Marijuana Legalization also a Socialist cause?

[AmericanSocialist]

http://socialistmovement.wordpress.com/

Socialist revolution is to implement a socialist system and transition into a communist society where no exploitation exists. The blog post I made is to show that in my view that making marijuana illegal is another exploitation of the working people by the ruling elite and its war on our health and well being for the sake of profit. I am sure not all will agree, just sharing for any useful thoughts.

[RichardAWilson]

I agree. Aren't men and women imprisoned for marijuana? (For no reason?) Aren't men and women (in states like Florida) denied the right to vote if they receive a growing and distribution charge? Well then: The Legalization of Marijuana is a demand of Socialism.

[Rakhmetov]

Chomsky says marijuana is illegal because it can not be monopolized since it is a weed and it can be grown everywhere, even in the south pole. Whereas tobacco can not be grown profitably everywhere and therefore a few corporations can monopolize production and distribution and make billions in profit. Tobacco kills millions while marijuana does not and tobacco is far more addictive. Understanding Power: the Indispensable Chomsky.

[danyboy27]

i dont think you can say its a socialist cause, many capitalist are in favor of the legalisation of weed beccause they damn know they could make money with it.

But, bottom line, its just make sense to legalize the use of a FUCKING PLANT.

there are many plants in this world far more dangerous than weed, you could mass produce those and make extremely deadly chemical with it, and its all completely legal.

The issue is mainly about morality here. Just like with prostitution, the only thing that stand in the way of its legalisation are moralistic old fart with obsolete values.

i am pretty confident that even if we could achieve communism, those same old fart would still be there and will try to subject society to their particular brand of obsolete morality.

[danyboy27]

Chomsky says marijuana is illegal because it can not be monopolized since it is a weed and it can be grown everywhere, even in the south pole. Whereas tobacco can not be grown profitably everywhere and therefore a few corporations can monopolize production and distribution and make billions in profit. Tobacco kills millions while marijuana is not and tobacco is far more addictive. Understanding Power: the Indispensable Chomsky.

Well, marijuana CAN be monopolysed, 1 word: Regulations.

Just like alchool, marijuana can be easily produced, and just like alchool, it take a shitload of authorisation to be able to legally make it and sell it.

with a minimum of chemical knowledge, anybody could brew their own vodka or their own scotch, and some do, but if you really want to freely distribute it or even sell it you need to be approved and authorised by the governement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Chomsky says marijuana is illegal because it can not be monopolized since it is a weed and it can be grown everywhere, even in the south pole. Whereas tobacco can not be grown profitably everywhere and therefore a few corporations can monopolize production and distribution and make billions in profit. Tobacco kills millions while marijuana does not and tobacco is far more addictive. Understanding Power: the Indispensable Chomsky.

That is a very interesting viewpoint, though i'll have to disagree.

The cause of marijuana legalisation is a logical, populist and democratic one, rather than solely a Socialist one.

Whilst Chomsky's analysis could have some weight, I imagine that the continued suppression of marijuana, whilst tobacco and alcohol rein free in legal terms, is more of a faux-populist policy response from politicians.

[Crux]

i dont think you can say its a socialist cause, many capitalist are in favor of the legalisation of weed beccause they damn know they could make money with it.

But, bottom line, its just make sense to legalize the use of a FUCKING PLANT.

there are many plants in this world far more dangerous than weed, you could mass produce those and make extremely deadly chemical with it, and its all completely legal.

The issue is mainly about morality here. Just like with prostitution, the only thing that stand in the way of its legalisation are moralistic old fart with obsolete values.

i am pretty confident that even if we could achieve communism, those same old fart would still be there and will try to subject society to their particular brand of obsolete morality.
Not to derail the thread, but no.

Incidentally I do think the legalisation of cannabis, while I am in favour, is slightly more complex than some of the advocates would make it. Is cannabis really harmless? I don't think so. It is addictive and pacifying and most of all in present society I do believe it would be very much commercialized. These are just things I think are worth taking into consideration, but I do think the pro's outweight the con's.

[RichardAWilson]

It is not addictive (from a biochemical perspective). The addiction is psychological. I.e. Food is even more addictive than marijuana: As certain foods (such as chocolate) have biochemical influences.

[Hit The North]

Doesn't cannabis have a "biochemical influence"?

[RichardAWilson]

It's not biochemically addictive.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Food is a necessity so regardless of it's chemical makeup (which admittedly I know nothing about) it is naturally going to be much easier to get addicted to binging or other similar eating habits. Marijuana may not be biochemically addictive (again, I know nothing about this) but it definitely has addictive properties. I definitely believe that while I was in school I was addicted to it, I went about six months where I couldn't get to sleep without having a joint first, this may not be sound like your typical addiction but I did rely on it. I know a fair number of people right now I would probably say are addicts too.

