Drugs Talk Group on RevLeft is reactionary.

[ComradeMan]

Drugs Talk!


What the fcuk is this?

How the fcuk can we have a group "yeah let's get high", on the RevLeft Forum?

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.
2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
4. Drugs have been used by most regimes as part of their covert operations in order to gain illicit funds or to wage war on the proletariat.
5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

The only exception I would make is perhaps light cannabis use and/or traditional healers etc.

I denounce this group as reactionary.

[Bud Struggle]

Drugs Talk!


What the fcuk is this?

How the fcuk can we have a group "yeah let's get high", on the RevLeft Forum?

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.
2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
4. Drugs have been used by most regimes as part of their covert operations in order to gain illicit funds or to wage war on the proletariat.
5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

The only exception I would make is perhaps light cannabis use and/or traditional healers etc.

I denounce this group as reactionary.

As a card carrying member of the Bourgeoisie I completely support all drug use by the Proletariat.

Let them smoke Pot!

[Quail]

Drugs Talk!


What the fcuk is this?

How the fcuk can we have a group "yeah let's get high", on the RevLeft Forum?

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.
2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
4. Drugs have been used by most regimes as part of their covert operations in order to gain illicit funds or to wage war on the proletariat.
5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

The only exception I would make is perhaps light cannabis use and/or traditional healers etc.

I denounce this group as reactionary.
Apart from number 5, all the problems you listed are problems with capitalism and/or prohibition.

As for number 5, some people like to have fun. Is alcohol reactionary? It's funny how people talk about alcohol and drugs as though they are different things sometimes.

[Crimson Commissar]

You'd have to be a complete idiot to seriously want to do drugs despite the consequences of it, but ALL leftists should support the freedom of people to take whatever substance they want if they choose to. Banning drugs is reactionary, not taking them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Drug use all day every day.

(Like my iPod's stuck on replay, replayeyay...)

[ComradeMan]

Apart from number 5, all the problems you listed are problems with capitalism and/or prohibition.

As for number 5, some people like to have fun. Is alcohol reactionary? It's funny how people talk about alcohol and drugs as though they are different things sometimes.

Well I could well say that alcohol is reactionary too.

The point being, those who de facto condone drug use and are most probably sitting behind their computers in the "West" are de facto contributing to human misery and exploitation in the developing world as well as a whole host of other ills.

If you buy drugs then you are part of the chain.

Apart from the other personal-issues of health and mental well-being.

[ComradeMan]

You'd have to be a complete idiot to seriously want to do drugs despite the consequences of it, but ALL leftists should support the freedom of people to take whatever substance they want if they choose to. Banning drugs is reactionary, not taking them.

Why?

I take your point- but at the same time see my points.

BTW- I wasn't talking about banning drugs, I was talking about having a RevLeft group that is covertly playing into the hands of reactionary forces.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Everybody is the part of the chain, buying house and food is part of the chain too.

[Sasha]

I dare to say that that computer your typing on is part of an way worst exploitative chain than whatever drug

[Os Cangaceiros]

The point being, those who de facto condone drug use and are most probably sitting behind their computers in the "West" are de facto contributing to human misery and exploitation in the developing world as well as a whole host of other ills.

People who sit in front of computers in "the West" are contributing to human misery in the developing world just as a factor of their existence and consumption.


If you buy drugs then you are part of the chain.

Feel-good boycotts w/ no real impact are for liberals.

[Widerstand]

If I can't get high it's not my revolution.

Death to all moralist counterrevolutionaries.

[Sasha]

I'm always surprised its always the anti-imps *****ing about drug use. Thought they would hail it as the anti-imperial Trojan horse, easy to grow, weakening the west while supplying the 3th world with unparalleled cash.

[Nolan]

Shit, I thought we were gonna use drugs for mind control.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Well I could well say that alcohol is reactionary too.

The point being, those who de facto condone drug use and are most probably sitting behind their computers in the "West" are de facto contributing to human misery and exploitation in the developing world as well as a whole host of other ills.

If you buy drugs then you are part of the chain.

Apart from the other personal-issues of health and mental well-being.
The same could be said for anything, though.

I'm not a drug user any more, but by buying drugs, I was contributing no more to capitalism than I would be by buying some food from the supermarket. We live in a capitalist world and we have to operate within the system for the most part, which is as true as it is for buying everyday commodities as it is if somebody wants to buy drugs.

Drugs are bad for your health, but you should be able to use them if that is what you want to do. Many foods are too, but we many of us like to eat them, and to do this, we have to operate within the mechanics of capitalism.

For revolutionaries, the most damaging thing in this regard is the negative impact on physical and mental health as a result of drug use. Revolutionaries should be healthy, I think, but we are all guilty of habits that are unhealthy. The point is that they are our choice, and some choices have to be made within the framework of the capitalist system, as it is the system that we are slaves to.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Drugs Talk!


What the fcuk is this?

How the fcuk can we have a group "yeah let's get high", on the RevLeft Forum?

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.
2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
4. Drugs have been used by most regimes as part of their covert operations in order to gain illicit funds or to wage war on the proletariat.

So, drugs are pretty much just like any other commodity under capitalism, then. So what?


5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

What makes you think drug users are high all the time?

[Widerstand]

I'm always surprised its always the anti-imps *****ing about drug use. Thought they would hail it as the anti-imperial Trojan horse, easy to grow, weakening the west while supplying the 3th world with unparalleled cash.

This is part of the reason why I sometimes prefer Anti-Germans to Anti-Imps. At least they know how to have a blast ;D

[ComradeMan]

The same could be said for anything, though.

I'm not a drug user any more, but by buying drugs, I was contributing no more to capitalism than I would be by buying some food from the supermarket. We live in a capitalist world and we have to operate within the system for the most part, which is as true as it is for buying everyday commodities as it is if somebody wants to buy drugs.

Drugs are bad for your health, but you should be able to use them if that is what you want to do. Many foods are too, but we many of us like to eat them, and to do this, we have to operate within the mechanics of capitalism.

For revolutionaries, the most damaging thing in this regard is the negative impact on physical and mental health as a result of drug use. Revolutionaries should be healthy, I think, but we are all guilty of habits that are unhealthy. The point is that they are our choice, and some choices have to be made within the framework of the capitalist system, as it is the system that we are slaves to.


Point-1 Food is essential, and we do have many choices with regard to what we buy and where we buy it from. Anyone with a social conscience will do their best to limit the damage so to speak. This cannot be said for drugs, they are not essential and to my knowledge there aren't any "FairTrade" drug-co-operatives helping poor Bolivian hill farmers (for instance).

Here's a link you may find interesting
http://www.hermes-press.com/prisons_drugs.htm

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1503.html
The drug war is a front for pro-multinational military strikes against indigenous peoples. In the following article, we will explore the devastation wrought by the drug war in specific South American countries, comparing Mexico, which is signed into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to Columbia which is not signed into North American free trade.

And this "Trotskyist" point of view
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext9/Drugs.html

And this one from an Anti-Fa site
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/07/all-in-family-global-drug-trade-fueled.html

How about this headline too
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor

Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/unitednations)' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result..............

[Magón]

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.

No they're not, they bring us together. Have you never heard of people coming together to smoke a bowl, or whatever?


2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.

No they don't, I've never been miserable. They often RELAX a person, rather than make them crazed. (If we're just talking about Weed, and not these weird under the sink mixed drugs which do fuck you up big time.)


3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.

If you legalized these drugs, no they wouldn't. They'd have no reason to get rich off these drugs, because they just couldn't.


5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

By keeping yourself together and calm? I mean, if I was in some sort of shoot 'em up scenario in a Revolution, I'd be smoking a joint to keep myself relaxed and not under so much stress. In fact, I'd probably be getting a lot more kills than the other guys because they'd be shaking like a leaf while I was cool as a cat.

[Dean]

"Inner city slavery fostered by the government's latent drug dealing."

Drugs have a specific effect, and the net result for the human race is self-destructive. But the same is typically true of production in this day and age, as NoXion points out that drugs follow the same trend as any other commodity.

Further, I don't see any serious mention of the concept of self-medication in the OP, certainly a critical issue if we are to judge specific drug usage. Even as an escape or psychological tension-release, drugs can be very useful and ultimately beneficial.

I fully endorse an educated, liberated relationship with drugs for those who feel that they can benefit from it. There's no reason to take on a black-white notion of drug use.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Point-1 Food is essential, and we do have many choices with regard to what we buy and where we buy it from. Anyone with a social conscience will do their best to limit the damage so to speak. This cannot be said for drugs, they are not essential and to my knowledge there aren't any "FairTrade" drug-co-operatives helping poor Bolivian hill farmers (for instance).

Firstly, drugs are a form of recreation, and recreation is essential to maintaining mental health. Secondly, most commonly used drugs (at least in the UK) are grown or made in the same country - it's so much easier to grow cannabis indoors, or set up a meth lab in one's kitchen, than it is to try and smuggle drugs over borders. That's why cocaine is expensive and usually of shit quality in the UK.


The drug war is a front for pro-multinational military strikes against indigenous peoples.

A good argument for complete legalisation.


And this "Trotskyist" point of view
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext9/Drugs.html

People being sent to prison is a consequence of drugs being illegal, not the drugs themselves.


And this one from an Anti-Fa site
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/07/all-in-family-global-drug-trade-fueled.html

All the problems associated with the global drugs trade are exacerbated by their illegal nature - black markets are the ultimate free markets, with absolutely no regulation or quality control and businesses free to take out their opponents directly via murder and assault.


How about this headline too
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor

Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/unitednations)' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result..............

Again, this is a consquence of drugs being illegal - drug producers and traders are not required to be accountable at all in their finances.

[gorillafuck]

2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
Capitalism causes human misery and exploitation.


3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
Buying pants makes capitalist CEO's rich. Maybe you should stop buying pants.


5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?
Well, some of us prefer to not base our lives around thinking we are revolutionary. Socialism/class struggle is my political views, not something that I feel the need to pointlessly live my life for.

[ComradeMan]

No they're not, they bring us together. Have you never heard of people coming together to smoke a bowl, or whatever?

So in deprived areas overrun with drug-gangs, prostitution and violence people have a real sense of togetherness.

No they don't, I've never been miserable. They often RELAX a person, rather than make them crazed. (If we're just talking about Weed, and not these weird under the sink mixed drugs which do fuck you up big time.)

South American street-kids who have been murdered and used as human containers to transport drugs over borders may disagree with you... Don't you think that this is a somewhat self-centred view as well? The problem is that the group in question isn't called "Free the Weed"- it's called Drugs Talk and has a motto- "Let's get high"- there is a bit of a difference here.

If you legalized these drugs, no they wouldn't. They'd have no reason to get rich off these drugs, because they just couldn't.

That's exactly why these drugs aren't legalised, and that's why by buying them, inevitably from criminal operations you are covertly helping capitalist terrorism. It's no good countering a present argument with a hypothesis.

By keeping yourself together and calm? I mean, if I was in some sort of shoot 'em up scenario in a Revolution, I'd be smoking a joint to keep myself relaxed and not under so much stress. In fact, I'd probably be getting a lot more kills than the other guys because they'd be shaking like a leaf while I was cool as a cat.

Don't think so somehow...

Have a look at those links.

PS @Dean- I did exclude cannabis for traditional healing methods etc...

[ComradeMan]

Well, some of us prefer to not base our lives around thinking we are revolutionary. Socialism/class struggle is my political views, not something that I feel the need to pointlessly live my life for.

What does RevLeft stand for?

[gorillafuck]

What does RevLeft stand for?
I hope it doesn't stand for basing everything you do in life around revolution.

[ComradeMan]

I hope it doesn't stand for basing everything you do in life around revolution.

Well it should do... if you can "revolutionise" yourself how can you be a revolutionary?

From the article I quoted above:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.
---

Now that's £352 billion that could have gone to helping the poor, investment in education or helping the unemployed, but instead the money from the "street" has gone into banks...

[Magón]

So in deprived areas overrun with drug-gangs, prostitution and violence people have a real sense of togetherness.

South American street-kids who have been murdered and used as human containers to transport drugs over borders may disagree with you... Don't you think that this is a somewhat self-centred view as well? The problem is that the group in question isn't called "Free the Weed"- it's called Drugs Talk and has a motto- "Let's get high"- there is a bit of a difference here.

These are very good reason WHY they should be legalized. Then you wouldn't have drug gangs, cartels, etc. with children and people being used as Drug Mules.


That's exactly why these drugs aren't legalised, and that's why by buying them, inevitably from criminal operations you are covertly helping capitalist terrorism. It's no good countering a present argument with a hypothesis.

You know, not all drugs are brought across the border from Mexico, Afghanistan, or wherever, and sold in another place. There are people out there, who sell to their friends and what not. I'd hardly call them "helping" Capitalist Terrorism since they're more or less undermining the Capitalist Drug Trade, and would be arrested if caught selling.


Don't think so somehow...

You never know? You've never smoked Weed probably, and have no idea what the effects on me, personally are with it. But I can tell you, I do have a pretty steady hand when high.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

I denounce this group as reactionary.
Well, shit. I guess it must be reactionary then. There can be no doubt now.

Other than the one instance where you talked about food being a necessity, you have yet to counter the fact that almost EVERYTHING you buy in this system makes you a part of ''the chain''.

Now, I want to know what Zeekloid brought up. Do you wear pants? And also, did you buy your computer from a farmer in Bolivia who grows them? Or is it just one of those normal computers that exist in a place called Reality that was manufactured by poor, exploited workers? And do you believe computers are a necssity like food?

There's this word, ''hypocrite'', you should really look it up.

[ComradeMan]

These are very good reason WHY they should be legalized. Then you wouldn't have drug gangs, cartels, etc. with children and people being used as Drug Mules.

You may be right, but again that's not an argument based on the current facts. The current facts are that in most of the world they are not legal. By buying drugs NOW you are indirectly contributing to human misery and exploitation.

You know, not all drugs are brought across the border from Mexico, Afghanistan, or wherever, and sold in another place. There are people out there, who sell to their friends and what not. I'd hardly call them "helping" Capitalist Terrorism since they're more or less undermining the Capitalist Drug Trade, and would be arrested if caught selling.

But many are and is there really a way of distinguishing? Does the packet say "Hecha in Colombia" on it? Anyway, one swallow doesn't make spring. This still does not address the many issue.

You never know? You've never smoked Weed probably, and have no idea what the effects on me, personally are with it. But I can tell you, I do have a pretty steady hand when high.

LOL- No comment. Suffice it to say where I used to live where there were plenty of shootings, mostly teenage boys caught up in drug wars. If you saw the human misery caused by serious drug abuse, I am not talking about a hippy growing his own or whatever, then I am sure you might alter your opinions. I am not convinced by the other arguments. Nevertheless, you may be able to shoot straight in the short term- but who said revolutionary thinking was just about shooting?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ComradeMan, why are you not addressing my points?

[Quail]

These are very good reason WHY they should be legalized. Then you wouldn't have drug gangs, cartels, etc. with children and people being used as Drug Mules.

You may be right, but again that's not an argument based on the current facts. The current facts are that in most of the world they are not legal. By buying drugs NOW you are indirectly contributing to human misery and exploitation.

Well... it is based on current facts because anyone with half a brain can see that drugs being illegal causes way more problems than it solves.

[ComradeMan]

Well, shit. I guess it must be reactionary then. There can be no doubt now.

Other than the one instance where you talked about food being a necessity, you have yet to counter the fact that almost EVERYTHING you buy in this system makes you a part of ''the chain''.

Now, I want to know what Zeekloid brought up. Do you wear pants? And also, did you buy your computer from a farmer in Bolivia who grows them? Or is it just one of those normal computers that exist in a place called Reality that was manufactured by poor, exploited workers? And do you believe computers are a necssity like food?

There's this word, ''hypocrite'', you should really look it up.

First- resorting to ad hom attacks is the sign of weak argument.

I cannot live without food.
I cannot go outside without trousers.

I cannot work without the computer.
I cannot come to RevLeft and discuss without the computer.
I cannot communicate with comrades without the computer.
Etc.

I can choose to buy fair trade food as best possible.
I can choose to buy local and support local producers for clothing etc.

The food I consume does not damage my health.
My trousers do not damage my health... I hope.

Of course we are all caught up in the capitalist system, but there is a difference between what we cannot avoid and what we can- and in the case of this argument with good reason.

Now... let's take the drugs argument...err.... I'm sure you can see the difference.

There are the words- "logical" and also "argument"- you should really look them up.

Getting back to the point:-

Other than light use of some naturally occurring soft drugs, i.e. cannabis- name one drug that does not have serious mental and/or physical health effects. Is that really desirable? The fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal are not counter-arguments. In fact it has been said that coffee-nicotine-alcohol were the perfect work-drugs to keep the proles happy, coffee in the morning before work, coffee break, cigarette break, get drunk when you finish work etc. But this is another issue.

Fully aware of the situation now, not some hypothetical what if or maybe, is there any justification for the purchase of drugs, knowing that this very act is contributing to the suffering of people all over the developing world and also in the so-called developed world?

It has been said that drugs are covertly used to keep the working classes down and keep their minds of other things... To take one example, the apartheid regime in South Africa was accused of deliberately spreading drugs in poor-urban ghetto areas as a means of keeping the people from uniting- the ethos of "let them all kill each other" in drugs wars. What makes you think they were the only ones who might have had the idea?

[Magón]

You may be right, but again that's not an argument based on the current facts. The current facts are that in most of the world they are not legal. By buying drugs NOW you are indirectly contributing to human misery and exploitation.

That's why the FACT of the matter is to LEGALIZE them NOW, rather than LATER or NEVER. If we legalize them now, people in the Capitalist Drug Trade will cease to make money, thus they go broke and everyone's chillin' with a roach or bowl or whatever. Nobody's being put into some slave game where they've got half a key of Cocaine up their ass or in their stomach.

All across California now, where I live, you can get yourself a Green Card to buy Marijuana. I have one.


But many are and is there really a way of distinguishing? Does the packet say "Hecha in Colombia" on it? Anyway, one swallow doesn't make spring. This still does not address the many issue.

Yeah, it's call TRUST. If you know the dealer, or the dealer know's you, it's likely you know what they're putting in or not. For example, TRUST is a big issue. If you or the dealer don't trust each other, no transaction is made, thus nobody gets hurt if something goes wrong. That's why you don't just go up to some random guy/chick on the street and ask for a dime pack or some shit like that. Only idiots and novice's do that kind of shit, and it's usually a Cop they meet.


LOL- No comment. Suffice it to say where I used to live there were plenty of shootings, mostly teenage boys caught up in drug wars. I am not convinced of the other arguments, you may be able to shoot straight in the short term- but who said revolutionary thinking was just about shooting?

I lived in Mexico for most of my years, and in other places that were in South American. I've seen drug gangs roaming the streets, I've heard gunshots in the middle of the night. But these are all things caused for drugs being illegal, and not legal. As for Revolutionary acts, I'm quite capable of holding a conversation that's in depth and not ramblings while high or not. And I'm not talking any short term time limits here, I'm talking about for a few years now.

And the reason I brought up shooting was because people like you often say that people who get high don't have a steady hand. And shooting it something you need a steady hand for, so I just took that.

[Quail]

I cannot live without food.
I cannot go outside without trousers.

I cannot work without the computer.
I cannot come to RevLeft and discuss without the computer.
I cannot communicate with comrades without the computer.
Etc.

I can choose to buy fair trade food as best possible.
I can choose to buy local and support local producers for clothing etc.

Fair trade is just "fairer" exploitation. Basically everything you buy means you're supporting the capitalist system. I'm highly skeptical that you only ever buy things that you need. People need luxuries to be happy, and for some, drugs are a fun luxury. Obviously addiction is different, but if you took away the drugs, an addict would most likely find another self-destructive way of coping.

[Palingenisis]

First- resorting to ad hom attacks is the sign of weak argument.
.

Comrade in the real world drug gangs are often linked to fascist organizations. They terrorize the most vunerable members of the working class. Anyone arguing against you is exposing their middle class or labour aristocrat nature.

In practice in reality revolutionaires warn people involved in drugs, if that doesnt work they get a bullet in the calf of their leg, or possibly their kneecap if they are a particularly troublesome element. If they are involved in dealing and they dont cop on after that they could well be exceuted. Geniune proletarians fully support such actions.

If actual armed struggle was to erupt in any of the countries of these "comrades" you would pretty soon find them siding siding with reaction and state against the insurgency.

[Widerstand]

Where is the Fair Exploited mockad when I need it?

[ComradeMan]

Fair trade is just "fairer" exploitation. Basically everything you buy means you're supporting the capitalist system. I'm highly skeptical that you only ever buy things that you need. People need luxuries to be happy, and for some, drugs are a fun luxury. Obviously addiction is different, but if you took away the drugs, an addict would most likely find another self-destructive way of coping.

Fair trade is just "fairer" exploitation-

So between the choice of an evil and perhaps a lesser evil, you wouldn't choose the lesser evil.

People need luxuries to be happy-

No, people don't need luxuries to be happy, capitalist-materialists do. Some of the happiest countries in the world were actually the poorest.

...an addict would most likely find another self-destructive way of coping-

Self-destructive, i.e. destructive being the operative word.

[Magón]

Comrade in the real world drug gangs are often linked to fascist organizations. They terrorize the most vunerable members of the working class. Anyone arguing against you is exposing their middle class or labour aristocrat nature.

In practice in reality revolutionaires warn people involved in drugs, if that doesnt work they get a bullet in the calf of their leg, or possibly their kneecap if they are a particularly troublesome element. If they are involved in dealing and they dont cop on after that they could well be exceuted. Geniune proletarians fully support such actions.

If actual armed struggle was to erupt in any of the countries of these "comrades" you would pretty soon find them siding siding with reaction and state against the insurgency.

Show me one story, any story, where someone on Weed was troublesome to the extent where they needed to be shot, or seriously harmed for any reason?

[Quail]

In practice in reality revolutionaires warn people involved in drugs, if that doesnt work they get a bullet in the calf of their leg, or possibly their kneecap if they are a particularly troublesome element. If they are involved in dealing and they dont cop on after that they could well be exceuted. Geniune proletarians fully support such actions.

Well then, I guess there are an awful lot of people who aren't "genuine" proletarians - I assume you're just saying that to imply anyone in favour of legalising drugs is anti-working class or something. Most of the problems associated with drugs are only problems because drugs are illegal and we live in a capitalist system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The food I consume does not damage my health.
My trousers do not damage my health... I hope.

One's health is a private matter and is none of your fucking business.


Other than light use of some naturally occurring soft drugs, i.e. cannabis- name one drug that does not have serious mental and/or physical health effects. Is that really desirable?

The negative health effects of drug use are heavily correlated with impure product, excessive use, and physical idiosyncrasies (for example, it is usually a bad idea for people with a family history of mental illness to use drugs such as LSD or mushrooms).

Such negative effects can have their impact reduced through legalisation (enabling regulation and quality control) and education.


The fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal are not counter-arguments. In fact it has been said that coffee-nicotine-alcohol were the perfect work-drugs to keep the proles happy, coffee in the morning before work, coffee break, cigarette break, get drunk when you finish work etc. But this is another issue.

The legal nature of such products means it is easier and less of a social stigma to seek help if addiction to same becomes a problem.


Fully aware of the situation now, not some hypothetical what if or maybe, is there any justification for the purchase of drugs, knowing that this very act is contributing to the suffering of people all over the developing world and also in the so-called developed world?

Something that will not change by my personally abstaining from drugs. It is a systemic problem and therefore the solution is necessarily systemic also. Anything else is either lifestylism or reactionary moralism.


It has been said that drugs are covertly used to keep the working classes down and keep their minds of other things... To take one example, the apartheid regime in South Africa was accused of deliberately spreading drugs in poor-urban ghetto areas as a means of keeping the people from uniting- the ethos of "let them all kill each other" in drugs wars. What makes you think they were the only ones who might have had the idea?

Yeah, I wonder how that worked out? Oh wait, the apartheid regime collapsed and people still use drugs in South Africa.

The fact that drugs can be sued as a weapon against the working class is seperate to the fact that people will seek out and use drugs no matter what you say.

[Bud Struggle]

If actual armed struggle was to erupt in any of the countries of these "comrades" you would pretty soon find them siding siding with reaction and state against the insurgency.

