BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Repressive drugs laws

  
 
walrus
14:21 / 27.07.01
My first post here

Sorry if this subject has been done to death, or is in the wrong forum, but I'm still finding my way around.

Basically, I'm interested in whether the current repressive drugs laws can be compared to other minority-restricting laws which have been lifted in the past century or so.

It seems to me that ones choice of relaxation drugs are a life choice, and should therefore be protected as a basic human right.

I could understand a situation where any mind-altering substance were denied, or all were allowed, but it seems the current stratification of choice is mainly based on individual prejudice against certain substances or user groups, in the lack of much supporting evidence to show that one is particularly worse than another (I really mean this: take a look into the medical consequences of long term use of pure heroin, for example ... in short there aren't many ... the most serious damage is caused by adulteration of the substance on the black market).

This might be an unfair comparison, and people should correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems as important an issue for me as freedom of sexual choice, or minority voting rights.

Arguments against could be made on the grounds that such choices may be more inherited than decided, but personally I don't feel the need to subject my desires to that level of investigation. If I want to do something, and it won't harm or infringe on anyone else by either intention or neglect, then I should be free to make that choice regardless of my motivation.

So how does everyone else feel? Should people start chaining themselves to railings yet, or are we asking for unreasonable changes to the system?

d.

ps To declare my interests in the subject: I might like to smoke the odd spliff, but I don't feel the need to partake of any "harder" drugs. However, I think the same rules should apply to all substances, including "socially acceptable" ones.
 
 
Frances Farmer
15:48 / 27.07.01
My instinct is that you're preaching to the choir. I tend to agree - and I like your theories in regards to social groups being targeted as part of a 'approval / disapproval' campaign rather than some sort of altruistic effort to preven the citizenry from blinding them(our)selves.
 
 
Ierne
17:19 / 27.07.01
Hmmmm... The most recent issue of URB has a cover story on how the Feds are "waging a battle against dance culture" (that's a quote from the article, not my quotes). A very valid point gets raised, both in the article and in an editorial: There's a lot of careless drug users out there who don't bother to inform themselves about the drugs they choose to ingest and how it might affect them. Many of these careless drug users end up in emergency rooms (or worse yet, funeral homes), which brings a great deal of negative attention and hype from the mainstream media...and the government. That ruins it for everyone.

A quote from the editorial:

I'm no friend of the DEA or US drug laws, but I find it hard to defend a teenager gobbling up five Es on the grounds that he's just exercising personal autonomy. I find it hard to defend a suburban dealer selling tainted methamphetamine to teenagers so that he can buy a new mountain bike. Even if some drugs were legalized (ecstasy, Ketamine, GHB, LSD, etc. are not likely to be part of this fantasy scenario), there's no way the'd be legal if you're under 21. "The Scene" would still be in trouble because people, many of them underage, would still be overdosing. There's simply no way the DEA can ignore it when children of middle-class suburbanites are dying.

And lets keep it real, folks... it's not just the kids, and not just ravers. Many adult drug users make really stupid mistakes too, no matter what sort of scene they're into.
 
 
Jamieon
17:21 / 27.07.01
But it's all perceived user groups isn't it? Drug taking is no longer the favoured pastime of some deviant substrata of society (if indeed it ever was); now everyone's at it.

The politicians at war with drugs are discovering that the front line of the opposition is made up of their own children.

[ 27-07-2001: Message edited by: Jamieon ]
 
 
grant
18:21 / 27.07.01
Granta's latest cover story: Confessions of a Middle-Aged Ecstasy Eater.

"A distinguished writer makes an anonymous confession and defends a habit: his son supplies him with Ecstasy."
 
 
walrus
01:17 / 28.07.01
quote:There's a lot of careless drug users out there who don't bother to inform themselves about the drugs they choose to ingest and how it might affect them. Many of these careless drug users end up in emergency rooms (or worse yet, funeral homes), which brings a great deal of negative attention and hype from the mainstream media...and the government. That ruins it for everyone.

