Why Some Drugs Should Be legal!

[Psychedelia]

I was thinking this lately. And i guess that we will have to sides people who will agree with me and other who don't.

When i say drugs i mean: LSD,Shrooms,Salvia,Weed,and other drugs that does not harm you (in right quantities).

In my views,there should be stores that sell this kind of drugs,and if you want to buy them you must be employed and older than 21 years,all this money that could be earned can go to public structures,schools,hospitals,help people in trouble,...
This should also reduce crime. And bring much more tourism to such an country who passed such law.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why not all drugs? Does criminalizing them actually stop use, or crime? The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I agree, prohibition on drugs has not reduced usage or any of the side-effects of the criminality (violence, exploitation etc).
And, as is often said, alcohol and cigarettes causes more harm and more deaths than the illegal drugs ever manage.

[Blanquist]

Those drugs are a social evil. They should be banned under socialism and a death penalty should be considered for big suppliers during the initial phases of socialist construction.

[honest john's firing squad]

Those drugs are a social evil. They should be banned under socialism and a death penalty should be considered for big suppliers during the initial phases of socialist construction.
what the actual fuck is "socialist construction"?

[Revolution starts with U]

Those drugs are a social evil. They should be banned under socialism and a death penalty should be considered for big suppliers during the initial phases of socialist construction.

Whoa buddy. Did some stoner break your heart or something? :lol:

[Blanquist]

what the actual fuck is "socialist construction"?

You being a smartass or need an ESL lesson?

[honest john's firing squad]

You being a smartass or need an ESL lesson?
the former.

[honest john's firing squad]

"socialist construction" has only ever been used as a euphemism for what existed in the soviet union and its bastard children worldwide.

[Blanquist]

"socialist construction" has only ever been used as a euphemism for what existed in the soviet union and its bastard children worldwide.

OK, so you're some kind of anarchist or something. Noted.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Oh for fuck sake, can we please stick to the topic and save the slagging off, insults and tendency wars for private messages?
If someone says something particularly offensive or stupid, take it up with them privately or let the moderators deal with them, so tired of the back and forth forum fights that dominate threads and take them off-topic.

[Blanquist]

I was thinking this lately. And i guess that we will have to sides people who will agree with me and other who don't.

When i say drugs i mean: LSD,Shrooms,Salvia,Weed,and other drugs that does not harm you (in right quantities).

In my views,there should be stores that sell this kind of drugs,and if you want to buy them you must be employed and older than 21 years,all this money that could be earned can go to public structures,schools,hospitals,help people in trouble,...
This should also reduce crime. And bring much more tourism to such an country who passed such law.


1. The OP is stated completely in the framework of capitalism. So why do you make an employment demand to drug use? Millions are out of work through no fault of their own, why should they be denied the right to drug use?

2. Why do you use the completely arbitrary age of 21? Why should someone at age 20 not have the same right as a 21 year old? What should be the penalty for under-age drug use? If only a slap on the wrist then why have the age requirement at all?

3. You say there should be special stores that sell drugs. How do you seeing this being done in a post-capitalist society? Would you be okay with propaganda of drug use? If you allow the business you should be okay with the employment of marketing.

I don't see why you posted this in philosophy. Jesus man, you support drug tourism.

From your post alone I can see you have no principled problem with capitalism as is, you would just like to smoke your crack in peace from the 'man'

EDIT: Noticed post count and join date. OP's a troll. Carry on.

[Revolution starts with U]

1. The OP is stated completely in the framework of capitalism. So why do you make an employment demand to drug use? Millions are out of work through no fault of their own, why should they be denied the right to drug use?

2. Why do you use the completely arbitrary age of 21? Why should someone at age 20 not have the same right as a 21 year old? What should be the penalty for under-age drug use? If only a slap on the wrist then why have the age requirement at all?

3. You say there should be special stores that sell drugs. How do you seeing this being done in a post-capitalist society? Would you be okay with propaganda of drug use? If you allow the business you should be okay with the employment of marketing.

I don't see why you posted this in philosophy. Jesus man, you support drug tourism.

From your post alone I can see you have no principled problem with capitalism as is, you would just like to smoke your crack in peace from the 'man'

EDIT: Noticed post count and join date. OP's a troll. Carry on.

OP's a noob, which you could see from his intro thread. You can't expect everyone to be top-notch leftist scholars on day one (or ever, if this site is any indication :lol: ). Cut him some slack and introduce him (tho yes, he should have posted this in learning probably).

And for real... pot and lsd are "crack?" Also, nobody smokes LSD, so who's the real troll ;)

[Sasha]

Indeed, thread moved to learning and as such a general verbal warning, anyone taking this offtopic or insulting etc will be slapped with an infraction.

[Lolumad273]

I recon all drugs should be legal, it's a choice. If someone can't handle the choice, they'd likely not start in the first place. I know I'd never smoke crack, because it scares me. Fuck, I've never even smoked weed. It just doesn't interest me. People will do what they do with or without the laws in place. The only thing the law serves is to subjugate people who need help.

It really shouldn't be up to anyone to decide whether or not drugs are okay, lets have a vote instead! That's how I feel it would be handled in any minimally ideal society. I bet the majority here are in favor of legalizing drugs, or at least not executing users!

[honest john's firing squad]

OP's a troll.
good lord the hypocrisy

[Ned Kelly]

Take my bong off me, I take your head off you

[Tenka]

OP is why I sometimes fear that for many leftists the free and legal availability of recreational drugs is more of an issue than class war and any sort of fundamental upheaval in relations of production and society.:(

[Left Leanings]

I think all drugs should be legal.

I indulge in the odd bit of phat green. There's no harm in it.

The bosses only wish to illegailize drugs, in the case of weed, for example, is that they are frghtened to death of the workers not turning in for their shift, cos they're too stoned and chilled-out.

Most peeps smoke and in doesn't get in the way of the daily lives anyway.

Really cool thread this :) :) :star:

[fabian]

Or you could go around and tread drug dealers and poisoners (which they basically are) and confine or kill them, and use the confiscated money for "schools,hospitals,help people in trouble" etc.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I'm a little bit concerned it weed was legalized now, the government would start messing around with it.

[honest john's firing squad]

OP is why I sometimes fear that for many leftists the free and legal availability of recreational drugs is more of an issue than class war and any sort of fundamental upheaval in relations of production and society.:(
most leftists also fall into the trap of making some obnoxious health argument against drug illegality when it's very clearly a class issue: increasing the severity of the penalties for drug use gives the pigs impetus to patrol poorer working-class, and often ethnic, neighbourhoods where drug use and abuse is most prevalent. aside from giving cops free reign to intimidate workers and minorities and essentially militarise their neighbourhoods, harsher penalties and longer sentences mean there is a greater number of incarcerated prisoners available at any given time for use as a source of prison labour.

arguments citing the low levels of health risk associated with the use of some drugs are immaterial in the face of the real class issue.

[fabian]

IMO it is contradictory to be a leftist and to be pro-drugs, or pro-drunkeness, or pro-any addiction. I don't know how can people combine views of fighting for freedom with views that surrendering personal freedom and becoming dependant and not in control of one'e actions can be in any way good. I don't see the freedom in being drunk or being stoned, or being dependant. The "people should have the freedom to give up their freedom" is idiotic, that would make fight against slavery or capitalism senseless.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

IMO it is contradictory to be a leftist and to be pro-drugs, or pro-drunkeness, or pro-any addiction. I don't know how can people combine views of fighting for freedom with views that surrendering personal freedom and becoming dependant and not in control of one'e actions can be in any way good. I don't see the freedom in being drunk or being stoned, or being dependant. The "people should have the freedom to give up their freedom" is idiotic, that would make fight against slavery or capitalism senseless.

I understand what you mean, but some people aren't dependent.

[fabian]

But even if you get drunk or stoned rarely, or just once, while you're drunk or stoned you are denying yourself freedom of action. That can be argumented by the mentioned "people should have the freedom to relinquish freedom", but that argument is not for a leftist to use, because when applied consistently (which must be done for an argumentent to be valid) that would be in the contradiction with the leftist freedom-oriented views, and our opposition to oppressive and exploitative systems.

IMO, being a consistent leftist should include some sort of ascetism, at least the Epicurean kind, which would of course mean not doing drugs, not getting drunk, and in general, not be addicted or dependant.

[Raúl Duke]

I was thinking this lately. And i guess that we will have to sides people who will agree with me and other who don't.

When i say drugs i mean: LSD,Shrooms,Salvia,Weed,and other drugs that does not harm you (in right quantities).

In my views,there should be stores that sell this kind of drugs,and if you want to buy them you must be employed and older than 21 years,all this money that could be earned can go to public structures,schools,hospitals,help people in trouble,...
This should also reduce crime. And bring much more tourism to such an country who passed such law.

I agree with you, although the way I proposed it (in the context of current, particularly North American, society) is thusly: Legalize and Regulate Cannabis (18,20,21; whatever, just allow adults access to it), re-schedule psychedelics (LSD, Psilocybin, MDMA, Ketamine) for research and medical use (thus it can be prescribed or used in psychiatric/neurological practice), decriminalize all other drugs using the Portuguese model as a guide. The money saved by ending the war on drugs can be used to focus more on the rehab side of the issue plus on other things, like the stuff you mentioned.

Under socialism, I would argue for something different (perhaps full legalization? Maybe the same as above except that psychedelics and all other non-physically addictive substances are legalized? I don't know, I would have to see how the drug issue manifests itself under socialism).

[Offbeat]

But even if you get drunk or stoned rarely, or just once, while you're drunk or stoned you are denying yourself freedom of action.
But if you want to stop people getting drunk or stoned, you're also denying them freedom of action.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

But even if you get drunk or stoned rarely, or just once, while you're drunk or stoned you are denying yourself freedom of action. That can be argumented by the mentioned "people should have the freedom to relinquish freedom", but that argument is not for a leftist to use, because when applied consistently (which must be done for an argumentent to be valid) that would be in the contradiction with the leftist freedom-oriented views, and our opposition to oppressive and exploitative systems.

IMO, being a consistent leftist should include some sort of ascetism, at least the Epicurean kind, which would of course mean not doing drugs, not getting drunk, and in general, not be addicted or dependant.
Get this moralist crap out of here. There's no issue of "denying yourself freedom of action" like watching TV isn't denying yourself freedom. It's temporary entertainment. You may as well ban World of Warcraft, and anything other than work, following your logic.

And fuck your lifestylist crap. You're conflating casual use and addiction.

[NorwegianCommunist]

I don't think all drugs should be legal.
Maybe some drugs, like weed and shrooms and other relax-drugs doesn't kill you.
But many people get addicted to it and spend houndreds of dollar each months.
I think it's dangerous in that way :/

[Railyon]

But many people get addicted to it and spend houndreds of dollar each months.
I think it's dangerous in that way :/

Maybe drug addiction isn't the problem in that case? Maybe money is. Bam, Mindblowing innit.

[gozai]

I support this, exept that the age limit should't be fucking 21 years old.

[fabian]

But if you want to stop people getting drunk or stoned, you're also denying them freedom of action.
In the same way that a society abolishing slavery or capitalism would deny it's member's the "freedom" to relinquish freedom or the fruits of their labor.