That's an excellent point. There aren't any more fervent devotees of the status quo than drug dealers. FWIW to find more laissez-faire Capitalists than drug dealers you'd have to go back 150 years.

You pay your money and you get you drugs. No money no drugs.

[Quail]

Fair trade is just "fairer" exploitation-

So between the choice of an evil and perhaps a lesser evil, you wouldn't choose the lesser evil.

You can choose the lesser evil if you have the money, and sometimes I do. But "fair" exploitation is still exploitation.



People need luxuries to be happy-

No, people don't need luxuries to be happy, capitalist-materialists do. Some of the happiest countries in the world were actually the poorest.

Oh come on, you can't seriously be trying to argue that luxuries don't make life better?


...an addict would most likely find another self-destructive way of coping-

Self-destructive, i.e. destructive being the operative word.
Not all drug users are addicts, you know. Some people use drugs for fun.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No they're not, they bring us together. Have you never heard of people coming together to smoke a bowl, or whatever?



No they don't, I've never been miserable. They often RELAX a person, rather than make them crazed. (If we're just talking about Weed, and not these weird under the sink mixed drugs which do fuck you up big time.)

I wouldn't be so dogmatic about it.

Drugs can divide society; drug addicts are isolated and condemned in the society we live in. This is the same for alcohol; try living with a severe alcoholic.

And drugs, given certain social contexts, can make people miserable. Casual drug usage is okay if you can manage it and enjoy it without the negative aspects, but even marijuana can adversely affect a person. I smoked it, became withdrawn, had issues with paranoia and issues with functioning in day to day life, as do many people.

Of course this is not the same for everyone, but if you are going to debate in favour of drugs, you would be stupid to be as black and white as to say 'drugs bring us together and make us relax'. This is simply not the case for everyone, as there are a number of conditions and situations that lead to drug use and abuse having very negative effects on people's ability to function socially and physically. If you blindly defend drugs as some great things, you undermine the case for their legalization.

Drugs can be good and bad, the solutions are:

- Stop demonizing drug users as criminals; give them the advice and support they need if/when they require it, rather than locking them away.

- Educate people about drugs properly, so that they can understand them objectively. This way, people can understand drugs enough to use them safely, or decide, given the information available to them, that drugs may not be a good idea for them at all.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

First- resorting to ad hom attacks is the sign of weak argument.

I cannot live without food.
I cannot go outside without trousers.

I cannot work without the computer.
I cannot come to RevLeft and discuss without the computer.
I cannot communicate with comrades without the computer.
Etc.

I can choose to buy fair trade food as best possible.
I can choose to buy local and support local producers for clothing etc.

The food I consume does not damage my health.
My trousers do not damage my health... I hope.

Of course we are all caught up in the capitalist system, but there is a difference between what we cannot avoid and what we can- and in the case of this argument with good reason.

Now... let's take the drugs argument...err.... I'm sure you can see the difference.

There are the words- "logical" and also "argument"- you should really look them up.
You have never used anything for recreation that was purchased from a capitalist? The only things you buy are complete necessities?

And you made this thread to complain about a group which is for the discussion of drug use. You ae using this to make blanket statements about all users. The group isn''t about making money off drugs or about blatantly trying to support cartels. It's about drug use. How exactly do you know where each member of RevLeft buys their shit?

It's really not as simple as ''All drugs bought are bought from cartels''. That's simply not the case. Do you know how many people grow there own weed in the States? Can you blame these peoplefor making a living from the stuff they make themselves(like you using your computer to do work)?

At least where I am from, there really isn't any out-of-town shit. I know several people who grow their own without any poor kids in Mexico being involved.

It's fine to be against the cartels(in fact, we should all denounce them), but to make these blanket arguments that all of us are reactionary for smoking weed is a little much when you(quite frankly) don't know shit about our personal lifestyles, drugs of choice or how we acquire them.

It's convinient for you that we all keep our identities hidden since you can now make claims that you never bought anything from the capitalist system that wasn't a necessity and none of us can prove you wrong, no matter how absurd that claim is.

[Palingenisis]

Show me one story, any story, where someone on Weed was troublesome to the extent where they needed to be shot, or seriously harmed for any reason?

Working class people dont their kids minds being destoried and they dont want their kids to funding fascist gangs.

This year in Ireland....



27 January: RAAD was blamed for shooting a 52-year-old man in the legs at his shop on Waterloo Street, Derry. It is thought the man was targeted for selling 'legal highs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_intoxicants)'. The attacker fled on a motorcycle.[/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-15)
23 February: RAAD claimed responsibility for shooting a 29-year-old man in both legs on Rinmore Drive, Derry. In a statement to a local newspaper, RAAD claimed that the man had been warned about his activities and that he had been "punished" for failing to heed that warning.
28 March: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding two pipe bombs in Derry. One exploded in a van on High Park and another exploded in a car on Carrickreagh Gardens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-19)
28 March: RAAD claimed responsibility for planting an explosive device outside a head shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_shop) in Letterkenny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterkenny), County Donegal. It was made safe by the security forces. In a statement, RAAD said it was the "first and only warning" the shop would receive. It closed shortly thereafter.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-22)
30 March: RAAD claimed in a statement that its members had fired a shot at a house in Dungiven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungiven), County Londonderry. It added that the members "arrested" a man in the town who later "gave an undertaking to cease his activity immediately".
19 April: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding two pipe bombs at houses in the Derry area. One exploded at a house on Spruce Meadows in Culmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-derryjournal.com-20) and another at a house on Westland Street in Derry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-23)
19 April: RAAD claimed responsibility for shooting a 24-year-old man in both legs at a house on Lisnafin Park in Strabane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabane), County Tyrone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-25)
20 April: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb outside a house on Dunmore Gardens, Derry.
15 May: RAAD were believed to have been behind a gun attack on a house in Newry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-27), County Down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Down). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-28)
21 May: RAAD were blamed for shooting an 18-year-old man in the leg in Newry.
22 May: RAAD were blamed for shooting a 25-year-old man in his home at Glebe Gardens, Strabane. He was shot once in each leg and once in the arm. The man had recently returned from England, after being threatened by RAAD for dealing cocaine. The gunmen told him to leave Northern Ireland within 24 hours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-newrydemocrat.com-29) On 3 June, the man's then-vacant house was set alight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-31)
27 May: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb at a house in Springhill Park, Strabane. The group said it was a warning to the owner to cease drug dealing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_08-06-2010-5)
28 May: RAAD claimed responsibility for planting a pipe bomb in Celtic Bar on Stanley's Walk, Derry. It failed to explode. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_08-06-2010-5)
3 June: RAAD were blamed for exploding a pipe bomb inside a parked car in the Ballycolman area of Strabane. Four masked men smashed the car window and threw the bomb inside shortly after midnight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-35)
3 June: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb inside a car in the Ardgrange area of Derry.
8 June: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb at the door of a house in the Ardgrange area of Derry. It said that the owner was a "career criminal" and was selling heroin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_11-06-2010-38)
8 June: RAAD claimed that it held a "show of strength" in the Creggan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-39) area of Derry. RAAD members allegedly searched a row of shops before firing 80 shots in the air using automatic weapons.
15 June: RAAD claimed to have seized "several thousand" ecstacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_11-06-2010-38) pills from a criminal gang and handed them to a community worker in Derry for destruction.
25 June: RAAD were blamed for exploding a pipe bomb at the front door of a house on Hawthorn Drive, Derry. The house was owned by a convicted drug smuggler and his partner, who had recently been fined for drug possession. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-40)The group later claimed responsibility.
26 July: RAAD claimed responsibility for raiding a house in Dunmore Gardens, Derry. Four men entered the house (which was occupied) and fired shots before leaving. RAAD stated that the homeowner had ignored its warnings to stop dealing drugs. The man later admitted this, and claimed that he had stopped dealing drugs since the raid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-42)
31 August: RAAD claimed responsibility for firing shots at a house in Dove Gardens, Derry. It also claimed to have discovered and destroyed 12 cannabis plants in a house a week earlier. When the PSNI responded to the incident they were attacked with petrol bombs and other missiles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-44)
18 September: A RAAD member fired warning shots during a disturbance on Bligh's Lane, Derry. A news report claimed that shots were fired at a group of youths, but RAAD claimed that the shots had been fired "over their heads". In a statement to the Derry Journal, it said "We were left with no option but to act after the people involved attacked a house at Rinmore Drive to gain entry to drink and take drugs". It also claimed that the youths had been involved in "drug dealing, drug taking, joyriding, assaults, arson and intimidation of local residents" in the area.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-47"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-46)

[Palingenisis]

Heres to the lads (and laddettes) who dunnit...:)

[#FF0000]

drugs are bad so clearly the best thing to do is make drugs illegal and have the police enfor-

oh wait.

This is a hella complicated issue and things done to enforce prohibition are often just as damaging to working people as drugs themselves are. See: Three strike rules, workers being fired for smoking a little pot, bombs being dropped on farmer's fields for growing poppies...etc.

I mean I think that last points a particularly interesting one. With prohibition you have third world farmers being hella poor and not being able to grow poppies, which net a lot more money than coffee beans or whatever, and without it, you have heroin flowing in the first world.

tl;dr it's a complicated issue and don't be a dumb baby about it.

[ComradeMan]

@NoXion

One's health is a private matter and is none of your fucking business.

In a worker's state, or many countries with a public healthcare system it's not such a private fucking matter though is it?

The negative health effects of drug use are heavily correlated with impure product, excessive use, and physical idiosyncrasies (for example, it is usually a bad idea for people with a family history of mental illness to use drugs such as LSD or mushrooms).

So crystal meth, opiates, cocaine and derivatives etc etc are only bad for you if you use them too much.... please...

Such negative effects can have their impact reduced through legalisation (enabling regulation and quality control) and education.

And then everyone would be free to do crystal meth, opiates, cocaine and so on. Even if they were legalised they would be taxed and thus you would be contributing to the capitalist system in that way...

The legal nature of such products means it is easier and less of a social stigma to seek help if addiction to same becomes a problem.

Is that why Alcoholics Anonymous is anonymous- afterall alcohol is legal so is there less of a stigma?

Something that will not change by my personally abstaining from drugs. It is a systemic problem and therefore the solution is necessarily systemic also. Anything else is either lifestylism or reactionary moralism.

Yeah, I wonder how that worked out? Oh wait, the apartheid regime collapsed and people still use drugs in South Africa.

Yeah, it's called the legacy of apartheid amongst other things. Besides, that was one little example...

The fact that drugs can be sued as a weapon against the working class is seperate to the fact that people will seek out and use drugs no matter what you say.

It's not that they can be used, it's that they are used!
People will use drugs, just like people will do a lot of stuff that is reactionary, doesn't mean revolutionaries go out and condone it.

All this fucking individualist bullshit is damaging to community needs and good and indirectly playing into the hands of reactionary forces.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

No, people don't need luxuries to be happy, capitalist-materialists do. Some of the happiest countries in the world were actually the poorest.
So, it's in the interests of the poor and working classes to stay poor because luxuries would only hinder their happiness... Why are we Communists then?

[Magón]

I wouldn't be so dogmatic about it.

Drugs can divide society; drug addicts are isolated and condemned in the society we live in. This is the same for alcohol; try living with a severe alcoholic.

I'm not trying to be dogmatic, but when you've got someone who's clearly not educated on Drugs and their effects, it kinda turns out like that. But you bring a good point, that drug addicts are isolated and condemned in society, but if they were legalized, this wouldn't be so. Or so I think so anyway. People would actually be able to openly get help on getting off a drug or alcohol if they wanted, without having the feeling of shame, some families knowingly do.


And drugs, given certain social contexts, can make people miserable. Casual drug usage is okay if you can manage it and enjoy it without the negative aspects, but even marijuana can adversely affect a person. I smoked it, became withdrawn, had issues with paranoia and issues with functioning in day to day life, as do many people.

I'm not trying to advocate that everyone should start doing drugs, if they become legalized. I'm just saying that those who do want to do them, for whatever reason that may be, should be able to do them openly without the fear of being busted by the cops or something. If someone wants to stay away from drugs, that's fine, but telling someone else they can't do them is a problem.


Of course this is not the same for everyone, but if you are going to debate in favour of drugs, you would be stupid to be as black and white as to say 'drugs bring us together and make us relax'. This is simply not the case for everyone, as there are a number of conditions and situations that lead to drug use and abuse having very negative effects on people's ability to function socially and physically. If you blindly defend drugs as some great things, you undermine the case for their legalization.

I wasn't saying for all, but for the most part, people I know or have known, or have met in some form, even if just for a party or something, have had little problem with drugs being negative to them. (Depending of course.) Once again, I'm not advocating that everyone start using drugs in the world because they became legal. Before I started smoking Weed, I actually did learn about it from people I knew, and went for it. I wouldn't change a thing in my decision making.

But to be clear, just because I advocate the legalization of drugs, doesn't mean I think everyone should go into using them head first or something. Though, if that's their choice, so be it, that's their decision and the consequences are their own, not mine. If I'd had a negative effect with Weed, the consequences would be put on myself, by myself, not on someone else.


Drugs can be good and bad, the solutions are:

- Stop demonizing drug users as criminals; give them the advice and support they need if/when they require it, rather than locking them away.

- Educate people about drugs properly, so that they can understand them objectively. This way, people can understand drugs enough to use them safely, or decide, given the information available to them, that drugs may not be a good idea for them at all.

I agree completely. The only problem is, those who often advocate against the use of drugs, hardly know a thing about them, just like those who advocate war often don't want their children going off to fight.

[Widerstand]

Well then, I guess there are an awful lot of people who aren't "genuine" proletarians - I assume you're just saying that to imply anyone in favour of legalising drugs is anti-working class or something. Most of the problems associated with drugs are only problems because drugs are illegal and we live in a capitalist system.

This precisely.


Working class people dont their kids minds being destoried and they dont want their kids to funding fascist gangs.

This year in Ireland....



27 January: RAAD was blamed for shooting a 52-year-old man in the legs at his shop on Waterloo Street, Derry. It is thought the man was targeted for selling 'legal highs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_intoxicants)'. The attacker fled on a motorcycle.[/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-15)
23 February: RAAD claimed responsibility for shooting a 29-year-old man in both legs on Rinmore Drive, Derry. In a statement to a local newspaper, RAAD claimed that the man had been warned about his activities and that he had been "punished" for failing to heed that warning.
28 March: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding two pipe bombs in Derry. One exploded in a van on High Park and another exploded in a car on Carrickreagh Gardens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-19)
28 March: RAAD claimed responsibility for planting an explosive device outside a head shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_shop) in Letterkenny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterkenny), County Donegal. It was made safe by the security forces. In a statement, RAAD said it was the "first and only warning" the shop would receive. It closed shortly thereafter.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-22)
30 March: RAAD claimed in a statement that its members had fired a shot at a house in Dungiven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungiven), County Londonderry. It added that the members "arrested" a man in the town who later "gave an undertaking to cease his activity immediately".
19 April: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding two pipe bombs at houses in the Derry area. One exploded at a house on Spruce Meadows in Culmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-derryjournal.com-20) and another at a house on Westland Street in Derry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-23)
19 April: RAAD claimed responsibility for shooting a 24-year-old man in both legs at a house on Lisnafin Park in Strabane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabane), County Tyrone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-25)
20 April: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb outside a house on Dunmore Gardens, Derry.
15 May: RAAD were believed to have been behind a gun attack on a house in Newry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-27), County Down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Down). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-28)
21 May: RAAD were blamed for shooting an 18-year-old man in the leg in Newry.
22 May: RAAD were blamed for shooting a 25-year-old man in his home at Glebe Gardens, Strabane. He was shot once in each leg and once in the arm. The man had recently returned from England, after being threatened by RAAD for dealing cocaine. The gunmen told him to leave Northern Ireland within 24 hours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-newrydemocrat.com-29) On 3 June, the man's then-vacant house was set alight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-31)
27 May: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb at a house in Springhill Park, Strabane. The group said it was a warning to the owner to cease drug dealing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_08-06-2010-5)
28 May: RAAD claimed responsibility for planting a pipe bomb in Celtic Bar on Stanley's Walk, Derry. It failed to explode. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_08-06-2010-5)
3 June: RAAD were blamed for exploding a pipe bomb inside a parked car in the Ballycolman area of Strabane. Four masked men smashed the car window and threw the bomb inside shortly after midnight. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-35)
3 June: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb inside a car in the Ardgrange area of Derry.
8 June: RAAD claimed responsibility for exploding a pipe bomb at the door of a house in the Ardgrange area of Derry. It said that the owner was a "career criminal" and was selling heroin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_11-06-2010-38)
8 June: RAAD claimed that it held a "show of strength" in the Creggan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-39) area of Derry. RAAD members allegedly searched a row of shops before firing 80 shots in the air using automatic weapons.
15 June: RAAD claimed to have seized "several thousand" ecstacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-DJ_11-06-2010-38) pills from a criminal gang and handed them to a community worker in Derry for destruction.
25 June: RAAD were blamed for exploding a pipe bomb at the front door of a house on Hawthorn Drive, Derry. The house was owned by a convicted drug smuggler and his partner, who had recently been fined for drug possession. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-40)The group later claimed responsibility.
26 July: RAAD claimed responsibility for raiding a house in Dunmore Gardens, Derry. Four men entered the house (which was occupied) and fired shots before leaving. RAAD stated that the homeowner had ignored its warnings to stop dealing drugs. The man later admitted this, and claimed that he had stopped dealing drugs since the raid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-42)
31 August: RAAD claimed responsibility for firing shots at a house in Dove Gardens, Derry. It also claimed to have discovered and destroyed 12 cannabis plants in a house a week earlier. When the PSNI responded to the incident they were attacked with petrol bombs and other missiles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-44)
18 September: A RAAD member fired warning shots during a disturbance on Bligh's Lane, Derry. A news report claimed that shots were fired at a group of youths, but RAAD claimed that the shots had been fired "over their heads". In a statement to the Derry Journal, it said "We were left with no option but to act after the people involved attacked a house at Rinmore Drive to gain entry to drink and take drugs". It also claimed that the youths had been involved in "drug dealing, drug taking, joyriding, assaults, arson and intimidation of local residents" in the area.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-47"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Action_Against_Drugs#cite_note-46)


So because some group terrorizes drug users/dealers/supporters, drugs are bad? Well gee, then I guess we should stop being immigrants, muslims, blacks or jews, too.

[#FF0000]

@NoXion
In a worker's state, or many countries with a public healthcare system it's not such a private fucking matter though is it?

Yeah, it still is.


So crystal meth, opiates, cocaine and derivatives etc etc are only bad for you if you use them too much.... please...

Yeah actually, considering some of those things are actually given to people at medicine.


And then everyone would be free to do crystal meth, opiates, cocaine and so on. Even if they were legalised they would be taxed and thus you would be contributing to the capitalist system in that way...


Yeah, supporting the Drug War doesn't help anybody or anything though right?


It's not that they can be used, it's that they are used!
People will use drugs, just like people will do a lot of stuff that is reactionary, doesn't mean revolutionaries go out and condone it.

So are you telling me that the things the State does to curb drug use and punish drug users and dealers isn't harmful, damaging, or reactionary?


All this fucking individualist bullshit is damaging to community needs and good and indirectly playing into the hands of reactionary forces.

Please tell me what you mean by "individualist bullshit", cause I could really use a laugh today.

[Magón]

Snip

So by that, you're going to blame it all on Weed? I'm pretty sure Alcohol had a much bigger effect in those cases, than Weed itself did. Weed alone, does not cause people to have criminal acts, this has never been proven. Weed with other things has on the other hand, and it's more than likely those substances with Weed mixed with whatever, would be the more major opponent seeing how things like Alcohol, PCP, Acid, etc. alone cause people to be more violent, than Weed does. I've never in all my years, heard or seen someone on Weed go absolutely ape shit and kill someone or harm them seriously, then I have with the mixed drugs.

[Palingenisis]

Up the road from where I live is a stop where kids and mams were baton charged by the police protesting outside of a dealer who fucking up their community's house. Not far away also is an estate where a community meeting dealing with the drugs' scourge was broken up narco-capitalist scum who slashed the throat of one man who luckily survived but of course despite all the witnesses the pigs did nothing. This is just a small example of the misery that scum here impose on the most vunerable members of the class feeding their petit-bourgious hedonistic kick seeking ("fuck off its my body and ill do what I want, let everyone go to hell..."). Again and again I have heard or witnessed the Gardai and the RUC/PSNI take the side of nacro-capitalists and protect them. In the occupied six counties drug dealers usually live next to RUC stations (its the safest place for them).

You arent being radical.

I dont expect any of you to develop empathy for others and catch yourselves on.

But be warned if a revolutionary situation breaks out near the way you are carrying on dont be surprised if insurgent live roads start tearing through your bodies.

[Quail]

Have you even read any of the replies in this thread Palingenesis?
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before you acknowledge the point I'm making and respond. None of the problems you talk about are inherent to drugs, they're problems with capitalism, and the fact that drugs are illegal.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Up the road from where I live is a stop where kids and mams were baton charged by the police protesting outside of a dealer who fucking up their community's house. Not far away also is an estate where a community meeting dealing with the drugs' scourge was broken up narco-capitalist scum who slashed the throat of one man who luckily survived but of course despite all the witnesses the pigs did nothing. This is just a small example of the misery that scum here impose on the most vunerable members of the class feeding their petit-bourgious hedonistic kick seeking ("fuck off its my body and ill do what I want, let everyone go to hell..."). Again and again I have heard or witnessed the Gardai and the RUC/PSNI take the side of nacro-capitalists and protect them. In the occupied six counties drug dealers usually live next to RUC stations (its the safest place for them).

You arent being radical.

I dont expect any of you to develop empathy for others and catch yourselves on.

But be warned if a revolutionary situation breaks out near the way you are carrying on dont be surprised if insurgent live roads start tearing through your bodies.

Palli, I doubt 'come the revolution' those who are pro-drug will be shot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Up the road from where I live is a stop where kids and mams were baton charged by the police protesting outside of a dealer who fucking up their community's house. Not far away also is an estate where a community meeting dealing with the drugs' scourge was broken up narco-capitalist scum who slashed the throat of one man who luckily survived but of course despite all the witnesses the pigs did nothing. This is just a small example of the misery that scum here impose on the most vunerable members of the class feeding their petit-bourgious hedonistic kick seeking ("fuck off its my body and ill do what I want, let everyone go to hell..."). Again and again I have heard or witnessed the Gardai and the RUC/PSNI take the side of nacro-capitalists and protect them. In the occupied six counties drug dealers usually live next to RUC stations (its the safest place for them).

All consequences of illegality. The informal nature of the drugs economy means that it's so much easier to get away with using drugs producers and dealers as plausibly deniable assets.

Besides, if it weren't drugs it would be something else. The root of the problems in NI don't lie with drugs.


But be warned if a revolutionary situation breaks out near the way you are carrying on dont be surprised if insurgent live roads start tearing through your bodies.

Fuck off, your Internet Tough Guy tactics aren't impressing or threatening anyone.

[#FF0000]

Up the road from where I live is a stop where kids and mams were baton charged by the police protesting outside of a dealer who fucking up their community's house. Not far away also is an estate where a community meeting dealing with the drugs' scourge was broken up narco-capitalist scum who slashed the throat of one man who luckily survived but of course despite all the witnesses the pigs did nothing. This is just a small example of the misery that scum here impose on the most vunerable members of the class feeding their petit-bourgious hedonistic kick seeking ("fuck off its my body and ill do what I want, let everyone go to hell..."). Again and again I have heard or witnessed the Gardai and the RUC/PSNI take the side of nacro-capitalists and protect them. In the occupied six counties drug dealers usually live next to RUC stations (its the safest place for them).

You arent being radical.

I dont expect any of you to develop empathy for others and catch yourselves on.

But be warned if a revolutionary situation breaks out near the way you are carrying on dont be surprised if insurgent live roads start tearing through your bodies.

Well, keep in mind the situation isn't the same everywhere as it is in Ireland. When you're talking about people dealing hard drugs to kids or in dismally poor neighborhoods, you're talking than a very different animal than someone growing pot in their closet and selling Adderall to their friends.

