Drugs

[All My Stitches Itch]

Ok, if the revoloution were to take place what would be communist/socialist/anarchist policies be on drugs? :unsure:

(Please nobody start telling me communists/socialists/anarchists are the same, as thats a whole other thread)

Which drugs would be legal and illegal and how would drug users and addicts be dealt with?

Thankyou!

:D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All drugs would be legal.

A general amnesty would be offered to those in prison due to drug 'offences' (other criminals would be released too)

Addicts will be allowed to function as normal members of society.

Cultivation/manufacture of drugs should be collectivised, along with everything else.

Complete and accurate information to be disseminated about all known drugs.

Optional treatment programs for those who wish to kick the habit.

[All My Stitches Itch]

:D Thankyou.

[Saint-Just]

There are different opinions on this, so the question 'what would be communist/socialist/anarchist policies be on drugs?' cannot be answered since communists/socialists etc. have different ideas on the subject.

In my view society should aim to end drug use entirely.

[The Feral Underclass]

It isnt a question of "society" aiming anything, or anything being legal or illegal. Freedom to choose is a fundamental necessity in any free and fair society. An individuals decision to take drugs is completely up to the individual and any restriction on that individual choice is illogical and quite rediculous. Absurd even. No one has authority over another person, and therefore no one can decide on how you make an individual choice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is your opinion then on my position TAT?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 04:44 PM
What is your opinion then on my position TAT?
I don't know what he thinks but I think it's very good.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:02 PM
All drugs would be legal.
I'm being pedantic, but the term legal implies there are laws. In order to have laws there must be state structures to enforce them.


A general amnesty would be offered to those in prison due to drug 'offences' (other criminals would be released too)

What do you mean by prison? Are you talking about in the present day state structure or in a future anarchist society? There should be no prison structures in an anarchist society. They will be unnecessary for one.


Addicts will be allowed to function as normal members of society.

I absolutly agree.


Cultivation/manufacture of drugs should be collectivised, along with everything else.

Aboslutly.


Complete and accurate information to be disseminated about all known drugs.

Again I agree in absolutness :P


Optional treatment programs for those who wish to kick the habit.

Organised and ran by the community.

[elijahcraig]

Legalize all drugs, meaning free access if you have the ability to pay/or want (don't debate the details of this, i think you know what I mean).


I'm being pedantic, but the term legal implies there are laws. In order to have laws there must be state structures to enforce them.

God I hate you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm being pedantic, but the term legal implies there are laws. In order to have laws there must be state structures to enforce them.

Surely communities have rules that are enforced without fear or favour? wouldn't these rules be classified as laws? The law will be enforced by the people, not a state body (Because it won't exist) such as the police or army.


What do you mean by prison? Are you talking about in the present day state structure or in a future anarchist society? There should be no prison structures in an anarchist society. They will be unnecessary for one.

I'm talking about those in prison thanks to the US's 'War on Drugs'.
We won't have prisons, as for prisons you need gaurds, and you know what sort of mentality they have.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aboslutly.

What did you call me? =D

[elijahcraig]

[They will be unnecessary for one

What exactly did you have in mind to put in the prisons place?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:39 PM
Surely communities have rules that are enforced without fear or favour?
Such as what?


wouldn't these rules be classified as laws? The law will be enforced by the people, not a state body (Because it won't exist) such as the police or army.

No one could be bound by any official statement. I cannot be forced to accept your rules if I choose not to. If an individual was activly attempting to subvert a community or collective, or was a child rapist then the community have the right to take action to defend themselves and their children.


I'm talking about those in prison thanks to the US's 'War on Drugs'.

There in fact many big groups in the UK and US who do alot of work with prisoners. Hampton I believe was apart of such a group in New York for a while.


We won't have prisons, as for prisons you need gaurds, and you know what sort of mentality they have.

Indeed.


What did you call me?

oops...freudian i'm sure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:34 PM
God I hate you.
Oh and I thought we would get married...


What exactly did you have in mind to put in the prisons place?

