Socialism and recreational drugs

[Unicorn]

Drugs should be legal in my opinion but how would they be produced?

Decisions concerning their production should be made democratically within the party. I highly doubt that a motion in favor of their production would be popular. While there is hunger in the world it is not right to use farmland to cultivate cannabis. The general opinion among communists in my country seems to be against drugs, especially harder drugs. In the USSR they were illegal and the drug problem in capitalist countries was a common theme in propaganda.

Drugs thus would not be produced industrially in a socialist society. People would be free use drugs they produce themselves (magic mushrooms, cannabis etc.). However, drug trade would be illegal as a form of private entrepreneurship. This means that the use of drugs and problems caused by that would be significantly less common under socialism than under capitalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Decisions concerning their production should be made democratically within the party.No, the party would not be given the authority to make decisions relating to production. Workers would operate through a system of councils, based on each sector of industry, to decide on what should be produced, and how much of each good is necessary. This process must be democratic, to ensure that production is a reflection of consumer wants.


While there is hunger in the world it is not right to use farmland to cultivate cannabisThere is currently enough food to feed everyone (source) (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm) and the output could be expanded if agricultural technology, such as GM crops which are resistant to disease, were applied in underdeveloped areas where this technology is currently not available or is too expensive to be used on a large scale. The main problem is the way in which this food is distributed.

As such, this is not a fair argument against the cultivation of marijuana. It should also be noted that marijuana can also be used to make hemp which has a range of different uses, such as the manufacture of fibers, and to increase the strength of cement, so there is also a non-drug-related reason to grow marijuana.


Drugs thus would not be produced industrially in a socialist society.Yes they would, what reason is there not to produce drugs industrially? It is economically efficient to produce any goods on a large scale. If people want drugs, they should be produced. To suggest otherwise is to adopt a paternalist attitude.


This means that the use of drugs and problems caused by that would be significantly less common under socialism than under capitalism.Why do you consider the lower use of drugs a good thing? People will always want to use drugs, as people enjoy being under the influence of drugs, and so it is important that they are provided with the means to use drugs safely to minimize any negative effects that may arise. Anyway, for many drugs, especially marijuana, the negative effects are currently over-stated.

[Unicorn]

No, the party would not be given the authority to make decisions relating to production. Workers would operate through a system of councils, based on each sector of industry, to decide on what should be produced, and how much of each good is necessary. This process must be democratic, to ensure that production is a reflection of consumer wants.
Decentralized planning was one of Khruschevite/Gorbachevite reforms which didn't work. Central planning is more efficient. A socialist society should be governed according to Leninist principles.



There is currently enough food to feed everyone (source) (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm) and the output could be expanded if agricultural technology, such as GM crops which are resistant to disease, were applied in underdeveloped areas where this technology is currently not available or is too expensive to be used on a large scale. The main problem is the way in which this food is distributed.

As such, this is not a fair argument against the cultivation of marijuana. It should also be noted that marijuana can also be used to make hemp which has a range of different uses, such as the manufacture of fibers, and to increase the strength of cement, so there is also a non-drug-related reason to grow marijuana.
Regardless of the global food production it is possible that enough food is not produced in a particular socialist state or that there is a local food crisis and a socialist state has a responsibility to export food there.



Yes they would, what reason is there not to produce drugs industrially? If people want drugs, they should be produced. To suggest otherwise is to adopt a paternalist attitude.
How do you determine the demand for drugs? Capitalists use marketing to create artificial demand for many useless consumer products. Capitalist drug barons use informal channels to aggressively promote drugs and thus increase their demand.

It is a legitimate argument that producing drugs is inappropriate use of scarce resources. And how to price them? Historically, the USSR priced alcohol artificially high to produce revenues to the state and discourage the use of alcohol. I think the same principle applies to drugs.



Why do you consider the lower use of drugs a good thing?
Chemical drugs, alcohol and tobacco have a negative effect on public health. I don't support a ban but if people used them less it would be a good thing. I support public health campaigns to ensure that people are fairly informed of their dangers.

[BobKKKindle$]

Decentralized planning was one of Khruschevite/Gorbachevite reforms which didn't work. Central planning is more efficient. A socialist society should be governed according to Leninist principles.The system under Stalin did not include a mechanism by which consumers were able to express their wants, and so the state allocated resources to developing heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods, so that people were unable to purchase clothing of a decent quality, and lived in cramped conditions because of the absence of suitable housing.

I am not opposed to central planning as such, but it must account for the needs of consumers, which means that the decision of what to produce cannot be given to a bureaucracy which is isolated from the general population. Production can be coordinated through a system of councils which link workers in different industries and across a large geographical area.


How do you determine the demand for drugs? Capitalists use marketing to create artificial demand for many useless consumer products. Capitalist drug barons use informal channels to aggressively promote drugs and thus increase their demand.This is not an issue which applies solely to drugs. Experimentation will be required to find a system of production which is effective, it is not possible to develop a new economic system in advance, as we cannot anticipate the challenges we may encounter in a post-revolutionary society. However, a system of consumer councils may enable consumer to indicate the goods they want. This is just one option.


