Organisation

[chimp_masta_flex]

First of all we need to state our aims, as an anarchist i naturally feel total and absoloute decriminalisation is the key, but this is about all of us.

My four aims would be

1. Legalisation and Regulation of all 'controlled substances'.

2. Crimes related to addiction to carry softer sentences but intensive rehabilitation schemes.

3. No corporate involvement in the production and sale of drugs, State-ran organisation to regulate all drug traffic.

4. Unbiased drug education to be introduced into schools with the emphasis on harm reduction, not abstinence.

Of course i just reeled these off so there not perfect, but lets hear everyone elses!

 

[restin]

3. No corporate involvement in the production and sale of drugs, State-ran organisation to regulate all drug traffic.

hmmm so would only be weed and some herbs around? As as soon as someone makes LSD and sells it, it is already corporate involvement...

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

No you misunderstand, what i meant was that companies such as GSK and the likes should not be allowed to produce them as they would bump up prices to make money, and lets face it, making money off any addictive substance is difficult to justify, look at the tobacco companies.
Substances should be produced by non-profit organisations with heavy government regulations, qangos if you will, that way prices could be kept as low as possible and users would not be constantly lured by advertisements with the hope of getting them hooked and making more and more cash from them.

 

[GOD]

OK so how are you going to do that ?

 

[restin]

No you misunderstand, what i meant was that companies such as GSK and the likes should not be allowed to produce them as they would bump up prices to make money, and lets face it, making money off any addictive substance is difficult to justify, look at the tobacco companies.
Substances should be produced by non-profit organisations with heavy government regulations, qangos if you will, that way prices could be kept as low as possible and users would not be constantly lured by advertisements with the hope of getting them hooked and making more and more cash from them.

uff!! You are going very very far by not only stating that drugs must be legalized but supported by the government. What non-profit organizations have we got? These are the ones that support e.g. poor countries. I personally don't internationally see drugs as important as helping children in Africa. Why not letting companies and not allowing any patents for drugs? No monopoly then.

 

[JustinNed]

First of all we need to state our aims, as an anarchist i naturally feel total and absoloute decriminalisation is the key, but this is about all of us.

My four aims would be

1. Legalisation and Regulation of all 'controlled substances'.

2. Crimes related to addiction to carry softer sentences but intensive rehabilitation schemes.

3. No corporate involvement in the production and sale of drugs, State-ran organisation to regulate all drug traffic.

4. Unbiased drug education to be introduced into schools with the emphasis on harm reduction, not abstinence.

Of course i just reeled these off so there not perfect, but lets hear everyone elses!

Well if you sir are a True Anarchist than you should realize that the entire essence is that there would be no Government to regulate.
One thing I never understood about Anarchists. You don't want the Gov to tax, or have a say in what you can/can't do. So, what happens when someone is trying to kill your mother? Who you gonna call? The Police? Just a thought.

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

Riiiiiiight... this went well....

Regulation is different to support, im not suggesting Gordon Brown should start selling horse tranquillisers.

Government regulation of drugs is already in effect, i believe in sweden, where heroin addicts are given fixed doses of heroin at regulated times. Thus reducing risks of infection, overdose and poisoning due to impurities.

The simple fact is people WILL use drugs, there is no escaping it and therefore legalisation coupled with harm reduction strategies would save plenty of tax money to pay for hospitals and schools and all that jazz, thus higher quality of life for all, hoorah!

Governments also have a huge reason to regulate it, safety.

Just because they regulate them doesnt mean that they have to 'big them up'. They can carry on with fear mongering tales of cannabis psychosis and what not. Whilst, by regulation, reducing all the risks associated with impurities and unsterile (that a word?) equiptment.

There is a huge culture of binge drinking in the uk which can partially be attributed to the glorification of alcohol in advertisements.
If drugs where legalised we would constantly be beamed with advertisements for 'NEW 'Purple Triangle' MDMA tablets, How many can you eat? ***Gurn responsibly***'. What would this lead to? Yes, A culture of binge pill munching.

If however they where government regulated then the adverts would not be aimed at selling, they may be about the dangers of drugs, they may not even exist at all. This way everyone could enjoy a whole host of chemicals in the knowledge that the substance was pure and genuinely what it says on the label without some snivelling corporate fatcats trying to get you hooked on whatever they so choose so they can scrape the last penny from your toxin riddled corpse.

