-hater. And yes, large amounts of alcohol tend to lead to the hardest of situations. Though, still incomparable to drugs, because you get addicted to alcohol, ok, that's bad. You sell alcohol? Practically you do not harm anyone. You get addicted to light or hard drugs? You most possibly lost the game. And selling them? Now you're worse than a cop!

BeerShaman

12th June 2010, 13:17

Sorry for connecting things in such an awful way!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th June 2010, 13:31

Way to say things. A bottle of beer has about 25 milgrams of alcohol. (I usually drink one or two, and this happens 1-3 times a week, it's not that I'm addicted but I just love it). Even by drinking 4 (100 milgrams) my mind is not effected.

Wrong. You may not think your mind is affected, but it is and it is measurable (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809028/title.htm).

And yes, you are right generally. But, it's just a bit silly to turn against me, when I like beer, while being anti-drug.
It's more beneficial if we say yes, drugs are bad, than saying oh look who's talking. I've heard a man, ready to die from heroine, advising me never to get addicted.

Most likely because he was speaking from experience.

Like this, my father is diabetic and drinking a glass of wine every day is good for him. So alcohol does good things too. Cannabis doesn't at least not practically, neither any other drugs.

Cannabis does a "good thing" too. It gets you high.

And sorry if I was a bit bluntly stupid, yes alcohol is a form of drugs, but the normal thing can't be compared. Still a drug-hater. And yes, large amounts of alcohol tend to lead to the hardest of situations. Though, still incomparable to drugs, because you get addicted to alcohol, ok, that's bad. You sell alcohol? Practically you do not harm anyone. You get addicted to light or hard drugs? You most possibly lost the game. And selling them? Now you're worse than a cop!

You're incoherent. Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

Jazzratt

12th June 2010, 13:44

Way to say things. A bottle of beer has about 25 milgrams of alcohol. (I usually drink one or two, and this happens 1-3 times a week, it's not that I'm addicted but I just love it). Even by drinking 4 (100 milgrams) my mind is not effected. And yes, you are right generally. But, it's just a bit silly to turn against me, when I like beer, while being anti-drug.
It's more beneficial if we say yes, drugs are bad, than saying oh look who's talking. I've heard a man, ready to die from heroine, advising me never to get addicted.
Like this, my father is diabetic and drinking a glass of wine every day is good for him. So alcohol does good things too. Cannabis doesn't at least not practically, neither any other drugs.
And sorry if I was a bit bluntly stupid, yes alcohol is a form of drugs, but the normal thing can't be compared. Still a drug-hater. And yes, large amounts of alcohol tend to lead to the hardest of situations. Though, still incomparable to drugs, because you get addicted to alcohol, ok, that's bad. You sell alcohol? Practically you do not harm anyone. You get addicted to light or hard drugs? You most possibly lost the game. And selling them? Now you're worse than a cop!
Where are you getting your numbers from? According to the charts here (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_info2.shtml) and here (http://www.unlocked.ie/wai/the-facts/hardfacts.html) you are, in fact off by orders of magnitude. Not only that but 4 330ml bottles of beer (at a reasonable ABV - say 4.5%) is enough for you to be considered unable to drive safely in most countries - that is it is considered to have affected fully grown adults so I'm not really inclined to believe you, a teenager, are totally unaffected.

I'm "turning against" you because you don't actually have a reasonable, logical or consistent opinion of drugs. The arbitrary nature of your anti-drug position is evinced by your drinking alcohol; a drug that has been proven time and again to actually be quite dangerous. As for the claimed health benefits of alcohol the possible health benefits come from catechins (flavinoids) in the wine, rather than the alcohol; many of these chemicals are found in non-alcoholic drinks like green tea so the idea that alcohol in and of itself is helpful is total cobblers. On the other hand the health benefits of cannaboids like THC are widely documented to the point that it is availble on perscription in many countries including the US and UK for people suffering cancer, glaucoma and other disorders.

It's an interesting cognitive dissonance to say "you get addicted to alcohol, ok, that's bad" which recognises that alcohol can cause damage to people's health (understating it, obviously, as the withdrawl from alcohol can kill you ston fucking dead) and then say "You sell alcohol? Practically you do not harm anyone". Which is a lie. You are harming people just as much as drug dealers, but then drug dealers aren't harming people nearly as much as you think: certainly it's beyond stupid to say they are "worse than cops".

Communist Pear

12th June 2010, 13:50

Cannabis doesn't at least not practically, neither any other drugs.
Okay, this thread is a giant laugh, because it exposes the real fucking nut-jobs on this forum. I'm not going to show all the incoherences and plain bullshit, but I'm going to respond to this particular piece. Cannabis does A LOT for a lot of diseases (including mine -> Crohn's Disease) and unlike alcohol, most of these effects are VERY notable (not like, a glass of wine a day helps for the hart). The prime example of this is Multiple Sclerosis, in which cannabis helps for both pain and several other symptoms like spasms. It also helps fight nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and helps people with aids eat. In my case it controls the pain I get from my Crohn's Disease and also promotes gut healing, which means that the inflammation is controlled better. Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/28584.php

Brainwashed anti-drug bastards.

tracher999

12th June 2010, 13:52

ligelize that shit than are no problems no more

Demogorgon

12th June 2010, 13:52

It is amazing that some people still think prohibition works and ridiculous to see people happily consuming alcohol while claiming users of less dangerous drugs should be punished (and indeed those drugs effectively having the danger associated increase). Pure stupidity. At the very least, drugs that are less dangerous than alcohol should be legal. To be sure they should not be actively encouraged and come with health warnings, but no prohibition.

As for very strong drugs like heroin, I am not a total libertine these days, I do see use of it as a problem, but as a medical problem, certainly not a criminal one. On that basis if somebody is addicted they should, if they do not wish to come off be able to access safe and clean heroin and have the opportunity to take it in an environment where medical help is readily available should they overdose or whatever. Similarly if they want to come off but methadone treatment doesn't work, it should likewise be available for them to wean themselves on. I don't think heroin should be freely sold to non users, we want to minimise the taking of it, but at the same time it is inevitable it will be so we should at least endevour to keep organised crime out of it as much as possible, both by-as I say-providing it to those already addicted, destroying their market, and having tolerance zones where petty dealing won't be prosecuted, both to keep trouble associated with dealing out of residential areas and also allowing petty dealers more leeway than the big boys so as to discourage major enterprises in drugs.

So to recap, things like Cannabis available on the same terms as alcohol and tobacco with sensible health warnings and things like heroin provided to those with addiction problems where they either don't want to come off or methadone doesn't work.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th June 2010, 14:01

Okay, this thread is a giant laugh, because it exposes the real fucking nut-jobs on this forum. I'm not going to show all the incoherences and plain bullshit, but I'm going to respond to this particular piece. Cannabis does A LOT for a lot of diseases (including mine -> Crohn's Disease) and unlike alcohol, most of these effects are VERY notable (not like, a glass of wine a day helps for the hart). The prime example of this is Multiple Sclerosis, in which cannabis helps for both pain and several other symptoms like spasms. It also helps fight nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and helps people with aids eat. In my case it controls the pain I get from my Crohn's Disease and also promotes gut healing, which means that the inflammation is controlled better. Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/28584.php

Brainwashed anti-drug bastards.

I think pointing out the medicinal benefits of recreational drugs is a fundamentally flawed argument for legalisation. Pharmacologists can isolate the exact chemicals that provide the desired benefit, producing a much different product than the baggie you get from your local dealer. Not only that, but medicinal benefit is not concomitant with legal personal possession. Despite the obvious beneficial painkilling effects of morphine, I can still be arrested for possessing it as it is still a controlled substance.

I also can't help but feel that such an argument is also disengenuous. Most cannabis consumers do so for recreational rather than medical reasons.

Communist Pear

12th June 2010, 14:04

I think pointing out the medicinal benefits of recreational drugs is a fundamentally flawed argument for legalisation. Pharmacologists can isolate the exact chemicals that provide the desired benefit, producing a much different product than the baggie you get from your local dealer. Not only that, but medicinal benefit is not concomitant with legal personal possession. Despite the obvious beneficial painkilling effects of morphine, I can still be arrested for possessing it as it is still a controlled substance.

I also can't help but feel that such an argument is also disengenuous. Most cannabis consumers do so for recreational rather than medical reasons.
It's not an argument for legalisation, I was simply responding to him saying cannabis has no medical purpose. Also, I don't get a baggie from "my local dealer", I get it from a proper grower, who does it himself for medicinal purposes as well. ;)

Synthetic cannabis pills work horribly, the only one worth considering is the sativex spray and that's just a cannabis extract really. Look up marinol, it's a horrible drug, 100% THC. Also morphine is simply a painkiller and because of it it's side-effects it solves nothing, but cannabis has very little side-effects, no physical addiction and in my case actually solves the problem just as good as any other med.

BeerShaman

12th June 2010, 14:04

Where are you getting your numbers from? According to the charts here (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_info2.shtml) and here (http://www.unlocked.ie/wai/the-facts/hardfacts.html) you are, in fact off by orders of magnitude. Not only that but 4 330ml bottles of beer (at a reasonable ABV - say 4.5%) is enough for you to be considered unable to drive safely in most countries - that is it is considered to have affected fully grown adults so I'm not really inclined to believe you, a teenager, are totally unaffected.

I'm "turning against" you because you don't actually have a reasonable, logical or consistent opinion of drugs. The arbitrary nature of your anti-drug position is evinced by your drinking alcohol; a drug that has been proven time and again to actually be quite dangerous. As for the claimed health benefits of alcohol the possible health benefits come from catechins (flavinoids) in the wine, rather than the alcohol; many of these chemicals are found in non-alcoholic drinks like green tea so the idea that alcohol in and of itself is helpful is total cobblers. On the other hand the health benefits of cannaboids like THC are widely documented to the point that it is availble on perscription in many countries including the US and UK for people suffering cancer, glaucoma and other disorders.

It's an interesting cognitive dissonance to say "you get addicted to alcohol, ok, that's bad" which recognises that alcohol can cause damage to people's health (understating it, obviously, as the withdrawl from alcohol can kill you ston fucking dead) and then say "You sell alcohol? Practically you do not harm anyone". Which is a lie. You are harming people just as much as drug dealers, but then drug dealers aren't harming people nearly as much as you think: certainly it's beyond stupid to say they are "worse than cops".

LOL! I could explain it another way, but let it be! You won!:bored:

Spawn of Stalin

12th June 2010, 14:11

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 14:15

I am extremely anti-recreational drug. Yes, we all know they are very fun, and yes I believe in freedom and liberty, but aside from that, what good have drugs ever done the working class? Nothing whatsoever, probably 90% of drug victims are working class, drugs are fun but they do kill people, this is indisputable, the wellbeing of the working class should always take priority over the liberty of individuals, this is why we a Communists. I support the death penalty for any drug dealer, and I don't care how "soft" the drug is, if they are caught red handed, they need to be dealt with swiftly and justly. Flooding the streets of working class neighbourhoods with poison is one of the greatest crimes one can possibly commit.

Very well said but Im unsure about the 90 per cent of drug victims being working class...There is a lot of drug abuse among the upper middle class and "high society"...Similarly a lot of drug abuse is lumpen. Besides the physical damage drugs do there is also the psychological and cultural damage which people overlook when they say that cannibis is on the same level or not as bad for you as alcohol.

Communist Pear

12th June 2010, 14:18

I am extremely anti-recreational drug. Yes, we all know they are very fun, and yes I believe in freedom and liberty, but aside from that, what good have drugs ever done the working class? Nothing whatsoever, probably 90% of drug victims are working class, drugs are fun but they do kill people, this is indisputable, the wellbeing of the working class should always take priority over the liberty of individuals, this is why we a Communists. I support the death penalty for any drug dealer, and I don't care how "soft" the drug is, if they are caught red handed, they need to be dealt with swiftly and justly. Flooding the streets of working class neighbourhoods with poison is one of the greatest crimes one can possibly commit.
By the logic you're following a lot of things should be banned. Video games don't do anything good for the working class. Music doesn't do anything good for the working class. They are simply there for fun. Off course addiction is a problem that should be treated, but not all drugs are addictive. People who are "addicted" to cannabis are mentally addicted and that's not hard to beat at all, cannabis is almost never dangerous, except perhaps to paranoid people. MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, etc. aren't addictive at all and when used properly they are not dangerous. Why can't people make the difference between soft and hard drugs?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th June 2010, 14:19

It's not an argument for legalisation, I was simply responding to him saying cannabis has no medical purpose.

Fair enough, but generally people who make that argument don't seem to make it clear.

Also, I don't get a baggie from "my local dealer", I get it from a proper grower, who does it himself for medicinal purposes as well. ;)

Alright, but when I read about medicinal cannabis it seems to exist in a legal grey area, at least in the US.

Synthetic cannabis pills work horribly, the only one worth considering is the sativex spray and that's just a cannabis extract really. Look up marinol, it's a horrible drug, 100% THC.

I was talking about isolation, not synthesis. Dismissing such things as "just extracts" does an enormous disservice to the skills of pharmacologists. Heart medicines are more than "just a [foxglove] extract".

Also morphine is simply a painkiller and because of it it's side-effects it solves nothing,

Substitute morphine for any other painkiller subject to legal controls if you wish, but my point remains the same; eliminating pain is a beneficial effect.

but cannabis has very little side-effects, no physical addiction and in my case actually solves the problem just as good as any other med.

Or it could just be a placebo. It's this kind of tremendous oversimplification of the issues that leads me to doubt the sincerity of medicinal cannabis advocates.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

12th June 2010, 14:23

drugs are fun but they do kill people, this is indisputable... I support the death penalty for any drug dealer, and I don't care how "soft" the drug is

Who has ever died from smoking cannabis? Many people have died from drinking alcohol. What about liquor dealers?

