Is it right for The Psychedelic Society to adopt the language of past civil rights movements?

[andysays]

a civil right is a civil right - there may be a scale of importance that people attach to different freedoms, but they can all be classified as civil rights.

I'm really rather skeptical about this. For most people, the term "civil rights" conjures up the black American movement of the 60s (which I notice doesn't even get a mention in the article linked to in the OP). According to this wiki article

The African-American Civil Rights Movement encompasses social movements in the United States whose goals were to end racial segregation and discrimination against black Americans and to secure legal recognition and federal protection of the citizenship rights enumerated in the Constitution and federal law

So would anyone like to argue that users of psychedelics are subject to similar removal of their civil rights, ie segregation and systematic discrimination in all areas of their lives, or denied the legal recognitions and protections of their citizenship rights?

This adoption of the language of civil rights, in attempting to draw parallels between struggles against systematic racist and gender oppression, just makes those who are doing it look like self-important twats who have no real concept of genuine oppression, and apparantly can't see how stupid they're making themselves look (and how insulting it is to those involved in genuine civil rights struggles).

No great surprise to see who has started this thread and some of those clambering on board, but I hoped you were a little more discriminating.

 

[ska invita]

The choice to take drugs is the same as the right not to be murdered for your skin colour?

why make that analogy? There nothing in the link in the OP that I saw that makes it relevant to bring up racial murder. Its a straw man.

There is explicitly one analogy made in the link:
" 'Coming out' and 'pride' were key parts of the gay rights movement, and it seems they can play an important part in the movement to decriminalise users of psychedelics too."

Since drug use is taboo and something people have to do in secret and deny afterwards there is an element of this that makes sense. If everyone in the media/mainstream/positions of responsibility (plus us plebs) etc who had taken psychedelics and thought that they should be legal came out and stood up for them that would help the argument.

 

[Red Cat]

People who use psychedelics can be jailed for that usage, that is oppression. I'm tending to agree with FM and Blagsta though, it's significantly different to sexism/racism and similar.
I'd like to be more open about my previous/current drug use in general though, in the way that no-one feels the need to hide that they went down the pub and got pissed last night in general company.

People who use psychedelics are not oppressed as a group are they?

 

[cesare]

People who use psychedelics have the same rights as people who don't use psychedelics, to use psychedelics.

 

[ska invita]

People who use psychedelics are not oppressed as a group are they?

They are in that they'll be imprisoned if caught - but anyhow, the most provocative thing about this is JV's thread title - best to respond to what it actually says in the link http://www.psychedelicsociety.org.uk/blog/take-part-in-the-first-psychedelicpride-photoshoot

People who use psychedelics have the same rights as people who don't use psychedelics, to use psychedelics.

except they dont have the right, as its illegal

 

[Red Cat]

why make that analogy? There nothing in the link in the OP that I saw that makes it relevant to bring up racial murder. Its a straw man.

There is explicitly one analogy made in the link:
" 'Coming out' and 'pride' were key parts of the gay rights movement, and it seems they can play an important part in the movement to decriminalise users of psychedelics too."

Since drug use is taboo and something people have to do in secret and deny afterwards there is an element of this that makes sense. If everyone in the media/mainstream/positions of responsibility (plus us plebs) etc who had taken psychedelics and thought that they should be legal came out and stood up for them that would help the argument.

Is it really taboo? I'm always walking past people smoking weed, it seems the whole neighbourhood stinks of it sometimes. Even my extremely conventional right-wing parents knew I smoked spliff in my room when I was a teenager.

 

[cesare]

except they dont have the right, as its illegal

The people that don't use them are in the same position.

 

[butchersapron]

This reminds me more of the modern far rights attempts to rewrite their racism as rights for whites, the BNP's equal but separate approach - to inscribe a political position as as one that the state and society must uphold and defend. The position itself that is, not the right to hold that position.

 

[BigTom]

People who use psychedelics are not oppressed as a group are they?

