Anarchism and Drug use

[Anarchist Freedom]

Most of you on this board know me as a stoner and im guilty as charged.

But I have some questions how exactly Under an anarchist society would the use of ALL drugs work?

I mean its been proven time and time again drugs like crystal meth,PCP, Heroin& coke do nothing but harm. Would you allow the common man to use such drugs that would more then likely end in addiction and exploitation of his fellow proletariens. Or Do you do what the Dutch did and have soft drug& hard drugs?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 12:15 AM
Most of you on this board know me as a stoner and im guilty as charged.

But I have some questions how exactly Under an anarchist society would the use of ALL drugs work?

I mean its been proven time and time again drugs like crystal meth,PCP, Heroin& coke do nothing but harm. Would you allow the common man to use such drugs that would more then likely end in addiction and exploitation of his fellow proletariens. Or Do you do what the Dutch did and have soft drug& hard drugs?
Hmm.. That is something to think about; I think the use of drugs in a Anarchist
Society should be re-creational and not to be abused. However we would not
know For Sure whether or not would the use of certain drugs like the ones
of which you have described would be present in a liberated, classless, state-less
society.

[redstar2000]

The question has always been: is it the drugs that are truly harmful or is it their "illegality" that makes them harmful?

Sure, you know and I know and (by this time!) probably everybody knows someone whose life has been wrecked "by drugs".

But, think carefully, was it really the drug itself (whatever it might have been) or was it the social context? The expense? The impurities? The dangers involved in finding and purchasing? Getting arrested? Long prison terms? Even social stigma?

After all, a present-day user of "hard drugs" is likely to think "I'm a fucking junky" or, in other words, "I'm a piece of shit who will never be anything but a piece of shit".

On the other hand, what would be the effects of drug use (any drug) in a society where all drugs were freely and readily available for the asking, where no one would normally even care about what drug you used (except for the safety of others), etc.?

In such circumstances, I don't think anyone knows what the outcome would be.

But I'm pretty sure it would be a sharp improvement over what we have now.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[Vallegrande]

LOL once liberated, for sure marijuana, the poppy plant, the coca plant, all would be used instead of these chemicals that actually come from plants. Coca leaf is not bad, but cocaine is. These are "Medicine" to me, not drugs.

The pharmacy companies have a gigantic monopoly and their drugs dont even work. They just keep people on drugs for profit. No wonder they dont want people ingesting these medicines, because they would lose profit.

The others to lose profit, most definitely, would be the illegal dealers, which would make me so happy to see. Nobody would be ruining their lives financially when it comes to using these medicines because they would be free. Freedom...

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:28 AM
The question has always been: is it the drugs that are truly harmful or is it their "illegality" that makes them harmful?

Sure, you know and I know and (by this time!) probably everybody knows someone whose life has been wrecked "by drugs".

But, think carefully, was it really the drug itself (whatever it might have been) or was it the social context? The expense? The impurities? The dangers involved in finding and purchasing? Getting arrested? Long prison terms? Even social stigma?

After all, a present-day user of "hard drugs" is likely to think "I'm a fucking junky" or, in other words, "I'm a piece of shit who will never be anything but a piece of shit".

On the other hand, what would be the effects of drug use (any drug) in a society where all drugs were freely and readily available for the asking, where no one would normally even care about what drug you used (except for the safety of others), etc.?

In such circumstances, I don't think anyone knows what the outcome would be.

But I'm pretty sure it would be a sharp improvement over what we have now.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas
Bit of both. LSD & crystal meth can and probably will fuck your mind. But a good point, thank you for enlightening me.

[Anarchist Freedom]

^^^!!!! IM an ardent supporter of use of mind altering psychedlics and I can tell you LSD is healthy when used responsibly but crystal meth is never healthy

[CorporationsRule]

"You can kill me... You cannot kill my mind."

Why can't I kill your mind?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Of course you can't kill the "mind" - it's a product of the physical brain. Similarly, I can't kill the image on a computer screen, but I could sure fuck that monitor up pretty badly - and in particular if I introduced some foriegn substance.