Besides the physical damage drugs do there is also the psychological and cultural damage which people overlook when they say that cannibis is on the same level or not as bad for you as alcohol.

Cannabis is bad for culture?

Spawn of Stalin

12th June 2010, 14:30

By the logic you're following a lot of things should be banned. Video games don't do anything good for the working class. Music doesn't do anything good for the working class. They are simply there for fun. Off course addiction is a problem that should be treated, but not all drugs are addictive. People who are "addicted" to cannabis are mentally addicted and that's not hard to beat at all, cannabis is almost never dangerous, except perhaps to paranoid people. MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, etc. aren't addictive at all and when used properly they are not dangerous. Why can't people make the difference between soft and hard drugs?

Video games do not kill people, aside from the imperialist propaganda which is spliced into games today, they are mostly harmless, the same can be said for music, much of which is progressive in nature. I understand that not all drugs are addictive, but addictions are not what concerns me, it is the direct and indirect consequences of using substances, if someone drives home high, does 90 on a 30, and knocks down a woman and her child, the drugs are to blame, yes the driver was a complete idiot, but the drugs are also to blame for that, the fact that the driver made the decision to drive while intoxicated was likely because of the drugs, you can not think straight while high. No drug is harmless, the reason I failed almost every single subject at school was because I would rather be sitting behind the music block smoking a spliff, and I see my partner's younger brother replicating my behaviour every day, it's tragic because now this kid is going to be stuck selling baked beans to old ladies in Tesco all day, instead of going to university and studying something which interests him, not that he really has any interests since he started taking drugs.

Spawn of Stalin

12th June 2010, 14:32

Who has ever died from smoking cannabis? Many people have died from drinking alcohol. What about liquor dealers?

Off licence owners are just as much drug dealers as the people who stand on street corners selling illegal drugs, I acknowledge this.

Communist Pear

12th June 2010, 14:36

Fair enough, but generally people who make that argument don't seem to make it clear.

Not my problem, I already live in a country where you can have up to 10 plants for medical use when your doctor signs a form.

Alright, but when I read about medicinal cannabis it seems to exist in a legal grey area, at least in the US.

That's because of the fact that the federal government in the US didn't make any extra laws about it, but states did. This means that there are essentially conflicting laws in the US.

I was talking about isolation, not synthesis. Dismissing such things as "just extracts" does an enormous disservice to the skills of pharmacologists. Heart medicines are more than "just a [foxglove] extract".

LOL, I was saying that sativex is just an extract and it is. It is actually made from a plant which contains only THC and a plant which only contains CBD as part of their cannabinoid. This is extracted using supercritical carbon dioxide. I'm not sure why I'm doing them any disservice really. The point I was making was that it's still cannabis, but with it's ingredients extracted into a powder and then dissolved in alcohol for sublingual use. I.e. you have the same, but in a different form. It's doesn't work any different, it's just easier to administer and dose.

Substitute morphine for any other painkiller subject to legal controls if you wish, but my point remains the same; eliminating pain is a beneficial effect.

It is, but it doesn't fix the problem that causes the pain.

Or it could just be a placebo. It's this kind of tremendous oversimplification of the issues that leads me to doubt the sincerity of medicinal cannabis advocates.
Derp. Do I really need to look up all the anecdotal evidence AND all the scientific articles? Okay.

Here's a list of all studies that show medical effects in diseases: http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

And a mice experiment with simple CB2 agonists that show pain reduction, CBD is a CB2 agonist and the second most important ingredient of cannabis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12550743
etc. etc.

I'm sorry if I sound really aggressive, but I just get really pissed when people ignore the overwhelming scientific proof and anecdotal evidence that is present for a lot of diseases.

Communist Pear

12th June 2010, 14:42

Video games do not kill people, aside from the imperialist propaganda which is spliced into games today, they are mostly harmless, the same can be said for music, much of which is progressive in nature.

Fair enough, but most drugs don't kill people either and a lot of progressive people use drugs.

I understand that not all drugs are addictive, but addictions are not what concerns me, it is the direct and indirect consequences of using substances, if someone drives home high, does 90 on a 30, and knocks down a woman and her child, the drugs are to blame, yes the driver was a complete idiot, but the drugs are also to blame for that, the fact that the driver made the decision to drive while intoxicated was likely because of the drugs, you can not think straight while high.

Usually this only happens on several severely addictive drugs like heavy stimulants (cocaine) and alcohol. You can't blame people who like to smoke weed once in a while for the shit those people pull off.

No drug is harmless, the reason I failed almost every single subject at school was because I would rather be sitting behind the music block smoking a spliff, and I see my partner's younger brother replicating my behaviour every day, it's tragic because now this kid is going to be stuck selling baked beans to old ladies in Tesco all day, instead of going to university and studying something which interests him, not that he really has any interests since he started taking drugs.
And yet, I know many people who just like to smoke a spliff in the weekend and are in university and doing well. Adding to that, there are also people who hardly take any drugs and still drop out of school. You are generalising it.

Here's a nice article about it: http://www.canaseed.com/CannabisNews.aspx?id=516

Strangely showing that teenagers who just use cannabis are actually doing better at school then teenagers who don't smoke it.

soyonstout

12th June 2010, 15:09

During the Russian Revolution many soviets (if I'm remembering this correctly) took decisions to ban alcohol. I agree that even less harmful drugs cloud the mind. But on this tack, I would say that television does the same, as well as videogames, etc. It is entirely possible that workers councils in the future will be full of people who occaisionally had used some recreational drugs would be some of the people who, for reasons or proletarian self-discipline, would agree strongly that not only should the workers quit any drugs that can be quit for the time being, but that the bars should stop serving alcohol (esp. in working class neighborhoods) for an indefinite future (or limit it to a 2 drink max or something per night). This is probably not something that would happen on a national level, but I think certainly many regions would decide on things like this. Similary, there would probably be many workers unhooking their television sets until such time as one or more stations were run by the workers' councils and they could be useful for news about the revolution.

I personally don't think this means that revolutionaries need to quit this all right away (I think Lenin was of a different opinion, and I think many of us know that Lenin's opinion is backed up by a lifetime of militant commitment to the working class and the revolution*, much more so than mine), but I certainly think it means that revolutionaries need to be mindful of how much time they spend on reading theory and workers' history, and agitating in strikes and demonstrations vs. how much time they spend getting high, getting drunk, staying up all night watching crap tv shows, playing WoW, etc. I also definitely think revolutionaries need to avoid harder drugs, but having never tried many drugs besides cannabis, I'm probably not the one to make the call as to what drugs are "harder" (although i would assume any with potential fatal overdoses would be put in this category and maybe others).

-soyons tout

*despite his party's entanglement with Russian national capitalism in the last years of his life, I don't think his commitment to the working class ever lessened, I just think that this increasing connection with Russian national capitalism, coupled with the ebb of the world revolution, led him to some disastrously mistaken positions (including on the need to massacre workers in a major strike) which he disastrously spread throughout the workers' movement via his prestige. Don't mean to derail the thread, I just didn't want to seem as though I was saying "Lenin made no mistakes and remained a model for revolutionaries until his death" as this is not my position.

mykittyhasaboner

12th June 2010, 15:43

RaÃºl Duke

12th June 2010, 16:14

Under socialism, we need more intelligent drug policy and an end to the worthless drug war. I say we should legalize most to all drugs and provide treatment for addicts/problem users. I share a similar line on this issue that the SSDP does.

El Rojo

12th June 2010, 16:35

ban drugs you say? soooooo no more coffee, paracetemol, coca-cola, alcohol, tea! the Uk would colapse overnight!

in my opinion all this hard drug soft drug shit is a false ditchotomy. anything that physically alters ye, mentally or physically is a drug. the effects of these substances depend on the ammount and wider social processes.

im no scientist, but a small ammount of cocaine must have rougly the same effect as a lot of coffee (very roughly)

all "damage" done to people is generally due to the situations in which the drug is used. if legalised, produced and distributed under socialist conditions, which attention being paid to t effects, then i see no problem.

i may be contradicting myself but with certain drugs like cocaine and heroin, i would advocate weening people off them. a massive tax on it and loadsa propaganda about how nasty that shit is.

hell, tbh you anti drug folks are being rather small minded. once we achive socialism, we will be able to produce AWESOME drugs. the best minds of the work and a socialist production system bent to ceating the funnest mind altering chemicals ever. it will be a hoot, conrades!

Proletarian Ultra

12th June 2010, 16:38

It's funny. We Leninists, who correctly recognize the necessity of a worker's state, ought to be more not less sophisticated in our critique of the capitalist state than the anarchists. But the opposite is in fact the case.

The question is not what to do about drugs in some hypothetical future revolutionary society. The question is what to do right now. What to do about the capitalist war on drugs.

The city I live in, Baltimore, has many nicknames. One of them is 'Mobtown' because we used to have riots all the time; there was a large population of under- and un-employed proletarians. They don't riot anymore. Because prohibition makes dealing so lucrative, many of them have become successful lumpenproles instead of frustrated workers.

Beyond that, prohibition gives the cops blanket authority to surveil, search, invade the homes of, arrest and detain the poor, both prole and lumpen. In Egypt they call that the permanent State of Emergency. In Malaysia and Singapore they call that the Internal Security Act. In Palestine they call it the occupation. We call it the war on drugs.

Obviously it needs to be smashed.

On a side note, the CIA regularly uses hard drugs to raise currency for clandestine imperialist war - e.g. heroin with Guomindang holdouts in Southeast Asia, again for the Afghan mujahideen, cocaine for the Contras. This is only possible because of the clandestine nature of the trade and because artificial scarcity brings about super-profits.

Again, it needs to be smashed.

The question of what to do about it under the dictatorship of the proletariat is another matter altogether. Only under socialism can you do the necessary kind of mass work to deal with mass addiction - as e.g. the CCP did in Shanghai, where as much as 20% of the population were opium addicts.

Ovi

12th June 2010, 17:05

I am extremely anti-recreational drug. Yes, we all know they are very fun, and yes I believe in freedom and liberty, but aside from that, what good have drugs ever done the working class? Nothing whatsoever, probably 90% of drug victims are working class, drugs are fun but they do kill people, this is indisputable, the wellbeing of the working class should always take priority over the liberty of individuals, this is why we a Communists. I support the death penalty for any drug dealer, and I don't care how "soft" the drug is, if they are caught red handed, they need to be dealt with swiftly and justly. Flooding the streets of working class neighbourhoods with poison is one of the greatest crimes one can possibly commit.
Yes, you are the ambassador of freedom and liberty, yet you find it ok to killing people for not agreeing with you. Pretty weird how those who have reservations against legalized abortion are immediately tagged as reactionaries, while those who would enforce the death penalty for selling weed (or alcohol?) are first class revolutionaries. Good thing you and your views are irrelevant in the real world, otherwise we would have a real problem here.

tracher999

12th June 2010, 17:34

RaÃºl Duke

12th June 2010, 18:13

If I can't do drugs than it's not my revolution :p

All this talk about "proletarian" self-discipline and what-not is making me naseous...
What are we, "revolutionary monks?"

[QUOTE]once we achive socialism, we will be able to produce AWESOME drugs. the best minds of the work and a socialist production system bent to ceating the funnest mind altering chemicals ever. it will be a hoot, comrades!/QUOTE]

Now this is change I can believe in.

this is an invasion

12th June 2010, 18:30

Im not sure if I was being trolled but in another thread one person told me that young leftists (Im in my 20s so Im hardly old) take lots of drugs and I even had a Maoist contact me who seemed to be saying that smoking cannibis is okay...

Am I really alone here in my views on drugs (that they should be illegal and that drug dealing should be dealt with ruthlessly by a Communist state and that drug takers should be forced into rehabilitation and re-education)?

Wow. I hope you're joking. The fact that drug use is illegal is the one of the biggest causes of the sheer amount of poor and working people in US prisons, the drug cartels that are killing poor and working people in Mexico, and the destruction of poor communities of color. Not to mention that lumping all drug users together is incredibly stupid and fucked up.

People who push heroin, crack, meth, etc., should be dealt with by communities. Not a state.

Obs

12th June 2010, 18:40

You guys should try reading this thread while high.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

12th June 2010, 20:07

You guys should try reading this thread while high.

You think everything is so funny when you're wasted/drunk so whatever.

I don't think recreational drug use should be socially acceptable whatsoever. Obviously the simple reactionary legalistic line isn't a good one except to capitalists who want to pander to popular opinion without doing anything in actuality, but I find this permissiveness to self-destruction equally repugnant.

Quail

12th June 2010, 20:08

In a communist society, drugs should be legal and people should be free to put whatever they want into their bodies, but I also think that there needs to be a way of encouraging people not to take them for the wrong reasons. People don't generally turn to crack or heroin for the lulz. It's usually because they have problems. I think that maybe recording people who use things like heroin could help, and if someone is using it too often, then they can be offered help with their mental health and support in other areas of their life. Criminalising drugs means that people are punished for trying to get by, which is completely wrong. I also don't think that people should be forced into rehabilitation (but they should be encouraged) because if an addict doesn't want to recover, then they won't, and the rehabilitation is a waste of time and resources for everyone.

SocialismOrBarbarism

12th June 2010, 20:14

Off licence owners are just as much drug dealers as the people who stand on street corners selling illegal drugs, I acknowledge this.

So actual licensed capitalists selling bad things = tolerable, but some kid selling weed because we're facing the toughest job market in decades = deserving of death? 'tf?

RaÃºl Duke

12th June 2010, 20:14

I have one thing to say...

Under socialism, if you think following the current legalistic war on drug line is going to be oh so different outcomes from the same policy under capitalism, I seriously think you are deluding yourself.

A war on drugs in any/all case will always be a failure. People will always find a way to get high. What a humane society should do is not punish/restrict the use of drugs but provide treatment for addiction and problem use. Criminalizing drug users and drug dealers does little to solving the real problem: drug addictions/dependency/misuse.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 20:25

Under socialism, if you think following the current legalistic war on drug line is going to be oh so different outcomes from the same policy under capitalism, I seriously think you are deluding yourself.

