Drugs and Communism again

[Taiga]

As far as I understand, communists affirm that in the communist society everyone is free to use drugs. Unless they don't affect the work etc.(although it is disputable: heavy drugs are brain-destructive and definitely affect the work).

But I am concerned about something else:
What if a drug-addicted woman gets pregnant?
What if the future father is a junkee?
What if they both are?

We all know how the drugs affect the foetus. 9 to 10 that the child will be a freak. Doesn't he/she have the right to be born healthy?
You may say that even very healthy parents have very ill children. But that's not the case. Because everybody is aware of the consequences of the drug addiction.

Do you see the way this may be solved in the communist society? Not by the prohibition of the drugs, I guess.......... Abortions? I don't like that....

HOW?

[Dyst]

As long as it affects anyone else, people shouldn't be allowed to use drugs. Most drugs also do damage to the person using it, including perhaps others.

[Major. Rudiger]

Well i Think people should be able to use Heorin or Meth. That stuff fucks you up, an includeing they need lads to make, so i really dont think you can get the supples to get the drugs like that. But like something like Opiuim is really addictive and really easy make from the plant. So thats a problem. But It doesnt do as much damage, so I've heard.

[enigma2517]

The problem that often comes up is how do you obtain these drugs to begin with. Right now there is a black market for them, which can only exist because currency allows for accumulation of wealth. However, when we have the communist mode of transfer of commodities, that is, commodity to/for commodity, it would be hard(er) to obtain drugs. You would either need to produce them yourself (a hassle, pain in the ass, not to mention you need to obtain materials for your local commune) or find somebody that will...for free. I wouldn't mind managing a pot farm in my spare time ;). And in typing this paragraph I just realized that the guy above me just said almost the same thing...oh well :\

In the particular instance that Taiga described...well...nothings perfect. I think that something like that is really fucked up to do, and with the society that we are hoping to furnish it would be unlikely that a huge number of people would engage in such self-destructive tendencies. What can we do? Provide them with help...a place to sober up, psychological counseling...anything is better than the marble-cold heart that capitalism lends us. Basically, this might happen once in awhile, and hey communism is no utopia, but regardless its much less likely to happen (as opposed to now, when it is a very harsh reality). For every 1 person that decides to do that there will be 10000000 that won't, so hey, its a step up. Thats all we're looking for.

[gawkygeek]

as far as ive read and understood in the communist ideal, drugs and alcohol are all opiates used by a ruling class to calm the workers and keep them from rising above and realizing the horrible state in which they are abused and forced to live. because of this i've come to understand that drugs of all mentaly altering ability are refused by the communist state as they can only bring rise to a worsened condition for the people within the state.

[bunk]

Communist and state can not go together. As long as there is proper education available why should people not be able to do whatever they want.

[gawkygeek]

communist and state not only go together but have to. communism is an economic system to be implemented within the state.

as for the issue of doing as they please, it is the responsibility of government to protect the people from all dangers including the dangers of their own poor choices.

[bunk]

Communism is a stateless society, there is no government

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

i am a big beleiver in the freedom to use drugs. of course i do drugs. i don't do coke or heroin(ive done coke plenty), but i do smoke massive amounts of marijuana. Drug use should be a freedom of choice. its your fucking life, its your body. Communism is a gov'tless society, so of course drugs would be legal. The only reason why drugs are illegal in the U.S. is that the capitalist pigs cannot profit because it is impossible to tax drugs. Read up on the Marijuana Tax act of 1937. It pretty much states that the only legal marijuana is medical. Marijuana isn't illegal, just the Untaxed marijuana. They have cannibus cards that you can get from corrupt doctors and stuff, but only in states that will provide medicinal marijuana. If you're a true beleiver in smoking marijuana legally, then id do that. But yeah drugs are a right that all people should have. peace.

[gawkygeek]

a state can be a collection of people geographicly or ethnicly linked with or without government.

[bunk]

So what there is one world, who cares, i repeat, communism is a stateless society.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

i stand by crossfire.

[CommieBastard]

Unless they don't affect the work etc.(although it is disputable: heavy drugs are brain-destructive and definitely affect the work).

