Drugs for the Youth

[Eleftherios]

Now, I know that there are a lot of threads on drugs, but I wanted to start this one because I kind of got into an argument on Myspace with a 14-year old girl who was saying that she took Shrooms, Vicodin, Cigarettes, and Vodka and how it was the best night of her life. I didn't know her very well (and I have been constantly doing drugs a lot lately) but this incident disturbed me so much that it made me want to get into a real argument with her about how she shouldn't use that stuff to get happy, especially because she was so young, but she basically told me that since I wasn't a "true friend" that I should fuck off.

So what do you think? Should people have to be certain age in order to abuse drugs? Should drugs be used recreationally at all? Was I right in confronting her?

[Dros]

As MIM used to say:

Under the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasentry we won't [need to restrict drugs].

:lol:

But more seriously, this is a very complex issue. I think it boils down to personal autonomy. People have the right to do what they want with their bodies. Even 14 year olds. However, there should be education and facilities available so that people will know what they're doing and can get help if there is a problem. In terms of drug addiction, it is a symptom of alienation that occurs under capitalism. It will go away in a very large way under socialist and communist modes of production.

[mykittyhasaboner]

you cant put age restrictions on drugs since that would violate our freedom and liberty, as far as recreational use, its the persons choice. plus i dont think that there would be vicodin or cigarettes in a communist, or anarchist society, since these are artificial and created by corporations. natural occuring drugs such as marijuana and shrooms would replace vicodin for pain relieving and muscle relaxation.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well it comes down to an issue of consent. Let's take the case of an adult for a second. I don't think there should be any problem with an adult in a normal situation taking vodka, cigarettes, shrooms etc., after all it's their body and they are aware of what they're doing and not harming anyone else. Most leftists would agree with that. However, it becomes a very different story when the person does not know the effects of what they are taking. Let's say a person is given a drink which is spiked with a drug, or is given a drug but grossly misinformed as regards its consequences (like, I dunno, saying Rohypnol does wonders for a headache). That's not so agreeable now is it? Because the person effectively cannot properly consent to taking the drugs, because he or she does not know of the consequences.

It's the same story with sex. Obviously rape is sex without consent (roughly put). By extension, sex with children under a certain age is considered rape because that child cannot possibly consent to the sex, even if the child is informed of what sex entails, and what the consequences are. It's really the same story for drugs. Personally I don't think you can support anti-paedophilia laws and not support a minimum age for drug-taking.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Wait a minute wtf, that above post was bullshit. Sorry, I'm mad fucking tired, I don't know why I don't just go to bed. I'll post my revised opinion tomorrow.

[Clarksist]

In terms of drug addiction, it is a symptom of alienation that occurs under capitalism. It will go away in a very large way under socialist and communist modes of production.

Yep, people get addicted to drugs because of capitalism. :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with the fact that long term use of some drugs creates withdrawal pangs.

The thing is, the drug issue is actually a non issue. There is absolutely no reason to illegalize drugs. None. And with age limits comes a crucial moment where all that scientific Marxist thinking crumples under lifelong liberal dogma. Children do deserve to choose, and if they make an unhealthy and destructive choice, that is an incident separate from the duties of society.

Is it tragic? Perhaps. Is it anything that social orders should get involved with? Absolutely not. The prevailing social order has a single objective: to better facilitate the quality of human life. However, the use of coercion in instances of personal abuse is the exact opposite of that goal. To achieve this aim in relation to drugs, the social order should provide free rehab, free and unbiased drug education, free and clean needles, and transportation alternatives. Anything beyond this is not ensuring a higher quality of life, it is making direct decisions for people without their consent.

[BobKKKindle$]

Drugs should be restricted to people above a certain age, because young children are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, and so should not be given the absolute freedom to make their own choices in every sphere, but should be prevented from undertaking certain activities. This is an acceptable limit on freedom, because freedom is only given to those that are able to make the right choices.

[which doctor]

In terms of drug addiction, it is a symptom of alienation that occurs under capitalism. It will go away in a very large way under socialist and communist modes of production.

Drug addiction and use has been occurring long before capitalism even began.

[Clarksist]

Drugs should be restricted to people above a certain age, because young children are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, and so should not be given the absolute freedom to make their own choices in every sphere, but should be prevented from undertaking certain activities.

So we shouldn't let children eat candy, fast food, play sports, ride in cars, or do any sort of activity which could lead to health problems or death? That's just silly! Why not just let parents decide? That might actually work, instead of having to fun a police force to abuse our children.


This is an acceptable limit on freedom, because freedom is only given to those that are able to make the right choices.

Says who? What constitutes the "right" choice? You? The state? The party? And what exactly do you plan to do with these people who simply don't agree, and who aren't hurting anybody? Jail them? What about overweight people? What about the mentally retarded? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath for you to answer.

And no, I'm sorry to inform you, there is no "acceptable" limit on freedom. You can't limit freedom, you either have it or you don't. There is no gradation of freedom, it is a finite quality.

[Luís Henrique]

you cant put age restrictions on drugs since that would violate our freedom and liberty, as far as recreational use, its the persons choice. plus i dont think that there would be vicodin or cigarettes in a communist, or anarchist society, since these are artificial and created by corporations. natural occuring drugs such as marijuana and shrooms would replace vicodin for pain relieving and muscle relaxation.

