Cartels trained by US

[Ele'ill]

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/10/20101019212440609775.html

[ComradeMan]

What a surprise- only what some of us have been saying for a long while.

[#FF0000]

I don't think this surprises anyone.

[Ele'ill]

I'm curious to see Bud Struggle's response.

[ComradeMan]

That was my whole point before... this could be where your money is going if you use. That's why I said it was reactionary- and this is new news- this has most likely being going on since the Cold War.

[#FF0000]

That was my whole point before... this could be where your money is going if you use. That's why I said it was reactionary- and this is new news- this has most likely being going on since the Cold War.

Except this is a result of Prohibition like we have been saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

[Nolan]

That was my whole point before... this could be where your money is going if you use. That's why I said it was reactionary- and this is new news- this has most likely being going on since the Cold War.

I think these things go in one ear and out the other with you.

[JosefStalinator]

Narcoimperialism

[ComradeMan]

Except this is a result of Prohibition like we have been saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

Yeah- and like I have been saying over and over and over again- that doesn't change the outcome does it? Duh!!! So, it's okay to fund cartels NOW because in the end they are only a result of capitalism. It's quite easy- where does your money go? If you care about where it goes that is.

According to this source: The 2004 Madrid train bombings were likely financed entirely by hashish and ecstasy sales to drug consumers in Spain- perhaps even some of the victims themselves, who knows?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279871

The theoretical argument about if they were legalised has it's validity but the fact of the matter is they are not legalised NOW and this is what happens NOW. The next point that you fail to miss is this, if it is true that these cartels collaborate with reactionary forces/governments then it is in their interests that no legalisation or reform of narcotics ever will happen- bad for business- therefore by funding the fucking people who make it illegal you are actually defeating your whole argument and perpetuating a nasty social evil.

As for the prohibition argument, here is a document in Spanish- it argues for a change in policy but does not condone use of drugs either-

"Nuestro enfoque no es de tolerancia con las drogas. Reconocemos que éstas provocan daños a las personas y a la sociedad. Tratar el consumo de droga como un tema de salud pública y promover la reducción de su uso son precondiciones para focalizar la acción represiva en sus puntos críticos: la disminución de la producción y el desmantelamiento de las redes de traficantes"
http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-4808480

[Ocean Seal]

The narcotics business is rather large in many countries around the world. The American government profits from this by using it as an excuse for intervention, keeping minorities in jail, and keeping those out of jail either comatose (high) or afraid (hence why they allow the police to continue). Its a rather clever scheme by the capitalist.

US gives cartels the power ==> Destabilizes Latin American countries + Causes drugs to enter the US at an alarming rate ==> People complain about the situation in these countries and about the situation in America as drugs lead to greater crime etc. ==> US takes action to stop these drug lords but in reality uses it as an excuse to attack leftist militants and maintain US interests ==> No one complains because they believe that the drug dealers are being vanquished and that the United States is attempting to re-stabilize these countries.

[ComradeMan]

The narcotics business is rather large in many countries around the world. The American government profits from this by using it as an excuse for intervention, keeping minorities in jail, and keeping those out of jail either comatose (high) or afraid (hence why they allow the police to continue). Its a rather clever scheme by the capitalist.

US gives cartels the power ==> Destabilizes Latin American countries + Causes drugs to enter the US at an alarming rate ==> People complain about the situation in these countries and about the situation in America as drugs lead to greater crime etc. ==> US takes action to stop these drug lords but in reality uses it as an excuse to attack leftist militants and maintain US interests ==> No one complains because they believe that the drug dealers are being vanquished and that the United States is attempting to re-stabilize these countries.

I agree with all of that but you miss one thing ==> the money that people pay for the "product" then goes into funding the system, covert operations and nice big fat offshore bank accounts etc...

[Ele'ill]

Your money goes towards domestic and foreign terrorism anyways in the form of police and military.

The issue isn't the product being pushed- it's capital and capitalism.



The other part of this idiotic conversation that has not stuck with you is that drugs are already banned. Your plan is working marvelously.

So what exactly is your point? That we should ban drugs again? How the fuck does that work?

You're framing the conversation around this false logic that revolutionaries are all drug addicts inadvertently supporting horrible coups and the like across the globe. This is simply rubbish and really really really really not worth revisiting. (really, let's not)


I'd like to thank Lt Ferret for successfully reverse trolling the first drug thread and promptly killing it.

[#FF0000]

Drugs themselves aren't what's wrong. The elements within the drug trade are -- the cartels, the criminals...etc.

Here is where the impasse is

Everyone else: Decriminalize drugs so drug trafficking becomes significantly less lucrative and people people are addicted get help and not jail time.