And even so, nothing you've said shows that drugs themselves are a problem, just the way that drugs are distributed and the conditions people are stuck living in. If people are happy, healthy, and economically stable and empowered, then I'd say they're less likely to go and seek out hard drugs and get addicted.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Palli, you ardently support the IRA, who control large amounts of the drugs in NI, and violently attack any who try to take away this control. Explain this contradiction.

[Palingenisis]

Have you even read any of the replies in this thread Palingenesis?
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before you acknowledge the point I'm making and respond. None of the problems you talk about are inherent to drugs, they're problems with capitalism, and the fact that drugs are illegal.

I wouldnt want drugs to be legal in the first place. Addicts will placed in re-education camps and dealers will be exceuted come the revolution. Thats another question though.

Drugs are illegal for a reason. And its not its not because they are "FUN" its that paralell economy and the gangs they create serve a very real purpose in the waging of class war. Thats the reality. Every joint you smoke or pill you drop is a bullet fired on the side of capitalism.

[Magón]

Up the road from where I live is a stop where kids and mams were baton charged by the police protesting outside of a dealer who fucking up their community's house. Not far away also is an estate where a community meeting dealing with the drugs' scourge was broken up narco-capitalist scum who slashed the throat of one man who luckily survived but of course despite all the witnesses the pigs did nothing. This is just a small example of the misery that scum here impose on the most vunerable members of the class feeding their petit-bourgious hedonistic kick seeking ("fuck off its my body and ill do what I want, let everyone go to hell..."). Again and again I have heard or witnessed the Gardai and the RUC/PSNI take the side of nacro-capitalists and protect them. In the occupied six counties drug dealers usually live next to RUC stations (its the safest place for them).

You arent being radical.

I dont expect any of you to develop empathy for others and catch yourselves on.

But be warned if a revolutionary situation breaks out near the way you are carrying on dont be surprised if insurgent live roads start tearing through your bodies.

You're one funny mother fucker you know that? None of what you've brought up holds anything to Weed specifically, like I asked for. (It had other drugs which are known to make people go off the deep end.) If you come at me in a Revolutionary setting, over me taking drugs privately, then you're the one who's got a problem, because you're trying to suppress me as a person for doing something I find enjoyable. I've never harmed anyone, nor has anyone I know who's done/does drugs harmed anyone in anyway when or not when taking them. And like Kayl said, most of drugs problems are the drugs themselves, but Capitalism how they handle drugs.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I agree completely. The only problem is, those who often advocate against the use of drugs, hardly know a thing about them, just like those who advocate war often don't want their children going off to fight.
Exactly. The only point I was making was, if we want drugs to be legalized, we have to take an objective look at drugs. They can be very bad, but they are even worse when they are criminalized, and we need to be able to understand both of those points in order to advocate their legalization.

In viewing drugs from a one-sided, 'pro' manner, we are no different from those who blindly object to their legalization.

Drugs have to looked at objectively in order to form a concise argument in favour of their legalization.

I was only picking at those points anyway, just for the sake of argument.

[ComradeMan]

Wow---- let's get a grip here.

The original issue was this,

The Group:-

Drugs Talk
"This is where we can talk about drugs and experience with it, but do not talk or ask about selling or buying drugs here, it is illegal to do so and you can Google it if you have to do that.

Do you wanna get high? *YEAH*"
---

In the OP, I excluded cannabis in a traditional sense anyway, so bringing back the argument to "weed" all the damn time is silly. But we aren't talking about "weed" for the most part are we? And we all know damn fine what we are talking about!!!

I challenge anyone with bourgeois-reactionary and anarcho-individualist bullshit ideas about personal choice and drugs etc to go to a working class area or ghettto, or sub-working class area and ask the PEOPLE if they want drugs there. I think you'll find the answer will be no. Ask the people of Nicaragua too.... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/CIA_Inspector_General_Frederick_P._Hitz

Have you never heard of narco-capitalism?

The reason why the Bolivian hill farmers are poor is that they can't get a fair price for their coffee, not because they can't grow coca- they are forced to grow coca, i.e. narco-capitalism, because global capitalism won't pay a decent price for coffee!!!!!!!!!!! But capitalism is sneaky too, it knows by doing these things indirectly it can also make scapegoats when necessary and wash its hands and also take the moral highground.

See this article too-

http://www.inwent.org/ez/articles/168962/index.en.shtml

Ecuador has allegedly absorbed up to 300,000 refugees from Colombia who are running from guerrillas, paramilitaries and drug lords, says Linda Helfrich. While some applied for asylum, others are still illegal, and the drugs that pass from Colombia through Ecuador to other parts of South America create economic and social problems

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

I have a question for those condemning drugs as reactionary: Do you consider the War on Drugs to be a good thing then? Is Nancy Reagan buldozing down a house in the ghetto a revolutionary act?

[#FF0000]

Drugs are illegal for a reason.

In the U.S., those reasons are racism and a lot of big businesses trying to defend their interests.


And its not its not because they are "FUN" its that paralell economy and the gangs they create serve a very real purpose in the waging of class war.

In the U.S., the "War On Drugs" is the direct cause of the militarization of the police force. Further, this parallel economy is in part propped up by prohibition. Most drugs are stupidly easy and cheap to produce, and so making it illegal and attaching hard sentences to it makes it easy for producers and dealers to jack up prices.


Thats the reality. Every joint you smoke or pill you drop is a bullet fired on the side of capitalism.

It's nowhere near so cut and dry.

[Quail]

I wouldnt want drugs to be legal in the first place. Addicts will placed in re-education camps and dealers will be exceuted come the revolution. Thats another question though.

Drugs are illegal now. Does it stop people from taking them? No. Does it cause problems? Definitely.

Drugs are illegal for a reason. And its not its not because they are "FUN" its that paralell economy and the gangs they create serve a very real purpose in the waging of class war. Thats the reality. Every joint you smoke or pill you drop is a bullet fired on the side of capitalism.
If you have the right knowledge you can make informed decisions on which drugs to take and whether you want to take them. Drugs don't automatically cause all of the problems you list. The problem is capitalism and prohibition. Why the hell can you not understand that?

[Magón]

I wouldnt want drugs to be legal in the first place. Addicts will placed in re-education camps and dealers will be exceuted come the revolution. Thats another question though.

Drugs are illegal for a reason. And its not its not because they are "FUN" its that paralell economy and the gangs they create serve a very real purpose in the waging of class war. Thats the reality. Every joint you smoke or pill you drop is a bullet fired on the side of capitalism.

Drugs are illegal because they don't make Capitalist Fat cats on the hill rich with the money.Try acting like a hard guy off the internet, and then see what people think of you. Because right now, all you're doing is shouting off to a bunch of people across the globe who could hardly care what you say because we'll keep on doing what we're doing whether you like it or not. And I'm pretty sure now, that if you're as tough as you act online, in real life you won't get any sympathy from me.

[#FF0000]

Snip

Comrademan please respond to my post on the last page

[Palingenisis]

Palli, you ardently support the IRA, who control large amounts of the drugs in NI, and violently attack any who try to take away this control. Explain this contradiction.

I dont ardently support the Irish Republican Army...I have a lot of political problems with them and the various Republican groups.

However what you are alleging is Imperialist lies for the capitalist press. "Our sources tell us this..." but how many Republican activists have ever actually been charged with drug offenses? I think of one and that was for a tiny piece of hash. Oh yeah and there was the case of the two Volunteers who were growing cannibis...When the Army found out one commited suicide and the other was exceuted.

Republicans unlike trendy lefties actually tend to live on working class estates and so are asked by the community to defend them...Because who else will?

So yes I feel gratitude to the brave volunteers for defending my community from narco-capitalists.

[Palingenisis]

Drugs are illegal now. Does it stop people from taking them? No. Does it cause problems? Definitely.


Drugs are "illegal" now...Sort of but not really. They are easily enough available. And as I said before in my experiance the police protect and more tolerate drug dealers while viciously responding to anyone acting against them however peacefully.

Thankfully on my estate there are no drugs because of other forces. They manage to stop people taking them.

[ComradeMan]

Drugs are illegal because they don't make Capitalist Fat cats on the hill rich with the money.Try acting like a hard guy off the internet, and then see what people think of you. Because right now, all you're doing is shouting off to a bunch of people across the globe who could hardly care what you say because we'll keep on doing what we're doing whether you like it or not. And I'm pretty sure now, that if you're as tough as you act online, in real life you won't get any sympathy from me.

How naive is that? What makes you think that there aren't a lot of vested capitalist interests there that like the fact that drugs are illegal- it keeps the prices up and, of course, is a good way to evade taxation.

Can we refrain from attacking the poster here? The arguments yes, the posters no.

No one is acting tough- people are presenting facts and opinions... okay? Now stop acting like a spoilt teenager and keep the discussion civil...!:D

Peace and Love!

[ComradeMan]

In the U.S., those reasons are racism and a lot of big businesses trying to defend their interests.



In the U.S., the "War On Drugs" is the direct cause of the militarization of the police force. Further, this parallel economy is in part propped up by prohibition. Most drugs are stupidly easy and cheap to produce, and so making it illegal and attaching hard sentences to it makes it easy for producers and dealers to jack up prices.



It's nowhere near so cut and dry.

I agree with your last point.

I also feel that the powers-that-be have a very hypocritical position. The war on drugs is a war on the poor, but the same wagers of that war have been implicated throughout the world in illegal narcotics trafficking and covert drugs operations.

However the US situation is not the global situation so I don't think we should automatically default to the US all the time.

Here's another interesting viewpoint
http://www.cosmos-club.org/web/journals/1996/lee.html

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I dont ardently support the Irish Republican Army...I have a lot of political problems with them and the various Republican groups.

However what you are alleging is Imperialist lies for the capitalist press. "Our sources tell us this..." but how many Republican activists have ever actually been charged with drug offenses? I think of one and that was for a tiny piece of hash. Oh yeah and there was the case of the two Volunteers who were growing cannibis...When the Army found out one commited suicide and the other was exceuted.



Hehe, I thought you'd do that, claim that the sources were 'capitalist lies'. Clearly anything criticle of the republican movement is 'capitalist/imperialist/lies', your little better than the facists who claim everything agaist their belifes is 'jewish lies'.


Republicans unlike trendy lefties actually tend to live on working class estates and so are asked by the community to defend them...Because who else will?

So yes I feel gratitude to the brave volunteers for defending my community from narco-capitalists.

Still the internet tough guy eh? Why don't you go join the brave men of the IRA on the front lines in the war against capitalism?

[Quail]

Drugs are "illegal" now...Sort of but not really. They are easily enough available. And as I said before in my experiance the police protect and more tolerate drug dealers while viciously responding to anyone acting against them however peacefully.

Thankfully on my estate there are no drugs because of other forces. They manage to stop people taking them.
How on earth would you ever enforce a completely drug-free society? Regardless of their legal status, people would still find ways to take drugs and get high. Banning drugs is bad for society and no leftist should want to dictate to other people what they can and can't put in their bodies.

Do explain why drugs are inherently bad and why it's the drugs, not capitalism, that is the problem. I honestly cannot understand why you think drugs are such a massive, evil problem.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I dont ardently support the Irish Republican Army...I have a lot of political problems with them and the various Republican groups.

However what you are alleging is Imperialist lies for the capitalist press. "Our sources tell us this..." but how many Republican activists have ever actually been charged with drug offenses? I think of one and that was for a tiny piece of hash. Oh yeah and there was the case of the two Volunteers who were growing cannibis...When the Army found out one commited suicide and the other was exceuted.

Republicans unlike trendy lefties actually tend to live on working class estates and so are asked by the community to defend them...Because who else will?

So yes I feel gratitude to the brave volunteers for defending my community from narco-capitalists.
In this case, surely you can agree that drug users are not the enemy here? In the same way that all slaves to capitalism are not the enemy, but that capitalism is the enemy?

You can support a person's right to take drugs if they wish, whilst strictly opposing the drugs industry. The reason those parasitic scum bags make such a decent living out of selling drugs is because both capitalism, and the legal system allow them to.

I can appreciate both of the general arguments here to an extent, but I think that this whole argument features a lot of dogmatism from the pro drug side and the anti drug side. The point is, whether we like it or not, certain people will always want to alter their perception of the world through the usage of drugs and they will always be able to do this as brain altering chemicals exist naturally in our world. We should not view them as criminals, but we should aim to abolish capitalism in its entirety and liberate all people from every damaging aspect of this cancerous system, whether they take drugs, drink soft drinks, work in factories or whatever. Our enemies are those who stand to gain from exploitation, not those who are victims of it in one way or another.

[Magón]

How naive is that? What makes you think that there aren't a lot of vested capitalist interests there that like the fact that drugs are illegal- it keeps the prices up and, of course, is a good way to evade taxation.

Have you ever seen a typical street corner dealer hand money in any Capitalist Politicians? No, because they're either a Cop or Narc, helping out the Cops. (No smart drug user goes to a corner guy, unless they know them personally or through someone enough to trust them. Once again TRUST is an issue with the Drug World.) Those who do help the Capitalist Fat Cats in a more personal level, are the big time guys we call Drug Cartels.

Clearly you don't know the differences, but that's okay, read up here and you'll learn to know the differences. If you're looking for something, you go to someone you can trust, not a stranger.

[Bud Struggle]

ComradeMan, why are you not addressing my points?



Comrademan please respond to my post on the last page

DAMN ComradeMan! You've got the RevLeft aristocracy begging you for words of wisdom. One hell of a return!

:D :D :D

[#FF0000]

Don't make me switch to the red font, now.

[Magón]

DAMN ComradeMan! You've got the RevLeft aristocracy begging you for words of wisdom. One hell of a return!

:D :D :D

So says the all mighty Petit-Bourgeois. :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Have you ever seen a typical street corner dealer hand money in any Capitalist Politicians? No, because they're either a Cop or Narc, helping out the Cops. (No smart drug user goes to a corner guy, unless they know them personally or through someone enough to trust them. Once again TRUST is an issue with the Drug World.) Those who do help the Capitalist Fat Cats in a more personal level, are the big time guys we call Drug Cartels.

Clearly you don't know the differences, but that's okay, read up here and you'll learn to know the differences. If you're looking for something, you go to someone you can trust, not a stranger.

Look-- I'm trying to be civil. This is an important issue and the Revolutionary Left must have answers. Nevertheless, your patronising tone also reveals a lot of naivety. Do you think the guy on the street corner is the end of the chain? Do you really think that? Where do you think the power of the mafia lies? And do you think it stops on the street corner? Try taking off your blinkered anarcho-individualist bourgeois view limited to your own street corner and look at the bigger picture. You are like one of capitalism's useful idiots if you don't....

[#FF0000]

snip

Oh for christssake will you just once directly respond to something someone has said instead of sitting here posturing about "anarcho-individualism" like a fucking knob.

[ComradeMan]

Oh for christssake will you just once directly respond to something someone has said instead of sitting here posturing about "anarcho-individualism" like a fucking knob.

I did answer you!!!!!!!!!

Who's posturing? Perhaps they're all high? Free the weed but damn the posturing they say!

See the reply and don't resort to ad homs--;)

[gorillafuck]

These are very good reason WHY they should be legalized. Then you wouldn't have drug gangs, cartels, etc. with children and people being used as Drug Mules.

You may be right, but again that's not an argument based on the current facts. The current facts are that in most of the world they are not legal. By buying drugs NOW you are indirectly contributing to human misery and exploitation.
You're obviously really high, because you think that small individual effort will cause those drug cartels to stop profiting.

You think that people shouldn't enjoy their lives to the fullest by doing things that will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. You're the kind of self-righteous leftist asshole that annoys the shit out of me.

[Palingenisis]

Hehe, I thought you'd do that, claim that the sources were 'capitalist lies'. Clearly anything criticle of the republican movement is 'capitalist/imperialist/lies', your little better than the facists who claim everything agaist their belifes is 'jewish lies'.

Still the internet tough guy eh? Why don't you go join the brave men of the IRA on the front lines in the war against capitalism?

The media in Ireland and the reports in the British media about Ireland are made up largely of propaganda. The fact remains that though Republicans are monitored closely by the infamously brutal special branch there has been ONE case of a Republican being charged with a drugs crime which involved the posession of a tiny piece hash. This a claim put forward by middle class know it alls and journalist posuers.

Firstly Im not a guy and secondly as I said I dont ardently support the Republican movement...Most Republican activists are incredibly decent working class women and men very dedicated to their communities...But there ideas about socialism are flakey...Varying from support of revisionist regiemes like Cuba to a Chavez like radical social democracy..They arent Communists...But than again they arent anti-Communist....I do support them when they tell the Brits, the RUC and the narco-capitalists where to go.

[#FF0000]

I did answer you!!!!!!!!!

Who's posturing? Perhaps they're all high? Free the weed but damn the posturing they say!

See the reply and don't resort to ad homs--;)

You didn't respond to anybody's statements. You just continued to say what you said before and dismissed people who argued against you as useful idiots. Try again.

[ComradeMan]

You're obviously really high, because you think that small individual effort will cause those drug cartels to stop profiting.

Not much logic here.

So because you can't beat them you join them then?

No purchasers = no dealers.

[Magón]

Look-- I'm trying to be civil. This is an important issue and the Revolutionary Left must have answers. Nevertheless, your patronising tone also reveals a lot of naivety. Do you think the guy on the street corner is the end of the chain? Do you really think that? Where do you think the power of the mafia lies? And do you think it stops on the street corner? Try taking off your blinkered anarcho-individualist bourgeois view limited to your own street corner and look at the bigger picture. You are like one of capitalism's useful idiots if you don't....

Really? As far as I know, for getting drugs, the street corner guy is the last place people uneducated about drugs would probably go. I'm just trying to cater to your current knowledge of the Drug World, which is limited obviously. I don't see where the drugs go in the end besides the buyer. And I don't see how telling you to go after the Drug Cartels (a clear problem in the drug world) is being Bourgeois.

I am looking at the bigger picture, but neither you or me know what's going on in a Drug Cartel except from fictional movies like Scarface, etc. I don't know what you want from me, I'm just answering your stupid questions. As for the Left answering these problems, we have with the need to legalize drugs, rather than ban them and give them a bigger amount of money.

[ComradeMan]

There are many arguments here, however the main points being:-

Illicit drug use fuels narco-capitalism.

Narco-capitalism, like all forms of capitalism, hurts the people.

No one who directly or indirectly aids or abetts, through the purchase of illegal narcotis, narco-capitalism can not claim they are not supporting reactionary forces.

Post-revolutionary drug policies are not the issue here. The issue here is the here and now.

This is ignoring the mental, physical and sociological health issues.

By saying it's my business or my right no one actually presents an argument other than on a selfish individualist basis. You don't just do what's right for you, but what's right for the community.

[#FF0000]

Post-revolutionary drug policies are not the issue here. The issue here is the here and now.

Here and now drug prohibition is driving prices through the roof making it incredibly profitable to be a drug lord and giving the State a pretext to arm the police to the point of being a paramilitary outfit.

It's not so simple and you're an intellectually dishonest idiot who hasn't been able to deal with a single point brought to you this entire thread.

[Widerstand]

I don't get how one can be pro-choice and anti-drugs. Both are about letting people control their body.

And please stop justifying stuff with what's legal in capitalist society. Being a communist is outlawed in a lot of countries. Being homosexual is. Capitalist laws are bullshit.

[Magón]

Illicit drug use fuels narco-capitalism.

Narco-capitalism, like all forms of capitalism, hurts the people.

For Christ sake, have you payed attention to nothing anyone on here has said? LEGALIZE DRUGS SO THEN THE CAPITALISTS CANNOT MAKE MONEY OFF OF THEM AND THE WORKERS! (Is that clear now?) Maybe look into some US History, like 1920-30s Prohibition of Alcohol, and see what making something illegal that people really want gets you.

[gorillafuck]

Not much logic here.

So because you can't beat them you join them then?

No purchasers = no dealers.
Because it is so much more likely that everyone will stop using drugs than drugs being legalized:laugh: Yeah, you're the pinnacle of logic.

[ComradeMan]

Really? As far as I know, for getting drugs, the street corner guy is the last place people uneducated about drugs would probably go. I'm just trying to cater to your current knowledge of the Drug World, which is limited obviously. I don't see where the drugs go in the end besides the buyer. And I don't see how telling you to go after the Drug Cartels (a clear problem in the drug world) is being Bourgeois.

I am looking at the bigger picture, but neither you or me know what's going on in a Drug Cartel except from fictional movies like Scarface, etc. I don't know what you want from me, I'm just answering your stupid questions. As for the Left answering these problems, we have with the need to legalize drugs, rather than ban them and give them a bigger amount of money.

Speak for yourself.... with your assumptions. You are already revealing an absolute lack of any understanding of the dynamics of narco-capitalism.

As for your last point, yes- but drugs are not legal and in the big "meantime" between now and whenever you are fuelling narco-capitalism, directly or indirectly as the case may be. Seeing as you have a choice in this and that you are aware of the problem that you could avoid too, then your attitude must be deemed as reactionary in this case.

As for your red points...


Legalise drugs and the capitalists will make legal tax profits from them instead of the illegal ones they make now. Yeah....

Zeekloid... whoever said that making something illegal would stop it? Murder has been illegal for years, etc etc... so you are proposing we legalise that now so we can deal with it?

[#FF0000]

I am pretty sure ComradeMan is a troll.

[gorillafuck]

Zeekloid... whoever said that making something illegal would stop it? Murder has been illegal for years, etc etc... so you are proposing we legalise that now so we can deal with it?
:laugh::laugh:Oh god you don't even understand the point that you're trying to argue against.

[synthesis]

For Christ sake, have you payed attention to nothing anyone on here has said? LEGALIZE DRUGS SO THEN THE CAPITALISTS CANNOT MAKE MONEY OFF OF THEM AND THE WORKERS! (Is that clear now?) Maybe look into some US History, like 1920-30s Prohibition of Alcohol, and see what making something illegal that people really want gets you.

Say what? Even if you legalize drugs, there will still be capitalists making money off it. Just not as much.

[ComradeMan]

I don't get how one can be pro-choice and anti-drugs. Both are about letting people control their body.

And please stop justifying stuff with what's legal in capitalist society. Being a communist is outlawed in a lot of countries. Being homosexual is. Capitalist laws are bullshit.


Pro-abortion and pro-drugs are two entirely different issues.

No one is justifying anything about what's legal and illegal.

Where is being a communist illegal other than the US perhaps?

But beware of the genetic fallacy-just because something may be illegal in a capitalist regime does not mean it should be legal under a communist/socialist regime.

[Palingenisis]

Hehe, I thought you'd do that, claim that the sources were 'capitalist lies'.

But why oh why than if the IRA are involved in drug dealing are the Brits and the Staters not picking them up for it than? :confused:

The fact that English anarchists gave back handed support (and still does) to their own state's war against the Irish people speaks volumes.

[ComradeMan]

I am pretty sure ComradeMan is a troll.

LOL!!! Not much changes round here.... present arguments based on facts, on left wing policies and economics and you get denounced by the middle-class bourgeoisie and the pseudo-revolutionaries for upsetting their little "cosey" revolution.

:D

[Magón]

Speak for yourself.... with your assumptions. You are already revealing an absolute lack of any understanding of the dynamics of narco-capitalism.

I'm not the only one on here who's told you the same. You're just an idiot for not looking at them. Or maybe you have, and are just an idiot troll?


As for your last point, yes- but drugs are not legal and in the big "meantime" between now and whenever you are fuelling narco-capitalism, directly or indirectly as the case may be. Seeing as you have a choice in this and that you are aware of the problem that you could avoid too, then your attitude must be deemed as reactionary in this case.

As for your red points...


Legalise drugs and the capitalists will make legal tax profits from them instead of the illegal ones they make now. Yeah....

That's why my trolling friend, you LEGALIZE THEM. If you don't start trying now, then when will you? Tomorrow? Probably not? Next week? Probably not then either. You either do it now, like people are doing, or you don't and you let the Capitalists continue making their money off Drugs.

Like I said, not everyone buys drugs that are from out of the country or something. And not everyone who sells drugs are out to make a profit, it's just a means in which to make money in the current system. I'm an Anarchist, and have a job, while also going to school. Does that make me a traitor or some kind? No, it keeps me up in the knowing of what Capitalists are doing in the Work Place. And like some drug dealers, I'm not out to make money. To me, money is a useless commodity in this world, and should be gotten rid of.

