Anarchist On Drugs

[monkeydust]

I'm aware that this topic may well seem trivial, but I'm curious as to what some Anarchist here might say.

Most people here have tried Cannabis, and I see no objection for its distribution and use being considered "acceptable".

But what would Anarchists propose to do about "harder" drugs? Pills, Acid, Coke and so on.

Some people can quite reasonably have such things every now and then, but I for one know a few friends who, though they don't entirely really realize, have wrecked their potential futures by over-doing it.

Would Anarchists "ban" such substances? If so, on what authority can they claim to do so?

Or would they prefer to make all such things completely acceptable, and allow people to fuck up their lives as a consequence?

Would they allow people to take substances as they please, and rely on "social pressure" to prevent to many mishaps?

My only solution is that, in a fairer society, the need for such escapism will be less pronounced. But I can't see the problem going away altogether.

[Guest1]

The thing is, with education and a responsible drug culture, there would be no need for banning them. Just as preaching abstinence in sex ed courses only leads to teenage pregnancies and ignorance about sex, the same happens with drugs. The only way to reduce the risks is to bring it out from the underground, into the open. When you can talk about drugs without moralism, you can learn what are the best ways to avoid danger and what kinds of effects each drug has. Then you can make intelligent, educated decisions about them.

That's the only way to deal with drugs, in my opinion.

[monkeydust]

I do know what you mean. I always think that I can "handle it".

But others don't seem to know when to stop. Or just get too addicted to realize what's wrong with them.

[NovelGentry]

Intelligent and educated decisions have nothing over decisions based on curiosity. Granted you might be stopping a lot of the chances that people might OD, as they will understand what can be considered safe amounts but this doesn't mean you're preventing addiction. Particularly if they've had one drug which is said to be addictive and do not feel they are addicted, then they might assume it's just a myth and go for something severely more addicting. Just a thought. Personally I believe in the legalization and proper education on drugs, but I have no illusions about peoples abilities to make proper decisions -- no matter how educated they may *seem*.

[Hate Is Art]

Being chained to something is no way to be. Drugs are more often a hinderance but I see no real reason for bannind them and in an Anarchist society the idea of banning anything is completly ridiculous.

[wet blanket]

In an anarchist/communist society, medical treatment would be free to those that need it. Including drug addicts.
If a person wants to connect themselves to a heroin IV and bathe in a vat of LSD, that's their decision. Banning drugs is ridiculous and a historical FAILURE, just look at the War On Drugs and the old alcohol prohibition. Why would an anarchist, or anyone for that matter, want to continue down this path?

[Valkyrie]

Perhaps in a communist society drugs will not be banned, and pot will most likely be legalized, atleast universally for the medicinal extent. However, you're missing a key element that drives the availability of drugs - and that is the drug trade. Without that, probably only hard-core indulgers will set up labs and only then for their own personal use.

[Guest1]

Exactly, the most dangerous drugs will be unvailable, as the profit driving their complex production process would be gone. Drugs like weed and mushrooms, which are unaddictive and need very little processing, would probably remain at current levels of use or maybe even increase in some cases.

Of course, people will still get addicted once in a while, people will still OD once in a while, but there's not much we can do except educate and cure wherever we can.

[Xvall]

I guess I'm an Anarchist. Or an Anarcho-Communist. Whatever. I'm about as libertarian as all of the anarchists here, so I feel it necessary to respond, especially since I consider myself a representative for the 'drug community'.


Most people here have tried Cannabis, and I see no objection for its distribution and use being considered "acceptable".

I concure with you on this. I see nothing wrong with Cannabis, and I see recreational/spritual drug use, in general, as a means of self-expression. To me, it is a personal prefrence, and should be no more important or punishable than one's sexuality or religion.


But what would Anarchists propose to do about "harder" drugs? Pills, Acid, Coke and so on.

Just for the record, I don't consider Lysergic Acid to be a 'hard' drug. It is a very intense and powerful drug, but I don't consider it to be in the same category as things like Heroin and Alcohol. Also, 'pills' is a very extensive category, so it would help to be more specific. As far as what I would do about them? Absolutely nothing.


Some people can quite reasonably have such things every now and then, but I for one know a few friends who, though they don't entirely really realize, have wrecked their potential futures by over-doing it.

Entirely understandable. If used incorrectly, they can be hazardous to yourself, as well as a danger to others. That aspect, however, can be applied to countless objects, especially tools. Chainsaws can be extremely dangerous and can wreck a person's future if they aren't careful with it. Vehicles can quite easilly result in accidents and abruptly end a person's life if the occupant is untrained in the operation of the vehicle. Religion has proven itself to be hazardous in the wrong hands as well. I do not, however, think that this should make any of them illegal.

I never liked the "Drugs Can Ruin Your Life" message that is constantly put out by the DEA for the specific reason: other things can too. But for some reason, the government feels it has the right to dictate in which ways you can ruin your life, and in which ways you can't; this is also directly related to how the government gets to dictate which highs are legal, and which ones aren't.

Example: The Military. Joining the military, especially in times like this, have a far greater chance of "Fucking up your life" or "Getting you killed" than smoking marijuana does, yet for some reason, smoking marijuana will land you in prison, and joinign the military is encouraged in our elementary schools. Do you know how much of a monster I would be portrayed at if I went into a school and started educating the children about the "benificial potentials of marijuana"? Skydiving. Another example. Excessively expensive, like any consistent drug use, and extremely dangerous. For some reason though, dangerous expensive skydiving is legak, while not-as-dangerous expensive marijuana is not.


Would Anarchists "ban" such substances? If so, on what authority can they claim to do so?

They don't. Any of them that do should probably reconsider their political alignment.


Or would they prefer to make all such things completely acceptable, and allow people to fuck up their lives as a consequence?

Yes. Fucking up your life is your own choice, and you have a right to it. If people are allowed to fuck up their lives drinking, fuck up their lives joining the military, fuck up their lives having sex and getting pregnant, fuck up their lives having sex and getting STDs, or fuck up their lives driving, they should be allowed to fuck up their lives snorting cocaine and fuck up their lives shooting up heroin as well.


Would they allow people to take substances as they please, and rely on "social pressure" to prevent to many mishaps?

I don't even know if this social pressure would exist in an ideological. I wouldn't rely on social pressure so much as I would common sense.


My only solution is that, in a fairer society, the need for such escapism will be less pronounced. But I can't see the problem going away altogether.

I don't think the problem would go away, though I feel that in such a society it would decrease and be less prevalent. By the way, is the 'problem' you are refering to 'recreational drug use' or 'drug addiction/abuse'? Keep in mind that not everyone who does drugs is doing so as a means of escapism.