KKE & KNE Take to the Streets Against the Legalisation of Drugs February 6, 2012
Posted by Garibaldy in KKE.trackback
Drugs have obviously long been an issue for the left in Ireland, due to the effect they have on working class communities. Interesting to see the following account of protests by Greek Communists on the KKE international pages against the proposed legalisation of drugs.
Mass and militant youth demonstration of KNE in Athens, yesterday, against the legalization of drugs
Hundreds of members of KNE and friends of the organization took part in the demonstration, 2/2, in the centre of Athens against the draft law of the three-party government (social-democrats-conservatives-nationalists) which legalizes the use, trafficking and supply of drugs.
Speaking at the rally, Giorgos Sideris, member of the Bureau of the CC of KNE, spoke about the issue of drugs in its entirety, revealing the lies and rottenness of the ideological constructs which accompany the “Drug Code”. As he stressed:
“Under the pressure of the communists and the condemnation of the people, the Minister of Justice in his statement today has left open the possibility of the draft law being withdrawn. We are not complacent, we will not stop, we are in a state of vigilance, we will continue more dynamically (…)
They know that they would face the fierce opposition of the working people. They would always find themselves faced by a wall of people from the popular strata who do not want the future of their children to be a drug-fuelled haze. Why they are bringing it now? It is very clear. They want the consciousness of the youth drugged so that they do not have demands, struggle or protest. (…)
Drugs are not a free choice, or right. It is a despotic choice, it is the abolition of every right (…)
“PASOK, together with the opportunists of various shades but especially SYN/SYRIZA as well as Kouvelis’ party(“Democratic Left”), are taking on the burden of promoting and passing this draft law, and the attack against our party. They reproduce the rotten ideological construct of the right to “self-harm”. What are they saying to us? That those who are depriving us of the right to work, education, healthcare, culture, sports are concerned over the “right” for us to harm ourselves. This draft law is an opportunity for conclusions to be drawn. The parties of capital conceal the root of the drug problem. They operate in the line of management and not dealing with the problem, because they serve a system which reproduces the problem of drugs.
The KKE is opposed both to the policies of repression which are represented by parties such as LAOS or fascist forces such as Chrysi Avgi (“Golden Dawn”) and treat users as “scum”, and the so-called “progressive” policies of the legalization and liberalization of drug use, which are represented by forces such as SYN/SYRIZA and various alleged “anti-authoritarians”. On the issue of drugs two basic lines and logics are again coming into conflict. The one of compromise and management and the other of the radical treatment of the problem. The KKE and its youth, KNE, are the only who say NO to all drugs”, concluded the member of the Bureau of the CC.
Rallies of KNE on the issue of drugs also took place in Thessalonica and other major Greek cities.
Sickening. Fascist boot-boys
Sad to see those on the left argue against progressive legislation. They are actually proud to criminalise life-styles! (I refer to KKE &KNE not Garibalsy by the way)
They say “no to all drugs” do they? I presume they are lobbying for alcohol to be prohibited then? or are they just abject hypocrites? (if they are indeed arguing for a prohibtion on all alcohol sales I take that accusation back)
Two other particular weak points:
1) The mention of children. A real low point if you have to rely on this. It is perfectly possible to have sanctions against juvenile use and have drugs legalised
2) The idea that having access to drugs destroys the wish to protest would come as a shock to many of the protestors in the 60s. One could make an equally facile argument that smoking weed gets you to question things – it would be as moronic as the argument it quashes the wish to protest.
The prohibtion against currently illegal drugs is the single most failed social policy of the 20th and 21st century. It has failed in every western state. Drug use has massively grown, authoritarian instincts and laws have grown under its protection and minorities have been persecuted.
Its long since time it was scrapped.
Fascist boot-boys Ramzi for opposing the legalisation of currently illegal narcotics? Really? Is that your attitude towards everyone who shares this view, or just the KKE?
I stuck this up because the issue has a lot of resonance for the left in Ireland, and it seems to me that most Irish left parties would broadly agree with the KKE here (although that might well be wrong, and I am happy to be corrected if that is so). As we all know, drugs are a social issue, both in the reasons for people taking them and in their effects. Looking at working class communities of the US where drugs have a grip it seems to me perfectly right of the KKE to flag up the negative effects of widespread drug use on class consciousness, especially now that we would be talking about much more destructive drugs (although there are obviously other issues at play too in the US). Working class communities, as the speaker quoted here points out, are already suffering massive attacks on their living standards and their quality of life. I fail to see how readily available, legalised drugs would improve that situation, but I can see how they could easily make it worse.
Hi Garibaldy
Actually, “fascist boot-boys” may, I admit, have been a bit of an over-reaction! – One i would have addressed at any party proposing such a course of action.
However although “fascist” is a lazy label, “authoritarian” is not far off the mark. If “you” want to restrict my lifestyle whether it because I’m gay, smoke dope etc. then i think its fair to call “you” authoritarian/fascist etc.
