My understanding of why drugs are illegal.

[Jay NotApplicable]

I think drugs are illegal primarily because drugs make people happy without lots of material possessions. They undermine the capitalist system.

There are also secondary and tertiary reasons. It allows the police to give people trouble if they step out of line socially, since there's a good chance they use drugs, and the police can use that against them. And also it's a good (bad) excuse for more prisons.

[Marshal of the People]

The prohibited drugs are banned because they are harmful to people, even marijuana is very harmful to a persons body.

[Atsumari]

The prohibited drugs are banned because they are harmful to people, even marijuana is very harmful to a persons body.
I seriously hope that you are not as naive as you are making yourself out to be right now. If the apparatus was truly concerned about the bodily harm, fast food, Coca Cola, alcohol, tobacco, and processed food would be banned.
Dodger also just liked your post which means you have much more than facts to worry about.

[ARomanCandle]

I think drugs are illegal primarily because drugs make people happy without lots of material possessions. They undermine the capitalist system.

There are also secondary and tertiary reasons. It allows the police to give people trouble if they step out of line social, since there's a good chance they use drugs, and the police can use that against them. And also it's a good (bad) excuse for more prisons.

To see why drugs are illegal, you would have to look to the history. To my knowledge, many drugs were prohibited as a result of political campaigns (mostly racist) fueled by underlying economic interests.


The prohibited drugs are banned because they are harmful to people, even marijuana is very harmful to a persons body.

This is generally the ahistorical justification. And it's garbage. Alcohol and tobacco are far more harmful than marijuana.

[Sinister Intents]

Drugs are illegalized to target the poor and ethnic communities, as well as some being dangerous to produce, and certain drugs go against the interests of businesses such as marijuana. The tobacco companies and companies that produced paper were against hemp because hemp is often better at making paper and marijuana is a much better recreational drug than tobacco.

[Marshal of the People]

I seriously hope that you are not as naive as you are making yourself out to be right now. If the apparatus was truly concerned about the bodily harm, fast food, Coca Cola, alcohol, tobacco, and processed food would be banned.So marijuana is not bad for you? How about hard drugs like Crystal Meth?

I never said alcohol, tobacco or caffeine weren’t bad for you (I know they are bad for you) but he was talking about illegal drugs so I kept the conservation limited to those items.

[Sinister Intents]

@MotP
Marijuana has a lot of great medical benefits, it also helps with many other things. Chain smoking like 8 joints a day for a long period of time is bad for you, but smoking a bit here and there won't harm you. It's also been stated that the positives of marijuana outweigh the negative effects of it. I smoke a lot of marijuana and helps a helluva lot with my anxiety and depression.
Crystal meth is a really fucked up drug and I would never do it. It's someon'es choice if they want to do it, and no one should control their choice to try a drug or anything else. Fuck the authority of states, and fuck the laws that legalize the states actions.

[Marshal of the People]

@MotP
Marijuana has a lot of great medical benefits, it also helps with many other things. Chain smoking like 8 joints a day for a long period of time is bad for you, but smoking a bit here and there won't harm you. It's also been stated that the positives of marijuana outweigh the negative effects of it. I smoke a lot of marijuana and helps a helluva lot with my anxiety and depression.
Crystal meth is a really fucked up drug and I would never do it. It's someon'es choice if they want to do it, and no one should control their choice to try a drug or anything else. Fuck the authority of states, and fuck the laws that legalize the states actions.I see your point on marijuana and I think we'll leave it at that.

However I think drugs which have the capability to harm others (i.e. "hard drugs") should be banned. Hard drugs can cause violence and other destructive behaviour which can not only harm the person using it but their family, their friends and also strangers.

[Sinister Intents]

I see your point on marijuana and I think we'll leave it at that.

However I think drugs which have the capability to harm others (i.e. "hard drugs") should be banned. Hard drugs can cause violence and other destructive behaviour which can not only harm the person using it but their family, their friends and also strangers.

How are you going to ban these drugs? With a state? or would the labor union/commune/collective/community decide which drugs to ban? What would you say would happen to those that want to consume banned drugs and chemicals for recreational purposes?

[Marshal of the People]

How are you going to ban these drugs? With a state? or would the labor union/commune/collective/community decide which drugs to ban? What would you say would happen to those that want to consume banned drugs and chemicals for recreational purposes?The government would. Whether it would be the state, a commune, a workers council, etc. depends on what society exists at the time. If the drugs are harmful to others they should definitely be banned because by keeping them legal you are threatening the safety of innocents who did nothing wrong.

Drugs are designed to make people feel better, in a communist society they would not be necessary.

[Loony Le Fist]

The prohibited drugs are banned because they are harmful to people, even marijuana is very harmful to a persons body.

You are kidding, right?

[BIXX]

Drugs are designed to make people feel better, in a communist society they would not be necessary.

Well, I would still partake, cause they are fun.

[Marshal of the People]

You are kidding, right?So if someone took a kilogram of crystal meth a day for a year they would be fine?

[Sinister Intents]

The government would. Whether it would be the state, a commune, a workers council, etc. depends on what society exists at the time. If the drugs are harmful to others they should definitely be banned because by keeping them legal you are threatening the safety of innocents who did nothing wrong.

Drugs are designed to make people feel better, in a communist society they would not be necessary.

There would be no government under communism, no government to exert authoritarian measures. A communist government is the epitome of oxymoron comrade. There would be no state to rule over a producing class. The state is an organized force that solely exists to suppress and exploit a producing class, that being the proletariat. Under full communism, which is the abscence of a class system and the abscence of a state without money predicated on a gift economy and mutual aid, all drugs would be free for everyone to freely use. Without the shit we live under today people won't do drugs for the same reason, people won't be chasing that initial high to escape a shitty life. People will be doing drugs for the enjoyment of them, they would be a past time for people, for their enjoyment. I don't think that the worker's council, labor union, collective, community, commune, or whichever would ban drugs, for the purpose they would take under communism would be different than their purpose under capitalism. People will also look for ways to make the drugs production safer, and to make the drugs safer to consume, so that people aren't being harmed by the drugs or the process in which they're created.

[Loony Le Fist]

I think drugs are illegal primarily because drugs make people happy without lots of material possessions. They undermine the capitalist system.

There are also secondary and tertiary reasons. It allows the police to give people trouble if they step out of line social, since there's a good chance they use drugs, and the police can use that against them. And also it's a good (bad) excuse for more prisons.

I think drugs are mostly illegal for your second stated reason. They are a great excuse for police to harass people for no reason. And you are absolutely right about the private prison industry. If you look at the financial statements of these prison companies, you find that "drug legalization" is considered a "risk-factor" for their business. This is exactly why they lobby so strongly in the US to keep drugs illegal.

That said I don't really condone the use of most drugs, but I think psychedelics can be useful tools for understanding. But the idea of making drugs illegal is ridiculous. Putting people in jail for using drugs is doing more harm than the drugs themselves actually cause. It demonstrates one of the following things (or both): complete ignorance on the part of people making policy, or a desire for those making policy to profit off of drug use.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Prohibition doesn't work. All it does is lead to more power for police.

[Loony Le Fist]

So if someone took a kilogram of crystal meth a day for a year they would be fine?

Who takes a kilogram of crystal meth every day? And even if they did, how is right to throw them in jail for it? It's a medical problem, not a criminal issue. Putting people in jail for doing drugs is stupid.

[Sinister Intents]

I wish not to rule, and I wish not to be ruled, so I wouldn't tell anyone they couldn't do a drug if they wanted. Why would anyone want to control someone's choice?

