|
Post by prachanda on May 13, 2005 15:38:56 GMT -5
People use drugs because they're looking for a way to escape the misery & alienation of everydaylife under capitalism. .. Living drug-free is certainly better than life shackled down to addiction and self-destruction. youve got a very sheltered, basic view of this subject. its almost funny, actually. break the shackles of the X and free your mind. listen to some bill hicks, then go buy some mushrooms.
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 13, 2005 20:06:09 GMT -5
youve got a very sheltered, basic view of this subject. its almost funny, actually. break the shackles of the X and free your mind. listen to some bill hicks, then go buy some mushrooms. No, I'm not interested in pyschedelics. I've done drugs in my past, but I moved beyond that part of my life. As for the poster who talks about prohibiting drugs. NOBODY ARGUED FOR PROHIBITION. Instead of making up straw-men arguments that nobody on these forums has proposed, why don't you actually discuss the issue at hand? I'm opposed to the war on drugs - and to the totality of capitalism. My "action" against drugs is to talk to folks about it, to be drug free myself, and to provide support for people dealing with addiction. For those interested, an interesting zine about alcohol can be downloaded here.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 15, 2005 11:41:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by prachanda on May 16, 2005 16:30:42 GMT -5
No, I'm not interested in pyschedelics. I've done drugs in my past, but I moved beyond that part of my life.. right. youve moved beyond THOSE drugs onto a whole other drug.. straight edge self righteousness. ive seen so many people almost OD on that one. its really sickening. luckily there are enough people out there willing to help in the rehab of former addicts. basically, the drug culture has helped the world a million times more than any straight edge "culture" ever will.
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 16, 2005 19:40:42 GMT -5
Was is "self-righteous" about being openly drug-free?
|
|
Burningman
Revolutionary
"where it is by proxy it is not"
Posts: 194
|
Post by Burningman on May 17, 2005 11:10:23 GMT -5
I think it's fine to be drug free. But all drugs are not the same.
One thing that has hit me traveling around other countries is how much MORE intoxicated people are outside the US. In Europe, it seems that just about everyone starts drinking at their incredibly long lunches and then kind of drifts the rest of the day. I have to say they have a higher quality of life. Arabs (and Nepalese people!) smoke hash in much the same way, though it is less common than alcohol among Europeans (who also have a generally lax attitude to hash).
Opiates, cocaine and meth are profoundly different from weed and alcohol. The Black Panthers, for example, allowed marijuana smoking and drinking among their members, but were militantly opposed to dope. By moralizing intoxication and forbidding marijuana smoking (even in locales such as NYC where it is effectively decriminalized in small amounts), revolutionaries separate themselves from the social base. Weed is illegal because the people do it, not because it is bad.
I think communists should support total drug decriminalization and marijuana legalization.
At the same time, Redstar's exuberant defense of intoxication kind of misses how "medicated" this country is. We use drugs for maintainance... such at speed for grade school kids, sugar and coffee often provided free at work. This is destructive to our health and kind of wierd. We keep thinking that the capitalist is all about repressing pleasure, when their genius has been in the switch to selling us modules of pleasure. Weed can be grown, so it would escape the control of the "modular high" -- so there is no incentive to recognize its ubiquity.
There is nothing morally (or politically) wrong with pleasure for its own sake. Marijuana in moderation is good for your head. So is drinking. Being a junkie is not. What's so complicated about this?
Redstar may not be interested in China's erradication of drug addiction, but it is one of the greatest accomplishments in history. What is particularly important about it is that it mainly happened through the activity of people themselves and not through criminaliztion and punishment. Junkies don't "suffer" because they can't get dope. They suffer because they are addicts. Opium addiction was a control mechanism and business. Getting rid of it is part of what China needed to do to get free. And it shows that it CAN be done. Getting heroin and coke out of our cities is an important part of people getting free.
I lived through the crack epidemic and watched it destroy whole communities. I've loved junkies. There is very little "pleasure" involved in it. Maybe at first, but it quickly goes away. I am addicted to nicotine and cafeine. It's kind of embarassing. And the great pleasure I once got from cigarettes is long gone. Now I just pay to kill myself. And for all the taxes I'm forced to pay, you'd think they could at least give me free medical care in exchange!
