Drinking and Drug use?

[cop an Attitude]

What is your personal belief about alcohol and drugs? Also, should these activities be allowed during a revolution?

I would allow, it being a personal choice. Also I think that it should be allowed in a revolution. The "distractions" such as sex, alcohol and drug use can't and shouldn't be stopped, it's the people's right to be allowed to do such things.

[cop an Attitude]

oh and sorry if this is an old question, I looked and i couldn't find a poll version.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's going to happen regardless of what "the law" says, whether that law is bourgeois or proletarian in origin.

Responsible use of drugs and alcohol is nothing to be concerned about. Abuse of drugs and alcohol is a medical issue, not a legal issue.

[Sasha]

Responsible use of drugs and alcohol is nothing to be concerned about. Abuse of drugs and alcohol is a medical issue, not a legal issue.

qft

[butterfly]

qft times 2.
Substance use should not be restricted, restiction tends to have a polar opposite effect to it's intended purpose.

[Robert]

Shouldn't there be two more choices? It should be encouraged? It should be required?

No problem with a government trying, somehow, to keep its people from destroying itself. The devil is in the details. My view is libertarian, with prohibition on sales to minors, prohibition on false ads, and assistance programs for the addicted. About where we are now.

I personally have no problem finding a drink and am indifferent about your recreational drug use.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I said it should be regulated. Obviously the question is worthless because it doesn't state which drugs it's talking about. Marijuana should be legal over a certain age, I suppose the same age as drinking (which I think should be 16). Cocaine and ecstasy I'm kind of of two minds about. Cocaine I would really rather criminalize because, thought its not addictive in the same way as heroin, it's still quite addictive and I know a lot of people who have spent significant portions of their lives hooked on the stuff. Ecstasy I don't really know enough about to be honest.

Heroin should be illegal. The public policy considerations are simply too strong.

[Rascolnikova]

Abuse of drugs and alcohol is a medical issue, not a legal issue.

However, abuse of public resources--or especially of other people--due to drug and alcohol use/abuse is very much a legal issue. I feel any regulation should be centered around these factors, with some consideration also towards helping people not become addicted when they are too young to make an informed decision about it.

Edit: also, regulated and welcomed aren't exclusive of one another.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

However, abuse of public resources--or especially of other people--due to drug and alcohol use/abuse is very much a legal issue. I feel any regulation should be centered around these factors, with some consideration also towards helping people not become addicted when they are too young to make an informed decision about it.

Edit: also, regulated and welcomed aren't exclusive of one another.
It's not abuse of public resources. Making people better is a legitimate aim, we are talking about the use of public resources. And that is a political issue, not a legal one.

[Rascolnikova]

It's not abuse of public resources. Making people better is a legitimate aim, we are talking about the use of public resources. And that is a political issue, not a legal one.

I was talking about property destruction, not rehab. . .. If that doesn't clarify, I don't know what you're saying here, so please explain?

[Rascolnikova]

About where we are now.


Actually, it presently can be a felony even to possess weed. Whether you care about it or not, a person can loose their full rights of citizenship (such as they are) over it, hardly a libertarian policy environment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However, abuse of public resources--or especially of other people--due to drug and alcohol use/abuse is very much a legal issue.

Why is it any different if someone vandalises under the influence or not? The end result is the same - damage to property, and consequences for the perp if caught.

I consider being under the influence of drugs or alcohol to be incidental, as plenty of people get drunk/high without vandalising property or assaulting others.

Drug addicts mugging people/breaking into houses to fund their addiction is the consequence of prohibition, as it makes drugs expensive and hard to get hold of.

[butterfly]

Drug addicts mugging people/breaking into houses to fund their addiction is the consequence of prohibition, as it makes drugs expensive and hard to get hold of.
Thankyou.
The behaviour that prohibition leads to aswell as the unreliability of the source put's the individuals safety into danger.

[Rascolnikova]

Alcohol use plays very heavily into patterns of domestic violence. When an individual has a pattern of becoming violent only under the influence or recent withdrawal of their favorite drugs, I don't think this should be ignored.

[butterfly]

It could be argued that the behaviour of domestic violence is indicative of deeper issues and therefor the individual seek's out the substance's in order to 'self-medicate', rather than the substance causing the behaviour.

[Dr Mindbender]

drug abuse and alcohol abuse are symptomatic of material scarcity, social alienation and class disparity. Post revolution, these factors will decrease in relevance and with it drug/alcohol abuse.

There is no need to ban people from taking drugs anymore than there is a need to ban people from drinking bleech.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Alcohol use plays very heavily into patterns of domestic violence. When an individual has a pattern of becoming violent only under the influence or recent withdrawal of their favorite drugs, I don't think this should be ignored.

What, realistically, can be done about it?

Personally I'm in favour of knocking his teeth out, but that's just me. "I was drunk" is not an excuse.


It could be argued that the behaviour of domestic violence is indicative of deeper issues and therefor the individual seek's out the substance's in order to 'self-medicate', rather than the substance causing the behaviour.

Which would again make it more of a medical issue.

[Bud Struggle]

No drug use and minimal drinking (public intoxication will be punished severely) will be allowed under Communism. Any impalement of the senses will diminish a comrade's ability to work and his/her usefulness to society--and that cannot be allowed.

Every comrade will be obliged to contribute their fair share to the betterment of the whole of society at all times.

And so the Soviet will vote. :cool:

[Rascolnikova]

What, realistically, can be done about it?

I see a certain justice in allowing the families of abusive alcoholics decide if and when the alcoholics in question are permitted to drink.



Personally I'm in favour of knocking his teeth out, but that's just me. "I was drunk" is not an excuse.

I agree that it's not an excuse.

The suggestion of teeth-knocking I find rather bittersweet, mostly heartbreaking, I could never do it myself. Maybe I'm only into passive aggressive revenge? But the main thing I'm looking for in any apology is non-repeat of the offense, and your solution doesn't really serve that, that I can see. Removing the individual's access to alcohol might.


Which would again make it more of a medical issue.

Medical issues--like substance abuse and schizophrenia--that cause people to be violent towards other people--are legal issues.

[Robespierre2.0]

If life weren't a miserable, endless struggle to make ends meet, maybe the working class would have no reason to use drugs to escape from reality.

Drugs in themselves aren't intrinsically bad, and I see little difference between having a glass of wine with dinner and smoking a joint to relax.

I must say, though, if you are against legalizing drugs, throw all of your CDs out and delete all your .mp3s. The bands that made the music you listen to were all high as a kite when they made their recordings.

[Pirate Utopian]

I must say, though, if you are against legalizing drugs, throw all of your CDs out and delete all your .mp3s. The bands that made the music you listen to were all high as a kite when they made their recordings.
Nice Bill Hicks reference.

Anyway, it's my body I can do whatever want.

[Bud Struggle]

Nice Bill Hicks reference.

Anyway, it's my body I can do whatever want.

And what makes you think that music will be allowed when the Revolution comes?

The Soviet will make the decisions over what music is Counterrevolutionary.

Drug songs and drug lyrics will not be allowed.

And so the Soviet will vote.

[Rascolnikova]

Nice Bill Hicks reference.

Anyway, it's my body I can do whatever want.

Do we have an obligation to pay for your hospitalization after you do whatever you want?


Also, on the music--I don't think so. (current favorite cd (http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Complete-Sonatas-Partitas-Violin/dp/B00000417N)). . .


Edit: plus, Tom, don't know what you're talking about. The soviets had the most badass national anthem ever. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Do we have an obligation to pay for your hospitalization after you do whatever you want?


Also, on the music--I don't think so. (current favorite cd (http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Complete-Sonatas-Partitas-Violin/dp/B00000417N)). . .


Edit: plus, Tom, don't know what you're talking about. The soviets had the most badass national anthem ever. :)

Indeed they did.

[Demogorgon]

Tom's sarcasm here does raise a pretty good point and that is that people here are rather fond of telling us what we will be "democratically" told what we can or can't do. Use Cannabis? That one is fine. Go to Church? Nope, not allowed. Praise sacred political positions? Yes, freedom of speech is absolute. Criticise them? Only proletarian free speech is allowed, that is bourgeoisie free speech. And so on.

I bring this up just to note how amusing I find it to see people swinging back and forth over what they will allow and what they won't (always in the name of freedom though) based seemingly entirely on their own personal opinions.

The answer to the drug question is that we need to leave people alone and not tell them what to do. Drugs should be legal for that reason and others. Of course drugs are harmful, you cannot smoke Cannabis and expect your lungs to remain as good as ever, you can't drink alcohol and expect your liver not to know about it and so on, and of course in nearly all cases there is always the potential for impacts on mental health. People need to know that and be able to make the choice as to whether they want to take the risk. Personally I choose to take the risk with alcohol, but not with other drugs and different people will come to different conclusions as to what is best for them, but the crucial thing is that informed decisions are made, which makes it reasonable to restrict usage to over 16s.

Similarly drugs like heroin have to be dealt with more carefully. People should not be punished for using it, but making it readily available for non-users can be asking for trouble, as there are plenty of people who will take it not thinking the consequences through and unlike with most other drugs, simply quitting it without losses is not a likely event. Therefore it seems reasonable to say that Heroin should be legal to use in that nobody will be punished for such and that addicts will be given medical heroin if their doctors feel it better for them than methadone so as they do not take street heroin mixed with God knows what, but simply having stuff like that on tap is not a good plan at all.

All said though, drug prohibition has never made much sense to me. It is justified on the grounds that drugs are dangerous, well they are, but why add to the danger by placing all sorts of legal pitfalls alongside the medical ones?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Ideally one would not be distracted by such things in the most trying of times, but realistically people are people and they need their outlets and their relief from the inevitable hardships of revolutionary times. I would say it should be tolerated, and in that sense allowed, but I wouldn't want someone who was watching my back to be a little bit too taken with the bottle or seeing stars from mushrooms.

There is a time and place for everything, but then again one can always make time and find a place ;)

--- G.

[synthesis]

I agree with both sides, to some degree. Individual autonomy is essential, but at the same, socialist healthcare is making an investment in the individual. In general, people have the right to do damage to their own bodies, but if someone is showing that they are making a habit out of it just for kicks, then it is unfair to expect the community to subsidize the consequences of their actions. However, many of the criticisms which are leveled at drugs can be applied equally to unhealthy food.

In other words, if heart problems run in your family, then in a socialized economy I don't mind if the product of my labor helps you to get an operation; but if your heart problems come from puffing rocks, or eating fried food all day, every day, then it's my right to tell you to fuck off, or at least add a stipulation that you jump through some hoops in order to prove that you won't be back for another operation in a few months.

[Rascolnikova]

The answer to the drug question is that we need to leave people alone and not tell them what to do.

. . .

All said though, drug prohibition has never made much sense to me. It is justified on the grounds that drugs are dangerous, well they are, but why add to the danger by placing all sorts of legal pitfalls alongside the medical ones?



Only when they aren't hurting other people.

Also, what's your answer to the "public medical resources" question? I think if drugs are to be made legal on the basis that people can make informed decisions, it's reasonable to have a disclosure/release process and only make a limited amount of medical care available to treat their consequences. . . though I don't like the idea of restricting health care. It's an interesting logistical question.

[Robespierre2.0]

In other words, if heart problems run in your family, then in a socialized economy I don't mind if the product of my labor helps you to get an operation; but if your heart problems come from puffing rocks, or eating fried food all day, every day, then it's my right to tell you to fuck off, or at least add a stipulation that you jump through some hoops in order to prove that you won't be back for another operation in a few months.

You see, the thing is, there are people out there who use drugs and eat fried food, but don't do it to the point that it is damaging.

Then there are people who do. What I was trying to say earlier is that the ones who DO use drugs/eat fast food/masturbate excessively and can't control themselves are usually suffering from some other problem; difficulty meeting ends meet, loneliness, alienation- problems that largely stem from a hostile capitalist environment.

If, in a theoretical socialist society, someone decides to drink themselves to death, either they just went through a horrible break-up, or the Party in charge is doing something seriously wrong.
Socialist society should be as enjoyable to live in while sober as it is while intoxicated.

[Comrade B]

As instructed in Che Guevara'a Guerrilla Warfare Alcohol and other intoxicants shall be prohibited while the guerrilla is in a combat area. Same goes for gambling and other things which could damage moral.

Post revolution drugs should be legal, but before the government supplies one with a drug, the person must be informed of all the negative effects of the drug. If the person begins to develop a counter-productive habit, the government can choose to more closely regulate what is supplied to the person.

[redSHARP]

crack was a problem, the south bronx has yet to really recover. progressive ideas should be instilled towards the people. they should not wage a war on drugs, nothing says like democracy and freedom like nancy reagan driving a SWAT tank into a house in LA; true fucking story.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If life weren't a miserable, endless struggle to make ends meet, maybe the working class would have no reason to use drugs to escape from reality.

If life were a blissful, carefree existence in which androids happily do all the work and we all had nothing but leisure, I'd get drunk every godamn day of the year.


Drugs in themselves aren't intrinsically bad, and I see little difference between having a glass of wine with dinner and smoking a joint to relax.

Weed isn't a drug, it's a plant.

And yeah, Bill Hicks is fucking great.

Being a bit of a cappie, I have no problems with drug use at all. If you want to sit around for hours after sticking a needle in you arm, good. This takes away a threat to money that could be mine.

People have an understanding of what drugs will do to their bodies. I take it into mine every time I do stuff. If they aren't willing to think about the repercussions of what they're injecting into themselves, fuck 'em. They're adults, just because they've sacrificed their freedom to a vice doesn't mean I think the government should get involved sending them to prison for it. Frankly, I don't enjoy paying taxes to incarcerate someone who was just getting baked, smoking crack, tweaking, rolling, or whatever else they so choose.

Not that I don't show compassion to friends and family who've overcome hard drugs, just that I believe someone has the right to kill themself, so long as they don't violate anothers rights.

[Demogorgon]

Only when they aren't hurting other people.

Also, what's your answer to the "public medical resources" question? I think if drugs are to be made legal on the basis that people can make informed decisions, it's reasonable to have a disclosure/release process and only make a limited amount of medical care available to treat their consequences. . . though I don't like the idea of restricting health care. It's an interesting logistical question.
Are we going to limit healthcare to those who eat unhealthy food? To those who are promiscuous and get STDs? To those who do not exercise enough? To those who partake in dangerous sports and run up plenty of injuries as a result?

There are no shortage of ailments that can be traced back to the actions of the sufferer, but that does not mean that we would be justified in denying them medical help. What makes drug use different?

[Anti Freedom]

Are we going to limit healthcare to those who eat unhealthy food? To those who are promiscuous and get STDs? To those who do not exercise enough? To those who partake in dangerous sports and run up plenty of injuries as a result?

There are no shortage of ailments that can be traced back to the actions of the sufferer, but that does not mean that we would be justified in denying them medical help. What makes drug use different?
A major issue is still costs, bleeding out resources due to the prodigality of a few people still seems questionable. I mean, at what point is a line drawn on the wastefulness of some individuals and the good of society?

[Anti Freedom]

Then there are people who do. What I was trying to say earlier is that the ones who DO use drugs/eat fast food/masturbate excessively and can't control themselves are usually suffering from some other problem; difficulty meeting ends meet, loneliness, alienation- problems that largely stem from a hostile capitalist environment.
Or it could just be that people are flawed, stupid beings created by a blind, idiotic evolutionary process that allows them to do stupid things, and still will come together in a flawed manner that allows for social alienation, and so on. I mean, really, inequality in happiness in the US and a more egalitarian, people oriented country like Sweden are pretty similar, and this is not to be an apologist for either country, but I don't see a magical change in human nature occurring save in the minds of some fool idealists.


If, in a theoretical socialist society, someone decides to drink themselves to death, either they just went through a horrible break-up, or the Party in charge is doing something seriously wrong.
Socialist society should be as enjoyable to live in while sober as it is while intoxicated.
Why? Can a party in charge be magically perfect?? People will act in perverse manners because people are perverse, and it is ludicrous to suggest that an imperfect people will magically perfect themselves, from what magical place will this realization of perfection come upon them? Is "The Revolution" just a replacement for "The Rapture" for leftists, just like "The Singularity" is the replacement for tech-nerds? Or is there something beyond theology involved?

