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



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

psychedelic pride is coming your way!

http://www.psychedelicsociety.org.uk/blog/take-part-in-the-first-psychedelicpride-photoshoot

Personally, I think it's a great idea, but something tells me some folk (not necessarily on here ) will have a problem with the comparisons being made.


----------



## Onket (Nov 30, 2014)

http://www.psychedelicsociety.org.uk/legalise-mushrooms

Signed!


----------



## Belushi (Nov 30, 2014)

I can't say it's a cause that particularly interests me but there's nothing wrong with them campaigning for a change in the laws.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

It's absurd. Psychedelic drug use is a choice.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> It's absurd. Psychedelic drug use is a choice.



The actual *expression* of sexuality is surely a choice, no? 

It might seem trivial, but think of how many people like to go to the pub or have a few beers to switch off after a hard week. To me, psychedelicpride is all about saying "I like to smoke weed/take shrooms" and I will not be labelled a criminal or deviant for doing so.  It's also about asserting rights over your own mind and body.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> The actual *expression* of sexuality is surely a choice, no?



No.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Psychedelic drug use is a choice.


yes, and its should be a civil right to have the choice to choose to do it or not


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

There's absolutely nothing illegal about picking mushrooms and eating them afaik the law only comes into swing if you try to extract the drug (by boiling or whatever).


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's absolutely nothing illegal about picking mushrooms and eating them afaik the law only comes into swing if you try to extract the drug (by boiling or whatever).



Wrong.  Possession of fresh magic mushrooms is a crime.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yes, and its should be a civil right to have the choice to choose to do it or not



It's hardly the same as struggles against racism and homophobia.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Wrong.  Possession of fresh magic mushrooms is a crime.



Not saying you're wrong but do you have a link for that? (Or is this a recent law?)

What about the sale of morning glory seeds? Nutmeg kernels?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Wrong.  Possession of fresh magic mushrooms is a crime.



"Picking & eating" wouldn't be classed as possession.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's absolutely nothing illegal about picking mushrooms and eating them afaik the law only comes into swing if you try to extract the drug (by boiling or whatever).



That was changed when people started selling them in Camden. Possession of untreated mushrooms is illegal now.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Not saying you're wrong but do you have a link for that? (Or is this a recent law?)



The law was amended in 2005.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

Cheers both, yeah just googled it. Can't see how they'd prove whether you'd picked them deliberately or accidentally though. Surely foraging would be used as a defence?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 30, 2014)

As far as the Psychedelic Society goes if they can stir up a controversy over their use of language then they'll have made more impact than I expect. What I've seen of them so far fits under 'mildly embarrassing.'


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Cheers both, yeah just googled it. Can't see how they'd prove whether you'd picked them deliberately or accidentally though. Surely foraging would be used as a defence?



Try telling that to plod if you get caught out in the fields with 200 liberty caps.  I think they'd assume you knew what you were picking.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> It's hardly the same as struggles against racism and homophobia.


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.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 30, 2014)

It's a mild provocation surely, not to be taken very seriously.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 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.



Absolutely.  It's a great injustice that people can get a criminal record/penalties for having a bit of weed.  If alcohol were suddenly made illegal, you'd hear people loudly complaining about rights.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

I think the Right To Roam was fought on civil rights grounds....IIRC...(the clue may be in "Right" to roam!)


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> It's a mild provocation surely, not to be taken very seriously.


i dont see it that way at all - i dont find it provocative, and i definitely dont think they're trying to insult anyone - the civil right angle is just a slightly different tactic to get a law changed.

If they gave it the "I HAve a Dream" bit and really invoked MLKjr, that might be a little insensitive, but even then the sentiment is fair enough - i do have that dream!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2014)

The problem with this is that it draws a comparison between the status of psychedelic _users_ and cases where people were protesting against being socially and legally discriminated against because of who they were, hence needing "pride". Black people were denied civil rights because they were black. Psychedelic drugs are not banned because society discriminates against psychedelic users - they're not even a group outside of their desire to use psychedelics.

It comes across as if they think they _are_ being personally discriminated against, which makes me just think "whiny self-obsessed twats" and also detracts from any message of legalising psychedelics (which I broadly agree with).