What do you mean by "as a group"?
People who take psychedelics all face criminalisation as a result, and have to hide their consumption of psychedelics in general society.
I suppose not all psychedelics are illegal but the main ones people use are, and you'd probably face an even bigger lack of understanding if you told people at work that you'd been munching fly agaric and tripping balls that weekend for the lolz.
I'd say that means they are oppressed as a group.

I think there's a parallel to homosexuality in terms of moving away from a view of being gay being something to be ashamed of, to it being something that people are - just like people who are hetero (or bi or whatever people want to define as), is also there with psychedelics, in terms of making it something that people do, just like beer. There's a huge difference though in the difference between something people are and something people do, that I think makes the comparison void.

But I'd like to see more people being sort of proud of their drug use, I've had lots of good times on drugs but you'll struggle if you say that in a public forum, and get shouted down as if that means you ignore the downside/darksides of drugs. Proud is the wrong word though - more just that drugs are put across in a "drugs are bad" way so much, there's should be recognition of the good sides of drugs too, I'm not sure what word best suits that.

 

[cesare]

People's sexuality isn't a matter of choice. People's taking of psychedelics is.

 

[andysays]

...But I'd like to see more people being sort of proud of their drug use, I've had lots of good times on drugs but you'll struggle if you say that in a public forum, and get shouted down as if that means you ignore the downside/darksides of drugs. Proud is the wrong word though - more just that drugs are put across in a "drugs are bad" way so much, there's should be recognition of the good sides of drugs too, I'm not sure what word best suits that.

Talking about pride or something similar is one thing (though I imagine that some of those concerned with Gay Pride or Black Pride might think you were appropriating their term for something comparatively trivial), but using the language of civil rights is frankly nonsense.

Drug users are not subject to removal of their civil rights, ie segregation and systematic discrimination in all areas of their lives, or denied the legal recognitions and protections of their citizenship rights, as were those who suffered on the basis of systematic racist or gender discrimination.

No one has a civil right to simply disregard any of the laws they don't personally agree with, though they're welcome to argue that those laws should be changed.

 

[ska invita]

People's sexuality isn't a matter of choice. People's taking of psychedelics is.

in some cases it is - there are people who chose to be gay, chose to be bi, chose to indulge in S&M (still illegal in teh UK), and so on - ETA: the political and cultural freedom to experiment and chose is part of sexual rights I think

BTW I wouldnt vote in the poll as I think its been phrased in a loaded way...

 

[cesare]

How can people say that the civil rights of psychedelic users are eroded when they're represented at the highest levels of government?

 

[Citizen66]

.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Drug users are not subject to removal of their civil rights, ie segregation and systematic discrimination in all areas of their lives, or denied the legal recognitions and protections of their citizenship rights, as were those who suffered on the basis of systematic racist or gender discrimination.

'Drug' users are treated differently from alcohol users. A criminal record can have an effect on your employment prospects, travel to the U.S., etc. Drug use is seen officially as sinful, even amongst many pro-legalisation people - who usually fight with a 'harm reduction' argument rather than a 'right to do what you want with your own body' argument.

 

[andysays]

'Drug' users are treated differently from alcohol users. A criminal record can have an effect on your employment prospects, travel to the U.S., etc. Drug use is seen officially as sinful, even amongst many pro-legalisation people - who usually fight with a 'harm reduction' argument rather than a 'right to do what you want with your own body' argument.

Drug users are treated differently to alcohol users to the exact extent that drug use is criminalised whereas alcohol use is not (though actions arising from excessive alcohol use may be).

None of what you have said on this thread makes any case for adopting the language of civil rights with regard to legalisation of psychedelic drugs.

And none of what I have seen of your posts on any other threads ever show that you are able to distinguish between systematic oppression and the denial of civil rights on the one hand, and restrictions on your assumed individual right to behave in exactly the way you choose regardless of any broader social considerations, frankly. You're out of your depth attempting to talk about this and you don't even realise it...