[Sasha]

There body, their choice, besides, someone taking a kilo of meth would be dead. Lastly people invented meth because clean, good amphetamines and cocaine are really expensive and hard to come by, because of prohibition. It's a substitution drug, legalize.

[Captain Red]

The government would. Whether it would be the state, a commune, a workers council, etc. depends on what society exists at the time. If the drugs are harmful to others they should definitely be banned because by keeping them legal you are threatening the safety of innocents who did nothing wrong.

Drugs are designed to make people feel better, in a communist society they would not be necessary.
Well marijuana is a medicine so if it would not be necessary in a communist society would you ban all medicine like morphine as well just because it's harmful?

[Loony Le Fist]

There body, their choice, besides, someone taking a kilo of meth would be dead. Lastly people invented meth because clean, good amphetamines and cocaine are really expensive and hard to come by, because of prohibition. It's a substitution drug, legalize.

Absolutely. Pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine (aka meth) is way different than the street stuff. It's an excellent stimulant with low side effects--very useful for treating obesity, resistant cases of depression and ADHD. It is actually safer than a lot of over the counter drugs. Adderal used for treating ADHD is amphetamine, (without the methyl group) and it works in exactly the same way.

[Marshal of the People]

There would be no government under communism, no government to exert authoritarian measures. A communist government is the epitome of oxymoron comrade. There would be no state to rule over a producing class. The state is an organized force that solely exists to suppress and exploit a producing class, that being the proletariat. Under full communism, which is the abscence of a class system and the abscence of a state without money predicated on a gift economy and mutual aid, all drugs would be free for everyone to freely use. Without the shit we live under today people won't do drugs for the same reason, people won't be chasing that initial high to escape a shitty life. People will be doing drugs for the enjoyment of them, they would be a past time for people, for their enjoyment. I don't think that the worker's council, labor union, collective, community, commune, or whichever would ban drugs, for the purpose they would take under communism would be different than their purpose under capitalism. People will also look for ways to make the drugs production safer, and to make the drugs safer to consume, so that people aren't being harmed by the drugs or the process in which they're created.You have the terms government and state confused. A government is a governing body of a community, it can be a direct-democracy a soviet-democracy etc. A state however is different, a state is hierarchical institution which rules over and controls people, nations, etc. It is generally authoritarian due to the fact that it is controlled by an oligarchy. In modern times government are usually controlled by states though it is not necessary for a government to be subordinate to a state at all.

[Sinister Intents]

Absolutely. Pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine (aka meth) is way different than the street stuff. It's an excellent stimulant with low side effects--very useful for treating obesity, resistant cases of depression and ADHD. It is actually safer than a lot of over the counter drugs. Adderal used for treating ADHD is amphetamine, (without the methyl group) and it works in exactly the same way.

When I was a kid Adderal fucked me up :( I hated taking it

[Loony Le Fist]

The prohibited drugs are banned because they are harmful to people, even marijuana is very harmful to a persons body.

Have you even bothered to look at the research on this? If you haven't I'll be happy to brush you up. :laugh:

[Loony Le Fist]

When I was a kid Adderal fucked me up :( I hated taking it

I had quite a different experience. But hey everyone's different. If it doesn't work for you, then don't take it.

[Sasha]

Yeah, that always suprised me as Ritalin chemical name is methylphenidate, I thought aderal was really close related (i don't know shit about chemistry, so maybe I just missed something.

[Loony Le Fist]

Yeah, that always suprised me as Ritalin chemical name is methylphenidate, I thought aderal was really close related (i don't know shit about chemistry, so maybe I just missed something.

Methylphenidate blocks the reuptake (destruction of it through enzymes) of dopamine. Cocaine works the same way. Amphetamines (in general, but not all) work by increasing the production of dopamine. 4-Flouroamphetamine is an odd one out--it actually increases both dopamine and serotonin production. Chemically they are actually a bit different. But the result is the same--more dopamine.

[Sasha]

Methylphenidate blocks the reuptake (destruction of it through enzymes) of dopamine. Cocaine works the same way. Amphetamines (in general, but not all) work by increasing the production of dopamine. 4-Flouroamphetamine is an odd one out--it actually increases both dopamine and serotonin production. Chemically they are actually a bit different. But the result is the same--more dopamine.

Intresting, that explains maybe why before I was on Ritalin to my suprise cocaine always seemed to yield better self treatment results than speed.
Thanx.

It's all rather intresting, MDMA is also amphetamine yet its effects are so different, what a molocule extra here and there can do.

[Loony Le Fist]

Intresting, that explains maybe why before I was on Ritalin to my suprise cocaine always seemed to yield better self treatment results than speed.
Thanx.

It's all rather intresting, MDMA is also amphetamine yet its effects are so different, what a molocule extra here and there can do.

MDMA is badass. And it's so unique too. 4-FA (mentioned above) gets close in terms of experience qualia--but it's just not the same. :( Alexander Shulgin is truly a genius.

Too bad MDMA is illegal. It could do a lot of good for people with PTSD, social anxiety and psychological trauma.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Drugs are illegal for many different reasons depending on the drug, I shall explain based on each one.

Marijuana - In the late 30's William Randolph Hearst (newspaper giant and fascist sympathizer) ran a smear campaign against weed to protect business interests in the lumber and paper industries. If people were allowed to grow it in mass, it would have thousands of uses, undermining many different business interests. Part of the smear campaign included racism against Mexicans by pointing out that they used marijuana recreationally and that it led to crime, violence, etc. All bullshit obviously.

LSD, DMT, Mushrooms, etc - These are illegal because of tests done by the CIA. They determined that people on psychedelic drugs had the ability to open their mind and change their way of thinking. LSD in particular was tested frequently and the people on it questioned the government and all authority in general. Timothy Leary (Harvard professor who was a huge fan of the drug) was called "the most dangerous man in the country" by Nixon. Why? Because he urged young people to drop out of school, travel the country, and take LSD. And people did do that, and many of those people would later go on to be involved in protests and anti government activities such as establishing small communes throughout the country. The CIA didn't like that, so LSD was made illegal in the late 60's.

Meth, cocaine, heroin, etc - These are illegal for many reasons, one because producing meth actually is very dangerous. With heroin and cocaine, intelligence agencies are the biggest drug traffickers in the world. When the U.S. went into Afghanistan, the country had eradicated almost all opium fields. Then, after U.S. involvement, the country becomes the world's leading opium producer. With coke, look no further than the anti-Marxist contras in the 80's which used it to synthesize crack and smuggled it into poor black neighborhoods to make money to fund these contras. The illegal drug trade is very profitable and very useful to the CIA for a number of purposes.

Only now does the government not care so much about weed legalization because nobody has the ability to really use it for uses other than getting high anymore as we live in such a globalized society dominated by technology anyway, and the businesses under previous threat no longer have that threat. They'll never budge on the other drugs though.

[Goblin]

I'm all for the legalization of drugs. As i mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the war on drugs does more damage than good. One does not have to be a genius to see that.

But i think treating cannabis as some sort of miracle herb is fucking stupid. Don't get me wrong, pot is by no means a dangerous drug in itself. As people have pointed out, alcohol is more dangerous. But calling it harmless is silly. THC is not good for your brain, especially if you already suffer from mental disorders. Excessive use of cannabis can worsen the symptoms of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. And i can't imagine inhaling cannabis smoke does much good for your lungs

As for why drugs are illegal, i think Sinister Intents got it right with this post:


Drugs are illegalized to target the poor and ethnic communities, as well as some being dangerous to produce, and certain drugs go against the interests of businesses such as marijuana. The tobacco companies and companies that produced paper were against hemp because hemp is often better at making paper and marijuana is a much better recreational drug than tobacco.