Is it the case that a communist society can justify infringing on an individual's personal pursuit of 'happiness' for the purpose of greater productivity?
We have to remember that a society is a collaboration of individuals, for the purpose of the achievement within the collaborative group of individual or shared goals.
The way we generally get around the disparity in individual goals is by using generalisations, such as the word 'happiness', which can be used to indicate a number of distinct individuals goals as a shared goals. Tho that's a bit of a sidetrack.
The point is that productivity is not a goal, it is a means to the goal of the shared concept of individual 'happiness'.
To say that we should neglect our goals in order to better pursue the means to our goals is to make a bold assertion.
Whilst it is the case that we can say that there may be a greater overall achievement of the goal by means of the neglect of some goals in favor of the means to other, we cannot act on this assertion without somethign to indicate that this is the case above the other possibilities.


But I am concerned about something else:
What if a drug-addicted woman gets pregnant?
What if the future father is a junkee?
What if they both are?

We all know how the drugs affect the foetus. 9 to 10 that the child will be a freak. Doesn't he/she have the right to be born healthy?
You may say that even very healthy parents have very ill children. But that's not the case. Because everybody is aware of the consequences of the drug addiction.

If here by drugs you mean illegal drugs then I would point out that alcohol is itself responsible for foetal abnormality.
The fact is that there is a plethora of causal factors for any of the problems we experience in society, including foetal abnormality. We could gain the benefit of reducing these problems, IF we are willing to neglect a number of other means that we use to achieve our goals.
I would say that in this instance it is not the case that we can assert a necesity of a causal link between drug use within a society to drug use by the pregnant. It is perfectly plausible to have a society within which there is drug use, but the drugs are not used by the pregnant.


Do you see the way this may be solved in the communist society? Not by the prohibition of the drugs, I guess.......... Abortions? I don't like that....

HOW?

As you say, prohibition doesn't work. Even if you see it as a valid goal to reduce the use of drugs within society, we can show that in previous times that laws have been loosened on drugs use has risen at first, and then dropped down. When laws have been tightened, it generally leads to the drug becoming more tightly involved with more serious societal problems.
What is more, if the goal of prohibition is to protect the users, it again fails at this. Drugs in societies that prohibit them are of generally lesser quality (in terms not of strength, but of safety of use and how much it's been cut).

The only solution that I personally see is education.
The fact is that people will always decide to do drugs, as will animals.
If people are going to be doing drugs, and we see a conjunction of people's drug use and problems for them or society, then it is our responsibility to try and minimise the risk of any given individual's drug use becoming associated with these problems.
This can be done by educating them about what drugs are, and the implications that drug use has, along with the risks and known methods for their minimisation.
What is more society has safety nets for people for whom drugs have a serious detriment. The safety net is, as it stands, underfunded, understaffed and underdeveloped.
I see no reason why in a Communist society there should be any reaction to drugs that is different to reactions to anything else that we happen to find an enjoyable experience.
All such experiences have their problems and risks. We wouldn't, for example, declare sport illegal because injuries were reducing productivity. We might instead try to ensure that when people are engaged in sport they have all the information available to them to minimise the risk of injury, whilst providing the best available medical treatment for them should they fall prey.

[CommieBastard]

As long as it affects anyone else, people shouldn't be allowed to use drugs. Most drugs also do damage to the person using it, including perhaps others.

Does this mean that you think the state should interfere in any and all matters where one person's activities affect another's?

Also, many things that we enjoy do damage to us and other's around us. Eating certain types of food causes a whole plethora of medical problems. Every product you eat is produced by a system of factories and transportational vehicles that pumps out huge volumes of polluting substances into our environment every day, doing untold damage to both ourselves and the resources that we use to make ourselves happy.
Drugs are [i]that[i/] much worse than this?

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by Major. [email protected] 7 2005, 10:13 PM
Well i Think people should be able to use Heorin or Meth. That stuff fucks you up, an includeing they need lads to make, so i really dont think you can get the supples to get the drugs like that. But like something like Opiuim is really addictive and really easy make from the plant. So thats a problem. But It doesnt do as much damage, so I've heard.
I'm a bit confused here, your message seems a bit mixed, so I'll just make a generally reply to the subject you raise.

The media hype surrounding drugs distorts the vast majority of people's view about the situation, even in scientific terms.
We have heard a lot said for years decrying that great bogeyman; heroin.

