Drugs...

[cbm989]

what would the policy on drugs and alcohol be under a communist government? just something i was pondering today.

[C_Rasmussen]

It would be a hell of a lot freer than it is today. I also think the drinking age would be lowered as well seeing as 21 is quite absurd seeing as you can do so much when you're 18 but can't go down to the bar for a few drinks or go to the store for a bottle?

[cbm989]

^thats how i feel. and even though im 16 and enjoy the privelege, i believe the driving age should be higher and more difficult to pass the test. i know some HORRIBLE drivers. plus if drinking age is lower than the driving age should be higher. but for some reason i got the notion communism shunned drug use, as that creates "lazyness" and those individuals wouldnt support society. thats what i THOUGHT communsim's stance on the issue was. i guess i was wrong

[C_Rasmussen]

Nah the view of Communism is that drug use should be free for all. Yeah I agree that the driving age should be higher. Theres so many crashes involving teens.

[Social Greenman]

I&#39;m all for the opiate of the masses in whatever form because of the coming gloomy communist society of rationing everything and having a dictatorship over the masses. So, yeah, the people are going to need a lot of crutches to lean on. <_<

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2006, 12:02 PM
I&#39;m all for the opiate of the masses in whatever form because of the coming gloomy communist society of rationing everything and having a dictatorship over the masses. So, yeah, the people are going to need a lot of crutches to lean on. <_<
Drugs and alcohol isn&#39;t a crutch for the most part. Who cares if it is? Its not hurting you so why should you care?

[Social Greenman]

I never said I did. Have you ever seen someone go through withdrawl? It&#39;s not a pretty sight.

[Social Greenman]

Then again...I do care because I would not like a drunk or a stoner trying to dictate what they wanted done. I say this because they would have a distorted view of reality. The world has too many altered state-men as it is.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2006, 06:25 PM
I never said I did. Have you ever seen someone go through withdrawl? It&#39;s not a pretty sight.
After all education is offered, it is a person&#39;s choice whether or not they get to this state. I agree it isn&#39;t pretty, and I have felt withdrawal before, but it is not the end of the world.

What makes you right and them wrong?

Also, to those wondering about a government, it is not the point. As I am sure you have heard thousands of times by now, not having a government is key to being communist. Under a socialist government however I doubt very much as to whether or not restriction would be a role though.

cbm989: Restriction of liberty is not an acceptable role of communism, it is opposed to it. I appreciate what you say about driving however, I live on an island that has more cars per person (at least unless it recently changed) than anywhere else on this planet. Also there is no national speed limit, only localised ones. Also many of the main roads are part of a very famous (and extremely dangerous) motorcycle road race. Less than an 80000 pop. and over 140 deaths on one road alone in the last three years. Still I could not condone any action preventing groups of people from driving...this is a problem that needs discussing.

[Social Greenman]

Hegemonicretribution wrote:


After all education is offered, it is a person&#39;s choice whether or not they get to this state. I agree it isn&#39;t pretty, and I have felt withdrawal before, but it is not the end of the world.

What makes you right and them wrong?

It&#39;s not a matter of who is right or who is wrong but have you noticed what the priority was? I took a shot at communism but those here got offended over alcohol and drugs being a crutch which it is. Despite education people will use drugs and alcohol to excess. I can&#39;t stop it from happening but it should be frowned upon as much as religion is. ;)

[cbm989]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:14 PM
[QUOTE=Social Greenman,Feb 12 2006, 06:25 PM]

cbm989: Restriction of liberty is not an acceptable role of communism, it is opposed to it. I appreciate what you say about driving however, I live on an island that has more cars per person (at least unless it recently changed) than anywhere else on this planet. Also there is no national speed limit, only localised ones. Also many of the main roads are part of a very famous (and extremely dangerous) motorcycle road race. Less than an 80000 pop. and over 140 deaths on one road alone in the last three years. Still I could not condone any action preventing groups of people from driving...this is a problem that needs discussing.
im not saying you neccesarily restrict certain groups form driving, im saying you make it difficult to gain a license to the point where, if you pass the test, you wont be having a ton of wrecks or endangering others.