But banning drugs, and like Prohibition, making them probably even more rich because the prices are so high, you're causing the problems and adding to these Capitalist and their game. So legalize drugs, Capitalists loose money, and nobody is hurt because nobody is fighting over them like they are now.

[#FF0000]

LOL!!! Not much changes round here.... present arguments based on facts, on left wing policies and economics and you get denounced by the middle-class bourgeoisie and the pseudo-revolutionaries for upsetting their little "cosey" revolution.

:D

You haven't challenged a single point anyone's made, though. I mean Palingenesis is doing a great job here but you're carrying on like a knob and you aren't adding anything of value to the stupid thread that you started.

I mean you're totally ignoring two things I keep telling you. Prohibition made drug lords filthy fucking rich and has provided the single greatest impetus in the United States to militarizing the police force.

[gorillafuck]

Where is being a communist illegal other than the US perhaps?
It's illegal in quite a few places, but the US is not one of them (unless you are trying to become an immigrant and are a member of a communist party).

[Palingenisis]

That's why my trolling friend, you LEGALIZE THEM. .

Not on my watch....The crime in order to pay for these moments of exagerated paradise will effect the weakest of the class, often the elderly, the psychological problems will still be cased, the wider social effects will be anything but fun...Sure some of the problems will go. But far from all.

[Widerstand]

Pro-abortion and pro-drugs are two entirely different issues.

So do you disagree that both are about allowing the individual to control it's body?


No one is justifying anything about what's legal and illegal.

"no one". Okay:


Drugs are illegal for a reason.


Where is being a communist illegal other than the US perhaps?

A lot of countries. Though often not officially. An example would be Germany: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/129a. There are more examples, I'm sure a comrade could help out.



But beware of the genetic fallacy-just because something may be illegal in a capitalist regime does not mean it should be legal under a communist/socialist regime.

What the fuck is a "communist/socialist regime"?

[Magón]

Not on my watch....The crime in order to pay for these moments of exagerated paradise will effect the weakest of the class, often the elderly, the psychological problems will still be cased, the wider social effects will be anything but fun...Sure some of the problems will go. But far from all.

Have you ever touched Weed or any drug before, that's considered illegal?

[Manic Impressive]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current system of "war" on drugs is good or efficient and cannabis has an extremely good case for legalization as it is more harmful as a gateway drug because of it's illegality.

I think the problem addressed in the OP is about the role of drugs being glorified on this forum and by people on the left in general. Personally having had a lot of experience with most drugs I find this quite offensive. If the group is about smoking cannabis then that's fine but call it that, if it's about using all drugs then it should be condemned. If someone said to me that legalizing heroin is the answer I would probably punch them in the face, tie a belt round their arm, cook up a shot, inject them daily for a month then watch them go through withdrawal and then see what their opinion is after that. As some of you have used the argument that the OP doesn't have a clue about drugs because he hasn't used them, well I throw the same back at you. You have no clue until you have gotten over a serious addiction. And yeah I know all the shit you guys who use drugs are thinking "It won't happen to me because I'm strong, only idiots get addicted, it won't ever happen to me" well you might be right but you could also be very very wrong. As I guarantee that's how most addicts thought before they got hooked.

Decriminalization is another matter entirely getting a criminal record when you are at your lowest ebb can extinguish any last little bit of hope you may have once had. Help and treatment are the best ways with reassurance and guidance not punishment. The fact is that the problems with supply and demand of drugs are a direct cause of capitalism. People will take drugs because life especially if you are poor is stressful and monotonous. People need relaxation and escapism and drugs offer that at an affordable price with little effort needed in their application. I hope if socialism or statelessness is ever achieved that this will help decrease demand until it is non existent.

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/cheetah-print-tasteful-or-tacky/question-1280135/http://www.sodahead.com/fun/cheetah-print-tasteful-or-tacky/question-1280135/

[ContrarianLemming]

The only exception I would make is perhaps light cannabis use

basically all they do.

[gorillafuck]

Not on my watch....The crime in order to pay for these moments of exagerated paradise will effect the weakest of the class, often the elderly, the psychological problems will still be cased, the wider social effects will be anything but fun...Sure some of the problems will go. But far from all.
I do not think that marijuana use is a problem for people, but obviously cocaine heroin etc. are horrible drugs. And on those I am not sure of whether they should be allowed or not, but the policy of arresting people for possession, militarizing police forces, and using them as a justification for presence abroad (particularly in Latin America) is so obviously negative that as an immediate demand the only sane solution is to legalize them, in my opinion.

[Palingenisis]

Have you ever touched Weed or any drug before, that's considered illegal?

I have been stoned on cannibis resin a couple of times if you must know. Its not something Im proud of. Its was a stupid and shameful thing to do. I have done other stupid and shameful things aswell....But I dont see why my past failings bare any relation to the topic?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Not on my watch....The crime in order to pay for these moments of exagerated paradise will effect the weakest of the class, often the elderly, the psychological problems will still be cased, the wider social effects will be anything but fun...Sure some of the problems will go. But far from all.

Considering 'your watch' consists of raging on the internet, I doubt anyone is worried.


The fact that English anarchists gave back handed support (and still does) to their own state's war against the Irish people speaks volumes.

The empire was good to us. I supported Rhodesia, and apartheit.


But why oh why than if the IRA are involved in drug dealing are the Brits and the Staters not picking them up for it than?

I'd post some sources, but I know that there just capitalist lies.

[Widerstand]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current system of "war" on drugs is good or efficient and cannabis has an extremely good case for legalization as it is more harmful as a gateway drug because of it's illegality.

I think the problem addressed in the OP is about the role of drugs being glorified on this forum and by people on the left in general. Personally having had a lot of experience with most drugs I find this quite offensive. If the group is about smoking cannabis then that's fine but call it that, if it's about using all drugs then it should be condemned. If someone said to me that legalizing heroin is the answer I would probably punch them in the face, tie a belt round their arm, cook up a shot, inject them daily for a month then watch them go through withdrawal and then see what their opinion is after that. As some of you have used the argument that the OP doesn't have a clue about drugs because he hasn't used them, well I throw the same back at you. You have no clue until you have gotten over a serious addiction. And yeah I know all the shit you guys who use drugs are thinking "It won't happen to me because I'm strong, only idiots get addicted, it won't ever happen to me" well you might be right but you could also be very very wrong. As I guarantee that's how most addicts thought before they got hooked.

Decriminalization is another matter entirely getting a criminal record when you are at your lowest ebb can extinguish any last little bit of hope you may have once had. Help and treatment are the best ways with reassurance and guidance not punishment. The fact is that the problems with supply and demand of drugs are a direct cause of capitalism. People will take drugs because life especially if you are poor is stressful and monotonous. People need relaxation and escapism and drugs offer that at an affordable price with little effort needed in their application. I hope if socialism or statelessness is ever achieved that this will help decrease demand until it is non existent.

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/cheetah-print-tasteful-or-tacky/question-1280135/http://www.sodahead.com/fun/cheetah-print-tasteful-or-tacky/question-1280135/

I agree with most of your post, except that you seem to argue that heavily punishing drug use is good because it saves people from "making shitty experiences". That makes about as much sense as arguing that attempted suicide should deserve death penalty.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I have been stoned on cannibis resin a couple of times if you must know. Its not something Im proud of. Its was a stupid and shameful thing to do. I have done other stupid and shameful things aswell....But I dont see why my past failings bare any relation to the topic?

Then you will be executed come the revolution for supporting narco-capitalism.

[ContrarianLemming]

The fact that English anarchists gave back handed support (and still does) to their own state's war against the Irish people speaks volumes. in the words of 4chan, pics or it didnt happen, I don't believe this.

Portugal has no illegal drugs, it has done them good, they don't treat drug users like criminals and neither should we, they either need help like any sick person or - if they are ok - should be left alone

[Magón]

I have been stoned on cannibis resin a couple of times if you must know. Its not something Im proud of. Its was a stupid and shameful thing to do. I have done other stupid and shameful things aswell....But I dont see why my past failings bare any relation to the topic?

Because you're trying to put my current enjoyment down as something that should be shot, rather than dealt with in a reasonable manner like LEGALIZING IT. Don't you understand, that if you legalized drugs like Weed and others, people wouldn't abuse them as much as they are now? (And Weed is hardly a drug that's abused by people.) By your logic, you're trying to oppress it and make it even worse than it is now. The reason we have these Drug Cartels making serious money, is because their product is illegal and there's a demand for it, and those in demand are willing to pay lots of money for it. (Just like during US Prohibition with Alcohol. The Mafia made shit loads of money from Moonshining and bringing it in from other places like Canada, etc.)

Militarizing everything is going to get you people who are going to stand against you. Just like now with Leftists standing up against Capitalism. You're no better then the Capitalists really.

[gorillafuck]

I have been stoned on cannibis resin a couple of times if you must know.
That's kind of a "no", tbh. Cannabis resin isn't exactly going to get you very high beyond a really, really light buzz.


Its not something Im proud of. Its was a stupid and shameful thing to do. I have done other stupid and shameful things aswell....But I dont see why my past failings bare any relation to the topic?Don't be ashamed. Being ashamed over normal things that people do, that's what's bad for you.

[Palingenisis]

I do not think that marijuana use is a problem for people (or at least the large majority of people), but obviously cocaine heroin etc. are horrible drugs. And on those I am not sure of whether they should be allowed or not, but the policy of arresting people for possession, militarizing police forces, and using them as a justification for presence abroad (particularly in Latin America) is so obviously negative that as an immediate demand the only sane solution is to legalize them, in my opinion.

I accept that cannibis is a more difficult case than other drugs. I would consider supporting its legalization under current circumstances if only take off drug gangs and stop people going on from it to other more dangerous drugs. However I have talked to people who used it regularly in the past during their teenage years and they said that it is much easier to slip into frequent use of it than it is to slip into frequent use of alcohol. That it also distorted in general their view of the world. The people I have known who used it a lot seemed flakey space cadets to me. I have had arguments though with Republicans for them treating it as the same as E or speed or something...I admit its not...I just dont believe that it is as harmless as people make out.

[Palingenisis]

I'd post some sources, but I know that there just capitalist lies.

Id be interested to see sources of actual arrests of Republican activists for drugs that stood up in court. That would be interesting.

[gorillafuck]

However I have talked to people who used it regularly in the past during their teenage years and they said that it is much easier to slip into frequent use of it than it is to slip into frequent use of alcohol. That's not supported by scientific evidence at all. Except for that, speaking as a teenager, it's much easier for a group of teenage friends to get high whenever they hang out than to drink everytime they hang out.


That it also distorted in general their view of the world. The people I have known who used it a lot seemed flakey space cadets to me. I have had arguments though with Republicans for them treating it as the same as E or speed or something...I admit its not...I just dont believe that it is as harmless as people make out.I have no idea what a flaky space cadet is....

[Magón]

I accept that cannibis is a more difficult case than other drugs. I would consider supporting its legalization under current circumstances if only take off drug gangs and stop people going on from it to other more dangerous drugs. However I have talked to people who used it regularly in the past during their teenage years and they said that it is much easier to slip into frequent use of it than it is to slip into frequent use of alcohol. That it also distorted in general their view of the world. The people I have known who used it a lot seemed flakey space cadets to me. I have had arguments though with Republicans for them treating it as the same as E or speed or something...I admit its not...I just dont believe that it is as harmless as people make out.

Cigarettes are much worse than Weed. With Tar, Rat Poison, Various other Poisons, etc. put into it. The worst you'll get from Weed is it being just it being natural, unless someone does spike it with something else, but that's rare in most cases. Don't fall for the stereotypical mindset, you'll just end up being like those certain Capitalists and others who speak out against it.

[Palingenisis]

Because you're trying to put my current enjoyment down as something that should be shot, rather than dealt with in a reasonable manner like LEGALIZING IT. .

Okay I accept I might have been a little over the top.

Cannibis is a different issue from drugs and should under current circumstances probably be legalized. However using it now does generally involve funding scumbags who are involved with other drugs.

However I personally believe that the desire to get out is a product of alienation that will vanish under a communist society.

[Manic Impressive]

I agree with most of your post, except that you seem to argue that heavily punishing drug use is good because it saves people from "making shitty experiences". That makes about as much sense as arguing that attempted suicide should deserve death penalty.


Help and treatment are the best ways with reassurance and guidance not punishment.

Punishment is certainly not the answer. The only way to stop the horror that I've seen and been through myself is to stop the reasons people feel they need to take drugs. Which is the exploitative and oppressive system that we live in currently and to stop the exploitative and oppressive system in the countries where the drugs are manufactured. Punishing the user or even the small time dealer only exasperates the situation. Unfortunately that's what the current "war" on drugs is all about.

[WeAreReborn]

To the OP, your whole argument is that it can be used to help Capitalists gain profit. So can food so should we stop eating? Obviously not.. unless you want to then go for it. The point is though it is about freedom, and if you are an Anarcho-Communist as your avatar suggests then you would know that freedom and equality is of the utmost importance and your personal opinions on drug use shouldn't dictate what society should or shouldn't do.

[WeAreReborn]

Punishment is certainly not the answer. The only way to stop the horror that I've seen and been through myself is to stop the reasons people feel they need to take drugs. Which is the exploitative and oppressive system that we live in currently and to stop the exploitative and oppressive system in the countries where the drugs are manufactured. Punishing the user or even the small time dealer only exasperates the situation. Unfortunately that's what the current "war" on drugs is all about.
I agree punishment is extremely reactionary, though I must say sometimes drug use is just for recreation and not always an escape of Capitalistic suffering, although often it is. I see nothing wrong with recreational use, just not abuse.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current system of "war" on drugs is good or efficient and cannabis has an extremely good case for legalization as it is more harmful as a gateway drug because of it's illegality.

I think the problem addressed in the OP is about the role of drugs being glorified on this forum and by people on the left in general. Personally having had a lot of experience with most drugs I find this quite offensive. If the group is about smoking cannabis then that's fine but call it that, if it's about using all drugs then it should be condemned. If someone said to me that legalizing heroin is the answer I would probably punch them in the face, tie a belt round their arm, cook up a shot, inject them daily for a month then watch them go through withdrawal and then see what their opinion is after that. As some of you have used the argument that the OP doesn't have a clue about drugs because he hasn't used them, well I throw the same back at you. You have no clue until you have gotten over a serious addiction. And yeah I know all the shit you guys who use drugs are thinking "It won't happen to me because I'm strong, only idiots get addicted, it won't ever happen to me" well you might be right but you could also be very very wrong. As I guarantee that's how most addicts thought before they got hooked.

Decriminalization is another matter entirely getting a criminal record when you are at your lowest ebb can extinguish any last little bit of hope you may have once had. Help and treatment are the best ways with reassurance and guidance not punishment. The fact is that the problems with supply and demand of drugs are a direct cause of capitalism. People will take drugs because life especially if you are poor is stressful and monotonous. People need relaxation and escapism and drugs offer that at an affordable price with little effort needed in their application. I hope if socialism or statelessness is ever achieved that this will help decrease demand until it is non existent.

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/cheetah-print-tasteful-or-tacky/question-1280135/http://www.sodahead.com/fun/cheetah-print-tasteful-or-tacky/question-1280135/
I agree with this for the most part, but I would say that there is a shady line between legalization and decriminalization. If you take the criminal aspect away from drug use, but keep certain legal obligations for drug users, then this may still isolate those people who have drug problems. It also does not take into consideration the broad range of scenarios in which drug usage occurs, as in, not all drug users have a problem and therefore should not be subject to legal obligations that are designed to prevent drug use all together. It is irrational to think that all drug use will stop in a classless society, as people have probably been experimenting with mind altering chemicals before classes existed (as we understand them anyway).

Victims of drug addiction obviously need help, but I am not sure if legal obligations of any sort are the way to go, as a person has to want help before they can be helped, and there is such a broad range of cases with regards to drug use. You can not enforce measures onto a person who has a drug problem, but you can offer them all the support and help that they need, whilst also doing what you can do to ensure that all drug users use drugs safely and understand them consistently.

Institutions that aim to give support to people with drug problems and that aim to educate all people on drug use can exist independently of any legal obligation.

Perhaps I have got this wrong and you may be able to educate me on decriminalization further, but from my understanding, a revolutionary situation should lead to a society in which people can take drugs if they wish, but they will be educated with regards to the negative sides of drug use and they will be entitled to all the help and support that we could give them. I also share your wish that, in a stateless world, the need for drugs - namely the needs brought about by social deprivation, would decline. Drug addiction is a terrible thing, no doubt, but if you remove all legal standing points with regards to drugs and all of the economic gains that can be made from their sale, drug problems would hopefully wither away along with all of the problems caused by our economic current economic systems. Decriminalization just seems like a step not far enough to me.

[Magón]

Okay I accept I might have been a little over the top.

Cannibis is a different issue from drugs and should under current circumstances probably be legalized. However using it now does generally involve funding scumbags who are involved with other drugs.

However I personally believe that the desire to get out is a product of alienation that will vanish under a communist society.

Like I've been saying to the OP, it often doesn't and it's often the novice's of the drug world that you hear about on the news or whatever, being busted on the corner for buying. Most pro's in Weed and other drugs, get it from people they personally know who grow/make the stuff. And with drugs like Meth, etc. all you need to do is have money for the sink cleaning things. Weed, you can just take the seeds and reuse them.

If you bought drugs off the corner from some guy, and didn't know him, it's likely he's probably in it for the money, yes, but those who don't sell on the street mostly aren't. (In my many experiences, and experiences I've been told, that's been the case.)

[Palingenisis]

That's not supported by scientific evidence at all. Except for that, speaking as a teenager, it's much easier for a group of teenage friends to get high whenever they hang out than to drink everytime they hang out.


Doesnt Cannibis effect motor functions less than alcohol? As in its easier to cook a meal stoned out of your head than drunk? Wouldnt that in itself led to people slipping into regular use much easier?

[gorillafuck]

Doesnt Cannibis effect motor functions less than alcohol? As in its easier to cook a meal stoned out of your head than drunk? Wouldnt that in itself led to people slipping into regular use much easier?
I would imagine it might, yeah. But frequent use of cannabis is less bad for your health than frequent use of alcohol. Also, regular use is not quite the same as addiction. Alcohol is addictive and can cause alcoholism, cannabis can't do that. So frequent use shouldn't have the same connotations.

I am really in love with the phrase "flaky space cadet".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the problem addressed in the OP is about the role of drugs being glorified on this forum and by people on the left in general. Personally having had a lot of experience with most drugs I find this quite offensive.

I'll match you anecdote for anecdote; I've used a wide variety of drugs multiple times and I think that they can be life-enhancing.

You don't have the right to not be offended.


If the group is about smoking cannabis then that's fine but call it that, if it's about using all drugs then it should be condemned. If someone said to me that legalizing heroin is the answer I would probably punch them in the face, tie a belt round their arm, cook up a shot, inject them daily for a month then watch them go through withdrawal and then see what their opinion is after that.

What fuck is it with moralistic douchebags and their fetish for violent fantasies?

You are simply wrong. Legalising heroin would be a good idea for all sorts of reasons; purity of supply, regulation of the market, less stigma for addicts, and the opportunity for opium growers to make much-needed money without risking their livelihoods being destroyed by the drugs war.


As some of you have used the argument that the OP doesn't have a clue about drugs because he hasn't used them, well I throw the same back at you. You have no clue until you have gotten over a serious addiction. And yeah I know all the shit you guys who use drugs are thinking "It won't happen to me because I'm strong, only idiots get addicted, it won't ever happen to me" well you might be right but you could also be very very wrong. As I guarantee that's how most addicts thought before they got hooked.

Addiction itself isn't necessarily the problem - heroin addicts are capable of living to a ripe old age. The main reasons why drug addiction is so devastating is because of the high social and economic cost associated with suppressing the drugs trade and the stigmatisation of addicts as criminals.

When addicts have to pay unsavoury characters an arm and a leg for adulterated product, it's small wonder that they turn to crime to feed their habit and suffer as a result.


However I personally believe that the desire to get out is a product of alienation that will vanish under a communist society.

Dream on. Humans have been using drugs for at least 2700 years (http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/15/4171.full), and quite possibly for longer than that. Humans are not angels and communism will not be Heaven, so we've no reason to believe that they will stop.

[Manic Impressive]

yeah actually the term is perhaps a little sketchy, so to be clear I support removal of criminal prosecutions of people found in possession of a reasonable amount of a substance perhaps extending to the intent to supply if it is within a reasonable limit. This would not extend to high level drug traffickers and would have to work in conjunction with agricultural reforms in the places that make the base elements of the drugs. I do not support state legalization of hard drugs where they could be given to addicts or anyone else as a way to end the the criminal organizations control of the market. It won't work, controlled substances will still have a black market where you can get them stronger, harder, faster and without filling in a form. To enforce state regulation of drugs you would still need criminal laws against those who chose to deal in the black market.

Honestly though I really do not think that there is an answer to the problems of drugs under a capitalist system.

In regards to drugs in a socialist society I do not think
a revolutionary situation should lead to a society in which people can take drugs if they wish, but they will be educated with regards to the negative sides of drug use and they will be entitled to all the help and support that we could give them. Freedom and equality economically and in society does not mean freedom to do whatever you want, you would have responsibilities to your community and to your workmates. Drugs would be an unnecessary drain on resources and the community as a whole. Not to mention the effects that it has on those close to you. Short RL example former my next door neighbour had his brother staying, we had a party, the brother wakes up still completely fucked and wanders into the children's room and takes a shit on the floor at which point he goes back to sleep, the next day he was remorseful as he left to go score. Unfortunately this is an effect of drugs kind of a funny one but at the same time I hope it illustrates the selfish nature of drug abuse.

I'm no utopian and I agree that people will still try to use drugs concerted efforts must be made to stop them and to stop the sources of these drugs. Agricultural reforms in the places the base elements are cultivated. Incidentally in a society without personal property and money I can't see a massive global drug trade springing up which obviously stems the need for mass intervention.


I agree punishment is extremely reactionary, though I must say sometimes drug use is just for recreation and not always an escape of Capitalistic suffering, although often it is. I see nothing wrong with recreational use, just not abuse.

I did say relaxation which I associate with recreation. Drugs make you feel good no, fucking amazing so the reasons are not just to escape the banality of life under capitalism. There's also a social aspect to almost all drugs thinking now I can't think of one drug that doesn't have a certain social aspect to it even heroin which can result in some fantastic conversations.

But for all the good things the bad far outweigh them.

[WeAreReborn]

But for all the good things the bad far outweigh them.
All I can say is what??

[9]

lol just when I thought I couldn't love ComradeMan any more than I already do.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yeah actually the term is perhaps a little sketchy, so to be clear I support removal of criminal prosecutions of people found in possession of a reasonable amount of a substance perhaps extending to the intent to supply if it is within a reasonable limit. This would not extend to high level drug traffickers and would have to work in conjunction with agricultural reforms in the places that make the base elements of the drugs. I do not support state legalization of hard drugs where they could be given to addicts or anyone else as a way to end the the criminal organizations control of the market. It won't work, controlled substances will still have a black market where you can get them stronger, harder, faster and without filling in a form. To enforce state regulation of drugs you would still need criminal laws against those who chose to deal in the black market.

I think we have somewhat of an analogous situation with tobacco in the UK. Tobacco is legal but heavily taxed, and some smokers find this onerous, so they buy bootlegged tobacco at a lower price.

No doubt the trade in bootlegged tobacco has some dodgy participants, but it's still a vast improvement over the situation with most other drugs.

[Manic Impressive]

I'll match you anecdote for anecdote; I've used a wide variety of drugs multiple times and I think that they can be life-enhancing.

You don't have the right to not be offended.

I do not feel that a pissing contest over who has done the most drugs will particularly enhance the debate grow up.

I do not have the right to not be offended?

well that's good because it does offend me


What fuck is it with moralistic douchebags and their fetish for violent fantasies?

Nice debating skills again from our esteemed admin comrade. Douchebag is that really a suitable way to address fellow communists. No wonder this forum is full of aggressive posts if this is the way admins behave.


