Why We Should Legalize All Drugs

[Eagle_Syr]

The "War on Drugs" has been a complete, total, and expensive disaster since its inception. Usage rates have not significantly been reduced; the drug cartels are stronger than ever, and drug policy has forced millions of otherwise fit Americans into the prison system.

The claim that some drugs are so bad for health that they ought to be banned is ignorant at best. In the first place, it is unlikely that the vast majority of the population would, upon the legalization of methamphetamines (e.g.), suddenly take up a habit and have no self-control. I know I wouldn't. Furthermore, as with all things, regulations and limitations on the consumption of harder drugs will exist.

At any rate, any problems arising from the usage of harder drugs are not avoided, but worsened, under the prohibition. People still use drugs, and because of their illegality, the drugs are sold in shady black markets, enriching thugs; furthermore, people who do suffer from addiction are afraid to seek help, and prohibition prevents any sort of quality control or counseling from taking place.

Indeed, drug prohibition disproportionally punishes the lower classes; and the arrest and imprisonment of offenders only feeds the prison-industrial complex.

[Hexen]

Of course that's exactly the real reason for the "War on Drugs" because it's good for business and they make alot of money out of it therefore it's also why we will never see drugs being legalized until Capitalism disappears.

[Sea]

The notion that drugs should be criminalized is a drug that doesn't do what it says on the label.

Despite the fact that prohibition does not fucking work, the excuses that originated the laws are ludicrous.

Look up some quotes from Harry J. Anslinger..


"Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing."

[jookyle]

How are bankers supposed to launder drug money if drugs are legal? How will the CIA fund their top secret programs if they can't make money by supporting drug cartels? Think of all those third houses that won't be bought; all of those democratic countries that wouldn't get to be overthrown. Have you no conscious?

[ComradeOm]

The claim that some drugs are so bad for health that they ought to be banned is ignorant at best. In the first place, it is unlikely that the vast majority of the population would, upon the legalization of methamphetamines (e.g.), suddenly take up a habit and have no self-control. I know I wouldn'tWell done to you. I suppose that the countless heroin addicts (note that word) around the world merely lack your iron willpower?

But then can we quantify the "vast majority of the population"? What percentage increase in the minority is acceptable? Would 5% of the population taking heroin be okay with you? Even if this was an explosion in the numbers currently suffering from it?

[MGP]

To be honest, I don't even understand why should majority of people support criminalizing drugs in the first place.

It's true that using some drugs in certain quantities can affect your life in a negative way or kill you, but couldn't the same be said about excessive use of alcohol, overeating, smoking etc. Should euthanasia be criminalized? Will that actually stop people from killing themselves? No, in the same way criminalizing drug use won't stop people from using drugs. Also, to support criminalization of drugs you must think that you, the state or some other group of people have right to interfere with someone's private business and that says much about you IMO. It's also worth noting that differences between some "drugs" are much greater than the differences between some perfectly legal substances and drugs in general.

[Art Vandelay]

Well done to you. I suppose that the countless heroin addicts (note that word) around the world merely lack your iron willpower?

But then can we quantify the "vast majority of the population"? What percentage increase in the minority is acceptable? Would 5% of the population taking heroin be okay with you? Even if this was an explosion in the numbers currently suffering from it?

Heroin addiction would be far less harmful in a world with legalized heroin. Anyways, discussing the harmfulness of the drugs misses the point; it is a question of personal choice.

Who are you, to tell a consenting adult, what they can or cannot put into their bodies, as long as they do not harm anyone else?

[ComradeOm]

Who are you, to tell a consenting adult, what they can or cannot put into their bodies, as long as they do not harm anyone else?Are you seriously suggesting that heroin addiction does not harm others? Heroin is a cancer of working class communities and it's a drug that causes immense damage to the social fabric of a neighbourhood. Growing up, I saw first hand the hurt and pain that it caused in inner city Dublin (not to mention how it tore the junkies themselves to bit) so you can stuff your talk of "consenting adults" and "personal choice"

[Crux]

I don't think drug policy is as simple as just saying "legalize it". And the borderline liberal "people can do what they want" statements make me cringe. Take one quick look at the legal drug companies, the tobacco and alcohol big bussines and you might see what I'm getting at. Now I do support legalization, but it's not some magic wand that will everything just peachy. If anyone has any conclusive info on the effects of portugese drug policy I'd be happy to see it.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9C6x99EnFVdFuXw_B8pvDRzLqcA

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

Don't really care if these are "shitty sources", I am not here to change anyone's mind. But frankly I think that prohibition is an obvious failure and support for prohibition shows a lack of critical thinking. I'll take my talk of "personal choice" and "consenting adults" and "stuff it" now :rolleyes:.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you seriously suggesting that heroin addiction does not harm others? Heroin is a cancer of working class communities and it's a drug that causes immense damage to the social fabric of a neighbourhood. Growing up, I saw first hand the hurt and pain that it caused in inner city Dublin (not to mention how it tore the junkies themselves to bit) so you can stuff your talk of "consenting adults" and "personal choice"

Do you really think that, after the revolution, we want heroin to be legal but junkies will still have to go robbing to get a tenner-bag? What the fuck would that do to help? Do you think there will still be massive dead-end estates on the edge of Dublin (or anywhere else) with no work and no futures and no meaningful engagement in society? What the fuck sort of revolution is that?