Anyway, I don't think it's a socialist cause, but it can be a cause that some socialists identify with. It's a view that - believe it or not - a very small part of me is actually sympathetic to, in a hypothetical socialist society I would be quite open to debating the legalisation of marijuana (but not other drugs), but I don't think the issue has any place in the socialist movement of today

[Os Cangaceiros]

Marijuana may not be biochemically addictive (again, I know nothing about this) but it definitely has addictive properties.

You can become mentally addicted to just about anything, though. Food, sex, gambling, the internet, etc.

[CommieTroll]

I read somewhere that there are hundreds of reasons why it is illegal, but it all boils down to money. One of those reasons was that if marijuana was banned so would hemp and other products which was a demand of the American paper industry

[Spawn of Stalin]

You can become mentally addicted to just about anything, though. Food, sex, gambling, the internet, etc.
Yeah I know that's the exact reason why I have trouble knowing exactly where to draw the line as far as what should be illegal and what shouldn't. From my own experience (the selfish point of view), yes I am 100% convinced that it should be banned. But looking at how other people use marijuana (my own Mother included) I can see an argument for legalisation. It's not something I really think about too often since I haven't touched any drug for years now which is why I haven't really formed a definite opinion either way

[RichardAWilson]

I think it's a big issue: There are thousands and thousands of men and women in prison for growing, distributing and smoking marijuana. In some cases: Such as in Florida, the growing and distribution of marijuana is a felony:

In Florida: Felons don't have a right to vote. Grow an herb and you can't vote.

Plus: It's a big issue among college youth: Which are more open to socialism and change.

[danyboy27]

Not to derail the thread, but no.

Incidentally I do think the legalisation of cannabis, while I am in favour, is slightly more complex than some of the advocates would make it. Is cannabis really harmless? I don't think so. It is addictive and pacifying and most of all in present society I do believe it would be very much commercialized. These are just things I think are worth taking into consideration, but I do think the pro's outweight the con's.

and alchool is pretty good for pacifying peoples, should we ban alchool has well?

YOu cant die from a cannabis overdose, on the other hand, a large enough consumption of alchool could kill you in a fews hours.

alchool was there in russia before the october revolution, it was there in france before the paris commune, so let me be sceptics about the danger legalizing pot would have for a future revolution.

I dont take drugs beside alchool, my interest for pot are purely utilitarian.
There is just so much stuff you can do with that plant, its just amazing; pimple medication, alternative to morphine, paper, clothing, cords, etc etc.

Usually the abuse of drugs are dirrectly linked with a lack of education, the substance themselves are really not the problem.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah I know that's the exact reason why I have trouble knowing exactly where to draw the line as far as what should be illegal and what shouldn't. From my own experience (the selfish point of view), yes I am 100% convinced that it should be banned. But looking at how other people use marijuana (my own Mother included) I can see an argument for legalisation. It's not something I really think about too often since I haven't touched any drug for years now which is why I haven't really formed a definite opinion either way

Well at least you don't allow your own anecdotal experiences with the drug to dictate policy for millions of people. That's more than can be said for some people.


I think it's a big issue: There are thousands and thousands of men and women in prison for growing, distributing and smoking marijuana. In some cases: Such as in Florida, the growing and distribution of marijuana is a felony -

Ending discrimanatory laws that disproportionately imprison minorities and the poor is definitely an issue socialists should support. However, I don't think that marijuana legalization is really a "socialist issue"; Monsanto is probably chomping at the bit for legalization.

[RichardAWilson]

Psychological issues and chemical imbalances can contribute to substance abuse and addiction (In the sense that: Insomnia does encourage self-medication - with alcohol, marijuana and certain Rx medications, as does depression (alcoholism is common with depression). Anxiety leads to a number of self-medications (smoking, drinking, eating disorders). - I would know this because I've tackled a few of those problems and I've taken Courses in Psychology (General Psychology, Abnormal Psychology and Sociology) and excelled in each one.

[danyboy27]

if we could determine early if x person have a physiological weakness regarding x or y substance, many problem would be solved.

[RichardAWilson]

It's not that easy because you have to distinguish between causation and correlation.

I.e. Just because a person that has a “depression gene” doesn’t mean that person will suffer from alcoholism (even though there’s a strong correlation between the two).

[RichardAWilson]

Also: If for no other reason: Marijuana should be an issue with socialists because of the tactical advantages (It’s a big issue among college youth, which are sympathetic to socialism and progressive politics).