That's absurd. Since when is marijuana "natural"? It has to be planted, cared, bred, selected, sorted, cut, pressed, distributed.

You know, agriculture, industry, and commerce.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Also, this doesn't belong in the Theory forum. I have moved it to "discrimination" because of the "ageist" implications, though I very much think that the proper place for this is the trash can.

Sometimes it is like we aren't already isolated enough, we must put forward the most outlandish absurds, so that people will be reassured that the left is, in fact, a bunch of raving lunatics who haven't better things to discuss than whether thirteen year olds should be able to buy heroin over the counter.

:rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[Marsella]

My policy is to take:

a s m u c h a s i c a n.

[Luís Henrique]

So we shouldn't let children eat candy, fast food, play sports, ride in cars, or do any sort of activity which could lead to health problems or death?

With whose money would they do all of that? Their own money, earned with their own labour?

Or with daddy/mommy's money, earned by mommy/daddy's labour?


And no, I'm sorry to inform you, there is no "acceptable" limit on freedom. You can't limit freedom, you either have it or you don't. There is no gradation of freedom, it is a finite quality.

Of course there are acceptable limits on freedom. I can't have all the ice-cream in the world; I can't kill my boss; I can't expect to live forever; I can't travel to the Moon; I can't drink two bottles of beer... all of them acceptable limitations to my freedom.

And, contrary to what some seem to believe, the world won't end before you complete 18. Teenage is not only a curable disease; it's one that will go away by itself.

Luís Henrique

[Crest]

A 14 year old doing drugs, or anybody that lets a 14 year old do drugs, should be condemned to prison. For the one doing it, Juvenile for a month. For the one allowing, Penitentiaries for no less than 20 years.

[Lector Malibu]

Well being an ex-junkie who has seen alot of heavy shit I can't really back drugs. Not because I get off on vilifying them. I just have really seen what they can do unchecked. So yeah I hear ya on the delema. It is a choice I will not tell anyone not to do them but I will never advocate living the lifestyle I did for many years flat out.

[Cencus]

Let's throw a little spanner in here, say it was a 5 year old instead of a a 14 year old taking that concoction of drink and drugs what would people's reactions be? I'm pretty sure everyone's reactions would be somewhere along the lines of "feckin ell".

The advocation of the removal of all age limits on all activities has consequences, that have to be thought through. I'm not saying current limits are anywhere near perfect but there have to be some.

Drugs do fuck you up if taken to excess, as Lector Malibu can testify, but even occasional use can have dire effects. Friend of mine 18 years ago gubbed her 1st E ended up in a mental hospital for 6 months. Ask any regular cannabis user and they'll almost always either be paranoid or have a friend that's gone that way. Smoking is the biggest preventable cause of death in the U.K.. Go in any city or town centre in the west and you will see the local alcoholics hanging round.

On the flip side I had some of the best times in my life off my face on some pill or powder.

Somehow a balance has to be struck between limiting freedom and protecting folks who don't know what they are getting in to, just don't ask me what that is, I'll leave that to folks cleverer than me :D

[bezdomni]

A 14 year old doing drugs, or anybody that lets a 14 year old do drugs, should be condemned to prison. For the one doing it, Juvenile for a month. For the one allowing, Penitentiaries for no less than 20 years.

are you joking?

[Lector Malibu]

Drugs do fuck you up if taken to excess, as Lector Malibu can testify, but even occasional use can have dire effects. Friend of mine 18 years ago gubbed her 1st E ended up in a mental hospital for 6 months. Ask any regular cannabis user and they'll almost always either be paranoid or have a friend that's gone that way. Smoking is the biggest preventable cause of death in the U.K.. Go in any city or town centre in the west and you will see the local alcoholics hanging round.

On the flip side I had some of the best times in my life off my face on some pill or powder.

Somehow a balance has to be struck between limiting freedom and protecting folks who don't know what they are getting in to, just don't ask me what that is, I'll leave that to folks cleverer than me :D

Well said Cencus. Thing is though that balance is very hard to find. Pretty much everybody I ever knew or cared about in whatever capacity died of heroin overdoses. I've had people O.D. at my place and had to revive them.

And there where alot of folks who put it down for awhile and they tried it again and it was too much and killed them.

I don't know what the answer is either all I know that it has been years since I've done that and I still have to live with all the shit that that stuff caused.

If someone wants to try something well , heck we kinda all started that way. I'll I will say is know exactly what you are getting into, especially with Skag. Tell you what though , in the long run you are not missing out on anything by not doing that, and for what it's worth I can tell you that not doing it is saving yourself alot of trouble period.

[Luís Henrique]

Friend of mine 18 years ago gubbed her 1st E ended up in a mental hospital for 6 months.

Oh, yes. Drugs have different effects on different people, and before you take them, there is no way to predict the impact they will have in your life.

Reminds me of a comic strip by André Dahmer, in which he and his friend Maurinho decide to have some shrooms. The punchline is, "I had eight hours in hell... and Maurinho, eight years" (this written over a drawing of Maurinho in a straightjacket, repeating "we are going to die... we are going to die...")

