Mexico Legalizes Drugs "in small amounts" [Archive]

redstar2000

29th April 2006, 05:55

Originally posted by Reuters
Mexico to decriminalize pot, cocaine and heroin

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if the drugs are carried in small amounts for personal use, under legislation passed by Congress.

Under the legislation, police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, amphetamines and peyote -- a psychotropic cactus found in Mexico's northern deserts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060428/ts_nm/mexico_drugs_dc

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

which doctor

29th April 2006, 06:03

But, it's still illegal for these narcotics to be sold.

LSD

29th April 2006, 06:11

Well, it's a step in the right direction.

Canada was considering a similar measure a few years ago, but the recent Conservative victory has scraped that plan. <_<

BattleOfTheCowshed

29th April 2006, 06:38

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/...xico-drugs.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20060428-1857-mexico-drugs.html)

According to news reports Mexico is on pace to soon decriminalize possession of small amounts of Cannabis, Cocaine, Heroin, Amphetamine, and various Psychedelics if they are meant for personal consumption instead of for sale or trafficking. Seems like a great move forward. What does everyone else think?

BattleOfTheCowshed

29th April 2006, 07:11

Woops, it appears I began a similar thread without realizing one already existed, apologies. Anyway, yeah, this is a pretty awesome step forward. It's curious/funny that the center-right PAN passed it and the supposedly "leftist" PRI opposed it, shows some weird skewering of viewpoints.

Black Dagger

29th April 2006, 08:54

What was the political motivation/justification for these new laws?

FatFreeMilk

29th April 2006, 08:58

It's kind of weird to think that the legalization of things that more often than not harm you (not including MJ) is a good thing. So I can see kind of why the PRI opposed such legislation.

But, this is going to make it so people ((mostly young)tourists) don't get put into jail for a joint and such ( everybody's heard of how great Mexican jails are) which is cool. I just find it difficult to agree that the legalization of things with such a great wrath, especially to those on the "fringes of society" , is a good thing.

which doctor

29th April 2006, 09:00

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2006, 03:09 AM
What was the political motivation/justification for these new laws?
They found out that instead of targeting the drug users, the drug task force will go after the drug traffickers and lord instead.

VermontLeft

29th April 2006, 09:09

But, this is going to make it so people ((mostly young)tourists) don't get put into jail for a joint and such ( everybody's heard of how great Mexican jails are) which is cool.

and thats really the point.

i mean all this talk about "dugs are bad" and "this is your brain on drugs" or whatever is nice and all, but really people are going to do the shit anyways and its just fucking stupid to fill up jails with (mostly poor) people cause they want to make their miserable fucking lives a little more fun.

:( you know its really sad that the US is now less progressive than mexico. pretty soon were gonna be running across the border ourselves just to get away from these crazy fucking christian fucks. :angry:

LSD

29th April 2006, 09:22

It's kind of weird to think that the legalization of things that more often than not harm you (not including MJ) is a good thing.

And why is that?

Do you really trust the bourgeois state to determine what's "good" and what's "bad"? Do you really want to cede your personal sovereignty to the, mainly corrupt, institutions of bourgeois "democracy"?

Well, I sure as hell don't! :o

A lot of drugs can indeed "harm you", but the key to prevention is education. It is in our interest, not only as revolutionaries, but as human fucking beings to encourage independent thinking and rational analysis.

People should not be taught to "trust the government" or "follow the rules", they should be taught to think for themselves.

If they're told that some pill or some plant is "bad for them", they should be encouraged to ask why; to ask to see proof; to demand an explanation!

All that prohibition does is dull individualism and encourage subserviance to "recognized authority". Accepting the legitimacy of the DEA or FEADS is exactly the same as accepting the legitimacy of economic bosses.

Neither should be fostered!

A conscious proletariat is an awakened proletariat and will suffer no "masters", temporal or otherwise. Remember, if you trust the workers to govern themselves, you must also trust them to control their own bodies!

Tekun

29th April 2006, 10:16

Encouraging step, too bad Mexico is still a hell hole

Dreckt

29th April 2006, 13:47

Encouraging step, too bad Mexico is still a hell hole

I agree. Last I heard, about 50% of Mexicans wanted to move to the US. The reason has slipped my mind, but I believe it had to do with the very high rate of crime there.