Depends on the crime and the community I guess.

[elijahcraig]

Oh and I thought we would get married...

I don't marry my hookers.


Depends on the crime and the community I guess.

I don't understand what you mean by "there will be no more prisons." Do you think there will exist a place for criminals? What do you mean to do with those who murder others or rape children?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:58 PM
I don't marry my hookers.
That's not what my predecessor said.....you dog you!


I don't understand what you mean by "there will be no more prisons." Do you think there will exist a place for criminals? What do you mean to do with those who murder others or rape children?

Define criminal? Property theft will not exist, or not to the extent where we will need to prosecute and give out a sentence. If someone steals something from someone, it is up to the community to deal with it.

Revenge on principle is absurd, and it is something we have to learn to live with out.

Crimes like child murder or rape is something different. We don't know why these things exist. They may be a product of the present society, in which case these things will cease to exist in a communist society. If they are a psychological abnormality it may be possible to treat and cure it, in which case hospital treatment, possibly secure, depending on the decisions of the collective, hospital or wider community.

[elijahcraig]

Define criminal? Property theft will not exist, or not to the extent where we will need to prosecute and give out a sentence. If someone steals something from someone, it is up to the community to deal with it.

What is this "all knowing community" you seem to put forth? What if the majority support the death penalty for theft? Would that be right? Tyranny of the majority?


Revenge on principle is absurd, and it is something we have to learn to live with out.

That's just stupid. Stop making utopian statements, and be realistic. People will always want revenge for something, it is a human feeling which has never been absent.


Crimes like child murder or rape is something different. We don't know why these things exist. They may be a product of the present society, in which case these things will cease to exist in a communist society.

I highly doubt this. It is most likely a psychological problem caused by the home life of the child as he grows up, and does not develop properly. Or simple (complex?) insanity.

I don't want to have this discussion if we are going to try to "guess" whether these things are going to be "in a communist society"...let's just assume, since all past history tells us it is so, that it will always exist in some form.


If they are a psychological abnormality it may be possible to treat and cure it, in which case hospital treatment, possibly secure, depending on the decisions of the collective, hospital or wider community.

I doubt a cure is possible, but I actually agree with this part.

What about murder in the sense of manslaughter, etc?

[Raisa]

I think that addictive drugs should be illeagal. Selling them should be way more illeagal then doing them, and after the revolution we should obviously be working on making a world where there are no reason to sell addictive drugs to people.

If you do them and it becomes a problem you should go to drug rehab, and if you are selling addictive substances you need to go to jail and really be taught whats wrong with that.

I think when people committ these kinds of crimes in a communist society they need to have their individual thought process analyzed and get a very personal and coustomary education on the effects of your actions on the wrest of us.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that addictive drugs should be illeagal.

You'll need to hire ex-DEA thugs in order to enforce that. Wonder what the consequences of that would be?

Do you intend to ban tea, coffee alcohol? I smell a Mormon.


Selling them should be way more illeagal then doing them, and after the revolution we should obviously be working on making a world where there are no reason to sell addictive drugs to people.

Throughout history and through all forms of society, people have always been getting intoxicated. I don't see why communism should be any different.


If you do them and it becomes a problem you should go to drug rehab, and if you are selling addictive substances you need to go to jail and really be taught whats wrong with that.

It won't become a 'problem' unless an addict's supply is interrupted, namely by getting fired from their job for using drugs.
I'm pretty sure getting raped in a prison shower is a very educational experience :rolleyes:


I think when people committ these kinds of crimes in a communist society they need to have their individual thought process analyzed and get a very personal and coustomary education on the effects of your actions on the wrest of us.

Ooooh... Shades of 1984 there.

[Urban Rubble]

Define criminal? Property theft will not exist, or not to the extent where we will need to prosecute and give out a sentence.

Really ? So if someone steals the shirt off of my back I should just say "Oh well, that shirt belonged to society". What about my house ? Assuming houses exist in your society, what if a gang of coked up, marauding pirates take over my house ?