Regardless of the global food production it is possible that enough food is not produced in a particular socialist state or that there is a local food crisis and a socialist state has a responsibility to export food there.Based on this logic, we should never used any land that could be used for cultivation for the production of something that is not food. If a temporary shortage emerges, then a locality could make use of reserves or request food from another locality which is not experiencing a shortage. This is not a credible argument against producing drugs. Many drugs are not actually "grown" but are produced synthetically in a laboratory, and marijuana, which is the main drug which is cultivated, is often produced inside a building because a certain temperature and relative humidity is required to produce the best quality crop.


It is a legitimate argument that producing drugs is inappropriate use of scarce resources.

Who determines what is inappropriate? A paternalist like you?


And how to price them? Historically, the USSR priced alcohol artificially high to produce revenues to the state and discourage the use of alcohol. I think the same principle applies to drugs.And yet the USSR suffered from serious alcoholism. Applying taxes to change consumer behaviour is paternalistic, what right does the state have to determine how people should behave? Drugs should not be treated differently from any other good, which means that the price should not be raised to discourage consumption.


Chemical drugs, alcohol and tobacco have a negative effect on public healthEven if certain drugs are harmful, so what? There are many activities which are or have the potential to be harmful, but the state has no right to try and prevent people from engaging in such activities, either through a ban, or disincentives, because people are capable of making their own choices.

[mykittyhasaboner]

However, drug trade would be illegal as a form of private entrepreneurship. This means that the use of drugs and problems caused by that would be significantly less common under socialism than under capitalism.
why would you make the drug trade illegal? the drug trade in a communist society would not use money, so the problems caused by drugs in a capitalist system would not even exist, let alone be less prevalent. drugs are going to be produced on a mass scale communally and through specialized cultivation, so how can making a ban on the trade of illegal drugs beneficial?


Why do you consider the lower use of drugs a good thing? People will always want to use drugs, as people enjoy being under the influence of drugs, and so it is important that they are provided with the means to use drugs safely to minimize any negative effects that may arise. Anyway, for many drugs, especially marijuana, the negative effects are currently over-stated. well said, the anti marijuana sentiment that is present in this generation is just cappie propaganda. let us not forget that drugs are used for religious /spiritual purpose, and to deny them their drugs, would be to deny their liberty, and freedom of religion.

[Unicorn]

Based on this logic, we should never used any land that could be used for cultivation for the production of something that is not food. If a temporary shortage emerges, then a locality could make use of reserves or request food from another locality which is not experiencing a shortage. This is not a credible argument against producing drugs.
No, land and resources are not infinite and the society must priorize. Food is more important than drugs.



Many drugs are not actually "grown" but are produced synthetically in a laboratory, and marijuana, which is the main drug which is cultivated, is often produced inside a building because a certain temperature and relative humidity is required to produce the best quality crop.
Yes. Laboratory buildings and equipment cost money. Would that be a good investment? I am not against letting people produce drugs themselves but selling drugs should of course be illegal as capitalist activity.



Who determines what is inappropriate? A paternalist like you?
No, it should be determined democratically. Most workers in my native Finland despise drug users and the communist candidates in elections support criminalization of drugs. People who would support state production of drugs are a tiny minority.



And yet the USSR suffered from serious alcoholism. Applying taxes to change consumer behaviour is paternalistic, what right does the state have to determine how people should behave? Drugs should not be treated differently from any other good, which means that the price should not be raised to discourage consumption.

Even if certain drugs are harmful, so what? There are many activities which are or have the potential to be harmful, but the state has no right to try and prevent people from engaging in such activities, either through a ban, or disincentives, because people are capable of making their own choices.
Do you also advocate freedom to carry handguns in a socialist society? That would be a wrong position. There are very good reasons to ban handguns and being pro-gun is generally a right-wing position. Handgun-related accidents and violence kill people. Drug-related accidents and violence kill people. What is the difference?

It is reasonable to use tax policy to discourage activity which harms the welfare of the people and encourage activity which is beneficial. The use of alcohol and tobacco increases health care costs and for that reason it is reasonable to tax these products at higher rate. On the other hand, because reading books improves the general level of education the sales tax on them could be lower. This is not "paternalistic".

[Unicorn]

why would you make the drug trade illegal?
In a socialist society all forms of private entrepreneurship are illegal. Making drugs and then selling them for profit is a form of capitalist activity.



the drug trade in a communist society would not use money, so the problems caused by drugs in a capitalist system would not even exist, let alone be less prevalent. drugs are going to be produced on a mass scale communally and through specialized cultivation, so how can making a ban on the trade of illegal drugs beneficial?
In a communist society there is no state and thus no ban on drug trade. It is speculative what a communist society is like. I am talking about a socialist society.