Luís Henrique

[TC]

I didn't know her very well

Then how was it any of your business what she does to her own body for her own pleasure?


(and I have been constantly doing drugs a lot lately)

Then you’re not paternalistic but hypocritical and paternalistic?


but this incident disturbed me so much that it made me want to get into a real argument with her about how she shouldn't use that stuff to get happy, especially because she was so young,

Why the fuck not? Trying to preserve her sweet little girlish innocence or something? Why don’t you go chaperone a purity ball.

I wonder if it would disturb you so much if it was a 14 year old boy.


but she basically told me that since I wasn't a "true friend" that I should fuck off.

Well, she was clearly right: you’re not a true friend to her, a real friend would treat her with respect as a person to be treated with dignity and with regard to their autonomy, not as a precious object to be protected from their dangerous agency.

Why the hell do you think you have the right to make choices on behalf of someone else simply because of their age, especially when those choices aren’t even the choices you make for yourself!!


So what do you think? Should people have to be certain age in order to abuse drugs?

No one should have to “abuse” drugs in the sense of using them as a way to facilitate withdrawal from the world, but anyone of any age should be able to use drugs recreationally, including children (though dosage obviously should depend on body weight, i.e. a ten year old girl should take less cocaine then a 20 year old body builder).


Was I right in confronting her?

No, you were acting out of paternalism, selfishly imposing your own will onto someone weaker than yourself.

By deciding that your will takes priority over hers with regards to what she does with her own body you essentially denied her self-agency and personhood.

This is a deeply reactionary impulse on your part, one that’s cultivated by patriarchy and one that should be dispelled by analyzing its irrational and repressive basis.


Wait a minute wtf, that above post was bullshit. Sorry, I'm mad fucking tired, I don't know why I don't just go to bed. I'll post my revised opinion tomorrow.


I had a reply to your utterly reactionary post above but since you’ve already taken it back, I’ll spare you!



Yep, people get addicted to drugs because of capitalism. file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/VALUED%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif

It has nothing to do with the fact that long term use of some drugs creates withdrawal pangs.

How people *deal* with withdrawal pangs and whether they experience them as tolerable or intolerable has to do with whether they depend on the drug emotionally or whether they have a decent social life with or without the drugs. In this sense chemical withdrawal syndromes aren’t caused by capitalism but addiction as such sort of is.


Children do deserve to choose, and if they make an unhealthy and destructive choice, that is an incident separate from the duties of society.


Is it tragic? Perhaps. Is it anything that social orders should get involved with? Absolutely not. The prevailing social order has a single objective: to better facilitate the quality of human life. However, the use of coercion in instances of personal abuse is the exact opposite of that goal. To achieve this aim in relation to drugs, the social order should provide free rehab, free and unbiased drug education, free and clean needles, and transportation alternatives. Anything beyond this is not ensuring a higher quality of life, it is making direct decisions for people without their consent.

I absolutely agree: both children and adults do stupid things, and its morally equivalent to allow both to do them.

Good post Clarksist.


Drugs should be restricted to people above a certain age, because young children are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions,

No one is capable of “fully understanding the consequences of their actions”, certainly not with first time drug use, everyone can at best be given information to make choices according to their own preference. The need to fully understand the consequences is both unnecessary and impossible.


This is an acceptable limit on freedom, because freedom is only given to those that are able to make the right choices.

What a stupid authoritarian thing to say.

Freedom to choose is always the freedom to choose that which others think is the “wrong choice” otherwise its not a freedom to choose at all, (when there’s only one acceptable “choice” its by definition not a choice).

Your ‘acceptable limit on freedom’ actually amounts to the total denial of any freedom.


Why not just let parents decide? That might actually work, instead of having to fun a police force to abuse our children.

Why not just let the children decide! A child’s body belongs to them and no one else, the parents have no more claim or natural responsibility to or over it then anyone else does or society as a whole. The belief that parents have some sort of natural right over their children is part of patriarchal ideology, it is totally irrational and only serves to demean both children and parents while reproducing the family to facilitate the expansion and maintenance of capital.



With whose money would they do all of that? Their own money, earned with their own labour?

Or with daddy/mommy's money, earned by mommy/daddy's labour?

The idea of “earning” money is a myth, the fact that you’re paid a sum to perform a task doesn’t mean you’ve ‘earned’ it, creation of value is interdependent and payment is distributed without any relation to value; its difficult to calculate because capitalists are concerned with profit not surplus value.

Daddy/mommy didn’t earn anything, they stole by proxy at least a percentage of their earnings.



Of course there are acceptable limits on freedom. I can't have all the ice-cream in the world; I can't kill my boss; I can't expect to live forever; I can't travel to the Moon; I can't drink two bottles of beer... all of them acceptable limitations to my freedom.

By freedom here Clarksist clearly means not the ability to do things but freedom from coercive imposition of another’s will, and there are no acceptable limits on freedom in that sense.


And, contrary to what some seem to believe, the world won't end before you complete 18. Teenage is not only a curable disease; it's one that will go away by itself.