I also think LSD is right - each induvidual should be free to decide what to do with his or her body, and that includes what to eat, drink and what drugs to take.

dusk

29th April 2006, 13:52

So Mexico is on the nomination to get a lot of drugtourism?
Just like The Netherlands has with their cannabis and other drugs too by the way.

Isn't Mexico a place where rich American kids go to in the spring-break,
To get wasted?

Hegemonicretribution

29th April 2006, 15:00

This is great news, but I still have to maintain anger in general towards drug policy. This isn't a great thing, this is an expected thing, and its main purpose it to remind use how bad shit is elsewhere.

Still, only half a g of coke? Perhaps the amounts could be upped a bit? Say (and really there is no justification in any restriction) 5g of cannabis resin, and 8g of bud?

Fatfreemilk; I have to agree with LSD with regards to your post. Liberalisation is a good thing, and even those acts which might be seen as favourable are not justified or legitimate.

Is the handling of this not still left up to the police though? If so, whilst positive in one respect, it may not be as great as we think.

Amusing Scrotum

29th April 2006, 17:52

Just one question springs to mind; is Spanish hard to learn? <_<

It strikes me, that Mexico's bourgeoisie, which is somewhat younger than the bourgeoisie in Europe and North America, has figured out what our "wonderful" politicians still haven't figured out....drug laws don't work!

Maybe, in a decade or two, Mexico will be the first place, that I know of anyway, that will have full legalisation of drugs and make the Recreational Drug Industry one where legitimate capitalist business can be done.

Certainly, from a capitalist perspective, that would make sense, economically speaking....lets just hope that the Vatican keeps its snout out of this, but maybe that's hoping for too much. :(

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
Still, only half a g of coke?

If you hadn't of pointed that out, I would have missed that. I mean, what the fuck are you supposed to do with half a gram of coke? One dull night for sure. <_<

Still though, it's a step in the right direction.

BattleOfTheCowshed

29th April 2006, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 01:02 PM
I agree. Last I heard, about 50% of Mexicans wanted to move to the US. The reason has slipped my mind, but I believe it had to do with the very high rate of crime there.
With the exception of maybe people in Mexico City, I doubt that is true. Economic opportunity is easiy the #1 cause for migration. Anyway, yes, the amounts that Mexico is legalizing are varied. For example, 5 grams of weed sounds pretty cool, but 250 mg of raw shrooms? That isn't even enough to trip (or so I have read)! The great thing is that unlike the Netherlands and other countries they arent just legalizing so called "soft drugs", this is one of the first times I've ever heard of a country legalizing cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, etc (yes, I know its de-facto legal in a lot of places, but here its being put into law). One question is: how open will the laws be? Is it just that if you get pulled over and happen to have drugs you wont be sent to jail? Or will it be more or less legal to say smoke marijuana in the street, etc? I wonder if Dutch-style coffeeshops or places such as that will pop into existence O_O.

Dreckt

29th April 2006, 22:53

With the exception of maybe people in Mexico City, I doubt that is true. Economic opportunity is easiy the #1 cause for migration.

You're probably right.

Anyway, yes, the amounts that Mexico is legalizing are varied. For example, 5 grams of weed sounds pretty cool, but 250 mg of raw shrooms? That isn't even enough to trip (or so I have read)!

Well, 5 grams of green is generous I'd say, but I agree on the mushrooms. You'd probably see the walls breathing a little if you take 250 mg of the strongest one :D .

One question is: how open will the laws be? Is it just that if you get pulled over and happen to have drugs you wont be sent to jail?

I'd say that because it is of "personal use", you'd have to take it in private (since smoking green can be seen as "passive affection" if you smoke in public). They will probably restrict anyone from doing say work when high on a drug.

Or will it be more or less legal to say smoke marijuana in the street, etc? I wonder if Dutch-style coffeeshops or places such as that will pop into existence O_O.

That's the interesting part. Last I heard, selling green is not illegal, but possessing large amount (not for personal use) is. I think tolerance will build up over time, and since everyone will be doing it, and wanting to do it, people will in general not care about "shops" selling these things.

My question is how they managed to legalize mushrooms and green in the Netherlands. I'd say that would be the last place to do it since it is in Europe. I mean, okay if green is legalized in some amounts, but mushrooms? (not that I complain :D)

Cheung Mo

29th April 2006, 22:56

I suspect the Church will look the other way at this legalisation and in exchange Fox's government will continue looking the other way when priests molest alter boys.

citizen_snips

30th April 2006, 01:16

(off the topic but...)