ComradeMan: STOP USING DRUGS FDNFKJANDJAS

[Ele'ill]

The problem with this 'critical mass' theory as is with every such theory is that it requires every single user in every single demographic to 'stop doing it' when they are obviously in very different material class emotional and physical circumstances.

[Ele'ill]

I think I can say that 'critical mass' has never been successful. Ever.

[¿Que?]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, some of the guys in Zeta were also at one time with PRI (and I don't mean Public Radio International ;)).

[ComradeMan]

Your money goes towards domestic and foreign terrorism anyways in the form of police and military.

The issue isn't the product being pushed- it's capital and capitalism.

The other part of this idiotic conversation that has not stuck with you is that drugs are already banned. Your plan is working marvelously.

So what exactly is your point? That we should ban drugs again? How the fuck does that work?

You're framing the conversation around this false logic that revolutionaries are all drug addicts inadvertently supporting horrible coups and the like across the globe. This is simply rubbish and really really really really not worth revisiting. (really, let's not)


I'd like to thank Lt Ferret for successfully reverse trolling the first drug thread and promptly killing it.

It's amazing to see the failure of any kind of grip on the logical arguments here. We've already seen that there are two matters here, consumption and production and it's a problem, if you like, that has two fronts. But the "logic" that concerns me here is the fact that the attitude seems to be it doesn't matter because it's all reactionary and capitalistic anyway. Okay, then we shouldn't really give a shit about anything then should we? Environmental issues, labour issues and everything else goes out the windows- so yeah keep on calling yourself a socialist and keep on using whatever you use, fucking up the environment and contributing to all the things you are supposed to be against- because it doesn't matter anyway.

The other part of this idiotic conversation that has not stuck with you is that drugs are already banned. Your plan is working marvelously.

The part that has not stuck with you is that because they are banned we have a certain situation that cannot be compared to another hypothetical situation in some future when they might not be. No one was saying that drugs ought to be banned again? Did you get that from "Strawmen 'R Us":D

The equation is this: no consumption= no money for cartels= no money for cartels/reactionaries= evil system collapses and blow is dealt + drugs war collapses on its feet and poor farmers don't get their crops ruined because they have been sprayed.

And yes, there are a lot of other areas of our lives where this equation could be applied too, and a lot of people are trying. But whereas we have no choice in some areas at times, like food, in other areas we do.

[RGacky3]

The equation is this: no consumption= no money for cartels= no money for cartels/reactionaries= evil system collapses and blow is dealt + drugs war collapses on its feet and poor farmers don't get their crops ruined because they have been sprayed.


So I guess for you the answer to Capitalism is to end consumption?

[Sasha]

if the cartels are trained by the US shouldnt the discussion be more about US comrades stopping to pay taxes than comrades taking drugs? :rolleyes:

[Sasha]

The equation is this: no consumption= no money for cartels= no money for cartels/reactionaries= evil system collapses and blow is dealt + drugs war collapses on its feet and poor farmers don't get their crops ruined because they have been sprayed.

so you are saying we should devote our time in stopping drug use because that will make the bad things go away, while we explained countless times that unlike stopping people taking drugs, legalizing drugs is an actual working possibillity.

you are arguing like "we shouldnt strive for revolution, we should convince the capitalists too make themself dissapear voluntairly"...
and you wonder why you are restricted?

[ComradeMan]

so you are saying we should devote our time in stopping drug use because that will make the bad things go away, while we explained countless times that unlike stopping people taking drugs, legalizing drugs is an actual working possibillity.

you are arguing like "we shouldnt strive for revolution, we should convince the capitalists too make themself dissapear voluntairly"...
and you wonder why you are restricted?

A struggle can have more than one front and more than one issue. You can't break it down to clear-cut good guys on one side bay guys on the other, reducing everything into some pathetic yes-no binary logic.

And I am not arguing like anything about anything other than what I have said and some other members have expressed.
Ad homs are usually the sign of a weak argument.

[Sasha]

so you keep trowing the term around but do you actually know what an "ad hominem" atack is?
let me wiki explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

now please show me where i used an ad hominem attack on you?

or is it just that since your nick is comrademan your assumed that any argument raised against you is an literal "to the man"?

[ComradeMan]

so you keep trowing the term around but do you actually know what an "ad hominem" atack is?
let me wiki explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

now please show me where i used an ad hominem attack on you?

or is it just that since your nick is comrademan your assumed that any argument raised against you is an literal "to the man"?

Spare the patronisation too.

