Should addictive drugs/alcohol/tobacco be banned in a communist society?

[nativeabuse]

I couldn't find any threads on this and I had no idea what board this should be posted in. I am really interested in some peoples opinions on how a communist society should deal with unhealthy substances.

Tobacco, alcohol, addictive drugs, pills, junk food, anything else, should things like this be banned in a Communist society? Why should/shouldn't they be?

Honestly I haven't made up my own mind on this issue. I'm torn between the fact that I find most addictive drugs useless and stupid and harmful to your health, and they have an overall negative effect on society (I wouldn't advocate banning LSD, Shrooms, Marijuana, or any other non-addictive drug) and the fact that I feel like everyone should have the freedom to do what they want, and banning these substances would probably be about as effective as it is now, only exacerbating the situation.

[goalkeeper]

If you can't trust workers to choose what to eat, drink and smoke, how the hell are young to trust them to run society?

[nativeabuse]

If you can't trust workers to choose what to eat, drink and smoke, how the hell are young to trust them to run society?

But by that sort of thinking, we would legalize heroin and meth, I've known meth heads, and no I wouldn't trust them to tie a shoe. I sure as hell don't want them in factories in any communist society I live in.

[Sasha]

If you can't trust workers to choose what to eat, drink and smoke, how the hell are young to trust them to run society?

This ^

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

[Art Vandelay]

All drugs should be legal. As a consenting adult, you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot ingest into my body, as long as I don't harm anyone else; end of discussion. I could bring up things such as the Portuguese model which helps to show that the legality of drugs does not correlate into higher usage among the population, however I don't need to, cause when it comes down to it, it is a matter of personal liberty.

[nativeabuse]

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.


So you are you suggesting that communities can simply exile or banish them to a specially designated drug zone if they choose to?


9mm: And what do you think we should do if it does harm someone else?

[Art Vandelay]

So you are you suggesting that communities can simply exile or banish them to a specially designated drug zone if they choose to?


9mm: And what do you think we should do if it does harm someone else?

Well obviously there would be regulations in place such as no doing drugs and driving etc..

[nativeabuse]

As a consenting adult

So would you advocate banning them to people under a certain age the way we do now?

And so the consequences of accidents/crimes/abuses/health issues don't outweigh 'personal freedom'? What about in the other thread in OI where you were claiming that it didn't matter that the forum banned fascists, because badness and evilness of fascism outweighed 'freedom of speech'. Do you just pick and choose which aspects of freedom matter based on the what you agree with and which you don't?

[Art Vandelay]

So would you advocate banning them to people under a certain age the way we do now?

And so the consequences of accidents/crimes/abuses/health issues don't outweigh 'personal freedom'? What about in the other thread in OI where you were claiming that it didn't matter that the forum banned fascists, because badness and evilness of fascism outweighed 'freedom of speech'. Do you just pick and choose which aspects of freedom matter based on the what you agree with and which you don't?

No platform for fascists. This is quite the comparison you are attempting to draw: holding the hateful views that fascists do and attempt to make become reality, is somehow akin to believing that individuals should have bodily autonomy? Give me a break.

Now as far as the age limit goes, yes. There should undoubtedly be an age limit, however it will most likely vary from community to community and from substance to substance. Next, crimes and health issues will not have the same sort of severity as they do now, in a socialist society. In all honesty you should look up the Portuguese model I mentioned but I'll tell you a little anecdote from it:

There was a city (I don't remember which one) which had a heroin epidemic. Due to this, they also had a severe problem with prostitution, specifically around a certain train station where these prostitutes hung out to meet john's. Upon the decriminalization of all drugs, the addicts were able to go to clinics to get clean rigs and clean dope. They were able to be taken better care of medically due to the lack of having to be concerned with getting arrested 24/7 and they were able to be set up with employment. Heroin usage did not go up in the broader population (just cause something is legal doesn't mean that everyone will rush out to do it) and among the heroin using population od's went down. Want to know what else happened? The prostitution centered around that one train station disappeared over night. The moral of the story? They weren't fucking old dudes for fun.

