0
It should be legal, but it's definitely addictive. I speak from experience on that.
It's not addictive in my experience, but it has become necessary medicine in place of prescription drugs to treat my AuDHD.
TBF my self discipline is absolutely garbage.
Weed isn't any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco which are legal pretty much everywhere. The harm that comes from policing weed far outweighs any actual benefit from doing so.
That first point could be a point to criminalize alcohol and tobacco and marijuana rather than legalize marijuana
I don't see much value in doing that to be honest, and I don't think it would be possible to accomplish that to any meaningful effect in western culture.
Long term we should work against the consumptions of it but yeah, it wouldn’t work well by immediately banning it. I’m just saying those two existing wouldn’t inherently justify marijuana if someone is against those
I think it's more of an argument that society generally functions fine with those two being legal, and since weed is arguably less dangerous there's no rational reason to ban it.
The idea that we shouldn't allow a substance to temporarily alter our state of mind with the possibility of permanently changing how we think about things really feels like internalized bourgeois ideology. Psychedelics do a pretty good job of lifting the veil of liberalism in my own experience.
indeed
I personally think habitual heavy weed use is bad. I was an incredibly heavy user for a few years.
I used to think it should be illegalized.
I think now it should be "material conditions"ed out of harmful existence, if that makes sense. If we can create a socialist society with good mental health resources, good childcare resources for developing minds, and easily available stigma-free resources for people who struggle with dependency, that would check most of the boxes for me.
I don't think we talk enough about the negative effects heavy weed use has on developing brains, or on the brains of chronic heavy users. I think more research on that side, by a socialist government, would be good.
Potheads are so infuriatingly slow for real.
Except we aren't, but okay.
They're right though.
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.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Enforcement is costly and never ending.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only way to do away with this is by regulating access through legal channels.
Like in the case of alcohol?
drugs are the weapon in the class war
They're one of many, sure. The bourgeoisie use drugs too btw. They just have access to education, clean supply, and support for addiction.
In DoTP they should be forbidden at least for so long as capitalist drug states like USA exist and use it like a weapon.
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.
And sure as hell communists should advocate againt drug usage.
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.
Like in the case of alcohol?
In short yes. Different drugs should be regulated differently based on many different factors.
They’re one of many, sure. The bourgeoisie use drugs too btw. They just have access to education, clean supply, and support for addiction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In short yes. Different drugs should be regulated differently based on many different factors.
Here i will agree to the principle but most likely not to the degree.
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.
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:
- Bourgeois ideology that's taught to us both subliminally and directly through our education systems and then internalized by us throughout our lives
- Generational trauma like in the case of China and its history with it being used as a weapon to harm their society
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 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'm not tricking you, you did used argument muddling the class conditions.
Yes certainly, drugs can be harmful, but to outright dismiss them as only harmful (except in medicine as you stated) is not scientific.
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.
There's a reason really existing socialist formations almost invariably come down hard on drugs. It harms public health, it harms proletarian culture, productivity, and so on. There's no problem with industrial hemp but conflating this with THC-bearing weed for entertainment is a bit of a trick. Same thing for the medical uses. I admit I'm sceptical, and I suspect a lot of people with prescriptions are in fact using it for entertainment or escapism, but if it has genuine medical applications that's fine, same as it's fine to use morphine for pain management but not just for fun.
Same thing for the medical uses. I admit I’m sceptical, and I suspect a lot of people with prescriptions are in fact using it for entertainment or escapism
Every single person I know who got a prescription for medical marijuana was using it for this.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
22 readers
15 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