Seeing as your such an expert why don't you say how you would legalise everything and what the social, economic and geopolitical effects of that would be from a socialist perspective.

[Sasha]

in an/after the revolution autonomus community's would be just that, autonomus in formulating agreements about social acceptable substance use and the consequences for those that break said agreements. for me the prinicple should be bodily autonomy but like most basic human rights limits could be placed on the moment your personal freedoms harms communual freedom.

in an pre-revolutionary society liberalisation/legalisation should be an reformist demand of all social activists as the war on drugs is in the direct interest of social oppresion, the prison industrial complex and imperialism.

[ComradeMan]

in an/after the revolution autonomus community's would be just that, autonomus in formulating agreements about social acceptable substance use and the consequences for those that break said agreements. for me the prinicple should be bodily autonomy but like most basic human rights limits could be placed on the moment your personal freedoms harms communual freedom.

in an pre-revolutionary society liberalisation/legalisation should be an reformist demand of all social activists as the war on drugs is in the direct interest of social oppresion, the prison industrial complex and imperialism.

Seeing as we are in a pre-revolutionary context we need to argue the points from that basis.

1. How do you deal with narco-imperialism seeing as those who oppose legalisation, i.e. those in power, seem to be also those who have a great role in production and supply?

[Budguy68]

Yeah- and like I have been saying over and over and over again- that doesn't change the outcome does it? Duh!!! So, it's okay to fund cartels NOW because in the end they are only a result of capitalism. It's quite easy- where does your money go? If you care about where it goes that is.


Funding Cartels with tax payer money has nothing to do with capitlism and a to do with big government run amok.

The Drugs Wars themselves are a result of Anti Freetrade laws which are very Anti Capitlism. If we allowed free trade of illegal drugs are these Drug Empires Drug cartels would dissappear over night...

[#FF0000]

Capitalism doesn't necessarily = free trade, fyi.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nor does it = anti state. Capitalism has never been anti state. To claim it is, ever has been, or ever will be, is disjuncting yourself from reality.
Capitalism requires a state to protect the interests of the ownership class.
Shit, even free market != capitalism. Just think about the word in relation to other economic-political "isms." Feudalism, power/wealth controlled by the feudal nobles. Mercantilism, power/wealth controlled by merchants. Capitalism, power/wealth controlled by capitalists (ownership). Socialism, power/wealth controlled by society (democratically).

[Ele'ill]

It's amazing to see the failure of any kind of grip on the logical arguments here. We've already seen that there are two matters here, consumption and production and it's a problem, if you like, that has two fronts. But the "logic" that concerns me here is the fact that the attitude seems to be it doesn't matter because it's all reactionary and capitalistic anyway. Okay, then we shouldn't really give a shit about anything then should we? Environmental issues, labour issues and everything else goes out the windows- so yeah keep on calling yourself a socialist and keep on using whatever you use, fucking up the environment and contributing to all the things you are supposed to be against- because it doesn't matter anyway.


Look out! It's a giant wall of nothing!





The part that has not stuck with you is that because they are banned we have a certain situation that cannot be compared to another hypothetical situation in some future when they might not be.

How do you think progress is made- in anything at all?


How do you expect to stop the 'critical mass' of users from doing drugs when drugs are already illegal?

Death squads?









The equation is this: no consumption= no money for cartels= no money for cartels/reactionaries= evil system collapses and blow is dealt + drugs war collapses on its feet and poor farmers don't get their crops ruined because they have been sprayed.


http://images1.memegenerator.net/Philosiraptor/ImageMacro/3270519/The-system-of-production-is-causing-problems-stop-buying-products-and-leave-system-in-place.jpg


I'll go ahead and explain this because I see it going in one ear and out the other. *hint* it's sarcasm

Rather than focusing on the products- focus on the system- tweak it or abolish it and replace it with a better one.

The cartels are getting money because there are no other drug operations going on.



And yes, there are a lot of other areas of our lives where this equation could be applied too, and a lot of people are trying. But whereas we have no choice in some areas at times, like food, in other areas we do.

If there is any area at all where we do- it's food.

[ComradeMan]

Why did you have to fill up nearly a whole page with that thread?

[Ele'ill]

Because you're worth it. :)

[ComradeMan]

Without demand there is no supply and production will move elsewhere or collapse.
The system depends on the supply and demand.

[Ele'ill]

Nevermind

"Without demand..."


How are you going to stop demand for something that's already mainstream as well as illegal?

