Capitalism Plus Dope Equals Genocide

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
AJI's picture
AJI
Offline
Joined: 20-08-11
Nov 6 2011 16:39
Capitalism Plus Dope Equals Genocide

I was wondering if any of you all have read this, "one of the Black Panther Party’s definitive statements on drug culture."

http://peopleofcolororganize.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/capitalism_plus_dope_equals_genocide.pdf

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Nov 6 2011 17:00

Skimmed through it.

Ah, nostalgia... by the choice of words you can immediately see what time period this pamphlet came from (I fucking love the 60s)

The layout of the pdf is pretty fucked though...

Regarding the content, I agree with most points made but it's a bit too afro-american centric for me (then again, it's the Black Panthers). It's not like drug addiction is only endemic to the black population - it's something that encompasses all ethnicities and classes, though they are right in assuming that the ruling class has a certain motive to cause addiction among the working class and especially minorities and non-white "races" so they can crack down on them and make them weak.

The whole text has aged a bit, though. Naturally.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 6 2011 17:13
Railyon wrote:
Regarding the content, I agree with most points made but it's a bit too afro-american centric for me (then again, it's the Black Panthers). It's not like drug addiction is only endemic to the black population - it's something that encompasses all ethnicities and classes, .

I don't mean to sound like a chump Railyon, but do you have any evidence to back this up? I would hazard a guess that there are actually class and race differences in drug addiction and that widespread drug addiction affects different groups in different ways. We can see the effects it had on the black working class in america, and the decline of the Panthers pays homage to that. To say that drug addiction affects the black working class in a certain way isn't to say that it is only the black working class affected by drugs.

Also, I love the 1960s language. Especially Panthers stuff.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Nov 6 2011 19:13
Arbeiten wrote:
Railyon wrote:
Regarding the content, I agree with most points made but it's a bit too afro-american centric for me (then again, it's the Black Panthers). It's not like drug addiction is only endemic to the black population - it's something that encompasses all ethnicities and classes, .

I don't mean to sound like a chump Railyon, but do you have any evidence to back this up? I would hazard a guess that there are actually class and race differences in drug addiction and that widespread drug addiction affects different groups in different ways. We can see the effects it had on the black working class in america, and the decline of the Panthers pays homage to that. To say that drug addiction affects the black working class in a certain way isn't to say that it is only the black working class affected by drugs.

Evidence that drug addiction is basically everywhere (speaking of drug addiction in the general sense)?

Well... think of Cocaine in high society or heroin among 'nam vets. Or your boss smoking pot (maybe a bad example though) or getting piss drunk after work. I find it obvious that drug addiction is not bound to "race" or class, but I didn't mean to imply that it is not concentrated on certain fragments of society, or ethnic minorities of the working class for that matter.

Maybe I just worded that badly. My apologies.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 6 2011 19:25
Railyon wrote:
Well... think of Cocaine in high society or heroin among 'nam vets. Or your boss smoking pot (maybe a bad example though) or getting piss drunk after work. I find it obvious that drug addiction is not bound to "race" or class, but I didn't mean to imply that it is not concentrated on certain fragments of society, or ethnic minorities of the working class for that matter.

This is true, but to take one example juxtaposition, cocaine "addiction" and heroin dependence are quite different things, you don't see programmes to offer substitute local anaesthetics for people trying to kick the marching powder, and the class prevalence of the two drugs is different too. I don't have figures, would love to see some, but I would imagine they would show heroin addiction prevalent amongst the poorest in society and the opposite for cocaine, although obviously there is an overlap. Certainly this is the accepted layman's view in the UK.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Nov 6 2011 23:13

In the US as a whole the vast majority of heroin users are white and working-class (or what the American media would call 'middle class') today. I'd argue this was true since heroin was first put on the market (and then taken off of it in '24 in the US).

The social nature of drug addiction and drug dealing was along the same lines between the Chinese immigrant laborers in ethnic enclaves and the urban black community in the present day- opium smoking was seen as a 'Yellow Scourge' leading to the first drug prohibition laws in the US; even though the majority of users of opioids at the time were wealthy white women in the South. Drug prohibition creates interesting dynamics between race and class (in sociological terms).

