Should marijuana be legal in a socialist society?

[Tovarisch]

From what I know, Marx had a negative view of weed. But what is your opinion?

I think it should definitely be legal in a socialist country. Pot is and has been a great (and harmless) way to relieve stress and anger for thousands of years. In fact, pot has been legal for more than 99% of human history. Pot actually became illegal for racist reasons. It was fascism that made it illegal

[Misanthrope]

Your body, your choice.

[hatzel]

Undoubtedly. That isn't to say each and every contemporary drug legalisation movement should automatically be totally immune from criticism, however. Nor does it necessarily imply any approval of the use of cannabis; one can support its legalisation whilst still condemning its usage. Despite this, I sense many pick sides in the debate based more on whether or not they would personally like to use cannabis, which isn't necessarily the best foundation for what is a socio-political, rather than a personal, position.


In fact, pot has been legal for more than 99% of human history.

To be honest that's true of the vast majority of things.

[Blake's Baby]

... Pot actually became illegal for racist reasons. It was fascism that made it illegal

What?

Don't know about you but my understanding is that in much of the world marijuana was made illegal at the insistence of the Egyptian delegation at an international conference on limiting heroin in the 1920s.

But yeah, why would (and how could) marijuana be 'illegal'?

Doesn't mean it's a good idea to get stoned, especially if you're operating heavy machinery, flying a plane, doing open heart surgery...

[Os Cangaceiros]

What?

Don't know about you but my understanding is that in much of the world marijuana was made illegal at the insistence of the Egyptian delegation at an international conference on limiting heroin in the 1920s.

If you go back to the early 20th century, a lot of the scares regarding drug use were coached in racial terms, ie the pot being associated with blacks and the jazz scene, as well as Mexican immigrants, opium in California being associated with Chinese immigrants...I remember one specific editorial about them "dragging white women into dens of despair".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, where did Marx write about weed, I'm curious.

[Blake's Baby]

Hmmm. I'm in the UK, we didn't really get that in the 1920s. The 'Jazz scene' was all a bit Jeeves and Wooster/Bright Young Things (those sorts were all on coke anyway) and we even now don't have so many Chinese immigrants. Or Mexicans. Irish, not Mexicans. Irish aren't known for their massive cultivation of marijuana.

Yemeni sailors, maybe? That's probably as exotic as it got in the 1920s. Otherwise it was all 'Jewish Marxist this and Lithuanian Anarchist that...', as far as I can tell. No so much about drugs - don't forget, the Brits had only recently fought wars to export opium, we could hardly turn round and go 'bloody Chinese fiends, taking the opium that we forced them to have, the barstards...'

[X5N]

If you go back to the early 20th century, a lot of the scares regarding drug use were coached in racial terms, ie the pot being associated with blacks and the jazz scene, as well as Mexican immigrants, opium in California being associated with Chinese immigrants...I remember one specific editorial about them "dragging white women into dens of despair".

And don't forget the famous quote by Harry J. Anslinger.

[Tovarisch]

The guy who was responsible for outlawing of pot was also responsible for these quotes
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

[Ostrinski]

If you take away my pot, I will crush you.

[Ele'ill]

Yes it should be legal in a socialist society.

[hatzel]

The guy who was responsible for outlawing of pot

So you're actually trying to tell us that Anslinger was personally and individually responsible for the introduction of all laws restricting the possession, sale or purchase of cannabis?

The first one
The other one <<< please pull

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

From what I know, Marx had a negative view of weed. But what is your opinion?

I think it should definitely be legal in a socialist country. Pot is and has been a great (and harmless) way to relieve stress and anger for thousands of years. In fact, pot has been legal for more than 99% of human history. Pot actually became illegal for racist reasons. It was fascism that made it illegal

What?

Don't know about you but my understanding is that in much of the world marijuana was made illegal at the insistence of the Egyptian delegation at an international conference on limiting heroin in the 1920s.


The real reason that marijuana was made illegal is because private corporations were losing industry. Marijuana was an alternative material that people were using to replace various products with, and so companies wanted it banned so they could gain back their monopolies around the industries. I don't remember exactly what marijuana was being used for, but it wasn't originally used just to get high.

In order to get the product banned, they needed a reason to make it so. This was back in the early 20th century, when racism still dominated the United States. Because of this, the corporations were able to make up a lie, making bullsh*t claims, like "Marijuana will make white women want to date black men.". It put fear into the public, and so people went out of their way to get it outlawed.

[Belleraphone]

When does Marx write about weed?

[Impulse97]

If you take away my pot, I will crush you.


Agreed, take away my Reefer, and somebody's gonna get hurt.

[Blake's Baby]

The real reason that marijuana was made illegal is because private corporations were losing industry. Marijuana was an alternative material that people were using to replace various products with, and so companies wanted it banned so they could gain back their monopolies around the industries. I don't remember exactly what marijuana was being used for, but it wasn't originally used just to get high...

Sure. "Cannabis sativa" means 'sweet useful (plant)'. Hemp rope, hemp paper, hemp fabric ('hemp' is from the Swedish 'hanip' derived from 'cannabis'), a hangman's noose is still know as 'a hempen rope', 'canvas' is derived from 'cannabis'... logging is the major industry that competed with hemp in the 19th century, but also cotton, as well as oil. A bad combo. Almost like the 'global warming controversy' but 80 years before.



When does Marx write about weed?

Well, we knew once, but you know, then we got stoned, and it was, like, really funny? Because there was this guy there, you know, he had a big head... Steve! Steve! What was the name of that guy? What do you mean what guy? That guy! The one one with the big head! At the..? Yeah, him, yeah, you're right, he did like tea, I'd forgotten. Oooh, tea, I would love some tea right now. Isn't it odd how how we use the word "love" when we mean 'devour voraciously'? Yeah, that's really funny. Hmmm....

So I think that answers your question.

[Princess Luna]

Undoubtedly. That isn't to say each and every contemporary drug legalisation movement should automatically be totally immune from criticism, however. Nor does it necessarily imply any approval of the use of cannabis; one can support its legalisation whilst still condemning its usage. Despite this, I sense many pick sides in the debate based more on whether or not they would personally like to use cannabis, which isn't necessarily the best foundation for what is a socio-political, rather than a personal, position.