[FARAcmsr]

lets be serious now. drugs are harmful, not social context. with the exception of maybe marijuana, do we want a classless society where people are dying left and right from ODs? how could drugs like heroin and meth be used recreationaly without addiction and harmful diseases, such as AIDS? for the good of the people drugs should be outlawed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:16 PM
lets be serious now. drugs are harmful, not social context. with the exception of maybe marijuana, do we want a classless society where people are dying left and right from ODs? how could drugs like heroin and meth be used recreationaly without addiction and harmful diseases, such as AIDS? for the good of the people drugs should be outlawed.
Outlawing stuff "for the good of the people" is not usually a very good way to proceed...for many reasons.

Besides, AIDS will be a curable disease long before the establishment of a classless society.

And deaths from overdoses usually stem from uncertainty as to the purity of illegal drugs -- if dosages were accurately known, overdoses would be far rarer.

And there's nothing "wrong" with "addiction" as such...it's only in the present neo-puritanical climate that "addiction = sin".

Try doing without oxygen for a few minutes. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[FARAcmsr]

i am not saying that addiction is sin i am saying that if drugs are legalized i hardly think people will start to feel comfortable with meth or coke floating around.


thats just my views though i dont want to start an argument


o and redstar could you answer my religion question in the philosophy section?

[FARAcmsr]

but wouldnt drugs become abused after legalization?

[Anarchist Freedom]

yes and No. I see what redstar is saying but I HATE HEROIN and other drugs like coke and meth and PCP. But you see with the legalization of a drug it allows for open flow of information about the drug. Wouldnt you prefer someone to get medical grade heroin instead of heroin made in clandestine labs?

[Xvall]

drugs are harmful, not social context.

Few are directly harmful. All are harmful if overused, but that can apply to just about any substance. More importantly, which 'drugs' are to be deemed illegal and which are to be deemed legal? Alcohol? Caffeine? Marijuana? Heroin? Who sets the standards for what drugs are to be criminalized, and how are we going to convince the people that the person who sets the standards is truley working for us? What if the great majority of the people want to be allowed to use one of more of these substances? Are they to be ignored?


how could drugs like heroin and meth be used recreationaly without addiction and harmful diseases, such as AIDS?

The main reason that people contract AIDS from Heorin (Heroin, by the way, is the only drug I've heard if people contracting AIDS from, and as such this argument is only applicable to one out of the countless drugs in the universe) is because it is illegal. As such, they are unable to legally obtain clean needles and chemically pure heroin. For this same reason, it is extremely expensive, and the needles are often shared. Were this drug under regulation, the quality of the chemical would be ensured, and any impurities would be removed. Should the chemicals be found with impurities, they would be destroyed, and not put out on the street. As such, the legalization of drugs makes the substances safer, as well as available for taxing.


for the good of the people drugs should be outlawed.

So, let me get this straight. If you find people doing drug that could possibly harm them, you're going to lock them up and put them in an institution full of murdurers, rapists, and other convicted felons. This is for their good ... how?

Also keep in mind that this thread is about anarchism and drug use. Last time I checked, there is no state present in anarchism to outlaw drug use.

[Hate Is Art]

The question has always been: is it the drugs that are truly harmful or is it their "illegality" that makes them harmful?

Ahhh yes, because after the revolution Heroin suddenly becomes un-addictive and crack-cocaine won't ruin your life?

Every drug can start out as recreational but it almost always end up destroying your life, it would be no different after the revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Digital Nirvana
Ahhh yes, because after the revolution Heroin suddenly becomes un-addictive and crack-cocaine won't ruin your life?

No one said that. What I would say is that heroin addiction "after the revolution" will be a trivial matter...like "coffee addiction" is now.

When you stop and look at the matter objectively, the folks who use crack cocaine have lives that are pretty much in ruins anyway. If that's not the case "after the revolution", then why should the use of crack -- all other things being equal -- "ruin their lives" any more than drinking coffee?

Besides...if people really want to "ruin their lives", who are you to stand in their way?

