Communistic stance on drugs?

[Sihvyl]

What do you all think would be the general opinion?

[KC]

I think their popularity will be drastically lower than those in a communist society. As most people take drugs because of the hopelessness and the restrictiveness of capitalist society, in a communist society since everything is more open, there is no financial situation to worry about, and you can do whatever you want, the amount of drug users will fall bigtime.

[Clarksist]

That's too bad. As many drugs kick major ass. :lol:

If we are free under communism, we should be able to put whatever we want into our bodies. And why not?

We will still be punished if we hurt others, and rightfully so. But the loads of people put in jail for possession of illicit drugs... its downright tyranny!

Drugs, under communism, would be completely legal, and I would have no problem if everyone just sat down and smoked a joint.

There would be a lot less problems.

[KC]

While I agree with you, Clarsksist, I'm grappling with the problem of who would make them.

[Scars]

I strongly oppose recreational drug use. They are a poison and just another Capitalist tool to keep the workers down and out. How can anyone expect to make revolution why fucked out of their brains on drugs? The same goes for drinking, I don't oppose it to the same extent as drugs (like, I don't think alcohol should be illegal), but I think that the culture of drinking that exists in many countries should and would be destroyed under Communism.

In addition to this I think that drugs and other similar 'counter-culture' only distances yourself from the workers. How do you expect to earn the respect and trust of tens, hundreds, thousands of people if you're a junky? Or if you get stoned? Or if you're drunk all the time? Call me old fashioned and 'workerist' if you will, but I believe that drugs do nothing but serve as a barrier not only to revolution, but between us as revolutionaries and the workers who we are meant to be buildinga base within.

This said, I'd like to note that I have no problem with drugs that are illegal being used for medical purposes. Weed be allowed for pain relief, ecstacy for people with parkinsons (very strange, but it does help A LOT in some cases), synthetic heroin with people with severe pain and so on. I'd also like to note that I don't set out to demonise drugs, the lies spread about weed in the '50s are just as harmful as the growing acceptance of it these days.

[KC]

EDIT: nevermind

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:37 PM
While I agree with you, Clarsksist, I'm grappling with the problem of who would make them.
people who like to do drugs in their spare time. but! there is no money involved so they most likely wouldnt take shortcuts which could fuck people up even worse than the drug itself.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:38 PM


In addition to this I think that drugs and other similar 'counter-culture' only distances yourself from the workers. How do you expect to earn the respect and trust of tens, hundreds, thousands of people if you're a junky? Or if you get stoned? Or if you're drunk all the time? Call me old fashioned and 'workerist' if you will, but I believe that drugs do nothing but serve as a barrier not only to revolution, but between us as revolutionaries and the workers who we are meant to be buildinga base within.


im sure all workplaces would have an anti-drug policy during work hours. and if no one follows then disciplinary action would follow.

[LSD]

I strongly oppose recreational drug use.

And I stronly oppose sniffing glue ...for myself.

But I would certainly never try and enforce my personal moral preferences on others. And I would die before I'd let you do the same. You have no right to my body nor to tell me what I can or cannot put into it.

Education? Fine. Information? Excellent. But control? Never!

If the purpose of a revolution is to liberate, then it cannot enslave at so basic a level. Honestly, of what use is controlling one's own labour if one cannot control one's own body?

A "communist" society that oppresses at that fundamental a level has no right to call itself free.


They are a poison

Define "poison".


and just another Capitalist tool to keep the workers down and out.

They are often used that way, yes, but the opposite is equally true.

Drug prohibition is a useful tool of the bourgeois to keep workers oppressed and victimized. For 50 years it's been an easy excuse to arrest "trouble makers" and to keep the poor down. If you want to inform people on the dangers of drug use, I think that's a wonderful idea, but giving more power to the capitalist state is never a good idea, and giving it the power over what you can and cannot consume is pure lunacy.


How can anyone expect to make revolution why fucked out of their brains on drugs?

I don't know, but if they can, more power to them.

But we should certainly not trust the bourgeois state to do what's "best" for revolution!


The same goes for drinking, I don't oppose it to the same extent as drugs (like, I don't think alcohol should be illegal)

Why not? Isn't alchohol as "poisonous" as any other recreational drug? Certainly it kills more people than any other.


I think their popularity will be drastically lower than those in a communist society.

Depends on the drug.

I think that uppers and downers would probably be used less. Certainly coke and heroine levels would drop. But I think we'd see a rise in hallucinogen and dissociative use as people begin to be able to explore themselves and their environment more.

With treatment available to everyone, far more people would kick serious addiction which, alone, would drop the use of "harder" drugs.

And, of course, the use of purely recreational/social drugs like alchohol, weed and probably Ecstasy would continue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What you do with your body is your business. However, people should be allowed to make informed decisions - education and acurate information is of utmost importance in my mind.

[Commie-Pinko]

I strongly oppose recreational drug use. They are a poison and just another Capitalist tool to keep the workers down and out.

So that must be why so many wealthy rich kids use them =D To keep the worker down. :lol:

[quincunx5]

I happen to think that weed enhances my work occasionally. While I'm not always high during work, sometimes being high gives me an idea or two that I would not have considered.



I think that's a wonderful idea, but giving more power to the capitalist state is never a good idea, and giving it the power over what you can and cannot consume is pure lunacy.


Capitalism itself does not restrict drug. Capitalism does not legislate policy, the government does. The people responsible for drug prohibition in the US were government and state officials with their own agendas. The paper industry also lobbied for goverment protection from hemp producers. Using politics for business is not capitalism.