To be honest that's true of the vast majority of things.
While I will admit I would definitally use Marijuana if it were legal, I have absolutaly no desire to use Tobacco in any form and yet I am vehemently opposed to laws restricting its usage. So even if I didn't want to use pot, I would still defend it with the same zealousness.

[Ocean Seal]

From what I know, Marx had a negative view of weed.

What?


But what is your opinion?
Legalize, but encourage reasonable consumption.
Also places where people who want to quit or cut down consumption should be readily available.


I think it should definitely be legal in a socialist country.


Pot is and has been a great (and harmless) way to relieve stress and anger for thousands of years. In fact, pot has been legal for more than 99% of human history.
As Rabbi K said, that could be said of a lot of things.



Pot actually became illegal for racist reasons.

Probably not entirely.


It was fascism that made it illegal.
Nope.

[Misanthrope]

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."


who isn't guilty of getting stoned then masturbating to interracial porn?

NO ONE

[NGNM85]

It should be legal in any society. There simply aren't any cogent argumets for the prohibition of cannabis.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm a strong advocate for decriminalisation (and not just cannabis), but I find the "medical" marijuana movement to be highly disingenuous. Dispensaries giving out herbal cannabis to people carrying cards that they can acquire with the flimsiest of pretexts? That doesn't seem like a front for recreational consumption, no sir! :rolleyes:

Seriously, what the fuck? Wouldn't it be more honest to have decriminalisation? That way those who want to self-medicate using cannabis can do so without muddying things or wasting doctors' precious time.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It should be legal now, the only reason it isn't is because of scare campaigns and moralist rantings.

[Agent Ducky]

It should be legal in every society. Hypothetically though, I suppose individual communes/councils could come to a consensus that within their commune they want to limit drug usage or limit marijuana usage for their own reasons. I guess if it was a commune of a bunch of straight-edgers and they all agreed that it would be a smoke and drug free environment that would be okay, it's their decision.

[Buttress]

All drugs should be legal to own, buy, whatever. Restriction doesn't work to discourage use. Discouragement only comes through education.

[Blake's Baby]

It should be legal in every society. Hypothetically though, I suppose individual communes/councils could come to a consensus that within their commune they want to limit drug usage or limit marijuana usage for their own reasons. I guess if it was a commune of a bunch of straight-edgers and they all agreed that it would be a smoke and drug free environment that would be okay, it's their decision.

So would they be able to exclude people from membership of the commune if they were dope-smokers?

Would they be able to exclude people from the commune for other reasons?


All drugs should be legal to own, buy, whatever. Restriction doesn't work to discourage use. Discouragement only comes through education.

In a socialist society?

No buying and selling in socialism as I understand it.

[Buttress]

In a socialist society?

No buying and selling in socialism as I understand it.

Buying/selling/producing/gifting/recieving/taking/obtaining/using/manipulating/whatever

Should be "legal" under any system

[Jimmie Higgins]

It should be legal now, the only reason it isn't is because of scare campaigns and moralist rantings.I think they may have to give up on this particular moral crusade, but the larger war on drugs/crime plays a very important part ideologically for the establishment. It justifies all sorts of repressive measures and racially oppressive practices in the US and allows the establishment to scapegoat inequality and poverty on "bad personal choices" and the weak morals of "some" individuals rather than an inevitable part of capitalism (as if rich people weren't doing just as much drugs as working class and poor people anyway).

In Oakland they've more or less had a de-facto decrimilization and there are (non medical) pot-dispensaries and growing facilities which are licensed by the city. At the same time that they city has stopped enforcement of this, they have added new measures such as gang injunctions, curfews, and crusades against "side-shows" to ensure that the police can still stop or pull over any teenager (particularly black or Latino) whenever they want.

[RefusedPP]

Definitely should be legal, as should any drug. People should be educated but from then on it is their responsibility. Albeit that doesn't mean people should be 'allowed' to go and take drugs and then operate machinery or what not, workplace should implement rules as not for people to go to work drunk or high as it could endanger others. Great, now I sound like health and safety :rolleyes: But people should use common sense with that really...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have this hypothesis that certain drugs with a low potential for addiction or bodily harm, such as cannabis, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD, remain illegal at least in part because of their potentially "subversive" psychoactive effects.

Think about the kind of states of mind that such drugs produce. Don't they sit pretty poorly with being an imperialist-war supporting, God-fearin' patriotic consumer drone?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have this hypothesis that certain drugs with a low potential for addiction or bodily harm, such as cannabis, MDMA (Ecstasy), and LSD, remain illegal at least in part because of their potentially "subversive" psychoactive effects.

Think about the kind of states of mind that such drugs produce. Don't they sit pretty poorly with being an imperialist-war supporting, God-fearin' patriotic consumer drone?

Fear of subversiveness, promotion of conformity, do seem to be part of the propaganda over the years as the quote in a previous post about pot "making black people believe they are equal to whites" shows. Even a lot of temperance propaganda back in the day linked alcohol to unruly immigrant workers.

As far as subversiveness goes, I'll just have to paraphrase Hunter Thompson by saying that I don't recommend drugs but it seemed to work for me. Not that some youthful experimentation is the direct or even a significant cause for my current radicalism, but in retrospect it's amazing how strange the norms of capitalism seemed to me while on drugs event if I wouldn't have put it in those terms back then. Nothing like a few hits of good acid to make the strangeness and irrationality of this society and all the quirks of capitalism we take for granted as "normal" appear as naked and as alien as they really are (and in technicolor too). Try warping your head around money, let alone try and use it, on LSD - even an Ayn Randite would find it a strange and artificial exchange. (Edit: on second thought actually I'm sure that stock brokers have probably dropped acid and had religious experiences contimplating how amazing and intricate the market is, so it's not a guaranteed result by any means, so don't go dosing the local Young Republican chapter).

Anyway, I think that could be the real origin of the 1960s counter-culture's idealist attitude towards (and against) money.