[Loony Le Fist]

I'm all for the legalization of drugs. As i mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the war on drugs does more damage than good. One does not have to be a genius to see that.


Agreed.



But i think treating cannabis as some sort of miracle herb is fucking stupid. Don't get me wrong, pot is by no means a dangerous drug in itself. As people have pointed out, alcohol is more dangerous. But calling it harmless is silly. THC is not good for your brain, especially if you already suffer from mental disorders. Excessive use of cannabis can worsen the symptoms of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. And i can't imagine inhaling cannabis smoke does much good for your lungs


I agree. The way some people treat marijuana it reminds me of the homeopathic medicine movement. But it does have actual medical uses, and it works well. You need not smoke it. You can vaporize it, or use edibles.

[Slavic]

But i think treating cannabis as some sort of miracle herb is fucking stupid. Don't get me wrong, pot is by no means a dangerous drug in itself. As people have pointed out, alcohol is more dangerous. But calling it harmless is silly. THC is not good for your brain, especially if you already suffer from mental disorders. Excessive use of cannabis can worsen the symptoms of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. And i can't imagine inhaling cannabis smoke does much good for your lungs

Every single drug whether synthesized, extracted, or consumed raw has negative side effects. The reason why cannabis is considered a medicinal herb is because its medicinal benefits have been proven to outweigh its negative side effects.

That being said, there is no such thing as a wonder drug and those who see cannabis as a "miracle herb" and a panacea are just delusional or ignorant.

[Slavic]

You have the terms government and state confused. A government is a governing body of a community, it can be a direct-democracy a soviet-democracy etc. A state however is different, a state is hierarchical institution which rules over and controls people, nations, etc. It is generally authoritarian due to the fact that it is controlled by an oligarchy. In modern times government are usually controlled by states though it is not necessary for a government to be subordinate to a state at all.

Regardless; in a communist society, if said local government stated that I could not recreationally use drugs, then I have to right to not obey by said laws. If said government were to enforce those laws upon me, I would reject said government's legitimacy over my body and refuse to comply.

Recreational use is fine, I would support government measures to control use in the workplace and when heavy machinery is involved. Those two things move beyond private drug consumption and into the public sphere.

[PigmerikanMao]

So if someone took a kilogram of crystal meth a day for a year they would be fine?

If a person ate 5 tons of hamburgers a day would they be fine? No. But you don't ban food.

[tachosomoza]

Drugs are illegal because of religious puritanism with a hefty dose of racial animosity thrown in. In the 1930s, people thought that marijuana would make their daughters go out, sleep with non white men, and bring home mixed race babies. That was a bad thing that got people disowned and killed.

They also thought that cocaine made black people unruly and led them to question the racist status quo.

[synthesis]

So if someone took a kilogram of crystal meth a day for a year they would be fine?

They'd be dead within an hour, you idiot. Should we criminalize suicide as well? Because to engage in that sort of behavior you'd have to be suicidal and in that case people need a lot more than just a government penalizing them for their issues.


They also thought that cocaine made black people unruly and led them to question the racist status quo.

I actually just found out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_cocaine_in_the_United_States#Prohib ition_of_cocaine_in_the_United_States) that employers in the U.S. used to "encourage" black people to take cocaine to make them more productive and to, in the words of the 19th-century medical establishment, make them "impervious to the extremes of heat and cold." The first law prohibiting cocaine in the U.S. originated from a mining county in Colorado; thus when the bourgeois prescription betrayed its "side effects," they could literally blame the victim. The rest of the section in that link is pretty fucking crazy.

[tachosomoza]

http://www.thenation.com/article/178158/how-myth-negro-cocaine-fiend-helped-shape-american-drug-policy



The author, a distinguished physician, wrote: “[The Negro fiend] imagines that he hears people taunting and abusing him, and this often incites homicidal attacks upon innocent and unsuspecting victims.” And he continued, “the deadly accuracy of the cocaine user has become axiomatic in Southern police circles…. the record of the ‘cocaine nigger’ near Asheville who dropped five men dead in their tracks using only one cartridge for each, offers evidence that is sufficiently convincing.”

Cocaine, in other words, made black men uniquely murderous and better marksmen. But that wasn’t all. It also produced “a resistance to the ‘knock down’ effects of fatal wounds. Bullets fired into vital parts that would drop a sane man in his tracks, fail to check the ‘fiend.’”

Preposterous? Yes, but such reporting was not the exception. Between 1898 and 1914, numerous articles appeared exaggerating the association of heinous crimes and cocaine use by blacks. In some cases, suspicion of cocaine intoxication by blacks was reason enough to justify lynchings. Eventually, it helped influence legislation.

Around this time, Congress was debating whether to pass the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, one of the country’s first forays into national drug legislation. This unprecedented law sought to tax and regulate the production, importation and distribution of opium and coca products. Proponents of the law saw it as a strategy to improve strained trade relations with China by demonstrating a commitment to controlling the opium trade. Opponents, mostly from Southern states, viewed it as an intrusion into states’ rights and had prevented passage of previous versions.

By 1914, however, the law’s proponents had found an important ally in their quest to get it passed: the mythical “negro cocaine fiend,” which prominent newspapers, physicians and politicians readily exploited. Indeed, at congressional hearings, “experts” testified that “most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.” When the Harrison Act became law, proponents could thank the South’s fear of blacks for easing its passage.

[BIXX]

In regards to synthesis' post: They used to give folks in call centers speed. (Source: knew a guy who was given speed to make him more productive).

[Loony Le Fist]

Here's a chart of which drugs are actually more harmful. I don't think it's quite right, but it certainly shows there is no correlation between harm and legality.


http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20101106_WOC504_0.gif

[argeiphontes]

But calling it harmless is silly. THC is not good for your brain, especially if you already suffer from mental disorders. Excessive use of cannabis can worsen the symptoms of anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. And i can't imagine inhaling cannabis smoke does much good for your lungs


Well, excess refined sugar can be downright deadly to a diabetic. But that does not mean that the recreational user of sugar can't suck on a Jolly Rancher every once in a while, nor does it mean that they should be illegal.


The way some people treat marijuana it reminds me of the homeopathic medicine movement. But it does have actual medical uses, and it works well. You need not smoke it. You can vaporize it, or use edibles.Most of our medicines come from plants. IMO it's critically important to assess MJ for medicinal properties, not because it's fun to get high, though it is, but because it's critical to assess all plants for cheaper and better cures for our diseases. There are already studies showing that it causes apoptosis of tumor cells. There are enough reasons why the powers that be would want to spread deceit about this that I don't have to go into it...

And yeah, loonyleftist is obviously right (no pun intended)--the most harmful drugs are the legal tobacco and alcohol.

(
Actually, though, as other people have mentioned, I really do think that drugs became illegal because of their perceived social effects. The purpose of life isn't to maximize personal possessions or live a quiet life of never getting into trouble or be a cog in a social machine or unquestioningly follow the state apparatus or whatever, it's to be as happy as you can be while living ethically and passing your way of life and knowledge to future generations. Drugs have a way of cutting through the bullshit to allow people to express their emotions or engage in self-therapy or otherwise gain perspective on their lives. And that's not something that the capitalists masters would really like to see people doing. Why did Reagan launch the War on Drugs in the mid 1980s? Isn't that when the children of the Baby Boom generation, responsible for the 1960s, would start to come of age themselves? That's my conspiracy theory. :) It's nice that it's finally letting up as the Clintons and Obamas take office...

