Leftist Organizations and Drugs

[¿Que?]

...and what I'm talking about is not their position on drugs in terms of public policy, but internally, as it pertains to party or organizational rules of conduct. Which organizations will kick you out for doing what drugs due to specific rules, or even as a result of stigma within the organization?

I'm just curious.

For example, I'm fairly sure the RCP will. I think they state pretty clearly that they don't want members getting drunk or high or being too promiscuous. So that's the RCP. What else.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This could be a touchy issue since there is a real danger for groups as far as some illegal activities being excuses for repression. The Black Panthers and the New Left in general are good examples of how drugs were an excuse for repression by the state.

Personally I do not think that groups should police their member's personal lives or personal time in any way. However I do think it's perfectly understandable and probably wise to try and separate any personal activities that might cause police repression from official group functions and activities.

[Quail]

Most people I know on the left smoke weed, so as far as I know, none of the groups around here have any problem with their members taking drugs, and I don't see why they should. Drugs are a personal choice, and a political organisation has no right to tell its members what they can and can't put into their body.

[Widerstand]

In Germany, there often are calls not to bring drugs to demonstrations, because, as said, it serves as a scapegoat for repression. In general, I'm all for drugs so long as they don't interfere with ones ability to react to situations and interact with people when necessary.

[graymouser]

The US Socialist Workers Party instituted a party norm in the late 1960s against party members using illegal drugs. It was and is enforced, although somewhat selectively (Fred Halstead, their leader in antiwar work in New York City, was known to smoke weed, although rank & file kids were kicked out for it). Socialist Action continued that norm, although I have never heard of anyone actually being thrown out of the organization for it. I know full well Solidarity didn't continue with that, and as far as I know most other Trot groups don't have the same kind of line.

Beyond the strictly procedural points on this, that is clarifying which groups have a definite anti-drug line, I do agree that we should be circumspect in discussing these issues.

[thriller]

My organization, SPUSA, has no official stance stating that members are not allowed to do drugs or drink if they want to be in the party. That is someone's personal choice. As far as my local, Socialist Party of South-Central Wisconsin, our bi-laws state that members can't be intoxicated when at an official membership meeting. Other than that, no one really cares. Although I do like the bi-laws we have. Imagine 20 socialists, drunk, in a room, debating the USSR. Lots and lots of blood. :lol:

[¿Que?]

Thanks for responses. I totally get the cautious approach tho. And I think it's only natural that organizations should have a drug policy, albeit a somewhat permissive one as compared to societal laws and what have you. However, unlike kayl, I think a group has the right to restrict certain types of behavior, so long as such decisions are made in a democratic and inclusive way, where members can decide on their own group's policies. It makes sense, also, that formal party activities should not involve drugs or people on drugs or alcohol. I guess it mostly depends on what kind of group you want to cultivate.

[graymouser]

Thanks for responses. I totally get the cautious approach tho. And I think it's only natural that organizations should have a drug policy, albeit a somewhat permissive one as compared to societal laws and what have you. However, unlike kayl, I think a group has the right to restrict certain types of behavior, so long as such decisions are made in a democratic and inclusive way, where members can decide on their own group's policies. It makes sense, also, that formal party activities should not involve drugs or people on drugs or alcohol. I guess it mostly depends on what kind of group you want to cultivate.
Well, in Socialist Action it was explained to me back when I was a member as primarily a security measure - they didn't want to wind up with a member being busted for drugs and needing to defend that member in court. Practically, it means that the SWP in the '60s and SA now, tend to get very square young people joining them. They didn't have a norm against alcohol consumption, if they did they'd need to have kicked their founder, Jim Cannon, out of the group. In his worst period, Cannon showed up at Political Committee meetings in the afternoon and would pass out drunk. Lots of alcoholics came out of that party culture.

The League for the Fifth International, for what it's worth, officially discourages use of illegal substances but doesn't have any enforcement on this. That's something for members to figure out. I prefer that method.

