communism + drugs

[Felicia]

This is just something that I've been thinking a bit about lately. Perhaps I'm o nto something, or perhaps I'm showing a limited knowledge of marxim with sharing my thoughts..... We know that Marxism and religion don't mix, according to Marx. Who felt that the prolitariat should not have to rely on a God to have hopes of a better after life, that they should strive for their "utopia"** here on earth instead of being bought in my false promises that life will get better, but only after their bodies cease to live. Here's where the dugs come into play, for me that is. Most people, most leftists (quite a few here even) use drugs. Whether it's just pot, or much more than that. Most take it for the "buzz" or becuse it takes them away from the world, and the problems and situations that they are going through and dealing with in life at the present moment. Isn't this against the principles of Marx? That we should strive for contentment in our lives at the moment, with what we have and can create for ourselves and community, so we don't have to look to other things such as religion or drugs to take us away from the "hell" we may be going through?

This is just a thought, I personally don't do drugs and (obviously) find it contradictory to my interpretation of the messages of Marx. But like I said in the beginning, maybe I just have a superficial knowledge of Marxism and my interpretations are way off. But this is just my thoughts on the "leftists are potheads" stereotype, which may even be contradictory to marxism to begin with.......

What do you think? Maybe we can discuss this....


**I used the word "utopia" but whether or not you believe that that's possible (I don't) don't let that dwell on your thoughts on this. Just interpret my use of the word "utopia" as bettering society for all.

[Monks Aflame]

Very very interesting... I don't know about this. But then again, many things have the same uses that you described, namely, giving a buzz or an escape from metaphorical Hell. Examples would most obviously be cigarettes and alcohol. Should they be illegal? I personally think its too late to illegalize them. Also, if you want to integrate a world-wide law in a world-wide revolution, some countries already have marijuana legalized, so you would have to take it away.

As for my personal stance on drugs, I'll probably try it once or twice, just because of the hype. But I find the thought of addiction horrible.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 03:54 AM
Most people, most leftists (quite a few here even) use drugs. Whether it's just pot, or much more than that.
That aint true, id say less than a 1/4 of marxists (ie serious "leftists") take drugs.

You cant be a serious revolutionary and take drugs at the same time. Its bullshit, ive never met a real marxist who takes drugs on a serious basis. It slows the mind down, and really, whats the need? i could get a buzz from doings 1001 other things. Not to say i dont, but very irreguularly, eg if im on holiday and theres no work to be done. Id never take it if i had any work to do for the rev

[Moskitto]

It's the same as religion, if you're not meant to have "opium of the people" (a metaphorical opium) then why are you meant to have genuine opium? Either they're both good or they're both bad.

[Felicia]

Monks Aflame
I agree with you about alcohol being in the mix, but I don't really know what ciggarettes can do for you to the same extent has drugs, as far as I know, all it does is addict you. I don't think that you'd be able to take it away if it's already legalized, like in many countries where it's illegal, there will always be a way to get it and there will be people who will always have it. You need to give them a reason not to want it, that's the only way they won't use it. Personally I don't see the need to "escape", sure my life is pretty shitty but taking drugs will only make it worse by not allowing me to make things better for myself so I don't feel so shitty anymore.

Kamo

That aint true, id say less than a 1/4 of marxists (ie serious "leftists") take drugs.
I don't know if this was in response to me saying it about most leftists in general, or what I said about members of the board. I bet it not as large as "most leftists" but just the same it seems to be quite common, like you just said, you don't know of any serious leftist who takes it regulary, but yet, it's still taken no matter what the intervals are. But I agree with you, you need to stay focused if you are to be a serious leftist revolutionary. But I would never take them at all because I don't there is any need. But even on this board, they ask you your favourite drug when you do your introductions. Something with the young leftists is screwed up around here.....

Moskitto
I agree.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" --Marx.

I don't believe that it was meant for drugs to take the place of religion, we shouldn't have either if one is not allowed. But of course, if it's for medical reasons that's quite a bit different.

[Sabocat]

I would say most here that do use some sort of drugs are recreational drug users.

In a Marxist sense, are we all supposed to disallow and deny recreation? Is the entire meaning of life, endless work?

If you're gonna say that drugs are counter to Marxist values, then are we all supposed to stop drinking coffee? Caffeine is the most widely abused drugs on the planet. Caffeine for some people creates a euphoria, and is widely known as addictive. Actually one of the most addictive drugs available.

Then I guess the next in line would be cigarettes. Nicotein being absolutely one of the most addictive substances, which also in some users creates a slight euphoria and relaxation.

Alcohol. I don't think we even need to speak about it.

Where do you draw the line?

So putting aside, all the "escape from tedium/hell/stress" arguments with "pot", what about the pure recreational enjoyment that can be had? Should we deny ourselves simple pleasures in life? Is that what the struggle is all about? I doubt it. I hope not.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Nathaniel [email protected] 31 2003, 09:19 AM
I would say most here that do use some sort of drugs are recreational drug users.

In a Marxist sense, are we all supposed to disallow and deny recreation? Is the entire meaning of life, endless work?

If you're gonna say that drugs are counter to Marxist values, then are we all supposed to stop drinking coffee? Caffeine is the most widely abused drugs on the planet. Caffeine for some people creates a euphoria, and is widely known as addictive. Actually one of the most addictive drugs available.

Then I guess the next in line would be cigarettes. Nicotein being absolutely one of the most addictive substances, which also in some users creates a slight euphoria and relaxation.

Alcohol. I don't think we even need to speak about it.

Where do you draw the line?

So putting aside, all the "escape from tedium/hell/stress" arguments with "pot", what about the pure recreational enjoyment that can be had? Should we deny ourselves simple pleasures in life? Is that what the struggle is all about? I doubt it. I hope not.
It's not about denying "simple pleasures", it's about making you happy enough with your life that you don't need these substances anymore. I didn't say that using them is completely out of the question if you're a leftist. Like I said, it was just a thought, but I believe it to an extent.

I don't see how caffeine creates a slight euphoria. However I don't drink coffee, but I've had pop (soda?), but not very often, not enough to miss it or want it when I'm not drinking it...... I don't abuse caffeine, I don't abuse tobacco, nothing like that at all.

Those substances are considered relatively mainstream. You don't need to go out of your way to get them. Caffeine is in most drinks and even foods. You can buy tobacco at the corner store. But it's the drugs (and alcohol) that create more of a "euphoria" that are what I feel as contradictory to certain marxist primnciples.

The struggle isn't about denying you your ciggarette, it's about making your life better to the point where you don't need to escape from it and can embrace it all head on without feeling that you need to turn to something.

[Sabocat]

I don't think necessarily that it's about "escape".

Sometimes it's just something fun to do. It's an experience. It can be relaxing. It's a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

People drink when they're happy and celebrating, so in that instance, it's not about escape. The same could easily be said for "pot". It doesn't have to be just an escape from misery.

[The Feral Underclass]

It seems that those people argueing against drugs are argueing against it because they presume that all drug takers are some how trying to escape the tortures of life. Admittedly that is true for some people, but I take drugs because I enjoy taking them. It makes me feel fuzzy inside and I get to dance my ass off and tell everyone I love them. :blink:

Once the workers have become conscious and fought to change the world, the need for drugs will dramatically reduce. The world will be a better place, people will not feel alienated and angry with their conditions and therefore the need for drugs will stop. However, I do think that recreational drugs such as cannabis, LSD, Magic Mushrooms and ecstasy should all be made legal. And under the present bourgeois conditions I think Cocaine and Heroin should be decriminalised and made available on the NHS under the correct supervision. This would not only reduce the number of deaths due to bad heorin, it would also bring heroin and cocaine addiction into the light, and stop uses from feeling isolated, instead of it being shunned into the darkest corners of council estates and hushed up. People who are addicted to drugs should have the correct help, whatever that should be, without judgement or threat of arrest.

As for the comments saying that serious marxists dont take drugs, i think is misguided and ignorant. Some of the greatest revolutionary thinkers indulged in mind altering drugs, be it absinthe or opium.

[Felicia]

NB
ok, but I'm talking about the use of dugs as a form of "escape". Not alcohol for celebration, that's taken for a different purpose.

Libertarian Commie
Why can't you dance around and tell people that you love them when you're not high?


However, I do think that recreational drugs such as cannabis, LSD, Magic Mushrooms and ecstasy should all be made legal
You're pushing it by just wanting pot legalized. LSD, magic mushrooms and extacy are out of the question. Extacy can kill, I'm sure you know that. But lIke I said, these seem to be the drugs that people use to get away from it all, hallucinogen and whatnot. There should be no need for it.

[canikickit]

All drugs should be legal.


it would also bring heroin and cocaine addiction into the light, and stop uses from feeling isolated, instead of it being shunned into the darkest corners of council estates and hushed up. People who are addicted to drugs should have the correct help, whatever that should be, without judgement or threat of arrest.



Absolutely.


Most take it for the "buzz" or becuse it takes them away from the world, and the problems and situations that they are going through and dealing with in life at the present moment.

People take drugs because they want to, because it's fun, a pastime, a hobby, you might as well ban skateboarding, conversation and listenijng to music. Why do you draw? For the "buzz" (i.e. enjoyment)?


That we should strive for contentment in our lives at the moment, with what we have and can create for ourselves and community

I have hash in my pocket, I can create a joint, with the cannabis I grew personally.


(obviously) find it contradictory to my interpretation of the messages of Marx.

You better stop drawing.


Its bullshit, ive never met a real marxist who takes drugs on a serious basis.

People who take drugs on a serious basis are more than likely too sick to consider anything other than trying to quit or trying to get their next fix.


It slows the mind down, and really, whats the need? i could get a buzz from doings 1001 other things.

Headering a football kills about 20,000 braincells, drinking a pint kills about 10,000. Lots of things slow the mind down, I bet you do some of them. You drink, right?
If you can get a buzz from doing 1001 other things, then by all means do them.


Extacy can kill, I'm sure you know that.