[ComradeMan]

-a;lkjda;he;he WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE DEMAND WILL CONTINUE REGARDLESS OF SOURCE SO IF ONE SOURCE IS CAUSING A PROBLEM PERHAPS WE NEED TO UTILIZE ANOTHER THAT IS EASIER TO CONTROL- ALA LEGALIZING THE PRODUCT SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT AS A COUNTRY/NATION, STATE, BODY OF PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING TOGETHER- ~``(#~

WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE DRUGS ARE ALREADY NOT ALLOWED I.E. ILLEGAL AND THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE DOING THEM-

HOW WILL YOU STOP PEOPLE FROM DOING DRUGS? MAKE THEM ILLEGAL? OH SHIT- THAT'S A MIND FUCK

Stop shouting....

But what do you do UNTIL such times as they may be legalised? Sit back and happily fund the narco's?

[Ele'ill]

Stop shouting....

But what do you do UNTIL such times as they may be legalised? Sit back and happily fund the narco's?


The last time I'm going to bring this up- because now is a good time that it's the only thing you can look at and reply too without ignoring it.

Revolutionaries don't (as an entity) consume copious amounts of drugs. The people I know who do use drugs- know their source- and it isn't narco guerrillas.

If you think it's feasible to engage in a cross demographic and cross class witch hunt for people that are doing drugs- go ahead. You will fail.

[Sasha]

What do you do until the disappearance of sweatshops? Or the meat industry?
Like any conscious consumer you try to buy the non or least harmful product.

[Sasha]

What do you do until the disappearance of sweatshops? Or the meat industry?
Like any conscious consumer you try to buy the non or least harmful product.

[ComradeMan]

The last time I'm going to bring this up- because now is a good time that it's the only thing you can look at and reply too without ignoring it.

Revolutionaries don't (as an entity) consume copious amounts of drugs. The people I know who do use drugs- know their source- and it isn't narco guerrillas.

If you think it's feasible to engage in a cross demographic and cross class witch hunt for people that are doing drugs- go ahead. You will fail.

China didn't under Mao- but I'm hardly advocating that. You see this is the problem, all the theory is great and yeah it all makes sense. But when it comes to a strategy for the here and now suddenly the answers seem to dry up. Using individual examples in a global context is a fallacy. It's like saying "I know a guy who smoked 50 a day and lived to be 110"- ergo smoking can't be that bad for you.

[Ele'ill]

What?

[Ele'ill]

What exactly are you proposing?

Come up with something-

[Raúl Duke]

Without demand there is no supply and production will move elsewhere or collapse.
The system depends on the supply and demand.

It's funny you mention that since it undermines your argument. The demand will not go away just because you prohibit something. This is a lesson we learned with the prohibition of alcohol and one that is painfully obvious in the context of the war on drugs.

Now you're going to mention Maoist China or whatnot, but recall this: That was one "anomalous" case and even than I'm skeptical that the reduction of drugs was just because everyone turned into "model citizens" and more because of other social policies (especially that which hampered domestic traveling). In every other case of drug prohibition and crack-down, the effects have been totally negative. However, take a look at countries like Portugal and the Netherlands. The Netherlands, a place where one can easily acquire pot and there's close to no repercussions, is been reported to have a lower use of drugs (including marijuana) than other country's where it is illegal (like, The US). In Portugal, they put into affect a very sensible drug policy which has been seemingly highly effective.

Like Mar3l says, what do you propose?

We already know more of the same is shit no matter if it's a "socialist" doing it or not. We know that the idea that re-education or whatever will work and everyone turns into a "good little prole" is unreal nonsense.

But from what little we know, it seems that sensible drug policies where drugs are seen in a logical manner and as a strictly health-related issue have been quite successful.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think this surprises anyone.

Yeah, it's no suprise. The Zetas (originally affiliates of the Gulf Cartel) started as a rogue element of Mexican police and special forces, which received much of their training & funding from the USA. They've become the most infamous of the drug groups in Mexico (their involvement has been speculated about in regards to 13 people being massacred in Juarez yesterday at a party), so I thought that this would be relatively common knowledge.

[¿Que?]

Yeah, it's no suprise. The Zetas (originally affiliates of the Gulf Cartel) started as a rogue element of Mexican police and special forces, which received much of their training & funding from the USA. They've become the most infamous of the drug groups in Mexico (their involvement has been speculated about in regards to 13 people being massacred in Juarez yesterday at a party), so I thought that this would be relatively common knowledge.
I'd like to mention that the Zeta's split with the Gulf cartel, and they are currently rivals. Cartel alliances are very volatile and unstable.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's a fairly recent development, though...they've only been their own independent entity for less than a year, I believe.

[Ele'ill]

Comrademan- I highly suggest you walk into a derelict building and tell the homeless heroin addicts that they cannot use any longer because they're funding narco guerrillas.

