Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:36:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: It was Jack Straw



Marx lived at a time long before the criminalization of drugs, a 20th C
phenomenon, at least in America. Coca-cola was made with cocaine,
originally. Anti "drug" hysteria in his day was temperance crusading, the
demon Rum, etc. His distrust of opium doesn't argue for
criminalization--he wouldn't have banned religion--but for removal of the
causes of religion (as he saw it).

In America the "drug wars" are a notorious failure as far as stopping the
use of drugs goes, just as prohibition was in stopping the use of
alcohol. They do provide a handy excuse for incarcerating large numbers of
poor Black and Hispanic men, extending the power of the police (and their
budgets), attacking civil liberties and privacy protections (drug testing
in the workplace is increasingly common, and I understand that Miami is
introducing random drug testing of all students), and developing a
prison-industrial complex to supplement the military-industrial complex.
In California the prison budget surpassed the higher education budget last
year. I don't says these effects are intended, but they are natural and
foreseeable consequencers of drug wars taht generate powerful interests to
support their continuation.

Now, obviously Marxists cannot want workers and poor people to drug
themselves, which, as Marx noted, dulls their pain and incapacitates them
from organizing. I set aside light recreation use of marijuana, which is
less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. Nor can Marxists applaud one main
consequences of legfalization of drugs, which is the immense enrichment of
pharmaceutical companies and tobacco manufacturers. 

Nonetheless, in terms of counteracting the negative effects of the drug
wars sketched above as well as reducing the incidence of drug related
crimes, I think we should support the legalization and regulation of all
presently illegal drugs, or virtually all of them. What we call in America
"controlled substances" should continue to be subject to regulation, as
any powerful pharmeceuticals should be. I'd prohibit any advertising of
them, as indeed I would that of tobacco or alcohol. But no one should be
arrested for using, possessing, or selling any qunatity of most of them.

A curious story. In American public schools we have a a program run by the
local cops called DARE (to keep kids off drugs). Police officers are
deputed to the schools to propagandize the kids not to use drugs. I guess
the content of the propaganda varies from school to school, but my eight
year old daughter and I had a conversation the other day which revealed
the following. 

The police officer at her school did not tell her about different kinds of
drugs, e.g., any differences between, say marijuana and cocaine. He did
not tell her that some drugs are addictive. He did not tell her that some
drugs will ruin your health and mental stability. He did not tell her that
drugs make you feel good and that's why people use them. He did not tell
her that you can go to jail for possessing or selling drugs. All he did
was lead them in anti-drug songs and inculcate a reflect "Say no to drugs"
response. In short he told her nothing at alla bout drugs except that they
are BAD. In fairness, her friend doiwn the street reports taht the DARE
officer at her school told them some of this. But my daughter learned more
about drugs from me, her ex-hippie dad, in an hours conversation than she
had learned in five or so years of DARE instruction, if instruction is the
word.

And, oh, yes, I told her the truth: that some drugs are bad because
they'll fuck you up and hook you, and some are bad only bcause they're
illegal, not that the prospect of a criminal record and jail time is an
inconsiderable reason to avouid them.

My four and a half year old son gets the propaganda at day care. I asked
him, do you know about drugs? He said, Drugs are bad. Do you know what
drugs are, I asked. No, he didn't. This came up when I took him to the
pharmacist to get a prscription filled and he reacted with horror to my
getting drugs.

This is a very strange country.

--Justin 

On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Russell Pearson wrote:

> On a broader front, what of drugs in general- as Marxists are we to support
> the liberalisation of drug laws, and does anyone know of any of Marx's
> comments on the subject? His metaphor on religion would appear to mark a
> distrust of opium, but he certainly liked his ale in his younger days...
> Many supporters of drugs use, use the argument that it is an age-old
> activity, present in all hitherto known societies- can we agree with this,
> or can the flip side be argued that it is a manifestation of age old
> alienation, an alienation that can be overcome and with it the proclivity
> towards drugs use?
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---