Quote:
This is true, but to take one example juxtaposition, cocaine "addiction" and heroin dependence are quite different things, you don't see programmes to offer substitute local anaesthetics for people trying to kick the marching powder

There are interesting studies that have been done on the use of dextro-amphetamine, modafinil and pharmaceutical cocaine for cocaine/crack addiction lately. Its been legal in the UK to prescribe cocaine for this purpose for many decades; though the use of the "outpatient quarantine" (prescribing a known quantity and pharmaceutical quality of a substance to an addicted patient who is treatment resistant as a harm reduction measure) has plummeted due to pressure from the US government. Yes, no other class of drugs creates the metabolic set-up of opioid dependance; but the 'addictive' set-up leading to repeated and compulsive use, use despite financial, social and health consequences, etc are the same regardless of someones drug of choice. In that sense opioid addiction is easier to treat and lead to positive patient outcomes in the short and longterm; but as there is no cure for addiction ( brain changes affecting neurotransmitters like dopamine specifically) and addictive behavior even replacement therapy isn't perfect (even though it is the best and most important type of treatment available for opioid addiction, and research should continue to be done as it relates to other classes of recreational/addictive drugs).

The black panther's smashed up/occupied early methadone clinics in the '60s, helping to spread rumors that it was a government plan to kill/poison the black community and impeding its ability to serve people who at that time had no other options for treatment (except incarceration or quack psychiatry like they practice in China today- a mini-lobotomy on the pleasure center of the brain for 'habitual drug addicts').

Quote:
Dr. Beny Primm, an African-American pioneer in the treatment of drug addiction with methadone, reports Black Panther party activists once held him at bayonet point, "They thought I was part of the white man's way of enslaving black folk, and one of the ways they enslaved black folk was to put them on methadone."

I think the militant reaction against the use of drugs as a weapon by the ruling class is a positive thing; I think killing drug dealers (I forget if thats RIRA or INLA doing that lately?) and punishing drug addicts and users in the community (in those 2 cases a specific community, Catholic or African-American) is completely counter to the message that drugs are used to victimize certain areas, peoples and groups by the ruling-class. The kid on the corner yelling 'rocks blows' at cars in Baltimore is not the face of the power structure; he's as much a victim as any other of drug dealing, prohibition, addiction, etc as tools of oppression.

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 14:40

Drugs are only a factor in capitalist society due to the nature of the alienation, depression we face under it and the escapism we seek. Sure we all like to blaze a spliff every once in a while but hard drugs, especially Heroin and crack, are but a form of escape from miserable conditions, thats what marx was talking about with religeon, an escape for people seeking something admist their poverty.

When we control our own futures, communities and workplaces, the people will not need to shoot something into themselves to get high, they will be high from the society itself and the amazing new set of conditions we have and the opportunities in it to be happy.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 7 2011 15:05

i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 15:12
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

I agree, I think motivations will be different though, it will be a positive exploration of novel experience rather than an escape from banal experience. Of course the former already takes place, it's the balance that will shift.

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 17:23
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 17:52
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

While heroin and crack are indeed addictive, it's wrong to say that they are addictive from first intake. There are plenty of people who have dabbled. I have smoked heroin, once, and I didn't become addicted. I know people who have smoked crack, several times, and who have not become crack heads. When exaggerated risk is compared with real world experience, it doesn't do anything for the credibility of those who exaggerate the risk.

Similarly, pure pharmaceutical heroin won't kill you unless you overdose, but you can kill yourself with a paracetamol overdose. On the other hand prohibition leads to impure street heroin. The impurities can kill you. If you get into a habit of taking higher doses because there is less actual heroin in your street heroin, then if you happen to get hold of much purer heroin without adjusting your habitual intake, you are likely to overdose.

I'm not suggesting anyone goes out and takes up a heroin or crack habit. But we can't make progress if we base our thinking on falsehoods.