It's its own little site of socioeconomic conflict...

RijB8wnJCN0
)

[synthesis]

Why did Reagan launch the War on Drugs in the mid 1980s? Isn't that when the children of the Baby Boom generation, responsible for the 1960s, would start to come of age themselves? That's my conspiracy theory.

I think it had more to do with his administration's heavy involvement in the Latin American cocaine trade and the desire to limit the domestic political repercussions of, say, ordering the DEA and FBI to back off of CIA-backed cocaine traffickers.

[argeiphontes]

^ Fair enough. I don't think that domestic considerations weren't a reason, though. Of course, I could be completely wrong. It's my favorite "conspiracy theory" but could be completely wrong. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there have been specific "conspiracies" regarding the drug war. I tend not to believe the "cia-crack" theories, but I think much more banal conspiracies such as needing rationales for profiling and stopping people, etc are involved.

But on the whole I think it comes out of the need for capitalism to control and manage labor and therefore people's behavior in society generally. The bougeois always loves a good moral prohibition campaign when it comes to the lives and behaviors of workers and the poor.

In a way, drugs and alcohol cause problems, but these are by and large problems in terms of the order of capitalist life. It is a "problem" if someone in capitalism can not meet the demands on labor required by capitalists at that moment. So chemical dependancy makes some people have problems keeping a schedule and so on... but so do physical or mental or emotional issues. Capitalism isn't very good - or very interested - in solving these "problems".

Drug prohibition of course doesn't solve any of these problems (decades of "war on drugs" in the US and yanks still love their drugs more across class and ethnic lines). So more specifically the war on drugs provides ideological scapegoating which goes hand and hand with moralist campaigns (people are poor or homeless because they "choose" to be addicts... our society is violent because drug addicts are so obesses and dependant that they become like sociopaths). Neither claim is really that true: drug-addicts have a dependency, but still can make rational decisions and class and poverty determine if an addiction makes someone poor or not - pleanty of rich people do tons of hard drugs.

In the US there's also a sort of connected beurocratic-dynamic involved since so much police funding and perks (and ability to justify beatings or harassing people) comes from the war on drugs. That's why there's still some hesitancy to stop anti-pot laws even though politically/electorally there is no "apparent" reason in terms of popular opinion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You have the terms government and state confused. A government is a governing body of a community, it can be a direct-democracy a soviet-democracy etc. A state however is different, a state is hierarchical institution which rules over and controls people, nations, etc. It is generally authoritarian due to the fact that it is controlled by an oligarchy. In modern times government are usually controlled by states though it is not necessary for a government to be subordinate to a state at all.

In the communist society, as the old truism goes, the "government over men" will have been abolished and replaced with "the administration of things". That is, while there would still be a public authority - and unlike many anarchists and councilists, I don't for a moment imagine this authority would be local and decentralised - but it would deal with matters like production quotas, the logistics of arming a universal militia etc. etc. It wouldn't prescribe how people are allowed to live their lives - surely at this point we're all aware of the dangers of such an approach.

[Brotto Rühle]

Laws don't prevent addiction or the use of hard drugs. They simply stigmatize, punish, and demonize addicts and users. They take no consideration into the people who are able to take addictive drugs recreationally, and not become addicted.

Drugs are used, for the most part, as an escape... targeting what the person is escaping from, not how they are escaping, is the point that people are missing.

[TheMask]

Personally I think that drugs are illegal mainly to protect the public exactly the way its illegal to drive a car without a licence. It is true as this thread originally said that it does provide some to the capitalist society but that being said even socialist societies have laws against drug use. A key idea behind communism is that the government expects the public to work but in return the state provides protection, regulation and distribution of all goods and services. Ideally drugs should not be illegal because in the perfect communist soceity they wouldnt even have been produced to begin with if they dont have practical use to the public.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Personally I think that drugs are illegal mainly to protect the public exactly the way its illegal to drive a car without a licence. It is true as this thread originally said that it does provide some to the capitalist society but that being said even socialist societies have laws against drug use. A key idea behind communism is that the government expects the public to work but in return the state provides protection, regulation and distribution of all goods and services. Ideally drugs should not be illegal because in the perfect communist soceity they wouldnt even have been produced to begin with if they dont have practical use to the public.

Um.

Communism pretty much precludes forced labour or the existence of the state. At least going by the usual Marxist notion of what communism is. If you have another notion, you might want to spell it out.

And honestly I can't understand this "potentially harmful things should be illegal" line. Should hamburgers be banned as well? Anal sex too?

[liberlict]

The commune will decide what's right.

[TheMask]

Um.

Communism pretty much precludes forced labour or the existence of the state. At least going by the usual Marxist notion of what communism is. If you have another notion, you might want to spell it out.

And honestly I can't understand this "potentially harmful things should be illegal" line. Should hamburgers be banned as well? Anal sex too?

Well I never said that potentially harmful goods should be illegal. I said they wouldn't have been produced to begin with. I actually specifically said that they should NOT be illegal since there wouldnt have been put any effort into producing them in the first place. In the ideal world anyway. They therefore wouldnt exist and a ban would be redundant. If only complete regulation and therefore complete destribution was possible we wouldn't have to illegalize any goods only distribute the ones we create as a society. And therefore dangerous drugs with no practical purpose wouldnt have to be illegal since they wouldnt exist.

Furthermore making things like unhealthy food illegal wouldnt be a problem either. If we could distribute food into rations to everyone the most practial and healthy foods would only be available and therefore there wouldnt be reason to force a healthy lifestyle upon the population. Unhealthy and long-term dangerous food wouldnt be produced creating both a healthier society and removing the need to ban products as all products being created would already be aproved by state.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The commune will decide what's right.

Not really. As I said, communism means the end of the government over men. This means the public authorities, or the commune (I think the word is too federalist, but this is perhaps a discussion for another time), can't dictate what the workers should eat, who they can and can't sleep with and in what way etc.


Well I never said that potentially harmful goods should be illegal. I said they wouldn't have been produced to begin with. I actually specifically said that they should NOT be illegal since there wouldnt have been put any effort into producing them in the first place. In the ideal world anyway. They therefore wouldnt exist and a ban would be redundant. If only complete regulation and therefore complete destribution was possible we wouldn't have to illegalize any goods only distribute the ones we create as a society. And therefore dangerous drugs with no practical purpose wouldnt have to be illegal since they wouldnt exist.

Furthermore making things like unhealthy food illegal wouldnt be a problem either. If we could distribute food into rations to everyone the most practial and healthy foods would only be available and therefore there wouldnt be reason to force a healthy lifestyle upon the population. Unhealthy and long-term dangerous food wouldnt be produced creating both a healthier society and removing the need to ban products as all products being created would already be aproved by state.

This doesn't really answer my questions. And obviously some people are going to want opium, or hamburgers, or "immoral" books, whatever. Assuming the resources required to produce these goods are available, refusing to manufacture them is a de facto ban, on the minimal assumption that in the communist society members of the society will have an input in decisions concerning production.

[TheMask]

Not really. As I said, communism means the end of the government over men. This means the public authorities, or the commune (I think the word is too federalist, but this is perhaps a discussion for another time), can't dictate what the workers should eat, who they can and can't sleep with and in what way etc.