"No way man, we're not slaves to the dollar man. Like what is money, dig?"
"You mean you're against the profit system?"
"Huh? No I mean like we don't even know what this money IS man. It like this paper that with images on it and the different pictures make the paper different and you can exchange it for different things based on the images... oh it's weird man"

[dodger]

Stockbrokers on cocaine....I think I'll keep my money in the Co-op. Dope+mental illness. Strange to look at one of Bro's clients and think dope did that. When others pass through unscathed. Personally dope did not do it for me....alcohol......has a good effect on me. Wherever I go on the planet I inspect the grog. Try anything once. Food too. Music. Literature. Dance(observe!!). Not in hells chance would I try drugs. No sort of peer pressure could induce me either. Solid as a rock. Not my cup of tea. Not easy then to make a decision for others, I don't think I will ever agree to marijuana legalization...not with an easy heart. Gateway for some, to other drugs. Here it is a moot question....3 corpses in 7 months...all drug dealers all stepped over on my morning 'fun' run....added by another Xmas eve, on an errand for Wifey, could hardly get into the bakery. I had passed a police car and stopped to chat, my grandson is fascinated by siren. They were kind enough to give him a blast, it was Xmas! They were parked 500yds away....no rush to get to the cadaver ...I got there 1st did my shopping and they were still in the same spot. They eventually went over I noticed, because the corpse was causing a traffic jam. Besides enough people had seen the cadaver, the message had got home. Drugs are not tolerated by the mayor. It is not an election year even. A pal over from UK said you take all this in your stride, does this killing not bother you? We were old friends so I answered honestly "i could not give a dried fig". Though I am moved, see my bro's patients, other than that they just look fools for using. As no doubt I do to them, for not.

Besides as my pal pointed out, if I was any more chilled, I'd be dead. I think he meant it kindly.

[Blake's Baby]

Alcohol is a drug, and a dangerous one. Kills thousands of people. If you went to a country where alcohol was illegal, such as a Moslem country, would you still try it?

The notion of 'gateway' drugs is hugely suspect, statistically meaningless, psychologically flawed and socially reactionary. 99.6% of rapists have been to a library. 98.4% of alcoholics have drunk milk. 99.8% of instigators of hate crimes have been taught the alphabet. 98.2% of murderers have watched television.

'Gateway' behaviour? If gateway drugs are real, so is the link between milk and alcoholism, alphabets and hate crime, libraries and rape and TV and murder. Have you have drunk milk, been to a library, learned your alphabet or watched TV?

It may be true that 98% (or whatever it is) people who are regular heroin users smoked cannabis first. So what? It's also true that only 4% of people who smoke cannabis use heroin. In other words, every year millions of people (just in the UK) who smoke weed don't go on to use heroin.

Therefore... 'gateway drugs' = reactionary shit.

Doesn't mean I think you should smoke weed of course. Entirely your choice and if you don't want to that's absolutely fine with me. But you should at least know what you're arguing about.

[dodger]

Thanks for the reply, Blake, I too figured out steak and kidney pudding was a 'gateway to obesity', for some. The problem and I can't help but still pick at it.....is that dope is a gateway to other drugs. I am not happy with that. However legalization does have its merits, it would have to meet strict safety standards and be tested. If it harmed an individual then they would at least have recourse to the law, through litigation. At present in UK I do believe if dope is for personal consumption, then no action is taken and not confiscated. Perhaps that is why I do not hear of much about legalizing. It is a subject I just cannot make my mind up on, even after listening to strong reasons here and elsewhere. I actually feel a little stupid.:blushing: not coming down one way or another. Elsewhere it is a burning issue.

[Blake's Baby]

But what I was trying to get at is the whole notion of 'gateway drugs' is flawed. Just as the idea of learning the alphabet being a prelude to hate crime is flawed.

The vast majority of people who smoke dope don't do heroin. So it isn't a stright-forward connection.

I'd argue that some people who smoke dope would go on to do heroin anyway (even if they didn't smoke dope), and we know that some people who do heroin have never smoked cannabis; so the cannabis is not causal.

So what is the connection?

I'd argue the biggest connection between the two is that they are both illegal drugs that one must get from criminals (ie, drug dealers). Legalising that means that the people who want some weed don't necessarily have to hang out with people who also know people ... who can get other things. It avoids 'bundling' all drug-taking together, breaks the spatial connection between weed and smack, and the sociological connection too. There's a theory in sociology that says if you labelk people as deviant 'drug taking is bad' then many will seek other deviant behaviour ('my illegal drug taking is OK, therefore all illegal drug taking is OK, therefore if I smoke weed I might as well do smack too'). It's the same principle as 'in for a penny in for a pound' or 'as well hung for a sheep as a lamb'.

I'm sorry if this seems like I'm having a go, but as a concept it really doesn't work.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Bicycles are responsible for all motorcycle accidents!

[Firebrand]

Alcohol is far more damaging than weed. Just saying you can't kill yourself by smoking too much weed at once, if you drink a whole bottle of vodka at once that can do you in. That alone kicks out all the arguments reationaries put out against weed, because any damage weed can do you is far outweighed by the damage alcohol can do you. And we all know what happens when you ban alcohol don't we.
Besides banning weed puts the price up way beyond whats reasonable.

[Obs]

99.8% of instigators of hate crimes have been taught the alphabet.

Think you're giving them a bit much credit here, man

[Doflamingo]

The idea of making marijuana illegal in any society is illogical.

[revhiphop]

I don't think you are going to find many (or anyone) on here who votes no, lol

[eyeheartlenin]

In response to the question, "Where did Marx write about weed"? Blake's Baby said:


... Well, we knew once, but you know, then we got stoned, and it was, like, really funny? Because there was this guy there, you know, he had a big head... Steve! Steve! What was the name of that guy? What do you mean what guy? That guy! The one one with the big head! At the..? Yeah, him, yeah, you're right, he did like tea, I'd forgotten. Oooh, tea, I would love some tea right now. Isn't it odd how how we use the word "love" when we mean 'devour voraciously'? Yeah, that's really funny. Hmmm....

So I think that answers your question.

And I think that really does say it all! If Marx opposed weed, or drugs in general, good for him!