Illegal heroin, and drug gangs, and needing to rob to get money for drugs, as well as generally poverty and lack of social engagement blight working class communities. If you think that we're proposing that everything should stay the same but we'd legalise the heroin then you really have no idea.

[Art Vandelay]

If you think that we're proposing that everything should stay the same but we'd legalise the heroin then you really have no idea.

This. I really think it comes down to the ways in which we want to address drug addiction as a society. Do we want to alienate these people, force them to become criminals, and punish them; or do we want to give them the proper resources and support to help deal with their disease?

Another point, which Psycho brought up recently in a similar thread, is that drug addiction (specifically heroin addiction) needs to be examined on a class basis. If you think heroin addiction affects the poor as it does the rich then you are simply misinformed.

[ComradeOm]

Do you really think that, after the revolution, we want heroin to be legal but junkies will still have to go robbing to get a tenner-bag?So where will the addicts get their heroin from? Will it be in abundance? Will it be provided for free?

Oh of course, I forgot. In our little utopia the addictive qualities of heroin, the acute physical dependencies it causes, will not exist. They'll be abolished. As will the damage that addicts do to their families, their communities and, why not, themselves. Heroin won't reduce people to junkies any more, we'll just have good comradely worker-addicts instead. I'd forgotten how easy this game was


This. I really think it comes down to the ways in which we want to address drug addiction as a society. Do we want to alienate these people, force them to become criminals, and punish them; or do we want to give them the proper resources and support to help deal with their disease? Of course: we're going to tackle this incredibly destructive disease by making heroin far easier to get hold off. Yes, that makes sense

No, actually it doesn't. You fight the disease (and I'm not including the likes of cannabis or coke in this) by removing the conditions that lead people to heroin, putting adequate recovery problems in place for those who are addicted and cutting the supply to eliminate the possibility of anyone falling through the cracks. It's an integrated programme and one that would be entirely undermined if one plank was missing

[Art Vandelay]

So where will the addicts get their heroin from? Will it be in abundance? Will it be provided for free?

Clean dope would be provided for free and in controlled quantities.


Oh of course, I forgot. In our little utopia the addictive qualities of heroin, the acute physical dependencies it causes, will not exist. They'll be abolished.

Nope, nice strawman though.


As will the damage that addicts do to their families, their communities and, why not, themselves. Heroin won't reduce people to junkies any more, we'll just have good comradely worker-addicts instead. I'd forgotten how easy this game was

No your just uninformed and speaking from ignorance. Real life examples are on my side bud.


Of course: we're going to tackle this incredibly destructive disease by making heroin far easier to get hold off. Yes, that makes sense

Actually it does, although it may seem a little counter intuitive.


No, actually it doesn't. You fight the disease (and I'm not including the likes of cannabis or coke in this) by removing the conditions that lead people to heroin,

People have been taking mind altering substances since, pretty well, the beginning of time; people like getting high, you are not going to stop that (be it coke, cannabis, or heroin).


putting adequate recovery problems in place for those who are addicted

Which can only happen in an society in which drugs are legalized.

[MotherCossack]

look.... we have to be really honest with ourselves here.... and it is tough......

do we want to legalise drugs so that we can get hold of them easier.....good, pharmaceutical gear, cheap and with no worries..... or....

do we really hope to reduce the overwhelmingly damaging dependency problem that destroys so many lives.....

as lefties we are choosing to be on the fringes in a lot of ways..... we have rejected a lot of their values and moral standards.... we could easily adopt a sympathetic attitude towards drug-taking as a further rejection of their world..... and besides.... drugs are cool.... they're wild.... exciting.... alive.... and a most diverting escape from this boring existence......

we can use drugs to say 'fuck you' to the stuffy shirts and snotty bourgeoise.... it feels real good...... for a bit....

and a lot of people can take it and then leave it [or so I've heard] , be cool and move on when appropriate.......

But .... Drugs are tricky.... you can get bitten.... snared.... caught.... trapped.... sucked in..... to a bad place.....
a place where it is just you and your drug..... and stuff in the way..... nothing else....... you just have to remove barriers between you and your drug ... pause then repeat........ that is it.... over and over again...... and you wont want anything else for years......if ever..... that is another thing.... time.... in this world time is different..... it feels like time is going slow.....but in fact it races by.... so you can lose 10 years in a flash.... gone...... no return...
it is ....honestly..... that easy.... to get hooked in. I should know..... i have my own missing years.... lots and lots of them....

I know that prohibition is a comprehensive failure!!!!!!
But if you legalise everything ..... drugs will still do all the stuff that makes them so attractive.... still transform your outlook....turn your priorities upside down..... take away your realness.... and with it much of your desire to change /fight/struggle/ make a stand. Your relationships will be like hollow associations, real closeness a pretence....but even worse .... your relationship with yourself will be an ever increasingly toxic lie.