Point taken, but I don't think legislating against it works: it drives people into the arms of hardened gangsters and puts them at risk of harm from adulterated substances.

People also regularly kill themselves drinking, smoking, skiing or crossing the road, but we don't try to stop them partaking of those activities. I read somewhere that more people died of peanut allergy last year than ecstacy, yet no-one is arguing for making peanuts illegal.

What you can do for people is try to educate them. Put warning labels on the packaging and teach people about substance abuse in school more.

I'm not surprised, in a political and media climate which virtually denies intelligent debate, that some people are ignorant of the dangers.
 
 
Blank Faced Avatar
07:34 / 28.07.01
It's impossible to get good information on the drugs you take, because they're street drugs & they're dirtier for being illegal.
Most UK smokers I know see a lot of poor quality 'soapbar' hash. We got tons of it here, its crawling all over. People will smoke it for years and years; Ask 'em what's in it, and maybe 1 in 100 will have a realistic picture. You can't ever say specifically what any one bar has been cut with 'cause it's illegal, hence no labelling or controls.

And when E's started appearing I wouldn't take them for about 2 years, saying " How can you take those - it could be any drug in the world. You know less about pills than anything else you could eat - it's a 'don't think, don't ask' culture of drug-taking. "
Didn't stop them becoming ubiquitous, each one sold on the promise of containing some letters - " its mainly MDEA with some GHB" oh is it? Really? yeah right. They contain whatever you were asking for most times...
If they were legal, they would have an MDMA content written on them. Ingredients. Information you can never, ever get at the moment, no matter what claims your dealer makes.

YES it is a serious violation of my basic human rights, a fucking invasion of my right to privacy, and a scam to justify state brutality. Worse, it turns recreation into a nice little Russian Roulette experience as we take drugs which we are not allowed to have accurate information about. The government is responsible for all illegal drug deaths. I will fight them on this until they give in.. Then prosecute those "leaders" responsible for all this unnecessary suffering, depravation & death -
for CRIMES AGINST HUMANITY.
 
 
nul
03:59 / 29.07.01
People also regularly kill themselves drinking, smoking, skiing or crossing the road, but we don't try to stop them partaking of those activities.

Not yet.

People do a lot of stupid things. The government decided to pick out the things the public cares least about and demonize them, hence making the public care the most about them. It makes perfect sense when you look at it from the terms of a propagandist. It's all a matter of balance - people get alcohol, but they don't get marjiuana.

It doesn't make sense, certainly, from a health point of view, but the claim it was ever about health or safety is exaggerated.

Unfortunately, this is beginning to backfire. With new watchdog groups watching everything and prosecuting everyone, we're moving furthur from a state where drugs are legal to a state where everyone wears a government regulated radiation suit to work on the computer.

It's for your own good.

YES it is a serious violation of my basic human rights

The right to get high isn't on the United Nations list, from what I can tell. Besides, there are plenty of legal substances to abuse - glue, petrol, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol.

The government is responsible for all illegal drug deaths.

That's funny. I thought the government told us not to take the drugs because they were potientally dangerous. Normally I would blame the makers of the product for producing something which killed the user, or the user for taking the potientally dangerous, unlabelled, illegal product and injecting/swallowing/snorting it.

But hey, I'm probably wrong.
 
 
fluid_state
09:06 / 02.08.01
Would any of us trust marijuana sold to us legally by a subsidiary of Philip Morris? personally, I'd rather see my dealer, if only for the sake of accountability. strange twist, that.
 
 
Templar
09:20 / 02.08.01
If drugs were legalised, they wouldn't be as much fun.
 
 
Templar
09:24 / 02.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
I thought the government told us not to take the drugs because they were potientally dangerous...

Maybe so, but they don't have the right that make the decision of whether or not I do something dangerous to myself: that's my decision. They can only legislate to protect society, via such arguments as addicts stealing to finance their habits (ignoring the fact that drugs would be soooo much cheaper if legal, even if heavily taxed)

Also it's the impurities in heroin that do most of the damage to health - William Burroughs said that the reason he lived so long was that he "got good shit." If legal, there wouldn't be any.
 