And 'JustinNed', sir, I am an anarchist but i am also realistic, i doubt anyone is going to overthrow the government in my life time, maybe even never, so i try to work within the boundaries, as much as i hate them and believe they are inherently wrong, i cannot deny their existence.

Also if someone was trying to kill your mother what would you do?

A) Phone the police and 13 minutes later they can say 'Yup she's definately dead mate, bummer'.

B) Hit the prick with a lead bar, right between the eyes, and then get arrested because 'You cant take the law into your own hands'.

You try and get something changed with presumably like-minded people and all they do is fucking pick at your ideas rather than constructively contributing there own. Just a fuckin thought. :x

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I AM SO VERY ANGRY RIGHT NOW!

MAAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHH

 

[Forkbender]

IMO it is best to leave it to business to produce them. Government can control businesses, by regulating what they can produce (licensing). They can even prohibit advertising for drugs, like they do with Tobacco in a lot of countries. The key is proper education about drugs and their effects.

 

[restin]

why are you angry?

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

Well it was mostly justinned's misguided anarchist comment which really has no place here, but also because i had hoped that rather than pick at my ideas without any constructive criticism, people might put forward there own, particullarly when we all have a common cause, see forkbenders comment is helpful, i think its wrong but thats not for me to say. And now that the mist of rage has subsided i must admit i didnt notice the bit about no patents, no monopoly, though i still think you miss the point.

To both yourself and forkbender, i think it is worth noting that drugs can be incredibly dangerous and if profits come before safety, as they so often do, that cannot be a good thing. Not to say that they will but it isnt difficult to imagine that they could. I think it would be best to completely remove this risk, hence non-profit organisations.

And to JustinNed, as much as i appreciate that a lot of your posts i have read clearly indicate that you are well educated and intelligent, if ever again there is something you dont understand about anarchists, that simply shows that you shouldnt bring it up in such an arrogant manner because to me it made you look like an ignorant fool.

 

[GOD]

Anarchism my arse , you havent gota clue what your talking about . Justin is right .

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

Yea cheers mate, good input.

 

[GOD]

Thanks , your finaly wakeing up .

You have a confused idea you call anarchism . For it to become reality one would need organisation and that would prevent anarchism . Also you would need organisation to stop big people coming and just takeing what you have away from you . First think about the consequencys of what you say should happen and then you might wake up out of your dream world .

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

you might as well close this thread mate im sorry i wasted your time

 

[GOD]

Why dont you either go to the anarchy thread or start another one about the subject and describe exactly what you mean by anarchy and then not get personaly anoyed when people argue against your beliefs .

 

[Forkbender]

To both yourself and forkbender, i think it is worth noting that drugs can be incredibly dangerous and if profits come before safety, as they so often do, that cannot be a good thing. Not to say that they will but it isnt difficult to imagine that they could. I think it would be best to completely remove this risk, hence non-profit organisations.

non-profit organisations generally are not really efficient in producing what they need to produce. The paperwork calls for more people to work there, raising the price of the product, etc. If for example you license a company to produce lsd, control the quality at the end of the line with a government sponsored test service independent from the company and then distribute it through licensed channels (apothecaries or something like that) while making sure proper information reaches the potential user and no advertising is allowed, I don't foresee any problems.

Letting businesses produce something doesn't necessarily equate more danger to the genpop if they are well controled.

 

[restin]

heroin is provided for free for junkies here in Switzerland. This is now legally grounded --> the government does it. But I think that it was and is organized by non-profit. Nonetheless there is a difference between supporting addicts and psychonauts/recreational users...--> scale.

 

[GOD]

chimp_masta_flex dont send me anymore abusive PMs .

If you have something to say about anarchy please say it but it would be better if you did it in the anarchy thread , or start another one on the same subject , where you explain your theorys about it in detail so people can comment on it .

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

Already been to the anarchy thread mate and i dont need to justify myself to you, as much as you think your 'god' :roll:

I agree there is a difference between supporting addicts and recreational users, i just used that as an example of governments understanding the need to ensure that drug users get there substances from a reliable and benign source, e.g. themselves (though quite wether benign should be used to describe any government is another issue but lets not go into that because certain people might have a fit... probably me...).

I suppose it is just my personal beliefs that mean i cannot foresee any good coming from a corporate body doing anything, i suppose that heavy and consistent regulation of corporations is a fair compromise yes?