this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
42 points (92.0% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
263 readers
1 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
You wrote:
You used this as argument for legalisation of drugs. I responded that the bourgeoisie generally have better healthcare and safeties yet nobody would use this as argument for liberalisation the safety regulations for workers, yet it is for some reason argument for liberalising the drugs regulation?
Also i couldn't care less of burgies poisoning themselves.
I suppose I could have been more clear, but my point was that the ruling class can use pretty much anything as a weapon against the suppressed class and certainly do in this case. I'm not advocating against prohibition just because the current ruling class doesn't practice it themselves.
Prohibition has hampered our ability to effectively study and understand the effects of drugs in many cases. A scientific approach would attempt to study the least harmful ways to introduce legalization with regulation and praxis would lead to improvements over time.
Advocating against prohibition also doesn't mean we just make it legal for anyone to possess and distribute in any amount. Distribution should be tightly controlled by the state and anyone caught in possession of excess amounts or unregulated products should be dealt with legally if the intent is distribution, or medically if they're feeding an addiction.
I can understand why some would look at other states with a DotP as a compelling reason to advocate for prohibition. That I'm aware, there has never been one that practiced anything else, but do correct me if I'm wrong. I also think that China's stance on this is completely reasonable considering their history. But China's leadership is not one to attempt to press their ideology on others and consistently advocates for the others finding their own way.
Perhaps we won't come to an agreement on this. I suspect that you and I have had drastically different experiences with drugs which leads to us having our own personal biases and this is unavoidable. I just hope that when the revolution comes, that this is something that will be open for discussion instead of just outright banned.