Now if my lifestyle involves beating people up when drunk, fair enough to oppose it, but drug use is by and large a self-regarding action.
A minority of hard drug users steal to fund their habit – something exacerbated by the ludicrously high charges that prohibition brings about. However that is no reason for those who do not break the law to fund their habit should be prosecuted.
You are right that drug use (all kinds, I include alcohol) has caused big problems in working class communities in Ireland, the UK and US. It would be my contention, looking at the evidence, that prohibition makes the damage much worse.
Drugs are readily available at the moment, they are just of a lower quality, highly priced and sold (generally) by exploitative scum. Prohibtion underpins this position. It is basically a licence to print money for criminal gangs (you will be aware it was a real shot in the arm for the Mafia in the states in the 20s)
I think intoxication is pretty much a core human urge. Not as much as sexuality, but it has been present in virtually any society that I can think over the past few thousand years. Cannabis and Opium use go back millenia. Basically, its naive to think this urge is going to go away. It will exist, and the obvious lesson of history of prohibition is that it makes this situation worse, as well as being morally unsound.
Economically legalisation makes sense as well in terms of reducing the money going to police forces and increasing tax take.
Well from what I understand the law in question is seeking to decriminalise the use of drugs not to legalise them. A policy which has seen quite a bit of success in terms of lessening health risks, drug use levels etc in Portugal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/05/portugal-drugs-debate
Looking at the working class communities of the US I think it is quite clear that the status quo has done nothing to lessen the grip of narcotics while treating it a social problem rather than criminalising addicts does.
Im pretty sure SWP’s stance is decriminalisation not sure about other groups.
Is there a harm reduction strategy which doesn’t have decriminalisation as a component?
Decriminalisation for personal use is already in place in Portugal and I believe also in Spain & Italy (at least to some extent) http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
It is difficult to find exact details of the proposed Greek legislation on line (which I think has been shot down by the far-right party anyways) but likely as not it was following in this mould. Seems to have been successful (along with other measures) in Portugal.
Illegal recreational drugs are already err illegal in the U.S. consequently the social harm associated with them in the U.S. is by a long shot not an argument for continuing criminalisation, quite the contrary.
Posted at same time as maddurdu, hence the similar points.
“it seems to me that most Irish left parties would broadly agree with the KKE here (although that might well be wrong, and I am happy to be corrected if that is so)”
The Socialist Party’s approach is of the decriminalisation/medicalisation variety.
The KKE haven’t been backward in inappropriately describing other people as fascists, have they?
I wonder how big these demos actually were, by the way….
far better by Tassos Anastassiadis and Andreas Sartzekis (OKDE-Spartakos): Social explosion, a question of months?
I don’t think that’s really comparing like with like though is it? One is a broad statement of the situation as they see it, and the other is a specific statement on a concrete issue.
I cant help thinking of the 40,000 or so people who have died(according to the Mexican authorities) so that people in the relatively rich west can have their weed and a blast of charlie. How by the way can Greece legalise narcotics without the drugs still originating from trafficers who also traffic, women and children for slavery, for let’s face it western men. There are more way’s of looking at this issue other than the so called personal choice of users.
They died as a direct result of prohibition.
The US govt told the Mexicans to start a war to deal with a domestic US problem.
When alcohol was illegal, Al Capone and co were killing scores of people across America. Was that ultimately the fault of the people who wanted a drink, or the fault of the idiots and puritans who imposed the Volstead Act? I think most people would now say the latter.
I would imagine there is some cross-over between human and drugs trafficking (again another great victory for prohibition in giving such scum another revenue stream) but there are plenty of drug smugglers who have nothing to do with human traficking (or so I read) so it would be more than possible not to rely on people trafickers when sourcing legal drugs.
That should have read 40,000 in the past 2 years BTW.
Again – the violence associated with the illegal drug trade is part of criminalisation and consequently constitutes part of an argument for legalisation. That argument revolving around so much more than personal choice, principally around harm reduction, criminalisation arguably having not had a massive impact on ones ability to exercise ones personal choice to take illegal drugs or not.
Again posting the same time as Ramzi Nohra, so same point! Time to retire!
I have problems with the prohibition analogy because it was banning something that was already legal, that enjoyed much wider use and acceptance amongst the population, and that had been a part of American and previous cultures on a scale that drugs simply do not come close to. So completely different starting points. Had we a blank state, or were they already illegal, I suspect there would be more people in favour of banning say smoking or drinking, but that’s not the case, so no point comparing apples and oranges.
As for the argument about availability etc. Certainly if you want drugs, you can go looking for them and easily find them, But that’s not exactly the same as having crack in the local sweetshop (or a dedicated crack shop). I find it really curious to argue that having such places would make fewer people hooked, and thus would reduce the crime associated with addiction. I think it’s just as, if not more, likely that addiction rates would climb, and with them resultant problems and expenses, especially related to healthcare.