I was around tokers in college in the sixties, then in the Navy in the early seventies, and again, after I was discharged and settled in New England. They really get addicted to their substance (on which they waste a lot of money), spend lots of time motionless and catatonic while they smoke, and generally do very little other than smoke. So marijuana is a real waste of one's life and a definite brake on the movement, man! From what I've seen, mary jane turns intelligent people into true space cadets, which is a real bummer, man!

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In response to the question, "Where did Marx write about weed"? Blake's Baby said:



And I think that really does say it all! If Marx opposed weed, or drugs in general, good for him!

I was around tokers in college in the sixties, then in the Navy in the early seventies, and again, after I was discharged and settled in New England. They really get addicted to their substance (on which they waste a lot of money), spend lots of time motionless and catatonic while they smoke, and generally do very little other than smoke. So marijuana is a real waste of one's life and a definite brake on the movement, man! From what I've seen, mary jane turns intelligent people into true space cadets, which is a real loss, man!
It sure turned Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) into a real space cadet.


Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29). Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-52)[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-53) The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, his friend Lester Grinspoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Grinspoon) disclosed this information to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999 brought media attention to this aspect of Sagan's life.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-54)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-55)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-56) Not long after his death, widow Ann Druyan had gone on to preside over the board of directors of NORML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORML), a foundation dedicated to reforming cannabis laws.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-57)

[eyeheartlenin]

I'm sure part of the impetus behind the demand for legalizing marijuana, aside from the needs of the unfortunate people who are addicted to it, is a desire by the rich and influential that the working population of this country be even more thoroughly anesthetized, so that any social change will become an impossibility. I've spent decades around tokers, and it is obvious to me that tokers are never gonna make a revolution.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I'm sure part of the impetus behind the demand for legalizing marijuana, aside from the needs of the unfortunate people who are addicted to it, is a desire by the rich and influential that the working population of this country be even more thoroughly anesthetized, so that any social change will become an impossibility. I've spent decades around tokers, and it is obvious to me that tokers are never gonna make a revolution.
Nearly everyone I know are tokers. Most of them, you wouldn't know they're smokers. A range of people from the incredibly intelligent, to the politically active, to the deadbeats. Everyone smokes. One guy I know is in LAW SCHOOL and is doing an internship at a practice. A girl I know is an ACCOUNTANT and smokes on the weekends.

Cannabis is not physically addictive. Scientific fact. There is no 'need' to smoke. There is a desire, but not a 'need'. Just like you desire to eat certain foods.

The rich and influential are opposed to legalization.

[The Stalinator]

Nearly everyone I know are tokers. Most of them, you wouldn't know they're smokers. A range of people from the incredibly intelligent, to the politically active, to the deadbeats. Everyone smokes. One guy I know is in LAW SCHOOL and is doing an internship at a practice. A girl I know is an ACCOUNTANT and smokes on the weekends.

Cannabis is not physically addictive. Scientific fact. There is no 'need' to smoke. There is a desire, but not a 'need'. Just like you desire to eat certain foods.

The rich and influential are opposed to legalization.

I agree. Most people who smoke pot, you can't even tell they smoke pot. What you see as a "pot smoker" are the people who are the most vocal and obsessive about it, the teenage stoner douchebags who brag about getting high all the time. Believe me, if marijuana turned everyone into a teenage stoner douchebag, I'd probably think twice about supporting legalization as well.

Shit, my uncle smokes pot occasionally and he's an elementary school principal. My cousin smokes pot and she's been the one willing to teach me Marxist theory this whole time. Anyone you know could be an occasional marijuana user.

[blake 3:17]

From what I know, Marx had a negative view of weed.

Marx NEVER wrote on weed. If there's two things I know serious trivia about it's Marxism and drugs.

The campaign against marijuana in English North America was completely racist. Marijuana in Canada was criminalized before any but a few pot smokers passed through as migrant workers for a few days here or there.

An early Canadian feminist was behind the criminalization here, 15 years before the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Murphy#Drugs_and_Race Although it wasn't actually made illegal in Anslinger Act...

[Night Ripper]

Your body, your choice.

Not for long. As soon as we have socialized health care then your choice to engage in risky behavior will suddenly be everyone's problem because they have to pay your medical bills.

[#FF0000]

Not for long. As soon as we have socialized health care then your choice to engage in risky behavior will suddenly be everyone's problem because they have to pay your medical bills.

That is literally not how socialized medicine works

[Night Ripper]

That is literally not how socialized medicine works

It works however the tyranny of the majority decides it will work.

[revhiphop]

I was around tokers in college in the sixties, then in the Navy in the early seventies, and again, after I was discharged and settled in New England. They really get addicted to their substance (on which they waste a lot of money), spend lots of time motionless and catatonic while they smoke, and generally do very little other than smoke. So marijuana is a real waste of one's life and a definite brake on the movement, man! From what I've seen, mary jane turns intelligent people into true space cadets, which is a real bummer, man!

Wait, are you being serious right now? Do you have any scientific proof that marijuana is addictive? You are categorizing everyone who smoked weed as lifeless stoners who do nothing with their lives simply based on a select group of people you spent time around. There has been evidence to show that Shakespeare smoked weed. He wasted his life, right? He's no longer an intelligent person, right?

It boosts creativity. It can prevent and treat cancer of different forms. It can help people who are stressed or people with anorexia. The list of the benefits go on and on, medical or non-medical.

[#FF0000]

It works however the tyranny of the majority decides it will work.

Mmm nah we have a lot of examples to look at (almost the entire world) and I don't think we can find a single instance of it ever working like you implied it would.

That is because the purpose of socialized medicine is to make it easier to get medical care, not to restrict it from people, which is what you seem to think it is, for whatever insane reason.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

workplace should implement rules as not for people to go to work drunk or high as it could endanger others.When I worked at subway, I could make 35 damn good sandwiches an hour while somewhat twisted (american slang for stoned and drunk). Sure I burned the fuck out of myself on the toaster, but I didn't feel it very much. Never cut myself, though. Honestly if my heart surgeon was used to being stoned 24/7, I'd want him to stay stoned while I went under the knife.