Yeah.... drugs will lose their profitability... the black market... will wither.... drugs will be clean.... i suppose they will slowly lose the appeal won by virtue of being forbidden..... but will they? alcohol has shown no sign of losing its appeal... in fact it is as catastrophically popular as it ever was.... except for perhaps when tap water was not invented and the only alternative to ale was raw sewage.

i have no answers..... but what i do have is ... a firm belief that drugs are powerful.....they can potentially displace generations and shape nations.... apart from being all manner of incredible experiences.... their management demands respect and forethought.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah.... drugs will lose their profitability... the black market... will wither.... drugs will be clean.... i suppose they will slowly lose the appeal won by virtue of being forbidden..... but will they? alcohol has shown no sign of losing its appeal... in fact it is as catastrophically popular as it ever was.... except for perhaps when tap water was not invented and the only alternative to ale was raw sewage.

i have no answers..... but what i do have is ... a firm belief that drugs are powerful.....they can potentially displace generations and shape nations.... apart from being all manner of incredible experiences.... their management demands respect and forethought.

While I understand the point of view you are coming from (a far less pretentious one then our ComradOm), I still have to disagree. While I could rely on historical and real life examples to help further emphasize my point, I won`t, since I do not need to. It comes down to an issue of personal freedom, of which you, me, or comradom do not have the authority to decide (amazing I have to state this among leftists :rolleyes:) for everyone else.

Just don`t ever think that those, like me, who hold this point of view, simply fail to realize the dangers of drugs. Trust me I have seen them first hand, some of my best friends are drug addicts; but I don`t hold the view that I can tell them what to do with their own lives.

[Eagle_Syr]

Well done to you. I suppose that the countless heroin addicts (note that word) around the world merely lack your iron willpower? I don't doubt the very real drive of addiction. What I am saying, however, is that I don't think most people will take up habits all of a sudden just because drugs are legalized.


But then can we quantify the "vast majority of the population"? What percentage increase in the minority is acceptable? Would 5% of the population taking heroin be okay with you? Even if this was an explosion in the numbers currently suffering from it?

Considering the fact that usage will occur either way, there is truly no benefit whatsoever to prohibition.

[Prinskaj]

Of course: we're going to tackle this incredibly destructive disease by making heroin far easier to get hold off. Yes, that makes sense
Coffee, Tobacco and alcohol are also addictive, yet these you hold to a different standard, since you do not seem to call for the criminalization of those substances.
Also, when a drug is legal, the quality of the product rises dramatically. Because of regulations and the fact that consumers will not be satisfied with bad heroin and cannabis, the same way that they would not tolerate bad cigarettes.

[MGP]

Are you seriously suggesting that heroin addiction does not harm others? Heroin is a cancer of working class communities and it's a drug that causes immense damage to the social fabric of a neighbourhood. Growing up, I saw first hand the hurt and pain that it caused in inner city Dublin (not to mention how it tore the junkies themselves to bit) so you can stuff your talk of "consenting adults" and "personal choice"
I completely agree this is possible, but we should not forget that heroin being illegal helps this a lot by introducing things such as drug dealers, crime related to them as well as the use of impure heroin.

Yes, heroin can have that influence on community's, but the big part of that influence, as I see it, are the aforementioned aspects. Legalizing it, as well as other drugs, while educating people about drug use and offering help when needed would change all of this I think. You are also certainly aware that current approach of forbidding and punishing drug use, generally doesn't work. So I hope we can at least agree that current way of doing things is unproductive and harmful.

[Art Vandelay]

Coffee, Tobacco and alcohol are also addictive, yet these you hold to a different standard, since you do not seem to call for the criminalization of those substances.
Also, when a drug is legal, the quality of the product rises dramatically. Because of regulations and the fact that consumers will not be satisfied with bad heroin and cannabis, the same way that they would not tolerate bad cigarettes.

Hm, so here we see that legalization of heroin would actually make it safer to take for those who do choose to ingest in recreationally or those who have a dependence on it; which would also be backed up by the statistical evidence that OD's (along with all other drug categories) did not rise upon the legalization of heroin (along with other drugs) in Portugal. I wonder what moralistic reasoning our comrade Om has to refute this.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It's absurd to me that someone other than yourself could try to dictate what one put's in their own body.

[Skyhilist]

(and I'm not including the likes of cannabis or coke in this)

So legalize cocaine but don't legalize heroin? Way to be consistent.

Btw I'm entirely against all drug prohibition.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm for legalization of harmless substances (cannabis, certain psychedelics, other substances, etc) and for decriminalization (i.e. no punitive penalties for possession and simple black-market sale; only focus on reducing/barring large-scale trafficking) of the addictive/dangerous types. The most reasonable drug policy should be a "medical issue" based one centered to harm-reduction and rehabilitation.