This doesn't really answer my questions. And obviously some people are going to want opium, or hamburgers, or "immoral" books, whatever. Assuming the resources required to produce these goods are available, refusing to manufacture them is a de facto ban, on the minimal assumption that in the communist society members of the society will have an input in decisions concerning production.

Im afraid much of what you're describing here isn't communism but anarchy whitch is a latin term for ''Leaderless''. Communism can have and does in many cases have leaders and a state to regulate both destribution and manifacturing of goods.

Returning to your new question I think that you're right that part of the population will want those ''hurtful'' goods that you describe and yes that is probably one of the largest problems communism faces: The undereducated masses. Because of this needed be that there is a state present to regulate the manifacturing of namely drugs with no special purpose. The basic idea is to prevent the manifaction of these goods to protect the masses. To some degree this should also apply to the manifaction of unhealthy food. Although given yes this does to some degree go against a part of the communist foundation I think that to some degree all societies have to have some sort of regulation to protect the masses from their own ignorance. Like the idea of ''prevent to protect''. It is a moral question to which degree you can control other peoples faithes in order to protect them from themselves but personally I would go as far as say that at least drugs with no practical purpose should be prioritized very low in a regulated-production based system.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but the film "The House I Live In" probably has the best brief synopsis of why drugs are illegal that I've ever seen.

If you're interested in the subject I'd definitely recommend watching that film.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Here's a relevant clip:

trHrgci-L3Q

It's not shown in that clip, but the film also draws some interesting parallels between "crack hysteria" and "meth hysteria" of the late 90's/early 2000's, only the stereotyped targets then were poor white people/gay people rather than poor black people.

[liberlict]

The prohibited drugs are banned because they are harmful to people, even marijuana is very harmful to a persons body.

Yeah I would have thought so too. I think the motto around here is "the most complex explanation is always the best" :o

[Os Cangaceiros]

Marijuana is not "very harmful to a person's body". The propagandists may have been able to get away with that a few decades ago, but not in the era in which two minutes on Google will be more than enough to contradict their claims. Even constantly re-iterated claims such as the ones regarding the effects of cannabinoids on schizophrenia are open for debate (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24567721).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Im afraid much of what you're describing here isn't communism but anarchy whitch is a latin term for ''Leaderless''. Communism can have and does in many cases have leaders and a state to regulate both destribution and manifacturing of goods.

Returning to your new question I think that you're right that part of the population will want those ''hurtful'' goods that you describe and yes that is probably one of the largest problems communism faces: The undereducated masses. Because of this needed be that there is a state present to regulate the manifacturing of namely drugs with no special purpose. The basic idea is to prevent the manifaction of these goods to protect the masses. To some degree this should also apply to the manifaction of unhealthy food. Although given yes this does to some degree go against a part of the communist foundation I think that to some degree all societies have to have some sort of regulation to protect the masses from their own ignorance. Like the idea of ''prevent to protect''. It is a moral question to which degree you can control other peoples faithes in order to protect them from themselves but personally I would go as far as say that at least drugs with no practical purpose should be prioritized very low in a regulated-production based system.

Hello,

Most people here who descibe themselves as communists, I think would probably agree that communism as a society is one without a state or class differences. I think this is important to point out in this discussion because this conception has ramifications for this question.

I'm going to be frank and say that I strongly disagree with your argument here. I think that the idea that the "masses are uneducated" in terms of behavior doesn't hold up today and would certainly not hold up in a classless, stateless society: communism. Workers may be kept from organizational knowledge, leadership and critical thinking skills and are generally educated in developed capitalist countries in how to be good workers, to follow tasks, to do what is necissary in isolation from the bigger picture of why: we are taught to be mannaged and to dicipline ourselves for a life of sitting or standing for 8 hours a day completing some specific sub-divided task. The education for the sake of self-betterment and personal fufilment and being a confident and critical person would probably be desired and prioritized by most workers if there was a revolution. I don't think we'd want to re-create the kind of management of our personal behavior that capitalism tends to generate... and I don't think it would be necissary.

In, say, feudalism, no one cared if a weaver or farmer was drunk when they did their work (unless for personal safty reasons... like the drunk guy has the sythe) because what was valued was the product of the labor... the result. In capitalism, what matters is our labor power and drunk or stoned workers mean workers who might not show up on time or might work slow or might get sick. In fact part of the reson there is tea-time was so that British workers would be convinced to take a stimulent rather than drink a beer in the afternoon.

Management, control, over our labor and even our movments in performing our task is central to modern capitalism and out of that comes a general desire to control and discipline the masses. More specifically too is controlling the "rebeliousness" of the masses, controling behavior that deviates from what is promoted as the best way to organize our personal lives, getting us to discipline ourselves. This is why moral crusades have generally been the answer from the middle class to problems in the lives of workers.

[TheMask]

Hello,

Most people here who descibe themselves as communists, I think would probably agree that communism as a society is one without a state or class differences. I think this is important to point out in this discussion because this conception has ramifications for this question.

I'm going to be frank and say that I strongly disagree with your argument here. I think that the idea that the "masses are uneducated" in terms of behavior doesn't hold up today and would certainly not hold up in a classless, stateless society: communism. Workers may be kept from organizational knowledge, leadership and critical thinking skills and are generally educated in developed capitalist countries in how to be good workers, to follow tasks, to do what is necissary in isolation from the bigger picture of why: we are taught to be mannaged and to dicipline ourselves for a life of sitting or standing for 8 hours a day completing some specific sub-divided task. The education for the sake of self-betterment and personal fufilment and being a confident and critical person would probably be desired and prioritized by most workers if there was a revolution. I don't think we'd want to re-create the kind of management of our personal behavior that capitalism tends to generate... and I don't think it would be necissary.

In, say, feudalism, no one cared if a weaver or farmer was drunk when they did their work (unless for personal safty reasons... like the drunk guy has the sythe) because what was valued was the product of the labor... the result. In capitalism, what matters is our labor power and drunk or stoned workers mean workers who might not show up on time or might work slow or might get sick. In fact part of the reson there is tea-time was so that British workers would be convinced to take a stimulent rather than drink a beer in the afternoon.

Management, control, over our labor and even our movments in performing our task is central to modern capitalism and out of that comes a general desire to control and discipline the masses. More specifically too is controlling the "rebeliousness" of the masses, controling behavior that deviates from what is promoted as the best way to organize our personal lives, getting us to discipline ourselves. This is why moral crusades have generally been the answer from the middle class to problems in the lives of workers.

I must say I find your point interesting. In my opinion though a society without the division of workforces which I think some people misunderstand as "class society" wouldnt be able to exist. That being said I think a society that is regulated by state with the goal of securing equality and distribution of recources in such an order that everyone gets what they need not what their work is valued as (and almost all work is valued equally) AND the state attempts to look out for the interests of all of us looked upon equally is still a desireable communist society.

What Im getting at is that I think that communism should, although value all people equally, still look upon every individual as different but all working and doing their best for a soceity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I must say I find your point interesting. In my opinion though a society without the division of workforces which I think some people misunderstand as "class society" wouldnt be able to exist. That being said I think a society that is regulated by state with the goal of securing equality and distribution of recources in such an order that everyone gets what they need not what their work is valued as (and almost all work is valued equally) AND the state attempts to look out for the interests of all of us looked upon equally is still a desireable communist society.

What Im getting at is that I think that communism should, although value all people equally, still look upon every individual as different but all working and doing their best for a soceity.

