I found the question come up on both communist and anarchist subs, and the difference in responses was quite striking.

As a longtime PTSD sufferer who self-medicates to the hilt just to do simple things like fall asleep or leave the house, the idea that I would either lose access to, be forced underground, or prosecuted for my recreational habits terrifies me.

I understand the rationale is in a functioning communist state, I would no longer feel the need for those drugs. Does it follow the science of recreational marijuana, psychedelics, ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc.? Or is the ambition to ween everyone off? And does that apply for all manner of distraction and entertainment as well?

  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I think that the sheer amount and accessibility of music and other artistic media makes pre-screening censorship a complete fool's errand. You can't just regulate a finite amount of printing presses and broad cast stations these days.

    That being said, there'd probably need to be some sort of mechanism to remove/restrict certain types of content. I'm talking about overtly fascist/racist/reactionary media.

    • BigBoopPaul [he/him]
      1·
      4 years ago

      there’d probably need to be some sort of mechanism to remove/restrict certain types of content. I’m talking about overtly fascist/racist/reactionary media.

      So like, book and vinyl burning? Also, would this mechanism seek to be objective or would it invariably lean more on the subjective?

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
        1·
        4 years ago

        Under communism, vinyls would be outlawed as wasteful bourgeois decadence, per the dictates of the Lossless Audio Gang.

        Anyone who tries to sell you an "objective" system is trying to hoodwink you. As long as people are involved in any system, it is subjective to a large degree.

        That being said, like in any decision, you can construct the decision making system to try to mitigate shitty decisions. For example, an elected council of people's representatives making the decision is better than an unexpected head censor making the decision.