Should addictive drugs/alcohol/tobacco be banned in a communist society?

[nativeabuse]

I couldn't find any threads on this and I had no idea what board this should be posted in. I am really interested in some peoples opinions on how a communist society should deal with unhealthy substances.

Tobacco, alcohol, addictive drugs, pills, junk food, anything else, should things like this be banned in a Communist society? Why should/shouldn't they be?

Honestly I haven't made up my own mind on this issue. I'm torn between the fact that I find most addictive drugs useless and stupid and harmful to your health, and they have an overall negative effect on society (I wouldn't advocate banning LSD, Shrooms, Marijuana, or any other non-addictive drug) and the fact that I feel like everyone should have the freedom to do what they want, and banning these substances would probably be about as effective as it is now, only exacerbating the situation.

[goalkeeper]

If you can't trust workers to choose what to eat, drink and smoke, how the hell are young to trust them to run society?

[nativeabuse]

If you can't trust workers to choose what to eat, drink and smoke, how the hell are young to trust them to run society?

But by that sort of thinking, we would legalize heroin and meth, I've known meth heads, and no I wouldn't trust them to tie a shoe. I sure as hell don't want them in factories in any communist society I live in.

[Sasha]

If you can't trust workers to choose what to eat, drink and smoke, how the hell are young to trust them to run society?

This ^

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

[Art Vandelay]

All drugs should be legal. As a consenting adult, you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot ingest into my body, as long as I don't harm anyone else; end of discussion. I could bring up things such as the Portuguese model which helps to show that the legality of drugs does not correlate into higher usage among the population, however I don't need to, cause when it comes down to it, it is a matter of personal liberty.

[nativeabuse]

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.

So you are you suggesting that communities can simply exile or banish them to a specially designated drug zone if they choose to?


9mm: And what do you think we should do if it does harm someone else?

[Art Vandelay]

So you are you suggesting that communities can simply exile or banish them to a specially designated drug zone if they choose to?


9mm: And what do you think we should do if it does harm someone else?

Well obviously there would be regulations in place such as no doing drugs and driving etc..

[nativeabuse]

As a consenting adult

So would you advocate banning them to people under a certain age the way we do now?

And so the consequences of accidents/crimes/abuses/health issues don't outweigh 'personal freedom'? What about in the other thread in OI where you were claiming that it didn't matter that the forum banned fascists, because badness and evilness of fascism outweighed 'freedom of speech'. Do you just pick and choose which aspects of freedom matter based on the what you agree with and which you don't?

[Art Vandelay]

So would you advocate banning them to people under a certain age the way we do now?

And so the consequences of accidents/crimes/abuses/health issues don't outweigh 'personal freedom'? What about in the other thread in OI where you were claiming that it didn't matter that the forum banned fascists, because badness and evilness of fascism outweighed 'freedom of speech'. Do you just pick and choose which aspects of freedom matter based on the what you agree with and which you don't?

No platform for fascists. This is quite the comparison you are attempting to draw: holding the hateful views that fascists do and attempt to make become reality, is somehow akin to believing that individuals should have bodily autonomy? Give me a break.

Now as far as the age limit goes, yes. There should undoubtedly be an age limit, however it will most likely vary from community to community and from substance to substance. Next, crimes and health issues will not have the same sort of severity as they do now, in a socialist society. In all honesty you should look up the Portuguese model I mentioned but I'll tell you a little anecdote from it:

There was a city (I don't remember which one) which had a heroin epidemic. Due to this, they also had a severe problem with prostitution, specifically around a certain train station where these prostitutes hung out to meet john's. Upon the decriminalization of all drugs, the addicts were able to go to clinics to get clean rigs and clean dope. They were able to be taken better care of medically due to the lack of having to be concerned with getting arrested 24/7 and they were able to be set up with employment. Heroin usage did not go up in the broader population (just cause something is legal doesn't mean that everyone will rush out to do it) and among the heroin using population od's went down. Want to know what else happened? The prostitution centered around that one train station disappeared over night. The moral of the story? They weren't fucking old dudes for fun.

Crime (not just prostitution, but crime in general) for the most part is a class based issue and must be analyzed as such. As far as accidents goes where does it stop? Since a tiny minority might still get fucked up (on whatever, booze, heroin, etc.) and get behind of the wheel of the vehicle, the rest of the substance using population should be punished? Why and where does it stop? Since some people might get behind the wheel of a vehicle sober and drive recklessly and thus cause an accident, should be also ban vehicles? In all honesty though, given the improved methods of public transportation which will exist in a socialist society, I don't even view this as something which will transpire all too often.

Bottom line is that people like to get high and have been in various ways since the dawn of man. You want to ban drugs, all your going to do is open up a space for it to be done illegally and by extension open up the possibility for a black market.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Of course that means all forms of smoking have to be banned as it has an effect on others, a lingering effect at that. Completing legalising drugs will have a drip effect over the years, with people realising how dangerous and unnecessary they are as the result of taking drugs is a poorer quality of life, a shorter life etc due to their harmful effects. Then drugs would then be removed entirely by informed consent. It's possible that this could happen.

[Rugged Collectivist]

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

What if some zealot community decides to ban gays, abortion, and heretics?

[The Jay]

I think that it would be for the community to decide but that I would personally prefer that all the 'soft' drugs should be legal and that 'hard' drugs should be restricted.

[nativeabuse]

Of course that means all forms of smoking have to be banned as it has an effect on others, a lingering effect at that. Completing legalising drugs will have a drip effect over the years, with people realising how dangerous and unnecessary they are as the result of taking drugs is a poorer quality of life, a shorter life etc due to their harmful effects. Then drugs would then be removed entirely by informed consent. It's possible that this could happen.