Armchair Socialism - I just read the joke in your signature and nearly died from the pain! Your job writing headlines for The Sun surely awaits...

Puns will be the death of us all!

Janus

30th April 2006, 03:02

President Vicente Fox has yet to sign this bill. I think that one of the motivations behind it is that it allows prosecutors to focus against the big fish and not have to worry about the smaller ones. Also, it doesn't seem as if the US is very happy about this.

U.S. Cautious on Mexico Drug Measure (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060430/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_decriminalizing_drugs;_ylt=AlzlTnrvtpyde3yz OBQCo_Gs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

C_Rasmussen

30th April 2006, 04:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:26 PM
Well, it's a step in the right direction.

Canada was considering a similar measure a few years ago, but the recent Conservative victory has scraped that plan. <_<
Isn't it legal in Canada to be able to carry 14 grams of weed on you at one time? I thought I heard about that somewhere.

Anyway its progress for Mexico. Slow but some is better than none.

praxis1966

30th April 2006, 04:09

but 250 mg of raw shrooms? That isn't even enough to trip (or so I have read)!

Only if they haven't been dried in a dehydrator or whatever. Then again, that may not be considered raw.

Amusing Scrotum

30th April 2006, 13:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:31 AM
Armchair Socialism - I just read the joke in your signature and nearly died from the pain! Your job writing headlines for The Sun surely awaits...

Always nice to have fans. <_<

The jokes from here (http://www.infoshop.org/humor/lightbulb2.html) if you want to find more; I especially like this one....

Q: How many anarcho-primitivists does it take to change a light-bulb?

A: Why should they change it -- they deliberately broke the thing in the first place as part of their attempt to destroy the oppressive, technological mega-machine we live under.

Though I think the one in my sig, has to be the "corniest" one there. :D

redflag32

30th April 2006, 13:22

So its still illegal for these narcotics to be sold but it isnt illegal for people to have small quantities in there posession?Isnt that just letting the people who are buying these drugs be more confident in buying them off the big dealers as they know its not illegal to have it in there possession,will the dealers not see an increase in business because there customers no longer have to feel afraid of buying them?

Red Axis

30th April 2006, 13:26

As a more authoritarian communist, I am opposed to drug legalization except if they are being used as medication. It leads to all sorts of immorality.

ÑóẊîöŉ

30th April 2006, 13:57

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2006, 12:41 PM
As a more authoritarian communist, I am opposed to drug legalization except if they are being used as medication. It leads to all sorts of immorality.
Define "immorality" and how it is bad for society.

LSD

30th April 2006, 14:14

As a more authoritarian communist

Despite what "comrade" Stalin might have told you, that's a contradiction in terms.

I am opposed to drug legalization

Exactly what right do you, your "vanguard party", or your "workers' state" have to tell me what I can or cannot ingest into my own body?

Personal automony is a fundamental human freedom and by limiting it you are reducing yourself to a common capitalist; casually oppressing all behaviours that "offend" you.

Tell me, do you honestly not see the kinship between you and the hard religious right? They too wish to restrict personal autonomy in the name of "morality". In their case, their prime concerns are homosexuality and abortion, but the ethos is the same.

Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt that your post (aside from the "communism" part) would fit just fine on the Bill O'Reily Message Board. It has no place, however, on a revolutionary leftist one.

Classless society is not just about economic emancipation, it's also about personal liberty. The bourgeouisie does not just seek to control our bodies, it also seeks to control our minds. A productive proletariat is an effective proletariat and that means no mind-altering substances.

Drug prohibition is only benneficial to the bosses and the neopuritans. For the rest of us, it costs billions of dollars, jails millions of nonviolent "criminals", and vastly restricts our basic personal autonomy.

You may trust the bourgeois or "vanguard" state to control your body, but I never will! :angry:

It leads to all sorts of immorality.

What you mean like individualism and thinking for oneself?

Well, we certainly can't allow that, it might lead to people questioning the iron rule of the party! :o

Obviously people must be controlled "for their own good". They're just too damn "immoral" to govern themselves. I mean without the "vanguard" party to do the thinking for them, they might be tempted into such "imoralities" as seeking pleasure!

