Do you want the legalisation of marijuana?

[Ned Kelly]

Pretty straightforward.
I say yes, but everyone free to grow their own..not yes to opening the door to capitalist exploitation of the substance.

[GreenCommunism]

fuck yeah.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just yes. Capitalists will try to profit from it or not, but the main thing for me is to decrease the power of the police to harass (young, mostly non-white) people and to end the state's ability to lock people up for drug use or abuse in general.

I don't know all that much about this, but my feeling is that if any drugs were legalized but only for personal production and consumption, it would just mean that underground capitalists, rather than legitimate business, would be the ones seeking to reap profits from this. Not everyone has the space or ability or time or desire to grow their own pot or any other grown substance (would people who have a joint at a party or a concert a few times a year really want to grow a plant?) and so in no time, people would be selling it anyway much as it is done now. Of course the decriminalization aspect still means that the "war on drugs" problems would not remain, so I would not be opposed to legalization only for personal production and use.

[meow]

what i put in my body is my business. leftists support abortion on the basis it is the womens body. equaly we should support the right of all to use whatever drug they like. it is not the business of state to tell us what we can and cant do with our body.

i support the complete removal of all restriction on use for marijuana and any other drug.

selling it? i guess in this society we have to deal with that. tobacco and alcohol are legal. make marijuana the same tax wise etc. (except in most place you cant grow your own tobacco. thats wrong to.)

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Just yes. As much as I'd prefer that it wasn't exploited for profit, I know that is highly unlikely in the capitalist system. Like Jimmy, I would prefer it to be legalised mainly to stop the harassment of young people and non-whites by police, I probably wouldn't smoke it much myself even if it was legalised (I like my weed like my drink, in moderation).

[Ned Kelly]

It depends I guess.
For a regular smoker like me, if growing remained illegal, I'd be forced to either to continue the risky practice of growing my own, seeing as even have one plant is illegal here, or pay 20 bucks a gram or above for shit from the man.

[Jimmie Higgins]

what i put in my body is my business.Right. I think this is the other basic point - in addition to the immediate reasons for drug criminalization (the ability for cops to stop and search anyone on the basis of "I saw/smelled something that I thought was marijuana" and justifying increased repressive abilities of the state) it should be opposed because moral legislation in general is a tool of capitalist society. People using drugs, people not conforming to heterosexual "traditional" family units, people having non-conformist beliefs and so on are all used as excuses for inequality and other problems in capitalism. The capitalists say, "people are poor because they are alcoholic" when in fact poverty is one of the main reasons people self-medicate with alcohol or drug abuse - they blame black inequality in the US not on the racism of bank policies or education inequality or job access or police repression, but on "lack of strong father figures in the black community".

In systems like feudalism, behavior was regulated directly - people of different castes had to act a certain way. While some of this exists in capitalism (more so in early capitalism when there were still a lot of feudal customs mixed in with the new bourgeois society) mostly people are technically free do act as they want to a certain extent. So behavior control is accomplished through "morality" and "moral crusades" (mostly directed at the behavior and actions of the poor and laborers) have been a strong part of capitalist culture since the early-to-mid 1800s in England and the post Civil War period in the US. This is when tea-time was promoted as the proper alternative to drinking a beer in the UK and the temperance movement in the US. Now our temprence movements are about anti-smoking, not eating junk food, not having "redneck culture" or "hip-hop culture", and having a (heterosexual) two parent home.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It depends I guess.
For a regular smoker like me, if growing remained illegal, I'd be forced to either to continue the risky practice of growing my own, seeing as even have one plant is illegal here, or pay 20 bucks a gram or above for shit from the man.