The reason ecstasy can kill is because the correct information is not widely publicised, and primarily, because it is cut and mixed with other substances, such as rat poison.

[Politrickian]

Ecstacy can kill, but so can alcohol. Hell almost every drug, recreationally or medically used, legal to illegal, can kill, you just need a high enough dose.

The only real reason the DEA could find for illegalising ectasy was neurotoxicity, but hell, even a simple aspirin can cause neurotoxicity. OD deaths are not common, only other drug combo's/dehydration are quite common causes of death.

It is allmost impossible to have physical addiction to magic mushrooms, and tolerance builds up fast, and they're not too lethal, so I see no reason to not legalise it.

LSD can set off psychosis such as schizophrenia, but so could every hard moment of live(like the death of friends or family) and ODing is almost impossible.

Start reading http://www.erowid.org for facts about drugs before you form an opinion about them.

[Umoja]

I am strongly against drugs, at this time. I remember reading in Assata Shakurs Autobiography and in "Conversations with Eldrige Cleaver" that both of them had given up drugs for logical reasons. If your a real revolutionary, you should strive to be completely in control of yourself as often as possible. When your high on anything, or addicted to anything other then positive change in society, your intentionally making yourself weaker.

A person can talk all they want about doing drugs for fun, blah, blah, blah. But all that means is that they have a mental desire, maybe even mental addiction, to do the drugs. This also, with the fact that most drugs are an effect of Capitalism. It doesn't matter if they are legal or illegal, drug trades in the urban areas (ghettos) of America are equally bad when compared to people in Phillip Morris selling ciggarettes. As of now, it would seem, all drugs (that are beneficial to living healthy) are the enemy and should never be rationalized as anything more.

[Felicia]

canikickit

People take drugs because they want to, because it's fun, a pastime, a hobby, you might as well ban skateboarding, conversation and listenijng to music. Why do you draw? For the "buzz" (i.e. enjoyment)?
You've got to be kidding me. You cannot possibly link something like drawing a picture to snorting cocaine. When I draw a picture I am completly aware of my surroundings, I'm completely in control of my actions. There's a big difference from being stoned out of your mind and behaving like an imbicile, to sitting calmly in a chair with a pencil and piece of paper. They can't be comepared. I don't "draw" for enjoyment, I actually don't like it very much, but if I want the final product to be as good as I can possibly make it, I have to gruel over it for weeks before I'm satisfied, there is no "euphoric" state, or buzz or anytihng of the sort involved in it at all


I have hash in my pocket, I can create a joint, with the cannabis I grew personally.


Good for you, my government grows it.


You better stop drawing.
I believe that I explained this above. People seem to like to use personal information these days. This wasn't a personaly attack on YOU therefore you don't have the right to use personal information about me to try and compare my "hobby" of drawing, to other "hobbies" of drugs.


The reason ecstasy can kill is because the correct information is not widely publicised, and primarily, because it is cut and mixed with other substances, such as rat poison.
Yeah, but I doubt the majority of people who use it at raves and such are leftists. Just a buch of kids. This isn't [I]just/I] a debate about drugs, it's a debate about whether drugs are compatable with marxist ideology.

Politrickian
This isn't about the "safety" of drugs. It's about how it fits in with marxism, and I don't think that it does.

Umoja
I absolutely agree with you. We must be in complete control over ourselves, and taking drugs can alter your state of mind.

[Sabocat]

We have to be in control of our minds 24/7? Isn't there any down time? No relaxation in a Marxist world?

Isn't Communism all about not suffering and struggling to survive and thrive?

How are a few minutes of enjoyment at the end of a day, or at the end of a week detrimental to the Marxist cause? It's no different than relaxing with a beer.

[canikickit]

You've got to be kidding me. You cannot possibly link something like drawing a picture to snorting cocaine. When I draw a picture I am completly aware of my surroundings, I'm completely in control of my actions. There's a big difference from being stoned out of your mind and behaving like an imbicile, to sitting calmly in a chair with a pencil and piece of paper.

There's a big difference between snorting cocaine and having a laugh with your friends, and acting like an imbecile. You do not necessarily act like an imbecile when you take cocaine, despite what your teachers may tell you. People take cocaine because they want to, because they enjoy it, the same reason some people skateboard.

When you sleep you are not completely in control, perhaps you should give up that. Sorry to use personal information about the fact that you sleep.

Can anyone suggest a reason why, as a revolutionary, you must be always 100% aware of your surroundings? Don't you get to take a day off, or even a moment off? Every minute of every day you must be thinking about revolution?

In that case, you must stop drawing, stop watching TV, stop running, stop rowing, stop reading fiction. You can never enjoy an artform again!

The point is, while you are partaking in a pastime, you are not necessarily considering the revolution. If revolutionary A spends five hours at a showing of Shakespear's Hamlet, and revolutionary B spends five hours chatting with his friends, drunk in a pub, what is the difference?

So what if you are aware of your surroundings?
So you're making yourself weaker? Then don't eat fattening steaks, don't drink soft drinks, don't sit down for too long.


People seem to like to use personal information these days. This wasn't a personaly attack on YOU therefore you don't have the right to use personal information about me to try and compare my "hobby" of drawing, to other "hobbies" of drugs.

I was under the impression that we were communicating. Perhaps you should put a list of rules in your sig, rules which stipulate what may and what may not be referred to when people are communicating with you.

I have the right to do whatever the hell I want. The reason I used this sacrosanct personal information was because it is something you can relate to. I have no idea why you would take it in such a defensive manner. I guess I've been overdoing it on the old drugs front. my brain is obviouly fried to a crisp.


Yeah, but I doubt the majority of people who use it at raves and such are leftists.

Who cares what it is a debate about? I responded to something you said.
All drugs should be legal, do you think it is better if these "stupid kids" take their drugs, their ecstasy made by unscrupulous dealers who put rat poison in it? Perhaps you would prefer a regulated supply of safer drugs?

[Felicia]

You're full of shit. you are.

By being aware of your surroundings, I'm talking about being sober! Not spending all of your time tihnking about the "revolution". You don't need to be a sarcastic about everything.

Look, I live with alcoholics so you can't tell me that they aren't imbicles and slobs when they take too much, because they are.

Still, I don't see why you like to compare things like skateboarding to drugs. If taking drugs is a "hobby" for any one, than maybe they are psychologically dependent. Or even physically addicted.

I don't eat steaks, what the hell. If the comment is directed toward me atleast make it relevant.


I have the right to do whatever the hell I want. The reason I used this sacrosanct personal information was because it is something you can relate to. I have no idea why you would take it in such a defensive manner. I guess I've been overdoing it on the old drugs front. my brain is obviouly fried to a crisp.

fine do what you want. I don't care anymore. It's not like I draw a lot, it's very rare at best that I do something like that. Atleast I aware of how I'm acting around other people.

[canikickit]

You're full of shit. you are.

That's nice, thanks.


By being aware of your surroundings, I'm talking about being sober! Not spending all of your time tihnking about the "revolution". You don't need to be a sarcastic about everything.

I know that. You never said why people should be sober all the time.


Look, I live with alcoholics so you can't tell me that they aren't imbicles and slobs when they take too much, because they are.

By "too much" I assume you mean "enough to make them incoherent and act stupid", so yes, of course. But like I already said, there's a difference between drinking yourself into a stupour and having a few pints. There's a difference between taking so much cocaine that you can't see straight and taking enough that you get excited more easily. There's a difference between smoking so much hash that you can't bother moving, and smoking one joint and having a laugh at your cat....and so forth.


I don't see why you like to compare things like skateboarding to drugs

I compare them because they are comparable. People's motivations for doing both are similar - because they find those activities fun!

"Pyschologicaly dependant"....lord have mercy!
I put it to you that some people are psychologically dependant on skateboarding.

Maybe people who take drugs as a hobby are pyschologically dependant on them. But what does that actually mean? That they feel a psychological need to take those drugs?
It is a simple fact, that anything can be physically addictive. When we feel pleasure, our hormones react in a certain way, and this causes desire for pleasure, when you associate things with this pleasure, you feel a desire towards them.

I know you've had some very bad drug related experiences, but not everyone is like that.


fine do what you want. I don't care anymore. It's not like I draw a lot, it's very rare at best that I do something like that. Atleast I aware of how I'm acting around other people.

Well, I'm sorry if you got offended Felicia, of course I am.
Fortunately I am very aware of my surroundings, and I'm very confident in my own intelligence. I am aware of how I act around others, and I can drink and maintain this, I can definitely smoke and maintain this.

What are you getting so fucking pissed off about?
Really, why are you angry with me?


If revolutionary A spends five hours at a showing of Shakespear's Hamlet, and revolutionary B spends five hours chatting with his friends, drunk in a pub, what is the difference?

[Felicia]

I know that. You never said why people should be sober all the time.

Well they shouldn't be drunk off their rockers!!! I'm not saying that people should never smoke/drink moderately, I'm just asking if people think that it's against the principles of Marx. I know that some people would never give up these things for their ideology, and that's their choice. I'm just one of those people who are very strict with myself on these things.


By "too much" I assume you mean "enough to make them incoherent and act stupid", so yes, of course. But like I already said, there's a difference between drinking yourself into a stupour and having a few pints. There's a difference between taking so much cocaine that you can't see straight and taking enough that you get excited more easily. There's a difference between smoking so much hash that you can't bother moving, and smoking one joint and having a laugh at your cat....and so forth.

I can have a laugh with Pepe and be sober. Him and I like to wrestle, he has sharp nails :(


Maybe people who take drugs as a hobby are pyschologically dependant on them. But what does that actually mean? That they feel a psychological need to take those drugs?
It is a simple fact, that anything can be physically addictive. When we feel pleasure, our hormones react in a certain way, and this causes desire for pleasure, when you associate things with this pleasure, you feel a desire towards them.


Well, I'm not much of an authority on either of these...



I know you've had some very bad drug related experiences, but not everyone is like that.
I know that not everyone is like that. But it's a little hard to realize when everything I've seen is the worst.


