Drugs?

[Kris]

Do any of you support/oppose drug-use? What about weed or other soft-drugs? Or what do you think about harder drugs like heroin or coke? Would drugs have any place in an anarchist society?

[ARomanCandle]

I don't support or oppose drug use. It's a personal choice and should not be legislated.

I'm sure caffeine, booze, weed, etc. would be produced in an anarchist society.

Hard drugs are more difficult. Problems stemming from their use should be considered a social problem, and not a criminal one. The use of such drugs should be decriminalized. I'm not sure what to do about the manufacturing/sale under the current system though.

[Bala Perdida]

Do any of you support/oppose drug-use? What about weed or other soft-drugs? Or what do you think about harder drugs like heroin or coke? Would drugs have any place in an anarchist society?
I don't support using drugs, but I'm not against it if you want to do it. As long as it is controlled, and doesn't become a dependency. Soft drugs I think are okay, I mean tobacco itself without added crap doesn't seem too harmful. Marijuana is definitely okay with me, just casual like beer or tobacco. Just avoid operating machinery under the influence and stuff like that. Harder drugs have some medical uses, but recreational use I discourage since it leads to an addiction disease. The disease should then be treated, and the society should at least provide clean drugs for then to use to not suffer withdrawal to hard. I heard they have something like that with heroin in Canada. I think drugs would have a far less demonized view in an anarchist society. They might be soft and seen as just a small vice, or if they're hard they will be viewed in a similar way to a woman taking a tape worm today.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Do any of you support/oppose drug-use? What about weed or other soft-drugs? Or what do you think about harder drugs like heroin or coke? Would drugs have any place in an anarchist society?

I don't do drugs, I am drugs.

I support the legalization of all substances but in particular cocaine and heroin for medicinal and recreational use. Of course they would have a place in anarchy.

[tachosomoza]

Considering that the abolition of the bourgeois state means that racist and classist laws like American drug laws will also be abolished, yes, use of previously controlled substances should and will not be an issue.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If draconian laws and protracted wars have not been enough to stop drug use, it's safe to assume that drug use would continue to exist in a world lacking these things. I'm not aware of a culture existing or dead that did not indulge in drug use, whether ritualistic or recreational. Humans do drugs, thats just the way it is. The only reasonable approach to this issue is to say that humans should do drugs that are clean and safe, and they should be able to use those drugs in an environment that is clean and safe as well. That's pretty much it

[Goblin]

If people wanna do drugs, thats their business. I think this whole war on drugs does more damage than good to be honest. I do support the legalization of all drugs, especially the heavier ones (heroin, cocaine, (meth)amphetamines, etc). Addiction is a disease, not a crime.

As for my own personal view on drugs: I used to do opiates/opioids, benzos and some psychedelics, though these days i don't really use anything. Drugs, just like religion, is petty escapism, a false happiness that just pushes you further down the dark abyss we call life.

[Captain Red]

Heavy drugs wouldn't really be a problem in an anarchist society seeing how there would not be any accumulation of achieving capital. Drugs would only be used either recreational or for medicine. And if you would use the drug to escape reality the drug itself really isn't the issue, even though it might lead to bigger problems later on.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think drugs are mostly damaging but it should not be a crime. It is their business and their body although for the harder-drugs I surely don't condone it.
Legalize it, fuck the drug-war.

[edwad]

I feel like most drugs are pretty useless in communist society. without a profit incentive to mass produce them and a lack of fetishization in the media, most people would probably stop using drugs and the next generation probably wouldn't know/care that they exist. on top of that, many people use drugs as a way to escape their physical circumstances, and I would hope that communism wouldn't be as stressful as capitalism (which means less people using drugs as a way of coping). I don't really mind if people do drugs as long as they do them safely, but I would think that a communist society would probably self-regulate many of them out of existence. I could be wrong (I probably am).

on the other hand, drugs would probably be safer in a post-capitalist society because no ones cutting corners to maximize profit, so maybe they'd stick around.

who knows (not me)

[Rosa Partizan]

I feel like most drugs are pretty useless in communist society. without a profit incentive to mass produce them and a lack of fetishization in the media, most people would probably stop using drugs and the next generation probably wouldn't know/care that they exist. on top of that, many people use drugs as a way to escape their physical circumstances, and I would hope that communism wouldn't be as stressful as capitalism (which means less people using drugs as a way of coping). I don't really mind if people do drugs as long as they do them safely, but I would think that a communist society would probably self-regulate many of them out of existence. I could be wrong (I probably am).

on the other hand, drugs would probably be safer in a post-capitalist society because no ones cutting corners to maximize profit, so maybe they'd stick around.

who knows (not me)

yeah, that's what I was thinking, too.

