Sobriety [Archive]

View Full Version : Sobriety

Quail

25th August 2015, 14:23

I had a quick look, but couldn't find a suitable article to accompany my post... If anyone knows of a good one please link below.

But anyway, I was thinking about this on the way home from work this morning. I'm currently laying off the booze a bit in solidarity with my partner, so maybe that's why it's been on my mind. (There seems to be no way of articulating myself without coming across as a bit self-righteous, so for the record I am a regular user of a variety of drugs, often for the wrong reasons, and have nothing to be self-righteous about.)

There are quite a few good reasons to be critical of drugs and the way that people use them. Focussing on alcohol...

1) In the UK, it's kind of a social norm, at least for young people, to get utterly obliterated at the weekend. Which means, people spend most of their time either drunk or hungover, so outside of the working week, there's little to no time to actually organise. This culture starts when people are fairly young teenagers - 14 or 15, if not younger. Young people often have spare time and youthful optimism on their side, but if the dominant culture is going out and getting wasted, all of that goes to waste. Of course, the alcohol industry doesn't help when it markets shitty alcopops at teenagers.

2) Alcohol makes shitty conditions more palatable. I don't blame anyone living in shitty conditions for drinking, by the way... But then, if people are dealing with their shitty conditions by drinking alcohol then they're not trying to change them, or perhaps not able to change them. Again, it is socially acceptable and often even encouraged to drown your sorrows. People are always joking about drinking to deal with a tough day... I'm sure I did it myself not too long ago, tbh. But what kind of message is that actually sending out? We should accept our lot in life because we can drink our problems away?

I guess the main point is (and I do include myself here) that alcohol pacifies people. The drinking culture in the UK is toxic and is a hindrance to organising effectively.

So, what can we do?

I wouldn't argue for everyone to cut out all drugs all the time. Aside from being totally unrealistic, I don't think all drugs are inherently harmful. I also don't think that "revolutionaries should stay sober" is a useful idea either, because although activist communities can and do replicate toxic alcohol culture, that's sort of a corollary of its presence in wider society. Is it even possible to change our relationship with drugs under capitalism?

This is more of a ramble than a coherent post, but any thoughts?

Sasha

25th August 2015, 14:42

while i am far from sXe, i drink, smoke and do drugs, i have always had an interest in the early revolutionary teetotalers movements... esp their critique of alcohol as a movement and social cohesion wrecker employed by the bourgeois which has strong parallels in anti-heroin and crack writings from the 60's to 80's, often from black radical organizations.

Hatshepsut

25th August 2015, 15:15

There's this thing where goodness or badness for body becomes a matter of political preference. So, pot caused bizarre, random axe murders in 1937's Reefer Madness, a Harry Anslinger piece from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in the USA. Today pot is all good for you. Because Colorado has legalized it, and the federal gov't has agreed to back off.

But chemical toxicity isn't a political matter and it doesn't depend on youth or on point of view. It's biology. None of these substances is particularly good for you. Smoking pot involves lung exposure to carcinogens just like with the politically-incorrect cigarettes. Too much heroin or meth and he's dead right now. The only thing youth has to do with it is you get away with more abuse of your body at age 22 than you do when your're 59. It would be nice to see drug imprisonment disappear in the U.S. since it's just repression that does nothing about drug use itself, but I don't encourage people to take up these habits.

The Russian revolutionaries drank heavily for the most part; in the 1970s Andrei Gromyko, "Grim Grom," was the only dude on the Politburo who wasn't trashed. And as these fellas weren't young bucks, it cost them even more. They made mistakes leaders in full possession of mental faculties don't usually make and they died relatively early. I think it affected the success of the revolution to some degree as well.

Patchd

25th August 2015, 15:16

I guess the main point is (and I do include myself here) that alcohol pacifies people. The drinking culture in the UK is toxic and is a hindrance to organising effectively.

Whilst I don't take issue with anyone trying to limit their use of, or reliance on drugs or certain practices (I've practically stopped smoking weed, and I barely drink now I've moved back down south ... I KNOW RIGHT :ohmy:) I don't think its the use of these drugs that hinder effective organising. It seems to be our inability to effectively organise that is a hindrance to us effectively organising, and we can only do so when there is a foundation for that organisation to take place.

In the past when there was still some semblance of a working class movement, organising took place in pubs all the time. Socialist organisations even set up their own pubs and bars, and ironically the Workingmen's Associations in the UK were set up as part of a temperance movement which later realised many of us do like a good piss up, at least every once in a while.

bricolage

25th August 2015, 16:03

Yeah I'd dispute the relationship between not organizing and drinking. To use a minor example, in the 70s when UK workplaces were much more organized and militant (often outside of union structures) it was commonplace to go to the pub at lunch as well as after work. I think the main critique here would be that the pubs were seen as male (and largely white) spaces and so excluded women as well as many black and asian workers. At the very least today in our ever atomised workplaces where workers have less and less time and spaces to talk to each other, social events (that will inevitably involve alcohol) are still relevant.