Well, I'm sorry if you got offended Felicia, of course I am.
Fortunately I am very aware of my surroundings, and I'm very confident in my own intelligence. I am aware of how I act around others, and I can drink and maintain this, I can definitely smoke and maintain this.

What are you getting so fucking pissed off about?
Really, why are you angry with me?

If I seem angry it's because I am. I'm going through some weird mental/depression/no self worth/crap stuff and I've been a little out of it lately. I've isolated myself too much emotionally/physically in my life and now it's all catchinging up with me, it's like a brick in the face and I'm extremely angry with myself. I've been a pitiful site lately... I need to socialize before I go crazy, but I meet and talk to people often that's why I don't know why I'm going crazy from isolation, I talk to myself, but I've been doing that since summer break when I was around 12 and spent the summer locked away in privacy. I'm not all that isolated, but very much in comparison to others, but I'm not 'others'. It's hard for me to explain, and I don't want everyone else knowing my personal business.... but my heads beeen really messed up lately. I think I should see someone about this. :(


If revolutionary A spends five hours at a showing of Shakespear's Hamlet, and revolutionary B spends five hours chatting with his friends, drunk in a pub, what is the difference?
I have a question, how many times must one ask felicia a question before she answers? The difference is that revolutionary A is choosing to spend his/her time with the arts. Watching something that will increase their knowledge in a particular area. While revolutionary B is socializing. But sometimes socializing is good to do, but he/she doesn't have to be on sometihng to enjoy it :huh:

[redstar2000]

You know there's always been a kind of puritanical "subtext" to a lot of socialist "theory"...the idea that socialism would result in (male) workers drinking less gin, stop fooling around with prostitutes, live more "upright" lives, etc.

That was the Victorian Age, of course. Now things are somewhat different, but the old attitudes linger.

Particularly in the stereotype of the "pure revolutionary"--who never indulges himself (rarely herself) in any form of pleasure, but devotes every waking moment to "the revolution" (and doesn't sleep much either).

I call it the "Aztec version" of "Marxism"--you drape yourself over the altar of history and cut your own heart out.

It's nonsense, of course. The "mortification of the flesh" is a religious concept and has nothing in common with Marxism.

The idea that some sort of balance between revolutionary activity and personal pleasures is "forbidden" is, on its face, absurd. Revolutions are not made by a small number of dedicated and "pure" individuals, but by classes involving millions and tens of millions of people.

As to one's choice of pleasures, I can't see many useful distinctions to be made. Someone who is an alcoholic or seriously fucked up on drugs is not going to make much of a contribution...to anything. Someone who drinks/uses drugs in a sensible way should do ok. Maybe they'd do more if they were "pure" and maybe they'd do less...people who demand too much of themselves get stressed out and often quit radical politics altogether.

I am sympathetic to the idea of "staying in control" and "being aware of my surroundings"...it's my preferred condition. But I confess that after a lengthy session at the computer pouring out scorn upon reformists, Leninists, and god-suckers...I often pour out a few glasses of table wine with a late supper.

I also listen to "non-revolutionary" music, read fiction, play with my cat, listen to baseball games on the radio...even play chess against my computer (my record is about 6 wins, 300 losses, and a couple of draws).

As it happens, I've known a pretty broad sample of drug users in my life and found them to be, for the most part, pretty much like everyone else...some being fucked up only when they were high; others were fucked up even when they were "clean"...some used drugs, others were used by drugs.

But I don't think there's much correlation between lack of drug use and revolutionary political activity either; look at the Mormons--who do not permit even coffee, much less anything else--and who are, of course, one of the most reactionary of the "modern" religions.

I think Marx's choice of metaphors--"religion is the opiate of the masses"--was unfortunate. Religion is far worse than opium, not because it promises "escape" from a hellish life, but because it tries, with considerable success, to "justify" a hellish life.

Opium provides some hours of pleasure. Religion says that a lifetime of suffering is "the Lord's will" to which you "must" submit. That's a big difference.

I would expect that in a classless society there would be no prohibitions on any kind of recreational drug; even cigarette smokers will be able to hold up their heads again.

Well, I can dream.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[CopperGoat]

Even if we lived in a Socialist country, there would still be lots of people smoking marijuana, not to escape their reality, which is hopefully the Socialist country, but just to have a good time and to experiment.

[Politrickian]

To keep a long story short,

Are drugs against Marxism?
I don't see any reason why.

Was Marx against drugs?
Yep.

Was Marx allways right?
No.

[Felicia]

Was Marx against drugs?
Yep.

ahh, so I may be right in that drug use is against his principles and marxism. We'll see, we'll see.....


Even if we lived in a Socialist country, there would still be lots of people smoking marijuana, not to escape their reality, which is hopefully the Socialist country, but just to have a good time and to experiment.

Well, I think that if everything were legal, there may be more poeple substance abusing because it would be easier to get and keep/grow, no restrictions. There's a reason why it's illegal in the first place ya know :P


You know there's always been a kind of puritanical "subtext" to a lot of socialist "theory"...the idea that socialism would result in (male) workers drinking less gin, stop fooling around with prostitutes, live more "upright" lives, etc.
Canada's culture is a bit on the puritanical side.... hence why I think this way. I'm a slave to my culture....


Particularly in the stereotype of the "pure revolutionary"--who never indulges himself (rarely herself) in any form of pleasure, but devotes every waking moment to "the revolution" (and doesn't sleep much either).

Well, I don't know about devoting every waking moment to the revolution but I would feel better about following someone who didn't get stoned or drunk (even occasionally). The moment someone loses control over themselves buy over indulging is the moment I would lose much respect for them as a leader, they should be more responsible than that.


The idea that some sort of balance between revolutionary activity and personal pleasures is "forbidden" is, on its face, absurd. Revolutions are not made by a small number of dedicated and "pure" individuals, but by classes involving millions and tens of millions of people.
Ahhh, but even Guevara referred to himself and Castro as being moral men..... as far as I'm concerned they weren't moral in many aspects of their lives, but that's another show...... I just mean that if someone is expecting to be in a position of power they should have lived a clean life, or are living one at that point in time. Example, with politics up here, if you're, say, 50 years old and leading a party in an election and you had a drunk driving arrest when you were 16, that gets drudged out my the media, and exploited (it happened a few years ago here). The less you have to be accused of or degraded for by the public, the better in my opinion. You can't tell people and society to be moral, or preach certain behaviour if we don't to it ourselves. Either way, I don't think I really have a point here, just rambling, but I tihnk that there's a point in there somewhere.


I am sympathetic to the idea of "staying in control" and "being aware of my surroundings"...it's my preferred condition. But I confess that after a lengthy session at the computer pouring out scorn upon reformists, Leninists, and god-suckers...I often pour out a few glasses of table wine with a late supper.
ok, that's a casual drink. It's not everyday, but you probably don't drink to the point where you're falling all over the place and down stairs, etc. You use it responsibly, as it should be, in moderation of course.


I think Marx's choice of metaphors--"religion is the opiate of the masses"--was unfortunate. Religion is far worse than opium, not because it promises "escape" from a hellish life, but because it tries, with considerable success, to "justify" a hellish life.
It wasn't the quote that lead me to think that, it was just what I've read of what he thinks about religion. That lead me to think that perhaps he thinks negatively of drug use, etc, because of it's certain affects.


I would expect that in a classless society there would be no prohibitions on any kind of recreational drug; even cigarette smokers will be able to hold up their heads again.
Ah, but don't you think that if most things were lagalized, because it would be easier to get, more people would develop addictions for certain drugs? And not get the help they need to get off of it. Smoking is a little different due to the fact that you're still in control of your actions. Personally I think that smoking's gross, why on earth would you want to fill your lugs with smoke? I grew up with heavy smokers and so was very turned of at a young age, same with liquer, If I'm offered some by my dad, I still refuse, I just don't want it. Ah well, I guess I could mail it to cani. :)

edit: spelling

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 07:42 AM


Well, I think that if everything were legal, there may be more poeple substance abusing because it would be easier to get and keep/grow, no restrictions. There's a reason why it's illegal in the first place ya know :P


You've answered your own question. It's illegal because it is easy to keep and grow. How are the big corporations going to make a monster profit if people are growing it themselves. Make no mistake about it, the only reason it's illegal is that the Tobacco industry lobbyists (here anyway) have pushed for it to remain so. Alcohol is far more destructive than marijuana physically and socially, and yet it remains legal....I wonder why......

As far as the statement "Well, I think that if everything were legal, there may be more poeple substance abusing", well I would suggest a look at Amsterdam.

You seem to have a notion that everyone that uses any substance or drug inherently becomes an abuser. The fact is, that some people have obsessive/addictive behavior no matter what is involved, whether it's food, liquor, cigarettes, drugs, exercise, whatever. Most people can be recreational users with no adverse effects on their lives.

Remember, it's not a "War on Drugs", it's a war on personal freedoms.

[Felicia]

have pushed for it to remain so. Alcohol is far more destructive than marijuana physically and socially, and yet it remains legal
I'm not just talking about marijuana. I'm talking about the heavier stuff aswell. If that were easier to get and legal, I bet it would be used a lot more by the same people who already use it, because there would be no restrictions.


As far as the statement "Well, I think that if everything were legal, there may be more poeple substance abusing", well I would suggest a look at Amsterdam.
Yeah, pot's legal there. But heroine isn't. Sure they're a good example of having pot legalized but not ALL drugs like some advocate. It would just create a bigger drug problem than we already have.


You seem to have a notion that everyone that uses any substance or drug inherently becomes an abuser. The fact is, that some people have obsessive/addictive behavior no matter what is involved, whether it's food, liquor, cigarettes, drugs, exercise, whatever. Most people can be recreational users with no adverse effects on their lives.
Sure, I know that people can use it recreationally and be "responsibe" with it. My point is why do you even need to use it? I'm not talking about the population of pot smokers in general, I'm talking about the ones with marxist leanings, whether or not it contradicts some aspects of marxism so much so that they should consider why they take it in relation to their beliefs, if they coincide.