[Anti Freedom]

In any case, I side with allowing all things. Let people do what they choose to do, to stand any other way is to prevent people from acting towards their own goals. I would not promote anything, nor would I seek to regulate anything, let the people act to their own ends, not to those of some "great, grand, glorious party".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see a certain justice in allowing the families of abusive alcoholics decide if and when the alcoholics in question are permitted to drink.

Great, but how would that be enforced?


I agree that it's not an excuse.

The suggestion of teeth-knocking I find rather bittersweet, mostly heartbreaking, I could never do it myself. Maybe I'm only into passive aggressive revenge? But the main thing I'm looking for in any apology is non-repeat of the offense, and your solution doesn't really serve that, that I can see. Removing the individual's access to alcohol might.

It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion of punishment for the offender, rather more as an illustration of my feelings on the matter.


Medical issues--like substance abuse and schizophrenia--that cause people to be violent towards other people--are legal issues.

But I think they should be treated primarily as medical issues - removing the stigma of drug abuse may encourage people to seek help earlier, perhaps before they become violent to others?

[Killfacer]

It's important to differentiate between different drugs. Hundreds of people in the UK do esctasy on a weekend, with very little negative effects. I think it would be fair to say the the majority of drugs have very little direct negative effects on society. Drugs liek Acid, Cannabis, escstasy, speed, ketamine, poppers and others don't directly make people do violent things. In fact many people are incapable of being violent when on drugs like esctasy or have lost control of their body so much (ketamine) that the are incapable of hurting a fly.

Obviously there are indirect effects of these drugs. Trafficking i guess is the main problem and everyone knows the effect cocaine has in columbia. Legalising them would sort this problem out. Everythinng else just secondary to that.

People die because of smoking, people die because they drink too heavily. Alcohol abuse is proably worse than doing some pills now and then.

Having read what i have just written, i realise i didn't really add much to the conversation. :blushing:

[Lord Testicles]

I think it should be allowed.

Part 1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyKAzXqVkA&feature=related

Part 2
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gbI6HbOSTgE&feature=related

Part 3
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=leg3_gcE3p8&feature=related

/thread.

[Robespierre2.0]

Or it could just be that people are flawed, stupid beings created by a blind, idiotic evolutionary process that allows them to do stupid things, and still will come together in a flawed manner that allows for social alienation, and so on. I mean, really, inequality in happiness in the US and a more egalitarian, people oriented country like Sweden are pretty similar, and this is not to be an apologist for either country, but I don't see a magical change in human nature occurring save in the minds of some fool idealists.

Why? Can a party in charge be magically perfect?? People will act in perverse manners because people are perverse, and it is ludicrous to suggest that an imperfect people will magically perfect themselves, from what magical place will this realization of perfection come upon them? Is "The Revolution" just a replacement for "The Rapture" for leftists, just like "The Singularity" is the replacement for tech-nerds? Or is there something beyond theology involved?


Counterrevolutionary outed! Human nature is malleable, and people's behaviour can be changed with a change in the environmental conditions.
How is it that going to Church was the cat's pajamas way back in the middle ages, yet it now bores everyone to death? It wasn't a 'magical change' that caused 3-hour lectures on eternal damnation to become boring, capitalism *CHANGED HUMAN NATURE*.

Go back to counting your money, capitalist pig.

Also, Sweden isn't socialist, 'egalitarian', or 'poor-people oriented'. Slap yourself in the face.

[Anti Freedom]

Counterrevolutionary outed! Human nature is malleable, and people's behaviour can be changed with a change in the environmental conditions.
Umm.... ok? Human nature is partially malleable and partially set. Happiness tends to have a set rate though, and people tend to systematically overestimate how much the rate of happiness can be changed. Behavior certainly can be changed with environmental conditions, the issue is the extent, as personality factors are usually found to strongly correlate with biological factors. In any case, I wasn't aware that I was being screened for whether my ideas on psychology and were deemed *correct*.


How is it that going to Church was the cat's pajamas way back in the middle ages, yet it now bores everyone to death? It wasn't a 'magical change' that caused 3-hour lectures on eternal damnation to become boring, capitalism *CHANGED HUMAN NATURE*.
It changed human culture. I don't see how changes in preferences is a sign that the fundamentals of human nature were dramatically changed. I will certainly admit that many behaviors and ways of thinking are different under capitalism than under previous eras, but it seems to me that a lot really stayed the same. To say that the debate on nature vs nurture has been swept under the rug due to one social change involving the church seems questionable though.


Go back to counting your money, capitalist pig.
Umm..... ok.... sure... whatever.... just so long as I am not huffing whatever seems to give you such religious zeal.


Also, Sweden isn't socialist, 'egalitarian', or 'poor-people oriented'. Slap yourself in the face.
No, Sweden isn't socialist, it is not equal, it is not oriented towards the poor, but it is more equal than America, and more poor oriented than America, or at the least seems less fascistic than America, and I felt those traits were enough to make an appropriate comparison. If such an effort is wrong, then it is wrong, but it should be judged on the grounds of what I was attempting to do, not in what I was *not* attempting to do.

[Rascolnikova]

Are we going to limit healthcare to those who eat unhealthy food? To those who are promiscuous and get STDs? To those who do not exercise enough? To those who partake in dangerous sports and run up plenty of injuries as a result?

There are no shortage of ailments that can be traced back to the actions of the sufferer, but that does not mean that we would be justified in denying them medical help. What makes drug use different?

Just that some kinds of drug use are much, much higher risk . . . and yes, under such a system, it would make sense to limit coverage for those who continually hurt themselves in sporting accidents.

I'm not saying I like the idea, I'm saying it's a possibility. And, I suppose, I'm not as sure drug abuse would (mostly) go away in a socialist society as others here, though that would be an ideal sort of solution.

[RGacky3]

All of these questions assume that there is someone or a group in charge that has the power to "ban" or "allow" things, and thats not the revolution I want.

And it should be welcomed? Thats rediculous, who welcomes drug and alcohol use, maybe your buddies at a party, but that has nothing to do with revolution!

[Anti Freedom]

All of these questions assume that there is someone or a group in charge that has the power to "ban" or "allow" things, and thats not the revolution I want.

And it should be welcomed? Thats rediculous, who welcomes drug and alcohol use, maybe your buddies at a party, but that has nothing to do with revolution!
I agree with this attitude, freedom should involve free choice. There is no reason to host a revolution then create another class of folks to rule over everyone. Let people be, let them work things out, let people set rules for themselves, etc. Certainly that is better than trying to set up another controlled society, as we see practiced so often.

[PigmerikanMao]

I think drugs should be allowed, but not as heavily regulated as the second question suggests. I don't believe they should be banned or welcomed though. Who the hell welcomes drugs anyways? :laugh:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Counterrevolutionary outed! Human nature is malleable, and people's behaviour can be changed with a change in the environmental conditions.
How is it that going to Church was the cat's pajamas way back in the middle ages, yet it now bores everyone to death? It wasn't a 'magical change' that caused 3-hour lectures on eternal damnation to become boring, capitalism *CHANGED HUMAN NATURE*.

Go back to counting your money, capitalist pig.

Also, Sweden isn't socialist, 'egalitarian', or 'poor-people oriented'. Slap yourself in the face.


Since the neo-lithic stone-age people have been getting drunk.

Your whole premise is flawed. The ease of existence in no way determines whether an individual may or may not enjoy using substances which alter reality. The type of organization also has nothing to do, as Russians, for example, have been gulping the good stuff since before there was a Czar. If the change we have seen since the days of living in tents hasn't changed the fact that we, the people, find any existence to be boring after a while, what makes you think that your revolution is different?

If you are aren't joking (I hope you are), then you are jumping off the deep-end into a metaphysical world of elightenment. I don't know about you, but I say we kill all the morlocks now.

[Robert]

drug abuse and alcohol abuse are symptomatic of material scarcity, social alienation and class disparity.

Eh? It is rampant among many filthy rich and socially connected American rock stars, celebrities, athletes, lawyers, and business executives. Pretty hard to show a correlation in my view.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Eh? It is rampant among many filthy rich and socially connected American rock stars, celebrities, athletes, lawyers, and business executives. Pretty hard to show a correlation in my view.

I agree, it's not just that, but if you take note he does mention other factors. I'd agree that social alienation leads to drug abuse in many cases, and material deprivation doesn't necessarily have to come into it.

However, we must also note that the word "abuse" was used and not "use " - that "ab" in the front makes a big difference.

--- G.

[Oneironaut]

Allowed of course. Personally, I'd welcome almost anyone into my house if they brought some weed :rolleyes:. Nevertheless, Ulster Socialist I think has said it best.

[Sam_b]

Nobody has any rights to your body except yourself. People should and hopefully will be free to take whatever drugs they want.

[Rascolnikova]

Nobody has any rights to your body except yourself. People should and hopefully will be free to take whatever drugs they want.

Should they be permitted continued access to those drugs if they consistently behave in ways that are harmful to those around them when high?

[Sam_b]

Should they be permitted continued access to those drugs if they consistently behave in ways that are harmful to those around them when high?

First of all, I think that statement completely miscomprehends and generalises why people take drugs, and what the reality would be in a revolutionary society. Legalisation of drugs, I would argue that the legalisation of drugs would do a lot to prevent dangerous addictions taking place: look at the success of tests in Switzerland where users have been given prescription heroin. I also agree that social deprivation and alienation are contributory factors here as well, as seen by empirical evidence of drug addictions taken from different communities.

What do you mean by 'consistently' behave? Again I would argue that an addiction is not in itself socially dangerous as there are such beings as functioning addicts.

You seem pretty obsessed with limiting what people can do to their bodies, would you disagree?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

vehement encouragement

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

seriously, moderation, caution and treatment for addiction should be encouraged
drugs and booze are cool, but they're also devasting to many

[synthesis]

A great deal of the dialogue here has missed a few key points.

1. Communism would certainly be an improvement over the current state of things, but we can't kid ourselves into thinking that it will take away all of people's individual problems. People would still be unhappy for plenty of reasons; a relatively simple restructuring of the means of economic production will do nothing to change basic human psychology.

2. Drugs are fucking fun. Depression and other personal problems are not the only reason that people use heroin and crack - they make you feel really, really good.

3. When the revolution comes, there will still be addicts. The communist spirit dictates that they be supplied with enough stuff to offset their cravings while attempting to rehabilitate them.

4. When people subsequently realize they can basically get drugs for free, those who might not have tried stuff like heroin and crack "because it just costs too much" (trust me, there's plenty of those) can claim they were addicts and get free shit.

5. People develop a tolerance to nearly every drug that exists, so when their rations run out, people will need more. So the users can get their shit from people who sign up for rations but don't do the drugs themselves - and we can't expect those people to not want anything in return.

And the repercussions of that process will totally subvert the inequality and classlessness for which we strive. There will be a class of people who have shit and a class of people who need more and who will do anything to get it - so say hello to our old friend, Exploitation.

In my opinion, in our hypothetical communist world, we could avoid banning drugs entirely by simply burning down all the opium and coca plantations. Make those drugs extinct. Since there is still a sizable peasant population (the Marxian sense) in Colombia and Afghanistan who depend on these crops for subsistence, this system would not be workable under capitalism, but in theory, communism could address all of these problems.

[synthesis]

Eh? It is rampant among many filthy rich and socially connected American rock stars, celebrities, athletes, lawyers, and business executives. Pretty hard to show a correlation in my view.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more. People who say that drug use is strictly a symptom of the people who are worst off in society are either ignorant or just fooling themselves.

It's just not as much of a problem for rich people - they don't need to do shit that grabs our attention (stealing, selling, etc) in order to get more.

[synthesis]

You see, the thing is, there are people out there who use drugs and eat fried food, but don't do it to the point that it is damaging.

You see, the thing is, I am one of those people. You don't have to talk like you're the token liberal on Fox News.



Then there are people who do. What I was trying to say earlier is that the ones who DO use drugs/eat fast food/masturbate excessively and can't control themselves are usually suffering from some other problem; difficulty meeting ends meet, loneliness, alienation- problems that largely stem from a hostile capitalist environment.

Ah, yes - Communism, the great cure-all for every single problem of the human condition. No one will ever feel lonely, depressed, or alienated under communism, because only poor people feel lonely and depressed now.

Try again.



If, in a theoretical socialist society, someone decides to drink themselves to death, either they just went through a horrible break-up, or the Party in charge is doing something seriously wrong.

Not only is this horribly wrong in several ways, but I don't see what it has to do with anything.


Socialist society should be as enjoyable to live in while sober as it is while intoxicated.

I'm sorry, but there are very few things that are not more enjoyable when you're fucked up. Anyone who disagrees has never really gotten fucked up.

I've seen a lot of people do a lot of things to great excess in my life and the notion that it can all be traced to economic concerns is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

[Oneironaut]

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more. People who say that drug use is strictly a symptom of the people who are worst off in society are either ignorant or just fooling themselves.

It's just not as much of a problem for rich people - they don't need to do shit that grabs our attention (stealing, selling, etc) in order to get more.

I don't think many have argued that it is strictly a symptom of the people who are worst off in society. It's not like the rich aren't likewise alienated (be it to a lesser extent). It's not surprising that they would likewise do drugs particularly because they have the money.

[Anti Freedom]

A great deal of the dialogue here has missed a few key points.

1. Communism would certainly be an improvement over the current state of things, but we can't kid ourselves into thinking that it will take away all of people's individual problems. People would still be unhappy for plenty of reasons; a relatively simple restructuring of the means of economic production will do nothing to change basic human psychology.
I agree. People are people are people. They will be flawed, messed up beings, and a society totalitarian enough to fix them will be totalitarian enough to destroy them. If a revolution took place, a lot of the poorest would be happier, but after a certain amount of income, the benefits to income to happiness basically drop off.


3. When the revolution comes, there will still be addicts. The communist spirit dictates that they be supplied with enough stuff to offset their cravings while attempting to rehabilitate them.
Certainly better than the current system, which prevents treatment by making the costs of seeking help so high.



In my opinion, in our hypothetical communist world, we could avoid banning drugs entirely by simply burning down all the opium and coca plantations. Make those drugs extinct. Since there is still a sizable peasant population (the Marxian sense) in Colombia and Afghanistan who depend on these crops for subsistence, this system would not be workable under capitalism, but in theory, communism could address all of these problems.
Well, what about meth? What prevents any drug from being created by some group or individual to their own ends? I mean, I don't think that just destroying large crops of drug plants will prevent drugs from existing.

[synthesis]

You seem pretty obsessed with limiting what people can do to their bodies, would you disagree?

What a petit-bourgeois thing to say. In a communist society, the only way that anyone can have such "freedoms" is at someone else's expense, unless they make those drugs all by themselves.

If your vision of "communism" equates to subsidizing hedonists, then I want nothing to do with it. Again, under communism, society would be investing resources in the individual and therefore the individual has a duty to use those resources responsibly or else it simply isn't fair to the rest of society.

[synthesis]

Well, what about meth? What prevents any drug from being created by some group or individual to their own ends? I mean, I don't think that just destroying large crops of drug plants will prevent drugs from existing. I actually had a sidenote written about meth and deleted it because I thought it was tangential.

Most of the physical problems associated with meth are due to its impurities - in other words, the result of capitalist production that is (obviously) concerned more with profit than quality.

"Pure meth" is simply a more potent form of amphetamine, which is not necessarily harmful and certainly aids productivity; as a side-note, methylamphetamine is being prescribed to little kids right now under the brand name Desoxyn. (Google it.) I have no doubt in my mind that prescribing such drugs to kids is a result of capitalism, along with regular amphetamines, since amphetamines in general have a different effect on people with ADHD, who are pretty much made to take it so that they become "good little workers."

I think meth is just a little more complicated than the others. I'm undecided about it.

[Anti Freedom]

What a petit-bourgeois thing to say. In a communist society, the only way that anyone can have such "freedoms" is at someone else's expense, unless they make those drugs all by themselves.

If your vision of "communism" equates to subsidizing hedonists, then I want nothing to do with it. Again, under communism, society would be investing resources in the individual and therefore the individual has a duty to use those resources responsibly or else it simply isn't fair to the rest of society.
Hmm... I don't like this notion of "duty". A free individual's duties are the ones that he accepts as his. A slave is one that has duties imposed upon him. Thus, the notion that an individual has a duty seems worrisome to me, particularly as saying that "X is obviously morally necessary" seems only one step away from saying "we should force people to do X".

In any case, here is what I would say: "The divine is God's concern ; the human, man's. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is—unique, as I am unique. Nothing is more to me than myself!" - Max Stirner

Yes, I would use a Stirner quote, because it is fitting. I want freedom to be what I want to be, and this includes freedom from some imposed moral structure.

