I can definitely understand peoples’ issues with it being consumed, especially in a political context, but how do yall feel about “weed”? I won’t hide my feelings, I am very much pro-weed, it’s not great that I started in my mid-teens but in my area it’s FAR from uncommon. I don’t smoke daily or anything, I’m not addicted to it (people say it’s non-habit forming but any drug can be addictive with enough frequent usage) but I do smoke and dab w/ friends often. That’s not why I believe in legalization tho, my main thing is you shouldn’t make a naturally occurring plant an illegal substance. I’d point to the DEA’s destructive (legal) burning of thousands of naturally occurring marijuana plants found in nature; This seems eco-fascist to me and to deny the uses of hemp as a production material seems dogmatic to me. The USSR used hemp for industrial purposes during the war and it helped in a major way. I’m sure most of us are familiar with the badge given for Hemp growers. If you have any criticisms, I’m more than open to it, but I feel that marijuana won’t be easy to get rid of in future society and would probably be put to use in different more productive ways.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Enforcement is costly and never ending. Those who want to get their hands on drugs will do so whether it’s legal or not. The major difference when cannabis was legalized here in Canada is that you no longer have to maintain some sketchy contact and be forced to hang out with them on occasion in order to get your hands on it. It certainly hasn’t broken down society.
Most of us live in places where alcohol can be purchased legally. Well, alcohol is a drug too. Why should it be treated any differently?
What are we going to do when the state withers away? Will all sections of society continue prohibition? We should instead focus on education and providing support to those who become addicts. The idea that we can solve all drug problems by banishing drugs from society is utopian thinking.
it does work, look former socialist states in Europe (never had a drug problem which instantly exploded in like a year when capitalism shown up which in turn strongly indicate it was purposeful).
It does not work in countries like USA where the government itself use drug cartels to put millions of people into jail slavery or where CIA turned entire country (Afghanistan) into one huge poppy plantation to achieve the mindbreaking result of USA with its 4,5% of world population consuming 80% of world’s opioid consumption.
2nding this. All socialists countries went and still do go hard on dismantling the drug trade, not from the bottom up by criminalizing and imprisoning poor ppl, but from the top down by imprisoning the capitalist drug kingpins, and tearing down drug markets. Capitalist countries prop up the drug trade by using it to impoverish and decimate poor and minority communities, and take a cut of the proceeds.
Ppl are usually staunchly for legalization because they’ve only experienced how capitalist countries like the US use the drug war as a tool. They don’t know what an earnest dismantling of the drug trade, done for the betterment of communities, looks like.
Weed specifically tho i’m ambivalent about… outside of medical use, the weed industry serves little to no societal value, but it’s a pretty minor vice, maybe along the same level as unhealthy food.
That’s important point. I do believe legalisation of weed will help in US particularly, but again it’s not very probable since US needs it to push people into prisons.
Elswhere… in Poland for example, legalising weed would not be even very impactful, since Poland is amphetamine country (one of biggest producer and consumer locally), so legalisation of weed would most likely immediately bring legalisation of amphetamine to the table. And legalisation of amphetamine would be really fucking terrible for the working class because a lot of people i know are already using it and it would spread to increase the exploitation.
The area I’m originally from in the U.S. has made those “meth capital of the country/world” tabloidesque lists before.
After legalization and talking to people from there, seems like the meth problem went down afterwards. Which is good.
However, I am talking about illegally manufactured meth – the type that causes houses to explode. Adderall and other amphetamines are still getting prescribed like crazy.
This is why I tend to agree heavily with the earlier Soviet Policies on most drugs
I’m not sure that I agree that this is a result of prohibition. There are many factors that play into the cause of drug epidemics. The opioid epidemic for example is a direct result of the profit motive taking precedence over the good of society. The drug in question here is prohibited to those without a prescription. Many people also turn to drugs to escape the horrendous conditions that capitalism creates for them.
Additionally, prohibition creates unregulated black markets. The only way to do away with this is by regulating access through legal channels.
Again my point, drugs are the weapon in the class war. Pity that so many socialists like getting hit with it so much. Anyways, i feel like we are discussing two different things. In DoTP they should be forbidden at least for so long as capitalist drug states like USA exist and use it like a weapon. And sure as hell communists should advocate againt drug usage.
Like in the case of alcohol?
They’re one of many, sure. The bourgeoisie use drugs too btw. They just have access to education, clean supply, and support for addiction.
Drugs are mostly prohibited around the world, but that doesn’t stop the American cartel from using it like a weapon basically everywhere in the global south.
In contrast to the negatives, I think there’s a lot of positive effects and experiences that drugs have to offer so I have to disagree with you on this.
In short yes. Different drugs should be regulated differently based on many different factors.
Yes, they also have access to better healthcare in general and their jobs are lighter but it’s not argument to drop health and job safeties for the workers.
Indeed but again it’s not because drugs are magic, it’s because those countries are too weak and too compradorish to effectively fight it if even there is a real will. Socialist countries, even small and weak ones had no problem.
Wew. Outside of medical usage, which already is (very poorly in some cases, like US opioid epidemic) and should be regulated by medical regulations, there are no positives to drugs except recreation tool, which can be achieved on countless other methods. Unless you advocate for amphetamine crunch, go go worker class, work harder for your boss. “Experiences” uh huh, no thanks.
Here i will agree to the principle but most likely not to the degree.
I’m happy to discuss our differences of opinions in good faith, but please don’t try and trick me into defending a position that I never took. This is a common tactic that liberals use and we have to be better than that.
I think that this idea that drugs are only harmful for society comes from either:
Yes certainly, drugs can be harmful, but to outright dismiss them as only harmful (except in medicine as you stated) is not scientific.
I’m not tricking you, you did used argument muddling the class conditions.
It precisely is scientific, there is tons upon tons of research about the adverse effect of drugs, coming from both capitalist and socialist researchers. Numbers of which greatly outweights the research about positive non-medical effects. Not to mention basically every article about positive effect of drugs i ever read comes from bourgeois background. Which is yet another thing to consider that the recreational drug advocates do appear to be overwhelmingly bourgeois.
I never advocated for dropping health and safety protections for workers. This is what your comment conveys even if it was done unintentionally.