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

[butchersapron]

transitional demands? Leon wants a word

TD's are meant to help create a pre-revolutionary situation where the w/c learns/teaches itself to recognise and manage its own demands and so delegitimise the understanding that only the capitalist state can run these things and so in turn expand the areas where people challenge that capitalist state control. This stuff is meek top-down managerial legalistic friendly to new business manner (see the classical capitalist style competition talked about here). About as far from TDs as possible really.

 

[FNG]

Where is your evidence for the idea that a generation of young men and women is or has been criminalised by the prohibition of psychedelics? And why are you focussing on the use of a clip art generated fist rather than the appropriation of the language of civil rights?

This is all getting a bit

Go and read the report I posted about how the police routinely criminalise young black and asian men and women for being in possession of cannabis in the street or don't.
Remove that rotten string to their bow and the justification for continuation of the policy of stop and search as a useful tool in massaging crime detection figures collapses.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So where are you getting your idea of rights from?

Where, specifically, do you get the idea that taking psychedelics is a civil right, by any generally recognised or vaguely coherent version of that term, as opposed to some other type of right, or even "I should have the right to do anything which I want to do" which is what this particular trip seems to boil down to?

That's pretty easy. It's based on the 'where's the victim' principle. Who am I harming by taking psychedelics? Broadly speaking, as long as it is not harming anyone else, I should have the right to do whatever I want, yes.

 

[8ball]

That's pretty easy. It's based on the 'where's the victim' principle. Who am I harming by taking psychedelics? Broadly speaking, as long as it is not harming anyone else, I should have the right to do whatever I want, yes.

Although that brings in in the whole extra argument about where the limits are of society's obligation to put you back together when you harm yourself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Although that brings in in the whole extra argument about where the limits are of society's obligation to put you back together when you harm yourself.

Yes, plus a duty of care from society towards its members. That is kind of covered, though - you're harming others if you put them in a position where they have to sort you out.

Drug laws as they stand are not based on this, though. mdma is one of the safest drugs around.

This isn't my preferred way of approaching this, btw. I prefer winning arguments that it's ok to take drugs, that good people leading good lives also take drugs and it damages society to criminalise them for no good reason.

 

[butchersapron]

Nonsense upon drugs.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Although that brings in in the whole extra argument about where the limits are of society's obligation to put you back together when you harm yourself.

Quite. Take enough acid and you're likely to put yourself in a position where other people need to look after you at least to some extent.

Not that we shouldn't look after people of course, but the best way to do that is to stop them from doing themselves lasting damage in the first place. Drug users insisting that their drug never hurt anyone isn't going to help with that. Legalisation should be seen as a way to reduce the harm caused by drugs, not as an opportunity to promote their use. Replacing 'all drugs are evil' with 'all drugs are awesome' is just trading one piece of bullshit for another.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Quite. Take enough acid and you're likely to put yourself in a position where other people need to look after you at least to some extent.

Not that we shouldn't look after people of course, but the best way to do that is to stop them from doing themselves lasting damage in the first place. Drug users insisting that their drug never hurt anyone isn't going to help with that. Legalisation should be seen as a way to reduce the harm caused by drugs, not as an opportunity to promote their use. Replacing 'all drugs are evil' with 'all drugs are awesome' is just trading one piece of bullshit for another.

It's not about the drugs so much as the people. Whatever your attitude towards drug use - even if you think it's an irresponsible thing to do and that it is to be discouraged, that is not a good reason to turn people who do it into criminals. Criminalising drug users has been a disaster in pretty much every respect.

 

[8ball]

It's not about the drugs so much as the people. Whatever your attitude towards drug use - even if you think it's an irresponsible thing to do and that it is to be discouraged, that is not a good reason to turn people who do it into criminals. Criminalising drug users has been a disaster in pretty much every respect.

Except for the shareholders of private prisons.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's not about the drugs so much as the people.

So any argument for legalisation should be made in those terms.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So any argument for legalisation should be made in those terms.

Depends. Depends on where you are. In a rights-based culture like the US, a rights-based argument can make headway, as we've seen with marijuana.