[Anti Freedom]

I actually had a sidenote written about meth and deleted it because I thought it was tangential.

Most of the physical problems associated with meth are due to its impurities - in other words, the result of capitalist production that is (obviously) concerned more with profit than quality.

"Pure meth" is simply a more potent form of amphetamine, which is not necessarily harmful and certainly aids productivity; as a side-note, methylamphetamine is being prescribed to little kids right now under the brand name Desoxyn. (Google it.) I have no doubt in my mind that prescribing such drugs to kids is a result of capitalism, along with regular amphetamines, since amphetamines in general have a different effect on people with ADHD, who are pretty much made to take it so that they become "good little workers."

I think meth is just a little more complicated than the others. I'm undecided about it.
To be honest though, I think a lot of the problems with drugs are simply because these drugs are hampered by the drug war and thus become pawns of crime. I mean, if these products could be supplied in a more stable, controllable manner, then I do not think the problems would be anywhere as severe as they are under the current system. After all, a number of these drugs were legal at one point, but I don't think they had the same severe effects we see now(this is not to say that I want soft drinks with cocaine in them, or to say that I am good at my drug history, if I am wrong, please correct me :))

[synthesis]

I don't think many have argued that it is strictly a symptom of the people who are worst off in society.

Well, if they aren't arguing it directly, a lot of people seem to be working from that assumption.

[synthesis]

Hmm... I don't like this notion of "duty". A free individual's duties are the ones that he accepts as his.

That kind of mentality is all well and good - for anarcho-capitalists.

Again, in a communist world, it is unethical for the individual to impose duties on society - free drugs, free fried food, and free health-care - without expecting some sort of personal responsibility from the individual in return.


I mean, if these products could be supplied in a more stable, controllable manner, then I do not think the problems would be anywhere as severe as they are under the current system.

To be certain, under the current system, decriminalization is a progressive means of ameliorating dire cirumstances. In a communist society, however, who would labor to supply these resources? Who would want to?

[butterfly]

I would happily work on a marijuana plantation:)

[Rascolnikova]

First of all, I think that statement completely miscomprehends and generalises why people take drugs, and what the reality would be in a revolutionary society. Legalisation of drugs, I would argue that the legalisation of drugs would do a lot to prevent dangerous addictions taking place: look at the success of tests in Switzerland where users have been given prescription heroin. I also agree that social deprivation and alienation are contributory factors here as well, as seen by empirical evidence of drug addictions taken from different communities.

What do you mean by 'consistently' behave? Again I would argue that an addiction is not in itself socially dangerous as there are such beings as functioning addicts.

You seem pretty obsessed with limiting what people can do to their bodies, would you disagree?

I would disagree. I think that if one wishes to invest completely in a community--as per communism--it's reasonable to be concerned about safeguarding community resources.

When I say "consistently" behave, I'm mostly thinking of domestic violence situations I've been close to where the only problems came when someone was drunk and/or high. Destruction of public property is another legitimate concern.

The statement didn't say anything about why people do drugs.

[synthesis]

I would happily work on a marijuana plantation:)

Me too, even though outdoor is generally inferior, in my opinion.

In any case, all drugs are not born equal.

[Anti Freedom]

That kind of mentality is all well and good - for anarcho-capitalists.
So, the amoralist must be an anarcho-capitalist? This is despite the fact that Stirnerite egoism was a belief of some individualist anarchists, such as Emma Goldman and Benjamin Tucker?(if I remember correctly) Wouldn't this in turn suggest that anarcho-capitalists are legitimately individualist anarchists(perhaps with some previously accepted individualist anarchists just being confused anarcho-capitalists)? Or shall we have to rewrite our list of individualist anarchist precedents due to your remark?

In any case, the major anarcho-capitalists/libertarians have rarely been egoists. Rothbard believed in natural rights, Nozick(who was minarchist but an influence) was a rights theorist, the economists(such as Mises, and both M and D Friedman) have been utilitarians, Bastiat was more of a rights theorist himself, etc. The only proclaimed egoist was Ayn Rand, and her thinking seems more like *some* egoism, that has been altered just to support her rights-based capitalistic conclusions, and to be honest, she was just a failed philosopher but successful cult leader.


Again, in a communist world, it is unethical for the individual to impose duties on society - free drugs, free fried food, and free health-care - without expecting some sort of personal responsibility from the individual in return. And ethics does not exist, and promoting that it does exist seems absurd. If an ethic exists, from whence does it come? What plane of existence does it cling to? What makes ethics important?



To be certain, under the current system, decriminalization is a progressive means of ameliorating dire cirumstances. In a communist society, however, who would labor to supply these resources? Who would want to?To be honest, this depends a lot on the institutional structure of a communist society, however, you yourself seemed to recognize that there could be some incentive to do this. However, if interests can be said to be heterogenous, as it seems they would be in a free society, then it seems likely that some people might not mind supplying these resources for whatever reason.

[synthesis]

Look, the point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

There are two options, which are mutually exclusive:

1. You have total freedom over your body, and you accept total responsibility for the consequences of exercising your freedom - that means you can't expect the help of society (a collection of individuals) if you're using that freedom in such a way that they feel their time and energy should not be wasted on your coke habit and ensuing heart problems.

2. Everything is provided for free, mostly by the labor of others. For them to volunteer their labor to provide you with necessities like healthcare and housing, they have to be assured that you will not be abusing the product of their labor. Therefore, absolute individual freedom would be restricted de facto.

Option 1 is anarcho-capitalism. Option 2 is communism. The idea that "it's my body, I can do what I want with it" is irrelevant when you expect the rest of society to invest their labor in fixing the various ways you've fucked up your body by "doing what you want with it."


And ethics does not exist, and promoting that it does exist seems absurd. If an ethic exists, from whence does it come? What plane of existence does it cling to? What makes ethics important?

Does fairness exist? Can something be unfair?

[Bud Struggle]

2. Everything is provided for free, mostly by the labor of others. For them to volunteer their labor to provide you with necessities like healthcare and housing, they have to be assured that you will not be abusing the product of their labor. Therefore, absolute individual freedom would be restricted de facto.

You body in Communism DOESN'T belong to you--it belongs to everyone--and your work and your ability to work belongs to everyone. It is essential in communism that you give the most you can to the communal effort and essential that everyone else does the same.

There is NO individual freedom under Communism.



Does fairness exist? Can something be unfair?It can be your opinion that things are unfair--but there are no absolutes. So it never goes any further than your opinion.

[synthesis]

You body in Communism DOESN'T belong to you--it belongs to everyone--and your work and your ability to work belongs to everyone. It is essential in communism that you give the most you can to the communal effort and essential that everyone else does the same.

There is NO individual freedom under Communism.

All things considered, I don't really care what you have to say on this subject. No offense. :)


It can be your opinion that things are unfair--but there are no absolutes. So it never goes any further than your opinion.

And yet people's "opinions," when acted on and in great numbers, are a powerful force in the historical process.

Things that are inherently subjective become effectively "real" when enough people act as if they are objective. To state that abstractions like fairness and ethics are subjective is redundant, but also misses the point. The fact that something only exists in people's heads doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist at all.

[RGacky3]

You body in Communism DOESN'T belong to you--it belongs to everyone--and your work and your ability to work belongs to everyone. It is essential in communism that you give the most you can to the communal effort and essential that everyone else does the same.

There is NO individual freedom under Communism.

Seriously Tomk, this ignorance is inexcusable, when you came here, you claimed you wanted to learn, but its obvious you hav'nt learned a thing, nor are you interested in learning anything. You are interested in pulling stuff out of your ass, treating it as if it were truth, and arguing from your preconcieved notions which have been shown time and time again to be false.

Your either a complete idiot, or purposfully stubbornly ignorant (i.e. arrogant). Its been a long long time since you contributed anything of value to a discussion.

[Bud Struggle]

Seriously Tomk, this ignorance is inexcusable, when you came here, you claimed you wanted to learn, but its obvious you hav'nt learned a thing, nor are you interested in learning anything. You are interested in pulling stuff out of your ass, treating it as if it were truth, and arguing from your preconcieved notions which have been shown time and time again to be false.

Your either a complete idiot, or purposfully stubbornly ignorant (i.e. arrogant).

Where the hell do you come off saying what Communism is or isn't? Or what it will be like "after the revolution."

The Communist world is going to be up for grabs--and I'm figuring out a way to grab it.

Nothing wrong with that.

[synthesis]

Where the hell do you come off saying what Communism is or isn't? Or what it will be like "after the revolution."

Practice what you preach.

[Anti Freedom]

You body in Communism DOESN'T belong to you--it belongs to everyone--and your work and your ability to work belongs to everyone. It is essential in communism that you give the most you can to the communal effort and essential that everyone else does the same.

There is NO individual freedom under Communism.


It can be your opinion that things are unfair--but there are no absolutes. So it never goes any further than your opinion.

I have to agree with TomK's critique of your ideas, not because I think that poor people ought to starve, or because I love big corporations, or because I think large-scale international economic inequality is just awesome, but rather because to me, it seems as if your position on morality logically leads to totalitarianism, and I find that unacceptable. I remain an amoralist, because morality seems to be immoral.

I do not base my position on notions of fair or unfair, and a revolution should be based upon what will make things better, not on some notion of moral necessity, as the latter seems as if it will logically lead to some other enslavement of mankind, as "morality" has so often been one of the traditional pillars of an existing order of society.

In any case, yes, if I had to choose between your society, and anarcho-capitalism, I would pick the latter. I care about the individual, and those who do not will lead us on the path to fascism, to totalitarianism, and to all other sorts of evils.

[Bud Struggle]

Practice what you preach.

Fair point, but your guess is as good as mine.

[RGacky3]

Where the hell do you come off saying what Communism is or isn't? Or what it will be like "after the revolution."

The Communist world is going to be up for grabs--and I'm figuring out a way to grab it.

Nothing wrong with that.

You know who gets to decide what communism is? Communists. Why? Because its our ideology, I don't go around telling Libertarians what they believe and what type of world they are fighting for.

Whats wrong, is you don't contribute anything nor have you listened to anything all of us have explained, you argue against preconcieved notions that we dont have, refusing to listen to the explinations. You even refuse to backup your false premised statements with anything. Your do nothing for these discussions, your a waste.

[Anti Freedom]

And yet people's "opinions," when acted on and in great numbers, are a powerful force in the historical process.

Things that are inherently subjective become effectively "real" when enough people act as if they are objective. To state that abstractions like fairness and ethics are subjective is redundant, but also misses the point. The fact that something only exists in people's heads doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist at all.
And I want the right to disagree with with people's opinions. I don't want to be forced to live by the subjective constraints that they desire. These subjective constraints are the basis of religious tyranny, and of unknowing, unwitting oppression, and thus the very mechanism seems questionable. Whether or not the concept exists is meaningless, I want to live by my ideas, not yours, and I don't care about any label or anything like that, more so than I care about my right to live my ideas.

[S. Zetor]

I think it should be regulated. Kun Fanâ has expressed many of the thoughts I have, too.

I don't believe alcohol & drugs (later only "drugs") use is because of miserable social conditions etc, so it's going to disappear, supposedly like any other ills that have to do with people and their interactions. I'm sure in communism there will be people who take other people's unlocked bikes after a pub night because they don't want to walk home after the last bus has gone, regardless of whether bikes are supplied free of charge.

I don't think that in communism total rationality will prevail so that everybody knows what they're doing, and so there's no need to restrict anyone's behaviour because they would know what's good for them or for society. If somebody is against authority per se, in my opinion they just don't want to live in a community where you get together and decide together what kind of behaviour is acceptable and what is not.

It's also pretty easy (and I would say intellectually lazy) to escape into the ultimate abundance of communism and think that everything will be a-plenty, so there's no need to pay any attention how the productive forces of society are to be distributed into production of different goods as decided collectively. Sure, in communism everybody can do what they want, though that doesn't mean there's no collective rules and that nothing regulates how people live their lives.

It is also not an unproblematic formula to say that all such is allowed that doesn't hurt other people's rights. It is a political question to decide just what is deemed to hurt other people's rights to such an extent that it crosses a line. Like, what degree of noisiness should one accept from one's neighbour, and what is beyond the pale..? This is not solved by some abstract formula of "not hurting other people's rights", because "hurting" and "rights" are questions to be decided politically.

All of this applies to drug use and what possible repercussions it has for society and other people's lives and welfare. Whether it has any effect is not clear a priori, but is settled in political discussion.

In my opinion, drug use (like many other things) can have such effects on a person that it can become a social issue, too, and not only something that pertains only to the person who uses drugs.

[synthesis]

it seems as if your position on morality logically leads to totalitarianism, and I find that unacceptable.

Or it could simply lead to an emphasis on personal responsibility.

Put it like this - I'll build you a house, and if you burn it down once, I might have some sympathy based on your situation and build you another one. But after that, if I know that you're still tossing your lit cigarettes in that old woodpile out back, I'm going to tell you to get fucked and give your house to someone who will be responsible with it.



I do not base my position on notions of fair or unfair, and a revolution should be based upon what will make things better,

Fairness is a reflection of material conditions. Generally when you want to make things fair, you want to make things better. Another non-argument.


And I want the right to disagree with with people's opinions.

Yeah, I'm all about suppressing free speech. I said it right there... wait... where?

Again, you have the right to an opinion, and society has the right to tell you to fuck off if you keep burning down the houses we build for you. That's the point here.


Whether or not the concept exists is meaningless, I want to live by my ideas, not yours, and I don't care about any label or anything like that, more so than I care about my right to live my ideas.

If the right to "live your ideas" means getting free crack all day and having repeated liver transplants at my expense, then I am all too willing to impinge on your rights given my right as a member of society relative to you, the individual. My bad.


These subjective constraints are the basis of religious tyranny, and of unknowing, unwitting oppression

That statement is meaningless. Stressing ethics and fairness equates to tyranny and oppression? You're confused, son.


I care about the individual, and those who do not will lead us on the path to fascism, to totalitarianism, and to all other sorts of evils.

Sorry - I think we're done here.

I will, however, continue to chuckle at this nugget of wisdom which speaks volumes about the true depth of your confusion.


I remain an amoralist, because morality seems to be immoral.

:laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

You know who gets to decide what communism is? Communists. Why? Because its our ideology, It's my ideology now. And I'll change it to suit me.


I don't go around telling Libertarians what they believe and what type of world they are fighting for. Fine, that's not your ideology. But since Communism (of a sort) is mine I'll do my best to influence people as I want.


Whats wrong, is you don't contribute anything nor have you listened to anything all of us have explained, you argue against preconcieved notions that we dont have, refusing to listen to the explinations. You even refuse to backup your false premised statements with anything. Your do nothing for these discussions, your a waste.Sorry, I'm not a revisionist. For me Communism in this world said what it did and did what it did and existed in this world for a time. There's nothing more. Capitalism exists AS IT IS--nothing more either. I'm not of the belief that "ooh, ooh Communism never REALLY existed!" "They didn't TRY!" It came, it went, that's what it looked like.

I also don't believe that Capitalism is of the "Austrian school" or the "Chicago school" or any other "school". What you have is what you get. What America (and the rest of the world) is going through NOW is Capitalism. There's nothing else. Economics is a historical project--not an act of fortune telling.

All this theory at least for me is pretty much worthless. The whole idea the "everyone" is going to suddenly going to realize that they are Proletarian is beyond belief. The world looks the way it does for a reason--it works.

RGacky, I LIKE Communism. I just happen to be a realist.

[RGacky3]

It's my ideology now. And I'll change it to suit me.


No its not, you don't believe in it, and if thats what your going to do, your wasting everyones time, because its impossible to have an intelligent conversation if your going to do that.

Here I'll do it too, I"m a Capitalist now, and Capitalisms main goal is to rape Chineese children, yup, thats what Capitalism is all about.


RGacky, I LIKE Communism. I just happen to be a realist.

You also ignore arguments that don't suit you and argue against arguments no ones making. If you say for me communism is this, and thats what your arguing against, but us as communists don't believe in that, your wasting all of our times and your own. Your not contributing anything to the discussion.

I don't care if your a Capitalist or a Socialist or whatever, whats important is that you contribute to the discussion, listen to the arguments, and not making up false premises to argue with with absolutely nothing to back it up. When you do that your making an ass out of yourself.


