Bush Jails responsible Drug Users

[Mkultra]

New government statistics show police arrested a record 829,000 people for marijuana violations last year. According to the group NORML a pot-smoker is now arrested every 38 seconds in the country.

The total number of marijuana arrests in the U.S. far exceeded the total number of arrests in the U.S. for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault

[Cheung Mo]

This reasoning means nothing to people who consider marijuana users deviants and criminals who deserve to have their rights taken away: As there are far more cannabis users in Canada in the USA than there people committing real crimes that rational people give a damn about, it's only logical that wjem you criminalise and demonise the drug, there are more people who are going to punished for using it than there are people who are punished for doing someting that is legitimately wrong.

[LSD]

I doubt there are that many posters on this board who support the continued criminalization of marijauan, but what always gets me is this distinction that people make between "soft" and "hard" drugs.

That they can somehow simultaneously condemn locking people up for smoking weed and yet support locking people up for taking coke or heroin.

It just doesn't make sense to me, you either support individual rights or you don't. If I have the right to get high, surely it doesn't matter from what substance I choose to derive that high?

I think a lot of people who think of themselves as progressive are still caught up in a moralistic mindset in which drugs (or "hard" drugs at least) are "bad" and so must be "stopped". It doesn't occur to them that "stopping" drug use means locking people up just for snorting, shooting, eating some chemical they feel like injesting.

This board is by no means unanimous in this thinking, but in my view at least, recgonizing a right to personal sovereignty is one the fundamental elements to being a political leftist. 'Cause if you don't trust the people to choose their own drugs, how can you expect them to run their own government?

It's no coincidence that the same sort of peopple who support a strong centralized "command" economy also support a ban on drugs ...and generally opppose gay rights too! It's all part in parcel of the same conservative moralistic outlook, one that's unfortunately infiltrated quite deeply into the world leftist movement, especially in the third world.

You just have to look at the so-called "communists" in Nepal to see what I mean.

[synthesis]

The problem with allowing drugs to be used is that it provides an easy legal loophole for dealers, allowing the drug in question to proliferate exponentially. "No, that's all for me, officer!" "Guess I'll have to let you go, then."

With marijuana this is mostly innocuous, but marijuana is not as psychologically addictive as cocaine (or alcohol) nor as physically addictive as heroin (or nicotine) and you have to consider the real consequences of these substances being sold and consumed freely.

Thing is, habitual tobacco and marijuana smokers can still be productive members of society; cocaine, opiate, and alcohol users can be sometimes, but these drugs have a far more powerful allure to the human psyche than any kind of societal influence we choose to ascribe it to. That's the real issue here - whether or not proliferation of a certain drug is a positive thing - and it's a lot more complex than "Fuck Bush!"

[Cheung Mo]

No, Dyermaker: Your thinking falls into the trap of prohibitionist distortion as opposed to harm reduction common sense. Your test for determining whether or not we should legalise a drug fails to consider that the policies adopted and (more importantly) the actions taken by bourgeois institutions to enforce the prohibition of a given drug can be and generally are far more deterimental to society than the proliferation of the drug itself, even if the drug's proliferation may in fact be a net negative.

A more appropriate test would be to weigh the harms of proliferation against the harms of prohibition and derive the appropriate conclusion from the statistical analysis of observed data.

[Sam_b]

The problem with allowing drugs to be used is that it provides an easy legal loophole for dealers, allowing the drug in question to proliferate exponentially.

Or instead of this, it would be sold through the (for example) Government, improving quality perhabs, and maybe at a lesser cost, and push the drug dealers out of business?

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:31 am
I doubt there are that many posters on this board who support the continued criminalization of marijauan, but what always gets me is this distinction that people make between "soft" and "hard" drugs.

That they can somehow simultaneously condemn locking people up for smoking weed and yet support locking people up for taking coke or heroin.

It just doesn't make sense to me, you either support individual rights or you don't. If I have the right to get high, surely it doesn't matter from what substance I choose to derive that high?

I think a lot of people who think of themselves as progressive are still caught up in a moralistic mindset in which drugs (or "hard" drugs at least) are "bad" and so must be "stopped". It doesn't occur to them that "stopping" drug use means locking people up just for snorting, shooting, eating some chemical they feel like injesting.

This board is by no means unanimous in this thinking, but in my view at least, recgonizing a right to personal sovereignty is one the fundamental elements to being a political leftist. 'Cause if you don't trust the people to choose their own drugs, how can you expect them to run their own government?

It's no coincidence that the same sort of peopple who support a strong centralized "command" economy also support a ban on drugs ...and generally opppose gay rights too! It's all part in parcel of the same conservative moralistic outlook, one that's unfortunately infiltrated quite deeply into the world leftist movement, especially in the third world.

You just have to look at the so-called "communists" in Nepal to see what I mean.
I know what your saying and its right but I think maybe its just strategy sometimes too--once they get the soft drugs in then Id like to think these same people would fight for the Rights of Hard Drugs next

[KurtFF8]

First, as for the title of this thread: I don't see how this is the President jailing people, as these anti-drug laws have been on the books long before Bush and aren't all Federal laws anyway (there are many state and city anti-drug laws as well as Federal Laws)

As for LSD's comment: I agree that it is an odd notion to support decriminalization of marijuana and support the continued criminalization of other "harder" drugs. Although I don't think that all drugs should be treated the same and that institutions should actively discourage and try to help addicts and heavy users of them. But of course just punishing people by throwing them in jail isn't the way to help their current situations and doesn't solve the problem of drugs. (And of course there is what many consider to be a class bias of drug laws: e.g. a cocaine offense isn't nearly as big of a punishment as a crack-cocaine offense) and this is a problem as well.

But this brings up another important issue as well:


This board is by no means unanimous in this thinking, but in my view at least, recgonizing a right to personal sovereignty is one the fundamental elements to being a political leftist. 'Cause if you don't trust the people to choose their own drugs, how can you expect them to run their own government?

As I said earlier, perhaps institutions should actively try to prevent and aid heavy users of drugs like heroine and cocaine but wouldn't that go against collectivism or individualism? But I would respond that if you have a population that is addicted to drugs that this is a problem that people need to collectively try to solve, and thus the rise of aiding institutions which are collective help as opposed to punishing the individuals.

[Eleftherios]

As for LSD's comment: I agree that it is an odd notion to support decriminalization of marijuana and support the continued criminalization of other "harder" drugs.

I don't think it is odd at all. The difference between hard and soft drugs might also mean the difference between life and death for some people. Plus, I don't think freedom even matters when it comes down to someone getting addicted to a very harmful substance.

That said, while I think that this is more complicated an issue than simply freedom vs. non-freedom, I still think that no one should be put to jailed for taking drugs


Although I don't think that all drugs should be treated the same and that institutions should actively discourage and try to help addicts and heavy users of them. But of course just punishing people by throwing them in jail isn't the way to help their current situations and doesn't solve the problem of drugs.

That part I agree with

[Mkultra]

even tho theres a difference between drugs freedoms still the same

[KurtFF8]

I don't think it is odd at all. The difference between hard and soft drugs might also mean the difference between life and death for some people. Plus, I don't think freedom even matters when it comes down to someone getting addicted to a very harmful substance.

That said, while I think that this is more complicated an issue than simply freedom vs. non-freedom, I still think that no one should be put to jailed for taking drugs

Well of course you have to treat each drug differently as they are simply not the same. But that (this may sound circular) means that they can't all just be perfectly legal and treated the same, as if you catch someone doing something (or committing some crime) while high from marijuana, they should be treated differently than someone who is tripping or high from cocaine, as the effects of the respective drugs are different. Same goes with discouraging and perhaps even implementing fines for certain drug usage (or some would suggest mandatory help). But one thing is for sure: Jailing people for drug usage A) Doesn't help them get over their addiction and problem with the drug and
B) Doesn't help rid society of drug users.

[Mkultra]

drugs were legal for most of human history and they didnt seem to have this disproprotinate impact that all the anti drug legalizers fear

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Sam_b+September 26, 2007 04:20 pm--> (Sam_b @ September 26, 2007 04:20 pm)
The problem with allowing drugs to be used is that it provides an easy legal loophole for dealers, allowing the drug in question to proliferate exponentially.

Or instead of this, it would be sold through the (for example) Government, improving quality perhabs, and maybe at a lesser cost, and push the drug dealers out of business? [/b]
Sorry, but I don't want to see the government selling cheap, high grade meth. It is just not a society I would want to inhabit.



A more appropriate test would be to weigh the harms of proliferation against the harms of prohibition and derive the appropriate conclusion from the statistical analysis of observed data.

That's the point. There are certain drugs that would be more harmful if they were totally acceptable than if there were to be measures taken against them. If the government has inexpensive, legal cocaine then anyone can cook up and distribute inexpensive, semi-legal rocks. Again, not anywhere I'd want to live.


M[email protected] 26, 2007 08:55 pm
drugs were legal for most of human history and they didnt seem to have this disproprotinate impact that all the anti drug legalizers fear
Coca leaves and opium poppies, for most of human history, were not being refined by relatively recent scientific processes specifically designed to make the drug as potent and addictive as possible. It's a completely different equation.