If someone steals something from someone, it is up to the community to deal with it.

And what if the community decides this man needs to be put in a prison of some sort ? What if they wish for him to pay back his debt through work, do we just let him sleep in a normal place and hope he won't excape ?


They may be a product of the present society, in which case these things will cease to exist in a communist society.

Do you really believe that ?


If they are a psychological abnormality it may be possible to treat and cure it, in which case hospital treatment, possibly secure, depending on the decisions of the collective, hospital or wider community.

What if someone steals something from a hospital ? :lol:

So, if the insane person needs to be held in a hospital, wouldn't that be infringing on his individual rights ? What if he doesn't wish to be treated ? Who determines if he is sane ? The community ? A single doctor (surely not, that would be far too much power) ?

[Floyd.]

I think that as a learning resource we should have a section with reliable information on drugs as opposed to just debate, we should also have a graphics page with photo's of plants and things found in nature that can naturally get you high. That way we are not condoning just educating and allowing people a choice. Most drugs found in nature are legal anyway, datura, morning glory seeds, san pedro cacti but sady not peyote.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:11 PM
What is this "all knowing community" you seem to put forth? What if the majority support the death penalty for theft? Would that be right? Tyranny of the majority?
In order for this communities to exist like this the people living in them must have embraced logic.


That's just stupid. Stop making utopian statements, and be realistic. People will always want revenge for something, it is a human feeling which has never been absent.

Yes like greed and authority? :rolleyes:


I highly doubt this. It is most likely a psychological problem caused by the home life of the child as he grows up, and does not develop properly. Or simple (complex?) insanity.

Possibly, I tend to agree.


let's just assume, since all past history tells us it is so, that it will always exist in some form.

If it was absolutly certain that these people existed or could not be treated then I think it's justifable to create community centres for them to be held in. I think the programme for rehabilitation, if it was possible, should be different to how it is now. I agree however, that it would need to be secured.


What about murder in the sense of manslaughter, etc?

Killing someone by accident is a tragedy, but I dont think someone should be locked up and punished for making a mistake. Like I said, revenge is absurd and we need to move past it.

[elijahcraig]

In order for this communities to exist like this the people living in them must have embraced logic.

It was once logical for blacks to be considered inhuman. I don't have faith in a mass of people.


Yes like greed and authority?

Yes.


Killing someone by accident is a tragedy, but I dont think someone should be locked up and punished for making a mistake. Like I said, revenge is absurd and we need to move past it.

I really can't debate you anymore if you are going to make irrational statements like that. Sorry, it's just pathetic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 28 2004, 05:20 AM
Really ? So if someone steals the shirt off of my back I should just say "Oh well, that shirt belonged to society".
What? How did you make that conclusion.


What about my house ? Assuming houses exist in your society, what if a gang of coked up, marauding pirates take over my house ?

Communities should have the right to defend themselves from such things.


And what if the community decides this man needs to be put in a prison of some sort ? What if they wish for him to pay back his debt through work, do we just let him sleep in a normal place and hope he won't excape ?

Put someone in prison for stealing a shirt? :blink:

Property theft exists because society creates divisions of wealth. People have less, or they simply need or want more more because we idolise wealth which alienates those who have less. In a communist society people will have what they need and the ability to create what they want. Property theft will not exist. If there was an incidence of it, then maybe it's appropriate for the person to pay back that debt, but to send them to prison is absurd.


Do you really believe that ?

What did I actually say...


So, if the insane person needs to be held in a hospital, wouldn't that be infringing on his individual rights ?

Authority and domination are rarely justifiable, but in an case where someone threatens the freedom and safty of another person then authority is justified. If the person does not pose any danger to anyone, then to use authority to subdue them because they are insane is unacceptable.


What if he doesn't wish to be treated ?

As long as the person poses no risk to anyone, then it's their choice.


Who determines if he is sane ? The community ? A single doctor (surely not, that would be far too much power) ?