The fact is that the statistics available suggest that heroin, whilst a highly addictive drug (in comparison to other drugs) is not as addictive as the media suggests. It is simply not the case that a single hit and you'll be hooked for life.
During the Vietnam war a large number of the troops used heroin. Studies conducted after the war have shown that despite the troops being in traumatic conditions (where such people are normally more likely to seek 'self-medication' in the form of drugs, and more likely to fall into the pattern of addiction) only a small minority became addicted to the drug, and an even smaller minority suffered long term addiction or other severe side effects as a result of their drug use.
I'd love to give you the actual statistics, but unfortunately I don't have the source to hand.

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:41 AM
The problem that often comes up is how do you obtain these drugs to begin with. Right now there is a black market for them, which can only exist because currency allows for accumulation of wealth. However, when we have the communist mode of transfer of commodities, that is, commodity to/for commodity, it would be hard(er) to obtain drugs. You would either need to produce them yourself (a hassle, pain in the ass, not to mention you need to obtain materials for your local commune) or find somebody that will...for free. I wouldn't mind managing a pot farm in my spare time ;). And in typing this paragraph I just realized that the guy above me just said almost the same thing...oh well :\
To suggest that drugs would be any less prevalent under communism than capitalism by virtue of them being a commodity is ridiculous.
The features of drugs that you pointed to as being consequential in determining how they are treated under communism are features that are true of every commodity that capitalism currently produces.

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:09 PM
as far as ive read and understood in the communist ideal, drugs and alcohol are all opiates used by a ruling class to calm the workers and keep them from rising above and realizing the horrible state in which they are abused and forced to live. because of this i've come to understand that drugs of all mentaly altering ability are refused by the communist state as they can only bring rise to a worsened condition for the people within the state.
This seems to be quite a leap to me.
The fact that the ruling class uses drugs to soften the tendencies of the working classes to revolution does not necesitate that post-revolution drugs should be viewed in a bad light. Assumedly if you remove the ruling class who are using the whip, the whip falls to the ground now just so much old rope.
There is no reason why the working classes can't take that rope and make it into something useful.
Drugs are not an inherently bad thing (though i do not dispute that some methods for their use are 'bad'), and you are basically saying that anything that the working class likes which the ruling class uses as a carrot to incentivise is not something that the working class should indulge in once free.
Is it the case that all enjoyable commodities are bad for this reason?If not, then what is the distinction?
Remember, anything we enjoy is being enjoyed by us because our brain is releasing drugs. Enjoying something is an altered state of mind from not enjoying something. Every human is a drug user, life is a game based on chemistry, to succeed you have to get the balance of chemicals right.

What is more, I see no reason to suggest that because drugs are used as tool for oppression they should be decried even pre-revolution. It is not the actual drugs which are being used by the ruling classes. It is the state of mind which they foster using education and the media in the working classes that determines the way they act towards drugs. Ultimately, the tool is not the drugs, but that allmighty lumbering factory of mind control that is the media circus.
I would say that it is the duty pre-revolution of a revolutionary to attempt to ensure that the working classes are kept informed in those areas that the ruling classes distort the truth. We would do better to inform and proliferate knowledge, than to fall prey to the two traps of either falling into line with the ruling class by decrying drug use (lets not forget they use it's impact as a social issue to keep the working classes in support of reactionary social policies) or by blindly advocating it (as again, they benefit from an appearance that you have to be ignorant to advocate drugs).

[Xvall]

Keep in mind, a lot of us are pro-choice, and don't consider a fetus be a human being.

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:17 PM
a state can be a collection of people geographicly or ethnicly linked with or without government.
I see no reason why communism as a doctrine necesitates fetishizing geographical or ethnic features.

[CommieBastard]

Keep in mind, a lot of us are pro-choice, and don't consider a fetus be a human being.

Whilst I am pro-choice under the current conditions, I see no reason why a communist society should need abortion under any circumstances, even severe abnormality (except where it severely effects the standard of living of the sufferer).

If a parent cannot cope with raising a child at a particular time, then there are always other people willing to step up to the plate and care for the child. Adoption waiting lists are long.
It's not like abortion is an amazing cop-out that prevents the problems of pregnancy, it has all the problems of pregnancy and a number of other complications.

Whilst I would never impose on a parent to go through with the birth of their child, in a anarchist or communist society I would see no reason why they would elect for abortion

[Hiero]

Is it the case that a communist society can justify infringing on an individual's personal pursuit of 'happiness' for the purpose of greater productivity?