[F9]

It would be good if you could provide some articles on what organizations points are(im also interested in this)

[revolution inaction]

Thanks for responses. I totally get the cautious approach tho. And I think it's only natural that organizations should have a drug policy, albeit a somewhat permissive one as compared to societal laws and what have you. However, unlike kayl, I think a group has the right to restrict certain types of behavior, so long as such decisions are made in a democratic and inclusive way, where members can decide on their own group's policies. It makes sense, also, that formal party activities should not involve drugs or people on drugs or alcohol. I guess it mostly depends on what kind of group you want to cultivate.

we do restrict certain types of behaviour, things that are unacceptable without drugs are just as unacceptable with drugs.

[Blackscare]

I think the biggest thing the American left is missing right now is speed.

Pharmaceutical amphetamines are the greatest drugs on earth if you're into politics, or anything really. I highly recommend them. I'm being totally serious here. :)

[Quail]

we do restrict certain types of behaviour, things that are unacceptable without drugs are just as unacceptable with drugs.
I agree. If the behaviour in question affects other people in a negative way (if you're referring to what I think you are) we would not accept that.

[Palingenisis]

Most people I know on the left smoke weed, so as far as I know, none of the groups around here have any problem with their members taking drugs, and I don't see why they should. Drugs are a personal choice, and a political organisation has no right to tell its members what they can and can't put into their body.

We can safely say therefore that the Anarchist Federation is seen by the state as harmless at best than...When you join a revolutionary organization than things arent a matter of personal choice but what serves the people best. If someone is unwilling to give up smoking grass for security reasons they are most likely unwilling to lay their lives down for the revolution. Someone not prepared to die at any minute is a danger to a genuine revolutionary struggle.

Waiting for Wolfie to come back with evidence with evidence of Irish insurgents being involved in drugs?

[Magón]

We can safely say therefore that the Anarchist Federation is seen by the state as harmless at best than...When you join a revolutionary organization than things arent a matter of personal choice but what serves the people best. If someone is unwilling to give up smoking grass for security reasons they are most likely unwilling to lay their lives down for the revolution. Someone not prepared to die at any minute is a danger to a genuine revolutionary struggle.

Waiting for Wolfie to come back with evidence with evidence of Irish insurgents being involved in drugs?

That's a pretty horrible analogy.

[Palingenisis]

That's a pretty horrible analogy.

Why?

Basic security would strongly suggest that you dont touch illegal drugs.

If someone cant make that small sacrifice they are hardly willing to risk death are they?

[Magón]

Why?

Basic security would strongly suggest that you dont touch illegal drugs.

If someone cant make that small sacrifice they are hardly willing to risk death are they?

No, because whether I smoke weed or not, has nothing to do with me risking my life for the revolution. That's why I said it was such a bad analogy.

[Quail]

We can safely say therefore that the Anarchist Federation is seen by the state as harmless at best than...When you join a revolutionary organization than things arent a matter of personal choice but what serves the people best. If someone is unwilling to give up smoking grass for security reasons they are most likely unwilling to lay their lives down for the revolution. Someone not prepared to die at any minute is a danger to a genuine revolutionary struggle.

Waiting for Wolfie to come back with evidence with evidence of Irish insurgents being involved in drugs?

I'm sorry, but if members individually want to take drugs, what right does the organisation have to interfere? It's not like we deal drugs on the side or something. Some of our members enjoy drugs, some don't. We have some members are straight edge too.

What the hell is with your crusade against drugs? Having a bit of fun wth drugs doesn't define you as a person. There are no real security reasons for giving up drugs. You take such a ridiculous position on drugs, it would be funny if you weren't serious.

[¿Que?]

Sure there are security concerns, but those concerns are not the same everywhere you go. In Amsterdam or L.A. it might not be such a big deal for members to smoke grass, even as a security precaution, as it has mostly been decriminalized there. But this only applies to personal lifestyle choices, and there are certain types of behavior which any organization does not want to associate itself with. Point of fact, many of these types of behavior have been positively correlated with the use of alcohol, and sometimes other drugs. Ultimately, like I said earlier, these groups should decide for themselves based on democratic principles. If they want to liberalize themselves into oblivion, then I doubt they had much revolutionary potential anyway.

[Sosa]

No, because whether I smoke weed or not, has nothing to do with me risking my life for the revolution. That's why I said it was such a bad analogy.