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 10:09 AM
To keep a long story short,

Are drugs against Marxism?
I don't see any reason why.

Was Marx against drugs?
Yep.

Was Marx allways right?
No.
Marx did drugs..

as a produyct of his time and costumes marx smoked Opium....


about Communism and drugs, i think they mix pretty well..
see hash is a drug, weed is a drug, i do them both OCASIONALY.. i dont think it is dangerous and wrong to any extent to use natural drugs such as an ocasional hash and or weed...

[redstar2000]

...but I would feel better about following someone who didn't get stoned or drunk (even occasionally). The moment someone loses control over themselves by over indulging is the moment I would lose much respect for them as a leader, they should be more responsible than that.

Well now, that's a problem. The solution is to stop thinking of revolutionary politics in terms of choosing the "right person to follow".

Marx's ideas are "in the public domain"...anyone can use part or all of his ideas to whatever purpose they wish. Often that purpose is revolutionary and often it isn't.

But if you want to be a communist revolutionary, you have to understand the basics of those ideas yourself. Unless you "get lucky" and "guess right", picking someone to "follow" will just set you up for disillusionment, demoralization, cynicism, etc.

When you understand the ideas yourself, your fate is not tied to the political behavior or the chemical behavior of others...in Marx's words, you "follow your own course and never mind what others do". (He got the quote from Dante.)

I just mean that if someone is expecting to be in a position of power they should have lived a clean life, or are living one at that point in time.

I don't expect there to even be "positions of power" in post-capitalist society that would correspond to anything we are familiar with now.

If there is a particular job to do, we want to pick the person who has demonstrated real competence in performing similar jobs...their chemical habits, sexual preferences, what sport they most enjoy watching or playing, whether they like cats better than dogs, their favorite mystery writer, etc., etc., etc. are all irrelevant.

What really counts is: have they shown they can be trusted to get this kind of job done?

You can't tell people and society to be moral, or preach certain behaviour if we don't do it ourselves.

I completely agree with you. But I have no plans to offer advice to people on their chemical use except something along the lines of "enjoy your pleasures responsibly". And they are perfectly free to ignore my advice (or anyone's) if that's what they wish to do.

If there is such a thing as "communist morality"...I suspect that it has nothing to do with things like alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.--all the "traditional concerns of morality".

Preparing and injecting a balloon of heroin is a morally neutral act under communism...leaving the used needle on the sidewalk is immoral. (The use itself would be immoral if you did it immediately prior to driving a trainload of passengers from Montreal to Vancouver.)

Ah, but don't you think that if most things were legalized, because it would be easier to get, more people would develop addictions for certain drugs? And not get the help they need to get off of it.

Probably, but so what? There's nothing inherently wrong with addiction as a concept or as a behavior. The social consequences of addiction can be a problem, depending on the society.

In a society where all drugs are readily available, people might try out several addictions over the course of a lifetime, keeping the ones they really like and quitting the rest.

As long as they function, I don't see what the problem is. And the ones that don't function--get really fucked up--are the ones that would probably do so anyway.

I suspect the usual outcome of all forms of prohibition is not to save anyone for whom the prohibited substance would be a real problem...but merely to prevent the rest of us from occasional indulgence.

If there's a "moral defense" for this, I can't imagine what it might be.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Danton]

Personally I dont use "drugs" as an "escape". Rather the polar opposite, I use Marijuana and occiasionally other substances to concentrate and focus. Working in a creative field the stimulation created can lend you not only inspiration but impetus and fresh/abstract ways of viewing problems....Of course this is a method that works for me under controlled circumstances and I dont claim it to be productive in other fields...

Intoxication through Marijuana basically heightens awareness not only of external input such as colors and sounds but internal dialogue and awareness of the self. Some advocates of LSD claim that through it's use the real world is revealed which is usually obscured by our limited scope of reality. My own personal experiences of that drug ranged for delirious fear and paranoia to ecstatic joy and an unexplainable sense of oneness with nature which probably makes me sound like a babbling old hippie. You certainly see through other peoples facades and true charachter's are revealed.

Since the trench warfare of WW1 soldiers have used amphetimines which focus the individual and gives them added energy, alertness and stamina,Cocaine has many of the same properties and also gives a sense of confidence, snipers often take a form of Tamazepan to steady their aim... Different drugs can be useful for different occaisions.... Morphine, a close relative of Heroin to numb the pain of the injured... Naturally we dont want a bunch of smacked up junkies lying idly around but used effectivley and controlled, drugs can actually be a useful resource to revolutionaries.......




"The skeptic, the analytical sniper, the eclectic dissector of doctrines and psychoanalyst of dogmas". - El Puro

[Umoja]

Blah, blah, blah. Just excuses to use drugs. Just excuses to change your state of mind. Just excuses to leave yourself behind. Personally, I don't care what Marx said about drugs, he had no idea what 2003 would be like.

Call me a "Neo-Puritian" if you want, but you are clearly missing my message if you think that. I'm not advocating you don't sleep, or don't eat fattening foods. I'm advocating not to become addicted to altering your mind, because you might just like it enough for it to control you. Besides that, your also not as alert at the moment as you could be. By doing this your only serving to make yourself weaker, and as a revolutionary, if you claim to be one, you can't be weak when your in the belly of the beast. Which in most Americans cases is everywhere.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:10 PM


Blah, blah, blah. Just excuses to use drugs. Just excuses to change your state of mind. Just excuses to leave yourself behind. Personally, I don't care what Marx said about drugs, he had no idea what 2003 would be like.

Call me a "Neo-Puritian" if you want, but you are clearly missing my message if you think that. I'm not advocating you don't sleep, or don't eat fattening foods. I'm advocating not to become addicted to altering your mind, because you might just like it enough for it to control you. Besides that, your also not as alert at the moment as you could be. By doing this your only serving to make yourself weaker, and as a revolutionary, if you claim to be one, you can't be weak when your in the belly of the beast. Which in most Americans cases is everywhere.
Okay, I give, how exactly does it make you weaker?

Who said anything about addicted to altering your mind? Most people don't get "addicted".

Are you saying you have to be alert 24/7/365?

Denying simple human pleasures is denying that which makes us human.

[canikickit]

Just excuses to use drugs. Just excuses to change your state of mind.

It's a grave pity that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What's so bad about changing your mind state?


advocating not to become addicted to altering your mind, because you might just like it enough for it to control you.

You better not drive a car, because you just might crash.

The problem is that you honestly do not know what you're talking about. You view "drugs" as pure evil, which once taken will take over the very fiber of your being and consume your heart and even your soul!

Crack and heroin may be quite like that, but cannabis and alcohol are not.

[Felicia]

redstar

Well now, that's a problem. The solution is to stop thinking of revolutionary politics in terms of choosing the "right person to follow".

Marx's ideas are "in the public domain"...anyone can use part or all of his ideas to whatever purpose they wish. Often that purpose is revolutionary and often it isn't.

But if you want to be a communist revolutionary, you have to understand the basics of those ideas yourself. Unless you "get lucky" and "guess right", picking someone to "follow" will just set you up for disillusionment, demoralization, cynicism, etc.
Ok, maybe I should've worded things a bit differently. I don't mean "picking" someone to follow. But every movement has to have a visible "leader", someone to call shots and make decisions. I have certain, perhaps high, expectations of their character and level of commitment to their ideals, I also have certain expectations of their behaviour, if they have picked out their faults (as far as drug use, etc- in my opinion) and have modfied their behaviour, than I will have a greater respect for them.


I don't expect there to even be "positions of power" in post-capitalist society that would correspond to anything we are familiar with now.

If there is a particular job to do, we want to pick the person who has demonstrated real competence in performing similar jobs...their chemical habits, sexual preferences, what sport they most enjoy watching or playing, whether they like cats better than dogs, their favorite mystery writer, etc., etc., etc. are all irrelevant.

What really counts is: have they shown they can be trusted to get this kind of job done?

Ok, positions of power, maybe I should have clarified that I meant positions of control or authority (which pretty much mean the same thing I suppose). I agree that jobs should be given to those who are most competent to perform their tasks efficiently, but I wouldn't want my country's finance minister to be snorting crack off hours, it would make me question their credibility. Occasional things, a drink or joint here and there, are just fine aslong it doesn't interfere with their jobs. But there are limitations for everything.


I completely agree with you. But I have no plans to offer advice to people on their chemical use except something along the lines of "enjoy your pleasures responsibly". And they are perfectly free to ignore my advice (or anyone's) if that's what they wish to do.

If there is such a thing as "communist morality"...I suspect that it has nothing to do with things like alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.--all the "traditional concerns of morality".

Preparing and injecting a balloon of heroin is a morally neutral act under communism...leaving the used needle on the sidewalk is immoral. (The use itself would be immoral if you did it immediately prior to driving a trainload of passengers from Montreal to Vancouver.)
Ok, I see what you mean with this. My idea of "communist morality" may be a little different. Probably because it's taken in combination with growing up in a "puritanical" society and the ideas of buddhism (I used to be very fond of and practiced principles of this religion) by not over indulging, sex, drinking alcohol or taking drugs.... I went through a bit of a monastic phase with buddhism, I guess you could still say that I adhere to certain standards although I've rejected religion..... I have my own set of strict morals.....I'm aware that that makes me a bit of a 'stick in the mud', but I can't help it...


Probably, but so what? There's nothing inherently wrong with addiction as a concept or as a behavior. The social consequences of addiction can be a problem, depending on the society.

In a society where all drugs are readily available, people might try out several addictions over the course of a lifetime, keeping the ones they really like and quitting the rest.

As long as they function, I don't see what the problem is. And the ones that don't function--get really fucked up--are the ones that would probably do so anyway.

I suspect the usual outcome of all forms of prohibition is not to save anyone for whom the prohibited substance would be a real problem...but merely to prevent the rest of us from occasional indulgence.

If there's a "moral defense" for this, I can't imagine what it might be.