You are simply wrong. Legalising heroin would be a good idea for all sorts of reasons; purity of supply, regulation of the market, less stigma for addicts, and the opportunity for opium growers to make much-needed money without risking their livelihoods being destroyed by the drugs war.

purity of supply - it's the opium I got addicted to bro not the rat poison
regulation of the market - can you imagine if they did that in a country like the USA. Just look what has happened to the penal institutions in some areas when they became privatized. It wouldn't be long before we got the privatisation of the narcotics bureau or whatever they would call it.
less stigma for addicts well yes and no personally I feel the stigma attached to a drug like heroin by the working class is a good thing. I would like the stigma of joining the police or military to be about the same.
the opportunity for opium growers to make much-needed money without risking their livelihoods being destroyed by the drugs war. I would like to see the market for these drugs destroyed so it is more profitable for them to grow something else. Your not taking into consideration what the effects of legalisation would have on the production of narcotics. With legalisation would it not decrease the value as the scarcity falls?


Addiction itself isn't necessarily the problem - heroin addicts are capable of living to a ripe old age. The main reasons why drug addiction is so devastating is because of the high social and economic cost associated with suppressing the drugs trade and the stigmatisation of addicts as criminals.

As I've said addicts shouldn't be treated as criminals neither should low level dealers.


Dream on. Humans have been using drugs for at least 2700 years (http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/15/4171.full), and quite possibly for longer than that. Humans are not angels and communism will not be Heaven, so we've no reason to believe that they will stop.
Who is to say what the drugs will be when socialism is realized. It makes sense that a whole new breed of drugs may replace the old ones. With anything about how things might be it's merely an opinion which is that the drugs we currently have should be eliminated.

[9]

I don't really have the patience for getting into this debate now, but just a small point


purity of supply - it's the opium I got addicted to bro not the rat poison

good for you? imagine for a moment that you're not the only one who's had their life seriously effected by this shit, I know its a novel idea. meanwhile, tons of people die shooting smack that's cut with fentanyl and other shit. so really, you haven't dealt with this issue at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not feel that a pissing contest over who has done the most drugs will particularly enhance the debate grow up.

The person who publishes violent fantasies on the internet tells me to grow up. Irony overload.


Nice debating skills again from our esteemed admin comrade. Douchebag is that really a suitable way to address fellow communists. No wonder this forum is full of aggressive posts if this is the way admins behave.

Aggressive posts? This coming from you? Hypocrisy as well as irony eh?


purity of supply - it's the opium I got addicted to bro not the rat poison

Sure, but your life and the lives of many others would have been much better off without the addition of such substances.


regulation of the market - can you imagine if they did that in a country like the USA. Just look what has happened to the penal institutions in some areas when they became privatized. It wouldn't be long before we got the privatisation of the narcotics bureau or whatever they would call it.

Regulating markets leads to government departments being privatised- er, what?


less stigma for addicts well yes and no personally I feel the stigma attached to a drug like heroin by the working class is a good thing. I would like the stigma of joining the police or military to be about the same.

The stigma isn't a good thing, because it colours peoples' perceptions and leads to negative attitudes towards all drug users, neither of which is remotely helpful.


the opportunity for opium growers to make much-needed money without risking their livelihoods being destroyed by the drugs war. I would like to see the market for these drugs destroyed so it is more profitable for them to grow something else.

Refer to my previous comments about abolishing drug use - it ain't happening. As long as there are people who want drugs, there will be other people willing to supply them. The desire for drugs is something that transcends capitalism.


Your not taking into consideration what the effects of legalisation would have on the production of narcotics. With legalisation would it not decrease the value as the scarcity falls?

Legalisation would also mean the demand for harder drugs would fall, since you no longer have to deal with Mr Dodgy in order to get a bag of weed.


As I've said addicts shouldn't be treated as criminals neither should low level dealers.

That's considerably more civilised than your earlier language would suggest.


Who is to say what the drugs will be when socialism is realized. It makes sense that a whole new breed of drugs may replace the old ones. With anything about how things might be it's merely an opinion which is that the drugs we currently have should be eliminated.

Doubtless we will come up with better drugs in the future, especially if recreational drug use were legalised so that researchers would be free to discover psychoactive compounds that have fewer negative effects. But for the moment we are stuck with what nature and history have dealt us.

[Manic Impressive]

The person who publishes violent fantasies on the internet tells me to grow up. Irony overload.
Aggressive posts? This coming from you? Hypocrisy as well as irony eh?

haha yeah I guess there is a lot of irony and hypocrisy here as you're in the anti pacifists group I thought you may be exactly the type of person to find the comment if taken literally appealing.
However, it was not supposed to be taken literally and does not represent my personal views. Let me put it this way I think people who advocate the legalization of hard drugs are ignorant or blinded by their hatred of the current system that they will promote anything which contradicts it. The latter I can understand but it does not make it any more right.



Regulating markets leads to government departments being privatised- er, what?

ok it's a bit of a what if, but what if the state turned the department that hands out drugs over to private industry. Not likely to happen in the UK as it would be incorporated into the NHS but in the USA or a country without the social protections that we enjoy it is not unimaginable.



The stigma isn't a good thing, because it colours peoples' perceptions and leads to negative attitudes towards all drug users, neither of which is remotely helpful.
Well personally I think stigmas enforced by the working class are an acquired tool of survival. Take for instance the one I mentioned. In my area you do not join the police mothers would disown their sons if they joined. Such stigmas help to serve the working class and to protect them, it's part of class unity. A stigma exists around heroin as well which is a good thing it dissuades people from taking it, well most. Unfortunately not me ;) and if you mean stigmas enforced by the rest of society the petit bourgeois or the bourgeoisie frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck how they perceive me.


Refer to my previous comments about abolishing drug use - it ain't happening. As long as there are people who want drugs, there will be other people willing to supply them. The desire for drugs is something that transcends capitalism.
yeah I kind of agree when you look at all drugs subjectively including alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, caffeine and all the rest then yeah sure drugs can be useful and would have a place. But there is a huge distinction between some drugs and others.




Legalisation would also mean the demand for harder drugs would fall, since you no longer have to deal with Mr Dodgy in order to get a bag of weed.
I disagree and does this not contradict your previous statement? "As long as there are people who want drugs, there will be other people willing to supply them. The desire for drugs is something that transcends capitalism." So people will always want hard drugs. What if hard drugs are unavailable?
Personally I never met any weed dealers that sold smack or crack so I don't see how the "dealing with Mr Dodgy" scenario means anything. Also note not once have I included cannabis in the group of drugs I have been talking about cannabis deserves its own debate.


That's considerably more civilised than your earlier language would suggest.
seems that you are fixated on one comment which I thought even a fool would not take literally. Ah well I'll learn from this and not post abstract comments in the future.




Doubtless we will come up with better drugs in the future, especially if recreational drug use were legalised so that researchers would be free to discover psychoactive compounds that have fewer negative effects. But for the moment we are stuck with what nature and history have dealt us.
And for now we need to identify and recognize which drugs are most harmful to us and work on eliminating them from our society.

One point from my OP that has been over looked, understandable as you only seemed to read 3 lines and as an esteemed admin I can think of no other person better qualified to answer this. Do you think that drugs have been glorified by users on this forum and if so do you condone this action?

[Revolution starts with U]

You will NEVER stamp out the supply of drugs. To criminalize it will only lead to a black market; an unregulated, free market. Criminilization of drugs in a socialist society is an invitation to capitalism.
Addiction is a medical and psychological problem. Drugs are not, and never have been the problem. It has always been addiction.
Also, there is good evidence that decriminilization leads to less binge use, of every drug. People don't have to hide it. It leads to a culture of responsible drug use.

[9]

Such stigmas help to serve the working class and to protect them, it's part of class unity. A stigma exists around heroin as well which is a good thing it dissuades people from taking it, well most. Unfortunately not me ;) and if you mean stigmas enforced by the rest of society the petit bourgeois or the bourgeoisie frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck how they perceive me.


its weird that the ruling class promotes the same stigma against heroin addicts, then. In fact, that's precisely where it comes from; the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. this is all the more true in the present period in a place like the US, where the working class is incredibly weak and is therefore totally inundated with ruling class ideology and morality. heroin is a fucking terrible, destructive drug, but I understand why people turn to it. do you think people use heroin because it isn't held in low enough regard, because it isn't properly stigmatized? what good is a stigma against smack addicts to a kid who grows up in a broken home with an alcoholic physically-abusive father, a battered overworked mother, and no support system? a scenario that isn't at all uncommon.
drug addiction isn't some sort of pathological defect, it isn't some sort of moral degeneracy - it isn't a product of the 'wrong beliefs'; there are material reasons for it. most people use hard drugs to self-medicate, because they are suffering in some way, or in many ways. you can stigmatize smack in every way possible, and what have you done to address the suffering that compels people to use it? nothing. on the contrary, the stigma only helps to increase the suffering and to further discourage those afflicted from being honest about their situation and taking the necessary steps toward recovery. and naturally, the ruling class is perfectly happy with that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

haha yeah I guess there is a lot of irony and hypocrisy here as you're in the anti pacifists group I thought you may be exactly the type of person to find the comment if taken literally appealing.
However, it was not supposed to be taken literally and does not represent my personal views. Let me put it this way I think people who advocate the legalization of hard drugs are ignorant or blinded by their hatred of the current system that they will promote anything which contradicts it. The latter I can understand but it does not make it any more right.

Or maybe such people recognise that more harm is caused by drugs being illegal than they ever could if they were legal.


ok it's a bit of a what if, but what if the state turned the department that hands out drugs over to private industry. Not likely to happen in the UK as it would be incorporated into the NHS but in the USA or a country without the social protections that we enjoy it is not unimaginable.

I imagine that if drugs were legalised, they would be produced by licensed private pharmacists under government regulation, much like similar products are currently.


Well personally I think stigmas enforced by the working class are an acquired tool of survival. Take for instance the one I mentioned. In my area you do not join the police mothers would disown their sons if they joined. Such stigmas help to serve the working class and to protect them, it's part of class unity. A stigma exists around heroin as well which is a good thing it dissuades people from taking it, well most. Unfortunately not me ;) and if you mean stigmas enforced by the rest of society the petit bourgeois or the bourgeoisie frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck how they perceive me.

The problem is that stigmatism of drug use does not confine itself into watertight class categories, and as 9 points out, is in fact encouraged by the ruling class.


yeah I kind of agree when you look at all drugs subjectively including alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, caffeine and all the rest then yeah sure drugs can be useful and would have a place. But there is a huge distinction between some drugs and others.

That much is indisputable, but your conclusions do not follow from it. However you may feel subjectively about harder drugs like heroin, the fact remains that an enormous degree of harm is caused as a direct result of their prohibition.


I disagree and does this not contradict your previous statement? "As long as there are people who want drugs, there will be other people willing to supply them. The desire for drugs is something that transcends capitalism." So people will always want hard drugs. What if hard drugs are unavailable?

I said that demand would go down, not that it would disappear completely. Attempting to make drugs harder to acquire by prohibition does nothing to reduce demand and only increases the price of whatever drugs are available, as well as increasing the incidence of adulteration.


Personally I never met any weed dealers that sold smack or crack so I don't see how the "dealing with Mr Dodgy" scenario means anything. Also note not once have I included cannabis in the group of drugs I have been talking about cannabis deserves its own debate.

When drugs are criminalised, only criminals deal drugs, it's that simple. A person who is willing to break the law by selling you cannabis is likely to be just as happy to break the law by selling you some heroin - more so if the dealer can turn a better profit by selling you harder drugs.


seems that you are fixated on one comment which I thought even a fool would not take literally. Ah well I'll learn from this and not post abstract comments in the future.

If you post macho Internet Tough Guy crap, you should expect to get called on it.


And for now we need to identify and recognize which drugs are most harmful to us and work on eliminating them from our society.

Not happening. People will risk life and limb if necessary to acquire their preferred drug. Otherwise, the drug war would be finished by now. But it isn't, so...


One point from my OP that has been over looked, understandable as you only seemed to read 3 lines and as an esteemed admin I can think of no other person better qualified to answer this. Do you think that drugs have been glorified by users on this forum and if so do you condone this action?

What do you mean by "glorified"? That's such a tabloid-y term.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Drugs Talk!


What the fcuk is this?

How the fcuk can we have a group "yeah let's get high", on the RevLeft Forum?

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.
2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
4. Drugs have been used by most regimes as part of their covert operations in order to gain illicit funds or to wage war on the proletariat.
5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

The only exception I would make is perhaps light cannabis use and/or traditional healers etc.

I denounce this group as reactionary.

1. How so? How is my responsible and recreational use of marijuana, alcohol, shrooms, acid, etc. keeping the proletariat down and divided?

2. Drugs CAN cause misery. However, it's up to the user to be responsible with drug use. So long as responsibility is upheld, no misery will come out of it. Also, exploitation how?

3. Yes. They can. Which is why legalization and government regulation makes sense.

4. You're viewing drugs as only one thing. There are many aspects to drug culture and activities surrounding drugs. Many result to selling as an easy way out of poverty. Cartels get richer, etc etc. this is not good. Another case-in-point to support the legalization and government regulation of drugs.

5. Most people aren't high all the time. Any revolutionary knows that being high all the time is not a good thing. Once again, responsibility is key.

[ComradeMan]

This whole debate seems to have turned into a mud-slinging match and argument about legalisation of cannabis- all of which seems to be missing the point.

The whole point being that the group on RevLeft "Drugs Talk" with the motto "Let's get high! Yeah!" is at best badly worded and not conducive to any constructive discussion on the matter or at worst in extremely poor taste and offensive.

"Drugs" is a blanket term- we could go from generally legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, to semi-legal/decriminalised (in some areas such as the Netherlands) drugs such as cannabis to the so-called hard narcotics. Each has in a way its own issues. The group in question does not appear to make any reference to that fact and it is deduced by default that the group is an umbrella group encompssing all drugs.

There is a difference between dealing with an issue in a serious way, i.e. through discussion and analysis, and promoting/being seen to condone an activity which, in its widest sense, could easily be seen to fly against revolutionary/leftist/communist/socialist values.

The primary concern is with the issue of narco-capitalism.

1. The use of certain narcotics de facto aids and abetts "reactionary" forces and is thus counter-revolutionary. Evidence has been presented to support this argument.

2. The social impact of certain narcotics has a direct and negative effect on society- especially, it seems, the working classes.

3. Narco-trafficking is a murky area and some groups who claim to be on the "left" also have shady credentials: narco-terrorism in Latin America being one example.

However, narco-capitalism, narco-terrorism, narco-trafficking etc all have a similar net result in that one group or individual make a lot of money, i.e. profit, i.e. it is capitalistic in its very nature, and that other larger groups- usually the oppressed, poor, disadvantaged and so on pay the cost in exploitation and human misery. Whereas the former have (perhaps) even been aided and abetted the latter are often criminalised and victimised- ironically, it has been argued, by the same entities/regimes/groups.

Quoting Fidel Castro, it would be true to say that Latin America, to take one example, invests 'a great deal of energy in the struggle against the invasive cultivation of the coca leaves used to produce cocaine, a substance obtained with very aggressive chemical components that are extremely harmful to health and the human brain. Such revolutionary governments as those of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Bolivia are making special efforts to cut off its progress, as Cuba did timely. Evo Morales had long ago proclaimed his people's right to drink coca tea, an excellent traditional infusion of the ancient Aymara-Quechua culture. Preventing them from drinking it is like telling the English they cannot drink tea, a healthy habit imported from Asia, a region the United Kingdom conquered and colonized for hundreds of years.Evo's slogan was that "Coca is not cocaine."'

http://www.trabajadores.cu/reflexiones-de-fidel-castro/ingles/fidel-castro-imperialism-and-drugs

The arguments in this thread so far, from some, seem to avoid the following points:-

1. Whilst "drugs" remain illegal their purchase and use contributes to the points mentioned above.
2. Whereas many areas of consumption do inevitably lead to some form of exploitation this is one area which the ordinary person can avoid without any ill effects.
3. The mental/health issues have not been discussed with anything more than anecdotal evidence.

Furthermore the issue has been sidetracked into peripheral arguments, fallacious arguments and non-sequiturs etc including:-

1. Stigmatisation of addicts
2. Abortion
3. Decriminalisation versus legalisation
4. Hypothetical arguments to the future
5. Genetic fallacies

It is also disappointing from a socialist point of view to note a general lack of worldview in some arguments presented here and also the lack of anything more than the old cliché "it's my right to do what I like!". (Anarcho-)communism is freedom, that is true- but freedom does not mean a free-for-all nor does it mean that the individual's needs are above (or below) the needs of the community.

It is interesting to note that in hardline leftwing governments, historically, have all taken a hard line- perhaps too hard- on the matter of narcotics/drug use- Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba, N.Korea and so on. No one is holding these governments up to be model governments, far from it, but it does seem ironic that perhaps the most "narco-friendly" nations are the Netherlands and Switzerland and both are extremely capitalistic.

Those responsible for the group should perhaps take these points into consideration and also reconsider the naming and wording of their group.

It is also disappointing to see that yet again any difference of opinion or opposing points of view tends to degenerate into a flame war. This shows that some people may talk the talk but they don't seem to walk the walk- shouting down, using ad homs and ad bacs etc are not really good forms of argument and appear more appropriate to some extreme-right forum than RevLeft.

[Sasha]

For fucks sake, how hard is it to grasp that almost all problems associated with drug use are connected to illegality and socio-economic positions under capitalism.

Just have a look at the difference between an heroin junky and an doctor with an Fentanyl addiction.
Want to hazard a guess who is using the more addictive (so scientificly more dangerous) substance?
It's not the junky I can tell you.

[Ovi]

Ha ha. There's a drug talk group on revleft? I'm joining!

[ComradeMan]

For fucks sake, how hard is it to grasp that almost all problems associated with drug use are connected to illegality and socio-economic positions under capitalism.

Just have a look at the difference between an heroin junky and an doctor with an fynitiel addiction.
Want to hazard a guess who is using the more addictive (so scientificly more dangerous) substance?
It's not the junky I can tell you.


Point 1. I see here is where the "issue" lies.
a. Some people see this as intrinsically a result of capitalism.
b. Some people see this as part of capitalism.
c. Some people do not see this as a problem per se.

My own view is a combination of a. and b. for the reasons I have outlined. The problem is you cannot deal with a unless you deal with b.

As for the other "anecdotal" point- let's have some scientific evidence please and some numbers. How many doctors are addicted to "fynitiel" as compared to heroine and cocaine/crack addicts? What does "scientificly more dangerous" more dangerous actually mean?

Here is another article I found at Libcom that looks at some different points of view.
http://libcom.org/library/drugs-corrosive-social-cement

[Sasha]

What does "scientificly more dangerous" more dangerous actually mean?

The use of fentanyl has caused death. Because the effects of fentanyl last for only a very short time, it is even more addictive than heroin, and regular users may become addicted very quickly.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Additionally, fentanyl may be hundreds of times more potent than street heroin, and tends to produce significantly worse respiratory depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_depression), making it somewhat more dangerous than heroin to users.

[ComradeMan]

The use of fentanyl has caused death. Because the effects of fentanyl last for only a very short time, it is even more addictive than heroin, and regular users may become addicted very quickly.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Additionally, fentanyl may be hundreds of times more potent than street heroin, and tends to produce significantly worse respiratory depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_depression), making it somewhat more dangerous than heroin to users.

Fentanyl is a dangerous drug indeed, but what are the worldwide stats on overall production and use/abuse of fentanyl compared to other narcotics? It also seems that illicit use of fentanyl is also tied to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, primarily heroin- often cut with fentanyl.

According to this source approx. 100,000 people a year fall victim to Afghan opiates.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/21/un.heroin.trade/index.html?eref=ib_topstories


Secondly, I don't see how that changes the issue? Were you suggesting that as doctors are perceived to belong to a more bourgeois professional class whilst heroin junkies tend to be stigmatised/stereo-typed into a lower class denomination that there is a difference?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The arguments in this thread so far, from some, seem to avoid the following points:-

1. Whilst "drugs" remain illegal their purchase and use contributes to the points mentioned above.

So what do you think we should do until then? Forswear drugs? You're forgetting that for most people, asceticism is simply not an option.


2. Whereas many areas of consumption do inevitably lead to some form of exploitation this is one area which the ordinary person can avoid without any ill effects.

The same could be said for not drinking anything other than water, or for not taking holidays abroad. Both activities can have negative repercussions, so why single out drugs?


3. The mental/health issues have not been discussed with anything more than anecdotal evidence.

That's because they're irrelevant. I know full well the potential health impact of smoking tobacco, but I do it anyway and no amount of neo-Puritan finger-wagging on the part of people like you will prevent me from continuing.

And if you can't convince me to stop smoking, what on Earth makes you think you will convince anyone else from taking other drugs, a lot of which give better highs?

In the end, it's none of your fucking business anyway!


It is also disappointing from a socialist point of view to note a general lack of worldview in some arguments presented here and also the lack of anything more than the old cliché "it's my right to do what I like!". (Anarcho-)communism is freedom, that is true- but freedom does not mean a free-for-all nor does it mean that the individual's needs are above (or below) the needs of the community.

What the "community" needs is drug legalisation, because the vast majority of drug users will not give a shit about your kind of opinion, and will continue to use drugs regardless of their legal status.


It is interesting to note that in hardline leftwing governments, historically, have all taken a hard line- perhaps too hard- on the matter of narcotics/drug use- Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba, N.Korea and so on. No one is holding these governments up to be model governments, far from it, but it does seem ironic that perhaps the most "narco-friendly" nations are the Netherlands and Switzerland and both are extremely capitalistic.

Such nations are exceptional, whereas quite a few capitalist nations have the death sentence for drug possession.


Those responsible for the group should perhaps take these points into consideration and also reconsider the naming and wording of their group.

Maybe you should take it up with Gran Rojo. But don't come crying to me if he tells you to go and stick your head up a duck's bottom.


It is also disappointing to see that yet again any difference of opinion or opposing points of view tends to degenerate into a flame war. This shows that some people may talk the talk but they don't seem to walk the walk- shouting down, using ad homs and ad bacs etc are not really good forms of argument and appear more appropriate to some extreme-right forum than RevLeft.

Hello there, Tone Troll! (http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/tone-trolls.html)

[Sasha]

That its socio-economic status and criminalisation that determines in big part how harmful drugs are.
Since we have free medical heroin programs for long time junkies in Amsterdam mortality of the actual drug dropped close too zero for these users. Not the mention of the almost complete disappearance of the related crime.

[ComradeMan]

So what do you think we should do until then? Forswear drugs? You're forgetting that for most people, asceticism is simply not an option.
The same could be said for not drinking anything other than water, or for not taking holidays abroad. Both activities can have negative repercussions, so why single out drugs?
That's because they're irrelevant. I know full well the potential health impact of smoking tobacco, but I do it anyway and no amount of neo-Puritan finger-wagging on the part of people like you will prevent me from continuing.
And if you can't convince me to stop smoking, what on Earth makes you think you will convince anyone else from taking other drugs, a lot of which give better highs?
In the end, it's none of your fucking business anyway!
What the "community" needs is drug legalisation, because the vast majority of drug users will not give a shit about your kind of opinion, and will continue to use drugs regardless of their legal status.
Such nations are exceptional, whereas quite a few capitalist nations have the death sentence for drug possession.
Maybe you should take it up with Gran Rojo. But don't come crying to me if he tells you to go and stick your head up a duck's bottom.
Hello there, Tone Troll! (http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/tone-trolls.html)

1. Yes. If you know that an activity you can prevent is counter-revolutionary than stop it.
2. Yes it could. But you are comparing different things all the time. You cannot compare the need for food, clothes, heating with a "luxury".
3. Why would something that has negative effects on the workers be irrelevant? Like the way you sneaked in a loaded strawman.
4. Who said I thought I would convince anyone? On that basis most issues would never be raised because the tyranny of so-called majority view would counteract the argument.
5. Of course it is, in a society with a public healthcare system it is other people's problem, i.e. the cost. Secondly, we do not live in isolation and your actions by cause and effect cause other actions. You can't condemn capitalism and then abett narco-capitalism.
6. Appeals to the majority. The vast majority may be right, but they may also be wrong. Who are the vast majority anyway? What is the proportion in comparison to, say, the other "vast" majority who disagree?
7. Yes, and many don't. The fact is that the so-called "left" governments all take/too a hard line.
8. Puerile appeal- using humour to distract from the argument.