For reasons not understood at this time, some people really are "self-destructive" -- they do "crazy shit" that often results in serious injury or death. Look at the people who ski or go mountain climbing. Shall we issue each such person a "robotic nanny" to follow them around and "make sure" they don't engage in "risky behavior"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Anarchist Freedom]

I agree totally and DN most drug use does not end up in a ruined life Sure with using drugs like meth and heroin your more likely to fuck up your life but IF it was a pure substance and safely made not made in the bathtub of some guy in detroit then I dont see how it could be unsafe if you got sold packets of a dose of heroin per se

[Hate Is Art]

If that's not the case "after the revolution", then why should the use of crack "ruin their lives" any more than drinking coffee?

Because Crack Cocaine is far more addictive, dangerous and destructive drug. People don't mug old ladies and shop lift to feed a coffee addiction or for that next bar of chocolate do they.

but IF it was a pure substance and safely made not made in the bathtub of some guy in detroit then I dont see how it could be unsafe if you got sold packets of a dose of heroin per se

WTF??? Have you even a clue what heroin abuse does to people?? I can't believe people are actually advocating the use of herion.

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 01:50 AM
^^^!!!! IM an ardent supporter of use of mind altering psychedlics and I can tell you LSD is healthy when used responsibly
I can see you brought Tim Leary's mind expansion "trip". LSD is not healthy in any sense of the word, your mind will not expand, it will go completley sideways.

[FARAcmsr]

i think i agree with digital nirvana
if doses were to be limited that wont stop people from finding bigger and more dangerous ways of creating and making drugs. i dont see the similarities, danger wise, between a coffee addiction and a heroin addiction

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Personally, I don't expect making herion, coke, methamphetamines, etc. unrestricted in a post-capitalist society will increase the number of people using them. After all, what are the underlying causes of drug abuse? Once there is no longer an economic interest in the drug trade, once the dehumanizing meaninglessness of life in post-modern capitalist society is smashed, and once we've all got a better understanding of drugs, I expect the number of people who will actually turn to doing crack will actually sharply decrease - no matter how "legal" it is!

[FARAcmsr]

so people will just stop using drugs once its legalized because there is no longer an economic intrest in?

[Hate Is Art]

After all, what are the underlying causes of drug abuse?

Addictive substances in drugs.

and once we've all got a better understanding of drugs

We get lot's of education about drugs now, people still do it, how much anti smoking propoganda is there about? Loads!! People still take up smoking everday.

[RevolverNo9]

I'm always extremely torn on this one. I do not accept the arguemnt that heroine-addiction is not serious once the social onus is relieved in classless society and shall not be disernable from coffe addiction. Heroine is a drug that controlls people to an extent that is utterly uncompromising and renders the user extremely unhealthy. I find it hard to believe that if freely available (economically, legally and socially, if that makes sense) a greater number of people would not experiment with the drug, and heroine is not a substance that can be fooled around with.

Perhaps the route to take is to legalise completely possesion and use but continue to supress trade. This would free users, hopefully from the class oppression and social degridation in capitalism that they are subject to, allowing for wider information and education and humanity for takers while hopefully minimising its circualtion. Of course all the problems of illegal trade exist, though theoretically to a lesser extent because of the absense of social victims of drugs, but this at first seems to me the least unhappy compromise.

However comrades, let us not kid ourselves - as the ultimate expression of capitalist power in our age grows stronger, as continually economics and morality become more and more in the hands of the corporate, the lucrative capital value of drugs will not be kept out of the free-market. And that is really frightening... the capitalist state growing fat from our most dangerous addictions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Digital Nirvana+--> (Digital Nirvana)Because Crack Cocaine is far more addictive, dangerous and destructive drug. People don't mug old ladies and shop lift to feed a coffee addiction or for that next bar of chocolate do they?[/b]

So? They don't (yet) put you in prison for "possession of coffee" or "possession of chocolate", right?

So, "after the revolution", you are a "crack addict" and you walk down to the neighborhood pharmacy and pick up a couple of hits...and what happens? Does the sky fall? No, you just walk home and get high.