[Mkultra]

but its not govts job to be our nanny--Let the children play

[LSD]

The problem with allowing drugs to be used is that it provides an easy legal loophole for dealers, allowing the drug in question to proliferate exponentially. "No, that's all for me, officer!" "Guess I'll have to let you go, then."

And that's a problem because....?

A drug that makes you feel good or even feel different, regardless of whether it has any health effects whatsoever, is automatically classified as illegal; while chemicals that pose a much greater "safety risk" remain over-the-counter.

All of which suggests that the "war on drugs" is more of a moral fight than a medical one, just like every other prohibition throughout history. When the US criminalized alchohol, it didn't do it on the basis that drinking was "harmful", but that it was "immoral".

Look, the state can and does play a key role in protecting society from dangerous substances which the "market" would otherwise foist upon the consumer, but it does so by regulating their sale, not their "possession".

If Jean Coutu tries to sell me poison, the government has a right to intervene; if I make my own, it doesn't ...nor would it, in fact, unless that poison also happens to be psychoactive in nature.

I can brew all manner of toxic soup in my bathtub without ever violating a single law, but the second that I make something which just might get me high, I'm a criminal.

If that isn't moralism, what is it?


Thing is, habitual tobacco and marijuana smokers can still be productive members of society; cocaine, opiate, and alcohol users can be sometimes, but these drugs have a far more powerful allure to the human psyche than any kind of societal influence we choose to ascribe it to.

Actually those "drugs" have exactly the same "allure" as alchohol and tobacco.

Many illegal drugs are indeed addictive, but that doesn't mean that every single casual user becomes hooked. Addiction is a complex phenomenon dependent on exposure, method, and personal physiology.

There are casual coke users out there. And so any attempt to "treat" them becomes nothing more than government reprogramming, imprisoning them until they "confess" and admit their "sins" against the state.

It becomes even more nonsensical when we start to talk about drugs that aren't even addictive, things like LSD and psilocybin and MDMA. These drugs are universally classified as "dangerous", and yet they do not produce physiological dependency.

So how on earth can you treat an "addict" who isn't even addicted to anything?

Or maybe you'll only "treat" certain drug users, the ones who you can determine are actually addicts? Well how exactly will you go about making that determination? At present, the only real way to gauge dependency is by asking the drug user themselves.

And in a system in which anyone declaring themselves addicted is automatically locked up against their will, I think we can both imagine how most people would answer the question "are you a drug addict".

So really what this programme of yours will do is make drug addicts less likely to report since they know that the moment they're suspected of having a problem they'll be imprisoned whether they like it or not.

Talk about counterproductive!

A drug addict with a sure supply and no financial difficulties can lead a perfectly normal life, economically and otherwise. Millions of people do it every day.

When someone is labeled a drug addict, however, and forcibly locked up in some "treatment center" against their will, they become a "criminal" in the eyes of society.

More than that they become part of the economic underclass, unable to get a steady job or secure decent housing because of the scarlet mark on their CV.

That's why convicts rarely "integrate" back into society, it's also why they're so likely to recommit. When you pluck someone out of society and declare them to be so damaged that they can't live with the rest of humanity, you drastically limit their future options.

And whether you call it "jail" or "treatment", the end result is the same. If nonconsensual "rehabilitation" worked, so would the prison system. After all, that too is predicated on the notion that you can "treat" someone against their will.

But it doesn't work there and won't work in your hypothetical drug regime.

The only way for someone to stop being a drug addict is if they want to stop being a drug addict. Otherwise, no one, not the government, not the medical community, and certainly not you, has the right to intervene and deprive them of their basic right to control their own body.


I don't think that all drugs should be treated the same and that institutions should actively discourage and try to help addicts and heavy users of them.

What, by force?

Obviously anybody who wants treatment should be able get it and to accomodate that the government should 100% subsidize treatment programmes and build a whole lot more of them. But clinical rehab is not and cannot be a prison substitute.

The very attributes that make prison such a bad place to rehabilitate in are the same ones that make it so desirable for law enforcenment. Rehab is predicated on commitment, prison is predicated on the violation of consent. In every way that counts, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

And the more you try to make rehab into a prison, the less effective it becomes; it also, of course, starts to become indistinguishable from jail which makes your whole line somewhat irrelevent.

Whether you lock someone up in something called "prison" or something called "treatment" makes very little difference to that person themselves. What matters is how they're treated and, especially if they have a family and/or responsibilities on the outside, how long they'll be forced to stay.

The same goes, of course, to the dependents of that person. When someone is "busted" for drug prohibition, they don't just go to jail, they also get a criminal record which followes them around for the rest of your life.

Even if you replace prison with some alternate form of coercive punishment, they'll still have the record. They'll still be an economic pariah, unable to get any but the most menial of jobs, if that.

So, again, I really fail to see how supporting the bourgeois prohibition regime is pro-working class. No matter how many linguistic summersalts you play to try and get out of the consequences of your position, it still reads like class treason to me.


I don't think it is odd at all. The difference between hard and soft drugs might also mean the difference between life and death for some people. Plus, I don't think freedom even matters when it comes down to someone getting addicted to a very harmful substance.

I would remind you that a great many people live dangerous lives in one manner or another, should the government lock all of them up too? Or is just "drug addicts" that deserve this special treatment?

Obeisity kills more people each year than any illegal "drug". So would you propose forcibly hospitalizing any fat person who refuses treatment? At present, that group includes the majority of the American population, so you'd have a hard time enforcing such a measure, but still it's the nescessary result of your method of thinking.

Except, for some reason, you seem to be holding drug use in a different category, as if it were a distinct form of behaviour. I don't know if that's because of ignorance on your part or is a result of pervasive anti-drug indoctrination, but it has absolutely no bearing to reality.

People use drugs for the same reason they eat unhealthy foods and have unprotected sex with strangers: it can be fun.

Can it be dangerous too? Of course, just like eating unhealthely and having unprotected sex. But does that mean that we should support the state imprisoning people who have sex without a condom?

The revolutionary answer is, of course, no. As for yours...



Sorry, but I don't want to see the government selling cheap, high grade meth. It is just not a society I would want to inhabit.

Great.

But that's not the question on the table. The question on the table is what do you want to happen when your neighbour, some janitor, gets caught snorting a little coke?

I guess by your logic we should have no problem with the state imprisoning him for a decade of his life? Who cares that he had been up for 24 hours straight, who cares that he had another shift to pull, it's a "nescessary public health measure".

Somehow, though, I doubt that his children would agree.

Look, MR, lots of things have the potential to have "negative effects on society", but the question at hand is should we support the bourgeois state imprisoning workers because their actions might be "socially harmful".

And in my mind, anyone who answers yes to that question is a class traitor, full stop. And given your responses in this thread, I'm afraid that that might include you...


That's the point. There are certain drugs that would be more harmful if they were totally acceptable than if there were to be measures taken against them.


"Drug" is a political term in this context, not a medical one. "Drugs" are no more implicitly dangerous than any other chemical, in fact often they're less so.

So, again, if prohibition is about pursuing rational health standards, why is making poison acceptable so long as that poison is not a "drug"? More importantly, why is making relatively harmless "drugs" criminal, while making other, undeniably deadly, substances is not?

You can appeal to as many buzzwords and catch phrases as you want, the fact remains, from a purely public health perspective, drug prohibition makes no sense.

You don't lock people up for being sick or poisoner, no one was arrested for "possesing" thalydomide. You only jail someone when they do something "wrong" in the eyes of the state.

And that's what the "war on drugs" ultimately comes down to, the proposition that drug use is "wrong". Not dangerous, not unhealthy, but morally wrong.

It's unfortunate that you've chosen to buy into that conservative myth.

[synthesis]

Don't fool yourself cuzzo, most of your post was an elaborate straw man. I mean, really:



It becomes even more nonsensical when we start to talk about drugs that aren't even addictive, things like LSD and psilocybin and MDMA. These drugs are universally classified as "dangerous", and yet they do not produce physiological dependency.

Dude, reread my post and figure out that had not a damn thing to do with anything I was saying.

I am not operating on a moral basis, I am simply acting on a practical rather than idealist view of a society I would like to live in, because in my experience acid, x and mushies are relatively harmless especially when compared to alcohol and nicotine.

From my experience, however, crack and meth are not harmless and though it feels good to say that everyone should have a right to do whatever the hell they want, it has to be balanced against material reality and I have seen the result of cheap, readily available rock and ice; it makes me personally not give a fuck about this bubble world of ideals you're working with. Sorry.



I guess by your logic we should have no problem with the state imprisoning him for a decade of his life? Who cares that he had been up for 24 hours straight, who cares that he had another shift to pull, it's a "nescessary public health measure".

More straw. You assume I am placing the fault on the drug user when in fact I am placing fault on the drug itself. I certainly believe that the current system is fucked up and that rehabilitation is far preferable to punishment. It doesn't need to entail removal of all the addict's freedoms but there should be a mechanism for discouraging addiction, perhaps some sort of discreet probation after which the name is stricken from the record.