If you support the "freedom to relinquish freedom", when you would institute a socialist or a communist society, in order to be consistent, you have besides the freedom of people to become drunk or do drugs also leave the "freedoms" to sell themselves to slavery or to become employees for a capitalist.


Get this moralist crap out of here. There's no issue of "denying yourself freedom of action" like watching TV isn't denying yourself freedom. It's temporary entertainment. You may as well ban World of Warcraft, and anything other than work, following your logic.
"Following my logic" being drunk and not able to think or move clearly or being addicted to heroin is the same as wathing TV and playing WoW? That's not ever strawman, that's like a straw(and chaff)giant. Throwing "crap" and "fuck" around only additionally show that you have no arguments for your views.

[Pretty Flaco]

When i say drugs i mean: LSD,Shrooms,Salvia,Weed,and other drugs that does not harm you (in right quantities).

salvia is legal in the US.

[Pretty Flaco]

Maybe drug addiction isn't the problem in that case? Maybe money is. Bam, Mindblowing innit.

well drug addiction can be a particularly bad problem. some people take drugs to escape and these addictions can quickly become life threatening. pcp, meth, and crack come to mind. not only do they always negatively affect the user but they can affect their friends and family, and even others too. people that are broke that use escapist drugs will sometimes do anything for money because the addiction messes with their brains. escapist drugs aren't used recreationally and people don't use them because they think it's fun. they use them because they need a high.

keeping these drugs illegal won't help anything. making them legal won't magically solve any problems but it will make it a lot easier for users to get rehabilitation.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In the same way that a society abolishing slavery or capitalism would deny it's member's the "freedom" to relinquish freedom or the fruits of their labor.

If you support the "freedom to relinquish freedom", when you would institute a socialist or a communist society, in order to be consistent, you have besides the freedom of people to become drunk or do drugs also leave the "freedoms" to sell themselves to slavery or to become employees for a capitalist.


"Following my logic" being drunk and not able to think or move clearly or being addicted to heroin is the same as wathing TV and playing WoW? That's not ever strawman, that's like a straw(and chaff)giant. Throwing "crap" and "fuck" around only additionally show that you have no arguments for your views.
Watching TV for a few hours before you go to sleep and not getting off of the couch to do anything productive during that time period is no different from getting drunk and passing out during that same time period. It's a choice in recreational activities. There's a huge difference between casual drug use and addiction; something you can't seem to grasp.

And "fuck" your "crappy" arrogant attitude and ad hominem

I can't work or cook while I'm fucking, so let's ban sex, too. Well, I may be able to cook, although I need to be careful I don't grill the wrong hotdog.

Also, if your real concern is reduction of use rather than making the world conform to your absurd, masochistic ethical standards then you need to look at criminality of drug use compared with rates of use. All available data shows that drug use decreases when drugs are legal. It was evident here in the US during prohibition: alcohol consumption exploded. Then after prohibition ended, it dropped. Follow that with non-propagandized education and a coherent rehabilitation program that isn't littered with Jesus bullshit like AA/NA and you've got a great way to lower addiction rates. Throw in a ton of clean needle exchanges and you've also drastically cut the risk to public health.

[Princess Luna]

salvia is legal in the US.
It depends on the state, where I live salvia carries a harsher penalty then marijuana

[Revolution starts with U]

In the same way that a society abolishing slavery or capitalism would deny it's member's the "freedom" to relinquish freedom or the fruits of their labor.

If you support the "freedom to relinquish freedom", when you would institute a socialist or a communist society, in order to be consistent, you have besides the freedom of people to become drunk or do drugs also leave the "freedoms" to sell themselves to slavery or to become employees for a capitalist.


"Following my logic" being drunk and not able to think or move clearly or being addicted to heroin is the same as wathing TV and playing WoW? That's not ever strawman, that's like a straw(and chaff)giant. Throwing "crap" and "fuck" around only additionally show that you have no arguments for your views.

Dude you literally said unhealthy food should be banned. Nobody gives a shit.

"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having." ~Emma G, and everyone knows drugs lead to dancing. :cool:

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

IMO it is contradictory to be a leftist and to be pro-drugs, or pro-drunkeness, or pro-any addiction. I don't know how can people combine views of fighting for freedom with views that surrendering personal freedom and becoming dependant and not in control of one'e actions can be in any way good. I don't see the freedom in being drunk or being stoned, or being dependant. The "people should have the freedom to give up their freedom" is idiotic, that would make fight against slavery or capitalism senseless.

Please, excuse me, but I'm going to be taking the part of the prevalent and evil stoner that wants to hinder the revolution for a sec. How am I surrendering my right to be free by smoking a blunt or inhaling a phat bong rip and how am I not in control of my actions after and/or when I do so? I've never been blazed out of my mind and all of a sudden killed everyone in the car because I "wasn't in control of my actions". I also am not forever hindered from participating in demonstrations and direct action if I took an 8th of mushies. I find that the only drugs that "you surrender your freedom" to are addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin and other opiates, also meth, cigarettes and alcohol.

As for the "gov't might mess with [marijuana]" I feel lilke the drug ind. would be like the Alcohol ind. with big brewerys being present but also a flourishing "micro-growery" type of set-up.(in marijuana's case)

[Railyon]

well drug addiction can be a particularly bad problem.

Yes, no disagreement over that, I just tried to point out the folly in saying addiction is a problem because people spend lots of money on it. That doesn't touch upon the real problems of drug addiction, true, but I didn't mean it that way.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I have been pro-cocaine legalization and have campaigned for this for a number of years. The social restriction in regards to chemicals is simply absurd, all of it, not some, all.

[Pretty Flaco]

Yes, no disagreement over that, I just tried to point out the folly in saying addiction is a problem because people spend lots of money on it. That doesn't touch upon the real problems of drug addiction, true, but I didn't mean it that way.

my bad! lo siento. i misunderstood.

[ed miliband]

But even if you get drunk or stoned rarely, or just once, while you're drunk or stoned you are denying yourself freedom of action. That can be argumented by the mentioned "people should have the freedom to relinquish freedom", but that argument is not for a leftist to use, because when applied consistently (which must be done for an argumentent to be valid) that would be in the contradiction with the leftist freedom-oriented views, and our opposition to oppressive and exploitative systems.

IMO, being a consistent leftist should include some sort of ascetism, at least the Epicurean kind, which would of course mean not doing drugs, not getting drunk, and in general, not be addicted or dependant.

just lost for words at this bullshit...

[Robespierres Neck]

I have done almost every drug known to man and struggled with addiction. I still think drugs should be legal, unless it prevents man from their contribution to socialism. If that becomes a problem, it can always be discussed.
Also, I believe - along with healthcare - that rehabilitation clinics should be provided by the state. It's not fair that a someone who is well-off can check themselves in and get the proper treatment, while someone that's been completely consumed by addiction can't because he's getting by just from his habit. I believe doing this will decrease dependency and stop having clinics focus on capital gain (which is what I've experienced in rehab, believe it or not).

[Revolution starts with U]

Gratz on getting past your addiction comrade :D
If you did a program you know that the pinnacles of not being an enabler is to not cover up or protect them from their mistakes, and not to do for them what they should do for themselves. And this is exactly what the drug war does.


I have done almost every drug known to man and struggled with addiction. I still think drugs should be legal, unless it prevents man from their contribution to socialism. If that becomes a problem, it can always be discussed.
Also, I believe - along with healthcare - that rehabilitation clinics should be provided by the state. It's not fair that a someone who is well-off can check themselves in and get the proper treatment, while someone that's been completely consumed by addiction can't because he's getting by just from his habit. I believe doing this will decrease dependency and stop having clinics focus on capital gain (which is what I've experienced in rehab, believe it or not).

EDIT: Took out a Fabian quote that shouldn't have been there :lol:

[Azraella]

Some general points...

I think legalizing and decriminalizing drugs will actually help drug addicts more than keeping them illegal. The fundamental problem, is of course, the negative aspects of drug use which is why I can understand the legislation behind drug prohibition to a degree. We should also be looking for easy access to rehabilitation and perhaps therapy(CBT is among the most effective here) for drug addicts especially if we want to help these people.


But even if you get drunk or stoned rarely, or just once, while you're drunk or stoned you are denying yourself freedom of action. That can be argumented by the mentioned "people should have the freedom to relinquish freedom", but that argument is not for a leftist to use, because when applied consistently (which must be done for an argumentent to be valid) that would be in the contradiction with the leftist freedom-oriented views, and our opposition to oppressive and exploitative systems.


IMO, being a consistent leftist should include some sort of ascetism, at least the Epicurean kind, which would of course mean not doing drugs, not getting drunk, and in general, not be addicted or dependant.

And I'm assuming you know what it's like to be addicted to drugs and being an alcoholic, because this is literally the most naive thing I have ever read coming from your keyboard.

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

Guys, seriously, I think we're focusing on the wrong drug. I think we all know that the capitalist's criminalization of skub is wrecking third world countries and some neighborhoods in the US. Skub is totally harmless and can even regrow muscle tissue lost from muscular dystrophy which is why I think it should legalized.

On a more serious note, decriminalization of drugs works. You never see a straight-edge individual walking around saying "Man, those drug laws really keep me off of drugs, otherwise, I would be snorting 40 lines a day and shooting straight into my genitalia". Abraham Lincoln even said that prohibition stands against liberty. Alcohol Prohibition actually rose the rate of use and the criminals benefitted from the system made to harm them. I mean, shit, Adam and Eve even disobeyed that square, "God", when Satan said "hey, you'll be cool" or some shit. :laugh:

[Left Leanings]

salvia is legal in the US.

Salvia Divinorium is legal in the UK too :) :star:

[bcbm]

salvia is being banned in many states though

[honest john's firing squad]

IMO, being a consistent leftist should include some sort of ascetism, at least the Epicurean kind, which would of course mean not doing drugs, not getting drunk
fabian's ideal society:
http://ferdyonfilms.com/1984%202.jpg

not pictured: fun

[PC LOAD LETTER]

salvia is being banned in many states though
Yeah laws have been passed in a lot of states. Here in Georgia there was some kid who committed suicide, then his parents went on a crusade against salvia because he liked to smoke it. Got a law passed. But it's still legal when sold as incense and marked 'not for human consumption'. You can still buy everywhere because of the 'incense' thing.

On second thought, the suicide kid may have been another state. Eh.

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

I say, just to spite Fabian, when the revolution comes and we finally encroach upon the last few bastions of bourgeoisie members we all smoke a phat bowl before storming the gates.


And win.

[Koba Junior]

"socialist construction" has only ever been used as a euphemism for what existed in the soviet union and its bastard children worldwide.

The pre-Khrushchevite Soviet Union and its "bastard child" Socialist Albania are also known the only two places in which socialism was successfully constructed. There are important things to consider with regards to historical socialism: it is imperative to be critical to the official histories as nurtured by the capitalist market (consensus is not the same thing as objective fact), and it is necessary to consider the historical development of socialism in the context of preparing for socialism's future.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

salvia is being banned in many states though

I just find that fucking ridiculous, considering, bath salts are still legal in a lot of states and cities, which brings me to my next point of because of fucking, God damn bath salts they have been cracking down on smoke shops so now I have to drive 30 min to BME to get anything.