That's your audience.

The first issue to deal with is to identify why people are medicating themselves so heavily to escape the real world.

It's because of Capitalism and the giant ball of socio-political-sexual- cluster fuck of death and destruction that follows it.


Your solution for everyone to stop doing drugs is a failure.

[ComradeMan]

Comrademan- I highly suggest you walk into a derelict building and tell the homeless heroin addicts that they cannot use any longer because they're funding narco guerrillas.

That's your audience.

The first issue to deal with is to identify why people are medicating themselves so heavily to escape the real world.

It's because of Capitalism and the giant ball of socio-political-sexual- cluster fuck of death and destruction that follows it.


Your solution for everyone to stop doing drugs is a failure.

No, I would be most sympathetic to those people and try to help them some way. I am not one for demonising and/or criminalising the victims. I never said this and never will. But to use your example, I expect those same people would curse the day they ever saw the stuff wouldn't they?

Now, what about all these other people who have been presenting rational arguments here there and everywhere- but not one person yet has been able to give me a straight answer.

How do you fight narco-caps? NOW!!!!!!

If you cut the roots the plant will die.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg/220px-Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg)

"You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys." Bottom sign: "North Zone. Council of Good Government. Trafficking in weapons, planting of drugs, drug use, alcoholic beverages, and illegal sales of wood are strictly prohibited. No to the destruction of nature."

[Ele'ill]

But to use your example, I expect those same people would curse the day they ever saw the stuff wouldn't they?

Have you ever done drugs?

I'll take cigarettes (lol) as an example. Most of the people that smoke say 'I wish I could quit' but what they really mean is 'I wish a world without occasional nicotine breaks was actually pleasant'.

People that use drugs use them to escape and often times- once they see the negative affects and feel the negative affects they want to quit- some do and some don't quit successfully- but a lot of those that do quit are not in a better situation than they were before the drug use and it isn't necessarily because of the drug use. They begin using again to numb the pain.


Now, what about all these other people who have been presenting rational arguments here there and everywhere- but not one person yet has been able to give me a straight answer.

This is your fault- we've given you straight answers- you don't want to see them.


How do you fight narco-caps? NOW!!!!!!

If you cut the roots the plant will die.

What you are asking- for everyone to stop using drugs- is unfeasible. What's your plan B-






http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg/220px-Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg)

"You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys." Bottom sign: "North Zone. Council of Good Government. Trafficking in weapons, planting of drugs, drug use, alcoholic beverages, and illegal sales of wood are strictly prohibited. No to the destruction of nature."

There are likely several reasons they oppose drugs in their space.



Perhaps a worker collective producing the drugs and offering a safe addict space would be more affective- but the capitalists would hire the cartels to off them- and they would.

Capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

@Mari3L

I'll take cigarettes (lol) as an example. Most of the people that smoke say 'I wish I could quit' but what they really mean is 'I wish a world without occasional nicotine breaks was actually pleasant'.

Where are your facts and stats to prove that assumption? Sorry, it's an assumption nought else. I would assume most ot the people that want to quit might sick and tired of spending their money and the health side-effects too- the cough etc.

They begin using again to numb the pain.

Not because they have a chemical- physiological addiction too perhaps?

This is your fault- we've given you straight answers- you don't want to see them.

"We" = you? Where?

What you are asking- for everyone to stop using drugs- is unfeasible.

If you don't ask you don't get. Hey, I thought you were all for awareness raising?

There are likely several reasons they oppose drugs in their space.

Perhaps there are likely several reasons why "we" oppsose drugs in our space?

Perhaps a worker collective producing the drugs and offering a safe addict space would be more affective- but the capitalists would hire the cartels to off them- and they would.

So you're basically saying here that your solution wouldn't work.
What's your plan B?

[Raúl Duke]

I like how you ignored my post.

You keep pointing at these limited "socialist" examples of "success."

Remember, in China and probably in the Zapatista region there was little privacy.

Why don't we look into the USSR? They had drug use from the 70s-90s, especially a lot of heroin. "socialism" doesn't magically make drug abuse dissapear. A sensible drug policy like that of Portugal is the way.


What you are asking- for everyone to stop using drugs- is unfeasible.

If you don't ask you don't get. Hey, I thought you were all for awareness raising?

There are likely several reasons they oppose drugs in their space.

Perhaps there are likely several reasons why "we" oppsose drugs in our space?

Your question-answer sounds like obscurantism, what do you mean?

[ComradeMan]

I like how you ignored my post.

You keep pointing at these limited "socialist" examples of "success."

