Drugs and the Revolutionary
By Mary McIlroy
Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Well, actually, that's not what he said. What he said was, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the masses.” This is one of his most misunderstood and misinterpreted quotes. Most people interpret this to mean that religion stupefies the working class, and keeps them docile. They only quote the latter part, ignoring the beginning part of the statement. Marx used drugs in a metaphorical sense. But what about the literal drugs? What should revolutionaries do about them?
Marx meant that, for those who suffer, it is necessary to have an altered reality in which to escape. In his day, for most people, that was religion, and the promise of an afterlife (heaven), after all our toils on this mortal coil. He wrote that religion prevented man from becoming a fully realized human being. This was not because working class people were stupid or superstitious, but rather, this false “reality” was a necessary crutch, in order for us to live through the daily degradation we face. Religion is our attempt at humanity. But it will always be just an attempt, and not the full realization of our humanity. That can only come when capitalism has been wiped out and replaced by a society that is run by and for the benefit of the majority, the working class. Sometimes religion is the opiate of the masses, sometimes it is alcohol, and sometimes opium is the opium of the masses.
There are many types of real drugs, some legal, some semi-legal and some illegal, and the legal status varies between capitalist nations. Drugs such as caffeine are completely legal, available to anyone, regardless of age. How many of us have acquaintances who are “addicted” to their Starbucks? This is not only an addiction to coffee, but to a particular multi-national brand of coffee. This comes at the expense of a Bohemian coffeehouse culture, but that's a topic for a different article. There is ongoing scientific research into the effects caffeine has on the human body, but there does seem to be some benefit of moderate consumption of coffee.
Nicotine is a substance that has a semi-legal existence. In the United States, it is legal to buy and smoke tobacco at the age of 18. Nicotine and the additives the tobacco industry includes in their products are proven carcinogens and yet, tobacco remains legal. In a hypocritical and Puritanical stance, various state and local agencies ban smoking in various locations, such as workplaces, restaurants and bars, and even public parks. Capitalist society says that, on the one hand, if one is over a certain age, one can smoke, but on the other hand, it's bad for you and we're going to restrict areas where you can smoke.
Alcohol is perhaps the most egregious example of the schizophrenia capitalist society has regarding the use of a semi-legal drug. In the United States, alcohol is now legal only for those 21 years of age and older. It is generally illegal to drink in public, except when eating on the sidewalk of a fancy restaurant. Young adults can do almost everything at the age of 18, get married, have consensual sexual relations, enter into contracts, buy tobacco. But they cannot legally buy or consume alcohol. Elsewhere in the world, the legal drinking age is 18. However, alcohol is “pushed” to those too young to legally drink in the United States. Beer is advertised on broadcast television, and hard alcohol of all types is advertised on cable channels, usually in glamorous settings with “sexy” women.
Alcohol has serious health risks, such as cirrhosis of the liver, high blood pressure (and related diseases) and brain damage. It changes behavior, and can lead to things like spousal and child abuse. While the percentage of alcohol-related deaths in automobile accidents has gone down, in 2004, 39% of all traffic fatalities in the US were alcohol-related, according to the US Department of Transportation (reported in Time Almanac 2007). Alcohol abuse can have a devastating effect, not only for the user, but also for his/her family, loved ones, and, at times, innocent bystanders.
Then there is the issue of illegal drugs, those substances which are either only available with a physician's prescription, or not at all. Things like marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine and heroin are all illegal drugs. This, however, does not stop people from using these drugs.
Most know that Coca-Cola at one time had cocaine in its formula. Morphine was readily available, and there were various types of “tonics” sold. At one time, a decision was made: some drugs, like nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol, would be, for the most part, legal. Other drugs, like opiates, would not. This begs the question, why do people take drugs? Drugs are illegal, drugs are hard to come by, drugs are bad for you.
Let's go back to Marx. People take drugs because there is something in their lives which they want to numb. It is not from weakness or a moral flaw. It is because we, as workers, are ground down, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, from the time we first go to work until the day we retire (if we are able to do so). We want to change our mood. A drink or two, a few puffs on a joint, a hit of heroin, a line of crank; pick-me-ups, every one of them, and we start to feel better. Life becomes tolerable, if not a joy. We can forget about getting the rent money together, or if we'll be laid off in the next round of cutbacks. Sometimes, this is the only thing that allows a person to function. We see this in the increasing use of prescription anti-depressants.
As Marxists, we must look not only at the sociological reasons for drug use and abuse, but also the biological and physiological science behind drug use. The standard wisdom has been that marijuana, in particular, is a “gateway” drug. However, a recent study by the University of Pittsburgh, conducted over a twelve-year period, disputes this. While it found that some did follow the “gateway” path of drug use, it was not the only road used. The study looked at 214 boys, starting at age 10-12 and then looked at their drug use at the age of 22. All used legal or illegal drugs. While it found that the “gateway” pattern was the most common, it was in no way the only order of drug use. In the study, almost a quarter followed a reverse gateway pattern of drug use. The University of Pittsburgh researchers found that more significant in the study's subjects was the availability of drugs. Whatever was available, that became the drug of “choice,” whether that was alcohol or marijuana. The researchers also noted that certain environmental factors played a key role in the reverse pattern users, such as poor physical neighborhoods, lack of parental involvement, and more exposure to drugs. In both gateway pattern and reverse pattern users, the most significant factor was an inclination for “deviance” from (accepted) social behaviors. (This study was reported in the December 2006 issue of American Journal of Psychiatry.) Other recent studies on drug use patterns tend to back up the theories on use being one of opportunity.