[fabian]

There's a huge difference between casual drug use and addiction; something you can't seem to grasp.
Something you can't grasp is that being drunk or stoned even once meas surrendering your freedom for the time you're drunk or stoned.


All available data shows that drug use decreases when drugs are legal.
The only data that shows that is the libertarian (ultra-capitalist pothead) funded cato institute data. The official data from EMCDDA says this:
Porutagal for cannabis- 7.6% in 2001, when decriminalization occured, to 13% in 2007.
Netherland for cannabis- 19.5% in 2001, 28% in 2007.

(Also, in Porutugal:
cocaine- less than 1 % in 2001, 1.9% in 2007
heroin- less than 1 % in 2001, 1.1% in 2007
ecstasy- less than 1 % in 2001, 1.3 in 2007 )

I don't know you and people like you are just trolls, or you really think yourself as serious thinkers or speakers, cause if you do, I don't know how you cannot be ashamed of your own shallowness to allow yourself to say stuff, not only without offering something to corroborate it, but without even checking it out for youselves. I'd rather think you're troll, it would too pessimistic that so many can just turn off their brain and just pour out nonsense.


Then after prohibition ended, it dropped
You're delusional.


Follow that with non-propagandized education and a coherent rehabilitation program that isn't littered with Jesus bullshit like AA/NA and you've got a great way to lower addiction rates
Drugs and alcohol are not the same TV or computer games, the latter do not damage the health by default, do not cause death when used in large quantities, and do not incapacitate person's judgement and action causing reckless and dangerous behaviour.


"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having." ~Emma G, and everyone knows drugs lead to dancing.
Do you even know why she said that? Because she starded dancing with some guys in the company of ascetic anarchist revolutionaries who were looking at her confused like "wtf is she doing acting like some bourgeoise harlot"... Those were revolutionaries, fight for liberty is not a fight for libertinism.


How am I surrendering my right to be free by smoking a blunt or inhaling a phat bong rip and how am I not in control of my actions after and/or when I do so?
If after getting stoned there's no difference in your mind and body use, then why use drugs?


I've never been blazed out of my mind and all of a sudden killed everyone in the car because I "wasn't in control of my actions".
So, because you did do such a think, no one did, and stuff like that doesn't happen?


I find that the only drugs that "you surrender your freedom" to are addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin and other opiates, also meth, cigarettes and alcohol.
When you're drunk or stoned (even by grass) you do not think clearly as you do when not drunk/stoned and the same thing is with control of body. Therefore, you surrender your freedom (of thought and action) every time you're stoned or drunk.


I think legalizing and decriminalizing drugs will actually help drug addicts more than keeping them illegal.
Existence of improper war on drugs doesnt mean that drugs should be embraced, it just means that a proper war on drugs should be waged.


And I'm assuming you know what it's like to be addicted to drugs and being an alcoholic


because this is literally the most naive thing I have ever read coming from your keyboard.
Wow, your explanations have dazzled me, I'm changing my views right away, you have shown the inconsistency in my views and their invalidness and I hereby reject them, I'm off to buy some coke and dope.

[Offbeat]

In the same way that a society abolishing slavery or capitalism would deny it's member's the "freedom" to relinquish freedom or the fruits of their labor.
Seriously? You're comparing freedom for an individual to choose to take drugs with freedom to own slaves or exploit labour? What a ridiculous, fallacious argument. I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised to hear this from someone named after a reformist social democratic organisation.

[fabian]

Seriously? You're comparing freedom for an individual to choose to take drugs with freedom to own slaves or exploit labour? What a ridiculous, fallacious argument.
Because you say so?

Explain, if someone should have the freedom to become addicted to heroin, why shouldn't one have the freedom to sell himself into slavery, and if one should have the freedom to get drunk and stoned, why not have the freedom to be exploited?


I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised to hear this from someone named after a reformist social democratic organisation.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected an argument after a claim from some who supports drugs.

Btw, the name is after the Roman philosopher Papirius Fabianus, I have similar views with only two of the Fabian Society (original) members- the Webb couple- and those view are mainly ethical ones, I disagree with them on economy.

[The Young Pioneer]

fabian, a model citizen of the USSR:

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/16.jpg


I see his point about wanting to be healthy and all, but a little weed don't hurt n'body... :closedeyes:

[Offbeat]

Explain, if someone should have the freedom to become addicted to heroin, why shouldn't one have the freedom to sell himself into slavery, and if one should have the freedom to get drunk and stoned, why not have the freedom to be exploited?

While nobody wants to be addicted to heroin, people choose to use heroin, and should have the freedom to do so. Addiction is a personal problem. Maybe in theory in a communist society everyone would be free to choose to be a slave if that's what they really wanted, but in practice without laws to enforce slavery, how would they really be a slave? It makes no sense, drugs are something which people will want to continue using after the revolution, whereas by definition slavery and exploitation are things which will be eradicated by the revolution.

[Ocean Seal]

Whether or not drugs are banned is not the relevant issue, but rather what happens to users of drurgs. If you want to put them in prison so that they stay a part of the system well then, it would seem absurd to think of that as part of "socialist construction," but instead it must be the prerogative of every socialist to give drug users the freedom to come in and get treatment without fear of legal retaliation.

[brigadista]

fabian, a model citizen of the USSR:

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/16.jpg


I see his point about wanting to be healthy and all, but a little weed don't hurt n'body... :closedeyes:

that plate of food looks like a heart attack special...just saying:D

[campesino]

my 2 cents.
legalize all drugs
have education campaigns, against drugs
drug users have to grow/process their own, right now you can sell drugs and use the money to buy anything you want. in socialism, you won't receive any labour certificates or money for growing or processing drugs.

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

If after getting stoned there's no difference in your mind and body use, then why use drugs?

So, because you did do such a think, no one did, and stuff like that doesn't happen?

wat

Seriously? Because it's my personal choice to and I find it fun. Truth be told, the only drug I do for recreational purposes is marijuana. I've never taken shrooms or other hallucinogens lightly, that is, as something fun to do on a Friday night with my bros after knockin' back some brewskies. My fascination with altered states is related to my fascination with physics, cosmology, etc.

I'm not going to represent anyone but myself and I can tell you with full faith that has never happened to me or anyone else I know. Any study that furthered the prohibition of marijuana was approved and any study detrimental to prohibition was denied. Marijuana was even approved, by a study, for legalization after it was found that it was practically harmless but Nixon, being Nixon, silenced it and it never saw the light of day. When men and women get stoned they talk about the world, war, gov't, or just have harmless fun. Weed never hurt no one. Of course, psychedelics should be taken way more seriously than marijuana but those are relatively harmless as well. Impossible to overdose on and any neurological damage it may do were in very vague terms.

tl;dr I do drugs 'cause they're fun as shit and they fascinate me.

[Conscript]

War on use values!! :laugh:

[fabian]

fabian, a model citizen of the USSR:

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/16.jpg


I see his point about wanting to be healthy and all, but a little weed don't hurt n'body... :closedeyes:
Hm, I don't think that's seitan or soy steak on his plate, and I don't eat meat. I'm more supportive of something like THIS (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QmJeViixKF8/Sb3Qt99_fXI/AAAAAAAABiw/w_xF3klW_iU/s400/poster-17.jpg).


While nobody wants to be addicted to heroin, people choose to use heroin, and should have the freedom to do so. Addiction is a personal problem. Maybe in theory in a communist society everyone would be free to choose to be a slave if that's what they really wanted, but in practice without laws to enforce slavery, how would they really be a slave?
The slaveowner keeping him in chains. He can do whatever he wants with him, cause that's his slave.


It makes no sense, drugs are something which people will want to continue using after the revolution, whereas by definition slavery and exploitation are things which will be eradicated by the revolution.
Are you sayin that after the revolution it would be somehow impossible for people to want to be a slave or an employee? I know people who know that capitalism is based on exploatation, and they don't mind, they want exploatation to exist. Would such people have the freedom to be exploited after the revolution?


my 2 cents.
legalize all drugs
have education campaigns, against drugs
Why not legalize murder, and have education campaigns against it.. yeah.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5gU26HJk4)

[Offbeat]

Are you sayin that after the revolution it would be somehow impossible for people to want to be a slave or an employee?
I'm saying that it would be impossible to be a slave or employee after the revolution. For the revolution to happen, class consciousness will have to develop to the extent that the vast majority of people recognise that they are exploited and want to change that. The revolution itself will destroy the institutions of slavery and employment forever. Why are we even debating this, can't you see that this is a terrible analogy for the issue of drugs?

[Art Vandelay]

Why not legalize murder, and have education campaigns against it.. yeah.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5gU26HJk4)

Hahahaha :laugh:. I really hope your trolling or something, because you cannot be serious....Your going to compare legalizing murder to legalizing drugs....Because allowing consenting adults (who cause no harm to anyone else) to have control over what they put into their bodies....is the equivalent...of murder....:confused:....:lol:

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I'm for legalizing weed and related drugs, but that's it.

With everything else, it will still be illegal, but people will always be able to get amnesty if they come into a government facility looking for help and everyone who gets in trouble for drug use will have the right to decide to go to a forced rehabilitation facility instead of punishment.

Distributors and manufactures will always be prosecuted.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised to hear this from someone named after a reformist social democratic organisation.This is the first time I can remember hearing someone talking about the Fabians when it wasn't to condemn them as an embarrassment to the left for supporting eugenics. It's sad to hear that they still exist.

Anyway, fabian, it is an extreme stretch to think voluntarily altering one's state of mind reduces one's freedom. I've written damn good code while on several psychoactives. Sometimes I wouldn't have had the motivation to keep working without a joint.

You really need to go to a party and have some fun, comrade.

[Robespierres Neck]

Heroin addiction, in its nature, is comparable to slavery and one should be liberated from it. We need to treat addiction like how it truly is: a disease. But to (ignorantly) generalize & compare smack to drugs like psilocybin, DMT, or marijuana is ludicrous. To think that socialism will bring a stop to everyone using drugs is irrationally idealistic. Why do people need to be criminalized, and not treated, for it?

[WanderingCactus]

I'll do with my body what I please; laws or no.


I'm for legalizing weed and related drugs, but that's it.

With everything else, it will still be illegal, but people will always be able to get amnesty if they come into a government facility looking for help and everyone who gets in trouble for drug use will have the right to decide to go to a forced rehabilitation facility instead of punishment.

Distributors and manufactures will always be prosecuted.

I'm glad you have this all planned out.

[Art Vandelay]

Heroin addiction, in its nature, is comparable to slavery and one should be liberated from it. We need to treat addiction like how it truly is: a disease. But to (ignorantly) generalize & compare smack to drugs like psilocybin, DMT, or marijuana is ludicrous. To think that socialism will bring a stop to everyone using drugs is irrationally idealistic. Why do people need to be criminalized, and not treated, for it?

Addiction is not the problem, it is a symptom.

[Yuppie Grinder]

IMO it is contradictory to be a leftist and to be pro-drugs, or pro-drunkeness, or pro-any addiction. I don't know how can people combine views of fighting for freedom with views that surrendering personal freedom and becoming dependant and not in control of one'e actions can be in any way good. I don't see the freedom in being drunk or being stoned, or being dependant. The "people should have the freedom to give up their freedom" is idiotic, that would make fight against slavery or capitalism senseless.

