Why Legalize ?

[DudeImNeo]

I dont understand why so many people are gung-ho about legalizing. Any time tha govt gets a hold of a product, they do their best to fk up any natural way of curing tha product and try to find a means to mass-produce tha shit. Granted, tha jails MIGHT be a lil less crowded, but who's really getting locked up for possession charges ? And even then, you not gonna be in there for long-so really, what other positives come from that besides throwin more money into tha economy for some pesticized hormoned out basic chronic ? And if it WAS legalized, you best believe ANY street dealers, no matter how small time, growers, etc. will be slapped wit felony charges. Do people really wanna fk up tha weed game by legalizing ? I guarantee it will NOT be GRADE A BUDS they're selling

[MarxSchmarx]

I dunno , if alcohol is any indication most moonshine I've drank is pretty awful. I rather don't mind all the regulations that come with knowing my bottle of rum didn't have a dead dog rotting in the still.

[blake 3:17]

I'm in favour of an immediate decriminalization of marijuana. Canada's pretty good at growing it! **Except when the government's been involved.**

Big business, in the form of organized crime, is already involved, and I can't see a way of keeping it out in the future in a market society, but if people were free to grow their own or set up communal grow ops with out fear of getting getting nabbed by the cops...

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

de-criminalization, harm reduction, education are the key requirements in dealing with drugs. the drug industry is ultra capitalist and full of some of the worst criminals, from the top of the chain to the gutter. bring drug production, ownership and distribution into common ownership so we can be sure that everyone's getting clean stuff which wont fuck them up and also with a decent, adequate health service we can make sure we help and protect those people who get into a bad way with drugs, just like we (ar supposed to) do with alcoholics, who (like me) are addicted to a legal but very physically, socially and psychologically damaging drug.

at least i know what's in my beer though and wont get stabbed or ripped off when trying to buy one (well, not nearly as much anyway).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marijuana isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a Socialist issue. It's a faux-political issue. Rather, as MS said, it's just nice to actually know what's going into your product.

[Igor]

I dunno , if alcohol is any indication most moonshine I've drank is pretty awful.

hey now moonshine can be surprisingly decent

and i'm proud to say that my family is from the moonshining capital of finland, featuring the world-famous moonshine museum as well

[Nevsky]

Prohibition of alcohol in the USA is the best historical example. As soon as it became an illegal substance, the various Al Capones and Lucky Lucianos rose to power. People still demanded alcohol obviously, thus making organized crime rich beyond belief. If hard drugs were legalized, their market taken over by the state, all the major drug lords would lose their job.

[tachosomoza]

Criminalization has destroyed the lives of millions of people, especially those of color, through incarceration, destruction of communities and violence in both the United States and Latin America.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Marijuana isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a Socialist issue. It's a faux-political issue. Rather, as MS said, it's just nice to actually know what's going into your product.

...wow. So when the bourgeois state imposes the petty bourgeois morality on its citizens, "accidentally" ruining the lives of members of ethnic and racial minorities, communists should remain silent?

[Zealot]

But literally anyone can just grow it so if it was legalised the government wont be able to control its spread, unless they made some law prohibiting weed-growing without a license or some shit. That's pretty unlikely though.

[tachosomoza]

But literally anyone can just grow it so if it was legalised the government wont be able to control its spread, unless they made some law prohibiting weed-growing without a license or some shit. That's pretty unlikely though.

Good.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If drugs were legalized, there's probably a chance that they wouldn't become more potent - illegal drugs have an incentive to increase the potency in order to be able to get more out of smuggling efforts. But on the other hand it would also drasticly reduce prices.

I think this is pretty secondary to the much more important issue of the war on drugs and mass incarceration which (for the US) fuck up tons of lives in the US but is also tied to US imperial power in Mexico, Central and parts of South America. A real movement that could tie decriminalization/legalization to these concrete things, ending the dominant stop-and-frisk and racial profiling pretexts for example, would be powerful and push back against a more general ruling class argument that poverty is due to poor personal choices.

We may get the legalization of weed soon enough though because the drug's ubiquitousness and relative harmless effects undermines the legitimacy of drug-war arguments. In Oakland and many other places there have been moves towards a sort of de-facto decriminalization while city governments and police forces have traded that tool/pretext, for policies of just being able to stop people for no reason whatsoever.

I think we should set our sights higer than just weed though; drug recreation/experamentation should be legal and drug dependance should be treated as a medical issue with no stigma attached. There's a danger of making weed an exceptional "harmless drug" because it preserves the war on drug's ability to demonize certain groups of people and just re-inforces the racist/elitist "good-drug/bad-drug" idea where a poor person who does cheap drugs is "dangerous" but some yuppie doing coke or perscription pills is somehow different and needs "help" not to be controlled and locked up.

If capitalists make money off it, then capitalists make money off of it - that's a problem of capitalism, not legalization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

...wow. So when the bourgeois state imposes the petty bourgeois morality on its citizens, "accidentally" ruining the lives of members of ethnic and racial minorities, communists should remain silent?

I'm not saying I agree with Marijuana being illegal - but if it's made legal, it should be for a sane reason, such as a) it's not a particularly addictive nor potent drug, or b) it would be easier to regulate, not something like 'oh we have a right to smoke pot' or whatever. That's just a baseless assertion. Drugs policy really needs to be evidence based - shit like Marijuana should be legal, heroin/crack/LSD clearly shouldn't be freely and legally available to all.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, i'm not sure that making Marijuana illegal ruins anybody's lives. That's a load of self-important crap.

[tachosomoza]

Also, i'm not sure that making Marijuana illegal ruins anybody's lives. That's a load of self-important crap.

Do you have any idea how many nonviolent people have been incarcerated in the US by the drug war since 1970? How many people of color have been criminalized by it? How many people have been killed in gang/cartel violence over illegal drug turf and profits? A fucking lot.

[Sasha]

I'm not saying I agree with Marijuana being illegal - but if it's made legal, it should be for a sane reason, such as a) it's not a particularly addictive nor potent drug, or b) it would be easier to regulate, not something like 'oh we have a right to smoke pot' or whatever. That's just a baseless assertion. Drugs policy really needs to be evidence based - shit like Marijuana should be legal, heroin/crack/LSD clearly shouldn't be freely and legally available to all.