In Oakland we've had decriminalization for anything under an ounce (I think) or limited personal growing for a few years and just this week, Governor True Lies decriminalized possession of up to an ounce. The politics involved and the way different pro-legalization groups and advocates have maneuvered themselves is interesting although I don't know too much about it. I know the growers in the agriculturally poor northern part of the state, who are essentially, pot moonshiners, are totally against blanket legalization because they know that there would be a chance that the large industrial agribusiness companies that dominate the middle section of the state would most likely move in. So my impression is that on a political level its sort of a conflict between the petty-bourgeois (though illegal) "artisan" growers and the possible threat of being replaced and outmoded by normal capitalist production.

The Oakland city council tried to pass a law (apparently in the middle of the night) to re-criminalize small growing in homes and residential areas an instead allow large centralized factory growing operations in the Warehouse and Industrial parts of the city. The nascent "locally-grown" pot industry here was all up in arms over this and saw it as a preemptive move by big operations to move in once the State fully endorses legal growing for profit.

I think all this maneuvering is interesting, but really for working class politics it means little. In fact, it's probably better in a way if pot growing did get taken over by agribusiness because then field workers could organize more easily rather than being on small semi-legal operations. Then agian, maybe smaller operations would be easier to get concessions from if they were legal, so I don't know which outcome would be best, but decriminalization and an end to drug laws in general would be a good development for workers and reducing repression.

[Widerstand]

Of course.

[maskerade]

i believe in the legalisation of all drugs, with all hard drugs being administered free of charge to addicts in safe environments with proper medical attention. it is the only humane solution.

of course, in order to stop drug use, or at least problematic drug use, which i see stemming from alienation, there needs to be an entire paradigm shift. I also see authoritative education systems as a major contributor to drug use, as it systematically marginalizes nonconformists and those who question the asinine system they have been placed in.

in other words, we need a revolution to prevent heroin addiction

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

An indiscriminate yes. People who take drugs are not criminals and should not be victimized.

[Ned Kelly]

Branching off a little but whatever. I know heroin addicts, i know they get beaten, spat upon, for being 'filthy junkies'. Growing up in my area, there is no capital, no money, not much hope. Growing up in a housing commission estate is gonna bring this, we get substandard schools, lack of access to services, nothing. These people just want a way to numb these feelings of despair, alienation, etc. Capitalism is the problem, the system is sick, and must be overthrown, to fix these issues of alienation. But until this happens, we must work vigilantly to end the victimisation of addicts and this war on drugs dross!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just yes, as part of a new drugs policy where all drugs are 'de-criminalised' and then either legalised or not depending on a careful scientific review of their effects, usefulness and dangers.

There would obviously have to be accompanying economic measures to make sure that Weed didn't become the new Alcohol - branded, labelled and absolutely for-profit and against-health -, but in relation to the social part of this question, wholly yes!

[BeerShaman]

I don't ge it. Why do we care about what the state forbids us or lets us do? What? Will we even ask free drugs? Or free food? Or free school? Or what? Personally, I am against using drugs, like marijuana and stuff (not talking about alcohol or cigarettes). But why does it concerns us? Aren't we supposed to try to build a society where we decide what's legal and what is not? Will we wait something to happen by the state?
(Sorry for my bad english)

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't ge it. Why do we care about what the state forbids us or lets us do? What? Will we even ask free drugs? Or free food? Or free school? Or what? Personally, I am against using drugs, like marijuana and stuff (not talking about alcohol or cigarettes). But why does it concerns us? Aren't we supposed to try to build a society where we decide what's legal and what is not? Will we wait something to happen by the state?
(Sorry for my bad english)

We do want to build a society where we decide what's legal & what's not, but that society is not here & we're still under the control of the bourgeois. So we continue to fight against injustices, fight for worker's rights, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't ge it. Why do we care about what the state forbids us or lets us do? What? Will we even ask free drugs? Or free food? Or free school? Or what? Personally, I am against using drugs, like marijuana and stuff (not talking about alcohol or cigarettes). But why does it concerns us? Aren't we supposed to try to build a society where we decide what's legal and what is not? Will we wait something to happen by the state?
(Sorry for my bad english)No - I have not waited for official sanction for many things I have done including recreational use of substances like alcohol (i.e. underage drinking) and others.