This argument is contradictory and nonsensical.

[fabian]

I'm saying that it would be impossible to be a slave or employee after the revolution.
But it would be possible to shoot dope?


For the revolution to happen, class consciousness will have to develop to the extent that the vast majority of people recognise that they are exploited and want to change that.
So, the consciousness of toilers would be fixed on freedom enough to abolish an entire system, but not enough to stop getting drunk or stoned?


Why are we even debating this, can't you see that this is a terrible analogy for the issue of drugs?
It's a perfect analogy, because everything people say to me connected with my opposition to alcohol and drugs- that people should have the freedom to do drugs, the "freedom to relinquish freedom", that I'm a moralist and a paternalist, all that can directed to the general lefist cause- opposition to exploitative and oppressive systems.


Because allowing consenting adults (who cause no harm to anyone else) to have control over
See, I don't know if this is trolling or just plain being an idiot, and the sad thing is that I'm pretty sure you're not trolling, you actually think that you can say something that makes sense without turning on your brain. Please think about two things- are you sure you want to argue that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else except the drug user? Cause if you think that intoxicated people never harm or kill anyone as a consequence of their intoxication and that all criminality related to drugs is because of "poh-lice oppression", you're delusional. Second thing- junkies are not in control of anything, they are controled by drugs.

And comparing it to murder is totally appropriate. A guy I know went down for murder, he took a wrech and bashed a guy's head, because that guy was selling drugs to in a high school yard to first grade kids (13, 14yo), and that, IMO- is tantamount to murder by poisoning. That kind of sick stuff is the consequence of drugs existing, not of a dealer "not being considarate", it would be idiotic to have faith in drug dealer's ethical standards so as not be predatory, target kids etc.

I've not used any hard drug a long time, and some years ago, I would still smoke some grass once in a while, thinking- that has nothing to do with the problematic drug world- people getting overdosed, draged into prostitution, robbing others to feed their addiction, and then that movie Tropa de Elite came out, it is somewhat realistic, showing the flaws of both sides of the drug war, but I talked with my friends with my movie, and just about that time I got into some fight and ended up in jail, I talked to some people there about drugs, and basically the truth is- there's no dealers that "sell only grass", the entire drug world is connected, not just in one nation, but growing and transportation, when you use grass you support the entire criminal world where people overdose, rob, kill, kidnap and sell into sex slavery, and sell dope to kids, and no, decriminalization or legalization are not even close to being solutions, those predatory shitholes and all making money in that world need to hunted down and put down, and their victims treated.


Sometimes I wouldn't have had the motivation to keep working without a joint.
That ought to make you wander if should continue humiliating yourself by relying on grass for motivation, or pick yourself up and grow some willpower.


You really need to go to a party and have some fun, comrade.
Getting a job well done, resting and chilling out, reading and learning, fighting for a just cause, working out, meditating, being proud of myself for e.g. for doing something good, or for abandoning my bad habits and forming new good ones; hanging out with my friends, playing some hoops, soccer and hacky, listening to music, watching movies, playing video games, all that and more similar stuff is just not enough for leading a fulfilling and a happy life, I just have to get drunk or stoned.


Why do people need to be criminalized, and not treated, for it?
Who said that they should criminalized and not treated?


Addiction is not the problem, it is a symptom.
Of what?


This argument is contradictory and nonsensical.
Wow, such and exposition and such an explanation. Yes, I now see the flaws and contradictions in my reasoning, you have pointed them out so precisely.

[Railyon]

But even if you get drunk or stoned rarely, or just once, while you're drunk or stoned you are denying yourself freedom of action.
That's exactly a problem how?


That can be argumented by the mentioned "people should have the freedom to relinquish freedom", but that argument is not for a leftist to use, because when applied consistently (which must be done for an argumentent to be valid) that would be in the contradiction with the leftist freedom-oriented views, and our opposition to oppressive and exploitative systems.

What is it now, some vague notion of freedom or an opposition to exploitative systems? I find the first pretty hilarious coming from a statist marketeer advocating prohibition, and your views thus contradictory to the latter. Concerning exploitative systems, how exactly does drug use constitute exploitation on a social scale if the capitalist mode of production is overcome? There wouldn't be any dealers. Except in your advocated market system, have fun working out that contradiction.

[fabian]

What is it now, some vague notion of freedom or an opposition to exploitative systems?
Opposition to exploitative systems is based on the notion of freedom.


find the first pretty hilarious coming from a statist marketeer advocating prohibition, and your views thus contradictory to the latter.
Showing you have not read what I have writen. It seems pretty common for people here to belive that a (motivated by proper ideas) state commanded economy will liberate people from oppression, but saying that (motivated by proper ideas) statist fight against drugs and alcohol could liberate people from addiction and vice, uh, oh, that's taboo..


There wouldn't be any dealers.
State would be the dealer. Or society. A druged utopia, lol.


Except in your advocated market system, have fun working out that contradiction.
Proper prohibition.

[Left Leanings]

Fabian mate, I'm not being horrible or anything, but you sound like a boring old Tory.

What the hell is wrong, with peeps doing drugs if they want to. It's got nothing to do with you how others get their kicks.

Weed is a natural product, a herb for fucks sake. It grows in the wild in many countries, and is a far more pure product than baccy. It's been enjoyed for centuries by millions of peeps the world over.

There's no harm in it man. Just chill out :) :star:

[fabian]

It's got nothing to do with you how others get their kicks.
It does, cause I hang out in parks, on the streets, in cafees and clubs , and when drunk and druged people do shit in front of me, or try something with me or my friends it has something to do with me.


Weed is a natural product, a herb for fucks sake.
So are poisonous shrooms, why don't eat that? Oh wait, you do. x) You should try the ones that you can eat only once.


There's no harm in it man.
There's no harm in drugs? Are you high?

[moulinrouge]

wat

Seriously? Because it's my personal choice to and I find it fun. Truth be told, the only drug I do for recreational purposes is marijuana. I've never taken shrooms or other hallucinogens lightly, that is, as something fun to do on a Friday night with my bros after knockin' back some brewskies. My fascination with altered states is related to my fascination with physics, cosmology, etc.

I'm not going to represent anyone but myself and I can tell you with full faith that has never happened to me or anyone else I know. Any study that furthered the prohibition of marijuana was approved and any study detrimental to prohibition was denied. Marijuana was even approved, by a study, for legalization after it was found that it was practically harmless but Nixon, being Nixon, silenced it and it never saw the light of day. When men and women get stoned they talk about the world, war, gov't, or just have harmless fun. Weed never hurt no one. Of course, psychedelics should be taken way more seriously than marijuana but those are relatively harmless as well. Impossible to overdose on and any neurological damage it may do were in very vague terms.

tl;dr I do drugs 'cause they're fun as shit and they fascinate me.

I'm a smoker myself and i have to disagree with you. Weed and psychedelics can make a person apathetic ,put you in a psychosis and can cause paranoia.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The question is why are drugs made illegal in capitalist society? In my view there's two inter-related reasons. The first is just a basic need to discipline workers - in the Victorian era (when temperance and other bourgeois moral crusades were happening) there was a conscious effort to replace tea and coffee for beer - the benefits from an employers viewpoint should be clear enough. But really I think the main use is to scapegoat. On the one hand you can blame shitty working class life on what people use to numb their shitty working class lives. With the drug war, drug use and the black market and associated violence can be blamed for rotting conditions in urban and suburban working class areas (and rural with meth and oxy) and can also be used to justify increase police of working class neighborhoods. In the neo-liberal era drugs could be blamed for the urban decay actually caused by the transfer of funds away from the working class (specifically city-dwelling workers) while also being an argument for why it's "wasteful" to even have programs and a social safety net and why resources should go to prisons and cops.

Now, would the working class have any use for any of this? I think it's clear that no matter how workers decided to tackle the negative impact of substance abuse, it would be totally different than how the current ruling class deals with it. Personally my view is that workers would have no reason to regulate what activities people did privately and it would only be an issue if someone was drunk-driving or impaired on the job and their private use became a public issue. In that case, my feeling is that it should be treated as a medical issue in a totally un-stigmatized way.

[fabian]

The question is why are drugs made illegal in capitalist society? In my view there's two inter-related reasons.
I think that another two reasons are present here. On one side they are "anti-drugs" because they want to make people who are anti-drugs to supporte the system, and on the other, they don't really fight drugs, but support their spread among the toiling class in order to weaken it.

[moulinrouge]

The question is why are drugs made illegal in capitalist society? In my view there's two inter-related reasons. The first is just a basic need to discipline workers - in the Victorian era (when temperance and other bourgeois moral crusades were happening) there was a conscious effort to replace tea and coffee for beer - the benefits from an employers viewpoint should be clear enough. But really I think the main use is to scapegoat. On the one hand you can blame shitty working class life on what people use to numb their shitty working class lives. With the drug war, drug use and the black market and associated violence can be blamed for rotting conditions in urban and suburban working class areas (and rural with meth and oxy) and can also be used to justify increase police of working class neighborhoods. In the neo-liberal era drugs could be blamed for the urban decay actually caused by the transfer of funds away from the working class (specifically city-dwelling workers) while also being an argument for why it's "wasteful" to even have programs and a social safety net and why resources should go to prisons and cops.

Now, would the working class have any use for any of this? I think it's clear that no matter how workers decided to tackle the negative impact of substance abuse, it would be totally different than how the current ruling class deals with it. Personally my view is that workers would have no reason to regulate what activities people did privately and it would only be an issue if someone was drunk-driving or impaired on the job and their private use became a public issue. In that case, my feeling is that it should be treated as a medical issue in a totally un-stigmatized way.

When drugs are legal they can also cause great harm to the working class. Opium was legal in 19th century china and it caused huge problems just like alcohol does in many parts of the world today.

If there is a low social threshold and free addictive drugs this would be a problem in a communist society.

That's why i think that the working class will choose not to produce such substances.

[Jimmie Higgins]

When drugs are legal they can also cause great harm to the working class. Opium was legal in 19th century china and it caused huge problems just like alcohol does in many parts of the world today.

If there is a low social threshold and free addictive drugs this would be a problem in a communist society.

That's why i think that the working class will choose not to produce such substances.People take some kind of substances recreationally or don't take substances and their illegality has little to do with it. Drug use has existed as long as humans have been around - animals take mood and mind-altering natural substances.

The only reason to control the behavior of others is if you are part of a minority group that needs the majority to behave in a particular way. If you are not trying to control and get all of society to conform to certain viewpoints and behaviors, then any drug-misuse (that impacts others) is really an issue that workers can handle on a case by case basis. Beyond that real addition is simply a medical issue.

Drug use can not be controlled and so the rational way for a democratic society to handle it is not to try and stop a behavior that has always existed, but hit at the roots of the problems - so eliminating alienation and poverty would probably mitigate a large percentage of really nihilistic drug-abuse but for people who do get addicted, the problem is a medical one that can be treated.

[moulinrouge]

People take some kind of substances recreationally or don't take substances and their illegality has little to do with it. Drug use has existed as long as humans have been around - animals take mood and mind-altering natural substances.[quote]

Then why is alcohol the most common drug?

