Skip Navigation

Opinions on Marijuana Legalization or on Cannabis in general?

I can definitely understand peoples’ issues with it being consumed, especially in a political context, but how do yall feel about “weed”? I won’t hide my feelings, I am very much pro-weed, it’s not great that I started in my mid-teens but in my area it’s FAR from uncommon. I don’t smoke daily or anything, I’m not addicted to it (people say it’s non-habit forming but any drug can be addictive with enough frequent usage) but I do smoke and dab w/ friends often. That’s not why I believe in legalization tho, my main thing is you shouldn’t make a naturally occurring plant an illegal substance. I’d point to the DEA’s destructive (legal) burning of thousands of naturally occurring marijuana plants found in nature; This seems eco-fascist to me and to deny the uses of hemp as a production material seems dogmatic to me. The USSR used hemp for industrial purposes during the war and it helped in a major way. I’m sure most of us are familiar with the badge given for Hemp growers. If you have any criticisms, I’m more than open to it, but I feel that marijuana won’t be easy to get rid of in future society and would probably be put to use in different more productive ways.

74

You're viewing a single thread.

74 comments
  • There's a reason really existing socialist formations almost invariably come down hard on drugs. It harms public health, it harms proletarian culture, productivity, and so on. There's no problem with industrial hemp but conflating this with THC-bearing weed for entertainment is a bit of a trick. Same thing for the medical uses. I admit I'm sceptical, and I suspect a lot of people with prescriptions are in fact using it for entertainment or escapism, but if it has genuine medical applications that's fine, same as it's fine to use morphine for pain management but not just for fun.

    • There’s a reason really existing socialist formations almost invariably come down hard on drugs.

      Ahistorical, the reason why they come down hard on drugs is colonialism.

      The truth of drug use is found in this graph, any drug policy that does not consider it is engaging in IDpol, which is liberal.

      Source is a PHD holder, David Nutt.

      • I understand your point about colonialism but I think research like this raises a lot of questions and doesn't necessarily support your overarching point. I’ve hidden my critique behind a spoiler tag as the details could be triggering.

        The paper is here [PDF]: https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf . I’ve only had a quick skim but I can spot some problems. Mainly due to it not being dialectical or materialist. I note in advance that the paper acknowledges many of these weaknesses.

        CW: Substance abuse

        The authors make a distinction between harm to user and harm to society. There are ‘16 harm criteria’, divided between the two categories. Harm is weighted. For example, mortality is treated as more harmful than damage. Still, to accept the findings means to accept the weightings. I’m unsure if I accept the weightings because of the individualist conception of harm that underpins the entire model.

        Under harm to users:

        • Physical
          • Drug-specific mortality
          • Drug-related mortality
          • Drug-specific damage
          • Drug-related damage
        • Psychological
          • Dependence
          • Drug-specific impairment of mental function
          • Drug-related impairment of mental function
        • Social
          • Loss of tangibles
          • Loss of relationships

        Under harm to others:

        • Physical and psychological
          • Injury
        • Social
          • Crime
          • Environmental damage
          • Family adversities
          • International damage
          • Economic cost
          • Community

        This does not seem dialectical. For example, I would not separate ‘community’ from any of the other types. A drug overdose (OD) harms the community as well as the victim, their relationships, and their family. The model must determine how to avoid double-counting these harms.

        If an OD is counted in both categories, that’s a methodological flaw. If the model avoids double-counting, the basis must be arbitrary: a liberal will be working off very different premises to a communist, so there will never be agreement between bourgeois and socialist societies about what counts as harm and how to count it.

        (On page 1564, the authors admit that they don’t have data for all the sub-categories, either, which causes another problem for comparison.)

        Communists would likely reach a different consensus to scientists in a liberal democracy who are not dialectical materialists and who have been trained within a capitalist system where certain ‘realities’ are taken for granted, such as profit-making pharmaceutical and alcohol industries and the tragedy of ‘gang war’ (US ops), etc, in countries where illegal drugs are produced.

        The graph shows the actual harm caused by drug use across a UK sample of available data; i.e. this is how much harm actual alcohol consumption has caused. The problem is that there are probably thousands of alcohol users to every heroin user.

        The problem with relying on this data to make policy is that the results are determined by the legalisation and strong encouragement to consume alcohol and the criminalisation and taboo of the the others. The authors conclude:

        the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm.

        According to the data, you might say that alcohol, heroin, crack, and meth should be prohibited. Or you might say that if alcohol is legalised, then so should heroin, crack, and meth. The latter would be devastating and, apparently (notwithstanding some mixed messages) not what the authors intended:

        we should note that a low score in our assessment does not mean the drug is not harmful, since all drugs can be harmful under specific circumstances.

        The problem with the graph comes down to a faulty comparison with all drugs against alcohol. The result can be read in so many different ways to justify a range of contradictory policies.