The world looks the way it does for a reason--it works.


So did slavery.

[Bud Struggle]

No its not, you don't believe in it, and if thats what your going to do, your wasting everyones time, because its impossible to have an intelligent conversation if your going to do that.

Here I'll do it too, I"m a Capitalist now, and Capitalisms main goal is to rape Chineese children, yup, thats what Capitalism is all about.



You also ignore arguments that don't suit you and argue against arguments no ones making. If you say for me communism is this, and thats what your arguing against, but us as communists don't believe in that, your wasting all of our times and your own. Your not contributing anything to the discussion.

I don't care if your a Capitalist or a Socialist or whatever, whats important is that you contribute to the discussion, listen to the arguments, and not making up false premises to argue with with absolutely nothing to back it up. When you do that your making an ass out of yourself.



So did slavery.

You are just grumpy.

[Anti Freedom]

Or it could simply lead to an emphasis on personal responsibility. Persons do not have responsibility, they just are, and the notion of "personal responsibility" is meaningless, as the only responsibilities a person has are self-assumed.


Put it like this - I'll build you a house, and if you burn it down once, I might have some sympathy based on your situation and build you another one. But after that, if I know that you're still tossing your lit cigarettes in that old woodpile out back, I'm going to tell you to get fucked and give your house to someone who will be responsible with it.
Ok, this is a different statement then: "the individual has a duty to use those resources responsibly". To say that some form of rationing will exist is different than saying people have duties, responsibilities, or anything like that. One statement is more directed towards controlling the individual, the other statement is more directed at social policy.


Fairness is a reflection of material conditions. Generally when you want to make things fair, you want to make things better. Another non-argument.
No it isn't. Fairness is a statement of the morality of material conditions, a person can say "capitalism is fair" or "capitalism is unfair" and refer to the exact same physical reality, but just emphasize different traits about the social organization, as "fair" does not mean "equal". The difference in views of fairness is a point that I think George Lakoff makes when analyzing conservative vs progressive views of the world, as both ideas are based upon differing underlying notions of fairness. Generally though, fair is considered a good thing, thus when you want to make things fairer, you seek to make them better. This *is* a non-argument, it is a statement of opposing foundational premises.



That statement is meaningless. Stressing ethics and fairness equates to tyranny and oppression? You're confused, son.
No, I actually do equate the 2. Ethics and fairness are externals to human beings, that are used in order to force a certain viewpoint upon them, and have historically been used apologetically for existing worldviews. This notion isn't even a matter of confusion, but rather a recognition that a person must have no gods or masters, and that this includes morality.



I will, however, continue to chuckle at this nugget of wisdom which speaks volumes about the true depth of your confusion.

Kun Fana, that statement was meant to be ironic. Amorality is obviously a denial of the notion of morality, and morality seems difficult to conceive of as immoral. The fact that the statement was a pithy one of absurdity should be clear. If you want to be stupid, and read me uncharitably, that is your right.

[synthesis]

Kun Fana, that statement was meant to be ironic. Amorality is obviously a denial of the notion of morality, and morality seems difficult to conceive of as immoral. The fact that the statement was a pithy one of absurdity should be clear. If you want to be stupid, and read me uncharitably, that is your right.

Your statement was not absurd. It describes your position quite well. You condemn morality and ethical systems for leading to tyranny and oppression, but for tyranny and oppression to be "wrong," you have to be working from some sort of moral or ethical system in the first place, or else there's no grounds for objection.

So whatever it is that leads to you claim that morals, ethics, tyranny, and oppression are "wrong" is the same thing that leads me to argue that in a Communist society, it's unfair to ask the community to subsidize the individual when the individual isn't using the fruit of the community's labor responsibly.

I do read you charitably, by the way. Your posts require a lot of charity on my part.


Persons do not have responsibility, they just are, and the notion of "personal responsibility" is meaningless, as the only responsibilities a person has are self-assumed.

Try again. Responsibilities are a social construction, but even if they were individually constructed, that wouldn't make them meaningless.


Ok, this is a different statement then: "the individual has a duty to use those resources responsibly".

No, it's not, because the goal is to have a society with no homelessness and exploitation. But if you just keep burning down that house, and other people are doing it too, then that's a burden on the system, and we'll have to kick you out on your ass - but we really don't want to do that, so we'll just try to get you to stop burning the house down.

It's the same thing with certain drugs. If your H rations run out too early, you're more likely to become involved exploitative practices to get more. If you smoke a lot of crack, you're probably going to have a lot of heart problems that are going to be a needless burden on the system. We don't want you to become exploited or go without healthcare, so we'll just gradually get rid of all the source material while providing you with free rehabilitation. Everyone wins.

[Patchd]

No drug use and minimal drinking (public intoxication will be punished severely) will be allowed under Communism. Any impalement of the senses will diminish a comrade's ability to work and his/her usefulness to society--and that cannot be allowed.

Every comrade will be obliged to contribute their fair share to the betterment of the whole of society at all times.

And so the Soviet will vote. :cool:
Wrong, under Communism you work because you want to work, if you choose not to, then that is your choice, machines will contribute more towards society than people, and therefore people can begin to live their lives.

[synthesis]

Wrong, under Communism you work because you want to work, if you choose not to, then that is your choice, machines will contribute more towards society than people, and therefore people can begin to live their lives.

The more that society depends on technology, the more we will need trained technicians to build, operate, and maintain that technology.

"You work because you want to work." That's a little too simplistic. Some work will have to get done and some of it is just too important (and there's too much of it) to only rely on people's altruism.

You can't have a working political system without recognizing that fact. The goal is to make the "shitty work" as evenly spread out as possible so no one gets overly fucked by it - and by shitty work, I mean the complicated technical work needed to keep industrial machinery up and running. Why do any of that hard stuff when you can just work on a weed farm your whole life?

[Anti Freedom]

Your statement was not absurd. It describes your position quite well. You condemn morality and ethical systems for leading to tyranny and oppression, but for tyranny and oppression to be "wrong," you have to be working from some sort of moral or ethical system in the first place, or else there's no grounds for objection.
If I don't like something, then it seems quite certainly wrong, and perhaps even to an emotionally laden extent, but to say that this requires some magical fairytalish account of the world seems ridiculous, and to say that ethics refers to anything but fairytales is to ignore the traditional accounts of ethics. Either there are moral facts or there aren't.


So whatever it is that leads to you claim that morals, ethics, tyranny, and oppression are "wrong" is the same thing that leads me to argue that in a Communist society, it's unfair to ask the community to subsidize the individual when the individual isn't using the fruit of the community's labor responsibly.
My emotions do not support such a stance, and as for your emotions, I don't give 2 shits. I still stand against such problems, and consider not doing so a threat to me. In any case, part of the issue between our positions is possibly definitions at this point, as you invoke concepts such as "responsibility" and "duty" as if such things had an objective reality to them, and I disagree that such a notion can exist.


I do read you charitably, by the way. Your posts require a lot of charity on my part.
Kun Fana, being a waste of semen isn't an acceptable substitute for wit, please try again.


Try again. Responsibilities are a social construction, but even if they were individually constructed, that wouldn't make them meaningless.
The social construction that strives to define the individual is meaningless by it's nature. The very notion that a certain value can be meaningfully stamped on the face of another acting being is absurd on it's face.



No, it's not, because the goal is to have a society with no homelessness and exploitation. But if you just keep burning down that house, and other people are doing it too, then that's a burden on the system, and we'll have to kick you out on your ass - but we really don't want to do that, so we'll just try to get you to stop burning the house down.
My goal is to have a society of freedom, even if we have no homes.



It's the same thing with certain drugs. If your H rations run out too early, you're more likely to become involved exploitative practices to get more. If you smoke a lot of crack, you're probably going to have a lot of heart problems that are going to be a needless burden on the system. We don't want you to become exploited or go without healthcare, so we'll just gradually get rid of all the source material while providing you with free rehabilitation. Everyone wins.
And I have doubts as to the ability to completely end all crime, I doubt that black markets would ever be completely abolished, and thus we will have another war on drugs it seems.

[synthesis]

My goal is to have a society of freedom, even if we have no homes.

:laugh:

I consider my point proven, so I'm done here.

[AngelCity Neo-Stalinist]

The war on drugs in America launched by our collective archnemesis Ronny Reagen is simply a mask for the oppression of minorities and so-called "social deviants". Certain addictive substances completely detrimental to one's health should be banned IMO but unless the guy is a big time dealer it's essentially a victemless crime and should be dealt with as such. State funded programs(in true socialist fashion) for addicts. age limits, false ad prohibitions, and side effect warnings should all be implased for legal "narcotics". MDMA and MDA and MDEA and MDxx should all be legalised in their pure forms. I was a frequent and heavy user of ecstasy for a couple years and spent some time as a drug dealer; I would spend hours in my room high as a kite so to speak trying to concoct ways to socialise my business. Me and a couple fellow ravers with an interest in leftist politics decided to combine our "business" together and work out soem sort of socialist drug dealing. It actually worked for awhil and reaffirmed my beleif in communism but eventually ended with us getting all strung out and giving out a bunch of free pills and loosing our money. A little while later i got out of the drug scene for good but it was good while it lasted; not sure if i should have posted all that though.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A great deal of the dialogue here has missed a few key points.

1. Communism would certainly be an improvement over the current state of things, but we can't kid ourselves into thinking that it will take away all of people's individual problems. People would still be unhappy for plenty of reasons; a relatively simple restructuring of the means of economic production will do nothing to change basic human psychology.

2. Drugs are fucking fun. Depression and other personal problems are not the only reason that people use heroin and crack - they make you feel really, really good.

3. When the revolution comes, there will still be addicts. The communist spirit dictates that they be supplied with enough stuff to offset their cravings while attempting to rehabilitate them.

4. When people subsequently realize they can basically get drugs for free, those who might not have tried stuff like heroin and crack "because it just costs too much" (trust me, there's plenty of those) can claim they were addicts and get free shit.

5. People develop a tolerance to nearly every drug that exists, so when their rations run out, people will need more. So the users can get their shit from people who sign up for rations but don't do the drugs themselves - and we can't expect those people to not want anything in return.

And the repercussions of that process will totally subvert the inequality and classlessness for which we strive. There will be a class of people who have shit and a class of people who need more and who will do anything to get it - so say hello to our old friend, Exploitation.

In my opinion, in our hypothetical communist world, we could avoid banning drugs entirely by simply burning down all the opium and coca plantations. Make those drugs extinct. Since there is still a sizable peasant population (the Marxian sense) in Colombia and Afghanistan who depend on these crops for subsistence, this system would not be workable under capitalism, but in theory, communism could address all of these problems.

Listen, nobody wants chemical dependence. Including people with "personal problems" and "depression", who you seem to have total disdain for. The solution is obviously therapy for people in these situations.

[synthesis]

Listen, nobody wants chemical dependence. Including people with "personal problems" and "depression", who you seem to have total disdain for. The solution is obviously therapy for people in these situations.Learn how to read more carefully. If you could do so, you'd realize that you weren't actually addressing anything I said.

For Christ's sake, I can't be bothered to try and reword my arguments every time these undercover liberals want to read something into my posts that simply wasn't there.

[Comrade B]

The attack calling people "liberals" is old and wasted.

A liberal is someone that believes in relaxed government regulation, NOT a left wing capitalist.

I am a liberal communist. I believe in an uncensored media, legalized alcohol and some drugs (post revolution), right to abortion, and a lot of other liberal ideas.
Find me a Marx quote that opposes liberalism to this extent.


Neo-liberalism is something of an entirely different sort. It is, more or less, the rebirth of free market ideology.

[synthesis]

Another non-argument. That's not to say you're completely wrong, or that I disagree with your positions, but you haven't fully understood your own argument and how it relates to mine.

Even working from your implication that words can never, ever develop new meanings, when you say that a liberal "believes in relaxed government regulation" yet "neo-liberalism is... entirely different" because "it is the rebirth of free market ideology," you are contradicting yourself.

Liberalism in its original form, during the Enlightenment, was free market ideology. It was also relaxed government regulation in the social sphere. Liberalism was the first ideological contribution of the emerging bourgeoisie.

Liberalism was/is about the supremacy of the individual and his/her freedoms. Individual freedoms were of the utmost importance to the classical liberals.

At the same time, liberalism completely ignores the ways in which the absolute freedom of the individual can impinge on the rights and freedoms of the rest of society, which is in turn a collection of individuals.

That's why we have communism. Communism recognizes that in practice, an individual's rights and freedoms are never absolute, and therefore the welfare of society is more important than an individual's right to abuse good-intentioned efforts to improve the welfare of society.

In Communism, for example, we don't have to kill a fascist to silence him. We can simply block his ability to get his ideas heard. Freedom of speech is meaningless without a printing press.

It's the same way with heroin and crack. We don't have to throw anyone in jail; we can just abolish the production of the source material. To argue that "people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, all the time" is meaningless when some things people do to their bodies will have consequences which society - a collection of other individuals - is duty-bound to help fix.


Find me a Marx quote that opposes liberalism to this extent.Who gives a shit what he thought about this? Not me.

[Comrade B]

Another non-argument.
It wasn't an argument, it was a basic statement. I haven't really been reading much of this stuff, but I really have a problem with this ridiculous bull shit about calling people liberals.


Liberalism in its original form, during the Enlightenment, was free market ideology. It was also relaxed government regulation in the social sphere. Liberalism was the first ideological contribution of the emerging bourgeoisie.
Free market ideology was a part of it, but it was the idea that people could improve society individually better than the monarchy, it embraced free market ideas, less religious restriction, and embraced a freer form of speech.

However, this is not the Enlightenment. This is the 21st century and meanings have changed. As have a lot of words.


Freedom of speech is meaningless without a printing press.
In Cuba before the revolution, revolutionary writings were banned and those that created copies of the works were arrested or shot. Fortunately, people did not rely solely upon reading about the revolution to have one.

[synthesis]

I really have a problem with this ridiculous bull shit about calling people liberals.



At the same time, liberalism completely ignores the ways in which the absolute freedom of the individual can impinge on the rights and freedoms of the rest of society, which is in turn a collection of individuals.

That's why we have communism. Communism recognizes that in practice, an individual's rights and freedoms are never absolute, and therefore the welfare of society is more important than an individual's right to abuse good-intentioned efforts to improve the welfare of society.

It's not bullshit if it's true.



However, this is not the Enlightenment. This is the 21st century and meanings have changed. As have a lot of words.



A liberal is someone that believes in relaxed government regulation, NOT a left wing capitalist.

:confused:


In Cuba before the revolution, revolutionary writings were banned and those that created copies of the works were arrested or shot. Fortunately, people did not rely solely upon reading about the revolution to have one.

What does this have to do with anything?

[RGacky3]

Many Maoists use the term "Liberal" the same way the far right uses the word "Marxist," i.e. as a catch all phrase to demonize people they disagree with. They take one thing that the person might belive in (such as freedom of speach) and attach the term liberal to it, which adds a whole bunch of connotations (like supporting the free market) to demonize the person, its really dishonest and weak.

[Bud Struggle]

Wrong, under Communism you work because you want to work, if you choose not to, then that is your choice, machines will contribute more towards society than people, and therefore people can begin to live their lives.

No, I really don't think so. EVERYONE will work for the good of the Soviet. The people that don't work or refuse to work will have to be re-educated, confess their mistake before the Soviet and only then will they be allowed back into society. True, machines will do work, but much work by people still has to be done if the overall society is to maintain a highest standard of living.

After Communism all will be required to do their part. Communism will be the benchmark for the hiqhest common denominator of work from everyone--not the lowest.

That's why drugs will be proscribed--it decreases the value of the worker to the Soviet and Communist society as a whole.

Wait and see, Communism will be A LOT different than you think.:hammersickle:

There is a certain style of life that I have come to enjoy under Capitalism. I intend to enjoy that same lifestyle under Communism. When the Revolution comes rather than me going down to everyone elses style of life--I'm afraid that I must insist that in my Soviet everyone comes up to my style. It will mean lots of hard work and long hours especially by the younger members of society, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Apparently troll detection has slipped considerably in my absence or something happened to a certain alleged troll's brain. This is, however, an interesting exercise in how one person exclaiming a point and claiming to be "right wing" can immediately garner support for the other side. Maybe someone should create a right wing sockpuppet claiming Che Guevara as their hero and see how many turn against ol' Che? ;)

I must also congratulate Kun Fana on maintaining a "straight face", in the internet sense of the term. In the off chance Kun Fana is in any way serious, I shall have to find time to weep for the fate of humanity.