I’m with Paul on the issue on drug-related violence in Latin America. Let’s not pretend that it is the fault of criminalisation. It’s the fault of the people who take the drugs, both the dependent and the recreational users. We can and should treat the dependent, and the social causes that lead to people in working class communities becoming hooked on drugs on a large scale. The recreational users, and especially the David Cameron, public school, dinner party types, I think should be treated much more harshly. For them, it really is a choice, and one made fully conscious of the damage that they are contributing to.
Just on the legalisation of use and the sweet shop analogy, I haven’t heard too many positive views on the “head shops” that were briefly on the scene all over the country a year or two ago. I would imagine most people were happy enough when they were closed down.
The sweet shop analogy is facetious. Head shops were unregulated and were actually not in a legal position to say anything about the effects of what they were selling (incl. safer ways of using) consquently they are more an example of criminalisation than a harm reduction decriminalisation approach, briefly existing in a grey area. Presumbly their not inconsiderable customer base were not too happy about them being closed down. I guess they are not using any drugs now though, right? Probably all pioneers.
i heard during the whole head shop era is was more profitable for a criminal to sell cigerettes than drugs. missed oportunity maybe for the state to regulate the substance and pull the rug from under the gangs.
They arent exact analogies, but they are comparable.
Both the Volstead act and modern drug laws prevented / are preventing adults from doing things to themselves, and have resulted in exactly the same problems in terms of sub-standard product, violence and the creation of authoritarian law enforcement bodies and criminal gangs.
And in both cases the problems are the responsibility of those who have imposed laws curbing adults rights to do what they want with their own bodies.
If anything, those supporting modern drug laws bear more responsiblity as history shows the absolute failiure and massive social costs of their response.
re: south america – there is no pretence about linking drug violence to prohibtion. There has been an increasing call from elements in south america to fully legalise drugs, rather than carry on the existing policy of fighting an US war by proxy. The pretence I am afraid is from those seeking to de-link human nature to the obvious, predictable and proven side effects of prohibition.
I find it extremely worrying that you think recreational users should be treated more harshly.
“For them, it really is a choice, and one made fully conscious of the damage that they are contributing to.”
So how are you/judiciary going to demonstrate this damage when sentencing, or is it going to be completely arbitrary? If someone, say, grows and smokes their own weed, in their own house, then what possible impact on anyone else would they have? Yet they would still be persecuted under your approach.
“I find it really curious to argue that having such places would make fewer people hooked”
A fair point.
can i ask you – if there was such a shop selling crack near would you use it?
I doubt so. if you want to take drugs you would already take them.
Indeed there is the argument that taking away the “glamour” of the illict would detract from drugs attractiveness.
I would agree that it may mean people would take drugs more often in some instances – this would have health impacts.
However the drugs would not contain as many adulterants, could be sold at set percentage purities etc – the health benefits of which are massive for those effected.
I would be wary of anyone who said drug legalisation is a panacea – I would simply argue it is better than the current situation.
I don’t have time to respond to you and Tel in full, but the point of drugs (as indeed with alcohol) is that there are social consequences of individual choices, and society has a right to intervene to protect itself from things which do harm to others.
I’d be more sympathetic to people who grow their own than I would to the Bullingdon types who fuel violence at home and abroad for their own satisfaction whiled denouncing others for a failure in social responsibility etc.
On the crack shop. I wouldn’t go in, but surely it’s nearly a certainty that there are many occasional users who would go in much more if they could call in on their way to get the paper or whatever?
Appreciate you are pressed for time etc, and appreciate the response, but your point about
“there are social consequences of individual choices, and society has a right to intervene to protect itself from things which do harm to others”
is debatable here. If the state can intervene here, when can it not intervene?
Imagine someone holding a demonstration against a social policy the government was pursuing. They would be stopping traffic, increasing the potential for violence and damage of property etc Basically causing a hell of a lot more harm to others than someone smoking a joint. Surely the state would be more than justified in stepping in to ban this dangerous behaviour?
Previous cultures,hmm:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha5208.html
Comrade Garibaldy,
Apart for his harsh language, I am with Ramzi on this, the KKE comrades language is opportunist to the core, yes working class communities have been ravaged by illicit drugs. Although we should pause and understand this is no where near as bad as the MSM claims. Having said that, it is the total illegality of these substances which has created these problems; and the opportunistic and oppressive manner the police and courts use the drug laws. No surprise about this as these laws are not fit for purpose.
You yourself correctly said ” drugs are a social issue,” indeed they are, but not in our societies, as due to US insistence, since the 1920s they have become world wide a criminal and judicial issue. It is worth remembering until the early 20th century narcotics were perfectly legal with millions of people consuming them for a host of differing reasons.
The only major problems which arose were when British imperialism went to war with China to gain the bigger share of the opium trade.
Today illicit drugs have been used by the state to criminalise our children in the most punitive way, over two thirds of all prisoners are in jail directly or indirectly due to their drug use.
Only a wicked arsehole, a brain dead moron, or someone who is blind to the truth would fail to understand the illegality of drugs has been a terrible disaster.