As a programmer, I fix some of my toughest bugs while incredibly stoned. I've flyposted stoned, wrote revolutionary material stoned, spray painted stoned - so obviously it's possible for stoners to have revolutionary potential. (also it's legal for me, mmj, I ain't breaking the rules. Wait it's still illegal at the national level. Good thing I was prosecuted and convicted and have abandoned my illegal and depraved ways)

@eyeheartlenin:

Sure, it makes it easier to zone out for days and sit around watching TV. I only did that once though, and I felt so shitty about myself I haven't done it since. Lazy people who don't care will still be lazy after they smoke - it's a reflection of the apathy of the general population, not of the weed. As to wasting money... well I have a lot of house plants (including xhosa herb and calea :-), and if it was legal you can bet your ass that pot would be among them.

I definitely second the idea that the mindset and experiences caused by lsd and shrooms increase revolutionary potential.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

When I worked at subway, I could make 35 damn good sandwiches an hour while somewhat twisted (american slang for stoned and drunk). Sure I burned the fuck out of myself on the toaster, but I didn't feel it very much. Never cut myself, though. Honestly if my heart surgeon was used to being stoned 24/7, I'd want him to stay stoned while I went under the knife.

As a programmer, I fix some of my toughest bugs while incredibly stoned. I've flyposted stoned, wrote revolutionary material stoned, spray painted stoned - so obviously it's possible for stoners to have revolutionary potential. (also it's legal for me, mmj, I ain't breaking the rules. Wait it's still illegal at the national level. Good thing I was prosecuted and convicted and have abandoned my illegal and depraved ways)

@eyeheartlenin:

Sure, it makes it easier to zone out for days and sit around watching TV. I only did that once though, and I felt so shitty about myself I haven't done it since. Lazy people who don't care will still be lazy after they smoke - it's a reflection of the apathy of the general population, not of the weed. As to wasting money... well I have a lot of house plants (including xhosa herb and calea :-), and if it was legal you can bet your ass that pot would be among them.

I definitely second the idea that the mindset and experiences caused by lsd and shrooms increase revolutionary potential.
In Colorado a MMJ patient can legally cultivate up to 6 plants.

http://norml.org/laws/item/colorado-medical-marijuana?category_id=848

[Comrade Samuel]

Doesn't mean it's a good idea to get stoned, especially if you're operating heavy machinery, flying a plane, doing open heart surgery...

Well we shouldent let drunk and do those things either but alcohol is legal. it's just stupid that we allow tobacco, a moderately harmful substance that is habit forming to be legal but marijuana a far less harmful substance that is non habit forming is illegal and why? Because of some outdated legislation from the 1930's? In addition to the times changing grately, not to mention how it came to be because of scumbag lobbyist, there really isn't a good reason for it not to be legal.

Perhaps if we could just moderate our selves, not "blame the devil" like in AA and take some damn responsibility substance abuse wouldn't have to be a debateable topic

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure AA blames the devil :lol: They just (naively) believe you need the help of a higher power to beat addiction.

[GallowsBird]

I am against many drugs, and I don't think revolutionaries should take any drugs that effect their state of mind.

That said I know that marijuana is no more harmful than many legal drugs (Alcohol being possibly worse) and as I am mostly against the consumtion of weed et cetera due to logical (it has a detrimental effect on coordination et cetera) political reasons (the near monopoly on marijuana, cocaine et cetera by the US establishment... the 'War on Drugs' being merely a war on rival drug-pimps and revolutionaries) I think many drugs (that aren't that harmfull) should be legalised.

I don't do drugs anymore but when I was younger and in college like many people before my time and after I experimented and I am glad I did; I took the usual suspects like Weed, LSD and "poppers" (the latter I hated.. all it did was make my heart go faster. I have a high metabolism that stops weed having too much effect on me and Acid was general good).

I do think we should generally refrain from taking drugs and for that matter overusing anything that blunts the senses. It is better to think straight and not having something easy to be arrested over (there are too many things already as I can attest to). I would much rather be arrested for a political reason than for having a toke. As for Heroin, Opium, Cocaine et al they have ruined too many lives in impoverished communities so I can never bring myself to support them.

Sorry if I was rambling. To summarise. Yes I think cannabis should be legal in a socilist society however I (now) refrain from using it at the time being.

[Mettalian]

I'd certainly enjoy it.

[Sir Comradical]

It should be legal but also strongly discouraged in the same way that smoking cigarettes are discouraged.

[eyeheartlenin]

I am against many drugs, and I don't think revolutionaries should take any drugs that effect their state of mind...

I do think we should generally refrain from taking drugs and for that matter overusing anything that blunts the senses. It is better to think straight and not having something easy to be arrested over (there are too many things already as I can attest to). I would much rather be arrested for a political reason than for having a toke. As for Heroin, Opium, Cocaine et al they have ruined too many lives in impoverished communities so I can never bring myself to support them....

That exactly right! Kudos to GallowsBird, the "angry Stalinsky"! Straight edge, comrades!

* * *

There is really nothing I can add to GallowsBird's statement, which, I think, covers all the bases. However, I did want to respond to a couple of remarks in the discussion: As for the addictive nature of marijuana, which several people have denied, all I can say is, I know people who would very much like to quit toking (since it is quite expensive), but cannot, people who need weed to get through their day, people who get quite frantic, if their dope connection evaporates (and that's not a pleasant thing to watch), people who run out of money well before the end of the month, thanks to their modus vivendi of staying high all the time. If that's not addiction, then what is?

The argument that is constantly resorted to, that alcohol and tobacco are bad mmkay? hardly means that marijuana is good. And I once asked a student at the first-rate engineering and science university where I worked for more than 30 years, whether the smoke from marijuana was harmless (unlike tobacco smoke), which is another claim I have heard, and he replied, "Smoke is smoke."

[Le Rouge]

Fuck yes it should be legal. There is no reason why it shouldn't be legal since there are many drugs that are more dangerous than weed legally availiable. (Cigarettes, Caffeine, Alcohol, etc.)

[GallowsBird]

That exactly right! Kudos to GallowsBird, the "angry Stalinsky"! Straight edge, comrades!