I guess while I have some sympathy to these arguments I'm critical of attempts to limit the use of drink and drugs. I think about prohibition which was a middle class and anti-immigrant movement, the various religious bans on alcohol today, the problems of straight edge which ended up marginalizing those from working class/non-white backgrounds who were forced into drug dealing and/or neighborhoods with high levels of drug addiction, alcohol bans in occupy camps which were used to kick out homeless people, as well as groups like crimethinc which never came across as anything other than patronising in their anti-drinking crusades.

I don't think it's a good idea to be smashed non-stop but I don't think it's a big issue in terms of problems of organizing and I'm not sure how any sobriety movement could ever be done in a productive manner. I know this isn't what you were suggesting in your initial post and if people want to change their behaviours on a personal level then all power to them. I just don't think it should be a political position or blamed for low levels of class struggle.

Observational Change

25th August 2015, 16:53

I had a similar thought the other day. I am "straight-edge" but moreover and really: puritan. I am puritan in a scientific and not doctrinaire way. And also an 'impure puritan'. I prefer to live this way because I feel like on the one hand heavy alcohol use, over-use of pain-relievers, and hard-drug use are bad for personal and social health and cause suffering but also when used to treat suffering there is a demarcation line that is not crossed: people who medicate for their social suffering fail to cross a threshold at which the treatment changes from salves to surgery. Which is kind of like being a euthanized social subject.

Rudolf

25th August 2015, 17:21

I guess the main point is (and I do include myself here) that alcohol pacifies people. The drinking culture in the UK is toxic and is a hindrance to organising effectively.

Reminds me of Bakunin

...but of escape there are but three methods - two chimerical and a third real. The first two are the dram-shop and the church, debauchery of the body or debauchery of the mind; the third is social revolution.

It doesn't fit for now though as there are more than 3 methods of escape.

I barely drink, i might have a pint every month or so. I really hate drinking culture, it's why i could never get along with students during my short stint at university. Ive seen people's instincts blunted by alcohol, hell i've seen old revolutionaries who've completely lost their revolutionary fervor because of their alcohol problems. It's saddening. I don't think drinking necessarily pacifies people and destroys their ability to organise. It can, no doubt, but the list is way longer than drugs. I've seen peopel pacified by booze, i've seen people pacified by weed*, people pacified by movies, video games, their mortgage, trying to make rent payments, etc etc.

I think ultimately Patchd is right... it seems to be our inability to effectively organise that's the hindrence.

*Btw, wtf is with stoners? There's definitely something about immersing yourself in stoner culture that hinders the person's capacity for rational thought and i say that as someone who smokes a fair amount of weed. If i come across one more stoner that's into cryptozoology or conspiracy theories i'm gonna fucking scream.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th August 2015, 17:48

I am finding that, in London at least, the night/weekend/clubbing scene is so wrecked that the only thing many people see fit to do on a night out, whilst being crammed into corporate superclubs with average-to-poor music DJs tightly controlled by bouncers, is to drink.

You occasionally find a decent club, or a decent night even, where you can dance to exhileration to awesome music, but mostly this is few and far between and, I think, the majority of people end up drinking just because there's not much else to do on the weekend.

Os Cangaceiros

25th August 2015, 18:17

Alcoholism isn't really that bad where I'm from, or at least not in comparison to other places in the USA (I don't think...) Problem drinking here is more of the Scandinavian model of binge sessions, rather than the prolonged marathon drinking in the UK. I've heard that it's pretty bad over there, though, and you have my condolences...I've gotten to the point in my life where I just hate drunks.

BIXX

25th August 2015, 18:24

Quail

25th August 2015, 21:02

Thanks for responding, will reply when I have more time.

Futility Personified

25th August 2015, 23:08

I think in general it cuts too many ways. There are many people who are rendered ridiculous caricatures of what they might have been by incessant drug use, but there are also many people who desperately cling to pathetic standards in life in accordance with property ownership.

John Nada

26th August 2015, 12:53

Things were more lively at union meetings when they served alchohol. But MADD and Reagan made alcohol and unions the enemy of all that's good and the labor buearocrats got tired of pissed-off workers beating the shit out of them, so no more fun.:(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park This was an experiment. In studies on addiction, the standard procedure was to hook the rats and monkeys up to an IV, dose them with massive quantities of fun drugs till it was trained to be addicted, then see how many times they push the lever to get a dose. With cocaine some of the animals were dosing themselves even to the exclusion of food and water, or even to an overdose.

What Alexander theorized was the rats were all alone, in a cage, with a bland diet and nothing to do. This would be rather depressing, anyone would probably get as fucked up as possible to end it. So he gave the rats everything they would need to be satisfied. The result was the rats weren't as likely to be addicted. In fact they'd prefer the placebo.

The effect of environment on addiction also extends to tolerance. If someone with a high tolerance uses in a new place, in a different context, they're more likely to OD. This happens with the same dose as usual, just a change of setting.

