Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?

[LLETSA]

I think that people who want to take drugs should be allowed to do so in peace. Is that such a wildly radical opinion? It works well enough in Amsterdam, where I'm off to tomorrow...

Don't you think that you ought to stop posing as some kind of genuine radical and admit that you are simply a lifestylist?

Once people start off down the mindless 'works well in Amsterdam' road then they really have lost.

 

[Blagsta]

You might not have directly said that you spend more time with addicts than those who suffer the consequences of their behaviour. However, in the very fact that you take pains to deny that the people least sympathetic towards drug abuse are those who have to live in the midst of its consequences, suggests that this is the case.

No, that's just your assumptions.

It isn't a case of dishonesty: I can't help it if you have difficulty making it clear exactly what you mean.

I've been very clear - you've been reading your assumptions into my posts.

 

[Blagsta]

Anyway, its not about being "sympathetic towards drug abuse" or not (what does that even mean?). Its about having some kind of intelligent debate that doesn't polarise the issue into all druggies = bad, all victims of crime = good.

 

[Blagsta]

Actually, ime, people who live amongst the consequences of drug use are more likely to know a friend or family member who has had a substance misuse problem and be a bit more understanding. And its not about excusing people's behaviour, its about seeing people as whole complex human beings, not simply as "druggy scum".

Although of course, there are also people who have seen a family member go through drink or drug problems or who may even have been through it themselves and sorted themselves out relatively easily who think "if I can get off it with not too much trouble, then you can too". There are then issues here to do with splitting, projection etc - this then ties into my point about the failure of politics to take into account the inner worlds, subconscious and emotional lives of individuals and groups (psychodynamics basically)

 

[LLETSA]

Actually, ime, people who live amongst the consequences of drug use are more likely to know a friend or family member who has had a substance misuse problem and be a bit more understanding. And its not about excusing people's behaviour, its about seeing people as whole complex human beings, not simply as "druggy scum".

Although of course, there are also people who have seen a family member go through drink or drug problems or who may even have been through it themselves and sorted themselves out relatively easily who think "if I can get off it with not too much trouble, then you can too". There are then issues here to do with splitting, projection etc - this then ties into my point about the failure of politics to take into account the inner worlds, subconscious and emotional lives of individuals and groups (psychodynamics basically)

The title of the thread is 'Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?' is it not?

Those who have seen a family member or friend go through addiction to drugs are, as I've said, the least likely to be tolerant of either the dealers or the family member's addict friends. Although there are bound to be exceptions.

There is, as others have pointed out, no shortage of 'understanding,' when it comes to discussions like this. Indeed, it is quite possibly the view that prevails. Unfortunately, it is of no use at all to those who, it must be remembered, matter most in all this: the people who suffer the consequences of the actions of the dealers and addicts. The motivations of the latter group may well be complex, but it does not excuse them for making the lives of others a misery.

And, I would like to point out that, in this thread, I for one have neither called anybody scum nor advocated any kind of vigilantism.

 

[LLETSA]

Anyway, its not about being "sympathetic towards drug abuse" or not (what does that even mean?). Its about having some kind of intelligent debate that doesn't polarise the issue into all druggies = bad, all victims of crime = good.

'All druggies=bad, all victims of crime =good,' is a strangely simplistic formula when put forward by somebody who is trying to emphasisie the complexity of the problem. Again, I don't think anybody has said anything of the kind.

But let's be clear: if a druggie robs somebody else, there is no excuse for their behaviour, no matter who their victim might be.

 

[soulrebel]

coming very very late to this thread, but a big to everything (in no particular order) cathal_marcs, darren redparty, knopf, likesfish, LLETSA, poster242002 and sihhi (hope i haven't missed any out) have said - you give me hope that there are still *some* people with sense on urban75

As for the patronising pseudo-Freudian ad hominems being aimed at them by Blagsta and phildwyer, that IMO shows the desperate weakness of their position. Feel threatened by someone saying something that makes sense and challenges your nice fluffy little liberal-relativist consensus - so belittle and delegitimise them by accusing them of psychological instability or repressed sexual fantasies. Not just one of the cheapest and nastiest kinds of ad hominem but also an admission of your own failure to actually challenge their arguments with argument rather than dismissal IMO.