Where is the power in determining someones state of health? It isn't about whether he is sane or not, it's about whether or not they pose a risk to people. My mother lives next to an old asylum, it's actually no logner there, the tore it down and built appartment blocks, but there is an old women who use to be in the hospital who was re-housed in my mothers community, she has schitzophrenia and she manages to deal with it ok. She poses no harm to anyone. She is completely mad, but she seems to manage fine by herself. She has community nurses to come and see her etc, but other than that she lives her life. What's the problem?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:34 AM
I really can't debate you anymore if you are going to make irrational statements like that. Sorry, it's just pathetic.
No loss there then.

[elijahcraig]

No loss there then.

I'll just say that I don't consider the "forgetting of revenge" as plausible.

It's about as likely as the event of the rapture actually happening.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2004, 03:34 PM
It isnt a question of "society" aiming anything, or anything being legal or illegal. Freedom to choose is a fundamental necessity in any free and fair society. An individuals decision to take drugs is completely up to the individual and any restriction on that individual choice is illogical and quite rediculous. Absurd even. No one has authority over another person, and therefore no one can decide on how you make an individual choice.
Where many individuals live together the freedom of each individual overlaps with that of others. So, certain freedoms one may choose to exercise will impinge on the freedoms of others. As a result, to supply each individual with the maximum amount of freedom possible there must be restrictions on certain freedoms.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 28 2004, 03:40 PM
Where many individuals live together the freedom of each individual overlaps with that of others.
Such as what?


So, certain freedoms one may choose to exercise will impinge on the freedoms of others.

Such as what?


As a result, to supply each individual with the maximum amount of freedom possible there must be restrictions on certain freedoms.

Once again you have made an assertion which you have not backed up?

[elijahcraig]

Such as what?

Such as you taking drugs in a public place and accidentally killing someone, or injuring them.

Such as taking drugs and dying from it and making your friends and family emotionally unstable as a result.

Etc.


Once again you have made an assertion which you have not backed up?

It's called rational limit of freedom.

DUMBASS.

[DaCuBaN]

uch as you taking drugs in a public place and accidentally killing someone, or injuring them.
Sure, if you are hell bent on having no social regulation then this could be a problem. Otherwise you simply mantain the regulations as they are - most workplaces would fire you on the spot if they found out you were abusing substances during 'office hours' - why should it be any different?

If what you mean is simply 'out and about' then I fail to even see the logic - We can't wrap the world up in cotton wool, and I'm damned if i'd let you stop me from choosing what to do with my own body so it appears this is somewhat of an impasse...



Such as taking drugs and dying from it and making your friends and family emotionally unstable as a result

This is no different to taking any 'risk'. People enjoy doing such bizarre things (to me at any rate) as skydiving - what if the parachute fails?

There are many more examples, but I think you can see where I'm going here.

I think the problem here comes more down to the individual - some people have the ability to handle drugs, whilst others don't. I'm in the fortunate position that I have difficulty swallowing pills, and hence I've only done ecstacy once and valium on a few occasions - yet I did not trust myself at all whilst under the influence. I wouldn't have dreamed of putting myself into a responsible position there.

Suffice to say the problem is the individuals understanding of social responsibility

[elijahcraig]

If what you mean is simply 'out and about' then I fail to even see the logic - We can't wrap the world up in cotton wool, and I'm damned if i'd let you stop me from choosing what to do with my own body so it appears this is somewhat of an impasse...

Care to expand? You think it is alright for you to take a lot of drugs and walk around anywhere you want?

Just because...it's "tellin' yoo wut to do wit me body"?


I think the problem here comes more down to the individual - some people have the ability to handle drugs, whilst others don't. I'm in the fortunate position that I have difficulty swallowing pills, and hence I've only done ecstacy once and valium on a few occasions - yet I did not trust myself at all whilst under the influence. I wouldn't have dreamed of putting myself into a responsible position there.

Suffice to say the problem is the individuals understanding of social responsibility

I think we all know people don't take "responsibility" for all of their actions. Hence the idiotic things they do.