Who says Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists can't ever agree! ;)



There is really nothing I can add to GallowsBird's statement, which, I think, covers all the bases. However, I did want to respond to a couple of remarks in the discussion: As for the addictive nature of marijuana, which several people have denied, all I can say is, I know people who would very much like to quit toking (since it is quite expensive), but cannot, people who need weed to get through their day, people who get quite frantic, if their dope connection evaporates (and that's not a pleasant thing to watch), people who run out of money well before the end of the month, thanks to their modus vivendi of staying high all the time. If that's not addiction, then what is?

The argument that is constantly resorted to, that alcohol and tobacco are bad mmkay? hardly means that marijuana is good. And I once asked a student at the first-rate engineering and science university where I worked for more than 30 years, whether the smoke from marijuana was harmless (unlike tobacco smoke), which is another claim I have heard, and he replied, "Smoke is smoke."

The "Marijuana smoke is less dangerous" thing is annoying. It is more or less the same as Marijuana is (generally) smoked alongside tobacco... at least it was in my day. :)

I think of Marijuana in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol to be honest. And though I do think in a Socialist state it should be legalised; I do think arguing for it using the defense that it is bad as something is a bit counterproductive.

[dodger]

Who says Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists can't ever agree! ;)




The "Marijuana smoke is less dangerous" thing is annoying. It is more or less the same as Marijuana is (generally) smoked alongside tobacco... at least it was in my day. :)

I think of Marijuana in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol to be honest.

Gallows....I wonder why there is so little debate on the Mental Health issues. There is quite clearly a connection, purely based on my own life experiences. I would like to see more evidence and studies made. Tragic outcomes don't always lead to sound conclusions where friends are concerned. It has though set off alarm bells with me. Marijuana and Amphetamines to name just 2 drugs
at least we should have clear facts to avoid mishap.

[GallowsBird]

Gallows....I wonder why there is so little debate on the Mental Health issues. There is quite clearly a connection, purely based on my own life experiences. I would like to see more evidence and studies made. Tragic outcomes don't always lead to sound conclusions where friends are concerned. It has though set off alarm bells with me. Marijuana and Amphetamines to name just 2 drugs
at least we should have clear facts to avoid mishap.

True. Personally from experience I think as far as Marijuana is concerned it (like Acid and for that matter Alcohol) can effect someone's mind if they have a Mental Health issue (which is nothing to be ashamed about, I have) but I am personally not sure that it can cause any (again I am only talking from my experience so I may be wrong). Amphetamines I haven't tried but have known people who used them so I can't really talk for them from the point of view of a user only a commentator. That said they are something I always kept away from and the quote by Allen Ginsberg "Speed is antisocial, paranoid making, it's a drag... all the nice gentle dope fiends are getting screwed up by the real horror monster Frankenstein speed freaks who are going round stealing and bad-mouthing everybody" seems to match what I have seen. Again I didn't every use them (I mostly only used the usual "hippie" drugs when I was in college).

Saying that Amphetamines did help Carol Reed finish 'The Third Man' which is one of my favourite films! :tt2:

[Aphex]

From what I know, Marx had a negative view of weed.


Marx also had a low opinion of Jews and Mexicans :laugh:

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

That said I know that marijuana is no more harmful than many legal drugs (Alcohol being possibly worse) and as I am mostly against the consumtion of weed et cetera due to logical (it has a detrimental effect on coordination et cetera)citation needed


And I once asked a student at the first-rate engineering and science university where I worked for more than 30 years, whether the smoke from marijuana was harmless (unlike tobacco smoke), which is another claim I have heard, and he replied, "Smoke is smoke." Because engineering students are always biology buffs. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-associated_respiratory_disease

an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Los_Angeles) found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-associated_respiratory_disease#cite_note-7) The study, which involved a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) found no correlation between marijuana smoking and increased lung cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer) risk, with the same being true for head and neck cancers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_and_neck_cancers) as well. The results indicated no correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, indicating a possible therapeutic effect.


As for the addictive nature of marijuana, which several people have denied, all I can say is, I know people who would very much like to quit toking (since it is quite expensive), but cannot, people who need weed to get through their day, people who get quite frantic, if their dope connection evaporates (and that's not a pleasant thing to watch), people who run out of money well before the end of the month, thanks to their modus vivendi of staying high all the time. If that's not addiction, then what is?

Sounds like you know some stupid people. Stupid people get addicted to all sorts of things, like WoW and second life. Doesn't mean normal revolutionaries can't play them.

[Prometeo liberado]

What?

Don't know about you but my understanding is that in much of the world marijuana was made illegal at the insistence of the Egyptian delegation at an international conference on limiting heroin in the 1920s.

But yeah, why would (and how could) marijuana be 'illegal'?

Doesn't mean it's a good idea to get stoned, especially if you're operating heavy machinery, flying a plane, doing open heart surgery...

Thinking back to some world figures who have had open heart surgery, or been around heavy machinery or been in a plane, maybe certain people at the helm or holding a scalpel should have been stoned. :ohmy:

[soviechetnik]

In my opinion,no it should not.
My view is that Socialists should oppose drugs,alcohol,and other harmful things.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In my opinion,no it should not.
My view is that Socialists should oppose drugs,alcohol,and other harmful things.Cannabis is not harmful in any way when it is eaten.

Smoking causes the normal lung damage from ... inhaling smoke. But cancer is not conclusively linked to cannabis.

But regardless of whether it's damaging or not, if I want to become a drunk or a start shooting up it's nobody's business but my own. There's no room for moralism on the left, so keep conservative standards of behavior to yourself.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That said I know that marijuana is no more harmful than many legal drugs (Alcohol being possibly worse)

It IS worse than alcohol, I don't see it as even being up for discussion. Especially since you can get that sweet, precious THC by vaporizing it, drinking it or eating it.


political reasons (the near monopoly on marijuana, cocaine et cetera by the US establishment...

Far from being an inherent truth, though...many people in the state I live in grow their own marijuana, and in fact it's been decriminalized here (up to a certain amount).