What angers me about the KKE comrade is he ignores a century of hateful class based capitalist drug legislation, and ends up supporting it against a reasonable liberal proposal,
If we ever see the day when we life in a civilised society, the way drug users have been treated will be looked back on with shame. Tell me why must a working class drug addict first be seen by a psychiatrist before they can gain even harm reduction treatment, yet a heavy smoker can go to his local chemist buy a patch and be given leaflets, etc?
The drug laws are utter madness. As someone has already said, this legislation is a good thing and should be grabbed with both hands, no matter who is proposing it. True it is probably a Pasok trade of or some such, but so what. We socialists in our trade union work make trade offs all the time
I have to say the KKE stance on this reflect just how shockingly conservative much of the left still is. Unlike most of the working class communities he mentions, I would bet my miserable pension the overwhelming majority of working class people would support the major changes to the drug laws which this bill entails.
Let me tell you when it comes to drug treatment, working class people get the psychiatrist shit, whilst the bourgeoise have the cash to go to a private doctor and get a script.
Comradely regards.
Mick
Hi Mick,
I agree entirely that treatment strategies need to be altered to make treatment more readily available to working class (and other) addicts, and that treatment is better than thinking it’s simply a law and order problem. However, I would be surprised if the KKE on this position is not in step with the majority of working class attitudes in Greece. I think that’s at least as likely as the opposite. I think that in Ireland, north and south, opposition to this type of legislation would be massive in working class communities. Is this conservatism? I don’t believe it is. I think it’s a result of the damage that drugs do and a fear that making them more easily available would increase that damage.
The proposed law isnt making drugs more available, it is decriminalising the possession of drugs to a certain quantity presumably in line with what is the norm in Portugal and in the the Netherlands in terms of stronger narcotics. To portray it as legalisation is dishonest as supply is still illegal and jusdging from the aforementioned examples it actually allows law enforcement to dedicate more energy and resources to the bigger fish.
If I was the KKE I would be critical of cynicism of introducing such a policy as you are concurrently gutting the health services not grandstanding in a reactionary manner over a policy itself which attempts to deal with the issue rather continuing the current farce.
The KKE in the statement quoted makes exactly the point about health services you are talking about.
Eh while it does mention healthcare in terms of ‘depriving us of the right to work, education, healthcare, culture, sports’. It doesnt make the point I made that it is cynical to introduce such a progressive policy whilst concurrently destroying your ability to make it effective.
It merely falsely equates decriminalisation with legalisation in a manner that is both dishonest and reactionary.
by the way I think the language in my first post could have been more constructively phrased – apologies for that!
Mick – eloquently put.
Here the cops are unable to stop drugs being dealed. The Provos in their militant heyday could control it’s spread. Can’t do that anymore. The gangs grow in spite of killing themsleves successfully. Oh, which shows capital punishment does not work.
The attached article shows what the so-called war on drugs is doing to Mexico. A close friend tells me one drug cartel controls an armoured division of the Mexican army.
I hate drugs. But addicts should be treated. It causes less social damage than pretending it can be banned.
First the KKE should form a United Front and show sceptics that KKE rule does not mean a one party state, the win against the troiks and the Vichy elements.
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2452&var_recherche=Drug%20leglisation
Garibaldy can you tell us about the harm reduction strategy which doesn’t have decriminalisation as a component?
“I’m with Paul on the issue on drug-related violence in Latin America. Let’s not pretend that it is the fault of criminalisation. It’s the fault of the people who take the drugs, both the dependent and the recreational users.”
You are right – if there was no market for the drugs supplied by the narcotraficante there would be no narcotraficante however as you will have noticed the war on drugs has been ongoing now since the 1960s or earlier and doesn’t look to me like it has had an impact on that market – which is growing (indeed it is questionable if that is the point of the ‘war on drugs’ in the first place). The idea that current policies will remove that market anytime soon is utopian. If you make something illegal you put it in the hands of criminal gangs period.
The experience of the number of countries who have tried to move away from utopian drugs prohibition have not been unsuccessful – when I briefly studied the subject a good few years ago it was for instance noticeable that there was a big average age difference between people with addiction problems in Britain and Ireland compared with Holland. There wasn’t an up and coming generation of people with seriously problematic drug use in Holland. Certainly the experience of Portugal linked to above (but not being engaged with) also seems to be postive.
Decriminalisation harm reduction strategies could involve things like:
Regulation of ‘soft’ drugs for quality e.g. the famous E – testing in Holland in the 90s (a major health concern then being adulteration), or more ambitously the traditional less potent strains of cannabis could be made legally available – which could impact negativly on the market for newer strains associated with mental health problems. Legalisation at this end would remove the supply link between the less problematic drugs and the more problematic drugs.
Supply (by the health service) to registered addicts of a regulated standard quality of heroin – removing the dangers of adulteration and fluctuations in potency (a major cause of overdoses) and impacting heavily on the criminal market in heroin by removing the customer base.