EDIT: Just to add I have found nicotine to be the most addictive substance I have ever taken. I have tried numerous times over 20 years to break that habit and have always failed, so I've stopped trying and I've just moved to less harmful forms of nicotine delivery. On the other hand I did cocaine regularly for a couple of years then just stopped.

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 17:47
Pikel wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

While heroin and crack are indeed addictive, it's wrong to say that they are addictive from first intake. There are plenty of people who have dabbled. I have smoked heroin, once, and I didn't become addicted. I know people who have smoked crack, several times, and who have not become crack heads. When exaggerated risk is compared with real world experience, it doesn't do anything for the credibility of those who exaggerate the risk.

Similarly, pure pharmaceutical heroin won't kill you unless you overdose, but you can kill yourself with a paracetamol overdose. On the other hand prohibition leads to impure street heroin. The impurities can kill you. If you get into a habit of taking higher doses because there is less actual heroin in your street heroin, then if you happen to get hold of much purer heroin without adjusting your habitual intake, you are likely to overdose.

I'm not suggesting anyone goes out and takes up a heroin or crack habit. But we can't make progress if we base our thinking on falsehoods.

I know people who smoke crack 5 times a day and are not addicts.

Seriously though I am just saying I do not think people will need to shoot heron to be happy, not that people should be banned from doing so.

As far as addictiveness goes, I have never done any drugs like crack or smack as it just seems dirty as fuck to me, but I did smoke weed everyday when I was like 13 to 16 and while not addictive in a physical sense I think it is easy to gain a phsycological dependency.

I have not heard of many casual smackheads etc, not that I doubt some people such as you can control addictive cravings before it gets too hard after things like prolonged use.

I went vegan, quit smoking and drinking and started jogging all in one day though so I think I would be able to pull of the occasional crack smoker part quite well grin

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 7 2011 17:56
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

alcohol is vary addictive, and addicts can actual die if they cant get it something that doesn't happen with any other drugs i can think of. Weed is general consumed along with tobacco which is vary addictive and dangerous even when used properly.

and 1+ what Pikel said

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 18:00
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
I have not heard of many casual smackheads etc, not that I doubt some people such as you can control addictive cravings before it gets too hard after things like prolonged use.

Well, I personally would avoid becoming a smack head by avoiding the prolonged use! It's the repeated delivery that builds physical tolerance and dependence. I am not going to try repeated delivery of heroin to see if I can stop!

Many heroin users have underlying issues such as abusive family relationships and such like*, and the heroin is an escape. In those cases I think the risk of dependence from the outset does in fact exist, because of this psychological aspect.

* other issues including social alienation in capitalist society.

Quote:
I went vegan, quit smoking and drinking and started jogging all in one day though so I think I would be able to pull of the occasional crack smoker part quite well grin

If you decide to try that experiment, which I hope you don't, on your own head be it!

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 18:10
radicalgraffiti wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

alcohol is vary addictive

So if alcohol is legal and kills loads of people etc, why do people say make heroin legal to avoid deaths through it going underground?

I think people should be free to take what they want, I am just saying seems that arguement is a fallacy. Sorry for getting off topic I just find this subject interesting.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 18:14
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
So if alcohol is legal and kills loads of people etc, why do people say make heroin legal to avoid deaths through it going underground?

Because heroin is less toxic than alcohol. Pure heroin won't cause actual organic disease, even if you take it every day. Alcohol taken every day can give you cancer and other horrible diseases.

And +1 what radicalgraffiti said!

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 7 2011 18:12
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

alcohol is vary addictive

So if alcohol is legal and kills loads of people etc, why do people say make heroin legal to avoid deaths through it going underground?

I think people should be free to take what they want, I am just saying seems that arguement is a fallacy. Sorry for getting off topic I just find this subject interesting.

alcohol was even more dangerous through impurities when illegal

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 18:14
radicalgraffiti wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
i really doubt that, i'm sure drugs would still be fun in communism, and people would still take them, maybe less but i don't see why people would give them up altogether, and i don't see that it would be desirable for them to either.