I agree that is a very bad analogy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Drugs are not acting conscious bodies. Drugs cannot be responsible for anything. If someone is being an asshole, he's an asshole. THe drugs have nil to with it, other than an excuse and justification for himself.
Responsiblity should be encouraged. If it is, there would be no need for drug bans, you would just ban irresponsiblity.

[WeAreReborn]

Why?

Basic security would strongly suggest that you dont touch illegal drugs.

If someone cant make that small sacrifice they are hardly willing to risk death are they?
Basic security? Like you mean comforming to the state and their reactionary laws? Or have you just been spoon feed propaganda too long and just think drugs kill the first time yet have no idea about the science behind it? Or worse both? :blink:
Anyways, it is personal choice weed doesn't kill and a ton of other drugs don't either. You are joining a revolutionary group to change and give humans and in a lot of cases animals more rights so why take away the rights while you are fighting for them? Sounds like a blueprint for a reformist revolution, France being a perfect example of those.

[¿Que?]

Drugs are not acting conscious bodies. Drugs cannot be responsible for anything. If someone is being an asshole, he's an asshole. THe drugs have nil to with it, other than an excuse and justification for himself.
Responsiblity should be encouraged. If it is, there would be no need for drug bans, you would just ban irresponsiblity.
So drugs have absolutely no effect on mental state whatsoever? Then why would people do drugs in the first place? Obviously ingesting drugs does affect one's ability to make judgments, although sometimes it's positive and sometimes it's negative. You can't just say ban irresponsibility without specifically defining what you consider irresponsible behavior. And you'll find that, for whatever reason, certain irresponsible behavior is highly correlated with certain drug use. Alcohol consumption often results in risky or not well thought out behavior, even amongst normally responsible people. Marijuana can impair one's motivation. This is proven to occur, not always, but in a majority of cases. Then again, certain drugs often spark bursts of creative energy and contribute to consciousness expansion and insight. It's important to look at drugs for their positive and negative aspects, and not hold to a naive view that drugs are completely harmless, while at the same time not take the opposite extreme and pretend all drugs are an indication of some sort of psychological deficiency or personality fault (or even worse, termed as social problems). It is a personal choice, but personal choices often have wider implications than the individual making that choice, and this should be considered when deciding on how to approach drug use within an organization. For the most part, though, I think it is really hard to generalize. Suppose someone who drinks can hold their liquor pretty well, and function up to par with the rest of the group, whereas another person who drinks clearly is impaired in their ability to perform organizational duties. Is it right to let the one person who can hold his/her liquor drink, but not the other person? These are not easy questions, and they certainly don't lend themselves to reductive one sided arguments about the harmlessness or dangers of drug use.

[Martin Blank]

Point No. 1 of the Workers Party's Member Code of Conduct says a member shall not "be under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol, or otherwise be so impaired, at Party functions or prior to attending any function as a Party member." In other words, don't show up to an event drunk or stoned; don't get drunk or stoned at an event; don't let us find out you're doing that stuff, or else it might become an issue.

Obviously, if you can hold your shit pretty well after drinking or doing drugs -- well enough to "pass" as sober -- we're not going to do anything. But if you do your Foster Brooks impersonation at a meeting or event, or get busted by the state, we have a problem.

[¿Que?]

Miles, I thought you were in the British SWP. Did I imagine that?

EDIT: N/M, I did imagine it. I get SWP confused with WPA sometimes. But for some reason I thought you were Brit. Maybe it's your avatar.

[Palingenisis]

I'm sorry, but if members individually want to take drugs, what right does the organisation have to interfere? It's not like we deal drugs on the side or something. Some of our members enjoy drugs, some don't. We have some members are straight edge too.

.

Some of your members enjoy drugs because what chances are there of the state smashing down their door and laying as big a penalty as it can on your "militants"? If you were a serious political organization it would be different though....And oh yeah revolutionary struggle involves a collective effort so the collective needs to "interfere" with the individual is victory or even some level of effectiveness is to be insured.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

If someone is unwilling to give up smoking grass for security reasons they are most likely unwilling to lay their lives down for the revolution. Someone not prepared to die at any minute is a danger to a genuine revolutionary struggle.