What does concern me is the way in the US, drug laws are used in order to provide cover for racial profiling and, in general, harassing and criminalizing poor people. They pull people over in minority neighborhoods with this pretext when there's no doubt in my mind that if they patrolled college areas like they do poor and working class areas, they would find just as much, if not more, drug possession and use.

I would much rather see decriminalization of drugs happen because of a movement that was conscious of this aspect of the drug-war. In California, pot decriminalization is slowly happening in the absence of that or other working class based politics in this matter. But never the less, taking away the ability of the cops to shake-down, profile, and incarcerate people because of pot is a small bit of unexpected progress that I will happily take.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Legalise everything.

I don't do-and don't plan to do-any kind of drugs yet it still boils down to privacy and freedom.What I do is my business.Though I do think there should be education on the effects on the long term usage of the harder drugs.

[GreenCommunism]

did someone vote no as a joke.

[The Vegan Marxist]

did someone vote no as a joke.

Probably from someone who still thinks marijuana can kill people.

[Widerstand]

Probably from someone who still thinks marijuana can kill people.

Straight Edgers are more common than you think.

[GreenCommunism]

http://www.opposeprop19.com/

this site actually scared me. i can understand how the propaganda was effective though.

[Raúl Duke]

did someone vote no as a joke.

It's not surprising if you take a look at a few threads concerning weed and/or drugs in general. The only difference being that they won't speak up now perhaps because they know deep-down inside that me and some others here will be on their case and smash their arguments like in those prior threads.

I laugh and facepalm inside everytime I here people talk of a "socialist" drug prohibition or "socialist war on drugs" as if it were going to be any different from the capitalist prohibition/war on drugs.


Straight Edgers are more common than you think. I don't think those who oppose it on here are actually straight-edgers...more like "revolution is my mantra" leftist-monks (smoking pot detracts from "revolutionary" work of selling newspapers; "NEED TO DO REV WORK 24/7" types) and/or a few hypocrites who see alcohol as all fine,dandy, and safe over pot. :rolleyes:

I think the straight-edgers here don't exactly care if its legalized or not.

[Stand Your Ground]

Pretty straightforward.
I say yes, but everyone free to grow their own..not yes to opening the door to capitalist exploitation of the substance.
Agreed. I don't use it but other people should be free to.


It's not surprising if you take a look at a few threads concerning weed and/or drugs in general. The only difference being that they won't speak up now perhaps because they know deep-down inside that me and some others here will be on their case and smash their arguments like in those prior threads.

I don't think those who oppose it on here are actually straight-edgers...more like "revolution is my mantra" leftist-monks (smoking pot detracts from "revolutionary" work of selling newspapers; "NEED TO DO REV WORK 24/7" types) and/or a few hypocrites who see alcohol as all fine,dandy, and safe over pot. :rolleyes:

I think the straight-edgers here don't exactly care if its legalized or not.
I'm straight edge and I'm for legalization. I don't do drugs or drink but it's up to each individual if they want to or not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just yes. Even if corporations were to attempt to cash in on it, it would still be a vast improvement over the utter absurdity that is the current situation.

[maskerade]

Just yes. Even if corporations were to attempt to cash in on it, it would still be a vast improvement over the utter absurdity that is the current situation.

i don't know how succesful it would be, unless they make some gmo shit that kills all the other seeds

[Charles Xavier]

definately no. Marijuana is more dangerous than car accidents, terrorism, cancer and heart attacks combined, and this has been proven by science.

[Bright Banana Beard]

definately no. Marijuana is more dangerous than car accidents, terrorism, cancer and heart attacks combined, and this has been proven by science.

Are you saying people can't take responsibility?

[Charles Xavier]

Are you saying people can't take responsibility?

Science is saying that marijuana is the leading cause of death in the whole world. Ask a scientist.