Crime (not just prostitution, but crime in general) for the most part is a class based issue and must be analyzed as such. As far as accidents goes where does it stop? Since a tiny minority might still get fucked up (on whatever, booze, heroin, etc.) and get behind of the wheel of the vehicle, the rest of the substance using population should be punished? Why and where does it stop? Since some people might get behind the wheel of a vehicle sober and drive recklessly and thus cause an accident, should be also ban vehicles? In all honesty though, given the improved methods of public transportation which will exist in a socialist society, I don't even view this as something which will transpire all too often.

Bottom line is that people like to get high and have been in various ways since the dawn of man. You want to ban drugs, all your going to do is open up a space for it to be done illegally and by extension open up the possibility for a black market.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Of course that means all forms of smoking have to be banned as it has an effect on others, a lingering effect at that. Completing legalising drugs will have a drip effect over the years, with people realising how dangerous and unnecessary they are as the result of taking drugs is a poorer quality of life, a shorter life etc due to their harmful effects. Then drugs would then be removed entirely by informed consent. It's possible that this could happen.

[Rugged Collectivist]

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

What if some zealot community decides to ban gays, abortion, and heretics?

[The Jay]

I think that it would be for the community to decide but that I would personally prefer that all the 'soft' drugs should be legal and that 'hard' drugs should be restricted.

[nativeabuse]

Of course that means all forms of smoking have to be banned as it has an effect on others, a lingering effect at that. Completing legalising drugs will have a drip effect over the years, with people realising how dangerous and unnecessary they are as the result of taking drugs is a poorer quality of life, a shorter life etc due to their harmful effects. Then drugs would then be removed entirely by informed consent. It's possible that this could happen.

This is what I would love to happen, where in a Communist society, everyone is just happy and without classes/money there is little or no incentive for crime or drug use anyway, and the only use of drugs would be to have a little fun every now and then. Thus there would be no need to ban drugs at all.

Really the answers of 9mm have made me think that it shouldn't be so binary of a choice legal/illegal. I feel like it should be highly discouraged and there should be some incentive's or a sort of consequence to people who do use addictive drugs, without the consequence being anything too drastic, more of a nudge in the right direction, and it should go without saying that there would be free care for those that want to quite. But I'm still opposed to a complete hands off do whatever you want model.

Here is a question, do you think that it should be legal in a Communist society to build gigantic cocaine/heroin plantations or supermassive meth labs? Should production be banned, and use be legal? or should both simply be legal?

[Tim Cornelis]

All drugs should be legal. As a consenting adult, you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot ingest into my body, as long as I don't harm anyone else; end of discussion. I could bring up things such as the Portuguese model which helps to show that the legality of drugs does not correlate into higher usage among the population, however I don't need to, cause when it comes down to it, it is a matter of personal liberty.

Portugal decriminalised drugs, not legalised it.


This ^

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

Doublespeak, essentially you are saying "workers should be allowed the responsibility to consume what they want including drugs, also the community can ban drugs if they deem that individual members of the community cannot handle the responsibility of drug consumption."

[Sasha]

Doublespeak, essentially you are saying "workers should be allowed the responsibility to consume what they want including drugs, also the community can ban drugs if they deem that individual members of the community cannot handle the responsibility of drug consumption."

no, i would say that i was saying that "workers should be allowed the responsibility to consume what they want including drugs, but the community can ban drugs if they deem that individual members of the community cannot handle the responsibility of drug consumption abuse."

in an ideal situation what 9mm describes would happen, and i do believe that that is what will happen eventually by the time we live in post revolutionary communist utopia, but a fact is that a perfect communist utopia is most likely exactly that; utopian, its something we strife for but when i look at the now and present example of indigenous tribes (which being often one of the closest approximation to what communism probably will look like are always worthwhile to have an look at) and the havoc most notably alcohol inflicts on these communities i cant fault them for trying to keep that substance out of their community. But yeah, like others already said that will likely be more a problem of before and during the revolutionary period than after. alcohol and other epidemic drug abuse problems have capitalist materialist causes and will thus probably phase out after the revolution

[Sasha]

What if some zealot community decides to ban gays, abortion, and heretics?

than its not communism and thus communism is not established yet...

[Art Vandelay]

Portugal decriminalised drugs, not legalised it.

I realize that, but as the most progressive instance of state legislation of drugs, its the most viable real world option to use as an example.