Legal =/= freely available to all everywhere.

the fact that 40% hard liquor is legal doesn't mean you can buy it in a candy store, like all dangerous products (hard) drugs should be sold in specialized highly regulated stores that can and will lose their license if they harm public health.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm going to assume you are talking about cannabis, it doesn't have to be a big-brand commodity. Just grow it and smoke up, I don't care.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, i'm not sure that making Marijuana illegal ruins anybody's lives. That's a load of self-important crap.This may be a regional difference because when it comes to the US, I disagree:

jSxUgiobcT8

^Got fucked up for half a joint - and also good evidence that decriminalization is not enough and why there actually needs to be full legalization.

In the US opiates, cocaine, and LSD were all legal and actually sold in stores, catalogues, and early soda-fountain type places (Edit, oops, not LSD, but cocaine and opiates). These, and alcohol, only became illegal when tied to efforts to demonize and control groups of people: blacks, latinos, hippies (LSD), and european immigrants (Alcohol). I even read that somewhere in the midwest for a time they prohibited alcohol consumption only for dutch immigrants. So while I'd favor a sort of restricted availibility like with alcohol - at least under captialism - I think even just selling it in 7-11s would be better than prohibition and the drug-war.

This isn't to argue drug prohibitions are solely a bourgoise plot to divide workers or something, one the one hand drug-use is a real social problem for capitalism. But it's mostly a problem of capitalism where people have to be able to submit to the demands of exploitative production on the one hand and on the other, the alienation and isolation and pressure also makes self mental-obliteration (at least for a time) more attractive or at least more achievable than getting fufilment in other ways. So it's a problem for capitalism, but capitalism's solution is to try and control our behavior so that society functions in the way they want it.

[TheStone]

Don't underestimate the damage done by simple possession arrests / charges. While not always leading to immediate incarceration, they can contribute to a piling of priors that leads to longer terms, more marginalization, etc., down the road.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not saying I agree with Marijuana being illegal - but if it's made legal, it should be for a sane reason, such as a) it's not a particularly addictive nor potent drug, or b) it would be easier to regulate, not something like 'oh we have a right to smoke pot' or whatever. That's just a baseless assertion. Drugs policy really needs to be evidence based - shit like Marijuana should be legal, heroin/crack/LSD clearly shouldn't be freely and legally available to all.

So, what else should the bourgeois state be able to regulate? What you eat? Who you fuck and in what ways?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Do you have any idea how many nonviolent people have been incarcerated in the US by the drug war since 1970? How many people of color have been criminalized by it? How many people have been killed in gang/cartel violence over illegal drug turf and profits? A fucking lot.

And, like I said, there are legitimate reasons to oppose marijuana criminalisation, but that =/= it is a 'right' to smoke pot, which is an assertion that many on the left seem to infer by their incredibly close association to weed.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Legal =/= freely available to all everywhere.

the fact that 40% hard liquor is legal doesn't mean you can buy it in a candy store, like all dangerous products (hard) drugs should be sold in specialized highly regulated stores that can and will lose their license if they harm public health.

You're right ,I wasn't explicit on that, but that is what I meant^^

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So, what else should the bourgeois state be able to regulate? What you eat? Who you fuck and in what ways?

If you get down from your emotional high horse, and read my posts, you'll see that i'm pro-legalising weed, but not because it's some god-given right - rather, because it's a (relatively) harmless drug.

I'm not for the bourgeois state having any power over our lives, but when it comes to harder drugs that are harmful and addictive, i'm also against individuals taking actions that harm others via negative social and health externalities - that's why the legal status of drugs should be driven by evidence, not by faux-moralising about 'rights'. It would be the same in a post-bourgeois society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you get down from your emotional high horse, and read my posts, you'll see that i'm pro-legalising weed, but not because it's some god-given right - rather, because it's a (relatively) harmless drug.

I'm not for the bourgeois state having any power over our lives, but when it comes to harder drugs that are harmful and addictive, i'm also against individuals taking actions that harm others via negative social and health externalities - that's why the legal status of drugs should be driven by evidence, not by faux-moralising about 'rights'. It would be the same in a post-bourgeois society.

Except that you are the only one to mention rights. I don't think anyone has rights, but prohibition is simply an obnoxious moralist imposition. Any number of activities have negative health externalities (and "negative social externality" is hopelessly vague), but remain perfectly legal, for good reason. And besides, in the communist society, government over men will have been abolished, so there is no room for the state, for "the community" that some alleged leftists treat as their state and their God, or for "our committee" of the more honest Nechayev, to ban people from taking whatever drugs they want, eating how many calories they want, whatever, as long as it does not impact the social economy unduly.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Re: The Boss
Did you just equate heroin, crack, and LSD?
When was the last time somebody in your apartment building had to be hospitalized following an LSD overdose? The last time one of your friends lost their home because they spent all their money on LSD? The last time a drug-war was fought over LSD production (let alone one of the scale of wars fought over poppy or coca production)?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, yes, perhaps you are correct, Semandyev and VMC. I got lost in the semantics of the debate.

[Turinbaar]

My signature has a link to an essay that addresses your questions. Otherwise I'll repost something I said in a previous thread.

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.

The shorthand answer is that the US now has more imprisoned than Stalin's gulag and there's only one reason why.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

But literally anyone can just grow it so if it was legalised the government wont be able to control its spread, unless they made some law prohibiting weed-growing without a license or some shit. That's pretty unlikely though.
Not necessarily. It's legal in the US to grow a personal tobacco supply but almost nobody does it despite millions of people smoking.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, i'm not sure that making Marijuana illegal ruins anybody's lives. That's a load of self-important crap.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Add to that the millions of people who have been incarcerated or have had opportunities denied to them because of a felony or even a misdemeanor conviction, in addition to the role marijuana's illegality has played in turning Mexico into a warzone & Honduras into the murder capital of the planet (granted marijuana isn't the sole or even the primary factor in those examples, but it undoubtedly has played a role).

[Ace High]

Well I want it legal, BUT, the only thing that might stop be would be the fact that greedy capitalists are going to grab up the industry with a few big companies and exploit people for wage slavery, just as any other industry.