What horrors! :lol:

redflag32

30th April 2006, 14:27

I think in the utopian communist system that we are struggling for it would be correct to legalize all drugs as the social problems that exsist now that turn us to substance abuse will be gone so the abuse of these drugs will not happen,but to legalize drugs in our corrupt system now would only make it easier for people to abuse harmfull substances that effect them and society equally.

However i do think the drug laws need a serious re-think,because to have hash illegal and alcohol legal is completely crazy in my view.

Amusing Scrotum

30th April 2006, 16:08

Originally posted by Red Axis+Apr 30 2006, 12:41 PM--> (Red Axis @ Apr 30 2006, 12:41 PM)As a more authoritarian communist, I am opposed to drug legalization except if they are being used as medication. It leads to all sorts of immorality.[/b]

How often do we see something like that and then find out something like this....

Red Axis
I believe in Christ myself, but I think organized religion is a major farce, Christ himself did not even believe in it.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292061116 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49395&view=findpost&p=1292061116)

The probability that a Christian is a reactionary puritan moralistic pain in the arse, is so close to 100%, that I think it's hard not to accept it as an objective fact.

My advice to you Red Axis, is to give up "Christ" and do some drugs....you may even learn something! :lol:

LSD

30th April 2006, 16:37

but to legalize drugs in our corrupt system now would only make it easier for people to abuse harmfull substances that effect them and society equally.

No it will make it easier for people to think for themselves.

It's hypocritical to simultaneously oppose the bourgeois state and support granting them the power to dictate "morality".

There are instances in which we can utilize the bourgeois state to our advantage but those instances are few, far betwee, and almost univserally economic in nature. Proletarian pressure properly applied can force a "social democratic" state to make certain concessions, but drug prohibition is not a proletarian cause!

The impetus for drug criminalization has entirely come from the puritanical petty-bourgeois; reactionary "good Christians" who were alarmed at the growing "immorality" of working people.

Have no delusions, drug are and always be a "moral" issue and it is our obligation as revolutionary communists to demolish all anachronistic "morals" wherever we find them!

redflag32

30th April 2006, 17:41

Do you not agree that abuse of these substances is harmfull to you and society?

LSD

30th April 2006, 17:47

Do you not agree that abuse of these substances is harmfull to you and society?

The abuse of any substance is harmful to me, but that doesn't mean that I want the bourgeois government telling me what I can and cannot ingest.

If we are working for a conscious proletariat that can stand on its own, we need to start by trusting it. That means resisting the temptation to rest upon the power of the state, and pushing for education and awareness. Better that people be exposed to drugs in a free and open environment than that they be forced undergrount to back alleyes, dirty needles, and basement labs.

Drug prohibition makes drugs more dangerous by making them unregulated, uncontrolled, and affiliated with organized crime. Drug violence is almost as deadly as drugs themselves and could be wholly eliminated if drugs were legalized tomorrow.

Tobacoo is easily the biggest preventable killer in the first world today and yet it is perfectly legal within the bound of bourgeois legislation. Clearly this is a corrupt and broken system and trying to "use it" in this instance strikes me as very dangerous.

5g of coke may be potentialy harmful, but being locked up for 10 years is worse!

C_Rasmussen

30th April 2006, 18:33

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2006, 06:41 AM
As a more authoritarian communist, I am opposed to drug legalization except if they are being used as medication. It leads to all sorts of immorality.
XD Thanx for the hypocrisy there, Axis. You can't really be on the left and believe in restricting things. Especially for "moral purposes".

redflag32

30th April 2006, 18:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:02 PM

Do you not agree that abuse of these substances is harmfull to you and society?

The abuse of any substance is harmful to me, but that doesn't mean that I want the bourgeois government telling me what I can and cannot ingest.

If we are working for a conscious proletariat that can stand on its own, we need to start by trusting it. That means resisting the temptation to rest upon the power of the state, and pushing for education and awareness. Better that people be exposed to drugs in a free and open environment than that they be forced undergrount to back alleyes, dirty needles, and basement labs.

Drug prohibition makes drugs more dangerous by making them unregulated, uncontrolled, and affiliated with organized crime. Drug violence is almost as deadly as drugs themselves and could be wholly eliminated if drugs were legalized tomorrow.

Tobacoo is easily the biggest preventable killer in the first world today and yet it is perfectly legal within the bound of bourgeois legislation. Clearly this is a corrupt and broken system and trying to "use it" in this instance strikes me as very dangerous.