[MarxSchmarx]

Use should be largely tolerated for the reasons stated. But the legality question is moot.

The issue is that under capitalism we assume they will be available because people need to make a profit. This assumption is no longer remotely credible in a post-capitalist society. It might continue on a smaller scaller immediately after capitalism, but has no long term viability.


Here is a question, do you think that it should be legal in a Communist society to build gigantic cocaine/heroin plantations or supermassive meth labs? Should production be banned, and use be legal? or should both simply be legal?

Nobody in their right mind would work for such an operation in a communist society. so whether they are legal or not is irrelevant. Moreover, the drug fiends won't be able to put together the kind of operation you're describing. They would be just as absurd and non-existent as lockheed martin weapons plants.

I can see people working in wineries/distilleries/breweries, probably other less harmful drugs, maybe even tobacco, but for things like heroin/crack processing there will simply be no one to staff them. It just doesn't make any sense in a society where profit is meaningless. People will be producing for art's sake, and a product you can't enjoy will have no social value.

I suspect there might be some small scale operations, particularly for things like chrystal meth that can be easily synthesized. It's unlikely they will be anything but transient; it won't be hard for immediate family to cut off the supply chain of the person manufacturing the drugs. In terms of the social cost it would probably be no worse than alcohol.

[Rugged Collectivist]

than its not communism and thus communism is not established yet...

What if it's a community filled with christian communists. Production is handled the same way as all the other communes in the federation but for whatever reason the community decided that those things were harmful and decided to get rid of them. Or do you think religion will automatically wither away since it's no longer necessary as a means of control?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

If I can't get high then fuck the revolution

Nah, really though, with acceptance of drugs you can control quality so nobody's shooting anthrax up (yes that happened once, I think in Scotland) and focus resources on addiction treatment and drug education rather than prohibition enforcement.


But tbh I don't think there will be much of a problem with heroin post revolution. Everyone I know who's done heroin moved up from pills when it got too expensive, started snorting boy, then shooting boy. You don't just wake up one day and say "I want to try heroin" (usually ... sometimes that happens I'm sure)


A lot of the problem with meth addiction is due to ridiculous work requirements in, for example, the construction industry. My buddy works construction and most of his coworkers are cokeheads and meth heads to stay up and alert in those 60 hour weeks of ridiculous physical strain. Or truckers pulling all-nighters to make that load on time.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People have been consuming drugs since before capitalism, and I see no particular reason why that would cease after capitalism - people don't just take drugs to cope or to distract themselves, the experience of consuming drugs is inherently pleasurable in the right circumstances.

Any kind of blanket prohibition on the production, possession, and consumption of any mind-altering substance makes a mockery of the idea of bodily autonomy.

That's not to say that people shouldn't be discouraged from operating motor vehicles or heavy machinery while under the influence, or that there won't be any problem with addictions and other health issues. But if there is no social or legal stigma concerning drugs consumption, then society will be better placed to deal with any problems that do arise.

[Aurora]

The dangers of drug use can be significantly reduced through non-biased education, clean equipment, unadulterated drugs, freely available rehabilitation and education in emergency response with free availability of important drugs for overdose like naloxone, sedatives, anti-arrhythmics etc

Banning drugs doesn't help, it multiplies problems 100 fold and creates new problems.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This ^

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

^^ This, the community should decide these things democratically. In reality, i'd always vote against any pro-firearms measure for the general populace, and i'm not sure it's a good idea to have certain drugs legalised, though most drugs should be de-criminalised at least. Out of all those that are illegal right now, it is only weed that I think should be properly legalised. Others need proper scientific analysis before decided to legalise, keep illegal or merely de-criminalise possession.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Any kind of blanket prohibition on the production, possession, and consumption of any mind-altering substance makes a mockery of the idea of bodily autonomy.


These things need to be based on scientific analysis, not merely 'bodily autonomy' because, if a certain drug really is so addictive and dangerous as to make mortal health problem inevitable, that drug should not be legalised.

Just as doctors have the ability to prescribe or non-prescribe certain drugs/medicines, so the community should decide based on scientific evidence what drugs should be freely available, limited or not available to the community.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

These things need to be based on scientific analysis, not merely 'bodily autonomy' because, if a certain drug really is so addictive and dangerous as to make mortal health problem inevitable, that drug should not be legalised.