So what's the solution? Decriminalize it!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I want it legal, BUT, the only thing that might stop be would be the fact that greedy capitalists are going to grab up the industry with a few big companies and exploit people for wage slavery, just as any other industry.

So what's the solution? Decriminalize it!Yeah but workers in the underground economy can't organize. Illegality doesn't remove something from capitalist relations, just from state laws and regulations. There's still wage slavery in the underground markets - if fact sometimes it is more like forced slavery.

Immigration, drugs, prostitution should be brought into the open so that migrant workers, drug-users and drug market workers, and prostitutes will be able to at least speak out without automatically reciving the wrath of the state; it would also free these groups from the extra-exploitation and potential for abuse of being in a hidden market.

[Turinbaar]

Uruguay is voting on legalization now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23516966

It will be interesting to the see the impacts on the society and economy.

[RedBen]

Prohibition of alcohol in the USA is the best historical example. As soon as it became an illegal substance, the various Al Capones and Lucky Lucianos rose to power. People still demanded alcohol obviously, thus making organized crime rich beyond belief.
i've been told the kennedys got some wealth through boot legging in the past. i wonder how many prominent figures started out in things that were illegal then or illegal now....

[Ace High]

Yeah but workers in the underground economy can't organize. Illegality doesn't remove something from capitalist relations, just from state laws and regulations. There's still wage slavery in the underground markets - if fact sometimes it is more like forced slavery.

Immigration, drugs, prostitution should be brought into the open so that migrant workers, drug-users and drug market workers, and prostitutes will be able to at least speak out without automatically reciving the wrath of the state; it would also free these groups from the extra-exploitation and potential for abuse of being in a hidden market.

That is a very good point. Although, regulated markets also engage in forced slavery outside the country where it's regulated. I mean, all the industries that outsource to third world countries and force the people there into slavery could also be joined by the weed industry if it became legal. Although, legalizing it would cripple the cartels down south, which is more of my concern.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Although, legalizing it would cripple the cartels down south, which is more of my concern.
Yeah if drugs were legalized or decriminalized in the u.s. it would have a huge impact in Mexico. Maybe an initially destabilizing impact, but it would take a huge amount of pressure off of people stuck between the violence of the drug trade and the u.s. imperialism.

[Ace High]

Yeah if drugs were legalized or decriminalized in the u.s. it would have a huge impact in Mexico. Maybe an initially destabilizing impact, but it would take a huge amount of pressure off of people stuck between the violence of the drug trade and the u.s. imperialism.

Yeah, that, along with free trade (NAFTA) are pretty much the biggest obstacles keeping Mexico from rebuilding. Of course imperialism is the biggest factor which encompasses those two factors, and it won't completely help, but it will definitely do something. It is a bit concerning when members of cartels such as the Zetas will literally walk up to a murder scene with police all around, and move the dead body to another location. That's how much immunity they have and it is scary.

[DudeImNeo]

i dont think you guys are getting tha point..yall say that you would like to know what goes into your product.....thas tha whole point ! Once tha govt gets a hold of our natural herbs, we WONT know what tha hell is in our product. They will use all types of hormones n chemicals to be able to harvest mass amounts at a time so they can continue pumpin buds into this ever growing market (weeds tha new trend now i guess). Although tha percentage of kids smokin for tha cool points wont know tha difference, legalization will REALLY affect those that DO. RIGHT NOW, u KNOW whats in your product. Sunshine or UV Lights, Water, and NUTRIENTS. NOT hormones. Nutrients. Im sure there are growers out there that be using pesticides and whatever else but from what i see, growers try their best to keep it NATURAL-tha biggest upside to this magical plant.

ALSO-this whole money shit is bullshit-how much money is being pumped into tha economy through clinics ? Yall think tha economy is not making money off weed because its not completely legalized yet ? THEY TAX THA FK OUT OF US ! We can keep our shop doors open as long as we pay tha city-CMAN. If this was non-profit howtf do we pay tha city ? These fools can pick a random day to come in n we get taxed for EACH employee in tha shop-but once we pay, tha police leave us alone ? OH but if we DONT pay then its tha DEA ? And WHY ws so many shops closed down, but SOME remained open ? You know how much we gotta PAY to be one of those open shops ? Ha its aaall a money scheme they know exactly what they doing and they comin up fat-they're just waiting until they dont make as much as they want to off tha weed-game.. THEN They'll fULLY legalize-n when THAT happens...tha sheeple that have fallen prey to tha smoke-ta-be-cool trend will give em that huge money-boost they been lookin for

[NeonTrotski]

Shouldn't we object to the expansion of state power in almost every circumstance?
Why would we be tolerant of the imperialist state regulating our drugs. Or plants or whatever.

[Goblin]

Legalisation = less crime. Though i don´t understand why everyone talks about legalizing weed. I think legalizing the harder stuff (heroin/cocaine etc) is way more important. Legalizing it would make life much easier for those who are addicted. Heroin withdrawals can actually kill you. A lot of heroin addicts actually die in jail because of withdrawals.

[Ace High]

Legalisation = less crime. Though i don´t understand why everyone talks about legalizing weed. I think legalizing the harder stuff (heroin/cocaine etc) is way more important. Legalizing it would make life much easier for those who are addicted. Heroin withdrawals can actually kill you. A lot of heroin addicts actually die in jail because of withdrawals.

You're right, but would you really be open to allowing the open sale of heroin and cocaine? What they need to do is quit treating addicts like criminals. I would support something like what they are doing in Switzerland, among other countries, where addicts can come to a sanitary facility to shoot up in a safe environment. But that means decriminalizing it, not legalizing it. Legalization means, anybody can walk into a local shop and buy some heroin. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

[NeonTrotski]

Not necessarily. It's legal in the US to grow a personal tobacco supply but almost nobody does it despite millions of people smoking.

Tobacco is notoriously difficult to grow. Its pretty particular to certain climates similar to coffee. As well processing into usable product is fairly toxic and a long process.
There are several cases where migrant workers have dropped dead in the field from nicotine poisoning.