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i dont see it that way at all - i dont find it provocative, and i definitely dont think they're trying to insult anyone - the civil right angle is just a slightly different tactic to get a law changed.
> 
> If they gave it the "I HAve a Dream" bit and really invoked MLKjr, that might be a little insensitive, but even then the sentiment is fair enough - i do have that dream!



I didn't say they were trying to insult anyone, I said mildly provocative, but they have consciously taken on language more usually associated with struggle against systemic oppression, and I think it's unlikely they're unaware of this and the gap between that and their own social position as individuals who use psychedelic drugs.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 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.



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


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i dont see it that way at all - i dont find it provocative, and i definitely dont think they're trying to insult anyone - the civil right angle is just a slightly different tactic to get a law changed.
> 
> If they gave it the "I HAve a Dream" bit and really invoked MLKjr, that might be a little insensitive, but even then the sentiment is fair enough - i do have that dream!


"I have a dream" is surely more apt given the subject matter.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


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



'Pride' suggests more an equivalence with the display of sexuality.  It's about 'coming out' as someone who is interested in or uses psychedelics.  I can't see an issue with it at all in that context.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> "I have a dream" is surely more apt given the subject matter.



'I have a hallucination' is better. Or 'I have a ten foot jiving squirrel'


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> 'Pride' suggests more an equivalence with the display of sexuality.  It's about 'coming out' as someone who is interested in or uses psychedelics.  I can't see an issue with it at all in that context.



Well, it was you that raised it as an issue with your thread. 

But, in what way are people who use psychedelics oppressed as a group? 

And who do you want to come out to?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Well, it was you that raised it as an issue with your thread.
> 
> But, in what way are people who use psychedelics oppressed as a group?
> 
> And who do you want to come out to?



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 homophobia/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.


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

BigTom said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> 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



cesare said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 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."
> ...



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 (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> except they dont have the right, as its illegal



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


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2014)

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 (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

BigTom said:


> ...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 (Nov 30, 2014)

cesare said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> '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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2014)

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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


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



What about the psychedelic drug userz?


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> What about the psychedelic drug userz?



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


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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 (Nov 30, 2014)

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


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> why make that analogy?



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


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


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



And so it begins


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> And so it begins



Standard in Birmingham innit doe


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> 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.



All those things are significant issues, but not civil rights issues, as you have argued in various other posts on this thread which I agree with.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

cesare said:


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



Ah, knew it was familiar.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

I think it takes the rise and I say that as someone who likes to grow and eat mushies every now and then.

in fact its the sort of crass twatty co-option of the language of someone elses struggle that can only come from acid casualties.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> 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.



weed pretty much isn't nowadays, maybe another generation to legality I reckon and a similar social status to alcohol. It's falling away in the USA right now. Other drugs, not so much.



andysays said:


> 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 agree with you, not least because of the bit in bold.
But if someone is imprisoned as a result of their use of psychedelics, then they do have civil rights removed - they lose the right to vote, freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. It's just not on a scale or for a reason that is comparable to the black / feminist / gay civil rights movements - that doesn't mean that there aren't parallels to be drawn though, or that some of the ways in which we can act to bring about a change in the laws aren't going to be the same/similar.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

i think theres a relationship between Taboo and Pride which is most relevant here


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I think it takes the rise and I say that as someone who likes to grow and eat mushies every now and then.
> 
> in fact its the sort of crass twatty co-option of the language of someone elses struggle that can only come from acid casualties.



The term 'pride' has been attached to a heap of movements since the civil rights movement in America, because it has worked in various contexts where it has been necessary to combat stigma.  Obviously some uses involve larger-scale problems than others and it will be picked up by the odd 'niche' group, but that's nothing new.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

the horrible stigma of tie dye and grateful dead cd's


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the horrible stigma of tie dye and grateful dead cd's


its a burden


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

The use of the black power fist too.



> The symbol of #psychedelicpride is the neon fist.



Hasn't flower power bindun?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

of all the oppression and injustice in the world...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> of all the oppression and injustice in the world...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 30, 2014)

If they open up your mind so much, how come people who do loads of psychedelics are always so crushingly dull?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 30, 2014)

BigTom said:


> What do you mean by "as a group"?