Prohibition has only caused more social problems rather than solving any.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm for legalization of harmless substances (cannabis, certain psychedelics, other substances, etc) and for decriminalization (i.e. no punitive penalties for possession and simple black-market sale; only focus on reducing/barring large-scale trafficking) of the addictive/dangerous types. The most reasonable drug policy should be a "medical issue" based one centered to harm-reduction and rehabilitation.


I disagree with this sort of proposition in that I don't feel I should be punished for the actions and misdeeds of others. I love coke, I use it regularly but responsibly whereas some ruin their whole lives over it or die. To me it's like outlawing certain types of foods because some people choose gluttony as their vice and eat themselves to death; why should I be punished?

The prohibition of chemicals is relatively new and we have more problems now than we did when you could buy heroin and a heroin kit from Sears.

[Raúl Duke]

Where did I say you'll be punished for possession and use of cocaine?
I'm not even saying you should be fined or arrested (i.e. "no punitive punishments").

[wsg1991]

there are some medical grade drugs that should not be legalized , not matter what happens ,

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Where did I say you'll be punished for possession and use of cocaine?
I'm not even saying you should be fined or arrested (i.e. "no punitive punishments").

But what's this about barring or curtailing large distribution of the drug?

[Raúl Duke]

But what's this about barring or curtailing large distribution of the drug?

So? Do you traffick drugs on a large scale (i.e. are you a drug cartel)? Probably not...

I'm basically arguing for something like the Portuguese model, which has been a bit successful.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So? Do you traffick drugs on a large scale (i.e. are you a drug cartel)? Probably not...

No but I'm not against the large scale distribution of drugs divorce of how it operates currently in the black market and under capital.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm basically arguing for something like the Portuguese model, which has been a bit successful.

I would say that the Portuguese model has been the most successful out of anywhere in the world. Also I do not understand the line of reasoning for decriminalization, if it is okay to possess a small amount, how is having more really any different? Also why not just legalize it and cut out the ability for a black market to exist at all?

[Raúl Duke]

I would say that the Portuguese model has been the most successful out of anywhere in the world. Also I do not understand the line of reasoning for decriminalization, if it is okay to possess a small amount, how is having more really any different? Also why not just legalize it and cut out the ability for a black market to exist at all?

Hmm, true. But will the people support open legalization of hard drugs?
Ideally, it'll all be legalized and regulated so to curb the formation of a black market. What I suggested was more in mind with what is possible now (i.e. many people want marijuana legalized, there's a trend/interest to have psychedelics and MDMA legalized for medical/psychiatric purposes within elements of the scientific/medical establishment, etc).

[kuriousoranj]

I shall add some, possibly useless, anecdotal evidence to the debate. My barber has been a functioning heroin addict for 15 years and manages to cut the best barnets this side of the Trent and Mersey Canal.

Some of the "damaging effects of Heroin" posted here are purely societal. That said, I do not support legalisation as we are today; out of the hands of the petty criminals, and into the hands of the major ones.

[Loozr]

Legalize all drugs; most street dealers aren't profound chemists (heroin isn't pure morphine). Have open non-coercive rehabilitation centers for anyone who's haven't hurt any individuals due to one's intoxication (if they're truly addicted -- not just some bad trip). Condone intelligent drug-use with non-biased information and stop these bullshit fear-mongering techniques which only glamorizes drugs and makes teens want to rebel. Btw, these are just some notions I had that weren't specifically directed towards anything. Of course now, in a communist community, people wouldn't have a need to resort to hard-shit like meth and heroin -- those are just typically hardcore narco-supplements that are only taken when the individual has hit rock-bottom and is on the verge of committing suicide. Sometimes, rarely, taken among social groups but if drugs like marijuana, MDMA, DMT, LSD, etc, were legalized and accessible then it'd be dumb to shoot up that syringe. As I kind of pointed out -- a better education system would lead to the use of hard drugs to wither away if we were that progressive and ended prohibition.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Considering the fact that usage will occur either way, there is truly no benefit whatsoever to prohibition.

This.
Also, the current idea of punishment for possesion of a drug is absurd, an absurdity that would cease if they were legal.
I doubt that anyone who's getting ready to stick a needle into a vein in their foot, or somone taking the first lungful on a bong, or someone sticking a rolled up fiver in their nose has ever stopped and thought 'Wait...this carries a stiff penalty if I'm cauight, better give it a miss tonight'
So long as intoxicating substances of every stripe exist, their will be some level of demand for them. I do also feel that people's circumstances play a part (I wanted to do drugs as a teen because I was unhappy, basically). In the future, a communist future that is, maybe people will feel less need to take these substances..but whether they do or not, they should be able to choose for themselves.