It is better to have something legal, open and heavily regulated (and taxed) and overseen by health professionals than than to hand it over to a criminal free market interested only in profit and immersed in violence. That is what drug prohibition is about – not ending the use of illegal drugs (it has obviously failed massivly) but rather multiplying the problems of drug use and bolstering organised crime.
It is time to treat the use of illegal recreational drugs as a health problem not a criminal problem.
Tel, as noted above in a bit of a hurry now. I don’t support current policies as they are. A change in approach is needed. But I don’t believe that legalisation is the correct approach. I do think a more holistic approach to the causes of drug use and the treatment of users is necessary.
I suppose folk are aware of the recent controversy in the UK following publication of the views of the government’s scientific advisor on drug policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
what thsi showed was that it is very hard to get governments (and the KKE it seems) to think rationally and scientifically about this problem.
Why do the KKE take this position? It seems to fly in the face of all the evidence. Inate conservatism? Just to oppose the government? A knee jerk against what it sees as middel class liberalism?
I’m in no way intending to diss the KKE, but on this topic I’d very hesitantly propose that it’s a cleaving to a perception of society that has been washed away. Of course if people didn’t take drugs, didn’t buy consumer items, didn’t do x y and z then everything would be perfect – except it wasn’t then and it wouldn’t be now.
I’m fairly straight edge personally, don’t take any drugs bar alcohol and haven’t in a long time. But I’ve had close enough friends who who used everything up to and including heroin – and it’s only convinced me that we’re not talking about the same thing when we talk of ‘drugs’ but of many different things on a spectrum.
So I guess I’m in the decriminalisation/medicalisation camp.
No-one is arguing that addicts should not receive treatment. We are all agreed on that. Most of us seem agreed that there needs to be an attack on the social conditions that create addiction. Here’s the question though. As far as I understand it, the Portugese version decriminalises the user but not the seller. I’ve had a quick squint at the SWP and SP websites, and the SWP has an article by McCann citing the Portugese example, and the SP has some, with the SY seems to suggest, if I’ve understood it right, that they would adopt a Portugese-type approach. So are people here advocating the continued jailing of people who sell drugs? I have a feeling Ramzi isn’t, but what about everyone else and/or their parties?
The trouble is that at the retail end the addicts deal to fund their habit. Only a robust approach on the Concerned Parent (backed by the IRA) level woul deal with it on a prohibition level. Now I think t he gangs would win against a similar movement such is their arms.
Let the addicts get their drugs through the pharamacies and do what the Dutch do.
At the same time recognise that drugs are a problem not a life style.
I am told that drug driving is worse and a greater problem than drink driving.One survey had a 1/3 of drunk drivers also having drugs.
At the moment methadone is supplied by the HSE to circa 9,000 addicts in the 26 counties, it is more addictive than (and thereby more difficult to come off), and possibly as lethal as, heroin –
http://www.choosehelp.com/news/world/in-ireland-a-cure-worse-than-the-disease-methadone-kills-more-than-heroin-each-year.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/report-finds-methadone-contributes-to-more-deaths-than-heroin-1275181.html
There may be grounds for supplying heroin instead. I seem to recall a case for that when I looked at this issue many moons ago. What I am certain of is policies on this matter need to be formulated free of the influence of puritan tabloid hysteria, though I am almost as certain this is unlikely to happen.
Beyond that re: talking about treatment you need to address the fact that the overwhelming bulk of the usage of illegal recreational drugs is by no means inherently problematic, adictive etc.. (as I think heroin use is) and consequently treatment is not the issue (regulation is).
According to the most recent study:
“The highest lifetime prevalence for use of any illegal drugs was recorded amongst those aged 25-34 (42%) followed by the 35-44 (29%) and 15-24 (27%) age groups. Those aged between 25-34 years report highest lifetime prevalence of cannabis (39%), cocaine (13%), amphetamines (8%), ecstasy (15%), LSD (8%), magic mushrooms (12%), solvents (5%) and poppers (8%) while use of other opiates (42%) is most prevalent among those aged 35-44 years. Heroin (1%), methadone (1%) and anti-depressants (14%) are highest among those aged 45-54 year, while sedatives or tranquillisers is highest among those aged 55-64 years (21%).”
These are probably underestimates as the report points out –
“Drug prevalence questions are considered to be sensitive and therefore people may refuse to participate or under-report their drug use.”
http://www.nacd.ie/publications/drug_use_ireland.pdf
I’d say allowing for that we are talking about around a fifth of people under around 40 being, or having been, users of a range of illegal recreational drugs (and I would say the majority being, or having been, cannabis users). Personally to me a fifth seems like a fantastically low percentage but we’ll go with it as beyond it we only seem to have anecdote.
There is no good reason why users of cannabis, MDMA/ecstasy, and the hallucinogens shouldn’t have available to them a regulated quality controlled product supplied with information as to what it is and what it does – given as health concerns focus on particular strains or random muck being thrown in during the production process to reduce costs.