[quote]
The only reason to control the behavior of others is if you are part of a minority group that needs the majority to behave in a particular way. If you are not trying to control and get all of society to conform to certain viewpoints and behaviors, then any drug-misuse (that impacts others) is really an issue that workers can handle on a case by case basis. Beyond that real addition is simply a medical issue.

Drug abuse is a structural problem for the working class.



Drug use can not be controlled and so the rational way for a democratic society to handle it is not to try and stop a behavior that has always existed, but hit at the roots of the problems - so eliminating alienation and poverty would probably mitigate a large percentage of really nihilistic drug-abuse but for people who do get addicted, the problem is a medical one that can be treated.

In a communist society there would be no money and no traders so there won't be any drugdealers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;2444157]People take some kind of substances recreationally or don't take substances and their illegality has little to do with it. Drug use has existed as long as humans have been around - animals take mood and mind-altering natural substances.

Then why is alcohol the most common drug?
Because it's realitvely predictable and easily accessible. Implying that it's legality is the reason people use it, eh? Did that stop with prohibition? Ohhh Snap!


Drug abuse is a structural problem for the working class.Structural problem? What do you mean?


In a communist society there would be no money and no traders so there won't be any drugdealers.There would be if you outlawed it. And who would enforce this? Really, stopping someone from experimenting with something that could possibly get them addicted eventually is worth using resources on? You'd still have to treat them (or imprison them - gak) so why not get to the real issue and use resources to treat people rather than enforce something like eating a plant that can grow anywhere or misusing drugs used in medicine or chemicals used in whip cream or glue.

[moulinrouge]

[QUOTE]Because it's realitvely predictable and easily accessible. Implying that it's legality is the reason people use it, eh? Did that stop with prohibition? Ohhh Snap!

The two are connected.



Structural problem? What do you mean?

That its not an individual problem but a structural problem in society that is harmfull to the working class




There would be if you outlawed it. And who would enforce this? Really, stopping someone from experimenting with something that could possibly get them addicted eventually is worth using resources on? You'd still have to treat them (or imprison them - gak) so why not get to the real issue and use resources to treat people rather than enforce something like eating a plant that can grow anywhere or misusing drugs used in medicine or chemicals used in whip cream or glue.

So you really suggest that in a communist society capitalism will pop back into existence if crack and heroine are unavailable?

And yes, preventing drug addictions is something worth spending resources on. Why do you wan't to wait untill people are addicted?

[Misanthrope]

Drugs shouldn't be illegal or legal because there shouldn't be a global entity that has the power to decide/enforce should a totalitarian policy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That its not an individual problem but a structural problem in society that is harmfull to the working classI still am not sure what you mean by a structural problem? A problem somehow in the structure of the working class - a structural problem of a hypothetical socialist society?

Do you mean it's a social issue so because more than just the individual is involved, it needs to be dealt with on a social level? If that's the case I still don't agree - drunk driving or people coming to work drunk or loaded is an issue where you can't say an individual behavior is simply individual. But again, most people who drink or do drugs are not strung-out or alcoholics. When someone does have these issues, then, that's the issue, not the other people who drink or drug.


So you really suggest that in a communist society capitalism will pop back into existence if crack and heroine are unavailable?Not in a communist society, but after a revolution I think this would be a way to ensure some low-level profiteering and a black market.


And yes, preventing drug addictions is something worth spending resources on. Why do you wan't to wait untill people are addicted?Because not everyone is addicted to drugs and trying to keep people from doing something that has happened everywhere in all societies is a WASTE of resources at best. People get addicted to pain killers - should be have a post-capitalist society of extremely painful free healthcare?

It's a risk, freedom's a risk. But sometimes you just have to accept that your baby's all grown up and can make their own decisions and learn from their own triumphs and mistakes.

But seriously, the most important thing we can do to curb drug addiction is to create a life worth living - that is a society that allows us all to have a life worth living. As it is working your whole life is only marginally better than dieing of a drug overdose, so give people something to live for and access to non-stigmatized drug treatment (or rationing) and I'm pretty sure people would not want to get strung out and be asleep while all this awesome post-revolution daily shit is happening.

Rich people now, bored and alienated too, get hooked on drugs, but what's their story most of the time - when it begins to interfere with their lives they get cleaned up, it might take a while or a couple of tries, but they deal with it without prison. Drugs are easy for them to get (if the 1980s novels are to be believed) but it's not the problem it is for the rest of us - first of all they can afford an addiction in economic cost and in time (if they are idol rich). So drug addiction is much less of a problem for them than for us - this is why after a revolution when addiction would be a health-issue, it will also be much less of a social ill. Your friends or family won't loose their income, their home, and so on if they get hooked on something - all these additional burdens will be gone and so these problems would be able to be taken care of much easier and directly: teach people honestly about drug-use and when there's chemical dependance it gets medical treatment.

Personally I think this is how workers will have to deal with all behaviors. If it is actually directly causing problems for others, then it will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Otherwise there is no need for a worker's society to tell each-other who to sleep with or what to do in their (ample) free-time.

[∞]

Why not all drugs? Does criminalizing them actually stop use, or crime? The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

It'd be pretty fucked up if crack was privatized though. I guess capitalism needs idiotic authoritarianism in order to sustain itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One of the best things I ever accidentally saw on TV was an episode of "Cops" where these cops bust into a reported "crack-house" (but where people were in and out doing meth, not crack, but they called it a crack-house anyway). Anyway, it's a couple of people inside, one's a trucker and ones the woman who owns/rents the place. The cops are walking around all smug for the cameras and one of them says to the woman: "why is it whenever we bust someone for meth, they're a trucker or redneck" - and without missing a beat (it was a den of speed after all) the woman snaps back, "Why is it we're the ones that always got to work three jobs? Maybe that's why!"

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey, let's all forget for a minute that when I pressed him on how his drug policy would work, he basically responded with the Portugese model he loves to demonize (you can check that out yourself, its near the end of the drug thread in OI).

Check it:

There is no reliable information about drug use, injecting behaviour or addiction treatment in Portugal before 2001, when general population surveys commenced. The only information about drug use before that time was the indicators on lifetime prevalence amongst youth, collected as part of the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD).
Thorough studies on how the various efforts have been implemented have not been conducted. Thus, a causal effect between strategy efforts and these developments cannot be firmly established.[8] There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:
Increased uptake of treatment.[8]
Reduction in HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%[13]
Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years, and the number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented.[8][13] However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.[14]
Reported lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin from 0.7% to 1.1%[13] It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[14] Statistical trends in neighboring Spain and Italy during the same period also suggested an unclear relation between decriminalization and increased drug use, comparatively.[14]
Drug use among adolescents and "problematic" users declined.[14]
Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased, while the amount of drugs seized increased in quantity.[14]
Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.[14]

The above is from Wikipedia. If you would like to see some of the real data see below:
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf


The statistical indicators suggest that since the decriminalization in
July 2001, the following developments have occurred:
• Increased use of cannabis.
• Decreased use of heroin.
• Increased uptake of treatment.
• Reduction in drug related deaths.
Decriminalization has enabled earlier intervention and more targeted
and therapeutic responses to drug users, increased collaboration across
a network of services and the increased attention to adopting policies
that work. This is perceived to be reducing the level of current and
future drug use and harm. Yet, key informants also highlighted that
impacts were less than expected and that there were concerns over the
message that decriminalization was sending to new drug users

There's also this:
http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf

And this:
The approach is not uncontroversial. Portugal did experience an increase in drug use after this policy was implemented, but so did many European countries during
this period.
From:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf

And then there's this:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-policy-profiles/portugal
(Look at the conclusion)


It's clear that the Portuguese policy has been pretty effective; at least as effective as any other policy, and better than the US one. Nobody thinks it, or expected it to be perfect. But it has been wildly successful in reducing public health problems, problem users, and the costs of criminalization.

[Art Vandelay]

See, I don't know if this is trolling or just plain being an idiot, and the sad thing is that I'm pretty sure you're not trolling, you actually think that you can say something that makes sense without turning on your brain.

You are an idiot, now that I got that out of the way maybe I can address some of this nonsense.


Please think about two things-

Okay.


are you sure you want to argue that doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else except the drug user?

Yes.


Cause if you think that intoxicated people never harm or kill anyone as a consequence of their intoxication and that all criminality related to drugs is because of "poh-lice oppression", you're delusional.

Perhaps if you articulated what type of criminality you are referring too I could address this better?


Second thing- junkies are not in control of anything, they are controled by drugs.

So all drug users are junkies now? :rolleyes:


And comparing it to murder is totally appropriate.

No it is not.


A guy I know went down for murder, he took a wrech and bashed a guy's head, because that guy was selling drugs to in a high school yard to first grade kids (13, 14yo), and that, IMO- is tantamount to murder by poisoning. That kind of sick stuff is the consequence of drugs existing, not of a dealer "not being considarate", it would be idiotic to have faith in drug dealer's ethical standards so as not be predatory, target kids etc.

Here is a sweeping generalization (an anti-materialist one if I may add; plus anecdotes are not arguments but whatever) based off of your limited real life experiences with the drug world.....Drug dealers don't do sick shit like that to kids because they're on drugs and drugs are bad, just like, as you said, it doesn't come down to a drug dealer just "not being considerate" enough; drug dealers run a business and their business runs by the same rule all businesses do: maximize profits. A drug dealer selling crack to 14 year olds is no worse than the businesses building up juvenile detention centers and having the pigs fill them to the brim.


I've not used any hard drug a long time, and some years ago, I would still smoke some grass once in a while, thinking- that has nothing to do with the problematic drug world- people getting overdosed, draged into prostitution, robbing others to feed their addiction, and then that movie Tropa de Elite came out, it is somewhat realistic, showing the flaws of both sides of the drug war, but I talked with my friends with my movie, and just about that time I got into some fight and ended up in jail, I talked to some people there about drugs, and basically the truth is- there's no dealers that "sell only grass", the entire drug world is connected, not just in one nation, but growing and transportation, when you use grass you support the entire criminal world where people overdose, rob, kill, kidnap and sell into sex slavery, and sell dope to kids, and no, decriminalization or legalization are not even close to being solutions, those predatory shitholes and all making money in that world need to hunted down and put down, and their victims treated.

I just wanted to point out that you are not a materialist. That's all really, that entire paragraph was rambling nonsense and based off of what you are saying I do not think you are even intellectually capable of engaging in a productive discussion on the topic.

P.S. the part in bold is pretty funny, given that some of my friends only sell pot.


Of what?

I would think this is obvious, but you have demonstrated yourself not to be a communist, so perhaps it needs clearing up. Addiction is not the problem but a symptom; a symptom of what you ask: of capitalism, of this fucked up world.

[Art Vandelay]

Hey, let's all forget for a minute that when I pressed him on how his drug policy would work, he basically responded with the Portugese model he loves to demonize (you can check that out yourself, its near the end of the drug thread in OI).

Check it:


The above is from Wikipedia. If you would like to see some of the real data see below:
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf



There's also this:
http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf

And this:
The approach is not uncontroversial. Portugal did experience an increase in drug use after this policy was implemented, but so did many European countries during
this period.
From:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf

And then there's this:
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-policy-profiles/portugal
(Look at the conclusion)


It's clear that the Portuguese policy has been pretty effective; at least as effective as any other policy, and better than the US one. Nobody thinks it, or expected it to be perfect. But it has been wildly successful in reducing public health problems, problem users, and the costs of criminalization.