Heroin and crack are not exactly fun after they have ruined your life.

Again I don't think weed and alcohol will be discarded as they can be social and also smoke and drink where as I hear crack and heroin are, shall we say, a little morish grin

Point is, if we reach a stage of total equality, then why would people risk getting hooked on a drug that can kill you and is addictive from the first intake?

Not that I am certain, I just think peoples priorities would shift.

alcohol is vary addictive

So if alcohol is legal and kills loads of people etc, why do people say make heroin legal to avoid deaths through it going underground?

I think people should be free to take what they want, I am just saying seems that arguement is a fallacy. Sorry for getting off topic I just find this subject interesting.

alcohol was even more dangerous through impurities when illegal

I mean the argument when used about making heroin legal, seeing as Alcohol and tobacco both legalised, are the biggest killers?

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Nov 7 2011 18:15
Pikel wrote:
I agree, I think motivations will be different though, it will be a positive exploration of novel experience rather than an escape from banal experience. Of course the former already takes place, it's the balance that will shift.

I wholly agree with you. Maybe that's the hippie in me speaking, but I think (or hope) the shift will be away from escapism towards a new form of psychonautism (and of course for plain old fun). Like, once we have "conquered the world", it's time to conquer our inner self and stuff. The other way around, we'd land in the same trap the hippies once fell into...

In my experience though, members of "the scene" (that is, communists and anarchists) are decidedly anti-drug... I wonder why? Too "petty bourgeois" for them? tongue

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 18:16
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
I mean the argument when used about making heroin legal, seeing as Alcohol and tobacco both legalised, are the biggest killers?

It's not their legal status that makes them dangerous, it's the nature of the chemicals. More specifically with tobacco it's the combustion and inhalation of plant material that gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine, nor the fact that you can buy it at corner shops.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 18:22
Railyon wrote:
In my experience though, members of "the scene" (that is, communists and anarchists) are decidedly anti-drug... I wonder why? Too "petty bourgeois" for them? tongue

You're in Germany, I've been led to believe that the general culture there is decidedly anti-drug. My first hand anecdote is that I found it next to impossible to get drugs at a massive music festival near Berlin, or in nightclubs in Berlin. Quite different to the UK!

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 18:24
Pikel wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
I mean the argument when used about making heroin legal, seeing as Alcohol and tobacco both legalised, are the biggest killers?

It's not their legal status that makes them dangerous, it's the nature of the chemicals. More specifically with tobacco it's the combustion and inhalation of plant material that gives you lung cancer, not the nicotine, nor the fact that you can buy it at corner shops.

Let me rephrase.

Why do some people say that legalising heroin and crack will reduce the number of deaths, when alcohol and tobacco are legal and kill the most people.
I have heard lefties say this and I think its not true but do not know about the subject to say wether it is or not, however i think under capitalism it makes no difference as only when we have conditions without oppression or hierachy will everything including drug use, in society, take on a different function.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 18:34
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
Why do some people say that legalising heroin and crack will reduce the number of deaths, when alcohol and tobacco are legal and kill the most people.
I have heard lefties say this and I think its not true but do not know about the subject to say wether it is or not, however i think under capitalism it makes no difference as only when we have conditions without oppression or hierachy will everything including drug use, in society, take on a different function.

Legalising heroin would mean that heroin users could get pharmaceutical grade heroin. Pharmaceutical grade heroin, unless taken in overdose, will not kill you. Heroin fatalities are typically a result either of deadly impurities (cuts introduced by dealers to boost profits, or simply as the result of poor processing), or unexpectedly pure heroin leading to overdose. Legalising heroin removes these two deadly factors.

I'm not really up on my crack to comment on that.

Alcohol kills people because it is, in it's pure form*, toxic to the body. Making it illegal would introduce impurities due to black-market production, making it even more deadly.

Does that make it clearer?