+1. I mean, I did weed a few times when I was 14-15. It's nothing special. It hasn't taken me much of an effort to not do any for the last 3 years. Anyone who can't give it up, on top of probably being unwilling to die for the revolution, also has a serious problem of self control which can be very damaging as well.

[Palingenisis]

Basic security? Like you mean comforming to the state and their reactionary laws? Or have you just been spoon feed propaganda too long and just think drugs kill the first time yet have no idea about the science behind it? Or worse both? :blink:


Its highly debatable whether anti-drug laws are reactionary or not.

That aside though I think its just plain silly to believe that getting out of it on illegal drugs is in anyway part of the revolutionary struggle.

Where I live the political police regularly raid the homes of political activists...Can you imagine what would happen if those activists had a bunch of drugs laying around their houses or flats? Why give them that hand-out?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Now, I'm not a drinker any more, but I've been at some great demos where 40s have been employed to boost courage, and, emptied, as extremely effective ammunition.
A few shots of vodka? That'll take the edge off a baton strike.

-

And Dexedrine? There's a reason the US air force pumps its pilots full of speed. An affinity group that have put a couple up their noses can make some pretty effective snap decisions, and, when the moment is right, you know you won't find yrself slowing down.

-

Nothing has helped the Food Not Bombs groups I've been involved with really come together and feel some real joy in cooking like smoking a fattie.

-

And what about LSD? It was good enough for the Weather Underground, and, though the recent past has shown the idea of armed specialists waging a guerrilla war to be borderline suicidal, they probably fucked more shit up than most folk on this board.

-

So, sure, drugs can fuck you up. Be careful. Don't get hooked on smack. Don't do PCP and go wandering barefoot around St. Henri in February. But, hey, y'know, life can fuck you up. Don't drink too much milk.

[Vendetta]

Its highly debatable whether anti-drug laws are reactionary or not.

No, it's not. Anti-drug laws are fucking reactionary.

[Palingenisis]

No, it's not. Anti-drug laws are fucking reactionary.

Tell that to all the Chinese who shed their life's blood to stop their country been flooded by drugs by the British huns :blushing:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

No doubt the Anarchist Federation will be coming out with an article about how reactionary they were...:rolleyes:

[Vendetta]

What point are you trying to make with that?

[Magón]

Some of your members enjoy drugs because what chances are there of the state smashing down their door and laying as big a penalty as it can on your "militants"? If you were a serious political organization it would be different though....And oh yeah revolutionary struggle involves a collective effort so the collective needs to "interfere" with the individual is victory or even some level of effectiveness is to be insured.

By that mind set, cigarettes should be banned for interfering with collective efforts as well. Cigarettes if you didn't know, give you a small high, and that's why people smoke them, because the high relaxes them. So does weed.

It has nothing to do with the revolutionary struggle, just as much as cigarettes do. If I'm just smoking a joint, like someone's smoking a cigarette beside me, would that be harming the cause? No, absolutely not. I'm still capable of doing my part, just as much as the guy with the cigarette or without the cigarette.

[¿Que?]

And what about LSD? It was good enough for the Weather Underground, and, though the recent past has shown the idea of armed specialists waging a guerrilla war to be borderline suicidal, they probably fucked more shit up than most folk on this board.
Including themselves...a couple of them blew themselves up while making a bomb.

[Vendetta]

Including themselves...a couple of them blew themselves up while making a bomb.

Common sense says making a bomb is probably highly dangerous in the first place. ;)

[chegitz guevara]

While we should fight for the right for people to do drugs, we ourselves need to abstain. Not because we're better, but because it's handing a weapon to the state against us. Unfortunately, many people have been turned by the state because they got busted.

I don't really have a problem with people drinking at political functions, as long as they don't get drunk. Drinking and revolution have a long history.

[Amphictyonis]

For example, I'm fairly sure the RCP will. I think they state pretty clearly that they don't want members getting drunk or high or being too promiscuous. So that's the RCP. What else.

Bob Avakian at burning man......

[Cowboy Killer]

What you do in privacy is you're business and as long as it doesn't cause dysfunctions within the organization i don't think it should be an issue.