[Mettalian]

Not so much a 'socialist' cause, but one that I feel many socialists would be aligned with for the various reasons mentioned here. I'm for the legalization of most drugs, purely on the basis that drug use tends to go down when it's legalized and regulated. I've been known to partake, maybe I'm biased, but I don't find the use of marijuana, or its legalization, to be something to fight against.

[Hivemind]

I think with marijuana (and all sorts of other illegal drugs, but mostly "soft" drugs like psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, salvia, and to an extent MDMA), the issue is also related to the effects of said drug(s). Many don't take this into account when talking about legalization or decriminalization.

A lot of people focus on the money of the situation. Yes, a lot of money can be made by a lot of bad people if it becomes legal and regulated like tobacco and alcohol. A lot of people will also focus on the part where both of those substances (tobacco and alcohol) will cause irrepairable damage to the body, and even the death of the organism (and the deaths of others through drunk driving).

Not many focus on what I am about to say. Marijuana (and the other illegal substances that I have listed) will open your mind. They will change your perspective on anything and everything. They will allow you to understand concepts that you didn't even think existed. They expand your mind and allow you to see clearly. That's a huge reason why they are illegal. The people in power wouldn't want the common man to wake up.

But wait. You say "but keeping them illegal allows more people to use them, as is demonstrated through many studies done that show that decriminalization/legalization lowers use, so why wouldn't the people in power legalize it to reduce the number of people from using it (them), while making profits?"

Good question. To that I offer the following argument: the way things are now, drugs are very dirty. Even the most common illegal drugs can be laced with bad stuff.
As it stands, the "bad stuff" is really harmful to you, mentally and physically, which obviously depends on the "stuff" involved, so you're not really getting what you should be getting for your money's worth on the illegal market: you want to buy a gram of marijuana, the dealer says it's really good, charges you double, it's actually just shitty marijuana laced with coke, and the dealer still makes a profit on your ass while you effectively do coke, which is shown to be a drug that many get addicted to.

Now, before I continue rambling on the topic, I'll skip to education. Education? Yes. They teach about illegal substances earlier and earlier in schools. And they do a shitty job of it. "Hey kids, if you take this little pill, you will have a great time and it changes your state of consciousness, which is something that not many things on this planet can do, but don't do it because it's bad for you."

The kids who just heard that phrase lost you at "bad"; they're already thinking about what it might be like. Illegal drugs are easy to obtain as well, since the dealer doesn't care about you or your age, only your money. So you have an obscene amount of kids doing drugs at younger and younger ages. This is bad in many different ways. First off, any kid going through puberty should not be doing drugs or drinking, for it may stunt growth or mess up god knows what inside the brain, as the brain's chemistry is constantly changing at their age, and their growth is based on random spurts and whatnot. Secondly, at their age, their level of maturity is very low. They'll be doing drugs and mostly thinking "whoa, look at the colours" instead of crazy ideas and concepts. A child that age is definitely more prone to laughing at colours than to question existence, social strata and social constructs, government, the existence or non existence of a supreme being, the concept of the universe, the needlessly unfairness of modern day systems such as capitalism, and whatnot. Not to mention that, although marijuana isn't physically addictive, it is psychologically addictive, and it affects kids much more than someone who knows their own body and have a strong will.

This is why government funding going to anti-drug programs and drug "education" in schools raise red flags of warning in my mind and the minds of others. To recap: drugs are illegal. Kids are poorly taught about drugs (whether on purpose or accidentally, though I'm more inclined to believe that the former is true), so they go try stuff out. They don't have the maturity to think of "deeper" things (this is true for the majority, if not close to most young users), and many get addicted psychologically to the drugs in question. The drugs themselves can and most likely will be bad. Marijuana not so much, but once you start going into the realms of MDMA (which can be cut with basically anything from speed to caffeine), the dangers become apparent.

What happens then is you have the next generations of kids growing up after all of these bad things happening, perhaps a method of control, perhaps not, but then they will have kids of their own, and the cycle starts all over. I think that drugs are illegal for this reason, for it is the greatest menace to free thinking and free people. You should be free to do what you want with your body, it is a basic freedom which no one is granted because of strict laws.

Stupid people give drugs a bad name. In the area that I live, which is a great area, there's no random shootings or shit like that, there are roughly three hundred thousand people. This year, I talked to a few people who are in grade nine (which is the first year of high school here, for those who don't know), and they have all told me that 75-90% of kids in their grade smoke marijuana and/or drink booze on a regular basis, and they're all a bunch of stupid teenagers who are chasing pleasure and nothing more. And that's in the good schools in the area, one of which (the one I went to), is rated number one in a huge area in academia. I don't even want to imagine what the ghetto schools are like.

I remember that when I was in grade nine, which wasn't that long ago, about five years, not even half of the students in my grade even drank yet, fewer still who smoked marijuana, and it was never a regular thing for most of them. People were too busy playing Pokemon and having childhoods. Nowadays though...