I dont believe that the capitalist state is at all serious about winning in the war on drugs. They use it as a smoke screen to increase the level of their dictatorship without actually wanting drugs off our streets. In the 80s and 90s in my city there was a serious class struggle between lumpens and the working class...And guess which side the capitalist state choose? They baton charged women and childern demonstrating peacefully outside of the house of a leading heroin dealing scum bag who was destorying their community among other things. So I dont believe them when they talk about a "war on drugs"....Mao pretty much won his war in drugs though.

#FF0000

12th June 2010, 20:30

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 20:36

So actual licensed capitalists selling bad things = tolerable, but some kid selling weed because we're facing the toughest job market in decades = deserving of death? 'tf?

I personally believe that motionless's comment was over the top but I know a good few good working class militants who would completely go along with them. The type of kid who sells a weed in my area and the scum behind them are pretty nasty and would be reactionary if they actually bothered to think about things types.

Spawn of Stalin

12th June 2010, 20:37

Yes, you are the ambassador of freedom and liberty, yet you find it ok to killing people for not agreeing with you.
No, I am not saying we should kill people who do not agree, I am saying we should kill people who do not comply.

Pretty weird how those who have reservations against legalized abortion are immediately tagged as reactionaries, while those who would enforce the death penalty for selling weed (or alcohol?) are first class revolutionaries. Good thing you and your views are irrelevant in the real world, otherwise we would have a real problem here.
Yes, the more authoritarian wing of socialism is so irrelevant, it's had virtually no impact on the real world. Get a grip on reality, comrade.

iff you do like that you realy getting old man gow wath the news man learn more off that anti drugs bulshit:mad::blink:
What did you just say?

So actual licensed capitalists selling bad things = tolerable, but some kid selling weed because we're facing the toughest job market in decades = deserving of death? 'tf?
First of all, I didn't say selling alcohol was tolerable, I said it was equal to street dealing, meaning, just as bad. Second, I don't buy into the idea that people are forced into dealing due to economic conditions, because this is exactly the same argument that the murderers in Afghanistan use. If you are poor, do something about it, or do nothing about it, either way don't go making other people suffer for your economic hardships. If you can deal drugs you can steal to survive, you could just steal from supermarkets to survive, you could swindle an insurance company, or if you've got the balls you could pull off a bank job, just don't commit crimes against your own class.

28350

12th June 2010, 20:39

Toxic Narcotic:

Shoot people, not dope.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 20:44

First of all, I didn't say selling alcohol was tolerable, I said it was equal to street dealing, meaning, just as bad.

I dont go along with that...The whole "narco-industry" has had much more terrible effects on peasant and working class communities across the globe than the alcohol industry has had (which Im not saying is harmless at all). The point people are missing is by turning over cash to these people for their weekend "kicks" they are funding the spread of terror and misery in a very real way.

gorillafuck

12th June 2010, 20:55

The point people are missing is by turning over cash to these people for their weekend "kicks" they are funding the spread of terror and misery in a very real way.
So is buying clothing made by sweatshop laborers, and many, many, many other things.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 20:57

So is buying clothing made by sweatshop laborers, and many, many, many other things.

You need clothes...You dont need drugs.

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 20:59

You think everything is so funny when you're wasted/drunk so whatever.

I don't think recreational drug use should be socially acceptable whatsoever. Obviously the simple reactionary legalistic line isn't a good one except to capitalists who want to pander to popular opinion without doing anything in actuality, but I find this permissiveness to self-destruction equally repugnant.
you probably never seen people taking schizophrenic medication because other drugs are not available. those kind of people are stupid,careless and will do whatever stupid thing they can do like puffing gas. they need to have safer drugs and i don't care if they enjoy it more, the state of their brain is more important than someone's selfish ego that doesn't want others to enjoy drugs at all by having diluted crap which drives up profits to the roof.

seriously the debate need to centered back on puffing gas, which will be what happens if all drugs are illegal and cracked down heavily upon. will it be illegal? will the cops suspect you of puffing gas because you have some gas can at home?

First of all, I didn't say selling alcohol was tolerable, I said it was equal to street dealing, meaning, just as bad. Second, I don't buy into the idea that people are forced into dealing due to economic conditions, because this is exactly the same argument that the murderers in Afghanistan use. If you are poor, do something about it, or do nothing about it, either way don't go making other people suffer for your economic hardships. If you can deal drugs you can steal to survive, you could just steal from supermarkets to survive, you could swindle an insurance company, or if you've got the balls you could pull off a bank job, just don't commit crimes against your own class.
murderers in afghanistan have an incentive to be murderers due to their economic problem. prostitution is the same thing, so drug dealing too. also pointing up guns at people's face is pretty much a crime against your own class, with psychological trauma. you are advising people to commit crimes instead of dealing drugs. but you still don't understand, a high number of drug dealers means lower price, that's it. there will always be a drug dealer and people will simply pay higher price for the same thing. also, it isnt a crime against your own class for fuck sake. you have no idea of the amount of damage it causes and why people abuse drugs. any drugs can be used without lasting brain damage. most drugs that are abused causes brain damage. oh and psychological trauma is nowhere as equal as brain damage and has much more repercussion on someone's ability to function

Palingenesis, where the fuck did you get this idea that heroin causes less brain damage than marijuana? seriously for both of them the brain goes back to normal functioning after it isn't used for about a year or so. though it may take more time for marijuana i truly fail to see how marijuana would make you dumber in any sort of way. it makes people more introspective and so on , but seriously whats the big deal.

it's a good thing i don't know how to neg rep because seriously the kill all drug dealers people would have faced it. no drug dealer could ever compare himself to a murderer or a rapist, yet they sometime have the same sentence. the fact that it is illegal causes murders and so on . even bank robbers are lower than drug dealers seriously, having a gun pointed at your face is no funny thing.

many who are opposed to drug legalization have a warped view of drugs.when it comes to careless behavior and violence alcohol is the worse drug one can take . pcp can make people go quite crazy but it is very rare. as for cocaine or speed it may increases agressivity but never to the amount of what alcohol does to you. and i say it again, alcohol is the worst drugs of them all and it is legal. the real reason why drugs are illegal is that those illegal drugs are done in poor countries. do you have any idea how much of world's poverty would be alleviated by legalizing cocaine and heroin? in afghanistan and colombia the farmers would finally get a good share of that money. though of course corporations will take over and the same bullshit will happen .

gorillafuck

12th June 2010, 21:00

You need clothes...You dont need drugs.
You don't need soda.

Are you vehemently opposed to people buying soda? The companies who sell soda are just as horrible as major drug traffickers.

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 21:03

I dont go along with that...The whole "narco-industry" has had much more terrible effects on peasant and working class communities across the globe than the alcohol industry has had (which Im not saying is harmless at all). The point people are missing is by turning over cash to these people for their weekend "kicks" they are funding the spread of terror and misery in a very real way.
only because it is illegal. also how do you know the harm done by drugs? you have no knowledge of microbiology. almost 100% of the studies found to be negative toward drugs are found to be flawed. a recent study with marijuana claimed it increased schizophrenia was found to be flawed. why should we trust anymore studies? science lost legitimacy when it is biased for certain interests.

You need clothes...You dont need drugs.
you don't need clothes made by children. or sweatshop labourers.

#FF0000

12th June 2010, 21:03

I dont go along with that...The whole "narco-industry" has had much more terrible effects on peasant and working class communities across the globe than the alcohol industry has had (which Im not saying is harmless at all). The point people are missing is by turning over cash to these people for their weekend "kicks" they are funding the spread of terror and misery in a very real way.

You know over here in the states the government sort of kind of takes your line on drugs and the result is a cavalier police force with military-grade materials who will bust into a house and fire wildly on the tip that someone has a marijuana plant.

And then the people who are abused and exploited to produce drugs are still abused and exploited to produce drugs.

So I don't see how prohibition is an option and it sounds like liberal moralizing to me.

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 21:05

You don't need soda.

Are you vehemently opposed to people buying soda? The companies who sell soda are much more criminal than any drug dealer.

i disagree in the current state of things. i agree that coca cola is pretty evil with the union members. but drug dealers in colombia often kill people such as witnesses. and many drug dealers in north america kill competitors or so. then again all of this is caused by it being illegal in the first place. what i am scared of is the effect of corporation taking over drug dealing. using flawed research to claim their recreative drugs are safe etc . if anyone wants to argue against drug legalization this should be their approach.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 21:06

You don't need soda.

Are you vehemently opposed to people buying soda? The companies who sell soda are much more criminal than any drug dealer.

Soda companies have to keep within the lines most of the time anyway and roughly of capitalist legallity...The narco-industry doesnt. These scum have their own "counter-power" that is utterly ruthless.

I hate lumpen drug dealing scum as much as I hate Imperialist soldiers.

#FF0000

12th June 2010, 21:07

You know drug use tends to decline in places that have it legalized right

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 21:10

I hate lumpen drug dealing scum as much as I hate Imperialist soldiers.

hate is very irrational.

yet again you prove that it is drug status of illegality that causes problems.

legalizing drugs like marijuana would make it harder for those under 18 to obtain it.

gorillafuck

12th June 2010, 21:12

Soda companies have to keep within the lines most of the time anyway and roughly of capitalist legallity...The narco-industry doesnt. These scum have their own "counter-power" that is utterly ruthless.
Using paramilitaries to terrorize workers and torture and kill union organizers is legal?

You should probably do some learning about the soda industry.

RaÃºl Duke

12th June 2010, 21:23

Soda companies have to keep within the lines most of the time anyway and roughly of capitalist legallity...The narco-industry doesnt. That's because one industry is legal and under the law, while the other is not. If drugs were legal, we can regulate them.

I dont believe that the capitalist state is at all serious about winning in the war on drugs. They use it as a smoke screen to increase the level of their dictatorship without actually wanting drugs off our streets. In the 80s and 90s in my city there was a serious class struggle between lumpens and the working class...And guess which side the capitalist state choose? They baton charged women and childern demonstrating peacefully outside of the house of a leading heroin dealing scum bag who was destorying their community among other things. So I dont believe them when they talk about a "war on drugs"....Mao pretty much won his war in drugs though.

Hahaha....oh tell me what will be done differently in this hypothetical socialist war on drugs?

Also, in Mao's case...different social conditions. It was harder to move between provinces, etc and opium was seen as a symptom of Western imperialism (aka Opium Wars).

The U.S. in the 21st century is not Mao's China.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 21:23

Using paramilitaries to terrorize workers and torture and kill union organizers is legal?

You should probably do some learning about the soda industry.

The use of paramilitaries is an essential part of the narco-industry.

gorillafuck

12th June 2010, 21:28

The use of paramilitaries is an essential part of the narco-industry.
I never said otherwise. I am saying soda companies also do.

You said people shouldn't buy weed because of how it's industry works. Do you think the same of buying soda, due to the soda industry?

RaÃºl Duke

12th June 2010, 21:29

The use of paramilitaries is an essential part of the narco-industry. Zeekloid is refferring to the Coca-Cola using paramilitary against union organizers in Colombia. In other words, in some cases, even a legal corporate enterprise can use illegal tactics that the narco-industry uses. Thus the nature of capitalism.

Under socialism, the state or communes/co-op networks will run the "narco-industry" not for the purpose of making a profit as the current "narco-industry" is.

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 21:30

The use of paramilitaries is an essential part of the narco-industry.
and i am saying those paramilitaries are much more aggressive and present due to the status of illegality. also foreign aid from the united states is mostly given to israel,egypt, and other countries fighting the drug war aka colombia.

the colombian government is involved in drug dealing just as much as the revolutionary farc or eln.

Obs

12th June 2010, 22:14

The use of paramilitaries is an essential part of the narco-industry.
So the way industries work will not at all be changed under socialism? Is that what you're saying?

Jazzratt

12th June 2010, 22:33

The use of paramilitaries is an essential part of the narco-industry.

Only as a fact of its being illegal. If people growing, synthesising and distributing drugs didn't have to face state (or IRA or whatever) violence for doing so they wouldn't require paramilitaries. Were it not for being illegal the narcotics industry would be no worse than any other (which may of course mean they will continue to employ paramilitaries in the same way as Coca-Cola and so on but I hope you're not too dense to get my point.)

Blake's Baby

12th June 2010, 22:37

Surely if it were legal it would be the 'pharmaceutical industry', if not the 'alcohol industry', 'tobacco industry' or even 'entertainment industry'?

I hate the term 'narcotic' for 'illegal drug', especially as most 'narcotics' are actually stimulants or other non-narcotic agents, and some 'narcotics' are legal.

Os Cangaceiros

12th June 2010, 22:39

I never said otherwise. I am saying soda companies also do.

You said people shouldn't buy weed because of how it's industry works. Do you think the same of buying soda, due to the soda industry?

Or cell phones, due to the brutal wars in Africa over coltan?

Or gasoline/oil, due to strategic military imperialism over fossil fuel reserves?

Or any number of other things?

Obs

12th June 2010, 22:42

Or cell phones, due to the brutal wars in Africa over coltan?

Or gasoline/oil, due to strategic military imperialism over fossil fuel reserves?

Or any number of other things?
No-one should buy anything ever if it's not made in North Korea.

Ovi

12th June 2010, 23:43

Yes, the more authoritarian wing of socialism is so irrelevant, it's had virtually no impact on the real world. Get a grip on reality, comrade.

Your authoritarian views are not very popular in any developed country today and most likely won't be any time soon. And no, I am not your comrade.

