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.
I have fibromyalgia and a wack ass unnamed joint disorder - I can dislocate my shoulders and most of the joints in my body.... or they can be dislocated for me, if I hit something wrong, move in the wrong way... and it fucking hurts.
No medicine has helped me like weed has. I admit to using it every night, whenever I can afford it. I can actually recover from work and be ready to do it all again in the morning. I can work out without it destroying me, which creates a positive feedback loop wherein I wind up hurting less chronically.
I am grateful for it. I'm grateful I'm no longer worried about pigs breaking down my door just for lighting up, too.
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.
It's actually far less harmful cause those things will kill you, and cannabis can't.
Ya, I see alcohol as so much more harmful than weed, growing up with an alcoholic parent.
edit: Also the US government historically and still does use alcohol to wreck Indian communities.
Exactly! There’s a reason the movie “Leaving Las Vegas” didn’t feature Nicolas Cage smoking copious amounts of weed, it’s because that would just make you passout
unless operating heavy machinery/driving while intoxicated obviously, and some respiratory if smoking combusted matter, but yea otherwise wont really kill you.
Yeah by itself, you can't overdose on cannabis. There are other, much safer methods of consumption than combustion. I actually have a dry herb vaporizer myself.
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.
More like you don't notice. Nothing wrong with using it recreationally but it is infuriating to deal with ppl under influence during work.
Trying to quit right now 😁 shit has helped me therapeautize myself but it's gotten to the point where I need to process my emotions sober. I begin to panic after about 12 hours of not smoking. Clear sign I need to quit. This is after about a year of moderate/heavy (relative to me) daily usage. I can feel it like a oily film over my brain. When life was hell it helped me cope and stay grinding away, but now that things have settled it's negatively affecting my productivity.
weed being illegal and demonized was always an excuse to disproportionately arrest black people for cheap labor in prisons. theres really no argument for it to be criminalized from a proletarian standpoint.
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.
Cannabis was made illegal by racism and cause the paper industry didn't wanna lose out profits to hemp.
It's quite literally medicine for me, it should be legalized completely.
Edit: I have autism and ADHD, the former of which there are no drugs to treat. It certainly doesn't make you "lazy" if anything it makes any kind of work bearable. I feel like these anti-cannabis stances are just regurgitated propaganda to keep it illegal, because it would do a lot more good than prescription drugs.
I think some comrades get so caught up in theory and societal structure that they forget that the primary goal of all of this is to have some fucking fun! If doing drugs on your days off is how you want to do that I support you. As long as you're able to be educated on the correct usage and side effects beforehand. And if you feel like it's becoming a problem and you'd like some help and support then the state should provide that for you. This is all much simpler and effective to implement than prohibition btw.
And of course, medicinal use is a whole other reason as you mentioned.
- Show
haha seriously tho, weed is such a minor vice, on the same level as unhealthy food, that it's not worth spending too much time talking about. There are harder drugs that actually do serious harm to communities that would have more worthwhile discussion about how socialist states should deal with them.
Yep I use those strains colloquially referred to as "green crack", my favorite is what dispos call Jack Herer -- the idea that all weed makes you lazy would be shattered in an instant if y'all saw me light up then clean my house like a maniac (because it doesn't hurt, and I'm able to make new connections in my brain, like learning how to love labor for its own sake!)
Drugs are the number one thing that I struggle to approach from a balanced Marxist perspective by far. The way that drugs are pervasive in western society, especially for those of us who grew up in very working class urban areas in North America, makes them a difficult topic for me. I have been exposed to drugs my entire life, bought, sold, consumed them, ect. I have been thinking for a while now that we need a good struggle session on the grad about drugs, usage, access, legalization and what not. I very much want to hear the perspective of comrades that come from places or backgrounds where they are not so ubiquitous.
Specifically in terms of weed, I struggle with it a lot. On one hand, I have been addicted to smoking weed for the best part of the past decade on a near daily basis, and it has definitely impacted my life in negative ways. On the other hand, it also saved me from alcohol and amphetamine abuse basically. I often think about the Frank Ocean album Blonde, where there is an interlude that talks about how marijuana makes you "lazy stupid and unconcerned" or something along those lines. That is absolutely the truth I think. I could have accomplished a lot more in my 20s were it not for the comfort of going home to smoke weed, I think anyway. I'm very sympathetic to arguments both for and against its place in society.
Putting people in prison or ruining their lives over it is obviously terrible, especially in regards to the way it has been used in the US to target the black population. That being said, I don't think that it being a thing that most every young person gets into is good either. There must be some balance to be found, but right now I am not sure what it is. And this is just weed, that's not even talking about harder drugs which I think are a similar but different topic.