I understand that this is the cynic in me speaking, for each generation usually condemns the following one in some way, shape or form, but where do you draw the line? These kids are basically mindless zombies already, before the age of fifteen or sixteen, and there's visible correlations between government funding, illegalization, education and the results of the preceeding: mindless slaves.

I am a firm advocate that you need a fairly high degree of maturity in order to experience drugs in a positive way (as I said, as a eye opener, etc), and the majority of kids doing illegal drugs these days are not ready yet, and are setting themselves up for disaster.

This is why I think drugs are illegal. They shouldn't be illegal, because the government (and any other authority) does not have a say in what the individual does with his or her body. It is just another method of control, to me. Drugs are, to me, are both horribly bad, and horribly good at the same time. It depends who is the one holding the drugs in his hand.

[Crux]

and alchool is pretty good for pacifying peoples, should we ban alchool has well?

YOu cant die from a cannabis overdose, on the other hand, a large enough consumption of alchool could kill you in a fews hours.

alchool was there in russia before the october revolution, it was there in france before the paris commune, so let me be sceptics about the danger legalizing pot would have for a future revolution.

I dont take drugs beside alchool, my interest for pot are purely utilitarian.
There is just so much stuff you can do with that plant, its just amazing; pimple medication, alternative to morphine, paper, clothing, cords, etc etc.

Usually the abuse of drugs are dirrectly linked with a lack of education, the substance themselves are really not the problem.
Well indeed banning and the struggle against alcoholism has historically been a part of worker's struggle, in both russia and revolutionary spain there were bans. I don't believe in bans myself, but I do believe in damage minimation.

[Kamil]

Think mary jane makes u complacent???? HERES THE SCIENTIFIC SOCIALIST PROOF TO REFUTE THAT SHIT KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

[Kamil]

BTW, that show was hardly seen all over the world, i dont think any1 outside Orange County saw it...

[danyboy27]

Well indeed banning and the struggle against alcoholism has historically been a part of worker's struggle, in both russia and revolutionary spain there were bans. I don't believe in bans myself, but I do believe in damage minimation.

and in both cases it was probably useless beccause some dudes created a distillery in a old warehouse somewhere and manufactured boose anyway.

Iran have a no-booze policy, and it dosnt stop folks to get their boose in a way or another.


the U.S war of drugs employ thousand of people, and yet, finding a bag weed or coke in america or canada is something that is extremely easy.

if you believe in damage control, legalisation is the best way to do it.

[Frank Zapatista]

I agree with the legalization of marijuana however, I think we have much bigger issues to focus on than whether or not "smoking up" is legal.

[The_Outernationalist]

Why would legalization of a substance have any semblance to the leftist cause?

with that said, I do support legalization of soft drugs.

[Property Is Robbery]

Why would legalization of a substance have any semblance to the leftist cause?

Read all the posts in this thread

[Kenco Smooth]

I agree with the legalization of marijuana however, I think we have much bigger issues to focus on than whether or not "smoking up" is legal.

With marijuana yes. But huge damage is done due to the illegal status of opiates and cocaine in the western world. Damage that is almost exclusively done to those unable to afford a steady, safe supply of the drugs.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The working class has no interest criminalization individuals for the personal use of stimulants. The working class approach to the question involves education, research, safety assurance, etc. Not incarceration or anything similar.

[AmericanSocialist]

What I also mean by a socialist cause is not some cause that is at the forefront, but when it comes to equality and eliminating exploitation and taking away of freedoms, I think it is an important issue. This land cause itself the land of the free yet oppresses the majority and imprisons black, hispanic, and others.

[tracher999]

just ligalize idd 4 shure:)

420

greetz

[Princess Luna]

I agree with the legalization of marijuana however, I think we have much bigger issues to focus on than whether or not "smoking up" is legal.


Why would legalization of a substance have any semblance to the leftist cause?

with that said, I do support legalization of soft drugs.

If marijuana was decriminalized (the only punishment is a fine) it would fall pretty low on my prioritys, but right now the U.S. government is using the war on drugs to terrorize the working class. Police are allowed to kick your door down and ransack your home and (thanks to a recent supreme court ruling) they don't need a search warrant, they can just claimed they smelled marijuana. And if they do find marijauana or other drugs, you can face over 10 years in one of the worst prison systems in the western world. (along with millions of other people who are currently rotting in prison for drug offenses) I won't even go into the effect the war on drugs is having one Latin America, but suffice to say at this time i think ending the war on drugs is a very important cause.

[Jose Gracchus]

Monsanto is probably chomping at the bit for legalization.