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 17, 2005 23:28:43 GMT -5
Burningman wrote: But all drugs are not the same.As a statement of fact, that's indisputable. Unfortunately, it easily serves as a "foundation" for an argument "in favor of my drugs" and "against other people's drugs". My drugs are "good" or at least "not so bad" while other people's drugs are "really evil shit". So people can then squabble over which drugs should be legal and inexpensively available and which should be condemned as "the work of the devil" and the producers and consumers of such drugs should "be made to suffer for their sins". Setting aside the naked hypocrisy of such an approach, what is it's practical utility?What do we gain with a two-faced approach? We have seen that people will actually go to irrational lengths to obtain their drug of choice, regardless of financial expense, danger of arrest and imprisonment, and even sometimes risking their lives. Whatever drug you decide to criminalize, you will create a group of people like that...and, necessarily, the repressive apparatus to "control" them (make them suffer for their sins). And to what end? Even if you were entirely successful in wiping out some drug that you thought "particularly evil", how long would it stay wiped out?And what would replace it? Recall that heroin was invented as a "cure" for opium addiction. And methadone was supposed to "cure" heroin addiction. Burningman wrote: At the same time, Redstar's exuberant defense of intoxication kind of misses how "medicated" this country is. We use drugs for maintenance... such as speed for grade school kids, sugar and coffee often provided free at work. This is destructive to our health and kind of weird.Yes, it's probably true that our "chemical goal" is more along the lines of "just getting through another day" than having isolated experiences of euphoria...and that's kind of a shame, isn't it? Even our intoxication is tainted with alienation. This suggests that our patterns of drug usage might spontaneously alter quite a bit in a post-capitalist society...depending on what daily life was actually like in such a society. Burningman wrote: Redstar may not be interested in China's eradication of drug addiction, but it is one of the greatest accomplishments in history.So is "the great Wall"...that doesn't mean there's any point to building one here and now.Burningman wrote: What is particularly important about it is that it mainly happened through the activity of people themselves and not through criminalization and punishment.I don't see what meaning a statement like this can have. People didn't spontaneously stop using opium. If they stopped, it was because it was simply no longer available (or at least no longer readily and inexpensively available). That was a special case...and I don't see how it would ever be relevant in any advanced capitalist country. Burningman wrote: Junkies don't "suffer" because they can't get dope. They suffer because they are addicts.A positively "Talmudic" distinction! What in the world is the difference?Burningman wrote: Getting heroin and coke out of our cities is an important part of people getting free.Won't happen! Unless someone invents better drugs to replace them...always a possibility, of course. Burningman wrote: There is very little "pleasure" involved in it. Maybe at first, but it quickly goes away.Well, you certainly have a point here. We humans are not, by and large, very rational about this stuff...otherwise we'd realize that "off and on" usage of any drug would increase the "cumulative lifetime pleasure index". Our general practice is rather one of constant usage...so that the pleasure mostly disappears and "just getting by" takes over. It would help a lot if we had real drug education...if people were widely aware of what different drugs do and how to use them effectively -- to maximize pleasure. I was 30 years old before I learned how to use alcohol in an effective way to have a good time and avoid getting sick, hung over, etc. Like most people, I had to "teach myself". (!) That's no good! A revolutionary society ought to be able to teach people this basic stuff from adolescence...without, needless to say, neo-puritanical moralizing. But of course there's little chance of such a rational course prevailing unless and until revolutionaries rid themselves of that primitive ideology themselves. And who knows when that will happen? New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by flyby2 on May 18, 2005 15:30:04 GMT -5
Several things stand out to me in this thread:
I have previously remarked that redstar often has a kind of deep pessimism about what revolution can accomplish. He thinks revolution is decades (if not generations) away -- because of assumptions he has of how revolutions happen. And he can't imagine revolution eliminating drug addiction!!
Well, i can.