Going back a few pages to phildwyer's comment that "even people on an *anarchist* message board (FFS) are opnly advocating snitching to the police and even (FFS) vigilante action against delears", a) this isn't an "anarchist message board" (if you want one of those, try www.libcom.org/forums , in which i seriouslky doubt your patronising lifestylism will be treated with anything other than the scorn it deserves), b) i don't actually see any anarchists advocating snitching to police (i think tobyjug is the only one saying that), and c) i'm amazed that any "anarchist" isn't advocating self-administered community justice... what other kind of "justice" (there are reasons i don't like that word, but that's for another discussion) system could an anarchist society have?

also, bit of a tangent here, but going a bit further back to (i think it was) darren's points about community patrols/officers/whatever you want to call them being elected and subject to recall rather than "self-appointed", i'd actually prefer a rotating duty involving all members of the community (who want to, and are physically able to, do it... with some sort of safeguards to make sure those who aren't, or don't feel, able to do it still get a say in its operation) - i think that would be the only really "democratic" way for an anarchist community to "police" itself... but that's poss a different debate, and IMO your argument stands...

There was something else i was going to say, but this thread's so long i've forgotten...

 

[soulrebel]

Oh yeah, the legalisation debate (another tangent)... i think that's a false equation of non-equivalents. I don't think anyone here has suggested that weed (for example) is the same thing as crack (for example), and i certainly don't think there's any contradiction between enjoying an occasional spliff or an occasional can of cider or glass of wine (as i do... hell, i'm even making my own wine at the moment, from blackberries i picked for free, and which i'm going to give to/share with friends for free - the antithesis of the brutal capitalism of crack/smack dealing IMO) and being totally against crack/smack dealing... the effects of the drugs and the ways in which they are distributed are totally different and can't be sensibly equated...

I think it's also worth pointing out that both crack and heroin were deliberately introduced into working-class and ethnic minority communities by state forces in collaboration with govt-supported brutal paramilitary groups in the countries of origin (the far-right guerillas in Colombia, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan), with the tacit if not fully admitted motive of destabilising radical/class-conscious movements among those communities (Black Panthers in the US and anarchist ravers/travellers/squatters in the UK among others - this isn't a DrJazz style conspiracy theory, there's shitloads of real evidence and even admnissions from people high up in it) - so calling the dealrs parasitic scum is in no way contradictory to holding the same opinion of the ruling class/government - they're (ultimately) the same parasitic scum.

In an anarchist community of course there wouldn't be any prohibition of intoxicating substances - but there wouldn't be violent authoritarian capitalists using those substances to consolidate their power by fucking over everybody else either...

 

[likesfish]

I'm not sure if there was any plan to introduce heroin to traveller groups.
but if no plan I bet there was certain amount of relief amgonst certain people that smack got a hold. know a couple of peole who left living on sites as smack was about

 

[Blagsta]

The title of the thread is 'Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?' is it not?

Yes, it is. But debates move on within threads. If you look at my first post on this thread, you'll see that I think the answer is "no". I then took issue with some of the rhetoric used and the simplistic arguments.

Those who have seen a family member or friend go through addiction to drugs are, as I've said, the least likely to be tolerant of either the dealers or the family member's addict friends. Although there are bound to be exceptions.

People who've had friends or family members go through drug problems are likely to be least tolerant of dealers, yes. But, ime, they are also more likely to have an understanding of drug use and see people with drug problems as complex human beings. Although of course, there are exceptions.

There is, as others have pointed out, no shortage of 'understanding,' when it comes to discussions like this. Indeed, it is quite possibly the view that prevails. Unfortunately, it is of no use at all to those who, it must be remembered, matter most in all this: the people who suffer the consequences of the actions of the dealers and addicts. The motivations of the latter group may well be complex, but it does not excuse them for making the lives of others a misery.

Why do they matter most? Why can't we move to a position where everyone matters equally? Where we can have an understanding of the desperation and pain that drives people towards addictions?

And, I would like to point out that, in this thread, I for one have neither called anybody scum nor advocated any kind of vigilantism.

No, you haven't.

 

[Blagsta]

'All druggies=bad, all victims of crime =good,' is a strangely simplistic formula when put forward by somebody who is trying to emphasisie the complexity of the problem. Again, I don't think anybody has said anything of the kind.

Yes, of course its simplistic, that's my point. Look at some of the rhetoric used on this thread. I want to move beyond that.

But let's be clear: if a druggie robs somebody else, there is no excuse for their behaviour, no matter who their victim might be.

Yes, I have already stated that. If you're not going to bother reading and thinking about my posts, then don't bother at all eh?