[Crux]

I would say that the Portuguese model has been the most successful out of anywhere in the world. Also I do not understand the line of reasoning for decriminalization, if it is okay to possess a small amount, how is having more really any different? Also why not just legalize it and cut out the ability for a black market to exist at all?
Give me statecontrolled fields of cannabis any day. The point is though, that's probably not how it is going to go down under the precent system. That's why I think a bit more nuanced approach than "I can put whatever I want in my body" is needed. Again, look at the alcohol monopolies. Look at what they are doing inthe third world. Hell, look at alcoholism in your own country. Do you think there is adequate care, both preventive and rehabilitatitive against addiction? I sure don't think so. Look at the tobacco industry's long attempts to distort sceince. Indeed look at the lobbying of both the alcohol and tobacco industry. Now suppose all drugs were legalized...See where I am going?

[MotherCossack]

While I understand the point of view you are coming from (a far less pretentious one then our ComradOm), I still have to disagree. While I could rely on historical and real life examples to help further emphasize my point, I won`t, since I do not need to. It comes down to an issue of personal freedom, of which you, me, or comradom do not have the authority to decide (amazing I have to state this among leftists :rolleyes:) for everyone else.

Just don`t ever think that those, like me, who hold this point of view, simply fail to realize the dangers of drugs. Trust me I have seen them first hand, some of my best friends are drug addicts; but I don`t hold the view that I can tell them what to do with their own lives.

I am not necessarily advocating telling anyone what to do.....how to live... you know what ... i have no taste for prohibition.... and instinctively distrust anything so restrictive, judgemental, holier than thou, puritannical and bossy.
it is just that i fear that a lot of people are gonna get sacrificed as we readjust ourselves to the ensuing availability.... which will follow legalization.
I just want to scream from the highest summit .....


" HERE YOU GO...... BUT TAKE CARE.... THIS STUFF IS BIGGER THAN YOU........ IT FIGHTS DIRTY..... SO WATCH OUT....... AND YOU MIGHT GET LOST..... IN WHICH CASE......
GOD HELP YOU!!!!!!!!"


I am not suggesting that everyone will have major shit and spoil their lives if they take drugs..... that is ridiculous.....

But I was the most driven, ambitous, motivated, energetic, committed, ardent, dedicated and inspired teenager you could ever meet.... really I ...so...was. i wanted to act.... with every particle in my being.... i was up there... out there... being wonderful......being amazing.... being so keen.... like a supersonic tricksy-unfinished-flashes of magic- rough but ready - innocent, trusting, and possessing one, as yet undiscovered, insatiable appettite for self-destruction.

i could weep forever!!!! what could have been.....what might have been.... what should have been......

stuff happens.... and then you die. but the stuff is your life and that is all we have.
I am still here... but lets just say i look a tad the worse for wear.... big time

and the bottom line is.... i dont know if i would trust myself if drugs were readily available.

truth is.... it 'd probably hardly change a thing if drugs were legalised.
they would just become like alcohol.... a way for the government to raise cash at the expense of the poor folk who are trapped by addiction.

until our world changes into something a load more fulfilling nothing will really change...

[Hit The North]

The thing about prohibition is that it is shrouded in an ideological justification that mystifies drugs and mitigates against intelligent and informed use.

[Art Vandelay]

Hmm, true. But will the people support open legalization of hard drugs?
Ideally, it'll all be legalized and regulated so to curb the formation of a black market. What I suggested was more in mind with what is possible now (i.e. many people want marijuana legalized, there's a trend/interest to have psychedelics and MDMA legalized for medical/psychiatric purposes within elements of the scientific/medical establishment, etc).

If we are merely talking about what is possible now, I think that (at least in North America) the best we can hope for is maybe the legalization of cannabis within the next 10 to 15 years.

[Art Vandelay]

Give me statecontrolled fields of cannabis any day. The point is though, that's probably not how it is going to go down under the precent system. That's why I think a bit more nuanced approach than "I can put whatever I want in my body" is needed.

Yeah I realize that you were referring to the present system, where I was more referring to in a socialist society, although I still think legalization would be the most progressive drug policy in a capitalist society, although there would also be obvious negatives. As stated above, your taking money away from the black market criminals and handing it over to the legal criminals.

A
gain, look at the alcohol monopolies. Look at what they are doing inthe third world. Hell, look at alcoholism in your own country.

Sadly its pretty bad and I have seen it first hand, hell until recently (when I cut back my drinking) I am sure I would have been considered by most as a full blown alcoholic.


Do you think there is adequate care, both preventive and rehabilitatitive against addiction? I sure don't think so. Look at the tobacco industry's long attempts to distort sceince. Indeed look at the lobbying of both the alcohol and tobacco industry. Now suppose all drugs were legalized...See where I am going?

I see where you are going with this and I agree that under the present system the types of treatment and help needed for the legalization of all drugs does not exist. However what I am arguing is that they will never exist until those who suffer from the disease of addiction are not ostracized and turned into criminals.

[Art Vandelay]

until our world changes into something a load more fulfilling nothing will really change...

This is true and regardless of legalization or not, come time for socialism, I think (hope) that alot of heavy drug users are no longer faced with the profound alienation which pushes many to take mind altering substances.