I suppose I mean are they subject to structural oppression? Does another group of people profit from the oppression of psychedelic drug users? Who are they? And in what way? Does the discriminated against status of psychedelic drug users make them more likely to be subject to greater exploitation?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

tbf I don't want or need the permission of borgouis courts to enjoy my drugs. 

complacent potheads and mushie users who can be seen nowhere normally but come after thier drug of choice and suddenly everyones lenin at pulpit


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I suppose I mean are they subject to structural oppression? Does another group of people profit from the oppression of psychedelic drug users? Who are they? And in what way? Does the discriminated against status of psychedelic drug users make them more likely to be subject to greater exploitation?



Short answer would be no, not really. Although if we talk about drugs generally, and look at the way the private prison industry funds lobbying for the war on drugs in order to criminalise (largely poor, black, male) Americans, then I think you could answer yes to every other question - but this is more crack and heroin that are used in that way and afaik really just the states, I don't think any other country has such a developed private prison industry, or one that is so keen to get as many people incarcerated as possible. 

I suppose with the last one, about greater exploitation, with drugs being illegal you can get ripped off when purchasing more easily than if they weren't, it's easy to not get ripped off buying beer, but is that exploitation? I don't think it's what you mean... and definitely clutching at straws for an argument I don't support anway


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> *tbf I don't want or need the permission of borgouis courts to enjoy my drugs. *
> 
> complacent potheads and mushie users who can be seen nowhere normally but come after thier drug of choice and suddenly everyones lenin at pulpit



Just don't say that to the magistrate if you're up in front of them for growing a bit of weed to smoke, might as well claim you're a freeman on the land, Dot of the family communist


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 30, 2014)

I think it's fair to say that while psychedelic drug users might be considered oppressed, there are people in the world who sufer greater oppression, and generally for reasons which aren't a matter of choice on their part.

So basically when everyone else who is oppressed in this world is finally free from tyranny, maybe then I'll start to give a fuck about DMT munters. Maybe. Probably not though.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think it's fair to say that while psychedelic drug users might be considered oppressed, there are people in the world who sufer greater oppression, and generally for reasons which aren't a matter of choice on their part.



This is about unfair and discriminatory laws.  Why should those with a preference for weed face the risk of prosecution when alcohol users can drink unhassled?  There is a tie with drug laws and racism in that many drugs were apparently banned because of their ties with ethnic communities, while alcohol was always seen as a 'white' drug.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


>




One of my karaoke songs.   But this is more about your right to relax after a hard week at work - not that trivial once you start to think about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

I think you're imagining it Vodka- or even if you are right its not that bad really


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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



Not clear what you are asking.  I've always thought gay rights are civil rights.* When you say 'Gay Pride' do you mean the annual march or are you refering to the gay rights movement in general, there were lots of organisations/campaigns over the years, with different aims and purpose.   The idea that personal was political was well established in the feminist movement, so the concept of 'coming out' was a political act, not just a personal one, well that was a fairly common idea amongst many (well it was when I came out in '80s)

Not sure any of that applies to the 'right' to consumption of any substance whether its drugs, alcohol or tobacco.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its a burden


more of a burdon


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> This is about unfair and discriminatory laws.  Why should those with a preference for weed face the risk of prosecution when alcohol users can drink unhassled?  There is a tie with drug laws and racism in that many drugs were apparently banned because of their ties with ethnic communities, while alcohol was always seen as a 'white' drug.



Personally as a white, heterosexual British male who smokes weed sometimes I'd feel a bit of a twat calling myself 'opressed'. It's definitely an inconvenience, not being able to get a draw from the corner shop but in the grand scheme of things, it could be worse.

People who get locked up because the only way of making a living in their neighbourhood is mugging old ladies or selling weed and they chose the non-stabby option, that's oppression. It's also a kind of oppression which is more likely to affect black people than white people.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

i'm absolutely fine with magic musrooms being legalised but the expressions used are ham-fisted and offensive.  it's cos-playing being an oppressed minority and it absolutely trivialises the genuine oppression of millions of people.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Personally as a white, heterosexual British male who smokes weed sometimes I'd feel a bit of a twat calling myself 'opressed'.



That would be silly, but neither the OP or the Psychedelic Society have used the word 'oppression' afaik.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> That would be silly, but neither the OP or the Psychedelic Society have used the word 'oppression' afaik.



The whole black power fist thing does rather imply it though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> There is a tie with drug laws and racism in that many drugs were apparently banned because of their ties with ethnic communities, while alcohol was always seen as a 'white' drug.