Yes. Taking drugs before work can be dangours, and if productivity which all society will benifit from is dragged down due to someone on drugs then their freedom of drug use should be infringed upon by the other workers.

Also drug culture may be something linked to capitalism like many other cultures.

[CommieBastard]

Is it the case that a communist society can justify infringing on an individual's personal pursuit of 'happiness' for the purpose of greater productivity?

Yes. Taking drugs before work can be dangours, and if productivity which all society will benifit from is dragged down due to someone on drugs then their freedom of drug use should be infringed upon by the other workers.

In my post I made a rebuttal of this point, please answer this instead of reiterating it.


Also drug culture may be something linked to capitalism like many other cultures.

Two things. Drug culture and Drugs are not one and the same.
The fact that a culture has been used as a tool by capitalism does not necessitate that it has any capitalistic features.
Capitalists use the academic culture. This does not necesitate that a Communist society should abandon academia.

[Xvall]

You may not see a reason for it, but there are probably a good deal of people who do see a reason for it, and would have an abortion with little if any hesitation.

[CommieBastard]

As i said, in the context of society as it stands i do see good reasons for abortion.

[encephalon]

I posted this once, but it happened to be on le grande deletion day.

How would one propose to calculate the use-value of recreational drugs?

[seraphim]

By assesing their effect on personal happiness which after all is what it's all about

[CommieBastard]

I do not claim that we can calculate the use-value, as we cannot yet measure personal happiness. However, one day we might be able to.

As it stands though, the fact that we can see that the benefits of drugs might be greater than the detriment they cause, means that we just have to leave it to personal experimentation.

[CommieBastard]

What's more, if an individual is in a system which is to their detriment, but to the benefit of the majority then they should not be participating.

Life is a game where the number of winners isn't limited.

A society that is motivated by individual desire, but recognises that in order to fulfil individual desire it has to respect the desire of other individuals within the system is the ideal that i see.

[seraphim]

personal happiness can be measured but only on a personal basis

[CommieBastard]

To measure happiness we would first have to determine in detail what it's nature is, and then carry out experiments to detail the ways in which it can be brought about.
You do have to remember, the brain is very similar to neural nets, one set of inputs doesnt always get the same set of outputs, it is dependant on the previous inputs that change the weighting on the nodes and lines.
In other words, we need an incredibly complex understanding of the exact system the human brain runs on in order to actually get anywhere close enough in our understanding of 'happiness' or any other element of our psychology to measure it.

[Ell Carino]

Drugs are stupid! But i do believe it should be your freedom as a human to take whatever the fuck you wanna take - but most end up regretting gettin into all that shit. The biggest Drug Dealers on this planet are the CIA, the whole drug scene is corrupt as a muthfucka cuz the business is worth trillions. I'm sure George W. Stupid likes the odd line of coke in the Oval Office now and then.

[CommieBastard]

can you explain why drugs are stupid?
do you have anything to back up the claim 'most end up regretting gettin into all that shit'?
What is more, is it not possible that even if this is the case, it is because they are using drugs outside of a framework of understanding about what drugs are and how they are best used, a lack of understanding proliferated by the capitalist system in order to ensure that those who are capable of seeing past one level of capitalist lies are likely to get ensared by the pitfalls that drugs (like all activities that are either beneficial or detrimental) do have.

If Marx jumped of a bridge would you?
If Bush eats food, would you avoid it?

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

as long as they are affecting the work force, then drugs should be legal.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

aren't* sorry typo!

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

I think drugs could be successfully legal in a communist society, without severely getting in the way. In regards to pregnancy, birth control could be a major factor, through education, in eradicating any need for abortion or the births of children with defects.

I would be interested to know how drugs have played a part, if any, in communist states of the 20th century, and into today. Does anyone know much about this?

[JazzRemington]

I remember hearing a story about one of hte German teachers in my high school when she was in East Berlin during the Soviet occupation.

She was on a train that was stopped by guards and she happened to have a cake with marijuana baked inside it. The guards boarded the train with dogs and she hid the cake in a radiater (I believe). The dogs were going nuts and the guards were tearing the place up looking for it. They kept demanding that the things be turned over becuase they knew it was there, on account of the dogs barking and being so alert. I'm not sure what happened afterwards, to be honest.