Well dividing up tasks seems like it's common in any kind of organized activity - it's what allows people to do something collectivly that's greater than what their numbers could do if working autonomously. But I'd argue that the division and management of labor under capitalism is much different than that - like how walking in a crowd is different than an army marching even though both are essentially just groups of people going somewhere. But besides all that, class is much different than just a simple division of labor. Class is a relationship in society whereas a division of labor is just a relationship between people accomplishing a specific task. People can mutually divide up labor, or a manager can divide up taks and the workforce as they see best fit for creating profits - but these are very different in implication.

If people all wanted to make a fancy cake, they might divide up tasks, but they are all together on wanting the end result. For "classes" it's not a relationship towards one task that's divided up, it's actually the relationship to production itself. So mixing flower as part of making a cake with your family is a division of tasks, but in capitalism you sell your labor power to mix flower and the capitalist sets you to stirring at a set speed for a length of time to make... it dosn't matter, not to the laborer, she only gets a wage whereas the capitalist gets the cake to do with as they please.

It is not "natural" for people to do a simple task or a series of simple tasks, divorced from the product of the task, for a set length of time and at a speed determined by machines, computers, or just supervision from superiors. In pre-capitalist wage-labor, people usually just worked a few hours a day (they would probably farm or gather from common lands for the rest of their sustinance) and they sold the product of what they made. If they were tired or preoccupied, well they got paid for what they did. This is not the case in capitalism where the capitalist buys our labor power and therefore wants to maximize all the labor possible from that commodified unit. Because of this a great deal of coersion and discipline are needed. I think if regimes that have called themselves "communist" have employed similar methods, it's less about communism than about the need to keep pace with capitalist economies and accumulate rapidly from a low starting point.

As I see it "work" in communism would only be about the use-values produced and the usefulness of it. People would not under normal circumstances try and control eachother to maximize surplus values for exchange. I think this carries on to society in general where personal things which are not interfering with others would remain personal... recreational drug or alcohol use, free love, etc. Workers might make some safty rules... like don't be fucked up at work because then we have to work harder to cover you or you drive a big machine so we can't have you drunk.

Finally, on a practical level, prohibitions just don't work very well. US Prisons are far more restrictive than general society - even under dictatorships and yet people make alcohol, people smuggle, people find/make substances which alter their senses - usually these are less satisfying and safe than alcohol or popular street-drugs. Alcohol is something almost every culture developed and used as an intoxicant - if not, they had something else. Even if workers didn't produce alcohol, people would set up stills. Would revolutionary workers want to then spend time and resources survying the hills for illegal stills or pot-farms? No, people like to alter their senses. The best way to deal with it from a non-control, non-top-down way, would be for people to do what they have in pre-capitalist societies which was just develop customs around using substances and then peer-pressure if people behave in disruptive ways, drunk or just sober and jerky. That and actual medical treatment for people who aren't just being socially obnoxious but actually develop some kind of unwanted dependancy.

[TheMask]

Well dividing up tasks seems like it's common in any kind of organized activity - it's what allows people to do something collectivly that's greater than what their numbers could do if working autonomously. But I'd argue that the division and management of labor under capitalism is much different than that - like how walking in a crowd is different than an army marching even though both are essentially just groups of people going somewhere. But besides all that, class is much different than just a simple division of labor. Class is a relationship in society whereas a division of labor is just a relationship between people accomplishing a specific task. People can mutually divide up labor, or a manager can divide up taks and the workforce as they see best fit for creating profits - but these are very different in implication.

If people all wanted to make a fancy cake, they might divide up tasks, but they are all together on wanting the end result. For "classes" it's not a relationship towards one task that's divided up, it's actually the relationship to production itself. So mixing flower as part of making a cake with your family is a division of tasks, but in capitalism you sell your labor power to mix flower and the capitalist sets you to stirring at a set speed for a length of time to make... it dosn't matter, not to the laborer, she only gets a wage whereas the capitalist gets the cake to do with as they please.

It is not "natural" for people to do a simple task or a series of simple tasks, divorced from the product of the task, for a set length of time and at a speed determined by machines, computers, or just supervision from superiors. In pre-capitalist wage-labor, people usually just worked a few hours a day (they would probably farm or gather from common lands for the rest of their sustinance) and they sold the product of what they made. If they were tired or preoccupied, well they got paid for what they did. This is not the case in capitalism where the capitalist buys our labor power and therefore wants to maximize all the labor possible from that commodified unit. Because of this a great deal of coersion and discipline are needed. I think if regimes that have called themselves "communist" have employed similar methods, it's less about communism than about the need to keep pace with capitalist economies and accumulate rapidly from a low starting point.

As I see it "work" in communism would only be about the use-values produced and the usefulness of it. People would not under normal circumstances try and control eachother to maximize surplus values for exchange. I think this carries on to society in general where personal things which are not interfering with others would remain personal... recreational drug or alcohol use, free love, etc. Workers might make some safty rules... like don't be fucked up at work because then we have to work harder to cover you or you drive a big machine so we can't have you drunk.

Finally, on a practical level, prohibitions just don't work very well. US Prisons are far more restrictive than general society - even under dictatorships and yet people make alcohol, people smuggle, people find/make substances which alter their senses - usually these are less satisfying and safe than alcohol or popular street-drugs. Alcohol is something almost every culture developed and used as an intoxicant - if not, they had something else. Even if workers didn't produce alcohol, people would set up stills. Would revolutionary workers want to then spend time and resources survying the hills for illegal stills or pot-farms? No, people like to alter their senses. The best way to deal with it from a non-control, non-top-down way, would be for people to do what they have in pre-capitalist societies which was just develop customs around using substances and then peer-pressure if people behave in disruptive ways, drunk or just sober and jerky. That and actual medical treatment for people who aren't just being socially obnoxious but actually develop some kind of unwanted dependancy.

I am pleased to see you write this since I think it matches my point from my last message in almost every aspect. (Although yours was probably more carefully and well formulated) I must say I agree with you on all accounts in this case and I think a misunderstanding (probably just a wrong turn of phrase on my part) has turned this misunderstanding to an argument where we largely already agree on everything. We agree that a class-based society and division or work is not the same thing (which is what I meant to say from the beginning but unfortunately didn't formulate it as well as you) and that the dividing of work is inevitable and necessary while a class-based system should be avoided at all costs for the good of society and every person who lives under it. I am ever so happy to have a peaceful discussion on this forum with a fellow comrade only to find out that I agree with him completely.
Good day my fellow comrade

Hasta La Victoria Siempre!
- Che Guevara

[GodOfEvil]

why do people do drugs thats the bigger problem

[The Modern Prometheus]

why do people do drugs thats the bigger problem

You are right in a sense. I mean if we all woke up tomorrow in a good society and we all felt happy as humans can be anyway i think people would still use drugs so don't get me wrong on that. There is a big difference however between recreational drug use such as doing abit of coke or taking some MDMA on a weekend and having a serious drug addiction though. I don't really count Cannabis use into this by the way as i don't consider it to be a particularly harmful drug. I have seldom seen anyone who got addicted to drugs that where happy with their lives. There is all to often a underlying problem such as depression or not being happy with your life in general. Hence why so many people turn to alcohol or another drug if their life goes downhill. That needs to be dealt with or the best case scenario is you just trade one escape for another.

As for why drugs are illegal it's a economic problem. So much money goes to various government agencies, companies and police forces due to fighting for drug prohibition that these people have ALOT of influence in the political process. If they ended drug prohibition tomorrow the government would save alot of money for sure (this does not even includes things like taxes) but they would also put alot of powerful people out of work and create alot of strong and pissed off enemies.