[Josef Balin]

I said it should be regulated. Obviously the question is worthless because it doesn't state which drugs it's talking about. Marijuana should be legal over a certain age, I suppose the same age as drinking (which I think should be 16). Cocaine and ecstasy I'm kind of of two minds about. Cocaine I would really rather criminalize because, thought its not addictive in the same way as heroin, it's still quite addictive and I know a lot of people who have spent significant portions of their lives hooked on the stuff. Ecstasy I don't really know enough about to be honest.

Heroin should be illegal. The public policy considerations are simply too strong.
Cocaine is more addictive than heroin, heroin has worse withdrawals. And keeping heroin illegal is a TERRIBLE idea, lots of heroin deaths come from accidental overdoses and products laced with fentanyl, which would be completely eliminated if it were regulated.

I would legalize everything except cocaine and its derivatives, they would be decriminalized for about a decade, then legalized. It is my view that safer, legal stimulants like MDMA would attract the cocaine crowd in the interim period and that once legalized, cocaine would retreat back to a celebratory drug not used at every party like it is now.

[Bud Struggle]

Under Communism people can take drugs--but if they do they they should be out of the Communist welfare system--society has no need to support unproductive gadabouts. One must CONTRIBUTE in Communism.

[Killfacer]

Under Communism people can take drugs--but if they do they they should be out of the Communist welfare system--society has no need to support unproductive gadabouts. One must CONTRIBUTE in Communism.

You can contribute to society and be a drug user. Maybe not if you're a crack head but if it's just recreational use on the side then i fail to see the problem.

[Robert]

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.Hooray! Robert the Great and Kun Fanâ make history! Why can't the rest of you guys get along?


The Communist world is going to be up for grabs--and I'm figuring out a way to grab it.Wanna race, comrade? Before you answer, remember: I cheat. :)

[Bud Struggle]

You can contribute to society and be a drug user. Maybe not if you're a crack head but if it's just recreational use on the side then i fail to see the problem.

Oh, I agree there. A little of anything isn't bad--it's when it affects job performance that he problem will come in, in the Communist system.



Wanna race, comrade? Before you answer, remember: I cheat. :)Typical Capitalist!:cursing::cursing::cursing::lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting facts about meth just released today:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/rc-muc020209.php

The economic cost of methamphetamine use in the United States reached $23.4 billion in 2005, including the burden of addiction, premature death, drug treatment and many other aspects of the drug, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
The RAND study is the first effort to construct a comprehensive national assessment of the costs of the methamphetamine problem in the United States.
"Our findings show that the economic burden of methamphetamine abuse is substantial," said Nancy Nicosia, the study's lead author and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.
Although methamphetamine causes some unique harms, the study finds that many of the primary issues that account for the burden of methamphetamine use are similar to those identified in economic assessments of other illicit drugs.
Given the uncertainty in estimating the costs of methamphetamine use, researchers created a range of estimates. The lowest estimate for the cost of methamphetamine use in 2005 was $16.2 billion, while $48.3 billion was the highest estimate. Researchers' best estimate of the overall economic burden of methamphetamine use is $23.4 billion....

...The RAND analysis found that nearly two-thirds of the economic costs caused by methamphetamine use resulted from the burden of addiction and an estimated 900 premature deaths among users in 2005. The burden of addiction was measured by quantifying the impact of the lower quality of life experienced by those addicted to the drug.
Crime and criminal justice expenses account for the second-largest category of economic costs, according to researchers. These costs include the burden of arresting and incarcerating drug offenders, as well as the costs of additional non-drug crimes caused by methamphetamine use, such as thefts committed to support a drug habit.
Other costs that significantly contribute to the RAND estimate include lost productivity, the expense of removing children from their parents' homes because of methamphetamine use and spending for drug treatment.
One new category of cost captured in the analysis is the expense associated with the production of methamphetamine. Producing methamphetamine requires toxic chemicals that can result in fire, explosions and other events. The resulting costs include the injuries suffered by emergency personnel and other victims, and efforts to clean up the hazardous waste generated by the production process.

Would this be tolerated under Communism?

[danyboy27]

Apparently troll detection has slipped considerably in my absence or something happened to a certain alleged troll's brain. This is, however, an interesting exercise in how one person exclaiming a point and claiming to be "right wing" can immediately garner support for the other side. Maybe someone should create a right wing sockpuppet claiming Che Guevara as their hero and see how many turn against ol' Che? ;)

I must also congratulate Kun Fana on maintaining a "straight face", in the internet sense of the term. In the off chance Kun Fana is in any way serious, I shall have to find time to weep for the fate of humanity.

you know, not all people have such a straight and commited view of things, some people will switch verry fast from right to left and vice et versa according to the way an idea is put in context.

[Rjevan]

I couldn't make up my mind between "should be allowed" and "should be regulated" but banning would be no good.
Finally I voted for "allowed".

[apathy maybe]

I personally think drugs should be encouraged. Everyone should take as many drugs as they can.


Under Communism people can take drugs--but if they do they they should be out of the Communist welfare system--society has no need to support unproductive gadabouts. One must CONTRIBUTE in Communism.

TomK's understanding of communism = FAIL!

In an advanced technological communist society, there would be very little contribution needed from members. If certain members don't want to contribute anything, then it doesn't matter. Things only become a problem if people start having to work more then is acceptable, to support unproductive members. (In which case, free association, those folks are no longer welcome in our tent.)

Where machines do most of the work, people need to do very little.

~_-_-_-_~
Actually, your understanding isn't wrong as such, because many "communists" have the same view. It is just fucking stupid, and those "communists", probably aren't on the same side of the "anarchist/authoritarian" divide as me.

[danyboy27]

~_-_-_-_~
Actually, your understanding isn't wrong as such, because many "communists" have the same view. It is just fucking stupid, and those "communists", probably aren't on the same side of the "anarchist/authoritarian" divide as me.

so people who arnt on your side politicly are stupid?
i am not flaming, just trying to understand your logic.

Personally, i dont think that other people political belief make them stupid.

[apathy maybe]

so people who arnt on your side politicly are stupid?
i am not flaming, just trying to understand your logic.

Personally, i dont think that other people political belief make them stupid.

I said the understanding of "communism" was stupid, not that they were. There are stupid people on both sides of the divide.

[danyboy27]

I said the understanding of "communism" was stupid, not that they were. There are stupid people on both sides of the divide.

tanks for the clarification, i wanted to make that really clear for everyone.

btw, will you be insulted if i say that i think your understanding is stupid?
just asking :D

[Bud Struggle]

TomK's understanding of communism = FAIL!

In an advanced technological communist society, there would be very little contribution needed from members. If certain members don't want to contribute anything, then it doesn't matter. Things only become a problem if people start having to work more then is acceptable, to support unproductive members. (In which case, free association, those folks are no longer welcome in our tent.)

Where machines do most of the work, people need to do very little.

~_-_-_-_~
Actually, your understanding isn't wrong as such, because many "communists" have the same view. It is just fucking stupid, and those "communists", probably aren't on the same side of the "anarchist/authoritarian" divide as me.

Well thanks.;) The interesting thing is that in a non-Anarchist Communist society we all will get a "voice" in how the government will actually progress. It will be interesting to see how things turn out. If anarchy doesn't prevail--almost any sort of rule producing "government" might take over. So who knows?

In the end if the Revolution does take place you will find me on the side of the Anarchists, I do think they posit the best possible world.

[Dharma]

Many hard drug users use drugs to escape the misery of their life. In most cases this is because of poverty. In a socialist society there won't be as much of a drug "problem". It should be decriminalized or legal.

[RGacky3]

In most cases this is because of poverty.

I don't think thats true at all, first of all most poor people can't afford hard drugs, and most junkies I have known come from economically comfortable, (middle class) backgrounds, I think most of it comes from family problems, depression, deep rooted emotional disturbences, sometimes its just kids partying too hard and getting hooked.

Scandanavia has one of the highest rates of heroin use, and those countries are very well off.

That being said, sometimes family problems can be traced back to Capitalism, one of the biggest reasons for divorce is money problems.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Preventing it would fascism. There just needs to be self-control

[NecroCommie]

Where as I would support free choice, I still would ban smoking drug-use and drinking for just one reason. Children... These kind of activities should be brought away from the very eyes of the children, for peer preassure often misleads even otherwise rational individuals. Adults can spoil themselves as much as they want.

Also, government should practice high profile anti-drug Informing. Without forcing the adults ones though.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I still would ban smoking drug-use and drinking

Shut up you ****. Im not saying give little timmy heroine but as long as you educate kids well about drugs (not drugs = the devil's shite) most of em will be fine.

[NecroCommie]

I dare to disagree. In completely unsupervised condition peer preassure tends to take numerous kids witht them. Hell, they do most of these things even when they are banned!

But dont you worry Comrade Joe. I am not especially passionate on this matter. Legistlate drugs if you want, i dont really care because im not gonna use them anyway. And I will definately ban all drugs from my children until they reach maturity.

[Ephydriad]

As a near-militant straight edger, I can comfortably say FUCK THE WAR ON DRUGS.
Why? Using or not using is a PERSONAL CHOICE. Drug use should be decriminalised and highly discouraged. Intoxication would be less necessary if life wasn't such torment for so many people... we should shift our troops from the front of the War on Drugs to the War on Discontent....

[Rangi]

I voted for allowed. The fastest way to get a teenager to do something is to say 'Don't do that'. I believe that no one can tell me what I can or can't inhale, swallow, inject etc. as it is my body and not theirs.

Oh and Ephydriad I'm not sure if you can call yourself a Yippie if you haven't on at least one occasion taken a heroic dose of LSD.

Much respect all the same, I just love Abbie Hoffman.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

As a near-militant straight edger, I can comfortably say FUCK THE WAR ON DRUGS.
Why? Using or not using is a PERSONAL CHOICE. Drug use should be decriminalised and highly discouraged. Intoxication would be less necessary if life wasn't such torment for so many people... we should shift our troops from the front of the War on Drugs to the War on Discontent....

Are you opposed to the use of drugs, both legal and illicit, for medical purposes?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I dare to disagree. In completely unsupervised condition peer preassure tends to take numerous kids witht them.[/quote So? If people are educated propley there wont be so much preasure to be uber cool and take drugs to be a hard nut [quote=NecroCommie;1353611] And I will definately ban all drugs from my children until they reach maturity.

As if they will give a toss what you think.

[Killfacer]

I dare to disagree. In completely unsupervised condition peer preassure tends to take numerous kids witht them. Hell, they do most of these things even when they are banned!

But dont you worry Comrade Joe. I am not especially passionate on this matter. Legistlate drugs if you want, i dont really care because im not gonna use them anyway. And I will definately ban all drugs from my children until they reach maturity.


I will feed my children drugs.

[CommieCat]

One wonders why you think that:


...I will definately ban all drugs from my children until they reach maturity.

yet, you yourself admit:


Hell, they do most of these things even when they are banned!

Ultimately it isn't in your capacity to decide or control whether your (hypothetical?) children are going to take drugs or not. Nor is you 'banning them' ('That's it kid! No more T.V, no more PlayStation, and no ecstasy for a month!') going to make a difference.

Any responsible parent, if they were really concerned with a child's health/wellbeing, would explain the REAL consequences of taking a certain drug of whatever proportion. They would explain how to SAFELY take that drug, the appropriate amounts, and what to do if they are concerned about their safety (i.e ring/contact you).

Because, statistics are your child is going to take drugs.

[NecroCommie]

So? If people are educated propley there wont be so much preasure to be uber cool and take drugs to be a hard nut

As if they will give a toss what you think.

Well if children could be educated to resist peer prassure my stance on this matter would change. Quite frankly though, I think such "education" is rather impossible. Especially with kids, since they are not yet able to differentiate negative peer preassure and well reasoned arguments.

And yes, they do care what I think since they are my children. Children identify themselves with their parents, since following and obeying their parents is (was) the only way for the child to survive until they could handle themselves. Children then break this bond when they reach maturity, and replace it with a less blind family bond, and it is only at this stage that they start to think for themselves. Those of you who grew up in capitalist families will notice how you first came to communism in the years of your teenage rebellion, or later.



Ultimately it isn't in your capacity to decide or control whether your (hypothetical?) children are going to take drugs or not. Nor is you 'banning them' ('That's it kid! No more T.V, no more PlayStation, and no ecstasy for a month!') going to make a difference.

Any responsible parent, if they were really concerned with a child's health/wellbeing, would explain the REAL consequences of taking a certain drug of whatever proportion. They would explain how to SAFELY take that drug, the appropriate amounts, and what to do if they are concerned about their safety (i.e ring/contact you).

Because, statistics are your child is going to take drugs.

Ultimately, it IS in my capacity to control wether my kids take drugs or not, since they are prone to act according to the rules of cognitive learning (pretty much the only thing kids base their decisions on) so the basic threatening, bribery and black-mailing will do.

And about the "real" consequences of drugs? YOU F***ING DIE! And to be less dramatic: Drugs, or any narcotics other than food and sleep, are hazardous, if not to the health, then to the freedom of the individual and the society surrounding him/her. Only person to gain something from narcotics is the dude selling them. If that is not exploitation, then nothing is. And believe me, I've seen it since I've been there. I dont want to use drugs, nor am I willing to live anywhere where narcotics are everyday life.

And as to my statement on children doing stuff that are forbidden. I meant forbidden by law, very few children do stuff forbidden by capable parents. Very few of my childhood friends ever questioned their parents rules, and those who did, did it just for the sake of disagreeing, and not because they thought they could "handle it". I think that parents who give children too much "freedom" are irresponsible parents, since freedom always brings responsibility, and children are not responsible beings.

These comments like:"As if your children care what you think!" Well, they do... Those comments sound like coming from a bitter childhood experience. I am sorry if your parents did not give you everything you want, but those kinds of parents tend to bring up caring children. All the spoiled children grow up to be major blank-holes and bleep-heads, regardless the information they posess.

I am also baffled by this illusion of children being capable of rational decision making and to resist social preassures in similar ways than adults. They are not! They are called children for a reason. Neither would I put any responsibility to the hands of a teenager, since teens tend to think with their genitalia rather than their head.

I might have disagreed with my parents when I was a child, but now all grown up, I just thank them for not letting me see any violent movies, drink alcohol, stay out late and so on and so on...



Because, statistics are your child is going to take drugs.


Where on earth do you live?!!?!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well if children could be educated to resist peer prassure my stance on this matter would change. Quite frankly though, I think such "education" is rather impossible. Especially with kids, since they are not yet able to differentiate negative peer preassure and well reasoned arguments.

Drug use involves a measure of responsibility, which can be taught to older kids and teenagers. Why is it that they can be taught to look after another living thing, like a dog or a cat, but this capacity for learning responsibility mysteriously disappears when it comes to puffing on a joint?


And yes, they do care what I think since they are my children. Children identify themselves with their parents, since following and obeying their parents is (was) the only way for the child to survive until they could handle themselves. Children then break this bond when they reach maturity, and replace it with a less blind family bond, and it is only at this stage that they start to think for themselves. Those of you who grew up in capitalist families will notice how you first came to communism in the years of your teenage rebellion, or later. I suspect most people don't become communists when they become teenagers and that the "rebellious teen" is a stereotype.


Ultimately, it IS in my capacity to control wether my kids take drugs or not, since they are prone to act according to the rules of cognitive learning (pretty much the only thing kids base their decisions on) so the basic threatening, bribery and black-mailing will do.This is called shitty parenting. Threats, bribes and blackmail - such wonderful values to instil into your children! :rolleyes:


And about the "real" consequences of drugs? YOU F***ING DIE! And to be less dramatic: Drugs, or any narcotics other than food and sleep, are hazardous, if not to the health, then to the freedom of the individual and the society surrounding him/her.Bullshit. You're equating all drugs, from weed to crack, as having the same risk. Which is obvious nonsense.


Only person to gain something from narcotics is the dude selling them. If that is not exploitation, then nothing is.If people find something pleasurable, then they will be willing to pay money for it. How this is exploitation over and above the normal workings of capitalism you have yet to explain. What the difference between going to a funfair and spending money on the rides, and buying a bag of weed and spending an evening at a friend's house consuming it? In both cases you gain "nothing" except pleasurable sensations, whether it's the adrenaline rush that a rollercoaster induces or the buzz you get from THC.