[Goblin]

You're right, but would you really be open to allowing the open sale of heroin and cocaine? What they need to do is quit treating addicts like criminals. I would support something like what they are doing in Switzerland, among other countries, where addicts can come to a sanitary facility to shoot up in a safe environment. But that means decriminalizing it, not legalizing it. Legalization means, anybody can walk into a local shop and buy some heroin. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
I think legalizing it would work just fine. If i gave you a bag of heroin and asked you to shoot it up, would you do it? Of course not, because you know the effects of it. No one in their right mind would shoot up heroin.

And if it was sold in shops (most likely in pharmacies), it would have an age limit on it so kids wouldn´t get their hands on it. Im not sure how it is where you live, but the dealers here in Norway are notorious for selling dope to kids in their early teens. Most heroin addicts over here started using heroin when they were teenagers.

[NeonTrotski]

i dont think you guys are getting tha point..yall say that you would like to know what goes into your product.....thas tha whole point ! Once tha govt gets a hold of our natural herbs, we WONT know what tha hell is in our product. They will use all types of hormones n chemicals to be able to harvest mass amounts at a time so they can continue pumpin buds into this ever growing market (weeds tha new trend now i guess). Although tha percentage of kids smokin for tha cool points wont know tha difference, legalization will REALLY affect those that DO. RIGHT NOW, u KNOW whats in your product. Sunshine or UV Lights, Water, and NUTRIENTS. NOT hormones. Nutrients. Im sure there are growers out there that be using pesticides and whatever else but from what i see, growers try their best to keep it NATURAL-tha biggest upside to this magical plant.

ALSO-this whole money shit is bullshit-how much money is being pumped into tha economy through clinics ? Yall think tha economy is not making money off weed because its not completely legalized yet ? THEY TAX THA FK OUT OF US ! We can keep our shop doors open as long as we pay tha city-CMAN. If this was non-profit howtf do we pay tha city ? These fools can pick a random day to come in n we get taxed for EACH employee in tha shop-but once we pay, tha police leave us alone ? OH but if we DONT pay then its tha DEA ? And WHY ws so many shops closed down, but SOME remained open ? You know how much we gotta PAY to be one of those open shops ? Ha its aaall a money scheme they know exactly what they doing and they comin up fat-they're just waiting until they dont make as much as they want to off tha weed-game.. THEN They'll fULLY legalize-n when THAT happens...tha sheeple that have fallen prey to tha smoke-ta-be-cool trend will give em that huge money-boost they been lookin for

This is pretty close to the situation in Michigan.

[Ace High]

I think legalizing it would work just fine. If i gave you a bag of heroin and asked you to shoot it up, would you do it? Of course not, because you know the effects of it. No one in their right mind would shoot up heroin.

And if it was sold in shops (pharmacies), it would have an age limit on it so kids wouldn´t get their hands on it. Im not sure how it is where you live, but the dealers here in Norway are notorious for selling dope to kids in their early teens. Most heroin addicts over here started using heroin when they were teenagers.

I actually completely agree with that logic. For me, it's not necessarily that I think it will create more addicts. Because you're right, anyone in their right mind is not going to go do heroin, knowing the consequences. That's not my issue. My issue is more along the lines of, why do we need this as an industry? Heroin literally has nothing but negative outcomes. So how on earth would that industry benefit a functioning society? Why not just quit throwing addicts in jail, get them help, and set up clinics for them to shoot up? Having "heroin stores" is just a waste of labor and resources that could go towards benefiting something in society.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Legalisation = less crime. Though i don´t understand why everyone talks about legalizing weed. I think legalizing the harder stuff (heroin/cocaine etc) is way more important. Legalizing it would make life much easier for those who are addicted. Heroin withdrawals can actually kill you. A lot of heroin addicts actually die in jail because of withdrawals.

Baby steps, comrade. These things take time.

But I do completely agree with you. I'm pretty open about the fact that I believe in legalizing all known drugs...and I say this, being a pharmacy technician whose seen his share of methheads trying to pull a smurfing operation to get cough medicine.

[NeonTrotski]

Why is the argument about whether the capitalist overlords should or shouldn't regulate our personal choices but rather shouldn't we object any expansion of state power?

How can one advocate revolution yet condone any expansion of state power?

[d3crypt]

Why is the argument about whether the capitalist overlords should or shouldn't regulate our personal choices but rather shouldn't we object any expansion of state power?

How can one advocate revolution yet condone any expansion of state power?

It would lower the amount of people in jail. So it would lower state power. Plus drugs would be safer.

[blake 3:17]

Uruguay Takes Historic Step Toward Becoming First Country to Legally Regulate Marijuana

Marijuana Regulation Bill Passes Lower House, Moves on to Senate

Initiative Reflects Broad Political Shift as Latin American Countries Seek Alternatives to Drug Prohibition and the War on Drugs

On Wednesday, the Uruguayan House of Representatives approved a bill to legally regulate marijuana. Passing with 50 out of 96 votes, the bill now goes to the Senate. If approved by the Senate, Uruguay will become the first country in the world to legally regulate the production, distribution and sale of marijuana.

The marijuana legalization proposal was put forward by President José Mujica of the Frente Amplio (Broad Front) last June as part of a 15-measure package aimed at fighting crime and public insecurity. The bill allows three forms of access to marijuana: domestic cultivation of 6 plants, membership clubs similar to those found in Spain, and licensed sale in pharmacies. It also prohibits sales to minors, driving under the influence, and all forms of advertising.

In the year since Mujica announced the proposal, support for the initiative has risen among diverse sectors of Uruguayan society. A national TV ad campaign, featuring a mother, a doctor, and a lawyer explaining the measure's benefits on public safety and health – has reached hundreds of thousands of Uruguayans. Regulación Responsable (“Responsible Regulation”), the coalition of prominent Uruguayan organizations and individuals that support the initiative, has held events around the country, sparking debate at all levels. LGBT, women’s rights, health, student, environmental and human rights organizations have all united to support Regulación Responsable, alongside trade unions, doctors, musicians, lawyers, athletes, writers, actors and academics.

Mujica and a growing chorus of current and former Latin American political leaders are contending that legal regulation will separate marijuana users from the offer of more dangerous drugs on the black market, allow access to medical marijuana for patients in need, and enable Uruguay to reinvest the millions of dollars now flowing into the pockets of drug traffickers into education, treatment and prevention of problematic drug use. The bill represents an adjustment to fix a contradiction in Uruguayan law, where the use of marijuana and all other drugs is legal – but the production, distribution and sale are penalized. As a result, the country has a substantial black market for drugs and has suffered from an escalating prohibition-related violence.