Seriously, there are so many logical fallacies, lacks of evidence and general lack on any willingness to engage in serious discussion that it makes me wonder. I would have thought as a libertarian transhumanist you would not condone anything detremental to the human condition. :cool:

[ComradeMan]

That its socio-economic status and criminalisation that determines in big part how harmful drugs are.
Since we have free medical heroin programs for long time junkies in Amsterdam mortality of the actual drug dropped close too zero for these users. Not the mention of the almost complete disappearance of the related crime.

However that has created a perhaps unnecessary burden on the state and although you say that related crime has disappeared do you not think that the criminality has been merely displaced?

Perhaps we need to look at a two-pronged approach. There's one side looking at the criminal aspect in terms of global narco-trafficking and the human misery etc and then the local impact of the abuser/victim.

In any case I am sure you would agree that "condoning" indescriminate substance abuse is not on and could be construed as counter-revolutionary.

[Che a chara]

I'm amazed at some of the attitudes on here. The moral high ground is at times scary, condescending and hypocritical.

Drugs are reactionary. No matter how you try to paint it, it causes suffering especially on the working class. They are driven to depression by the use of drugs, driven to mass debt and consequently targeted by dealers and viscous debt collectors. It's one thing calling for legalisation of some sorts, and another not condemning it's current uses in society.

At present there is no alternative to the drug system and yes that includes alcohol. So all we can do is look at it from that present position, in which it has negative effects on the working class. I was a one time user, not a junkie like, but enjoyed a few years of weekend use which was enjoyable, but ultimately it became unenjoyable. I didn't have any severe after effects like depression or mental disorders, but I became involved in a wrong crowd. As time went on you also become more aware about who you are actually funding through the money you hand over for drugs. It is also more and more common that drugs are mixed with all sorts of shite that can cause depression and sickness.

Drugs are used by governments to dumb down it's citizens. It's been known that the police who lift junkies, or small time dealers use them as touts after releasing them with a few pounds in their pocket.

Capitalism is not the only symptom of drug use. It of course is a major contributor, but as we can see, the ruling class and celebrities are often fond of a sniff too. It's glorification in society through the entertainment industry also gives off the wrong impression.

I'm not against drug use, just the way it is set up at present. People can take what they want, but what is needed is a more progressive and accessible education programme on the dangers drugs can have, directly and indirectly, but the working class are at the brunt of it's mercy today.

I know that drugs effects people differently, but to see that in the current system that it is not reactionary is very hypocritical when you see the other stuff that is condemned on here within a capitalist society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1. Yes. If you know that an activity you can prevent is counter-revolutionary than stop it.

Whether I take drugs or not will not have a meaningful impact either way. As I said earlier, it's a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions, not personal choices tantamount to lifestylism.


2. Yes it could. But you are comparing different things all the time. You cannot compare the need for food, clothes, heating with a "luxury".

Good thing I didn't say a thing about those items, isn't it? Drinks other than water and holidays abroad could reasonably be defined as "luxuries" - why aren't you railing against the evils of drinking apple juice and holidays in Spain?


3. Why would something that has negative effects on the workers be irrelevant? Like the way you sneaked in a loaded strawman.

It's irrelevant because the workers will do as they will no matter what you say. Pesky workers, doing things they find fun instead of reading Marx and Lenin every night like good little party members!


4. Who said I thought I would convince anyone? On that basis most issues would never be raised because the tyranny of so-called majority view would counteract the argument.

So why are you bleating about "the workers"? It's quite obvious that the pro-drug posters in this thread are not currently banged up or in intensive care, so it's not like they need any advice from you on how to manage their chemical habits.


5. Of course it is, in a society with a public healthcare system it is other people's problem, i.e. the cost. Secondly, we do not live in isolation and your actions by cause and effect cause other actions. You can't condemn capitalism and then abett narco-capitalism.

People only abet "narco-capitalism" (actually just capitalism) because they have no other choice for the most part - those who are able to produce their own drugs are the envy of everyone else.


6. Appeals to the majority. The vast majority may be right, but they may also be wrong. Who are the vast majority anyway? What is the proportion in comparison to, say, the other "vast" majority who disagree?

It's not an appeal to the majority - it's a plain and obvious fact that the vast majority of drug users pay little heed to neo-Puritan maunderings, and for the forseeable future that is unlikely to change. That's reality, and you can choose to either deal with it and support legalisation and harm reduction, or you can bury your head in the sand and continue your ascetic wailing.


7. Yes, and many don't. The fact is that the so-called "left" governments all take/too a hard line.

So what? Marxist-Leninists of all stripes have historically had the whiff of social conservatism about them. Thankfully the younger ones are learning better.


8. Puerile appeal- using humour to distract from the argument.

The group doesn't break the forum rules. If you don't like that, and if you don't have the stones to confront Gran Rojo about it directly, that's not my fucking problem.


Seriously, there are so many logical fallacies, lacks of evidence and general lack on any willingness to engage in serious discussion that it makes me wonder. I would have thought as a libertarian transhumanist you would not condone anything detremental to the human condition. :cool:

Of all the things that are detrimental to the humans, drugs are at the bottom of the pile. The harm from drugs can be greatly reduced by legalisation. If you really want to protect the workers from drugs, that's what you should campaign for, along with extensive and truthful education about drugs, not the "scare 'em straight" bullshit we have today that ends up harming the people it was supposed to protect.

[Sasha]

However that has created a perhaps unnecessary burden on the state and although you say that related crime has disappeared do you not think that the criminality has been merely displaced?

nope, its way cheaper than criminalisation. only the disapearance of social costs like the dramatic decrease in violent street crime is well worth it.


Perhaps we need to look at a two-pronged approach. There's one side looking at the criminal aspect in terms of global narco-trafficking and the human misery etc and then the local impact of the abuser/victim.

yes, best way too counter global narco trafficking is legalisation. the best way to mimimise the local impact is seeing drug abuse as an medical/soical problem and not an criminal one.
you know what funded the western pre-drug era organized crime syndicates? alcahol probithion and illegal gambeling.
prohibition leads to crime, not drugs


In any case I am sure you would agree that "condoning" indescriminate substance abuse is not on and could be construed as counter-revolutionary.

indescriminate abuse? yes. recreational usage, no.

[Revolution starts with U]

You don't get it. It is as impossible to stamp out drugs as it is to stamp out apples. It will never happen. It will just push drugs into the black market and reinvite capitalism.
I have seen it asserted that drug use is reactionary with no substantive argument behind it. Yet here is your evidence that, in fact, criminilization is reactionary. It is an invitation to capitalism.
Drugs are a medical and cultural issue. Any talk of them in the justice system is just a straw man.

[ComradeMan]

1. Whether I take drugs or not will not have a meaningful impact either way. As I said earlier, it's a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions, not personal choices tantamount to lifestylism.

2. Good thing I didn't say a thing about those items, isn't it? Drinks other than water and holidays abroad could reasonably be defined as "luxuries" - why aren't you railing against the evils of drinking apple juice and holidays in Spain?

3.It's irrelevant because the workers will do as they will no matter what you say. Pesky workers, doing things they find fun instead of reading Marx and Lenin every night like good little party members!

4. So why are you bleating about "the workers"? It's quite obvious that the pro-drug posters in this thread are not currently banged up or in intensive care, so it's not like they need any advice from you on how to manage their chemical habits.

5. People only abet "narco-capitalism" (actually just capitalism) because they have no other choice for the most part - those who are able to produce their own drugs are the envy of everyone else.

6. It's not an appeal to the majority - it's a plain and obvious fact that the vast majority of drug users pay little heed to neo-Puritan maunderings, and for the forseeable future that is unlikely to change. That's reality, and you can choose to either deal with it and support legalisation and harm reduction, or you can bury your head in the sand and continue your ascetic wailing.

7. So what? Marxist-Leninists of all stripes have historically had the whiff of social conservatism about them. Thankfully the younger ones are learning better.

8. The group doesn't break the forum rules. If you don't like that, and if you don't have the stones to confront Gran Rojo about it directly, that's not my fucking problem.

9. Of all the things that are detrimental to the humans, drugs are at the bottom of the pile. The harm from drugs can be greatly reduced by legalisation. If you really want to protect the workers from drugs, that's what you should campaign for, along with extensive and truthful education about drugs, not the "scare 'em straight" bullshit we have today that ends up harming the people it was supposed to protect.

1. This is not an argument. Every small action causes a reaction and if you put a lot of small actions together you get a bigger reaction. Sticking your head into the sand is the only way of achieving nothing.

2. More logical fallacies, whether holidays in Spain or mass-produced apple juice are good, bad or indifferent is/are entirely different issues. We are talking about a simple basic concept:-
By abetting narco-capitalism you are counter revolutionary, albeit in a small way, but still.

3. This is probably the most counter-revolutionary and reactionary statement you've come out with yet. Not only do you deride the idea of workers actually dedicating themselves to something that is revolutionary you also insinuate that those who do are to be mocked somehow.

4. No one is "bleating" about anything. This point is the most absurd of all of them. Because half-a-dozen "virtual" pro-drug users here are not in some kind of bad situation then something becomes quite obvious does it?
5. You have no point. Your attempted point is based on one particular point of view and a limited example from which you draw a "universal". BTW people do have a choice, it's easy- refrain from doing something that abets a very destructive, harmful, reactionary counter-revolutionary activity.

6. More weasel words and ad homs. You keep talking about this mythical "vast majority"- facts and stats please? Oh sorry, I forgot- you have none. The trouble is when people start throwing in phrases like the "vast majority" it quite often means they don't know. This splits into the second point which you fail to grasp. The debate was not about legalisation, the about was condoning something in the here and now that is reactionary.

7. Yet more generalisations without an argument.

[ComradeMan]

@psycho

nope, its way cheaper than criminalisation. only the disapearance of social costs like the dramatic decrease in violent street crime is well worth it.

But then your target country creates a market for import from somewhere else and that encourages the cycle of exploitation and misery- but just not in your backyard?

I think there is a difference between decriminalising the victim and condoning the active perpretrator.

yes, best way too counter global narco trafficking is legalisation. the best way to mimimise the local impact is seeing drug abuse as an medical/soical problem and not an criminal one.

But in the meantime, which is now, the best way to combat narco-trafficking and narco-capitalism would be to take a responsible attitude and refrain from doing it in the first place.

[Bud Struggle]

That its socio-economic status and criminalisation that determines in big part how harmful drugs are.
Since we have free medical heroin programs for long time junkies in Amsterdam mortality of the actual drug dropped close too zero for these users. Not the mention of the almost complete disappearance of the related crime.

But it is in the end a program for people with a disability--heroin adiction.

I wonder what what makes you RevLefters think that any sort of drugs will be allowed AFTER the Revolution. Certainly drug legality would have to be voted upon by the local soviet--and while after the Revolution that may be economically Leftist--there is no certainty that they will be fans of any sort of drug tolerance--not any more than they are now.

For that matter post Revolution there will not only be more freedoms, but certainly more responsibilities--for each comrade to the soviet or the universal collective. Drug addiction or even use might be viewed as determental to that group and then proscrobed.

And up to now ever Communist (and that includes neo-Communist, pseudo-Communists, crypto-Communists, proto-Communist and even Socialist) country that has ever existed has outlawed drugs. Even the CNT in Spain was against their use.

There may be places where the local soviets allow drug use--but they will be few and far between.

[9]

Originally Posted by ComradeMan
But in the meantime, which is now, the best way to combat narco-trafficking and narco-capitalism would be to take a responsible attitude and refrain from doing it in the first place.:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

But it is in the end a program for people with a disability--heroin adiction.

I wonder what what makes you RevLefters think that any sort of drugs will be allowed AFTER the Revolution. Certainly drug legality would have to be voted upon by the local soviet--and while after the Revolution that may be economically Leftist--there is no certainty that they will be fans of any sort of drug tolerance--not any more than they are now.

For that matter post Revolution there will not only be more freedoms, but certainly more responsibilities--for each comrade to the soviet or the universal collective. Drug addiction or even use might be viewed as determental to that group and then proscrobed.

And up to now ever Communist (and that includes neo-Communist, pseudo-Communists, crypto-Communists, proto-Communist and even Socialist) country that has ever existed has outlawed drugs. Even the CNT in Spain was against their use.

There may be places where the local soviets allow drug use--but they will be few and far between.

It would take a self-admitted reactionary to come out with a hardline communist statement on RevLeft. :D

Well done for the CNT comment too.

How about some personal revolutionary discipline too.

A few words from Makhno- but I suppose it's boring and not fun to read books and empower yourself, it's better to sit round and get stoned.

That is why I am speaking about a libertarian organisation that rests upon the principle of fraternal discipline.

Organisational responsibility and discipline should not be controversial: they are the travelling companions of the practice of social anarchism

I [Makhno] take revolutionary discipline to mean the self-discipline of the individual, set in the context of a strictly prescribed collective activity equally incumbent upon all. This should be the responsible policy line of the members of that collective, leading to strict congruence between its practice and its theory. Without discipline inside the organisation, there is no way of undertaking any consequential revolutionary activity at all. In the absence of discipline, the revolutionary vanguard cannot exist, for in that case it would find itself in utter disarray in its practice and would be incapable of identifying the tasks of the moment or of living up to the initiator role that the masses expect of it.

[mykittyhasaboner]

drugs are bad, mmmkay.

[tracher999]

ligalize all drugs problem solved:cool::D

[Sasha]

But it is in the end a program for people with a disability--heroin adiction.

I wonder what what makes you RevLefters think that any sort of drugs will be allowed AFTER the Revolution. Certainly drug legality would have to be voted upon by the local soviet--and while after the Revolution that may be economically Leftist--there is no certainty that they will be fans of any sort of drug tolerance--not any more than they are now.

For that matter post Revolution there will not only be more freedoms, but certainly more responsibilities--for each comrade to the soviet or the universal collective. Drug addiction or even use might be viewed as determental to that group and then proscrobed.

And up to now ever Communist (and that includes neo-Communist, pseudo-Communists, crypto-Communists, proto-Communist and even Socialist) country that has ever existed has outlawed drugs. Even the CNT in Spain was against their use.

There may be places where the local soviets allow drug use--but they will be few and far between.


blablabla, after the revolution hardtalk, too the gulags with me, blabla... :rolleyes:
you do know right that some leftists consider an "communist country" an contradictio in terminis?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

It is quite amusing to me that though leftists claim to be against "biological determinsm", many here seem to subscribe to a "pharmacological determinism", i.e. that the drug is what determines behavior. Social and environmental factors can be ignored. There are "demon drugs" like heroin and crack which inexorably lead to addiction. Social factors don't help steer people into dangerous relationships with these drugs, it's the drugs themselves that are dangerous, according to this view. Eschew sociology and the social psychology of drug use. Embrace simplistic biological reductionism.

I do suppose, however, that biological reductionism would be fine if it lead to a consistent approach to drug policy. But, alas, it leads only to bizarre contradictions. According to the reductionist perspective, cocaine is incontrovertibly harmful and therefore should be banned. Yet ironically, Ritalin or methyphenidate which has pharmacologically similar effects to cocaine (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/issues/ritalin.html), is kept legal and actually prescribed to children who suffer from ADHD, with little problem. The same motif can be observed with methamphetamine, another supposed “demon drug”. Meth use is the drug scourge of our time, claim the biological reductionists. It must therefore be prohibited. Open and shut case, Johnson. Yet at the same time, Desoxyn, or prescription meth, is similarly given to people for treatment of ADHD and narcolepsy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267865/?tool=pmcentrez), again with little issue.

So why are certain uses of "demonic drugs" tolerated by the reductionists? Maybe because the ills asociated with illicit drug use are several orders of magnitude greater than the ills associated with licit use that takes place in a safe setting under a regime of harm reduction and tolerance.

Maybe social and non-pharmacological factors are more important than the drug itself in most cases.


Just some observations about drug use. You can all carry on with your moralising, now.

[Revolution starts with U]

Stop trolling dude. Pro drug legalization, or even use is not reactionary. What is reactionary is trying to create black markets for drugs. Address the issue that drugs are not a criminal problem, or just shut it already.
All you have done here is call people reactionary and offer ad hoc analysis. Offer something substantial, or I may have to call in my brother goats gruff. :D

[#FF0000]

It would take a self-admitted reactionary to come out with a hardline communist statement on RevLeft. :D

So are you ever going to respond to Noxion points and mine?

[Ovi]

But it is in the end a program for people with a disability--heroin adiction.

I wonder what what makes you RevLefters think that any sort of drugs will be allowed AFTER the Revolution. Certainly drug legality would have to be voted upon by the local soviet--and while after the Revolution that may be economically Leftist--there is no certainty that they will be fans of any sort of drug tolerance--not any more than they are now.

For that matter post Revolution there will not only be more freedoms, but certainly more responsibilities--for each comrade to the soviet or the universal collective. Drug addiction or even use might be viewed as determental to that group and then proscrobed.

And up to now ever Communist (and that includes neo-Communist, pseudo-Communists, crypto-Communists, proto-Communist and even Socialist) country that has ever existed has outlawed drugs. Even the CNT in Spain was against their use.

There may be places where the local soviets allow drug use--but they will be few and far between.
There's a stupid belief that in communism private matters now become something that the public/majority decides. Private matters are private. If anyone compels you to act in a certain way (dress, eat, sex whatever) then it's not my kind of post revolutionary society. Being against drugs doesn't mean wanting to send drug users in jail. Drug abuse is a problem; alcohol abuse is probably the most damaging to society. It leads to increase in violence, families breaking up, social isolation as well as numerous health problems. However, banning drugs will not solve shit.

[Bud Struggle]

blablabla, after the revolution hardtalk, too the gulags with me, blabla... :rolleyes:
you do know right that some leftists consider an "communist country" an contradictio in terminis?

I'm just going my history. No communist country has ever approved of drug use--contradiction in terms or not I think they set a template for how drugs will be viewed in the future.

Look--you can't even get a consensus on RevLeft--imagine how it's going to be in the real world. ;)


There's a stupid belief that in communism private matters now become something that the public/majority decides. Private matters are private. If anyone compels you to act in a certain way (dress, eat, sex whatever) then it's not my kind of post revolutionary society. Being against drugs doesn't mean wanting to send drug users in jail. Drug abuse is a problem; alcohol abuse is probably the most damaging to society. It leads to increase in violence, families breaking up, social isolation as well as numerous health problems. However, banning drugs will not solve shit.

The problem with drugs is that in many cases--in lots of cases the rights of drug use often impinges on the rights of society at large. Remember that with freedom from Capitalists--comes RESPONSIBILITIES. Everyone is going to have to not only get the freedoms of Communis--but the work that comes along with it, too. Every will have to pull their own weight. Everyone will have a universal responsibility for the good of society and drug use may not factor into that equasion--drug and alcohol use is the ultimate solitary Bourgeois experience.

[RGacky3]

I'm just going my history. No communist country has ever approved of drug use--contradiction in terms or not I think they set a template for how drugs will be viewed in the future.

Look--you can't even get a consensus on RevLeft--imagine how it's going to be in the real world.

Take away Leninists and half your arguments dissapear. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Take away Leninists and half your arguments dissapear. :)

So in what "Socialist" society have drugs ever been tolerated?

[Ele'ill]

Drugs Talk!


What the fcuk is this?

How the fcuk can we have a group "yeah let's get high", on the RevLeft Forum?

1. Drugs are used as a way of keeping the proletariat down and divided.
2. Drugs cause human misery and exploitation.
3. Drugs make capitalistic cartels and "entrepreneurs" rich.
4. Drugs have been used by most regimes as part of their covert operations in order to gain illicit funds or to wage war on the proletariat.
5. How the fcuk can you be a decent revolutionary if you are high?

The only exception I would make is perhaps light cannabis use and/or traditional healers etc.

I denounce this group as reactionary.

It's capitalism- not the individual business operations within it that create the problems.

If you buy clothes and food you're likely helping them take part in some dirty coup or economic assassination somewhere in the world. Drugs are no different in this regard.

What bothers me is how individuals use drugs to hide- this is a valid point. Incompetent drug use is just as bad as incompetent action- or incompetence through inaction (or a lack of activist activity)

This creates another problem with your logic- if there are activists slacking off and using drugs all day- then they're not activists- it likely would have been some other hobby (as it often is) that takes them away from the social justice fight- and in the event that they still engage in political activities- then at least they are doing something- which is more than most of the population is conscious enough to engage in.

The only problem I have is that talking about petty illegal activity such as drugs opens the doors for certain undesirables to investigate and round people up under that guise- when the reality is they've made the fight against injustice illegal and they are criminalizing dissent.

[RGacky3]

So in what "Socialist" society have drugs ever been tolerated?

Freetown Christiania :)

[Magón]

I'm just going my history. No communist country has ever approved of drug use--contradiction in terms or not I think they set a template for how drugs will be viewed in the future.

Funny how in every history book I've read, and more, I've never actually come across a nation that's actually been Communist.


Look--you can't even get a consensus on RevLeft--imagine how it's going to be in the real world. ;)

Since when was this to get a consensus?


The problem with drugs is that in many cases--in lots of cases the rights of drug use often impinges on the rights of society at large.

Why? Because there's a Black Market for them. Legalize them, and it goes away.


Remember that with freedom from Capitalists--comes RESPONSIBILITIES.

Yeah, so it's MY OWN PERSONAL responsibility to say whether I do drugs or not. Not yours, or anyone else's. What right do you have to infringe on me taking something that helps me relax and have fun with? Nothing, you have no right to do that. And neither does anyone else who would tell me otherwise.


Everyone is going to have to not only get the freedoms of Communis--but the work that comes along with it, too. Every will have to pull their own weight. Everyone will have a universal responsibility for the good of society and drug use may not factor into that equasion--drug and alcohol use is the ultimate solitary Bourgeois experience.

This just makes no sense.

[ComradeMan]

Stop trolling dude. Pro drug legalization, or even use is not reactionary. What is reactionary is trying to create black markets for drugs. Address the issue that drugs are not a criminal problem, or just shut it already.
All you have done here is call people reactionary and offer ad hoc analysis. Offer something substantial, or I may have to call in my brother goats gruff. :D


Okay gloves off....

You state it is reactionary to create black markets for drugs.

Okay- then by purchasing drugs on the black market you are reactionary because if you did not purchase the drugs there would be no black market.
Not hard is it?

What ad hoc analysis by the way? Whereas the one camp in the discussion have offered facts, stats and varying analyses the other half have done nothing but resort to pathetic anecdotes and ad hom attacks.

Now if a bunch of bourgeois hedonists want to pretend to be revolutionaries, so be it, but don't take the high and mighty stance when you haven't got a leg to stand on!
:D

[revolution inaction]

i just want to say to the fuckwits who oppose durgs, if you don't support free drugs (including heroin) for all then you are a reactionary :)

[#FF0000]

Okay- then by purchasing drugs on the black market you are reactionary because if you did not purchase the drugs there would be no black market.
Not hard is it?

Wouldn't be a black market if it wasn't prohibited either.

[ComradeMan]

Wouldn't be a black market if it wasn't prohibited either.

Here we go again, you answer with a hypothetical. Of course I know that and everyone else does- but the fact it, it is prohibited, rightly or wrongly, and there is a black market therefore by contributing to that black market you are making the situation worse.

[ComradeMan]

Freetown Christiania :)

They were real socialists weren't they? Spreading revolution and uplifting the workers, or perhaps bourgeois dropouts who could run back to mummy and daddy when the cheques stopped arriving. Having a look at the narco-history of Christiana would be enough to dissuade anyone from pursuing a lighter policy on drugs. Christiana is complete bullshit- it only survived because it was in an island of capitalism. Did they produce their own food? Did they produce their own power? Did they do anything other than make pretty painted houses and sit round getting high? They call themselves anarchists but the still depend on the Danish Krone don't they?

BTW There is an "official" policy of NO HARD DRUGS in Freetown Christiana- inspite of Pusher Street.

[Magón]

Okay- then by purchasing drugs on the black market you are reactionary because if you did not purchase the drugs there would be no black market.
Not hard is it?

Obviously it's hard for you to understand, so yes, it's hard. But to clarify things to you again, not everyone who buys drugs goes to some stranger on the street corner. Novices and Idiots do that, not people who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND GETTING INTO!