No mugging of old ladies or shoplifting required.


WTF??? Have you even a clue what heroin abuse does to people?? I can't believe people are actually advocating the use of heroin.

I can't believe that you are so saturated with anti-drug hysteria that you can't even be bothered to read what people have actually posted.

Where's the quote from anyone in this thread that says that people "should" use heroin or any other drug???

Do you think that anyone who is neutral on drug use -- as I am -- must "therefore" be an "advocate" of drug use?


Originally posted by Charly [email protected]
LSD is not healthy in any sense of the word...

No one here has argued that: "hey, kids, take drugs...they're good for you".


RevolverNo9
Heroin is a drug that controls people to an extent that is utterly uncompromising and renders the user extremely unhealthy.

Bullshit!


Perhaps the route to take is to legalise completely possession and use but continue to suppress trade.

Good idea! :lol: At the same time, we can legalize accepting bribes but criminalize the offering of bribes.

Look people, how the hell can you talk about a revolution that is supposed to liberate people and then turn right around and start figuring out the best way to hurt people for doing risky things that you don't approve of?

What's the difference between you and that shit-eater William Bennett? Or any of the rest of those neo-puritanical bastards?

Real drug education would be a good thing...as long as it stuck to scientific facts. What's called "drug education" now is just a collection of "secular" sermons which most people correctly regard as bullshit.

As long as people do not endanger others, I see no reason why they shouldn't indulge in whatever chemicals that happen to make them feel good, period.

It is not a "sin" to feel good.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 23 2004, 11:23 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 23 2004, 11:23 PM)
Charly Bigpotatoes
LSD is not healthy in any sense of the word...

No one here has argued that: "hey, kids, take drugs...they're good for you". [/b]
The guy said LSD is healthy if taken responsibly. Re-read his post.

[Hate Is Art]

So? They don't (yet) put you in prison for "possession of coffee" or "possession of chocolate", right?

So, "after the revolution", you are a "crack addict" and you walk down to the neighborhood pharmacy and pick up a couple of hits...and what happens? Does the sky fall? No, you just walk home and get high.

No mugging of old ladies or shoplifting required.

Ahhh yes, getting fucked off your face and ruining your life is so good for society and my fellow man isn't it.

Why would they put you in prison for possesion of coffee or chocolate? And if we made heroin and crack more widely availible im sure people would start to take it more and more.

I can't believe that you are so saturated with anti-drug hysteria that you can't even be bothered to read what people have actually posted.

I'm not saturated with anti-drug hysteria, I think some drugs are OK to take, not heroin and crack cocaine.

Bullshit!

Have you never seen a junkie? Have you never seen what heroin abuse does to people. If you think that the use of heroin never hurt anyone shall I just reel off a list of "famous" people who have been destroyed by heroin?

As long as people do not endanger others, I see no reason why they shouldn't indulge in whatever chemicals that happen to make them feel good, period.

:rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Digital Nirvana
Ahhh yes, getting fucked off your face and ruining your life is so good for society and my fellow man isn't it...

Have you never seen a junkie? Have you never seen what heroin abuse does to people. If you think that the use of heroin never hurt anyone shall I just reel off a list of "famous" people who have been destroyed by heroin?

So...no one should "ever" get high because it would be "bad for society", right?

You know something? Your totalitarian ambitions are showing.

Yes, I have seen "junkies"...quite a few, as a matter of fact. Some were ok; others were indeed in pretty bad shape.

SO WHAT?

In evaluating the effects of heroin or any other illegal drug, you have no way of telling what harm is actually done by the drug and what harm is done by the fact that it's illegal, expensive, of questionable purity and potency, etc.

But even if you had scientific proof that this or that drug, used under safe conditions, was nevertheless lethal in the long run, the question remains: by what right do you claim the authority to stop someone from using it "for their own good"?

Or maybe I should ask "for the good of society"?

We're all going to die from something...but you will decide the range of "acceptable" and "prohibited" deaths?