[KobeB]

Drugs are Illegal because they mean health hazard, illegal trafficking, criminality and are a threat to society.

[Rafiq]

I seriously hope that you are not as naive as you are making yourself out to be right now. If the apparatus was truly concerned about the bodily harm, fast food, Coca Cola, alcohol, tobacco, and processed food would be banned.
Dodger also just liked your post which means you have much more than facts to worry about.

You're right, but as someone who knows based on experience every illegal drug has very harmful neurological, psychological effects and can really fuck you up permanently. Marijuana included, it's something a lot of people think you can just fuck with, it's a dangerous drug that while having trivial physical effects is definitely capable of being harmful, I.e. inducing psychosis.

When you lose the ability to properly understand your surroundings permanently, you lose everything. The brain is the only means by which you can communicate with and interpret the world around you, and you can easily fuck it up with drugs.

[Rafiq]

I think the greatest risk comes from taking shit like acid though (besides opiates). There's a small chance you'll get HPPD and honestly it's just not worth it. there's no coming back from that. A friend of mine got HPPD from it and she can't smoke weed or anything like forever because it reinduces the trip (which was really bad) and makes her condition a lot worse. I'd say psychedelics ruin marijuana highs. People always rationalize their trips spiritually or even pseudo philosophically and so on but they're really just fucked in the head.

[Rafiq]

Agreed.



I agree. The way some people treat marijuana it reminds me of the homeopathic medicine movement. But it does have actual medical uses, and it works well. You need not smoke it. You can vaporize it, or use edibles.

Actually vapes are still just as harmful to the lungs, not a lot of people know that.

Honestly who gives a fuck about that though, that's the least of problems with marijuana.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The brain actually has a pretty large capability of repairing itself post-drug abuse, as long as the drug abuser remains sober. Even after heavy use of neurotoxic substances like methamphetamine. Other psychoactive drugs like benzodiazepines have the potential for long-term impairment if heavily abused, but even then most people are able to get back up to approximately where they were before usage, as long as they don't continue to use. Also, HPPD is not necessarily permanent & mood stabilizers like Klonopin are fairly effective at treating it.

People are always going on and on about how psychedelic hallucinogens have the potential to mess up your brain for good, but they're really the only class of drug I'm glad I took, honestly. They made my life and personality better, not worse.

People just need to exercise some goddamn self-control.

[Slavic]

The brain actually has a pretty large capability of repairing itself post-drug abuse, as long as the drug abuser remains sober. Even after heavy use of neurotoxic substances like methamphetamine. Other psychoactive drugs like benzodiazepines have the potential for long-term impairment if heavily abused, but even then most people are able to get back up to approximately where they were before usage, as long as they don't continue to use. Also, HPPD is not necessarily permanent & mood stabilizers like Klonopin are fairly effective at treating it.

People are always going on and on about how psychedelic hallucinogens have the potential to mess up your brain for good, but they're really the only class of drug I'm glad I took, honestly. They made my life and personality better, not worse.

People just need to exercise some goddamn self-control.


100% this. I can say that psychedelics have improved my life and changed my perception on the world. I have never experienced any negative symptoms that lasted longer than a day after use, this is coming from over 50 seperate trips. This is anecdotal but myth of permanent psychosis from psychedelic drug use is taken as some kind of common occurance.

[Rafiq]

The brain actually has a pretty large capability of repairing itself post-drug abuse, as long as the drug abuser remains sober. Even after heavy use of neurotoxic substances like methamphetamine. Other psychoactive drugs like benzodiazepines have the potential for long-term impairment if heavily abused, but even then most people are able to get back up to approximately where they were before usage, as long as they don't continue to use. Also, HPPD is not necessarily permanent & mood stabilizers like Klonopin are fairly effective at treating it.

People are always going on and on about how psychedelic hallucinogens have the potential to mess up your brain for good, but they're really the only class of drug I'm glad I took, honestly. They made my life and personality better, not worse.

People just need to exercise some goddamn self-control.

Well yeah, it's just fucking obnoxious how you have to remain sober (be it pot or alcohol) or else you get fucked again. I've only had one experience with a psychedelic (a year ago) and I can't really say I regret it. But my friend had very little experience with any other drug, she took two tabs of acid once and that's all it took to get HPPD.

[Црвена]

Come on, the state does not give a fuck about the wellbeing of the people. A good example of this is at my brother's school, where the council put processed, unhealthy garbage in the school dinners to save money and then have a long list of foods that are not allowed in packed lunches. The state doesn't want us to be healthy and happy and well-represented, it wants us to be submissive and under control so that it gets more power and can get away with hoarding money and doing awful things. That's why it needs smashing.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Drugs are Illegal because they mean health hazard, illegal trafficking, criminality and are a threat to society.

That's the whole point of legalization. You treat addiction like a health issue and help people lessen the negative effects of recreational drug use. By nationalizing it you also remove the criminal element from the equation.


I think the greatest risk comes from taking shit like acid though (besides opiates). There's a small chance you'll get HPPD and honestly it's just not worth it. there's no coming back from that. A friend of mine got HPPD from it and she can't smoke weed or anything like forever because it reinduces the trip (which was really bad) and makes her condition a lot worse. I'd say psychedelics ruin marijuana highs. People always rationalize their trips spiritually or even pseudo philosophically and so on but they're really just fucked in the head.

Its up to the individual whether they want to take such and such a drug. Everyone is diffferent and i had no negative reaction to LSD At all even at high doses. However there are a unlucky few that do get lasting effects but it can be treated. I know people that have had it and now are symptom free. They just can't use psychedelics anymore. On the otherhand i love shrooms and acid and i find them to be the easiest drugs on the brain and body the next day.

So yeah everyone is different when it comes to how they react to a drug.

[Rottenfruit]

So if someone took a kilogram of crystal meth a day for a year they would be fine?
a kilogram? you can die from drinking too much water and a kilogram of meth is over the top it would be like drinking 50 gallons of water en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Meth can be used daily relatively safe, desoxyn is prescription drug that contains meth that is short for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride given for adhd and obeisity in extreme cases .


The most dangerous drug have come on the black market due to drugs being banned for example mdma knockoffs like pma and pmma.
Pma and pmma are extremely deadly drugs related to mdma but the dose to get high from them is almost the same as dose to die from is.

But because pma and pmma are easier to make then mdma, the precursors chemicals are not as regulated as mdma precursors chemicals and they are cheaper to make shady characthers have sold them as mdma on the black market, almost all mdma deaths have been due to knockoffs like them.

The dose to die from mdma is about 50 times higher then the dose to get high, the dose to die from pma is less then 50% higher then to get high.

[Brotto Rühle]

The government would. Whether it would be the state, a commune, a workers council, etc. depends on what society exists at the time. If the drugs are harmful to others they should definitely be banned because by keeping them legal you are threatening the safety of innocents who did nothing wrong.

Drugs are designed to make people feel better, in a communist society they would not be necessary.

This is some utopian bullshit.

"EVERYONE IS HAPPY IN COMMUNISM! :)"

[Cani]

We must ultimately accept that the will of the individual is higher than the imposition of social will upon him. That is, if his will only concerns himself.

If a man wants to destroy his brain, he can do so, regardless of any laws we make to prevent it.

What we should be concerned with is educating children so that they don't seek to destroy their minds and bodies later in life.

Education, not prohibition is the key.

[Comrade #138672]

The war on drugs is reactionary. Inform people instead of arbitrarily banning drugs. It makes no sense in a socialist society.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So marijuana is not bad for you?