In Soviet Russia (as well as other "communist" countries) drugs were greatly outlawed (especially marijuana and the major hallucagens) because they were feared to create dissenting thought. Not surprising, there was a huge rate of addiction in those countries.

[Taiga]

Drugs should be abolished. Recipes forgotten. Period.

[CommieBastard]

For every single drug it is possible to use it in a way that does not effect your productivity.

Communist society should seek to eradicate the problem that is the detrimental use of drugs.

Whilst it could do this by eradicating the use of drugs at all, there are a vast array of positive effects that society could benefit from that we would be cutting ourselves from.

Do remember, drugs act on our brains because our brain chemistry is set up to use them. Without drugs being in existence, there would not exist experience.

It is ridiculous to say that that body of chemicals which is currently illegal is all inherently detrimental, as each chemical has to be evaluated in and of itself for what benefits and detriments there are. We have to accept that we cannot outright claim drugs are more detrimental than beneficial, as we have some positive experiences, and these are derived from some form of drug, therefore some kind of drugs produce positive results.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

as we have some positive experiences

yes....we do :D

[Taiga]

I am against drugs because it's a kind of slavery, in my opinion. Especially heavy drugs.

as we have some positive experiences, and these are derived from some form of drug, therefore some kind of drugs produce positive results.
Oh, yes.......... My master feeds me......... I have some positive experiences......... Heil Master!!!!!

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Well then that all depends on the distribution. If the state is feeding you these drugs on some sort of reward system, then I see a conflict of interest. But that's different than drugs simply being legal. If you're growing a pot plant (or a few) in your back yard, I see no harm or anything akin to "slavery".

[SROleader]

People shud be allowed to do drugs if it makes them happy. i think laws should try and make the most people they can happy - utilitarianism. the object of any society is to make its individuals happy, above anything else, so if doing drugs makes them happy then let them do drugs.

[valvetechnology]

Surely in a communist society people are unable to become homeless or unemployed which are the most common reasons for people becoming crack/meth/heroin addicts. I would classify these drugs entirely differently to marajuana, cocaine or ecstasy, since these drugs are similar in their extremity of damage to alcohol. So there should be help for hard drug users, and legally available (less harmful) drugs available to the masses.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:24 PM
the object of any society is to make its individuals happy, above anything else, so if doing drugs makes them happy then let them do drugs.
This isn't the object of soceity. Soceity is created to make peoples lives better and to allow human development, happiness is along way down the trail. Also happiness is only what basic utilitarianism is concerned about well being is more important to people within any state.
You cannot justify legalising drugs by utilitarianism because it is not precise enough, ok so it may make people happy but u cannot say that they will make more people happy than unhappy.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Of course drugs will affect everyone around you if used unwisely and without responsibility. You see when you use drugs your responsible for yourself and the golden rule of drugs is responsibility You shouldnt be using Gear if your a pregnant womyn. Its commen sense. Though some women may still use you would have to put restrictions on who could purchase what. personally I think all psychedelis should require a medical examination of there mental well being before usage because of the effects on the human psyche.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:08 PM
Surely in a communist society people are unable to become homeless or unemployed which are the most common reasons for people becoming crack/meth/heroin addicts.
Many rich people are drug-addicted because they are bored and have nothing to do. If everyone is provided with a decent satisfactory job, I think, there is just no place for drugs. People will find more worthy and healthy ways to relax and to rest.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

If everyone is provided with a decent satisfactory job, I think, there is just no place for drugs. People will find more worthy and healthy ways to relax and to rest.

You don't think there's a place for drugs, but is it the government's place to tell people they can't have them, even if they want them?

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:20 AM
Well then that all depends on the distribution. If the state is feeding you these drugs on some sort of reward system, then I see a conflict of interest. But that's different than drugs simply being legal. If you're growing a pot plant (or a few) in your back yard, I see no harm or anything akin to "slavery".
I meant that the addiction itself is a "slavery". If you are drug-addicted, the only thing you can think about is "MORE!!!"

[encephalon]

drugs feed on the tie between human pleasure and learning. We're all a bunch of drooling dogs. We only differ in the drug. The issue goes well beyond "drugs" of any sort.