Giving oppression a time limit doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Prison sentences expire, and workers retire with pensions it doesn’t make imprisonment or exploitation of labour acceptable.


A 14 year old doing drugs, or anybody that lets a 14 year old do drugs, should be condemned to prison. For the one doing it, Juvenile for a month. For the one allowing, Penitentiaries for no less than 20 years.

You’re a real sick fuck to say something like that.



Let's throw a little spanner in here, say it was a 5 year old instead of a a 14 year old taking that concoction of drink and drugs what would people's reactions be? I'm pretty sure everyone's reactions would be somewhere along the lines of "feckin ell".


I honestly wouldn’t care, apart from that I’d hope they’d use less vicodin (again because of body size).



The advocation of the removal of all age limits on all activities has consequences, that have to be thought through. I'm not saying current limits are anywhere near perfect but there have to be some.

There don’t because there are natural limits. No one for instance, is going to be able to vote before 20 months old because no one is going to be able to be capable of demanding a vote and expressing a preference (since they lack language skills). Likewise theres no need to have an age of sexual consent because children who are not physically mature enough to desire sex by definition wont do it uncoerced.

Riding a bike for instance is not something with any age limit in the US; it would be impractical and undesirable for very small children to do it due to lack of motor skills, so they just don’t do it...this causes no problems.


Friend of mine 18 years ago gubbed her 1st E ended up in a mental hospital for 6 months.

Your friend either did something other than E, was ending up in a mental hospital anyways and it was just a coincidence, or, and most likely, she’s lying to you (or you’re lying to us). It is simply impossible for ecstasy to have acute psychotic effects lasting six month, its not one of the even plausible results. Ecstasy was actually developed to reduce mental problems in a clinical setting. Its an incredibly safe drug with no established long term risks and even the unestablished speculative ones (i.e. that its neurotoxic...in lab rats...at doses many times higher than recreational use) are chronic not acute issues.


Ask any regular cannabis user and they'll almost always either be paranoid or have a friend that's gone that way.


I and most of my friends use cannabis pretty regularly and I don’t know anyone whose “gone paranoid.”

People who get paranoid from weed don’t do it regularly, its not something that has a cumulative effect.


Smoking is the biggest preventable cause of death in the U.K.

And high calorie foods are the biggest preventable cause of death in the U.S. and yet no one talks about putting an age limit on those.


Somehow a balance has to be struck between limiting freedom and protecting folks who don't know what they are getting in to, just don't ask me what that is, I'll leave that to folks cleverer than me

Theres no ‘balance to be struck’, everyone is *responsible* for themselves and only themselves, to attempt to take responsibility for ‘protecting’ someone else from *themselves* is to deprive them of their personhood by denying them their personal agency. It is a social interest to protect people from *each other* but not from their own *choices*.

[Luís Henrique]

The idea of “earning” money is a myth, the fact that you’re paid a sum to perform a task doesn’t mean you’ve ‘earned’ it, creation of value is interdependent and payment is distributed without any relation to value; its difficult to calculate because capitalists are concerned with profit not surplus value.

Daddy/mommy didn’t earn anything, they stole by proxy at least a percentage of their earnings.

Como é que é?

Now we workers "steal" our wages? From whom, from the capitalist?

Luís Henrique

[Black Cross]

As weird as it is to think I would allow a five year old gobble down some LSD (If it was my choice to make), I have to say I would. First off, I can realize that I was raised to be a drone, and some of the ideas in my head aren't my own, but a christian/capitalists. Knowing that, I can re-examine these ideas from an objective stand-point. That being said, I have the belief (not one pounded into my skull during my childhood) that everyone has the right to autonomy. We should respect this right, not limit it. The best thing we can do is provide the tools for people to educate themselves about the effects that different drugs can have.


Giving oppression a time limit doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Prison sentences expire, and workers retire with pensions it doesn’t make imprisonment or exploitation of labour acceptable.

Well said. I'm in agreement 100%. Although it was overly harsh, in my opinion, I agree with the bulk of tragic clowns argument, as well as clarksist's.


A 14 year old doing drugs, or anybody that lets a 14 year old do drugs, should be condemned to prison. For the one doing it, Juvenile for a month. For the one allowing, Penitentiaries for no less than 20 years.

What the fuck? That better be a joke.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As weird as it is to think I would allow a five year old gobble down some LSD (If it was my choice to make), I have to say I would.

You've obviously never taken LSD. Speaking as someone who has, I would NOT give a 5-year-old LSD - the psychedelic experience can be very intimidating and traumatic - in a "bad trip" there can be very strong feelings of "what have I done/I'm losing my mind", in addition to paranoia and erratic behaviour. Now that sort of thing can be dangerous enough to an adult, let alone a five year old child who has comparitively little experience of stressful situations. I wouldn't allow a child to have LSD for the same reason I wouldn't allow them near a warzone - although they may be physically unharmed, the stress can cause great psychological damage. As a result of taking mushrooms, I had a flashback a couple of months later, which was very similar to a panic attack. It's irresponsible in the extreme to allow a young child to get themselves into such a situation - how on earth do you expect one so young to be able to truly appreciate the potential dangers?