If this were actually true than it would be legal today.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Chomsky says marijuana is illegal because it can not be monopolized since it is a weed and it can be grown everywhere, even in the south pole. Whereas tobacco can not be grown profitably everywhere and therefore a few corporations can monopolize production and distribution and make billions in profit. Tobacco kills millions while marijuana does not and tobacco is far more addictive. Understanding Power: the Indispensable Chomsky.

I don't think financial reasons are the core - if they were, then it would be legal right now - sure anyone can grow, but big tobacco or big agriculture could grow cash crops which cold be mass-produced and therefore sold at a much lower cost than home-growers ever could. Since not everyone (particularly heads :lol:) would want to take the time to grow their own, a major company could make billions off of weed not to mention all the paraphernalia.

I think the reason it's still illegal is that it's too good of a tool to allow cops to search people, to justify the war on drugs, to be a scapegoat for social problems and so on. It's also sort of becoming a liability though for the ruling class because it is much more popular today than in the past and casts doubt on the whole "war on drugs" program - of course legalizing weed could also have the effect of opening up questions on drug policy and so that's why I think the ruling class is still marginally against legalization. In other words, it's a thorn in their side, but when in doubt keep the devil you know rather than risk opening up an issue which had ramifications for the entire prison and police system.

Industrial capitalism needs prohibition movements in order to build-up bourgeois morals and ideas among people ("work hard, weed makes you lazy") and to scapegoat for social problems ("sure we cut school spending, but the real reason that schools are doing so bad is all the stoned kids!"). It's well documented that the first laws against pot in the US were along border states and directed primarily at Mexican laborers working in the States. Just like the alcohol prohibition movement targeted "the bad morals" of German and Irish immigrants, the weed prohibition movement always used images of "crazed Negros" and "violent Mexicans" (often taking advantage of stoned white girls) in their propaganda.

On this basis, the basis of trying to dislodge the war on drugs and "tough on crime" ideological myths, I think a radical socialist case for a movement around this issue can be made. As a socialist I think all drugs should be decriminalized and addiction treated as a medical issue, not a moral one. But I don't think pot legalization is really a big rallying cry for us at this point - if there were a movement to legalize or decriminalize on the basis of getting rid of drug-incarcerations and police harassment of youth, then I think that would be a way for radicals to really play a big part and would speak directly the the specifically working class issues regarding drug-policy.

[Tomhet]

I think weed is great, and I think everyone should be allowed to use, and enjoy it as well..
The "arguments" against it are ALL an example of 'Moralistic' communism,which is absurd and un-Marxist..
Cannabis is a commodity, it's not the commodity itself which is a problem..

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Rule 57.
Nothing is sacred
Rule 11.
All your Carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored.
Besides drugs are bad. All of them are.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Chomsky says marijuana is illegal because it can not be monopolized since it is a weed and it can be grown everywhere, even in the south pole. Whereas tobacco can not be grown profitably everywhere and therefore a few corporations can monopolize production and distribution and make billions in profit. Tobacco kills millions while marijuana does not and tobacco is far more addictive. Understanding Power: the Indispensable Chomsky.

If this is truly Chomsky's argument here I would say he's incorrect. The marijuana industry could easily generate billions of dollars while also being easily regulated. Anyone can grow tobacco, I've done it and other people have done it on their own however to be able to compete with major tobacco companies would be virtually impossible thus it's inconsequential whether or not I could grow it. Same with marijuana, even if someone could grow it, if it were fully legal, they wouldn't be able to compete with the major marijuana companies. Especially if the price for marijuana became equivalent to tobacco like say, buying a bag of pipe marijuana at 3 dollars for an oz.

The problem is that there are other drug companies in the game whom I believe are trying to keep out this possible formidable competitor via lobbying. The alcohol industry would easily be marijuana's main competitor. Consider the benefits of weed over booze. You can smoke all the weed you want and what's the worse that could happen? You get hungry, you pass out, you get cotton mouth, etc. What's the worse that could happen if you drink all the booze you can handle? Alcohol poisoning, coma, death, etc. It's obvious that the alcohol industry would be acting within their own interests to lobby to keep marijuana illegal. Granted, if marijuana were legal, it wouldn't wipe out the booze industry completely but it would definitely give it a run for it's money. I think this is a more plausible explanation than the one made by Chomsky.


All your Carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored. Besides drugs are bad. All of them are.

Take your sodey pop and go somewhere else, this is the smoking section.

[Dogs On Acid]

Many people that oppose the legalization of Cannabis have never even consumed it in the first place.

I'm quite certain legalization will come soon because I see a liberal mentality in my generation. Give it a few years.