I'm not saying I have all the answers to the problem, I just know there needs to be some sort of balance between the harsh penalties of the current system and the total acceptance of highly addictive psychosis-inducing stimulants. Stop fucking trying to paint me as supporting the status quo.



"Drug" is a political term in this context, not a medical one. "Drugs" are no more implicitly dangerous than any other chemical, in fact often they're less so.

So, again, if prohibition is about pursuing rational health standards, why is making poison acceptable so long as that poison is not a "drug"? More importantly, why is making relatively harmless "drugs" criminal, while making other, undeniably deadly, substances is not?

Your poison analogy is clearly bogus; it is illegal to use poison to harm other people. Cocaine, methamphetamines, and alcohol all have noted tendencies to exacerbate violent, aggressive, and psychotic personality traits. Try and think realistically on this one.

I have to ask, though, do you keep arguing this type of shit? You act like I support putting crack users in the same cell as violent murderers when I have said nothing of the sort. And for that matter:



So, again, I really fail to see how supporting the bourgeois prohibition regime is pro-working class. No matter how many linguistic summersalts you play to try and get out of the consequences of your position, it still reads like class treason to me.

Go fuck yourself.



It's unfortunate that you've chosen to buy into that conservative myth.

Go fuck yourself.



And in my mind, anyone who answers yes to that question is a class traitor, full stop. And given your responses in this thread, I'm afraid that that might include you...

Go fuck yourself.

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:33 am

The problem with allowing drugs to be used is that it provides an easy legal loophole for dealers, allowing the drug in question to proliferate exponentially. "No, that's all for me, officer!" "Guess I'll have to let you go, then."

And that's a problem because....?

A drug that makes you feel good or even feel different, regardless of whether it has any health effects whatsoever, is automatically classified as illegal; while chemicals that pose a much greater "safety risk" remain over-the-counter.

All of which suggests that the "war on drugs" is more of a moral fight than a medical one, just like every other prohibition throughout history. When the US criminalized alchohol, it didn't do it on the basis that drinking was "harmful", but that it was "immoral".

Look, the state can and does play a key role in protecting society from dangerous substances which the "market" would otherwise foist upon the consumer, but it does so by regulating their sale, not their "possession".

If Jean Coutu tries to sell me poison, the government has a right to intervene; if I make my own, it doesn't ...nor would it, in fact, unless that poison also happens to be psychoactive in nature.

I can brew all manner of toxic soup in my bathtub without ever violating a single law, but the second that I make something which just might get me high, I'm a criminal.

If that isn't moralism, what is it?


Thing is, habitual tobacco and marijuana smokers can still be productive members of society; cocaine, opiate, and alcohol users can be sometimes, but these drugs have a far more powerful allure to the human psyche than any kind of societal influence we choose to ascribe it to.

Actually those "drugs" have exactly the same "allure" as alchohol and tobacco.

Many illegal drugs are indeed addictive, but that doesn't mean that every single casual user becomes hooked. Addiction is a complex phenomenon dependent on exposure, method, and personal physiology.

There are casual coke users out there. And so any attempt to "treat" them becomes nothing more than government reprogramming, imprisoning them until they "confess" and admit their "sins" against the state.

It becomes even more nonsensical when we start to talk about drugs that aren't even addictive, things like LSD and psilocybin and MDMA. These drugs are universally classified as "dangerous", and yet they do not produce physiological dependency.

So how on earth can you treat an "addict" who isn't even addicted to anything?

Or maybe you'll only "treat" certain drug users, the ones who you can determine are actually addicts? Well how exactly will you go about making that determination? At present, the only real way to gauge dependency is by asking the drug user themselves.

And in a system in which anyone declaring themselves addicted is automatically locked up against their will, I think we can both imagine how most people would answer the question "are you a drug addict".

So really what this programme of yours will do is make drug addicts less likely to report since they know that the moment they're suspected of having a problem they'll be imprisoned whether they like it or not.

Talk about counterproductive!

A drug addict with a sure supply and no financial difficulties can lead a perfectly normal life, economically and otherwise. Millions of people do it every day.

When someone is labeled a drug addict, however, and forcibly locked up in some "treatment center" against their will, they become a "criminal" in the eyes of society.

More than that they become part of the economic underclass, unable to get a steady job or secure decent housing because of the scarlet mark on their CV.

That's why convicts rarely "integrate" back into society, it's also why they're so likely to recommit. When you pluck someone out of society and declare them to be so damaged that they can't live with the rest of humanity, you drastically limit their future options.

And whether you call it "jail" or "treatment", the end result is the same. If nonconsensual "rehabilitation" worked, so would the prison system. After all, that too is predicated on the notion that you can "treat" someone against their will.

But it doesn't work there and won't work in your hypothetical drug regime.

The only way for someone to stop being a drug addict is if they want to stop being a drug addict. Otherwise, no one, not the government, not the medical community, and certainly not you, has the right to intervene and deprive them of their basic right to control their own body.


I don't think that all drugs should be treated the same and that institutions should actively discourage and try to help addicts and heavy users of them.

What, by force?

Obviously anybody who wants treatment should be able get it and to accomodate that the government should 100% subsidize treatment programmes and build a whole lot more of them. But clinical rehab is not and cannot be a prison substitute.

The very attributes that make prison such a bad place to rehabilitate in are the same ones that make it so desirable for law enforcenment. Rehab is predicated on commitment, prison is predicated on the violation of consent. In every way that counts, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

And the more you try to make rehab into a prison, the less effective it becomes; it also, of course, starts to become indistinguishable from jail which makes your whole line somewhat irrelevent.

Whether you lock someone up in something called "prison" or something called "treatment" makes very little difference to that person themselves. What matters is how they're treated and, especially if they have a family and/or responsibilities on the outside, how long they'll be forced to stay.

The same goes, of course, to the dependents of that person. When someone is "busted" for drug prohibition, they don't just go to jail, they also get a criminal record which followes them around for the rest of your life.

Even if you replace prison with some alternate form of coercive punishment, they'll still have the record. They'll still be an economic pariah, unable to get any but the most menial of jobs, if that.

So, again, I really fail to see how supporting the bourgeois prohibition regime is pro-working class. No matter how many linguistic summersalts you play to try and get out of the consequences of your position, it still reads like class treason to me.


I don't think it is odd at all. The difference between hard and soft drugs might also mean the difference between life and death for some people. Plus, I don't think freedom even matters when it comes down to someone getting addicted to a very harmful substance.

I would remind you that a great many people live dangerous lives in one manner or another, should the government lock all of them up too? Or is just "drug addicts" that deserve this special treatment?

Obeisity kills more people each year than any illegal "drug". So would you propose forcibly hospitalizing any fat person who refuses treatment? At present, that group includes the majority of the American population, so you'd have a hard time enforcing such a measure, but still it's the nescessary result of your method of thinking.

Except, for some reason, you seem to be holding drug use in a different category, as if it were a distinct form of behaviour. I don't know if that's because of ignorance on your part or is a result of pervasive anti-drug indoctrination, but it has absolutely no bearing to reality.

People use drugs for the same reason they eat unhealthy foods and have unprotected sex with strangers: it can be fun.

Can it be dangerous too? Of course, just like eating unhealthely and having unprotected sex. But does that mean that we should support the state imprisoning people who have sex without a condom?

The revolutionary answer is, of course, no. As for yours...



Sorry, but I don't want to see the government selling cheap, high grade meth. It is just not a society I would want to inhabit.

Great.

But that's not the question on the table. The question on the table is what do you want to happen when your neighbour, some janitor, gets caught snorting a little coke?

I guess by your logic we should have no problem with the state imprisoning him for a decade of his life? Who cares that he had been up for 24 hours straight, who cares that he had another shift to pull, it's a "nescessary public health measure".

Somehow, though, I doubt that his children would agree.

Look, MR, lots of things have the potential to have "negative effects on society", but the question at hand is should we support the bourgeois state imprisoning workers because their actions might be "socially harmful".

And in my mind, anyone who answers yes to that question is a class traitor, full stop. And given your responses in this thread, I'm afraid that that might include you...


That's the point. There are certain drugs that would be more harmful if they were totally acceptable than if there were to be measures taken against them.


"Drug" is a political term in this context, not a medical one. "Drugs" are no more implicitly dangerous than any other chemical, in fact often they're less so.

So, again, if prohibition is about pursuing rational health standards, why is making poison acceptable so long as that poison is not a "drug"? More importantly, why is making relatively harmless "drugs" criminal, while making other, undeniably deadly, substances is not?

You can appeal to as many buzzwords and catch phrases as you want, the fact remains, from a purely public health perspective, drug prohibition makes no sense.

You don't lock people up for being sick or poisoner, no one was arrested for "possesing" thalydomide. You only jail someone when they do something "wrong" in the eyes of the state.

And that's what the "war on drugs" ultimately comes down to, the proposition that drug use is "wrong". Not dangerous, not unhealthy, but morally wrong.

It's unfortunate that you've chosen to buy into that conservative myth.
I like the LSD philosophy and I dont think Dyermaker is bourgoise hes just being brainwashed by the enemies of pleasure

[Eleftherios]

I would remind you that a great many people live dangerous lives in one manner or another, should the government lock all of them up too? Or is just "drug addicts" that deserve this special treatment?