[MotherCossack]

This is true and regardless of legalization or not, come time for socialism, I think (hope) that alot of heavy drug users are no longer faced with the profound alienation which pushes many to take mind altering substances.

exactly!!!!! might take a while..... though!
in the meantime..... i do battle with myself.... in a supreme effort to equip my 4 children [2 are already teenagers and both have clearly received more than adequate drugs education at school.....not sure all of the details were quite necessary....seems like the lesson was more of a sales pitch at times!]

i want to proceed in a way that will encourage disinterest.... as much as possible..... any ideas?

I already recognise signs of tendencies which led to my own struggles and dad's aswell.... if there is an addictive gene...... well..... i wouldn't bet on any of them not having it....

[Art Vandelay]

exactly!!!!! might take a while..... though!
in the meantime..... i do battle with myself.... in a supreme effort to equip my 4 children [2 are already teenagers and both have clearly received more than adequate drugs education at school.....not sure all of the details were quite necessary....seems like the lesson was more of a sales pitch at times!]

i want to proceed in a way that will encourage disinterest.... as much as possible..... any ideas?

I already recognise signs of tendencies which led to my own struggles and dad's aswell.... if there is an addictive gene...... well..... i wouldn't bet on any of them not having it....

While I cannot say for sure what will, or won't, work, I can toss in my own 2 cents.

I would say to be as open about it as possible. Growing up, when the time came that my interest in drugs began to manifest itself, we were out smoking pot at lunch during school in back lanes and down the streets. Obviously, this lead to some of my best friends being arrested. I never was, thankfully, but I am sure that my marks suffered.

Depending on their age, I would approach them about it. I am not saying to go to them and tell them its okay for them to go out and get high. But to talk to them maturely and explain the choices they will be faced with. The best decisions are made when all the facts are known; unfortunately all the facts are not taught in school.

I would also encourage them to tell you if they ever do try drugs; although in exchange for their honestly your forgiveness and understanding would be in order. Out of all the people I knew who smoked pot growing up, the one who handled it best, was the one whose parents knew. They didn't encourage him to get high, but instead of getting mad and punishing him, they allowed it to continue as long as he promised he would never do drugs at school or during the weekdays when he had homework. Given that his parents were so open about it, he was the one kid who got high in school who wouldn't be out joining us in the back lanes at lunch.

Unfortunately, and you may not want to hear this MC, some of your children will most likely try drugs at some point in their lives. Its a fact that most parents would love to ignore, but if you do not try smoking pot at least once in your life, you are in the minority. There are two ways in which you can handle the situation: be proactive or reactive. I think you know which one is best.

Also another little tidbit, when the young colonel starts drinking set up an account with a taxi company for him. I have seen parents stop their children from ever getting behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk by spending 50$ a month on a pre paid taxi rides; I have also seen parents bury their children.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is no point (and indeed it would be naive, utopian and foolish to do so) to legalise drugs, or demand their legalisation, under Capitalism.

They would just become the 'new' alcohol.

In fact, I get really pissed off with this extremist pro-drugs viewpoint. Clearly, drugs have the potential to do bad, and you cannot rest your pro-drugs argument on anecdotal 'evidence' that "oh, clearly man, people like soooo wouldn't just consume drugs all the time if they were legal and cheap and easily available"'.

We do need a grown up debate on drugs, but this extremist positioning has to stop. People talk as if 'drugs' are some homogenous entity. They are not. Caffeine is different to Alcohol which is different to Ketamine which is different to MDMA which is different to Weed, 'shrooms and everything else. Some drugs are probably best fully legalised, some are probably best legalised but controlled (via prescription), some are probably best decriminalised but not legalised (i.e. to stop the traders making money, but to stop people getting arrested for usage), and some are probably best to be kept criminalised until we can eliminate them.

Either way, any drugs legalised under Capitalism will only be co-opted into the system anyway, so really this 'legalise drugs now' demand is fucking pointless on its own. It would only begin to make sense (and even then i'd be sceptical) under a non-Capitalist system where profit doesn't co-opt every idea that potentially is profitable.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the best argument for full legalisation under cpaitalism (though I'm not aware that any of us are making it) is 'illegal drugs turn addicts into criminals'. The best reason for demanding the legalisation of drugs is to prevent the state having more excuses to lock people away.

But as I say, I don't any of us are actually demanding the legalisation of drugs or advocating campaigning for the legalisation of drugs under capitalism.

[Prinskaj]

We do need a grown up debate on drugs, but this extremist positioning has to stop. People talk as if 'drugs' are some homogenous entity. They are not. Caffeine is different to Alcohol which is different to Ketamine which is different to MDMA which is different to Weed, 'shrooms and everything else. Some drugs are probably best fully legalised, some are probably best legalised but controlled (via prescription), some are probably best decriminalised but not legalised (i.e. to stop the traders making money, but to stop people getting arrested for usage), and some are probably best to be kept criminalised until we can eliminate them.
Everybody already knows that different drugs have different risks attached to them. The primary thing that is being discussed here is not "Let's give free cocaine to everybody!", but mere whether prohibition is an effective way to discouraging the use of drugs. Pretty much everybody who supports the legalization of drugs, support a strict set of regulations to control the risk attached to the use of said drug.