[maskerade]

Science is saying that marijuana is the leading cause of death in the whole world. Ask a scientist.

I took a chemistry class in high school so i can confirm this statement.

[gorillafuck]

I don't ge it. Why do we care about what the state forbids us or lets us do?
Because laws right now have immediate consequences. Of course I want marijuana legalized.


Then again, comrade Xavier makes a good point indeed.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Science is saying that marijuana is the leading cause of death in the whole world. Ask a scientist. I did and he said he agreed. You got me. :crying:

[Widerstand]

I took a chemistry class in high school so i can confirm this statement.

I had biology, chemistry, geology and physics in high school.

This is true.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm straight edge and I'm for legalization. I don't do drugs or drink but it's up to each individual if they want to or not.

Exactly.
To the person who first mentioned straight-edgers in the site as being the source for the (than) only no vote I thought it was unlikely because from my experience straight-edgers that I've met do not care or are for legalization but they see their thing (being straight-edge) as being up to the individual to choose.

The only person who could have voted no would have to be some M-L "revolutionary puritan monk" ("drugs detract us from reaching revolution!" or whatever) and/or a hypocrite ("alcohol is great but weed kills :rolleyes:").

[Magón]

Just yes, or for some more in your face way of putting it: FUCK YEAH MAN! And no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously in favor of the stuff being legalized, I'm tired of having to smuggle that shit through my network of super tunnels on the Mexico/Arizona border. :thumbup1:

[Widerstand]

I don't think those who oppose it on here are actually straight-edgers...more like "revolution is my mantra" leftist-monks (smoking pot detracts from "revolutionary" work of selling newspapers; "NEED TO DO REV WORK 24/7" types) and/or a few hypocrites who see alcohol as all fine,dandy, and safe over pot. :rolleyes:

I think the straight-edgers here don't exactly care if its legalized or not.


Exactly.
To the person who first mentioned straight-edgers in the site as being the source for the (than) only no vote I thought it was unlikely because from my experience straight-edgers that I've met do not care or are for legalization but they see their thing (being straight-edge) as being up to the individual to choose.

Chill lol. I know that there are a couple decent straight edgers around. I've been shortly in the scene, however I nowadays like to distance myself from it, due to the vast influx of reactionary attitudes brought in by hardliners and modern youth crews (pride&honor bullshit rhetoric, forced monogamy, oppression of dissenters, patriarchal attitudes, even mild fascism). Aside from the fact that I just enjoy drugs too much '_'


The only person who could have voted no would have to be some M-L "revolutionary puritan monk" ("drugs detract us from reaching revolution!" or whatever) and/or a hypocrite ("alcohol is great but weed kills :rolleyes:").

Funnily enough, "drugs distract from reaching revolution" is one of the major leftist arguments for a straight edge lifestyle. While I don't necessarily agree with it, I'll give it some merit. It's also brought up by the author of what I consider to be one of the most interesting books on straight edge I've heard of - though I haven't read it and don't plan to, because I'm not in the scene anymore - especially if you're a leftist:

http://karmalised.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/soberliving.jpg (https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=162)

[William Howe]

It's a bloody plant that's costing thousands of lives because of its illegal status. Just legalize the damn thing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

yeah. more reforms for the cappies to take back, and therefore piss people right the fuck off.


also, weed aint so bad.

[Charles Xavier]

http://cannabis.net/thc/killerdrug.jpg

[Apoi_Viitor]

I took a chemistry class in high school so i can confirm this statement.

This post made me laugh so hard, that I started to cry.

[Tablo]

I don't care. I just wanna get high.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.opposeprop19.com/

this site actually scared me. i can understand how the propaganda was effective though.
Harry Anslinger
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/anslinger_harry/images/anslinger_harry3_med.jpg

And you are all familiar with who this guy is
https://beyond-english.wikispaces.com/file/view/Mussolini_biografia.jpg/56655774/Mussolini_biografia.jpg



I cant tell if that site was a joke or not. they must have mistakenly put up a picture of mussolini on the page. that or harry anslinger was a clone. what. the. fuck.