[Left]

I say legalize it and enforce a government-monopoly, so that we can regulate the market, control the flow and keep Big Business and multinational predators out. Alcohol, tobacco, snus, marijuana, gambling and other drugs all need to be monopolized by the government. Similar to the Nordic countries.

We also need to stop punishing drug addicts by locking them up and throwing the key away, they need rehabilitation, medical care, treatment and help.

Here in Sweden, and the rest of the Nordic countries, the government has a monopoly on alcohol(Iceland has a monopoly on alot of things, tobacco is a government monopoly aswell), and I'd like to see something similar done to marijuana(Systembolaget, Vinmonopolet, Alko and Vínbúð in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland, respectively).

[AmericanCommie421]

I'd say so. The government taking away another right of yours and restricting your personal freedom isn't very Socialist or Communist. Besides there are very few to no downsides to marijuana legalization. I believe the main source of Mexican drug cartels income is Marijuana and that woud definitly reduce there funds. It gives individuals more freedom. There wouldn't be tons of money wasted on the enforcement of the unnecessary law. I think the same should be done for all drugs with the exception of drugs the more addictive and dangerous drugs like crack for example.

[Bardo]

i dont think you can say its a socialist cause, many capitalist are in favor of the legalisation of weed beccause they damn know they could make money with it.

But, bottom line, its just make sense to legalize the use of a FUCKING PLANT.


This.

I think this issue crosses all ideological boundries. Conservatives, liberals, capitalists, socialists, christians, atheists, ect all have advocates and opponents of marijuana decriminalization/legalization.

Legalization is just the rational outcome to this "problem".

[Bardo]

Many people that oppose the legalization of Cannabis have never even consumed it in the first place.

I'm quite certain legalization will come soon because I see a liberal mentality in my generation. Give it a few years.

Hasn't portugal decriminalized marijuana and other drugs or has that been retracted?

[Impulse97]

Hasn't Portugal decriminalized marijuana and other drugs or has that been retracted?

Can't say for Portugal, but The Czech Republic legalized everything.

That seems to be a good and bad thing. I mean pot and pure mdma aren't that harmful, but crack? and meth? Those seem too dangerous to legalize.

[Dogs On Acid]

Can't say for Portugal, but The Czech Republic legalized everything.

That seems to be a good and bad thing. I mean pot and pure mdma aren't that harmful, but crack? and meth? Those seem too dangerous to legalize.

It's only as dangerous as the person taking it, drugs aren't dangerous by themselves.

It's all about abuse really.

[Dogs On Acid]

Hasn't portugal decriminalized marijuana and other drugs or has that been retracted?

It's decriminalized nearly everything when it comes to possession and consumption but not buying/selling.

10 anos após a descriminalização do consumo de droga
por Rute Coelho25 Abril 2011

http://www.dn.pt/storage/DN/2011/big/ng1510623.jpg?type=big&pos=0


Dez anos após a descriminalização do consumo de drogas em Portugal, o presidente do Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência (IDT), João Goulão, faz um balanço "muito positivo" da lei em vigor desde 1 de Julho de 2001.

O modelo português é mesmo apontado internacionalmente como um caso de sucesso. "Hoje temos 40 mil toxicodependentes em tratamento, em todo o País. É um número recorde de pessoas em tratamento e simboliza uma enorme evolução. Quando comecei nesta área, há 20 anos, o estigma social era tão forte que as pessoas nem davam o seu nome completo aos técnicos", afirma João Goulão.
Dos doentes em tratamento, cerca de 10% são utilizadores de 'cannabis', vulgarmente conhecida por "erva". "Antes da descriminalização do consumo não tínhamos consumidores de 'cannabis' em tratamento. Agora, quando confrontados pelos técnicos das comissões, acabam por perceber que fumar 'cannabis' tem consequências para a saúde e aceitam o tratamento."
Em 10 anos, disse João Goulão ao DN, verificou-se também uma "descida do consumo de substâncias ilícitas nos jovens com idades entre os 15 e os 19 anos". O álcool não entra nessa contabilidade, precisou, apenas os estupefacientes como 'cannabis', cocaína, heroína, LSD ou outros.
Finalmente, "na última década o principal grupo de infectados com o vírus VIH/sida deixou de ser o dos toxicodependentes para passar a ser o dos heterossexuais e dos homossexuais". O modelo português de descriminalização do consumo e dissuassão da toxicodependência "tem vindo a ser estudado por outros países". Recentemente, os ministros da Justiça e da Saúde da Noruega estiveram no IDT para recolherem elementos que possam utilizar.

[Impulse97]

It's only as dangerous as the person taking it, drugs aren't dangerous by themselves.

It's all about abuse really.

I disagree. It's how addictive they are. If you get addicted, you can't help, but abuse it until you go for help. Even in a Socialist society that would cause major issues.