In my view, there is something deeply counter-revolutionary in the urge to interfere with or prohibit people's preferred pleasures "for their own good"...and saying it's "for society's good" makes it even worse.

Who would want to live in that kind of society...except puritans?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hate Is Art]

I wouldn't call it totalitarian, I would call it caring. Having to watch my hero slowly destroy himself with Crack Cocaine and Heroin should be enough to put any one off it.

I can't see any reason for someone to use it for their own good.

By what right do you claim the authority to stop someone from using it "for their own good"?

I claim no authority and have never said I have a claim for authority on anything let alone what people put in their body. It is my view that heroin use destroys lives, I don't see how this would be different if it was "pure" and "legal"

Alcohol abuse destroys lives and it is "pure" and "legal"

[Guest1]

Aha, and why do those people abuse alcohol?

Most people who get into drug abuse do so because they need an escape from Capitalist reality. The pressures of this system, and the alienation it brings about, encourage unsafe drug use. In a communist society, where people are not put under the strains and abuse of this system, drugs would be transformed from a need to escape reality just to save your mind, into a response to a want, just to enjoy life in a different light once in a while.

There's a huge difference.

[RevolverNo9]

Accepting bribes is an economic factor - it allows the economic superiority of another over soemone else, just as the offering of a bribe does. It is not analagous to the trading of drugs. I fully accept the choices of the individual, but society would surely choose to prevent as far as possible those falling under the influence of substances as dangerous as heroine. I just don't accept the comparision to chocloate or coffee. Whether it's famous personalities like Alexander Trocchi who ended up pimping his wife, ruining his literary output (aside from his erotic output he only wrote two books), and regretting every later moment of his addiction after his youth, or peronal expereinces, heroine is a nemesis.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Digital Nirvana+--> (Digital Nirvana) I wouldn't call it totalitarian, I would call it caring.[/b]

Would you now?

Ok, let's dig into the meaning behind "care".

1. I will "take care" of you.

2. "Because" you can no longer "take care" of yourself.

3. Being unable to "take care" of yourself, you are no longer "qualified" to make the daily decisions of autonomous human beings.

4. Therefore, I will make those decisions "for you", without regard to your personal desires.

5. You cannot reproach me in any way for this..."because" if I did not "take care" of you, "you wouldn't even be alive!"

As you might gather, I'm rather suspicious of "care" as a motive...it seems to me as often as not a device for taking over the lives of others under the pretext of altruism. And maybe more often than not!


I claim no authority and have never said I have a claim for authority on anything, let alone what people put in their body. It is my view that heroin use destroys lives, I don't see how this would be different if it was "pure" and "legal".

Alcohol abuse destroys lives and it is "pure" and "legal".

If I read you correctly then, you are in favor of a verbal "war on drugs" but not one supported by violence (cops, prisons, etc.).

Very well. As long as people are free to decide that you are (pardon the expression) a crank who can safely be ignored, you may "preach" against drugs as much as you like. Ultimately we will have real scientific knowledge on the subject and that will be that.


RevolverNo9
I fully accept the choices of the individual, but society would surely choose to prevent as far as possible those falling under the influence of substances as dangerous as heroine.

If heroin is "dangerous", so is alcohol, tobacco, and driving an automobile. Will you "prevent" those things ("as far as possible") as well? Will you prevent anything that you regard as "dangerous"?

And how will you prevent them? Cops, prisons, etc.?

Or will you just "demonize" the behavior you don't like? Find or make up a lot of horror stories and try to scare people out of doing the stuff that you don't want them to do?

Goodie Two-shoes drove to the mall to go shopping and on the way home her car was hit by a large truck and now she won't ever need shoes again -- she has no legs. "Don't learn to drive, kids, and never get in a car!"

Good luck. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Raisa]

People always like to experiment with things.
Communism or not, its learning. Sometimes people like to be intoxicated cause it feels different, and it fascinates them, and I wont doubt that people will do it in communism too.

With the "legalization" of drugs in a classless society there will probably be, as with other things in general, better quality of drugs. No more half assed results of capitalist society for less. Like CRACK&#33; <_< And I think things to the nature of crack probably wont be used as much at all if ever, becuase there are better things available and everyone knows how stupid it is to do crack in comparison to those other things. Who knows if anyone will even bother to make those things.