First of all, I didn't say selling alcohol was tolerable, I said it was equal to street dealing, meaning, just as bad. Second, I don't buy into the idea that people are forced into dealing due to economic conditions, because this is exactly the same argument that the murderers in Afghanistan use.If you are poor, do something about it, or do nothing about it, either way don't go making other people suffer for your economic hardships. If you can deal drugs you can steal to survive, you could just steal from supermarkets to survive, you could swindle an insurance company, or if you've got the balls you could pull off a bank job, just don't commit crimes against your own class.

The fact that you consider bank robbing better than selling weed is puzzling indeed.
And I can happily say that me smoking weed will have little influence on the war in Afghanistan or any other imperialist war for that matter.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 23:44

And I can happily say that me smoking weed will have little influence on the war in Afghanistan or any other imperialist war for that matter.

The Imperialist war effort in Afghanistan has a lot to do with drugs.

Palingenisis

12th June 2010, 23:45

By that I mean it has a lot to do with certain people wanting to keep the flow of them coming.

#FF0000

12th June 2010, 23:46

By that I mean it has a lot to do with certain people wanting to keep the flow of them coming.

There is a lot of absolute nonsense that is involved with drugs and almost 100% of it has everything to do with it being illegal

GreenCommunism

12th June 2010, 23:47

The Imperialist war effort in Afghanistan has a lot to do with drugs.
dude he was talking about weed. are you talking about cracking down on heroin or are you talking about partaking in heroin dealing? the government over there is in the same situation as colombia, no possibility to get elected without drug money.

also the irony of stopping drugs to fight the war on terror is that people should grow their own in order to stop funding terrorist.

RaÃºl Duke

13th June 2010, 00:03

The Imperialist war effort in Afghanistan has a lot to do with drugs. I noticed that Palingenesis has stopped answering our points and just throws out random statements with little analysis to back them up.

U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan does not have "a lot" to do with drugs, only a little mostly and only on one drug: Opium.
U.S imperialism has led to an increase in poppy/opium production in Afghanistan, perhaps due to the ensuing chaos of the initial attack. Initially, the U.S wanted to take a hardline approach and target as much poppy fields as possible. Now I'm not sure what their stance is, but take in consideration that many Afghani farmers make a living in growing poppy/opium. A hardline war on drugs approach towards them harms their livelihood; just like the war on drugs has affected many coca farmers in South America.

#FF0000

13th June 2010, 00:12

Woah it's almost as if this whole issue is a lot more difficult than saying "drugs are bad hurr durr" or "420 smoke weed every day"

Woaaaah

GreenCommunism

13th June 2010, 00:22

palingenesis has a point that opium production in the taliban time was destroyed by the harsh sentences.

RaÃºl Duke

13th June 2010, 00:23

palingenesis has a point that opium production in the taliban time was destroyed by the harsh sentences.

It wasn't destroyed...
I read that there was still substantial amount of poppy being produced in Afghanistan even during the Taliban's time.

During 1999, 75% of the world's opium was from Afghanistan according to the UN (http://www.opioids.com/timeline/)

Blake's Baby

13th June 2010, 00:34

Though that may be because the Northern Alliance was growing it to fund their war against the Taleban.

But I've heard conflicting claims on this. R

mosfeld

13th June 2010, 01:22

Marijuana legalization isn't some priority of mine, but I think it should be legalized on the grounds that it does have great medical benefits and it's not harmful, especially not in comparison to the two big legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

I actually giggled a bit at Palingenisis' ironic "hardcore anti-marijuana but being cool with alcohol" sentiment (these Irish people..) Sorry, but evidence isn't really on your side ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg.png

GreenCommunism

13th June 2010, 02:14

It wasn't destroyed...
I read that there was still substantial amount of poppy being produced in Afghanistan even during the Taliban's time.

During 1999, 75% of the world's opium was from Afghanistan according to the UN

hmm not sure if thats the time the taliban wanted to use it for funding or not.

Marijuana legalization isn't some priority of mine, but I think it should be legalized on the grounds that it does have great medical benefits and it's not harmful, especially not in comparison to the two big legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

I actually giggled a bit at Palingenisis' ironic "hardcore anti-marijuana but being cool with alcohol" sentiment (these Irish people..) Sorry, but evidence isn't really on your side

im not sure about that chart. why heroin bad for physical harm ? do they take into account lack of purity etc?

gorillafuck

13th June 2010, 03:01

im not sure about that chart. why heroin bad for physical harm ? do they take into account lack of purity etc?
Heroin makes your body extraordinarily weak and really messes with how it functions, gives you worse withdrawal than any other drug, and can easily kill you. Heroin really is a horrible drug.

leftace53

13th June 2010, 03:16

im not sure about that chart. why heroin bad for physical harm ? do they take into account lack of purity etc?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Long-term_effects_of_heroin.png

gogo wikipedia

The chart does seem a bit off, because some of the yellow dot drugs are often taken with other things (like GHB and Alcohol - a potentially lethal combination), but still, the choice should lie with the drug user.

Vendetta

13th June 2010, 03:44

I love weed.

Now that thats outta the way, I think that its nobodys damn business what people put in their bodies or get high with.

The Red Next Door

13th June 2010, 06:19

13th June 2010, 06:24

I recently lost a half-sister to a heroin overdose, and I have a brother who is a recovering addict. As has been said, it is a horrible drug. The effect that the sort of knee-jerk moralism has on whatever the problem in question is, however, is actually always to justify measures which make the problem worse, under the guise of moral outrage. It is always "HEROIN DESTROYS LIVES!!!1" (which is absolutely true) followed by "CRACK DOWN ON HEROIN, MORE COPS ON THE STREET, TIGHTEN LAWS, ZERO TOLERANZE!!!!!!!!1" which everyone proceeds to support, in spite of the fact that even a cursory examination of this method of "dealing" with heroin addiction demonstrates very clearly that, in fact, it is a great way to ensure that heroin destroys many more lives than it would otherwise. Anyone who has ever known a heroin addict knows that whatever barrier you put between him and his fix, he will find a way over it or he will die trying. And he will drag down as many people as he needs to in the process, without consideration. So the more legal barriers you put between him and his fix, the more people he'll have to drag down with him, and the greater the risk he'll die in the process.

What I imagine would be the best way of dealing with heroin addiction (or opiate addiction in general) on a societal level, would be legalization and socialized production with strict regulations to ensure dosage consistency and optimum quality of product (the purity and concentration of heroin in the stuff available on the street is hugely variable, and it is precisely this inconsistency which most often leads to death from overdose, not taking mixing into account), which would be administered for free at in-patient hospitals, where the patients and their dosage levels would be closely monitored. It is quite possible that this would not only hugely minimize the number of deaths from heroin overdose, but would in fact eliminate the possibility of death from overdose altogether. And obviously methadone/suboxone/etc. programs and/or detox would have also to be made available to the patients, in addition to therapy, should they decide to try to get their lives back together (and if addiction were treated like a medical condition rather than some sort of social degeneracy, I imagine it would more positively frame the attitude of the addicts themselves around recovery).

The other super destructive drug is meth, but (thankfully, in a way) I know less about that one, so I don't really have an informed opinion about how it would best be dealt with, but I suspect a similar approach would be appropriate.

Also, lol @ people who think things like pot and tryptamines need to be illegal; read a book or something.

#FF0000

13th June 2010, 06:48

i liek weed but i eat a lot when im stoned :3

lol i no itz fun but i get fat :(

RedLaw

13th June 2010, 07:40

Im not sure if I was being trolled but in another thread one person told me that young leftists (Im in my 20s so Im hardly old) take lots of drugs and I even had a Maoist contact me who seemed to be saying that smoking cannibis is okay...

Am I really alone here in my views on drugs (that they should be illegal and that drug dealing should be dealt with ruthlessly by a Communist state and that drug takers should be forced into rehabilitation and re-education)?

I agree with Palingenisis. Whether it's cocaine,heroin,crystal-meth or,yes,
even Marijuana, all are toxic,posionous substances that are harmful to both
body and mind and should be banned.
These drugs are most often used as a form of 'escape' by people and are
'part and parcel' of living in a decadent and decaying capitalist society that
leaves everyone to look after themselves in the dog-eat-dog rat race.
You want recreation? Buy a frisbee. Drugs have no place at all in a healthy
communist society. Dope is for 'dopes'.

13th June 2010, 08:31

I agree with Palingenisis. Whether it's cocaine,heroin,crystal-meth or,yes,
even Marijuana, all are toxic,posionous substances that are harmful to both
body and mind and should be banned.
These drugs are most often used as a form of 'escape' by people and are
'part and parcel' of living in a decadent and decaying capitalist society that
leaves everyone to look after themselves in the dog-eat-dog rat race.
You want recreation? Buy a frisbee. Drugs have no place at all in a healthy
communist society. Dope is for 'dopes'.

Certainly you'll include caffeine and alcohol on the prohibition list, too, then. Chemotherapy and aspirin will obviously have to go as well. You know what else is harmful to body and mind? Sugar. Let's get rid of sugar while we're at it.

bcbm

13th June 2010, 09:05

I agree with Palingenisis. Whether it's cocaine,heroin,crystal-meth or,yes,
even Marijuana, all are toxic,posionous substances that are harmful to both
body and mind and should be banned.

marijuana is well documented as having medicinal use to treat a number of conditions. lsd and other hallucinogens have been been shown to be beneficial in the treatment of addiction. opiates have obvious medicinal use as painkillers and anesthetics. and even from a purely recreational standpoint, many drugs are no more harmful than legal intoxicants like alcohol and certainly less toxic and poisonous than nicotine.

These drugs are most often used as a form of 'escape' by people and are
'part and parcel' of living in a decadent and decaying capitalist society that
leaves everyone to look after themselves in the dog-eat-dog rat race.human drug use can be traced back to at least the mesolithic, and much earlier by some theories.

You want recreation? Buy a frisbee. Drugs have no place at all in a healthy
communist society. Dope is for 'dopes'.i think a healthy communist society would also be one that valued personal freedom, including the freedom to put whatever you like into your body as long as you don't harm other people.

ChrisK

13th June 2010, 10:14

I agree with Palingenisis. Whether it's cocaine,heroin,crystal-meth or,yes, even Marijuana, all are toxic,posionous substances that are harmful to both body and mind and should be banned.

How are these drugs any more dangerous that alcohol or cigarettes? In fact, how is pot dangerous or harmful? Can you find a single pot related death ever?

These drugs are most often used as a form of 'escape' by people and are 'part and parcel' of living in a decadent and decaying capitalist society that leaves everyone to look after themselves in the dog-eat-dog rat race.
You want recreation? Buy a frisbee. Drugs have no place at all in a healthy communist society.

Sugar? Salt? Will caffine be regulated to "healthy" amounts? What of cars, those are might dangerous. Riding a skateboard without a helmet? All of these are "unhealthy", will they have no place in a communist society?

Dope is for 'dopes'.

If thats true then you must be smokin 24/7.

tracher999

13th June 2010, 10:44

@ motionless you read idd man dont ackt so stupped:blink:

Ovi

13th June 2010, 11:07

If I don't like it then it should be banned!
Fixed that for you. Why argue with bullshit arguments about things that you know nothing about when this is the only argument that stalinists ever need :D

Obs

13th June 2010, 11:22

Certainly you'll include caffeine and alcohol on the prohibition list, too, then. Chemotherapy and aspirin will obviously have to go as well. You know what else is harmful to body and mind? Sugar. Let's get rid of sugar while we're at it.
Shit, let's ban breathing without a gas mask, too. Can't have people taking in those harmful pollutants.

Obs

13th June 2010, 11:30

What the...? Dude, I'm agreeing with you guys that drug prohibition is absurd. What'd I ever do to you?

073

13th June 2010, 11:33

its what you didn't do, and if you don't know im not gonna tell you

<_<

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 11:49

These drugs are most often used as a form of 'escape' by people and are
'part and parcel' of living in a decadent and decaying capitalist society that
leaves everyone to look after themselves in the dog-eat-dog rat race.
You want recreation? Buy a frisbee. Drugs have no place at all in a healthy
communist society. Dope is for 'dopes'.

Actually you raise a very interesting point....Marx following Fuerbach believed that religion arose out of human's alienation from themselves and others and that once that alienation was overcome religion would "naturally" disintergrate...It could be said that drug use arises out of people not wanting to face an alienating world or themselves and that once inner and outer alienation has been over come than the desire for these "escapes" will also go?

073

13th June 2010, 11:50

Shut up. You're as irrelevant as you are boring.

And you're very boring. :(

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 11:53

Marijuana legalization isn't some priority of mine, but I think it should be legalized on the grounds that it does have great medical benefits and it's not harmful, especially not in comparison to the two big legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.

I actually giggled a bit at Palingenisis' ironic "hardcore anti-marijuana but being cool with alcohol" sentiment (these Irish people..) Sorry, but evidence isn't really on your side ;)

Dont people usually smoke cannibis with tabacco?

Anyway I realise that tabacco and alcohol are physically more addictive and harmful than cannibis...However cannibis is much more psychologically and culturally damaging.

Obs

13th June 2010, 11:54

However cannibis is much more psychologically and culturally damaging.

First, I'd like a source on how it's more "psychologically damaging", and then I'd like a definition of "cultural damage".

Old Man Diogenes

13th June 2010, 11:55

How much liberty should we extend and entrust to people before they destroy themselves?
I mean, when should we (who?) step in?

I think we're only justified in 'stepping in' if it begins to harm someone other than the person who is taking them, as TheSamsquatch said, "I'm a firm believer that you should have freedom over your own body. As long as you do no harm to any other living, breathing being, you should be able to do whatever you want to yourself." And even then I think 'stepping in' should take the form of trying to appeal to those taking drugs to stop, or take them in moderation, either by their relatives or friends (as I imagine already happens today) or by rehabilitation programs. A world where things like this are dealt with 'ruthlessly by a Communist state that forces drug takers into rehabilitation and re-education' would be abhorrent.

bcbm

13th June 2010, 11:58

Actually you raise a very interesting point....Marx following Fuerbach believed that religion arose out of human's alienation from themselves and others and that once that alienation was overcome religion would "naturally" disintergrate...It could be said that drug use arises out of people not wanting to face an alienating world or themselves and that once inner and outer alienation has been over come than the desire for these "escapes" will also go?

human drug use can be traced back to at least the mesolithic, and much earlier by some theories.

drug use is not just an "escape," but a past time for humanity stretching back thousands of years. the desire to use drugs is not simply a desire to "escape," (though it can be) but a desire to experience existence from another perspective, whether for pleasure, medicinal purposes or even spiritual or philosophic pursuits.