I never said that drug users should be imprisoned, or that they should be in trouble with the law. All I said was that it makes sense to treat hard drugs and soft drugs differently because seriously, I just can't see marijuana, which is basically harmless, and drugs like heroin and crack can and should be treated equally.

I personally think that the government should discourage drug abuse, and by that I don't mean they should force anybody to stop using them. It could be other things, like propaganda, education or rehab.


Obeisity kills more people each year than any illegal "drug". So would you propose forcibly hospitalizing any fat person who refuses treatment? At present, that group includes the majority of the American population, so you'd have a hard time enforcing such a measure, but still it's the nescessary result of your method of thinking.

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want. This is not the same for (physical) drug addicts. And I never even said drug addicts should be forcibly hospitalized in the first place. I just think that when someone is addicted to a drug that could ruin them and even kill them, it seems pretty absurd to talk about their rights and freedoms.

[JC1]

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want. This is not the same for (physical) drug addicts. And I never even said drug addicts should be forcibly hospitalized in the first place. I just think that when someone is addicted to a drug that could ruin them and even kill them, it seems pretty absurd to talk about their rights and freedoms.


So if a fat person drasitcly alters there diet the next time they wake up, it wont be dangourous ?!!!

[Tatarin]

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want.

Actually, I think fast-food is addictive in a way. I read this article that people who eats food they like is almost equal to drug addicts, like, it stimulates the same brain patterns.

I agree that the system of "punishing" drug addicts is wrong, and to marked for the rest of your life as some kind of subhuman (remember that part from history?) is rather un-human.

But aren't drugs still dangerous to some kind of degrees - that is, at least some? Marijuana can cause schitzophrenia later in life, same with "magic mushrooms" and many other pshychadelics. And for that matter, people may not know what their genes are, so pshychadelics can activate their "mental disorder".

And heroin - while some people may use it normally - the majority are addicts who simply can not get out. Can drug users really know when it is time to stop taking the drug?

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:26 am

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want. This is not the same for (physical) drug addicts. And I never even said drug addicts should be forcibly hospitalized in the first place. I just think that when someone is addicted to a drug that could ruin them and even kill them, it seems pretty absurd to talk about their rights and freedoms.


So if a fat person drasitcly alters there diet the next time they wake up, it wont be dangourous ?!!!
It will be, but they could still make a steady transition to regular food.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:53 am

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want.

Actually, I think fast-food is addictive in a way. I read this article that people who eats food they like is almost equal to drug addicts, like, it stimulates the same brain patterns.


That may be partly true, but the addiction I am talking about is only found among drug users.

[Sam_b]

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want.

You got any sources for that statement?

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:43 pm

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want.

You got any sources for that statement?
First I want you to show me a source that proves that fat people are addicted to fast food.

[Mkultra]

I dont think it matters whether something is healthy or not-this is a matter of Freedom of Choice--we can put what we want into our bodies we dont need Govt stealing our Freedoms by acten like our Nanny

its OUR BODY

[Tatarin]

its OUR BODY

That's the thing - how fun would it be if all your friends sat at home injecting themselves with heroin. It's their bodies - you can't do anything about it. The question is - do they know when to stop? Do they know they're addicted, or is that just "normal"? What is normal heroin use?

[Sam_b]

First I want you to show me a source that proves that fat people are addicted to fast food

No no no no. The onus is on you to provide evidence as you were the one who made the statement.

And off the top of my head, Morgan Spurlock's 'supersize me' has the answer to that question.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:38 pm

First I want you to show me a source that proves that fat people are addicted to fast food

No no no no. The onus is on you to provide evidence as you were the one who made the statement.

And off the top of my head, Morgan Spurlock's 'supersize me' has the answer to that question.
How in the world is the burden of proof on me? The burden of proof is on those who claimed that the addiction to fast-food was like drug addiction, not on me, who was challenging that assertion.

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:44 am

its OUR BODY

That's the thing - how fun would it be if all your friends sat at home injecting themselves with heroin. It's their bodies - you can't do anything about it. The question is - do they know when to stop? Do they know they're addicted, or is that just "normal"? What is normal heroin use?
normal heroin use means dont act like a fkin junkie cause it gives heroin a bad name

[Sam_b]

How in the world is the burden of proof on me? The burden of proof is on those who claimed that the addiction to fast-food was like drug addiction, not on me, who was challenging that assertion.

I believe the original assertion was that it killed more people, not the question of addiction. So if you are going to challenge it anyway, why not show something for it?

[LSD]

From my experience, however, crack and meth are not harmless and though it feels good to say that everyone should have a right to do whatever the hell they want, it has to be balanced against material reality and I have seen the result of cheap, readily available rock and ice; it makes me personally not give a fuck about this bubble world of ideals you're working with. Sorry.

That "bubble world of ideas" is called respect for human rights. It's recognizing that someone's personal sovereignty doesn't go away just 'cause they stuck a needle in their arm.

You say you've seen the "result" of drug use, but did it ever occur to you that what you're seeing is more about the context in which that use occurs than the substances themselves?

Yeah, we've all seen people lose their lives on so-called "hard drugs", both figuratively and literally, but 100 years ago they were losing them on alchohol. The substances may have changed, but the underlying problem hasn't.

And if we've learned one thing from the disaster that was alchohol prohibition, it's that "faulting the drugs" doesn't work. People turn to drugs because it offers a release from the misery of the rest of their life.

Obviously many drugs are addictive in themselves which further complicates matters, but there is a reason why drug abuse so strongly correlates with poverty or why those with mental illnesses are so much more likely to turn to drugs.

So instead of focusing on the reaction and further victimizing those who are already suffering, why not deal with the actual root problems?

I know why conservatives can't do that, their ideological paradigm doesn't acknowledge that there even is a problem to solve. But I expected something better from a revolutionary message board.

I expected a willingness to recognize that the way to help people is not to paternalize them and take away their freedom to make "bad" choices, but to enable them to make better ones.

That means education, it means information, it means encouraging them to understand the dangers and bennefits of drugs use. And then it means getting out of their way and letting them live their own lives.

Oftentimes that means watching them make decisions that don't meet with our approval. But that's what it means to live in a democracy.

And if you can't accept that your neighbour has the right to snort coke, how in the hell can you call yourself a revolutionary?


More straw. You assume I am placing the fault on the drug user when in fact I am placing fault on the drug itself.

How can you "place fault" on an inanimate object? "Fault" is a normative judgement, it presupposes that something "bad" has occured and that someone is accordingly "responsible" for that something.

That kind of responsiblity, however, requires agency, it requires the capacity to do otherwise. Drugs are just chemical compounds, their moral quality is solely determined by what people do with them.

Which is why even the most ardent prohibitionist doesn't oppose the medicinal use of morphine. But if I use it recreationaly, he'll fight to see me locked up for ten to twenty.

It's the same drug in both cases, it's only the human behaviour that's differed.

So while you can claim that you "place fault" solely on the drug, the reality is that a prohibitionist approach nescessitates victimizing the users, because when it comes right down to it, there's no one else to punish.

You can't imprison a drug!


I certainly believe that the current system is fucked up and that rehabilitation is far preferable to punishment. It doesn't need to entail removal of all the addict's freedoms but there should be a mechanism for discouraging addiction, perhaps some sort of discreet probation after which the name is stricken from the record.

Sorry, but "mechanism for discouraging addiction" is just a euphemistic way of saying "removing the addicts freedoms". 'Cause the only way you're going to "discourage" someone from doing what they want to is by forcing them not to.

I don't know what "discreet probation" means, but it sounds suspiciously similar to judicial probation, a state in which one is rather drastically stipped of civil rights and forced to routinely report ones behaviours to the police.

One wonders what would happen if an "addict" failed to meet the requirements of this "discreet probation" of yours. I guess they'd be arrested and thrown into jail? Nothing too "discreet" about that!

You see the problem you're running into here is that there are only so many ways of controlling human behaviour. Once you accept the premise that people must be "stopped" from injesting what the want to, you've got no choice but to employ coercive means.

And it's that fact which makes you and people like you traitors to your class. That you're so caught up in this moralistic crusade of yours that you genuinely don't care that the victims are the millions of working class drug users who are just trying to live their lives the way they want to, whether or not it meets your personal approval.


Your poison analogy is clearly bogus; it is illegal to use poison to harm other people.

That depends on what you mean by "harm". It's illegal to poison someone, meaning to feed them poison with the intention of causing them injury. It is not, however, illegal to give or sell them poision.

There are thousands of poisonous substances bought and sold everyday, all perfectly legal transactions. And yet if I sell (or even give) you a tab of acid, a substance that has never killed anyone, I can be arrested and charged with a felony that could land me in jail for years.

Now tell me, who was "harmed" in that transaction?

And I know, I know, you probably wouldn't consider acid to be a "hard" drug (you'd be one of the only ones, however, as most people do), but the question applies just as much to "harder" substances.