“At the heart of the Uruguayan marijuana regulation bill is a focus on improving public health and public safety,” said Hannah Hetzer, who is based out of Montevideo, Uruguay, as the Policy Manager of the Americas for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Instead of closing their eyes to the problem of drug abuse and drug trafficking, Uruguay is taking an important step towards responsible regulation of an existing reality.”

In recent years, debate and political will for drug policy reform has gained unprecedented momentum in Latin America. In 2011, Kofi Annan, Paul Volcker and Richard Branson joined former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), César Gaviria (Colombia) and Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico) and other distinguished members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy in saying the time had come to “break the taboo” on exploring alternatives to the failed war on drugs – and to “encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs,” especially marijuana.

More recently, current presidents Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia, Otto Perez Molina in Guatemala, and José Mujica in Uruguay have joined these calls for reform. In May, the Organization of American States produced a report, commissioned by heads of state of the region, that included marijuana legalization as a likely policy alternative. The OAS report predicted a likely hemispheric move towards marijuana legalization in the coming years.

“Sometimes small countries do great things,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Uruguay’s bold move does more than follow in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington. It provides a model for legally regulating marijuana that other countries, and U.S. states, will want to consider – and a precedent that will embolden others to follow in their footsteps.”

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2013/07/uruguay-takes-historic-step-toward-becoming-first-country-legally-regulate-marijuana

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

You're right, but would you really be open to allowing the open sale of heroin and cocaine? What they need to do is quit treating addicts like criminals. I would support something like what they are doing in Switzerland, among other countries, where addicts can come to a sanitary facility to shoot up in a safe environment. But that means decriminalizing it, not legalizing it. Legalization means, anybody can walk into a local shop and buy some heroin. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
it would have to be regulated, democratically of course.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I actually completely agree with that logic. For me, it's not necessarily that I think it will create more addicts. Because you're right, anyone in their right mind is not going to go do heroin, knowing the consequences. That's not my issue. My issue is more along the lines of, why do we need this as an industry? Heroin literally has nothing but negative outcomes. So how on earth would that industry benefit a functioning society? Why not just quit throwing addicts in jail, get them help, and set up clinics for them to shoot up? Having "heroin stores" is just a waste of labor and resources that could go towards benefiting something in society.
heroin on its own is actually relatively safe, minus the addiction. the main problems come from addiction, the price of it, the stigma and the kind of scary world you have to go into to be able to get heroin.

i've flirted with it and its a scary world. if it was taken out of the hands of criminals and regulated safely and properly, there would be much less issue. don't forget that there are many health professionals who have access to clean smack and equipment and they have had stable heroin addictions for many years. the difference? they're not having to buy it on the street or buy it at all in fact, and they're in socio-economic positions that are respected.

i always say that we shouldn't blame the chemicals themselves, its just bourgeois mentality. chemicals are just chemicals, its the conditions that surround the production, distribution and consumption of these chemicals that is the problem. if someone falls into addiction, they need help and, scientifically speaking, its perfectly logical that someone could lead a healthy life while addicted if they were given adequate support. with education and harm reduction too, we would hope to limit the amount of people that fall into addiction in the first place. furthermore, there are, at least in my experience with addicts (my home town was full of them), the kind of addicts you see on the street normally come from quite terrible backgrounds and even have family histories with addiction so we also need to tackle the socio-economic conditions that are ripe for the formation of drug addicts so that they can get help before they fall into the cycle of addiction.

its way more complicated that keeping drugs illegal. as i say, don't blame the chemical but rather, how the chemical is treated. it will never go away, so minimize the harm that can be done through its usage and also acknowledge that there's a world of factors outside of the existence of the chemical itself which must be addressed.

[Sasha]

Methadon kills far more people than heroin

[DudeImNeo]

Heroine, crack, cocaine, all that, NO dude. How many people u know smoke weed n then wanna go rob a bank ? How many people get high n then wanna kill sumbody ? I truly believe weed increases tha peaces ha..of course people have been killed over MONEY in tha weedgame, forsure..but NO, crack aint tha same. N psycho, Thas true, but how many people abuse Methadone ? There are addicts that really WANT to get clean-this means they fk with methadone or suboxyns or whatever, n they use it CORRECTLY. If this means that you're hurting still, u trek thru. Methadone n suboxyns n other opiate based medications are supposed to just fill in your receptors-NOT get u HIGH-especially for baseheads. but alotta fools use methadone to get fkd up-Many up their dosage or just straight up go back to tha black because theyre hurting...but for tha people that REALLY WANT TO BE CLEAN-Methadone WORKS as a weener-offer (ha).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

heroin addicts always rob banks :laugh:

[Ace High]

heroin on its own is actually relatively safe, minus the addiction. the main problems come from addiction, the price of it, the stigma and the kind of scary world you have to go into to be able to get heroin.

i've flirted with it and its a scary world. if it was taken out of the hands of criminals and regulated safely and properly, there would be much less issue. don't forget that there are many health professionals who have access to clean smack and equipment and they have had stable heroin addictions for many years. the difference? they're not having to buy it on the street or buy it at all in fact, and they're in socio-economic positions that are respected.

i always say that we shouldn't blame the chemicals themselves, its just bourgeois mentality. chemicals are just chemicals, its the conditions that surround the production, distribution and consumption of these chemicals that is the problem. if someone falls into addiction, they need help and, scientifically speaking, its perfectly logical that someone could lead a healthy life while addicted if they were given adequate support. with education and harm reduction too, we would hope to limit the amount of people that fall into addiction in the first place. furthermore, there are, at least in my experience with addicts (my home town was full of them), the kind of addicts you see on the street normally come from quite terrible backgrounds and even have family histories with addiction so we also need to tackle the socio-economic conditions that are ripe for the formation of drug addicts so that they can get help before they fall into the cycle of addiction.

its way more complicated that keeping drugs illegal. as i say, don't blame the chemical but rather, how the chemical is treated. it will never go away, so minimize the harm that can be done through its usage and also acknowledge that there's a world of factors outside of the existence of the chemical itself which must be addressed.