[Sihvyl]

You know, Scars does bring up a good point. Personally, when I think about drugs, I think more of the party type situation, and just the kinda smoke a bowl and chill attitude. But, the reality is that there are addicts out there, and that would be a controversial subject, because, more then likely, the addicts would be interferring with the public interest by being inebriated on the job, and that could (and couldn't!) create problems with their performance. I definitely agree that drugs in the workplace (especially with these short days I hear of!) does not equal out to a good situation.

I could see drugs as being a great unificator for a community, if done in the right way, and also a problem maker. Hmmm....this one's going to require more thought.

Most situations though, like LSD said, would probably depend alot on the drug thats being used. Does that mean that the drugs "acceptable" should be limited?

:huh:

[Xvall]

I'm on the same boat as Clarkist, LSD, and NoXion.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, or most other opium-based drugs could be kept illegal i suppose. but only dealing should be punished, addicts should be helped. after all, to slightly edit an infamous marx quote: "OPIUM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE!"

but "soft" drugs, like hash and weed, should most definitely be legalized. but they should be distributed by the state, obviously. private dealers must be hunted like they always have been. capitalist bastards.

[Reds]

pot/hashish sould be leagalized I don`t know about hardcore drugs.

[which doctor]

I think drugs like Cocaine, Meth, Heroine, and other hardcore drugs should be outlawed.
But stuff like marijuana should be ok.

[LSD]

addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, or most other opium-based drugs could be kept illegal i suppose.

I think drugs like Cocaine, Meth, Heroine, and other hardcore drugs should be outlawed.

No!

Prohibition only victimizes users and creates black markets.

Do you really think that people will stop using cocaine because you tell them to? If you ban cocaine production and use in a communist society, people will find a way to make and get it anyways. Unfortunately, that will probably lead to the creation of an underground capital market.

The only way to have a functional communist society is to eliminate the desire to participate in capital exchanges. "Outlawing" substances is the worst thing you can do.

Not to mention that any communist society that has a hope in hell of lasting has to respect the basic right of its members to make their own decisions regarding themselves. If it doesn't trust them to ingest what they want, how can it trust them to control their own labour and society?

[Reds]

perhaps for things like cocaine special bars could be created to keep them off the street.

[Colombia]

What do you mean off the street?

[Commie Girl]

ALL drugs should be legalized and regulated, similar to alcohol. Do people really not remember how unsuccessful prohibition of alcohol was? :o

[Clarksist]

Okay, this is ridiculous.


I think drugs like Cocaine, Meth, Heroine, and other hardcore drugs should be outlawed.


Why? Why in the blue hell should we keep those illegal, but pot and alcohol are okay?

Where do you make the disconnect between smoking something you've grown in your closet, and snorting something you've cooked in your kitchen? If someone is an addict, under communism, they could receive treatment with higher quality, and higher success rates.

Besides, people would still be accountable for their actions on the drugs, and there is no reason to believe that most people wouldn't think that those drugs were too dangerous.

"Hardcore" drugs aren't terrible or evil. They are fun and enjoyable if done in the right environment and in the right way. They enhance. Why take that away from people... especially if they voluntarily help us all out by working?


addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, or most other opium-based drugs could be kept illegal i suppose. but only dealing should be punished, addicts should be helped. after all, to slightly edit an infamous marx quote: "OPIUM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE!"


Opium has an interesting effect on its users.

Prolonged feeling of euphoria during times of slight usage.

Why deny people this joy? If used correctly, opium based drugs can actually improve your happiness and euphoria after you've sobered up.

Opium is a good thing when used "correctly".

Education, not prohibition.

So what have we learned? Do drugs. You just might like it. ;)

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:55 PM
What do you mean off the street?
I mean people will only be allowed use them in these "facilitys" and only in ration so we do not have the epdimic of today.

[Sihvyl]

So what have we learned? Do drugs. You just might like it.

LOL Clarksist. I'll take that advice to heart.


I mean people will only be allowed use them in these "facilitys" and only in ration so we do not have the epdimic of today.

I don't think that would work Reds. People would be inclined to want to do stuff in their own home (drug users know what I mean in the sense that sometimes the comfort of home means alot to the experience of the drug). Now walking down the street with a needle in your hand isn't a great sight for John Q. Public, so keeping drugs literaly "off the streets" should probably happen simply as a respect thing to the non-users. But what about in cars? Or what about in an alchohol bar (if there were to be 'bars' for things) It would be hard to limit where you could do these things other then to say to use where it is respectable to do so, i.e. not in front of kids, or non-users. I think anyone allowed to use drugs would be more then willing to do these things outside of the public eye. As for ration, I say get obliterated and chill at home, as long as you don't go making a fool of yourself to the public, and if caught overly inebriated...well I don't know what the reprecussions(sp?) would or should be of that, obviously though, you loose respect and trust, and that can be a pretty rough consequence all in it's own.

[mannetje]

That's too bad. As many drugs kick major ass. :lol:

If we are free under communism, we should be able to put whatever we want into our bodies. And why not?

We will still be punished if we hurt others, and rightfully so. But the loads of people put in jail for possession of illicit drugs... its downright tyranny!

Drugs, under communism, would be completely legal, and I would have no problem if everyone just sat down and smoked a joint.

There would be a lot less problems. about going to jail for , drugpossesion i saw in a documentairy about the war on drugs that there are about 800.000 people in the u$a in jail for only possesion of drugs. I almost can't believe that. but america is a weird country that's generally known around the globe. and I read on a pro-marijuana site that medical-marijuana users are getting evicted by their landlord. that's so ignorant, I know from experience with a good friend of mine who has aids, who really gets sick from the side effects of his medicines. since he has medical marijuana he eats better is more optimistic and now he's even cappable to do volunteerswork. without weed he would be much sicker, i'm convinced about that.