[Husky42]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2006, 07:26 PM
Hegemonicretribution wrote:


After all education is offered, it is a person&#39;s choice whether or not they get to this state. I agree it isn&#39;t pretty, and I have felt withdrawal before, but it is not the end of the world.

What makes you right and them wrong?

It&#39;s not a matter of who is right or who is wrong but have you noticed what the priority was? I took a shot at communism but those here got offended over alcohol and drugs being a crutch which it is. Despite education people will use drugs and alcohol to excess. I can&#39;t stop it from happening but it should be frowned upon as much as religion is. ;)

I dunno. I smoke weed and drink sometimes one the weekends but not much. I smoke almost every day before bed. I have not found it to influence my work ethic or anything similar to any degree. I also have found myself in the word of casual drug users who I never would have thought. My Dentist was at a party I went to. He was their smoking herb. Would I question going back to him? Nope.. he&#39;s a damn good dentist.

My friends are a makeup of people from the unsuccessfull to the successfull. Within this class mixture a stunning number do one or more drugs and do not allow it to effect their life adversely. The addicits people see and refer to are truly a small percentage of drug users. It is horrible that one can be addicted but it ultimately shows that the individual who allowed themself to be influenced by a substance obviously had a weak mind.

[Global_Justice]

i don&#39;t think drugs laws would really be altered.

drugs lead to desperation, which leads to crime, which has no place in communism. ;)

if there is no money, how do people buy drugs? or would it be allocated by the council :lol: weekly drugs rations :)

[Social Greenman]

Husky42 Wrote:


My friends are a makeup of people from the unsuccessfull to the successfull. Within this class mixture a stunning number do one or more drugs and do not allow it to effect their life adversely. The addicits people see and refer to are truly a small percentage of drug users. It is horrible that one can be addicted but it ultimately shows that the individual who allowed themself to be influenced by a substance obviously had a weak mind.

What I wrote was my concern of the abuses that would happen. Even though addicts may compromise a small percentage at the present time. What is to be done with them as the numbers increase in a gloomy "everything is rationed" dictatorship. Will they get medical help or be shot?

[Social Greenman]

Global Justice wrote:


if there is no money, how do people buy drugs? or would it be allocated by the council weekly drugs rations.

Those gloomy rations. Will it ever end? Not enough furniture, not enough food and they took my good running car and left me with the old clunker. I tried to complain but they put me behind bars. :lol:

Most likely would not be drugs floating around to be bought and sold. Presently organized crime brings drugs in to be sold for a profit. I don&#39;t know about laws but there will be agreements made on what is and is not acceptable behavior.

[loveme4whoiam]

On the whole, I see drugs now as a bad thing. They lead to all kinds of screwy behaviour in the pursuit of getting money to pay for them, and also lead to screwy behaviour while takign them :lol:

But if we get rid of all drugs, what about the socially acceptable ones, like alcohol or, god forbid, coffee *imagines the whole world in sudden caffine withdrawl:lol:*? Alcoholism causes just as bad behaviour as "real" drugs do.

I agree with SG, I doubt the hardcore drugs would be popular once there is no profit to be made from them. The people (delete and insert expletetive if you wish) who create the nasty drugs wouldn&#39;t have much of an incentive to create them. As for recreational drugs (marajuna, alcohol etc), I imagine these would still be created because there would be a public desire for them. I can&#39;t imagine a commune voting in favour of constructing an escstay refinery, but they might for a brewery or a pot plantation :D

[cbm989]

a pot plantation. now THAT would be cool. grandma -
"im goin to pick some weed be back later" hahaha

[fickle_indeed]

The legal drugs are the worst. Have any of you ever had a withdrawel from paxil. I&#39;ve never done hard drugs, but man, that is a bad feeling. Two days of missing the med, and your fucking brain is shocking. I&#39;m off now, but thats what the fucking morons had me on back then. They have to wean you off of it. Pretty numb the whole time. Somone needs to look into that. its not right. but this subject doesn&#39;t really interest me. Marijuana isn&#39;t bad when used in moderation. "Before you knock it try it first, for you will see it is a blessing and tis not a curse." Ben Harper.