Apart from 1920 to 1933 in the US, presumably?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i'm absolutely fine with magic musrooms being legalised but the expressions used are ham-fisted and offensive.  it's cos-playing being an oppressed minority and it absolutely trivialises the genuine oppression of millions of people.




I find it richly ironic that the OP suddenly recognizes an injustice- when it pertains to his rights. Liberals eh


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i'm absolutely fine with magic musrooms being legalised but the expressions used are ham-fisted and offensive.  it's cos-playing being an oppressed minority and it absolutely trivialises the genuine oppression of millions of people.



Nailed it.

I used to support legalisation of everything, but then I read that artile in the OP and now I think we should legalise everything except whatever these guys are taking.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The whole black power fist thing does rather imply it though.



In terms of that exact logo, it seems to have been filched from the SWP.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Personally as a white, heterosexual British male who smokes weed sometimes I'd feel a bit of a twat calling myself 'opressed'. It's definitely an inconvenience, not being able to get a draw from the corner shop but in the grand scheme of things, it could be worse.



Get caught and you _might_ find out what oppression is.  Also weed being illegal is another excuse for stop & search, which disproportionally affects black youths.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The whole black power fist thing does rather imply it though.



they use the language and imagery of anti-oppression struggles - this isn't an accident.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Also weed being illegal is another excuse for stop & search, which disproportionally affects black youths.



A fair point but that's not a result of the law itself, it's a result of the racism of the filth. If weed was legal they would find some other reason, or indeed no reason at all, to harass black folks.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> In terms of that exact logo, it seems to have been filched from the SWP.



Perhaps the PS are not thinking very clearly on this one.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i'm absolutely fine with magic musrooms being legalised but the expressions used are ham-fisted and offensive.  it's cos-playing being an oppressed minority and it absolutely trivialises the genuine oppression of millions of people.


well there wasnt enough on that link to make me feel offended..... i agree with your sentiment, but i dont feel like theyve crossed that line in to bad taste, but its an interesting discussion this one


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Get caught and you _might_ find out what oppression is.



a six month caution and having your weed taken off you.  if you're really unlucky.

you fucking clown.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

actually, a bloke i know got a lifetime caution.  imagine that.  for possessing weed.  the oppression.  he builds motorways these days.  well, he makes sure they're being built properly.	oppression


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> This is about unfair and discriminatory laws.  Why should those with a preference for weed face the risk of prosecution when alcohol users can drink unhassled?  There is a tie with drug laws and racism in that many drugs were apparently banned because of their ties with ethnic communities, while alcohol was always seen as a 'white' drug.



the us and uk states tied anti-drug propaganda to an_ already existing_ and powerful social prejudice  (one they were and are happy to stoke when it aids them). Its that simple


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> a six month caution and having your weed taken off you.  if you're really unlucky.
> 
> you fucking clown.




police fine- 80 quid. The crushing jackboot

I'm poor enough that 80 quid would sting badly mind. They'd have to take it out of my dole on a payment plan


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2014)

There are lots of great reasons why drug laws need changing and lots of appalling ways that they are used - particularly in the US - but none of the reasons rely on the idea of drug users being persecuted by unfair drug laws specifically because they are drug users. Using drug laws to disenfranchise significant portions of the population, make money for government systems and private prisons, boost the profits of pharma companies etc etc is not down to the state hating dope smokers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> a six month caution and having your weed taken off you.  if you're really unlucky.
> 
> you fucking clown.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are lots of great reasons why drug laws need changing and lots of appalling ways that they are used - particularly in the US - but none of the reasons rely on the idea of drug users being persecuted by unfair drug laws specifically because they are drug users. Using drug laws to disenfranchise significant portions of the population, make money for government systems and private prisons, boost the profits of pharma companies etc etc is not down to the state hating dope smokers.


and anyway it's not like stop and search hits a high percentage of dope smokers anyway.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> actually, a bloke i know got a lifetime caution.  imagine that.  for possessing weed.  the oppression.  he builds motorways these days.  well, he makes sure they're being built properly.	oppression



I got a £100 fine. It's had no significant effect on my life.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> actually, a bloke i know got a lifetime caution.  imagine that.  for possessing weed.  the oppression.  he builds motorways these days.  well, he makes sure they're being built properly.	oppression



and a friend of mine is currently 6 months through a 3 year stretch, for intent to supply, he wasn't even in possession of the weed, he was done for intent to supply on the basis of paper records from his dealer for sales over a couple of years iirc 

It's not just about personals or about weed. Know lots of people, or friends of friends, who have served time or have records that mean that they won't be able to work in schools or probably some other jobs, 10 pills back in the late 90s could see you going down for a year if you got the wrong judge.