I guess in some ways it would be better to legalize them. Production could be controlled, meaning that no shit would be mixed in them, this whole drug cartel thing and the temptation of doing something prohibited would be put aside and so on. However, people shoud be educated about all the risks and chances of getting addicted. As for myself, I'm not interested in any of these and I'm glad that my environment has nothing do to with them. I don't know why, but I find all these party drug-doers so totally repulsive and I don't wanna get involved in that.

[Creative Destruction]

Do any of you support/oppose drug-use? What about weed or other soft-drugs? Or what do you think about harder drugs like heroin or coke? Would drugs have any place in an anarchist society?

i can't speak for whether they would have a place in any future society (though, the Zapatista controlled areas of Chiapas have banned drugs, but i think this is more in a response to drug running by cartels). however, while i don't "support" the use of drugs, they may have their time and place. i certainly don't oppose it if used in a careful way, but i also don't support any laws against it.

really, the only drug i would consider "outlawing" is methamphetamine and that's simply because of the literally, incredibly toxic environment it creates when in production. in this case, though, i'd only track down the producers, same as if anyone else was using incredibly toxic and volatile shit that had a high chance of exploding and killing everyone in the building. i'm against harassing the users.

[Creative Destruction]

I feel like most drugs are pretty useless in communist society. without a profit incentive to mass produce them and a lack of fetishization in the media, most people would probably stop using drugs and the next generation probably wouldn't know/care that they exist. on top of that, many people use drugs as a way to escape their physical circumstances, and I would hope that communism wouldn't be as stressful as capitalism (which means less people using drugs as a way of coping). I don't really mind if people do drugs as long as they do them safely, but I would think that a communist society would probably self-regulate many of them out of existence. I could be wrong (I probably am).

on the other hand, drugs would probably be safer in a post-capitalist society because no ones cutting corners to maximize profit, so maybe they'd stick around.

who knows (not me)

this is incredibly naive and completely ignores the fact that drugs have been in use by humans way longer than the capitalism has even been around. what a good and interesting argument might be is to interrogate whether addiction rates would go down.

but the idea that drugs are used almost solely to escape shitty physical realities caused by capitalism doesn't stand to reason at all, since drug use is a cross-class phenomenon. that is just one use. what usually matters is what types of drugs people are using and how they're subject to the legal system if caught.

as a personal example, i smoked a ton of pot to get away from a shitty homelife, but i also smoked it because it was fun to do. i was also really into hallucinogens, but that was purely because they were fun and edifying to some extent. i'm still interested in what DMT may be like, but that has nothing to do with my dislike of capitalism. it has to do with me wanting to see some motherfucking machine elves. so, it's a mixed bag. everyone has different reasons for doing drugs and it's not monolithic.

[Rosa Partizan]

this is incredibly naive and completely the fact that drugs have been in use by humans way longer than the capitalism has even been around. what a good and interesting argument might be is to interrogate whether addiction rates would go down.

but the idea that drugs are used almost solely to escape shitty physical realities doesn't stand at all, since drug use is a cross-class phenomenon. that is just one use. what usually matters is what types of drugs people are using and how they're subject to the legal system if caught.

as a personal example, i smoked a ton of pot to get away from a shitty homelife, but i also smoked it because it was fun to do. i was also really into hallucinogens, but that was purely because they were fun and edifying to some extent. i'm still interested in what DMT may be like, but that has nothing to do with my dislike of capitalism. so, it's a mixed bag. everyone has different reasons for doing drugs and it's not monolithic.

but he said "many people", which by far does not equal "all people".