 

[Blagsta]

As for the patronising pseudo-Freudian ad hominems being aimed at them by Blagsta and phildwyer, that IMO shows the desperate weakness of their position. Feel threatened by someone saying something that makes sense and challenges your nice fluffy little liberal-relativist consensus - so belittle and delegitimise them by accusing them of psychological instability or repressed sexual fantasies. Not just one of the cheapest and nastiest kinds of ad hominem but also an admission of your own failure to actually challenge their arguments with argument rather than dismissal IMO.

Oh piss off. Don't lump me in with phil dwyer, our arguments aren't even remotely similar. And "patronising pseudo-Freudian ad hominems"? Eh? What thread are you reading? 'cos it ain't the one I'm writing on. Can you please quote me where I "belittle and delegitimise them by accusing them of psychological instability or repressed sexual fantasies."?

Or have you got the wrong end of the stick again?

Fucks sake soulrebel.

 

[Blagsta]

Oh yeah, the legalisation debate (another tangent)... i think that's a false equation of non-equivalents. I don't think anyone here has suggested that weed (for example) is the same thing as crack (for example), and i certainly don't think there's any contradiction between enjoying an occasional spliff or an occasional can of cider or glass of wine (as i do... hell, i'm even making my own wine at the moment, from blackberries i picked for free, and which i'm going to give to/share with friends for free - the antithesis of the brutal capitalism of crack/smack dealing IMO) and being totally against crack/smack dealing... the effects of the drugs and the ways in which they are distributed are totally different and can't be sensibly equated...

I think it's also worth pointing out that both crack and heroin were deliberately introduced into working-class and ethnic minority communities by state forces in collaboration with govt-supported brutal paramilitary groups in the countries of origin (the far-right guerillas in Colombia, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan), with the tacit if not fully admitted motive of destabilising radical/class-conscious movements among those communities (Black Panthers in the US and anarchist ravers/travellers/squatters in the UK among others - this isn't a DrJazz style conspiracy theory, there's shitloads of real evidence and even admnissions from people high up in it) - so calling the dealrs parasitic scum is in no way contradictory to holding the same opinion of the ruling class/government - they're (ultimately) the same parasitic scum.

In an anarchist community of course there wouldn't be any prohibition of intoxicating substances - but there wouldn't be violent authoritarian capitalists using those substances to consolidate their power by fucking over everybody else either...

you don't even know what my argument is do you? Why don't you read the fucking thread?

 

[Blagsta]

I think it's also worth pointing out that both crack and heroin were deliberately introduced into working-class and ethnic minority communities by state forces in collaboration with govt-supported brutal paramilitary groups in the countries of origin (the far-right guerillas in Colombia, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan), with the tacit if not fully admitted motive of destabilising radical/class-conscious movements among those communities (Black Panthers in the US and anarchist ravers/travellers/squatters in the UK among others - this isn't a DrJazz style conspiracy theory, there's shitloads of real evidence and even admnissions from people high up in it) - so calling the dealrs parasitic scum is in no way contradictory to holding the same opinion of the ruling class/government - they're (ultimately) the same parasitic scum.

While there is certainly evidence that the CIA etc where involved in drug running, to suggest that heroin and crack were introduced into these communities by the state is laughable.

 

[phildwyer]

While there is certainly evidence that the CIA etc where involved in drug running, to suggest that heroin and crack were introduced into these communities by the state is laughable.

I'm not so sure about that. There's a good case to be made that the US heroin epidemic of the late '60's was the FBI's riposte to the civil rights movement. And the evidence for the CIA importing cocaine to fund their secret wars in the '80's is well-known. I'm sure that many people weren't unhappy with the devastation drugs wreaked in the ghettoes.

But the fact remains, there is only one solution to the drugs problem: legalization. Treat other drugs as alcohol, perhaps the most dangerous of all drugs, is treated. Tolerance, as long practiced in Amsterdam and more recently in much of southern Europe and South America, is a good first step on the road to legalization. Parroting the hateful cliches of the mass media, which obviously serve a reactionary agenda, is stupid, hysterical and will get us precisely nowhere.

 

[William of Walworth]

I'm interested in the idea that smack became more widespread in UK Traveller communities -- there's certainly some convincing case made in Andy Worthington's Battle of the Beanfield book that after 1985 (ie late eighties/early nineties), some Police forces deliberately went low key on prosecuting known smack dealers operating among Traveller groups. The suggestion (from several sensible, non paranoid interviewees of Andy's) was that Police forces were happy to see formerly active and troublesome Traveller groups become passive and fucked up -- we've certainly had ex-Travellers and friends of same post on here that smack did more to divide and destroy the New Age Travellers in the UK than the Police did ...