[Black Dagger]

Drugs in a communist society should be up to each individual, there will be no bourgeois or social-moral police to punish people for making or taking them.

[Husky42]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2006, 08:42 PM
Husky42 Wrote:


My friends are a makeup of people from the unsuccessfull to the successfull. Within this class mixture a stunning number do one or more drugs and do not allow it to effect their life adversely. The addicits people see and refer to are truly a small percentage of drug users. It is horrible that one can be addicted but it ultimately shows that the individual who allowed themself to be influenced by a substance obviously had a weak mind.

What I wrote was my concern of the abuses that would happen. Even though addicts may compromise a small percentage at the present time. What is to be done with them as the numbers increase in a gloomy "everything is rationed" dictatorship. Will they get medical help or be shot?
Who said the everythign rationed policy would be depressing and gloomy? Please quit referring it to this way.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:53 PM
what would the policy on drugs and alcohol be under a communist government? just something i was pondering today.
In Cuba, if you get caught with Ganja, you get a free trip to the "Stony Lonesome".
My friends from B.C. ( marijuana capital of planet earth) who have gone down there were super shocked to see the harsh attitude of Cuban authorities about pot. But the Cubans are also real uptight about women going topless on the beach etc. Pretty lame.
I don&#39;t know about their policy on alcohol.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:41 PM

if there is no money, how do people buy drugs? or would it be allocated by the council :lol: weekly drugs rations :)
I hope so&#33; :lol:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:53 PM
what would the policy on drugs and alcohol be under a communist government? just something i was pondering today.
There wouldn&#39;t be a government. Drugs would be free.

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Feb 13 2006, 06:25 PM--> (Additives Free @ Feb 13 2006, 06:25 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 11:53 PM
what would the policy on drugs and alcohol be under a communist government? just something i was pondering today.
There wouldn&#39;t be a government. Drugs would be free. [/b]
:blink: that&#39;ll keep the kids off drugs.

[ReD_ReBeL]

drugs in our current society is a way of telling you that you have to much money. and worse is stupid teenagers thinking they are rebellious because they smoke weed.
And for your question, Additives Free ansewered it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2006, 07:26 PM
It&#39;s not a matter of who is right or who is wrong but have you noticed what the priority was? I took a shot at communism but those here got offended over alcohol and drugs being a crutch which it is. Despite education people will use drugs and alcohol to excess. I can&#39;t stop it from happening but it should be frowned upon as much as religion is. ;)
The reason I said what I said is threefold.

Firstly, on a personal level I have experimented quite a lot with various drugs, and the perception that someone that has not been actively involved in them can often be way out, just as society intends. Even if you know people that have had bad times, this doesn&#39;t ring true for everyone, and what happened to one person is not justification for an oppinion of all.

Secondly, there are actual possible benifits to drug taking that are often overlooked. I am not on about escapism, but rather drug taking as the pursuit of an intellectual. Just as there is a divide in "communist" teenagers; those that want to fuck shit up, and those that reached a position based on intellectual endeavor, there is a divide in drug users. Some may abuse them, but others use them for the "right" reasons.

Thirdly, sobriety itself can become a vice, and this tends to refute criticisms of alternative lifestyles.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:49 PM
im not saying you neccesarily restrict certain groups form driving, im saying you make it difficult to gain a license to the point where, if you pass the test, you wont be having a ton of wrecks or endangering others.
First of all the driving style of those during their test, and those after it alter madly. Just because acquiring a liscence requires one style of driving does not mean that it will be maintained once the test is over. This is the main problem.

People know how to drive safely (in the most part) but choose not to. You could make the test harder, but that will prevent proportionally as many safe drivers from being on the road as dangerous ones.

Also you are restricting groups, those without a liscence. This implies some sovereign body to enforce this, which is an idea seperate from communism.

[loveme4whoiam]

Also you are restricting groups, those without a liscence. This implies some sovereign body to enforce this, which is an idea seperate from communism.