[Creative Destruction]

but he said "many people", which by far does not equal "all people".

then that's not really useful as analysis. how many people? some do, some don't. even in individual cases, it's hard to get a handle on the reasons for people to do drugs since they can be used for so many different reasons. but, nonetheless, he did say "many" and not "all". he did say that "most" people would just stop using drugs because production would stop because there'd be no profit motive, but i don't think that would be the case at all. as much as there is profit involved in it, there's still exists the reason that people simply like to use drugs, and many drugs (like marijuana) can be grown with very little resources and in a very short amount of time. if you live in an area with sunshine and at least some what decent soil, it's just as easy, if not easier, to grow pot as it is to grow tomatoes. there's tons of info out there on how to process and manufacture drugs, as well. it's actually a pretty open source thing.

[synthesis]

For various reasons, I took the same dose of Vicodin (10mg) everyday for two years, with an average of two days off per week. Then when I was no longer able to get it, I found other sources of oxycodone, which to me is a much more addictive but also less pleasant drug. Then I got busted and did court-ordered rehab, where I met people who would later get me Fentanyl, hydromorphone and heroin. Whatever my other observations are about this process, I am personally absolutely sure that I never would have had access or desire for access to anything other than Vicodin if I had been able to continue getting it legitimately.

If social welfare is a bandaid on the oozing wounds of capitalist society, the criminalization of drugs is the rubbing of salt into those wounds.

[edwad]

then that's not really useful as analysis. how many people? some do, some don't. even in individual cases, it's hard to get a handle on the reasons for people to do drugs since they can be used for so many different reasons. but, nonetheless, he did say "many" and not "all". he did say that "most" people would just stop using drugs because production would stop because there'd be no profit motive, but i don't think that would be the case at all. as much as there is profit involved in it, there's still exists the reason that people simply like to use drugs, and many drugs (like marijuana) can be grown with very little resources and in a very short amount of time. if you live in an area with sunshine and at least some what decent soil, it's just as easy, if not easier, to grow pot as it is to grow tomatoes. there's tons of info out there on how to process and manufacture drugs, as well. it's actually a pretty open source thing.

sure but I said "most drugs" and since weed is not most drugs I think it's fairly obvious that a counterargument using one of the most mild drugs out there might make my point seem invalid, but I said "most drugs" for a reason. sure it's easy to grow pot and I think that it will probably be around for quite a while, but I was really referring to harder drugs that aren't so easy to make. sure the information might be out there, but are people really going to go through all of the trouble in manufacturing these drugs to try it? I can see weed, but harder drugs will probably not be used by nearly as many people for the reasons I mentioned above, and that you even agreed with to an extent, which means fewer people introduced to the drug (meaning eventually it's logical to assume that such drugs will be nearly nonexistent). I think it's silly to ignore that drugs are especially a problem for people in poverty, so although middle class teens might be smoking pot every now and then, will they dip into heroin and more extreme drugs without some push? in most cases I would think not, and the abolition of classes would remove a lot of the socioeconomic problems that create the drug issues that we have today.

to reply to your other post, sure drugs have been around for a long time, but I think that just because something has been doesn't mean it always will be. that kind of blanket inevitability is useless for us as people who believe in radical social change and the history of drug use for things like religious purposes probably won't be much of a problem for many people in the post-capitalist world if you agree with marx about religion.

[synthesis]

So people won't need pain medication after the revolution? If I remember correctly, Fentanyl is something like eighty times stronger, per milligram, than pure heroin, and for some terminally ill patients, even that's not enough.

Also, everyone who wants to discuss why drug abuse occurs should acquaint themselves with the famous Rat Park experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park) if they are not already, where it was shown that given a choice between plain water and water laced with morphine, rats in cages would self-medicate to the point of self-harm, whereas the ones in "Rat Park," where they had plenty of space to move around, lots of other rats with which to socialize, and space for mating and recreation, wouldn't go near the morphine-laced water; it was only when they added Naloxone, which negates the effects of opiates, to the morphine water that the Rat Park citizens would go near it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I feel like most drugs are pretty useless in communist society. without a profit incentive to mass produce them and a lack of fetishization in the media, most people would probably stop using drugs and the next generation probably wouldn't know/care that they exist. on top of that, many people use drugs as a way to escape their physical circumstances, and I would hope that communism wouldn't be as stressful as capitalism (which means less people using drugs as a way of coping).