[Crux]

It's satire, quite obviously. And brilliant satire at that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's satire, quite obviously. And brilliant satire at that.
i thought so much when it was talking about how smoking marihuana make you kill your brother.

[Crux]

i thought so much when it was talking about how smoking marihuana make you kill your brother.
Not to mention how it makes white girls want to have interracial sex. Oh the thought!

[mikelepore]

Legalization, yes, and I take the argument further. I believe that law makers who make any action illegal should be required to prove that the action violates human rights. If they cannot meet the burden of proof then the judicial branch should reject the law as unenforcable.

[free marijuana]

You might be surprised, but I think that free good quality hydro is a human right. I think that in any truly civilised society, marijuana will be handed out at every other street corner. It will be free, it will be good quality, and it will be baked into cookies!

I am 100% supportive of the legalisation of THC and sources of it.

There is a really good, um, free prose? comparing marijuana and alcohol. I can't find it, nor remember the exact way it flows. One thing it does, is highlights that THC does not cause violence.

Moreover, THC is not physically addictive (unlike alcohol and nicotine), and is a whole lot safer generally. It's absurd that it is outlawed.

[GreenCommunism]

Straight Edgers are more common than you think.

well to be honest i've seen many vegan contest the way taht celebritys use drugs and how the media basicly portray it neutrally, i don't think any of them have been against prohibition but they link anti-psychiatry with recreational drugs, in their opinion buying drugs is supporting the capitalist system, at least some of them for example.

for example react with protest.


REACT WITH PROTEST SUPPORTS THE IDEAS OF VEGANISM/VEGETARIANISM and STRAIGHT EDGE AS AN OPEN MINDED FORM OF PROTEST. WE RE STRICTLY AGAINST RACISM, FACISM, SEXISM and GENDER ROLES. QUESTION EVERYTHING - GET ACTIVE!

http://www.myspace.com/reactwithprotest (http://www.myspace.com/reactwithprotest#ixzz11UX291af)

[Widerstand]

]in their opinion buying drugs is supporting the capitalist system, at least some of them for example.

... which in my book is the same lifestylist-escapist, reformist bullshit as Fair Trade. Or should I say "fair exploited"? Been there, done that (about the full spectrum of Straight Edge, Veganism, Fair Trade stuff), dropped it.

Also, there is this huge right-wing straight edge scene, raging from right-leaning/slightly reactionary in the USA to almost-fascist in East Europe which would love to prohibit all drugs and beat up people that don't agree.

I have absolutely no issues with straight edgers who regard it as a personal choice, but don't push it on others.

[GreenCommunism]

which is my point , they don't push it on others, they also have many progressive bands in their record. but they still don't use it as they see it as a capitalist subculture anyway.

[Le Libérer]

Especially for medical marijuana. Theres strong legislation going on now in my state, with the possibility of passing medically, which would be great news for my HIV clients. Theres alot of legislation going on here.... that needs to be addressed. And is being addressed by my workers party as well as ACT-UP, the national anarchist group to whom I have been a member for longer than most ya'll been alive. ;)

[gorillafuck]

I was gonna do a revolution
but then I got high
Could've fought it could've won
But then I got high

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not to make this all political and shit, but what do people think is the ruling class's angle on the general shift in the US towards "legalization from above"? A lot of these laws in California are coming from the top - state officials and even police departments. Their arguments are mostly on a practical level: it's expensive to try and regulate something that is so widely used.

I wonder if officials feel like since weed is so widely used, it kind of looses its usefulness - I mean when everyone smokes, you can't beat up youth, hippies, and minority kids for smoking a joint when every concert venue in California reeks of refer and rich people smoke as much as the rest of us punks and slackers.