As an aside from the drugs issue, am I reading this right? Licenses for driving are essential, lest every ten year old who finds his dad&#39;s keys is off for a ride, sitting on a Yellow Pages to see over the dashboard. Yes, a soverign body governing driving is against Communism, but just for the sake of safety there must be some kind of restriction on engaging in behaviour that would put other people&#39;s lives in danger.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:12 PM
Yes, a soverign body governing driving is against Communism, but just for the sake of safety there must be some kind of restriction on engaging in behaviour that would put other people&#39;s lives in danger.
Are you saying that age should be a sole factor in restricting driving? Maturity exists in part as a social construct, and there are ten year olds I would far rather be in a car with than people of my own age.

Driving should be taught freely, as part of an education. A greater social responsibility will reduce road deaths, not making it harder to be allowed to drive.

As I said before, most deaths are caused by capable drivers driving beyond their capabilities.

[loveme4whoiam]

Are you saying that age should be a sole factor in restricting driving? Maturity exists in part as a social construct, and there are ten year olds I would far rather be in a car with than people of my own age.
Fair point. Actually, very good point, I know similar people.


Driving should be taught freely, as part of an education. A greater social responsibility will reduce road deaths, not making it harder to be allowed to drive.
Having driving built into education, would that mean that instead of a driving license you&#39;d have a GCSE in Automotive Skills? :lol: It amounts to the same thing in any case, having to prove that you are competent to use a vehicle in the company of others. But I take your point, having driving skills taught as part of a general education would go some way to increasing road safety (I hope).

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:32 PM
It amounts to the same thing in any case, having to prove that you are competent to use a vehicle in the company of others.


No, it is about being capable, not having to prove to an authority that you are. I don&#39;t have a maths liscence, but bring on the algebra ;)


But I take your point, having driving skills taught as part of a general education would go some way to increasing road safety (I hope).
Yes, the education serves its purpose. The reason I don&#39;t think restrictions work is because it is when people abuse these that things go wrong.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12 2006, 01:26 PM
Hegemonicretribution wrote:


After all education is offered, it is a person&#39;s choice whether or not they get to this state. I agree it isn&#39;t pretty, and I have felt withdrawal before, but it is not the end of the world.

What makes you right and them wrong?

It&#39;s not a matter of who is right or who is wrong but have you noticed what the priority was? I took a shot at communism but those here got offended over alcohol and drugs being a crutch which it is. Despite education people will use drugs and alcohol to excess. I can&#39;t stop it from happening but it should be frowned upon as much as religion is. ;)
I haven&#39;t read the other responses to you on this but I&#39;ll put in my two cents in. As a drinker I honestly think that it shouldn&#39;t be a problem if people drink or use drugs so long as they dont hurt anyone under the influence. I&#39;ve been getting drunk for over a year and a half and have NEVER hurt anyone while in an extremely smashed state of mind. The idea of taking responsibility for your actions should be taken into account. The person in question should be able to get as wrecked as possible but if he/she does anything harmful than they should have to answer for it.

[omegaflare]

Actually, depending on the people, it could be "evenly distributed", or it could be left to the individual to grow, I.E. if you want some, make your own.

Legalization of drugs leads to harm reduction. Not only that, but it takes the black market element out of it. It also allows for regulation and for limits on access. Not that i&#39;m against it, hell, I love "drugs", there are few I have not tried, its just that its absurd how people go all out on this drug madness. Honestly, I dont see why anyone needs anything else than sweet, sweet ganja, with maybe the exception of shrooms. Oh, the varieties from Alaskan Thunderfuck to BC bud.

[Social Greenman]

What I have expressed was my own opinion. If people can do drugs and do no harm then fine.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 14 2006, 02:02 AM
What I have expressed was my own opinion. If people can do drugs and do no harm then fine.
Of course oppinions are fine, but the way you worded your response, it was directly atacking a position of mine, without justification. You claimed drugs to be a crutch, if you believe so it would be benificial to substansiate this view, as it is one that I do not find self evident (hence my response). To truly understand where you are coming from, explanation would be required.

Anyway, if you don&#39;t mind people causing no harm that is cool, likewise I don&#39;t mind straightedgers that aren&#39;t imposing anything upon me.