 

[andysays]

Go and read the report I posted about how the police routinely criminalise young black and asian men and women for being in possession of cannabis in the street or don't.
Remove that rotten string to their bow and the justification for continuation of the policy of stop and search as a useful tool in massaging crime detection figures collapses.

OK, so you're not actually talking about psychedelics at all.

Thanks for eventually making that clear.

 

[andysays]

That's pretty easy. It's based on the 'where's the victim' principle. Who am I harming by taking psychedelics? Broadly speaking, as long as it is not harming anyone else, I should have the right to do whatever I want, yes.

But none of that has anything to do with the appropriation of the language of civil rights, unless you can demonstrate how your

as long as it is not harming anyone else, I should have the right to do whatever I want

has anything to do with specifically civil rights as understood by anyone with anything coherent to say on the matter

 

[8ball]

(((Cornell University Law School)))

 

[littlebabyjesus]

*mumbles something incoherent*

 

[andysays]

Yeah, like, right on, maaaan.....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

*backs away slowly*

 

[FNG]

OK, so you're not actually talking about psychedelics at all.

Thanks for eventually making that clear.

I wasn't actually talking to you at all

 

[Citizen66]

It's identity politics sans the oppressed identity. Become anarchists instead as it deals with this. Liberals get the laws they deserve.

 

[FNG]

It's identity politics sans the oppressed identity. Become anarchists instead as it deals with this. Liberals get the laws they deserve.

I take a somewhat take the opposing view that Identity Politics is what happens when you let the Liberals become undisputed arbiters and self declared curators of the Civil rights movement.

 

[BigTom]

Quite. Take enough acid and you're likely to put yourself in a position where other people need to look after you at least to some extent.

Not that we shouldn't look after people of course, but the best way to do that is to stop them from doing themselves lasting damage in the first place. Drug users insisting that their drug never hurt anyone isn't going to help with that. Legalisation should be seen as a way to reduce the harm caused by drugs, not as an opportunity to promote their use. Replacing 'all drugs are evil' with 'all drugs are awesome' is just trading one piece of bullshit for another.

Neither the psychedelic society, nor anyone on this thread is arguing that all drugs (or even all psychedelics) are awesome and can't/don't cause harm.

But let's not deny or ignore the upsides of drugs either, framing the whole debate in terms of harm reduction is fine (and the best argument against prohibition imo) but we should also be able to argue that drugs produce enjoyable and sometimes medically beneficial outcomes and that this is a reason for legalisation as well (and that recognising the good things doesn't mean denying the bad).

Which is where the parallels to liberation movements come in, around ideas of not being defensive or ashamed of drug use, of talking about the upsides and of being "out" as a user of psychedelics, as part of a move to legalisation or normalisation.

And whilst the comparison the liberation movements is wrong, as we head towards legalisation, the taboos will fall away, as they are with weed. This is both cause and effect imo.

Drug pride! We're here! We're not very clear because we're all mashed on mind bending drugs! err, what was the end of the chant again?

 

[chilango]

Tbh I'm far more concerned about the communities being destroyed by the narcotics industry/drug trade.

 

[kenny g]

How many communities have been destroyed by the LSD trade?

 

[Johnny Vodka]

How many communities have been destroyed by the LSD trade?

Clearly you've never had a bunch of hippies descend on your town.

 

[DotCommunist]

How many communities have been destroyed by the LSD trade?

have you been to brighton and hove?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

have you been to brighton and hove?

Oi it's not LSD that's the problem...it's all the immigrants...from London!

Cheers - Louis (Sussex born and Sussex bred) MacNeice

 

[Johnny Vodka]

It's World Mushroom Day!

What about when laws get in the way of people accessing the most effective medicine for a horrible condition?

Magic Mushroom Medicine

(Link is about shrooms and cluster headaches.)

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Although that brings in in the whole extra argument about where the limits are of society's obligation to put you back together when you harm yourself.

Society is certainly spending a lot of money on obesity related conditions; sugar and junk food is doing harm on a far greater scale than psychedelics ever could and there seems to be zilch regulation or even a move to slap a decent tax on such foods. Legalise (psychedelics), tax, plough this money back into the NHS, so *if* people do become 'casualties' the money is there for treatment.