5g of coke may be potentialy harmful, but being locked up for 10 years is worse!
I agree with you but id rather have the education first before we legalize anything,and i dont think the education is there yet,and i also think that people will allways abuse these harmfull drugs under the capitalist system so id rather push and struggle to set up a society where people will be able to use these drugs not abuse them.

LSD

30th April 2006, 19:11

I agree with you but id rather have the education first before we legalize anything

One can't go without the other.

As long as the state has an interest in keeping drugs marginalized and promoting its "voodo pharmacological" version of science, real education on the subject will be impossible.

Your position is like saying that we shouldn't fight the bosses until we're more "educated" and "really able" to "control" economic conditions. In reality, of course, fighting the bosses leads to class consciousness and an awakened proletariat stems from an active one.

Responsibility and control are inseperable and one will not come without the other. Until the people are trusted to control their own bodies, they will never develop a real understanding of how do to so.

All liberation is the same; theory is nice and good, but practice is what counts.

i also think that people will allways abuse these harmfull drugs under the capitalist system

People will always abuse alchohol too, does that mean that prohibition was a good idea?

Well, i guess it was for Al Capone! :lol:

Hate Is Art

30th April 2006, 20:44

With legalisation, we would cut down on all the crap you find in heroin, coke and pills. We wouldn't have to take risks of not knowing whats been cut into things we're taking. If I want some coke, I don't want glass in it thank you.

Also it surely takes away a lot of the crime associated with drug pushers, leaving the wonderful bastion of public security that is the police free to catch some real criminals, who are peddling in much more then selling a good time.

xx

Red Axis

30th April 2006, 20:49

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Apr 30 2006, 05:48 PM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Apr 30 2006, 05:48 PM)
Red [email protected] 30 2006, 06:41 AM
As a more authoritarian communist, I am opposed to drug legalization except if they are being used as medication. It leads to all sorts of immorality.
XD Thanx for the hypocrisy there, Axis. You can't really be on the left and believe in restricting things. Especially for "moral purposes". [/b]
You libertines just don't understand that the drug problem is a result of capitalist America, and allowing it to continue is the antithesis of communism. And restricting is not bad. They do it in other communist countries for the protection of the masses.

redflag32

30th April 2006, 20:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:26 PM

I agree with you but id rather have the education first before we legalize anything

One can't go without the other.

As long as the state has an interest in keeping drugs marginalized and promoting its "voodo pharmacological" version of science, real education on the subject will be impossible.

Your position is like saying that we shouldn't fight the bosses until we're more "educated" and "really able" to "control" economic conditions. In reality, of course, fighting the bosses leads to class consciousness and an awakened proletariat stems from an active one.

Responsibility and control are inseperable and one will not come without the other. Until the people are trusted to control their own bodies, they will never develop a real understanding of how do to so.

All liberation is the same; theory is nice and good, but practice is what counts.

i also think that people will allways abuse these harmfull drugs under the capitalist system

People will always abuse alchohol too, does that mean that prohibition was a good idea?

Well, i guess it was for Al Capone! :lol:
I think your taking the typical anarchist view on this and saying that if we legalised all drugs tomorrow the people would somehow be thankfull for this liberation of self,which it would be,and act accordingly.Its the same anarchist theory that they apply to the implementation of communism,they favour a quick change in society, where as marxists think socialism is necessary to educate and get the people ready for what is going to be a drastic change in their lives.

As i said,i do think a fresh look is necessary in the drug laws,but a complete legalization of them would be desasterous for society.

LSD

30th April 2006, 21:19

I think your taking the typical anarchist view on this and saying that if we legalised all drugs tomorrow the people would somehow be thankfull for this liberation of self,which it would be,and act accordingly.

Not at all.

I'm not contending that responsibility will emerge as a form of "thanks", but rather that it will develolp due to material nescessity.

Again, as long as there is a state interest in vilifying drugs any attempt at real educatoin is sabotaged from the start. Only in an open environment can people actually approach the subject in a rational and unbiased way.

I am not claiming that the transition will be "painless" nor that it will not bring problems of its own. But between the options, legalizaton is definitely preferable from the perspective of both revolutionary communism and basic human decency.

What is being done in the name of puritanical "wars on drugs" is simply obscence and we have a fundamental duty to stop it.