Social and environmental effects are also noted with psychedelics. The effects can be completely different depending on the "set and setting". For example, in a sterile, hostile, unsocial setting it tends to produce bad trips. In a comfortable setting, particularly with a social support group, it's often the opposite. If one experiences it it's amazing how much social and context variables dramatically alter the effects. It can seem like hell for eternity if there's bad vibes, like heaven with a few good friends.

What I'm getting at is the influence of society at large on an individual's reaction to drugs. Capitalism forces the problems inward, onto the individual. The standards by which capitalist society values people alter the effects, likely in a negative direction. I've read studies on drug and alcohol epidemics where the addiction rate is normally about 10%, reaches as high as 90% in marginalized communities. This is an example of socioeconomic causes directly affecting health. The base and superstructure having a strong influence on human behavior.

I don't believe in that straight-edge shit. Basically spent since 13 not sober, so fuck that abstance shit. It's possible that actively altering the environment will change people's relation to drugs and alcohol. A socialist movement could turn drugs(particularly psychedelics) away from destructive abuse and towards more sociable use.
Smoking pot involves lung exposure to carcinogens just like with the politically-incorrect cigarettes.Believe it or not weed does not cause cancer. The cannabinoids counteract the tars. Actually kills tumors. Now there was a study that claimed smoking weed somewhat raises the already small risk of testicular cancer(but not that common, IMO it's the pesticides). However, not everyone has nuts, and that same study said cocaine greatly lowers the risk of cancer. That balances things out.:grin:

Patchd

26th August 2015, 15:03

Believe it or not weed does not cause cancer. The cannabinoids counteract the tars. Actually kills tumors. Now there was a study that claimed smoking weed somewhat raises the already small risk of testicular cancer(but not that common, IMO it's the pesticides). However, not everyone has nuts, and that same study said cocaine greatly lowers the risk of cancer. That balances things out.:grin:

Cannabis 20 times more carcinogenic than tobacco? ~ NZ Drug Foundation (https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/mythbusters/cannabis-20-times-more-carcinogenic-tobacco)

Marijuana cigarettes deposit four times more tar into smokers' lungs than tobacco-based cigarettes ~ Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/marijuanatar.asp)

It seems the evidence is currently pointing towards cannabinoids having a counteractive effect on cancerous cells, but there is still a need for more research. It also seems that smoking methods generally associated with cannabis consumption makes it more likely for a greater deposit of tar in the lungs, but Snopes has this to say;

In conclusion, although it may be true that marijuana smoke deposits more tar into the lungs than tobacco smoke, current evidence does not indicate that the former results in proportionally greater deleterious health affects.

Flavius

26th August 2015, 17:35

Vladimir Innit Lenin

26th August 2015, 23:58

Okay, first of all: alcohol and drugs are good. People do drugs because it makes them feel good. And honestly, I don't see any problems here. Drug abuse only becomes a problem when it prevents people from living the lives they lived before. Addiction is a nasty thing, but doing drugs or drinking doesn't necessary leads to addiction. I think that ascetic, puritanical lifestlye can be counterproductive, but even if it isn't, I highly doubt that it is a necessity.

All drugs? Heroin? Crack? Meth? All alcohol? 90% purity Vodka? Low quality spirits? Hmm.

I find statements like 'all alcohol and drugs are good' to be inherently political. They are not rational statements backed up in fact. Yes, a (small) glass of red wine a few night a week may have positive health benefits. Elements of cannabis can have healing properties. But there's no such thing as 'heroin in moderation', or 'the odd puff of crack', or 'just having low quality, high strength Vodka occasionally'.

Clearly, some drugs/some forms of alcohol are 'more equal than others'. This is a level of nuance that is missing from the otherwise moralistic and political tone of the drugs debate. We would do well to have a public education campaign that highlighted these differences and allowed people to think about their own consumption, as well as a de-criminalisation of less harmful substances such as weed, and a progressive pricing strategy that encourages people to stick to alcohols like normal-strength beer, red wine etc. Needless to say, a stricter quality regime on spirits would also weed out the occasional outbreaks of illness from moonshine masquerading as a commercial product.

Flavius

27th August 2015, 00:12

All drugs? Heroin? Crack? Meth? All alcohol? 90% purity Vodka? Low quality spirits? Hmm.

I find statements like 'all alcohol and drugs are good' to be inherently political. They are not rational statements backed up in fact. Yes, a (small) glass of red wine a few night a week may have positive health benefits. Elements of cannabis can have healing properties. But there's no such thing as 'heroin in moderation', or 'the odd puff of crack', or 'just having low quality, high strength Vodka occasionally'.

Clearly, some drugs/some forms of alcohol are 'more equal than others'. This is a level of nuance that is missing from the otherwise moralistic and political tone of the drugs debate. We would do well to have a public education campaign that highlighted these differences and allowed people to think about their own consumption, as well as a de-criminalisation of less harmful substances such as weed, and a progressive pricing strategy that encourages people to stick to alcohols like normal-strength beer, red wine etc. Needless to say, a stricter quality regime on spirits would also weed out the occasional outbreaks of illness from moonshine masquerading as a commercial product.

