[Mr. Smith]

People can't even use Alcohol in moderation and your telling me that people will be able to use coke in moderation?

And then what happens when the druggie screws himself up and wants the state to pay his medical bills?

NO WAY

[Steve]

NO WAY

Never thought I'd find myself saying this, but I agree with Comrade Smith!

[redstar2000]

Actually, Comrade Smith, the overwhelming majority of people who drink alcohol do so in moderation. There is no way to know for sure, but I rather strongly suspect the same is true for users of all drugs.

So is your rather vehement resistance to legalization based on the excesses of a minority?

A minority of people drive recklessly...shall we outlaw automobiles?

As to the cost of medical treatment, it is trivial and would always be trivial compared to the cost of a swollen prison system and a swollen gestapo-type police establishment.

Since you, Steve and Wilhelm are not really offering any substantive arguments, is that the faint odor of neo-puritanism that I detect in your posts?

[Mr. Smith]

No it's probably a whiff of MARXISM!

Name me a socialist nation where drugs are legal? I'm sorry but I don't want to live in a society full of pot-heads because there is enough of them allready!

[Siberian Fox]

As to the cost of medical treatment, it is trivial and would always be trivial compared to the cost of a swollen prison system and a swollen gestapo-type police establishment.

That's debatable. Cannibis alone has been proven to cause cancer, vanishing lung syndrome, skitzophrenia and impotence. The government wants people to stop smoking ciggerettes because it costs the health system a fortune every year. If one were to legalise all drugs then in order to avoid huge strain on the health system it would have to be privatised. If people have to pay for thier own health care they might be less inclined to do things to themselves that will make them sick.

[The_Communist_Threat]

Cannibis alone has been proven to cause cancer, vanishing lung syndrome, skitzophrenia and impotence

Not true, not true, not true, and not true...especially the skitzo one, i mean come on man, what are you reading...Is Drugs Bad? by G.W. Bush....

Name me a socialist nation where drugs are legal? I'm sorry but I don't want to live in a society full of pot-heads because there is enough of them allready!

I don't think any real socialist nation has ever been...but of course you'll say all of the bullshit stalinist states....but you're not me..

and comrade smith the "your" in your sig should be "you're"...just thought i'd let you know

People can't even use Alcohol in moderation and your telling me that people will be able to use coke in moderation?

You said this once already, and i told you that it's not true...most of the people who do coke do function in society....now crack is another story...but still, making them illegal will just cause problems like today....

And then what happens when the druggie screws himself up and wants the state to pay his medical bills?

What about the guy who KNOWINGLY works are a nuclear power plant and KNOWS the health risks from it and "screws" himself over, are we not going to pay for medical bills either???


If you want drugs to be illegal, what are you going to do to prevent the problems with making it illegal today....

[redstar2000]

Comrade Smith, you self-labelled "Marxist", are you aware of the fact that Marx smoked tobacco and Engels was an ardent lover of fine wine? Want to lock them up?

It's probably certain that Jenny Marx, by the way, used an opium-alcohol compound for "female complaints"...many educated women in the 19th century did so. Lock her up too?

Siberian Fox, I'm really surprised by your post...surely you cannot be taken in by all the neo-puritanical crap about "increased health costs"? All those big numbers are "estimates"--that is, numbers pulled out of someone's ass in order to advance an agenda?

They have as much validity as Forbes Magazine's "estimate" of Fidel Castro's personal fortune...supposedly $110,000,000.

I would as soon accept a number from those professional liars (government anti-drug officials) as I'd accept a Nazi's estimate of "Jewish" political influence.

The costs, on the other hand, of the "war on drugs" as it exists now can be determined, at least roughly. Just add up the budgets of law enforcement agencies and the costs of building and maintain huge numbers of prisons with a million or more captives.

There's no number you can put on the lives shattered by police persecution, of course. The de-humanization of people imprisoned for wanting to enjoy life a little cannot be mathematically determined...not to mention the social cost incurred by turning hundreds of thousands of otherwise decent people into gestapo bastards!

Want that on your conscience?

[Siberian Fox]

Not true, not true, not true, and not true...especially the skitzo one, i mean come on man, what are you reading...Is Drugs Bad? by G.W. Bush....

The Independent.

Here is the specific article: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health ... ory=382078

What's your source?

[Mr. Smith]

I never said alcohol and tobacco should be banned. In fact I don't mind the occasional Marlabro.

[redstar2000]

Siberian Fox, I read the story you linked to.

Now please consider this: journalism is NOT science.

You will note, for example, the total lack of numbers in the story. A few pot smokers with collapsed lung syndrome does not mean that pot-smoking causes collapsed lung syndrome.

It might do so...occasionally. Or there might be other causes.