I have a problem with heroine addicts shooting up in the streets, where children can be exposed to that bahaviour. I'm sure that most people who are seriously addicted would prefer to not have that addiction, would prefer not to go through withdrawls when they can't get what they "need". But I'm guessing that most heroine addicts aren't committed marxists aswell..... :D

Whatever the general public wants to do is up to them. Moderation and responsibility is important.

Umoja
I haven't been called "Dame Felicia of the puritans" for nothing....
I agree with a lot of what you say.

disgustipated

Denying simple human pleasures is denying that which makes us human.
Oh? how does that make us human? So I guess that if I don't take drugs and alcohol for "pleasure", I'm not "human"? There are other ways to go about things than having to take substances.

canikickit

It's a grave pity that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What's so bad about changing your mind state?

The deal is that you shouldn't want to change your mind state.

[Umoja]

I view drugs as pure evil now, as I noted in my first post in this topic. Besides the fact that they are currently purely tools of the Capitalist. Now viewing them as "pure evil" is exaggerating, but I do see them as a significant problem now.

"Okay, I give, how exactly does it make you weaker?

Who said anything about addicted to altering your mind? Most people don't get "addicted".

Are you saying you have to be alert 24/7/365?

Denying simple human pleasures is denying that which makes us human."

If most people didn't get addicted to drugs, they'd only use them once. Granted, mental addictions (not the actual scientific type) are slightly different then physical ones. With a mental addiction you can quit whenever you want, but in your mind you see no point in doing so.

But I am not saying you need to be alert 24/7, everyone needs to sleep. Everyone needs to have a bit of fun, but since when was putting chemicals into your body considered fun? But even so that's pulling it off topic. If your a drug user, your legally making yourself more vunerable to attacks as well, not to mention if your caught while stoned, you clearly will be in a greatly weakend state, no?

"The problem is that you honestly do not know what you're talking about. You view "drugs" as pure evil, which once taken will take over the very fiber of your being and consume your heart and even your soul!

Crack and heroin may be quite like that, but cannabis and alcohol are not. "

Alcohol seems to be one of the most overused substances in human history. It's caused far more trouble then all the other drugs combined, so don't tell me it's not harmless. Now I'm not making any laws, but I do believe that most things with a huge potential for abuse should be kept at a distance, assumingly this would apply for religion as well. Especially when it comes to the fact that your using a Capitalist tool of control for your own enjoyment. Cannibas I could say the same thing for, at least in America's case, because the government knows it breeds crime just to keep it illegal and drug dealers are just as much Capitalist as anyone else. Now prehaps your growing your own supply of Cannibas, okay I do have some respect for doing that, but most people don't do that, and it's far to risky in some places, to be worth it.

But no, drugs aren't something that completely devour your soul. They are just something I don't see as desirable for anyone who wants to bring positive change.

[redstar2000]

But every movement has to have a visible "leader", someone to call shots and make decisions.

Well, that's certainly what we've been "taught" to believe. I suggest, however, that our "education" has been misleading...possibly deliberately.

I see no particular reason why we "need" a "visible leader" or even an "invisible" one. Quick, who was the "leader" of the French Revolution? Or the Paris Commune? Or the French General Strike of 1968?

"Trick" questions, of course...there was no single individual who "called the shots". Or even a small group.

Organized groups (of whatever political character) often do have "leaders"--the anarchists in Spain called their leaders "influential militants". They wanted to show that they resisted "exalting" or "deifying" their most prominent and visible members.

I think that is part of the difficulty in your understanding...you wish to have confidence in the wisdom of someone who knows more than you and that confidence is undermined if you find out that they get drunk on a regular basis, or use heroin, or whatever.

And what I am urging is that such personal "shortcomings" are, for the most part, irrelevant (though there are exceptions, of course).

I have a problem with heroin addicts shooting up in the streets, where children can be exposed to that bahaviour.

Why? Do you wish children to be ignorant of such behavior? Or just not to see it with their own eyes? Or what?

I think a reasonably intelligent kid who saw something like that would probably resolve not to do it...especially in light of the fact that most kids have a real phobia about needles anyway. I certainly can't imagine that it would look "appealing"...!

I'm sure that most people who are seriously addicted would prefer to not have that addiction, would prefer not to go through withdrawals when they can't get what they "need".

No way to tell now...it's not as though one could ask them in a non-threatening context. Of course, drug addicts say that they want to stop using...that's what they're expected to say if they want to "qualify" for medical treatment, or welfare, or whatever.

I've known three serious heroin addicts and noticed a curious pattern; all three of them would "clean up" temporarily (three to six weeks of complete abstinence) every six months to a year. It wasn't planned...they would just get the "urge" to stop using for a while. Then they'd start up again, though naturally at lower dosages.

I believe there is some research that suggests that drug users voluntarily "taper off" as they reach middle age...as if their bodies tell them that it's time to quit. The late jazz great Miles Davis was a heavy user of heroin...but, in his late fifties, virtually stopped.

Sorry for rambling. What I really want to say is that in a classless society, there would never be any fear of "not being able to get what you need"...so "withdrawal symptoms" would not play any significant role in decision-making, one way or the other.

I have my own set of strict morals.....I'm aware that that makes me a bit of a 'stick in the mud', but I can't help it...

Nothing wrong with that. If there are things that others find pleasurable but that you feel repulsed by, there's certainly no obligation for you to participate or express public approval. People who know you will know not to invite you to "that kind" of party.

But when you enter the realm of political discourse, different standards apply. A classless society that attempted to wage a "war on drugs" would instantly become a police state and within a few years, devolve back into capitalism. If the permanent abolition of class society is our real goal, we have no choice but to tolerate the chemical indulgences of others...as long as they don't directly endanger third parties.

You are certainly free to propagandize against any substances that you find reprehensible...though there will certainly be users who propagandize back at you. You are certainly free to design a very austere lifestyle for yourself and recommend it to others...though there will be shameless hedonists (like me) who will argue against that approach. I do think that the enthusiastic embrace of whatever we find pleasurable is the "best" way to live...but certainly not the only way.

The difference between you (and Umoja, I hope) and a real neo-puritan is that neither of you have yet suggested that the police be mobilized to enforce your personal lifestyle choices. The hard-core neo-puritan (religious or secular) wants to put people in prison for the "crime" of having a good time "without a permit".

As far as I know, we are only cursed with one of those on this board...and I eagerly anticipate his early departure.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Sabocat]

Denying simple human pleasures is denying that which makes us human.

Oh? how does that make us human? So I guess that if I don't take drugs and alcohol for "pleasure", I'm not "human"? There are other ways to go about things than having to take substances.


Where in that line does it specifically say that human pleasure is defined by substances or drugs?

Life experiences, having fun, experiencing pleasure is what makes us human. I wasn't implying you weren't human for not taking drugs, I was trying to imply that denying people the opportunity to do anything that they find pleasurable or fun is a path towards turning us all into automatons. Is life all about suffering and struggle and denial of fun and pleasure? Of course not.

[Valkyrie]

Drugs, morality, sexual preference, etc. fall into those subjective and relative grey areas. And I don't believe that is part of The State's job at all!!!! Nor do I think it has a correlation to Marxism. The probable question to ask regarding the fallout of any action would be: How many Other people would it adversely affect and how many without their consent?


I just happen to be reading a book by Steven Lukes called "Marxism and Morality." --- The underlying question of whether Marx's theories were written from a moral standpoint.


The back cover and inside the book quotes Vorlander:

"The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter."


And this from Marx's -The German Ideology:

"It was only possible to discover the connection between the possible enjoyment open to individuals at any particular time and the class relations in which they live, and the conditions of production and intercourse which give rise to these relations, the narrowness of the hitherto existing forms of enjoyment, which were outside the actual content of the life of people and in contradiction to it, the connection between every philosophy of enjoyment and the enjoyment actually present and the hypocrisy of every philosopy which treated all individuals without distinction-- it was, of course, only possible to discover all this when it became possible to criticise the conditions of production and intercourse in the hitherto existing world, that is when the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat had given rise to communist and socialist views. That shattered the bases of all morality, whether the morality of ascetism or of enjoyment."

also from the Germany Ideology:

"The communists do not preach morality at all, as Stiner does so extensively. They do not put to the people the moral demand : love one another, do not be egotists, etc; on the contrary, they are well aware that egotism, just as much as selflessness, is in definite circumstances a neccessary form of self-assertion of individuals."

[FabFabian]

As a fellow Canadian, I have to disagree with Felicia's view that Canada is a Puritanical country. It is far from it....it is sensible more like. I think that is one of the biggest lies going about Canada. We have always been forward thinking, especially in comparision with the US.

Drugs....hmmm is opposed to them myself as I have identified myself with Straight Edge as a teen. Drugs, whether they be alcohol, ciggies, pot, tranquillizers are all instruments used to self medicate. How many people get themselves hammered come the weekend to relieve stress?? Are they any better off? No. I see someone smoking a fag, I see someone advertising their anxiety. If you have to be on drugs to listen to a certain band, how good can their music be? (Yes all you Pink Floyd fans!) Drugs are mere tools to gain access to a supposed "true self". People would be better off trying to deal with and transcend their inhibitions rather than rely
on a foreign substance to give it to you.

From a Marxist view, I think drugs are a no-no. You're enslaved in some sort of way and someone is making money off of you. Exploitation. If you are lucky you won't be addicted, but for those for whom it becomes an addiction it is a living hell. So many brilliant people have wasted their lives because of addiction. I am not just saying hard drugs, alchohol is legal and the most abused drug going.

Forbidden fruit, legalize it to decrease use...I don't want to see the legalization of pot let alone cocaine or heroin. I am in favour of decriminalization of pot as I feel that those who need it, severely ill people, should not be penalized by present pot laws. The prisons should not be filled with drug users, rather it should be treated as it is, a medical issue. Those who want the help should have access to it. Get the pushers fine, but the addicted need help.

[Felicia]

redstar

Why? Do you wish children to be ignorant of such behavior? Or just not to see it with their own eyes? Or what?