Very interested to hear other comrade's thoughts on this anyway, thank you for the post.
i'm a regular user and have also struggled with dependency of it, i believe it should be completely legal and available to the same degree alcohol is. additionally, all people with criminal charges relating to it should be released from prison and have those charges removed. it can absolutely be used responsibly such as alcohol can be, and it is significantly less harmful than alcohol and other vices commonly found in society. if someone is allowed to have a drink at the end of the day or at a gathering with others, i don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to also smoke at the end of the day or with others. obviously it can also be used irresponsibly, and i know what that's like personally. but i also know that irresponsible use is almost always a symptom of a greater issue in someones life (unmitigated health issues, anxiety, depression, etc) that can be solved. i honestly have yet to hear a reason why cannabis should be criminalized that isn't about overuse or about children using it way too early in their lives (which is harmful but can be avoided with ACTUAL education that isn't just drug war propaganda from the DEA). also, it should be properly regulated in terms of production to maintain certain standards of quality (e.g keeping dangerous additives out of vape cartridges).
I couldn’t agree more. The DEA-approved drug talks they gave in public schools (I attended) made people CURIOUS instead of skeptical of drugs because they would make it seem like 10 joints in a lifetime is equivalent to shooting up heroin everyday of your life. Kids obviously had older brothers or cousins that had smoked pot and never died, so they’d try it. If I can find it I’ll add the link in and edit, but there was a great video on how the D.A.R.E. Program completely backfired because it overhyped how dangerous drugs were instead of just being real about how harmful drugs can be.
yup. those times the cop would come to school and talk about drugs made drugs sound so awesome.
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.
There’s a reason really existing socialist formations almost invariably come down hard on drugs.
Ahistorical, the reason why they come down hard on drugs is colonialism.
The truth of drug use is found in this graph, any drug policy that does not consider it is engaging in IDpol, which is liberal.
ShowSource is a PHD holder, David Nutt.
I understand your point about colonialism but I think research like this raises a lot of questions and doesn't necessarily support your overarching point. I’ve hidden my critique behind a spoiler tag as the details could be triggering.
The paper is here [PDF]: https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf . I’ve only had a quick skim but I can spot some problems. Mainly due to it not being dialectical or materialist. I note in advance that the paper acknowledges many of these weaknesses.
CW: Substance abuse
The authors make a distinction between harm to user and harm to society. There are ‘16 harm criteria’, divided between the two categories. Harm is weighted. For example, mortality is treated as more harmful than damage. Still, to accept the findings means to accept the weightings. I’m unsure if I accept the weightings because of the individualist conception of harm that underpins the entire model.
Under harm to users:
- Physical
-
- Drug-specific mortality
-
- Drug-related mortality
-
- Drug-specific damage
-
- Drug-related damage
- Psychological
-
- Dependence
-
- Drug-specific impairment of mental function
-
- Drug-related impairment of mental function
- Social
-
- Loss of tangibles
-
- Loss of relationships
Under harm to others:
- Physical and psychological
-
- Injury
- Social
-
- Crime
-
- Environmental damage
-
- Family adversities
-
- International damage
-
- Economic cost
-
- Community
This does not seem dialectical. For example, I would not separate ‘community’ from any of the other types. A drug overdose (OD) harms the community as well as the victim, their relationships, and their family. The model must determine how to avoid double-counting these harms.
If an OD is counted in both categories, that’s a methodological flaw. If the model avoids double-counting, the basis must be arbitrary: a liberal will be working off very different premises to a communist, so there will never be agreement between bourgeois and socialist societies about what counts as harm and how to count it.
(On page 1564, the authors admit that they don’t have data for all the sub-categories, either, which causes another problem for comparison.)
Communists would likely reach a different consensus to scientists in a liberal democracy who are not dialectical materialists and who have been trained within a capitalist system where certain ‘realities’ are taken for granted, such as profit-making pharmaceutical and alcohol industries and the tragedy of ‘gang war’ (US ops), etc, in countries where illegal drugs are produced.
The graph shows the actual harm caused by drug use across a UK sample of available data; i.e. this is how much harm actual alcohol consumption has caused. The problem is that there are probably thousands of alcohol users to every heroin user.
The problem with relying on this data to make policy is that the results are determined by the legalisation and strong encouragement to consume alcohol and the criminalisation and taboo of the the others. The authors conclude:
the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm.
According to the data, you might say that alcohol, heroin, crack, and meth should be prohibited. Or you might say that if alcohol is legalised, then so should heroin, crack, and meth. The latter would be devastating and, apparently (notwithstanding some mixed messages) not what the authors intended:
we should note that a low score in our assessment does not mean the drug is not harmful, since all drugs can be harmful under specific circumstances.
The problem with the graph comes down to a faulty comparison with all drugs against alcohol. The result can be read in so many different ways to justify a range of contradictory policies.
The problem with comparing anything with alcohol in the abstract is that it forgets the dialectical relation of alcohol to culture. The effects of this will always be skewed. It is incomparable to any other drug. The exception is perhaps tobacco. It would be interesting to re-draw the graph with tobacco counted twice. Once for today and once for before the massive campaign against smoking and the British smoking ban. If ‘old’ tobacco came above alcohol (I’m reasonably sure it would) while ‘new’ tobacco came sixth, the graph would instead show something different. If society suddenly took the same attitude to other drugs, alcohol would fall down the list.
The data could be used to show, for example, as discussed in this thread, that cannabis is ‘safe’ or at least ‘safer’ than alcohol. But the data do not support that. Because these data cannot tell us (a) how dangerous would be cannabis if it were legalised and encouraged to the extent of alcohol or (b) how safe would be alcohol if it were criminalised and as taboo as heroin. It only shows current harm.