[Eleftherios]

To all those who have a positive view on drugs, I highly recommend you all read this article:

http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/1970/dope.htm


Originally Posted by Phoebos
(and I have been constantly doing drugs a lot lately)

Then you’re not paternalistic but hypocritical and paternalist

I may be hypocritical, but being someone who was been dependant on various narcotics both psychologically and physically, I don't think that matters at all. I have witnessed firsthand what some drugs can do to people (including myself), and I have been a drug-addict in the past-even now, I find it very hard to resist the urge to do some. But I'm trying very hard-and I can tell you that once you take the path of being a junkie its very hard to go back, even if you desperately want to.


Quote:Originally Posted by Phoebos
but she basically told me that since I wasn't a "true friend" that I should fuck off.

Well, she was clearly right: you’re not a true friend to her, a real friend would treat her with respect as a person to be treated with dignity and with regard to their autonomy, not as a precious object to be protected from their dangerous agency.

Why the hell do you think you have the right to make choices on behalf of someone else simply because of their age, especially when those choices aren’t even the choices you make for yourself!!

Well, don't you think a true friend would at the very least warn her about the dangers of mixing vicodin and alcohol, or even shrooms and alcohol?


Quote:Originally Posted by Phoebos
but this incident disturbed me so much that it made me want to get into a real argument with her about how she shouldn't use that stuff to get happy, especially because she was so young,

Why the fuck not? Trying to preserve her sweet little girlish innocence or something? Why don’t you go chaperone a purity ball.

I wonder if it would disturb you so much if it was a 14 year old boy.

I don't care if its a boy or a girl doing stupid shit like that. Children just aren't smart enough to make such important decisions (especially if those decisions could probably ruin their life).


Quote:Originally Posted by Phoebos
So what do you think? Should people have to be certain age in order to abuse drugs?

No one should have to “abuse” drugs in the sense of using them as a way to facilitate withdrawal from the world, but anyone of any age should be able to use drugs recreationally, including children (though dosage obviously should depend on body weight, i.e. a ten year old girl should take less cocaine then a 20 year old body builder).

You actually think that a ten year old should be allowed to snort coke? Now that's just fucked up...

[Luís Henrique]

You actually think that a ten year old should be allowed to snort coke? Now that's just fucked up...

Coming from someone who believes workers steal their wages, it is only marginally strange...

Luís Henrique

[TC]

Como é que é?

Now we workers "steal" our wages? From whom, from the capitalist?

Luís Henrique

Is being *willfully* idiotic is part of your style when it comes to argument via trolling Luis? I said "at least a percentage" of their earning is "stolen by proxy", proxying being the relevant word that makes it obvious to any honest reader that I could not have been referring to 'stealing' from the capitalists.

No, most people in imperialist nations who are identified as being of the cultural working class but not the economically defined proletarian (i.e. teachers, white collar 'workers', waitress/ers, clerks, etc) produce little or no commodities but they consume considerable commodities. These commodities are produced by the proletariat internationally; finance capitalists steal them directly, classes employed by capitalists in non-productive activities steal them by proxy. This is basic Leninist theory with deliberately provocative language, meant to be provocative in order to shock you out of your ageism and deference for parental entitlement. The uncomfortable reality that first world 'workers' enjoy a magnitudes higher standard of living then the people who actually make their stuff is not because first world 'workers' are magnitudinally more productive anymore then it means that capitalists are vastly more productive, it rather means that they receive more than their share of production, which is to say they are net exploiters. (this obviously not holding true for the minority heavily exploited sectors in ghettos, migrant and immigrant labour, etc)

The fact that a high school chemistry teacher has more direct access to the products of third world exploitation then her 12 year old daughter does not mean that the high school teacher 'earned' it anymore than the school superintendent employing her earned it.

From the point of view of an honest marxist, based on theory and not based on random quotations lifted without citation or emotional commitments to viewing some people as 'workers' equivalent to the international proletariat by way of cultural convention, what matters is the production of real tangible capital, not the ability to perform for capitalists. Its production not a pay check that defines the creation of value and to the extent that you can find Marx conflating these two for brevity (especially in political writing) its only because the roles were occupied by the same people at the time he was writing (a CEO is still a worker by the paid employee definition).


Speaking as someone who has, I would NOT give a 5-year-old LSD - the psychedelic experience can be very intimidating and traumatic - in a "bad trip" there can be very strong feelings of "what have I done/I'm losing my mind", in addition to paranoia and erratic behaviour. Now that sort of thing can be dangerous enough to an adult, let alone a five year old child who has comparitively little experience of stressful situations. I wouldn't allow a child to have LSD for the same reason I wouldn't allow them near a warzone

Bad stuff can happen to anyone, anyone can be psychologically traumatized in a warzone or from a bad trip, and its equally bad for anyone. The impulsive however to extend special "protection" at the expense of personal freedom to certain people but not others is paternalistic.

It means that you think the potential harm does not outweigh the need for liberty in the case of one class of people, but that the same potential for harm outweighs the need for liberty in the case of another class of people. The only way that equation adds up is if you think some people's liberty is less valuable than others, and thats been the position of oppressors since the beginning of class society.