Because people are more and more reluctant to disclose their chemical practices--for obvious reasons--it is more and more difficult to research the effects of any chemical pleasures. I'm not convinced that any of the actual research results are reliable...much less, journalistic summaries. It is becoming routine for tobacco users now to lie to insurance companies, employers, and even landlords. Indeed, telling the truth to any authority is probably a bad idea...that is, one with unpleasant consequences.

When scientists attempt to research the long-term effect of any chemical pleasure, they are forced to rely on surveys of prior use...in which people may mis-remember, deliberately lie, or tell the truth. I can just see some guy who smokes 7 to 10 joints a day telling some doctor "oh, man, I just smoke two or three a day." The same for any other drug. Since all drug use carries a social stigma if not a criminal penalty, the tendency is to understate usage dramatically...making a drug "look" far more "dangerous" than it actually is.

Thus I conclude that all arguments against drugs that rely on "health damage" are almost certainly spurious.

[The_Communist_Threat]

You will note, for example, the total lack of numbers in the story. A few pot smokers with collapsed lung syndrome does not mean that pot-smoking causes collapsed lung syndrome.

I'm glad you read that redstar, because there wasn't i chance i was going to bullshit like that....

I never said alcohol and tobacco should be banned. In fact I don't mind the occasional Marlabro.

Haha...this is ridiculous, this makes me think you are one of hitler's companions now..i mean seriously, just because you like certain drugs people should be allowed to does...o wait, you are all about bureaucracy after all...

and if you knew anything (i dont think you know a whole lot) you would know that alcohol and tobacco are much worse than marijuana...MANY, MANY more people die from these drugs than marijuana...honestly, what is your problem?

To those that say the tar you get from 1 joint is equal to smoking like 5 cigarettes are mislead....first of all, not all joints are the same size...and second of all, most of the time you don't smoke a joint to yourself, not usually anyway...and you don't smoke 20 joints in a day....you don't even smoke 5 joints in you smoke them to yourself....

What's your source?

every thing i have ever read about marijuana....and a good source would be the TIME magazine i read about it....it seemed to be unbiased....unlike our source...marijuana causes skitzophrenia...come on now, anything that says this is obvious just going to feed you bullshit..

[Siberian Fox]

Far from "bullshit" the independent is one of the best newspapers in the UK. Nor is it 'conservative' in it's outlook, and "The Indenpendent on Sunday" even ran a campain to have cannibis legalised - so I don't see it as being an anti-drugs biased source.

If you have any specific articles please provide links.

I have not stated anywhere in this thread that I do not think cannibis or any other drugs should be illegal. But to try and pretend that inhaling smoke cannot be in any way bad for your health is just wishful thinking - The "it's never going to happen to me" attitude.

[Ixa]

Should drugs that are now illegal be legal, and would they be in a communist society??

I believe that the weaker drugs: alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms (hey, its still natural), and opium should be legal but limits should be set on how much people can obtain. We all know what the Imperialist $tates of america has done with the "war on drugs"...it has over crowded our prisons with NON-violent drug offenders.

your views???

Hm, good question. I would say that drug-users and drug dealers should be put to death in labour camps until they starve to death, but that is only my opinion. The laws (at any rate) ought to be stricter with regards to the consumption and proliferation of drugs. History, statistics, and the nature of mankind indicate that the stricter the laws and the severer the punishment, the less crime. And drug-using is a crime against mankind; therefore the punishment should be as severe as possible.

[Mr. Smith]

POT IS A MIND ALTERING DRUG! That is the problem you blasted fool! You can't have people running around and driving who are not in the a sane state! Pot hinders your nuero-transmiters it leads to difficultly in learning things and impairs perception. Pot is 50% more dangerous to longs then tobacco (source TIME magazine) it also decreases blood flow to limbs.

Tobacco is not mind altering. And if my lung collapses from smoking 1 cig every few weeks then I will pay the bill.

[The_Communist_Threat]

You can't have people running around and driving who are not in the a sane state

i take it you have never smoked pot and rely on information from people who haven't either...

ok, so it kinda affects your ability to drive...but then so does alcohol...and alcohol makes you violent (well, it can anyway)..pot makes you happier...a sane state???....are you a little kid???...because it sounds like you are...either you are a very naive adult or a 13 year old boy who has been brainwashed by his school or parents....

it also decreases blood flow to limbs

seeing as it speeds up your heart beat, this is hard to believe...

