burnt said:
Economic philosophy aside the practical benefits of legalization far outweigh those of prohibition and even decriminalization. Remember when drugs are illegal people get thrown in cages or worse for using them. You can't avoid that sad and disturbing fact. So whatever problems people have with society or capitalism or whatever remember people suffer immensely from the war on drugs all over the world.
What problems arise from full decriminalization (i.e. "the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations")? At that point, no one should find themselves thrown in cages or otherwise worse off, no? And ideally, it could prevent rampant commodification by depriving the necessary regulatory framework such commodification would rely on. An obvious reply is to suggest that we need such framework to provide quality assurance, but the Nexus (and dancesafe and other NGOs) demonstrate that's not the case.
And to point it out again, I don't believe any of the states that have legalized have done anything positive with regards to their incarcerated drug-offenders, but I may just be unaware. This is why I posed the question earlier. Ime, most
drug users that I've encountered don't actually care about this issue, beyond the fact that they're personally safe. It's rather telling that not only are folks silent on that, but other incarcerated populations as well, especially those similarly incarcerated for profit (as I pointed out earlier).
burnt said:
There are trade offs with legalization just like anything else. For sure there is commercialization / commodification. But who cares? Legal cannabis is similar to beer and wine industries. You have a mixture of small and big business. Its like craft beer or Budweiser. You have a choice between your friendly local mom and pop weed shop or some bigger chain. When its illegal you may have your safe sustainable supply but most people don't. Most people get their drugs from criminal organizations and the further up the chain you go the more human misery you tend to encounter.
When cannabis is illegal and you have no regulation there is a lot environmental destruction, pesticide use, and other contamination / quality control problems. When its legal and regulated these issues tend to be mitigated.
It seems that you're suggesting that commercial/industrial agriculture is "sustainable" in this quote. Is that the case? If any of the major agribusiness or related corps get involved in the large-scale growing of cannabis, it seems incredibly unlikely (based on currently-existing models) that it will be anything approaching "sustainable" agriculture. As I pointed out earlier, drug cartels are bit players in international industry. The atrocities they commit certainly get a lot of media attention, but, I think there's good evidence that the frequency, amount, and scale of corporate-atrocities dwarf those of drug cartels.
burnt said:
Although I've focused my reply on cannabis I think the benefits of legal psychedelics also far out weight those of prohibition. Its not even close really.
I'm not so sure and again raise the question I asked earlier with regards to decriminalization. Additionally, I would point to the earlier list of issues I raised, most significantly those of MDMA for battlefield PTSD in the context of US imperialism/hegemony and the re-framing of psychedelics from boundary-dissolving agents to productivity-boosting nootropics in the context of the tech industry/consumer culture (inherently tied to ecological devastation). I do think it's possible to eliminate the carceral penalties of prohibition without turning psychedelics into the next chic consumer trend, and I think it's important to try for that specifically, but that's just me.
RAM said:
I do feel it is difficult and maybe even irresponsible to prescribe one purpose to psychedelics, however. Personally, I would like to see that purpose as the upheaval of norms, current structures, and old ways of thinking, mostly due to this being the natural effect of psychedelics in our brains (according to a Carhart-Harris lecture I attended once).
One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is to never underestimate the effect of physical spaces and structures on mental spaces and structures. So, I hope the jump from effects on the brain to effects on society above makes sense. But then again, is any one entity really even qualified to prescribe a particular goal for psychedelics? I am getting the sense it is just something the community always has to talk and be critical about, as you also mentioned in your post.
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think there's a singular purpose...and I think that most utilitarian approach is one that treats these experiences as offering precisely what you referenced, "the upheaval of norms, current structures, and old ways of thinking"...something we might call a "perpetual becoming." And in that context, I think that your point about the connection between the brain/society makes perfect sense. Just as with any political project/process, the goal isn't to prescribe some utopian stasis, imo, but rather to be in perpetual dialogue with the world around us, to navigate the ever-shifting terrain, adapt, adjust, and grow. We may have some loose sense of "ideals" or "goals" but I think that ultimately, these are as much living processes as anything else.
RAM said:
From my time doing this kind of stuff, I have learned that one person can alter a decent number of mindsets if they are willing to speak out against the status quo, build alliances, back up points with data and moral logic, and simply be willing to be branded as an outsider. However, I myself am a bit skeptical when people advocate for complete changes to the system as a solution for problems.
I hear you and to be clear, I'm not suggesting that anything I'm advocating for will solve society's problems or avoid additional problems. I don't think it's possible for anyone to actually predict the myriad of events/effects that can ripple out from even relatively small changes. This is precisely why I structure most of my positions as structural analysis/systemic critique. I do my best to identify the problems, to the fullest extent I'm able and attempt to map their causes/effects from there, based on the available evidence.
In the case of prohibition, I don't need to be able to articulate a full vision to be implemented in order to coherently argue that we need a complete change to the prohibitionist system. I can identify systemic ills, point to their racists/classist history, as well as the numerous deaths and vast suffering directly attributed to this system. Even if we (say here on the Nexus) disagree about the specifics about what a post-prohibition world should look like, it's pretty simple to argue for the necessity of fairly widespread social change to support this shift (just considering the role police have played in the drug war, for-profit prisons, hospitals/healthcare, the probation industry, rights of convicted felons, elections predicated on "tough on drugs" stances, just to name a few things that come to mind in this moment).