[Luís Henrique]

Is being *willfully* idiotic is part of your style when it comes to argument via trolling Luis? I said "at least a percentage" of their earning is "stolen by proxy", proxying being the relevant word that makes it obvious to any honest reader that I could not have been referring to 'stealing' from the capitalists.

Never mind how *willfully* idiotic I try to be, I can't obviously compete with you. So explain us why the capitalists hire workers? To distribute freely to them surplus value extorted in some other way?


No, most people in imperialist nations who are identified as being of the cultural working class but not the economically defined proletarian (i.e. teachers, white collar 'workers', waitress/ers, clerks, etc) produce little or no commodities but they consume considerable commodities.

Ah. But when I made an argument about "mommy" and "daddy" I never said they were "teachers, white collar 'workers', waitress/ers, clerks, etc". So, you have to remake your line of justification for drugging little kids. If they are going to drug themselves with some other people's money - and this is the case, since they have no income, then perhaps those other people have a stake on their drug use.


These commodities are produced by the proletariat internationally; finance capitalists steal them directly, classes employed by capitalists in non-productive activities steal them by proxy.

That's ridiculous. "Productive" is a concept which only has a meaning within the capitalist system; it means "productive" of commodities. A teacher does not become a parasite when s/he changes from a private school to a State school.


This is basic Leninist theory with deliberately provocative language, meant to be provocative in order to shock you out of your ageism and deference for parental entitlement.

And you accuse me of trolling?

I would have liked to see you discussing your ideas about little children with Lenin...

Your tactics evidently don't work. On the contrary, such "provocations" can only make people believe you aren't serious.


The uncomfortable reality that first world 'workers' enjoy a magnitudes higher standard of living then the people who actually make their stuff is not because first world 'workers' are magnitudinally more productive anymore then it means that capitalists are vastly more productive, it rather means that they receive more than their share of production, which is to say they are net exploiters.

You mean that capitalists are now sharing their wealth for free, and that they pay more to their workers than those workers produce. This "analysis", of course, has nothing to do with Marxism.


The fact that a high school chemistry teacher has more direct access to the products of third world exploitation then her 12 year old daughter does not mean that the high school teacher 'earned' it anymore than the school superintendent employing her earned it.

Is this supposed to make sence?


From the point of view of an honest marxist, based on theory and not based on random quotations lifted without citation or emotional commitments to viewing some people as 'workers' equivalent to the international proletariat by way of cultural convention, what matters is the production of real tangible capital, not the ability to perform for capitalists.

And pray tell us, what is the share of the First World economies in the world's GNP?


Its production not a pay check that defines the creation of value and to the extent that you can find Marx conflating these two for brevity (especially in political writing) its only because the roles were occupied by the same people at the time he was writing (a CEO is still a worker by the paid employee definition).

A CEO isn't paid for the value of the reproduction of his labour force, TC. It's a completely different situation, and you should know that.


Bad stuff can happen to anyone, anyone can be psychologically traumatized in a warzone or from a bad trip, and its equally bad for anyone. The impulsive however to extend special "protection" at the expense of personal freedom to certain people but not others is paternalistic.

So are you willing to repeal the ban on children's work?

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bad stuff can happen to anyone, anyone can be psychologically traumatized in a warzone or from a bad trip, and its equally bad for anyone. The impulsive however to extend special "protection" at the expense of personal freedom to certain people but not others is paternalistic.

It is not "equally bad". A five year old who suffered the same bad trip as I did would have come off a lot worse, as a five year old lacks the maturity and life experience that I have. Five years old is still a growing child, while I am an adult - a young one, but still a fully formed human being with enough social and psychological experience to better deal with mental trauma of a bad shroom trip. Something which could cause one to question one's sanity is not something any remotely responsible adult would allow a child as young as five years old to experience - as I said in my previous post (and which you seem to have ignored), how can one so young truly appreciate the potential problems even if educated about them?


It means that you think the potential harm does not outweigh the need for liberty in the case of one class of people, but that the same potential for harm outweighs the need for liberty in the case of another class of people. The only way that equation adds up is if you think some people's liberty is less valuable than others, and thats been the position of oppressors since the beginning of class society.

Wrong. The harm done is not the same between an adult and a child, as I said. What may be scary to a five year old might be fun for an adult (scary movies, mushroom trips), so your argument does not stand.

It is not tyranny to prevent those who cannot truly appreciate the potential dangers from doing from doing so.

[Luís Henrique]

Tragic Clown seems to believe that children are just small adults, which is evidently false.

Luís Henrique

[Dean]

Yep, people get addicted to drugs because of capitalism. :rolleyes:

Not just capitalism, gereralized alienation. I agree with that sentiment. When I first used drugs, it was because life sucked - specifically, I was alone and detached from any compelling social atmosphere. For me, drug use started with alienation - the only medication I use nonrecreationally is prescribed for my migraines. The rest is a result of alienation and purely social reasons - my migraines, in fact, are induced by tension and stress, so they could also be a symptom of an alienating system.

Capitalism isn't just an economic system. It is a whole mode of human orientation, which is very destructive.

[TC]

Tragic Clown seems to believe that children are just small adults, which is evidently false.