I agree that it's not the drug itself. Trust me, I am aware and agree with everything you just said. Except you did admit that addicts need help right? Which insinuates that being addicted is always a bad thing. Never good, correct? And heroin is highly addictive. Sure, there are some strong-willed people who do it occasionally and are able to withstand it. I'm just saying, why offer that to the public? Honestly, I would not at all be opposed to allowing the growing of opium and the smoking of that and such. It's just, heroin is in a processed form specifically to be injected or snorted, and that is never healthy. Especially injecting. It's ridiculous to just allow the sale of heroin. Now, that doesn't mean we prosecute the common street dealer. We just crack down hard on heroin smuggling and simply treat addicts as human beings and get them help and allow them to shoot up. Because I am aware of many things about heroin, including that you can die of withdrawals and overdose. And the clinic could make sure they didn't succumb to either. So yeah.

[Sea]

Hmm.. Where did my post go? I hope nothing fishy is going on....

[southernmissfan]

I agree that it's not the drug itself. Trust me, I am aware and agree with everything you just said. Except you did admit that addicts need help right? Which insinuates that being addicted is always a bad thing. Never good, correct? And heroin is highly addictive. Sure, there are some strong-willed people who do it occasionally and are able to withstand it. I'm just saying, why offer that to the public? Honestly, I would not at all be opposed to allowing the growing of opium and the smoking of that and such. It's just, heroin is in a processed form specifically to be injected or snorted, and that is never healthy. Especially injecting. It's ridiculous to just allow the sale of heroin. Now, that doesn't mean we prosecute the common street dealer. We just crack down hard on heroin smuggling and simply treat addicts as human beings and get them help and allow them to shoot up. Because I am aware of many things about heroin, including that you can die of withdrawals and overdose. And the clinic could make sure they didn't succumb to either. So yeah.

Despite your understandable, though perhaps extreme, fear of heroin (and other "hard" drugs), it is no secret that the effects of the drug war and prohibition are and have been far worse than the effects of the "drugs" it seeks to prohibit. While your proposal is certainly better than the status quo, it is still flawed and could only ever be a partial solution, at least in my opinion. I agree with your sentiment on users: treatment should be easily and universially available, both users and addicts should be treated as human beings with dignity, safe places should be provided for use and should be centered around harm reduction. However, keeping the drug itself illegal leaves intact a variety of problems.

With production and distribution still in the black market, there would still be no purity controls (tainted product is one of the most dangerous aspects of illegal drugs), quality standards (leading to wide variance in potency and increasing risk of overdose), involvement of criminality (including cartels and gangs, having to buy from criminals, criminal subculture, etc.), lack of workplace/employment regulation (leading to poor conditions for laborers, lack of labor organization, etc.--thanks to Jimmie Higgins for this excellent point), and the continued involvement of the police state (there are probably more but that's all I can think of at the moment). While I agree that the large suppliers/producers are better targets than small street dealers, can we really trust the police state with this issue (or any issue)? We all know that corruption is an enormous problem currently and that would not change in this case either. We've also seen that big banks are laundering money for the cartels and profiting from the drug war (see the HSBC "scandal" that hardly garnered attention) and I don't see that stopping under your proposal either. "Going after the cartels and drug lords" has been a frequent excuse of American imperialism, as pointed out by several posters already. And don't forget that government agencies have themselves been aiding and abetting illegal drug production and distribution.

As far heroin, you are right that it is a powerful, addictive drug and certainly in a different category than a safe (which isn't the same as harmless) substance like cannabis. Not to beat a dead horse, but again, it's clear that the effects of the drug war and prohibition are worse than the drug itself. Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket has already covered it well. Most of the negatives associated with heroin use and addiction are the result of socioeconomic factors and the drug war/prohibition. Heroin itself can be safely used and heroin addiction can be safely managed, though there is certainly risk involved.

Several posters have already made great points and answered the question as to why a worker/leftist should care about this issue. Some of the reasons you should care include mass incarceration (that is incredibly biased by class and race), variety of other legal hardships for even relatively minor charges (thousands of dollars in fine, probation, loss of financial aid for college, hardship finding a job, etc.), justification for imperialism, justification for huge expansion of the police state and trampling of civil liberties (again, expressed in a biased way when it comes to class and race as well as used as a weapon to criminalize dissent and attack activists/radicals), misplaced spending (the drug war has cost billions of dollars), stigmatization of users and addicts, lack of access to treatment and medical help (no resources as well as legal fears), fear based propaganda rather than science driven and research based education, empowerment of brutal cartels and drug lords, impurity of product, lack of standards for quality and potency and yes, personal liberty. As an adult, you should have some autonomy when it comes to your own bloodstream. So yes, you should have a "right" to use cannabis if you so desire. It's certainly absurd to have a right to use certain substances varying in effects and risks (caffiene, tobacco, alcohol) but not a right to use others varying in effects and risks (cannabis, LSD, heroin). Human beings experiment with and use and yes, unfortunately sometimes become addicted to mind altering substances. This is a pattern of human behavior that is seen throughout our history and across the globe. To criminalize this behavior or deny the individual the right to regulate their own bloodstream strikes me as simply anti-human.

In my opinion, the Left's approach to drugs should be centered around the following things: 1) drug use and addiction as primarily a public health and safety issue, not a criminal issue, 2) education should be realistic, driven by science and medicine, based on research, centered on harm prevention and reduction, and widely available to all (especially users and addicts), 3) dismantling of the drug war, its imperialism, its legal justifications, its various structures within the police state, and its policy of discriminatory mass incarceration and legal punishment, 4) redirection of prohibition/drug war funds to pay for aforementioned education, universal access to rehab and treatment, and other harm reduction policies and measures, 5) begin righting the wrongs through release of drug offenders, removal of legal stigma, erasure of drug convictions, ending employment discrimination, economic assistance to those arrested as well as other victims of the drug war. We should also persist in providing a materialist explanation of drugs, their presence in society and the various factors at work while we our emphasizing harm reduction and respecting the humanity of users and addicts. We should advocate immediate decriminalization across the board as well as implementation of legalization and regulation across the board but varying in type and degree dependent upon the specifics of the substance. We should advocate science and research into these substances, not only to better understand them and their risks, but also to explore the rather huge potential of medical uses of substances like cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, etc. When it comes to cannabis specifically, it is non-toxic, safe (though not completely harmless), objectively better than alcohol when it comes to the health of the user as well as effects on society (particularly looking at reckless and violent behavior as well as unsafe driving), proven to have a variety of medical benefits and fairly low rate of "abuse." I know there are justifiable concerns about legalization and its prospects for big business getting involved. That's why we should be fighting to shape new legal production and distribution models in a different direction, based on things like local cooperatives and public clinics. In conclusion, to quote the Drug Policy Alliance, we should be "working to bring about drug policies based on science, compassion, health and human rights."