If it's addictive enough, then it's going to be sought out by addicts regardless of what the law says. It's not even going to prevent people from becoming addicts in the first place, otherwise their would be no heroin addicts since that is currently illegal in most (all?) countries.

As for mortality, as long as one isn't endangering others, as far as I'm concerning one should be able to stick whatever into one's body. If self-destructive behaviour of any kind becomes a serious social issue, then I think that is indicative of a deeper problem, rather than just the availability of means to destroy oneself. The Opium Wars weren't fought purely because of the addictiveness of opium - the British had an interest in flogging the stuff to the Chinese, and addicts make loyal customers.


Just as doctors have the ability to prescribe or non-prescribe certain drugs/medicines, so the community should decide based on scientific evidence what drugs should be freely available, limited or not available to the community.

"The community" also includes various drug users, who will seek out their preferred drugs no matter what the rest say or do. If people right now are willing to risk death and/or dismemberment to get their fix of choice, then I'm not sure what "the community" can do to prevent access that wouldn't be worse than the problem they're trying to fix.

[subcp]

A lot of people discount the level of paradigm shift following a successful revolution. Without wage labor, currency, the law of value itself, there is no longer any purpose for a "black market". Many of the social problems that have developed in an atmosphere of illegality would also no longer exist (or would be on their way to no longer existing). It isn't even about workers- who would've abolished all classes including themselves. Without profit motive, the majority of clandestine manufacturing and distribution of all manner of what are now illegal drugs would dry up; if you aren't going to be paid, there is no reason to engage in cultivation, extraction, manufacture and distribution. On the demand side, yes, humans have always consumed drugs. We will continue to need medication for medicinal purposes- though without the profit motive directing energies toward wasteful or unnecessary research and development, and the competition of manufacturing multiple versions of the same drug(s), or the straightjacket of regulation and legality deciding what gets studied and what doesn't, we'd see breakthroughs in areas that are out of reach today (for example, there's a growing minority of medical professionals and scientists that believe in endorphin deficiency; the theory being that some people lack the endogenous opioids in 'normal' quantities which regulate certain aspects of mental health. There's also the massive successes of the heroin maintenance programs in Europe, which has led to exploring maintenance with other classes of drugs). So it's not a moral question. A lot of the reasons for occupational drug abuse (long hours, lots of overtime, hard labor to alienation itself) would dissipate.

Workers are not by nature more morally upright than capitalists. They just have the place at the point of production to have agency and change everything by nature of that relationship. There will obviously be people who choose to want to grow naturally occurring drugs- William Burroughs used to mention his desire to live on a river in the South American jungle, where he could grow cannabis, poppies and coca and be 'away' from the moral prejudice against drug use (and homosexuality- he wrote in 1950's America) since that is likely to be the only way to 'get' them outside of whatever happens to the global medical establishment. I don't think any of us should care all that much if some people would like to live that way. The way the Maoists treated opium users sends shivers down my spine as someone who has worked in harm reduction. The RCP still has an article promoting the CPC policy for opium users as a model of how they would deal with drug users if given the opportunity. It's chilling.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

when it comes down to it, it is a matter of personal liberty.

And then:


Well obviously there would be regulations in place

So you say people can use.... if according to regulations.
Seems like what we have today.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So you say people can use.... if according to regulations.
Seems like what we have today.

Not really.

There really aren't any "regulations" on using all drugs. They are completely restricted, banned, forbidden, illegal, etc. To "regulate" something it has to be accepted. By regulating, you make sure the drugs being distributed are made safely, etc. like any other product.

Basically, 9mm was arguing legalize and regulate, which is not what we have now for most drugs.

[Turinbaar]

In discussion of drugs, I have always sensed a very shallow analysis on the true significance of the drug trade and its prohibition. Since the opium wars prohibition has an integral part of the maintenance of empire.

Under cold war conditions it was the means by which the military industrial complex was allowed to maintain the flow of weapons out and money in. The Iran-Contra scandal was a drug-for-gun trade run by Oliver North and his president. Fallout at home, they concluded, could be locked away in the burgeoning private penitentiary system.