But all that's not the same as a deliberate state conspiracy to actively introduce smack into such groups. I'm very sceptical about that.

 

[William of Walworth]

I know even LESS about the US side of things though.

 

[William of Walworth]

a if you want a substance misuse job your be looking for one in the guardian on a wednesday.
thats where all the community jobs are advertised
you want to use drugs fine not a problem.
problem comes from what addicts have to do to afford there drugs and what dealers are prepared to do to defend there turf.
frankly you can stuff whatever chemical you like in you if your not bothering me.
its the fall out from drug users activities that cause the problems

What on earth are you implying?

Those jobs are advertised in the Guardian, therefore the very existence of such jobs must automatically be wrong? Thats what you appear to be hinting ...

But such notions all fit comfortably in with some peoples' 'everrything's all the Guardian's fault' 'mind'-set .....

Some of you kneejerk 'liberal'/Guardian-bashers seem so reactionary it's untrue ...

Would you like drug-fucked communities to CUT BACK on drug workers? You think that would make the situation better??

 

[phildwyer]

But all that's not the same as a deliberate state conspiracy to actively introduce smack into such groups. I'm very sceptical about that.

Depends what you mean by 'the state.' I doubt if John Major was involved, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a discrete understanding among elements within the police. And in the USA, much evidence has been alleged of drug dealing by the secret services although, naturally, elected politicians would not have been consulted.

 

[William of Walworth]

coming very very late to this thread, but a big to everything (in no particular order) cathal_marcs, darren redparty, knopf, likesfish, LLETSA, poster242002 and sihhi (hope i haven't missed any out) have said - you give me hope that there are still *some* people with sense on urban75

As for the patronising pseudo-Freudian ad hominems being aimed at them by Blagsta and phildwyer, that IMO shows the desperate weakness of their position. Feel threatened by someone saying something that makes sense and challenges your nice fluffy little liberal-relativist consensus - so belittle and delegitimise them by accusing them of psychological instability or repressed sexual fantasies. Not just one of the cheapest and nastiest kinds of ad hominem but also an admission of your own failure to actually challenge their arguments with argument rather than dismissal IMO.

Going back a few pages to phildwyer's comment that "even people on an *anarchist* message board (FFS) are opnly advocating snitching to the police and even (FFS) vigilante action against delears", a) this isn't an "anarchist message board" (if you want one of those, try www.libcom.org/forums , in which i seriouslky doubt your patronising lifestylism will be treated with anything other than the scorn it deserves), b) i don't actually see any anarchists advocating snitching to police (i think tobyjug is the only one saying that), and c) i'm amazed that any "anarchist" isn't advocating self-administered community justice... what other kind of "justice" (there are reasons i don't like that word, but that's for another discussion) system could an anarchist society have?

also, bit of a tangent here, but going a bit further back to (i think it was) darren's points about community patrols/officers/whatever you want to call them being elected and subject to recall rather than "self-appointed", i'd actually prefer a rotating duty involving all members of the community (who want to, and are physically able to, do it... with some sort of safeguards to make sure those who aren't, or don't feel, able to do it still get a say in its operation) - i think that would be the only really "democratic" way for an anarchist community to "police" itself... but that's poss a different debate, and IMO your argument stands...

There was something else i was going to say, but this thread's so long i've forgotten...

Basically I think one of the bigger problems of this forum sometimes, is peoples' assumption that 'liberals' are the main problem.

Blagsta's talking a lot more experience-based common sense abut drugs on this thread than half the people just using the thread to have a pop at 'liberals' and 'Guardian readers'.

Be very careful, kneejerk 'liberal'-bashers, when you reply to this post, that you don't make fools of yourelves in making assumptions about my politics or opinions ....

 

[William of Walworth]

Depends what you mean by 'the state.' I doubt if John Major was involved, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a discrete understanding among elements within the police.

Would want a lot more evidence, but I'm not ruling that idea out automatically.

 

[phildwyer]

Basically I think one of the bigger problems of this forum sometimes, is peoples' assumption that 'liberals' are the main problem.

Blagsta's talking a lot more experience-based common sense abut drugs on this thread than half the people just using the thread to have a pop at 'liberals' and 'Guardian readers'.