[Social Greenman]

From your posts you live on an island somewhere. In my neck of the woods drugs are used as a crutch by most because they cannot handle the circumstances they are in. Their use only exacerbate their problems. Houses and automobiles are broken into on a daily basis and people get hurt in the process. More so in poorer areas where the police presence is almost non-existant. I have known way too many people in and out of rehab or in and out of local or county jail for many years. A few have gone to prison.

Perhaps the social and economic circumstances where you live make it to where that drug use and alcohol are just used for recreation. I&#39;ve never been around anyone who uses drugs soley for recreation. However, people do use, as do I, alcohol for recreation and social functions. But I never have done alcohol on a daily basis simply because my father was an alcoholic who did nothing but drink from sunrise to sunset. He would work once in a while which forced my mother to work all the time. He died young a long time ago.

[Social Greenman]

By the way, my posts are not about pot. I done that a few times and remained coherent to my surroundings. I did not like the feeling of paranoia. However, most employers in my neck of the woods do piss tests on a daily basis. I have no choice but to take those test otherwise I would not be allowed to work.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Appologies if I did seem unsensitive, and you are correct, I live on an economically well off island. However there is a high alcohol roblem, and considering the state of drugs available, a huge drug problem.

I have worked with, and been relatively well aquainted with (I wouldn&#39;t say close friends) junkies. My family also has a drugs history, as do family friends. However, even when drugs can be destructive, I can not condone their restriction. This is because (and I count my self partially in this) there are people that have used drugs for other purposes than escapism. This thread was about communist policy (or so I believe) and therefore I may have misunderstood what you were implying.

Also, when jobs require urine tests, I understand. I am fortunate enough to be able to smoke during my breaks, if I choose to. I do emphasise though, with those without this liberty (or more likely, the ability to not get caught).

[Social Greenman]

Original Post:


what would the policy on drugs and alcohol be under a communist government? just something i was pondering today.

There is no such thing as a communist government in today&#39;s society. No one knows if there will be universal policies or not. If a communist society is better than what exist today under capitalism, then more people will be self-actualized. People would be very happy with their social and individual standing in the new society. Their high would be their work which would be creative and fulfilling.

Hegemonicretribution wrote:


I have worked with, and been relatively well aquainted with (I wouldn&#39;t say close friends) junkies. My family also has a drugs history, as do family friends. However, even when drugs can be destructive, I can not condone their restriction. This is because (and I count my self partially in this) there are people that have used drugs for other purposes than escapism. This thread was about communist policy (or so I believe) and therefore I may have misunderstood what you were implying.

I have a cousin who once boasted that she was in complete control of her drug use and she knew how to handle them. Unfortunately, she is now very brain damaged and pretty much cannot take care of herself. :(

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 15 2006, 04:52 PM
I have a cousin who once boasted that she was in complete control of her drug use and she knew how to handle them. Unfortunately, she is now very brain damaged and pretty much cannot take care of herself. :(
I appreciate why you are wary of drugs, and I believe people should be, and respect them. I also don&#39;t think drugs should be openly advertised, especially to growing children.

I do however think that it is an individual&#39;s right to do what they want to their own body. Even if this means self destruction. It may occur that they want help, and if the consent to it (whilst sober) to be prevented during withdrawl to use again, then I agree with that. It has to remain the choice of the user alone however.

Sometimes use will occur on a dangerous level, and coupled with denial, this is very harmful. I think people taking use to this level would not do so in a better society, but as it stands, neither you, nor I have the right to dictate someone else&#39;s drug use.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 15 2006, 04:52 PM

I have a cousin who once boasted that she was in complete control of her drug use and she knew how to handle them. Unfortunately, she is now very brain damaged and pretty much cannot take care of herself. :(
Nice ancedote.

We beed to be straight forward about drugs and society. Pot and shrooms most likley will not destroy your life, but things such as meth and crack have much more of a chance.

This should be about individual moderation not state regulation.

[Social Greenman]

Datura inoxia wrote:


We [n]eed to be straight forward about drugs and society. Pot and shrooms most likley will not destroy your life, but things such as meth and crack have much more of a chance.

This should be about individual moderation not state regulation.

Pot would not but certain shrooms can kill you if too much is injested. I have never interfered with anyones usage. There are exceptions when it comes to abuse or harm of a spouse, children or people in general. Would society allow for someone, bombed out of their skull, to run up and down the street with a flaming tourch? Someone nearly shot that idiot that night.