Like you seemingly keep missing, with the people on here that do seem to know about drugs, they themselves probably don't go to some stranger on the corner and ask for Heroin, Weed, Meth, whatever. So it would seem, none of us on here are "Reactionary" and helping the Narco-Capitalists.

Second, like we've been telling you from the start: IF YOU LEGALIZE DRUGS, THESE NARCO-CAPITALISTS WILL NO LONGER HAVE A MONEY REVENUE LIKE THEY DO NOW, SO NO MORE NARCO-CAPITALISM.


What ad hoc analysis by the way? Whereas the one camp in the discussion have offered facts, stats and varying analyses the other half have done nothing but resort to pathetic anecdotes and ad hom attacks.

No, what you've shown is Propaganda. Propaganda serves no place here, because the Propaganda you're giving is by people who think they know what they're talking about when it comes to drugs. All Propaganda has facts behind them, but put into words, all you get is imaginary analysts, etc. It's just the matter of getting through the cloudiness that Propaganda spews.

[Sasha]

where is that smiley slamming his face on the keyboard when you need it?


Here we go again, you answer with a hypothetical. Of course I know that and everyone else does- but the fact it, it is prohibited, rightly or wrongly, and there is a black market therefore by contributing to that black market you are making the situation worse.

says the person arguing already for 175 posts that prohibition should be stronger enforced.
its not our sporadic drug use that is bolstering the black market its the support of people like you...

[bricolage]

lifes a ***** an then you die, thats why we get high, cos you never know when you're gonna go.

[Ele'ill]

They were real socialists weren't they? Spreading revolution and uplifting the workers, or perhaps bourgeois dropouts who could run back to mummy and daddy when the cheques stopped arriving. Having a look at the narco-history of Christiana would be enough to dissuade anyone from pursuing a lighter policy on drugs. Christiana is complete bullshit- it only survived because it was in an island of capitalism. Did they produce their own food? Did they produce their own power? Did they do anything other than make pretty painted houses and sit round getting high? They call themselves anarchists but the still depend on the Danish Krone don't they?

BTW There is an "official" policy of NO HARD DRUGS in Freetown Christiana- inspite of Pusher Street.


This has everything to do with 'being surrounded by capitalism'.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Since I haven't seen this point made:

The negative effects of drugs, and the use of hard drugs such as meth and cocaine come as a result of the capitalist system. Notice how not many bourgeois, or those in the working class who make a decent wage are not the ones affected by this? It's those on the bottom of the economic pyramid that end up abusing these drugs and getting addicted.

Yes. Drugs can be harmful. However, you can't say drugs should therefore be banned or kept out of the hands of those who are responsible. How can you justify outlawing marijuana, shrooms, acid, DMT, salvia? Even keeping cocaine and other hard drugs outlawed?

It doesn't solve the problem. In fact, as we have seen with prohibition, it creates the kind of cartels we have today. Smuggling drugs, gang violence, murder, etc.

On the point of revolutionaries who use: I emphasize RESPONSIBILITY! Revolutionaries must practice this if they are consuming drugs.

Tell me. Have you ever tried a drug?

[Magón]

TO ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO DRUGS BEING LEGALIZED & ARE "REACTIONARY", WATCH THIS! (Just goes to show you what happens when you try and suppress a product in high demand, rather than make it readily available whenever someone wants.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqh3do6RBXo&feature=related

[ComradeMan]

Obviously it's hard for you to understand, so yes, it's hard. But to clarify things to you again, not everyone who buys drugs goes to some stranger on the street corner. Novices and Idiots do that, not people who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND GETTING INTO!

Like you seemingly keep missing, with the people on here that do seem to know about drugs, they themselves probably don't go to some stranger on the corner and ask for Heroin, Weed, Meth, whatever. So it would seem, none of us on here are "Reactionary" and helping the Narco-Capitalists.

Second, like we've been telling you from the start: IF YOU LEGALIZE DRUGS, THESE NARCO-CAPITALISTS WILL NO LONGER HAVE A MONEY REVENUE LIKE THEY DO NOW, SO NO MORE NARCO-CAPITALISM.

No, what you've shown is Propaganda. Propaganda serves no place here, because the Propaganda you're giving is by people who think they know what they're talking about when it comes to drugs. All Propaganda has facts behind them, but put into words, all you get is imaginary analysts, etc. It's just the matter of getting through the cloudiness that Propaganda spews.

But to clarify things to you again, not everyone who buys drugs goes to some stranger on the street corner. Novices and Idiots do that, not people who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND GETTING INTO

LOL! "I'm not an addict- I could give up anytime"- How many times have I heard that one from someone who ended up in jail or in the gutter. To carry on with your argument...not everyone but many- however the person on the street corner is usually a working class victim of economic oppression who has been coerced into serving reactionary forces. The person on the street corner is just the tip of the ice-berg. With the exception of weed and some synthetic drugs, the crack, the coke, the smack- where are they coming from? From some little co-operative grow your own centre that helps the local people and the environment. Fuck it man, your naivety is sickening.

You keep saying if you legalise drugs- yeah sure, but that is a hypothesis and not a reality and until such times the reality is that by contributing to the narco-black market you are contributing to reactionary forces.

Propaganda? Fidel's memoirs, Evo Morales, the CNT, the global stats on abuse, etc etc.... it's all lies and propaganda... despite the different sources, the different viewpoints.

Let's face it--- you and your ilk are about as revolutionary as a dead penguin. You like the idea of wearing your funky revolutionary t-shirt and being down with the workers and so on, but when challenged with something YOU DO that directly or indirectly causes suffering to people a long way from your cosy adsl/broadband/fibre-optic activated privileged home you suddenly all responsibility and blame capitalism, blame the state, blame everyone else except for yourself. You don't give a shit about some poor unfortunate person in the third world who pays for your hedonism though do you?

You make me sick.

[Die Rote Fahne]

But to clarify things to you again, not everyone who buys drugs goes to some stranger on the street corner. Novices and Idiots do that, not people who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND GETTING INTO

LOL! "I'm not an addict- I could give up anytime"- How many times have I heard that one from someone who ended up in jail or in the gutter. To carry on with your argument...not everyone but many- however the person on the street corner is usually a working class victim of economic oppression who has been coerced into serving reactionary forces. The person on the street corner is just the tip of the ice-berg. With the exception of weed and some synthetic drugs, the crack, the coke, the smack- where are they coming from? From some little co-operative grow your own centre that helps the local people and the environment. Fuck it man, your naivety is sickening.

You keep saying if you legalise drugs- yeah sure, but that is a hypothesis and not a reality and until such times the reality is that by contributing to the narco-black market you are contributing to reactionary forces.

Propaganda? Fidel's memoirs, Evo Morales, the CNT, the global stats on abuse, etc etc.... it's all lies and propaganda... despite the different sources, the different viewpoints.

Let's face it--- you and your ilk are about as revolutionary as a dead penguin. You like the idea of wearing your funky revolutionary t-shirt and being down with the workers and so on, but when challenged with something YOU DO that directly or indirectly causes suffering to people a long way from your cosy adsl/broadband/fibre-optic activated privileged home you suddenly all responsibility and blame capitalism, blame the state, blame everyone else except for yourself. You don't give a shit about some poor unfortunate person in the third world who pays for your hedonism though do you?

You make me sick.

I'm actually wearing a brand-name t-shirt. My bad.

I'm "down with the workers" because I am one.

How is me buying any drug harming anyone else? The harm comes as a result of the capitalist system.

So, if the very few revolutionary leftists who purchase hard drugs decide to stop buying, the world is instantly cured of the underground drug-market and of other things like drug cartels?

You sir, are and idiot.

[#FF0000]

Here we go again, you answer with a hypothetical. Of course I know that and everyone else does- but the fact it, it is prohibited, rightly or wrongly, and there is a black market therefore by contributing to that black market you are making the situation worse.

You're stupid.

[ComradeMan]

How is me buying any drug harming anyone else? The harm comes as a result of the capitalist system.

So, if the very few revolutionary leftists who purchase hard drugs decide to stop buying, the world is instantly cured of the underground drug-market and of other things like drug cartels?

You sir, are and idiot.

Duh..... because you buy the drugs and the money gets passed on and on and on until in one way or another it finishes in the bank account of a gangster millionaire, used to by weapons, and so on.

Second argument is bullshit. Why bother doing anything then? Why even bother with a revolution on that basis.

You sir, are a counter-revolutionary reactionary and capitalist mug.

[Ele'ill]

*sigh* I'm convinced this is an elaborate troll attempt- and I do apologize for cutting into this debate between you two but I can't take it any more-




LOL! "I'm not an addict- I could give up anytime"- How many times have I heard that one from someone who ended up in jail or in the gutter.

Is the problem the drug?

This problem exists regardless of legalization or not- the problem is with the Justice System- the prisons- law enforcement- social services and all the way down to competent drug rehab programs that have enough funding to not have to rely on some church room to meet in that's ten times shittier than the drug den those addicts who show up to frequent on a daily basis while shooting dope.

How about looking forward to drug counciling? Give the people some insentive to show up- urine stains and fecal reek with collapsing cielings and a general absence of stability and structure is not fucking it.

Let's go the other route- where the place is surrounded by barbed wire and patrolled by rent a cops making less than the people showing up to rehab do- yeah- a fucking problem.


To carry on with your argument...not everyone but many- however the person on the street corner is usually a working class victim of economic oppression who has been coerced into serving reactionary forces. The person on the street corner is just the tip of the ice-berg. With the exception of weed and some synthetic drugs, the crack, the coke, the smack- where are they coming from? From some little co-operative grow your own centre that helps the local people and the environment. Fuck it man, your naivety is sickening.[/B]

Where do you think your food- clothes- oil- etc comes from?

Legalizing drugs wouldn't make that much of a difference until capitalism is abolished *(from a social justice perspective on such things as labor, worker's rights and several other related issues)- unless the drugs for some reason were legalized and produced 'not for profit' and operated under a 'fair trade' system which we all know here is bullshit.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Although it would depend on what drugs etc...

I'm done with this point because we can clearly see how it relates and flows through other conversations on similar topics.


You keep saying if you legalise drugs- yeah sure, but that is a hypothesis and not a reality and until such times the reality is that by contributing to the narco-black market you are contributing to reactionary forces.

Well, never buy clothes again- never eat and never operate any form of electronic equipment or drive a vehicle of any type actually you might want to take the ultimate moral high ground and take your life (not really- I don't dislike you- but I hope you see my point)

The issue is how profit and capital operates and flows under capitalism.



I want to make sure I understand your logic for a minute so I'm going to attempt to recite what you've said-

Capitalism falls. Some socialist system to your liking takes over. You (generically speaking) ban drugs.

Now stop- take a look around you and think about what's going on right now. That's what it looks like when you ban drugs. We're living it right now.

[ComradeMan]

You're stupid.

You're probably The Most Inept Mod in Revleft History.

Who voted for you anyway to give you that title?

As usual on RevLeft there are plenty of people who jump up and down on their little bourgeois bandwagons but when faced with facts and stats they have no argument. Your complete incapacity for logical reasoning is a good reason for a healthy dose of re-education:laugh:

As for the others on here who have shown a monolithic failure to grasp any kind of global perspective on this issue, nor admit any kind of social responsibility and conscience- well then you should do everyone a favour and get off a Revolutionary website, because you're about as revolutionary as a dead penguin.


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e8/ak47nut/AKPHOTOS16/soviet.jpg

[Magón]

LOL! "I'm not an addict- I could give up anytime"- How many times have I heard that one from someone who ended up in jail or in the gutter. To carry on with your argument...not everyone but many- however the person on the street corner is usually a working class victim of economic oppression who has been coerced into serving reactionary forces. The person on the street corner is just the tip of the ice-berg. With the exception of weed and some synthetic drugs, the crack, the coke, the smack- where are they coming from? From some little co-operative grow your own centre that helps the local people and the environment. Fuck it man, your naivety is sickening.

There's a difference between Addiction and knowingly Self Regulation. But clearly you don't know, so just fuck off you troll. Secondly, I only smoke Weed, and don't bother with crack, meth, whatever. So I am one person who does not support the Narco-Capitalists. Plus, have you never heard of a Meth House? Usually these are places scattered about in American Suburbia or wherever, and are places to make Meth. NOT ALL OF IT COMES FROM MEXICO OR SOMEWHERE ELSE!


You keep saying if you legalise drugs- yeah sure, but that is a hypothesis and not a reality and until such times the reality is that by contributing to the narco-black market you are contributing to reactionary forces.

No, it not just a hypothesis because this "hypothesis" has been and is being tested in the world. Christiania, Amsterdam, California (When Prop 19 passes, you'll see the outcome), etc. You're contributing to reactionary forces because you pay for lighting, gas, water, etc. Paying bills you're helping Capitalists. It can't be helped in the world we live in.


Propaganda? Fidel's memoirs, Evo Morales, the CNT, the global stats on abuse, etc etc.... it's all lies and propaganda... despite the different sources, the different viewpoints.

I've never heard of anyone being seriously injured by anyone else (whether by knife, gun, whatever) while on Weed. Others yes, but that's because when you have addicts, that's going to happen to some. Not everyone turns into an addict though, and that's how you're treating this. Like anyone who takes drugs is going to end up being an addict. Which is just bogus bullshit.


Let's face it--- you and your ilk are about as revolutionary as a dead penguin. You like the idea of wearing your funky revolutionary t-shirt and being down with the workers and so on, but when challenged with something YOU DO that directly or indirectly causes suffering to people a long way from your cosy adsl/broadband/fibre-optic activated privileged home you suddenly all responsibility and blame capitalism, blame the state, blame everyone else except for yourself. You don't give a shit about some poor unfortunate person in the third world who pays for your hedonism though do you?

I don't wear "Revolutionary" or "Ironic Saying" shirts, jackets, coats, etc. just FYI. I just wear solid colored clothes for the most part. As for my actions, my actions are MY actions, not anyone else's actions. Just like your actions are your own, and the responsibility for those actions are YOUR responsibility, so is taking Weed, Meth, Heroin, whatever. If someone wants to take these things, who are you to stop them? What makes you so high and might to tell them otherwise?

Also, how do you know our history? How do you know where we grew up and what our childhood was like? Can you honestly tell me, that I don't give a shit about people in the third world or poor people around me, if you knew my history? You couldn't because I've been living a life all my years, that you've probably just thought would be cool to do.


You make me sick.

What do I care? You make me sick with your want to ban drugs and put even more restrictions on them. Which if you watch the video I provided above, you'd see the result of your idea.

[Ele'ill]

I think one of the main issues here is Comrademan's inability to grasp the difference between drugs.

Most of the people that use marijuana know their source- it's usually locally grown.

The harder drugs are often used as an escape by people that are in emotional distress- this is not their fault for using something to cover up, hide, get rid of, abolish the sickening depression they're feeling.

You have also again failed to identify that if drugs were legalized- there would be no black market. Black markets don't sell items that anybody can obtain cheaply from ten stores one mile from their residence.

Capitalists don't want to foot the bill to help those struggling- we know this and it's likely this is why they won't legalize drugs because (my opinion) there would be a sudden boom in drug addicts- not because of the drugs or the narco-guerrillas but because of inadequate education programs and rehabilitation programs covering every issue from mental illness to actual drug use all the way from public meet-up groups to prisons.

You're blurring all of these factors (and some that I didn't list in my posts but you did in yours) and using it as 'evidence' that drugs should be banned.


I think you're being silly.

[ComradeMan]

I never said I wanted to ban drugs did I... but in all the bullshit you and your bourgeois counter-revolutionary friends came out with you lost the original points.

As for your sanctimonious comments... yeah, yeah, yeah---- you buy heroin dude and then you pay the narco's- it's called cause and effect... not hard, so you can continue to live with your illusions but the truth is you are contributing to reactionary forces whether you want to admit that or not.

[#FF0000]

GUYS DRUGS ARE BAD AND FUND LUMPEN ELEMENTS

that's mostly because of prohibition. without prohibition that wouldn't happen

NUH UH PEOPLE SHOULD JUST NOT DO DRUGS STOP BEING HYPOTHETICAL

[Magón]

I never said I wanted to ban drugs did I... but in all the bullshit you and your bourgeois counter-revolutionary friends came out with you lost the original points.

As for your sanctimonious comments... yeah, yeah, yeah---- you buy heroin dude and then you pay the narco's- it's called cause and effect... not hard, so you can continue to live with your illusions but the truth is you are contributing to reactionary forces whether you want to admit that or not.

Can someone just ban this dumb fuck before I get addicted to my Weed.

[Ele'ill]

I never said I wanted to ban drugs did I... but in all the bullshit you and your bourgeois counter-revolutionary friends came out with you lost the original points.

You've taken a violently anti-drug stance.

Are you saying they should be legalized now- or are you saying they should be banned?

It is quite clearly one or the other as I don't even see a middle ground (I mean I just don't think it exists)


As for your sanctimonious comments... yeah, yeah, yeah---- you buy heroin dude and then you pay the narco's- it's called cause and effect...

You're confusing a couple things.

You're accusing revolutionaries (shall I say 'us' since you keep insinuating as such) of buying heroin and other 'dope'.

I personally don't know any leftists that do harder drugs now.


So who are you attacking? Those working class people that succumb to the hardships of capitalism- that turn to cheimcals to make the freezing building they and their family is living in more acceptable? Those working poor that start using drugs and get hooked- because our education against drugs fucking sucks so hard that our government will actually- push those illicit substances? If so- Fuck you, you class traitor. Or perhaps your interests are in the war on drugs- You would be disemboweled if you weren't such a gutless profiteer





not hard, so you can continue to live with your illusions but the truth is you are contributing to reactionary forces whether you want to admit that or not.

You judge people's actions as competent decisions when they're not. You fail to consider social, political and economic influences and you have utterly failed to defend your 'drug abolition' rampage. I mean- it really ended here in such a pathetic trickle of stupidity on your part that you should be ashamed (if not convinced) at your arguments so weak and fucking brittle.



*I realize that I posted in a writing style that sound a little bit like King Eddard from 'A game of thrones' because I thought it would be funny and I'm really not taking Comrademan's argument's very seriously.

[revolution inaction]

I never said I wanted to ban drugs did I... but in all the bullshit you and your bourgeois counter-revolutionary friends came out with you lost the original points.

As for your sanctimonious comments... yeah, yeah, yeah---- you buy heroin dude and then you pay the narco's- it's called cause and effect... not hard, so you can continue to live with your illusions but the truth is you are contributing to reactionary forces whether you want to admit that or not.

you buy chips and it funds capitalism

[Broletariat]

I haven't read this whole thread but goddamn do we have some reactionary elements even on the left, I guess we can't really help it, the closer to revolution we get the more open-minded people will become. And right now we're a helluva long way from revolution.

[ComradeMan]

you buy chips and it funds capitalism

I don't buy chips.

In fact I try my best to buy only local products from co-operative producers- so fuck you!

[Comrade Anarchist]

OH NO UVE DISCOVERED OUR SECRET CAPITALIST PLOT NOOOOOOOOO. Your an idiot. Drugs are used for many different reasons but unless they're being forced down your throat then there is no conspiracy to dumb you down. All drugs should be legalized and sold on the market without any government intervention. NOW if drugs were a government product that was given to us then i would be screaming but this isn't Brave New World.

[GreenCommunism]

all the anti-drugs fascist here should really shut the fuck up and try drugs.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I don't buy chips.

In fact I try my best to buy only local products from co-operative producers- so fuck you!

hahaha. i try my best to buy my drugs from local co-operatives too. am i revolutionary like you???????

oh wait, drugs are bad i forgot.




OH NO UVE DISCOVERED OUR SECRET CAPITALIST PLOT NOOOOOOOOO. Your an idiot. Drugs are used for many different reasons but unless they're being forced down your throat then there is no conspiracy to dumb you down. All drugs should be legalized and sold on the market without any government intervention. NOW if drugs were a government product that was given to us then i would be screaming but this isn't Brave New World.your an even bigger idiot

[Bud Struggle]

You're stupid.

ComradeMan's nailed you (in the plural) and so have I (in a minor way.) You people aren't Revolutionaries--you are just Bourgeoisie Hedonists without any money. It's all about "how you gunna do it" and nothing--and I mean NOTHING about the responsibilities you going to encounter in being Communists.

As a real Bourgeois my choices are to rule you as a Communist Glorious Leader or stage a Counter Revolution six months after the Revolution.

Choices! Choices!

This is your Revolution? Reread this thread and feel embarassed--DEEPLY embarassed.

Have your Revolution--me and people like me will eat you ALIVE.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Bud, just shut up already.

[revolution inaction]

I don't buy chips.

In fact I try my best to buy only local products from co-operative producers- so fuck you!
you think there's something anti capitalist about changing you lifestyle/consumption habits? :laugh:
local products and cooperatives are part of capitalism to, so well done supporting your local capitalist :thumbup1:

[Mannimarco]

By expressing the desire to have people physically assaulted and jailed for doing something to their own bodies, you're revealing yourself as a blatant fascist.

Your arguments are arguments against capitalism, not drug abuse. Oxycodone erryday.

[Demogorgon]

Cards on the table first of all. I am not a drug user. I dabbled a little with Cannabis as most teenagers do, but I have never been one for illegal drugs really and these days even my legal drug intake is very minor, a few pints of beer a week, maybe a cup of tea. Not exactly what my eighteen year old self would have considered exciting, but there you go. I say this so that my own "personal stake" in this, such as it is is clear to everyone.

First of all I don't think drug use is a good idea and I certainly don't encourage it. I'm not talking about moderate Cannabis use or anything like that, if you enjoy that the way I enjoy a bit of alcohol that is fine, I am talking about hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, I say quite clearly to everyone here, please don't use them.

However from a policy standpoint prohibition is insane. Cannabis prohibition is wrong on plain civil liberty grounds of course, but straight prohibition for other drugs is also ridiculous. All it does is benefit criminals and make addiction harder to manage. That doesn't mean of course that the worst drugs like heroin should be freely available, but to those already addicted it should be available if methadone treatment doesn't work.

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;1899240]Okay gloves off....

You state it is reactionary to create black markets for drugs.

Okay- then by purchasing drugs on the black market you are reactionary because if you did not purchase the drugs there would be no black market.
Not hard is it?

So... if I buy anything ever.. I'm reactionary? Stop trollin dude ;)

What ad hoc analysis by the way?
Yours. Have you provided one piece of objective evidence, any statistics, anything? It's all "drugs are bad so we should make fun of drug users." I'm sorry you can't handle your drugs, some of us can.
Maybe I'm wrong... show me your objective evidence?


Now if a bunch of bourgeois hedonists want to pretend to be revolutionaries, so be it, but don't take the high and mighty stance when you haven't got a leg to stand on!
I see you trollin. You hatin.
I must survive off the products of my labor. True, I am self-employed. But my business only works off my labor and my ability to sell it to the highest bidder. My father was in an even worse position. You can troll all you want, but I'm not a bourgie, friend.

[ComradeMan]

Typical puerile rantings.... you know if someone came on here and said something about a multinational for example, how not to buy from them and so on I expect the same useful idiots of capitalism here would be all for it, but when it's something they have to do, give up or address it's a different story.

In response to Mari3L- Why is my stance violent? I'm not saying take all drug dealers out and shoot them, I'm saying don't contribute to something that is bad for you, bad for the revolution and creates oppression and misery in the world- for that I am being branded a fascist! Pathetic bourgeois pseudo-revolutionaries here.

BTW do you think that legalising narcotics would actually change the overall situation in the developing world? Morons... you'd just end up with big cap plantation companies and the same old exploitation again.

As for the legalisation argument too- and I'm referring to heavy narcotics here- I have excluded cannabis from the outset- would you be happy watching your 19 year old daughter "legally" jacking up?

[ComradeMan]

you think there's something anti capitalist about changing you lifestyle/consumption habits? :laugh:
local products and cooperatives are part of capitalism to, so well done supporting your local capitalist :thumbup1:

No they are not.

Local cooperatives work on a fair price and exchange basis and do not form part of the international money markets, they are not floated on the stock exchanges and have very little capital reserve or surplus. Imperfect they may well be, but there is a big difference between them and a supermarket. Instead of buying a Che t-shirt save the money and buy a book perhaps you moron.