Jailtime is definitely oppression in my book, being restricted from jobs because of previous drug use too. Nothing like racism, sexism or homophobia mind, but no reason to trivialise it like that.


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Not clear what you are asking.  I've always thought gay rights are civil rights.* When you say 'Gay Pride' do you mean the annual march or are you refering to the gay rights movement in general, there were lots of organisations/campaigns over the years, with different aims and purpose.   The idea that personal was political was well established in the feminist movement, so the concept of 'coming out' was a political act, not just a personal one, well that was a fairly common idea amongst many (well it was when I came out in '80s)
> 
> Not sure any of that applies to the 'right' to consumption of any substance whether its drugs, alcohol or tobacco.



Apologies for not being clear.

I now realise that what I'm talking about is generally referred to as the Gay Liberation movement of the late sixties onward, which might have been inspired to some extent by the black civil rights movement earlier in the decade, but I don't remember it being explicitly referred to as a civil rights movement. It's that last bit I was wondering about.

According to this definition here


> Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.


however, we are talking about civil rights which were clearly being denied to LGBT people, and which are not being denied to those who want the right to partake of psychedelics.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> however, we are talking about civil rights which were clearly being denied to LGBT people, and which are not being denied to those who want the right to partake of psychedelics.



You think things would be *less* absurd if the Psychedelic Society was campaigning for the decriminalisation of homosexuality?
On the other hand, maybe we should expect a degree of surreality given the subject...


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and anyway it's not like stop and search hits a high percentage of dope smokers anyway.



iirc when they were arguing for scrapping s44 anti-terrorism act s&s the largest charge resulting from a stop and search was for possession of cannabis, and none for terrorism.


andysays said:


> Apologies for not being clear.
> 
> I now realise that what I'm talking about is generally referred to as the Gay Liberation movement of the late sixties onward, which might have been inspired to some extent by the black civil rights movement earlier in the decade, but I don't remember it being explicitly referred to as a civil rights movement. It's that last bit I was wondering about.
> 
> ...



The ones in bold are. The rights to assembly and movement are also denied to those jailed, along with the right to vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2014)

BigTom said:


> iirc when they were arguing for scrapping s44 anti-terrorism act s&s the largest charge resulting from a stop and search was for possession of cannabis, and none for terrorism.


yes. but what percentage of stop and searches resulted in a charge?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but what percentage of stop and searches resulted in a charge?



no idea, it was just a throwaway comment really.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Jailtime is definitely oppression in my book, being restricted from jobs because of previous drug use too. Nothing like racism, sexism or homophobia mind, but no reason to trivialise it like that.




bad me. forgot to have solidarity with drug dealers.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

just to add, i do believe that the prison system is oppression, the system is corrupt and needs change, and that only in exceptional cases should non-dangerous people be incarcerated.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

it's just that this is absurd.  it allows peolpe to bang on about how oppressed they are because of their fucking hobby.  it's the same bullshit as all that identity one-upmanship you see that means, in the end, that somehow or other middle clas white people are always the most fucking oppressed.

campaign to legalise drugs by all means, but don't pretend it's it;s a liberation movement.  the only people that you won't look like cunts to are other fatuous self-obsessed tossers.


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

BigTom said:


> ...The ones in bold are. The rights to assembly and movement are also denied to those jailed, along with the right to vote.



The rights to assemble, move freely and vote are denied to all convicted criminals whilst in prison, not just users of psychedelics. Once they have been released, they are generally restored.

You are not denied the right to hold a meeting of people to discuss the issue of legalisation of psychedelics, or to travel to take part in such a meeting, or if you wish to stand for election as a candidate advocating legalisation of psychedelics or to vote for such a candidate.

Black people in pre-civil rights America were routinely denied all those rights, not on the basis of being guilty of a crime, but *simply by virtue of being black*.