As i said,i do think a fresh look is necessary in the drug laws,but a complete legalization of them would be desasterous for society.

That's what they said about alchohol.

And remember, drugs may be "illegal" today but they have never been more popular. Most teenagers have tried illegal drugs and hospitals are jam packed with overdoses.

There's simply no way to "stop" drug use and all that prohibition does it move into the back alleys and basement labs and that makes already dangerous chemicals even more dangerous.

Drug legalizatoin is not only politically requisite, but it is also the safest option available. Thousands of people are dying today because of the incompetance, inexperience, naivite, malice, and greed of underground drug dealers and drug makers.

Mixed economy capitalism does not do many things right, but it does a whole lot better than black market capitalism.

The current drug market is an example of libertarian capitalism taken to its nescessary extremen and it really doesn't get any more despicably or violent. Bringing drugs out of that world and into a controlled environment is not "libertine" (sp?), it's progressive.

You libertines just don't understand that the drug problem is a result of capitalist America, and allowing it to continue is the antithesis of communism.

Drugs are not a "result" of capitalism, they have been with us for as long as civilization. Ever since people have figured out that consuming certain plants would make them feel different, they've been consuming those plants.

That the bosses now presume to tell us that our bodies are not our own and that we must trust their judgement as to what is "safe" for us is obscene.

And supporting such measures is absolutely the same as supporting bourgeois economic exploitation. If the bosses have the "right" to control our bodies "for our own good" then by the same token they have the "right" to rule us in other areas.

Maybe our labour surplus is too "dangerous" for us to "manage" and they'll "spend it better" than we would. <_<

Like it or not, it's the same argument.

Look, RA, I get that you're worried about the "drug problem", but the solution is not to expand the bourgeois state establishment. Being communist is not merely about supporting workers' economic rights, it's also about developing working class ortganization.

That means if we want to confront drug use, we do it ourselves. We do not trust the bourgeois to do it for us!

They do it in other communist countries for the protection of the masses.

You know what else they "do" in these so-called "communist countries"? They enslave their people and oppress working class organization.

Tell me. does that sound particularly "revolutionary" or "leftist" to you?

BattleOfTheCowshed

30th April 2006, 23:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:37 PM
So its still illegal for these narcotics to be sold but it isnt illegal for people to have small quantities in there posession?Isnt that just letting the people who are buying these drugs be more confident in buying them off the big dealers as they know its not illegal to have it in there possession,will the dealers not see an increase in business because there customers no longer have to feel afraid of buying them?
Maybe, although just as likely is that as the consumption of recreational drugs becomes more open it'll lead to more people "entering the business" and more competition and lower prices which could lead to lower profit margins and the loss of the monopoly on drugs that big-time drug lords have. Regardless, either way theyll be making money, might as well move the brunt of authoritarian force against the drug lords than against normal people.

BattleOfTheCowshed

30th April 2006, 23:25

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2006, 08:04 PM
You libertines just don't understand that the drug problem is a result of capitalist America, and allowing it to continue is the antithesis of communism. And restricting is not bad. They do it in other communist countries for the protection of the masses.
If by "the drug problem" you mean the difficulty in acquiring drugs, the high degree of crime and danger around their consumption and the criminalization of it, then yes that is the result of capitalism. Also newsflash: there are no "communist countries" and the term itself is an oxymoron.

Red Axis

1st May 2006, 01:34

I certainly believe that drug problems are more the fault of the drug lords than the fault of those poor souls who get caught up into them. With the addicts we must show nothing but compassion, but to the drug lords, nothing but ruthlessness.

Red Axis

1st May 2006, 01:38

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Apr 30 2006, 03:29 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Apr 30 2006, 03:29 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2006, 12:41 PM
As a more authoritarian communist, I am opposed to drug legalization except if they are being used as medication. It leads to all sorts of immorality.

How often do we see something like that and then find out something like this....

Red Axis
I believe in Christ myself, but I think organized religion is a major farce, Christ himself did not even believe in it.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292061116 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49395&view=findpost&p=1292061116)

The probability that a Christian is a reactionary puritan moralistic pain in the arse, is so close to 100%, that I think it's hard not to accept it as an objective fact.