[Jack]

The Progressive Labor Party doesn't allow drug users of any kind to be in their party, they kicked them all out in '68 I think.

[9]

For example, I'm fairly sure the RCP will. I think they state pretty clearly that they don't want members getting drunk or high or being too promiscuous. So that's the RCP.

I'm sure the future is bright for political organizations that have 'official policies' regarding their members' sex lives. :rolleyes:
What is their reasoning behind this, purely out of curiosity?



Personally I do not think that groups should police their member's personal lives or personal time in any way. However I do think it's perfectly understandable and probably wise to try and separate any personal activities that might cause police repression from official group functions and activities.

I completely agree with this.


When you join a revolutionary organization than things arent a matter of personal choice but what serves the people best.

Actually, I doubt most of the people in the UK Anarchist Federation are delusional losers with hero-complexes who believe they're "serving the people" (they can correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not sure this applies in the first place.

[¿Que?]

I'm sure the future is bright for political organizations that have 'official policies' regarding their members' sex lives. :rolleyes:
What is their reasoning behind this, purely out of curiosity?

Damn, I remember reading their organization policies on drugs and sex before, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll look for it later, as I have some work to do atm.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Seriously though, DEXIES.

[Ravachol]

Now, I'm not a drinker any more, but I've been at some great demos where 40s have been employed to boost courage, and, emptied, as extremely effective ammunition.
A few shots of vodka? That'll take the edge off a baton strike.

-

And Dexedrine? There's a reason the US air force pumps its pilots full of speed. An affinity group that have put a couple up their noses can make some pretty effective snap decisions, and, when the moment is right, you know you won't find yrself slowing down.

-

Nothing has helped the Food Not Bombs groups I've been involved with really come together and feel some real joy in cooking like smoking a fattie.

-

And what about LSD? It was good enough for the Weather Underground, and, though the recent past has shown the idea of armed specialists waging a guerrilla war to be borderline suicidal, they probably fucked more shit up than most folk on this board.

-

So, sure, drugs can fuck you up. Be careful. Don't get hooked on smack. Don't do PCP and go wandering barefoot around St. Henri in February. But, hey, y'know, life can fuck you up. Don't drink too much milk.

Haha u guys, I love this guy.

But seriously, it all depends on responsibility. While I agree with your post, all too often I've seen what 'drug culture' can do to a movement. I've been to meetings where people started the meeting with a few six packs of beer and half-way during discussing demo tactics people where too pissed to sit straight...

I've also been to (squatting) demos where some people (mainly lifestylist types) just thought it was an excuse to get pissed and shout abuse (of rather homophobic nature) to passer-bys for no reason at all.
It's all about being bloody rational.

Also, Guerilla warfare on LSD, Seriously? How'd that work out?

[Vendetta]

Do we live in a socialist America yet? ;)

[Quail]

Haha u guys, I love this guy.

But seriously, it all depends on responsibility. While I agree with your post, all too often I've seen what 'drug culture' can do to a movement. I've been to meetings where people started the meeting with a few six packs of beer and half-way during discussing demo tactics people where too pissed to sit straight...


Drinking in meetings sounds like a terrible idea, and I don't imagine you'd get a lot done. Leftist organisations should be promoting sensible drug use amongst its members, instead of banning it. As long as the members' drug use doesn't interfere with the functioning and the reputation of the organisation, I see no problem with it.

[Ravachol]

Drinking in meetings sounds like a terrible idea, and I don't imagine you'd get a lot done. Leftist organisations should be promoting sensible drug use amongst its members, instead of banning it. As long as the members' drug use doesn't interfere with the functioning and the reputation of the organisation, I see no problem with it.

this, exactly this.

[RED DAVE]

Yeah, during the demos during the late 60s, it was considered cool to get loaded or high. However, this pretty much got shut down by the big demo in, I think, November of '67. They tear-gassed the shit out of us, as we tried to "storm" the Pentagon. And if you think tear gas is bad when you're straight, try it when you're fucked up. Add to that cops and National Guard with rifles (remember the pretty girls putting flowers down the barrels), and you don't exactly get a party.

It's a personal decision so long as it doesn't affect your political functioning. If it does, then the group should step in. Fuck the police!

RED DAVE