The other thing that stands out is that many people don't view issues like this from an overall, and social point of view. This is seen as very personal.... like "drugs aren't a problem for me, so i don't want a revolution that might take them away."
But we need to zoom back and look at the bigger picture.
I agree with those who see a big difference between milder mood-altering drugs (like alcohol and pot) and drugs that are addictive (and therefore life-altering).
For the masses of people (both historically and internatinally) drugs like opium, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. have been highly destructive. And eliminating them is a great achievement that revolutino can accomplish.
And (as many of us know) this is exactly what Mao's revolution did -- eliminating opium addiction in China where it had literally millions and millions of people in its grip (and had many dependent on it for economic survival etc.)
At the same time, this process needs to decriminalize the drugs -- in the sense that the addict and user needs to be seen as a victim of this system (not as a criminal).
Though, those who profit off of the people's suffering often are big capitalists and criminals -- and should be treated accordingly.
As for milder drugs..... it is one of the true injustices of U.S. society that literally millions do prison time for a little weed. And this way of treating the people is truly reactionary.
I agree with the notes on drug education: Alcohol can be used in moderation, but alcoholism has caused great suffering among the people. So helping people to identify dangers of adiction is important (and rarely happens in the U.S. today!)
As for revolutionaries: I think that if you take up a serious struggle with this system, you should work to keep your mind sharp and clear. And there is no room for being seriously intoxicated -- and "out of control" in that sense. And it is a mistake to give the other side openings to arrest you for "non political crimes" like possession.
And it is important for the revolutionary ranks to not have among them people who have become addicted to alcohol or other drugs (because, once you are addicted, that is what is principal in your mind and life -- regardless of your subjective desires).
As for the RCP, it has points of discipline (http://rwor.org/a/ideology/discip-e.htm ) and the first one says, very simply: "Don't use drugs or get drunk."
I think that corresponds to the points i was making above about the responsibilities of serious communist revolutionaries.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 19, 2005 0:14:34 GMT -5
flyby wrote: I have previously remarked that redstar often has a kind of deep pessimism about what revolution can accomplish...And he can't imagine revolution eliminating drug addiction!!
Well, I can.Fine...but that's not really an argument. Unless you can find a way to stop the supply of a particular addictive drug from reaching potential users, then you will not "eliminate" drug addiction...to that particular drug. Unless you can find a way to stop all supplies of all addictive drugs from reaching potential users, then you will not "eliminate" drug addiction as a social phenomenon. Neither you nor others in this thread have revealed anything in the way of a feasible plan to accomplish either of those goals. "We'll do what Mao did" is not a plan.flyby wrote: I agree with those who see a big difference between milder mood-altering drugs (like alcohol and pot) and drugs that are addictive (and therefore life-altering).What makes addictive drugs "life-altering"? Sure, they produce quasi-permanent alterations in brain and body chemistry. But is it not, in fact, the present social context that is what is really "life-altering"... for the worse?Suppose heroin or cocaine or "Drug X" came in a bottle -- like aspirin -- and cost $3.99 at the local drugstore? Suppose no one thought any more about its purchase, possession and use than they think about the purchase, etc., of a bottle of aspirin? Now, what's your "gripe"? flyby wrote: For the masses of people (both historically and internationally) drugs like opium, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. have been highly destructive. And eliminating them is a great achievement that revolution can accomplish.I repeat: is that "highly destructive" stuff a product of the specific drug or is it a product of the social context?I don't mean to suggest that "everyone" would use every drug "responsibly". Some would not...and they would physically suffer because of that real drug abuse.Alcohol is legal, readily available, and relatively inexpensive...and some people become drunks.It would be logical to assume that this would also be the case with all other drugs. In that sense, negative life-alteration is inevitable. But most people who drink do not become drunks. And I think it reasonable to expect that most people who will use other drugs will likewise avoid negative life-alteration. They will not be criminals, hopelessly strung-out wrecks, zombies, etc. They are like that now (in many but not all cases) because of the social context of drug usage that exists now. flyby wrote: As for revolutionaries: I think that if you take up a serious struggle with this system, you should work to keep your mind sharp and clear. And there is no room for being seriously intoxicated -- and "out of control" in that sense. And it is a mistake to give the other side openings to arrest you for "non-political crimes" like possession.