 

[Citizen66]

I think he just adopts whatever position he feels will get up people's noses. Pun unintended.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Interesting argument. Homosexuality was seen as a social/medical/mental health problem when I came out. It was politically necessary to come out - so people would see not all homosexuals were the mad / weak /preditory nancy boys /dykes of popular imagination. We had to put our heads above the parapet to destroy those dangerous stereotypes. We came out to show we were all sorts of people from all backgrounds, classes, walks of life, we were just people like anyone else.

Certainly the law /establishment is mixed up in its approach to drug use - mostly saying 'IT WILL KILL YOU' when most of see the reality is much more complex than that - most of know many ordinary or successful people who use stuff recreationally. So I can see the parallel about coming out - I'll be interested to see who comes out as a psychedelic user and how that counters the sterotypes about 'junkies'.

Not sure I like their logo - looks like the red hand of Ulster to me. A clenched fist symbol suggests a fight, violence, militia - surely their campaign about drug laws isn't that? I understand they want to use some of the successful tactics of civil rights movements.
But is it a civil right? or a first world problem? I hope the PS know what history they using in their campaign though and not disrespect it.

 

[cesare]

It's the SWP logo, but with changes of colour

 

[andysays]

Interesting augument. Homosexuality was seen as a social/medical/mental health problem when I came out. It was politically necessary to come out - so people would see not all homosexuals were the mad / weak /preditory nancy boys /dykes of popular imagination. We had to put our heads above the parapet to destroy those dangerous stereotypes. We came out to show we were all sorts of people from all backgrounds, classes, walks of life, we were just people like anyone else...

...I hope the PS know what history they using in their campaign though and not disrespect it.

I was trying to remember, was the process you're talking about referred to/described by those involved specifically as a civil rights issue, or was it referred to mainly as Gay Pride? My (admittedly vague and not involved) recollection is that it was the latter, but I'm sure you will be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

And as far as your final point goes, if the article linked to in the OP (and the arguments trotted out here so far) are anything to go by, then I suspect we will all be disappointed

 

[Red Cat]

I think he just adopts whatever position he feels will get up people's noses. Pun unintended.

What about the psychedelic drug userz?

 

[andysays]

What about the psychedelic drug userz?

In a perfect world, that would be the end of the thread

 

[8ball]

why make that analogy? There nothing in the link in the OP that I saw that makes it relevant to bring up racial murder. Its a straw man.

50 points to Gryffindor for correct use of the term 'straw man'.

 

[purenarcotic]

I'm sorry like, and I'm all for an end to prohibition but not being able to take mushrooms is really not on the same scale as people who face homophobia or racism. This is not oppression on anywhere near the same scale and I find it really insulting to suggest that it is.

 

[Pickman's model]

do the psych. soc. object to being called hippies?

 

[Blagsta]

why make that analogy?

It's not my analogy. It's implicit in the op.

 

[Blagsta]

Is it really taboo? I'm always walking past people smoking weed, it seems the whole neighbourhood stinks of it sometimes. Even my extremely conventional right-wing parents knew I smoked spliff in my room when I was a teenager.

Someone was smoking weed on the bus into town this afternoon.

 

[Blagsta]

Talking about pride or something similar is one thing (though I imagine that some of those concerned with Gay Pride or Black Pride might think you were appropriating their term for something comparatively trivial), but using the language of civil rights is frankly nonsense.

Drug users are not subject to removal of their civil rights, ie segregation and systematic discrimination in all areas of their lives, or denied the legal recognitions and protections of their citizenship rights, as were those who suffered on the basis of systematic racist or gender discrimination.

No one has a civil right to simply disregard any of the laws they don't personally agree with, though they're welcome to argue that those laws should be changed.

I think there's an argument that people who suffer from addiction to (illegal) drugs have some of their rights denied, treatment is seen as politically unimportant, they are criminalised, treatment budgets cut etc.

That's not the same thing as the op is arguing though.

 

[Blagsta]

50 points to Gryffindor for correct use of the term 'straw man'.

It's not though. By using the language of civil rights and claiming this is an analogous fight, is to invite the comparison I made.

 

[andysays]

Someone was smoking weed on the bus into town this afternoon.

And so it begins