You are maybe right, I was generalizing, but what I wanted to point out is that most drugs are not lethal, or not cause fatal problems if there is moderation, and that I understand people who want to enjoy themselves with help of certain substances sometimes. But you are right, quality is of course and important matter.

Os Cangaceiros

27th August 2015, 01:41

My impression of the OP was that it's about people who are already engaging in substance use in a problematic fashion (although, granted, the thread title is "sobriety"), and the problems this leads to in terms of organizing. Not about whether substance use is good or bad in the abstract.

Os Cangaceiros

27th August 2015, 01:44

But there's no such thing as 'heroin in moderation', or 'the odd puff of crack', or 'just having low quality, high strength Vodka occasionally'.

Is that actually true, though? To me that also sounds like a blanket generalization. And what's wrong with high proof liquor? Drinking six pints of beer is probably more unhealthy for you than drinking the equivalent amount of Bacardi 151. I know that I prefer having a couple shots of high proof liquor over drinking beer.

John Nada

27th August 2015, 10:48

the evidence is currently pointing towards cannabinoids having a counteractive effect on cancerous cells, but there is still a need for more research. It also seems that smoking methods generally associated with cannabis consumption makes it more likely for a greater deposit of tar in the lungs, but Snopes has this to say;Tobacco has specific carcinogens that weed doesn't, like nitrosamines and radioactive metals. They arise from the curing and all the chemical additives to make it smokable(nicotine's pretty harsh and spicy). The cheap-ass fertilizer used has radioactive metals that for some strange reason tobacco specifically concentrates.

I'm not so sure that the different smoking method makes weed deposit more tar. The smoke is a mixture of vapor and particles of different sizes. The vapor and smaller particles are the worst because it goes deep into the lungs, stays there and has greater absorption. The tobacco companies intentionally try to make as much vapor and the smallest particles as possible because it makes tobacco more smokable and feels better.

Weed has larger particles that don't go as deep. This is why cigarette filters block the THC, so no one uses it in joints. This might be a reason why smoking bud alone can cause bronchitis but not emphysema. Plus it's a bronchodilator and expectorant, so it could actually treat lung problems.
All drugs? Heroin? Crack? Meth? All alcohol? 90% purity Vodka? Low quality spirits? Hmm.Sounds like my kind of party:cool:, back seven years ago that is.
I find statements like 'all alcohol and drugs are good' to be inherently political. They are not rational statements backed up in fact. Yes, a (small) glass of red wine a few night a week may have positive health benefits. Elements of cannabis can have healing properties. But there's no such thing as 'heroin in moderation', or 'the odd puff of crack', or 'just having low quality, high strength Vodka occasionally'.About ten percent of people who use heroin, cocaine powder/crack(same compound, different form) or alcohol will get addicted. Much lower if it's for purely medical reasons. It's not that uncommon for cocaine to be given for pain in a hospital or hospice care. Diamorphine(pure heroin) is commonly used in UK hospitals, and there's small programs in a few countries for opioid maintanace instead of methadone. Both are prescribed for the terminally ill, to easy the suffering.
Clearly, some drugs/some forms of alcohol are 'more equal than others'. This is a level of nuance that is missing from the otherwise moralistic and political tone of the drugs debate. We would do well to have a public education campaign that highlighted these differences and allowed people to think about their own consumption, as well as a de-criminalisation of less harmful substances such as weed, and a progressive pricing strategy that encourages people to stick to alcohols like normal-strength beer, red wine etc. Needless to say, a stricter quality regime on spirits would also weed out the occasional outbreaks of illness from moonshine masquerading as a commercial product.It should just be legalized, across the board. Addiction is a medical problem and whatever anyone wants to do with their mind isn't any of my business. The focus should be on reducing the death rate and preventing or treating chronic medical conditions associated with hard drugs. There should be free maintenance therapy for people who're addicted. Not just methadone or buprenorphine for opiate dependency, but diamorphine, cocaine, amphetamines or whatever can stabilize them.

BIXX

27th August 2015, 11:16

Moralizing

Moralizing everywhere

Realistically its no one's business if I decide to wind down my day with a crack pipe and a jug of 90% alcohol vodka with my cheeseburger.

GiantMonkeyMan

27th August 2015, 13:41

I get that position and it's very much true that the left should argue against the state inflicting itself upon the personal lives of any individual. At the same time, I don't think there's any issue with people talking to their friends who might be addicts, educating people they care about to explain the harm both biological and social and suggest moderation. I think I'd be a bit annoyed if I pointed out to someone I cared about that they might have a harmful addiction and they told me to stop moralising and to mind my own business - the same applies somewhat to comrades in organisations.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

27th August 2015, 18:37

Moralizing

Moralizing everywhere

Realistically its no one's business if I decide to wind down my day with a crack pipe and a jug of 90% alcohol vodka with my cheeseburger.