Do they just see this as a possible revenue generator just as many places in the South and Rust-Belt are legalizing gambling operations?

Is it just politically "safe" since popular attitudes are so decidedly soft on pot use?

I think it's probably a combination of a lot of small factors like these. One thing I worry about though is that pot-decriminalization will lead to a ramping-up of repression for other drug use - it's like pot kind of shows the insanity of the US "war on drugs" but if you legalize that, then maybe that frees up the state to really go after the "bad drugs" that are not as (openly) popular among affluent white people.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps Marajuana.

But things like crystal meth and heroin, acid, fuck no.

People shouldn't be locked up for doing it,

But the only problem I have is that

1. Those drugs will spread to kids, crystal meth kills easily, I knew a girl who took meth, and she's dead now.

2. More deaths among people in general.

3. Addiction will lead to Capitalism.

So, I think some need to be eradicated.

[Rafiq]

You might be surprised, but I think that free good quality hydro is a human right. I think that in any truly civilised society, marijuana will be handed out at every other street corner. It will be free, it will be good quality, and it will be baked into cookies!

I am 100% supportive of the legalisation of THC and sources of it.

There is a really good, um, free prose? comparing marijuana and alcohol. I can't find it, nor remember the exact way it flows. One thing it does, is highlights that THC does not cause violence.

Moreover, THC is not physically addictive (unlike alcohol and nicotine), and is a whole lot safer generally. It's absurd that it is outlawed.


You think little kids should be able to do drugs?

[maskerade]

Perhaps Marajuana.

But things like crystal meth and heroin, acid, fuck no.

People shouldn't be locked up for doing it,

But the only problem I have is that

1. Those drugs will spread to kids, crystal meth kills easily, I knew a girl who took meth, and she's dead now.

2. More deaths among people in general.

3. Addiction will lead to Capitalism.

So, I think some need to be eradicated.

which scenario appeals more to you:
1) Drugs are illegal and in the hands of criminals, who have no problem selling them to little children
2) Drugs are strictly regulated and controlled, with age limits, and full medical attention given to those who use them.

You're trolling aren't you? And what's wrong with acid?

[RED DAVE]

Perhaps Marajuana.

But things like crystal meth and heroin, acid, fuck no.

People shouldn't be locked up for doing it,

But the only problem I have is that

1. Those drugs will spread to kids, crystal meth kills easily, I knew a girl who took meth, and she's dead now.

2. More deaths among people in general.

3. Addiction will lead to Capitalism.

So, I think some need to be eradicated.Everything you're saying here could be said of a really dangerous drug: alcohol.

Booze was considered so dangerous and demoralizing to the working class that many leading 19th Century and early 20th Century socialists were temperance advocates.

Get over it. The bourgeois state is not here to protect children from drugs. If it were, they would be protected.

[B]RED DAVE[/B

[Rafiq]

which scenario appeals more to you:
1) Drugs are illegal and in the hands of criminals, who have no problem selling them to little children
2) Drugs are strictly regulated and controlled, with age limits, and full medical attention given to those who use them.

You're trolling aren't you? And what's wrong with acid?


Perhaps you are right. The second Scenario seems more appropriate.

Forgive me, I thought you met that such dangerous drugs should not be paid attention to, and just be given to anyone.

[Rafiq]

Everything you're saying here could be said of a really dangerous drug: alcohol.

Booze was considered so dangerous and demoralizing to the working class that many leading 19th Century and early 20th Century socialists were temperance advocates.

Get over it. The bourgeois state is not here to protect children from drugs. If it were, they would be protected.

[B]RED DAVE[/B


I wasn't trying to say that the current Bourgeois state has handled the matter appropriately.

Nor was I defending them in any way.

Obviously the only reason they keep drugs illegal is for Capitalists. Nothing to do with them caring about anyone.