You may not particularly like methamphetamine, but there are relatively few cases of it killing anyone. Cyanide, on the other, hand is a highly toxic chemical that is pretty much guaranteed to kill you should you injest it.

Why is it then that selling you meth is illegal, whereas selling you cyanide is not? More to the point, why does the latter not qualiofy as "using poison to harm other people", but, in your mind at least, the former does?

That's the thing about this "war on drug", when you really break it down, you quickly discover that it doesn't actually make much sense.


Go fuck yourself.

Go fuck yourself.

Go fuck yourself.

Speaking of "aggressive personality traits"... :rolleyes:


Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want. This is not the same for (physical) drug addicts.

I notice that you were careful to stress the word "physical" when speaking of addiction, I presume that's to differentiate from that other sort of addiction, psychological.

That distinction, however, is largely artificial since it implies that the mind is not a physical entity. But the reality is that psychological states are merely neurological ones, specific arrangements of chemicals and electrical signals.

And so someone who is psychologically compelled to eat, or to smoke marijuana, may well be just as unable to stop as someone who is physically addicted to opium or nicotine.

The fact is "free will" is largely a myth anyway, our actions are shaped by our conditions and our predispositions. The idea that there's some perfect state of "control" which you inhabit but a drug addict does not is romanticist nonsense.

A free society respects the fundamental rights of all its members, regardless of what chemicals they may or may not have injested, regardless even of what factors are influening their decisions.

Because we are all the product of our environment, whether that environment includes addictive chemicals or not. And we don't suddenly lose our freedoms just because our bodies have become adapted to externally stimulated neurotransmitters.


And I never even said drug addicts should be forcibly hospitalized in the first place. I just think that when someone is addicted to a drug that could ruin them and even kill them, it seems pretty absurd to talk about their rights and freedoms.

Why? People do thinks that could riun or kill them all the time, and yet no one proposes that those who eat too much or drive too fast are somehow any less human than anyone else.

For some reason though when it comes to "drugs", the rules change and suddenly making "bad" choices becomes justification for all manner of oppression and subjugation.

The only explanation I can come up with is that we've all been so socialized to view drugs as "bad" and the people who use them as "crazy", that we're willing to accept the notion that they have to controlled for their "own good".

It's not unlike how homosexuality was viewed for most of the past century. Dangerous, immoral behaviour that destrtoyed lives and threatened society. It's only very recently that people have begun to realize that gay people actually liked the lives they were living and didn't want or need to be "helped".

It's rather sad that so many are still unable to understand that the same applies just as much to those of us who use drugs.

[synthesis]

It's my own analogy time. In a capitalist society, you have the right to have a car and you have the right to drink alcohol. Theoretically prohibiting these activities in any combination is a violation of one's so-called human rights, yet it is understood that reality is not so black-and-white.

You aren't allowed to drink and drive because you have a substantial chance of harming yourself, and far more importantly, of harming people besides yourself who had nothing to do with your fun little evening.

So here's the thing about crack, meth, and heroin. As long as we live in a society anything like the one we live in today, these things will cost money. Usually a lot of it. You take them and you immediately want more of them. Some people can do it once and quit, others cannot.

And as the cliches go, those people will resort to doing whatever it takes to get more of it, which do include mugging, pushing to little kids, and home invasions, whether we like it or not. That's where the "drinking and driving" analogy comes in. It's not just about the singular addict any more.

So what's the alternative to this capitalist prison? It's free and anyone who wants it can get as much as they want of it? Is that your idea of what would happen under a communist system? No matter what the system of distribution of goods, supplies are limited and people will fuck with the system to get their hands on more of an extremely addictive drug that they are building a tolerance to.

I don't even feel like I really have to stop and make a rational argument against free crack, meth, and heroin; I feel as though anyone who has lived around these drugs would never want to live in a society where everyone's getting them for free.


victims are the millions of working class drug users who are just trying to live their lives the way they want to,

If you are a working class drug user then by definition you are than a "functional addict." These people are not the problem. I am not suggesting we go on a witch-hunt against every waiter who toots a bump in the bathroom every twenty minutes.

However, what about when that waiter ups his habit and quits his job so he can do more, what is he going to do instead? Probably either sell it or move out to the streets.

You say society should not have to nanny people but that's often what ends up happening regardless, except we give them support instead of punishment. Providing addicts with food, clothes and shelter is a necessity but if they are wholly dependent on society to meet their needs, they are being "nannied" just as much as if they were to be punished. More below...



I don't know what "discreet probation" means, but it sounds suspiciously similar to judicial probation, a state in which one is rather drastically stipped of civil rights and forced to routinely report ones behaviours to the police.

That's because the judicial system in a capitalist country is inherently anti-proletarian, no secret to you, of course. The goal is to have the community taking care of these problems rather than the State.

But of course that's a long ways away. At this point in time, the choice is somewhere between harsh criminalization and total legalization. I am not proposing we root out users of "hard" drugs, this is not going to get anyone anywhere.

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that we cannot legalize the distribution of highly addictive drugs; that's where the line must be drawn. I don't care about Christopher Crackhead down the block and I agree with you that to focus on those people is certainly anti-working class.

But what about the dude with a luxury car and a shiny chain who is making a lot of money off the degradation of street folks and working-class people alike? Is this positive? Are you naive enough to think that this hierarchy would disappear if these drugs were legalized? They still aren't gonna be free, you know.



That distinction, however, is largely artificial since it implies that the mind is not a physical entity. But the reality is that psychological states are merely neurological ones, specific arrangements of chemicals and electrical signals.

And so someone who is psychologically compelled to eat, or to smoke marijuana, may well be just as unable to stop as someone who is physically addicted to opium or nicotine.

Totally wrong; if a stoner were to have an epiphany tomorrow and stop smoking weed, he might be a little irritable and have a hard time sleeping, but that's the extent of it.

If a heroin addict had the same epiphany, he'd be experiencing extreme diarrhea, nausea, and a whole host of other miserable physical symptoms. That's the key difference between physical and psychological addiction.



That depends on what you mean by "harm". It's illegal to poison someone, meaning to feed them poison with the intention of causing them injury. It is not, however, illegal to give or sell them poision.

People don't take cyanide on purpose, and if they do, they sure aren't coming back for more.

More to the point, cyanide is not purchased with the express intent of running out of it as soon as possible.


And yet if I sell (or even give) you a tab of acid, a substance that has never killed anyone, I can be arrested and charged with a felony that could land me in jail for years.

Now tell me, who was "harmed" in that transaction?

You said it yourself, the acid example is totally irrelevant here. If you're in high school and I sell you a gram of crack, I am ultimately causing you harm; that's why so many people in the ghetto call these drugs "poison." They are poisonous, and it's not your fault for taking it, it's my fault for making it available. That's what you don't seem to understand.



Speaking of "aggressive personality traits"...

Again, go fuck yourself. I'm sick of people on this board who feel like they can throw around serious charges like "traitor" and "reactionary" against anyone who happens to disagree with them. Yeah, I'm a fuckin' traitor because I don't want people selling meth out of my apartment building. Shove it up your ass.

[Mkultra]

I agree meth is hard core but there should be certain parts of town set aside for people to engage in all their meth fantasy

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:52 pm
I agree meth is hard core but there should be certain parts of town set aside for people to engage in all their meth fantasy
How are you going to make sure they stay there?

The answer is, you can't, not without coercion. And according to LSD, that makes you a class traitor and should be hanged, drawn and quartered along with the rest of the Mensheviks.

I hope people see how this issue is not as black and white as "fascist anti-fun Nazis versus valiant crusaders for human rights."

[synthesis]

Here is the fundamental communication breakdown.



So while you can claim that you "place fault" solely on the drug, the reality is that a prohibitionist approach nescessitates victimizing the users, because when it comes right down to it, there's no one else to punish.

Of course there is.

Who does the tweaker get his crystal from?

Who does that person get it from?

Ad nauseum.

You don't have to completely legalize or prohibit it, you can just make it really hard to find. Problem solved.

Of course it's not that easy, but it's a far more noble goal than either taking away people's freedom or totally vindicating the use of such harmful substances.

Again, this is not some subjective moral bullshit over whether or not it is a human right to be able to smoke crack, this is taking an objective view of environments where these drugs are proliferating heavily and trying to figure out the most humane way to ameliorate the situation.

The obvious conclusion is that systematically hunting down international heroin dealers is just as effective a method of "harm reduction" than passing out free needles to junkies - the point is, though, there's room for both of these methods in any kind of pro-working class approach with a realistic perspective.

[Cencus]

Government drug policies are nothing more than lip service an issue that they niether understand or really care about. The "War On Drugs" in the 80s had more to do with U.S. Imperialism in S. America than actually trying to end addiction. There is evidence of the CIA landing at least one flight of a known drug runner's plane at a U.S. airbase during this period.

Ask yourself what kills herion addicts? HIV/AIDS caused by using dirty needles, accidental O.D. caused by changes in purity after people in the supply chain have been arrested, Hepatitis again dirty needles, mixing other shit with the methodone they are give as a cheap substitute to smack. They all boil down to prohibition.

What does prohibition achieve? It criminalises a vast amount of our youth. We fill our jails. We allow criminals to get rich and control our housing estates. So what if they bust a meth lab, any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a basic knowledge of chemistry can make it, and if theres a market someone will fill it. It certainly doesn't seem to stop anyone actually taking drugs.


I am not a drug user, I have done in the past, with no detectable long term effects, but I was an alcoholic for years. When I stopped drinking I nearly died. I smoke and have serious long term effects from that.

[synthesis]

It certainly doesn't seem to stop anyone actually taking drugs.

People seem to forget that the fact that the system is unjust does not automatically validate all possible alternatives as right.

It's hard for people to fuck up weed, it is very easy to fuck up powder substances by their nature. Unless you are proposing that government or regulated business entities distribute these substances I fail to see how legalization will prevent these problems.


The "War On Drugs" in the 80s had more to do with U.S. Imperialism in S. America than actually trying to end addiction. There is evidence of the CIA landing at least one flight of a known drug runner's plane at a U.S. airbase during this period.

It gets lot deeper than that, homie, as you may know. The CIA was more or less at fault for the entire crack explosion of the 80's. The Boland Amendment prevented the U.S. government from officially giving aid to Nicaraguan reactionaries, but the anti-socialists had plenty of Bolivian cocaine connections that they could utilize to raise money for the counter-revolution.

And one fateful day in Los Angeles, a Nicaraguan exile from a ruling family met a mostly illiterate small-time pusher from South Central, and the rest is history. There are plenty of examples of the CIA hindering DEA and FBI investigations into Nicaraguan coke-running - it would disrupt the flow of cash to the reactionaries and the constituency most negatively affected by the product - blacks - was considered to be politically negligible.

Thing is, crack's been around for a long time. Before the 80's, cocaine was mostly seen as a drug of affluent whites due to its price; innovative entrepreneurs saw crack as a way of doubling the product, doubling the profit and doubling both the extreme highs and the lows that bring customers back for more. The result of the CIA's intervention was to combine this powerful business model with extremely low wholesale prices; the new availability and low cost of cocaine united with the previously existing method of cooking cocaine to form the crack epidemic of the 80's.

[Mkultra]

the bottom line is whether your pro-drug are not drugs are here to stay and people are gonna use them no matter what--so whats the point of jailing people for victimless crimes?

legalize them regulate them and treat them like the HEALTH issue they are not a Law and order issue

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Alcaeos+September 29, 2007 08:11 pm--> (Alcaeos @ September 29, 2007 08:11 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 05:43 pm

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want.

You got any sources for that statement?
First I want you to show me a source that proves that fat people are addicted to fast food. [/b]
its a known fact that binge eating is an addiction..... people can be and are addicted to eating because it causes the release of neurotransmitter in the brain that otherwise wouldnt be releases because of their physical dependancy on eating.... it is a physical addiction...it makes them happy because of these chemicals..same as nicotine

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:01 am
the bottom line is whether your pro-drug are not drugs are here to stay and people are gonna use them no matter what--so whats the point of jailing people for victimless crimes?

legalize them regulate them and treat them like the HEALTH issue they are not a Law and order issue
But what about when people violate the regulations? Some dude gets some meth from the pharmacy, goes down to the schoolyard and sells it to a 12-year-old, which I assume would violate these regulations. Now this is technically a victimless crime, but is this right? Should this be legal? I think it would make for a shitty society if this were allowed to happen with only a slap on the wrist as punishment... unless you suggest that we take away their freedom for a victimless crime?

Now you can actually do this today, don't get me wrong. It's called Desoxyn and it's being prescribed to kids right now. I think it's fucked up, but I guess it's victimless, right?

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by Ender+October 03, 2007 10:59 pm--> (Ender @ October 03, 2007 10:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:11 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 05:43 pm

Well, obese people aren't even addicted to fast food (at least not physically), so they can still stop whenever they want.

You got any sources for that statement?
First I want you to show me a source that proves that fat people are addicted to fast food.
its a known fact that binge eating is an addiction..... people can be and are addicted to eating because it causes the release of neurotransmitter in the brain that otherwise wouldnt be releases because of their physical dependancy on eating.... it is a physical addiction...it makes them happy because of these chemicals..same as nicotine [/b]
people have a right to be addicted--as long as they dont get in my way

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+October 04, 2007 12:19 am--> (DyerMaker @ October 04, 2007 12:19 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 11:01 am
the bottom line is whether your pro-drug are not drugs are here to stay and people are gonna use them no matter what--so whats the point of jailing people for victimless crimes?

legalize them regulate them and treat them like the HEALTH issue they are not a Law and order issue
But what about when people violate the regulations? Some dude gets some meth from the pharmacy, goes down to the schoolyard and sells it to a 12-year-old, which I assume would violate these regulations. Now this is technically a victimless crime, but is this right? Should this be legal? I think it would make for a shitty society if this were allowed to happen with only a slap on the wrist as punishment... unless you suggest that we take away their freedom for a victimless crime?

Now you can actually do this today, don't get me wrong. It's called Desoxyn and it's being prescribed to kids right now. I think it's fucked up, but I guess it's victimless, right? [/b]
well legal drugs would still have regulations--treat them like alcohol is treated--alcohol is legal yet regulated and no ones goin down to the schoolyard to get kiddies drunk

in fact under our current prohibition system theres more incentive for street dealers to get kids involved with drugs then there would be if they were legal

[synthesis]

people have a right to be addicted--as long as they dont get in my way

Some drugs have a noted tendency to make people get in your way.


alcohol is legal yet regulated and no ones goin down to the schoolyard to get kiddies drunk

Sure they are. I was definitely drinking by 12. If crack cocaine had the same rules as alcohol, it is likely that kids would have the same quasi-legal access to both drugs. Again, if you have been places where kids have easy access to "hard drugs" at an early age you would know it is not something you'd want to make even easier.

And again, the fact that the system is fucked up doesn't give you an excuse to completely legitimize an extremely addictive, self-destructive habit. You can reduce the harm that it causes the user, but totally legitimizing it is not the answer.



in fact under our current prohibition system theres more incentive for street dealers to get kids involved with drugs then there would be if they were legal

So the answer is to make it easier for them to do it?

[grove street]

I believe in the de-criminalization and centrallized control of all drugs. That way it's possible to control distrubution and potency.

When it comes to hard drugs, there should be secured/secluded places for uses. That way we can make sure that they don't hurt themselves or others, provide sterilized equipment, control potency, how much they are taking and offer less harmful alternatives. By doing this we can help people get over their addiction by slowly easing them off the hard drugs and more importantly take power and control of the drug trade away from organised crime.

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:59 am


people have a right to be addicted--as long as they dont get in my way

Some drugs have a noted tendency to make people get in your way.


alcohol is legal yet regulated and no ones goin down to the schoolyard to get kiddies drunk

Sure they are. I was definitely drinking by 12. If crack cocaine had the same rules as alcohol, it is likely that kids would have the same quasi-legal access to both drugs. Again, if you have been places where kids have easy access to "hard drugs" at an early age you would know it is not something you'd want to make even easier.

And again, the fact that the system is fucked up doesn't give you an excuse to completely legitimize an extremely addictive, self-destructive habit. You can reduce the harm that it causes the user, but totally legitimizing it is not the answer.



in fact under our current prohibition system theres more incentive for street dealers to get kids involved with drugs then there would be if they were legal

So the answer is to make it easier for them to do it?
Amsterdam decriminalized drugs and I dont see them having all these kinda issues you bring up

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 05, 2007 01:23 am
I believe in the de-criminalization and centrallized control of all drugs. That way it's possible to control distrubution and potency.

When it comes to hard drugs, there should be secured/secluded places for uses. That way we can make sure that they don't hurt themselves or others, provide sterilized equipment, control potency, how much they are taking and offer less harmful alternatives. By doing this we can help people get over their addiction by slowly easing them off the hard drugs and more importantly take power and control of the drug trade away from organised crime.
I agree--and the govt should make safe recreational drugs for adults to enjoy and ease their stress maybe even have virtual transcedent experiences--this I think would reduce all crimes across the board

[synthesis]

MKUltra: It is very important that you read this entire post.

Amsterdam is the best example of my argument you could have given me.

From the very top of the Wikipedia article on the Dutch drug policy:


The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 2 principles:

1. Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
2. A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists

It's not like they just pulled this out of their ass. Look up the histories of autonomous European communities like Christiania who initially legalized "soft drugs" and then tried accepting "hard drugs."

This is an extremely important legal distinction. In Freetown Christiania, basically a hippie commune, the community extremely tolerant of hash and acid moved to have authorities kick out the heroin dealers and addicts back in the 70's. The police came through and guess what happened:


An attempt was made to cooperate with the police in order to get rid of the heroin pushers, which was something many Christianites felt extremely uncomfortable about—partly due to the anarchical tradition in the Freetown, and partly because of the continuous clashes between Christiania and the police. However, despite the shared feelings of distrust of the instigating police involvement, some Christianites feeling there was no other way to fix such an imminent and threatening problem, had supplied the police with a list of suspected hard drug networks. The intention of the Christianites' decision was made very clear: for police to concentrate only on hard drugs. This did not happen, the police had ignored the Christianites' requests and made a large crackdown—but only on the hash network, leaving the heroin ring untouched.

Feeling betrayed and bitter the Christianites decided not to cooperate any further with the authorities, and instead launched what was to be known as the Junk Blockade. For 40 days and nights the Christianites—men, women, and children—patrolled 'The Arc of Peace' and whenever they found junkies or pushers they gave them an ultimatum: either quit all activities with hard drugs or leave Christiania. In the end, the pushers were forced to leave, and sixty people entered rehabilitation.

Anyone who says that the distribution of drugs like heroin and crack should be tolerated and legalized just has to look at societies where it has basically happened: they get real shitty real quick. I am sorry you people are having so much trouble coming to terms with the reality of what happens when "hard drugs" are acceptable.

[Mkultra]

well those fools learned the hard way that running to the cops to "solve" any problem is ALWAYS the height of extreme self destructive stupidity

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:40 pm
well those fools learned the hard way that running to the cops to "solve" any problem is ALWAYS the height of extreme self destructive stupidity
You idiosyncratically missed the point of the anecdote, which is that the servants of a bourgeois institution were useless in eradicating a substance (heroin) that is objectively destructive, no matter how left-wing your perspective of human rights. Please reread my post with this in mind. My English teachers always taught me that bolds and italics were signs of a weak writer but I feel this is the only way I can get this across to you.

I am trying not to offer any anecdotes of my own, because I realize that this is the Internet and for all you know I could be making it all up. But please recognize the fact that there are a lot of places where these "hard" drugs are basically legal, and more often than not they get fucked up in ways that defy attempts to point the finger at the drugs' illegality. Please consider this in your reply.

[Mkultra]

then if the cops arent to blame its clearly the fault of the bourguios institution no doubt-


is this what your gettting at then?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:02 pm
then if the cops arent to blame its clearly the fault of the bourguios institution no doubt-


is this what your gettting at then?
No, no, no. Perhaps when you get a couple more years under your belt you will recognize that some things are not an issue of politics but are basic human psychology. The fault is the incredible power that certain drugs have over an unacceptably high percentage of people who use them, and how those peoples' usage of the drugs has an extreme tendency to negatively involve others who do not choose to consume the drug, such as the users' children, those who support them, those they may steal money from to buy more - bad shit which would continue even should the drug be made legal.

[Mkultra]

then its the govts job to create the kind of highs people crave --that wont destroy lives

[synthesis]

OK. You keep on fighting the good fight for free crack and meth. Good luck with that.

[Mkultra]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@October 07, 2007 08:22 pm
OK. You keep on fighting the good fight for free crack and meth. Good luck with that.
im not saying I want crack or meth--I want safe crack and meth alternatives

[synthesis]

im not saying I want crack or meth--I want safe crack and meth alternatives

If the government does not sell these substances then someone will. Right?

[Mkultra]

all Im saying is that people have a bio-spiritual NEED to alter their consciousness with SOME sort of substance--im not trying to minimize teh destructive influence of certain hard drugs

[LSD]

Yeah, I'm a fuckin' traitor because I don't want people selling meth out of my apartment building. Shove it up your ass.

No, you're a traitor because you want the SQ to bust down my door tonight and hold me in chains for the many drug felonies I have infringed upon.

This post only exists because I'm high and so am motivated to post. Being high also makes manipulating this keyboard increasingly difficult, which poses a problem in communication.

And if that doesn't sumarize the drug issue nothing will.... :lol:



It's my own analogy time. In a capitalist society, you have the right to have a car and you have the right to drink alcohol. Theoretically prohibiting these activities in any combination is a violation of one's so-called human rights, yet it is understood that reality is not so black-and-white.

You aren't allowed to drink and drive because you have a substantial chance of harming yourself, and far more importantly, of harming people besides yourself who had nothing to do with your fun little evening.

The drunk driving analogy is a particularly interesting one here, not only because it does illustrate quite nicely the nescessite to weigh individual human rights against public interest, but also because it happens to deal directly with addictive substances.

Alchohol, after all, is one of the more addictive drugs out there. Study after study shows that it has an incredible capacity to induce both psychological and physical dependency. There are without a doubt more people addicted to alchohol than any other substance, legal or otherwise.

Certainly no one denies that alchohol has caused more deaths than any othe drug ....and yet its legal.

It's legal because it has a history and it has a social acceptance. And while we continue to struggle with the consequences of drinking and governments around the world spend billions trying to combat alchohol related problems, the clear lesson on the subject is that as far as solutions go, prohibition isn't one of them.

'Cause we tried to ban alcohol, some of us did anyway. The United States most famously, but also Canada, parts of Europe, and even the Soviet Union for a fews years following the revolution.

And in each case the experiment was abandoned. Not because alchohol stopped being a danger, not because people stopped abusing it, but because pushing addiction underground does not solve the problem.

Unfortunately we've yet to learn that lesson when it comes to less "accpeptible" drugs, or at least most of us haven't. Obviously a great many of us continue to use drugs despite the laws and propaganda campaigns.

And when we do them and then proceed to get behind the wheel you're absolutely correct in that we put the public at risk, and we should be stopped. Drunk, high, or stoned, you have no business operating 2 tons of polymerized steel.

But sitting at home, lying in bed, looking at pretty pictures, you put no one at risk. And as such, no evangelical, no campaigner, no agent of the government has the right to stop you from consuming whatever the fuck you feel like.

Is there a risk inherent to mind-altering substances? You're damn right there is, but then there's a greater risk inherent in driving a car, even absent any psychotropic chemicals.

Far more people die in road accidents every year than due to drug use. And yet we recognize that cars are nescessary and worth the risk, the same goes for things like skydiving which are incredibly dangerous and yet perfectly legal for those who wish to undertake it.

It's called a harm doctrinep and it's fuonded on the utilitarian principle of minimizing suffering. Sure, old George might break his leg jumping out of a plane, but he'd be even worse-off if he didn't have the right to "fly" evert few months or so.

Drugs occupy a similar function, offering release and relief to to the suffering or the bored. Sometimes they can be dangerous, sometimes not. And here's the thing about crack, meth, and heroin. They work!

Not perfectly, not by far, but we have developed substances capable of significantly improving the human experience, and we should be proud to use them.


So here's the thing about crack, meth, and heroin. As long as we live in a society anything like the one we live in today, these things will cost money. Usually a lot of it. You take them and you immediately want more of them. Some people can do it once and quit, others cannot.

And as the cliches go, those people will resort to doing whatever it takes to get more of it, which do include mugging, pushing to little kids, and home invasions, whether we like it or not. That's where the "drinking and driving" analogy comes in. It's not just about the singular addict any more.

Your main focus here seems to be on the addictive nature of many illegal drugs. I take it then that your basic position would be to criminalize all demosntrably physically addictive substances (cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, nicotine, alchohol, etc..) but legalize the rest (LSD, MDMA, marijuana, ketamine, PCP, etc..).

That's an interesting notion. It's certainly not what most drug prohibtionists support, nor indeed is it even what most people support. But it's an understandable idea. It's definitely more sensible than anything coming out of any "reputable" authority on the subject.

Unfortunately, however, such an approach fails to deal with the truly complex nature of human society and the ultimately physiological nature of the human brain.

Because the fact is that addiction is as much a psychological phenomenon as it is a physiological one. And as far as more experts are concerned, the one does not outweigh the other.

We are, ultimately, no more than our brains and our bodies. Our actions are dictated by the interation between the two. If our brain is unable to fire of the neuronic sequences nescessary to stop smoking weed, the practical effect is no different from the person who's body has become physically dependent on the endorphins released by an injectin of heroin.

That's how come people get addicted to things like sex and gambling. It's not chemical, but it's no less real.

And so when you try to base legislation around what's "addictive" and what's "not" you run into the very serious problem that lots of things are addictive, including things that we just can't outlaw and many others that we really really don't want to.

Rather we need to deal with addiction in a more pragmatic manner as a condition that exists sometimes and that needs to be treated sometimes, when it is harmful and when the patient consents.

And as far as addiction driving people to violence or acts of desperation to "feed their habbit", the fact is the vast majority of property crime is not drug related. And most studies on the subject have shown that the criminalization of drugs has no effect on rates of violent crime.

Which is why, of course, countries like the United States don't have such good violence statistics when compared to more liberal nations.

Some drugs lower impulse control, they limit rational thought, and produce a strong desire to consume more. A prominent example of this, your example in fact, is alchohol.

And yet the number of people killed for alchohl money is remarkably low. Not becaue poor alchoholics aren't out there, you pass them in the street everyday; but because unlike with "street drugs", there is no culture of violence connected with drinking.

Seventy-five years ago, however, there was and alchohol related violence skyrocketed. Prohibition ended and it dropped back down again.

Isn't it about tiime that we learned that lesson?


So what's the alternative to this capitalist prison? It's free and anyone who wants it can get as much as they want of it? Is that your idea of what would happen under a communist system?

Basically.

Psychoactive drugs are incredibly cheap to make and generally use very common precursors. Our bodies are organic, after all, we're only responsive to a very narrow category of chemicals.

It's not like we get high off of platinum... ;)


If you are a working class drug user then by definition you are than a "functional addict." These people are not the problem.

And yet they are the inevitable victims of any prohibition regime.

Rich drug users can afford fancy lawyers and other protections to keep themselves out of jail, that or they can find a doctor willing to prescribe a legal alternative to whatever's getting them off.

The truly destitute and desperate have nothing to lose and so honestly don't give a damn if it's legal or not. They're going to do it regardless and since they live on the margins of society, they mostly won't be noticed while they do it.

Think about something for a second, in most major cities the police know where the crack houses are, they know where the junkies hang out. The reason that they don't haul them all downtown, other than when quotas are running empty, is because they recognize that their job is not to enforce the prohibition laws evenly, it's to keep them enforcable.

That means staying within the bounds of "acceptible" society.

The bourgeoisie, of its part, is more than willing to join in. Drug testing and chemical screenings are all the rage; not so much 'cause drugs are really hurting peformance, indeed the only drug really doing that is alchohol, but because of the cultural and legal stigmas.

Believe me, if they could test for gay while they're testing for coke residue they'd do that to. Prohibition has nothing to do with safety and nearly everything to with appearances.


At this point in time, the choice is somewhere between harsh criminalization and total legalization.

Well ...yeah. But then that's always the choice with anything. Governmental response to any commodity must range somewhere between accetpance and crminalization, whether we're talking about meth or beer or oats.

There's nothing new in that, it's just that right now we have the capacity to make and refine psychoactive substances to a degree never concievable for most of human history.

That should be something to celebrate. The human struggle has always been one of expansion and reconceptualization. But crossing boundries, even the mental kind, can be very scary, sometimes most of all to those who are on the outside looking in.

And so in the last few centuries we've seen the emergence of a movement unparalled in human history, one which has the audacity to declare itself the rightful arbitor of "acceptible" consumption.

It started as an emergence of radical protestant moralism, the same kind of Second Awakening moralism that had brough about the end of slavery in the Americas and that would water the seeds of the women's liberation movement.

But unfortunately coming from a religious background has its disadvantages, and one of the more formidible is an indominable arrogance on subjects of morality. "God" is "righeous", "sin" is "evil", there's little more that need be said.

And since drugs induce behaviours not exactly in keeping with the writings of st. Paul, it wasn't too long before toking up fell into the "evil" category.

But don't be confused, if Coca had grown in Israel, coaine would be legal today.


There is no doubt in my mind, however, that we cannot legalize the distribution of highly addictive drugs; that's where the line must be drawn. I don't care about Christopher Crackhead down the block and I agree with you that to focus on those people is certainly anti-working class.

But what about the dude with a luxury car and a shiny chain who is making a lot of money off the degradation of street folks and working-class people alike?

What about him? He's called the bourgeoisie and he's the problem. That problem, mind you, is unrelated to the the content of what he's selling, be it heroin or Hondas.

Exploitation is exploitation, and so is capitalism. Nothing new in that. But when you make a product illegal, when you push it to the black market you create what libertarians would call a "free" market, one in which there is no hand save Adam Smith's invisible one.

All of which nescessitates, of couse, violence! Since absense a monopoly on force, people will kill for value in a value-exchange economy. That dude in the car with the chain is making money the same way that Al Capone did, by taking advantage of a market that was already there. A market that thrives on alienation.

That's the thing about addiction, if you're addicted you'll do it. It's why this new US health plan is tied to tobacco taxes. Politicians can talk all they want about reducing smoking, but they all know that despite the books and articles and programs and bills and all the rest, people will continue smoking ...and as such will keep funding the federal treasury.

Tax them, arrest them, beat them, insult them, drug users will not go away and will not stop growing.

The desire to experience is fundamental to what it means to be human and, as with other fundamentals, an abstinence-only approach just does't work.


Totally wrong; if a stoner were to have an epiphany tomorrow and stop smoking weed, he might be a little irritable and have a hard time sleeping, but that's the extent of it.

If a heroin addict had the same epiphany, he'd be experiencing extreme diarrhea, nausea, and a whole host of other miserable physical symptoms. That's the key difference between physical and psychological addiction.

What you're missing, though, is that they "ephiphany" need not arrive. Indeed the nature of psychological addiction is that it cannot arrive, not without a great deal of work.

And just because the contributing factors are categorized as "physical" in the one case and as "mental" in the other doesn't actually significantly distinguish them. These are classifications of convenience, nothing more.

The brain is one organ, everything that occurs within it occurs within it. And addiction, ultimately, is about behaviour, not physiology. The method of action is only relevent insofar as treatment.


People don't take cyanide on purpose, and if they do, they sure aren't coming back for more.

No they're not, and as such they're hurting themselves and those around them. Maybe the gried they cause is enough that they should be stopped before hand? Maybe they were"sick" and should have been "treated".

Both of those arguments are used to criminalize suicide and, indeed, I hold the right to suicide as another fundamental human right, albeit one hardly under threat.

The real issue comes up when the injury happens to others; when consent is not given for harm to be done. And in those cases action must certainly be taken. But we have to be incredibly careful in how far back we attempt to trace the chain of causality.

Yes, an assault may have been instigated by a desire for money and that money may have been desired to by crack. But desire for crack came from more than just chemistry, it came out of a combination of desperation and psychopharmacology, of short-term pleasure and long-term misery.

The victim might not have been hurt had his attacker never heard of crack-cocaine, but then again they're just as likely to be attacked for the myriad of other poverty-related reasons, like gang affiliation, like social hiearchy, like access to support resources.

Drugs are not the problem and have never been the problem, focusing on them not only misses the point but victimizes the already suffering with no appreciable bennefit.

It's the worst kind of devil's bargain, the kind that doesn't work!


If you're in high school and I sell you a gram of crack, I am ultimately causing you harm; that's why so many people in the ghetto call these drugs "poison." They are poisonous, and it's not your fault for taking it, it's my fault for making it available. That's what you don't seem to understand.

And what if you're in high school and you sell me a gram of crack. Who's responsible there? The consenting adult who bought it or the child who sold it to him?

You see your little paradigm falls apart once you get outside of the clichés.

The reality is that we are all responsible for our own actions. If we have a car, we're responsible to make sure that we don't run it drunk or high[/b]. We're also responsible to make sure that we can handle what we take, driving or not.

And as far as "ultimate cause" goes, well you can chase yourself all over Texas looking for that onne, but you 'aint gonna come up with a good answer, 'cause there 'aint none in this case nor in any else like it.

The question of "why" just has not been answered. About the only thing we do know when it comes to drugs is that locking folks up for using 'em seems to only serve to make jobs for prison guards.

And that's not exactly how I define progress. How about you?

[Mkultra]

legal drugs can smash down the Walls of the Prison Industrial Complex

[Outinleftfield]

I know this is an old thread but I thought Id throw in my two cents.

Jail certainly does not help drug problems.
Neither does "mandatory 'help'". The concept itself doesnt work you cant make help mandatory or it won't really help them. People can only be helped if they actually want the help. Requiring somebody to attend a lecture about the "dangers" of drugs is one thing but at the end of it they can take or leave the advice.

But I dont even think that should be done except maybe in cases where peoples behavior was somehow related to drugs.

Even though some drugs can put people in a mindset where its easier to choose to do antisocial behavior to arrest people because of what they "might" do is to presume them guilty of things they haven't done yet. Just because someone takes a drug does not mean they are going to drive or that they are going to get into a fight or that they are going to steal things. Those things should be punished themselves, not the drug-taking.

Even the most addictive drug will not addict everyone who tries it, and not everyone who tries it will do things that can harm others. Even if someone becomes addicted they still chose to start

Of course the economic aspect is distinct. Corporations profit off of selling drugs and will use perverse tactics to do this. But in scoialism we will not have all these corporations profiting. If someone wants to grow their own plants or make their own chemicals or make some/grow some for their friends (and send it to them possibly) they should be allowed to.

The reason marijuana is not legal is because they can not patent it and because it is easy to grow your own. If it wasn't illegal everyone would be doing that. The pharmaceutical industry sells things that are far more dangerous and they don't want people switching to marijuana. The clothing industry, the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, and the fuel industry also don't want competitionm and the police and the prisons don't want to lose business.

The capitalist imperialists will make sure the drug policy benefits them first and foremost. Cocaine is not legal because it would help Latin America make a lot of money off people's addictions instead of the United States. With globalization you'd expect that to change but the only way they'd change that would be if they legalized marijuana first, because you could never justify to the public legalizing cocaine but keeping marijuana illegal. Tobacco is legal because it helps the United States rake in money off of people's addictions worldwide. LSD is not legal because it makes people think and the capitalists can't have that. Its strange that cough syrup and salvia are still legal given that they destroy your "ego"(which is not the real you, it is the mirror image cultivated from childhood i.e. dissociatives help people discover their true self). But then they have still been stigmatized. They're not banning new drugs like they used to. The media has changed. In late capitalism they keep control by controlling ideas. They make salvia illegal MORE people will use it.