Anyway I realise that tabacco and alcohol are physically more addictive and harmful than cannibis...However cannibis is much more psychologically and culturally damaging.

tobacco kills more people than just about anything else and alcohol, especially as used by alcoholics, is certainly more damaging than cannabis could ever be. compare drunk driving deaths to cannabis driving deaths, or rape, or assault or just about anything.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 11:58

Never realized I destroyed culture when I smoked a joint.

Fuck yeah! :cool:

Did you also not realise that you both thanked and neg repped one of posts?

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:02

drug use is not just an "escape," but a past time for humanity stretching back thousands of years. the desire to use drugs is not simply a desire to "escape," (though it can be) but a desire to experience existence from another perspective, whether for pleasure, medicinal purposes or even spiritual or philosophic pursuits.
.

What does any pioson that distorts the minds ability to comprend reality and to reason have to do with any serious philosphical pursuits?

Would you consider Timothy Leary or Hakim Bey philoshpers?

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:05

First, I'd like a source on how it's more "psychologically damaging", and then I'd like a definition of "cultural damage".

The trash produced to entertain the infantilized drug twisted minds of the likes of biacami would be a good place if you want a definition of cultural damage.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:09

First, I'd like a source on how it's more "psychologically damaging", and then I'd like a definition of "cultural damage".

Mental health problems

There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?

Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.

Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.

Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

Obs

13th June 2010, 12:10

The trash produced to entertain the infantilized drug twisted minds of the likes of biacami would be a good place if you want a definition of cultural damage.
I'm sorry, could you please be a little more vague?

#FF0000

13th June 2010, 12:11

If you wanted to be consistent with this at all you have to say drinking is bad and shoot every bartender.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:15

if i ever go to ireland, or if u ever cum 2 australia, we should meet up and ill take you to a world of heavenly pleasure ;) xo

once u go marsella, u never go back. :)

Narcissistic much?

Obs

13th June 2010, 12:16

Mental health problems

There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?

Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.

Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.

Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx

This didn't show how cannabis is supposedly more harmful than alcohol, though.

bcbm

13th June 2010, 12:18

i'd like to hear a response about the alcohol and tobacco issue.

What does any pioson that distorts the minds ability to comprend reality and to reason have to do with any serious philosphical pursuits?

some hallucinogenic experiences promote heavy thought, often in new and interesting ways that can offer new insights to problems. this is one of the reasons they are useful at low doses in addiction therapy.

Would you consider Timothy Leary or Hakim Bey philoshpers?

would you argue that drug users of any sort have not made any contributions to human society?

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:34

i'd like to hear a response about the alcohol and tobacco issue.

some hallucinogenic experiences promote heavy thought, often in new and interesting ways that can offer new insights to problems. this is one of the reasons they are useful at low doses in addiction therapy.

Tabacco and alcohol dont warp people's perception to the same extent as LSD, cannibis, etc do which enhance the already going process of a flight from reason and personality within Imperialist culture towards mere sensation and a barren aesthicism. So no I dont consider them as dangerous. Hitler and his friends also had a lot of "heavy thought".

Obs

13th June 2010, 12:36

Tabacco and alcohol dont warp people's perception to the same extent as LSD, cannibis, etc do which enhance the already going process of a flight from reason and personality within Imperialist culture towards mere sensation and a barren aesthicism. So no I dont consider them as dangerous. Hitler and his friends also had a lot of "heavy thought".
When I drink, I don't remember what I've been doing and am often found in situations that are highly embarrassing. Neither of these things are true when I smoke weed.

Blake's Baby

13th June 2010, 12:37

Alcohol doesn't warp people's perceptions? Are you drunk? Alcohol is about as warping to perceptions as you can get.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:38

Alcohol doesn't warp people's perceptions? Are you drunk? Alcohol is about as warping to perceptions as you can get.

Not to the same extent and not to the same depth.

Obs

13th June 2010, 12:40

Not to the same extent and not to the same depth.
Have you done either?

Blake's Baby

13th June 2010, 12:51

From my extensive research I can can conclusively conclude that alcohol is much more warping to perception than cannabis.

While LSD does produce very strange effects it has never given me misplaced super-confidence in my own abilities (except the first time, I thought I was electrical and could light my cigarette with the end of my finger - a harmless illusion), unlike alcohol, which has resulted on seperate occassions in mebreaking my leg twice, my hand/wrist bones at least three times, and 6 days blind in bed with eye damage, let alone the fairly constant belief that, under the influence of alcohol, I had the ability to consume more alcohol.

Palingenisis

13th June 2010, 12:56

You all realise that this site is being monitored by various state agencies?

Do you have any concerns about secuirity?

This really does show how revolutionary you all are.

bcbm

13th June 2010, 13:07

Tabacco and alcohol dont warp people's perception to the same extent as LSD, cannibis, etc do

i don't think you can look at the issue from such a narrow perspective and determine anything conclusively. in terms of effects on perception, however, tobacco causes severe addiction to a drug that causes various health problems that can ultimately lead to death. alcohol has a similar effect, not to mention the acts of violence and stupidity it inspires. lsd is a powerful drug, but it does not inspire addiction (often the opposite) and its warping effects rarely lead to long term health consequences or death. cannabis is essentially on par with alcohol in its warping effects while being less addicting and inciting nowhere near as much. you also have to realize that illegal drugs are like any legal one in that dosage is important. taking too much lsd can be a traumatic experience, but taking too much aspirin is fatal (unlike lsd) and i doubt you would oppose the sale of aspirin.

which enhance the already going process of a flight from reason and personality within Imperialist culture towards mere sensation and a barren aesthicism.

i think it is absurd to say that a drug like lsd is more responsible for this than alcohol, which has been used by "imperialist culture" to pacify and destroy indigenous populations and occupies a similar role in many ghettos.

Hitler and his friends also had a lot of "heavy thought".

i suspect they drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes more than dropping lsd and smoking hash. also, godwin's law.

LeninBalls

13th June 2010, 13:18

alcohol dont warp people's perception to the same extent as LSD, cannibis

You're generally a good poster, but this is crazy. Have you ever been drunk? Drink 250ml of Vodka one night, then the day after smoke a joint and tell us which distorted your perception more.

I think this debate is pretty much dead. The anti druggies will constantly avoid the facts and evidence that tobacco and alcohol has literally been proven to be so much more harmful than cannabis or even LSD. We could keep posting charts (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Drug_danger_and_dependence.png) all day long, but all you need to do is google "Annual cannabis/LSD death rates" and then google "Annual tobacco/alcohol death rates" (the thing is, you won't find any for the former!!!!!!).

They can also whine about how it's mentally harmful in the long term, and that pot smokers never succeed, but this simply isn't true. Carl Sagan smoked cannabis pretty much everyday, or is all this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan#Scientific_achievements) lies? Here (http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html) is also a list of famous scientists who regularly smoked and even took LSD. Sigmund Freud himself was a cocaine fiend.

I'm not trying to play the pity game, but my father lost his job recently and has been feeling down and drinking a bit more than usual lately. Not only is it expensive and physically harmful for him, getting drunk calls and having him ask me to lend money because he spent his on drink, gets a little tiring. I'd much rather see him smoke pot all day. I'm using him as an example because it's clear what damage alcohol does to the proletariat, unless ye'd like to give examples of wretched proles wasting away on cannabis?

There is no point in continuing the tobacco/alcohol vs other drugs debate, there is nothing more to conclude and the people who don't accept the facts appear to simply not want to be wrong (being wrong isn't bad). In my opinion you're either totally against ALL drugs (lame imo, but your opinion) or support the legalization of all drugs. The latter paves way for the elimination of the illegal drug trade which is often intertwined with violence and serious crime (like gangs), help centres for addicts and can bring in lots of money. Or would you rather they stay illegalized, and incidents like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Kingston_unrest) be a monthly occurrence in the working class neighbourhoods of Mexico, Panama and other nations which the US stamps it's boot on in the name of fighting drugs?

Blake's Baby

13th June 2010, 14:01

You all realise that this site is being monitored by various state agencies?

Do you have any concerns about secuirity?

This really does show how revolutionary you all are.

Yeah. We're aware of the fact that you posted a thread about drug use, when you could have just checked out 'stoner talk' instead, and now the fact that I as an individual have told you that I have taken LSD on more than one occassion (before I became a Marxist, mind you) means that everyone but you is a super-security risk and just a petty-bourgeois play-actor.

Man you a so far up your own fundamental position that I'm surprised you can reach your keyboard.

scarletghoul

13th June 2010, 14:14

Any thread about drugs will always go on for like 10 pages, because of those comrades who think that its the most important thing in the world and that the right to smoke weed is the pinacle of human freedom.. :lol:

I'm not anti-drugs, but just don't see why it's a critical issue to so many leftists. There were some who stopped supporting Chavez because he's against marijuana. Seriously why does this matter so much to people. Besides, if we had a system that didnt involve so much alienation then there would be less reason to take drugs. But yeah it just seems really stupid and kinda sad to me, that people care so much about this and discuss it for hours, while you know, there's real revolutionary struggle happening elsewhere.

To me this seems like the supreme symptom of the alienated labour-aristocrat; the idea that being able to smoke weed is the pinnacle of human freedom and that any struggle is worthless if it will not fulfill this.

Not that its a bad debate to have, I just think some of you drug-based revolutionaries are kinda sad.

Stand Your Ground

13th June 2010, 15:18

People have the freedom to do as they like. I'm straightedge so I don't do any of that stupid shit anyway.

RaÃºl Duke

13th June 2010, 15:28

Dont people usually smoke cannibis with tabacco?

Anyway I realise that tabacco and alcohol are physically more addictive and harmful than cannibis...However cannibis is much more psychologically and culturally damaging.

In Europe and some places, people like to make "spliffs" which contain tobacco. In America, spliffs are extremely rare. It's probably a semi-cultural practice out of practicalities (i.e. Europe rarely gets plan form marijuana, but they get a lot of hash. In American, people smoke the herb.)

Look some progress at last!
But on the last sentence you need a source for "culturally" damaging. It's been said that heavy pot usage leads to psychosis and some studies hint that, but most people are moderate in their use of cannabis. Moderate use (once a week or so, not everyday multiple times in a day) goes not lead to psychosis under any study

What does any pioson that distorts the minds ability to comprend reality and to reason have to do with any serious philosphical pursuits?

Would you consider Timothy Leary or Hakim Bey philoshpers? No one considers the 2 to be philosophers, but bcbm has a point that in the past these substances were used for spiritual and medicinal purposes.
I heard that one book put out the hypothesis that the Elysian mysteries ritual included the use of ergine, a precursor to LSD, and that said ritual was undergone by many Greek philosophers. The hypothesis hints that psychedelics had a role in the formation of western philosophy. Although maybe it's rubbish, who knows?

You all realise that this site is being monitored by various state agencies?

Do you have any concerns about secuirity?

This really does show how revolutionary you all are. Umm...none of us have revealed our exact whereabouts nor are we selling drugs online so this discussion is not going to get us in trouble. Talking about having used drugs is not illegal to my knowledge. Why do I get the feeling you just want this discussion that isn't going your way to just end?

RaÃºl Duke

13th June 2010, 15:38

You're generally a good poster, but this is crazy. Have you ever been drunk? Drink 250ml of Vodka one night, then the day after smoke a joint and tell us which distorted your perception more.

I think this debate is pretty much dead. The anti druggies will constantly avoid the facts and evidence that tobacco and alcohol has literally been proven to be so much more harmful than cannabis or even LSD. We could keep posting charts (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Drug_danger_and_dependence.png) all day long, but all you need to do is google "Annual cannabis/LSD death rates" and then google "Annual tobacco/alcohol death rates" (the thing is, you won't find any for the former!!!!!!).

They can also whine about how it's mentally harmful in the long term, and that pot smokers never succeed, but this simply isn't true. Carl Sagan smoked cannabis pretty much everyday, or is all this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan#Scientific_achievements) lies? Here (http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html) is also a list of famous scientists who regularly smoked and even took LSD. Sigmund Freud himself was a cocaine fiend.

I'm not trying to play the pity game, but my father lost his job recently and has been feeling down and drinking a bit more than usual lately. Not only is it expensive and physically harmful for him, getting drunk calls and having him ask me to lend money because he spent his on drink, gets a little tiring. I'd much rather see him smoke pot all day. I'm using him as an example because it's clear what damage alcohol does to the proletariat, unless ye'd like to give examples of wretched proles wasting away on cannabis?

There is no point in continuing the tobacco/alcohol vs other drugs debate, there is nothing more to conclude and the people who don't accept the facts appear to simply not want to be wrong (being wrong isn't bad). In my opinion you're either totally against ALL drugs (lame imo, but your opinion) or support the legalization of all drugs. The latter paves way for the elimination of the illegal drug trade which is often intertwined with violence and serious crime (like gangs), help centres for addicts and can bring in lots of money. Or would you rather they stay illegalized, and incidents like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Kingston_unrest) be a monthly occurrence in the working class neighbourhoods of Mexico, Panama and other nations which the US stamps it's boot on in the name of fighting drugs?

I already thanked, but...
QFT

soyonstout

13th June 2010, 15:43

The type of kid who sells a weed in my area and the scum behind them are pretty nasty and would be reactionary if they actually bothered to think about things types.