[Dogs On Acid]

I disagree. It's how addictive they are. If you get addicted, you can't help, but abuse it until you go for help. Even in a Socialist society that would cause major issues.

Addiction doesn't cause abuse.

Lack of self-discipline and abuse cause addiction.

[Impulse97]

Addiction doesn't cause abuse.

Lack of self-discipline and abuse cause addiction.


So, in short your saying all those meth heads are just weak willed s.o.b's who lack the self discipline to stop? Do you really feel it's only mere lazyness?

Do you also ignore the science to back up addiction? What about smokers? Have you ever asked anyone of them how hard it is to quit? Hell. have you even been addicted to anything? Do you know what it's like?

[Dogs On Acid]

So, in short your saying all those meth heads are just weak willed s.o.b's who lack the self discipline to stop? Do you really feel it's only mere lazyness?

Do you also ignore the science to back up addiction? What about smokers? Have you ever asked anyone of them how hard it is to quit? Hell. have you even been addicted to anything? Do you know what it's like?

Lazyness? Where did I say that?

And S.O.B's? That's very offensive.

Yes I've been addicted.

[Turinbaar]

It is important to note the history of prohibition when considering modern times. The main reason why China was subject to an imperial feeding frenzy was largely do to its failure to succeed in its war on drugs. Karl Marx noted in his essays about the Opium Wars that had the emperor legalized the drug, and localized its production he could have not only driven out the East India Co by breaking their monopoly, and made back the money he had lost to them, but he could have also dealt a crippling blow to their rule in India, which had largely converted the country into a giant opium production engine, (and Hong Kong the funnel through which to discard the surplus). Instead the emperor declared it not only a crime, but a heresy to buy or consume opium. The result was the reduction of China to the Sick Man of Asia. On the whole, drug legalization is an anti-imperialist cause that should be a principle among revolutionary socialists.

[Kenco Smooth]

Addiction doesn't cause abuse.

Lack of self-discipline and abuse cause addiction.

You're aware there have been large biological links made to addiction and that certain social environments make addiction massively more likely?

It's not only due to the ability to gain a steady and safer supply that addiction is a much smaller issue amongst the middle classes. To say addiction is simply a result of a lack of self-discipline is to accuse the working class and poor of having seriously deficient self-discipline.

[Dogs On Acid]

You're aware there have been large biological links made to addiction and that certain social environments make addiction massively more likely?

It's not only due to the ability to gain a steady and safer supply that addiction is a much smaller issue amongst the middle classes. To say addiction is simply a result of a lack of self-discipline is to accuse the working class and poor of having seriously deficient self-discipline.

Addiction has nothing to do with being a worker. The individual has to have self-discipline.

If an individual wants to take drugs, that individual will get them illegally.

Lack of proper information about drugs is a big factor in abuse or the decision to take them. Are you going to tell me that someone who has no interest in drugs will take them if they are legal?

And I never said poor people have a lack of self-discipline, did I?

Addicts will have a constant illegal supply anyway.

Socialist schools will actually teach youngsters something other than professional education, they will give social education. Teach them about drugs, teach them about sex, teach them about disease.

An educated population is a conscious one.

[Kenco Smooth]

Addiction has nothing to do with being a worker. The individual has to have self-discipline.

If an individual wants to take drugs, that individual will get them illegally.

Lack of proper information about drugs is a big factor in abuse or the decision to take them. Are you going to tell me that someone who has no interest in drugs will take them if they are legal?

And I never said poor people have a lack of self-discipline, did I?

Addicts will have a constant illegal supply anyway.

Socialist schools will actually teach youngsters something other than professional education, they will give social education. Teach them about drugs, teach them about sex, teach them about disease.

An educated population is a conscious one.

You're appealing to the same individual of classical liberalism who stands above and outwith society when you place the factors leading to addiction upon individual will power and discipline. It's very clear that chances of drug addiction are much higher as social and economic capital held drop.

Also (and the majority of your post is a little irrelevant to my argument as I am in favour of legalisation) but you get two quite important points wrong.

1) people do take drugs without an interest in them. Often in their teens due to peer pressure but likewise drug use in the interest of a social end occurs throughout an individuals life.

2) Users do not always have a steady or reliable supply whilst drugs are illegal. This is one of the main problems with the current policy and is one of the factors in the remarkable difference in damage done by addictions between those with adequate financial means and those without. Higher earners are often able to achieve a more reliable and safe supply due to their access to money and exclusive social circles.

[Dogs On Acid]

1) people do take drugs without an interest in them. Often in their teens due to peer pressure but likewise drug use in the interest of a social end occurs throughout an individuals life.