Those harmful addictive drugs probably wont be used as much by most people at all because people would regaurd it as illogical self destructive behavior,especially in excessive use.
With the de-stigmatization of drugs in communist society, this puts drugs into an every day place where a code of social conduct will form around it and there will be an accepted way to act with it just like with anything else we do in our daily lives.

[PRC-UTE]

I love to drink; I&#39;m drinking right now.

Heroin is indeed fucked up, but post-communist, who wants the job of confiscating it, hunting down smugglers, etc? My own dad was fucked up on it, but what can you do? It&#39;s ultimately that user&#39;s choice and we&#39;re just observers.

[BuyOurEverything]

Alcohol abuse destroys lives and it is "pure" and "legal"

Hold on, are you saying you&#39;re for making alcohol illegal?

[Anarchist Freedom]

I am I hate alcohol but It wont be illegal anytime soon though...... back during the prohibition of Alcohol period in america it was the GREAT equalizer soo in a way it was a good thing because a man from the gutter was drinking a beer with some rich smuck from wall street who is also drinking beer now in an legal alcohol society you dont see these poor downtroten proletariets chilling with paris hilton at club spider do you nope. In a way Alcohol being illegal was good in another way terrible

[Vallegrande]

so people will just stop using drugs once its legalized because there is no longer an economic intrest in?

This isn&#39;t quite true. What the fact is, is that if all drugs were made legal, especially the ones we call the exquisite marijuana, the unique coca plant, the Wizard of Oz sleep inducing poppy plant, these would become so massively cultivated, that it would be vitrually free for anyone. That means that one could go get something cheaper, more safer, because it is not owned by the violent drug lords and other corrupt officials. A pound of marijuana would be as cheap as crystal meth.

See, people will do other things when "Medicines" become illegal. People will rely on other things like glue, markers, crystal meth, etc, that come from drugs. People with a drug problem should get medical treatment instead of prison.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 24 2004, 12:51 PM
I wouldn&#39;t call it totalitarian, I would call it caring. Having to watch my hero slowly destroy himself with Crack Cocaine and Heroin should be enough to put any one off it.
If you&#39;re talking about Cobain. He would have been bothered with your need for his music.

Does that mean I should force you to stop listening?

[monkeydust]

Redstar:

I agree with you that a large amount of drug problems arise not from the substances themselves, but rather from problems arising from prohibition: impurity, jail, lack of education on proper use etc.

The evidence that serious drugs, in excess, can and do cause damage to individuals is, however, overwhelming.

Even assuming this, you fairly say: "So what right do we have to prevent people from harming themselves is they want to?"

This seems like a valid enough point, but I would doubt your assumption that people addicted to drugs necessarily "want" to be so. I know many people who, at one level "want" some drugs, but at another more profound level, they&#39;d really like not to need to "want" that drug. The issue of deciding when it&#39;s right or wrong to stop someone from harming themselves becomes a little more muddy when it&#39;s hard to ascertain if that&#39;s what they really want to do.

Furthermore, would it not be possible to simply not produce and distribute drugs in the first place? In this instance we are not actively controlling what someone does to themselves, but merely what substances are available to them.

[Pawn Power]

I don&#39;t really know how difficult it is to produce, but the only way drugs like heroin and crack will be made would be if the people who wanted them produced it themselves. There would be no initiative for drug lords to produce it if there is no money to be made. I think those drugs, if difficult to produce, might loose influence because of complexity to create.
Marijuana, how ever, will be growing everywhere :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
Furthermore, would it not be possible to simply not produce and distribute drugs in the first place?

In communist society, all labor is voluntary. So no one will be compelled to manufacture or distribute any drug.

The question in these threads usually revolves around whether or not people who make, distribute, or use certain drugs should be "officially persecuted" in some way.

