Certain drugs banned in an anarchist/communist society?

Most ridiculous post in Libcom history.

it's off-topic,but it's not rediculous, he's right, humans haven't existed for 'hundreds of millions of years' - that's wrong by a factor of several hundred

While Weeler is certainly semi-trolling, implying that the world would be a better place if everyone was on mushrooms is in effect trolling for trolls

Your post makes no sense, first because there's no reason that things cant be transported from south america or asia to europe with out the profit motive. And secondly Opium is grown in the uk

Noone is going to undertake labour intensive processes like growing, harvesting and packaging opium and coca on a commercial scale, for no profit/trade. Theres obviously more to it than just transportation.

Fairplay about growing opium in UK though.

um meth labs are a danger to the community because they fucking blow up.

you could say the same of any product whatsoever. why would a global federation of workers' councils be inherently less minded to produce and transport coca leaves than ipods?

I never considered that this hypothetical drug trade would be a collectively sanctioned activity, I was thinking in terms of a black market within global communism and was pointing out how this wouldn't make economic sense.

Do admin exist anymore or does Weeler get free reign to behave like a cunt (there, see, I can flame too)? I'm pretty disinclined to read his bullshit to be honest. He might have something worthwhile to say but if so, why doesn't he say that instead?

(Incidentally, I'm on antibiotics cos of a gland infection [not glandular fever, lolz] and haven't touched weed in almost a week. Now who's making assumptions?)

Why wouldn't it be? there is a significant proportion of people who like drugs, even if no one else is interested then they would probably help each other out.
I assume you are not suggesting that alcohol, tobacco, coffee, etc would stop being used?
I don't see how any kind of market could exist under communism.

that seems to be futility index's point, that the conditions for a black market don't exist in a world based 'according to needs'. it follows though that if a significant proportion of people are denied their needs by prohibition, such black markets (trading Latin American coca leaves for European meph for example) could emerge.

i don't see why any drug would be prohibited though

I don't see how any drug could be prohibited. Drug use could be regulated, according to the wishes of the community (like maybe no getting fucked up and being a douche in public that sort of thing), but what legislative body would there be to ban a specific drug? And what good would it do anyway? Banning things is a way of ignoring problems not solving them.

New Scientist did a decent meth lab article about 2 yrs ago

in principle workers councils could vote to ban a substance, although I think it would prove unworkable and the treatment more harmful than the cure. just a thought experiment in how black markets could hypothetically exist under communism really.

I'll concede the point that taking too much certain drugs (alcohol included) while you are supervising children may become a moral choice. I take issue with you saying “drinking too much” or “using drugs”. Caffeine and alcohol are drugs as are amphetamines and cocaine. What you've done there is make a distinction between the legal drug alcohol and other “drugs” which are not. Also, drinking alcohol or taking 'shrooms impairs your senses but caffeine or amphetamines make you more awake and alert.

If you are drowsy and flying a plane full of people, the moral choice may be to take some caffeine or speed to keep yourself awake and alert. Taking alcohol or magic mushrooms in this situation is certainly going to end in tragedy.

I mentioned recreational drug use and you jumped straight to “junkies”. I think you should ask yourself why. The distinction between recreational drug use being a “junkie” is a problem for today's society. I know people who've been called a junkie because their drug of choice happens to be illegal. If people are unable to function in their daily lives there is a problem. Likewise, if people are seriously damaging their health and causing a drain on resources there may be a problem too.

Some people's drug of choice is food. It might be chocolate, burgers, cake or all three. What is the difference between a food junkie and a heroine addict? Timescale?

For a start, you can generally trust most people with eating disorders to act like decent human beings and they don't tend to steal your stuff. All addictions are harmful, clearly, but it's simply ridiculous to suggest that the difference between an eating disorder and heroin addiction is simply one of "timescale".

I see you've taken the easy option there Jack. Must I clarify?

Your wife went into early labour and you've been worried sick all night and constantly been on the phone to relatives. You're flying out from Timbuktu and there was nobody else to fly the plane home. You regret the fact you've not had enough sleep before the flight but decided to fly anyway. You've made a big mistake and risked peoples lives but it's too late to turn back now. You're at 20,000 feet and 400 miles out to sea. There is no co-pilot or auto pilot or anybody else who can fly the plane. There is a huge thunderstorm ahead and you feel drowsy. Opening a window for some fresh air is not an option.

It's a small plane and the only stewardess realises your fatigue and hands you a bag of amphetamines that she's had hidden in her snatch. The fact that you fancy her gives you an adrenaline boost. She also gives you a coffee but explains that there is only hot chocolate left.

Would the moral choice then be to take the amphetamines or rely on adrenaline for the remainder of the flight?

Being paranoid and not entirely in control of yourself is definately the best way to fly a plane.

First of all, if drugs (and food) are freely available then nobody is going to have to steal for a fix.

The point about time scale is that a person with an eating addiction will probably kill themselves more slowly than a person with a heroin disorder. Unless they receive help, the end result is the same. You could argue that an obese person may contribute more to society over the course of their lifetime than a heroine junkie but in terms of long term medical care who would be the greater drain on resources?

Some things just shouldn't be freely available. If you're addicted to heroin, you should be able to get a clean, free supply from a qualified doctor as part of a program to get you clean over a gradual period, but the idea that anybody should just be able to stroll into a corner shop and pick up a bag of heroin is, frankly, fucking stupid.

Depends on if you count the resources taken up by supporting somebody who sits around taking smack all day.

I read that USAF pilots are routinely given amphetamines when flying missions. This may be factually incorrect but would go a long way to explaining their propensity for friendly fire. Perhaps they are taking too much?

I take it you answer my previous question by saying you would rather not take amphetamines to see you through the remainder of the flight?

Will there be corner shops in an anarchist society?

contribution(intellect, artistry, labour) – cost(resources)

There are plenty of bean counters out there. I'm sure there will be a measure of a persons overall contribution to an Anarchist society.

Generally I'm of the view that they should be controlled by some sort of an administrative body in order that you don't get a pill that is half rat-poison or something. Rare, but it happens. And I would be concerned if my neighbor was making meth or whatever in his kitchen in the apartment next to me, because (1) I don't want to be in the presence of any toxic fumes and (2) I don't want his set-up exploding, or otherwise fucking up, potentially injuring me or anyone else.

As for what drug is worse, people have spoken of meth and heroin, and reasoned that with those drugs they should remain illegal or be restricted. But the drug which kills more people, which has a substantially larger group of addicts, and which has far more damaging social consequences than meth or heroin is alcohol.

But we don't hear people wanting to ban that.

Show me a social heroin user.

LOL, cuz everyone who takes heroin is automatically a druggy degen. Riiiiiiight.

Of course there are recreational users who are perfectly able to function in society despite taking heroin. People who might do it on the weekends only, or merely one or two times a month. People who might do it once, and never again (or indeed, use it as a form of pain relief). Merely because you're unaware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. And even with addicts, it doesn't mean they're necessarily anti-social, unable to contribute to society and scum of the Earth; there are means to treat the addiction and function in society without the severest forms of heroin addiction. Unfortunately, the position of conservatives is to attack these form of treatments. Obviously not everyone has the capacity to avoid becoming an addict, especially with a drug like heroin.

But, that doesn't invalidate the point that alcohol is by far the most damaging drug. Do you think it should be banned on that basis?

Double post.

Internet sucks.

Even if all the ephedrine in the world disappears it will still be fairly easy to make speed. There are hundreds of potential syntheses. Also it's really easy to make it without blowing up if you're not a complete idiot.