Remember, in China and probably in the Zapatista region there was little privacy.

Why don't we look into the USSR? They had drug use from the 70s-90s, especially a lot of heroin. "socialism" doesn't magically make drug abuse dissapear. A sensible drug policy like that of Portugal is the way.



Your question-answer sounds like obscurantism, what do you mean?

But was the 1970's Soviet Union and the decline exactly a model of socialist society? A lot of Russians I have spoken to seem to think that drug abuse is a post-soviet issue, not denying that it wasn't present but they were all convinced the problems came post-glaznost.

I was saying that speaking from my area and my experience the cons far outweigh the pro's and like the Zapatistas I can understand why most working class people in my area are against drugs- including the leftists- and no I am not talking about weed either.

[Raúl Duke]

Still, in the realm of socialism (whether valid or not) the examples are many. For example, Christania in Denmark (an anarchic hippy squater paradise) there is drug use.

These examples you choose are limited in the sense that there are other factors at play.

Lastly, I want to move this towards the issue of Portuguese drug policy.
In Portugal all drug laws have been changed to the point that drug possession is decriminalized and carries only a recommendation to drug rehab.

[ComradeMan]

Still, in the realm of socialism (whether valid or not) the examples are many. For example, Christania in Denmark (an anarchic hippy squater paradise) there is drug use.

These examples you choose are limited in the sense that there are other factors at play.

Lastly, I want to move this towards the issue of Portuguese drug policy.
In Portugal all drug laws have been changed to the point that drug possession is decriminalized and carries only a recommendation to drug rehab.

I also applaud the Portuguese in their sensible approach. But that is a drop in a big ocean. My problem isn't it with the victims it's with the cartels, the mafia, the secret services and the suffering in the Third World- my issue is with the suppliers and I still think that we as people, as humanity have a responsibility to be resonsible as best we can.

Yet the fact that something is decriminalised etc does not make it recommendable either. The Portuguese are dealing with a problem in a sensible way but they are not condoning or celebrating it either and they are not saying it is NOT a problem either.

The Christiana experience ended up as a bit of a mess, however let's put Christiana to one side for the moment because as you have said there are too many other factors at play.

[Ele'ill]

I think there should be agitation and education involved with organizing amongst the working class- I don't think drug use should be ignored in the same way that I don't think food should be ignored.

Nobody here is any less pained by the symptoms of capitalism- most of us are approaching the problem from a different view entirely.


You- comrademan are saying that this problem is a root-

we are saying capitalism is the root-


we need to define capitalism and discuss it from here at this point

[Raúl Duke]

My problem isn't it with the victims it's with the cartels, the mafia, the secret services and the suffering in the Third World- my issue is with the suppliers and I still think that we as people, as humanity have a responsibility to be resonsible as best we can. Well than, wtf were you going on about in both drug threads?

Do you seriously think anyone here supports the mafia/cartels?

People are suggesting sensible drug policy/decrimininalization/more or less legalization as solutions so to reduce or eliminate the power of cartels/mafia and to stop drug war mayhem in the 3rd world (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/10/20101019212440609775.html) and at home. (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/)
Those problems with drugs you speak of, outside of addiction and physical health, is mostly caused by the legal status of drugs, the war on drugs, etc; nothing inherent in the drug causes it.

[ComradeMan]

Well than, wtf were you going on about in both drug threads?

Do you seriously think anyone here supports the mafia/cartels?

People are suggesting sensible drug policy/decrimininalization/more or less legalization as solutions so to reduce or eliminate the power of cartels/mafia and to stop drug war mayhem in the 3rd world (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/10/20101019212440609775.html) and at home. (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/)
Those problems with drugs you speak of, outside of addiction and physical health, is mostly caused by the legal status of drugs, the war on drugs, etc; nothing inherent in the drug causes it.

I hear your points and I respect them, but let me posit another idea that has come up. Quite a lot of people here have said that boycotting things doesn't work- would they say the same if someone were arguing to boycott Israeli products? What I am trying to say is, should we not try to boycott the narco-capitalists as best we can?

[Ele'ill]

I hear your points and I respect them, but let me posit another idea that has come up. Quite a lot of people here have said that boycotting things doesn't work- would they say the same if someone were arguing to boycott Israeli products? What I am trying to say is, should we not try to boycott the narco-capitalists as best we can?


There are too many people whom this message would not reach and would continue to buy the products.

When boycotting you have to consider more than just 'who isn't going to be getting the money anymore'

1. What is actually going to happen in the region that's being boycotted? Bankruptcy and dispersal or desperation and even more militancy and brutality?