[black magick hustla]

i think this threads are kinda dumb. The hippie policizitation of drugs is rampant in the left, and this is why you get threads like this. Drugs shouldn't be a political concern, in the same way getting lollipops, ipods, or the latest print of Maxim.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Drugs should be a political concern, certain drug usage clearly have an affect on a community and the quality of life of many people.

A healthy and responsible attitude would be to advocate control and limitation. Recreational drug use is fine for certain drugs but it needs to be done in a climate that is fully aware of the potential risks and able to provide adequate treatment.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, land and resources are not infinite and the society must priorize. Food is more important than drugs.

Yes, I agree that food is more important, but that does not mean we should use every acre of available land to produce food, there will be land that can be used for an alternative use, because only a limited amount of food is necessary, there would be no reason to produce much more food than we need. This is not a strong argument.


I am not against letting people produce drugs themselves but selling drugs should of course be illegal as capitalist activity.

We should not leave drug production to individual users. There would be no way to ensure that the quality of the drugs is sufficient, which would increase the possibility of medical problems, as people may unknowingly take a drug which is mixed with other substances. This would increase the impact on public health. In addition, small-scale production is economically inefficient, as it is not possible to use machinery, and so from an economic standpoint, it is better that we produce drugs on an industrial scale.


Do you also advocate freedom to carry handguns in a socialist society? That would be a wrong position. There are very good reasons to ban handguns and being pro-gun is generally a right-wing position. Handgun-related accidents and violence kill people. Drug-related accidents and violence kill people. What is the difference?

No, it is not a "wrong" position, as people should have the means to defend themselves, and the state has no right to deny anyone the essential right of self-defense. An armed population would also be a powerful tool in the context of a post-revolutionary society, as it would enable the defense of the revolution against external enemies. Opposition to gun laws is a position commonly associated with the right, but that does not mean it is wrong, to assume that something is wrong solely because it is a position advocated by an ideological opponent is a type of logical fallacy.

How is this related to drugs though? If drug production were controlled by the state, then deaths resulting from drug use would be less likely to occur, as the quality of the drug would be ensured.


No, it should be determined democratically. Most workers in my native Finland despise drug users and the communist candidates in elections support criminalization of drugs. People who would support state production of drugs are a tiny minority.

So? This only shows that most Finnish workers are reactionary. There are many workers who hate immigrants, but that does not mean that racism is an acceptable position, and the communist party should not try and appeal to common prejudices, they should aim to change opinion through agitation - that is the role of the vanguard.

[Luís Henrique]

There being no private property of means of production, the decision on what is going to be produced is up to the democratical decision of workers. I guess workers will simply decide to no longer produce such shit, which will put an end to this story.

Luís Henrique

[Unicorn]

We should not leave drug production to individual users. There would be no way to ensure that the quality of the drugs is sufficient, which would increase the possibility of medical problems, as people may unknowingly take a drug which is mixed with other substances. This would increase the impact on public health. In addition, small-scale production is economically inefficient, as it is not possible to use machinery, and so from an economic standpoint, it is better that we produce drugs on an industrial scale.
No, if drugs were easily available and inexpensive like alcohol and tobacco their popularity would skyrocket. This means that drug use would then cause much more harm to the public health.

Also, it is not the business of the state if small-scale production is economically inefficient. Producing drugs should be regarded as a hobby similar to handicraft.



No, it is not a "wrong" position, as people should have the means to defend themselves, and the state has no right to deny anyone the essential right of self-defense. An armed population would also be a powerful tool in the context of a post-revolutionary society, as it would enable the defense of the revolution against external enemies. Opposition to gun laws is a position commonly associated with the right, but that does not mean it is wrong, to assume that something is wrong solely because it is a position advocated by an ideological opponent is a type of logical fallacy.
This is another issue to discuss. I disagree with your reasoning. However, you can't possibly consider gun control an un-Marxist position. I support gun control on the grounds that easy availability of guns helps the lumpenproletariat to terrorize workers.



How is this related to drugs though? If drug production were controlled by the state, then deaths resulting from drug use would be less likely to occur, as the quality of the drug would be ensured.
Both gun control and drug laws aim to restrict the availability of harmful things for the common good.

Death might be less likely to occur to individuals if the state produced drugs but the amount of drug-related deaths would still skyrocket because drugs would be much more popular.



So? This only shows that most Finnish workers are reactionary. There are many workers who hate immigrants, but that does not mean that racism is an acceptable position, and the communist party should not try and appeal to common prejudices, they should aim to change opinion through agitation - that is the role of the vanguard.
Many communist parties in the world (including both Finnish communist parties) have an anti-drug platform. Especially parties which have broad working-class support.

[which doctor]

I think the question of drug production and distribution will be one that solves itself in a post-rev society. I imagine it would be a sort of cottage industry.