I know we're talking about the lumpenproletariat here, and believe me I don't think there's anything revolutionary about the lumpenproletariat as a class in terms of its social position (in fact it is a class without a perspective in many ways), but just because a class of people tend to have reactionary views does not make them scum--many workers are reactionary, hell, many workers went in for fascism in the 30s, but this doesn't make the working class any less the revolutionary class. (How many workers are communists at the moment? How many workers will need to be communists for the communist revolution to succeed? In light of the answers to questions 1 & 2, how many workers should we give up on for their reactionary views?)

Again, I'm not saying anyone should go agitate the drug dealers to strike action or try to work politically with them or anything like that, all I'm saying is people having reactionary views (especially during a non-revolutionary period) is no reason for them to be considered scum, and most people who fall into the lumpenproletariat are forced into it because of the crisis of capitalism and the inability for it as a system to continue to provide for the growth of the working class.

infraxotl

13th June 2010, 20:01

But if scum aren't scum...then why does the word exist??? http://i48.tinypic.com/2nullcy.png

GreenCommunism

13th June 2010, 20:11

Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.

Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483565 look at this nice little study destroying your claims of increased schizophrenia.
here's NORML to make it more simple for you .http://current.com/108a04c

also this study is made on teenagers and anyone who has ever had anything to do with smoking pot knows it is easier to get pot when you are under 18 than alcohol, even if it is pretty easy to get alcohol too.

another point is that diagnosis is hard to do with any mental illness, so pot may increase the likely hood of diagnosis or misdiagnosis.

Any thread about drugs will always go on for like 10 pages, because of those comrades who think that its the most important thing in the world and that the right to smoke weed is the pinacle of human freedom..

I'm not anti-drugs, but just don't see why it's a critical issue to so many leftists. There were some who stopped supporting Chavez because he's against marijuana. Seriously why does this matter so much to people. Besides, if we had a system that didnt involve so much alienation then there would be less reason to take drugs. But yeah it just seems really stupid and kinda sad to me, that people care so much about this and discuss it for hours, while you know, there's real revolutionary struggle happening elsewhere.

To me this seems like the supreme symptom of the alienated labour-aristocrat; the idea that being able to smoke weed is the pinnacle of human freedom and that any struggle is worthless if it will not fulfill this.

Not that its a bad debate to have, I just think some of you drug-based revolutionaries are kinda sad.
i think you under-estimate the amount of ostracization and persecution of drug users in society. also you under-estimate the amount of families who's life is broken or affected negatively. what about overdoses? what about my brother who sold weed and got caught and then got kicked out of school? why do i have to put up with my mother and my brother constantly arguing at home? was my brother rich? fuck no he wasn't. why do pot smokers have to hide or be denied jobs because of something less harmful than alcohol.

what about minorities who are overwhelmingly targeted by the war on drugs. a minority which may have an option to be just as wealthy as whites if they can do some major money in the drug trade. what about the white racist cops? you think they will allow some black guy to make money that way easily? hell no.

what about all those people in prison who can't take care of their children because of this bullshit? palingenesis sounds like he doesn't give a fuck, it's their fault for taking drugs. doesn't that break family lives? perpetuate crimes ?

i wouldn't stop supporting chavez, but i still think he should change his mind. still nobody addressed my point of people puffing gas or taking schizophrenic medecine because other drugs are unavailable.

and we have yet to know anything about this ridiculous cultural damage, if anything alot of new arts and litterature was inspired by drugs. the escaping from reality crap is so stupid i won't even talk about it.

as for the cops watching this thread. it isn't illegal to argue for drug legalization, and i do think we should discourage people from taking them especially the young, before they are 18. there is not much that is positive it is purely recreational. but sometime it can reinforce friendship if all take the same drugs together and have a good time. same as with alcohol anyway.

this is an invasion

13th June 2010, 20:22

gorillafuck

13th June 2010, 20:33

Hitler and his friends also had a lot of "heavy thought".
He also gave gifts to his loved ones on holidays.

incogweedo

13th June 2010, 20:57

i casually smoke weed with friends, maybe once or twice a month, but i do not consider myself a "stoner". I think it should be a human being's right to be able to put whatever substance they want into their body.

noam chomsky on marijuana:
youtube (DOT) com/ watch?v=ETL7xbCkQwM

sorry, i can't post links yet :(

Ravachol

13th June 2010, 21:01

First of all 'drugs' are set containing many substances, amongst which alcohol (a 'hard drug' no less), there is no dichtomy between the two.

Secondly, consumption habits that have been scientifically proven not to induce such a loss of control that 3rd parties are harmed are to be left to the individual. Proper education and moderation are the key here. I believe that under Communism drug use would be completely different from today with the absence of profit-driven markets (both black and white) and all the ills caused by them (pushing, gang wars, lacing, impromper education,etc).

Ovi

13th June 2010, 21:08

Any thread about drugs will always go on for like 10 pages, because of those comrades who think that its the most important thing in the world and that the right to smoke weed is the pinacle of human freedom.. :lol:

If you're allowed to smoke weed that doesn't necessarily mean you're free but if you're not allowed then you surely aren't. And it's not so much about weed as it is about the idea that some sort of vanguard should decide what's good for me and punish me for hurting myself. Gee thanks.

I'm not anti-drugs, but just don't see why it's a critical issue to so many leftists.

It's not; Drugs have nothing to do with socialism, so leave socialism out of it. It's Palingenisis and the like who complain that socialism can't exist without banning weed and whatever he considers bad.

scarletghoul

13th June 2010, 21:55

What a ridiculous misunderstanding. I'm sure there are a few stoners who are all about marijuana, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people view drug laws as important, because, well, they are. Drug laws are the main reason why America has one of the highest prison populations in the world. It's the reason why people are being murdered and kidnapped in Mexico. And it's the reason why Arizona is able to close down it's borders.
Of course the American drug laws and 'war on drugs' are a major reactionary force in the world. However a lot of the pro-drug leftists are not primarily concerned with this; their main concern is the personal right to consume whatever substances they want to.

bcbm

13th June 2010, 22:08

To me this seems like the supreme symptom of the alienated labour-aristocrat; the idea that being able to smoke weed is the pinnacle of human freedom and that any struggle is worthless if it will not fulfill this.

Not that its a bad debate to have, I just think some of you drug-based revolutionaries are kinda sad.

who here is "drug based?" i don't think anyone here bases their entire political practice around being able to smoke weed (let alone thinks it is the pinnacle of human freedom:rolleyes:), but it is an issue that a lot of us have an opinion on when it comes up. especially when its brought up by people who think shooting people for growing pot is the way to solve problems.

Ravachol

13th June 2010, 22:25

Of course the American drug laws and 'war on drugs' are a major reactionary force in the world. However a lot of the pro-drug leftists are not primarily concerned with this; their main concern is the personal right to consume whatever substances they want to.

I do not see any problem with the struggle for autonomy over the body, one could just as easily argue, following that line, that transgender struggle is 'only concerned with the personal right to tweak whatever you want on your body'.

syndicat

13th June 2010, 22:42

alcohol is a more destructive drug than marijuana, in terms of health and social destructiveness. in the USA the alcohol industry dumps their cheaper products on low income black and Latino communities. alcohol raises blood pressure. so young unemployed guys drink and then they get into fights and knives come out, and somebody gets killed.

so anyone who argues marijuana should be illegal is taking an irrational stand unless they also propose to ban alcohol. except that it's well known that most people who drink alcohol or toke marijuana cause no social problems and are able to function just fine.

in regard to those who overuse or abuse, this needs to be regarded as a social health problem, not a crime problem.

the War on Drugs in the USA has resulted in an incarceration rate of 1.5 percent of the population. by comparison the rate in Spain and Portugal is 0.3 percent, and in northern Europe tends to be 0.2 percent.

most of the people in prison are there for non-violent offenses of which drug use is the main cause of imprisonment. especially marijuana use. they are overwhelmingly working class men, mostly black and brown, but including white working class men also. people who suffer poverty, racism, are looked down upon, will tend to self-medicate by taking drugs. so the War Against Drugs is racist and class-biased.

moreover, as the book "The New Jim Crow" points out, mass incarceration in the USA amounts to a revival of the old system of racial apartheid. that's because, once a person is marked as a "felon,' discrimination against them in employment, housing, whatever becomes perfectly legal.

so the advocacy of imprisonment for drug use in the USA is in practice a class-biased and racist position.

on the other hand, i would not advise revolutionaries in the USA to engage in use of illegal drugs. that's because you're giving the police an opportunity to set you up and imprison you.

gorillafuck

13th June 2010, 22:53

The criminalization of drugs is not hugely effecting middle class suburbs and the like, it's putting a shit ton of militarized cops in and destroying lives in working class areas. An affluent college town can be near a working class area (often a predominantly minority area) and they can both be full of drug users, it's the working class area that's going to get cops reeking havoc.

Os Cangaceiros

13th June 2010, 22:57

People should read Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs if they're interested in this subject. It's pretty much the ultimate deconstruction of the anti-drug argument and the best piece of literature on the subject that I've ever read. Plus it's written by a former judge and prosecutor who was involved with many drug cases.

The Ben G

13th June 2010, 23:04

Do the Biafra Method: Legalize them, but put them on prescription if you want to use them. Not only does it get rid of gangs, but it makes sure that overdoses become more and more uncommon and addiction is handled.

28350

13th June 2010, 23:11

If you're a "committed vanguard revolutionary" or whatever the fuck it is, don't do drugs. This is simply tactical, not theoretical: you're useless in jail.

Blake's Baby

13th June 2010, 23:14

Now that is sensible. Not only are you useless in jail, you're useless fried.

Equally don't get pissed either. General sobriety is probably the order of the day.

Os Cangaceiros

13th June 2010, 23:20

You're not allowed to have fun, either. Fun distracts from the pressing order of the day, namely being all that you can be (in the commited vanguard revolutionary party, you can!)

13th June 2010, 23:23

We all know that entertainment is reactionary, and a state tool for repression of the working class.
Though i wouldnt call drugs entertainment(directly) so LEGALIZE

Luisrah

13th June 2010, 23:35

Pointless maybe, wrong no way, we have different describing of communism maybe, of course we still reffering from Marx etc, like you, but the "first stage of communism" or whatever you call it, no for us its not communism(and i dont think marxists call that communism either), so a communist state it is an oxymoron.
I have never been arsy to newcomers saying it, this member has too many contradictions and this just added one more.I am chilled out scarlet, you are making point out of nothing, especially when you are wrong, there is no state in communism and you know it, what is before may be called from marxists as a step to communism but it aint communism yet.

Socialism sometimes is called early communism, and socialism has state. Plus, did you really read scarlet's post?

On topic: I think drugs that physically harm the user should be disencouraged, and in a socialist society (because in communism, no one makes a profit out of selling drugs), drug dealers should be severely punished/reeducated, since very addicting drugs in a place where there's scarcity ruins lives. People get addicted, want to buy more and more, one day he won't have money, he'll steal for drugs, he'll kill for drugs, so no.

Plus, in a communist society, anyone that does drugs that physically harm him should be disencouraged to do so, because if you harm yourself because you want, it's fine with me, but you won't get treatment when you get intoxicated.

14th June 2010, 08:42

Socialism sometimes is called early communism, and socialism has state. Plus, did you really read scarlet's post?

It may called, but it isnt.And yes, i have obviously read scarlets post, do you have something to say and asking that?

Plus, in a communist society, anyone that does drugs that physically harm him should be disencouraged to do so, because if you harm yourself because you want, it's fine with me, but you won't get treatment when you get intoxicated.

How stupid is that?You will refuse treatment to sick people, because they got to it by themselves?What the fuck you people have in your minds?If someone jumps over a bridge, you wont offer him/her treatment because he harmed himself?:rolleyes: What the fuck?Its every doctors and every persons duty to help their neighbors, to help those in need, to help those who are sick etc, if this dont exists, then there is no fucking way communism can be achieved.
Thats the bullshit media and the state here, and laugh at "communism", because stupid ideas like this which have nothing to do with communism, actually make communism look bad.

Blake's Baby

14th June 2010, 09:06

Absolutely. 'Hey let's have a 'communism' that's less humanistic than capitalism! That'll show the stupid self-destructive workers!' Way to go setting the cause of the working class back by 40 years.

It is not up to the state or society as a whole what people chose to put into their bodies. I'm a communist not a monarchist or a chritstian, my body doesn't belong to God or to the Queen; it belongs to me and it will continue to belong to me after the revolution. I chose not to smoke or take halucenagenic drugs, but that doesn't mean that I have to chose that.

How about we start a thread about these reactionary views on personal liberty and social control bring the Left into disrepute?

Though to be fair, I do believe that in a post-Revolutionary society drug use should be 'discouraged'. But that isn't a code-word for enforced or anything like. I think social improvements and better education and information will do a lot to discourage drug-use.

14th June 2010, 10:21

Yeah, the debate in this thread has been won about twenty times over by now; I don't think the other side is even trying anymore.

Saorsa

14th June 2010, 10:30

1: It concerns me deeply that any self-proclaimed revolutionary would take the side of the capitalist state in the 'war on drugs'.

2: If you say marijuana should be banned but don't think alcohol should be banned, you are:

A: A total hypocrite.

B: A complete idiot.

Jazzratt

14th June 2010, 15:46

Yeah, the debate in this thread has been won about twenty times over by now; I don't think the other side is even trying anymore.

THey never really try in the first place. They assume the moral highground and start shouting about how they want to kill or imprison anyone who takes bad drugs (defined as anything currently banned by the state). For the most part bloodlust and a kneejerk mentality pretty much trumps any kind of logical basis for their 'arguments'.