Emphasis to indicate the authors’ political economic views, which should highlight why Marxists should treat the thesis with caution:
Limitations of this approach include the fact that we scored only harms. All drugs have some benefits to the user, at least initially, otherwise they would not be used, but this effect might attenuate over time with tolerance and withdrawal. Some drugs such as alcohol and tobacco have commercial benefits to society in terms of providing work and tax, which to some extent offset the harms and, although less easy to measure, is also true of production and dealing in illegal drugs.
The paper also warns against the general application of these findings:
Many of the harms of drugs are affected by their availability and legal status, which varies across countries, so our results are not necessarily applicable to countries with very different legal and cultural attitudes to drugs. Ideally, a model needs to distinguish between the harms resulting directly from drug use and those resulting from the control system for that drug. Furthermore, they do not relate to drugs when used for prescription purposes.
The paper ends: “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.” Which means the reader is left with the message that the data are not really about relaxing other drug laws so much as tightening alcohol laws. I’d say that’s a mixed message as they are concerned (subtly) with e.g. the connection between drugs and racial policing, which means using the paper e.g. to decriminalise cannabis rather than to campaign against alcohol. I suppose these aren’t mutually exclusive but, then again, when this graph is usually cited, it’s usually in favour of making cannabis legal rather than prohibiting alcohol.
I’m not saying this paper isn’t helpful or illustrative. It has its uses. And I’m not making any claims about what should be legalised. I’m arguing that the graph does not show what the paper argues. While I agree that the paper should be engaged with, its use is limited, and its graphs shouldn’t be detached from the underlying study.
I’m unsure what this means for the broader question of drugs policy under socialism; but I would caution against relying on the graph/paper on the basis that ignoring it is idpol—there are other valid criticisms.
The paper ends: “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.” Which means the reader is left with the message that the data are not really about relaxing other drug laws so much as tightening alcohol laws.
I wouldnt say that suggests tighteing laws, I think they mean by this addressing alchohol addiction and its root causes, not using a auth measure like banning to deal with it but focusing on it via a public health approach.
I’d say that’s a mixed message as they are concerned (subtly) with e.g. the connection between drugs and racial policing, which means using the paper e.g. to decriminalise cannabis rather than to campaign against alcohol. I suppose these aren’t mutually exclusive but, then again, when this graph is usually cited, it’s usually in favour of making cannabis legal rather than prohibiting alcohol.
Thats because it shows relative harm; if Alchohol can easily be shown to be detrimental to society on a factor of literally 100000's of more deaths attributed too it vs cannabis it makes no sense why its illegal and one is legal.
I agree on your wider points about how a socialist society studying this would likely come to different conclusions, the paper isnt even considering ideological basis but within the scope of it they likely never wanted to try to begin with, as its more of a study done by a chemist implementing sociological methodology without considering ideology.
Also re: there are more booze drinkers than heroin users;
Usage in decriminalized societies and legalized socieities of all narcotics goes down during leglaization. People gain access to medicalized routes of de-addiction rather than thrown in a prison cell with gangsters, murderers and drug dealers.
Also ideally in a socialist society we would ban all advertising, especially for narcotics so people dont get 'encouraged' to do anything and instead know how drugs effect you, how to manage them and the risks vs rewards.
Agree except identity politics aren't something liberal, they have been coopted by liberalism.
Its bad which ever way you cut it; othering drug users on 'common sense' lines ignores the historical reasoning behind the US export of drug laws; trade and supressing black & lefitst voters in america.
In regards to Asias reluctance, just look at the Opium wars; that was the British.
Edit: Also I call it 'liberal IDpol' because thats what drug divisions are, a liberal generated form of IDpol that socialist countries accept uncritically; A sociological analysis of the topic always leads to legalization for a reason.
im curious what the definition of harm in this study is because cannabis causing almost as much harm to the user as benzodiazepines and mephedrone is a little bit strange to me.
mephedrone causes a relatively low level of harm due to it being prescribed by medical professionals, it comes to the user in a clearly defined dose that will be uncut; most heroin addicts die due to accidental overdoses or cut drugs with fent.
I imagine benzos are still the same; and you should note while cannabis is similar to more dangerous drugs its likely only considering smoking.
I know where the OG study is though its avilable to read, I know the conclusions but the methods they use il need to brush up on.
https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf
Drugs, in general, should be regulated according to public health and safety.
And there's no compelling public health or safety case for cannabis prohibition.
Eh, I’d argue there is a public health and safety component. It causes impaired driving and lung issues in users
Banning hemp is so stupid. It’s such a useful plant, from nutritional supplements to bio plastics.
I remember seeing videos of old car prototypes that used Hemp and they were surprisingly cheap to make and very durable. I think they claimed it was “10x stronger than steel” which is probably just an old timey way of saying it is very strong, idk if they actually did the math on it
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.
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.
I'm not tricking you, you did used argument muddling the class conditions.
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:
They’re one of many, sure. The bourgeoisie use drugs too btw. They just have access to education, clean supply, and support for addiction.
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.
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.