And it is important for the revolutionary ranks to not have among them people who have become addicted to alcohol or other drugs (because, once you are addicted, that is what is principal in your mind and life -- regardless of your subjective desires).I actually agree with most of this (although I think possession of illegal drugs is a "political crime" in this society). If your message could be delivered in a clear and "unadorned" way, I'd have little problem with it...it would be on the same level as "don't drink and drive". Unfortunately, the neo-puritanical stuff hitches a ride on this common-sense message...so "don't drink and drive" becomes don't drink!And then it blossoms into "drinking is a sin"...and so is any other form of human pleasure. Suggesting that in post-revolutionary society we shall spend our leisure hours reading the collected works of B.A. Not wishing to seem too "personal", this outcome does not appeal to me. At all. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 19, 2005 0:28:35 GMT -5
Once again, NOBODY HERE HAS ADVOCATED PROHIBITION!
I just find drugs to be undesirable for me personally, and in groups I'm in have observed/experienced drugs getting in the way of anti-capitalist resistance.
ps: flyby2, alcohol is definitely addictive.
|
|
|
Post by RedWinter on May 19, 2005 0:38:41 GMT -5
so redstar, you think heroin can be used responsibly? or crack, coke, crystal meth, et al? there is no reason anyone would want to sell it in a drugstore - any more than someone would sell arsenic or cyanide in a drugstore. it's not fucking harmless shit, you should try looking at what happens to people who get addicted to dope. it's not recreation.
now the whole argument about revolutionaries not using drugs or getting drunk simply not to get busted is of course a very important and valid point. however, i don't think anyone on this thread was advocating prison time for weed or alcohol possession! just programs similar to those in maoist china for dealing with drug abuse - and i think in the usa alcoholism is a grave social problem that needs to be struggled against.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 19, 2005 13:15:09 GMT -5
redwinter wrote: So redstar, you think heroin can be used responsibly? or crack, coke, crystal meth, et al?Yes. The rest of your post is just neo-puritanical ranting...and therefore does not merit a response. If you are willing to calm down and offer some rational arguments, then I will be glad to reply. But drivel like comparing the drugs people choose to "arsenic" or "cyanide" is beneath contempt. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 19, 2005 21:43:49 GMT -5
While some discuss the best way to fight a "leftist" war on drugs, it's useful to keep in mind what the Christian fascists are up to... Spy vs. SpyNeighbors spying on neighbors? Mothers forced to turn in their sons or daughters? These are images straight out of George Orwell's 1984, or a remote totalitarian state. We don't associate them with the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that doesn't mean they couldn't happen here. A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force. Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. H.R. 1528, cynically named "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act," would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, and even go undercover and wear a wire if needed. If a person resisted, he or she would face mandatory incarceration. Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years. More... www.alternet.org/drugreporter/22048/New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by RedWinter on May 19, 2005 22:06:25 GMT -5
While some discuss the best way to fight a "leftist" war on drugs, it's useful to keep in mind what the Christian fascists are up to... Spy vs. SpyNeighbors spying on neighbors? Mothers forced to turn in their sons or daughters? These are images straight out of George Orwell's 1984, or a remote totalitarian state. We don't associate them with the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that doesn't mean they couldn't happen here. A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force. Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. H.R. 1528, cynically named "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act," would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, and even go undercover and wear a wire if needed. If a person resisted, he or she would face mandatory incarceration. Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years. More... www.alternet.org/drugreporter/22048/New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forumswow. this is some pretty heavy stuff. and i thought with the whole "war on terrorism" they had their excuse to drop the "war on drugs" facade to maintain justification for wars abroad. i guess they're bringing it back for domestic repression. this is obviously a move to suppress the people. redstar, do you know if this guy is a christian fascist as you stated, or is he coming from a different ideological perspective within the republican party? i think that would make the difference as to how much this bill is fought over.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 19, 2005 22:19:04 GMT -5
|
|