Based on my own experiences I don't agree with this. I always did drugs in the past because it was fun. But at the same time I didn't slip into a crushing depression or immediately think "I NEED MORE DRUGS!" when I ran out (although some comedowns aren't all that fun). I'd just shrug, think "that was fun" & move on with life. It was just a hobby which, like all hobbies, depended largely on my income level & motivation at the time. I realize that some people get caught in the trap, but for me there was always a lot of things that I valued much more than drugs.

[Slavic]

As long as you don't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, drugs of all sorts should be legalized. Keep it to the individual; as soon as you drive a car or handle a machine on the factory floor then it becomes a social not an individual issue.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I say, fuck producing hard drugs for anything besides medical purposes. Why should we waste our resources producing coke and meth just so people can go to a party or a club or a market to rearrange the stuff on the shelves?

I say just let people grow shit. Pot, mushrooms, mescaline, opium, whatever. You wanna grow those drugs, fine. I myself am a huge fan of pot. But I don't want our resources going to mass producing meth and shit.

Now, producing hard drugs for medical purposes is fine. Although some have ZERO medical benefit such as meth and pcp. But coke and heroin do, so that's fine. And if someone is already addicted to those drugs, they should be able to get dosages for free at clinics. If someone is caught doing meth or something, no problem. Although they should probably go to rehab. BUT people synthesizing meth privately should be severely punished as it is a danger to those around them due to the possibility of explosions.

As with lsd, I think that has a lot of potential but you can't grow it and it would be a bit risky for people to independently try to synthesize it from lysergic acid. So with that, it's a grey area. Dmt falls into a similar category. I still oppose mass production because, again, we need to feed and house people and distribute more important resources.

[Sea]

Pot is okay but isn't very exciting. I love opiates. I haven't gotten high in a few years though. It's more satisfying growing and caring for and smoking or extracting some strange obscure psychoactive plant than just eating a few pills or doing a CWE on them though, even if the high is really dull by comparison. Haven't had the time to use psychedelics in any serious way. Downers can be nice, and I used to think of the as the holy grail, but now that my life is less stressful than a few years ago I'm starting to think they're kinda dumb.
I say, fuck producing hard drugs for anything besides medical purposes. Why should we waste our resources producing coke and meth just so people can go to a party or a club or a market to rearrange the stuff on the shelves?

I say just let people grow shit. Pot, mushrooms, mescaline, opium, whatever. You wanna grow those drugs, fine. I myself am a huge fan of pot. But I don't want our resources going to mass producing meth and shit.

Now, producing hard drugs for medical purposes is fine. Although some have ZERO medical benefit such as meth and pcp. But coke and heroin do, so that's fine. And if someone is already addicted to those drugs, they should be able to get dosages for free at clinics. If someone is caught doing meth or something, no problem. Although they should probably go to rehab. BUT people synthesizing meth privately should be severely punished as it is a danger to those around them due to the possibility of explosions.

As with lsd, I think that has a lot of potential but you can't grow it and it would be a bit risky for people to independently try to synthesize it from lysergic acid. So with that, it's a grey area. Dmt falls into a similar category. I still oppose mass production because, again, we need to feed and house people and distribute more important resources.I think your priorities are out of order. Oh, and synthesizing meth is a lot more dangerous than it has to be. I'm not going to fact-check your statements because you can do that on your own.

google is just right over there ------>

edit: fuck it, you're so wrong I can't help myself.

1. If you're going off DEA schedules to determine "medical benefits" (given the way you lump coke and heroin together it seems like you are), you need to do some research. Meth is used clinically to this day. Heroin is not.

2. DMT is present in many plants, including some strains of this stuff (http://courses.missouristate.edu/pbtrewatha/Reed_Canarygrass1.jpg) that grows on the side of the fucking road. Synthesis is unneeded. As for LSD, it's easier (less hard) to make it from ergot than LSA. In either case, LSD is semi-synthetic, not synthetic. This is one of those times where vulgar your "wasting resources" shit contradicts with your "(semi-)synthetics are baad mmkay" shit.