* I don't mean that you have to drink pure alcohol to receive the toxic effects. I mean that the alcohol in your pint of lager or babycham is toxic, despite being legal and being produced in the regulated market.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Nov 7 2011 18:35
Pikel wrote:
Railyon wrote:
In my experience though, members of "the scene" (that is, communists and anarchists) are decidedly anti-drug... I wonder why? Too "petty bourgeois" for them? tongue

You're in Germany, I've been led to believe that the general culture there is decidedly anti-drug. My first hand anecdote is that I found it next to impossible to get drugs at a massive music festival near Berlin, or in nightclubs in Berlin. Quite different to the UK!

Hmm, you can get pot everywhere around here but other drugs are indeed hard to come by. Would love to try some DMT or Mescalin.

It's true that the 'general culture' is pretty conservative, and only pot is prevalent among young people, at least where I live. Heroin and Crack are more a problem of the metropolises, but that should come to no surprise. In clubs, especially in Berlin, getting some XTC or stuff should be no problem I think...

Germany had its own hippie thing going on in the 70s, "Krautrock". You can still feel that a lot of people (my dad for example) are still somewhat connected to that emotionally, but most of them went 'straight' and got a 9 to 5 job...

It's kind of weird, if you openly admit to the older generation that you smoke pot for example, you're automatically some kind of unwashed hippie (or at least intellectually inferior), though most likely they had a drug phase of their own back in the day and lots of people still smoke it as adults lol.

BrazillianJiuJitsu1992's picture
BrazillianJiuJi...
Offline
Joined: 26-10-11
Nov 7 2011 18:39
Pikel wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
Why do some people say that legalising heroin and crack will reduce the number of deaths, when alcohol and tobacco are legal and kill the most people.
I have heard lefties say this and I think its not true but do not know about the subject to say wether it is or not, however i think under capitalism it makes no difference as only when we have conditions without oppression or hierachy will everything including drug use, in society, take on a different function.

Legalising heroin would mean that heroin users could get pharmaceutical grade heroin. Pharmaceutical grade heroin, unless taken in overdose, will not kill you. Heroin fatalities are typically a result either of deadly impurities (cuts introduced by dealers to boost profits, or simply as the result of poor processing), or unexpectedly pure heroin leading to overdose. Legalising heroin removes these two deadly factors.

I'm not really up on my crack to comment on that.

Alcohol kills people because it is, in it's pure form*, toxic to the body. Making it illegal would introduce impurities due to black-market production, making it even more deadly.

Does that make it clearer?

* I don't mean that you have to drink pure alcohol to receive the toxic effects. I mean that the alcohol in your pint of lager or babycham is toxic, despite being legal and being produced in the regulated market.

Yeah thanks.

I was thinking of brewing my own hooch, is that a bad idea then?

Also do you know how safe smoking weed through a vapouriser is?

thanks for being my askjeeves of drugs btw.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 18:54
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:

Yeah thanks.

I was thinking of brewing my own hooch, is that a bad idea then?

Also do you know how safe smoking weed through a vapouriser is?

thanks for being my askjeeves of drugs btw.

Home distillation is a bad idea if you don't do it properly! I've thought about doing it myself. It's illegal, mind. I was going to build my own still, there are guides on the web. It would take a lot of reading and planning, and hard work. I believe it's legal in New Zealand, for personal use, or it was.

I certainly wouldn't do it just to save money.

Vapouriser is definitely much less bad for your lungs than joints/bongs. I can't quantify how much safer, but a lot safer.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 19:02
Railyon wrote:
Germany had its own hippie thing going on in the 70s, "Krautrock". You can still feel that a lot of people (my dad for example) are still somewhat connected to that emotionally, but most of them went 'straight' and got a 9 to 5 job...

I do like a bit of Neu!

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 7 2011 19:16

In my comments on what makes heroin use life-threatening, I've totally neglected the risks involved in re-using and sharing needles for intravenous injection. This leads to exposure to various, possibly fatal, infectious disease.