I didn't go through the links you provided but am assuming you are talking about the country (Portugal) who legalized drugs and watched all statistics in drug related categories stay the same or diminish. I am pretty sure I heard a story about a town in Portugal where they had a huge issue with male prostitution, especially around the main train station. After the legalization of drugs they noticed a massive decrease in the amount of male prostitutes. Here is the moral of the story: they were not fucking old men for kicks; they were feeding an addiction. After having a free and regulated supply of clean junk, overdoses decreased, drug related crime decreased, male prostitution decreased, transmition of diseases decreased, etc...It is fairly obvious that it was a success and that prohibition has been a continual failure.

[#FF0000]

itt ppl still think prisons solve problems like drug addiction lol

[Jimmie Higgins]

I didn't go through the links you provided but am assuming you are talking about the country (Portugal) who legalized drugs and watched all statistics in drug related categories stay the same or diminish. I am pretty sure I heard a story about a town in Portugal where they had a huge issue with male prostitution, especially around the main train station. After the legalization of drugs they noticed a massive decrease in the amount of male prostitutes. Here is the moral of the story: they were not fucking old men for kicks; they were feeding an addiction. After having a free and regulated supply of clean junk, overdoses decreased, drug related crime decreased, male prostitution decreased, transmition of diseases decreased, etc...It is fairly obvious that it was a success and that prohibition has been a continual failure.^Interesting.

I think decriminalization even within capitalism (while still not really fixing many of the class-based complications of chemical dependency) makes a kind of rational sense when you look at the costs of repressive prohibition vs. some of the alternative policies in Europe or elsewhere. This is why I think ultimately the drug policy is an ideological tool for capitalism rather than any sort of attempt to simply deal with a social problem or a problem caused by the system. Therefore I don't think workers would follow a similar policy because they have no use for this ideological tool designed to scapegoat behaviors by some people in society for fundamental problems with alienation, poverty, and so on.

[fabian]

Yes.
You have never heard of drunk or druged people becoming violent and attack or kill someone? If you don't get out of your basement at least sometimes check some online news, or watch some news on tv..


I just wanted to point out that you are not a materialist.
I never said I am. I'm non-reductionist and an idealist, and reject physicalism and materialism.


the part in bold is pretty funny, given that some of my friends only sell pot.
And they all grow it by themselves? They don't take it from dealers that also have business with hard drugs, and who's bosses dable also into killing, sex slavery etc? I used to deal grass for a few months, and only grass, and after only a few month doing that I saw stuff that I didn't want to see, and that I thought I was avoiding and not helping by "doing only grass". All drugs are connected to criminality. Even if drugs are legalized, you're still financing south american and indo-asian drug cartels that grow that shit and thus finance their business of killing, robbing, kidnapping, sex slavery and the like. And even if you magically separate drug world from that kinds of criminality, people still overdose, people still rob and harm and kill others and to get money to feed their addiction, or do that because they become violent when (drunk or) druged.


I would think this is obvious, but you have demonstrated yourself not to be a communist
I never said I am one. I'm a socialist and don't support communism.


Addiction is not the problem but a symptom; a symptom of what you ask: of capitalism
I do think that drugs and alcohol are by-products of a capitalist (or any oppressive system) mindset, but I see here that that mindset is present among many people who call themselves leftist.


It is fairly obvious that it was a success and that prohibition has been a continual failure.
Capitalist false prohibition is not a failure, it is doint exactly what it is supposed to do- put drug business in the hands of the bourgouise state, and spread drugs among the working class. Decriminalization working is a fairy tale, it decreaces some bad things about drugs, but drug use rises with decriminalization; it is the same as social-democracy, improve the worker's conditions a little and get them to accept capitalism. Capitalism and drugs are evil.

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

Fabian mate, I'm not being horrible or anything, but you sound like a boring old Tory.

What the hell is wrong, with peeps doing drugs if they want to. It's got nothing to do with you how others get their kicks.

Weed is a natural product, a herb for fucks sake. It grows in the wild in many countries, and is a far more pure product than baccy. It's been enjoyed for centuries by millions of peeps the world over.

There's no harm in it man. Just chill out :) :star:

Word.

[GhostOfTheHaymarket]

And they all grow it by themselves? They don't take it from dealers that also have business with hard drugs, and who's bosses dable also into killing, sex slavery etc? I used to deal grass for a few months, and only grass, and after only a few month doing that I saw stuff that I didn't want to see, and that I thought I was avoiding and not helping by "doing only grass". All drugs are connected to criminality. Even if drugs are legalized, you're still financing south american and indo-asian drug cartels that grow that shit and thus finance their business of killing, robbing, kidnapping, sex slavery and the like. And even if you magically separate drug world from that kinds of criminality, people still overdose, people still rob and harm and kill others and to get money to feed their addiction, or do that because they become violent when (drunk or) druged.

Stop. Please, just...stop.

Communists and anarchists alike are against slavery. By that logic, addiction is comparable to slavery in the concept that the drug takes away the dignity and freedom of the user. MARIJUANA, LSD, LSA, PSILOCYBIN, IBOGAINE, DMT ARE NOT ADDICTIVE. A STUDY BY PEOPLE FUNDED BY CAPITALIST BOURGEOUSIE MEN CARRIED OUT BY MEN AND WOMEN WHO PROBABLY HAVE NO QUARRELS WITH CAPITALISM AND HAVE NO AMBITION OF REVOLUTION FOUND THAT MARIJUANA AND PSYCHEDELICS ARE NOT ADDICTIVE AND ALSO NOT HARMFUL.

If there was one, just one case, of someone either dying or making someone else die while on marijuana or psychedelics Fox news would be parading it around the media with the effort equivolent of covering a satanic ritual to resurrect Adolf Hitler.

Guess what-

No deaths from Marijuana
No Deaths from LSD
No deaths from Ibogaine
No deaths from DMT
No deaths from Psilocybin

Also-(sticking to the true theme of the thread)

An ungodly amount of deaths from Tobacco
Shitloads of deaths from Alcohol

Why are we even still arguing about this? Fabian, non-addictive drugs are fine. They will not handicap anyone beyond the span of time in which the drug was in effect...maybe a bit tired but you can fucking sleep that off. Come on. If it makes you feel any better we'd probably kill the drug cartels too, when the revolution comes.

[Revolution starts with U]

Coffee funds some pretty bad cartels, I guess I should stop drinking that too...

[fabian]

Why are we even still arguing about this? Fabian, non-addictive drugs are fine.
Any mind altering substance is inconsistant with stiving for freedom, even the ones where the mind altering effect doesn't show after one use, but of cource, those which do have effect after one use are most obvious- all those we call drugs, and alcohol, and they all should be abandoned.


Coffee funds some pretty bad cartels, I guess I should stop drinking that too...
Yes, and also all other cash crops like chocolate, sugar, tropical foods, and buy local insted of directly financing exploatation of third world workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Any mind altering substance is inconsistant with stiving for freedom, even the ones where the mind altering effect doesn't show after one use, but of cource, those which do have effect after one use are most obvious- all those we call drugs, and alcohol, and they all should be abandoned.So no pain-killers when you get teeth drilled? Nothing for women during birth? Nothing for people with genuine chemical imbalances? No Alcohol?!

Drug use pre-dates class society and will outlast it too. There is no way workers can police this nor should they police any private behaviors that do not interfere with common projects. So if someone shows up for their weekly shift loaded (or don't show up on the shifts they've agreed to) then it's perfectly in the rights of the other workers how then have to pick up the slack to say, "Go home, don't come here unless you're sober - and if you can't do that then you can't have shifts here and you won't have full privileges that contributing members of the community have".

Freedom means the freedom to make private decisions others may not choose. A proletarian democracy can't enforce behaviors on other workers, if there are problematic things in society, they will have to figure out ways to deal with it that don't involve enforcing some morality onto each-other. The answer to drunk-driving isn't trying to enforce an impossible alcohol ban (people make alcohol in prison and yet you think worker's in a free society can enforce a ban!?) but to take away any reason to drive drunk - make bars and pubs in the center of walkable communities or provide free transportation outside of all nightspots etc.

We can't FORCE people to behave in certain ways, it's counter to socialism. We can prevent harmful social arragements and take the means of production and capital away from the bosses, but we can't force people to be sober or not to have pre-marital sex (not that people are suggesting that, but it's just another impossible to police behavior) it just doesn't make sense from a working class perspective. It makes sense from a bourgoise ruling class perspective where morality is important in convincing the population that going to work each day and behaving in certain ways is "good character" and "good for society".


Yes, and also all other cash crops like chocolate, sugar, tropical foods, and buy local insted of directly financing exploatation of third world workers.All my weed is grown in local city-sanctioned local indoor production sites. So Oaksterdam weed is morally superior to the sugar I put in my food?:lol:

[What would Lenin do]

I think drugs like Cocaine should be illegal because they cause the most harm, but cannabis isn't that bad and it's illegal! Only the taxed drugs are legal, alcohol and cigarettes.
I mean, how many people would die in a car crash high from cannabis compared to being drunk. High people would stay at a stop sign and wait until it says go.

[Luís Henrique]

The bosses only wish to illegailize drugs, in the case of weed, for example, is that they are frghtened to death of the workers not turning in for their shift, cos they're too stoned and chilled-out.

Many more workers fail to turn in for their shift because they are too drunk or sick in hangover, and the bosses seem to be perfectly OK with that; it even allows them to fire those workers and keep a clean conscience, for these people, as they see it, had it coming. So the reason for the prohibition of marijuana must be different, otherwise booze would be verboten too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Only the taxed drugs are legal, alcohol and cigarettes.

It would be the other way round, only legal drugs are taxed...

Luís Henrique

[pastradamus]

Maybe my opinion is unpopular here but,

I agree that softer drugs such as Cannabis and Hashish should be legalised but im against legalising drugs like Cocaine, Heroin and LSD.

Cocaine, if it were legalised would bring the price way down which would make it FAR more available.You must keep in mind that this is an extremely addictive substance which can kill quite easily, heroin is likewise.

LSD on the otherhand was invented by the CIA and is another seriously dangerous drug, perhaps not physically but mentally. I have a friend who took LSD one night and never came down and now spends most of his time in a psychiatric ward here in Cork. I believe people selling these substances should be prosecuted.

As for Salvia, Marijuana, unprocessed Mushrooms, unprocessed Coca etc...I have no problem with them. I just wish that people would stop pretending that Cocaine and Heroin dealers are martyrs or something. Yes, the criminal justice system is insanely far too harsh on people with drug offences but that does not mean this stuff aint dangerous.

[pastradamus]

Many more workers fail to turn in for their shift because they are too drunk or sick in hangover, and the bosses seem to be perfectly OK with that; it even allows them to fire those workers and keep a clean conscience, for these people, as they see it, had it coming. So the reason for the prohibition of marijuana must be different, otherwise booze would be verboten too.

Luís Henrique

Well there are states where alcohol is illegal (saudi arabia) and this has absolutely no positive benefits whatsoever. Someone caught producing alcohol is given a sentence of 6-8 years and 80 lashes. The same is true for Marijuana, it makes not difference to society whether its legalised or not.