RAM said:
It reminds me of one of Slavoj Zizek's ideas (he gets to it around 6:30 here:
): he has said that donating to charity simply fuels the cycle of dependence and allows the destitute to continue living and that by doing this, charity almost prevents a "radical restructuring of society" that would solve the deeply rooted causes of the problem in the first place. He says, "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property." For example: it is immoral for wealthier countries that gained their wealth partially by exploiting African nations to turn around and "donate back" in the form of aid to these select African nations, partially just to feel better about themselves. They should withhold such donations, take total responsibility for their actions, and work toward creating a society where this could never happen again.
Full disclaimer, I'm not a fan of Zizek...I think he's got a lot of his ideas bass-ackwards (
such as making arguments about Trump that eerily mirror some of those made in 1930s Germany re: Hitler) but here is a case where I agree with his premise, but I find his reasoning to be incredibly flawed. I'll start with the conclusion here and then expound backwards, as I think the conclusion is the most relevant part to discuss.
The question that seems to linger is what would it look like to "take total responsibility for their actions, and work toward creating a society where this could never happen again." Personally, I believe this would require abolition of the state. I don't think it's likely, or realistic, but that's what I think it would take to achieve such a thing.
The reason is pretty simple...again focusing on the US. The US is incapable of taking responsibility for their actions, because their actions are what it takes to sustain the US state. Without exploitation and domination on a global scale, the US would cease to be what it is...most notably, it would cease being able to provide the top .0001% with the fantastic wealth/power that it currently affords. So again, we run into that structural component which, imo, kind of makes Zizek's logic a bit absurd, even if his point that charity is top-down and inherently coercive. Material aid may be absolutely necessary, and it may be the "best" that can be provided in a given situation, not as a permanent fix, but rather as a "life raft" between the present disaster and the world we'd like to build.
There are rather significant issues with Zizek's notions of private property. We don't need corporations to give us things to resolve the crisis of the commons. Rather, we need some sort of fairly radical agrarian reform, imo. Again, this is tied to the US's history, with founders intentionally crafting government in a preemptive response to their understandings/perception that if the populace was able to influence the governmental system, they would unquestionably restructure society against the interests of the "opulent minority," with agrarian reform explicitly on their minds. The issue goes much deeper than simply "private property"...rather, it goes back to the "cardinal theft" that turned the commons into private (not personal) property in the first place.
As to his words on charity...I believe in solidarity, not charity, personally, but Zizek's arguments come across as rather shallow. States donating to states may have some benefit on the actual populace that needs support/aid, but certainly not the full potential that mutual aid and direct engagement can provide. People don't need charity, they need the freedom to autonomously determine their own lives, imo. In the historical context of Africa, this has been constrained by colonialism/imperialism, with legacies that are ongoing, today. So, we don't even have to ask the questions of reparations...we're not even capable of forming that question when you look at things that are currently taking place.
Just consider the fact that we dump our electronic waste on impoverished communities, in order to grant them the privilege of being able to participate in "the market"...after all, there are components of value in that waste, who cares if they get sick/die, it's cheaper than building a factory specifically for that purpose. And, imo, this present situation is inseparable from the colonial past, as communal autonomy was devastated throughout history, perhaps most recently in the wake of WWII when the US decided to let some of the European powers carve up Africa to exploit its resources. So here too, I feel like Zizek's makes some semi-coherent assertions, however it's the result of rather tenuous logic, imo.
RAM said:
I am just skeptical that the "radical restructuring of society" that we all want will ever happen. From reading all of your ideas, Snozz, all of which I really enjoy, I always have the feeling in the back of my head that the "the sociopolitical landscape" won't be altered in any sort of radical way and that changes will only occur marginally and incrementally in our society, as they so often have, as people are generally slow to accept changes. Prove me wrong?
Unfortunately, I agree with you. I can provide tons of platitudes and cliches in this vein (think "men planting trees whose shade they will never enjoy" etc etc etc ad nauseam) but I honestly think we're doomed. For me, that doesn't negate the value in trying to build a world I would like to live in (or maybe pass on to future generations?) even if it gets rather depressing at times. Maybe it's just a selfish search for some kind of moral absolution that compels me to try to push these ideas, even against my own pessimism (realism? I think it's realism, if the reality is disastrous, then...).
Despite that, I do think there are periods of tremendously fast development/change. I don't think that they make things perfect, but I do think they can dramatically increase the well-being or "positive" potential of society or large segments of societies. The US in the 60's seem like the cliche to point to, but ask women, or black folks, or LGBTQIA folks who lived through that period and are alive today if there were improvements and I think you'll get a pretty clear yes (even if things are still a dumpster fire). Also, revolutionary Spain in the 30s is also a remarkably interesting case study in rapid pushes for developing networks of autonomy and mutual aid (as well as the fact that fascists, communists and Western democracies, all teamed up to quash it, having decided that anarchist/libertarian society was too great a threat to the world at large). And there are others but it's late and I'm tired so I'm copping out on listing more
I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see a reason not to try to change things for the better, you know, aside from state repression, and social alienation, and all that fun stuff
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()
On a more serious note, I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't try, regardless of what anyone else is/isn't doing or how hopeless humanity's prospects seem. Maybe it's just a personal compulsion or w/e...but this is the place we live, how could we not try to put some real work into improving it? I don't think I'm or we're going to "save the world" but, in the words of Howard Zinn, "You can't be neutral on a moving train."
dragonrider said:
What you say about my arguments, i could say about yours
I believe I said that you failed to provide evidence/cite sources...I honestly don't think you can say the same thing about mine. And, I must admit, I find the moral positions presented in your (and Jagube's) posts re: industry/state highly disturbing, to say the least.