It sort of is if you end up in a drug-induced stupor in the hospital at social cost to say, heart attack patients and pregnancies. Arguing for de-criminalisation is absolutely fair, but to legalise the whole process would be dangerous. I can imagine full-scale legalisation leading to McHeroin and McCrack pipes abound. It would be a social disaster.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

27th August 2015, 18:42

Sounds like my kind of party:cool:, back seven years ago that is.

Yes, I know what you mean. :grin:

About ten percent of people who use heroin, cocaine powder/crack(same compound, different form) or alcohol will get addicted. Much lower if it's for purely medical reasons. It's not that uncommon for cocaine to be given for pain in a hospital or hospice care. Diamorphine(pure heroin) is commonly used in UK hospitals, and there's small programs in a few countries for opioid maintanace instead of methadone. Both are prescribed for the terminally ill, to easy the suffering.

Yes, fair points. But the key thing is this - these doses are controlled by medical professionals and given for a medical purpose. The effect post-legalisation would surely be hugely different. I cannot see any upside to legalising certain drugs, such as heroin or crack.

I think also the addiction is secondary. Alcohol, for example, doesn't need to reach addiction point to be harmful. Mere semi-regular binging, as we know, can cause harm if it carried on in the long-term. This isn't necessarily an argument for criminalisation, but it is definitely a public health issue here in the UK that people feel the need to go out and destroy themselves (OK i'll say ourselves because I do the same, though to much less effect these days) in this way.

RedWorker

27th August 2015, 18:56

Replying to the OP because I didn't read the rest of the thread.

With a few words everything on this topic is said:

Criminalizing drugs is obviously harmful and counter-productive as proven by all available data. Developing a dependence on drugs is highly harmful to an individual. At the same time, a certain usage of drugs can be good for someone, somewhere. The conclusion, then, is that on a personal level, if used in a moderate and considerate fashion, drugs can be positive and not harmful.

But analyzing at this individual level is stupid, therefore, this question must be analyzed at a social level.

Today, culture relating to drugs (both that which worships it and which disapproves of it in a conservative fashion) is crap, and the hegemony of drugs (including alcohol) in social interaction and culture of interpersonal relationships is a pathetic travesty of social intercourse.

We face hypocrisy, because the stupidest and most dangerous drugs such as alcohol are 'acceptable' while others such as marijuana are not. This reaches its expression when recreational usage of alcohol and culture fetishizing its use is allowed, but the medical use of certain drugs is not.

Even though logically examining facts would inevitably lead to the conclusions I have laid out above, debates on this topic often lead to controversial discussions. This is because of the conflict between prudes and between fetishists of drugs, each of whom pretends that their particular culture supposedly represents some sort of "great culture" and/or "great morality". Here's a hint: neither do, and to think in this framework in the first place is stupid.

The question, then remains, what possibly could replace this stupid culture of drugs that exists now. In my opinion this is pretty simple. All drugs must be made freely available, at the same time public health and education campaigns must be directed to make everyone clearly aware and have a reasonable understanding of the effects of such drugs. Socially, both drug-fetishist and prude culture should be sabotaged. The culture of peer pressure and alcohol-drinking passing off as social interactions should be opposed.

bcbm

27th August 2015, 23:40

Ceallach_the_Witch

27th August 2015, 23:58

one thing i think might be worth mentioning - realistically if hard drugs were legalised right now under capitalism i'd probably use one or another to kill myself in the near future and i doubt i'd be alone in that. fuck, i'm not even sure that i'd necessarily always be ok with being alive outside of capitalism. even with the extremely limited access i had at the time, i tried to off myself earlier this year on prescription drugs. i'm also as guilty as anyone else of trying to dissolve my problems with drugs (particularly in booze, i mean i'm part way down a box of wine right now)

Prohibition sux and all and i am incredibly dubious about any higher body interfering with how people want to live their lives but i'm not sure i'm ok with letting people (like me) consciously try and destroy themselves as if its inevitable.

BIXX

28th August 2015, 03:54

It would be a social disaster.

Yes.

one thing i think might be worth mentioning - realistically if hard drugs were legalised right now under capitalism i'd probably use one or another to kill myself in the near future and i doubt i'd be alone in that. fuck, i'm not even sure that i'd necessarily always be ok with being alive outside of capitalism. even with the extremely limited access i had at the time, i tried to off myself earlier this year on prescription drugs. i'm also as guilty as anyone else of trying to dissolve my problems with drugs (particularly in booze, i mean i'm part way down a box of wine right now)

Prohibition sux and all and i am incredibly dubious about any higher body interfering with how people want to live their lives but i'm not sure i'm ok with letting people (like me) consciously try and destroy themselves as if its inevitable.

I don't see why people who want to end their lives shouldn't be able to.

John Nada

28th August 2015, 06:05

It sort of is if you end up in a drug-induced stupor in the hospital at social cost to say, heart attack patients and pregnancies. Arguing for de-criminalisation is absolutely fair, but to legalise the whole process would be dangerous. I can imagine full-scale legalisation leading to McHeroin and McCrack pipes abound. It would be a social disaster.Drugs are mostly illegal and there's already de jure McHeroins and McCrack pipes. Those who actually want to get high do. It just really expensive and dangerous due to impurities, cuts, social stigma and legal problems.