My advice to you Red Axis, is to give up "Christ" and do some drugs....you may even learn something! :lol: [/b]
Are my beliefs simply to authoritarian. I believe in complete separation of church and state. My anti-drug view does not come from my belief in Christ, but because I think that drugs are part of the capitalist problem that must be dealt with. I know you may disagree, but you should accept all comrades no matter what they believe, because I still consider you communists and socialists, even if you are more libertine than I am.

BattleOfTheCowshed

1st May 2006, 02:40

Are my beliefs simply to authoritarian.

Yes.

I believe in complete separation of church and state. My anti-drug view does not come from my belief in Christ, but because I think that drugs are part of the capitalist problem that must be dealt with.

I think people just find it funny/absurd that you consider yourself a Marxist and believe in Christ. Most Marxists are materialists, meaning we only deal with material reality, not with things that have no root in reality, like religion.

I know you may disagree, but you should accept all comrades no matter what they believe, because I still consider you communists and socialists, even if you are more libertine than I am.

The problem is that there is a fundamental difference between us. If you suceeded in bringing about a revolution, you would deny the rest of us a right that many hold as essential. That isn't something you can really overlook in the search for unity. With that being said, I don't think you should leave, you seem to be on the right track at least by considering yourself a Marxist. Just stick around here, read, open your mind, and maybe your opinions will change.

Red Axis

1st May 2006, 02:53

I could *maybe* support legalization of soft drugs, but never the hard stuff... And as a religious comrade, I vow from this point forth to keep it to myself and never mention it again. One last thing, I believe that Christ himself was communist.

BattleOfTheCowshed

1st May 2006, 03:11

I could *maybe* support legalization of soft drugs, but never the hard stuff...

Why though? Do you think people should have the right to commit suicide? Your view seems to be that drug use constitutes harming yourself. This isn't completely true, most of the harm drug users suffer is a result of the illegality of using their drug. Think about it, people become addicted to medical opiates all the time, but they usually have a steady supply through their doctor and usually have a lot of help in kicking the addiction or detoxing. Heroin users on the other hand are driven to crime and poverty from the irregularity of their supply, their being forced to pay exorbitant prices, and the fact that they are usually sent to prison instead of to medical help when caught. Yet the drugs being used aren't very different. Even if it did harm people, why are you against people harming themselves if they so wish? Is it not their choice? You also stated that you saw drugs as being tied to capitalism. How so? Drugs have been around for tens of thousands of years, they are nothing particular to capitalism. Why would you "*maybe*" support soft drugs? Those don't even harm you, and they are rarely tied to the drug trade. Is your objection to people having fun? O_o

And as a religious comrade, I vow from this point forth to keep it to myself and never mention it again.

Thats not good, why keep things secret or hidden? A better path would be to give some reasons why you consider yourself religious and a communist, and see what people say.

One last thing, I believe that Christ himself was communist.

Much has been written about this topic, and I encourage you to search for threads on it here and search out other materials online. There are some fundamental reasons why Marxists object to Christianity and Christ though: Christ's view of society and compassion is based on the belief in supernatural concepts (God, heaven, etc.). I think Marx in his writings demonstrates why belief in such things is hogwash and why only human self-emancipation can truly bring about revolution. On a more tangible basis, Christ seemed to advocate pacifism, cooperation among all aspects of society even the rulers, and the belief that even if you do not succeed in the real world that its alright because there is an afterlife where you will be redeemed. Obviously these concepts are not conducive to revolution, as is evident from the behaviour of most Christians today.

Cheung Mo

1st May 2006, 06:23

Red: The Nazi flag was RED with a black swastika encircled by a white circle in its centre.

Axis: Hitler and the Nazis led the AXIS

BuyOurEverything

1st May 2006, 08:57

but 250 mg of raw shrooms?

Um, 1/4 of a gram? Really, why even bother. You need at least four grams of dried shrooms for a trip, 1/4 grams of raw shrooms? That's like legalising possesion of microscopic amounts of cocaine on your hundred dollar bills.

I know you may disagree, but you should accept all comrades no matter what they believe, because I still consider you communists and socialists, even if you are more libertine than I am.

I'm going on the assumption that you're not a troll. Accept all comrades no matter what they believe? Even if they believe we should kill all the blacks? That is (one of) the most ridiculous fucking thing I've ever heard from a purported comrade. Accepting without questioning is the last thing we should be doing. Go peddle your god elsewhere, and drop the red flag, it's not fooling anyone (well OK, it is, but the point is it shouldn't.)