I think a reasonably intelligent kid who saw something like that would probably resolve not to do it...especially in light of the fact that most kids have a real phobia about needles anyway. I certainly can't imagine that it would be look "appealing"...!
I don't think that it's right for a 5 year old to be able to see addicts injecting themselves on the street. They don't need to see that yet.


I've known three serious heroin addicts and noticed a curious pattern; all three of them would "clean up" temporarily (three to six weeks of complete abstinence) every six months to a year. It wasn't planned...they would just get the "urge" to stop using for a while. Then they'd start up again, though naturally at lower dosages.

I believe there is some research that suggests that drug users voluntarily "taper off" as they reach middle age...as if their bodies tell them that it's time to quit. The late jazz great Miles Davis was a heavy user of heroin...but, in his late fifties, virtually stopped.

Sorry for rambling. What I really want to say is that in a classless society, there would never be any fear of "not being able to get what you need"...so "withdrawal symptoms" would not play any significant role in decision-making, one way or the other.
I don't know much about drug addicts and all of that, I don't much of the scientific facts, etc....


Nothing wrong with that. If there are things that others find pleasurable but that you feel repulsed by, there's certainly no obligation for you to participate or express public approval. People who know you will know not to invite you to "that kind" of party.

But when you enter the realm of political discourse, different standards apply. A classless society that attempted to wage a "war on drugs" would instantly become a police state and within a few years, devolve back into capitalism. If the permanent abolition of class society is our real goal, we have no choice but to tolerate the chemical indulgences of others...as long as they don't directly endanger third parties.

You are certainly free to propagandize against any substances that you find reprehensible...though there will certainly be users who propagandize back at you. You are certainly free to design a very austere lifestyle for yourself and recommend it to others...though there will be shameless hedonists (like me) who will argue against that approach. I do think that the enthusiastic embrace of whatever we find pleasurable is the "best" way to live...but certainly not the only way.

The difference between you (and Umoja, I hope) and a real neo-puritan is that neither of you have yet suggested that the police be mobilized to enforce your personal lifestyle choices. The hard-core neo-puritan (religious or secular) wants to put people in prison for the "crime" of having a good time "without a permit".

nooo, nooo. Poeple can make their own choices, I certainly would not be one to go to "that kind" of party and tell them that it's against my "marxist principles" (I don't neccessarily think it's wrong for everyone, I just was curious as to the marxism link, etc). I have no problem with going to "that kind" of party and socializing a bit.

disgustipated

Where in that line does it specifically say that human pleasure is defined by substances or drugs?

Life experiences, having fun, experiencing pleasure is what makes us human. I wasn't implying you weren't human for not taking drugs, I was trying to imply that denying people the opportunity to do anything that they find pleasurable or fun is a path towards turning us all into automatons. Is life all about suffering and struggle and denial of fun and pleasure? Of course not.
No, you just used drugs as the example of "human pleasure". I'm not preaching that people stop doing drugs, you may have missed my point somewhere along the line.....

FabFabian
Where in canada are you from?
I find that there are a lot of puritanical values lingering. The younger generations of course, may have their "signature" behaviour of not being so straight edge. I grew up with moral/religous friends, some are not of course, but quite a few are. But asfar as marxism and drug use, we're on the same terms here :)

[canikickit]

It's all very well to waffle about drugs being "tools" and drugs "altering" your mind, but it's all meaningless.
Food "alters" your metabolism, and your weight.

I'm sure many people will say, "ooh, but we need to eat", "food is for sustenance" etc., etc. But smoking cannabis, and injecting heroin is just as "natural" as eating nice food, food you enjoy.


Drugs, whether they be alcohol, ciggies, pot, tranquillizers are all instruments used to self medicate.

Do you think people are incapable of making the decision themselves on how they wish to treat their own body?


How many people get themselves hammered come the weekend to relieve stress?? Are they any better off? No.

Why not, and how do you know?
A great, great, great, many people thouroughly enjoy getting hammered. I've been known to do it myself occasionally, and very rarely, if ever, has it been to relieve my stress. It is fun, maybe to to you, but I don't like rock climbing.


I see someone smoking a fag, I see someone advertising their anxiety.

Again, the majority of people do not smoke to reduce anxiety, they do it because they enjoy either the taste, or the sensation of smoking. Even if they were relieving their anxiety, so what? What is wrong with using a "tool"?


If you have to be on drugs to listen to a certain band, how good can their music be? (Yes all you Pink Floyd fans!)

Not very. But I do enjoy music quite a bit more when I'm stoned. So what? I also enjoy it when I'm not stoned. I am in favour of people having as good a time as they can.


Drugs are mere tools to gain access to a supposed "true self". People would be better off trying to deal with and transcend their inhibitions rather than rely on a foreign substance to give it to you.

Why? Perhaps in some circumstances it's good for a laugh to forget your troubles and dance.

[Urban Rubble]

God, I'm not even going to bother putting forth a long reply, Cani, Disgustipated and RedStar completely smashed your arguments.

It comes down to one question, How can you make the call on what is "too bad" for your body ? Where do you draw the line ? The minute our (imaginary) Socialist Government starts telling me what I can and can't do to my body is the minute that I want out.

[Umoja]

I'm sure many people will say, "ooh, but we need to eat", "food is for sustenance" etc., etc. But smoking cannabis, and injecting heroin is just as "natural" as eating nice food, food you enjoy.

I can see a point in reference to fancy food. But that doesn't alter your awareness enough to be damaging. But unhealthy food, yes, that's also a problem to not only a revolutionary (to which drugs are an enemy) but also to people of a future socialist society. Since unhealthy food, does generally pose long term health risk, I don't see an advantage to it at all. Sure, it could be used sparingly, but cheaply produced "junk food" is a by product of a capitalist society.


Do you think people are incapable of making the decision themselves on how they wish to treat their own body?

Yes, quite a few people don't know how to take care of themselves. The community should watch out for it's own.


Why not, and how do you know?
A great, great, great, many people thouroughly enjoy getting hammered. I've been known to do it myself occasionally, and very rarely, if ever, has it been to relieve my stress. It is fun, maybe to to you, but I don't like rock climbing.
I'm sure these working class people who enjoy being drugged also enjoy spending the money on these drugs. I'm sure the Indians loved getting "hammered" drinking alcohol, I'm sure they felt good doing that but they got fucked. Same thing happens today with drugs, so I wouldn't trust myself getting high around Capitalism.


Again, the majority of people do not smoke to reduce anxiety, they do it because they enjoy either the taste, or the sensation of smoking. Even if they were relieving their anxiety, so what? What is wrong with using a "tool"?
Nothing is exactly wrong with the tool, but it leads to dependence on the tool, and especially in the case of cigarettes we have a horrible weapon of Capitalism put into place. Waste lots of your money, on an overly difficult to grow and useless plant.


Not very. But I do enjoy music quite a bit more when I'm stoned. So what? I also enjoy it when I'm not stoned. I am in favour of people having as good a time as they can.
If doing drugs is so good, why do so many people try and quit? Why does it ruin so many peoples lives? Why do you need to be in a different state of mind to enjoy it? Life is what you make it, not what something makes it for you. But this is purely a point of philosophy, and I personally don't think drugs should be banned after Capitalism, but for a revolutionary to use them is an abomination. A revolutionary should NOT be a user of Capitalism's greatest vice/weapon.

[Felicia]

urban,

it's not about what a "socialist" government is and isn't telling you to do. It's about the possibility of drug use by individual marxists beeing against certain aspects of Marxism.

[Rastafari]

Don't you all know that every time you buy drugs you support terrorism!?!?
This Man says so:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030802/capt.1059852528.bush_gh102.jpg
He's supported a few in his day, if you know what I mean (both w/his drug use and his policies-pretty goddam crafty, eh?)

[redstar2000]

From a Marxist view, I think drugs are a no-no. You're enslaved in some sort of way and someone is making money off of you. Exploitation.

From a Marxist view, we are all wage-slaves. Someone is always making money from our labor. We are always exploited.

There is no "special" exploitation involved in purchasing an illegal drug or even a legal drug any more than in paying your rent or your utility bill.

It's all bad.

So many brilliant people have wasted their lives because of addiction.

Is is possible that, in their view, their lives were not wasted at all?

We humans are pretty good at criticizing other people's pleasures--I think anyone who voluntarily goes skiing is insane--not so good at criticizing our own...which seem entirely reasonable.

Doesn't that suggest at least the possibility that people's choices in these matters are entirely subjective and impossible to objectively evaluate?

People would be better off trying to deal with and transcend their inhibitions rather than rely
on a foreign substance to give it to you.

Why? Particularly if the "foreign substance" is more reliably effective?

As it happens, I can speak from personal experience about this. During the upheavals of the 1960s, I found myself expected to do a good deal of public speaking...a torment for someone who suffers from "stage-fright". Imagine how I felt when I discovered that 10mg of Dexedrine© banished such inhibitions altogether...allowing me to feel completely at ease in front of hundreds or even thousands of people. I was actually able to enjoy a feeling of "connection" (for want of a better word) with an audience...something that usually only professional performers experience.

And, somehow, I managed to avoid becoming a "speed-freak" in the process.

I don't want to see the legalization of pot let alone cocaine or heroin. I am in favour of decriminalization of pot as I feel that those who need it, severely ill people, should not be penalized by present pot laws. The prisons should not be filled with drug users, rather it should be treated as it is, a medical issue. Those who want the help should have access to it. Get the pushers fine, but the addicted need help.

If you criminalize any drug, you have thereby endorsed a police state...whether you like it or not. Who else is going to "get the pushers"?

Do you want a society without police oppression at the price of having to tolerate drug use? Or do you want a society with police oppression and that still has drug use, just not as much?

...I personally don't think drugs should be banned after Capitalism, but for a revolutionary to use them is an abomination. A revolutionary should NOT be a user of Capitalism's greatest vice/weapon.

I don't think that words like "abomination" and "vice" are very useful in this discussion.

Unless someone wants to argue that drug-use (any drug) makes it demonstrably impossible to understand Marxism, engage in revolutionary politics, etc., then it cannot be an "abomination" from a communist standpoint.