Hit The North

14th June 2010, 16:07

to be honest drugs to me are something people should do in their own time

Yes, I hate it when they use drugs on my time... and don't even offer me any! Bastards!

at the same time some people politicize the shit out of it. ive seen leftists rambling about weed all the time and it is retardedBut it is an important political issue. The prohibition of drugs opens up the space for them to be monopolised and exploited by criminals where they are rationed and adulterated. It creates need and anguish amongst users of hard drugs. It enables governments to divert resources into oppressive "wars on drugs" which allows them to reinforce the repressive state apparatus. It is a denial of an individual's autonomy to choose what they put into their body. Drugs are a hugely political issue because we know governments can use them to disorganise communities and dampen dissent; to keep the already poor and miserable in a more hopeless state of poverty and misery.

Capitalism creates the conditions of life which pushes individuals into drug dependency. Then it punishes them by criminalising them. No amount of moralising about either users or dealers will challenge this condition.

ed miliband

14th June 2010, 17:11

I think it's fairly obvious why people use drugs, and I should think that in a communist society we would see the use of certain drugs decline. I think it's also worth mentioning that some people can, y'know, lead ordinary lives whilst being drug addicts (and I don't mean being 'addicted' to marijuana). William S. Burroughs said that one could, with the right provisions, be addicted to opiates and live a normal, healthy life. You could simply write this off as the thoughts of an eccentric writer, but the idea seems to have some currency: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3592877.stm

It's interesting to note that the liberal response to the television show 'The Wire' usually calls for people to "understand" the drug dealers, or even to admire the fact that they might be great business-people (a la Stringer Bell). It's a pretty disgusting attitude, imo.

On another forum some user mentioned that a veteran of May '68 once told him/her that after the revolution the smack dealers would be the first against the wall and if such a situation did ever arise I would not weep.

RaÃºl Duke

14th June 2010, 17:39

William S. Burroughs said that one could, with the right provisions, be addicted to opiates and live a normal, healthy life. You could simply write this off as the thoughts of an eccentric writer, but the idea seems to have some currency: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3592877.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3592877.stm)

That's a very interesting article.

Also, note that this women isn't lining up the wallets of drug dealers...she gets her fix via NHS.

In socialism/communism, if the state/commune/etc provides the drugs it will under-cut any potential drug-dealers, narco-business. No need to shoot people as some are arguing for, drug dealing/selling drugs via black market means just won't exist ("wither away" practically) if it regulated and legal.
In fact, I read an article that the existence of marijuana dispensaries and such in Cali is making it hard for marijuana drug dealers.

However, if under socialism, the current war on drugs approach is taken we will still see the continuation of a black market on drugs and all that entails; something which will put socialism under strain.

Ravachol

14th June 2010, 19:56

On another forum some user mentioned that a veteran of May '68 once told him/her that after the revolution the smack dealers would be the first against the wall and if such a situation did ever arise I would not weep.

I sure as hell might hope that's because they were bourgeoisie fuckers and not because of WHAT they dealt specifically. A lot of 'drug runners',chemists,etc could be considered working class as they depend on selling their labour to crime bosses who control the means of production (drug labs, transportation,etc). Simply because a segment of production is outlawed by the state doesn't make the entire working class there 'lumpen'. If that were the case, workers in Dutch Coffee Shops wouldn't be lumpen but workers in pot-selling drug networks in Germany would be? :rolleyes:

I don't consider drugs to be a very significant or defence-worthy segment of the production sphere but not any less than most luxery, entertainment goods.

GreenCommunism

14th June 2010, 21:40

A lot of 'drug runners',chemists,etc could be considered working class as they depend on selling their labour to crime bosses who control the means of production (drug labs, transportation,etc). Simply because a segment of production is outlawed by the state doesn't make the entire working class there 'lumpen'. If that were the case, workers in Dutch Coffee Shops wouldn't be lumpen but workers in pot-selling drug networks in Germany would be?

good point, the drug industry are not all lumpen. i might lack knowledge but wouldn't the very wealthy drug dealer at the top be bourgeoisie? also wouldn't the lumpen be the soldiers on the streets?i was under the impression that soldier's were lumpen because they produce nothing of value for society.

maskerade

14th June 2010, 23:36

The drug's question is one of the main reasons I dislike the swedish left so much - they all think Cannabis is the same as heroin. But I guess there are more important matters :rolleyes:

Criminalization of drugs doesn't lead to less usage or less damage to users, the only humane approach is proper education and proper treatment.

I don't know about you guys, but after the socialist revolution I'll be growing pot in my backyard

GreenCommunism

14th June 2010, 23:42

I don't know about you guys, but after the socialist revolution I'll be growing pot in my backyard
you can do it now, maybe not in your backyard, but it will help in the war against terrorism.

Luisrah

15th June 2010, 01:00

It may called, but it isnt.And yes, i have obviously read scarlets post, do you have something to say and asking that?

How stupid is that?You will refuse treatment to sick people, because they got to it by themselves?What the fuck you people have in your minds?If someone jumps over a bridge, you wont offer him/her treatment because he harmed himself?:rolleyes: What the fuck?Its every doctors and every persons duty to help their neighbors, to help those in need, to help those who are sick etc, if this dont exists, then there is no fucking way communism can be achieved.
Thats the bullshit media and the state here, and laugh at "communism", because stupid ideas like this which have nothing to do with communism, actually make communism look bad.

I agree with you, but you didn't understand what I meant, or I didn't explain myself the way I'd like to.

If a person likes break their own bones for their pleasure, and does it every day, shouldn't that person be punished/reeducated or whatever you like?
That person is forcing someone else to, possibly, wake up in the middle of the night to go take care of him.

I'm not saying that if people get drunk or whatever, that we should just let them get intoxicated, of course things happen, etc, any cases you can think of, although it should still be disencouraged IMO. However, if you constantly place yourself in jeopardy on purpose because you like it, then you are forcing other people to take care of you. I'm talking about excesses here, where one person goes into drugs, goes into rehab, goes into drugs again, and keeps doing that, shouldn't something be done?
Didn't our freedom end when someone else's started?

dawt

15th June 2010, 01:05

I think you're confusing addiction with regular, educated drug use.
Using drugs carefully I usually consider fairly safe, nothing to worry about. And we should treat addiction as an illness... So nothing the user is really at fault for.

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 01:30

And we should treat addiction as an illness... So nothing the user is really at fault for.

True, but it is their fault for taking the drug in the first place.

dawt

15th June 2010, 01:44

And people who cause a car crash are to blame for getting a driver's license?

FreeFocus

15th June 2010, 01:50

True, but it is their fault for taking the drug in the first place.

Most of the time. There are environmental factors, such as grinding poverty - which is exacerbated for the poor by drug use - where fault doesn't lie exclusively with the individual.

Someone noted earlier that we need revolutionary self-discipline. I'm a big fan of this concept.

I don't at all, ever, condone drug use (save for medicinal purposes). Addiction is slavery, and most other times drugs are used, its because of some type of weakness (weakness to peer pressure, mental weakness, what have you - this is not to trash people who go through a ton of shit in ghettos, for example, who labor or can't find work and are surrounded by this garbage all the time. I'm mainly addressing people for whom its a conscious choice, i.e. so-called "recreational" users). I'm straight-edge. People have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, but if they kill someone while they're drunk or high (especially drunk drivers), their crimes should be dealt with very harshly.

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 02:12

Most of the time. There are environmental factors, such as grinding poverty - which is exacerbated for the poor by drug use - where fault doesn't lie exclusively with the individual.

Someone noted earlier that we need revolutionary self-discipline. I'm a big fan of this concept.

I don't at all, ever, condone drug use (save for medicinal purposes). Addiction is slavery, and most other times drugs are used, its because of some type of weakness (weakness to peer pressure, mental weakness, what have you - this is not to trash people who go through a ton of shit in ghettos, for example, who labor or can't find work and are surrounded by this garbage all the time. I'm mainly addressing people for whom its a conscious choice, i.e. so-called "recreational" users). I'm straight-edge. People have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, but if they kill someone while they're drunk or high (especially drunk drivers), their crimes should be dealt with very harshly.

I agree with the points you've made here, comrade. I was just noting that people are still in control of their bodies prior to addiction.

dawt

15th June 2010, 02:26

Again, not necessarily. You don't sound like a materialist, haha...
Environmental, social and also genetic factors are key, in determining a person's affinity for drug use.
As FreeFocus posted above: Poverty is an example. But also what people you have to deal with, whether or not you have a good childhood and an intact family (people who grow up without their biological fathers have a MUCH higher chance of becoming addicted to drugs) etc etc etc, the list goes on.

An ideal human might perhaps have total control of their bodies at some point... but we aren't philosophic idealists here, are we?:lol:

15th June 2010, 02:33

(people who grow up without their biological fathers have a MUCH higher chance of becoming addicted to drugs)

Sorry, can you source this claim, please? It sounds like the sort of shit that's used to vilify single mothers, and I see no reason at all why there would be any truth to it.

dawt

15th June 2010, 02:39

I think I have it from Marc Emery... he used to (or is he still?) treat people for heroin and cocaine addiction. I think I can remember an interview where he said something along the lines of 50 out of 60 of his patients not having grown up with their biological fathers.

dawt

15th June 2010, 02:41

That's not the only time I remember hearing something along these lines, but it's the one I can remember most vividly. =/

Edit: All right, I found it. The interview is part of the movie "Super High Me" ... www imdb com/title/tt1111833/

this is an invasion

15th June 2010, 03:10

Sorry, can you source this claim, please? It sounds like the sort of shit that's used to vilify single mothers, and I see no reason at all why there would be any truth to it.

I believe it. Not because single mothers are incapable of raising stable children, but because we live in a society where such situations are seen as less than good.

It's not secret that people who come from what society deems and treats as "broken families" are more likely to be what society deems and treats as "fuck ups."

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 03:10

You don't sound like a materialist, haha...

You're already resorting to personal attacks...

Environmental, social and also genetic factors are key, in determining a person's affinity for drug use.
As FreeFocus posted above: Poverty is an example. But also what people you have to deal with, whether or not you have a good childhood and an intact family (people who grow up without their biological fathers have a MUCH higher chance of becoming addicted to drugs) etc etc etc, the list goes on.

Yeah, I'm fully aware of what you posted here. They search for a scapegoat as a way to seek escape from their lives. I have family members who live up to that theory.

An ideal human might perhaps have total control of their bodies at some point... but we aren't philosophic idealists here, are we?:lol:

It's not philosophical idealism. What I stated was that a person is still in control before they pick up the pipe.

dawt

15th June 2010, 03:21

Not meant as a personal attack ;) sorry if it sounded that way. :)

But if people are so influenced by their surroundings... how can it be majorly their fault if they get addicted? Most of the time, it's out of their power long before they start taking drugs.

Soo... How is what you said not idealist, again?

15th June 2010, 03:51

I believe it. Not because single mothers are incapable of raising stable children, but because we live in a society where such situations are seen as less than good.

It's not secret that people who come from what society deems and treats as "broken families" are more likely to be what society deems and treats as "fuck ups."

I still fail to see how biological fatherhood has anything to do with anything.

this is an invasion

15th June 2010, 04:00

I still fail to see how biological fatherhood has anything to do with anything.

Ah I didn't notice that part. But I still think it stands that kids might feel social pressure from being raised by a single mother or having a step-father. I've been in both situations, and I can tell you that it's a little more than awkward. Not saying that my mom was an incompetent parent (I sort of feel that my step-dad was), but that I would perhaps be a lot more stable had I been raised with a real father figure in my life.

Of course this is entirely speculation. And again, I'm not trying to say that single-mothers are incompetent or anything like that. But we do live in a society that places a lot of value on the nuclear family (at least in America).

antithesis

15th June 2010, 04:02

Remember that in the U.S. a whole generation of black women were demonized, had their freedom and their children taken away, because of anti-drug pseudo-science. There is no such thing as a crack baby. See for example, www . fair . org / index.php?page=3702. Communists oppose all laws that criminalize drug use. Drug use is a private matter and drug addiction is a medical problem. We say Church and State, hands off our drugs, porn and guns!

15th June 2010, 05:48

Ah I didn't notice that part. But I still think it stands that kids might feel social pressure from being raised by a single mother or having a step-father. I've been in both situations, and I can tell you that it's a little more than awkward. Not saying that my mom was an incompetent parent (I sort of feel that my step-dad was), but that I would perhaps be a lot more stable had I been raised with a real father figure in my life.

Yeah, I think this isn't a reliable basis from which to draw any kind of conclusion. I am not meaning to discount your experience, but one individual's experience is certainly not, in and of itself, evidence of a general trend at all. Other individuals have had the experience of being beaten by a biological father, for example. Again, you just can't make a case for a general trend based on a single anecdote.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread; I just think there is a need to be really careful about repeating claims like the one I was addressing - not because of some kind of 'identity politics' or something, but because it is the sort of thing that is used by the ruling class to justify further attacks on the standard of living of working class women, and obviously that translates into attacks on the working class as a whole.

bcbm

15th June 2010, 06:01

Addiction is slavery, and most other times drugs are used, its because of some type of weakness (weakness to peer pressure, mental weakness, what have you - this is not to trash people who go through a ton of shit in ghettos, for example, who labor or can't find work and are surrounded by this garbage all the time. I'm mainly addressing people for whom its a conscious choice, i.e. so-called "recreational" users).

i don't think it has to do with "weakness" so much as "fun."

RATM-Eubie

15th June 2010, 08:16

Im pretty high right now and.....
Certain drugs should be legal like marijuana...
Other drugs should be illegal like Meth, Heroin, and so on.

Obs

15th June 2010, 08:30

Im pretty high right now and.....
Certain drugs should be legal like marijuana...
Other drugs should be illegal like Meth, Heroin, and so on.
You know, there's a Stonertalk thread in Chit-Chat.

15th June 2010, 08:40

i don't think it has to do with "weakness" so much as "fun."