3. Take your "XYZ people should be severely punished" crap and give it to your local congressperson because we don't want it here. There are many man y ways to make meth, doofus, and they're not all equally unsafe. In a controlled industrial environment, making meth is no more dangerous than making worm poop fertilizer. Yeah, that's the analogy I'm using.

4. Growing shit can be very dangerous.

5. Let's stop making computers and cars because people need houses and food! Your strange priorities are no better than primitivism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Now, producing hard drugs for medical purposes is fine. Although some have ZERO medical benefit such as meth and pcp.

Methamphetamine is produced pharmaceutically to treat obesity (obesity due to factors beyond the patient's control). So it is used in a medical capacity.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Pot is okay but isn't very exciting. I love opiates. I haven't gotten high in a few years though. It's more satisfying growing and caring for and smoking or extracting some strange obscure psychoactive plant than just eating a few pills or doing a CWE on them though, even if the high is really dull by comparison. Haven't had the time to use psychedelics in any serious way. Downers can be nice, and I used to think of the as the holy grail, but now that my life is less stressful than a few years ago I'm starting to think they're kinda dumb.I think your priorities are out of order. Oh, and synthesizing meth is a lot more dangerous than it has to be. I'm not going to fact-check your statements because you can do that on your own.

google is just right over there ------>

Why are my priorities out of order? Which statements need fact checking?


Methamphetamine is produced pharmaceutically to treat obesity (obesity due to factors beyond the patient's control). So it is used in a medical capacity.

Yes but meth is composed of so much horrible stuff, that its negatives seem to outweigh the positives on that one. Plus, you don't need meth to treat obesity, you could use simple amphetamine salts instead and get the same effect. I know that stuff makes me never want to even look at food.

[Sea]

Why are my priorities out of order? Which statements need fact checking?Read the post again.
Yes but meth is composed of so much horrible stuff, that its negatives seem to outweigh the positives on that one. Plus, you don't need meth to treat obesity, you could use simple amphetamine salts instead and get the same effect. I know that stuff makes me never want to even look at food.Nasty things? What bullshit! What is nasty? How do you quantify that? It is a humbug and a lie and nothing more!

[synthesis]

Google Desoxyn. They're prescribing meth to kids now, as ADD medication.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I say, fuck producing hard drugs for anything besides medical purposes. Why should we waste our resources producing coke and meth just so people can go to a party or a club or a market to rearrange the stuff on the shelves?

Why should we waste resources that could be used to produce DMT or cocaine so some mewling brat can stuff his mouth with bread?

[Slavic]

Yes but meth is composed of so much horrible stuff, that its negatives seem to outweigh the positives on that one. Plus, you don't need meth to treat obesity, you could use simple amphetamine salts instead and get the same effect. I know that stuff makes me never want to even look at food.


What a stupid argument. The reason why meth is "composed of so much horrible stuff" is because it is a method for black markets to increase their profit margins by stretching out their product. I can assure you that pharmaceutical companies don't make their meth with baby aspirin and arsenic.

Also as Os Cangaceiros stated, meth is used to treat obesity that is out of the patient's control. That usually means that if they are being prescribed meth, then the less potent amphetamine did not produce significant results.

Side note: meth is also used to treat severe ADHD.

[Sea]

Google Desoxyn. They're prescribing meth to kids now, as ADD medication.The shitty state of the pharmaceutical industry has no more to do with drugs in general than the state of state education to do with learning in general.

For the record, I have never made any apologia for such obscene uses of drugs, meth or otherwise.
Methamphetamine is produced pharmaceutically to treat obesity (obesity due to factors beyond the patient's control). So it is used in a medical capacity.Crap, you beat me to it by 6 minutes...

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Pot is okay but isn't very exciting. I love opiates. I haven't gotten high in a few years though. It's more satisfying growing and caring for and smoking or extracting some strange obscure psychoactive plant than just eating a few pills or doing a CWE on them though, even if the high is really dull by comparison. Haven't had the time to use psychedelics in any serious way. Downers can be nice, and I used to think of the as the holy grail, but now that my life is less stressful than a few years ago I'm starting to think they're kinda dumb.I think your priorities are out of order. Oh, and synthesizing meth is a lot more dangerous than it has to be. I'm not going to fact-check your statements because you can do that on your own.

google is just right over there ------>

edit: fuck it, you're so wrong I can't help myself.