[Bostana]

I dont understand why so many people are gung-ho about legalizing.


Because the hypocrisy in keeping it illegal is so plain and obvious, and yet people are so oblivious to why it was made illegal in the first place.

[Ace High]

Despite your understandable, though perhaps extreme, fear of heroin (and other "hard" drugs), it is no secret that the effects of the drug war and prohibition are and have been far worse than the effects of the "drugs" it seeks to prohibit. While your proposal is certainly better than the status quo, it is still flawed and could only ever be a partial solution, at least in my opinion. I agree with your sentiment on users: treatment should be easily and universially available, both users and addicts should be treated as human beings with dignity, safe places should be provided for use and should be centered around harm reduction. However, keeping the drug itself illegal leaves intact a variety of problems.

With production and distribution still in the black market, there would still be no purity controls (tainted product is one of the most dangerous aspects of illegal drugs), quality standards (leading to wide variance in potency and increasing risk of overdose), involvement of criminality (including cartels and gangs, having to buy from criminals, criminal subculture, etc.), lack of workplace/employment regulation (leading to poor conditions for laborers, lack of labor organization, etc.--thanks to Jimmie Higgins for this excellent point), and the continued involvement of the police state (there are probably more but that's all I can think of at the moment). While I agree that the large suppliers/producers are better targets than small street dealers, can we really trust the police state with this issue (or any issue)? We all know that corruption is an enormous problem currently and that would not change in this case either. We've also seen that big banks are laundering money for the cartels and profiting from the drug war (see the HSBC "scandal" that hardly garnered attention) and I don't see that stopping under your proposal either. "Going after the cartels and drug lords" has been a frequent excuse of American imperialism, as pointed out by several posters already. And don't forget that government agencies have themselves been aiding and abetting illegal drug production and distribution.

As far heroin, you are right that it is a powerful, addictive drug and certainly in a different category than a safe (which isn't the same as harmless) substance like cannabis. Not to beat a dead horse, but again, it's clear that the effects of the drug war and prohibition are worse than the drug itself. Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket has already covered it well. Most of the negatives associated with heroin use and addiction are the result of socioeconomic factors and the drug war/prohibition. Heroin itself can be safely used and heroin addiction can be safely managed, though there is certainly risk involved.

Several posters have already made great points and answered the question as to why a worker/leftist should care about this issue. Some of the reasons you should care include mass incarceration (that is incredibly biased by class and race), variety of other legal hardships for even relatively minor charges (thousands of dollars in fine, probation, loss of financial aid for college, hardship finding a job, etc.), justification for imperialism, justification for huge expansion of the police state and trampling of civil liberties (again, expressed in a biased way when it comes to class and race as well as used as a weapon to criminalize dissent and attack activists/radicals), misplaced spending (the drug war has cost billions of dollars), stigmatization of users and addicts, lack of access to treatment and medical help (no resources as well as legal fears), fear based propaganda rather than science driven and research based education, empowerment of brutal cartels and drug lords, impurity of product, lack of standards for quality and potency and yes, personal liberty. As an adult, you should have some autonomy when it comes to your own bloodstream. So yes, you should have a "right" to use cannabis if you so desire. It's certainly absurd to have a right to use certain substances varying in effects and risks (caffiene, tobacco, alcohol) but not a right to use others varying in effects and risks (cannabis, LSD, heroin). Human beings experiment with and use and yes, unfortunately sometimes become addicted to mind altering substances. This is a pattern of human behavior that is seen throughout our history and across the globe. To criminalize this behavior or deny the individual the right to regulate their own bloodstream strikes me as simply anti-human.

In my opinion, the Left's approach to drugs should be centered around the following things: 1) drug use and addiction as primarily a public health and safety issue, not a criminal issue, 2) education should be realistic, driven by science and medicine, based on research, centered on harm prevention and reduction, and widely available to all (especially users and addicts), 3) dismantling of the drug war, its imperialism, its legal justifications, its various structures within the police state, and its policy of discriminatory mass incarceration and legal punishment, 4) redirection of prohibition/drug war funds to pay for aforementioned education, universal access to rehab and treatment, and other harm reduction policies and measures, 5) begin righting the wrongs through release of drug offenders, removal of legal stigma, erasure of drug convictions, ending employment discrimination, economic assistance to those arrested as well as other victims of the drug war. We should also persist in providing a materialist explanation of drugs, their presence in society and the various factors at work while we our emphasizing harm reduction and respecting the humanity of users and addicts. We should advocate immediate decriminalization across the board as well as implementation of legalization and regulation across the board but varying in type and degree dependent upon the specifics of the substance. We should advocate science and research into these substances, not only to better understand them and their risks, but also to explore the rather huge potential of medical uses of substances like cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, etc. When it comes to cannabis specifically, it is non-toxic, safe (though not completely harmless), objectively better than alcohol when it comes to the health of the user as well as effects on society (particularly looking at reckless and violent behavior as well as unsafe driving), proven to have a variety of medical benefits and fairly low rate of "abuse." I know there are justifiable concerns about legalization and its prospects for big business getting involved. That's why we should be fighting to shape new legal production and distribution models in a different direction, based on things like local cooperatives and public clinics. In conclusion, to quote the Drug Policy Alliance, we should be "working to bring about drug policies based on science, compassion, health and human rights."

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. Literally my only point was that we shouldn't have shops and stuff selling heroin. Like I said in my earlier posts, I am definitely all for ending the drug war and freeing people convicted of drug offenses. I agree with literally all of that. The ONE thing I don't think is necessary are shops selling heroin. NOT because I think it will produce more users but because, what does that contribute to society?