Some folks here have so deeply absorbed the views of the "war on drugs" that they want to "stop" people from using drugs at any cost. That is, they&#39;re willing to impose far greater suffering and damage on people than is actually caused by the drugs themselves.

Others, such as myself, are biased towards a "leave people alone" stance as long as there are no social consequences.

For example, I don&#39;t care if you get "high" or what you get "high" on any more than I care if you have a shrine to the Great Pumpkin in your basement.

But if you get "high" and then get behind the wheel of car, hit someone, and injure or kill them, then that&#39;s your ass&#33; You can&#39;t get away with "I didn&#39;t mean to do it; I was high".

Clear?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[monkeydust]

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that some centralised authority should dictate what is and is not produced and distributed; rather, that a collective agreement could be made to stop producing hard drugs - heroine and the like(assuming the majority agree to do so, of course).

I&#39;d also prefer a "leave peple alone" approach, if the only alternative was outright anti-drug persecution. But if cutting out hard drug use is as simple as coming to an agreement not to produce them, then I&#39;d favour that.

Your contention that voluntarily providing for people to become addicted to heroin or crack represents some kind of "liberation" doesn&#39;t fly with me - someone addicted to a substance to the point where it rules their life is not free at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
I didn&#39;t mean to imply that some centralised authority should dictate what is and is not produced and distributed; rather, that a collective agreement could be made to stop producing hard drugs - heroine and the like (assuming the majority agree to do so, of course).

Well, any given collective could make such an agreement without difficulty. But suppose, here and there, other collectives feel differently...and decide that they like heroin (or whatever) and are going to make it and give away their surplus production to anyone who asks.

Then what?

If you try to stop them, then you&#39;ve just revived "the war on drugs"...with all the shit we have now.

If you ignore them, then once more, here and there in every collective, some people will try heroin (or whatever), decide they like it, and become addicted.


Your contention that voluntarily providing for people to become addicted to heroin or crack represents some kind of "liberation" doesn&#39;t fly with me - someone addicted to a substance to the point where it rules their life is not free at all.

Your meaning here is a bit obscure -- I did not suggest that we should promote drug use as a "liberating experience". Real scientific information on various drugs might serve to lower drug use in the long run -- but it can&#39;t be the kind of "science" that prevails now. For example, the BBC "reports" today that parental cigarette smoking "lowers IQ in children".

In other words, we&#39;re not getting science now about drugs -- we&#39;re just getting drug war "horror stories". We really don&#39;t know the science behind drugs and their effects, positive as well as negative.

The reason an addict&#39;s life appears to be "ruled by a drug" is because of the tremendous difficulty and expense of acquiring a reliable supply of that drug.

When I took up cigarette smoking in the 1950s, cigarettes were 25 cents/pack and available everywhere...even kids could buy them without hassle (except in, wouldn&#39;t you know it, Utah). If you ran out, you could get a fresh pack with little or no inconvenience. (And, of course, you could smoke almost everywhere.)

As you know, things are different now and I have to devote some care to a matter which I once took for granted as trivial. I must now order cartons (at least five) on the internet well in advance of use (to avoid extortionate retail prices and taxes); stay at home for the UPS delivery; avoid "no smoking areas" whenever I can, etc. I am "less free" than I used to be...not because of tobacco but because of the "war against tobacco".

Is not the same true of all the drugs that are under the interdict? If one wanted/needed a hit of heroin after work every day and it was available on the same basis as cigarettes were in the 1950s, would it be a "big deal"?

And by the same token, if cigarettes eventually become illegal (which seems to be what the "health nazis" want), will I not be forced into criminal activities to get my smokes?

So you (and the generation that actually makes a revolution) will have to decide: let people use whatever they like...or build up a vast repressive apparatus in the hopeless attempt to stop them "for their own good".

There&#39;s no doubt in my mind which causes the greater human suffering.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vallegrande]

We should all draw the line between what are considered drugs. Anything and everything is already mind altering. What else is true is that many of these things are human made. These are what drugs are. But their original sources, should not be considered drugs. Example: cocaine is a drug but perhaps coca is just an herb or medicine. We should not follow what the DEA considers drugs.