Either way, any drugs legalised under Capitalism will only be co-opted into the system anyway, so really this 'legalise drugs now' demand is fucking pointless on its own. It would only begin to make sense (and even then i'd be sceptical) under a non-Capitalist system where profit doesn't co-opt every idea that potentially is profitable.
Currently the global drug market is controlled by gangs, mafias and cartels. These are as much a part of the capitalist system, as any other business. But I think that you would agree with me, that a store selling weed is better then a gang filled with armed mobsters.

[revolt]

I wonder what moralistic reasoning our comrade Om has to refute this.moralistic? what he's saying is based on class analysis.

in fact, it's pretty obviously more "moralistic" to think it's somehow wrong to not allow anyone to use drugs due to some moral based libertarian ideal in spite of the effect it has on the working class communities that heroin poisons.


I'm for legalization of harmless substances (cannabis, certain psychedelics, other substances, etc) and for decriminalization (i.e. no punitive penalties for possession and simple black-market sale; only focus on reducing/barring large-scale trafficking) of the addictive/dangerous types. The most reasonable drug policy should be a "medical issue" based one centered to harm-reduction and rehabilitation.

Prohibition has only caused more social problems rather than solving any.this is the best idea. there is a difference between not throwing people in jail for using heroin, and allowing people to rot away mentally and physically because of some social libertarian ideal.

[Art Vandelay]

moralistic? what he's saying is very much based on class analysis.

this is the best idea. there is a difference between not throwing people in jail for using heroin, and allowing people to rot away mentally and physically because of some social libertarian ideal.

No one is talking about some "social libertarian ideal." All we are saying is that prohibition is clearly not a successful way to deal with drugs and that so far, the best program we have seen has been the Portuguese model (at least that is what I am saying).

[Lucretia]

So many of these types of threads on revleft are just a dressed up, rationalized way of whining about how something you like to do (drugs, specifically pot) might land you in a prison cell. Decriminalizing something doesn't mean adopting a neutral attitude toward it, and it certainly doesn't mean that it won't be restricted -- just that it won't be punished as a criminal/legal problem. Problem being the operative word there, because it is a problem and will continue to be perceived as such in a post-revolutionary society. Even legal pharmaceuticals are problematic in so many different ways, and people throughout the Western world are unquestionably overmedicated. Different drugs are problematic in different ways, so some people just need to snap out of the hippie dream that they present a pathway to enlightenment or liberation. In a socialist society taking drugs will not result in criminal prosecution, obviously, but you're off your rocker if you think people will just interpret it as a "personal choice" that they can't and won't collectively unite to stop.

[Eagle_Syr]

Personal choice is the last justification I am using in this thread for the legalization of drugs.

You could make the moral argument that individuals have the right to do whatever they want if it doesn't hurt others, but that wasn't an argument I ever made, or will make, because my primary argument is the utility and social benefit of drug legalization: prohibition hurts society.

[Lucretia]

Personal choice is the last justification I am using in this thread for the legalization of drugs.

You could make the moral argument that individuals have the right to do whatever they want if it doesn't hurt others, but that wasn't an argument I ever made, or will make, because my primary argument is the utility and social benefit of drug legalization: prohibition hurts society.

Drugs also hurt society, so there's that additional aspect to the problem you need to take into consideration besides just asking whether prohibition hurts society as if we're talking about some random phenomenon x about which it is not appropriate to make prescriptive evaluations. Because if you lift prohibition, you might facilitate more widespread consumption of drugs -- which would of course also hurt society.

Now, I think that the legal prohibition is counter-productive insofar as the consumption of drugs can be fought and restricted in other, more effective ways, but that's different than simply saying "criminalizing drugs hurts society."

Which is where you should make the distinction between "decriminalization" and "legalization" because they are two separate things. Legalization is is rooted in that silly laissez-faire, petty bourgeois attitude of, "hey, it's your personal choice." If drugs were legalized, not only could somebody possessing, say, heroin or crack cocaine not be thrown in jail, they could also not be involuntarily made to face any other kinds of consequences by society (medical or otherwise). Decriminalization, however, just means that possession won't be considered a crime that will result in judicial punishment.

[Eagle_Syr]

That's a fair point. But how do we decide what should be legalized and what should be dicriminalized?

And my argument was that drug use occurs either way, so prohibition necessarily does nothing but make the matter worse

[Lucretia]

That's a fair point. But how do we decide what should be legalized and what should be dicriminalized?

And my argument was that drug use occurs either way, so prohibition necessarily does nothing but make the matter worse

Well, I think very few drugs should be just outright legalized -- as in, able to set up a crack cocaine factory down the street because it is legal to possess, make, and use the stuff as a "personal choice" in the same way that procuring a pair of tennis shoes is. How to treat drugs is what we must collectively and democratically decide, taking into consideration the best scientific evidence about the nature and consequences of using each drug.