2. Is it going to destabilize the local economy to the point that the people you're trying to help end up getting hurt worse? This ties in with point 1.

3. How long are we going to organize the boycott for it to be successful- and why wouldn't we want to spend that time and energy organizing something more substantial- like a worker's movement across borders to directly tie people together. Wildcat strikes across borders and international solidarity actions work far better than simply boycotting.



Here's a question for you- answer at your own time- What if the money from drugs was going towards community building and anticapitalist pro worker infrastructure instead of going towards the cartels and their right wing agendas?

What of worker coops that produced the drugs instead of the cartels?

How can this happen without legalization or decriminalization?

Why not work towards this- what is the first step?

[ComradeMan]

There are too many people whom this message would not reach and would continue to buy the products.

When boycotting you have to consider more than just 'who isn't going to be getting the money anymore'

1. What is actually going to happen in the region that's being boycotted? Bankruptcy and dispersal or desperation and even more militancy and brutality?

2. Is it going to destabilize the local economy to the point that the people you're trying to help end up getting hurt worse? This ties in with point 1.

3. How long are we going to organize the boycott for it to be successful- and why wouldn't we want to spend that time and energy organizing something more substantial- like a worker's movement across borders to directly tie people together. Wildcat strikes across borders and international solidarity actions work far better than simply boycotting.



Here's a question for you- answer at your own time- What if the money from drugs was going towards community building and anticapitalist pro worker infrastructure instead of going towards the cartels and their right wing agendas?

What of worker coops that produced the drugs instead of the cartels?

How can this happen without legalization or decriminalization?

Why not work towards this- what is the first step?

In order:-

Well the message would reach people if people started spreading the message. This is not the first time this debate has come up amongst the left.

Agreed. But let's imagine someone had talked about boycotting Israeli products etc-- would there have been the same hue and cry?

Well South Africa suffered but still remained one of the richest countries in Africa and during the anti-apartheid years the left was heavily down on the side of the pro-sanction lobby. People were calling for a total boycott against Israel not so long ago with much support on the left.

Not really, if people weren't pressurised into growing cash crops for others they would have more land to grow food for themselves and perhaps gain income.

As long as it takes plus all the other things.

What if arguments are all well and good but some stats I came across say that less than 25 per cent at best goes back to the "local economy"- the rest, well that ends up you know where.

That doesn't happen though does it? The only place I think it could happen is Chiapas and we know what the Zapatista position is.

Legalisation is not going to happen when there are too many powerful vested interests in criminalisation.

[Ele'ill]

In no particular order-

I feel that the boycotting of Israeli products is fucking useless- outright. If Israel continues to receive defense aid in the billions from the US- they will continue their military operations unhindered.

Again- Israeli people are going to suffer from the boycott first- the government will be the hardest to touch and will be the last.

This isn't necessarily a leftist position- this is my opinion on it.


I don't have stats handy right now for either Israel or cartels per region/government etc..

It wouldn't take being starving to death to take over factories or 'industry'.

Picture this occurring in the clothing industry- or with food.

There are challenges involved of course and there will be failures-




All past beliefs aside for a moment- here's why drugs are different than other products.

You have people hooked on them- addicted. Organizing a boycott around something such as this will prove to be even harder than organizing a boycott against a clothing line or against a country because the audience you'd have to reach doesn't want to quit the drugs and often cannot simply quit the drugs.

It's a much different situation.


If they had an alternative source to buy from- that was 'sustainable' or even benefitted a progressive cause- you would likely have a much much easier time organizing.

There are steps that need to be made FIRST else you'd be wasting your time.

[ComradeMan]

But I am not targetting the poor victims of drug abuse lying around in the park etc- the stereotypical junkies- I am talking about all the people who don't seem to give a shit where their money goes and celebrate drug culture. There are plenty of people who are not hooked, not addicted but don't seem to give a shit about their cash ending up where it does. Thing about all those coked up highfliers, all those rich kids and so on... that's what I find distasteful about the whole damn thing. I've been told about South American street kids being killed and used to transport drugs over borders as human parcels and then there are privileged people in rich countries shoving that shit up their fucking nose for pure hedonistic and selfish enjoyment. Come on! Surely that has to turn your stomach?

[Ele'ill]

But I am not targetting the poor victims of drug abuse lying around in the park etc- the stereotypical junkies- I am talking about all the people who don't seem to give a shit where their money goes and celebrate drug culture.


This is an important post- ignore the other thread for a minute- the conversation in here is different.

Those people that you are describing sound like 'grateful dead groupies' - pot heads- etc.... the recreational users rather than the 'bridge trolls' or box car terrors- to use some slang here.