Luís Henrique

Given that this is now the second post you've made in this thread devoid of any content other than sniping at me personally without any attempt attempt to engage with the topic of the thread, I'm going to regard you as a troll and will no longer be responding to or reading any of your posts.

You like Severian may get off on trying to provoke me, but since my purpose on this forum is not to serve to amuse you, I wont participate in it.

Consider yourself to be the second person whose fallen under my no-platform for trolls policy applied to this forum.

[Luís Henrique]

To all those who have a positive view on drugs, I highly recommend you all read this article:

http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/1970/dope.htm

Yes. I haven't read it all, but it seems to point out two very correct things:

1. It is a public health concern (a plague or epidemics, as it states);
2. The State is not going to deal with it, working class self-organisation is necessary for that end.

Luís Henrique

[Black Cross]

Speaking as someone who has, I would NOT give a 5-year-old LSD - the psychedelic experience can be very intimidating and traumatic - in a "bad trip" there can be very strong feelings of "what have I done/I'm losing my mind", in addition to paranoia and erratic behaviour. Now that sort of thing can be dangerous enough to an adult, let alone a five year old child who has comparitively little experience of stressful situations. I wouldn't allow a child to have LSD for the same reason I wouldn't allow them near a warzone - although they may be physically unharmed, the stress can cause great psychological damage. As a result of taking mushrooms, I had a flashback a couple of months later, which was very similar to a panic attack. It's irresponsible in the extreme to allow a young child to get themselves into such a situation

I concede that LSD was a bad drug choice for the example I wanted to make. But I said nothing of how much this child was about to take. I wouldn't expect that someone gave this kid a 150 ug dosage and told em to eat up.

The point of my post was to say that it is not my decision to make. What gives you the right to say that he/she cannot have it? All you or i can do is strongly suggest they don't take it and give plausible reasons not to.


You've obviously never taken LSD.
What you think doesn't concern me. I've never had a bad trip on LSD (But I don't use it often. To be honest, I don't like the risks involved). My friends that have had bad trips all say they started to have thoughts (loneliness, general unhapiness, etc.) that turned their trip on its head. I've never heard of someone emotionally stable (at the time they were using) having a bad trip.

Also, I'm fairly certain none of us would necessarily teach our children that LSD is a good thing. In fact, I'm fairly sure that most parents would try to scare their children about the effects of LSD if it were made legal. And since children are easily persuaded, I doubt I would see a kid willingly taking this drug. So if it will make you feel better, replace LSD in my original post with whatever less effective drug you want.

[Luís Henrique]

All you or i can do is strongly suggest they don't take it and give plausible reasons not to.

Since it is not free, you can also not give the child the money to buy it, or refuse his/her demand to buy it for him/her.

Luís Henrique

[Black Cross]

^^^absolutely. but i was speaking in regards to my hypothetical.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah. The problem is your hipothetical. That commodities are not the product of labour.

Luís Henrique

[Black Cross]

^^^ What? I don't remember saying that. If you want me to know what you're talking about, quote me.

[Luís Henrique]

^^^ What? I don't remember saying that. If you want me to know what you're talking about, quote me.

Your "hypothetical" was here:


As weird as it is to think I would allow a five year old gobble down some LSD (If it was my choice to make), I have to say I would.

But the only way allowing a five year old to "gobble down" LSD could be your "choice to make" is if you were in charge of paying such five year old's expenses. Because five year olds do not earn money. And LSD isn't for free, it has a price. So, your "choice to make" could only be the choice to pay for the LSD in discussion. But that, evidently, was not what you had in mind, since when I pointed out that you had the possibility to just not do it, it evidently caught you by surprise, and retorted like that:


absolutely. but i was speaking in regards to my hypothetical.

Which means that you were not thinking of LSD as a material commodity, that has a price, and does not fall from the sky.

Which is what liberals always do when they discuss drugs. They discuss their legalisation or illegalisation, but they systematically avoid the fact that is a commodity produced by human labour, and that in any society ruled by workers, it will be those workers choice whether to produce those drugs or not.

Luís Henrique

[Black Cross]

"if it was my choice to make" (my quote)

you're just misunderstanding me. The point of that was to say that it is not my choice to make. I didn't say i was related to this kid, and the kid already had the LSD in my hypothetical; i didn't say anything about where it came from.


But the only way allowing a five year old to "gobble down" LSD could be your "choice to make" is if you were in charge of paying such five year old's expenses.

That's my point, it's not my choice. You're just blowing my argument out of proportion and seeing things that aren't there.

[Luís Henrique]

That's my point, it's not my choice.

I see. It came across in a quite different way, though.

Luís Henrique

[Black Cross]

^^ I understand how it could be confusing. My bad.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Some guy said on the first page that people won't take drugs if we move from a capitalist to a socialist economy:

I really think you're falling prey to this attitude of "I'm a marxist, so whatever the issue is no matter what I will blame it all on socio-economic conditions". A socialist economy will cure economic ills. The use of drugs is by no stretch of the imagination an economic ill. It is at worst a way to deal with the brute fact of the human condition that life is just difficult, and it is often unhappy, not just due to being condemned to a lack of resources, but for the whole spectrum of difficulties we face in life; Stress, Depression, Trying to find someone to love that will love you back, so on and so forth. At best, it's an extremely enjoyable thing to do, and I don't see why material gain will make our enjoyment of drugs any less.