I would say that drug-users and drug dealers should be put to death in labour camps until they starve to death,

this sounds about right from someone who has stalin as his avatar....

i'm seeing a trend here...anyone who loves jesus fucking christ (wilhelm) and anyone who supports the oppression of millions of people (stalinist)...want to take freedoms away from people....yes, there might be a few excpetions here and there....

punish those who damage their OWN body...and your government will soon cease to exist...

siberian fox, i'm sorry but i will not read anything else you write unless you tell me that weed does not lead to skitzophrenia....because after reading this, it will just be a waste of my time to respond to anything else you say about this subject...

[redstar2000]

Siberian Fox, I would never dispute that inhaling the smoke from any burning organic matter is not a healthy practice and almost certainly causes some damage to the lungs.

What is questionable to me are the "official accounts"--the constant propaganda that every puff of anything is a deadly menace certain to result in premature death.

The idea that it is somehow legitimate to shape public opinion by appealing to fear is, in my opinion, reprehensible...closer to fascism than to communism. I've noticed over the past few decades many examples of this in all kinds of areas.

"We scare you for your own good" seems to be the new mantra of capitalist public relations; the cry of "wolf" no longer gets any response from me at all.

Comrade Smith, you raise a side issue. People whose use of intoxicants endangers public safety should be punished according to law. I am, in fact, rather strict on this matter. I understand that in Sweden, one DWI conviction costs you your driver's license for a year; the second conviction loses your license for life. That seems about right to me.

Having had the opportunity to read a number of posts from Supernius, I don't believe anyone would think I was being unfair if I simply say that he is clearly some kind of fascist. Which kind is a separate question. But arguing with his views is kind of pointless...folks like him clearly prefer the criticism of arms to the arms of criticism. Fascism isn't really about ideas, anyway. It's really about the techniques of tyranny.

[Siberian Fox]

siberian fox, i'm sorry but i will not read anything else you write unless you tell me that weed does not lead to skitzophrenia....because after reading this, it will just be a waste of my time to respond to anything else you say about this subject...

I'm not a medical expert - unlike the people who wrote this: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1212

However, if you don't beleive them then feel free to donate yourself to medical research in the schizophrenia-cannibis link research field: http://www.uwa.edu.au/media/statements/ ... _(1_august)

From where I'm sitting it appears that you are just burying your head in the sand. Perfectly natural I suppose, if smoking canibbis is something one enjoys then one wouldn't want to be told that it is bad for them.

[Wilhelm]

m seeing a trend here...anyone who loves jesus fucking christ (wilhelm) and anyone who supports the oppression of millions of people (stalinist)...want to take freedoms away from people....yes, there might be a few excpetions here and there....

It is harmful to society!

It is a crime against mankind to go around all stoned and offering pot to other people. It reduces productivity (which is still important even in a communist country), it is not desirable to have a pot-head around you, and it is addictive, so sometimes they'll do it at the wrong place and the wrong time. These are not my only arguments, because I also have religious arguments here and there, but I have always kept them out of debate in this community.

You can't have a stoned person driving, or working with heavy machinery.

[Proctor]

Humans, after all, are quite prone to error...are we to stand aside and "let them die"?

Precisely.

At the moment this just applies to druggies, but there are similar situations where laws such as this would prove effective.

And then what happens when the druggie screws himself up and wants the state to pay his medical bills?

NO WAY

My point exactly.

[redstar2000]

I wrote: Humans, after all, are quite prone to error...are we to just stand aside and "let them die"?

Proctor's reply: "Precisely."

It would certainly make for a rather different "society", if this principle were to be extended to all realms of human folly and misfortune.

Accident victims of all varieties would have to be allowed to die from their injuries...if you had been careful, it wouldn't have happened.

Likewise for the victims of illnesses of all kinds...if you'd taken better care of your health, you never would have gotten sick.

The unemployed should be allowed to starve; if they had really tried, they could have found some kind of work.

And so on. I believe that this social arrangement is not only being tried right now, but an even more vigorous version was attempted in 19th century England (cf. Engels' The Condition of the English Working Class in 1844).

Still, then and now, this is trivial compared to what Proctor advocates. We could call it "Survival of the Lucky".
---------------------------------

Wilhelm, speaking for the neo-puritans, equates marijuana use with "harm" to society and a "crime" against mankind...because it "lowers" productivity.

And what is mankind for, in Wilhelm's view, if not unending labor? Pleasure is the snare of the "devil", is it not? We must "earn our daily bread by the sweat of our brow", don't we? Wilhelm, you may think you keep religion out of other arguments, but, in fact, you don't. These kinds of "reasons" are religious...and therefore out of order.

I might add, by the way, that the idea that the purpose of communism is to increase productivity is wrong. It probably will, but that is not the reason that it's a better idea and a worthwhile goal. See my sig.

Want to hear the latest? A recent newspaper article quotes a doctor as claiming that even one Ecstasy tablet "causes" depression. Reading that kind of scare-mongering crap sure depressed me.