And believe me, I've seen it since I've been there. I dont want to use drugs, nor am I willing to live anywhere where narcotics are everyday life.So you refuse to associate with anyone who smokes? Or who drinks tea, coffee or anything else with caffeine in it?

You must be a pretty lonely person.


And as to my statement on children doing stuff that are forbidden. I meant forbidden by law, very few children do stuff forbidden by capable parents. Very few of my childhood friends ever questioned their parents rules, and those who did, did it just for the sake of disagreeing, and not because they thought they could "handle it". I think that parents who give children too much "freedom" are irresponsible parents, since freedom always brings responsibility, and children are not responsible beings.I distinctly remember questioning the rules of my childhood because I thought they were "unfair". The common response was "life's not fair". As a statement of fact that was indisputable, but I have since learned that just because life isn't fair, doesn't mean it should be unfair. "life's not fair" is simply a polite way of saying to children "learn to like the taste of shit!"

Which is a disgusting lesson to teach to children, because if it "catches" then they essentially resign themselves of any meaningful change. They become the wet dream of every boss - someone who never questions their station in life.


These comments like:"As if your children care what you think!" Well, they do... Those comments sound like coming from a bitter childhood experience. I am sorry if your parents did not give you everything you want, but those kinds of parents tend to bring up caring children. All the spoiled children grow up to be major blank-holes and bleep-heads, regardless the information they posess.My parents didn't have the money to "spoil" me (whatever the hell that means - are children like fruit now?), but they were certainly far from the type to impose the labyrinthine and draconian rules that my less fortunate peers had to suffer under.

I hardly think I was an exceptional child, but even I was able to understand the concept of "money" and comprehend that it was a limited resource. It doesn't take a genius to realise that money spent on train sets is money that would otherwise have been spent on food.


I am also baffled by this illusion of children being capable of rational decision making and to resist social preassures in similar ways than adults. They are not! They are called children for a reason. Neither would I put any responsibility to the hands of a teenager, since teens tend to think with their genitalia rather than their head.Peer pressure is one of the reasons why we need sensible drug education for kids and teenagers in the first place. Your seeming method of education - "If you take drugs, kids, YOU'LL DIE!" - is in fact counterproductive, as the odds are good they will end up trying a few puffs on a joint or a line or two of coke, and come out of it fine. Their personal experience will then conflict with your mis-education, and they will be correspondingly less willing to take heed of your other warnings, especially concerning other drugs.


I might have disagreed with my parents when I was a child, but now all grown up, I just thank them for not letting me see any violent movies, drink alcohol, stay out late and so on and so on...I watched violent movies, drank alcohol (at Christmas), and started smoking weed when I was 13. I'm thankful that my parents weren't authoritarian, since their (mostly) liberal parenting made me the radical I am today.

[NecroCommie]

Drug use involves a measure of responsibility, which can be taught to older kids and teenagers. Why is it that they can be taught to look after another living thing, like a dog or a cat, but this capacity for learning responsibility mysteriously disappears when it comes to puffing on a joint?

They CAN be tought those things, but it is such a risky business I would not count entirely on it. Not with pets, not with drugs.


I suspect most people don't become communists when they become teenagers and that the "rebellious teen" is a stereotype.


...or later.


This is called shitty parenting. Threats, bribes and blackmail - such wonderful values to instil into your children! :rolleyes:

This is called just parenting. Parenting is not about being good friends with your child, it is about teaching the child about world, and taking care of him/her, even when the childs own oppinions conflict with your better knowledge. It is very clear that threats bribes and blackmail, are ONLY ways to affect your childs behaviour, although they do sound a bit harsh. Why is it that when you punish your child about taking drugs its "interfering with his body", and when its punishing about overtly racist behaviour it is "parenting"?


Bullshit. You're equating all drugs, from weed to crack, as having the same risk. Which is obvious nonsense.

Its a fair cop! You caught me stereotyping, but I still would not call taking drugs a risk-free business.


If people find something pleasurable, then they will be willing to pay money for it. How this is exploitation over and above the normal workings of capitalism you have yet to explain. What the difference between going to a funfair and spending money on the rides, and buying a bag of weed and spending an evening at a friend's house consuming it? In both cases you gain "nothing" except pleasurable sensations, whether it's the adrenaline rush that a rollercoaster induces or the buzz you get from THC.

You know very well that rollercoaster rides are not on equal grounds with drug usage. Rollercoaster rides rarely produce addiction, and therefore few people are more or less forced to buy rollercoaster rides.


So you refuse to associate with anyone who smokes? Or who drinks tea, coffee or anything else with caffeine in it?

Associating in general is OK, but long term living in a neighbourhood with people getting up high behind every corner is frustrating. Not to speak of the risks with problem users.


You must be a pretty lonely person.

I quite often defend my smoking friends rights as humans, but I do discriminate their rights as smokers. Smokers are somewhat looked down upon over here.


I distinctly remember questioning the rules of my childhood because I thought they were "unfair". The common response was "life's not fair". As a statement of fact that was indisputable, but I have since learned that just because life isn't fair, doesn't mean it should be unfair. "life's not fair" is simply a polite way of saying to children "learn to like the taste of shit!"

Then it seems your parents were less interested in explaining their actions than mine. Where as I agree with you in "life should be fair" It does not contribute to this discussion very much. Denying drug use is fair and reasoned.


My parents didn't have the money to "spoil" me (whatever the hell that means - are children like fruit now?), but they were certainly far from the type to impose the labyrinthine and draconian rules that my less fortunate peers had to suffer under.

Spoiling is not just spending money on a child, it is giving up to them in general, not just in material cases. Giving up in agreed family rules is spoiling the children, if they learn that they can whine their way through dads orders, they will try to slither through societys rules in general. Thus ending up as criminals or worse even, capitalists.


I hardly think I was an exceptional child, but even I was able to understand the concept of "money" and comprehend that it was a limited resource. It doesn't take a genius to realise that money spent on train sets is money that would otherwise have been spent on food.

I did not claim that anyone was a bleeping rich kid. I simply wanted to point out that most "strict" parents bring out the kind of people wanted in communist society. There should be individual freedom, but only for those who are grown up to take the responsibilities involved.


Peer pressure is one of the reasons why we need sensible drug education for kids and teenagers in the first place. Your seeming method of education - "If you take drugs, kids, YOU'LL DIE!" - is in fact counterproductive, as the odds are good they will end up trying a few puffs on a joint or a line or two of coke, and come out of it fine. Their personal experience will then conflict with your mis-education, and they will be correspondingly less willing to take heed of your other warnings, especially concerning other drugs.

Ofcourse I will not use those exact words to a children. Not even that exact form of argument. Hving been a child myself, I understand that they usually demand more structured reasons for rules, and I always try to give them. I just happen to have a strange sence of humor, so i thought that overly huge dramatisation would be fun. :D


I watched violent movies, drank alcohol (at Christmas), and started smoking weed when I was 13. I'm thankful that my parents weren't authoritarian, since their (mostly) liberal parenting made me the radical I am today.

Well it is good you did not grow up to be a blankety-blank-hole, but you must understand that this kind of unauthoritarian growing is not always "liberal" in nature, but often a product of non-caring parents. And non-caring parents make non-caring children unless involvment is made.

[graffic]

I think most drugs should be legalized.

If you look at the facts most problems associated with drugs are due to the legislation.

Take Heroin for example... The only reason Heroin is considered a "poisonous" drug is because of the way drug dealers make it. Heroin made by biologists is not "poisonous" - the only negative effect is laziness.

My only query would be on cocaine, which I know from experience is extremely addictive.

I like Nick Davies analysis from theguardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/may/22/drugsandalcohol.ukcrime

[Jazzratt]

This is called just parenting.Threats, bribes and blackmail - when used against any other member of society save for your own children is called "criminal behaviour". Quite why this is different with one's children is entirely beyond me.


Parenting is not about being good friends with your child, it is about teaching the child about world, and taking care of him/her, even when the childs own oppinions conflict with your better knowledge.There is no dichotomy between being "friends" with a child and teaching them about the world. The underestimation of young people's agency and knowledge is one of the biggest mistakes prevalent in parenting.


It is very clear that threats bribes and blackmail, are ONLY ways to affect your childs behaviour,although they do sound a bit harsh.It's only clear to you. Most people I know have grown up without such shitty and lazy parenting techniques. If you can't think of a better way to educate your kids than coercion you should possibly reconsider your suitability as a parent.


Why is it that when you punish your child about taking drugs its "interfering with his body", and when its punishing about overtly racist behaviour it is "parenting"?What kind of strawman is this?! Young people can be educated about racism and drugs in exactly the same way. You don't have to resort to traditional punishments in order to do this.


Its a fair cop! You caught me stereotyping, but I still would not call taking drugs a risk-free business. Driving a car is not a risk free business, going outside is not a risk free business and doing your job (whatever it may be) is not a risk free business. You are, in fact, only isolated from risks when you die. "100% safe" is a fantasy, a myth.


You know very well that rollercoaster rides are not on equal grounds with drug usage. Rollercoaster rides rarely produce addiction, and therefore few people are more or less forced to buy rollercoaster rides.
As far as I remember it's only nicotine, heroin and cocaine [including, obviously derivatives] which produce a physical addiction*. All others (including alcohol) tend to be psychological addictions, albeit with quite unpleasent psychosomatic withdrawal effects. Psychological addictions though can occur with anything that we find pleasant - endorphins and adrenaline for example.

Generally drug users take their first dose of a drug understanding the risk of addiction, just as they understand the risk of overdose or death; so for the most part they can't be said to be more or less forced to buy drugs.


Associating in general is OK, but long term living in a neighbourhood with people getting up high behind every corner is frustrating. Not to speak of the risks with problem users.Where I live the people who take illegal drugs tend to keep out of trouble and the same goes for the vast majority of legal drug users aside from the occasional drunken twat. The solution, though, is not to clamp down on drugs and prosecute users. That kind of shit is why you get people cooking up their own meth using all kinds of toxic detritus.


I quite often defend my smoking friends rights as humans, but I do discriminate their rights as smokers. Smokers are somewhat looked down upon over here.THeir rights as humans includes their right o be smokers. If you want to talk in terms of rights that is.



Then it seems your parents were less interested in explaining their actions than mine. Where as I agree with you in "life should be fair" It does not contribute to this discussion very much. Denying drug use is fair and reasoned.No it isn't. Choosing not to take drugs yourself is fair and reasoned but denying others the oppurtunity to make that choice for themselves is not.


Spoiling is not just spending money on a child, it is giving up to them in general, not just in material cases. Giving up in agreed family rules is spoiling the children, if they learn that they can whine their way through dads orders, they will try to slither through societys rules in general. Thus ending up as criminals or worse even, capitalists.This is just plain bollocks. Pretty much everyone has circumvented their parents wishes, either because their parents chose to allow what was previously forbidden or simply because they chose to do it anyway. Not everyone grows up to be a criminal though, or a capitalist. That said a large number of people are nonviolent criminals (drug users, dangerous drivers, minor fraudsters [for example people who are on benefits/welfare/social security/whatever your equivelent is who do odd jobs for a few extra pounds/dollars/krona/euros/whatever]). Revolutionaries break the rules of the current society far more than capitalists; so the last part of that is arse-backwards.


I did not claim that anyone was a bleeping rich kid. I simply wanted to point out that most "strict" parents bring out the kind of people wanted in communist society.Not in my experience. In my experience people who grow up with "strict" parents tend either to be uptight thugs who support all kinds of authoritarian bullshit or selfish losers looking out for #1. Healthy and balanced people rarely come from strict backgrounds, although it's not unheard of.


There should be individual freedom, but only for those who are grown up to take the responsibilities involved.How the hell do you expect people to be grown up enough to take responsibilites if you treat them as cretins with no agency throughout their lives?

[NecroCommie]

Threats, bribes and blackmail - when used against any other member of society save for your own children is called "criminal behaviour". Quite why this is different with one's children is entirely beyond me.

The same reason that voting is not allowed for kids, or driving a car.


There is no dichotomy between being "friends" with a child and teaching them about the world. The underestimation of young people's agency and knowledge is one of the biggest mistakes prevalent in parenting.

I did not mean they are impossible to combine, what I was talking about is attitude. If you start raising a kid with a "friend attitude", the kids will end up screwed. If you take raising a child seriously responsible duty, you are bound to take some authoritarian actions.


It's only clear to you. Most people I know have grown up without such shitty and lazy parenting techniques. If you can't think of a better way to educate your kids than coercion you should possibly reconsider your suitability as a parent.

So far all the good parents I've talked to have agreed on this one. Agreed with me that is. Just think about it, all actions a child makes, are based upon fear of negative feedback from peers or parents OR hopes of praise or prize. For example, the choice not to commit burglary is made on the assumption that burglary results in negative or positive feedback from peers and parents, and perhaps in punishment from "legal" authorities. A good parents simply simplifies these relations, and a good communist parent reminds of the society effects of different actions.


What kind of strawman is this?! Young people can be educated about racism and drugs in exactly the same way. You don't have to resort to traditional punishments in order to do this.

You cant. If you just say that racism is bad because people are equal, the kid will be like: "OK", but might later resort to racist actions because of peer preassure and teenage rebellion. That is why we should both inform the kids, and make sure that they know the rest of the community does not tolerate racism. Same goes for drugs, it is not enough to inform of the dangers or it seems too light case for the kid to resist.

And what if the kid violates community rules despite good informing? You cant just say to a murderer: "well that was a naughty thing to do! Shame on you!"


Driving a car is not a risk free business, going outside is not a risk free business and doing your job (whatever it may be) is not a risk free business. You are, in fact, only isolated from risks when you die. "100% safe" is a fantasy, a myth.

That is not a reason to further increase everyday risks.


As far as I remember it's only nicotine, heroin and cocaine [including, obviously derivatives] which produce a physical addiction*. All others (including alcohol) tend to be psychological addictions, albeit with quite unpleasent psychosomatic withdrawal effects. Psychological addictions though can occur with anything that we find pleasant - endorphins and adrenaline for example.

True, Except that I am not so sure about alcohol. That is why I would ban all containing nicotine, heroine and cocaine, but allow for example rollercoaster rides. Then there are substances that are harming, but not addictive like... alcohol? With such substances I would be quite careful (in a political way) I am ready to legalize them, but for problem users I might want to impose some restrictions (since their healthcare might be encumbersome)


Generally drug users take their first dose of a drug understanding the risk of addiction, just as they understand the risk of overdose or death; so for the most part they can't be said to be more or less forced to buy drugs.

But what if they are addicted and want out? Then they more or less are.


Where I live the people who take illegal drugs tend to keep out of trouble and the same goes for the vast majority of legal drug users aside from the occasional drunken twat. The solution, though, is not to clamp down on drugs and prosecute users. That kind of shit is why you get people cooking up their own meth using all kinds of toxic detritus.

I am not so sure about that. Over here I personally know several drug-users, and all of them are complete whackos and blancos, I would not trust those guys with sleeping safely.


THeir rights as humans includes their right o be smokers. If you want to talk in terms of rights that is.

A matter of oppinion, I would not say so, but neither of us can really prove anything.


No it isn't. Choosing not to take drugs yourself is fair and reasoned but denying others the oppurtunity to make that choice for themselves is not.

But cant you understand that the choice to take drugs does not affect you alone? Your family, and community are affected by that choice, and it imposes a risk on both (although on a community a single user is not a great risk). That is why the issue of drugs are a political issue, not a personal one.


This is just plain bollocks. Pretty much everyone has circumvented their parents wishes, either because their parents chose to allow what was previously forbidden or simply because they chose to do it anyway. Not everyone grows up to be a criminal though, or a capitalist. That said a large number of people are nonviolent criminals (drug users, dangerous drivers, minor fraudsters [for example people who are on benefits/welfare/social security/whatever your equivelent is who do odd jobs for a few extra pounds/dollars/krona/euros/whatever]). Revolutionaries break the rules of the current society far more than capitalists; so the last part of that is arse-backwards.

It is true that communists should not take authority figures for granted, but plain rebellion just for the sake of rebellion is damaging your close ones too. Thrash all authority, and you will thrash all reasons not to murder, pillage, loot and rape. Parents are one of the only authority figures that are NEEDED for ensuring a childs wellbeing.