As far as drugs being capitalism's greatest "weapon", that is clearly not true. The apparatus of police/military repression and the entertainment complex (news, sports, movies, television, etc.) are probably capitalism's greatest "weapons" at this point...with the educational system also right up there in the standings. The spectacle of bourgeois "democracy" has also been of great utility to the ruling class. Not to mention religion! They have many powerful weapons.

In practical terms, as long as a comrade actually does what s/he promised to do, I don't really care how they spend their time off...

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by TavareeshKamo+Jul 31 2003, 11:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TavareeshKamo @ Jul 31 2003, 11:07 AM)
[email protected] 31 2003, 03:54 AM
Most people, most leftists (quite a few here even) use drugs. Whether it&#39;s just pot, or much more than that.
That aint true, id say less than a 1/4 of marxists (ie serious "leftists") take drugs.

You cant be a serious revolutionary and take drugs at the same time. Its bullshit, ive never met a real marxist who takes drugs on a serious basis. It slows the mind down, and really, whats the need? i could get a buzz from doings 1001 other things. Not to say i dont, but very irreguularly, eg if im on holiday and theres no work to be done. Id never take it if i had any work to do for the rev [/b]


Agree comrade Rubble. Comrade cani, comrade DS and RS did indeed bash this notion up right and proper. I do however have to touch on one of the more amusing of posts here;


It is obvious Kamo ain&#39;t been around the Left very long.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 03:30 PM
Ecstacy can kill, but so can alcohol. Hell almost every drug, recreationally or medically used, legal to illegal, can kill, you just need a high enough dose.

The only real reason the DEA could find for illegalising ectasy was neurotoxicity, but hell, even a simple aspirin can cause neurotoxicity. OD deaths are not common, only other drug combo&#39;s/dehydration are quite common causes of death.

It is allmost impossible to have physical addiction to magic mushrooms, and tolerance builds up fast, and they&#39;re not too lethal, so I see no reason to not legalise it.

LSD can set off psychosis such as schizophrenia, but so could every hard moment of live(like the death of friends or family) and ODing is almost impossible.

Start reading http://www.erowid.org for facts about drugs before you form an opinion about them.
One more....



Any one that thinks methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamines or MDMA for short (ecstacy) can kill you is misinformed. greatly misinformed.

[Urban Rubble]

I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s a tough subject.

Is cocaine and heroin bad for you ? Of course. Can they ruin your life ? Yes. Should it be the governments responsibilty to "protect" you ? Fuck no.

We&#39;ve already seen (on a small scale) the effects of legalization in Amsterdam. People are MORE likely to try smoking pot, but people are FAR less likely to smoke on a regular basis.

People are not as stupid as some want to believe. They ARE capable of making their own decisions.

Take me for example. I tried pot for the first time when I was 13. Now, for the first couple of years I smoked occasionally, mostly on the weekends. When I was about 16 I did get pretty heavily into smoking for about 3 years. Now I&#39;m 21, I&#39;m older and a little more mature. I still smoke herb, but I don&#39;t do it like I used to. I&#39;m much more responsible. I don&#39;t smoke ALL day EVERY day. I usually smoke a little at night an hour or so before I go to bed. There are days when I smoke during the day, only if I have nothing important to do.

People will eventually learn what is O.K for them. For awhile there I was really fucking off, getting stoned before work, just being stupid about it. But as I mature I realize that that is not the best thing for me to be doing to myself.

O.K, I&#39;m rambling, my point is this. Yes, ANY substance, if abused, can be bad for you. Just answer me this, how is my smoking a little bit of herb as I lay in bed at night making me less of a "revolutionary" ? How does this make me "weaker" ? It doesn&#39;t. All it says is that I like to smoke a little bit of this dead dried plant at night because it makes me feel good. I&#39;m not smoking to "escape" my shitty proletarian life, I&#39;m doing it because I like the feeling it gives me. The same reason I eat an expensive meal, the same reason I skateboard every day, the same reason that I have sex with my girlfriend, because I enjoy it.

And every single morning, after smoking pot at night, I wake up, go to the construction site for 10 hours, go home and read for a couple hours, go skate and then go to bed. All with the same mindset that I would have if I didn&#39;t smoke the night before.

This whole post has been rambling nonsense, I guess it&#39;s because I&#39;m such a lazy, stupid stoner.

[canikickit]

Any one that thinks methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamines or MDMA for short (ecstacy) can kill you is misinformed. greatly misinformed.

It can when they put rat poison in there. :D
It can also lead to dehydration. It&#39;s a horrible drug, I hate it.


I can see a point in reference to fancy food. But that doesn&#39;t alter your awareness enough to be damaging.

Neither does cannabis, nor alcohol if you look after yourself.
While it is true that neither are particularily healthy, and I wouldn&#39;t advocate doing them if you had to do something important, you still suggest no reason to practice abstinance.


If doing drugs is so good, why do so many people try and quit? Why does it ruin so many peoples lives? Why do you need to be in a different state of mind to enjoy it? Life is what you make it, not what something makes it for you.

I agree it is philosophical, or meaningless waffle, whichever label you prefer.
People quit when they do too much, I don&#39;t know these are all generalisations, you know yourself why people try and quit.

But the majority of people who drink alcohol live perfectly normal, acceptable lives. The same goes for cannabis.


This whole post has been rambling nonsense, I guess it&#39;s because I&#39;m such a lazy, stupid stoner.

I agree. You&#39;re a fucking abomination&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Any one that thinks methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamines or MDMA for short (ecstacy) can kill you is misinformed. greatly misinformed.


It can when they put rat poison in there.
It can also lead to dehydration. It&#39;s a horrible drug, I hate it.



Someone selling rat-poison in place of MDMA has nothing to do with the affects of MDMA on the human body.
The only thing MDMA does is trick the serotonin neurons into releasing all of their serotonin molecules into the neuron&#39;s axon at once rather than as needed.

MDMA does not lead to dehaydration. Severe dehydration is a "club phenomenon" due to excessive activities (in this case dancing) without proper hydration and rest periods.


Both of these points lead to one thing; responisibility among the user.

[elijahcraig]

As it happens, I can speak from personal experience about this. During the upheavals of the 1960s, I found myself expected to do a good deal of public speaking...a torment for someone who suffers from "stage-fright". Imagine how I felt when I discovered that 10mg of Dexedrine© banished such inhibitions altogether...allowing me to feel completely at ease in front of hundreds or even thousands of people. I was actually able to enjoy a feeling of "connection" (for want of a better word) with an audience...something that usually only professional performers experience.

Underground journalism, public speaking, etc etc etc. What groups have you worked with? You and RAF are the, from what I can gather, most experienced of all of us. Two opposites (as far as Marxism goes) it seems as well.

[Vinny Rafarino]

RS has been around a long time. I break his balls a lot but you can&#39;t deny he has an extensive knowledge of many subjects.

[Urban Rubble]

I can&#39;t even begin to say which one of you is "right" (RAF and RedStar) because I&#39;m at such a juvenile stage of my political beliefs. I&#39;m still learning, but you and RedStar are definately helping me along, even though you do have quite different beliefs. I don&#39;t try to disguise my knowledge like alot of kids on this board do, I will straight out admit that I know ALOT less about Marxism than some people on this board. It&#39;s funny though, there are kids that know about half of what I do that seem to think they are some kind of enlightened fucking political genius.

Anyway, I&#39;m glad to see that you at least respect RedStar, because there is no denying the man is highly intelligent. There is nothing more amusing than watching you two "go at it", it&#39;s fun, and I usually learn a little bit.

[canikickit]

Why the Swiss hand out heroin (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=16213)


Someone selling rat-poison in place of MDMA has nothing to do with the affects of MDMA on the human body.
The only thing MDMA does is trick the serotonin neurons into releasing all of their serotonin molecules into the neuron&#39;s axon at once rather than as needed.
MDMA does not lead to dehaydration. Severe dehydration is a "club phenomenon" due to excessive activities (in this case dancing) without proper hydration and rest periods.

It may not be a characteristic of MDMA, but it is a characteristic of ecstasy.

Severe dehydration is not merely a symptom of excessive dancing, it&#39;s obviously a combined effect in part caused by the ecstasy. Having taken ecstasy on more than ten occasions myself, and not always having been in clubs dancing (or ever, I believe) and each time suffering some form of dehydration, I think it&#39;s safe to say.

I agree that there should be more responsibility on the part of the user, of course, but it does have side effects as a drug, and it is important to deferentiate between MDMA, the actual chemical, and ecstasy which most people will buy and actually take.

Not that I disagree with anything you said.

[Umoja]

I just don&#39;t see how one person, in general, can be expected to show restraint. Strength comes in groups, so I tend to think the family/community or some other tightly knit local group holds the power of restraint. Of course, I believe in indivdualism, but I also believe in communities being the people with freedom, not the individuals.

[Urban Rubble]

"I just don&#39;t see how one person, in general, can be expected to show restraint"

Jesus Christ, do you really believe that ? You seriously don&#39;t think one person can show restraint ?

I think we&#39;ve found the root of Umoja&#39;s hardcore anti-drug stance.

[Umoja]

I&#39;m only saying, that some people can show restraint but not everyone can. I&#39;m not saying drugs should be banned under a Socialist government, but I&#39;m saying I don&#39;t see how every person can be expected not to do something alone.

Is that we you mean "Root of my anti-drug stance"?

[Urban Rubble]

"I&#39;m only saying, that some people can show restraint but not everyone can"

Well, I agree. But I hold the belief that people can look after themselves and should be allowed to do so.

[Umoja]

Well, I agree. But I hold the belief that people can look after themselves and should be allowed to do so.

That&#39;s similar to saying "If a King is supposed to be good, he will be."

[Urban Rubble]

"That&#39;s similar to saying "If a King is supposed to be good, he will be." "

What are you talking about ? That&#39;s not even close to the same thing. I never said that ALL people will show restraint, I said that they should be allowed to do so on their own.

Come up with something better.