It's *really* not the same. By all means argue that the prohibition of psychedelics is unfair, unjust, criminalises some people unnecessarily, whatever. But using the language of civil rights is bollocks, IMO.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

I suppose the rastafarai have the right to claim it as an oppresion- weed smoking is part f the faith iirc


----------



## BigTom (Nov 30, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> it's just that this is absurd.  it allows peolpe to bang on about how oppressed they are because of their fucking hobby.  it's the same bullshit as all that identity one-upmanship you see that means, in the end, that somehow or other middle clas white people are always the most fucking oppressed.
> 
> campaign to legalise drugs by all means, but don't pretend it's it;s a liberation movement.  the only people that you won't look like cunts to are other fatuous self-obsessed tossers.



I completely agree with this, but the way you were talking it was like you were saying there were no major consequences to an individual cos of the legal side of weed which is bollocks, and I don't hold that there's a difference between users and dealers, neither should be getting penalised for an involvement in drugs. Unless they are shit drugs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

I think theres an ethical consideration to be made. I grow my own mushrooms sometimes, I buy weed from a grower I know who grows for himself and a few mates. 

I know in a capitalist society we can never escape complicity in our own degradation etc but be real on it- if you don't know the supply chain its probably got blood on it. From mexican narco terror to stabbings on brit streets. Its just not on. Very few products that I'll take such a hard line on. Not because mu boycott changes anything but cos it doesn't feel right.


----------



## JTG (Nov 30, 2014)

Why are these boring hippy twats singling out just their own particular favourite intoxicants for this campaign? Bit of solidarity with the crackheads and speed freaks please or I'll just have to assume you're just self interested dickwads


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

crackhead pride.  

one of our projects is kind of like this.  crack is, as they say, a hell of a drug


----------



## zenie (Nov 30, 2014)

JTG said:


> Why are these boring hippy twats singling out just their own particular favourite intoxicants for this campaign? Bit of solidarity with the crackheads and speed freaks please or I'll just have to assume you're just self interested dickwads



If you have a look on their website they should say why psychedelics over other drugs should be legalised. 

I went to the first meeting last month, heard some good speeches, am pro drug legalisation and free choice, but perhaps they haven't been the wisest in their choice of words on this one!


----------



## FNG (Nov 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but what percentage of stop and searches resulted in a charge?



 More if you are Black or Asian unsurprisingly



> Figures show that black people in the capital are five times as likely to be charged than white people when they are caught with cannabis and nearly twice as likely to be charged when caught with cocaine.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...to-be-charged-cannabis-cocaine_n_5359170.html
http://www.release.org.uk/sites/def...ase - Race Disparity Report final version.pdf


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 30, 2014)

zenie said:


> If you have a look on their website they should say why psychedelics over other drugs should be legalised.
> 
> I went to the first meeting last month, heard some good speeches, am pro drug legalisation and free choice, but perhaps they haven't been the wisest in their choice of words on this one!



It's fair to say that peeps who'd legalise psychedelics would consider the legalisation of other drugs - and the term 'psychedelic' can apply to many (popular) drugs, down to weed and MDMA.  It's not just about recreational use; there's also a big push to raise the acceptability of these drugs so as they can be used in counselling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2014)

yeah and the medical argument is such a liberal sop to power 'its just medicine guv' do me a favour. where some substances can be of palliative use is an avenue worth exploring, see how far medical mj has got in america. But at the end of the day it is pleading to power. I realise that for some people the unfair and ill conceived drug laws are the first time they have experienced hostility and sanction from the state. If you'd had it for your skin colour, your gender, your sexuality, your social class then you'd be a bit less blase about raising other peoples banners to support the cause.


----------



## Kesher (Nov 30, 2014)

In many ways magic mushrooms are not even a drug and it's ridiculous  that they are a class A drug like crack and heroin. Mushrooms are non addictive, physically harmless and generally non harmful to mental health. They don't fuel crime and can't be used to escape your problems. I've worked around the country in drug and alcohol community drug teams around the country with adults and children, including a stint in criminal justice and a rehab. I have never had a magic mushroom client, and to the best of my knowledge neither have my co-workers.

Also talk of well it's a choice unlike sexuality or colour seems to be a moot point because whether you are born as something makes no difference if you are deemed a danger to society. For example a pedophile or a psychopath could argue that they did not choose to be who they are.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

Moot.