No, it cures cancer, there are naturally occurring cannibanoids and receptors found in the human body, more people die of aspirin per year than cannabis which has a total of 0 deaths per year attributed to it in the US, it works wonders or the treatment of depression and other mental illnesses, etc. Its pretty healthy and really, it comes down to how was the marijuana grown.

The most you could maybe do is trying to link it to obesity and diabetes cuz teh munchies.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think the greatest risk comes from taking shit like acid though (besides opiates). There's a small chance you'll get HPPD and honestly it's just not worth it. there's no coming back from that. A friend of mine got HPPD from it and she can't smoke weed or anything like forever because it reinduces the trip (which was really bad) and makes her condition a lot worse. I'd say psychedelics ruin marijuana highs. People always rationalize their trips spiritually or even pseudo philosophically and so on but they're really just fucked in the head.

This is ridiculous, the psychological/therapeutic qualities of psychedelics have been widely documented and have been shown to have particular positive benefits to those with terminal illnesses and them coming to terms with said illness and the inevitable mentally. Further, most people are fucking stupid when it comes to them and do not take them in the correct doses in the correct settings. I've had loads of bad trips and I smoke more weed daily than a lot of stoners would monthly lol

[Rafiq]

This is ridiculous, the psychological/therapeutic qualities of psychedelics have been widely documented and have been shown to have particular positive benefits to those with terminal illnesses and them coming to terms with said illness and the inevitable mentally. Further, most people are fucking stupid when it comes to them and do not take them in the correct doses in the correct settings. I've had loads of bad trips and I smoke more weed daily than a lot of stoners would monthly lol

Yes, some of those same documents also speak of the 'spiritual' aspect of psychedelics and how they connect you to other worlds and dimensions or whatever. You yourself are not 'all there', I cannot begin to imagine how your thought process works, maybe psychedelics are to blame. Maybe you alone are testament to their mental harm.

[Lily Briscoe]

it works wonders or the treatment of depression and other mental illnesses

Is there any actual evidence for this (and by evidence, I don't mean anecdotes from people who are psychologically dependent on smoking weed, because I've certainly heard plenty of those)? Because it seems really, really counterintuitive to me...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, some of those same documents also speak of the 'spiritual' aspect of psychedelics and how they connect you to other worlds and dimensions or whatever.

No, no they don't. There is no mention of anything new agey, actually. But I guess psychotherapy is just 'witchcraft' or voodoo to you.


You yourself are not 'all there',

Says the person with 0 mental healthcare education or experience. In what respect? Out of curiosity. This is also pretty ableist and prejudice too.


I cannot begin to imagine how your thought process works,

I know, I'm pretty profound and awesome, like a little Buddha, covered in glitter. :wub:


maybe psychedelics are to blame.

:rolleyes:


Maybe you alone are testament to their mental harm.

Again, this isn't really clever you're just being mean and offensive with no real substance on addition to using perceived mental impairments or diseases as an insult. Good job. You make me pretty proud sometimes babe, you know that?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is there any actual evidence for this (and by evidence, I don't mean anecdotes from people who are psychologically dependent on smoking weed, because I've certainly heard plenty of those)? Because it seems really, really counterintuitive to me...

here read this (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_therapy)

and this (http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-tapas/201303/medical-marijuana-psychiatric-disorders)

[Creative Destruction]

I think drugs are illegal primarily because drugs make people happy without lots of material possessions. They undermine the capitalist system.

i'm sure the Zapatista rebellion will be complete if they would just only make drugs legal.

[helot]

Back in 2006 the British govt released a command paper (CM 6941). They stated that "the distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocallly based on pharmocology, economic or risk-benefit analysis but is in large part based on historic and cultural precedents".

[Lily Briscoe]

here read this (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_therapy) Yeah, I've read quite a bit about this (particularly in relation to psilocybin). Your comment that I quoted was in relation to weed, though, not hallucinogens.

and this (http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-tapas/201303/medical-marijuana-psychiatric-disorders)
Thanks, I'll read this when I get home from work.

As a side note, some of the "medical marijuana" dispensaries around here advertise certain strains as being particularly good for ADHD, which - as someone with ADHD (although I'm pretty ambivalent about whether or not ADHD is even really a thing/'medical condition') - is seriously some of the funniest/most ridiculous shit I have ever heard in my life.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yeah, I've read quite a bit about this (particularly in relation to psilocybin). Your comment that I quoted was in relation to weed, though, not hallucinogens.

Marijuana is also included under the psychedelic therapy umbrella.

[consuming negativity]

I hate this argument about the supposed medical benefits of X or Y drug, as if any of you even care on either side of the fence. Drugs are drugs, all of them have some medical benefit and associated drawbacks. You never get something for nothing with drugs. But I sure as hell don't want some fuck with a hammer and sickle kicking my ass and taking my drugs because he "cares" about me. Yeah man, throw me in jail because all of those evil bad drugs are gonna ruin my life! :laugh: Drugs are fun as shit and will be fun as shit no matter who owns what or who is all scared of opening their mind a little bit. "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!"

[argeiphontes]

As a side note, some of the "medical marijuana" dispensaries around here advertise certain strains as being particularly good for ADHD, which - as someone with ADHD (although I'm pretty ambivalent about whether or not ADHD is even really a thing/'medical condition') - is seriously some of the funniest/most ridiculous shit I have ever heard in my life.

I'm not sure, Strix. As a computer programmer I find that MJ really helps my concentration and creativity. Especially creativity and design. Talk to me about OOP when I'm high ;)

But then again I'm not diagnosed with ADHD nor, as you said, am I convinced that it's a real condition since I've seen it obviously misdiagnosed in people. I would assume that it's at least over-diagnosed.

I've used some ADHD drugs recreationally and they seem to have a similar "work is the most interesting thing ever" effect (Dexedrin). MJ makes things more interesting, too. If it happens to be video games, it's video games, but that's still your choice to make. I'm sure Dexedrin would make video games interesting, too. Nobody smokes MJ and then sits down with Python except me :) That doesn't mean it doesn't make it more interesting.... I understand YMMV.

By the way, the most difficult to quit drug I've ever used is tobacco. They discovered it has an MAOI, and I've been using it since I was 18. So, weed's got nothing on tobacco in terms of loss of motivation and activity.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I think the greatest risk comes from taking shit like acid though (besides opiates). There's a small chance you'll get HPPD and honestly it's just not worth it. there's no coming back from that. A friend of mine got HPPD from it and she can't smoke weed or anything like forever because it reinduces the trip (which was really bad) and makes her condition a lot worse. I'd say psychedelics ruin marijuana highs. People always rationalize their trips spiritually or even pseudo philosophically and so on but they're really just fucked in the head.

Really? Because out of every psychedelic user i know maybe 2 have HPPD. I myself have used LSD, shrooms as well as the less traditional psychs such as MDA and MDMA as well as the dissociatives Ketamine, Nitrous oxide, Dextromethorphan and PCP all to no i'll effect. As with anything it's about how often you use and also some luck. If i took E everyday like some people i know no doubt my memory would be totally fucked for sure but occasional use of these drugs are fairly harmless.

As for opiates again occasional use won't hurt you. The problem of course with opiates is that it's all to easy for it to become everyday use. Personally i found alcohol and Cocaine to be the worst in terms of effects on the mind and body. I literally have 2 years of my life i barely remember because of those 2 drugs.

At the end of the day it's my choice and noone else's what i take.