[Rastafari]

drugs clearly manipulate the mind...this much we can agree on

Some drugs are physically addicting

many people without experience (probably the gov.&#39;s fault somehow) are very weak-willed

it is possible to get hooked for quite a few people who can&#39;t really help it. Its not that they are inferior or less of a person, either.

[Umoja]

The example makes plenty of sense Urban Rubble. If you give a person carte blanche without anyone else to keep them in check, they are more likely to do something that&#39;s "morally questionable".

Even so, the point of the "ideal" socialist society is to not have problems, rather then having less problems.

Whatever, I&#39;m around preschoolers all day, what do I know.....

[Urban Rubble]

"Even so, the point of the "ideal" socialist society is to not have problems, rather then having less problems."

Yes, but these problems you speak of are subjective. I do not think that some Marijuana smoking is a problem. Yes, drugs CAN lead to problems, but that doesn&#39;t mean they are a problem for everyone who uses them.

Whatever, I&#39;m going to go watch the Daily Show.

[Sabocat]

Ah....this whole thread/topic has made me decide to do a load of H, take the edge off it with a bottle of scotch, and forget the whole goddamn thing......


j/k.

[Mogwai]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 31 2003, 01:46 PM
It seems that those people argueing against drugs are argueing against it because they presume that all drug takers are some how trying to escape the tortures of life. Admittedly that is true for some people, but I take drugs because I enjoy taking them. It makes me feel fuzzy inside and I get to dance my ass off and tell everyone I love them. :blink:


i couldnt have said it better myself, so i didnt :D

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I have a couple of somewhat tangential, but still relevant points regarding this debate.

Firstly there has been a lot of talk about addiction and altering one&#39;s mind. I run or exercise 5 times a week on average. This alters both my mental and physical state putting me in a much better mood. If I execise less than 4 times in a week I often get headaches and feel unwell in general. Hence my running is both addictive and mind altering, yet is it a bad thing? Is it anti-Marxist?

Secondly, if you are looking purely to Marx, he drank like a fish. Many did at his time, but even into his 40s and 50s he went on wild pub crawls through London, and once was almost arrested. I find it highly unlikely that he would have considered drinking un-communist.

Finally, Felicia has mentioned not wanting drug use to be visible as it could be seen by young children. Perhaps some kids will find seeing someone shoot-up &#39;interesting&#39;, but they are probably deranged already. My parents intentionally took me down to Hastings St in Vancouver (famous for being Canada&#39;s only true ghetto area) when I was young to see what heroin and crack do to people. It scared the shit out of me, and as I result I have been very careful with drugs (I smoke up occasionaly, but never completely lose control, and I have never tried anything stronger than hash). I think having drug use in the open is perhaps the greatest deterrant.

Well, those are my thoughts for the time being. At the end of the day drugs should be legal, but discouraged and heavily taxed to help pay for the resulting social problems. As it is right now we have the same problems without the tax revenue.

[The Feral Underclass]

Drugs are for anyone to take when ever they want to...and if anyone says that you can&#39;t...punch them in their face...steal their money, and go buy some CRACK&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Dhul Fiqar]

If you mix Marxism with drugs you will probably overdose, so take it easy and just drop a couple of pills and read a chapter or two of Das Kapital. That way you will know your tolerance, and can gradually start mixing harder drugs and more serious Marxism, but be warned that it is an addictive blend.

--- G.

[Durruti]

Read Jerry Rubin, he mixed communism and drugs pretty well... his movement didn&#39;t even get to the guerrilla stage, but the way he describes it it seems like he had a good time.

[Umoja]

If drugs can solve so many of our problems, why bother making a revolution? Why don&#39;t we just make better drugs, that&#39;ll make us happier after we&#39;re opressed? ::The flaming is gonna roll in from that one::


Firstly there has been a lot of talk about addiction and altering one&#39;s mind. I run or exercise 5 times a week on average. This alters both my mental and physical state putting me in a much better mood. If I execise less than 4 times in a week I often get headaches and feel unwell in general. Hence my running is both addictive and mind altering, yet is it a bad thing? Is it anti-Marxist?

Marx lived in a completely different time, and I never claim to be supporting purely Marxist principles, because clearly I wouldn&#39;t be saying this if I was a Marxist. I do think it&#39;s a bad thing that you are addicted to running though. Getting headaches doesn&#39;t seem to be the sort of thing that should be happening, if you aren&#39;t exercising enough, not exercising is punishment enough&#33; :o But seriously, the reason for your "addiction" to running is coming from an internal chemical. So the situation is different. I&#39;m addicted to water by your principles, I waste away without it.


Well, those are my thoughts for the time being. At the end of the day drugs should be legal, but discouraged and heavily taxed to help pay for the resulting social problems. As it is right now we have the same problems without the tax revenue.

This I can agree with, if drugs are taxed enough to pay for people to go into rehab, I see less of a problem in having most drugs be more open to the public. I still don&#39;t see it as a good idea, but it would lessen the impact (and potential crime) a thousand fold.

[elijahcraig]

As long drugs are used sparingly, they are ok. But developing habits based on their effects is bad, just like becoming addicted to religion.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 02:09 PM
Why the Swiss hand out heroin (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=16213)


Someone selling rat-poison in place of MDMA has nothing to do with the affects of MDMA on the human body.
The only thing MDMA does is trick the serotonin neurons into releasing all of their serotonin molecules into the neuron&#39;s axon at once rather than as needed.
MDMA does not lead to dehaydration. Severe dehydration is a "club phenomenon" due to excessive activities (in this case dancing) without proper hydration and rest periods.

It may not be a characteristic of MDMA, but it is a characteristic of ecstasy.

Severe dehydration is not merely a symptom of excessive dancing, it&#39;s obviously a combined effect in part caused by the ecstasy. Having taken ecstasy on more than ten occasions myself, and not always having been in clubs dancing (or ever, I believe) and each time suffering some form of dehydration, I think it&#39;s safe to say.

I agree that there should be more responsibility on the part of the user, of course, but it does have side effects as a drug, and it is important to deferentiate between MDMA, the actual chemical, and ecstasy which most people will buy and actually take.

Not that I disagree with anything you said.
MDMA is ecstacy.

I you have unfortunately bought PMA or some other chemical in place of MDMA then you have not bought ecstacy. You have bought a different drug under the guise of being ecstacy.

I think you have been mislead somewhere Cani. .

Dehydration has not been linked to MDMA (ecstacy) in any way. It&#39;s a neuro-chemical Cani, nothing else. They only way to become dehydrated over the course of several hours is by exessive sweating or urination without properly replacing your body&#39;s fluids.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 12:57 AM
Marx lived in a completely different time, and I never claim to be supporting purely Marxist principles, because clearly I wouldn&#39;t be saying this if I was a Marxist. I do think it&#39;s a bad thing that you are addicted to running though. Getting headaches doesn&#39;t seem to be the sort of thing that should be happening, if you aren&#39;t exercising enough, not exercising is punishment enough&#33; :o But seriously, the reason for your "addiction" to running is coming from an internal chemical. So the situation is different. I&#39;m addicted to water by your principles, I waste away without it.
Firstly of all I take your point regarding Marxism - that comment was directed primarily at felicia who raised the question of the compatibility of drugs and Marxism (rather than communism in general). Secondly I do not think your distinction of internal and external chemicals is all that valid. Lactic acid is an internal chemical, but it can do serious damage in too high quantities. Also if you are looking to external &#39;mind altering&#39; chemicals then perhaps we should ban caffine and sugar. Both of those can induce changes in body chemistry. True, they do not tend to create social problems, but they can create dependency.

At the end of the day I think the government should not be legislating what drugs people can and cannot take - that is none of it&#39;s business. Isn&#39;t part of the struggle we are involved in one against opression and legislation? If you are truly liberal then you must accept that people should be allowed to do things that you personally disagree with.

[Umoja]

At the end of the day I think the government should not be legislating what drugs people can and cannot take - that is none of it&#39;s business. Isn&#39;t part of the struggle we are involved in one against opression and legislation? If you are truly liberal then you must accept that people should be allowed to do things that you personally disagree with.

That is true, but the more I argue on this topic the more I seem to move away from the basis of what I&#39;m saying. I don&#39;t see a problem with drugs in a Communist society, but I do see a problem with drugs in a Capitalist society.

[Severian]

Has anyone brought up the subject of how foolish it is for a revolutionary to use illegal drugs, making themselves and others vulnerable to government repression?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 02:36 PM
Has anyone brought up the subject of how foolish it is for a revolutionary to use illegal drugs, making themselves and others vulnerable to government repression?
Zzzzzzzzzzzz

[Vinny Rafarino]

Ha&#33; Les enfants ont aujourd&#39;hui besoin de recevoir une poigne sur la réalité eh comrade Disgustapated?


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................


HA&#33;

[FabFabian]

Message to Felicia : I am from that horrible city called Toronto. :P Actually, it was a great city until someone decided that a monkey would be a mayor and a bunch of right-wing nutjobs like castrating the city for fun.

Yeah, I know where you are coming from Felicia. ;)

If you want an example of what a waste of time drugs are, let me present to you the entire 60&#39;s generation. What a complete bunch of do nothing wasters, who preached love and peace yet sold themselves out to make bucks in the 80&#39;s, rip off people and leave all the clean to my generation. Thanks a lot arseholes&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

[Uhuru na Umoja]

FabFabian: I don&#39;t mean to get too off topic, but I completely disagree with your portrayal of the 60s generation. Yes they sold out in the long run, but that doesn&#39;t mean they didn&#39;t make a difference then. The 60s were a time of great social change, and many of the liberal values we take for granted were fought for by those &#39;arseholes&#39; you refer to. I .know my mum as a woman growing up in the 70s was grateful for the groundwork laid by the sixies feminists - without it she would almost definitely not have gone to university (as it is now she has just completed her PhD). It&#39;s all too easy to deny their acomplishments just because they did not achieve all that they aimed for (and they had some notable successes, such as the US withdrawing from Vietnam); the 70s still represent one of the decades of great social change in western history. I wish more people of our generation shared those ideals :hammer: