What is our stance on Marijuana?

[Fiskpure]

I was personally asked to join a few friends of mine in the upcomming Marijuana March on May 3rd.

I did some medical research and I concluded that it could be used in medical treatment. It was a quick 15 minute research, correct me, if I'm wrong.

I wanted to ask you, comrades, what your stance on Marijuana is, before.

- Fiskpure

[spartan]

My view is that it is up to individuals what they do in regards to recreational drugs.

All we can do is advise them on potential risks and benefits of taking the drugs and leave the decision, on if they want to take them, up to them.

No one has a right to stop people from doing something as long as it doesnt effect anyone else.

[F9]

Totally LEGALIZE.
Marijuanna has record no deaths and it makes good in sick people!People with cancer and other serious health problems as well as little problems marijuana will help them,not always curing but calming as well!

Fuserg9:star:

[Fiskpure]

Yeah, who are we to tell others what they can do. Making it fully legal, making it buyable at the markets, it will affect the society.

What are the symptoms of it? You are more aware of the situation, is all I've heard.

How would this affect the traffic rules? People coming to job high?

- Fiskpure

[RedAnarchist]

When you say legal, I assume you mean in a capitalist society?

[Kropotesta]

How would this affect the traffic rules? People coming to job high?

- Fiskpure
that's the same as people coming to work drunk. yet drink is legalized

[Demogorgon]

When you say legal, I assume you mean in a capitalist society?

There is no reason to wait for Communism for Cannabis to become legal. Capitalism hardly requires it be banned and it is personally possible that the bourgeosie may decide to legalise it on their own. Those of us who believe in maximising our civil liberties (not to mention other benefits) should support it becoming illegal immediately.

I should point out though, that people should not kid themselves that Cannabis is harmless, it can potentially cause nasty lung damage and there is evidence linking it to mental illness. It is considerably elss dangerous than many legal drugs though.

[black magick hustla]

bah i like pot but i am not crazy about it being "legal" or not. people making it a political issue are fucking hippie tools

[BIG BROTHER]

If alcohol is legal, they might as well make marijuana legal, people are still getting high anyways.

[spartan]

Another few things in Cannabis's favour is that it isnt as anti-social as Alcohol, which makes you quite violent and prone to being taken advantage of, whilst Cannabis on the other hand makes you calm and relaxed.

I cant understand why the Capitalists havent legallised this stuff yet because they could then tax it and make money off of it.

It would also rejuvenate the farming industry because farmers would be growing something that will always be in demand (I think that the Netherlands is now allowing farmers to legally grow Cannabis now).

Perhaps the Capitalists are scared of having a too lazy workforce, because of excessive Cannabis smoking, and that is why they dont make it legal?:D

[F9]

capitalists didnt legalize it to take taxes because they take most of the money from cannabis!usa controls huge amount of canabbis plants in their controling countries!

Fuserg9:star:

[Dros]

This issue is a personal autonomy issue. People should be able to smoke pot if they want to. I see nothing wrong with it.

[mikelepore]

bah i like pot but i am not crazy about it being "legal" or not. people making it a political issue are fucking hippie tools

How could the imprisonment of 500,000 people at any given moment in the U.S., and the arrest of 700,000 people each year, solely for the crime of smoking a disallowed variety of leaf in their cigarettes, NOT be a political issue? Locking human beings into cages should be considered a drastic action.

[Sankofa]

puff puff give muthafucka :lol:

[Jude]

If it was legal, I think it would still have a legal age like cigs and booze. I would be tokin up a lot more though :D

[Vanguard1917]

Cannabis should be made legal, not because of its medical powers or because it sedates us, but simply because busybodies in government should not be allowed to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.

[bezdomni]

The leftist position is in favor of the complete legalization of drugs from the standpoint of personal autonomy.

It'll probably be a long while before marijuana becomes legal in the United States, if it ever does at all. Criminalization makes too much sense for the state.

[Dros]

The leftist position is in favor of the complete legalization of drugs from the standpoint of personal autonomy.

It'll probably be a long while before marijuana becomes legal in the United States, if it ever does at all. Criminalization makes too much sense for the state.

That being said, I imagine drug use would be lower in a Communist society. Certainly there would be recreational users, but the majority of drug consumption in the world today is poorer people trying to escape the fact that their lives are shit. That need won't exist in Communism and there will be "better" ways to spend your time available.

[bezdomni]

I suspect drugs like crack cocaine and heroin would be almost entirely unused in a socialist society (like opium in revolutionary china), while drugs like marijuana and LSD would probably be used more commonly and more widely (given the history both drugs have in relation to the radical left).

It's not a coincidence that the WUO broke Timothy Leary out of prison. :P

[( R )evolution]

There is no reason to wait for Communism for Cannabis to become legal. Capitalism hardly requires it be banned and it is personally possible that the bourgeosie may decide to legalise it on their own. Those of us who believe in maximising our civil liberties (not to mention other benefits) should support it becoming illegal immediately.

I should point out though, that people should not kid themselves that Cannabis is harmless, it can potentially cause nasty lung damage and there is evidence linking it to mental illness. It is considerably elss dangerous than many legal drugs though.

And cigs don't cause horrible lung damage? Show me this evidence of mental illness from smoking? It is a personal choice. The bourgeois government should not have the power to decide the personally choices of individual people

[jake williams]

People enjoy it and get a lot of benefit from it. There's a lot wrong with it (yes it can be unhealthy, especially mentally but conceivably physically) but this can be dealt with, and to an extent just accepted, all kinds of things have negative effects we accept. It's not really my thing, but I think it's pretty obvious it should be legalized. At a bare minimum we need to stop wasting law enforcement resources on it, or kicking people in the face for smoking a joint.

[Awful Reality]

We don't want people walking around the factories or the Central Committee stoned, but we are generally for the freedom in these situations. We don't believe in the government controlling what you put in you body- a personal choice.

[bezdomni]

Health is the wrong paradigm. It's the new moralism.

[Psy]

We don't want people walking around the factories or the Central Committee stoned, but we are generally for the freedom in these situations. We don't believe in the government controlling what you put in you body- a personal choice.
Ever work in heavy industry? Since the 70's a growing number of heavy industry proletriat are using drugs (including alcohol and pot) on the job, mostly because the workers feels drugs are the only escape from their plight, workers in heavy industry break their backs for less and wages as our unions rot into not simply being in bed with the managers but so far up managements ass you don't know the union ends and management starts.

Drugs are actually pacifying workers, instead of mad they get high as they don't want to deal with their reality.

[Spasiba]

Ever work in heavy industry? Since the 70's a growing number of heavy industry proletriat are using drugs (including alcohol and pot) on the job, mostly because the workers feels drugs are the only escape from their plight, workers in heavy industry break their backs for less and wages as our unions rot into not simply being in bed with the managers but so far up managements ass you don't know the union ends and management starts.
Wow, we're just going back a century in the way workers are treated, aren't we? Minus the constant disease and death, maybe. So, really, its capitalist paradise, isn't it?

[Holden Caulfield]

people making it a political issue are fucking hippie tools

agreed, i do not fear the law when having a joint tbh and so i dont give a fuck if it is legal or not, the fact it is illegal means that our money isn't going to some fucked up company that would assume it distribution (maybe not up on the morals as it probably goes to the worst kind of capitalists though but they have not the same means to annoy me atm)

Edit: heard the dead kenndeys song where the president tells the prime minister to 'crank up the drug supply' to keep the workers too hight to be a danger?

[bobroberts]

There is absolutely no valid reason for marijuana to be illegal.

[Demogorgon]

And cigs don't cause horrible lung damage? Show me this evidence of mental illness from smoking? It is a personal choice. The bourgeois government should not have the power to decide the personally choices of individual peopleYes cigarettes do cause lung damage, as does Cannabis, and Cannabis can definitely exacerbate, and potentially cause mental health problems-much like alcohol.

The rest of your post makes no sense in relation to my point though. I support legalising Cannabis (and all other drugs). I was pointing out that people should not kid themselves that they are harmless.

[Black Cross]

Totally LEGALIZE.
Marijuanna has record no deaths and it makes good in sick people!People with cancer and other serious health problems as well as little problems marijuana will help them,not always curing but calming as well!

Fuserg9:star:

There was a rumor of one overdose, though. I'm not sure what was concluded but the guy smoked like three ounces in a day... but who the hell does that.

Leave the decision up to the individual. As long as he/she's not impeding on the rights of others, what's the problem with autonomy? The only reason it's illegal in the u.s. is because the rich, white people, in charge of making laws back then (and still now for the majority), are racist.

[Keyser]

I support the full legalisation of all drugs.

I do drugs myself, but never to escape bad feelings, alienation or emotional despair. Nor do I take drugs to look 'radical' or 'subversive' as some lifestylists or hippies do.

I simply take them for fun and becuase it feels good, just like having a glass of chilled white wine with lunch or a nice coffee at some cafe on a sunny afternoon or reading a good book.

I don't ever read too much into my own use of drugs, it's just a way to pass time and have fun.

Although I am opposed to prohibition and the 'War on Drugs', I am fully aware that not all people are suited for drugs and that some drugs can carry health risks for some of the people who consume them. People with a pre-disposition to mental health issues should avoid cannabis, likewise people with blood pressure issues or people who have a heart condition should generally avoid drugs like cocaine, coffee and E.

But just because drugs can be a cause for concern for some people with regards to their health, is no reason whatsoever for making criminals of them. It is a health issue and should only ever be treated as such.

[redcannon]

Cannabis does contain five times the amount of tar that a cigarette does. However, do you know anyone that goes through 20 joints a day? It is, I believe, safe by health standards. I live in Orange County, CA, which has some of the worst smog in the US. I can't imagine that smoking pot is any more damaging than breathing Monoxides, Sulfer Dioxide, Ozone emissions, Volatile organic compounds, and even free-floating Lead particles.

But even that is against the point of the matter. Even if pot had a 90% overdose rate and one joint left the user mentally deficient for the rest of their lives, it should still be legal because it is not the right of any man or government to say what a person can do with their bodies.

And it's illegal because in the 1930s large corporations (like DuPont) found that cannabis could be cheaply made into long lasting materials (like rope, plastic compounds, paper, clothes) that would drive them out of business.

http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm
for more info, and ignore the fact that it's from a place called "illuminati news". All of the info is sourced.

[bezdomni]

Cannabis does contain five times the amount of tar that a cigarette does
Tar is just a nasty word. It doesn't mean anything that cannabis has more tar than cigarettes, because it has fewer carcinogens and it has been shown to have a preventative effect for the growth of tumors.

Someone said here a while ago that thinking cannabis is worse for you than tobacco because it has five times as much tar is like thinking that a pimple is five times as bad as melanoma because it is five times as large.


And it's illegal because in the 1930s large corporations (like DuPont) found that cannabis could be cheaply made into long lasting materials (like rope, plastic compounds, paper, clothes) that would drive them out of business.
It's also illegal because smoking pot was only something black people and cool white people did.

[redcannon]

Someone said here a while ago that thinking cannabis is worse for you than tobacco because it has five times as much tar is like thinking that a pimple is five times as bad as melanoma because it is five times as large.
.

good point, SovietPants. Really the problem with cigarrettes is that they are highly addictive and lethal. Marijuana is neither.

[Apollodorus]

My opinion of drugs is one of ambivalence. Most drugs should be legalised, like cannabis, heroin or any other drug which does not cause violent, anti-social behaviour: that is, if it effects or physically harms other people. That means no methamphetamines. If it effects other people then it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens. The government, or society, does not have the authority to force people to not take certain substances which will cause their person harm. However, I am no doubt in opposition to most when I say that the government, or society, does not hold responsibility for the welfare of those who neglect to listen to the advice of experts, scientists and social servants and consequently become lumpenproletarians.

[ProletariatRevolution]

capitalists didnt legalize it to take taxes because they take most of the money from cannabis!usa controls huge amount of canabbis plants in their controling countries!

Fuserg9:star:
I have no proof contradicting this statement, but I'm curious where you get your information.

[F9]

its just something that i know.I dont have evidence or something.It is my personal oppinion although!

Fuserg9:star:

[mikelepore]

In the U.S., at the start of 2008, one out of every 99.1 adults is in prison.

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/227488

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that it should be legalized.

This is a good book on the subject. It's from 2001, but it gives a clear snapshot of just how irresponsible and inept the drug laws are:

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/25/druglaws.jpg

Much of the drug legislation actually originated as racist laws targeting Mexican and Asian people.

[Harrycombs]

I personally think we should be allowed to put what ever we want in our bodies. Also, if smoking and alcohol are just as dangerous, why not allow pot? Perhaps their worried that those companies will go out of business?

[Cryotank Screams]

which does not cause violent, anti-social behaviour: that is, if it effects or physically harms other people. That means no methamphetamines.

Contrary to popular belief taking speed doesn't inherently make someone violent or anti-social nor does the use of speed inherently and instantaneously turn someone into a rambling toothless street wraith. It is possible to use meth and not become addicted and do so in a safe, fun way that harms no one (just like with alcohol).

Meth = Death = Horseshit.

[Apollodorus]

It is possible to use meth and not become addicted and do so in a safe, fun way that harms no one (just like with alcohol).

Yes, you can say that for anything, though.

It is possible to use <insert drug name here> and not become <insert side-effect here> and do so in a safe, fun way that harms no one (just like with alcohol).

To use the example of alcohol:

It is possible to use <alcohol> and not become <dead in a car crash> and do so in a safe, fun way that harms no one. But the chances are, you are mince meat sonny Jim!

[Module]

It is possible to use <alcohol> and not become <dead in a car crash> and do so in a safe, fun way that harms no one. But the chances are, you are mince meat sonny Jim!
, if you drink whilst driving, which isn't exactly a safe environment.

[Xanthus]

It's a drug with a similar degree of ill-effects as alcohol. It is better in that it doesn't make people violent, and doesn't give that "superman" effect which makes people do stupid things and think of themselves as invincible. Also, you can't die from ODing on pot, which is nice. It's worse in that it takes longer for the effects to leave the body then with alcohol, and it really drains motivation and self-discipline for many people.

Like any drug (and more so then most) the effects, both bad and occasionally good, are very highly variable depending on the person smoking. I think if it was legal, we'd see far fewer people arguing that it has more positive effects then negative ones. I've seen some people with very praticular mental conditions or who are living with chronic pain who pot obviously does help, but overall its medical effects are over-stated by proponents of legalisation.

As far as politically active people are concerned, I'd highly recommend that anybody who wants to be active stay away from it as much as possible. It leaves most people lethargic, unmotivated, and without the energy to learn or organise as much as they otherwise would. This has certainly been my experience both personally and with people I've known.

In terms of legalisation, where I live (Vancouver Canada) it'll never happen until the USA legalises, which seems very unlikely in the medium term. The difficulty is that here pot production is primarily an export industry. I've heard estimates that one in forty houses in this city is a grow-house, and that sounds not too far off the truth... could even be a low estimate. The US would never accept legalisation by the biggest supplier to their market. As with most questions, the moral aspect is ultimately a moot point.

[which doctor]

, if you drive whilst driving, which isn't exactly a safe environment.
I drive while driving whenever I drive. Personally, I think we should be more concerned with the people not driving while driving.

[Black Cross]

I drive while driving whenever I drive. Personally, I think we should be more concerned with the people not driving while driving.

hahaha, ya, that makes sense. If the debate is supposed to be over smoking while driving, I would say that's not a big deal. I smoke joints and pipes while I drive, and I've only been in one accident (that was before I was smokin, anyway). If you're dumb baked, however, maybe you should refrain if possible for the sake of others, since it will have an effect on your reflexes, not to mention your ability to understand direction, haha. The first few times I smoked ( I started on chronic [maybe a bad choice]) and drove, I recognized everything around me, but I still couldn't figure out where the fuck I was, or where I was going. :confused: <- that was me, if you need a visual aid.

[Module]

I drive while driving whenever I drive. Personally, I think we should be more concerned with the people not driving while driving.
Damn it. :D

[Crest]

I do not know of any "official" stance of Marijuana and other recreational drugs, but I personally am in agreement with the law banning them. This is partially because it keeps money from the Higher Class, partially because of the negative internal and external effects these drugs have on the addict.

[palotin]

I think nearly all drugs should be legalized. Most social harm that comes from them results either from the sanctions of repressive laws or from the violence and exploitation of criminal groups and persons, their criminal status of course derives from law. Intrusions by collectivities, whether the State or local communities, into these matters should ideally be limited to offering support for addicts and education about the risks involved.

[Black Cross]

I do not know of any "official" stance of Marijuana and other recreational drugs, but I personally am in agreement with the law banning them. This is partially because it keeps money from the Higher Class...

There shouldn't need to be a stance. It should be legalized, plain and simple. If you respect autonomy, allow people to do what they will with their own body. Resources must be made available to educate about the effects of drugs, but there should be no laws made that encroach upon our right to autonomy.

"Higher Class"? who do you mean exactly, why do you capitalize it and why do you oppose keeping money from them?


partially because of the negative internal and external effects these drugs have on the addict.

You have no responsibility to the addict. rest easy.

Does this kid need to be restricted? I'm not the one to answer that, so i'll just pose the question.

[crimsonzephyr]

http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm

[Cryotank Screams]

As far as politically active people are concerned, I'd highly recommend that anybody who wants to be active stay away from it as much as possible. It leaves most people lethargic, unmotivated, and without the energy to learn or organise as much as they otherwise would. This has certainly been my experience both personally and with people I've known.

That's rubbish and is going on the tired out myths about the 'high' experienced when smoking weed. I chief everyday and am neither lethargic, unmotivated and so on and I infact live a fairly entertaining and active life and am not on my couch laughing at children's cartoons all day as the 'stoner' stereotypes go. It is possible to smoke weed and be active within the movement. Marijuana doesn’t inherently make the worker complacent and happy with capitalism and so forth thus all arguments pushing this assertion are shit-false.


But the chances are, you are mince meat sonny Jim!

While I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here (because it appears that you are agreeing with me) I will say that if you are saying the chances of someone using speed in a "safe, fun way that harms no-one," and that won't inherently/instantaneously turn the user into a "rambling street wraith," is slim to none, then said claim is largely unsubstantiated. But again I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.


Yes, you can say that for anything, though.


Exactly my point.

When negative things come from the use of [X] drug people tend to blame "the cursed stuff," instead of the user themselves because if you do something stupid and get 'bit' as it were it isn't the drug's fault it's yours for using said substance in a stupid/ignorant way.

[Black Cross]

"http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1. htm"

That's a tight link. I didn't know about plastics from hemp oil being biodegradable. Fuckin capitalists....

thanks comrade.

[rsinger09]

decriminalization!!!!!!

[F9]

its clear that behind hemp be unlegal capitalists have a lot of benefits!So Marijuana is a revolutionary plant.

Fuserg9:star:

[pave_the_planet]

not sure if this has been said yet since im not gonna bother to read through 3 pages of potentially the same thing posted over and over ("legalize it lol")

but based on recent studies into the effects of THC, its been proven that the moderate use of marijuana will, in fact, help prevent alzheimers, and actually helps increase long term memory.

[Red Lobster]

Marijuana destroys the brain and makes the proletarian lazy. It is a bourgeois drug that creates these anarchists which are really just hippies looking for answers in life. Marijuana should be banned as well as anything that makes the proletarian lazy and lose focus on the revolution. Armchair anarchist 'revolutionaries' do nothing for the proletarian. Also, more anarchists are becoming capitalists. Marx would have spit on lazy potheads that try to make themselves out to be communists.

[Cryotank Screams]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you've never smoked up before have you? Your post reflects.


Marijuana destroys the brain and makes the proletarian lazy.

Horseshit; prove it.


It is a bourgeois drug

Throwing the word 'bourgeois' in front of words you don't like does not an argument make.


Marx would have spit on lazy potheads that try to make themselves out to be communists.

Actually from what I have heard Marx was quite the fan of 'the sauce' and drank quite a bit thus I rather think he would side with us 'stoners' rather than jackass prudes like yourself. But in all seriousness all of your assertions are baseless and moronic.

[Black Cross]

Marijuana destroys the brain and makes the proletarian lazy. It is a bourgeois drug that creates these anarchists which are really just hippies looking for answers in life. Marijuana should be banned as well as anything that makes the proletarian lazy and lose focus on the revolution. Armchair anarchist 'revolutionaries' do nothing for the proletarian. Also, more anarchists are becoming capitalists. Marx would have spit on lazy potheads that try to make themselves out to be communists.

Wow... Are you going to back these far-fetched assertions with any evidence? I'm a pothead (i guess) and since i started smokin weed, I feel no less motivated, no more lazy (maybe a little while I'm high), and no more bourgeois or capitalist than before. And I have no reason to believe Marx would spit on anyone.

And if it's a bourgeois drug, why was it banned by a few members of the bourgeois? If anything, legalising hemp would have great economic and environmental benefits; the first, at least, would be reason enough for a capitalist to want to legalise it.


Would legalising pot make it less expensive? cos we pay 90-100 bucks a quad for this shit out here in colorado. I ask cos if it were legalised, it would be taxed, but I don't know if that would be offset by any financial benefits of making it legal. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[pave_the_planet]

Marijuana destroys the brain and makes the proletarian lazy. It is a bourgeois drug that creates these anarchists which are really just hippies looking for answers in life. Marijuana should be banned as well as anything that makes the proletarian lazy and lose focus on the revolution. Armchair anarchist 'revolutionaries' do nothing for the proletarian. Also, more anarchists are becoming capitalists. Marx would have spit on lazy potheads that try to make themselves out to be communists.
wow. so do you regularly believe studies put out by the capitalist government? youre a pretty good communist.

[Jae iLL]

There is no reason to wait for Communism for Cannabis to become legal. Capitalism hardly requires it be banned and it is personally possible that the bourgeosie may decide to legalise it on their own. Those of us who believe in maximising our civil liberties (not to mention other benefits) should support it becoming illegal immediately.

I should point out though, that people should not kid themselves that Cannabis is harmless, it can potentially cause nasty lung damage and there is evidence linking it to mental illness. It is considerably elss dangerous than many legal drugs though.

care to offer some proof to your claims? I've always read the complete opposite from those claims, except for government propaganda which we all know is extremely biased.

[AlleyKat]

I really don't wish for my tax dollars to be going to a futile campaign of trying to lock up poor sods for smokin' it up. Although I personally find weed to be grotesque for various reasons.

[Outinleftfield]

I should point out though, that people should not kid themselves that Cannabis is harmless, it can potentially cause nasty lung damage and there is evidence linking it to mental illness. It is considerably elss dangerous than many legal drugs though.

Be careful when reading the mainstream media. There are no studies that have proven cannabis causes lung cancer. In fact all theyve said is that it has 5 times the amount of tar as tobacco. There are different "tars" and some are more carcinogenic than others. Besides that studies have shown THC stops tumor growth so if you factor that in it probably outweighs the carcinogenic effects of the tars at least at a certain potency.

As for mental illness some studies actually show mental health benefits. Bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety have been treated with marijuana. The main controversy is with schizophrenia, but then these studies conclude that the marijuana is causing the schizophrenia because use usually starts before diagnosis. This ignores the fact that most schizophrenics smoke tobacco and most start before they have schizophrenia, but it's known that tobacco calms down schizophrenics(not advocating schizophrenics smoke tobacco though due to its side effects). Schizophrenics usually have symptoms years before being diagnosed or they already have some conditions. So the fact that they have not been diagnosed yet does not mean they are not self-medicating. Incidentally I know a few schizophrenics who say a moderate amount of marijuana makes the voices go away. But I'd be careful about trying to use it to treat schizophrenia. I have a non-schizophrenic(far as I know) friend who says he thought his friends were zombies for a second when he had a very strong dose. Maybe it just has to do with the dose.


I definitely support marijuana legalization. There are so many benefits of the cannabis plant opposing it is insane. It has shown to have anti-cancer properties, it reduces the risk of alzheimer's, it stops tics if you have tourettes, it helps slow the progression of glaucoma, treat almost every other disease, and it can be used as paper, fuel, clothing. It's weird how many different uses there are for this plant. The only downside to legalization is that capitalists would profit off of it, but right now the prison-industrial complex is profiting off of the prohibition and Big Pharma is enjoying its protection from competition. Besides that the cannabis culture is more progressive, and we can see that medical marijuana dispensaries are usually organized as cooperatives. Maybe this trend would continue with legal recreational marijuana. Either way the prohibition industry is far more evil than any marijuana industry that would replace it.

[Misanthrope]

What I put in my body is my choice. No one has the right to decide what I do with myself.

[h0m0revolutionary]

What I put in my body is my choice. No one has the right to decide what I do with myself.


I'm not sure it's as simple as that, if you were intoxicating yourself and as a direct consequence was making the lives of others more difficult, then people would have eveyr right to impede your ability to take those substances which end up causing them harm.

I would envisage in a post-revolutionary society drug use would be free, tolerated and enjoyed without stigma and the effects (as a result) greater understood and appreciated. But of course if people cause harm to others whilst on such drugs then i'd absolutly defend the right of the majority to enforce some sort of restriction, for the benefit of the wider community.

I tihnk that need snoting, because your responce reeks of that sort of individualism that I just don't relate to at all.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I tihnk that need snoting, because your responce reeks of that sort of individualism that I just don't relate to at all.

Exactly this. I accept that drug use should be free for each person to participate in if they wish in Communist society but this attitude will not be accepted, if it is directly affecting those who have chosen not to participate or who don't want to then you should be stopped by the community.

[Killfacer]

When everything is worker run after ze revolution, who is going to make crack? Because i know alot of people who are going to be pissed off if there is a worker run crack making facility.

[gorillafuck]

When everything is worker run after ze revolution, who is going to make crack? Because i know alot of people who are going to be pissed off if there is a worker run crack making facility.
:laugh:

[NoMore]

I should point out though, that people should not kid themselves that Cannabis is harmless, it can potentially cause nasty lung damage and there is evidence linking it to mental illness. [/QUOTE]

I would like know what evidence you have of cannabis being linked with mental illness. I can see it exacerbating Preexisting mental illnesses such as paranoia-schitzophrenia but I really don't know how there is a link of it causing mental illnesses

[Agrippa]

Marijuana is a very useful medical herb with a potential for recreational abuse, just like tea, opium, coffee, hops, etc.

[Guevara-Castro]

In the words of Peter Tosh: Legalize it, don't criticize it.

[ev]

Smoke it.

[Manifesto]

People are stupid enough already we do not need to legalize it and make it even more available.

[Misanthrope]

People are stupid enough already we do not need to legalize it and make it even more available.

Weed doesn't make you stupid.

Oh, and stop calling yourself an anarchist if you are going to advocate authoritarian bullshit like this.

[Manifesto]

Weed doesn't make you stupid.

Oh, and stop calling yourself an anarchist if you are going to advocate authoritarian bullshit like this.
I meant while someone is smoking it. I'm not one of those people that think weed is a horrible thing that is damaging to people when alcohol is worse, just that people do it way too much inappropriate places like school for example and yes I know many people who do it even during class.

[Axle]

Marijuana should be made available to all who want it. The same goes with all other drugs, including harder ones like cocaine and heroin, although, personally I think using them is a monumentally bad idea...so I believe there should be truthful and accurate information circulated about the effects of the drugs.

[Unregistered]

It's a drug with a similar degree of ill-effects as alcohol.
No, you're wrong.

As far as politically active people are concerned, I'd highly recommend that anybody who wants to be active stay away from it as much as possible. It leaves most people lethargic, unmotivated, and without the energy to learn or organise as much as they otherwise would. This has certainly been my experience both personally and with people I've known.
No you know lazy, unmotivated people. Do you have any idea how stupid that analysis is? If a guy starts eating cheeseburgers and suddenly quits his job, do you draw attention to the correlation? Why is it more scientific when talking about marijuana?

Some people "get fucked" by weed because they're psychologically weak and would have fallen to something else, simply because they feel they can blame their shortcomings on weed because it's taught to us as a bad drug. But that has no use in the debate about the drug itself because if it wasn't weed something else would have fucked up those guys.

[LeninKobaMao]

Well Alcohol has ruined more lives than Marijuana has... I rest my case.

[Misanthrope]

I meant while someone is smoking it. I'm not one of those people that think weed is a horrible thing that is damaging to people when alcohol is worse, just that people do it way too much inappropriate places like school for example and yes I know many people who do it even during class.

I smoke weed before school all the time. Marijuana isn't cocaine, someone smoking a joint harms society no more than someone smoking a cigarette.

You obviously do think weed is a horrible thing that damages people, you said weed makes people stupid. Unless you don't think stupidity is demeaning?

I know you are young and are still in government education camps like myself but stop buying into the propaganda and be a little open minded and rational.


I'm not sure it's as simple as that, if you were intoxicating yourself and as a direct consequence was making the lives of others more difficult, then people would have eveyr right to impede your ability to take those substances which end up causing them harm.

I would envisage in a post-revolutionary society drug use would be free, tolerated and enjoyed without stigma and the effects (as a result) greater understood and appreciated. But of course if people cause harm to others whilst on such drugs then i'd absolutly defend the right of the majority to enforce some sort of restriction, for the benefit of the wider community.

I tihnk that need snoting, because your responce reeks of that sort of individualism that I just don't relate to at all.

Please give me some hypothetical situations where marijuana could be relevantly harmful to society and no, don't give me some DARE bullshit about a kid hitting a joint then shooting his parents.

I agree with you, if someone were to be harming society while under the influence of drugs then, it shall be taken care of just as any other crime. There really isn't a point in a dichotomy of drug related crimes and crimes.

[Manifesto]

I smoke weed before school all the time. Marijuana isn't cocaine, someone smoking a joint harms society no more than someone smoking a cigarette.

You obviously do think weed is a horrible thing that damages people, you said weed makes people stupid. Unless you don't think stupidity is demeaning?

I know you are young and are still in government education camps like myself but stop buying into the propaganda and be a little open minded and rational.

Oh come on. Do you really think that weed is really the smartest thing to do in/before school?

[Misanthrope]

Oh come on. Do you really think that weed is really the smartest thing to do in/before school?

It inspires me to learn.

[Manifesto]

Do you really learn anything when you're high?

[Misanthrope]

Do you really learn anything when you're high?

Yes. Not only do I learn, I question. I also find after smoking I have an indescribable interest in politics and history, more so than when sober.

[Manifesto]

For most they are completely spaced out.

[Misanthrope]

For most they are completely spaced out.

Maybe because the shit they spew in school is bullshit. Most every kid in school is spaced out.

[Pogue]

Its bollocks that you get deep and insightful when stoned.

[FreeFocus]

I hate drugs and alcohol and try my best not to associate with people who use them, but marijuana has some medicinal value and I don't support it being treated the same as hardcore drugs like meth (there's simply no comparison). Nonetheless, in a post-capitalist society, people ought to be free to use the stuff as long as it doesn't put others at risk. In fact, I've often wondered how we should deal with drug users - let's say someone got high in their house and no one else in the community knew, and then decided to go for a joy ride or something and ended up taking someone's life. How do we deal with that? How is it punished?

I'd imagine some communes would be drug and alcohol free completely, which is good. I'm straight edge so I'm not very sympathetic to people who argue for recreational or social use or whatever. That's bullshit, and most of the time drug and alcohol use is a sign of mental weakness, particularly when economic circumstances don't force that type of living into people's lives.

[Misanthrope]

Its bollocks that you get deep and insightful when stoned.

http://marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan


let's say someone got high in their house and no one else in the community knew, and then decided to go for a joy ride or something and ended up taking someone's life. How do we deal with that? How is it punished?

I'd imagine some communes would be drug and alcohol free completely, which is good. I'm straight edge so I'm not very sympathetic to people who argue for recreational or social use or whatever. That's bullshit, and most of the time drug and alcohol use is a sign of mental weakness, particularly when economic circumstances don't force that type of living into people's lives.

I really don't see what qualifies you to know what driving high is like when you don't associate with marijuana.

Straight edge.. do you go around beating people up for smoking cigarettes on the corner too? Straight edges are the boneheads in relation to drugs.

You have no way of knowing why some choose to go down the sad road of drug addiction. It is to escape the reality. The things we all criticize on this forum from an intellectual view point. They want to escape job loss, bills, debt, personal problems ect. Stop being an elitist fuck.

[bobroberts]

Cannabis has been used for millenia without any problems. The only time cannabis ever became a problem is when bourgeois powers that be decided it was a problem and banned it for corrupt and ignorant reasons back in the early 1900's. Any rational examination of the evidence available will come to the conclusion that cannabis is not dangerous or addictive and has only minor and temporary negative side-effects when used in moderation. By far the worst side effect of cannabis is the chance of being caught with it and having your life ruined by the state "for the good of yourself and society".

Have you ever seen any user of an illicit or recreational drug defend it's use the way cannabis users do? There is a reason for this, and it's not that people who use cannabis are just a bunch of shiftless lazy dumb-asses with nothing better to do, it's because it increases the quality of life for people who enjoy it, many times it increases it significantly.

Do you know what happens if you try marijuana and don't like it? You don't do it again. Horrible, right? Do you know what happens when you OD on marijuana (which is very difficult to do)? You have a bad time and then sleep it off. Horrible, right? Thank our benign overlords for (not really) saving us from this menace.

[gorillafuck]

People are stupid enough already we do not need to legalize it and make it even more available.
That position is ridiculously inconsistent with anarchism.

[FreeFocus]

http://marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

I really don't see what qualifies you to know what driving high is like when you don't associate with marijuana.

Straight edge.. do you go around beating people up for smoking cigarettes on the corner too? Straight edges are the boneheads in relation to drugs.

You have no way of knowing why some choose to go down the sad road of drug addiction. It is to escape the reality. The things we all criticize on this forum from an intellectual view point. They want to escape job loss, bills, debt, personal problems ect. Stop being an elitist fuck.

The effects of drugs on the brain are all similar and are well known to a person with even a rudimentary background in biology and/or psychology.

Also, good job stereotyping me. Obviously I don't go around "beating people up for smoking cigarettes," although I find it disrespectful to others and harmful to the environment. We shouldn't have to breath carcinogens in, and the carcinogens shouldn't be floating around outside. If you want to smoke, have the decency to do it in your own home. Perhaps you missed this in my first post (selective reading on your part):


people ought to be free to use the stuff as long as it doesn't put others at risk.

I don't care what people do, as long as it affects them, and only them when it's a negative effect.

Furthermore, you don't know anything about me, and to be honest I haven't seen you on the forums before. You don't know my background or where I'm from. I see shit that causes people to turn to drugs and alcohol all the time. It poisons my community. I choose not to run with that crowd but I see what causes their behavior. However, understanding circumstances is different from excusing behavior. I will not do the latter.

Don't be an asswipe. I don't go for it. :) You might be one of those "anarchists" who likes to get high and drunk and party until your life falls apart since you don't do anything else all day, but that doesn't mean you can intellectually or practically justify your lifestyle. Whatever floats your boat, but I'm not bound to respect it.

[bcbm]

The effects of drugs on the brain are all similar and are well known to a person with even a rudimentary background in biology and/or psychology.

Actually different drugs have different effects on the brain and they are not "all similar" in anyway. MDMA certainly doesn't have the same effect as marijuania which doesn't have the same effect as alcohol.


You might be one of those "anarchists" who likes to get high and drunk and party until your life falls apart since you don't do anything else all day, but that doesn't mean you can intellectually or practically justify your lifestyle.

I like that you put anarchists in quotes.:rolleyes: And yeah, if you smoke weed your life is definitely on a one way ticket to ruin. What?

[Manifesto]

That position is ridiculously inconsistent with anarchism.
Hey I said when people are smoking they are stupid. I know this guy thats like the smartest person I know and he smokes a lot of pot. Hes not dumb from it.

[FreeFocus]

Actually different drugs have different effects on the brain and they are not "all similar" in anyway. MDMA certainly doesn't have the same effect as marijuania which doesn't have the same effect as alcohol.

What I meant was that drugs slow reflexes, eliminate inhibitions, impede proper judgment, etc. Name a drug (non-prescription of course) which improves focus, reaction time, or judgment.

[bcbm]

Once again, not all drugs have those effects. A number of people have already commented that marijuania improves their focus. Reaction time? I dunno, cocaine? Reaction time isn't really that essential for, say, sitting around at your house or wandering in the woods or reading in a park. Judgment is relative, but I think marijuania can have a positive effect on that as well since some users tend to think more careful about things. In the long term, drugs like psilocybin and lsd can also be used to treat a number of problems, which would probably lead to "better judgment." Even something like MDMA has potential therapeutic effects.

[nuisance]

Its bollocks that you get deep and insightful when stoned.
That's not true. My mate often writes philosophy and draws stuff. The stuff produced is crap, obviously, but at the time quite wonderful.

[Radical]

I am for the criminalization of any type of smoking.

I am for the legalisation of Marijuana through the edible form as long as the herb is naturally grown.

Marijuana has a chemical called "THC" inside it. Growing cannabis artifically increases "THC" levels drasticly. In about 25% of people theres a gene which reacts to "THC" that can then easily cause mental health problems. The more "THC" inside Cannabis, the more likely one will develop mental health problems.

[Agrippa]

I meant while someone is smoking it. I'm not one of those people that think weed is a horrible thing that is damaging to people when alcohol is worse, just that people do it way too much inappropriate places like school for example and yes I know many people who do it even during class.

So? The teachers drink instant coffee in their break-room in between clases. What's the difference? THC effects some peoples' states of consciousness negatively, and others positively, just like caffeine.

Why is an anarchist decrying the unauthorized, "inappropriate" consumption of an illegal, state-regulated, mundane household item with multiple medical uses?


Do you really learn anything when you're high?

Some people it helps focus. It's one of the best (and oldest) cures for many disorders that are lumped in the "ADHD" category by the psychiatric establishment. To others, it just makes their minds slower and sluggish. That's because different people have different body-times and different psychological disposissions. I cannot consume any caffeine (even in the form of milk chocolate) without suffering from a serious, very negative mood-altering experience that sometimes causes physical pain.

[gorillafuck]

Hey I said when people are smoking they are stupid. I know this guy thats like the smartest person I know and he smokes a lot of pot. Hes not dumb from it.
You said it should stay illegal.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I am for the criminalization of any type of smoking.

And I'm for the criminalization of stupidity. I guess that makes us enemies.

Sorry, but I'm not going to bake brownies every time I want to get high.

Also, I'll grow my pot however I damn well like. The more THC the better.

The part about criminalizing stupidity was a joke by the way. I'm not an authoritarian d-bag like many on this forum apparently are. Communists/Anarchists supporting the lobbying of the timber industry and the capitalist propaganda that goes with it.. how funny.

[RHIZOMES]

I think marijuana should be legal, and making it illegal does nothing to stop its use and the war on drugs is just a way to throw majority working class people in prison, or at the very least people from various subcultures the authorities find threatening. If it is legal there could be public information campaigns on responsible use and support groups for people who do abuse it, like with alcohol. The majority of cannabis users are just regular productive every day people, like me.

[Hit The North]

And I'm for the criminalization of stupidity. I guess that makes us enemies.

:cool:

Just thought that needed repeating.

[Misanthrope]

The effects of drugs on the brain are all similar and are well known to a person with even a rudimentary background in biology and/or psychology.

Wrong.

http://www.brainsource.com/brain_on_drugs.htm



Also, good job stereotyping me.



You might be one of those "anarchists" who likes to get high and drunk and party until your life falls apart since you don't do anything else all day, but that doesn't mean you can intellectually or practically justify your lifestyle

Fuck off, hypocrite. You are stereotyping all marijuana users. I guess Carl Sagan was just a "scientist" that likes to get high because he has such a pathetic life. I guess Ricky Williams, a "professional football player" that just likes to get high to fulfill his pathetic life.

Give me a break, stop being an elitist judgmental fuck.

[Sarah Palin]

LEEEEEEGGAAAAALLIIZZZZZEEEEEE

It ain't bad man; heroin, crack, meth, etc are far worse.

[Manifesto]

You said it should stay illegal.
I did not mean it like that but certain drugs should not be used like coke, heroin, ecstasy, and meth. That stuff is dangerous and everybody I know that smokes pot (which is everybody I know) would not touch that crap.

[StalinFanboy]

There is no reason to wait for Communism for Cannabis to become legal. Capitalism hardly requires it be banned and it is personally possible that the bourgeosie may decide to legalise it on their own. Those of us who believe in maximising our civil liberties (not to mention other benefits) should support it becoming illegal immediately.

I should point out though, that people should not kid themselves that Cannabis is harmless, it can potentially cause nasty lung damage and there is evidence linking it to mental illness. It is considerably elss dangerous than many legal drugs though.
Wat

[StalinFanboy]

I hate drugs and alcohol and try my best not to associate with people who use them, but marijuana has some medicinal value and I don't support it being treated the same as hardcore drugs like meth (there's simply no comparison). Nonetheless, in a post-capitalist society, people ought to be free to use the stuff as long as it doesn't put others at risk. In fact, I've often wondered how we should deal with drug users - let's say someone got high in their house and no one else in the community knew, and then decided to go for a joy ride or something and ended up taking someone's life. How do we deal with that? How is it punished? They are punished for killing someone. That is the crime right? Drug use shouldn't be a crime.


I'd imagine some communes would be drug and alcohol free completely, which is good. I'm straight edge so I'm not very sympathetic to people who argue for recreational or social use or whatever. That's bullshit, and most of the time drug and alcohol use is a sign of mental weakness, particularly when economic circumstances don't force that type of living into people's lives.Shut the fuck up. Seriously, just stop. Recreational drug use happens because getting high or drunk or whatever is fun, not because they are weak. Way to make yourself look like a typical piece of shit edger.

[FreeFocus]

Wrong.

http://www.brainsource.com/brain_on_drugs.htm

Fuck off, hypocrite. You are stereotyping all marijuana users. I guess Carl Sagan was just a "scientist" that likes to get high because he has such a pathetic life. I guess Ricky Williams, a "professional football player" that just likes to get high to fulfill his pathetic life.

Give me a break, stop being an elitist judgmental fuck.

lol, fucking fool, giving a link that elaborates on all the negative effects of drugs that I alluded to in previous posts.

Also, good job selectively quoting my post. How about you address the whole thing, or is that too inconvenient for your ignorant ass?

And Bring It!, you can fuck off buddy. If I consider it weakness, then that's my opinion. You're still free to get high and drunk, so "shut the fuck up. Seriously, just stop." :rolleyes:

[StalinFanboy]

lol, fucking fool, giving a link that elaborates on all the negative effects of drugs that I alluded to in previous posts.

Also, good job selectively quoting my post. How about you address the whole thing, or is that too inconvenient for your ignorant ass?

And Bring It!, you can fuck off buddy. If I consider it weakness, then that's my opinion. You're still free to get high and drunk, so "shut the fuck up. Seriously, just stop." :rolleyes:
He was disproving you saying that the effects of all drugs are similar.

And of course you can have your opinion. But everytime you spout it off, just know that you sound like an ignorant, elitist twat.

[FreeFocus]

He was disproving you saying that the effects of all drugs are similar.

And of course you can have your opinion. But everytime you spout it off, just know that you sound like an ignorant, elitist twat.

Perhaps he "missed" my other post on the previous page, when bcbm made me clarify my statement:


What I meant was that drugs slow reflexes, eliminate inhibitions, impede proper judgment, etc. Name a drug (non-prescription of course) which improves focus, reaction time, or judgment. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1500662&postcount=93)

The site WOP provided merely backs my case.

On heroin,


it leaves the use[r] in a fog for many hours afterwards.

On marijuana,


Smoking it can not only weaken short-term memory, but can block information from making it into long term memory. It has also been shown to weaken problem solving ability.

Hmmm, sounds like users of both end up in a "fog for many hours afterwards."

On alcohol,


Alcohol impairs judgment and leads to memory lapses. It can lead to blackouts. It distorts vision, shortens coordination, and in addition to the brain can damage every other organ in the body.

Hmmm, like marijuana?

Just a few examples. I never said the biological mechanisms were identical, but the end effects are for the most part very similar for the major street drugs.

Also, if you consider getting drunk and high fun, great good and dandy for you, I won't stop you, nor do I give a fuck (as long as you don't endanger anyone else while you're getting tipsy and "having fun"). I think you need to mature quite a bit mentally, but hey, I'm free to avoid your ass.

[StalinFanboy]

I don't know why you exclude prescription drugs from being listed as substances that don't slow down your system. Prescriptions drugs are used recreationally just as much as non-prescription drugs. And no the end effects of marijuana and heroin are VERY different.

I don't know why you're so caught up drugs slowing people down or impeding judgment. Certainly if drugs are taken irresponsibly, these things can be negative. But if I'm smoking or drinking with some friends at someone's house, this isn't a problem.

It seems like your ridiculous stance on drug use is a reaction to the way drug use (especially alcohol) is seen in America. Drinking or doing drugs to have fun does not make someone any more or less mature. Unless you care to explain why you think people who find drug use fun are immature.

[bobroberts]

Also, if you consider getting drunk and high fun, great good and dandy for you, I won't stop you, nor do I give a fuck (as long as you don't endanger anyone else while you're getting tipsy and "having fun"). I think you need to mature quite a bit mentally, but hey, I'm free to avoid your ass.

There are lots of activities I find no joy in or disapprove of and don't understand why people engage in them, but I try not to be judgmental about the people who do engage in them and don't pretend like I am somehow better than they are because of it. Frankly, it's somewhat immature and arrogant to think that way.

If people can articulate reasons why they enjoy smoking weed, maybe you should listen to them, instead of dismissing them as immature twats who are just making excuses as to why they aren't living up to your standards. I don't know if you mean to come across that way, but I have found this to be a common perception among people who have no experience with marijuana or illicit drug use, and a a century worth of drug war propaganda drilled into their heads.

[FreeFocus]

There are lots of activities I find no joy in or disapprove of and don't understand why people engage in them, but I try not to be judgmental about the people who do engage in them and don't pretend like I am somehow better than they are because of it. Frankly, it's somewhat immature and arrogant to think that way.

If people can articulate reasons why they enjoy smoking weed, maybe you should listen to them, instead of dismissing them as immature twats who are just making excuses as to why they aren't living up to your standards. I don't know if you mean to come across that way, but I have found this to be a common perception among people who have no experience with marijuana or illicit drug use, and a a century worth of drug war propaganda drilled into their heads.

You can have your opinion of me, and me of you. Works out fair in the end. It's not like if I saw you somewhere smoking weed that I'd go up to you and start insulting you. I'd simply avoid you.

And yeah, maybe I'm wrong, you know smoking weed is real revolutionary, I just got this bourgeois propaganda stuck in my head. :rolleyes:

This thread is pretty silly. The leftist stance on drugs is a libertarian one, people can do what they want. I didn't see anyone in this thread advocate blocking access to drugs. However, I would advocate disallowing their use outside of a house or a drug use center (as silly as some may think this idea is, why not have a center for drug users?). The environment shouldn't be getting polluted by nicotine, for example. Other people shouldn't be forced to breath it in.

[Misanthrope]

lol, fucking fool, giving a link that elaborates on all the negative effects of drugs that I alluded to in previous posts.

Also, good job selectively quoting my post. How about you address the whole thing, or is that too inconvenient for your ignorant ass?

And Bring It!, you can fuck off buddy. If I consider it weakness, then that's my opinion. You're still free to get high and drunk, so "shut the fuck up. Seriously, just stop." :rolleyes:

Your statement didn't entail that the effects were negative, you said that the effects were all similar.

What was there to address? You were just *****ing about how I don't understand you.. about how you are oh so complicated and I just stereotyped you. Boo hoo. All I did was show where you were *****ing about being stereotyped and a paragraph later you stereotyped me.


Perhaps he "missed" my other post on the previous page, when bcbm made me clarify my statement:



The site WOP provided merely backs my case.

On heroin,



On marijuana,



Hmmm, sounds like users of both end up in a "fog for many hours afterwards."

On alcohol,



Hmmm, like marijuana?



Lol. You don't stay in a "fog for hours afterward" after smoking. Stop preaching on a subject you know nothing about and have no experience with. Moreover, a marijuana high is a lighter, more relaxing high while heroin is an energetic high.

Oh yeah, weed weakens problem solving ability. It sure didn't do so with a genius such as Carl Sagan.

I hear the same crap you spew in health class:laugh:

xxx for life broooo I got better things to do! sit around fuck my head! hangout with the living dead! snort white shit up my nose! pass out at the shows!!!!!!!!! I VE GOT THE STR8 EDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!! I VE GOT THE STR8 [email protected][email protected][email protected]!!!

[bobroberts]

You can have your opinion of me, and me of you. Works out fair in the end. It's not like if I saw you somewhere smoking weed that I'd go up to you and start insulting you. I'd simply avoid you.

And yeah, maybe I'm wrong, you know smoking weed is real revolutionary, I just got this bourgeois propaganda stuck in my head. :rolleyes:

This thread is pretty silly. The leftist stance on drugs is a libertarian one, people can do what they want. I didn't see anyone in this thread advocate blocking access to drugs. However, I would advocate disallowing their use outside of a house or a drug use center (as silly as some may think this idea is, why not have a center for drug users?). The environment shouldn't be getting polluted by nicotine, for example. Other people shouldn't be forced to breath it in.

Smoking weed isn't necessarily revolutionary, although it was used as an excuse by Nixon to start the modern drug war as a means to crack down on leftist groups and minorities, but neither is taking a walk to the park, watching a movie, fucking, or any number of things people here enjoy doing. Anyone who tries to limit their activities to those which are strictly revolutionary need to smoke a joint and relax.

Anti-drug propaganda is embedded in our culture. There is no escape from it, and whether you like it or not, it has effected your thinking on the matter. It probably effected the way you think about drug users before you even had the ability to think critically about anything. Treating people who use a certain "forbidden" drugs as lesser than yourself or other "normal" people is the mentality that allows these dumbass laws to stay on the books.

[bobroberts]

Oh yeah, weed weakens problem solving ability. It sure didn't do so with a genius such as Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan was a slacker nobody along with the rest of these losers:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2783.html

Or check out these douchebags:
http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/

Shiftless, lazy dumbasses. The lot of 'em.

[IrishWorker]

Soft recreational drugs like marijuana should be legalized you can buy a marijuana substitute legally over the counter here in Ireland that has the same effect and I see no real detrimental problems arising out of that.
But we need to draw a clear line in the sand as to what is acceptable to society and what is counterproductive.
Hard drugs that can ruin vunerable peoples lives break up family’s and fund crime should be stamped out.
And a clear word to all you pro legalization of every drug lunatics you cannot be a socialist and a hard drug user at the same time if you are then you are a hypocrite you cannot on one hand support the theory of a equal just ideology but not practice it in real life.
Do you for one second think that the workers will listen to you’re politics if you run around supporting the legalization of Heroin? Are you fucking mad or what? But its typical of you Politically Correct wannabe "Communists" you are wankers if you ask me.

[Pogue]

Soft recreational drugs like marijuana should be legalized you can buy a marijuana substitute legally over the counter here in Ireland that has the same effect and I see no real detrimental problems arising out of that.
But we need to draw a clear line in the sand as to what is acceptable to society and what is counterproductive.
Hard drugs that can ruin vunerable peoples lives break up family’s and fund crime should be stamped out.
And a clear word to all you pro legalization of every drug lunatics you cannot be a socialist and a hard drug user at the same time if you are then you are a hypocrite you cannot on one hand support the theory of a equal just ideology but not practice it in real life.
Do you for one second think that the workers will listen to you’re politics if you run around supporting the legalization of Heroin? Are you fucking mad or what? But its typical of you Politically Correct wannabe "Communists" you are wankers if you ask me.

But we support its legalisation based on the fact it becomes easier to police and manage. Do you oppose it on the basis of that?

[IrishWorker]

But we support its legalisation based on the fact it becomes easier to police and manage. Do you oppose it on the basis of that?
We cannot police and manage hard drugs its imposable why would you want to police and manage such poisons in society?
The effects of hard drugs on workers lives and communities are horrendous why would you want to police and manage substances like that?
A hard line for those who poison the working class is what’s needed capitalist drug dealers should be dealt with as harshly as possible addicts should be forced into treatment.

[khad]

We cannot police and manage hard drugs its imposable why would you want to police and manage such poisons in society?
The effects of hard drugs on workers lives and communities are horrendous why would you want to police and manage substances like that?
A hard line for those who poison the working class is what’s needed capitalist drug dealers should be dealt with as harshly as possible addicts should be forced into treatment.
You'd be amazed how many tears and bleeding hearts go out for the biggest drug dealing kingpins:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/raad-issues-death-t113735/index.html

[Pogue]

We cannot police and manage hard drugs its imposable why would you want to police and manage such poisons in society?
The effects of hard drugs on workers lives and communities are horrendous why would you want to police and manage substances like that?
A hard line for those who poison the working class is what’s needed capitalist drug dealers should be dealt with as harshly as possible addicts should be forced into treatment.

And you really think harsher sentences solves anything? heard of prohibition? I'd like you tell prove how keeping them illegal will solve anything. The punishments exist, people still do them. Harsher sentencing never works.

[IrishWorker]

And you really think harsher sentences solves anything? heard of prohibition? I'd like you tell prove how keeping them illegal will solve anything. The punishments exist, people still do them. Harsher sentencing never works.
Harsher sentencing is not what I propose chara Drug Barons and Dealers are a scourge on the class prison will not rehabilitate those vultures.
Extermination is the only option.

[Trystan]

Personally, I think all drugs should be legal. I even made a rhyming couplet about it, just so you know I'm serious:

Don't stop at pot
Legalise the lot

[IrishWorker]

Personally, I think all drugs should be legal. I even made a rhyming couplet about it, just so you know I'm serious:

Don't stop at pot
Legalise the lot


And this is why you are and will always be irrelevant to society and the workers.

[Pogue]

Harsher sentencing is not what I propose chara Drug Barons and Dealers are a scourge on the class prison will not rehabilitate those vultures.
Extermination is the only option.

And you think if you kill them all drugs will stop being produced, distributed and taken?

[IrishWorker]

And you think if you kill them all drugs will stop being produced, distributed and taken?

It’s the pure simplicity of the whole thing that works forced rehabilitation of the addicts and death to the enemy’s of the class.

[Pogue]

It’s the pure simplicity of the whole thing that works forced rehabilitation of the addicts and death to the enemy’s of the class.

Forced rehabilitation ey? For every single person who uses it? And then drugs will simply disappear?

[IrishWorker]

Why ban something simply because it can be harmful? Drugs have proven to also be very useful tools, if utilized carefully and responsibly. By your logic we should also "stamp out" scissors and pencils.


It seems apparent by this point that they're going to be a part of society regardless, so it makes quite a lot more sense to "police and manage" them and treat drug addiction as an illness instead of a crime than it does to leave all management up to the "vulturous" drug barons and toss the addicts in cages, no?


Yeah, and the "cocaine cowboys" drug wars we saw in Miami in the '70s and '80s, as a direct result of drug prohibition, for example, were great for the workers' lives and communities!


Yes! That's the solution! Why repeal the laws that created those drug barons and dealers in the first place when we could just KILL EVERYONE INVOLVED?! Hell, the only question now is why didn't anyone come up with such a brilliant resolution sooner?!

At the end of the day, after all your pissing and moaning about "addicts" and "enemies of the class", there still exists a myriad of frequent pot-smokers and occasional acid-droppers in the world who are far more intelligent than you and I, more athletic than you and I, more accomplished than you and I, more artistic than you and I, and more valuable to the eventual triumph of socialism than you and I. How you've mustered up the nerve to actually claim that the advocacy of across-the-board drug legalization and drug use itself are somehow irreconcilable with the interests of the working class and imply their 'anti-socialist' makeup, and then follow it with an entirely sincere proposition of genocide, is beyond me.


Whilst living in Capitalist society we cannot punish the barons the way we should, but in the parts of Ireland where Republican justice is the law of the land this type of punishment is what the people call for to protect there children and community’s from this scourge so in calling my views harsh you are going against the wishes of the community that I live in.

Not only have the people in my community been subjected to decades of British oppression now that peace has come are we now to be subjected to the scourge of Heroin and other hard drugs that are rife in other capitalist controlled city’s?

Crime and Drug abuse can be successfully dealt with in a socialist society in a generation by no mercy justice if a person by his/her actions are counter productive and they stop other people from living a peaceful life then they should not be permitted to exist.

[Pogue]

Whilst living in Capitalist society we cannot punish the barons the way we should, but in the parts of Ireland where Republican justice is the law of the land this type of punishment is what the people call for to protect there children and community’s from this scourge so in calling my views harsh you are going against the wishes of the community that I live in.

Not only have the people in my community been subjected to decades of British oppression now that peace has come are we now to be subjected to the scourge of Heroin and other hard drugs that are rife in other capitalist controlled city’s?

Crime and Drug abuse can be successfully dealt with in a socialist society in a generation by no mercy justice if a person by his/her actions are counter productive and they stop other people from living a peaceful life then they should not be permitted to exist.

Oh, was there a vote held on who wanted the republicans to start killing drug dealers? Was it formally passed that this is what the community want?

I've heard from Irish comrades that Republicans in the north have massive illusions of grandeur about how much the community actually supports them.

[IrishWorker]

Oh, was there a vote held on who wanted the republicans to start killing drug dealers? Was it formally passed that this is what the community want?

I've heard from Irish comrades that Republicans in the north have massive illusions of grandeur about how much the community actually supports them.

He said she said behind the seesaw.....is basically you’re argument then.

Classy.

[StalinFanboy]

He said she said behind the seesaw.....is basically you’re argument then.

Classy.
It's pretty rad that you're taking an argument that completely ignores the conditions that push people to use drugs.

[IrishWorker]

It's pretty rad that you're taking an argument that completely ignores the conditions that push people to use drugs.
Capitalism is directly or indirectly the cause of most drug abuse.
In Capitalist society personal wealth and greed are paramount to all other social standings when a worker cannot achieve his/her desired social standing then no doubt that leads to insecurity and a sense of worthlessness which can lead to substance abuse and/or Dealing in those poisons to there fellow workers so if we want to eradicate drug abuse and crime first we must properly eradicate capitalism and enforce no mercy justice on the vultures who prey on the worker and forced rehabilitation of the addict.

[fiddlesticks]

I really can't think of anything bad that would come with marijuana being legalized. I know so many people that need to smoke it, because of cancer, an eating disorder, glaucoma, or plain depression..who's the victim? I surely don't see any. Alcohol kills more people than weed has ever killed.

[Trystan]

Hard drugs that can ruin vunerable peoples lives break up family’s and fund crime should be stamped out.

Cleaning products can have the same effect. You can get high on them, but they can kill you first time. We might as well ban them, and ban glue sticks too. :lol:

[Trystan]

And this is why you are and will always be irrelevant to society and the workers.

Perhaps. But I don't see your bloodthirsty, authoritarian attitude catching on, either.

[Communist Theory]

I respond to this as I light a joint.

All For It!

[HeartlessLibertarian]

Legalize drugs. If people want to get addicted, its their right.

[JimmyJazz]

Legalize drugs. If people want to get addicted, its their right.

But I thought a major libertarian critique of socialism was that it would make everyone unproductive?

[redasheville]

bah i like pot but i am not crazy about it being "legal" or not. people making it a political issue are fucking hippie tools

Seeing that tons of money is pumped into throwing people in jail over marijuana offenses, I'd say that making it a political issue hardly makes one a "tool".

[StalinFanboy]

Seeing that tons of money is pumped into throwing people in jail over marijuana offenses, I'd say that making it a political issue hardly makes one a "tool".
And how many poor people suffer(especially poor people of colour) because of the drug war.

[bobroberts]

And how many poor people suffer(especially poor people of colour) because of the drug war.

I can't think of any better issue that demonstrates the arbitrary stupidity, waste, and oppression of our system or laws. Even if you ignore the pros and cons of marijuana, the idea that an elite group of people, no matter how good or ill intentioned, should have the authority to ban anything based on a whim is the problem.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

But I thought a major libertarian critique of socialism was that it would make everyone unproductive?
1. Personally I have many reasons to be opposed to socialism, however thats not at the top of my list.
2. If a person choose to do something, and it doesnt effect anyone elses life, liberty, or ( dont flame) property, then it should be. Legal. Another example, I am for prostitution.
Pretty much, if you want to make yourself unproductive then do that. But dont expect any assistance from me or the government.

[HeartlessLibertarian]

I can't think of any better issue that demonstrates the arbitrary stupidity, waste, and oppression of our system or laws. Even if you ignore the pros and cons of marijuana, the idea that an elite group of people, no matter how good or ill intentioned, should have the authority to ban anything based on a whim is the problem.
Wow, I don't expect to be able to say this on here much, but I agree.

[IrishWorker]

Perhaps. But I don't see your bloodthirsty, authoritarian attitude catching on, either.
You would be surprised comrade what type of justice workers are ready to dispense on a whim to undesirables.

[Ciarán (A)]

I'd like to meet the revolutionary leftist who is AGAINST total legalization of Marijuana.

:blackA:

[mannetje]

It should be legalized. so that there will be no criminal bullshit around it anymore.

[Abc]

making pot illegal CREATES crime, look at Prohibition and how much crime there was because of it, same thing with marijuana as long as its illegal there will be a criminal market for it

[RIKU]

I'm wholly opposed to recreational drug use and alcoholism, which I consider to be major public health problems. Cannabis solely for medicinal purposes isn't exactly preferable to less stupefying alternatives.

[Muzk]

If the state illegalizes a market, the lumpens will use it.

Anyways, smoking is wrong!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I'm wholly opposed to recreational drug use and alcoholism, which I consider to be major public health problems.

My "health problems" (smoking pot a health problem? ridiculous) are my own business thank you very much. And if I actually enjoy my "health problems" because it makes the working class life easier and less stressful I don't see why that should be of any concern to you or anyone else.

[KarlMarx1989]

Here is the thing with any drugs: They make people stupid. Why do I make such a radical remark? That is because any drug affects one's memory. If drugs are done at an early age like they are in christian-America, they make one forget what they've learned in school. When you don't remember what you've learned, you don't learn at all. If you don't learn, you can't get through school (unless you're a sports star, of course:rolleyes:) and many drop out. Some others skip school a lot to do drugs and get suspended, and some even skip so much that they get expelled. When you don't finish school--or get into college-- you are far less likely to get a job. When you don't have a job, you don't have money, and you're not helping in the society either. However, the above is only applicable in a Capitalist society. In a Socialist society, it is a different story.

I think that it would be best for a Capitalist country to outlaw drugs. Overall, I think drugs should be discouraged because they make people stupid. However, I believe that drugs should be up to the choice of the user; and actually I believe that the misuse of drugs is far more important to discourage than the use overall.

[Coggeh]

Here is the thing with any drugs: They make people stupid. Why do I make such a radical remark? That is because any drug affects one's memory. If drugs are done at an early age like they are in christian-America, they make one forget what they've learned in school. When you don't remember what you've learned, you don't learn at all. If you don't learn, you can't get through school (unless you're a sports star, of course:rolleyes:) and many drop out. Some others skip school a lot to do drugs and get suspended, and some even skip so much that they get expelled. When you don't finish school--or get into college-- you are far less likely to get a job. When you don't have a job, you don't have money, and you're not helping in the society either. However, the above is only applicable in a Capitalist society. In a Socialist society, it is a different story. Drugs have generally the same effect physically and mentally in a capitalist world as they do in a socialist world . We do not promote the use of drugs . We want to legalise it because it would make it safer , it would be regulated , it would deter crime and the forcing of drugs into communties , the money wouldn't go to 'criminals' but to the state to reinvest into education about drugs and rehab centers etc.



I think that it would be best for a Capitalist country to outlaw drugs. Overall, I think drugs should be discouraged because they make people stupid. However, I believe that drugs should be up to the choice of the user; and actually I believe that the misuse of drugs is far more important to discourage than the use overall.Outlawing drugs has absolutely no effect on drug use . Think about it , If i wanted lsd , cocaine , weed etc it would take me at longest a day to get it .Is it safe ? no way of telling . Am i going to get shot trying to buy it ? have to take that chance. Will i have to pay an extortionate amount of money for it ? yes. If drugs were legalised and regulated this wouldn't be the case

[Junna]

My "health problems" (smoking pot a health problem? ridiculous) are my own business thank you very much. And if I actually enjoy my "health problems" because it makes the working class life easier and less stressful I don't see why that should be of any concern to you or anyone else.

Hello there, Liberal. :(

[RotStern]

Weed should be legalized man made drugs decriminalized.
Prohibition doesn't work.
America has been fighting a ling war on drugs and they've gotten nowhere.
In Canada when its easier to get Drugs than alcohol, you know you've lost :lol:

[bcbm]

Here is the thing with any drugs: They make people stupid. Why do I make such a radical remark? That is because any drug affects one's memory.

I think this is a completely absurd comment. Long term drug use certainly affects one's memory, but this is true as much of legal drugs as illegal ones, and few studies have been done to determine the real long-term effects of illegal drug use. What has been done has mostly focused on heavy drug users who may also be using more than one drug habitually. Even so, the evidence suggests that illegal drugs aren't really that much worse than many legal ones in terms of long-term effects. So, no, drugs do not make people stupid.


If drugs are done at an early age like they are in christian-America, they make one forget what they've learned in school.

Nobody is advocating the use of drugs among schoolchildren, as far as I can tell, but this is another absurd argument. Drugs (which ones?) don't instantly wipe your memory. Some might make you more hazy for a period of time, but you're still going to come away with something. Or at least all of the stoners I know with college diplomas or more would suggest as much.


Some others skip school a lot to do drugs and get suspended, and some even skip so much that they get expelled.

I don't think drugs usually are the cause for people skipping school. Believe it or not, our educational model leaves a lot to be desired for a lot of people.


When you don't finish school--or get into college-- you are far less likely to get a job. When you don't have a job, you don't have money, and you're not helping in the society either.

You haven't spent much time in the working world, have you?

----


Cannabis solely for medicinal purposes isn't exactly preferable to less stupefying alternatives.

Care to elaborate?

[gorillafuck]

Hello there, Liberal. :(
Because he likes weed?

Jesus masturbating Christ, who ISN'T a liberal?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Hello there, Liberal. :(

I hope you're joking.

[KarlMarx1989]

Drugs have generally the same effect physically and mentally in a capitalist world as they do in a socialist world . We do not promote the use of drugs . We want to legalise it because it would make it safer , it would be regulated , it would deter crime and the forcing of drugs into communties , the money wouldn't go to 'criminals' but to the state to reinvest into education about drugs and rehab centers etc.
This seems fair. I like this idea.

[Outinleftfield]

Here is the thing with any drugs: They make people stupid. Why do I make such a radical remark? That is because any drug affects one's memory.

Drug-A chemical that alters the user physically or mentally.

Drug is a very broad category and different drugs can have very different effects. There are even drugs that improve memory and other cognitive functions. These are known as nootropics.

And while marijuana causes short term memory while high loss studies show it prevents Alzheimer's which means it prevents loss in long-term memory over time. Short term memory problems after your stoned because you did it earlier havent been proven and from personal experience I'd say is not a problem or at least not if you don't use it too heavily. Just don't go to class or work stoned.

Marijuana also changes how people think about things while they're high. I don't think it's a coincidence that this drug has been so popular in the left. You watch movies, listen to music, etc. and discover different perspectives and see underlying messages. For example, Spaceballs has analogies for imperialism (Spaceballs(US) taking resources from Druidia(Third World), class prejudice, the power of Big Pharma(Prince Valium) and our society's overreliance on pharmaceuticals. The princesses runaway from the wedding and change in personality over the course of the movie is an analogy for rejecting bourgeois values and joining the working class in its struggle. It is a lot easier to think of new and creative ideas.


When you don't finish school--or get into college-- you are far less likely to get a job. When you don't have a job, you don't have money, and you're not helping in the society either. However, the above is only applicable in a Capitalist society. In a Socialist society, it is a different story.

The problem is that prohibition makes it hard to get into college or get a job. You can have a 4.0 GPA, take honors classes, and get caught with a doobie in high school and lose all financial aid for college and have that on your permanent job record. The people who use drugs so much that it prevents them from doing anything else are the ones who will use drugs whether or not it is illegal so in the end prohibition is only making it harder not easier for people to contribute to society.

[Kassad]

I really hate to generalize, but I feel like a lot of the anti-drug sentiment in this thread is being propagated by people who either have never tried drugs or really have absolutely no comprehension of the people who take drugs, the effects they have and the culture they create. To generalize again, anyone who thinks that regulation or control over drug use is 'necessary' is pretty ignorant.

Let's look at a scenario. James sells pot out of his house. He gets a lot of good business selling all different kinds of marijuana. James, like a lot of drug dealers, has a provider who sells him his product and if you don't understand how pot works, the more you buy, the more of a deal you get. If you buy $500 of pot, you get more with that than you do buying from 5 different people for $100 each. Of course, pot can be grown pretty easily and rather efficiently, but because Johnny Law can pretty much tear your ass apart for even having this stuff on your person, the trade for the substance becomes incredibly difficult and expensive to get it across borders, pass it along and distribute. This makes the price skyrocket. Imagine if you were trying to sell any other natural plant that grows in your front yard for $100 an ounce. Good luck, because no one will buy it. Instead, marijuana becomes incredibly expensive because it is difficult to distribute due to strict regulations. James will probably go on to make a lot of money off his product. Now, if pot was legalized and completely decriminalized, it could honestly be sold like a household plant. It would be legal, easy to distribute and much easier to use, which would actually promote a decent agricultural market. The price would drop immensely. Drug dealers would no longer be drug dealers and the drug market for pot would be completely anihilated.

If you're still thinking like a reactionary fascist at this point, keep reading, but try to squeeze a second in to grag something large and heavy to repeatedly hit yourself in your reproductive organ so you'll never be able to produce offspring. Let's try another scenario. Amanda lives in Guatemala. Through her different sources, she's been able to smuggle cocaine into a multitude of different countries. She has massive underground connection and is raking in money because of the relatively easy process of obtaining cocaine along with its massive selling price. Amanda can actually gain control of a sigificant strata of society thanks to her drug trade, for example, by paying off mercenaries and back-door dealers to protect and continue her operation. She makes substantial income. Now, imagine cocaine was completely legalized in the United States. The price for coke would plummet because it would no longer be distributed in underground sources, but it would exist in mainstream society. Amanda's entire operation would collapse because she might as well be selling baking soda.

Some people are going to come out and say "But Kassad, if we legalize all these drugs, everyone will just get fucked up all the time." Well, let me ask you this. Before prohibition, was there any real massive threats of alcoholism? Or did alcoholism increase after prohobition? Did prohibition not create a massive underground crime wave because it made something desired illegal and highly profitable, thus creating more criminal activity? Before the War on Drugs, which was started by Christian fundamentalist reactionaries (so those of you who support it should look at who your ideology matches up with. Nixon? Reagan? That should bother you), hardcore drugs, especially homemade ones such as meth and cocaine, were almost unheard of, if not non-existent. It was the regulation of drugs that really weren't harmful at all that created back-alley markets for highly addictive and dangerous drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth. So tell me, who's really the enemy here? Drugs? The drug culture? Not at all. The enemy is reactionary regulation of regular substances that lead to the creation of profitable drug trades and the desire to create homemade dangerous drugs.

Too long, didn't read? No problem. I'll summarize: If you support the drug war, kill yourself.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I'll summarize: If you support the drug war, kill yourself.

Amen. (in a purely non-religious and non-hierarchical way)

[IrishWorker]

I really hate to generalize, but I feel like a lot of the anti-drug sentiment in this thread is being propagated by people who either have never tried drugs or really have absolutely no comprehension of the people who take drugs, the effects they have and the culture they create. To generalize again, anyone who thinks that regulation or control over drug use is 'necessary' is pretty ignorant.

Let's look at a scenario. James sells pot out of his house. He gets a lot of good business selling all different kinds of marijuana. James, like a lot of drug dealers, has a provider who sells him his product and if you don't understand how pot works, the more you buy, the more of a deal you get. If you buy $500 of pot, you get more with that than you do buying from 5 different people for $100 each. Of course, pot can be grown pretty easily and rather efficiently, but because Johnny Law can pretty much tear your ass apart for even having this stuff on your person, the trade for the substance becomes incredibly difficult and expensive to get it across borders, pass it along and distribute. This makes the price skyrocket. Imagine if you were trying to sell any other natural plant that grows in your front yard for $100 an ounce. Good luck, because no one will buy it. Instead, marijuana becomes incredibly expensive because it is difficult to distribute due to strict regulations. James will probably go on to make a lot of money off his product. Now, if pot was legalized and completely decriminalized, it could honestly be sold like a household plant. It would be legal, easy to distribute and much easier to use, which would actually promote a decent agricultural market. The price would drop immensely. Drug dealers would no longer be drug dealers and the drug market for pot would be completely anihilated.

If you're still thinking like a reactionary fascist at this point, keep reading, but try to squeeze a second in to grag something large and heavy to repeatedly hit yourself in your reproductive organ so you'll never be able to produce offspring. Let's try another scenario. Amanda lives in Guatemala. Through her different sources, she's been able to smuggle cocaine into a multitude of different countries. She has massive underground connection and is raking in money because of the relatively easy process of obtaining cocaine along with its massive selling price. Amanda can actually gain control of a sigificant strata of society thanks to her drug trade, for example, by paying off mercenaries and back-door dealers to protect and continue her operation. She makes substantial income. Now, imagine cocaine was completely legalized in the United States. The price for coke would plummet because it would no longer be distributed in underground sources, but it would exist in mainstream society. Amanda's entire operation would collapse because she might as well be selling baking soda.

Some people are going to come out and say "But Kassad, if we legalize all these drugs, everyone will just get fucked up all the time." Well, let me ask you this. Before prohibition, was there any real massive threats of alcoholism? Or did alcoholism increase after prohobition? Did prohibition not create a massive underground crime wave because it made something desired illegal and highly profitable, thus creating more criminal activity? Before the War on Drugs, which was started by Christian fundamentalist reactionaries (so those of you who support it should look at who your ideology matches up with. Nixon? Reagan? That should bother you), hardcore drugs, especially homemade ones such as meth and cocaine, were almost unheard of, if not non-existent. It was the regulation of drugs that really weren't harmful at all that created back-alley markets for highly addictive and dangerous drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth. So tell me, who's really the enemy here? Drugs? The drug culture? Not at all. The enemy is reactionary regulation of regular substances that lead to the creation of profitable drug trades and the desire to create homemade dangerous drugs.

Too long, didn't read? No problem. I'll summarize: If you support the drug war, kill yourself.


Oh what a lovely wee story lad you have some skill at the fiction writing yawn.
If the subject wasn’t so serious I might have even enjoyed you’re little rant.
First of Cannabis/marijuana is a known gateway drug this is a fact and can’t be disputed.
Harder drugs like Heroin/Cocaine/Meth Destroy peoples lives I’ve seen it first hand.
Class As make unproductive workers split up families and generally fuck you’re head up.
Id like to see you go out on a Saturday night to a Heroin den get fucked off you’re face then turn up for work on a Monday morning it wouldn’t happen comrade as it changes you’re mindset and you’re out look on life.
Nixon? Reagan? You mention, even these two illiterate degenerate bastards know that Hard drugs are counter productive for society you’re whole arguments weak to say the least.

[IrishWorker]

:)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

First of Cannabis/marijuana is a known gateway drug this is a fact and can’t be disputed.

Actually it can be, by anyone with a brain or even an ounce of knowledge or experience with drugs. Also, I love the "I'm right because I say so" argument. Top quality logic.

Well I guess it would be "I'm right because the government says so". I also love when Leftists actually believe the crap governments tell them.


Harder drugs like Heroin/Cocaine/Meth Destroy peoples lives I’ve seen it first hand.This is true, and these things are already illegal. So what is your answer? Make them MORE illegal? Yes, maybe we should just shoot anyone who is curious about trying a certain drug. This would obviously be our only choice as people are going to do drugs whether they're legal or not as seen in current society.


Class As make unproductive workers split up families and generally fuck you’re head up.Yes, most people are generally aware of the potential problems and risks of hard drugs. It's good to know that you think the working class is so ignorant and oblivious.


Id like to see you go out on a Saturday night to a Heroin den get fucked off you’re face then turn up for work on a Monday morning it wouldn’t happen comrade as it changes you’re mindset and you’re out look on life.I've been smoking pot for years but have yet to enjoy one of these heroin dens. I also don't indulge in any hard drugs of the sort. Whoops, guess I just kinda killed your whole theory!


Nixon? Reagan? You mention, even these two illiterate degenerate bastards know that Hard drugs are counter productive for society you’re whole arguments weak to say the least. Those two illiterate degenerate bastards sound like they'd be good friends of yours.

If I may end with a quote:


If you support the drug war, kill yourself

the drug war is a joke. education not persecution. We need rehab and health facilities to help people, not prisons to hold them. And most of all we need to get rid of capitalism so people stop trying to make their shitty lives better by doing dangerous drugs.

[IrishWorker]

Actually it can be, by anyone with a brain or even an ounce of knowledge or experience with drugs. Also, I love the "I'm right because I say so" argument. Top quality logic.

Well I guess it would be "I'm right because the government says so". I also love when Leftists actually believe the crap governments tell them.

This is true, and these things are already illegal. So what is your answer? Make them MORE illegal? Yes, maybe we should just shoot anyone who is curious about trying a certain drug. This would obviously be our only choice as people are going to do drugs whether they're legal or not as seen in current society.

Yes, most people are generally aware of the potential problems and risks of hard drugs. It's good to know that you think the working class is so ignorant and oblivious.

I've been smoking pot for years but have yet to enjoy one of these heroin dens. I also don't indulge in any hard drugs of the sort. Whoops, guess I just kinda killed your whole theory!

Those two illiterate degenerate bastards sound like they'd be good friends of yours.

If I may end with a quote:



the drug war is a joke. education not persecution. We need rehab and health facilities to help people, not prisons to hold them. And most of all we need to get rid of capitalism so people stop trying to make their shitty lives better by doing dangerous drugs.
Yes thanks for agreeing with me forced rehabilitation of the addicts and extermination of the scum who poison our class.

[bcbm]

Yes thanks for agreeing with me forced rehabilitation of the addicts and extermination of the scum who poison our class.

You'd exterminate people for smoking a plant?

[Kassad]

I think it's nothing short of cute that IrishWorker can accuse of argument of being a 'rant' and 'weak', yet he/she provides absolutely no debunking of the examples I've given. Regulation and persecution causes more and much more dangerous drug use. If you can't see that, you must generally be ignoring history, but it seems you're not the brightest person I've ever met. I've seen drug use firsthand as well and so have a lot of us on here, so please dismount your high horse and come join the rest of us.

[IrishWorker]

You'd exterminate people for smoking a plant?
Where have I said this?
Those who poison workers with class A hard drugs should be exterminated and all addicts should enter into forced rehabilitation.
It’s pretty simple really.



All you Pro Druggies are far from a credit to the struggle normal decent workers would laugh you out of the room if you spouted this shit in real life.
A hard line is what the working class community’s affected by hard drugs want not legalized drugs I for one would not want my kid growing up in a society where they are legally available.

[Junna]

Because he likes weed?

Jesus masturbating Christ, who ISN'T a liberal?

He's not a liberal because he likes weed. Certainly isn't a good thing, but it's not going to make him a liberal per se, no.

He is a liberal because, if you read his post, he argues from a liberal perspective; it's the notion of the sovereign man all over again, self-ownership; "it's my body, so I can do what I want", ignorant of the consequences to the surroundings. That a person should be able to do whatever they want so long as it does not in any obvious or immediate way affect others ability to also enjoy their pleasure.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Oh what a lovely wee story lad you have some skill at the fiction writing yawn.
At least hes got skill at writing fiction. Your fiction couldn't make it into a high-school anti-drug pamphlet.


If the subject wasn’t so serious I might have even enjoyed you’re little rant.Try and enjoy things, they make the embarrassment of your arguments being ripped apart less severe.


First of Cannabis/marijuana is a known gateway drug this is a fact and can’t be disputed.:laugh:


Harder drugs like Heroin/Cocaine/Meth Destroy peoples lives I’ve seen it first hand.No correlation with marijuana. It is the user's own choice to try hard drugs.


Class As make unproductive workers split up families and generally fuck you’re head up.Yes drugs are horrible we get it.

Id like to see you go out on a Saturday night to a Heroin den get fucked off you’re face then turn up for work on a Monday morning it wouldn’t happen comrade as it changes you’re mindset and you’re out look on life.Most junkies don't have jobs. Also heroin is completely off topic and has no relevance to marijuana.


Nixon? Reagan? You mention, even these two illiterate degenerate bastards know that Hard drugs are counter productive for society you’re whole arguments weak to say the least.

And your argument is what? Strong and well constructed? Please.


:)
Wipe that fucking smirk of your face.


Where have I said this?

Yes thanks for agreeing with me forced rehabilitation of the addicts and extermination of the scum who poison our class.


Those who poison workers with class A hard drugs should be exterminated and all addicts should enter into forced rehabilitation.You write with so much disdain for drug users, it's like you literally want to kill them. That's crazy. They don't "poison" our class, if anything they are poisoned by a neglecting society. Instead of openly calling for their "extermination" like a Nazi having an orgasm over a racial pogrom, try and help such people, or bring them to people who can.

It’s pretty simple really. Yeah it's simple. Your arguments are insane.


All you Pro DruggiesCute.

are far from a credit to the struggle normal decent workers would laugh you out of the room if you spouted this shit in real life.What a grand argument. Would they laugh us out of the room if we proposed that we should try and help drug addicts instead of killing them as well?


A hard line is what the working class community’s affected by hard drugs want not legalized drugs I for one would not want my kid growing up in a society where they are legally available.No you must want your kid to grow up in a society where drugs are controlled by underground black market traffickers who don't ask for ID and are craving the profits from your kid's next fix. Instead if a society had decriminalized drugs, your kid would have all the opportunity to learn about drugs, without the pressure of dealers and junkies.

[9]

First of Cannabis/marijuana is a known gateway drug this is a fact and can’t be disputed.
Simply making the assertion that this or that "is a fact and can't be disputed" doesn't make it so, unfortunately for your regurgitated argument.
The truth of the matter, which you appear to be uninterested in, is that the "gateway drug theory" is actually a hypothesis - it has never been established fact; on the contrary, it has been debunked time and time again by numerous scientific studies.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's 12-year study (http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2006/Pages/NoSmokingGun.aspx), as a very solid example, has demonstrated the "gateway hypothesis" to be false.

Myth: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug: 'Even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" like heroin, LSD, and cocaine.'
Fact: Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.


Morral, Andrew R.; McCaffrey, Daniel F. and Susan M. Paddock. “Reassessing the marijuana gateway effect.” Addiction 97.12 (2002): 1493-504.



United States. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates 1994. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.



National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1994. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.



D.B. Kandel and M. Davies, “Progression to Regular Marijuana Involvement: Phenomenology and Risk Factors for Near-Daily Use,” Vulnerability to Drug Abuse, Eds. M. Glantz and R. Pickens. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1992: 211-253.

[source (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#gateway)]

I will not address the rest of your post, as everything else you've said is based on your misconception about the gateway hypothesis and is therefore irrelevant to the subject at hand in light of the fact that extensive scientific research has demonstrated that the gateway hypothesis is false.

[mannetje]

I'm a very outspoken marijuana lover. I have a concentration disorder and if i smoke pot i can focus better only the downside is that it makes me forgetfull too. but i can live with that. I used to be a pretty alcoholic character. but since i stepped over to pot i didn't get involved into any trouble with fighting and talking jibberish to people. weed is expensive but worth it for me. I'm living in holland and as you know it's tolerated over here. but that is not good enough for me. I want it to be legal. so it can get out of the twilightzone. I worked my self back in the day in illegal growerys. that was a fucked up world to be in. I stepped out of it on time.
the people who i worked already started asking if i want to smuggle some xtc to spain. that was too much for me so i stepped out of it. but I never stopped loving weed. the criminal side of the marijuanaworld is my biggest motivation for legalisation. and offcourse that there will be grown more bio-weed. there's so much poison in dutchweed. I don't know exactly how it works in other countries like america for instance. I've heard about the mendocino-region in northern california home of mendocino-green. I know about the different rules applying to marijuana in different regions in california. about getting easy marijuana with a pass from the docter (medical marijuana) in Oakland (oaksterdam area) And about medical marijuana I've experienced up close medical marijuana use from a aidspatient. and it helped him to eat more and to be less scared for his upcoming death. he could smile a bit more. i liked that. It's a wondrous plant, the hemp.:cool:

[Junna]

You write with so much disdain for drug users, it's like you literally want to kill them. That's crazy. They don't "poison" our class, if anything they are poisoned by a neglecting society. Instead of openly calling for their "extermination" like a Nazi having an orgasm over a racial pogrom, try and help such people, or bring them to people who can.
Yeah it's simple. Your arguments are insane.

What a grand argument. Would they laugh us out of the room if we proposed that we should try and help drug addicts instead of killing them as well?

What part of his post is so hard to understand? It's pretty clear to me that he means that the providers (dealers and so on) are the one's to be exterminated, not the people affected. What do you support then, voluntary treatment of those affected individuals?They should be free to be junkies if they want to?

[gorillafuck]

He is a liberal because, if you read his post, he argues from a liberal perspective; it's the notion of the sovereign man all over again, self-ownership; "it's my body, so I can do what I want", ignorant of the consequences to the surroundings.
Marijuana doesn't harm anyone in someones surroundings so what you said really falls flat on it's face.

[mykittyhasaboner]

What part of his post is so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand, it's just a poor argument.



It's pretty clear to me that he means that the providers (dealers and so on) are the one's to be exterminated
I'm still against drug dealers being "exterminated". That's simply crazy talk.

not the people affected.Irishworker doesn't seem to comprehend any difference between drug users and drug dealers.

What do you support then, voluntary treatment of those affected individuals?They should be free to be junkies if they want to?Essentially yes. Hard drugs have to be treated with hard drugs (if that makes any sense to you) and therapy. The only other option is simply quitting (not very easy for a heroin user for instance) or taking other drugs (that usually have more of addictive properties and a longer withdrawal anyways). They should be treated, not exterminated. :rolleyes:

[JJM 777]

I pretty much agree with IrishWorker. In the theoretical scenario that I would have some political power, I would declare death penalty for selling such drugs, whose typical recreational use causes deaths (by overdose or other reasons). Now the drug dealers often continue their trade business already while serving a prison sentence. And even more so after the shortish sentence has been served.

I believe that a drug-free society is possible, if a remarkable share of the population sincerely want it, ready to report any witnessed use or selling attempts to the police. If the people want it, so be it. If not, then a central government cannot realistically achieve what the general population don't want.

However, I am not categorically against controlled and provenly safe use of any drug whatsoever. If it is proven that a drug does not cause addiction and is safe to use when overdose is avoided, I would be ready to legalize the drug in salons where a doctor is present giving the safe doses, and where all users are locked up until any risky effects of the drug fade away.

Having said all of this, I also support banning the sales of all tobacco products, because of their adverse health effects.

[Junna]

Essentially yes. Hard drugs have to be treated with hard drugs (if that makes any sense to you) and therapy. The only other option is simply quitting (not very easy for a heroin user for instance) or taking other drugs (that usually have more of addictive properties and a longer withdrawal anyways). They should be treated, not exterminated. :rolleyes:

I did not say they should be exterminated, I agree they should be treated. I do not this should be done on a voluntary basis however. And it would sometimes be preferential to force them to quit and go through with the withdrawal process if there is such associated with the substance in question, where the alternative medication being simply a place-holder for the former addictive substance.


Marijuana doesn't harm anyone in someones surroundings so what you said really falls flat on it's face.

How do you know? Harm mentally. It's a complex and subjective question that depends a lot on circumstance and what the people around you are like. It turns you into a self-righteous absent-minded sedated person who sees patterns and symbolism real and imagined everywhere and think they are oh so knowledgeable and turns them to what can be described as simply put an obscure quasi-religious mystification of chemical fluctuations and as a ritualistic "mind-expansion" and other such drivel, after which they have this tendency to view themselves as of particular enlightenment. Of course not everyone reacts the same to any substance, but widely speaking people being addicted to pot (I do not mean addicted in the sense of withdrawal, I mean routine consumption out of habit and a feeling that it would be good to get some) are no better than those hooked on the pharmaceutical companies officially approved sedatives (which the potheads for some reason view as inferior, sometimes with some nonsense about it not being 'natural' and other nonsense).

The same goes for all tobacco and all alcoholic beverages, I do not think those ought to be permissible either, so don't try to argue that I'm singling out weed while ignoring other worse perils.

And furthermore, while I do not think that simply making it "illegal" and throwing any one caught using in jail is effective, I do not think that legalisation is the way forward, and especially not voluntary treatment.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

What do you support then, voluntary treatment of those affected individuals?They should be free to be junkies if they want to?

Why not? If they're not hurting anyone and can still function in socially necessary ways like functioning alcoholics do, what's the problem? Those that can't function obviously need society's help to straighten their lives out and if they refuse the help, then they will no longer be a part of society. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Call me a liberal all you want, but I was always under the impression that we were fighting for human liberation and liberty for the oppressed working class here - yet apparently some of you want to continue the oppression. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do a line of coke if I would like to? I'm not infringing on your life in anyway by making a decision about my own.

Just because someone does drugs (even hard drugs) doesn't necessarily mean they're addicted or that it is affecting their life in a negative way either. That's just plain ignorance. Of course it has that potential, but only authoritarian douchebags refuse to see the difference between the two.

This is why education is the key. People should be taught how to use drugs responsibly and the risks involved with each - not punished for being curious about the world or wanting to enjoy a certain substance.

Good luck trying to control drugs too. It's been really successful so far. :rolleyes: Apparently the cool new thing for leftists is to support crap that has never worked before and never will work rather than actually addressing the issues in a reasonable and ration manner. Great!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I mean routine consumption out of habit and a feeling that it would be good to get some) are no better than those hooked on the pharmaceutical companies officially approved sedatives (which the potheads for some reason view as inferior, sometimes with some nonsense about it not being 'natural' and other nonsense).

Do you really not understand the reason for this? Pot has many medicinal benefits yet is illegal (for many reasons) but a major reason being because it's CHEAP and extremely easy to grow and can be used as a substitute for many pharmaceutical company's crap that they constantly tell us we need. If pot was legalized, pharmaceutical companies would be hurt the worst and is why their lobbyists are some of the biggest supporters of the drug war.

Why would you spend tons of money on expensive and pointless medications when you could just grow a plant and smoke what buds on it? "Potheads" think it's absurd because, well, it is. Pot being illegal is the epitome of freedoms being restricted solely for corporate profit. There is not a single reason why people shouldn't be allowed to toke and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head way too far up their ass and probably thinks the state is the savior of civilization. Honestly I don't understand how any such people could consider themselves leftists. It's just a little hypocritical to claim you fight for human liberty and then turn around and try to take away people's freedom.

[gorillafuck]

How do you know? Harm mentally. It's a complex and subjective question that depends a lot on circumstance and what the people around you are like. It turns you into a self-righteous absent-minded sedated person who sees patterns and symbolism real and imagined everywhere and think they are oh so knowledgeable and turns them to what can be described as simply put an obscure quasi-religious mystification of chemical fluctuations and as a ritualistic "mind-expansion" and other such drivel, after which they have this tendency to view themselves as of particular enlightenment. Of course not everyone reacts the same to any substance, but widely speaking people being addicted to pot (I do not mean addicted in the sense of withdrawal, I mean routine consumption out of habit and a feeling that it would be good to get some) are no better than those hooked on the pharmaceutical companies officially approved sedatives (which the potheads for some reason view as inferior, sometimes with some nonsense about it not being 'natural' and other nonsense).
All those buzzwords you used do a decent job of hiding the fact that what you said was nothing but the usual anti-drug shit of "It turns you into a stupid stoner who sits on her/his couch all day and smokes weed", which is one of the most ridiculous myths out there. I know loads of people who are very good in school (and also out of school actitivies) and some of whom are the hardest working people I know and they smoke cannabis. Hell, I've had a friend who frequently smokes pot tell me I need to put more effort into my work and be more professional.

[Dimentio]

I was personally asked to join a few friends of mine in the upcomming Marijuana March on May 3rd.

I did some medical research and I concluded that it could be used in medical treatment. It was a quick 15 minute research, correct me, if I'm wrong.

I wanted to ask you, comrades, what your stance on Marijuana is, before.

- Fiskpure

My stance is simple.

People should have the right to pollute their bodies with marijuana, and no one should be put in jail for consuming drugs.

But on a personal level, I will never smoke pot.

[bcbm]

Where have I said this?

Well you don't seem to mark much of a difference between marijuana and crack, so...


Those who poison workers with class A hard drugs should be exterminated and all addicts should enter into forced rehabilitation.
It’s pretty simple really.

Class A includes drugs that aren't harmful or addictive and, indeed, may actually have uses in the treatment of addiction and various psychological problems. As for the ones you're most concerned about- heroin, crack and meth- prohibition in the US has proven to be a pretty clear failure and has been used by the ruling class as an excuse to wage war against working class communities, especially in the inner city. I don't know what the situaiton in Ireland is, but I can't imagine its been much more effective and so we really need to start looking for more nuanced solutions based on fact instead of stupid anti-drug and prohibition myths.


All you Pro Druggies are far from a credit to the struggle normal decent workers would laugh you out of the room if you spouted this shit in real life.

What, if we said that smoking weed isn't a problem and that drug prohibition doesn't work and we need to figure out real solutions that actually help people? I can't think of anyone I know who would disagree with that.

[Junna]

All those buzzwords you used do a decent job of hiding the fact that what you said was nothing but the usual anti-drug shit of "It turns you into a stupid stoner who sits on her/his couch all day and smokes weed", which is one of the most ridiculous myths out there. I know loads of people who are very good in school (and also out of school actitivies) and some of whom are the hardest working people I know and they smoke cannabis. Hell, I've had a friend who frequently smokes pot tell me I need to put more effort into my work and be more professional.

Did I say they were lazy or unproductive? No. Nor have I said they don't produce anything, or that they just sit around and smoke. Sure they can do things. Who cares? They are placing their enjoyment above achievement. Enjoyment is not desirable on its own. It's sheer liberalism that the purpose of existence would be to enjoy oneself. The deranged Tibetan Buddhists were at least right in their observation that life is suffering.

Potheads like anecdotal references in their argumentation. I can be anecdotal too. I've encountered many potheads, unfortunately, and I must say I didn't like anyone of them, and many very vocal that others enjoy their stupefying substance, and many of them were avid conspiracy theorist, obsessing with absurd nonsense-theories, the "Truth movement" and dedicated watching vile conspiracy propaganda masquerading as "documentaries".


Do you really not understand the reason for this? Pot has many medicinal benefits yet is illegal (for many reasons) but a major reason being because it's CHEAP and extremely easy to grow and can be used as a substitute for many pharmaceutical company's crap that they constantly tell us we need. If pot was legalized, pharmaceutical companies would be hurt the worst and is why their lobbyists are some of the biggest supporters of the drug war.

Why would you spend tons of money on expensive and pointless medications when you could just grow a plant and smoke what buds on it? "Potheads" think it's absurd because, well, it is. Pot being illegal is the epitome of freedoms being restricted solely for corporate profit. There is not a single reason why people shouldn't be allowed to toke and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head way too far up their ass and probably thinks the state is the savior of civilization. Honestly I don't understand how any such people could consider themselves leftists. It's just a little hypocritical to claim you fight for human liberty and then turn around and try to take away people's freedom.

You potters always exaggerated the "positive medical effects". There are such admittedly, but often it is clouded by your desire to provide justification for your enjoyments in claiming it does good things too (the positive properties it does have could in some cases be provided differently as well; not just smoking of some raw).

Don't you think that corporations could profit from growing weed too? Don't you fancy that they might profit from specializing in developing hybrids and new cultivars and selling those, or providing extracts, or even massproducing differently spiced

I don't fight for your "liberty" to enjoy yourself at all costs no matter what impact that has on yourself or others, I don't believe in your liberal hedonistic utopia of a pleasure paradise. Do you support legalisation of prostitution as well? Commodification of the human body is surely something the individual should be able to to chose if they so desire, right? I don't have faith in humanity, I am not a humanist. With time things might change, or revolution can assure change is forced, and maybe then man will be ready for the final step and responsibility... but until then, humanity in general remains self-interested, hedonistic and short-sighted and full of self-destructive perversion that undermines any attempts at liberation.

It's not all the livings' fault though. The world being how it is, and history until now the way it has been, it's probably unavoidable.

I don't really understand how you individualists can consider yourselves leftist either, but that's hardly relevant.

[bcbm]

Do you support legalisation of prostitution as well? Commodification of the human body is surely something the individual should be able to to chose if they so desire, right?

You think leaving prostitution in the hands of violent pimps in unregulated, unsafe conditions and then punishing the workers who get caught with fines and jail sentences is a sound policy?


I don't really understand how you individualists can consider yourselves leftist either, but that's hardly relevant.

I would imagine its easier for us than authoritarian misanthropes such as yourself.

[KarlMarx1989]

Drug is a very broad category and different drugs can have very different effects.
Well, OK. I should be more specific. I apologize for not being as such. I mean drugs like marijuana, opium and heroine, methamphetamine and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, cocaine and 'crack', "acid", etc.
These are the drugs which stupefy societies.

[KarlMarx1989]

I agree with the following;

People should have the right to pollute their bodies with marijuana, and no one should be put in jail for consuming drugs.

But on a personal level, I will never smoke pot.

Drugs have generally the same effect physically and mentally in a capitalist world as they do in a socialist world . We do not promote the use of drugs . We want to legalise it because it would make it safer , it would be regulated , it would deter crime and the forcing of drugs into communties , the money wouldn't go to 'criminals' but to the state to reinvest into education about drugs and rehab centers etc.

[Искра]

My stance: I gotta straight edge :laugh:

[KarlMarx1989]

I support the use of prescription drugs when one has a problem that cannot be fixed otherwise.

[Junna]

You think leaving prostitution in the hands of violent pimps in unregulated, unsafe conditions and then punishing the workers who get caught with fines and jail sentences is a sound policy?



I said that was sound policy? That I must've missed!

If sexually enslaved and sold by others, they are to be rehabilitated and helped, obviously.

If by their own choice sell, they, like those who exploit and sell other's sexual services, will be sent to re-education centres.

[gorillafuck]

Did I say they were lazy or unproductive? No. Nor have I said they don't produce anything, or that they just sit around and smoke. Sure they can do things. Who cares? They are placing their enjoyment above achievement. Enjoyment is not desirable on its own. It's sheer liberalism that the purpose of existence would be to enjoy oneself. The deranged Tibetan Buddhists were at least right in their observation that life is suffering.
"Placing enjoyment above achievement", oh, so it's moral puritanism that makes you support drug laws?


Potheads like anecdotal references in their argumentation. I can be anecdotal too. I've encountered many potheads, unfortunately, and I must say I didn't like anyone of them, and many very vocal that others enjoy their stupefying substance, and many of them were avid conspiracy theorist, obsessing with absurd nonsense-theories, the "Truth movement" and dedicated watching vile conspiracy propaganda masquerading as "documentaries". K'.


You potters always exaggerated the "positive medical effects". There are such admittedly, but often it is clouded by your desire to provide justification for your enjoyments in claiming it does good things too (the positive properties it does have could in some cases be provided differently as well; not just smoking of some raw).Does something need to be healthy to be acceptable?


Don't you think that corporations could profit from growing weed too? Don't you fancy that they might profit from specializing in developing hybrids and new cultivars and selling those, or providing extracts, or even massproducing differently spicedYa, weed could be made profitable. Why's that matter?


I don't fight for your "liberty" to enjoy yourself at all costs no matter what impact that has on yourself or others, I don't believe in your liberal hedonistic utopia of a pleasure paradise. Do you support legalisation of prostitution as well? Commodification of the human body is surely something the individual should be able to to chose if they so desire, right? I don't have faith in humanity, I am not a humanist. With time things might change, or revolution can assure change is forced, and maybe then man will be ready for the final step and responsibility... but until then, humanity in general remains self-interested, hedonistic and short-sighted and full of self-destructive perversion that undermines any attempts at liberation. If wanting people to not be incarcerated for smoking a harmless plant (you haven't demonstrated the harm that it can do outside of typical "It makes you not realize your full potential" and arguments like that) makes me a liberal then sure, I guess I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean that cannabis shouldn't be legalized.


I don't really understand how you individualists can consider yourselves leftist either, but that's hardly relevant.I don't see how a leftist doesn't support freeing the people who have been jailed for using soft drugs.

[bcbm]

I said that was sound policy? That I must've missed!

Well you certainly believe that what I described is better than legalization, which is bad enough.


If sexually enslaved and sold by others, they are to be rehabilitated and helped, obviously.

If by their own choice sell, they, like those who exploit and sell other's sexual services, will be sent to re-education centres.

"Re-education centres?" Really?

[ellipsis]

Here is the thing with any drugs: They make people stupid. Why do I make such a radical remark? That is because any drug affects one's memory. If drugs are done at an early age like they are in christian-America, they make one forget what they've learned in school. When you don't remember what you've learned, you don't learn at all. If you don't learn, you can't get through school

Uhh I smoked pot since I was 13, through college. Even though I smoked before, during and after school in high school and despite the fact that I didn't like to do homework, study for tests or other things which my parents considered "applying myself", I maintained a steady B-average, did well on the SATs and still remember a lot of what I was taught. Contrast this to people who did all of their homework and studied for everything who told me that they learned thing for tests and then forgot it and still got As and Bs, just like me. Additionally my drug use wasn't limited solely to pot. I went on to a semi-"prestigious" university where I excelled in my classes and produced IMHO quality original thought (http://therevolutionscript.googlepages.com/theflqandtheglobalstuggleagainstglobalca). I know that your post was based on your expert medical/sociological opinion, but you can never make broad generalizations.

This is pretty cliché to say, but If I choose to put something in my body which I could grow in my yard, which does not cause harm to anybody else, where do comrades get off telling me how to live my life?

[Junna]

I don't see how a leftist doesn't support freeing the people who have been jailed for using soft drugs.

I said this? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I said users should be forcibly treated for using drugs, not arbitrarily imprisoned.



"Re-education centres?" Really?

Yes?

[revolution inaction]

your fucking mental

[gorillafuck]

I said this? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I said users should be forcibly treated for using drugs, not arbitrarily imprisoned.
You think people should be forcibly treated for cannabis usage? (this thread is on marijuana)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You potters always exaggerated the "positive medical effects". There are such admittedly, but often it is clouded by your desire to provide justification for your enjoyments in claiming it does good things too (the positive properties it does have could in some cases be provided differently as well; not just smoking of some raw).

Who needs justification? It's a plant that grows on the earth naturally, there's no need for justification in consuming something that gives a person pleasure. Are you a member of the No Sex League too? "sex needs justification!"


Don't you think that corporations could profit from growing weed too?

You're kidding right? Who would buy pot from corporations if it was legal? It's pretty easy to grow for FREE. Which is another reason it's illegal - there's no way to control it.


Don't you fancy that they might profit from specializing in developing hybrids and new cultivars and selling those, or providing extracts, or even massproducing differently spiced

"criminals" (aka average people) already do this.


I don't fight for your "liberty" to enjoy yourself at all costs no matter what impact that has on yourself or others, I don't believe in your liberal hedonistic utopia of a pleasure paradise. Do you support legalisation of prostitution as well?

On others? I'm still waiting to hear what effect me smoking pot has on you or society. I apologize profusely for ruining your life by smoking a plant - however that's possible.

Hedonistic pleasure paradise? I think you confused Revleft with some sort of religious purity forum.

And yes, I support the legalization of prostitution. Duh.


humanity in general remains self-interested, hedonistic and short-sighted and full of self-destructive perversion that undermines any attempts at liberation.

Yes, I agree. Excuse me, I'm going to go fuck some sheep and shoot up heroin and get back to this later.


I don't really understand how you individualists can consider yourselves leftist either, but that's hardly relevant.

All libertarians are individualists now, eh?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

This is pretty cliché to say, but If I choose to put something in my body which I could grow in my yard, which does not cause harm to anybody else, where do comrades get off telling me how to live my life?

Because that makes you a "liberal individualist" apparently. :rolleyes:

There are no personal lives comrade, only the revolution!

[9]

I said this? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I said users should be forcibly treated for using drugs, not arbitrarily imprisoned.


And who determines what is and is not considered "drugs"? After all, caffeine is indeed a drug (and in extremely concentrated quantities, over-consumption of caffeine can lead and has led to psychosis and death). Alcohol is most certainly a drug, more on a par with things like opiates and barbiturates for that matter in terms of physical dependence, cognitive impairment, and detrimental health effects. Is consumption of alcohol, even when in moderation by a responsible adult, to be punished with re-education camps or, in the case of its distributors, execution? How about mild analgesics like Aspirin and Ibuprofen and Paracetamol? These are, after all, responsible for thousands of deaths per year and can cause, even in moderation, liver damage and other serious health problems.
Personally, I tend not to view the working class as children who need to be told what they can and cannot put in their bodies if they so choose, or whether or not they can be "allowed" to go to the bar after work and have a drink with some friends.

[rosie]

I personally think ALL drugs should be legalized, thus taking away from the amount of non violent offenders in the prison systems, thus damaging (greatly, might I add) the amount of money going into the prison system (America's LARGEST business) and aiding in the undoing of racist punishment in this country (I can only speak for America when talking about personal experience). The tax dollars that WOULD have been spent could then go to creating rehab centers, needles exchange programs, and health advocacy groups. Also, the more drugs that are legalized and regulated (I know this is a liberal thing to say...I'm gonna say it anyway), the more tax dollars would be made from it. Not that people SHOULD do drugs, I myself am a sober person, but if the person on drugs can still be productive in society (the most productive people I know are drug addicts...and when I used drugs I did more than I do now) I don't see anything wrong with it. Marijuana does not have any harmful permanent affects on the brain (this I learned in nursing school). Narcotics, on the other hand, do have a very harmful effect of the brain as well as the rest of the human body. This should be taken into consideration before using drugs, just like anything else we do as people.
Sorry for the long response, there is still a lot more I could go into, with more detail and sources...I'm not a troll though. hehehe!

[JJM 777]

I personally think that all drugs should be criminalized, including all tobacco products.

Any person selling hard drugs, such as heroine, should receive a death penalty.
Any person selling milder drugs or tobacco products should receive 7 years in prison.

However, I see possibilities in some _non-addicting_ and _safe_ drugs, their recreational use could potentially be allowed in salons where a doctor gives the dose (to avoid any risk of lethal overdose) and the persons are locked up until the risky effects of the drug fade out.

[9]

I personally think that all drugs should be criminalized, including all tobacco products.

Any person selling hard drugs, such as heroine, should receive a death penalty.
Any person selling milder drugs or tobacco products should receive 7 years in prison.

However, I see possibilities in some _non-addicting_ and _safe_ drugs, their recreational use could potential be allowed in salons where a doctor gives the dose (to avoid any risk of lethal overdose) and the persons are locked up until the risky effects of the drug fade out.

Now this is a practical, progressive solution. In fact, I'm sure my coworkers would have only the most fervent support for socialism if I calmly explained to them that in a socialist society, if they should want a cup of coffee, they have every right to go to a "saloon" where they can enjoy their beverage in the comfort of a cage, under a doctor's supervision, where they will be forcibly detained until it is determined that the effects of the caffeine have thoroughly subsided.
Who needs Cold War propaganda when we've got self-described socialists themselves making socialism sound like a dystopian police state?
That or you are a very clever troll.

[JJM 777]

I don't remember mentioning coffee, neither does coffee have any "risky effects" that would fade away in a few hours. So I don't see how your post is in any way related to my post, apart from the fact that my post is quoted inside your post, but not referred to in any factual detail.

[gorillafuck]

Any person selling hard drugs, such as heroine, should receive a death penalty.
Any person selling milder drugs or tobacco products should receive 7 years in prison.
You're a lunatic.

[JJM 777]

I would rather argue that people who sell drugs or cigarettes, both of which cause untimely deaths among the population, are hmmm placing their own economical interests ahead of the well-being of others.

A harsh response to such dealers is because their products are known to cause death and suffering. They are not harmless toy traders, neither are they unaware of the effects of the products that they sell.

[9]

I don't remember mentioning coffee, neither does coffee have any "risky effects" that would fade away in a few hours. So I don't see how your post is in any way related to my post, apart from the fact that my post is quoted inside your post, but not referred to in any factual detail.

Caffeine is a drug. For that matter, it is an addictive drug. As you may or may not know, there is caffeine in coffee.

[Robocommie]

I would rather argue that people who sell drugs or cigarettes, both of which cause untimely deaths among the population, are hmmm placing their own economical interests ahead of the well-being of others.

A harsh response to such dealers is because their products are known to cause death and suffering. They are not harmless toy traders, neither are they unaware of the effects of the products that they sell.

Nobody says that anyone has to SELL drugs or cigarettes. Most marijuana is homegrown, and tobacco is often home grown as well, it's not hard. In fact for many years in the Soviet Union, the domestic production of cigarettes was undercut by homegrown tobacco preferred by most Russians.

I am opposed to cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs, they are LITERALLY the opiate of the masses and are poisoning the working class, turning them into zombies and slaves. However, we can NOT fight it with the strong arm of the law, that's a right wing tactic and it fails every time. The War on Drugs in the United States is a fucking joke.

Drug addiction must be treated as a disease, not a military campaign.

[OllyH]

[QUOTE=Black Cross;1093265]There was a rumor of one overdose, though. I'm not sure what was concluded but the guy smoked like three ounces in a day... but who the hell does that.

This just isn't true, not one person has ever overdosed on marijuana. The only living organism to have been killed by marijuana smoke was a monkey which was suffocated by the stuff. So basically it died from lack of oxygen and they just attributed that to thc. Other than that though there are no recorded deaths and there's also no strong evidence linking marijuana to lung cancer because usually the tests are conducted on people who have been smoking tobacco as well as marijuana. There are no recorded cases of lung cancer from a person who only smoke marijuana.
The only major danger is if you are young (below 18) and have a genetic predisposition to mental illness, there's a possibility marijuana can make that worse. However this just means its all the more important to legalize and regulate in some way so its easier to stop young kids from smoking it.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I would rather argue that people who sell drugs or cigarettes, both of which cause untimely deaths among the population, are hmmm placing their own economical interests ahead of the well-being of others.

A harsh response to such dealers is because their products are known to cause death and suffering. They are not harmless toy traders, neither are they unaware of the effects of the products that they sell.

Pot causes death and suffering now?

People who sell drugs are trying to make money so they can feed themselves and their families, not harm other people. Fuck off with your elitist bullshit.

[mannetje]

There's too much hard drugs talk here. this thread is called 'what is our stance on marijuana'. If you want to talk about the stance on amphetamines/cocaine/heroine or whatever is intoxicating drugs that's not marijuana, start a harddrugs thread than.
I'm not against any kind of drugs. but I'm a pothead I already have dealed with harddrugs in the past. (liked it but it fucked me up) I almost don't have to deal with with the hard stuff except the prescription drug ritalin. somebody else already made a comment about this harddrugs talk. but I fucked my brain up (remember?) so i have forgotten who it was. and i'm feeling to lazy right now to look that post up. But please people keep this a thread about marijuana/hash/skuff . ''what is our stance on softdrugs' would be perhaps a better name for this thread I smoke hash too and their definitly a differnce between hash and weed. hash is more mellow. weed is more intense.

[JJM 777]

People who sell drugs are trying to make money so they can feed themselves and their families, not harm other people.
This is technically true, but (if we are talking about hard drugs such as heroine) what you sell is known to ruin the lives of the people to whom you sell it, so the relatives of the persons to whom you sell this stuff would lynch you one day, unless you receive the mercy that I would give you, by sending the police to give you a fair trial before executing you. Well the outcome is the same, I must admit, but it should at least feel comforting for people who will not sell drugs, that they can prove their innocence in a fair court hearing, instead of in front of an angry mob that is thirsty for revenge.

I guess this discussion must fade out because this thread is for marijuana only.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is technically true, but (if we are talking about hard drugs such as heroine) what you sell is known to ruin the lives of the people to whom you sell it, so the relatives of the persons to whom you sell this stuff would lynch you one day, unless you receive the mercy that I would give you, by sending the police to give you a fair trial before executing you. Well the outcome is the same, I must admit, but it should at least feel comforting for people who will not sell drugs, that they can prove their innocence in a fair court hearing, instead of in front of an angry mob that is thirsty for revenge.

I guess this discussion must fade out because this thread is for marijuana only.

But we are not advocating a capitalist form of access to drugs where the proletariat is held captive by drug dealers or state-enforced mercenaries. Communist society should allow each person to freely come to their own conclusion about these substances and respect each persons choice, whether that is to allow free access or allow those who disagree to not have to suffer from other peoples drug use.

[JJM 777]

Yep but unless you totally annihilate the family tradition, so that nobody will even know who and where his children are, there are few if any "lone wolves" in the society, whose life would really be their personal private issue only.

A drug dealer hangs out in the neighbourhood, and one day a father finds out that his son is hooked in cocaine. If the state will not act, the father will. The state is always a safer actor than individuals taking the law in their own hands.

[Misanthrope]

I personally think that all drugs should be criminalized, including all tobacco products.

Any person selling hard drugs, such as heroine, should receive a death penalty.
Any person selling milder drugs or tobacco products should receive 7 years in prison.

However, I see possibilities in some _non-addicting_ and _safe_ drugs, their recreational use could potentially be allowed in salons where a doctor gives the dose (to avoid any risk of lethal overdose) and the persons are locked up until the risky effects of the drug fade out.

Why should drugs be criminalized?

[Bohemian Grove]

I say leagalise.

It is better than all these other "factory drugs" and even tobacco, filled with chemicals.

If people can get drunk, why can't they get high? Also, I don't remember hearing much about violence from being high.

[KarlMarx1989]

This is pretty cliché to say, but If I choose to put something in my body which I could grow in my yard, which does not cause harm to anybody else, where do comrades get off telling me how to live my life?
Well, actually...

I agree with the following;

People should have the right to pollute their bodies with marijuana, and no one should be put in jail for consuming drugs.

But on a personal level, I will never smoke pot.

[JJM 777]

Why should drugs be criminalized?
Because they (= the hardest drugs, such as heroine) enslave the users into total physical and psychological addiction. Humans turn into zombies who live only for the drug, and often die young of a drug-related cause.

[bcbm]

Because they (= the hardest drugs, such as heroine) enslave the users into total physical and psychological addiction. Humans turn into zombies who live only for the drug, and often die young of a drug-related cause.

How does criminalizing it help anyone? It just forces the drug underground and makes its use even more dangerous.

[The Something]

Because they (= the hardest drugs, such as heroine) enslave the users into total physical and psychological addiction. Humans turn into zombies who live only for the drug, and often die young of a drug-related cause.
Isn't that what parenting is for?

Also that's the same argument for the people trying to ban guns because of criminals. Criminals are going to get them either way. Same for junkies, they're gonna get their drugs..... whether it's the easy way (rehab centers with clean needles and dosage) or fucking mugging you.

Don't be so juvenile. OH NOES ZOMBIES. Where did you get that one, some anti-drug commercial from the state dept.? I've met ex-heroine addicts, and throwing them in jail is not the answer. They are still just like you and me. Not fucking zombies.

[JJM 777]

Ex-addicts are not zombies of course. They are ex-zombies.

Does criminalizing something make the situation better or worse? Many laws have made the society a safer place, some laws not. Also the same law works in one country but not in some other country. It all comes to the general golden rule: policies supported by the vast mainstream population have good chances of success, and policies opposed by vast population segments have poor chances of success.

Is it a positive or negative thing for the society to ban drug X? Depends on the opinion of the vast mainstream population about the issue. If people generally oppose drugs, they will sing their songs to the police when they hear any rumours of drug use or drug traders.

[Outinleftfield]

Ex-addicts are not zombies of course. They are ex-zombies.

Does criminalizing something make the situation better or worse? Many laws have made the society a safer place, some laws not. Also the same law works in one country but not in some other country. It all comes to the general golden rule: policies supported by the vast mainstream population have good chances of success, and policies opposed by vast population segments have poor chances of success.

Is it a positive or negative thing for the society to ban drug X? Depends on the opinion of the vast mainstream population about the issue. If people generally oppose drugs, they will sing their songs to the police when they hear any rumours of drug use or drug traders.

Too simple. You also have to factor in how easy it is to stay underground. Since drug transactions only involve the dealer and the buyer its easy to do without other people noticing anything to report.

And even if it is easy to police that doesnt mean it will help society. Even if marijuana was easy to police prohibition has harmed research into it and if it was easy to police it would be worse for people who need it medically, while bolstering the wealth and power of pharmaceutical companies.

Also in any society there isn't just a "mainstream". Underground cultures flourish especially in societies with a high degree of alienation. Underground cultures can have strong social bonds and can make easier all kinds of activity that would be hard within the mainstream culture.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ex-addicts are not zombies of course. They are ex-zombies.
No. Zombies want to eat your brains, while drug addicts just want to do drugs. Try and keep up now. I think it's pretty arrogant to call drug addicts zombies, and shows you have little but contempt for people suffering from addiction.


Does criminalizing something make the situation better or worse?Usually worse.

Many laws have made the society a safer place, some laws not.Drug prohibition has led to over half of the incarceration in the United States, the most heavily policed and imprisoned country in the world. Do you think that makes society safe?

Also the same law works in one country but not in some other country.Sure. Are you going to keep throwing around these generalizations besides debating about the subject?

It all comes to the general golden rule: policies supported by the vast mainstream population have good chances of success, and policies opposed by vast population segments have poor chances of success.Well in theory this may work really nicely. There's a few problems though.

1) A seldom few of us live in societies that are governed effectively by a majority democracy. For example what the majority of people in the US want doesn't matter to the government.
2) Even if the majority of the people agreed to legalize marijuana for example (which some census have shown that the majority of Americans support marijuana legalization), monopolies take higher priority than public opinion. I thought this would be obvious to any one who calls themselves a revolutionary leftist.


Is it a positive or negative thing for the society to ban drug X?No never. Banning substances meant for human consumption is stupid. Especially substances that have high demand.

Depends on the opinion of the vast mainstream population about the issue. If people generally oppose drugs, they will sing their songs to the police when they hear any rumours of drug use or drug traders.I take it this is your attempt at a joke.

[JJM 777]

Is drugs an exception to you folks, as a product or activity that the state should not legally ban? Do you agree that some other products or activities exist in the world, which the state should legally ban? Or do you support unrestricted freedom in the society, without any law banning anything?

I am just trying to see what you generally think about the role of state. You might be anti-state anarchists, for example, in which case there is no chance that our discussion leads to any common agreement about any point of discussion.


Since drug transactions only involve the dealer and the buyer its easy to do without other people noticing anything to report.
To sell something, you must acquire customers. You must market your product to new people. The police can also use guerrilla tactics, such as sending agents in civil clothes to try to buy drugs from places where they are expected to be circulated.

Also in cashless Socialism it will be difficult to buy anything from other persons, without the state noticing that you are handling a lot of money which has no explanation.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Is drugs an exception to you folks, as a product or activity that the state should not legally ban?
Uh, no I guess not.


Do you agree that some other products or activities exist in the world, which the state should legally ban?
Things like murder, exploitation, discrimination, yes. These things should be combated.


Or do you support unrestricted freedom in the society, without any law banning anything?
What the fuck are you on about? You think people who advocate the legalization of drugs just want people to do whatever they want? We're talking about freeing people from behind bars and allowing persons who are ill to use medicine, or to be able to break their addiction without criminal prosecution.


I am just trying to see what you generally think about the role of state.
The role of the state reflects class interests, depending on which class controls/essentially is the state. The role of the state has nothing to do with banning drugs, that has to do with banning property, capital, and commodities.

You might be anti-state anarchists, for example, in which case there is no chance that our discussion leads to any common agreement about any point of discussion.
Yeah right. I advocate a proletarian state. I'm not an anarchist.



To sell something, you must acquire customers. You must market your product to new people.
Nice observation.


The police can also use guerrilla tactics, such as sending agents in civil clothes to try to buy drugs from places where they are expected to be circulated.
First, look up the definition of guerrilla tactics. It is a type of warfare. Undercover cops aren't guerrillas. Second, your argument doesn't make any sense. So what if the government can arrest people for trafficking drugs? Whats the point? What about the majority of drug dealers/users they don't catch (which is the majority of them)?


Also in cashless Socialism it will be difficult to buy anything from other persons, without the state noticing that you are handling a lot of money which has no explanation.
Well that's because in "cashless Socialism" there is no buying and selling. Communist economics is based on common ownership of a post scarcity surplus distributed via 'gift economics'. There is no need for a person to buy or sell drugs when they can just take the drugs that are produced.

Socialism means common ownership of the means of production, so there is no reasonable way to criminalize drugs because there's no motive to, as well as the fact that no singe class would own and control the means of production at the expense of another.

[gorillafuck]

Is drugs an exception to you folks, as a product or activity that the state should not legally ban?
So things that AREN'T banned are considered exceptions now?

[JJM 777]

Well I am not interested living in a society where any strongly addictive drugs are legal, I really would love to get tobacco products banned too. Non-addictive and safe drugs could possibly be used in salons where a doctor is present giving safe doses, and where people are locked up until the effects of the drug fades out.

[revolution inaction]

Well I am not interested living in a society where any strongly addictive drugs are legal, I really would love to get tobacco products banned too. Non-addictive and safe drugs could possibly be used in salons where a doctor is present giving safe doses, and where people are locked up until the effects of the drug fades out.

you know you don't have to take drugs just cause they are legal, why is it you feel you need to be told what to do and not do? you could always use some self control and choose for your self.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Well I am not interested living in a society where any strongly addictive drugs are legal I guess you aren't interested in living in any society then.

, I really would love to get tobacco products banned too.
No one cares about what drugs you would "really love" to ban. Your not going to ban any drugs.

Non-addictive and safe drugs could possibly be used in salons where a doctor is present giving safe doses, and where people are locked up until the effects of the drug fades out.
How ridiculous.

[gorillafuck]

Well I am not interested living in a society where any strongly addictive drugs are legal
Say goodbye to painkillers for that surgery, then.

[RotStern]

Oh and btw ! I'll be at the March too! xD

[9]

Well I am not interested living in a society where any strongly addictive drugs are legal, I really would love to get tobacco products banned too. Non-addictive and safe drugs could possibly be used in salons where a doctor is present giving safe doses, and where people are locked up until the effects of the drug fades out.

And its not just painkillers as the above user mentioned, but anesthetics which allow you to be numb during surgery that you would be banning, in addition to a slew of other vitally important substances.
By this definition - which is reactionary to the extreme - you would have to go to a saloon if you had a headache to take a basic analgesic like aspirin, tylenol, or advil, and wait in a cage until you were told you could leave.
Caffeine would also obviously be banned by this definition.
And what about people with medical conditions who need to take drugs to live a half-decent life? Though I made a point like this before much earlier in the argument, and you conveniently never addressed it.
I think it is generally wise to inform yourself on a matter before you attempt to argue a point. But clearly that is not the way you operate.

[JJM 777]

And its not just painkillers as the above user mentioned, but anesthetics which allow you to be numb during surgery that you would be banning, in addition to a slew of other vitally important substances.
Anesthetic medicine currently is illegal for the general population. It is reserved and strictly regulated for use by medical professionals only.

If this was not self-evident without separately explaining it: medical professionals should have the right to use in treatment many a poison and drug, which are and also should be legally banned from the general population.

Build a Socialist state where heroin is legal and publicly sold on the street, I will not be moving to your state. And I am not the only Socialist thinking so.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Since no one else has taken apart this gem of ignorance, I guess I will.

Anesthetic medicine currently is illegal for the general population. It is reserved and strictly regulated for use by medical professionals only.

Hmm, illegal, yet strictly regulated. Do you read what you type? Just because anesthetics are pretty much only used in a medical context, doesn't make it "illegal" for the general population; quite the contrary, it means that it is readily available for the general population.


If this was not self-evident without separately explaining it: medical professionals should have the right to use in treatment many a poison and drug, which are and also should be legally banned from the general population.
Yeah because the general population consists of a bunch of idiots with no self control and if drugs were legalized people would be lying in the streets getting high.

Question, would medical professionals have the right to get stoned? Since they are medical professionals and all..


Build a Socialist state where heroin is legal and publicly sold on the street, I will not be moving to your state.:lol:

Ok first and foremost, if heroin was legalized it wouldn't be sold on the street like an illegal commodity. Second, if relatively safe drugs like marijuana or LSD were legal too, why the hell would anyone want heroin?


And I am not the only Socialist thinking so.Sorry but you aren't very much of a socialist, and I doubt any other socialist worth their salt agrees with you.


Now why don't you try and actually address some of the arguments that we've put forth?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I recently read an article about live turkeys being used to smuggle cocaine in Peru. A year or two ago, I read another about underground tunnels in Mexico. These are the lengths people are willing to go to.
I found this (http://investigation.discovery.com/investigation/drug-mules/smuggling-slideshow.html) pretty interesting. Some methods are pretty cruel, to downright desperate. All provoked by prohibition.


Do you even realize what lengths you would have to go to to successfully prevent drug smuggling/use/abuse/what-have-you? As phony as the term is, this would essentially require a totalitarian police state. Even then, people would likely find a way.
Exactly. Drugs have been apart of human society for thousands of years. There not going anywhere. If only people like Jm 777 would understand this.


You'd have to get Xzibit and his crew to come in and pimp your police state, telescreens in the backseats of everyone's car and all.
:lol:

[JJM 777]

Hmm, illegal, yet strictly regulated.
Exactly. No crime when used in the strictly regulated circumstances, but a crime when used or even possessed in any other circumstances.


would medical professionals have the right to get stoned?
Right now they don't, and they never would, have the right to use drugs in any way that is contrary to the strict regulations.


relatively safe drugs like marijuana or LSD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Dangers

The risk assessment of LSD looks like it might be a suitable "salon drug" in the circumstances that I described afore: a doctor giving the doses (to avoid risk of overdose), and the persons remaining locked in the salon until the effects of the drug fade out (to avoid the apparently greatest risk of LSD, injury due to lack of sense of reality as the person acts under the influence of the drug).

I haven't said anything positive about drugs yet, so now I say: I greatly appreciate drugs as a way to escape reality for persons whose reality is abysmal. Physical pain related to some chronic illnesses, and some types of chronic depression or post-traumatic memories, are not worth living through, and cannot be escaped much anywhere else than to anesthesia or drugs.


whether or not you agree with drug use, most people do, and they're going to get their hands on the things

Socialism has the same problem with money, actually. Whether or not you agree with people's right to greed of money and property, most people do, and they're going to get their hands on the things. The way of least resistance is to do what you want with people who agree with you, without trying to govern dissenters. Leave them alone, let them do elsewhere what they want.

I have a dream: a society without any risky or highly addictive drug use. Also no tobacco products of any kind, which carries a risk of lung cancer and other serious health problems. Many agree with my dream, but if you don't, I have no intention to govern dissenters. I will gladly allow tobacco product users to do what they want elsewhere, also paying their own medical bills without begging alms from the non-smoking community.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Exactly. No crime when used in the strictly regulated circumstances, but a crime when used or even possessed in any other circumstances.
You obviously don't understand that you can't make something illegal, then "strictly regulate" it.



Right now they don'tYes they do, in countries where drugs are decriminalized. But my point was that if medical professionals are the only ones who are allowed to distribute drugs in your "dream society", then why wouldn't they themselves be allowed to take drugs if they so pleased?


, and they never would, have the right to use drugs in any way that is contrary to the strict regulations.Too bad this would never work in practice.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#DangersThanks but I know about the possible dangers of consuming LSD.


The risk assessment of LSD looks like it might be a suitable "salon drug" in the circumstances that I described afore: a doctor giving the doses (to avoid risk of overdose), and the persons remaining locked in the salon until the effects of the drug fade out (to avoid the apparently greatest risk of LSD, injury due to lack of sense of reality as the person acts under the influence of the drug).While it is reasonable to control the dosage, it isn't reasonable to require someone using LSD to be "locked in" to some "salon". It is practical to use it in your own home with a sitter.


I haven't said anything positive about drugs yet, so now I say: I greatly appreciate drugs as a way to escape reality for persons whose reality is abysmal. Physical pain related to some chronic illnesses, and some types of chronic depression or post-traumatic memories, are not worth living through, and cannot be escaped much anywhere else than to anesthesia or drugs.Well it's good that you realize that. The only problem is you think that recreational drug usage is completely immoral and unwanted, since they can't be used "under any other circumstances" than in a medical context.



Socialism has the same problem with money, actually.Uh, no it doesn't. Such an analogy doesn't make sense.

Whether or not you agree with people's right to greed of money and property, most people do, and they're going to get their hands on the things.People don't have any right to own private property at the expense of others, other than under the current capitalist system. Which of course in our view should be abolished. So I don't know why your talking about owning property and greed in socialism.

The way of least resistance is to do what you want with people who agree with you, without trying to govern dissenters. Leave them alone, let them do elsewhere what they want.

Well yes. Why can't you just apply this principle to your entire outlook on drugs?

I have a dream: a society without any risky or highly addictive drug use. Also no tobacco products of any kind, which carries a risk of lung cancer and other serious health problems.Some dream. Why do you dream about forcing people to not use drugs? Is this some kind of authoritarian personality complex or what? I really don't understand why someone would want to do such a thing.

Many agree with my dream,No they don't. Most people would disagree. Tobacco is a popular drug.


but if you don't, I have no intention to govern dissenters. I will gladly allow tobacco product users to do what they want elsewhere, also paying their own medical bills without begging alms from the non-smoking community.Ah, so now we've gotten down to the core of your argument: that drug users, specifically tobacco users are some kind of burden to society. Predictable.

Why would you want people to have to pay medical bills at all? There is no reason to superficially separate people according to smokers and non-smokers. That's just ridiculous.