I'm not sure how exactly prohibition affects this, it's not illegal to purchase syringes (you can buy them online). But it's probably not very easy to get them in an ad-hoc manner. I had to explain myself when I bought an oral syringe from a chemist, used for giving Kalpol etc to infants.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Nov 7 2011 19:29

That's why I'm in favor of "sterile needle dispensers" (or whatever those would be called where you are). We got some set up around the city. (In the unlikely case you don't know what those are, they're like vending machines where you can discard used needles and get new, sterile ones in return) I found that to be a commendable concept.

A lot of people see those as promoting heroin use though... which is really sad in my opinion, and obviously doesn't help nor attack addiction at its roots.

That's conservatives for you...

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 7 2011 19:30
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
Pikel wrote:
BrazillianJiuJitsu1992 wrote:
Why do some people say that legalising heroin and crack will reduce the number of deaths, when alcohol and tobacco are legal and kill the most people.
I have heard lefties say this and I think its not true but do not know about the subject to say wether it is or not, however i think under capitalism it makes no difference as only when we have conditions without oppression or hierachy will everything including drug use, in society, take on a different function.

Legalising heroin would mean that heroin users could get pharmaceutical grade heroin. Pharmaceutical grade heroin, unless taken in overdose, will not kill you. Heroin fatalities are typically a result either of deadly impurities (cuts introduced by dealers to boost profits, or simply as the result of poor processing), or unexpectedly pure heroin leading to overdose. Legalising heroin removes these two deadly factors.

I'm not really up on my crack to comment on that.

Alcohol kills people because it is, in it's pure form*, toxic to the body. Making it illegal would introduce impurities due to black-market production, making it even more deadly.

Does that make it clearer?

* I don't mean that you have to drink pure alcohol to receive the toxic effects. I mean that the alcohol in your pint of lager or babycham is toxic, despite being legal and being produced in the regulated market.

Yeah thanks.

I was thinking of brewing my own hooch, is that a bad idea then?

Also do you know how safe smoking weed through a vapouriser is?

thanks for being my askjeeves of drugs btw.

brewing alcohol is a good idea imo, is quite easy to do, actual have some on the go at the moment, but you wont necessarily save any money. distilling is quite different.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Nov 10 2011 13:26

There is a difference between abolishing drug laws and leaving it up to people to make their own decisions, and 'legalization' (allowing addictive substances to be marketed the way alcohol and tobacco currently are). Most of the harm done by heroin on all aspects of an addicts life is due to prohibition itself- something the numerous success stories from opioid replacement therapy programs prove beyond any doubt (particularly the diamorphine maintenance programs- where addicts who have been using for over 20 years, have attempted to be treated by several treatment modalities like methadone maintenance, medicated detox with clonidine, etc now hold down jobs and/or go to school, do not engage in criminal activity and improve their health by leaps and bounds).

Quote:
Drugs are only a factor in capitalist society due to the nature of the alienation, depression we face under it and the escapism we seek. Sure we all like to blaze a spliff every once in a while but hard drugs, especially Heroin and crack, are but a form of escape from miserable conditions, thats what marx was talking about with religeon, an escape for people seeking something admist their poverty.

When we control our own futures, communities and workplaces, the people will not need to shoot something into themselves to get high, they will be high from the society itself and the amazing new set of conditions we have and the opportunities in it to be happy.

This is a very dangerous idea, and it was used by the Maoists in China to 'cure' the people of opium addiction. If you don't stop using opium you are de facto choosing not to participate in the new 'revolutionary peoples state' and are thus a counter-revolutionary, alien element. The RCP-USA has a long ass-kissing article about this program to handle drug users and addicts in a future M-L society on their website.

Drug use and addiction is not caused by capitalism. There is no one 'cause' to point at and when it is eradicated addiction and drug use will be gone. As was mentioned earlier, the majority of people who use addictive drugs are not themselves addicts. Dr.Dole, founder of methadone maintenance, estimated 1 in 50 people who try heroin will pursue it to the point of addiction and dependency. Where do people who 'joy bang' or party irregularly fall into this dynamic of "capitalism pushes people to try hard drugs and then they become addicted"? Are they only pushed by their material conditions to the use of illegal hard drugs when they are actively using, but they are just another prole the majority of the time when they are not?