Honestly, I think anyone should be allowed to take a drug. I do think, however, that it should actively be discouraged, at least in the sense of pure pleasure. Drugs are a very low-minded way to engage yourself (though we are all guilty). It's equivalent to masturbating for hours. Sure, there's much pleasure involved. But it's short term and anti-productive.

Much can be said about the social issue and drugs. It does form a kind of tie to another person, which is highly desirable in a world of rampant alienation. Yet basing that relationship on drugs is plain and simple establishing a relationship with another person through the means of a commodity, devaluing the person(s) involved. The relationship is with the drug and the paraphernalia involved, not the people.

[CommieBastard]

Brilliant post encephalon. I don't see a single thing that could be seriously contended.

Taiga, you are addicted to food, to good relationships, to every single thing you enjoy.
They all rely on drugs in some way.
Your addiction to them can all easily be abused by those who provide your fix. And they are. That's capitalism.
The key is to ensure that you seperate in your mind the views of the provider and the nature of the provision. That is to say, just because you are feeling pleasure when daddy tells you you're being a good little boy, DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT TO BE A GOOD LITTLE BOY.

If you have not realised the extent to which drugs play a role in the determination of your concepts, then your defences against insidious concepts that those who would use you need you to believe are going to be negligable. You are weak, you are defenceless, you are prone and in danger. You are sitting naked in a landscape full of vicious beasts with your head buried in the sand. Pulling your head out may be scary, but it's needed if you are actually going to have sensations for yourself, if you are going to actually live.
Look around, and look in horror.

[ViveLaRevolutionAndSHP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:17 PM
a state can be a collection of people geographicly or ethnicly linked with or without government.
that is a culture or a community, a state is a government, the United $tate$ is not American, it is the government of my country, i am an American, but i do not believe in or support the policy of the government that is imposed upon me

and bout the whole drug thing, the use of drugs is a persons personal choice, drungs such as Heroin and Meth prolly shouldnt be used because of there destructive nature on the brain, and i think that drug education is needed to teach people about what they are going to be takeing so that they can make the most informed decision.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

drugs are only illegal in the U.S.A, because the gov't cannot tax the drugs.

[colombia16]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:05 PM
As far as I understand, communists affirm that in the communist society everyone is free to use drugs. Unless they don't affect the work etc.(although it is disputable: heavy drugs are brain-destructive and definitely affect the work).

But I am concerned about something else:
What if a drug-addicted woman gets pregnant?
What if the future father is a junkee?
What if they both are?

We all know how the drugs affect the foetus. 9 to 10 that the child will be a freak. Doesn't he/she have the right to be born healthy?
You may say that even very healthy parents have very ill children. But that's not the case. Because everybody is aware of the consequences of the drug addiction.

Do you see the way this may be solved in the communist society? Not by the prohibition of the drugs, I guess.......... Abortions? I don't like that....

HOW?
<_< WHAT GUERRILLERA IS SAYING IS TRUE.
AND I THINK THAT NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THE DRUGS(EXEPT FOR THOSE WHO REALLY NEED IT FOR BODY PAINS).
THE DRUGS USE IS SOMETHING SO DELICATE, MORE DELICATE THAN A ROSE, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAS TO THINK ABOUT THEIR HEALTH AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WITH THEM.
IF THAT PERSON IS A WOMAN OR A MAN THAT WANTS TO HAVE A FAMILY, THEY WILL HAVE A REALLY STUPID SONS.
THE POINT IS THAT ALL THE DRUGS THAT THE PERSON USE DURING HIS/HER LIFE IS GOING TO AFFECT THE FETUS MAKING A BIG DAMAGE IN THEIR BRAINS. AND IT DOESN&#39;T MATTER IF THE PERSON STOP THE USE OF THE DRUG.

WHAT DO YOU THINK???????
THINK IN THE FUTURE THAT ARE SO INOCENT...

[CommieBastard]

If you could provide scientific evidence for your bold and sweeping claims, then maybe.
Specifically:
ALL THE DRUGS THAT THE PERSON USE DURING HIS/HER LIFE IS GOING TO AFFECT THE FETUS MAKING A BIG DAMAGE IN THEIR BRAINS. AND IT DOESN&#39;T MATTER IF THE PERSON STOP THE USE OF THE DRUG

So far, no evidence has pointed to this.
Also, could you turn your capslock off please?