[Jim Profit]

Pretty straightforward.
I say yes, but everyone free to grow their own..not yes to opening the door to capitalist exploitation of the substance.
Exactly this. The only thing worse then it being illegal for everybody is it's only legal for the rich to produce and sell, thereby the rich get richer.

Which is what I fear would happen. They keep bringing up marijunna legislation, but if you have to have a liscence and shit to grow it, it's just going to mean more centralization of wealth! Most people don't even know the vast majority against cannabis legalization are big tobbacco and liquor companies. Cause they don't want the competition in substance abuse.

[Raúl Duke]

Perhaps Marajuana.

But things like crystal meth and heroin, acid, fuck no.

People shouldn't be locked up for doing it,

But the only problem I have is that

1. Those drugs will spread to kids, crystal meth kills easily, I knew a girl who took meth, and she's dead now.

2. More deaths among people in general.

3. Addiction will lead to Capitalism.

So, I think some need to be eradicated.



acid,It can be arguable that acid, chemically speaking, has less adverse health effects than tobacco and alcohol plus most of the negative things people hear about acid are myths. There's also myths surrounding other drugs, like MDMA. People talk about how MDMA "makes holes" in your head, but the study on the nuerotoxicity of MDMA that got that conclusion was faulty since recently we know that they used high doses of meth (a drug we all know that has adverse effects) instead of MDMA)


3. Addiction will lead to Capitalism. :lol: Than you must have a shallow analysis of what creates and perpetuates capitalism if you believe this.


So, I think some need to be eradicated.What do you mean by this?

Let me put it straight up, the heavy-handed "war on drugs" approach has failed in all fronts. Sure, there are drugs out there that are extremely harmful and addictive like methamphetamine (crystal meth) but the current policies (in the US, and many countries) have done very little to help the problem of drug addiction and abuse, in fact it might have worsen the situation.

For drugs like crystal meth, cocaine, and whatever that is scientifically known to cause strong addiction and adverse health affects worse than say alcohol and tobacco shouldn't be full-on legalized but instead decriminalized to such a level as that seen in Portugal. Portugal has an interesting drug policy where if you're caught with illegal drugs they offer rehab programs instead of jail time.

Drugs like marijuana (which has many uses, including medicinal) and many/some drugs that have little to no adverse physical health effects (many traditional psychedelics and perhaps even MDMA but I wouldn't be sure until more studies are done) should be legalized.

[Charles Xavier]

Osama bin Laden and Hitler supports Marijuana legalization. I don't support Nazis or terrorists! I don't support Marijuana!

[9]

lawl

[Rafiq]

It can be arguable that acid, chemically speaking, has less adverse health effects than tobacco and alcohol plus most of the negative things people hear about acid are myths. There's also myths surrounding other drugs, like MDMA. People talk about how MDMA "makes holes" in your head, but the study on the nuerotoxicity of MDMA that got that conclusion was faulty since recently we know that they used high doses of meth (a drug we all know that has adverse effects) instead of MDMA)

:lol: Than you must have a shallow analysis of what creates and perpetuates capitalism if you believe this.

What do you mean by this?

Let me put it straight up, the heavy-handed "war on drugs" approach has failed in all fronts. Sure, there are drugs out there that are extremely harmful and addictive like methamphetamine (crystal meth) but the current policies (in the US, and many countries) have done very little to help the problem of drug addiction and abuse, in fact it might have worsen the situation.

For drugs like crystal meth, cocaine, and whatever that is scientifically known to cause strong addiction and adverse health affects worse than say alcohol and tobacco shouldn't be full-on legalized but instead decriminalized to such a level as that seen in Portugal. Portugal has an interesting drug policy where if you're caught with illegal drugs they offer rehab programs instead of jail time.

Drugs like marijuana (which has many uses, including medicinal) and many/some drugs that have little to no adverse physical health effects (many traditional psychedelics and perhaps even MDMA but I wouldn't be sure until more studies are done) should be legalized.



Perhaps you should read my latest post

[Sexy Red]

Yes and there isn't a damn good reason it should be illegal anymore.