I actually see it as fairly stupid to make these sorts of drug laws really. Laws seem to never really work very well.

We have strict laws on certain things. We still have culture-wide drug use.

[DaCuBaN]

You think it is alright for you to take a lot of drugs and walk around anywhere you want?

NO!

I've put my point across very badly, what I was trying to say was that people should only be restricted when we are dealing with vital, or dangerous enterprises. The guy working behind the counter in a food dispensory could be tripping off his face, whereas I think we'd be quite worried if the guy driving 20,000 litres of petroleum did the same ;)

Similarly, if someone wanted to sit in a park having a joint, why would you object? I can understand if someone wanted to shoot up in a park, but so long as people do remain responsible for their actions, where's the problem?

On a similar note, what society really should be combatting is substance dependany


We have strict laws on certain things. We still have culture-wide drug use.

Yes, and in the UK we have only 140,000 police officers to cater for 60 million people... They can't exactly watch everyone all the time... can they? :ph34r:

In all seriousness though, I'm sure we can agree that a large part of this is simple rebellion against 'normality', especially given that what people term 'culture' is generally termed in other circles as a 'fad'.

[elijahcraig]

I think we agree.

[Kobbot 401]

To quote Mr. Garison from South Park "Drugs are bad, U'mmmm kay".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:16 PM
Such as you taking drugs in a public place and accidentally killing someone, or injuring them.
If this is going to happen, it's going to happen regardless of whether you make it legal or illegal. It happens now and it happens because of a general lack of real drug education.


Such as taking drugs and dying from it and making your friends and family emotionally unstable as a result.

I am free to make that choice.


Etc.

Well you haven't done very well so far, so maybe you should give a few more?


It's called rational limit of freedom.

There's nothing rational about what you have suggested. Reactionary maybe. And surely our job as communists is to find progressive solutions to problems.


DUMBASS.

You make me shit....scroll down expert! (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25961&st=0) :lol: :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Kobbot [email protected] 29 2004, 05:57 AM
To quote Mr. Garison from South Park "Drugs are bad, U'mmmm kay".
Maybe to you, but to me and many other people taking drugs is very very good.

[elijahcraig]

There's nothing rational about what you have suggested. Reactionary maybe. And surely our job as communists is to find progressive solutions to problems.

Dacuban and I both agree on this issue, and we have laid down the rational limits of things.

Laws don't usually stop the majority of drug users from doing what they want, and it is something you have to take personal responsibility for.

For example, you wouldn't want to overdose and kill yourself as a result because it would hurt everyone around you very bad (I know, one of my friends overdosed, and his parents and his brother are completely different people now that their son is gone).

If you don't see this as "rational limits" to freedom, ie responsibility for yourself and not being reckless, then you do not care as much as you say you do about people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 07:26 PM
Laws don't usually stop the majority of drug users from doing what they want, and it is something you have to take personal responsibility for.
Exactly.


For example, you wouldn't want to overdose and kill yourself as a result because it would hurt everyone around you very bad

But that doesnt mean you have the "right" to stop someone from doing it if the choose.


(I know, one of my friends overdosed, and his parents and his brother are completely different people now that their son is gone).

Well that's tragic, but that doesn't justify restricting someones freedom.


If you don't see this as "rational limits" to freedom, ie responsibility for yourself and not being reckless, then you do not care as much as you say you do about people.

I choose to not do things such as commit suicide because I feel responsable. Someone else may nto feel responsable and make the choice to kill themselves hurting everyone around them. Unfortunatly people make those choices, and we can all call that person irresponsable but we cannot restrict freedoms because one, two, three or an entire government of people believe, themselves, that it is wrong.

[elijahcraig]

But that doesnt mean you have the "right" to stop someone from doing it if the choose.

I could stop them if I was a friend. I don't think a law will.


Well that's tragic, but that doesn't justify restricting someones freedom.

Anyone familiar with drug addicts knows that their addiction is not "freedom", it is an illness which leads to overdose.

People who 'accidentally' overdose, there isn't much to do.