What exists today are organizations that are at once fascist death squads and jihadists as well as drug cartels like the colombian para-militaries, and the Taliban, who exist on profits extracted on what amounts to mass slave labor in drug production. Under conditions imposed by international prohibition they hold an oligopoly on the trade and the enslaved laborers.

What is not to be abhorred is the drug itself, but rather its integration into the underworld, its production by the pitilessly exploited, and its utilization by military industrial empire. Once these adulterations into its process of trade are removed, the trade may enter normal economic intercourse like alcohol, harder substances can be proscribed and controlled, and treatment for its abuse can be dealt with as is done with alcohol.

The abolition of the drug war and the emancipation of the wrongly imprisoned and enslaved, and the smashing of all fascist exploiters of this system, is in this way a necessary step in the advancement of humanity to its full potential.

[Monkeyboy]

I think there are really good points being made in this thread.

I did a study (but didn't finish it) that dealt with safety in general, so also crime.

I'm under the impression that making drugs illegal is counterproductive. One example that I bet many make is the situation in Mexico. I bet it's much more complicated than I think, but I still think it's a good example. Making drugs illegal creates illegal groups that produce and deal these drugs.

I also belief that drug users are not scared by drugs being illegal. I'm under the impression that those who want to use drugs will do it anyway. One thing I learned when doing the study was that (severe) punishment contributes less than we would like to think.

Both examples are not really based on scientific evidence, if anyone could confirm my thoughs with evidence that would be great. I'm thinking of doing some research of my own.

[Firebrand]

I'm firmly of the belief that computer games are far more addictive and damaging to society than most drugs, and lets not even get started on the damge gambling can cause (although gambling probably wouldn't be much of a concern in a communist society). Lets be honest once you put aside the moral panic, all you have is a set of substances that can be a lot of fun, and can cause health issues, the same could be said for extreme sports, sex, cars, motorbikes, and full english breakfasts. Last time I checked no-one wanted to ban any of those, or restrict medical access for the people who do them. What does anyone gain from banning drugs, the addicts don't benefit because they have to get their drugs in an impure form from dodgy people and risk prison in the process. The producers don't benefit because it makes them easier to exploit and they risk prison. The general population doesn't benefit because of the boost that the drugs trade gives to organised crime. In fact the only people i can think of who ever benefit from prohibition are the criminals.

[RevisioniningLeft]

All people have a right to do what they want with their bodies, but they also have a right to all the information about the harms of the substances they use.

Obviously things like smoking at indoors workplace and drinking & driving needs to be banned cos it puts others in harm.

One thing that rarely gets mentioned in the tobacco debate is the working conditions of the people in 3rd world countries working on tobacco plantations. I think tobacco, pot and coca should be farmed by small farmers selling their products at a fair price on the market, or by voluntary farmers co-operatives.

[Ostrinski]

No, I certainly do not think that any kind of recreational drug should be banned under communism, and in fact I am in favor of abolishing prohibition under capitalism. Your body is your body, and only you can provide the correct judgment on what can be done to it. I'm generally against any piece of legislation that assumes any certain kind of authority regarding personal use of one's body.

Perhaps in the case of suicidal tendencies wherein the root cause is emotional or mental distress, I think great efforts should be taken to provide the proper treatment and care for this person. However, if one wishes to terminate their own life because physical pain that cannot be ameliorated effectively, then I think their wishes should be respected.

[Questionable]

Who's going to ban them if there's no state?

[Comrade #138672]

I think there are really good points being made in this thread.

I did a study (but didn't finish it) that dealt with safety in general, so also crime.

I'm under the impression that making drugs illegal is counterproductive. One example that I bet many make is the situation in Mexico. I bet it's much more complicated than I think, but I still think it's a good example. Making drugs illegal creates illegal groups that produce and deal these drugs.

I also belief that drug users are not scared by drugs being illegal. I'm under the impression that those who want to use drugs will do it anyway. One thing I learned when doing the study was that (severe) punishment contributes less than we would like to think.