Be very careful, kneejerk 'liberal'-bashers, when you reply to this post, that you don't make fools of yourelves in making assumptions about my politics or opinions ....

Personally, having witnessed the deliberate demonization of the 'L-word' (as it became known) in successive American elections, I'm convinced that 'liberal-bashing' is specifically designed to appeal to people seeking to affirm their masculinity in public. The association of repressive attitudes to crime with machismo is of course one key to the success of the far-right in both Europe and the USA. Being 'tough on crime' is willy-waving in (a very threadbare) disguise.

 

[bristol_citizen]

Would you like drug-fucked communities to CUT BACK on drug workers? You think that would make the situation better??

I think the problem people have is that drug workers are basically promoting a very liberal model of social care, which is perfectly reasonable.
However when they attempt to promote this social care model as a political solution to the wider issue of drugs it begins to look threadbare and weak.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think the problem people have is that drug workers are basically promoting a very liberal model of social care, which is perfectly reasonable.
However when they attempt to promote this social care model as a political solution to the wider issue of drugs it begins to look threadbare and weak.

I'll leave that one to Blagsta .... I'm trying to learn from this thread as well a just ranting ...

 

[William of Walworth]

Personally, having witnessed the deliberate demonization of the 'L-word' (as it became known) in successive American elections, I'm convinced that 'liberal-bashing' is specifically designed to appeal to people seeking to affirm their masculinity in public. The association of repressive attitudes to crime with machismo is of course one key to the success of the far-right in both Europe and the USA. Being 'tough on crime' is willy-waving in (a very threadbare) disguise.

Interesting theory, I've tried to shame past (UK based) 'liberal'-bashers on Urban by questioning them about how closely they identify with neocon Yanks using 'liberal' as a catchall term of abuse for anyone to the left of GW Bush ...

Different thread that one I suppose ...

But the worst thing about this thread to me has been the suggestion that 'liberals' are not only to blame for, but are also actively encouraging the spread of crack, etc. and related crime ...

Or the suggestion that if you're sceptical/concerned about 'community policing' (aka vigilenteism) you must THEREFORE be a handwringing wet liberal Guardian reading social worker who's soft on crime, or that you must therefore completely trust the Police ...

 

[Pickman's model]

well, WoW, if you will read the grauniad, what do you expect people to believe of you?

 

[phildwyer]

Interesting theory, I've tried to shame past (UK based) 'liberal'-bashers on Urban by questioning them about how closely they identify with neocon Yanks using 'liberal' as a catchall term of abuse for anyone to the left of GW Bush ...

Different thread that one I suppose ...

But the worst thing about this thread to me has been the suggestion that 'liberals' are not only to blame for, but are also actively encouraging the spread of crack, etc. and related crime ...

Or the suggestion that if you're sceptical/concerned about 'community policing' (aka vigilenteism) you must THEREFORE be a handwringing wet liberal Guardian reading social worker who's soft on crime, or that you must therefore completely trust the Police ...

Yes, and the metaphors you use (in imitation of the reactionaries) are very revealing: one can be 'soft' or 'hard' on crime, for example. George Bush Sr went through a phrase of always prefacing the word 'liberal' with 'little,' as in 'little liberal Democrats.' Sounds foolish enough, but it *worked.* It works on these boards too.

 

[poster342002]

But the worst thing about this thread to me has been the suggestion that 'liberals' are not only to blame for, but are also actively encouraging the spread of crack, etc. and related crime ...

Yes, but you have to admit there are certain types of liberal, as set out by LLETSA in post 42, page 2 of this thread here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3939285#post3939285
which do pretty much behave in this way. The sort that moves to an area blighted by drugs and crime because it is blighted by drugs and crime and sees this as "jolly exciting!". This particular type will fight tooth and nail any attempt from the local population to get the problem solved.

In fact, I've often wondered if some of those sorts of people would actually be quite upset if drugs were legalised and properly regulated, as the seedy factor (which is half the fun for them) would be removed.

 

[William of Walworth]

I read that Lletsa post before. I don't deny that a very few such people may exist, but I question their number and influence in drug and crime related debate. If there were so many of them , why do we see so few posts from such folks on websites like this one?

I personally have never met anyone in real life, who actively wants to encourage crack and related crime into an area

 

[William of Walworth]

well, WoW, if you will read the grauniad, what do you expect people to believe of you?

It's them who have the problem with kneejerk reactions and sweeping statements, not me.