Not in my experience. In my experience people who grow up with "strict" parents tend either to be uptight thugs who support all kinds of authoritarian bullshit or selfish losers looking out for #1. Healthy and balanced people rarely come from strict backgrounds, although it's not unheard of.

Well thats what you think (or have experienced?). I have to say that my experiences are quite the opposite, and actually the only reason I survived elementary school alive is because one teacher took the responsibility that a few parents refused to take.


How the hell do you expect people to be grown up enough to take responsibilites if you treat them as cretins with no agency throughout their lives?

The same way they always do. The same way I grew up to be revolutionary, even though from "authoritarian" background. Children will eventually grow out of their parents, but it is the parents that define in which way they grow out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The same reason that voting is not allowed for kids, or driving a car.

What, that borgeouis ideologues refuse to recognise that children have any agency beyond being the quasi-property of parents? We know that. I reject it.

As for driving cars, they're designed for adults, and most children do not have the financial means to buy, maintain or insure them.


I did not mean they are impossible to combine, what I was talking about is attitude. If you start raising a kid with a "friend attitude", the kids will end up screwed. If you take raising a child seriously responsible duty, you are bound to take some authoritarian actions.Screwed? How? The fact that parents are human beings and make mistakes like any other has no bearing on the fact that treating children badly (physical violence, verbal abuse, plus all that wonderful stuff you mentioned) is a shitty thing to do.


So far all the good parents I've talked to have agreed on this one. Agreed with me that is. Just think about it, all actions a child makes, are based upon fear of negative feedback from peers or parents OR hopes of praise or prize. For example, the choice not to commit burglary is made on the assumption that burglary results in negative or positive feedback from peers and parents, and perhaps in punishment from "legal" authorities. A good parents simply simplifies these relations, and a good communist parent reminds of the society effects of different actions.
How do you know the parents were "good"? Did they tell you that? Did you think to ask their kids? Of course not. You think of them as animals to be given the carrot-and-stick treatment.


You cant. If you just say that racism is bad because people are equal, the kid will be like: "OK", but might later resort to racist actions because of peer preassure and teenage rebellion. That is why we should both inform the kids, and make sure that they know the rest of the community does not tolerate racism. Same goes for drugs, it is not enough to inform of the dangers or it seems too light case for the kid to resist.Your statement is based on the assumption that kids have no empathy whatsoever. Well, I suppose if you blackmail and threaten them they'll learn that to get ahead, one has to treat others like shit.


And what if the kid violates community rules despite good informing? You cant just say to a murderer: "well that was a naughty thing to do! Shame on you!"If a kid goes so far as to murder someone, they require the attention of a professional.

As for far more common misdemeanours, social ostracism is a powerful disincentive. Humans are social animals after all.


That is not a reason to further increase everyday risks.That's not your decision to make. Children are not property.


True, Except that I am not so sure about alcohol. That is why I would ban all containing nicotine, heroine and cocaine, but allow for example rollercoaster rides. Then there are substances that are harming, but not addictive like... alcohol? With such substances I would be quite careful (in a political way) I am ready to legalize them, but for problem users I might want to impose some restrictions (since their healthcare might be encumbersome)*sighs* Prohibition does not work, it merely drives the trade of whatever you're prohibiting underground, where any kind of regulation is impossible and where criminals are intimately involved by definition.


But what if they are addicted and want out? Then they more or less are.Then they should be given the help they want and need, without pointless moralising.


I am not so sure about that. Over here I personally know several drug-users, and all of them are complete whackos and blancos, I would not trust those guys with sleeping safely.Does drug use make people antisocial, or are antisocial people attracted to drugs? The evidence, in the form of people who use drugs but aren't criminals or strung-out wrecks, seems to suggest the latter.

Alcohol is a drug that widely and cheaply available. Some people are drunks, but they are the minority of drinkers.


A matter of oppinion, I would not say so, but neither of us can really prove anything. What I (or anyone else for that matter!) choose to put in my body is none of your concern.


But cant you understand that the choice to take drugs does not affect you alone? Your family, and community are affected by that choice, and it imposes a risk on both (although on a community a single user is not a great risk). That is why the issue of drugs are a political issue, not a personal one.Most of the time drug use does not unduly interfere with a person's ability to live their life. Even addiction is not a huge problem as long as the addict can get their fix. But this is made difficult by the expense and rarity of their drug, which is brought about by prohibition, in addition to the fact that they're fucked if they get caught.


It is true that communists should not take authority figures for granted, but plain rebellion just for the sake of rebellion is damaging your close ones too. Thrash all authority, and you will thrash all reasons not to murder, pillage, loot and rape. Parents are one of the only authority figures that are NEEDED for ensuring a childs wellbeing.Only if you accept the idea that parents are infallible authority figures, which I do not.

Also, there are good reasons why one shouldn't rape, murder, pillage or loot beyond some authority figure simply going "because I said so". Maybe you should try working out what they are?


Well thats what you think (or have experienced?). I have to say that my experiences are quite the opposite, and actually the only reason I survived elementary school alive is because one teacher took the responsibility that a few parents refused to take.Well let's see, if you strike, scream at, blackmail, bribe and threaten a kid, what conclusions do you think they will draw from that? "The world is a scary place where the strong dominate the weak and get away with it!"

That's a fascist lesson.


The same way they always do. The same way I grew up to be revolutionary, even though from "authoritarian" background. Children will eventually grow out of their parents, but it is the parents that define in which way they grow out.Considering that you think it acceptable to abuse and intimidate kids in the name of "parenting" I would say your "revolutionary" credentials are in serious question.

[RGacky3]

I don't konw anyone that believes that children have the same mental ability, maturity and reasoning ability as adults, paranting is a natural structure waaayyyy different from say the State or Capitalism.

You can bring this argument up with psychologists and scientists that study child development, child care is'nt in the same category as hiarchies like Capitalism and the state. Its clear that children are not little adults, and that parents have a natural love for their children, its not close to the same thing.

If you want to talk about what is acceptable and not acceptable parenting you have to approach it from a different angle then the angle you would with other social hiarchies.

[political_animal]

I find it interesting that those with negative views on drugs find that they cause family breakdowns, squalor and violence, and are used to escape from the eternal hell of living a shitty existence. I think Bill Hicks summed it up perfectly...

"I had a great time on drugs. Sorry! Didn't murder anybody,didn't rob anybody,didn't rape anybody, didn't beat anybody, didn't lose...mmm...one fucking job. LAUGHED-MY-ASS-OFF. And went about my day'

Why are some trying to ascribe to the notion that all drugs are bad...well, except alcohol obviously!

I used to drink quite a lot when I was somewhat younger and had a great fucking time. However, as I got older, I found that my tolerance to it became less and less and the hangovers became worse and worse, so I gave it up. I didn't stop because it was harming my life, my job, my home, my family. I stopped because the negativity of the hangover was outweighing the fun I had whilst drinking. This is personal choice.

I have also experienced other drugs. I smoked some weed and found it wasn't for me. Ordinary weed just made me listless and brought on a headache, strong skunk knocked me out and made me violently sick, so I only tried it a few times. That was personal choice. I have also tried speed, ecstacsy and cocaine and found a much better experience with them. I do it occassionally and I have a great time, whilst also understanding that I may feel slightly depressed or under the weather during the come-down. I have never tried heroin because it just doesn't appeal. Again, all personal choices, knowing full well the expectations of what will happen, the enjoyment I will get out of it and the preparations for the come-down and knowing whether I have got work the next day.

In all that time I have never had any work problems, in fact, working in retail for a number of years, I could say that my serving performance the day after taking ecstasy was quite possibly improved (more sociable) whereas the day after drinking, much worse (headaches, didn't want to talk). Would ecstasy be encouraged under communism?!:lol:

What all the above shows, I hope, is that any 'negative' talk about drugs that is reported in the media can be outweighed by personal experiences and all comes down to personal choice. Quite frankly, if I want to get off my tits, it's my choice but i wouldn't be doing it because my life is shit, it's because I find it enjoyable to partake once in a while.

As a side-note to all of the above, I have also taken legal ecstasy and speed. This isn't herbal stuff but manufactured pills made of slightly different chemicals, to ape the experience of the real (illegal) thing. As they are perfectly legal, does that make them ok - as if drinking water - or something that drug policy hasn't caught up with yet. As science moves on, if certain drugs were proscribed in a communist society, how would we deal with new non-illegal drugs?

Now, when it comes to society as a whole, of course there are problems. There are issues of addiction and people not knowing their own limits. There are issues of crime - generally fed down the food chain from the criminal activity involved in growing/making/preparing drugs, transporting them and selling them. With such a hysteria in society about drug policy, it is no little wonder that crime goes hand-in-hand with drugs. If the criminality was erased, so would be most of the social ills connected to it and those that were worse off could surely be dealt with in exactly the same way who have accidents because they evaluated the risk of crossing a road incorrectly and got hit by a car. Ultimately, the human experience is about managing risk in all it's various forms.

The final thing I would say, is that getting 'out of it' is a NATURAL human condition. Watch kids who spin around endlessly to feel the rush of dizziness. It is fun and not something to be feared or put down upon and eventually, the child will have enough and move on to something else, without any harmful side-effects.

I can only recommend a great book on this topic...'Out Of It' by Stuart Walton, which goes into great detail on the history, use and experiences of drugs throughout the ages, from ancient times of the eleusian mysteries, right up until present drugs policies.

My view - drug use should be allowed.

[Kernewek]

I personaly feel that responsible drug use can be a very positive activity, although I don't agree with use of harder drugs, specificaly heroin, cocain and meth. But all prohibition does is drive them underground which creates crime, puts the users in greater danger and makes it harder for problematic users to get the help they need, that said these drugs need to be tightly controled

problematic users should be fully entitled to medical treatment, these people have generaly turned to drugs for a reason and need help not ostracism
that said if a user has clearly shown that they don't want help they be given lower priority when it comes to medical treatment

[ThiagoCL]

As long as the people use those things and keep their ethical vaules and don't harm the others with thier decision, they can do wathever the want. But that doesn't happen: the use of some drugs and excesive alcohol 'locks' the persons mind and makes he/she acts without resposibility, besides, the addiction drugs and excesive alcohol generates violence and criminality.
You can't in the other hand forbid them once some are even healty if moderately used such as wine: 1 or 2 glasses can help you live longer. And some drugs really have medical uses.
Without being able to allow or forbid we must regulate the use: for each type of product there should be an use limit. Others however may be completely forbiden due drastical damages caused to society.

[ibn Bruce]

Having first hand been involved at many levels of drug abuse (selling, transport, use) in my younger days, I find it hard to dismiss them as anything but harmful. Similarly alcohol is in the same boat. Sure you can do it in moderation, sure you might not be harmed by it, but damn, all the statistics I've seen have indicated that a hellova lot of people ARE.

That said, if people want to kill themselves, that's on them.

[Rangi]

I can hardly see any harm in drinking a nice single malt whiskey by the fire on a cold day. For me the drinking of whiskey is a quasi-spiritual experience. It connects me with my ancestors that have distilled and consumed whiskey.

[political_animal]

As long as the people use those things and keep their ethical vaules and don't harm the others with thier decision, they can do wathever the want. But that doesn't happen: the use of some drugs and excesive alcohol 'locks' the persons mind and makes he/she acts without resposibility, besides, the addiction drugs and excesive alcohol generates violence and criminality.
You can't in the other hand forbid them once some are even healty if moderately used such as wine: 1 or 2 glasses can help you live longer. And some drugs really have medical uses.
Without being able to allow or forbid we must regulate the use: for each type of product there should be an use limit. Others however may be completely forbiden due drastical damages caused to society.

Which drugs 'lock' a persons mind? And what exactly is this mind-locking? Also, you mention 'excessive alcohol' but it depends on the individual. Some get pissed off half a pint, others can drink many pints with little noticeable effect. One persons 'excess', is another's 'quick half'.

I don't agree that 'addiction' creates violence and criminality. Someone having smoked a few spliffs is probably very disinclined to violence and have you seen footage of the LSD experiments on soldiers? Now that would be a solution to global conflict!

How would you decide what an appropriate limit is? By imposing limits, you open the door to abuse and criminality, therefore undermining what you are trying to achieve.

Which drugs may be forbidden? And what are the drastical damages to society? I think most would argue that heroin is the most 'dangerous' drug and has high links between use and criminality. However, there was an experiment in Warrington that dealt with heroin users by providing heroin - not methadone - and had a free clean needle exchange. Guess what? Crime reduced to almost zero and there were vastly reduced instances of overdose/death. The experiment was so successful that it was stopped on political grounds on the basis that it would 'encourage' drug use!

The real problem with all this is that the criminality of the drug, causes criminality in the users, not the other way round.

[Jazzratt]

the addiction drugs and excesive alcohol generates violence and criminality.

I'm addicted to nicotine. I've never stabbed anyone or stolen anything specifically to maintain my access to this drug. I also happen to drink excessively and have yet to commit even one crime (beyond stealing traffic cones, pissing in flowerbeds and that kind of relatively benign behaviour) thanks to this. I think it helps that these drugs are readily and cheaply available.

[ibn Bruce]

Are there any empirical links between alcohol and violence? What about drugs and violence? Any one know?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are there any empirical links between alcohol and violence? What about drugs and violence? Any one know?

With the caveat that anecdotes are not evidence, I've had the contents of an ashtray emptied onto my head by a servely drunk person who took offence to the fact I was born in England. I've yet to have a sober person do anything remotely similar.

[ibn Bruce]

took offence to the fact I was born in England

understandable :P

[synthesis]

Are there any empirical links between alcohol and violence? What about drugs and violence? Any one know?

I think it's telling that a Google search for "alcohol + violence" turns up a plethora of statistics relating to domestic abuse while "drugs + violence" mostly relates to the drug trade - obviously a function of legality.

In any case, you don't need to do a lot of expensive neurological testing to know that alcohol reduces inhibitions and causes impulsive behavior. "Being violent" is a pretty common impulse, and to me that's a pretty strong empirical link between alcohol and violence.

As far as drugs go, well, not all drugs are born equal. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any studies which indicate that THC or opiates can induce violence in people who weren't already.

Cocaine and meth, on the other hand, can do things to people that cannot simply be explained by the illegality of the drug - namely triggering psychosis.

[magicSpoons]

Drug use is a personal choice. Drugs may be dangerous but they are not 'bad', I hate it when the right says it would be a better world without drugs. Bullshit, half the art, music, culture of the world has been influenced by drugs in some way and if there were no drugs to take people would do something else just as 'bad' anyway. There is an underlying problem of discontent, boredom and general poor quality of life in both physical and mental needs caused in someway by the influence of capitalism and the state.

Apart from that some people do soft drugs just because they enjoy it, and what is wrong with that.

Only education rather than prohibition can work but the underlying problem needs to be removed first.

[RGacky3]

Bullshit, half the art, music, culture of the world has been influenced by drugs in some way and if there were no drugs to take people would do something else just as 'bad' anyway.

There is no evidence that people are more creative on drugs, or that drugs lead to creativity, for every junky that makes a master piece there are thousands that never do anything, and hundreds of non junkies that make one too.


There is an underlying problem of discontent, boredom and general poor quality of life in both physical and mental needs caused in someway by the influence of capitalism and the state.


I agree, for many people wasting their lives away 10 hours a day simply to survive is a good enough reason to get blasted.

[Sam_b]

Could the word 'junkie' be perceived as sterotypical language?

I think so. But its just a thought.

[RGacky3]

Could the word 'junkie' be perceived as sterotypical language?


Stereo typical in the sense that drug addicts are junkies? A term that is used to describe people who are addicted to drugs? Yes, it stereotypes drug addicts as people addicted to drugs. No need to be anally PC.

[Kernewek]

Are there any empirical links between alcohol and violence? What about drugs and violence? Any one know?
studies have show the majority of people feel more violent after drinking, it's also estimated that 90% of violent crime in the UK is alcohol related



Stereo typical in the sense that drug addicts are junkies? A term that is used to describe people who are addicted to drugs? Yes, it stereotypes drug addicts as people addicted to drugs. No need to be anally PC.
however calling drug users junkies does stereotype them as drug addicts

[political_animal]

studies have show the majority of people feel more violent after drinking, it's also estimated that 90% of violent crime in the UK is alcohol related

What evidence is that exactly? And from where does the 90% evidence come. Sources?

[Jazzratt]

Stereo typical in the sense that drug addicts are junkies? A term that is used to describe people who are addicted to drugs? Yes, it stereotypes drug addicts as people addicted to drugs. No need to be anally PC.