But before we sit down to have that discussion, these are the kinds of issues that need to be clarified (e.g., the distinction between decriminalization and legalization, the fact that public decision-making on this question will necessarily contain an element of ethics that is irreducible to scientific data, which means that there will almost certainly have to be some wiggle room allowing for "personal choice" but not nearly to the degree that legalization entails, etc.).

Then there's additional issue about the lionization of drugs among aspiring young leftists, often cloaked in more objective and political-sounding language about "legalization," but which is often as I said no more than just a circuitous way of defending a pastime they enjoy, and which on balance tends to be harmful to the revolutionary movement for a variety of reasons.

[Art Vandelay]

Decriminalization is probably the dumbest drug policy possible; it is nonsensical. Also Lucretia the facts and the real life experience flies in the face of most of what you said.

[Lucretia]

Decriminalization is probably the dumbest drug policy possible; it is nonsensical. Also Lucretia the facts and the real life experience flies in the face of most of what you said.

What a thorough critique.

[Art Vandelay]

What a thorough critique.

Well, we (me and the people consistently posting in this thread) have already made our positions known. You have simply brought up, issues which have already been addressed.

[Princess Luna]

Well, I think very few drugs should be just outright legalized -- as in, able to set up a crack cocaine factory down the street because it is legal to possess, make, and use the stuff as a "personal choice" in the same way that procuring a pair of tennis shoes is. How to treat drugs is what we must collectively and democratically decide, taking into consideration the best scientific evidence about the nature and consequences of using each drug.

But before we sit down to have that discussion, these are the kinds of issues that need to be clarified (e.g., the distinction between decriminalization and legalization, the fact that public decision-making on this question will necessarily contain an element of ethics that is irreducible to scientific data, which means that there will almost certainly have to be some wiggle room allowing for "personal choice" but not nearly to the degree that legalization entails, etc.).

Then there's additional issue about the lionization of drugs among aspiring young leftists, often cloaked in more objective and political-sounding language about "legalization," but which is often as I said no more than just a circuitous way of defending a pastime they enjoy, and which on balance tends to be harmful to the revolutionary movement for a variety of reasons.
Somebody is going to make to make the drugs, that is inevitable, you say you don't like the idea of a crack factory, but really which is worse crack produced in a factory that is sanitary and regulated or crack made in someone's basement with absolutely no over-sight? That doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy brand-name crack at the local grocers, I think the best option is for the government to completely take over production and distribution of extremely-hard drugs like crack, meth and heroin. This should be coupled with an extensive education campaign that teaches people not only the negative effects of drugs, but also how to counter the effects them if the person chooses to use the drugs anyway. But keep in mind the popularity of crack and meth is itself a direct result of prohibition so most likely once other, safer drugs become cheap and readily available the use of those two drugs will substantially decrease, I don't know if the same can be said of heroin however. As for the concept of personal choice, I think rational adults should be able to weight the consequences and decide for themselves, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be heavily discouraged , I just think the government should be able to do everything in it's power short of using violence against the person and holding someone against their will is a form of violence even if it is in a rehab not a jail.

[Lucretia]

Somebody is going to make to make the drugs, that is inevitable, you say you don't like the idea of a crack factory, but really which is worse crack produced in a factory that is sanitary and regulated or crack made in someone's basement with absolutely no over-sight? That doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy brand-name crack at the local grocers, I think the best option is for the government to completely take over production and distribution of extremely-hard drugs like crack, meth and heroin. This should be coupled with an extensive education campaign that teaches people not only the negative effects of drugs, but also how to counter the effects them if the person chooses to use the drugs anyway. But keep in mind the popularity of crack and meth is itself a direct result of prohibition so most likely once other, safer drugs become cheap and readily available the use of those two drugs will substantially decrease, I don't know if the same can be said of heroin however. As for the concept of personal choice, I think rational adults should be able to weight the consequences and decide for themselves, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be heavily discouraged , I just think the government should be able to do everything in it's power short of using violence against the person and holding someone against their will is a form of violence even if it is in a rehab not a jail.

When you start talking about "rational adults" "weighing the consequences and deciding for themselves" whether/when to consume highly addictive drugs - drugs which warp and destroy people's rational judgment - you make it abundantly clear how little experience you actually have with these issues in the real world. Once again, my guess is that you're just a very well-intended but young person with a lot of passion but unfortunately too much naivete.

And, no, there's nothing "inevitable" about the mass manufacture of harmful narcotics. Especially in a socialist society. What are you suggesting? That it's human nature for people to self-medicate with crack?

[Art Vandelay]

When you start talking about "rational adults" "weighing the consequences and deciding for themselves" whether/when to consume highly addictive drugs - drugs which warp and destroy people's rational judgment - you make it abundantly clear how little experience you actually have with these issues in the real world. Once again, my guess is that you're just a very well-intended but young person with a lot of passion but unfortunately too much naivete.

And, no, there's nothing "inevitable" about the mass manufacture of harmful narcotics. Especially in a socialist society. What are you suggesting? That it's human nature for people to self-medicate with crack?

Humans have been self medicating for our entire existence and that is not going to stop in socialist society.