----------



## Kesher (Nov 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> Moot.



Corrected: probably the first time I've ever used the word.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 30, 2014)

Kesher said:


> Also talk of well it's a choice unlike sexuality or colour seems to be a moot point because whether you are born as something makes no difference if you are deemed a danger to society. For example a pedophile or a psychopath could argue that they did not choose to be who they are.



fucking hell.

do you believe that psychedelic drug use _can _be harmful to a person's mental health?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 30, 2014)

Kesher said:


> Corrected: probably the first time I've ever used the word.



Just joshin' 

I agree that it's a bit of a red herring talking about whether it's a choice - bit of a cultural hangover from recent struggles.  Took a while for it to gain any purchase in the case of gay rights too for reasons JV touched on, as well as implying queer-bashing would be more defensible if being gay was a choice.

Horrible argument once you start thinking it through.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 30, 2014)

"I have a dream"


----------



## Wilf (Nov 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I suppose the rastafarai have the right to claim it as an oppresion- weed smoking is part f the faith iirc


In the absence of legalisation, most of them just sit at home glumly smoking Rothmans.


----------



## JTG (Dec 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah and the medical argument is such a liberal sop to power 'its just medicine guv' do me a favour. where some substances can be of palliative use is an avenue worth exploring, see how far medical mj has got in america. But at the end of the day it is pleading to power. I realise that for some people the unfair and ill conceived drug laws are the first time they have experienced hostility and sanction from the state. If you'd had it for your skin colour, your gender, your sexuality, your social class then you'd be a bit less blase about raising other peoples banners to support the cause.


While not denying that some illegal drugs could have medical benefits, it's always struck me that many of the people arguing that point really just want to get shitfaced without threat of sanction


----------



## 8ball (Dec 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> While not denying that some illegal drugs could have medical benefits, it's always struck me that many of the people arguing that point really just want to get shitfaced without threat of sanction


 
Those bastards!!!


----------



## co-op (Dec 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah and the medical argument is such a liberal sop to power 'its just medicine guv' do me a favour. where some substances can be of palliative use is an avenue worth exploring, see how far medical mj has got in america. But at the end of the day it is pleading to power.



I think the medical argument makes more sense in the states where a lot of people who get really tangible pain relief and big life-benefits from MJ, are unable to afford the legal equivalents because they are uninsured so the medical argument is important there, even though it's also used by people who are just trying to get backdoor recreational legalisation. If you've got an NHS, free at point of use, the medical argument just isn't pressing in the same way.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah and the medical argument is such a liberal sop to power 'its just medicine guv' do me a favour.


by any means necessary


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah and the medical argument is such a liberal sop to power 'its just medicine guv' do me a favour. where some substances can be of palliative use is an avenue worth exploring, see how far medical mj has got in america. But at the end of the day it is pleading to power. I realise that for some people the unfair and ill conceived drug laws are the first time they have experienced hostility and sanction from the state. If you'd had it for your skin colour, your gender, your sexuality, your social class then you'd be a bit less blase about raising other peoples banners to support the cause.


Means to an end. In Washington state it was first legalised for medical use, and now they're moving to full legalisation.


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 1, 2014)

Let me preface by saying that the appropriation of civil rights terminology is both insipid and apparently effective. I'd suppose the majority of the members of the board were aware of the arguments for legalisation, but there wasn't really an impetus to discuss it.



cesare said:


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



The same argument was unsuccessfully used to defend anti-miscegenation laws (blacks and whites have the right to marry, just not the right to marry each other).



andysays said:


> 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.



A major part of the civil rights movement was refusing to comply with discriminatory legislation in order to demonstrate the retrograde nature of such legislation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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.


On occasion we have a civic _duty_ to disregard certain laws.


----------



## cesare (Dec 1, 2014)

That's not the same argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

cesare said:


> That's not the same argument.


Depends where you're getting your idea of rights from. If you're not defining 'rights' as 'that which the law says', and you're in fact claiming that the law is denying you your rights, as you see them, where does that 'right' come from? 

In the US, rights come from the constitution, no? This is a very _American_ way of looking at things, as people can point at the constitution and make the case that certain laws break with constitutionally guaranteed rights. In that case, you can very plausibly say that you have a civil right to disobey a law that denies you rights guaranteed in the constitution. Abortion rights in the US were won that way, as was a temporary ending of executions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

I think the US way has its pros and cons. It does lead to people being able to put pressure on to change laws. But it also means that laws are changed without ever really winning the argument. So the abortion debate rumbles on. Executions were reinstated with a change in Supreme Court personnel.