2) Users do not always have a steady or reliable supply whilst drugs are illegal. This is one of the main problems with the current policy and is one of the factors in the remarkable difference in damage done by addictions between those with adequate financial means and those without. Higher earners are often able to achieve a more reliable and safe supply due to their access to money and exclusive social circles.

I agree with Nº1, but I don't see where you are getting at with Nº2. Also can't peer pressure be lowered when when have better education on the subject?

So what's this thing about constant supply? Do you think constant supply is bad? Because when there isn't a constant supply that's when addicts do stupid shit and possibly hurt themselves or others.

[Kenco Smooth]

I agree with Nº1, but I don't see where you are getting at with Nº2. Also can't peer pressure be lowered when when have better education on the subject?

So what's this thing about constant supply? Do you think constant supply is bad? Because when there isn't a constant supply that's when addicts do stupid shit and possibly hurt themselves or others.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. The current policy of criminalisation (Just noticed you're in portugal so the reference to current policy might have been a bit confusing) leads to interrupted supply and is directly harmful.

In response to your claim addicts will have a constant supply when it's illegal.

[Dogs On Acid]

That's exactly what I'm getting at. The current policy of criminalisation (Just noticed you're in portugal so the reference to current policy might have been a bit confusing) leads to interrupted supply and is directly harmful.

In response to your claim addicts will have a constant supply when it's illegal.

Oh and illegal drugs tend to be adulterated with highly addictive chemicals. So addiction won't be such a big problem in a Socialist society. Even if you don't abuse of a hard drug, it has a high risk of getting you caught on it. It's not so much the drug itself, but the other shit that comes with it.

[Kenco Smooth]

Oh and illegal drugs tend to be adulterated with highly addictive chemicals. So addiction won't be such a big problem in a Socialist society. Even if you don't abuse of a hard drug, it has a high risk of getting you caught on it. It's not so much the drug itself, but the other shit that comes with it.

Yup. But like I said your preaching to the converted here.

[Dogs On Acid]

Just stating the obvious then ;)

[Bardo]

I disagree. It's how addictive they are. If you get addicted, you can't help, but abuse it until you go for help. Even in a Socialist society that would cause major issues.

Right, but wether or not you lock someone up for years or offer them help makes alot of difference. People are going to use drugs wether or not it's legal. I can't see your average citizen saying "Hey heroin is legal now! Let's shoot some smack!".

Giving someone prison time for using drugs is just ignoring and exacerbating the problem.

[Impulse97]

Right, but wether or not you lock someone up for years or offer them help makes alot of difference. People are going to use drugs wether or not it's legal. I can't see your average citizen saying "Hey heroin is legal now! Let's shoot some smack!".

Giving someone prison time for using drugs is just ignoring and exacerbating the problem.

I agree, but thats not what I'm getting at. What the other poster seemed to be saying was that only the weak willed get addicted and if all those addicts just manned up we wouldn't have addiction issues.

It was more of an argument that addiction is a scientific fact rather than the legality or treatment issues. Although, I agree with you again that the average citizen probably wouldn't say that and that treatment should take priority over jail.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I disagree. It's how addictive they are. If you get addicted, you can't help, but abuse it until you go for help. Even in a Socialist society that would cause major issues.


Addiction doesn't cause abuse.

Lack of self-discipline and abuse cause addiction.

I half agree with each of you. I think chemical as well as habitual abuse are real things beyond just self-discipline, but I think this abuse is a medical issue, not a social issue in the abstract. It becomes a social issue in capitalism mostly because of the cost and inability to hold a 40 hour a week job if you are an alcoholic or dependent on a drug. Because it is illegal this adds additional social problems by creating a black market and forcing many addicts to go tot the black market to pay for their habits (i.e. becoming prostitutes or petty-thieves or getting some hustle) and making people afraid or unable to seek help from medical facilities when they are really strung out or suffering from drug-induced psychosis. People are cut off from their families in many working class communities because of the moral issues or just working poor people who can not manage to care for an unstable drug-addict or are tired of being ripped off by them when they need a fix. Addicts become pariahs and can fall into homelessness and since there are no services, they are left to rot and shunned by other people in poor communities who can't trust them or help them. All these ancillary problems to the medical condition of addiction are primarily created not by the addict or the addiction, but by the way our society deals with this issue.

In capitalist society, if you can't work and show up on time for whatever reason, then you are worthless and can be tossed into the gutter for all the ruling class cares. Drug abuse will probably still be a factor of life in a socialist society, but good and free medical treatment will reduce the numbers of people who self-medicate (as is often the case in the US) and just the elimination of alienation and lack of control over your own life will reduce people's need to use alcohol or addictive downers or whatnot to achieve oblivion and numbness from shitty lives.