Anyone who recognises the existance of connotations is being annally PC. I am filled with hope for the left.

[Kernewek]

What evidence is that exactly? And from where does the 90% evidence come. Sources?

the link between alcohol and agression is well documented, but apologies cus the 90 percent fugure was wrong, got my stats mixed up

it's actully 88% of criminal damage that's alcohol related, 78% of assults and only 40 percent of violent crime

http://www.rsadrugscommission.org.uk/pdf/RSA_Drugs_Report.pdf
page 105

[RGacky3]

however calling drug users junkies does stereotype them as drug addicts

Yeah, because a lot of them are, btw, when I refer to junkie, or when anyone refers to junky, they arn't talking about your average occasional pot smoker, or the dude who takes coke at a party. I'm talking about JUNKIES, meaning actual drug addicts.


Anyone who recognises the existance of connotations is being annally PC. I am filled with hope for the left.

No people who take offense at regular language whether or not there are connotations behind it, and whether or not the spaker intends any connotations, thats being anally pc, and going beyond the objective of PC.

[Kernewek]

Yeah, because a lot of them are

no, a small minority are

do some research and stop beliving whatever shit the media feed you



btw, when I refer to junkie, or when anyone refers to junky, they arn't talking about your average occasional pot smoker, or the dude who takes coke at a party. I'm talking about JUNKIES, meaning actual drug addicts.

seemed you where just using it as a term for a drug user earlier

[Rangi]

There is a difference. A junkie is an intravenous drug user who injects heroin or some derivative opioid. Meth-heads and crack-heads being different things altogether. Although I'm sure there are some people out there that take it all.

[RGacky3]

no, a small minority are

do some research and stop beliving whatever shit the media feed you


I'm talking about real drug users, you know what I mean when I say junkie.


seemed you where just using it as a term for a drug user earlier

I'm sorry I did'nt make myself clear, when I said Junies, I meant junkies, i.e. drug addicts.


A junkie is an intravenous drug user who injects heroin or some derivative opioid. Meth-heads and crack-heads being different things altogether. Although I'm sure there are some people out there that take it all.

I'm using hte term junkie as a catch all term for hard drug addicts.

[Jazzratt]

I'm using hte term junkie as a catch all term for hard drug addicts.

...because you're an idiot.

[Dr.Claw]

What I do in privacy is my business. If I make it your business (i.e. doing drugs around you,being high around you, bringing it in your house.) Feel free to do something about it. I think that the prohibiting of drugs should be looked at in the same way as if you were going to prohibit masturbation, I use the rule that "If I wouldn't masturbate there then I wouldn't smoke pot there." Because if I were to pull out a joint at a restraunt and start smoking, then I might as well just whip out my dick and start stroking because the people in a public place have the freedom to choose what they want to be around also. But If I was to pull a joint out in my room, and start smoking then theres no problem because no one knows about it but me and you have the choice to be around it or not. The point is as long as you dont directly make it someone's problem then there should be no issue.

Furthermore, Does the law really matter? Does anybody not smoke pot just because it's illegal? And another thing to remember is that when you ban something, there's always the responsibility of keeping it out. And with that responsibility comes the cost of keeping it out, It has already cost the government over 9 billion dollars this year so far, not to mention all the people who have died (on both ends) for the drug war.
Drugs (both recreational and medicinal) have been here since the dawn of human existence and they're here to stay whether you like it or not.

[political_animal]

What I do in privacy is my business. If I make it your business (i.e. doing drugs around you,being high around you, bringing it in your house.) Feel free to do something about it. I think that the prohibiting of drugs should be looked at in the same way as if you were going to prohibit masturbation, I use the rule that "If I wouldn't masturbate there then I wouldn't smoke pot there." Because if I were to pull out a joint at a restraunt and start smoking, then I might as well just whip out my dick and start stroking because the people in a public place have the freedom to choose what they want to be around also. But If I was to pull a joint out in my room, and start smoking then theres no problem because no one knows about it but me and you have the choice to be around it or not. The point is as long as you dont directly make it someone's problem then there should be no issue.

How does this relate to two puffs and pass to the side? Are you talking about mutual masturbation? :lol:

[Dr.Claw]

How does this relate to two puffs and pass to the side? Are you talking about mutual masturbation? :lol:

Well if I was going to rub one out in my room my friends have the choice to leave or stay...:lol: The points I'm trying to make is that

1)There is a time and a place for everything
2)It's senseless to ban something that happens in privacy (unless it has to do with your child or your property)

[Jazzratt]

Personally my approach to smoking weed is "will doing it here get me arrested". Practically this works out pretty much the same as "would I masturbate here"; except of course this way I get to smoke weed with my friends, at parties, in the garden and at a park. Were it not illegal though I think it should pretty much be "would I smoke a cigarette here" so I'd do it in pubs and restaurants (oh for the heady utopia when these places welcomed smokers with open arms) - and I think that should be the same for legislation on the matter.

[commyrebel]

No drug use and minimal drinking (public intoxication will be punished severely) will be allowed under Communism. Any impalement of the senses will diminish a comrade's ability to work and his/her usefulness to society--and that cannot be allowed.

Every comrade will be obliged to contribute their fair share to the betterment of the whole of society at all times.

And so the Soviet will vote. :cool: ok so you are saying working is everything your no better than a capitalist that wants to keep people from doing what they want

[commyrebel]

I think weed should be legal and not regulated. Ecstasy, shrooms, LSD, and weak drugs be legal but regulated. cocaine, heroin meth and pcp should be illegal

[Coggeh]

I think weed should be legal and not regulated. Ecstasy, shrooms, LSD, and weak drugs be legal but regulated. cocaine, heroin meth and pcp should be illegal
Ecstasy is less harmful than weed and so is LSD, Alcohol and ciggarettes are more harmful that most of what you said up there.My opinion is that all of them except the extremely harmful ones should be legal but regulated . Laws should be more relaxed but regulation cannot cease ,a massive increase in education about the harmful effects of all drugs (And yes weed IS harmful :rolleyes:) should be brought in .

But at the end of the day you can get any drug you want if you try hard enough so we must regulate drugs to make sure their safe for people .

On the topic of heroin it shouldn't be illegal the same way it is now . Their was an experimental study done by a scientist in Liverpool named Carl Marks(not a pun) who gave heroin to addicts free of charge on the condition they went to counselling .Needless the say it proved a massive success .

Crime dropped to its lowest in years in the surrounding area , addiction levels dropped and many came off heorin because of the counselling . Yet thatcher came in and banned it and usual practices resumed :thumbdown:.I think this should be the tactic when it comes to seriously harmful drugs like heroin .

[Kernewek]

E

On the topic of heroin it shouldn't be illegal the same way it is now . Their was an experimental study done by a scientist in Liverpool named Carl Marks(not a pun) who gave heroin to addicts free of charge on the condition they went to counselling .Needless the say it proved a massive success .


before the 1971 misuse of drugs act heroin addicts could get it on perscription

back then problematic drug use was mostly a problem between the user and his gp with little affect on the rest of society, since the act problematic drug use has rocketed as has drug related crime
how anyone can delude themselves into thinking our drug laws work is beyond me

[Dr.Claw]

Ecstasy is less harmful than weed and so is LSD
Psychoactive Mushrooms (surprisingly) are less harmful than cannabis, but Ecstasy and LSD aren't. Although this rarely happens, people have actually died and have had long term after affects from Ecstasy and LSD. My uncle did LSD twice and he hasn't been the same ever since. If you knew how LSD and Ecstasy are made you wouldn't say that they are made you wouldn't say they are less harmful than cannabis, because when you synthesize LSD and you mess up one little detail you can cause some pretty damaging affects to people. So you could argue that good or properly made Ecstasy and LSD are relativity harmless, but the long term affects are more damaging than cannabis.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you could argue that good or properly made Ecstasy and LSD are relativity harmless, but the long term affects are more damaging than cannabis.

If Ecstasy and LSD were legal then they could be made in proper labs under pharmaceutical controls, unlike the kitchen sink labs used under current prohibition.

Quite frankly I consider it a minor miracle that more people aren't hurt by poorly-made drugs.

[Kernewek]

Psychoactive Mushrooms (surprisingly) are less harmful than cannabis, but Ecstasy and LSD aren't. Although this rarely happens, people have actually died and have had long term after affects from Ecstasy and LSD. My uncle did LSD twice and he hasn't been the same ever since. If you knew how LSD and Ecstasy are made you wouldn't say that they are made you wouldn't say they are less harmful than cannabis, because when you synthesize LSD and you mess up one little detail you can cause some pretty damaging affects to people. So you could argue that good or properly made Ecstasy and LSD are relativity harmless, but the long term affects are more damaging than cannabis.
lsd, even the stuff made illegally, is no more harmfull than psilocybin mushrooms, and as you said they're safer than cannabis

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Aside from whether or not LSD is more harmful to oneself than cannabis, the threat posed to others - and therefore to society - by people on LSD and psychoactives is considerably greater than with cannabis (though obviously still not nearly as great as with alcohol). I know of numerous cases from studying criminal law where people on LSD have attacked or even killed others because of their delusions (for example R v Lipman, a man killed his girlfriend thinking she was a snake) and people I know personally have damaged property because of it.

[commyrebel]

lsd, even the stuff made illegally, is no more harmfull than psilocybin mushrooms, and as you said they're safer than cannabis what are you on i've never seen some one OD on weed but I've a friend die from ecstasy. I have also have a friend go schizophrenic from LSD so they are more dangerous than weed but they are relatively safe if made and used correctly

[XieJinyuan]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3421523.stm (copy pasta)

Should be allowed

I don't approve of any substance abuse, however, with the exception of mild stimulants such as caffeine, betel and khat.

Even those can be bad. Betel ruins your teeth and puts you at risk for oral cancer.

[Kernewek]

what are you on i've never seen some one OD on weed but I've a friend die from ecstasy. I have also have a friend go schizophrenic from LSD so they are more dangerous than weed but they are relatively safe if made and used correctly
I never said anything about ecstasy, although it's a relatively safe drug

just like weed you can't overdose on lsd. lsd doesn't cause schizophrenia, although it can make it worse for those who already have it, and it can also cause psychosis in those with a predisposition for it, but then so can weed

also acid doesn't fuck your lungs up or contain any carcinogens


Aside from whether or not LSD is more harmful to oneself than cannabis, the threat posed to others - and therefore to society - by people on LSD and psychoactives is considerably greater than with cannabis (though obviously still not nearly as great as with alcohol). I know of numerous cases from studying criminal law where people on LSD have attacked or even killed others because of their delusions (for example R v Lipman, a man killed his girlfriend thinking she was a snake) and people I know personally have damaged property because of it.
any sources to say that people on acid pose any more threat than on weed?
I'm not denying that some people can turn nasty on psychedelics, but people do on weed as well




some people here might be intrested in this, from a report by the science and technology committee for the house of commons
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/UK_Suggested_drug_classification.png/711px-UK_Suggested_drug_classification.png


the harm ranking were based on the following criteria

1. Physical harm
A. Acute
B. Chronic
C. Intravenous harm

2. Dependence
A. Intensity of pleasure
B. Psychological dependence
C. Physical dependence

3. Social harm
A. Intoxication
B. Other social harms
C. Health-care costs

[Qwerty Dvorak]

any sources to say that people on acid pose any more threat than on weed?
I'm not denying that some people can turn nasty on psychedelics, but people do on weed as well
All I've done is demonstrate that people can get violent and dangerous while on acid. I have showed you one case of it definitely happening, there are more cases like that one and I also know from personal experience.

I've never heard of a case regarding weed-induced aggression, or experienced it myself or in any of my friends. I am highly skeptical. You will have to prove that.

[Kernewek]

I've never known it to happen amongst my mates either, weed isn't really a drug that causes violence. But just as you find with acid, or any drug for that matter, a small minority of people can have a bad reaction which can cause paranoia or even psychosis, this can result in violence. I believe there was a case in Scotland a couple of years back, someone murdered his girlfriend after becoming convinced she was plotting to kill him

as I said, I'm not denying that some people have turned violent on acid, but it's very rare and generally linked to people who have pre-existing psychological problems. It simply isn't accurate to say that people on either acid or weed pose any real threat to others

[commyrebel]

ok some of you need to lear a little about drugs like actual taking some because if you do you might find out that cannabis, marijuana, weed(same thing) is not that bad its less deadly than cigarets. How you ask they can cause harm. 1st you not out of or that stupid you just don't think it though not like drinking were you dumber than a fuckin log. 2 driving under the influence of weed 1st if you trying to drive then you ether fuckin stupid or not high enough because your not going to get off your ass to do something other than eat 3 its not as bad as shrooms acid or peyote( not saying the should be illegal but more regulated than weed) your out of reality most of the time you see shit that isn't there sometimes you don't see what is there and you run into shit. so what is more dangerous.

[Kernewek]

ok some of you need to lear a little about drugs like actual taking some
sorry, is this post aimed at me?

I take a lot of drugs (I'm stoned now) and I've studied psychopharmacology, so at the risk of sounding aragont I'd like to think I'm fairly clued up about drugs



because if you do you might find out that cannabis, marijuana, weed(same thing) is not that bad its less deadly than cigarets. How you ask they can cause harm.
don't belive anyone's claimed that weed is as bad as tobacco



2 driving under the influence of weed 1st if you trying to drive then you ether fuckin stupid or not high enough because your not going to get off your ass to do something other than eat
depends what you've been smoking, not all weed mongs you out



3 its not as bad as shrooms acid or peyote( not saying the should be illegal but more regulated than weed)
you can't overdose on either but weed can be psychologically addictive and has been linked with lung damage and cancer, acid and mushrooms don't cause any long term health problems and although psychological addiction is possible tollerence builds up quickly which tends to prevent regular use



your out of reality most of the time you see shit that isn't there sometimes you don't see what is there and you run into shit. so what is more dangerous.
not if you take a sensible dose



so what is more dangerous.
weed is more harmfull but as I said earlier, neither are particularly bad

[Captain Shiny Sides]

What is your personal belief about alcohol and drugs?

"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter Thompson.

I don't see any reason to outlaw alcohol or drugs. I personally don't like to drink that much. I'm more into drugs (Cannabis, Heroin, K, X).


Also, should these activities be allowed during a revolution?

During a revolution I think it would be smart if you were sober, though I have read somewhere Aztec warriors use to take peyote before battle.


Responsible use of drugs and alcohol is nothing to be concerned about. Abuse of drugs and alcohol is a medical issue, not a legal issue.

Well said.


you can't overdose on either but weed can be psychologically addictive and has been linked with lung damage and cancer

Show me one case of someone who had lung-cancer as a direct result of smoking cannabis. You can't, we've been studying the effects of smoking tobacco for how many years? 40 or more? I think if there was a real link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer the anti-drug crowd would be trumpeting such a study and parading it through the streets. The only real problem with smoking ganja is that you are inhaling burning plant matter, not what's in cannabis itself, which means if you use a vaporizer (like I do) you can bypass this and I think it reduces the harmful agents in smoke by up to 90% (don't quote me on that though).

I smoke cannabis everyday and have done so for many years have not noticed any significant damage to my lungs.

[Kernewek]

Show me one case of someone who had lung-cancer as a direct result of smoking cannabis. You can't, we've been studying the effects of smoking tobacco for how many years? 40 or more? I think if there was a real link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer the anti-drug crowd would be trumpeting such a study and parading it through the streets. The only real problem with smoking ganja is that you are inhaling burning plant matter, not what's in cannabis itself


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/cannabis-linked-to-testicular-cancer-1604487.html



which means if you use a vaporizer (like I do) you can bypass this and I think it reduces the harmful agents in smoke by up to 90% (don't quote me on that though). I smoke cannabis everyday and have done so for many years have not noticed any significant damage to my lungs.

I belive using a vaporizer gets rid of pretty much all harmfull chemicals in weed making it pretty much harmless, same with eating

[RedAnarchist]

You only get one life, and if your idea of a good life includes drinking and/or drug taking, I haven't got a problem with that.

[RGacky3]

If your gonna ban any substance based on damage, I would have to go with big macs and whoppers.

[-marx-]

All drugs should be legal and available cheaply at pharmacies, no RX necessary, for people to consume as they each see fit. Estimates are that crime would drop at least 80% if this were the case. No government has the right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body, especially when they are able to consume alcohol and tobacco as they see fit, its biased bullshit.