[#FF0000]

ComradeMan's nailed you (in the plural) and so have I (in a minor way.) You people aren't Revolutionaries--you are just Bourgeoisie Hedonists without any money.

Yeah except I've abstained by choice from drugs and alcohol for my entire life and I've had friends and relatives go through terrible things because of drugs and alcohol.

But I don't base my opinion on personal experience alone.

The fact is this. If drugs were at the very least decriminalized, it would be much easier to control them and get people help for addiction. There wouldn't be a need for SWAT teams on so many police forces across the country. There wouldn't be near as many no-knock raids in the dead of night ending in people dead because the cops got a bad tip about someone growing pot.

Oh, and speaking of, we have a terrible problem in this country with prisons. The prison industrial complex, for one, the horrible and inhumane conditions in our prisons, and the overcrowding. Why do you think that is, Bud? Who do you think is filling up our prisons? What do you think happens to those people when they get out?

Oh, and let's bring up how drug laws are enforced in the United States. Did you know that most drug users, percentage-wise, are white? Who do you think gets jailed, though? Of course, poor black drug users, by an incredible and disproportionate rate.

For fuck's sake Bud you have to be smarter than that. All ComradeMan did was sit here and carry on about how everyone is reactionary and supports narco-capitalism and anarcho-individualism, and ignored every fucking point someone brought up that suggested that prohibition had horrible repercussions for the working class.

The drug war has cost trillions and has achieved literally nothing aside from wasting money, giving cops privileges and equipment that no police force should have, and ruining people's lives, putting them away for years and years for getting caught with pot one too many times.



This is your Revolution? Reread this thread and feel embarassed--DEEPLY embarassed.

Yeah, I'm embarrassed I even bothered with people more interested with stupid grandiose statements as opposed to an actual goddamn argument.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah except I've abstained by choice from drugs and alcohol for my entire life and I've had friends and relatives go through terrible things because of drugs and alcohol.

But I don't base my opinion on personal experience alone.

The fact is this. If drugs were at the very least decriminalized, it would be much easier to control them and get people help for addiction. There wouldn't be a need for SWAT teams on so many police forces across the country. There wouldn't be near as many no-knock raids in the dead of night ending in people dead because the cops got a bad tip about someone growing pot.

Oh, and speaking of, we have a terrible problem in this country with prisons. The prison industrial complex, for one, the horrible and inhumane conditions in our prisons, and the overcrowding. Why do you think that is, Bud? Who do you think is filling up our prisons? What do you think happens to those people when they get out?

Oh, and let's bring up how drug laws are enforced in the United States. Did you know that most drug users, percentage-wise, are white? Who do you think gets jailed, though? Of course, poor black drug users, by an incredible and disproportionate rate.

For fuck's sake Bud you have to be smarter than that. All ComradeMan did was sit here and carry on about how everyone is reactionary and supports narco-capitalism and anarcho-individualism, and ignored every fucking point someone brought up that suggested that prohibition had horrible repercussions for the working class.

The drug war has cost trillions and has achieved literally nothing aside from wasting money, giving cops privileges and equipment that no police force should have, and ruining people's lives, putting them away for years and years for getting caught with pot one too many times.




Yeah, I'm embarrassed I even bothered with people more interested with stupid grandiose statements as opposed to an actual goddamn argument.


Once again the Most Inept has spoken.

No one has ignored any points- the only points the opposite camp had were based on hypotheses not things in the here and now.

As for the legalisation argument- yeah sure, it would take drug dealers as we know them off the street and hand over everything to big business and... I can just see it now, The United Coca Company PLC- really great idea and that's going to help a lot of people in the developing world.

Apart from the medical arguments against drug use that you have totally ignored, the arguments about the current state of affairs and narco-capitalism and the fact that most serious leftwing revolutionary groups in the past have taken an even harder stance on drugs in general than cap countries, you choose to continue your individualist line and let the whole thread degenerate into mud-slinging.

Now answer me this.... those calling for legalisation, would you sit back and happily watch your 19 year old daughter jack up? Would you be happy to now your brother, sister, friend, son or daughter were legally doing narcotics in the free-for-all legalised drug society?

I'm afraid it doesn't work other than in utopias and revolutions are not utopian.

[Magón]

I'm saying don't contribute to something that is bad for you, bad for the revolution and creates oppression and misery in the world- for that I am being branded a fascist! Pathetic bourgeois pseudo-revolutionaries here.

Once again idiot, it's due to Capitalism and these drugs being illegal that causes the misery and oppression you're so keen on pushing forth. If anything, you're the psuedo-revolutionary who's agenda is clearly to make the hard drugs illegal to those who want them.

Not everyone is harmed by hard drugs. One example is a writer known as William S. Burroughs. He made some very good novels that dealt with Heroin and drugs. Without them, he couldn't have written what he did. You are a Fascist because you're trying to tell people what to not put in their own bodies, when it shouldn't matter to you. That's a form of oppression Einstein. Which you so seemingly are spoken out against.


BTW do you think that legalising narcotics would actually change the overall situation in the developing world? Morons... you'd just end up with big cap plantation companies and the same old exploitation again.

As for the legalisation argument too- and I'm referring to heavy narcotics here- I have excluded cannabis from the outset- would you be happy watching your 19 year old daughter "legally" jacking up?

You don't have controlling companies in a Communist or Anarchist Society nitwit. Also, I was smoking Weed in front of my parents for years and they said little about it. If I had a 19 year old daughter who wanted to shoot up on Heroin or smoke some Weed, then let her those are HER DECISIONS TO MAKE, NOT MINE TO MAKE FOR HER! She's an adult, she can do whatever she wants, and suffer the consequences for her actions. Just like everyone else who does something that might be harmful to them.


No they are not.

Local cooperatives work on a fair price and exchange basis and do not form part of the international money markets, they are not floated on the stock exchanges and have very little capital reserve or surplus. Imperfect they may well be, but there is a big difference between them and a supermarket. Instead of buying a Che t-shirt save the money and buy a book perhaps you moron.

Are you trying to talk about a non-profit? Because if you are you've failed.

[Mannimarco]

would you be happy watching your 19 year old daughter "legally" jacking up?

No, I'd take it from her and do it myself. do you know how fucking hard it is to find good heroin around here?

edit: Actually, in your hypothetical situation, heroin would be legal and there'd be plenty of good heroin around. I withdraw my statement.

[Bright Banana Beard]

would you be happy watching your 19 year old daughter "legally" jacking up? Yes, it is legal, and there will be help for her.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, it is legal, and there will be help for her.

Why should there be help? Think about, a social response could be "with all our education and information you have taken your choice"- now don't be a burden on social healthcare. You see, I don't sincerely think you would be happy and I notice the general silence from others on this point too.

[Mannimarco]

Why should there be help? Think about, a social response could be "with all our education and information you have taken your choice"- now don't be a burden on social healthcare. You see, I don't sincerely think you would be happy and I notice the general silence from others on this point too.

Well, to be serious, she knew what she was getting into. And as long as she uses clean, steriziled needles, and doesn't do black tar, she'll be fine.

If she does want to get clean, the healthcare should be there, and would be there in a communist society.

It's her life, her decision. At most, I'd offer her guidance on how to do it safely, particularly if she didn't already know.

[Magón]

Why should there be help? Think about, a social response could be "with all our education and information you have taken your choice"- now don't be a burden on social healthcare. You see, I don't sincerely think you would be happy and I notice the general silence from others on this point too.

That's because they're in awe of so much stupidity spouted from you. And how can you be a burden to healthcare when it's truly no strings attached, free?

[Communist Pear]

Now answer me this.... those calling for legalisation, would you sit back and happily watch your 19 year old daughter jack up? Would you be happy to now your brother, sister, friend, son or daughter were legally doing narcotics in the free-for-all legalised drug society? .
Yes, I would and I would be one of the people who would occassionally use any drug as well. Heroin when used safely is probably one of the safest drugs there is if it is of medical quality and administered sterile. On top of the fact that it doesn't even have to be IV'd.

There is nothing wrong with occasional drug use, the problems are caused by addiction and by criminalisation. Why is heroin of low quality? Why do drug users end up losing their house? Why do they end up overdosing? All of these things can be boiled down to addiction and criminalisation.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, I would and I would be one of the people who would occassionally use any drug as well. Heroin when used safely is probably one of the safest drugs there is if it is of medical quality and administered sterile. On top of the fact that it doesn't even have to be IV'd.

There is nothing wrong with occasional drug use, the problems are caused by addiction and by criminalisation. Why is heroin of low quality? Why do drug users end up losing their house? Why do they end up overdosing? All of these things can be boiled down to addiction and criminalisation.

Have you ever thought that perhaps people here give more of a fuck about the people who are terrorised or coerced by narco-economics into producing the product than the person taking it?

Addiction is not caused by criminalisation. They are separate issues. Apart from the fact that legalised heroin would make high quality pure heroin freely available and thus the rates of addiction would soar.

Shit argument.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you think drugs are the worst thing ever, and yet you don't support criminilization (well, I think you do, you're just scared to admit it), wtf is your point of being here? Did you just want to get a rise out of people by calling them psuedo revolutionaries, and reactionary?
You're a troll dude. That's all your doin is trying to get a rise. You just want to make fun of people and feel better than.
Be glad the staff here is far more tolerant of people's decisions than you are.

[L.A.P.]

Soda makes capitalists rich too I guess we shouldn't drink that either, I understand and I too try to avoid capitalism and consumerism as much as possible but the fact is that it is impossible to completely avoid capitalism unless you become amish.

[L.A.P.]

No they're not, they bring us together. Have you never heard of people coming together to smoke a bowl, or whatever?

So in deprived areas overrun with drug-gangs, prostitution and violence people have a real sense of togetherness.

No they don't, I've never been miserable. They often RELAX a person, rather than make them crazed. (If we're just talking about Weed, and not these weird under the sink mixed drugs which do fuck you up big time.)

South American street-kids who have been murdered and used as human containers to transport drugs over borders may disagree with you... Don't you think that this is a somewhat self-centred view as well? The problem is that the group in question isn't called "Free the Weed"- it's called Drugs Talk and has a motto- "Let's get high"- there is a bit of a difference here.

If you legalized these drugs, no they wouldn't. They'd have no reason to get rich off these drugs, because they just couldn't.

That's exactly why these drugs aren't legalised, and that's why by buying them, inevitably from criminal operations you are covertly helping capitalist terrorism. It's no good countering a present argument with a hypothesis.

By keeping yourself together and calm? I mean, if I was in some sort of shoot 'em up scenario in a Revolution, I'd be smoking a joint to keep myself relaxed and not under so much stress. In fact, I'd probably be getting a lot more kills than the other guys because they'd be shaking like a leaf while I was cool as a cat.

Don't think so somehow...

Have a look at those links.

PS @Dean- I did exclude cannabis for traditional healing methods etc...

You need to chill out and light a blunt.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You need to chill out and light a blunt.

That would be reactionary apparently...

But an L would do someof good here.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Fucks sake comrade man is blantantly trolling, some mod needs to kick his ass

[Robert]

That's why the FACT of the matter is to LEGALIZE them NOW, rather than LATER or NEVER.Legalize? As in "repeal existing laws, NOW!" through established legislative processes? By calling your congressman or MP and urging him to sponsor a bill? That's how you "legalize them now," you know. And every time you do that you recognize their legitimacy and authority.

Hence Bud's point that "you people aren't revolutionaries." Which no one even bothered to dispute.

Strangely enough, I feel a little deflated. :(

[Che a chara]

Certain people get violently upset when someone professes their belief in a God or religion and label it detrimental to the working class, but when something comes along such as drug use that is actually physically and mentally harmful in many and more ways, then these people either just sit on the fence or hypocritically become aggressive in supporting the mind fuck that drug use has become in today's society.

I can think of a few 'restricted' policies on here that are less detrimental to the cause of communism than advocating and supporting a fried brain ..... :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah except I've abstained by choice from drugs and alcohol for my entire life and I've had friends and relatives go through terrible things because of drugs and alcohol.

But I don't base my opinion on personal experience alone.

The fact is this. If drugs were at the very least decriminalized, it would be much easier to control them and get people help for addiction. There wouldn't be a need for SWAT teams on so many police forces across the country. There wouldn't be near as many no-knock raids in the dead of night ending in people dead because the cops got a bad tip about someone growing pot.

Oh, and speaking of, we have a terrible problem in this country with prisons. The prison industrial complex, for one, the horrible and inhumane conditions in our prisons, and the overcrowding. Why do you think that is, Bud? Who do you think is filling up our prisons? What do you think happens to those people when they get out?

Oh, and let's bring up how drug laws are enforced in the United States. Did you know that most drug users, percentage-wise, are white? Who do you think gets jailed, though? Of course, poor black drug users, by an incredible and disproportionate rate.

For fuck's sake Bud you have to be smarter than that. All ComradeMan did was sit here and carry on about how everyone is reactionary and supports narco-capitalism and anarcho-individualism, and ignored every fucking point someone brought up that suggested that prohibition had horrible repercussions for the working class.

The drug war has cost trillions and has achieved literally nothing aside from wasting money, giving cops privileges and equipment that no police force should have, and ruining people's lives, putting them away for years and years for getting caught with pot one too many times.




Yeah, I'm embarrassed I even bothered with people more interested with stupid grandiose statements as opposed to an actual goddamn argument.

Best Mod: it is bigger than all of that. The points made by Communists on this thread are completely self contained--it's all about them and what they want--and that's drugs on demand.

BELIEVE ME there are people (me among them--and I'm NICE) that will take that little fault of yours and turn you upside down and make you eat every bit of it.

If you want a Revolution--not only should you never take drugs--you should never sleep.

We will be waiting for your slightest mistake.

[#FF0000]

[QUOTE]As for the legalisation argument- yeah sure, it would take drug dealers as we know them off the street and hand over everything to big business and... I can just see it now, The United Coca Company PLC- really great idea and that's going to help a lot of people in the developing world.

lol and the Drug Lords we have now are just great for them right?

Shit argument. That's a problem with capitalism, not drugs.


Apart from the medical arguments against drug use that you have totally ignored, the arguments about the current state of affairs and narco-capitalism and the fact that most serious leftwing revolutionary groups in the past have taken an even harder stance on drugs in general than cap countries, you choose to continue your individualist line and let the whole thread degenerate into mud-slinging.

1) No one is saying drugs are good and have no medical side-effects. We are saying that people can do whatever they want with their bodies.

2) I'm a-okay with revolutionary groups taking a hardline stance against drug lords and dealers in their neighborhoods. You know fuck-all about my position on this.



Now answer me this.... those calling for legalisation, would you sit back and happily watch your 19 year old daughter jack up? Would you be happy to now your brother, sister, friend, son or daughter were legally doing narcotics in the free-for-all legalised drug society?

No. If they were doing things like heroin I'd get them help and into a clinic.

Would you happily watch your 19 year old daughter carted off to prison for jacking up instead?

[#FF0000]

Best Mod: it is bigger than all of that. The points made by Communists on this thread are completely self contained--it's all about them and what they want--and that's drugs on demand.

Yeah but you can get certain drugs, like marijuana, pretty easily because literally anybody in the fucking world could grow it.

Talking about hard drugs, like heroin and cocaine, is obviously different, and everyone has acknowledged that. Especially me. I'm a lot more sympathetic to Palingenesis' side than everyone here might think.


BELIEVE ME there are people (me among them--and I'm NICE) that will take that little fault of yours and turn you upside down and make you eat every bit of it.


Well yeah people will misrepresent the shit out our positions like they have for the past 200 years.

[#FF0000]

Certain people get violently upset when someone professes their belief in a God or religion and label it detrimental to the working class, but when something comes along such as drug use that is actually physically and mentally harmful in many and more ways, then these people either just sit on the fence or hypocritically become aggressive in supporting the mind fuck that drug use has become in today's society.

I can think of a few 'restricted' policies on here that are less detrimental to the cause of communism than advocating and supporting a fried brain ..... :rolleyes:

The "drugs are bad" nonsense isn't what bothers me. I don't agree entirely with Palingenesis, for example, but I don't mind what she's saying.

What's getting people worked up is ComradeMan blatantly misrepresenting people's positions and flat out ignoring points presented to him.

He's trolling. The RAAN avatar makes it that much more obvious.

[#FF0000]

Legalize? As in "repeal existing laws, NOW!" through established legislative processes? By calling your congressman or MP and urging him to sponsor a bill? That's how you "legalize them now," you know. And every time you do that you recognize their legitimacy and authority.

Hence Bud's point that "you people aren't revolutionaries." Which no one even bothered to dispute.

Strangely enough, I feel a little deflated. :(

Yeah I mean it's not like Socialists ever fought for reforms before across the world or anything.

[#FF0000]

Ya'll are so dumb.

[Pretty Flaco]

We should support the legalization of some drugs, but we should also support drug education to make sure that people aren't abusing them.

[#FF0000]

I think we should support, at the very least, the decriminalization of all drugs.

That's different from legalization, mind. People doing opiates and harder stuff like that would be sent to rehab instead of jail.

[9]

People doing opiates and harder stuff like that would be sent to rehab instead of jail.

tbh, I'm sure prison and rehab have a similar rate of successful recovery.

[Ele'ill]

Typical puerile rantings.... you know if someone came on here and said something about a multinational for example, how not to buy from them and so on I expect the same useful idiots of capitalism here would be all for it, but when it's something they have to do, give up or address it's a different story.

We've already approached this topic from that angle- we did it first actually and proved how you cannot successfully boycott what we oppose which is capitalism.




In response to Mari3L- Why is my stance violent? I'm not saying take all drug dealers out and shoot them,

Oh good- you finally reply to my posts with this. I feel truely blessed.






I'm saying don't contribute to something that is bad for you,

What about cigarettes?

Fast food?

Clothing with toxic dye? (which is a lot of clothing)



bad for the revolution and creates oppression and misery in the world- for that I am being branded a fascist! Pathetic bourgeois pseudo-revolutionaries here.

What about Alcohol?

What about electronic devices like computers?




BTW do you think that legalising narcotics would actually change the overall situation in the developing world? Morons... you'd just end up with big cap plantation companies and the same old exploitation again.

I'm confused as to when this legalization would take place- are we talking about pre or post revolution because I can debate both sides of that coin.

I'm going to argue from post-

As I stated in one of my posts that you 'missed'- the US doesn't have the services now to handle the problems related to drug use.

I personally think drug use is what people use to escape from the negative aspects of capitalism. Drug addiction is a fallout.


I don't want to invest too much time in this post as I'm unsure if you will ever reply- feel free to go back and quote my preious posts and reply there as some of your questions in this post of yours were answered there.



As for the legalisation argument too- and I'm referring to heavy narcotics here- I have excluded cannabis from the outset- would you be happy watching your 19 year old daughter "legally" jacking up?

The social conditions would be different- the economic conditions would be much different.


Post revolution there would be services dedicated to education, addiction prevention and rehabilitation that would be as impressive as the US's current defense aid budget to say- Israel- or greater.

I try to discuss this matter but you flip flop between several different stances on the issue- periods of time and ideological reasoning. I find you covering your eyes or quickly scrolling down past my post replies and replying to what you assume I've said.

You're parroting answers to typical 'liberal' questions on anti drug stances but the questions we're asking you don't match. Get with the program or simply stop posting here.

[#FF0000]

tbh, I'm sure prison and rehab have a similar rate of successful recovery.

Yeah rehab could definitely use work.

[Che a chara]

Palli, you ardently support the IRA, who control large amounts of the drugs in NI, and violently attack any who try to take away this control. Explain this contradiction.

What total nonsense. Maybe individual members have got themselves mixed up with dealing in the past, and members upon their expulsion turned to this sort of activity, but to say that the IRA control large amounts of drugs in the north or Ireland is a bareface lie. That job belongs to the loyalists.

Not even the capitalist, imperialist, pro-British, anti-republican and British government produced IMC reports (here is the last report http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/23.%20Twenty-Third%20Report.pdf (http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/index.cfm) - that are officially used and recognised by the worldwide media as apparently an honest assessment of militant groups) come out with such slander and crap anymore. They know rightfully that the public have wised up to such propaganda and felon setting. They actually report that the IRA's attack drug dealers.

So please explain your contradiction and lies.

http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/publications.cfm?id=73

http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/23.%20Twenty-Third%20Report.pdf

[Ele'ill]

Best Mod: it is bigger than all of that. The points made by Communists on this thread are completely self contained--it's all about them and what they want--and that's drugs on demand.

BELIEVE ME there are people (me among them--and I'm NICE) that will take that little fault of yours and turn you upside down and make you eat every bit of it.

If you want a Revolution--not only should you never take drugs--you should never sleep.

We will be waiting for your slightest mistake.


Right, I forgot- you guys make billions off of big pharma's 'safe' and well 'tested' drugs such as valium, ridallin, aderall.

These drugs are ok- because predominantly- white men wearing suits ordered them made and passed them as safe for consumption.

You're just jealous that we'd make them free.



Food Not Bombs anyone? I see a trend here.



Half-jests aside, I think that right now the decriminalization of drugs would be affective- it would free up a lot of money to be used for education and rehab. Since D.A.R.E. (:rofl:) has been proven inaffective- (perhaps intentionally so? I mean, the prison industrial complex needs workers too, right?) we can move on and perhaps start getting shit done the correct way.

[Ele'ill]

ComradeMan's nailed you (in the plural) and so have I (in a minor way.) You people aren't Revolutionaries--you are just Bourgeoisie Hedonists without any money. It's all about "how you gunna do it" and nothing--and I mean NOTHING about the responsibilities you going to encounter in being Communists.

As a real Bourgeois my choices are to rule you as a Communist Glorious Leader or stage a Counter Revolution six months after the Revolution.

Choices! Choices!

This is your Revolution? Reread this thread and feel embarassed--DEEPLY embarassed.

Have your Revolution--me and people like me will eat you ALIVE.

Ha Ha, Bud Struggle you have it confused. You will only lead the crows in cyclone.

We out number you and we have incentive. Where's your capital? Where's your power structures? Where's your systems of oppression?

They're burned to the ground along with the symbols of the old world.

:lol:





These posts made possible with the help of alcohol!

[Revolution starts with U]

Ha, Bud is just a troll too. But he's funny so it's ok. I don't think the guy owns a single piece of capital and is, in fact, the "loser in his mom's basement" he accuses the rest of us being.
Nothin but love tho :D

[Lt. Ferret]

iunno, its pretty easy to be a capitalist and make money and own land.


its hard to be a hippy communist and do anything.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ha. If you think your 40k/yr is "making money" that's pretty funny.

WHen in fact Chong has more money than you'll ever dream of (not sure if he's a commie, but certainly a hippie)

[Revolution starts with U]

Also, are you and do you?

[Lt. Ferret]

im not a capitalist im a statist. and i consider 40k to be making pretty good money, ill be making 50k in a years time, and 70k in about 3 years from now.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, tbh you hope to be. But that's neither here nor there. So you disconnect yourself from history and claim with other an-caps that capitlism is anti-statist? No wonder you can make such bold claims as "commie hippies can't make anything of themsleves (while you make 40k/yr nonetheless).

As a matter of fact, numerous studies have shown a very high rate of meth use amongst day-traders.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/drugs-and-todays-wall-street/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1629133120070625
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-08-24/wall-street-employees-swap-cocaine-pot-pills

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I just cut half of these simpleton arguments into pieces? ;)

[Lt. Ferret]

you wish you were half as smart as your arrogance warrants.

lots of black people do crack whats that say about generalized groups of people?

[Lt. Ferret]

and yes capitalism is anti-statist. voluntary free exchange is the basis of capitalist ideology. whether its corrupted in its real world model isnt up for debate (as have EVERY other ideology when put into practice, since the dawn of time.)

[synthesis]

Every additional minute this thread remains open, an angel loses its wings.

[Revolution starts with U]

I warrant myself omnicient, so yes, I do wich I was half as smart as that, at least :D

Nice refute of my argument there Scarecrow

voluntary free exchange is the basis of markets. state hegemony for the ownership class, based in a market economy is capitalism.
Feudalism, power in hands of fuedal land owners.
Merchantilism, power in the hands of merchants.
Capitlalism, power in the hands of capitalists.
Socialism, power in the hands of society.

Get it?

[Lt. Ferret]

looking around america, i can think of nothing more horrendous than the society we living in having any more power than it has already.