        The problem with comparing anything with alcohol in the abstract is that it forgets the dialectical relation of alcohol to culture. The effects of this will always be skewed. It is incomparable to any other drug. The exception is perhaps tobacco. It would be interesting to re-draw the graph with tobacco counted twice. Once for today and once for before the massive campaign against smoking and the British smoking ban. If ‘old’ tobacco came above alcohol (I’m reasonably sure it would) while ‘new’ tobacco came sixth, the graph would instead show something different. If society suddenly took the same attitude to other drugs, alcohol would fall down the list.

        The data could be used to show, for example, as discussed in this thread, that cannabis is ‘safe’ or at least ‘safer’ than alcohol. But the data do not support that. Because these data cannot tell us (a) how dangerous would be cannabis if it were legalised and encouraged to the extent of alcohol or (b) how safe would be alcohol if it were criminalised and as taboo as heroin. It only shows current harm.

        Emphasis to indicate the authors’ political economic views, which should highlight why Marxists should treat the thesis with caution:

        Limitations of this approach include the fact that we scored only harms. All drugs have some benefits to the user, at least initially, otherwise they would not be used, but this effect might attenuate over time with tolerance and withdrawal. Some drugs such as alcohol and tobacco have commercial benefits to society in terms of providing work and tax, which to some extent offset the harms and, although less easy to measure, is also true of production and dealing in illegal drugs.

        The paper also warns against the general application of these findings:

        Many of the harms of drugs are affected by their availability and legal status, which varies across countries, so our results are not necessarily applicable to countries with very different legal and cultural attitudes to drugs. Ideally, a model needs to distinguish between the harms resulting directly from drug use and those resulting from the control system for that drug. Furthermore, they do not relate to drugs when used for prescription purposes.

        The paper ends: “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.” Which means the reader is left with the message that the data are not really about relaxing other drug laws so much as tightening alcohol laws. I’d say that’s a mixed message as they are concerned (subtly) with e.g. the connection between drugs and racial policing, which means using the paper e.g. to decriminalise cannabis rather than to campaign against alcohol. I suppose these aren’t mutually exclusive but, then again, when this graph is usually cited, it’s usually in favour of making cannabis legal rather than prohibiting alcohol.

        I’m not saying this paper isn’t helpful or illustrative. It has its uses. And I’m not making any claims about what should be legalised. I’m arguing that the graph does not show what the paper argues. While I agree that the paper should be engaged with, its use is limited, and its graphs shouldn’t be detached from the underlying study.

        I’m unsure what this means for the broader question of drugs policy under socialism; but I would caution against relying on the graph/paper on the basis that ignoring it is idpol—there are other valid criticisms.

        • The paper ends: “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.” Which means the reader is left with the message that the data are not really about relaxing other drug laws so much as tightening alcohol laws.

          I wouldnt say that suggests tighteing laws, I think they mean by this addressing alchohol addiction and its root causes, not using a auth measure like banning to deal with it but focusing on it via a public health approach.

          I’d say that’s a mixed message as they are concerned (subtly) with e.g. the connection between drugs and racial policing, which means using the paper e.g. to decriminalise cannabis rather than to campaign against alcohol. I suppose these aren’t mutually exclusive but, then again, when this graph is usually cited, it’s usually in favour of making cannabis legal rather than prohibiting alcohol.

          Thats because it shows relative harm; if Alchohol can easily be shown to be detrimental to society on a factor of literally 100000's of more deaths attributed too it vs cannabis it makes no sense why its illegal and one is legal.

          I agree on your wider points about how a socialist society studying this would likely come to different conclusions, the paper isnt even considering ideological basis but within the scope of it they likely never wanted to try to begin with, as its more of a study done by a chemist implementing sociological methodology without considering ideology.

          Also re: there are more booze drinkers than heroin users;

          Usage in decriminalized societies and legalized socieities of all narcotics goes down during leglaization. People gain access to medicalized routes of de-addiction rather than thrown in a prison cell with gangsters, murderers and drug dealers.

          Also ideally in a socialist society we would ban all advertising, especially for narcotics so people dont get 'encouraged' to do anything and instead know how drugs effect you, how to manage them and the risks vs rewards.

      • im curious what the definition of harm in this study is because cannabis causing almost as much harm to the user as benzodiazepines and mephedrone is a little bit strange to me.

    • I’m sorry to get heated about this but that is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Medical usage in Cancer patients IS helpful. You may be lucky enough to not know what that’s like, but a close loved one passed away and they were not given access to use medical cannabis, they could barely eat a half a bowl of cereal in 2 days time because of chemotherapy and the many pills they were prescribed. I don’t wanna make light of it, but when people talk about getting hungry after smoking weed, that’s not just some Scooby Doo joke, it’s real and affects your brain, specifically the Lateral Hypothalamus. Access to this medicine has been found to be very helpful. Even IF it was a form of escapism, why deny a dying person the basic joy of easing their pain, their symptoms, their unease? What is so wrong with letting a chemo patient smoke a blunt?

74 comments