Both examples are not really based on scientific evidence, if anyone could confirm my thoughs with evidence that would be great. I'm thinking of doing some research of my own.I would be surprised if there wasn't any scientific evidence for this. You are absolutely right that it is counterproductive. When they tried to ban alcohol in the U.S., it paved the way for the mafia. Alcohol related crimes exploded. Because of this, the U.S. government was forced to repeal the ban.

[Manic Impressive]

The premise of this thread is all wrong I don't know where to start. OK first we can't supplant today's problems onto a communist society as that would completely ignore the reasons, or better yet the need for some people to take drugs. Second if we do still want mind altering substances and they're kind of fun so why not, why wouldn't we produce drugs which are not addictive, which limit the harm done to the body and so on. Most drugs today especially heroin, cocaine, ecstasy are cut with all sorts of other chemicals to increase the profit of the supplier. With the profit motive gone chemists can concentrate on decreasing or eliminating detrimental effects of drugs.

[Althusser]

Why do most people choose to drink and take drugs. Mostly the poor and depressed do that. Legalize it all. I don't mean to sound utopian, but I don't think it would make much of a difference in...

a better world...
http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/images/A_7/7/0/8/68077/mountainsunset_deca4.jpg

[Monkeyboy]

I would be surprised if there wasn't any scientific evidence for this. You are absolutely right that it is counterproductive. When they tried to ban alcohol in the U.S., it paved the way for the mafia. Alcohol related crimes exploded. Because of this, the U.S. government was forced to repeal the ban.

Yes, history and current events can tell us how it turned out. Of course we should be careful when making assumptions, but I think you and most on here know that, and this isn't a wrong conclusion.

The alcohol prohibition is a good example. Though, alcohol use is seen as more "normal" than drug use. You know this of course. If drug use was seen as part of our culture, "normal", prohibition would work even worse. That's what I think though.

I'm not even a drug user, well I do drink, mostly strong liqour. Still, I am in favour of making drugs legal, be it done in a responsable way, step by step, and carefully watch how it goes.

I would think, again an assumption not based on facts, that when you make drugs legal few will change on the user side. Those who used drugs will use them anyway, maybe a bit more. Addicts (in my opinion not a problem whatever drugs are legal, but another problem) will use it whatever. I do not think much people who didn't do drugs will suddenly start to use drugs when it becomes illegal, but I might be wrong on this. That also depends on whatever making it legal also makes it "normal", I think a lot will still see it as some sort of taboo and refrain from using it.

I checked Europol for a journal, and it says there will be a report on the European drug market. Might be interesting. I always had the assumption that those countries who used the most drugs were also the ones who are the wealthiest. That would of course depend on the type of drugs; heroin is named "the loser drug" for a reason. I'm thinking mostly of party drug use.

[subcp]

If you're interested in those aspects of prohibition and drug policy, I'd recommend reading the Harm Reduction journal (I think it's part of the Addiction Sciences journal series out of the UK if memory serves). They've done a lot of dynamic research on the effects of prohibition on demand and the creation of sub-cultures around particularly dangerous demand side activities.

[MP5]

Absolutely not. The notion of banning people from taking drugs of any kind is one that smacks of a nanny state and i think the last thing Communism needs is a nanny state mentality. This is not even mentioning the fact that a person has the fundemental right to do whatever they want with their own body or that prohibition does far more harm then good.

[redblood_blackflag]

But by that sort of thinking, we would legalize heroin and meth, I've known meth heads, and no I wouldn't trust them to tie a shoe. I sure as hell don't want them in factories in any communist society I live in.

If communism is stateless and classless, who is making drugs "illegal" ?

[redblood_blackflag]

I couldn't find any threads on this and I had no idea what board this should be posted in. I am really interested in some peoples opinions on how a communist society should deal with unhealthy substances.

Tobacco, alcohol, addictive drugs, pills, junk food, anything else, should things like this be banned in a Communist society? Why should/shouldn't they be?

Honestly I haven't made up my own mind on this issue. I'm torn between the fact that I find most addictive drugs useless and stupid and harmful to your health, and they have an overall negative effect on society (I wouldn't advocate banning LSD, Shrooms, Marijuana, or any other non-addictive drug) and the fact that I feel like everyone should have the freedom to do what they want, and banning these substances would probably be about as effective as it is now, only exacerbating the situation.

Who is "banning drugs" in a "stateless/classless" society?