Moreover, particularly important in regard to youth, legalisation would remove the supply of popular, and not inherently very harmful at all, recreational drugs from the same sector of the economy that supplies heroin.
In regard to the social consequences of individual choices and the talk of how the user is responsible for the violence of the industry and so forth I can only presume the people employing that argument – so reminiscent of green consumerism – forgo plastic, power their cars with recycled vegetable oil, don’t use air travel, don’t consume red meat, only buy fair trade coffee or chocolate and make their own clothes.
The ‘war on drugs’ in the U.S has led to mass incarceration of working class young men, mostly black or Hispanic. And the needless killing of many more.
‘A teenager was shot and killed by a police officer in the Bronx on Thursday afternoon after running into his home as officers pursued him, the authorities.
Paul J. Browne, the New York Police Department’s chief spokesman, said there was “no evidence that he was armed” when the officer, a member of a narcotics unit, shot him once in the upper left chest. It was unclear what had prompted the chase, Mr. Browne said.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/nyregion/unarmed-teenager-fatally-shot-by-officer-chasing-him.html
“Most of us seem agreed that there needs to be an attack on the social conditions that create addiction.”
Garibaldy
I do not agree with you on this, and with respect you are all over the place on this, the above is absolute bollocks, social conditions do not create addiction. Narcotics do! This argument is bourgeois crap, as beneath the fluff it is based on a fault in the individual addict, as the overwhelming majority of working class people do not become addicted. It is worse than that, it fails to explain why middle and upper middle class people also become addicted. Presumably they became addicts because they lived in a decent home, had a good education and their bellies were filled with good food daily?
The poor social conditions only comes into play as they expose working class addicts to the public spotlight and places them in the way of the full force of the law and the drug treatment industry, which tars them as mad, sad, or bad. You only have to look at the backgrounds of the drug addicts who come before the judicial system to understand class prejudice is at work.
People become addicted because the narcotics they use are highly addictive, it is that simply, its not rocket science, true research has claimed some folk are more likely to become addicted than others, but this has nothing to do with social class. The reason is to do with body metabolism, etc but research into this is inconclusive.
Yes methadone is highly addictive, it was first invented by Nazi scientists as a substitute for heroin, which they could not then source, and used treating wounded solders etc, in WW2 to kill pain.
In a perfect world no young addict should be prescribed meth until they have been through a programe of detox in a secure facility. (not prison) However we do not live in a perfect world and there is little doubt in my mind, after a period of rigorous assessment all opiate addicts should be prescribed the drug they are addicted to. I see no reason why they should not pay for their drugs themselves, just as people have to pay for their cigarets. If at first they are in economic hardship they should be state subsidised, but only for the time they need to get back on their feat.
The one advantage of Methadone is it is much cheaper when brought legally. Although given the NATO involvement in Afghanistan, it is shameful they have not brought up at a fair market rate the opium that nation produces.
One of the major downsides of the methadone programe being turned over to the medical profession in the last three decades of the last century, they had to justify why they were ‘treating addicts’ and build a career structure out of it.
Hence mental health issues became entangled with addiction and a whole host of nonsensical justifications as to why people become addicted.
They mainly used the mad, bad or sad criteria and the latter is where the social conditions cut in.
As to the PIRA’s attitude to drugs, it could be justified in war, as dealers and addicts were targeted by the security services to become touts. To carry on with this today is simply demonstrating reactionary catholic attitudes and brings shame on all Irish republicans.
The need to improve the social conditions has nothing to do with addiction, it is because that is what we socialists are about. If addicts or any working class people live in bad social conditions it is intolerable and we fight against it, but we should not combine these social conditions and drug addiction, as it is just what our enemies wish. I e, whether we mean to or not, we offer up scapegoats within our communities.
The simply fact is prohibition of illicit drugs has proved disastrous, time to try something else. The ‘English system’ of buying heroin via script at a chemist worked well for approximately 70 years, we know it works. Then in the late 1960s our (UK) politicians panicked and we are were we are.
Narcotic prohibition exists because the USA demands it, they have stood against all reform, it is as simply as that.
“The one advantage of Methadone is it is much cheaper when brought legally. Although given the NATO involvement in Afghanistan, it is shameful they have not brought up at a fair market rate the opium that nation produces”
There is a ctually a worldwide shortage of opium for use in painkillers etc, while at the same time we are burning poppy fields in Afghanistan. It is so stupid that you cant help but think there is another agenda at work.
Sorry, I should have added, the wider drug laws which comrades have mentioned above are designed to police and criminalise young
people, especially young working class people, and more young lives
have been ruined by these laws than by the comparatively harmless drugs like cannabis, etc.
Besides, for all the media and police talk about drug dealers, when is a major producer or suppler ever arrested, let alone their financiers.
An interesting and timely debate.
I think all sides in this argument are broadly right – yes legalising (or decriminalising) drugs would solve many issues currently caused by their criminalisation, yes legalising would create new issues, some of which may be just as problematic as the old ones, yes drugs and addiction cannot be seperated from the social conditions in which use and abuse thrives, and yes narcotics are capable of causing addiction by themselves.
I’m not really sure we who see ourselves as ‘on the left’ should be worrying too much about decriminalising or legalising drugs right now, a more pressing issue is working in our communities to combat the very real problems caused by general criminality, including drugs – and promoting ideas around real social change.
If a liberal government was to decriminalise all recreational drugs tomorrow, working class areas would still be blighted by crime and anti social behaviour, and society as a whole would still have the same levels of domestic violence, abuse, etc.
As others have pointed out, alcohol is legal but still a major factor in all sorts of crime and disorder, why would it be any different for drugs?
[...] discussion here on the proposals in Greece to decriminalise recreational [...]
I have to say I have never read so much drivel on this site before ,if any of you lived where I lived over the past 20 odd years and seen the zombie like gaunt faces of teenagers wandering around,the utter helplessness and hopelessness of thousands of youth abandoned mostly to charities.Giving out free heroin and getting rid of all the drug gangs wouldn’t stop this.The violence committed by crack and coke heads (when they are high,ie not committing crime to buy drugs) on society outweighs gang violence.An increase in supply will give an increase in use,compare Afghan usage with Somali usage. If somebody offered me drugs now No I would not take and suddenly become an addict BUT maybe as a 17 year old at a party had somebody offered me something extra that was legal who knows .
Does anybody know any drug users who arn’t ultimately boring
> Does anybody know any drug users who arn’t ultimately boring
I’m not sure I know any complete drug abstainers tbh. Actively stoned people are about as boring as drunk people, but then most drug users aren’t gaunt faced zombies 24/7 either.
I’m not sure I know any complete drug abstainers tbh.
What counts?
test
“The violence committed by crack and coke heads (when they are high,ie not committing crime to buy drugs) on society outweighs gang violence”
Any evidence for this? I cant think of many murders recently put down to this cause, as opposed to the scores killed through gang violence
“Does anybody know any drug users who arn’t ultimately boring?”
Unlike authoritarian puritans eh? They are a barrel of laughs
“An increase in supply will give an increase in use,compare Afghan usage with Somali usage”
Drugs are heavily used in both countries
I seem to remember a lot of court cases where both vicious assault and murder were committed and drug use being used as a mitigating factor.I have seen numerous examples of people high on drugs becomming violent ask any bouncer.
So in your mind an Authoritian puritan is the opposite of a drug addict/user
I only mentioned Afghanistan because I seen a programme about its heroin problem last night and it’s exploded in recent years because of cheap availability more so than under any previous administration.
Alastair,I dont know who you hang out with but most drug users are identifiable mainly due to their appearance and antics of coarse if all your friends are like this it gets harder to spot.
I’d like to applaud HAL for his hugely entertaining contributions to this thread. No ignorant cliche or tabloid talking point left behind.
Thanks Mark,although not being familiar with ignorant cliches and tabloid banter I’ll bow to your knowledge on these points.
I am looking at this from a different angle. The political economy of Imperialism dictates that the developing world export their resources, food and their young as cheap labour to the west. The last point should resonate with anyone who is Irish. Can anyone honestly say that the export of narcotics and the trafficking of women and ” illegal immigrants” to the west is not part of the same process.
I would recommend the series of books written by General Fabian Escalante the former chief of Cuban counter intelligence on the war against Cuba, as Escalante points out there was no difference between the CIA, the Cuban Exiles and the Mafia, they were all inextricably linked. The planes that flew weapons south from the U.S.A. carried heroin back to US air force bases in the states. While the authorities turned a blind eye to its distribution in the States.
A lyric from a Clash song springs to mind about “Heroin Pity”. Dont recreational drug users bear some responsibilty for this situation?
Presumably you are suggesting that recreational drug users should insist on fair trade heroin only? And that working class people who buy cheap clothes “bear some responsibility” for the existence of sweatshops?
The political economy of drugs is an interesting subject. Although your apparent assumption that they are produced in the Third World is far too sweeping. It very much depends on the drug and the time period. Nowadays, cannabis tends to be produced in Britain and Ireland for the home market. Ecstasy is mostly from continental Europe.
Exactly. This elision of heroin with all else is a sort of mystification to exaggerate the issue. I’m no fan of drugs, but a bit of reality as to their effects – no, people on drugs recreationally are no more zombie like than those who drink pints, and sometimes much less so, and where they’re produced might be useful.
I’ve no time for those who use cocaine given the means of production/distribution, and heroin is a curse, but ecstasy and cannabis however much they’re not for me simply don’t have the same issues surrounding them and decriminalisation would be a sensible first step.
It’s hard to pull off “working class communities will be ravaged by people going out for the odd dance”, or “the streets will be filled with savage, blood-crazed hippies” line of argument with a straight face.
And doesn’t it completely miss the normative aspect of softer drugs in the lived experience of people in communities.