Seeking pleasure for pleasure's sake is reactionary because [insert crypto-religious claim here]. Fun which involves [insert arbitrary criteria here] is a sign of weakness. Wearing a cilice and crying is the only acceptable form of recreation.

Jazzratt

15th June 2010, 11:51

Someone noted earlier that we need revolutionary self-discipline. I'm a big fan of this concept.
Why? Personally I couldn't give a four wheeled fuck about "revolutionary self-discipline". It sounds like the kind of masochistic self denial that monks and nuns get horny over.

I don't at all, ever, condone drug use (save for medicinal purposes). Addiction is slavery, and most other times drugs are used, its because of some type of weakness (weakness to peer pressure, mental weakness, what have you - this is not to trash people who go through a ton of shit in ghettos, for example, who labor or can't find work and are surrounded by this garbage all the time. I'm mainly addressing people for whom its a conscious choice, i.e. so-called "recreational" users).
See, this is why I'm wary of people who talk of revolutionary self discipline. It's always code for "have fun in the way I demand, all else is weak". People don't need a good "excuse" for how they choose to enjoy themselves, if they spend their free time with a pint and a fag who the fuck are you to call that "weakness".

I'm straight-edge.
My condolences.

People have the right to put whatever they want into their bodies, but if they kill someone while they're drunk or high (especially drunk drivers), their crimes should be dealt with very harshly.
Why? Because their altered mental state indicates a decrease in intent?

dawt

15th June 2010, 12:52

Im pretty high right now and.....
Certain drugs should be legal like marijuana...
Other drugs should be illegal like Meth, Heroin, and so on.
With what goal? Will this reduce the use of hard drugs? Make them any safer for the user? You're talking about the system we already have. I think, if anything, every drug should be legal. Not saying unrestricted, but there's nothing but harm in locking people up for this stuff.

www CopsSayLegalizeDrugs com

Il Medico

15th June 2010, 12:56

Lol at the Anti drug guys in this thread. Where do you guys come up with this shit? Cannabis a "dangerous drug"?:lol:

Also a wtf at the whole kill anyone who deals/uses drug guys, what the hell is wrong with you?

Blake's Baby

15th June 2010, 13:18

Why? Personally I couldn't give a four wheeled fuck about "revolutionary self-discipline". It sounds like the kind of masochistic self denial that monks and nuns get horny over.
...

Well, I was advocating it and I'm not straight-edge, I just know I can't function at a terribly high level (theoretically or physically) if I'm pissed or stoned. Never been to a political meeting tripping, that would be stupid, but honestly, getting mashed is not terribly useful if you're trying to actually do anything. And don't get me started on paranoia-inducing stimulants.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th June 2010, 13:34

Well, I was advocating it and I'm not straight-edge, I just know I can't function at a terribly high level (theoretically or physically) if I'm pissed or stoned.

Then why not do your political stuff when you're sober? Most drug users aren't constantly off their tits.

Never been to a political meeting tripping, that would be stupid, but honestly, getting mashed is not terribly useful if you're trying to actually do anything.

I think that depends on the person. Speaking for myself, there are some things I can do and some things I can't, depending on what I've had and how much.

And don't get me started on paranoia-inducing stimulants.

Not all stimulants induce paranoia. In fact, MDMA does the opposite.

Jazzratt

15th June 2010, 13:41

Well, I was advocating it and I'm not straight-edge, I just know I can't function at a terribly high level (theoretically or physically) if I'm pissed or stoned. Never been to a political meeting tripping, that would be stupid, but honestly, getting mashed is not terribly useful if you're trying to actually do anything. And don't get me started on paranoia-inducing stimulants.
The advocates of revolutionary self-denial are fans of the false dichotomy it seems. The choice isn't, nor has it ever been, between being rigidly uptight constantly or being intoxicated to incapacity during everything you do. For the most part it really doesn't matter unless you're currently high/drunk or coming down.

Given that most "revolutionaries", especially the kind on this board, are really unlikely to have no free time whatsoever I really don't see the problem with them using it as they wish. Leave the body-as-a-temple shit to religious nutters.

Blake's Baby

15th June 2010, 13:49

The advocates of revolutionary self-denial are fans of the false dichotomy it seems...

And the opponents are fans of revolutionary changing words?

I said 'self-discipline. I'm not advocating total abstinence. That's a strawman on your part. I'm advocating being disciplined about taking things that will impair critical judgement and the ability to perform tasks, as opposed to being indisciplined about it, which is what you seem to be arguing for.

Blake's Baby

15th June 2010, 14:01

Then why not do your political stuff when you're sober? Most drug users aren't constantly off their tits...

yeah? I was off my tits for 3 years solid. Didn't matter to my politics, I was an anarchist into guerrilla art and random situationism. But I'd have actually accomplished more of it if I hadn't been stoned as much.

Not all stimulants induce paranoia. In fact, MDMA does the opposite.

But what I said was 'paranoia-inducing stimulants' I think reasonably implying that there are 'non-paranoia-inducing stimulants'. But it's not just effects at the time, is it? Tuesday Blues are real. And I was particularly thinking of coke and speed, but honestly too much coffee makes me crappy-tempered.

I don't really care if you and Jazzrat think that I'm being some kind of monkish Stalinist or some kind of masochistic Jesuit. I've done lots of drugs, I've hung out with a lot of people for two decades or more who've done lots of drugs, and I don't think there's any honesty in claiming that drug-use (legal and illegal) is unproblematic. It isn't; on the other hand, it doesn't all have to be a problem by any means, and it's equally harmful to pretend that it is. The truth is as so often the case somewhere in between.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th June 2010, 14:23

yeah? I was off my tits for 3 years solid. Didn't matter to my politics, I was an anarchist into guerrilla art and random situationism. But I'd have actually accomplished more of it if I hadn't been stoned as much.

So? There are some people who cannot drink in moderation, and are therefore likely to become drunks.

That's still no reason to moralise at people.

But what I said was 'paranoia-inducing stimulants' I think reasonably implying that there are 'non-paranoia-inducing stimulants'. But it's not just effects at the time, is it? Tuesday Blues are real.

I don't find them too unbearable.

And I was particularly thinking of coke and speed, but honestly too much coffee makes me crappy-tempered.

Maybe you're just not cut out for regular drug consumption? Remember that other people will react to drugs differently.

I don't really care if you and Jazzrat think that I'm being some kind of monkish Stalinist or some kind of masochistic Jesuit. I've done lots of drugs, I've hung out with a lot of people for two decades or more who've done lots of drugs, and I don't think there's any honesty in claiming that drug-use (legal and illegal) is unproblematic.

I see your anecdote and raise you mine; I've done all sorts of drugs and hung out with drug users for the better part of my adult life, and I'm not a strung-out wreck.

Of course, nobody is claiming that there are no problems to drug use; only that the problems are exaggerated and the proposed "solutions" tend to be motivated by neo-Puritan hypocrisy rather than harm reduction.

It isn't; on the other hand, it doesn't all have to be a problem by any means, and it's equally harmful to pretend that it is. The truth is as so often the case somewhere in between.

The truth is not always in the middle between two extremes. In the case of drugs, I think there is an enormous social pressure for evidence of their harm to be massively overstated.

15th June 2010, 14:24

Well, I think it is definitely important to at least keep in mind - depending upon the drug laws where people live - the potential for drugs to be used as a basis for locking up communists during periods of heightened class struggle. It is just something to be aware of. Personally, in such a situation, I would definitely abstain from anything illegal in terms of substances, just to be cautious. Luckily alcohol isn't illegal, because that would be much harder IMO, but then again depending on the intensity of the period of struggle, there would perhaps be much more pressing concerns than getting drunk and club hopping anyway.

Blake's Baby

15th June 2010, 15:39

So? There are some people who cannot drink in moderation, and are therefore likely to become drunks.

That's still no reason to moralise at people...

Don't be an eejit. I agreed that self-discipline was a good idea. Did I say you had to do it too? No. And then Jazzrat implied I was a religious nutter. So, who's moralising? You and Jazzrat.

I don't find them too unbearable.

Maybe you're just not cut out for regular drug consumption? Remember that other people will react to drugs differently.

I see your anecdote and raise you mine; I've done all sorts of drugs and hung out with drug users for the better part of my adult life, and I'm not a strung-out wreck...

Bully for you. Maybe we don't all have your ox-like constitution.

Of course, nobody is claiming that there are no problems to drug use; only that the problems are exaggerated and the proposed "solutions" tend to be motivated by neo-Puritan hypocrisy rather than harm reduction.

...

I agree that the solutions in the main are motivated by neo-Puriatn hypocrisy. But the answer to neo-Puritan hypocrisy isn't to say 'well any calls for restraint are obviously from religious fascists'. The fact is that most people are not able to function to the best of their abilities if they're mashed and therefore it's sensible to work out what is and isn't appropriate. To claim otherwise is I think just foolish.

... The truth is not always in the middle between two extremes. In the case of drugs, I think there is an enormous social pressure for evidence of their harm to be massively overstated.

Now you're doing it. Did I say that the truth was "always in the middle between two extremes"? No. I said that in this case the truth was between the two extremes.

Do you think all legal and illegal drug use is unproblematic? No.

Do you think all legal and illegal drug use is problematic? No

Guess what? That means that the truth is in the middle.

Personally I think that an awful lot of harm from drug use (legal use) is massively understated. But other harm is overstated. That doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to find the truth instead of adopting a ridiculous 'any attempt to take my stash is like the Purges!' rhetoric when I wasn't advocating taking your stash in the first place. Just offering the opinion that being wrecked at meetings is not a good plan.

4 Leaf Clover

15th June 2010, 15:45

i do not use MJ, because i think it is too harmfull for what it gives to you. I also dont consider MJ a drug , it is a plant actually

heavy drugs are the real drugs, and they mostly present opiums that are chemicaly rafined and stuff.

Im for legalisation of soft drugs (marijuana , shrooms etc. etc.)
im for banning of hard drugs

durhamleft

15th June 2010, 16:05

I support drug legalisation, but at the same time as that this sentence is bullshit. I have very big problem with people shooting up, it literally destroys their mind and body and it's a destructive poison in working class communities. I don't think people should be punished for simply taking drugs, and that's hardly a message that is going to win much support or respect amongst young people... but to take such a flippant attitude toward heroin of all things is just bizarre.

No, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I think we should educate against drug abuse, and the problems associated with it. However, if upon being educated and informed an adult decides he still wishes to shoot heroin, I don't believe he is doing anything 'wrong'. I wouldn't do it myself, but nor would I impose my opinions massively on the person. If they're educated on the subject its their choice.

In the same breath I'd say if someone chooses to end their life for whatever reason, provided the reason is well thought out and is informed, I would not object.

Burn A Flag

15th June 2010, 16:09

Personally, I agree that drugs should be a recreational thing, not controlled by the government. However, I can see how it does become a problem if you have too much of a good thing.

Luisrah

15th June 2010, 17:48

Why? Because their altered mental state indicates a decrease in intent?

What you say is true, but every situation is different, and we can't generalize.
However, if a person is warned continuously about the risks of getting drunk or high (heck, I'm not even talking about what happens to the own person) and he still does it, and some harm comes to someone else, it's just normal?

So you're walking down the street and some drunk/high driver runs over you, it's fine, he was drunk/high, it was not his fault right?
No, he was conscious at the time he took the drugs or the alcohol, and could have avoided it.

When someone kills someone else without intention, and even if they were relatives, for example, that person is still going to jail. Why? Because harm was done, objectively, eventhough it wasn't intentional, someone got killed.
And you know why that's done? Because when one of those things happen, if the person doesn't go to jail, you're practically telling people ''hey, if you want to kill that guy for his money, or that guy because he cursed at you the other day, you can, just remember to claim it wasn't intentional after ok?''
In this case, instead of claiming it wasn't intentional, replace it by ''but don't forget to get drunk/high first!''

Robocommie

15th June 2010, 23:05

We need drugs so we can load our revolutionary shock troops up on a psychotic dose and send them into battle like berserker-guerillas... like the Zulu and their warrior potions, or the Vikings and their mushrooms.

Saorsa

16th June 2010, 00:23

Somehow the idea of a bunch of stoned communists with guns doesn't exactly inspire me that much...

black magick hustla

16th June 2010, 00:32

that is why you feed them coke/pcp instead

Robocommie

16th June 2010, 00:33

that is why you feed them coke/pcp instead

Exactly, PCP, brown-brown, anything like that will do. Just get 'em frothing at the mouth and then direct them straight to the capitalist's lines.

mykittyhasaboner

16th June 2010, 03:49

However, if a person is warned continuously about the risks of getting drunk or high (heck, I'm not even talking about what happens to the own person) and he still does it, and some harm comes to someone else, it's just normal?

No it's not normal, you end up like towlie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSEkfqlDilU

When someone kills someone else without intention, and even if they were relatives, for example, that person is still going to jail. Why? Because harm was done, objectively, eventhough it wasn't intentional, someone got killed.
And you know why that's done? Because when one of those things happen, if the person doesn't go to jail, you're practically telling people ''hey, if you want to kill that guy for his money, or that guy because he cursed at you the other day, you can, just remember to claim it wasn't intentional after ok?''
In this case, instead of claiming it wasn't intentional, replace it by ''but don't forget to get drunk/high first!''This has nothing to do with the question of drug legality, what your saying just comes down to irresponsible people using a dangerous method of transportation and putting others and themselves at risk. If someone drives intoxicated then it's obviously against the rules, and common sense.

Crimes that are committed while the 'criminal' is intoxicated shouldn't be treated especially harshly or specially (like "hate crimes"). What difference does it make if the driver in your example was intoxicated or not? The crime would be driving while intoxicated not intoxication in itself. Objectively, like you said, if someone is killed and the person who was driving has to be dealt with in one way or another. Intoxication may factor into what is decided for the 'criminal', but shouldn't be treated as an excuse for more punishment like in the "Drug War", or some unholy treason like some fucking theocracy.