[Social Greenman]

Hegemonicretribution wrote:


I do however think that it is an individual&#39;s right to do what they want to their own body. Even if this means self destruction. It may occur that they want help, and if the consent to it (whilst sober) to be prevented during withdrawl to use again, then I agree with that. It has to remain the choice of the user alone however.

Not to get off topic too far but I also feel that people have the right to be religious so long as they are not forcing themselves on anyone else. Those who partake with them do so out of choice. I am a wiccan and we democratically "vote" to who holds office of High Priest and Priestess. We don&#39;t seek converts either being not an organized religion. Why should one opiate be okay and another be socially unacceptable in the future society?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 17 2006, 01:18 AM
Not to get off topic too far but I also feel that people have the right to be religious so long as they are not forcing themselves on anyone else. Those who partake with them do so out of choice. I am a wiccan and we democratically "vote" to who holds office of High Priest and Priestess. We don&#39;t seek converts either being not an organized religion. Why should one opiate be okay and another be socially unacceptable in the future society?
I largely agree with what you said, and I don&#39;t see your point. Unless of course you are assuming what my stance on religion is just because I am an atheist? I have maintained a fairly individual attitude towards religion on this site, and it can be seen in the correct forum.

If it isn&#39;t this you are referring to then I am confused.

[Social Greenman]

This was not directed at you nor your feelings as a atheist. I do respect you for who you are. My opinion was at the general consensus that one opiate is okay while another should be frowned on. What I wrote is that I am not a part of organized religion and we try to maintain democratic forms and not a hierarchy. We vote on who can best do the administration of things. I do hope you understand where I am coming from.

[redflag32]

I think the point has been lost that a big reason why people abuse drugs of all kinds is because of the capitalist system inplace,it creates a society stressed about certain things like, being cool and stresses at work,if communism was in place then those stresses would vanish so not as many people would abuse drugs to "escape" the system.I personally think any drug which is very harmfull to ones health,is addictive,or causes negative effects to society should be banned or highly regulated.

[Seong]

Agreed. Alot of people with substance abuse problems also have mental health issues. The continual fluctuations of trends within capitalist society tends to accelerate the deterioration of mental well-being IMO.

I don&#39;t think there should be prohibition or heavy regulation in any society. This will not address the real issues, but will make them worse as well as creating a market for illicit trade, illegal activities etc. I&#39;m definitely not advocating drugs, but I think most things are ok in moderation.

[Kropotkin]

I think in a communist society so called recreational drugs will be "legal". However I think it won&#39;t be as prevalent as it is now. Once everybody has equal access to food,clothing,shelter, and luxury items there will be no need for money. Drug dealers deal drugs to make profit so they have the above mentioned things. But in a communist society they they won&#39;t need to. Which means drug users will have to supply themselves i.e. grow their own weed or make their own coke. I&#39;m guessing that the large majority of these people are only gonna grow/make enough for themselves and their friends. So I don&#39;t think drugs will be anywhere as near as prevalent as they are under Capitalism.

I think prostitution will nearly dissappear also seeing as how most women only sell their bodies for three reasons 1.) to survive 2.) drug addiction 3.) both

This is of course just me speculating on what&#39;s possible.

[ice-picked]

under communism drugs should be rationed but keep it natural stick to pot shrooms hash and other drugs that wont destroy your life like heroin and meth will

[loveme4whoiam]

*Chuckle, imagines himself taking a ration book down to the local store for his daily ration of weed - "Don&#39;t smoke it all at once" :lol:*

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 20 2006, 01:34 AM
What I wrote is that I am not a part of organized religion and we try to maintain democratic forms and not a hierarchy. We vote on who can best do the administration of things. I do hope you understand where I am coming from.
I think you may want to read some of my posts on religion :lol:

I admit I am severely opposed to almost any conceivable religion, and do not agree with any per se. However my position is one that religion is not inherently reactionary, in fact I often cite obscure examples to try and illustrate this.

I seem to spend as much time arguing with atheists as I do with theists, yet I am not agnostic.