This debate has moved on so much I’m not going to respond to all the points made but just specifically on this point about Cuban exiles and the CIA and the drug trade. I’ve been reading on and off the following book, American Desperado about a man who was a major figure in moving Colombian drugs into the US.
American Desperado: My life as a Cocaine Cowboy
I’ve not sure how reliable a source he is, but in it he identifies a bodyguard/assassin of a Miami drug figure from Latin America he worked with as having later joined the CIA. Evan Wright, the author of Generation Kill, who co-wrote the book in a footnote points out that the guy ended up in a very senior position in W’s anti-terrorism efforts. This would suggest that Paul is onto something, and the name clearly wasn’t pulled out of a hat.
As for the criticism about people pointing out the effects of westerners participating in this trade along the lines of making their own clothes etc. This wasn’t the attitude that people took to South African goods under apartheid. Not exactly the same situation at all, but that seems to me at least an appropriate an analogy if not more so than ones about what for want of a better term we might call normal legal business.
I’m not sure the SA analogy holds up [and I think Mark P was being a bit sardonic re the 'recreational drug users should insist on fair trade heroin only' line - there aren't any, or rather there's only a tiny fraction of users who can use heroin in that way, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't advocating heroin usage under the context of 'recreational']. But his central point is acccurate.
There’s a significant differentiation between drugs produced in the west and those produced elsewhere.
Recreational drugs which are, bar coke [which is a minority drug of choice of recreational users in Europe and in the US], also produced in the west in large volume.
But given the disparities in usage, for example I found a figure that 14.8m per cent of Americans use marijuana as against 2.4m users of cocaine, 1m users of ecstasy and 700k users of methamphetamines, clearly a lot of that is home produced in the US.
That alone makes the SA analogy difficult to sustain.
If you want my opinion people should ‘boycott’ cocaine and heroin, but I’m not sure that that is a line that has a purchase on addicts of the latter and users of the former.
And clearly a boycott drugs in general line is untenable.
I wasn’t really talking about Mark P but.
Ah, my mistake.
So are the people who make the personal choice to consume red meat personally responsible for deaths which are a consequence of climate change (already well in excess of deaths in the Mexican drug war) and accordingly they should be treated “harshly”? Or is this just a special rule applying to cocaine users?
Garibaldy
There were definitely links between the CIA during the cold war. Both narcotraficantes and the Yankees shared a virulently anti-communist agenda.
Noreiga is an example of the links. Also there was a high-profile kidnap/murder of a DEA Officer in Mexico in the late 80s where all the key decision makers were CIA agents of one sort or another.
The CIA were using the excess profits of the drug trade -again a clear by-product of prohibition – in order to fund various reactionary organisations in Latin America.
That route wouldn’t have been open to them without the illicit nature of the trade.
Also, with respect, the SA analogy doesnt stand up for a second. In the Apartheid situation, people were encouraged to buy products from elsewhere. There is no similar option if all drugs remain prohibited.
(I appreciate you didn’t say it was an exact analogy).
Found this on twitter yesterday about Irish drug usage.
http://www.nacd.ie/publications/drug_use_ireland.pdf
Hal
You have a media distorted view of drug addicts and users, a simple google should jerk you out of that, Dickens took opium for most of his life, as too did Florence Nightengale and Queen Victoria, who according to her local chemist’s drug log, also dabbled in cocaine use, all perfectly legal in her day.
The list of successful politicians, artists, writers, composers, musicians, plumbers electricians, labourers, doctors, who took narcotics is endless. The fact is until the modern age, if we can call it that, people who took narcotics were not stigmatised. There is absolutely no reason why an addict if they have a reliable supply cannot hold down a job, and live a normal life, millions around the world have none it in the past (and continue to do so) as a simply google will confirm.
On cocaine, I would first decriminalise it not legalise it, as heavy use can, and often and does induce paranoia, which can make the user a danger to themselves and possibly others. I am not sure about prescribing coke as I do not know enough about it beyond unlike opium/heroin, the addiction is not as physical.
Except under the talaban, Heroin has always been ‘legal’ in Afghanistan, as far as I know, but regulated it is not, and to make a judgement about addicts in that country on a TV video clip of a group of sad people under a bridge is not the way to understand the problem of addiction, let alone recreational drug use.
The fact is this war on drugs is about as evil as the same politicians ridiculous war on terror, as neither are what they seem.
Myself, these days I do not smoke, drink alcohol, or take illicit drugs, and a friend said to me the other week, christ Mick you have become a boring old fart, so what can I add to the debate about addicts being boring
Can’t help you organised rage maybe the damage was already done,but I have a great idea why don’t yourself and a few of the with-it enlightened amongst us nip down to Merchants Quay or Pearse st or the Boardwalk ah heck you know where I mean and spot the next Huxley or Dickens.And Mark ,working class communities were ravaged when ecstacy was first introduced,smoking heroin was commonly used to come down quick leading to addiction,the methedone center in Corduff was primerally dealing with this problem..