[koltukyıka]

siteniz guzel olmus tebrikler....

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am totally against separating "good" and "bad" drugs. I think it's an abstract way to look at it. How do you draw the line - someone can rely on weed as a crutch and have it actually interfere with their lives while millions of others can use it recreationally without ill-effects. With alcohol what do we do? Some people become dependent while most don't - do we ban it for people with alcoholism in their family?

Drugs are fetishized in our society - the evidence of this is in the magical transformation of a the same chemical from "medicine" to "drug" depending on circumstance and if the person dealing it has a lab coat on or not. This question needs to be looked at from a larger perspective and we need to get away from this idea of "good" and "bad" drugs - often this distinction has more to do with the type of person who normally consumes the drug and social prejudices than anything about the drug itself. Crack is just another form of taking cocaine - it works faster and harder but mostly people use it because it's cheaper; but it treating it as some other kind of drug would be like saying a pot-cookie is a different drug than a joint. But the difference in legislation is all about who uses each type of cocaine delivery system: poor people or stock brokers and Hollywood celebs. It's no more addictive than regular coke, it just gives a faster rush which makes it easier to get addicted because you would have to do it more often to maintain a buzz.

[Raúl Duke]

LSD on the otherhand was invented by the CIA and is another seriously dangerous drug, perhaps not physically but mentally. I have a friend who took LSD one night and never came down and now spends most of his time in a psychiatric ward here in Cork. I believe people selling these substances should be prosecuted.

I tried LSD twice, and DMT, and shrooms. I'm not institutionalized. Usually, from what I heard, is that people who become "insane" after using hallucinogens for the most part are people who already had a propensity to developing mental problems and/or already had a mental issue and/or anxiety problems: the psychedelics just hastened its onset.

It wasn't invented by the CIA, most people know it was invented by a German Swiss doctor/chemist.

LSD is also a potential cure for cluster headaches.

Personally, while I may like it to be easily available...
I believe psychedelics shouldn't be legalized in the same way we want cannabis to be, it should something that is legalized in the medical sense to allow psychiatrists, neurologists, etc to prescribe/use those substances for medical use.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I tried LSD twice, and DMT, and shrooms. I'm not institutionalized. Usually, from what I heard, is that people who become "insane" after using hallucinogens for the most part are people who already had a propensity to developing mental problems and/or already had a mental issue and/or anxiety problems: the psychedelics just hastened its onset.

It wasn't invented by the CIA, most people know it was invented by a German Swiss doctor/chemist.

LSD is also a potential cure for cluster headaches.

Personally, while I may like it to be easily available...
I believe psychedelics shouldn't be legalized in the same way we want cannabis to be, it should something that is legalized in the medical sense to allow psychiatrists, neurologists, etc to prescribe/use those substances for medical use.
The US government experimented with LSD, but they also created the internet, so I don't think that's much of an argument against LSD on an internet forum. :D

They wanted to use it as a truth syrum, then decided it was too unpredictable. Then they viewed it as a way to torture people. When people started doing it recreationally, I've read that they reacted as though people were bathing themselves with Napalm since they viewed the drug as a weapon.

LSD was prescribed as a cure for Alcoholism or other compulsions with promising results. Cary Grant was on it throughout the filming of "North By Northwest". John Lennon claimed that he probably did over 1,000 hits in his life (really, that would have been what, 15 years of use - probably most of it concentrated in a few years). I'm not saying it's like having a beer, and I don't think it's feasible to really do it that often unless you are privately wealthy and don't have appointments to get to, but there's a lot of propaganda and fear-mongering around all drugs.

I've probably done these things a dozen or so times and had bad trips twice - one of which was no fucking joke. It's not like getting a hang-over and there can be repercussions, but people don't go crazy because of it - at most the stress can cause unrevealed issues to manifest themselves. Still I don't think the answer is to try and control consumption - just to try and eliminate possible negative effects unintentionally caused by individual choices.

Among drug users I've known there's a reverse fetishization (reverse to what I talked about in my last post) where drugs are given more benificial properties than they actually have. Pot-heads are the worst at this because they can sometimes view weed as a kind of snake-oil cure-all. The only time I've seen people abuse psychedelics (or over-use or misuse I guess) are people who had other problems - they were looking for some spiritual cure-all for these problems and saw a drug that basically just crosses all your wires for a few hours in a mostly enjoyable way as some kind of spiritual key. I think this is a harmful view of drugs and a more - ahem - sober view would develop if all drugs were decriminalized and there was decent education about them. Again, I just don't know what the use in a socialist society for trying to restrict or regulate these things - anyone can find mushrooms if they want, there are plants that I walk past every day on my way to work that can be ingested for a less-pleasant but still psychedelic experience. I think it would be in worker's interests just to make everything above-ground as possible - de-mistify and de-fetishize drugs and sex and other things like that in our society. Then when problems from certain behaviors arise we can deal with those problems rather than trying to control other people's individual behaviors. I think it would be much safer if you could go down to the co-op pharmacy or whatnot and get some good grade LSD and be given good information about it, than to regulate psychadellics only to still have kids eating poison mushrooms by mistake or finding other natural sources where the potency and dose is unknowable or doing shitty psychadellics because that's all they could get their hands on.

Drugs aren't a mode of production or whatnot, it's a mental or physical chemical reaction - we might as well try and ban people doing risky things for an adrenaline rush like diving into a pool or going sky-diving... or try and stop kids from getting high by spinning around in a circle.

[fabian]

So no pain-killers when you get teeth drilled? Nothing for women during birth?
Do you really think that getting drunk and druged recreationally is the same as needing something while having teeth drilled or giving birth? If living pains you as much someone else is pained by drilling teeth or giving birth, you should commit suicide, not get drunk and stoned.


Drug use pre-dates class society and will outlast it too.
Actually, the drug use emerged with the priest (/witchdoctor) class as a religious tool.


There is no way workers can police this nor should they police any private behaviors that do not interfere with common projects.
Like small scale (encompasing a few persons) slavery or employment?


So if someone shows up for their weekly shift loaded (or don't show up on the shifts they've agreed to) then it's perfectly in the rights of the other workers how then have to pick up the slack to say, "Go home, don't come here unless you're sober - and if you can't do that then you can't have shifts here and you won't have full privileges that contributing members of the community have".
That's managing consequences. What if someone comes stoned on his job to handle some dangerous machine, or drives a car or bus or does anything that can be dangerous, and kills someone, how would your permessive society manage those consequences? Bring dead people back to life? E.g. drunk driving takes tens of thousends of lives in the western world per year. That number would only become bigger with widespread use of drugs.


The answer to drunk-driving isn't trying to enforce an impossible alcohol ban (people make alcohol in prison and yet you think worker's in a free society can enforce a ban!?) but to take away any reason to drive drunk - make bars and pubs in the center of walkable communities or provide free transportation outside of all nightspots etc.
The solution to drunk driving isn't giving people alternatives to drinking, but alternatives to driving? That's totally turning things on their head, it's not the driving that's the problem, it's the drinking.


We can prevent harmful social arragements
Like production and distribution of alcohol and drugs.


it just doesn't make sense from a working class perspective.
It makes perfect sense from a leftist (freedom- oriented) perspective. Libertinism is slavery to the impulses and substances, and people who don't control themselves but are controled by such lowly things are not just unproductive members of society, but pose a danger to others.


We can't FORCE people to behave in certain ways, it's counter to socialism.
Yes we can, and we should. For example, we should force people not to enslave or exploit others, or in general harm others.


It makes sense from a bourgoise ruling class perspective where morality is important
It's the interest of the bourgoise class to spead drugs, alcohol, gambling, and by entartainment industry promiscuity and consumerist mindset among the working class to weaken it, so we couldn't rise up; the "panem et circenses" is an old strategy of pacifying the oppressed mases.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you really think that getting drunk and druged recreationally is the same as needing something while having teeth drilled or giving birth? If living pains you as much someone else is pained by drilling teeth or giving birth, you should commit suicide, not get drunk and stoned.Not at all, but you argued that any mind-altering substance should be prohibited and so I was only questioning why a drug could be used medically is OK, but the same drug used recreationally was "slavery" according to you.


Actually, the drug use emerged with the priest (/witchdoctor) class as a religious tool.How do you know that's when it was first used? Archeologists believe that some cave-paintings show that people used mind-altering natural substances. Considering that pre-class bands of people probably had to be very savy about the effects of natural plants to know what to eat and what not to, I'm 99.999% sure they were at least aware of the effects of some natural substances such as roots and mushrooms that initiate a psychedelic response in the brain. Why would they know this and never use it recreationally or as medicine or as a spiritual tool? How could you ever know if they didn't?


Like small scale (encompasing a few persons) slavery or employment?Are these things "private" actions or do they effect other people? I support not having restrictions on these things, not the mandatory use or the "freedom" to dose other people.


That's managing consequences. What if someone comes stoned on his job to handle some dangerous machine, or drives a car or bus or does anything that can be dangerous, and kills someone, how would your permessive society manage those consequences? Bring dead people back to life? E.g. drunk driving takes tens of thousends of lives in the western world per year. That number would only become bigger with widespread use of drugs.As I have argued in almost every post, not dictating private behaviors doesn't come into it when we are talking about social activities like a shift at the job. There's a qualitative difference between mandating that if someone agrees to a shift that they do the work and are alert and attentive and prohibiting a private behavior. I'm all for free-love too, but I don't think that people should be able to fuck on the job or in the middle of a public sidewalk.


The solution to drunk driving isn't giving people alternatives to drinking, but alternatives to driving? That's totally turning things on their head, it's not the driving that's the problem, it's the drinking.So when I drink at my house with some friends, if I drink too much, I'll get into a car accident while sitting in a chair in my house? No, of course drinking in the abstract is not the problem, drunk-driving (or drink-driving for the brits out there) is the problem. Since people have always intoxicated themselves with alcohol (at least in all recorded history) what makes more sense to try and prohibit? Drinking or driving-drunk?

And yes, revolution turns everything on its head.


Like production and distribution of alcohol and drugs.So we have a permanent police force that hunts through houses and parks looking for distilleries? No than you.


It makes perfect sense from a leftist (freedom- oriented) perspective. Libertinism is slavery to the impulses and substances, and people who don't control themselves but are controled by such lowly things are not just unproductive members of society, but pose a danger to others.People can't control themselves so we must control them.

How is it that you think a democratically planned economy limits freedom and so worker's should give up some control in favor of market forces but controlling people's behaviors is freedom? Newspeak? You'll be free once we control your behavior.


Yes we can, and we should. For example, we should force people not to enslave or exploit others, or in general harm others.Yes, the key word here being "others". If someone wants to force everyone to smoke weed, then I'm against that too.


It's the interest of the bourgoise class to spead drugs, alcohol, gambling, and by entartainment industry promiscuity and consumerist mindset among the working class to weaken it, so we couldn't rise up; the "panem et circenses" is an old strategy of pacifying the oppressed mases.Bullshit bourgeois puritanism. No, I mean bullshit bourgeois puritanism kinda discredits your argument.