[GreenCommunism]

Osama bin Laden and Hitler supports Marijuana legalization. I don't support Nazis or terrorists! I don't support Marijuana!

actually them and george bush all supported marijuan prohibition, do you want to be on their side?

[BeerShaman]

We do want to build a society where we decide what's legal & what's not, but that society is not here & we're still under the control of the bourgeois. So we continue to fight against injustices, fight for worker's rights, etc.
Yes, but we do never hope that this system will equalize the rights of the bourgeois and the workers. In contrast, we aim to intensify class war. We may want things for the people, but especially in this matter, which is depended almost totally on the initiatives of people and is mostly a personnal matter, as being opposed to the state and because these laws that exist now aren't made by us, we oppose them and we disobey.
I am against drugs, but sorry we don't give our freedom of hoice to the state and as far as we as personalities (it's different about political movements) don't accept them we don't care about them.

[BeerShaman]

We do want to build a society where we decide what's legal & what's not, but that society is not here & we're still under the control of the bourgeois. So we continue to fight against injustices, fight for worker's rights, etc.
It's like this quote on greencommunism's signature: Marx: The better you are paid, the golder your chains.

[Ovi]

Yes, being thrown into prison for smoking weed will further our cause.

[this is an invasion]

I don't know where I stand on this issue.

My friend wrote the following after several group discussions we had about marijuana legalization:

"
While I understand how exciting it may be for the seemingly endless campaign of "Legalize it" to be so close to what seems like a victory, I must also question why a government, especially one so snub nosed in it's aggression towards people who choose to indulge in weed, to make an about face and have a change of heart.

A few points on this


1. The legalization, and taxation,of marijuana would lead to all of those friends we have that make whatever livelihood they have by selling weed suddenly unemployed.

2. The state will roll on many new laws that they will enforce, especially ones that arent so clear yet, because a new revenue will be seen in a whole new ticketable sector. It is quite possible that penalties for the new laws will be more steep than they are now, especially with the recent decriminalization.These laws may curtail people who grow for home use, or who sell to a club where they are considered a cooperative member. This could be done by ways such as forcing people who grow to have a business license, or by filing income taxes on what is sold.

3. Privatization leads to corporate structure, this means that the lifelessness of the everyday commodity will now be implemented on marijuana. Factory farms, lower quality product etc. Even if you did continue to sell, would people come to you or would they settle for the walmart bammer weed.

4. People who do clipping will no longer get good money, but they will turn into wage workers and be subjected to the terribleness of wage earning, where the product of your work isnt what is awarded, but the time you are there.

5. Those who do sell will simply move to a new product (such as meth) to replace the money they got from selling weed. New markets will be found.


My personal conclusion is that the somewhat vague black market that marijuana exists in right now is ideal, in a lot of places you dont really get in a ton of trouble for having it and cards can be acquired easily. This legalization method is only to gain the state money. If the state was in any financially stable condition these politicians would not be supporting this by any means."

[Chimurenga.]

I don't think those who oppose it on here are actually straight-edgers...more like "revolution is my mantra" leftist-monks (smoking pot detracts from "revolutionary" work of selling newspapers; "NEED TO DO REV WORK 24/7" types) and/or a few hypocrites who see alcohol as all fine,dandy, and safe over pot. :rolleyes:


The only person who could have voted no would have to be some M-L "revolutionary puritan monk" ("drugs detract us from reaching revolution!" or whatever) and/or a hypocrite ("alcohol is great but weed kills :rolleyes:").

These two posts (as well as some others) confirm my suspicions that you exist only on the internet.

[synthesis]

I'm in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Why? Because I smoke it. Do I need a better reason than that?

[Raúl Duke]

These two posts (as well as some others) confirm my suspicions that you exist only on the internet.

:rolleyes: For all I know, and taking a cue from Adi Shankara, everyone in this site could be a figment of my imagination.