If this is the case- you are describing people that either grow/produce their own drugs or know their source which isn't a cartel.

This group is irrelevant in regards to your discussion and stance- they do not influence the cartels at ALL.






Thing about all those coked up highfliers, all those rich kids and so on... that's what I find distasteful about the whole damn thing.

The vast majority of users are not rich- and those users that are rich- are likely hooked.

Class status doesn't influence the addictive nature of the drugs.




I've been told about South American street kids being killed and used to transport drugs over borders as human parcels and then there are privileged people in rich countries shoving that shit up their fucking nose for pure hedonistic and selfish enjoyment. Come on! Surely that has to turn your stomach?

A lot of people use drugs in the countries where it is produced. A lot of the people being hurt directly by the cartels are using the drugs.

Aside from this post here- do you understand why a boycott would not be affective at first- it's a bad tactic to use first- there are other elements of organizing that need to take place first that can take the place of a boycott and yield much more community support.

[¿Que?]

Class status doesn't influence the addictive nature of the drugs.
I mostly agree with you on this debate, but this is not true. First off, structural barriers, such as the availability of adequate counseling and rehab facilities can greatly affect the severity of an addiction. but if you are talking from a completely bio-psychological perspective, we can even say that unless you are a complete biological determinist, that is that biology is the only thing that could possibly influence the addictiveness of a drug, then this is not true. A person's social context can have serious implications as to how severe a drug addiction can be. Psychology is about more than just chemicals in the brain, and so is addiction. There is an ambiguity that (to borrow from a libertarian perspective) the addiction as disease people refuse to admit.

[ComradeMan]

I mostly agree with you on this debate, but this is not true. First off, structural barriers, such as the availability of adequate counseling and rehab facilities can greatly affect the severity of an addiction. but if you are talking from a completely bio-psychological perspective, we can even say that unless you are a complete biological determinist, that is that biology is the only thing that could possibly influence the addictiveness of a drug, then this is not true. A person's social context can have serious implications as to how severe a drug addiction can be. Psychology is about more than just chemicals in the brain, and so is addiction. There is an ambiguity that (to borrow from a libertarian perspective) the addiction as disease people refuse to admit.


Would this be like the way colonialists used alcohol against indigenous people too?

[Ele'ill]

I mostly agree with you on this debate, but this is not true. First off, structural barriers, such as the availability of adequate counseling and rehab facilities can greatly affect the severity of an addiction. but if you are talking from a completely bio-psychological perspective, we can even say that unless you are a complete biological determinist, that is that biology is the only thing that could possibly influence the addictiveness of a drug, then this is not true. A person's social context can have serious implications as to how severe a drug addiction can be. Psychology is about more than just chemicals in the brain, and so is addiction. There is an ambiguity that (to borrow from a libertarian perspective) the addiction as disease people refuse to admit.

I have seen both classes equally addicted to everything from heroin to cigarettes.

Your post is true to a point- aside from genetic predisposition and availability of rehab for economic or geographic reasons- if two people from two different class camps used and enjoyed heroin or cocaine- it is quite possible that they would become equally addicted. -EDIT- or addicted 'enough' for the purpose of this conversation.




I am also still curious as to Comradman's stance on the rest of my post- even if this part of it is excluded entirely

[¿Que?]

I have seen both classes equally addicted to everything from heroin to cigarettes.
That's fine and good, but my guess is that in terms of populations, you'll probably find more people recovering from drug addiction in higher classes than the lower classes.

Your post is true to a point- aside from genetic predisposition and availability of rehab for economic or geographic reasons- if two people from two different class camps used and enjoyed heroin or cocaine- it is quite possible that they would become equally addicted. -EDIT- or addicted 'enough' for the purpose of this conversation.
I think the word you're looking for is "controlling for." Controlling for class, race, gender, neighborhood, genetics, etc you'll surely find that the physiological effects of drugs are the same across the board. But to speak of addiction outside of the context in which it occurs I think is not very useful. To the extent that psychology is a confluence of biological and social forces, there is no point in speaking about drug addiction as strictly biological.

[¿Que?]

Would this be like the way colonialists used alcohol against indigenous people too?
Not really sure. The concept of addiction didn't exist in colonial times as it does today, or even at all, not sure. The point I'm making is that chemical addictions and dependencies cannot be reduced to strictly biological forces. There is a distinction made between psychological and physical addictions, but this distinction has been contested in the past. In any case, there are no addictions that are only psychological or only physical. If anything, there is a continuum of purely psychological and biological bodily responses to the absence of a drug after sustained usage for extended period of times.