So this pacification through drugs and alcohol is why it was the middle and ruling classes that championed restrictions on alcohol, who push the "Just say no" and "war on drugs" initiatives? Why Victorian bosses forbade drinking beer for workers and instituted tea-time instead? Why in the 1800s US cities passed laws to prevent immigrants from drinking?

Hmm, I think prohibition is actually a much more favored strategy because it allows the ruling class to have cops patrol poor neighborhoods, build huge prisons, attack immigrants and the poor for "bad morals" and to argue, as you do, that worker's can't be trusted and have to have their behavior controlled and regulated.

[fabian]

Not at all, but you argued that any mind-altering substance should be prohibited and so I was only questioning why a drug could be used medically is OK, but the same drug used recreationally was "slavery" according to you.
It's self explanatory.


Are these things "private" actions or do they effect other people?
As much as drug use. Some people would want to be employed.


As I have argued in almost every post, not dictating private behaviors doesn't come into it when we are talking about social activities like a shift at the job. There's a qualitative difference between mandating that if someone agrees to a shift that they do the work and are alert and attentive and prohibiting a private behavior.
There is no such thing as exclusively private behavior. People don't shut themselves in some rooms to get drunk or stoned so as not to be a danger to people around them, and then come out when effects were off. Drunk and druged people are in the same rooms with their families, in the same clubs as someone else's kids, and on the same streets as anyone else.


So when I drink at my house with some friends, if I drink too much, I'll get into a car accident while sitting in a chair in my house?
No, but might bear on your wife or children in which case you should be put in some kind of gulag.


Since people have always intoxicated themselves with alcohol (at least in all recorded history) what makes more sense to try and prohibit? Drinking or driving-drunk?
People have always mudered and raped (at least in all recorded history), doesn't mean it's good or should be tolerated.


And yes, revolution turns everything on its head.
The revolution is supposed to be a movemt of people to abolish bad systems and embrace and institute good ones, not to make idiotic conclusions like drunk-driving kills people and we don't want that, so let's abandon driving.


People can't control themselves so we must control them.
If e.g. giving treatment to junkies is controling them, then yes.


So this pacification through drugs and alcohol is why it was the middle and ruling classes that championed restrictions on alcohol
Prohibitions have been either based on traditionalist religiosity, and thus reactionary, or false ones, e.g. "war on drugs" is working perfectly- it's putting drug profits in the pockets of the bourgeoise state, and spreading drugs among the workers, which are in essense it's goals. The only freedom-oriented anti-alcohol campaigns were those in the USSR, too bad they didn't have a freedom-oriented system instead of a totalitarian state capitalism so it was bound to fail.


Why Victorian bosses forbade drinking beer for workers and instituted tea-time instead?
Because they wanted productivity, and not slackers. Once the parasites (/capitalists) are abolished, and socialism is instuted, society's next target will be slackers, as the new parasites on the worker tissue. Or do you think it will be the slackers, promiscuous, drunkards, junkies, gamblers, and similar people that will lead the revolution and bring about a better system?

You should read "What is to be done?" but not the Lenin's pamphlet, but the Chernyshevsky's novel.

[gozai]

Maybe my opinion is unpopular here but,

I agree that softer drugs such as Cannabis and Hashish should be legalised but im against legalising drugs like Cocaine, Heroin and LSD.

Cocaine, if it were legalised would bring the price way down which would make it FAR more available.You must keep in mind that this is an extremely addictive substance which can kill quite easily, heroin is likewise.

LSD on the otherhand was invented by the CIA and is another seriously dangerous drug, perhaps not physically but mentally. I have a friend who took LSD one night and never came down and now spends most of his time in a psychiatric ward here in Cork. I believe people selling these substances should be prosecuted.

As for Salvia, Marijuana, unprocessed Mushrooms, unprocessed Coca etc...I have no problem with them. I just wish that people would stop pretending that Cocaine and Heroin dealers are martyrs or something. Yes, the criminal justice system is insanely far too harsh on people with drug offences but that does not mean this stuff aint dangerous.
What if people made these drugs you want to be illegal themselves for their own consumption.

[Revolution starts with U]

Things Fabian would ban:
Weed, LSD, Coffee, Alcohol, Heroin, Sky Diving, Trans-fats, red meats, processed sugars, bungee jumping, etc

Things Fabian wouldn't ban:
The market, private ownership, commodity production.

Oh btw, recorded use of alcohol goes back at least 10k years, long before class society emerged. And coffee is widely considered crucial to the European enlightenment, or at least the coffee houses where they all met up and discussed shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Things Fabian would ban:
Weed, LSD, Coffee, Alcohol, Heroin, Sky Diving, Trans-fats, red meats, processed sugars, bungee jumping, etc

Things Fabian wouldn't ban:
The market, private ownership, commodity production.


Market-Socialists are afraid of democracy and working class self-rule. Worker's can't be trusted and must be kept in check by the market and private ownership - I guess.

[pastradamus]

What if people made these drugs you want to be illegal themselves for their own consumption.

I've no problem with that no. If its for personal use, no problem.

[Brosip Tito]

Had a very heated debate with my father's fiance over drug legalization, particularly marijuana, but also a little bit about all drugs.

Her argument was that all addictive and mind altering substances, alcohol and tobacco included, be banned.

So I took the freedom route, and she came up with:

"Well, if it's legal more people will use it and abuse it. They'll get addicted, and things will get worse. Healthcare wouldn't be able to handle it and my life will be in danger because of people breaking in to get money to buy the drugs and people driving high"

In which, I responded with the fact that anyone who wants to do the drug, will do it illegally.

It was a shit storm, and she, being 40+ years old, began acting like a child and being a huge ***** about the fact that I won an argument.

All in all...hilarious. This all happened in a wendy's by the way...fuck bourgeois debates in star bucks.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Well, if it's legal more people will use it and abuse it. They'll get addicted, and things will get worse. Healthcare wouldn't be able to handle it and my life will be in danger because of people breaking in to get money to buy the drugs and people driving high"

In which, I responded with the fact that anyone who wants to do the drug, will do it illegally.

I've linked the data in this thread. What she fears is simply not true, or at least not comprehensive enough. Hard drug use drops. Some use goes up, but so does treatment.

[fabian]

Market-Socialists are afraid of democracy and working class self-rule.
In market socialism all parasites would be abolished, the only non-workers would be those who are unable to work, and all land and all firms and factories would be directly owned and democraticly menaged by the workers themselves.

Market socialism is a pleonasm, if there's no market but central planning- that's not socialism, that's state capitalism.


Well, if it's legal more people will use it and abuse it. They'll get addicted, and things will get worse.
That's perfectly true. Where decriminalization happens drug use only increases.
Same thing- where laws for wearing seat-belt exist, more people wear seat-belts and there is a decreace in death rate, where they don't exist there's a increace in death rate. That's basic criminology- enforcable banning of something decreaces it's use, in the same way fake cameras decreace the possibility of a shop being robbed- if people see a prohibition enforcable, most people are dettered from doing that which is prohibited.

[Lolumad273]

In my eyes, this debate really shouldn't be too much of a debate.

People know what is good for them, and what isn't. People generally agree Marijuana is a safe way to have fun. Alcohol has persisted through time, and will continue to exist. In moderation it is equally harmless.

However, the working class, or a given community, and most individuals will recognize that Cocaine, Opium, Heroine, and most of the dangerous drugs, are just that; they are dangerous. The majority of reasonable individuals will choose not to do those drugs. The few who do, would likely do it whether or not a law exists.

Recognizing this, it is up to a decent minded majority to decide how to handle the few who have fallen victim to addiction, and whether or not certain substances' production should be banned.

It is never right for one individual to force his draconian views on drugs on others, it does more harm than good. Education is power, and people will do what is right, without a law, or a state, mandating what they do with their body.

As I said, leave it up to a vote, the outcome is predictable, and obvious.

[Princess Luna]

In market socialism all parasites would be abolished, the only non-workers would be those who are unable to work, and all land and all firms and factories would be directly owned and democraticly menaged by the workers themselves.

Market socialism is a pleonasm, if there's no market but central planning- that's not socialism, that's state capitalism.


That's perfectly true. Where decriminalization happens drug use only increases.
Same thing- where laws for wearing seat-belt exist, more people wear seat-belts and there is a decreace in death rate, where they don't exist there's a increace in death rate. That's basic criminology- enforcable banning of something decreaces it's use, in the same way fake cameras decreace the possibility of a shop being robbed- if people see a prohibition enforcable, most people are dettered from doing that which is prohibited.
Except statistics from places where drugs have been decriminalized completely destroy what you just said...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047485/portugal-drug-decriminalisation-a-resounding-success-will-britain-respond-no/


Portuguese policy is that possession of small amounts of any drug is not a criminal offence; if you are found possessing it, you can be put before a panel of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser, who will decide appropriate treatment. You are free to refuse that treatment, and a jail sentence is not an option. Drug trafficking is still illegal and punishable by jail.
I'll just go through the figures; apologies for the slew of statistics. Drug use among 13- to 15-year-olds fell from 14.1 per cent in 2001 to 10.6 per cent in 2006. Among 16- to 18-year-olds it has dropped from 27.6 per cent to 21.6 per cent. This, incidentally, has come after years of steadily increasing drug use among the young; between 1995 and 2001, use in the 16-to-18 bracket leapt up from 14.1 per cent to its 2001 high. This drop has come against a background of increasing drug use across the rest of the EU.
There has been a mild increase in use among older groups, 19-24 and up, but this is expected due to the rise in use in the young in the 1990s; it's a "cohort effect", meaning that young people get older, and take their habits with them.
Further, HIV infections among drug users fell, drug-related deaths fell, there was a decrease in trafficking, and a huge amount of money was saved by offering treatment instead of prison sentences.
I know that correlation does not equal causation, but until 2001, Portugal had some of the worst drug problems in Europe. The turnaround since decriminalisation has been dramatic, and expert opinion attributes it to the change in policy; a study by the World Health Organisation and another published in the British Medical Journal found similar things.

[Robespierres Neck]

There are certain unconventional ways some people have treated drug addiction. I saw this documentary about this guy who gave two heroin addicts ibogaine 24 hours after their last fix (so they were obviously in withdrawal). It was a very specific and supervised process. I don't know if I could say it looked like a pleasant experience. They had nausea & stomach pain, but I can't remember if that was from the ibogaine or withdrawals (maybe both). Either way, they were cured from physical dependency after their trip. The same has been done with ayahuasca (this includes people suffer from traumatic stress) through amazon temples in countries that allow this sort of treatment. In the documentary I watched, the man who got a program on its feet was a businessman for Wall Street. He was miserable with his life and decided to go to a tribal ceremony that involved ayahuasca and it changed his life. He left all of that behind to live in the forest and dedicate his life to helping people in the same way. I've experienced LSD and DMT multiple times, but the first time I tried them was practically life changing for me. I felt like it broaden my perspective of life in general. Trust me, I'm not a Learyist who believes acid will change mankind for the better... but from my personal experience I've discovered the beauty (and the terror) of these substances. It's quite incredible.

[Revolution starts with U]

LSD as a party thing is just partying.

LSD as a guided shamanic experience will change humanity for the better... in my experience at least. :lol:

[SpiritiualMarxist]

All drugs should be legal, 1. Law doesn't deter people from trying anything. 2. The black market from drugs kills and incarcerates kids.