Such an approach certainly wouldn't work here. European court, I guess, is the closest we have.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2014)

I was going to say, the EU has become the UKs go to supra-national arbitrator on issues of human rights. We really need a bill of rights here in the UK <seems long overdue


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I was going to say, the EU has become the UKs go to supra-national arbitrator on issues of human rights. We really need a bill of rights here in the UK <seems long overdue


A robust EU bill of rights would work just as well.

My problem with this kind of approach is that the system actually allows politicians to play what they think are populist cards, such as being anti-abortion rights, knowing full well that they won't have to act on those cards once they're elected, and they won't be held to account for not acting because they can't but they also won't be held to account for the shitmess that actually doing what they say they want to do would cause. Paradoxically, it can lead to more reactionary elected officials peddling cheap populism.

eg The last thing many anti-abortion US politicians actually want is an overturning of the Wade ruling. They'd be in a right pickle.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 2, 2014)

thats interesting...politicians eh! 

I would rather a UK bill of rights as I think politics should be enacted at the local level as much as possible. The process of making an appeal to the European court is, ive no idea but id imagine, a hugely complex and awkward thing to do. The better the political system the more accessible and interactive it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2014)

Yes, I agree with you about enacting things on as local a level as possible. Nothing to stop subsets within a region adding their own rights to a larger bill of rights, of course. Here in the UK, the local level has been neutered so much that it's easy to forget how much it used to do. I'm reminded of Alan Bennett talking about when he went to university. Not only did he get the national govt grant, he also got a grant from Leeds council, because they didn't think the national grant was enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2014)

this is where it  goes you see, earnest argument about rights and duty and blah fucking blah. Just take your drugs and work on not getting caught bang at it by teh law.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 2, 2014)

we havent gotten on to duty yet


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Means to an end. In Washington state it was first legalised for medical use, and now they're moving to full legalisation.




transitional demands? Leon wants a word


----------



## FNG (Dec 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this is where it  goes you see, earnest argument about rights and duty and blah fucking blah. Just take your drugs and work on not getting caught bang at it by teh law.



 DC you're usually sound but your advice seems to be "Don't get stopped,don't get searched". I am just glad i grew up in a time where the police didn't have target numbers for S&S.

 I think its an unjust law that unfairly discriminates and retrospectively justifies discrimination, most charges arising from stop and search are for cannabis possession.

 I dont give two hoots if someone somewhere is using a clip-art generated fist on their campaign if it helps stop the criminalisation of a generation of young men and women.


----------



## andysays (Dec 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Depends where you're getting your idea of rights from. If you're not defining 'rights' as 'that which the law says', and you're in fact claiming that the law is denying you your rights, as you see them, where does that 'right' come from?
> 
> In the US, rights come from the constitution, no? This is a very _American_ way of looking at things, as people can point at the constitution and make the case that certain laws break with constitutionally guaranteed rights. In that case, you can very plausibly say that you have a civil right to disobey a law that denies you rights guaranteed in the constitution. Abortion rights in the US were won that way, as was a temporary ending of executions.



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?


----------



## andysays (Dec 2, 2014)

FNG said:


> DC you're usually sound but your advice seems to be "Don't get stopped,don't get searched". I am just glad i grew up in a time where the police didn't have target numbers for S&S.
> 
> I think its an unjust law that unfairly discriminates and retrospectively justifies discrimination, most charges arising from stop and search are for cannabis possession.
> 
> I dont give two hoots if someone somewhere is using a clip-art generated fist on their campaign if it helps stop the criminalisation of a generation of young men and women.



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


> First they came for the users of psychedelics, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

_Nonsense upon drugs._


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


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



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


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

FNG said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

(((Cornell University Law School)))


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2014)

*mumbles something incoherent*


----------



## andysays (Dec 2, 2014)

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


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2014)

*backs away slowly*


----------



## FNG (Dec 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2014)

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


----------



## FNG (Dec 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2014)

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


----------



## kenny g (Dec 22, 2014)

How many communities have been destroyed by the LSD trade?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Dec 23, 2014)

kenny g said:


> How many communities have been destroyed by the LSD trade?



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


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2014)

kenny g said:


> How many communities have been destroyed by the LSD trade?


have you been to brighton and hove?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Sep 20, 2015)

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 (Sep 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> 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.


----------