Hell, there was that bath salts/plant food shit a couple years back. It was basically legal crack+meth, only not as safe, worse psychologically and less tested in humans. The sun still rouse and set, the gates of Hades remained closed except in the imagination of Christians and people spun out on said bath salts. Even before that shit, a lot of places drugs are so available it might as well just be completely legal. Yet drug use is often lower in places where it's cheap and available, like Mexico. Drug of choice there is still alcohol, way above the the "tres animales" and glass.
Yes, fair points. But the key thing is this - these doses are controlled by medical professionals and given for a medical purpose. The effect post-legalisation would surely be hugely different. I cannot see any upside to legalising certain drugs, such as heroin or crack.Mere decriminalization still criminalizes people who're addicted. Selling and making would still be banned, so being involved in any way still makes them a target for cops.

There is a form of maintenance therapy that gives people addicted to heroin and cocaine controlled doses of heroin and cocaine. It's not unlike methadone or buprenorphine maintenance, just those two are one-a-day doses(thought harder to divert and sell), prescibed now for the physical aspects and not psychological(tweakers and crackheads have no maintenance therapy legally available atm:() and not thought to be as "fun"(they're alright, so I've heard). Since addiction is psychological, giving controlled doses of the actual drug relieves the psychological aspect and not just the physical like methadone does. This enables someone who's addicted to stabilize there life without the ups and downs of copping and hustling, possibly eventually quitting if they chose to later. Since coke only lasts like an hour, there's been studies on using Ritalin, amphetamine or even coca leaves for maintenance therapy for people addicted to stimulant
I think also the addiction is secondary. Alcohol, for example, doesn't need to reach addiction point to be harmful. Mere semi-regular binging, as we know, can cause harm if it carried on in the long-term. This isn't necessarily an argument for criminalisation, but it is definitely a public health issue here in the UK that people feel the need to go out and destroy themselves (OK i'll say ourselves because I do the same, though to much less effect these days) in this way.It's possible for other safer substances to replace alcohol. The technology is there to make something like ethanol but with less of the side effects. Tradition and capitalism is the only thing preventing a safer replacement for yeast piss.

DOOM

28th August 2015, 06:09

Where I live some teenagers and young adults believe that a weekend spent soberly is a lost weekend.
Now this tells us much about the relation between drug consumption and capitalism, specifically the function of free-time in capitalism.

Quail

28th August 2015, 09:13

I'm not really interested in debating the legality of drugs, that wasn't the purpose of my post. I'm playing devil's advocate a little in that I'd like to talk about the possible merits of sobriety without actually advocating that position myself, if that makes sense.

Whilst I don't take issue with anyone trying to limit their use of, or reliance on drugs or certain practices (I've practically stopped smoking weed, and I barely drink now I've moved back down south ... I KNOW RIGHT :ohmy:) I don't think its the use of these drugs that hinder effective organising. It seems to be our inability to effectively organise that is a hindrance to us effectively organising, and we can only do so when there is a foundation for that organisation to take place.
Good point, though I don't think that the entire reason we can't organise effectively is because we get pissed all the time. I do think there are lots of reasons to organise though, lots of things that people need, lots of things that we could be doing, but just aren't. I'm not sure why that is. I'm sure there are lots of reasons like time, money, manpower, lack of knowledge and skills, etc. I also think that using drugs can take away some of the motivation to overcome these issues, though. For example, it would be really great to have some kind of childcare coop so that parents who might not have much other support can help each other out. But if, instead of organising this thing, parents are rushing for a drink or a spliff as soon as their kids are in bed, they never get round to doing it, and so using drugs to numb the stress and difficulty replaces making a small positive social change. The same thing could apply to a variety of other circumstances, e.g. "living for the weekend" because you don't like your working conditions instead of trying to improve them.

In the past when there was still some semblance of a working class movement, organising took place in pubs all the time. Socialist organisations even set up their own pubs and bars, and ironically the Workingmen's Associations in the UK were set up as part of a temperance movement which later realised many of us do like a good piss up, at least every once in a while.

Yeah I'd dispute the relationship between not organizing and drinking. To use a minor example, in the 70s when UK workplaces were much more organized and militant (often outside of union structures) it was commonplace to go to the pub at lunch as well as after work. I think the main critique here would be that the pubs were seen as male (and largely white) spaces and so excluded women as well as many black and asian workers. At the very least today in our ever atomised workplaces where workers have less and less time and spaces to talk to each other, social events (that will inevitably involve alcohol) are still relevant.
Pubs are still not ideal places to organise, depending on when/what you're organising around. They exclude people with kids (especially single parents), some disabled people (people who can't hear well, potentially people with limited mobility, etc), some people who don't drink for religious reasons might be put off, etc. I wouldn't dispute that the social aspect of going to the pub with workmates is good for organising though. But there is a difference between going for a drink over lunch, and going out and getting completely off your head.