I would love to have shops with cannabis, LSD, shrooms, and mescaline because those have both mental and physical health benefits. But heroin, cocaine, crack? Do you want wasted resources on selling that stuff? I don't want a crack store down the street from my house! That is what legalization of those drugs will do is put shops up. If you get addicted to heroin, that's fine, you'll be treated with respect and dignity. But that doesn't mean we should just be all "yeah, bring in the meth and the crack and the coke, open up some shops". That's just insane!

[blake 3:17]

I would love to have shops with cannabis, LSD, shrooms, and mescaline because those have both mental and physical health benefits. But heroin, cocaine, crack? Do you want wasted resources on selling that stuff? I don't want a crack store down the street from my house! That is what legalization of those drugs will do is put shops up. If you get addicted to heroin, that's fine, you'll be treated with respect and dignity. But that doesn't mean we should just be all "yeah, bring in the meth and the crack and the coke, open up some shops". That's just insane!

There's been some pretty sane policy proposals put forward that would do something like that. One model -- the one that makes the most sense to me -- would be put relatively small amounts of coke and meth available at some pharmacies for purchase by 'responsible' adults. Just enough for a couple of friends to enjoy an evening without getting crazy.

That could work in some places. Might not in others.

[blake 3:17]

Hmm.. Where did my post go? I hope nothing fishy is going on....

I don't think so. Posts do disappear -- I've lost a few recently as well as double posting. Most likely a glitch.

[Ace High]

There's been some pretty sane policy proposals put forward that would do something like that. One model -- the one that makes the most sense to me -- would be put relatively small amounts of coke and meth available at some pharmacies for purchase by 'responsible' adults. Just enough for a couple of friends to enjoy an evening without getting crazy.

That could work in some places. Might not in others.

Yeah see now that I can totally agree with. That seems reasonable because it is controlled while still allowing people to make their own decisions if they want to try some drugs.

EDIT: Lol, that kind of sounded sarcastic the way I worded it, it's not though.

[blake 3:17]

Yeah see now that I can totally agree with. That seems reasonable because it is controlled while still allowing people to make their own decisions if they want to try some drugs.

EDIT: Lol, that kind of sounded sarcastic the way I worded it, it's not though.

And that's just an idea or possible model. For some of the harder drugs, and stimulant drugs have a quicker psychological addiction than others -- now, MORE AGAIN AGAIN -- MORE MORE -- there can be ways of having them available to recreational users to use responsibly and safely.

A dear friend has been a speed/meth/coke/crack user for a long time, and had a lot of other issues to deal with, and for a brief period was prescribed dexedrine. I'd never seen him so even. Even if he was doing meth, his tolerance was at a baseline, so didn't get so high and so nuts, and could just stop. Then they took him off the dex and he was back to do doing street speed and went off the rails.

[Ace High]

And that's just an idea or possible model. For some of the harder drugs, and stimulant drugs have a quicker psychological addiction than others -- now, MORE AGAIN AGAIN -- MORE MORE -- there can be ways of having them available to recreational users to use responsibly and safely.

A dear friend has been a speed/meth/coke/crack user for a long time, and had a lot of other issues to deal with, and for a brief period was prescribed dexedrine. I'd never seen him so even. Even if he was doing meth, his tolerance was at a baseline, so didn't get so high and so nuts, and could just stop. Then they took him off the dex and he was back to do doing street speed and went off the rails.

Really?? Wow, I have never heard of dexedrine, what is its official stated purpose by the medical community? Because honestly if a drug like that exists, that makes dangerous drugs like meth/coke, etc, a LOT less dangerous.

[Chop_Sugar_Cane_Dem]

A lot of people are not for legalization still you know, and not just for religious reasons.

[blake 3:17]

Really?? Wow, I have never heard of dexedrine, what is its official stated purpose by the medical community? Because honestly if a drug like that exists, that makes dangerous drugs like meth/coke, etc, a LOT less dangerous.

He got it for ADD -- around age 40. It's history is really fascinating.

Dexedrine is the right isomer of benzedrine, the first commercially produced and available amphetamine. Dex was used widely as an anti-depressant, a diet pill, a war pill, a study pill. Much of the North American understanding conception of depression as illness is actually related to the marketing of amphetamines in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.

It's a lovely buzz, better than the others, but only for short terms.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Really?? Wow, I have never heard of dexedrine, what is its official stated purpose by the medical community? Because honestly if a drug like that exists, that makes dangerous drugs like meth/coke, etc, a LOT less dangerous.
It's adderall, dextroamphetamine. Extended release version is marketed as vyvanse.

[Ace High]

It's adderall, dextroamphetamine. Extended release version is marketed as vyvanse.

OH yeah I know vyvanse! Ok that solves that, interesting.


He got it for ADD -- around age 40. It's history is really fascinating.

Dexedrine is the right isomer of benzedrine, the first commercially produced and available amphetamine. Dex was used widely as an anti-depressant, a diet pill, a war pill, a study pill. Much of the North American understanding conception of depression as illness is actually related to the marketing of amphetamines in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.

It's a lovely buzz, better than the others, but only for short terms.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/

Ah, so that makes sense then why it satisfied your friend. I hate how that ADD stuff is perscribed to literally everyone now, although it really helps me do my schoolwork. :o

[Jimmie Higgins]

A lot of people are not for legalization still you know, and not just for religious reasons.

Well a lot of people are not for communism. But really I think a lot of people are not for it just because addiction is a problem within capitalism. It's hard enough to survive without an expensive and time-consuming black-market addiction. People don't have stability in their lives and so supporting drug-prohibition can seem like a way to control wildness on the streets or irradic behavior from people, or a way to prevent people you love from self-destructing.

But, these are all problems more or less specific to life under capitalism. I think even for the capitalists, to a certain extent they are trying to solve a real problem from their perspective, except their problem is that it's hard to get people to work really hard and consistantly if they are strung out or crashing or hungover/drunk all the time. For us it's a problem of the lives of people around us getting destroyed, but it's not the same for our rulers, so they don't mind destroying some lives if it means diciplining everyone else.

Add to that the specific ideological applications of the war on drugs and various "moral" movements to control the population and you get a policy that the ruling class just can't kick.


Hmm.. Where did my post go? I hope nothing fishy is going on....I hocked it for a score.