1. If you're going off DEA schedules to determine "medical benefits" (given the way you lump coke and heroin together it seems like you are), you need to do some research. Meth is used clinically to this day. Heroin is not.

2. DMT is present in many plants, including some strains of this stuff (http://courses.missouristate.edu/pbtrewatha/Reed_Canarygrass1.jpg) that grows on the side of the fucking road. Synthesis is unneeded. As for LSD, it's easier (less hard) to make it from ergot than LSA. In either case, LSD is semi-synthetic, not synthetic. This is one of those times where vulgar your "wasting resources" shit contradicts with your "(semi-)synthetics are baad mmkay" shit.

3. Take your "XYZ people should be severely punished" crap and give it to your local congressperson because we don't want it here. There are many man y ways to make meth, doofus, and they're not all equally unsafe. In a controlled industrial environment, making meth is no more dangerous than making worm poop fertilizer. Yeah, that's the analogy I'm using.

4. Growing shit can be very dangerous.

5. Let's stop making computers and cars because people need houses and food! Your strange priorities are no better than primitivism.

Lol yeah but nobody smokes meth clinically. Obviously that's what I meant but I guess you shouldn't make assumptions so fair enough. And you're right, coke and heroin are VERY different, I lumped them together because they're addictive as fuck and can kill you. I don't like to sound like some DEA asshole, I am in favor of decriminalizing all drugs for personal usage.

My argument was never "synthetics are bad mmky", like feel the earth bruhhh or something. My argument was that it's a waste of resources to synthesize drugs in mass. But fair enough on the dmt and lsd points you made.

Well, forgive me then, if there are way easier ways to make meth, why does anybody still use the highly dangerous way?

Growing shit can be dangerous, how? Plants only attack you in Nicholas Cage movies.

Well computers and cars are pretty damn necessary. I'm not a primitivist in the least. Sure, if all needs are met, and standard of living is high as fuck, then sure start mass producing coke and shit. But until then, why? If even a single person doesn't have much food, then we shouldn't do that.


Why should we waste resources that could be used to produce DMT or cocaine so some mewling brat can stuff his mouth with bread?

I don't know how to respond, lol. I said we SHOULDN'T waste resources to synthesize those, I only supported growing shit. It seems like you're agreeing with me...

[synthesis]

The shitty state of the pharmaceutical industry has no more to do with drugs in general than the state of state education to do with learning in general.

Ah, you ninja'd me. I was replying to the other guy.

[Loony Le Fist]

I say, fuck producing hard drugs for anything besides medical purposes. Why should we waste our resources producing coke and meth just so people can go to a party or a club or a market to rearrange the stuff on the shelves?


Here, here!



I say just let people grow shit. Pot, mushrooms, mescaline, opium, whatever. You wanna grow those drugs, fine. I myself am a huge fan of pot. But I don't want our resources going to mass producing meth and shit.


Yep. It can be a problem with fungi since the substrates have a chance of getting infected with bacteria. Sterile conditions are absolutely necessary. But the same is true of plant propagation--if you're into that sort of thing.



Now, producing hard drugs for medical purposes is fine. Although some have ZERO medical benefit such as meth and pcp. But coke and heroin do, so that's fine. And if someone is already addicted to those drugs, they should be able to get dosages for free at clinics.


Pharmaceutical grade meth is actually an excellent stimulant with low side effects. It's quite good for treating resistant cases of depression and ADHD.



If someone is caught doing meth or something, no problem. Although they should probably go to rehab. BUT people synthesizing meth privately should be severely punished as it is a danger to those around them due to the possibility of explosions.


I agree. Having people making meth without good equipment should be outlawed and without regulation can be dangerous.



As with lsd, I think that has a lot of potential but you can't grow it and it would be a bit risky for people to independently try to synthesize it from lysergic acid. So with that, it's a grey area. Dmt falls into a similar category. I still oppose mass production because, again, we need to feed and house people and distribute more important resources.