 
Dee Vapr
09:24 / 02.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
That's funny. I thought the government told us not to take the drugs because they were potientally dangerous.
But hey, I'm probably wrong.[/QB]

Alcohol???? Tobacco???? Carciogenicsubstances in foods (eg. Aspartame) and air pollution - and infact CARS!?!?!?!

%It's alright though, they all cause millions of deaths a year, the goverment will ban these too no doubt%


  
 
nul
09:24 / 02.08.01
Would any of us trust marijuana sold to us legally by a subsidiary of Philip Morris? personally, I'd rather see my dealer, if only for the sake of accountability. strange twist, that.

I've met some nice drug dealers. I didn't know where the stuff came from, but I did get to see where some of it was made. It was a real enlightening experience.

I wonder if Philip Morris would give me a tour of their facilities.

...they don't have the right that make the decision of whether or not I do something dangerous to myself: that's my decision.

Sure they do. They're your elected officals. Don't you know anything about representative democracy?

Alcohol???? Tobacco???? Carciogenicsubstances in foods (eg. Aspartame) and air pollution - and infact CARS!?!?!?!

Stop yelling.

The government funds plenty of anti-smoking ads, regulates emissions, has a crafty anti-drinking and driving campaign and has the FDA for regulate what goes in food. They may be doing a piss poor job, but hey, they're doing something.

The Canadian government just legalized medical marijuana. Which means the people with the permits can grow and smoke it. It's just a tactic to put off legalizing it for recreational use while still making it appear as if they're doing something, but, hey, that's what you get.
 
 
the Fool
09:24 / 02.08.01
Can I point out that prohibition has never worked. Governments making readily available chemicals illegal is irresponsible, in that it promotes ignorant, incautious use. It also stops people seeking help when they get into trouble (for fear of being arrested).

A government that promotes the line 'just say no' is partially responsible for drug related deaths as it makes no effort toward harm minimisation or education, while spending millions of law enforcement which only maintains the status quo.

But I'm sure most people already know this. Drugs are illegal because of profit. All the main players make millions. Big traffickers cash in, so does the DEA (and its international variants). Do you think either of these two very powerful groups want anything to change?
 
 
nul
12:32 / 02.08.01
Governments making readily available chemicals illegal is irresponsible, in that it promotes ignorant, incautious use.

Odd. I thought the intent was to promote no use. I guess I missed that day at law school.

It also stops people seeking help when they get into trouble (for fear of being arrested).

If you get involved in illegal activities, you should know going in there is a probability, a fairly high probability, you are going to get into trouble with someone. Oh, but it's dangerous and rebellious. All a good show until someone gets busted with an eightball of cocaine in the backseat.

A government that promotes the line 'just say no' is partially responsible for drug related deaths as it makes no effort toward harm minimisation or education...

Should the government also begin a program to explain how to most safely sniff coke or educate kids on how to smoke crack to minimize health risks? Don't drink and drive -- oh, you probably shouldn't smoke crack while you're driving either. Just so you know. Yes, I know it's illegal, and you shouldn't do it anyway, but... What do you mean we're sending out conflicting messages?

What's that?

Mmm... Ether.

Do you think either of these two very powerful groups want anything to change?

Whoopie. Most people don't really want anything to change, except for petty things that improve their lives in the smallest of ways. We're all bloody selfish. They have just as much a right as we do.

Yeah, that's right. I'm calling us all wankers. Do we need to do drugs? Probably not. But hey, heroin overdose would make for an interesting suicide. It'd be nice if it was cheaper, wouldn't it?