[1936]

drugs and alcohol are all opiates used by a ruling class to calm the workers and keep them from rising

Eh?

What ruling class in the history of politics has used drugs or alchohol to "Calm down the workers"?&#33;?&#33;?

[1936]

AND I THINK THAT NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THE DRUGS

And you belive that communism/socialism/anorchism should stop people from taking from the earth what of wich they have harvested? If you want to restrict peoples rights i recomend this site.

www.dirtyfuckingfacistscum.uk.org

[extreme_left_ak]

I think they should aloud drugs. It&#39;s not only bad stuff. sometimes it even health&#39;s people

[viva le revolution]

It&#39;s no coincidence that majority of drug and alcohol abusers tend to belong to the working class and proletariat. The imperialists in advertising tend to present alcohol as a magic elixir promising instant gratification. This idea appeals greately to the alienated and disenfranchised worker who turns to the bottle to, at least temporarily, forget his frustrations as regards to him being exploited to fill the coffers of the Capitalist. However instead of helping him this "instant gratification" formula is slowing making his economic position even worse, pushing him closer to enslavement and dependance not only to the exploitative employer but also to the oligarch producing and profiting from this poison, thus suppressing any revolutionary tendencies in the frustrated individual who turns ever more continuously to the very vipers responsible for his state to provide him with more "instant gratification".

[colombiano]

Just as many rich are drunks and one could argure that more are coke heads. Also remember that the rich are junkies as well. The difference is instead of going behind the 7/11 to get there fix from their dealer, the wealthy and affluent go to the doctors office and have their pal from the country club write them a prescription.

[workersunity]

the rules in the USA regarding pot and many other "drugs" are fucking worthless, how is someone who smoked pot, sitting down relaxing with his boys a harm to society, and the funny thing is, is that most politicians have done it, and dont want to admit it was good. also there will obviously be rules, like cant drive under influence, stuff that applys to alchol, although research would have to be in it

[Parkbench]

I am amazed at the amount of knowledge (re: lack of knowledge) prevalent on these boards about drugs. You would all do yourselves good visiting www.erowid.org and reading up on something--anything.

Some have said this, and I will reinforce it: One has the right to do to one&#39;s body what one wishes.

But I take it further. Some are saying it should be actively discouraged. This is the wrong thing to do. IT is because of this practice that drugs have a pejorative connotation in today&#39;s society. It&#39;s the reason people think drugs=red-eyed lunatic shivering in a dark alleyway with needles coming out of every oriface and piece of skin in his body.

Suppression never led to change in any instance. The problem with today&#39;s attitude on drugs is that just like sex, we give children a taste, and tehn tell them nothing more; "No&#33; It is bad, it is wrong and you will not know anything about it&#33;" What this does is create curiosity. Rather than education, most countries have opted for propaganda about a relatively normal topic.

Drugs should not be a &#39;problem.&#39; They are a &#39;problem&#39; because they are illegal. Their illegality is the problem. Snorting a white powder which stimulates you in its isolation means nothing and harms no one. I realise there are no true isolated incidents, however, but drugs ARE a victimless crime in their ideal form. However, because of their illegality, suppression, and straightedgers who don&#39;t know jack shit, we&#39;re forced to deal with this black market underground society. About half of drug deaths are due to a bad sale--there was more than the dealer said there was, the delaer sold something fake, it was cut with toxic chemicals; there are countless reasons. This would not happen with regulation (although I am an anarchist, and idealy, one would be free to do what one pleased in an anarchist society, obviously...here im simply discussing the current society).

This would not happen with understanding. It&#39;s a shunned culture and I can say very honestly that you can learn things from drugs. They can make you realise and learn things you never thought possible. If you are fascinated by psychology or the human brain then it is even more reason. And to me, things like mushrooms or LSD just amplify my atheism, rather than make me spiritual, like others--it just shows that one can create any reality one wants, but in the end, you come down to the harsh reality--it&#39;s a temporary thing. It&#39;s a subjective thing. Everything is, and drugs should be taught so they are as innocuous as food or video-games, or perhaps, just with a little more education.

Postulation: drugs could be taught and used by anyone who wished to try them in a communist, anarchist, and yes, even in today&#39;s capitalist society.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Drug Use has and always will be a thing in human society end of question. And erowid is like the bible to me.