[soviechetnik]

But regardless of whether it's damaging or not, if I want to become a drunk or a start shooting up it's nobody's business but my own. There's no room for moralism on the left, so keep conservative standards of behavior to yourself.
All right,I just stated my opinion. Alcoholism is a big problem in some parts of the world...it is likely that many people would switch from alcohol to marijuana if it becomes legal and cheap...why have two evils?

[Belleraphone]

It IS worse than alcohol, I don't see it as even being up for discussion. Especially since you can get that sweet, precious THC by vaporizing it, drinking it or eating it.

Are you really arguing that marijuana is worse for you than alcohol?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm sure part of the impetus behind the demand for legalizing marijuana, aside from the needs of the unfortunate people who are addicted to it, is a desire by the rich and influential that the working population of this country be even more thoroughly anesthetized, so that any social change will become an impossibility. I've spent decades around tokers, and it is obvious to me that tokers are never gonna make a revolution.

Tokers are going to be part of what makes the revolution. There is a huge culture of working class stonerdom out there. One of the biggest potheads I know is a 40 something year old longshoreman, who refuses drug tests and gets away with it because of his seniority. Go to any party comprised of 20 to 30 year old people and you're pretty much guaranteed to come across at least one circle of people smoking dope. Marijuana use is rampant in my field of employement (commercial fishing). It's not just burnt-out hippies who do it.


There is really nothing I can add to GallowsBird's statement, which, I think, covers all the bases. However, I did want to respond to a couple of remarks in the discussion: As for the addictive nature of marijuana, which several people have denied, all I can say is, I know people who would very much like to quit toking (since it is quite expensive), but cannot, people who need weed to get through their day, people who get quite frantic, if their dope connection evaporates (and that's not a pleasant thing to watch), people who run out of money well before the end of the month, thanks to their modus vivendi of staying high all the time. If that's not addiction, then what is?

*sigh* Marijuana is mentally addictive. Other things that are mentally addictive: the internet, TV, sex, food, picking your nose, etc.

If you think marijuana is addictive beyond that, try this science experiment: take a steady heroin user who's been using steadily for many years, and a marijuana user who's been smoking steadily for many years, and force them both to quit cold turkey. See who gets worse withdrawal symptoms. :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Are you really arguing that marijuana is worse for you than alcohol?

I meant not worse, sorry. :blushing:

[Belleraphone]

All right,I just stated my opinion. Alcoholism is a big problem in some parts of the world...it is likely that many people would switch from alcohol to marijuana if it becomes legal and cheap...why have two evils?
Please change the slogan under your username away from "Libertad o muerte!" If you don't think individuals should have the right to do put whatever they want into their own bodies then I don't think you actually take liberty seriously, you only want liberty for stuff you agree with. For example I think late term abortions are very immoral and wrong, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell a woman what to do with their own body.

[soviechetnik]

What does abortion have to do with this?
Anyway, the idea that someone can legally limit whether or not anyone "can" put whatever they want into their own bodies is absurd. It's like a law forbidding,I don't know,nose picking.
But I'm talking about a wide-scale social measures against drugs. The focus is on directing the societal development away from "proliferation" of drugs among the people. Certainly such legal measures are the first step.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

All right,I just stated my opinion. Alcoholism is a big problem in some parts of the world...it is likely that many people would switch from alcohol to marijuana if it becomes legal and cheap...why have two evils?There is no 'evil' in something that affects nobody but yourself. Honestly, I can walk down the street in my old neighborhood in Atlanta where I grew up and buy crack, heroin, meth, xanax, X, acid, mushrooms, and weed. Shit, I could go to the gas station and the CLERK would sell weed over the counter! And this was before I was old enough to buy alcohol. In the heart of the War on Drugs - the US - in an extremely conservative area - the southeast.

Prohibition does not prevent people from using drugs. Education does. As someone else said (roughly), there's no liberty in imposing your conservative values upon someone else. And regarding weed, there is no solid evidence that an adult should avoid it. There is no long-term damage done to you if you don't smoke it. It is impossible to overdose on it. It is not toxic to the human body. It does not kill brain cells like alcohol. The human body even produces its own endocannabinoids ... wonder where those chemicals got their name?

If you personally don't like to use drugs recreationally, that's fine. I'm completely fine with that. What I have a problem is when people tell other people that THEY can't use drugs based on an arbitrary, conservative conception of "morality."

[soviechetnik]

OK,you're right,I surrender.:)

[roy]

What does abortion have to do with this?
Anyway, the idea that someone can legally limit whether or not anyone "can" put whatever they want into their own bodies is absurd. It's like a law forbidding,I don't know,nose picking.
But I'm talking about a wide-scale social measures against drugs. The focus is on directing the societal development away from "proliferation" of drugs among the people. Certainly such legal measures are the first step.

Excuse me, this is probably a language barrier thing, but what exactly is your position? At first you state should marijuana should be illegal, then at the beginning of the post quoted you state laws restricting the right to sovereignty over one's body are absurd, then you conclude by stating that legal measures should be taken against harmful substances. Are you claiming that people shouldn't use drugs or that it should be illegal?

[Shotgun Opera]

Considering the lack of conclusive evidence of harm or non-harm associated with use, both in the short and long term, I would think the best choice would be to ban it until we can be sure of it's relative harmlessness.

If we allow it and find out later that it causes serious problems, we'd have problems trying to control it. IE: Tobacco. It'd be nearly impossible to ban smoking tobacco in the modern context because it's become too entrenched into our cultural psyche.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Considering the lack of conclusive evidence of harm or non-harm associated with use, both in the short and long term, I would think the best choice would be to ban it until we can be sure of it's relative harmlessness.

If we allow it and find out later that it causes serious problems, we'd have problems trying to control it. IE: Tobacco. It'd be nearly impossible to ban smoking tobacco in the modern context because it's become too entrenched into our cultural psyche.
The US federal ban on cannabis has done nothing to deter use and everything to interfere with research.

Bans do not affect supply ... they only criminalize users. If someone wants to smoke weed, they're going to do it. Doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

The last 100 years have shown us all how well prohibition works. You know ... organized crime ... higher rates of use during prohibition ... ORGANIZED CRIME ... packed prisons with nonviolent drug offenders.