I guess while I have some sympathy to these arguments I'm critical of attempts to limit the use of drink and drugs. I think about prohibition which was a middle class and anti-immigrant movement, the various religious bans on alcohol today, the problems of straight edge which ended up marginalizing those from working class/non-white backgrounds who were forced into drug dealing and/or neighborhoods with high levels of drug addiction, alcohol bans in occupy camps which were used to kick out homeless people, as well as groups like crimethinc which never came across as anything other than patronising in their anti-drinking crusades.

I don't think it's a good idea to be smashed non-stop but I don't think it's a big issue in terms of problems of organizing and I'm not sure how any sobriety movement could ever be done in a productive manner. I know this isn't what you were suggesting in your initial post and if people want to change their behaviours on a personal level then all power to them. I just don't think it should be a political position or blamed for low levels of class struggle.
I do agree, and I wouldn't advocate limiting the use of drugs. I think a lot of people on revleft (I was going to say socialists, but I don't know if you guys are particularly representative of socialists as a population) are very quick to defend drug use without really thinking about why we do it. I think a lot of people use drugs because of our social conditions, not purely because it's fun. People want/need an escape, and that's fair enough. But surely escaping too often and not facing the reality of our conditions can only make us apathetic? As an addict, or even just someone who binges to escape, your world becomes smaller, because you spend a lot of your free time either escaping or planning to escape.

*Btw, wtf is with stoners? There's definitely something about immersing yourself in stoner culture that hinders the person's capacity for rational thought and i say that as someone who smokes a fair amount of weed. If i come across one more stoner that's into cryptozoology or conspiracy theories i'm gonna fucking scream.
I guess if you're stoned all the time maybe you get paranoid... I've noticed a similar thing though. Someone who initially seems like a chilled out hippy suddenly comes out with some ridiculous conspiracy bullshit. :lol:

I mean honestly I think this is kinda a fantasy- not that people are getting smashed, but that they even need to organize. It's such a waste of time anymore to organize, what's the point? It's delusional to think that being organized counts for shit really.
What is the point of organising indeed. I'd really hate it if life was a bit easier, a bit more pleasant, fewer people were going without food, etc. That would be really shit, I have no idea why anyone gives a fuck about all that rubbish.

PhoenixAsh

28th August 2015, 09:40

There is a good reason why there is an over abundance of liquor tires and bars in poorer & working class area's.

Historically speaking this has always been the case and in the industrial era factory towns wages were even payed in the local drinking hole which was usually owned by the local capitalist.

Early communists and socialists supported anti alcohol organizations because alcohol served as a method to create complacency. Anti alcohol movements also have their ties to early women's groups...for very obvious reasons.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

28th August 2015, 15:02

Drugs are mostly illegal and there's already de jure McHeroins and McCrack pipes. Those who actually want to get high do. It just really expensive and dangerous due to impurities, cuts, social stigma and legal problems.

See, I wonder if the full-scale legalisation of some drugs such as weed, and the decriminalisation of some hallucinogenics, cocaine, MDMA and variants, would lead to a loss of demand for things like heroin and meth, particularly if there were greater public awareness of dangers, dosage, negative social costs, and an environment of socially responsible consumption was encouraged.

Hell, there was that bath salts/plant food shit a couple years back. It was basically legal crack+meth, only not as safe, worse psychologically and less tested in humans. The sun still rouse and set, the gates of Hades remained closed except in the imagination of Christians and people spun out on said bath salts. Even before that shit, a lot of places drugs are so available it might as well just be completely legal. Yet drug use is often lower in places where it's cheap and available, like Mexico. Drug of choice there is still alcohol, way above the the "tres animales" and glass.Mere decriminalization still criminalizes people who're addicted. Selling and making would still be banned, so being involved in any way still makes them a target for cops.

I think as you say though, the illegality basically means that even though weed is so available that nobody purchasing a score thinks twice about any legal consequences, the illegality basically means it is a 100% unregulated market which means that, as well as there being no legal consequences for those who purchase to consume, there are no legal consequences for suppliers who cut drugs with horrific shit.

BIXX

28th August 2015, 16:06

What is the point of organising indeed. I'd really hate it if life was a bit easier, a bit more pleasant, fewer people were going without food, etc. That would be really shit, I have no idea why anyone gives a fuck about all that rubbish.

Yeah OK, let me know when your organizing brings communism. I don't see it happening any time soon/ever.

Lord Testicles

28th August 2015, 16:34

Yeah OK, let me know when your organizing brings communism. I don't see it happening any time soon/ever.

It's more likely to succeed than sitting around all day being edgy and complaining about "civilisation" and "society."

Observational Change

28th August 2015, 16:57

Moralizing

Moralizing everywhere

Realistically its no one's business if I decide to wind down my day with a crack pipe and a jug of 90% alcohol vodka with my cheeseburger.
This is false and you're smokestack meth-lab killed everyone in the neighborhood.

BIXX

28th August 2015, 17:31

It's more likely to succeed than sitting around all day being edgy and complaining about "civilisation" and "society."