DMT is pretty easy and safe to make. I would say let them make the more complicated stuff. But if they mess up and blow up their house that should be an aggravating factor. Just like if you are driving drunk.

[Creative Destruction]

sure but I said "most drugs" and since weed is not most drugs I think it's fairly obvious that a counterargument using one of the most mild drugs out there might make my point seem invalid, but I said "most drugs" for a reason.

well, i was zeroing in on pot specifically, for ease of example, but in truth "most drugs" are not that difficult to manufacture.


sure it's easy to grow pot and I think that it will probably be around for quite a while, but I was really referring to harder drugs that aren't so easy to make. sure the information might be out there, but are people really going to go through all of the trouble in manufacturing these drugs to try it?

there is not much trouble in manufacturing, say, opium to get it to become heroin. anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry can do it and, indeed, even backwater, on-farm ad-hoc labs do process it into heroin in places like Afghanistan. the trouble usually comes with the legality of it. cocaine isn't really that hard to manufacture either, it just takes time. but growing pot also takes time. so there are relatives here.

on the other hand, there are some hallucinogens that are difficult to make; like DMT or LSD. will they die out? i suppose it's possible, but i'd doubt it because they are cultural touchstones for some people. where there's a will, there's a way. it makes it easier if you have a professional chemist on hand, of course, but it isn't necessary. will they be used less? well, they're not really used that much to begin with, compared to other drugs. it's hard to say, but point to the difficult of their manufacture doesn't tell us anything on that front.


I can see weed, but harder drugs will probably not be used by nearly as many people for the reasons I mentioned above, and that you even agreed with to an extent, which means fewer people introduced to the drug (meaning eventually it's logical to assume that such drugs will be nearly nonexistent).

i don't think i agreed to that in any measure. it's possible, but not probable, regarding "hard" drugs. (it's difficult to have this conversation without knowing what you mean by "hard" drugs here, though. do you mean drugs that have a high potential for addiction?)


I think it's silly to ignore that drugs are especially a problem for people in poverty, so although middle class teens might be smoking pot every now and then, will they dip into heroin and more extreme drugs without some push? in most cases I would think not, and the abolition of classes would remove a lot of the socioeconomic problems that create the ]
drug issues that we have today.

okay, well, first i didn't "ignore" it. there are issues with drugs and poverty, this is true. and i never said that people didn't do drugs to escape their shitty circumstances. they do. that was part of the reason i did them, so it'd be pretty stupid if i denied in any way that that was the case here!

rather, what i said is that, even for individual cases, it's hard to nail down an exact reasoning for why people take drugs. going back to my personal example: i smoked a lot of pot because it was a.) fun and b.) was an escape. even if it wasn't an escape, though, i'd still probably do it... because it was fun.

and this applies to most any drug. plenty of people pick up speed and coke habits because they're trying to cram through school or get through work, not to escape their circumstances. it's to keep themselves alert while they're charging through whatever it is they need to do. some people pick up heroin habits because, whether some want to admit to it, it allows some people to expand themselves creatively (look at all the Beat writers who had life-long heroin addictions.) or they simply want to alter their consciousness in some way. now, there could be overlap here with people who take these drugs to escape, but it's not necessarily so and it's not a safe assumption to make that they wouldn't take those drugs even if they lived in good circumstances.

you can't pin every little ill you see happening on "class". it doesn't work that way and it's not good analysis. these are complicated realities and it's not a sure thing that drug addiction will go away just because you secure someone a comfortable material existence. an argument can be made that people not used to having so much free time and leisure time afforded in a socialist society may lead someone to boredom...and boredom is a huge reason for taking drugs.


to reply to your other post, sure drugs have been around for a long time, but I think that just because something has been doesn't mean it always will be. that kind of blanket inevitability is useless for us as people who believe in radical social change and the history of drug use for things like religious purposes probably won't be much of a problem for many people in the post-capitalist world if you agree with marx about religion.

while drugs were certainly used in religious purposes, it was just as well used in a recreational manner. pre-capitalist peoples were just as interested in feeling good and having a good time as were any people in a capitalist society. also, i don't particularly agree with Marx about religion, but even if i did, i don't see how that's a necessary condition for the argument you're making.