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’m not tricking you, you did used argument muddling the class conditions.
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 never advocated for dropping health and safety protections for workers. This is what your comment conveys even if it was done unintentionally.
You wrote:
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.
I suppose I could have been more clear, but my point was that the ruling class can use pretty much anything as a weapon against the suppressed class and certainly do in this case. I’m not advocating against prohibition just because the current ruling class doesn’t practice it themselves.
Prohibition has hampered our ability to effectively study and understand the effects of drugs in many cases. A scientific approach would attempt to study the least harmful ways to introduce legalization with regulation and praxis would lead to improvements over time.
Advocating against prohibition also doesn’t mean we just make it legal for anyone to possess and distribute in any amount. Distribution should be tightly controlled by the state and anyone caught in possession of excess amounts or unregulated products should be dealt with legally if the intent is distribution, or medically if they’re feeding an addiction.
I can understand why some would look at other states with a DotP as a compelling reason to advocate for prohibition. That I’m aware, there has never been one that practiced anything else, but do correct me if I’m wrong. I also think that China’s stance on this is completely reasonable considering their history. But China’s leadership is not one to attempt to press their ideology on others and consistently advocates for the others finding their own way.
Perhaps we won’t come to an agreement on this. I suspect that you and I have had drastically different experiences with drugs which leads to us having our own personal biases and this is unavoidable. I just hope that when the revolution comes, that this is something that will be open for discussion instead of just outright banned.