-Alex

[rsinger09]

As soon as you put a restriction or tell a kid they can’t do something, it becomes cool. That’s why programs like DARE are so unproductive. Drugs are fun and because of this people of all ages have been using drugs since the beginning of time.

[Luís Henrique]

As soon as you put a restriction or tell a kid they can’t do something, it becomes cool. That’s why programs like DARE are so unproductive.

Yes - and does this happen, if not for the very reason that State is untrustable?


Drugs are fun and because of this people of all ages have been using drugs since the beginning of time.

Define "fun", and show us that it is independent of any ideological frame.

************************

We are still on liberal ideological ground. "Drugs" seem to be facts of nature, that are not produced by human labour. It's almost as if you could grab them out of the air. Evidently, it can feel like that as long as you don't pay for them yourself, but when you have to use your own money to buy them it is only commonplace to look a little beyond the fetishist take of commodities, and understand them as social products.

After all, we can easily understand that a socialist/communist society might well decide to no longer produce automobiles... why is it so difficult to stop considering drugs as some kind of god-given right granted to us by Thomas Jefferson & Co.?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

some drugs are "natural" and do grow by themselves, especially peyote and psycobilin mushrooms. Mushrooms are also incredibly cheap to grow by yourself, if you get ahold of spores.

You are right, I think the politicization of drugs as "some given right" is retarded and infantile. While I do enjoy having drugs from time to time, I don't feel emotional about it. There are other more important things in the word.

[Anashtih]

Your friend either did something other than E, was ending up in a mental hospital anyways and it was just a coincidence, or, and most likely, she’s lying to you (or you’re lying to us). It is simply impossible for ecstasy to have acute psychotic effects lasting six month, its not one of the even plausible results. Ecstasy was actually developed to reduce mental problems in a clinical setting. Its an incredibly safe drug with no established long term risks and even the unestablished speculative ones (i.e. that its neurotoxic...in lab rats...at doses many times higher than recreational use) are chronic not acute issues.
I know I'm new, but I've got some thoughts to add. First, the post the above quote was quite good, and I agreed with most of the thoughts, but in regard to this, I thought I might point out that she was kept for six months against her will, and past the need to do so. Her parents/guardians might have filed that she was a person incapable of caring for herself, or the doctors kept her for observation, although I'd say this is beyond their scope.
Anyway, I've got some experience with some drugs. First I'd say that I believe it is fully up to the individual, but I think that a true friend would at least try to make sure someone wanting to try drugs was as knowledgeable about the given drug as possible, and did it in as safe a manner as possible. Such as trip sitting.
That being said, I've had some experiences with multiple drugs, most prominently being Ambien, Dextroamphetamine, and Dextromethorphan. I'll only delve into the latter, being that it was the most interesting. It's a synthetic opoid, and is most commonly found in various cough medicines, albeit in small amounts. You have no clue how much you might get laughed at for that. People will mock you for getting high off cough medicine. I'd bet that didn't happen when the primary ingredient in cough medicine was heroin :D
Anyway, it's a dissociative, in the same way as Ketamine and Phencylidine (PCP), but has shown not to have nearly the level of neurotoxicity of PCP. I found it to be very interesting, and had several semi-religious experiences, but primarily a level of introspection and the ability to consider things from a different angle. I've been taking a break, but I feel it was, in its own way, defining for me, and most certainly not something I regret.

[Cencus]

Your friend either did something other than E, was ending up in a mental hospital anyways and it was just a coincidence, or, and most likely, she’s lying to you (or you’re lying to us). It is simply impossible for ecstasy to have acute psychotic effects lasting six month, its not one of the even plausible results.

1st of all let me say this. I don't lie, my friend who I visited in said mental hospital did not lie, and I do not take kindly to your accusations. Why the fuck would I lie on an internet forum? To prove some minor point in a discussion on internet forum, get a life, I got nowt to prove.

Anyway back to the story of my friend. She took a psychotic reaction to the pill (her boyfriend took a pill from the same dealer so presume it was the same batch) and was sectioned. She probably would have been let out earlier possibly after 3 or 4 months but she was the first case of anyone flipping on E they'd ever seen, this was back in about 88 or 89 when E was just getting big.[/quote]

It happened, just because you don't agree with something theres no need to call folks liers.


Ecstasy was actually developed to reduce mental problems in a clinical setting. Its an incredibly safe drug with no established long term risks and even the unestablished speculative ones (i.e. that its neurotoxic...in lab rats...at doses many times higher than recreational use) are chronic not acute issues.

I'm not disputing that E is pretty safe, in terms of deaths per dose taken it's allegedly {heard the figures quoted never read the research} safer than penicillian, just that there is a risk. Most E related deaths are down to idiots who don't know what they are doing and don't have someone straight in their to group to keep an eye on the cabbages.

As to the origins of thats pretty much disputed. The most common version is that it was developed as a diet aide/appetite suppressant by Merck of Germany.