How do you suggest a ban be enforced? Tickets? Jail? With jail, you'll end up with overcrowded prisons filled with nonviolent offenders, with use still widespread. With tickets, nobody cares and use is still widespread.

[dodger]

The US federal ban on cannabis has done nothing to deter use and everything to interfere with research.

Bans do not affect supply ... they only criminalize users. If someone wants to smoke weed, they're going to do it. Doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

The last 100 years have shown us all how well prohibition works. You know ... organized crime ... higher rates of use during prohibition ... ORGANIZED CRIME ... packed prisons with nonviolent drug offenders.

How do you suggest a ban be enforced? Tickets? Jail? With jail, you'll end up with overcrowded prisons filled with nonviolent offenders, with use still widespread. With tickets, nobody cares and use is still widespread.

Canislupus, along with many others you make very strong and useful points. I have to say I also share with Shotgun Opera certain misgivings about cannabis. Purely on health grounds, both mental and physical. The role of Aunt Sally particularly as no hard and fast research has been completed here or elsewhere has left me floundering. Prison for users of cannabis, not here, suppliers, often. Incidently, random drug tests in prison where resin shows up a full 2 months after use and often led to a loss of remission of sentence, fuelled a heroin epidemic. Opiates clear the system more rapidly. One thing stands out it is not a matter of individual choice nor imposition of some missionary morality. It needs a collective will to get to the heart of te matter. Funds set aside, guidelines suggested. I am woefully ignorant. A teenager in the 60's, they now say if you remember the 60's, 'you weren't there!!' Well I recall some things. Schizophrenia, various levels of drug psychosis. Alarm bells, but I don't altogether trust my own judgement. Below some links, that in my view point to the need for more research

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=marijuana%20mental%20health&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcpsych.ac.uk%2Fmentalhealthi nfo%2Fproblems%2Falcoholanddrugs%2Fcannabis.aspx&ei=aeskT-LIAYTqrAe1wpTLCA&usg=AFQjCNF5DZ5tCDfsxJ7LT-Nr5-NuJY89eg

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=marijuana%20mental%20health&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mind.org.uk%2Fhelp%2Fdiagnose s_and_conditions%2Fcannabis_and_mental_health&ei=aeskT-LIAYTqrAe1wpTLCA&usg=AFQjCNGJtL0_bzuy8yfZ_CGtXWaTHwQd8g

[GallowsBird]

It IS worse than alcohol, I don't see it as even being up for discussion. Especially since you can get that sweet, precious THC by vaporizing it, drinking it or eating it.

Alcohol is worse.


Far from being an inherent truth, though...many people in the state I live in grow their own marijuana, and in fact it's been decriminalized here (up to a certain amount).

When I was young I tried growing it. I know of someone who grows it to use as a painkiller as he is disabled and in a lot of pain. Where I live however the majority is imported. And I hear it is mostly the same in many locales.

[Joseph S.]

Legalize it and not just only weed, coke and kettamin for every one!

http://www.legalize.net/agenda.php

[#FF0000]

Considering the lack of conclusive evidence of harm or non-harm associated with use, both in the short and long term, I would think the best choice would be to ban it until we can be sure of it's relative harmlessness.

If we allow it and find out later that it causes serious problems, we'd have problems trying to control it. IE: Tobacco. It'd be nearly impossible to ban smoking tobacco in the modern context because it's become too entrenched into our cultural psyche.

even if it was harmful, it should be decriminalized along with every drug.

every drug.

[gorillafuck]

yeah, marijuana should be legal.

but seriously, anyone that thinks that a socialist society is going to have worker owned crystal meth labs are out of their minds.

[Goblin]

keeping drugs (all drugs) illegal is pointless. people still get theyre hands on it. legalizing it would also make it much easier for the addicts.

[Shotgun Opera]

The US federal ban on cannabis has done nothing to deter use and everything to interfere with research.
Completely agreed.


How do you suggest a ban be enforced? Tickets? Jail? With jail, you'll end up with overcrowded prisons filled with nonviolent offenders, with use still widespread. With tickets, nobody cares and use is still widespread.
At the outset, we'd probably have to rely on traditional enforcement methods. As time went on, we'd supplement with an emphasis on rehabilitation, much more meaningful than we see today, rather than incarceration to get people away from the drug entirely.

Once that persisted long enough, I think we'd see a drop-off in use.

[Franz Fanonipants]

legalize it and other drugs, have the state provide drugs to addicts

[NGNM85]

legalize it and other drugs, have the state provide drugs to addicts

I think this the only thing, you've ever said, that I agree with.

[Aspiring Humanist]

I got stoned tonight and played with my pomeranian puppy

I am a criminal

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think this the only thing, you've ever said, that I agree with.

in that case death penalty for drug addicts

[bcbm]

I'm sure part of the impetus behind the demand for legalizing marijuana, aside from the needs of the unfortunate people who are addicted to it, is a desire by the rich and influential that the working population of this country be even more thoroughly anesthetized, so that any social change will become an impossibility.

uh the rich and influential like pot being illegal because it keeps their profitable prisons full and fuels a demand for more prisons and more cops, as well as an increasingly militarized police in response to increasingly militarized drug gangs, who arguably they also like because their hundreds of billions of illegal dollars keep the economy relatively afloat. the extra $350 billion was a big boost when the markets were crashing in 2008.


At the outset, we'd probably have to rely on traditional enforcement methods.

that's insane.


but seriously, anyone that thinks that a socialist society is going to have worker owned crystal meth labs are out of their minds.

people burning off their skin and causing a huge strain on hospitals being a preferable alternative?

[feral bro]

you have to not do drugs to hate them.

[danyboy27]

you have to not do drugs to hate them.

False.
i dont do drug and i seriously dont care if someone want to have some.
There are people who used to do drugs who are now vehemently against.

[feral bro]

False.
i dont do drug and i seriously dont care if someone want to have some.
irrelevant.

There are people who used to do drugs who are now vehemently against.
really? that cant be true.

[Revolution starts with U]

I prefer resto

[Deicide]

All drugs should be legal in a free society.

And I would expect a communist society to be a free society.