To conclude, roll up your sleeves. Let's see your arms. Bloody addicts. Don't know the right of way about anything.
 
 
gman
13:05 / 02.08.01
Read your Orwell; the state must have a war to keep it going. Someone/thing must be monsterized. For Oceania and Europa, read the FBI and Drugs Barons... Prohibition just makes your Al Capones stronger, and stops us fighting the real gangsters, our friends the Captalist Robber Barons.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:06 / 02.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
Should the government also begin a program to explain how to most safely sniff coke or educate kids on how to smoke crack to minimize health risks?

Well... yes, basically. Why does that seem so ridiculous to you? If you educate people objectively and honestly regarding the potential dangers of illegal drug use, not only will many of them be likely to decide not to take illegal drugs based on that knowledge, but those who do take illegal drugs will be less at risk. What's the problem here?

People who object to the "just say no!" approach don't necessarily do so because they espouse a "just say yes!" approach... This isn't an either/or situation. Teaching people to "just say no!" isn't just ignorant, reactionary and restrictive: it's also failed.
 
 
tag
14:43 / 02.08.01
quote:
Governments making readily available chemicals illegal is irresponsible, in that it promotes ignorant, incautious use.
Odd. I thought the intent was to promote no use. I guess I missed that day at law school.

aparently you're missing the point.

1) regardless of the intentions behind criminalizing drug use, prohibition doesn't work. drug use isn't prevented.

2) while it is impossible to say exactly why who does what, i've gotten the general impression that people within the government and other positions of power (at least in america--where my experience lays) will do what they can to increase their wealth (contrary to what you may like to believe that is not often what is best for the citizens)

3) you believe what they teach you in school (perhaps this has something to do with the conviction that the govt. is looking out for all of our well being)

on a compleate sidenote: people into computer security stuff all know that security through obscurity is not a good idea. i'd say the conclution can be drawn across the board (say "saftey through ignorance") and not educating youth about substances they most likely will come in contact with (illegal or not) is not the best way to help them make a healthy decision.
 
 
nul
15:33 / 02.08.01
Read your Orwell; the state must have a war to keep it going. Someone/thing must be monsterized. For Oceania and Europa, read the FBI and Drugs Barons... Prohibition just makes your Al Capones stronger, and stops us fighting the real gangsters, our friends the Captalist Robber Barons.

Bah. I've read 1984 too many times as it is. And it's Eurasia, not Europa. Besides, what's wrong with being a Capitalist Robber Baron? Al Capone is a personal hero of mine.

Why does that seem so ridiculous to you? If you educate people objectively and honestly regarding the potential dangers of illegal drug use, not only will many of them be likely to decide not to take illegal drugs based on that knowledge, but those who do take illegal drugs will be less at risk. What's the problem here?

I'd rather see tax money blown on bigger guns for naval vessels to blow up China?

A government which has deemed a substance illegal is not going to be objective or honest in it's education on an illegal substance. You're ignorant if you believe otherwise. "Just Say No" is as good as you are going to get when it comes to promotion of illegal drug safety laws. Why? Because drugs are illegal.

It doesn't matter if people still do them, or an underground economy is fueled by it. The fact remains they are illegal. The promotion of the safe use of illegal substances coming from the same government that made them illegal in the first place is so absurd it hurts. It's like saying that "God Hates Fags" then handing out fliers that explain how to best pleasure your "alternative" partners.

It doesn't matter if it's reactionary, ignorant or otherwise. Most people aren't crack addicts and don't get mixed up with D.C. drug dealers. Most voters seem to support the drug laws. Until you form a 51% majority in the voting public, you don't count.

ap(p)arently you're missing the point.

Nonsense. I'm just ignoring it. Classic tactic.

Prohibition hasn't worked, historically. It's driven the cost of drugs up, if nothing else, and lowered the quality. Doesn't matter.

As for the rest -- amusing.

I'm arguing it's not up to the government to inform us about the dangers of substances they've deemed illegal. If we're going to do something illegal, we can't go up to the local police man and ask, "Sir, could you point out the best place to put a knife if you want to do maximum damage to a victim?"

That's what defense instructors are for. Find out for yourself before you use. I have to go find myself some peyote.
 
  
Add Your Reply