Not really though.

Also I love how the vast majority of users here can only respond to my positions as "edgy".

Zoop

28th August 2015, 18:40

Not really though.

Also I love how the vast majority of users here can only respond to my positions as "edgy".

How do you think communism can be achieved then, if not through organisation?

PhoenixAsh

28th August 2015, 19:03

PC.

Back in April there was a thread about (reactionary language) where you said "working class unity is a joke" ( with some reservations I generally don't disagree with that) you then however went on to say something along the lines of "we need to fight back and make them afraid to be near us" or something along those lines. You in any case kept refering to the concept of "we" which seems to creat a contrasting statement in respect to the first one.
And it also seems to contrast with this statement against organising.

If there is a "we" then that implies a group identity as well as a collective effort against the "them".

How does this relate to an anti organisational position?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

29th August 2015, 00:54

Being organised is not even, at this moment in time, about achieving communism. In a society where the disabled are told 'work is good for you', migrants are turned back towards the human hellholes that are Syria and Libya, the poor are socially cleansed from the city centre of London and we are told that, essentially, austerity is the new normal and this is the best shit will ever get for us, 'being organised' simply means solidarity. With our fellow workers, our families, our friends, and those who are in even worse positions than us.

Lord Testicles

29th August 2015, 12:56

Not really though.

Well I'm convinced.

Also I love how the vast majority of users here can only respond to my positions as "edgy".

I think people call you "edgy" because when you post something like "neat" in response to two people being shot you're not actually putting forward a position you're just trying so very hard to be an edgelord. It's not that your positions are beyond our lowly mortal comprehension, it's that there are no positions to respond to.

Cliff Paul

29th August 2015, 13:00

How about the moderators stay on subject instead of bringing up shit from other threads to attack a user?

BIXX

29th August 2015, 18:14

Well I'm convinced.

I think people call you "edgy" because when you post something like "neat" in response to two people being shot you're not actually putting forward a position you're just trying so very hard to be an edgelord. It's not that your positions are beyond our lowly mortal comprehension, it's that there are no positions to respond to.

If it wasn't neat (or interesting or whatever other synonym) then why would we even give a shit? Of course "neat" what not a position, the next thing I said while vague and admittedly I didn't put much effort into it was more indicative of a position. What's neat to me was that I feel pretty clearly that I've read and seen various things that explain this pretty well.

Idk, don't you think its kinda cool that we can draw from various analysis and theories to come to a conclusion that this was a result of capital/civilization?

Also PA I will respond to you later but be known that while I don't know if this is the thread for that question I do think it is one of the better questions asked to me.

EDIT: Whoa I thought this was a different thread based on the post I was responding to. Way to keep it on topic, Skinz.

Os Cangaceiros

29th August 2015, 22:28

The technology is there to make something like ethanol but with less of the side effects.

I've read that scientists in the UK are working on that. I think David Nutt said that they're a couple years away from it or something.

GHB is similar but that has a steep dose-response curve.

Patchd

30th August 2015, 02:59

Good point, though I don't think that the entire reason we can't organise effectively is because we get pissed all the time. I do think there are lots of reasons to organise though, lots of things that people need, lots of things that we could be doing, but just aren't. I'm not sure why that is. I'm sure there are lots of reasons like time, money, manpower, lack of knowledge and skills, etc.

Yeah, that's all well and good. I'd love to be in a position where I can put my action alongside that of others and make a significant contribution to some social change. That isn't going to be the case right now, and I don't think it'll be the case that we can just build up some networks or some form of organisation from a handful of people that will be prolonged and successful given the political context we are in right now. To put it simply, a lot of other people do give a fuck, just not that much of a fuck to do anything about things. Or in some cases did try and do things and came to the realisation that their efforts amounted to nothing essentially, except for having your political action largely wasted and building some good social groups (the friendships I made through politics have been nice, but politics isn't there for people to just make friends).

Skinz used to put it to me that capitalism, at least in our context in the UK, is working comfortably enough for enough people. I'm not against people organising, if people want to organise that's their prerogative. I think it becomes more relevant during and after periods of heightened class struggle, which generally happens quite spontaneously, especially in situations where working class organisations have little influence as it is.

I also think that using drugs can take away some of the motivation to overcome these issues, though.

But I guess the question is whether drugs used as a means to psychologically, and temporarily escape from the problems we face in our everyday lives because we are not in a position where we can bring into effect substantial change (so it follows, what would be the issue with using something to help take the motivation away if we were lacking in motivation to begin with) ... or whether we are not doing stuff simply because drugs being used are taking away our motivation.

I'm inclined to believe that in most cases it's the former. Although the problem can become a self-fulfillment; we are led by the darkness to prefer hiding away in holes, but when the sun comes back up we aren't in a position to climb back out because we've dug that hole deeper and with steeper sides. We often live in contradictions.

Lanfear

19th September 2015, 06:52

Yeah OK, let me know when your organizing brings communism. I don't see it happening any time soon/ever.

What do you suggest?