This is what I would love to happen, where in a Communist society, everyone is just happy and without classes/money there is little or no incentive for crime or drug use anyway, and the only use of drugs would be to have a little fun every now and then. Thus there would be no need to ban drugs at all.

Really the answers of 9mm have made me think that it shouldn't be so binary of a choice legal/illegal. I feel like it should be highly discouraged and there should be some incentive's or a sort of consequence to people who do use addictive drugs, without the consequence being anything too drastic, more of a nudge in the right direction, and it should go without saying that there would be free care for those that want to quite. But I'm still opposed to a complete hands off do whatever you want model.

Here is a question, do you think that it should be legal in a Communist society to build gigantic cocaine/heroin plantations or supermassive meth labs? Should production be banned, and use be legal? or should both simply be legal?

[Tim Cornelis]

All drugs should be legal. As a consenting adult, you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot ingest into my body, as long as I don't harm anyone else; end of discussion. I could bring up things such as the Portuguese model which helps to show that the legality of drugs does not correlate into higher usage among the population, however I don't need to, cause when it comes down to it, it is a matter of personal liberty.

Portugal decriminalised drugs, not legalised it.

This ^

On the other hand, communities should of course be free to democraticly decide to exclude certain behaviour or products they deem harmful from their community. I believe many indigenous communities decided that those that want to abuse alcohol or refined coca should find another place to live. This should be decided and enforced by the whole community though not top down by executive order and cops.
This not only pertains to drugs though, it could also be free weapon possesion within the community or even say petrol based cars. This is presuming that communism will mean a councel and/or actual commune based society in a sort of global federalist system not some socialism state-capitalism in one country.

Doublespeak, essentially you are saying "workers should be allowed the responsibility to consume what they want including drugs, also the community can ban drugs if they deem that individual members of the community cannot handle the responsibility of drug consumption."

[Sasha]

Doublespeak, essentially you are saying "workers should be allowed the responsibility to consume what they want including drugs, also the community can ban drugs if they deem that individual members of the community cannot handle the responsibility of drug consumption."

no, i would say that i was saying that "workers should be allowed the responsibility to consume what they want including drugs, but the community can ban drugs if they deem that individual members of the community cannot handle the responsibility of drug consumption abuse."

in an ideal situation what 9mm describes would happen, and i do believe that that is what will happen eventually by the time we live in post revolutionary communist utopia, but a fact is that a perfect communist utopia is most likely exactly that; utopian, its something we strife for but when i look at the now and present example of indigenous tribes (which being often one of the closest approximation to what communism probably will look like are always worthwhile to have an look at) and the havoc most notably alcohol inflicts on these communities i cant fault them for trying to keep that substance out of their community. But yeah, like others already said that will likely be more a problem of before and during the revolutionary period than after. alcohol and other epidemic drug abuse problems have capitalist materialist causes and will thus probably phase out after the revolution

[Sasha]

What if some zealot community decides to ban gays, abortion, and heretics?

than its not communism and thus communism is not established yet...

[Art Vandelay]

Portugal decriminalised drugs, not legalised it.

I realize that, but as the most progressive instance of state legislation of drugs, its the most viable real world option to use as an example.

[MarxSchmarx]

Use should be largely tolerated for the reasons stated. But the legality question is moot.

The issue is that under capitalism we assume they will be available because people need to make a profit. This assumption is no longer remotely credible in a post-capitalist society. It might continue on a smaller scaller immediately after capitalism, but has no long term viability.

Here is a question, do you think that it should be legal in a Communist society to build gigantic cocaine/heroin plantations or supermassive meth labs? Should production be banned, and use be legal? or should both simply be legal?

Nobody in their right mind would work for such an operation in a communist society. so whether they are legal or not is irrelevant. Moreover, the drug fiends won't be able to put together the kind of operation you're describing. They would be just as absurd and non-existent as lockheed martin weapons plants.

I can see people working in wineries/distilleries/breweries, probably other less harmful drugs, maybe even tobacco, but for things like heroin/crack processing there will simply be no one to staff them. It just doesn't make any sense in a society where profit is meaningless. People will be producing for art's sake, and a product you can't enjoy will have no social value.

I suspect there might be some small scale operations, particularly for things like chrystal meth that can be easily synthesized. It's unlikely they will be anything but transient; it won't be hard for immediate family to cut off the supply chain of the person manufacturing the drugs. In terms of the social cost it would probably be no worse than alcohol.

[Rugged Collectivist]

than its not communism and thus communism is not established yet...

What if it's a community filled with christian communists. Production is handled the same way as all the other communes in the federation but for whatever reason the community decided that those things were harmful and decided to get rid of them. Or do you think religion will automatically wither away since it's no longer necessary as a means of control?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

If I can't get high then fuck the revolution

Nah, really though, with acceptance of drugs you can control quality so nobody's shooting anthrax up (yes that happened once, I think in Scotland) and focus resources on addiction treatment and drug education rather than prohibition enforcement.


But tbh I don't think there will be much of a problem with heroin post revolution. Everyone I know who's done heroin moved up from pills when it got too expensive, started snorting boy, then shooting boy. You don't just wake up one day and say "I want to try heroin" (usually ... sometimes that happens I'm sure)


A lot of the problem with meth addiction is due to ridiculous work requirements in, for example, the construction industry. My buddy works construction and most of his coworkers are cokeheads and meth heads to stay up and alert in those 60 hour weeks of ridiculous physical strain. Or truckers pulling all-nighters to make that load on time.