Ever since the first Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, capitalist society has moved away from a “moral” explanation for drug abuse, and towards a “medical” one, while at the same time taking a pretty harsh view legally for abusers, especially drug abusers. A glaring example of this are the penalties for cocaine use versus crack cocaine use, with the added class distinction that powdered coke is favored by the rich, and crack by those in poor, inner city communities. So what should the revolutionary's response to the issue of drug use, both legal and illegal, be?
The legal, or rather, illegal, status of many drugs should cause revolutionaries to be cautious of drug use. Some organizations forbid drug use among members because it lends itself to arrest. Illegal drugs are still considered by many to be evil, in and of themselves. Arrests of comrades can bring discredit, right or wrong, on the entire organization. This comes out of a pragmatic approach to the safety of comrades and the desire to protect the reputation of the organization, rather than a moral position on drug use.
The Irish Republican Socialist Party has recently initiated several calls against drug dealers, in Dublin and Belfast. In Dublin, in particular, there is an attempt to criminalize the IRSP through members who may or may not be in the Irish National Liberation Army. The Garda are doing this by alleging that the INLA are involved in a “feud” with drug gangs. The IRSM's position is the protection of the name of the INLA. Of course, any and all misuses of the name of the Irish National Liberation Army should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. This is a separate issue from campaigning against drug dealers. The main problem with campaigns of this sort, whether it is against drug dealers in a certain community, or against prostitutes on a certain street, is that the police or community activists can run them off for a while, but they don't put them out of business. Most just go to a different street corner. It becomes a different community's problem. Then when the vice police run them out there, they go back. To and fro it goes.
In May, the IRSP in Short Strand, Belfast participated in a rally against drug dealers. In their call, issued a list of the evils of drug use, including cannabis. The list stated that drugs “Cause severe health problems such as damage to liver and kidneys, diabetes in later life and impotence; Severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia and depression.” The statement included points on debt of drug users and suicide.
Let's break this down. First, this is directed, not at the scourge of drug dealers, but at users, and is reminiscent of anti-drug public service announcements on television. It is also unscientific. Where is the evidence that marijuana causes liver and kidney damage? Are young people who suffer from depression already use drugs to self-medicate? Or do the drugs cause the depression? What about all the people who have used drugs and who aren't schizophrenic? Again, which came first, the disease or the drugs? The comment about impotence, while true in some cases, is frankly, sexist, as it is a concern for men, and not so much for women.
As these concerns are directed more at potential users, what is the IRSP doing to prevent young people, especially, from using drugs? It seems that the only thing the IRSP provides youth are membership in bands and/or Republican Socialist Youth Movement. For these, one would have to already be somewhat politicized.
In the invective against drugs, there is absolutely no mention of alcohol! Every evil on the list is also a consequence of alcohol abuse. There are far more livers destroyed by drinking than by shooting heroin. There are far more brain cells obliterated by whiskey than by marijuana. It comes across as little more than Carrie Nations at a Temperance meeting.
There is more than a little hypocrisy in the IRSP's campaign against drug dealers, such as when, in Dublin, IRSP comrades there have denounced drug dealers at events held in pubs. There are a lot of social ills for the working class caused by the abuse of alcohol. Yet, the IRSP has no problem using pubs for event venues.
The campaign comes across as petty bourgeois moralizing. Drugs are bad, so drug dealers must go. It would be one thing if dealers were attacked as members of the petty bourgeoisie, but there is no such analysis in the IRSP statements. There is no real class politics, other than Gerard Forward saying, “For too long working class communities have suffered under the plight of drug dealers—often employed by the RUC/PSNI as informers.” There is no analysis on why the black market economy exists, or what purpose having a percentage of working class youth addicted has for the bourgeois. And the double standard regarding no criticism of alcohol abuse, as though accepting it as being a “social standard” that exists in Ireland. Is that the role of a revolutionary party? The role of a revolutionary party is revolution! Those of us who have class-consciousness are supposed to challenge bourgeois society, to change it.
For example, in Oakland, California, there are community groups which protest granting or expanding liquor licenses in working class communities. This is not to advocate that the IRSP, or any other revolutionary party, should be teetotalers, just that we need to be consistent in our policies regarding drug use, be it legal or illegal drugs. We must also look at the broader implications of legal and illegal drug use. Why are some drugs legal and others not? What are the physiological, biological and neurological reactions in our brains that cause some of us to use drugs and others not? What are the social implications for the working class for the legal status of various drugs? As revolutionaries, we must look at these issues and reach our conclusion, not based on a morality we seek to overthrow, but from a dialectical approach. If we truly wish to eliminate the scourge of drugs, both legal and illegal, we must create a society in which we don't seek to numb ourselves just to be able to “get through” the day. We must create a world in which opium, either literal or metaphorical, is not needed.
Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Well, actually, that's not what he said. What he said was, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the masses.” This is one of his most misunderstood and misinterpreted quotes. Most people interpret this to mean that religion stupefies the working class, and keeps them docile. They only quote the latter part, ignoring the beginning part of the statement. Marx used drugs in a metaphorical sense. But what about the literal drugs? What should revolutionaries do about them?
Marx meant that, for those who suffer, it is necessary to have an altered reality in which to escape. In his day, for most people, that was religion, and the promise of an afterlife (heaven), after all our toils on this mortal coil. He wrote that religion prevented man from becoming a fully realized human being. This was not because working class people were stupid or superstitious, but rather, this false “reality” was a necessary crutch, in order for us to live through the daily degradation we face. Religion is our attempt at humanity. But it will always be just an attempt, and not the full realization of our humanity. That can only come when capitalism has been wiped out and replaced by a society that is run by and for the benefit of the majority, the working class. Sometimes religion is the opiate of the masses, sometimes it is alcohol, and sometimes opium is the opium of the masses.
There are many types of real drugs, some legal, some semi-legal and some illegal, and the legal status varies between capitalist nations. Drugs such as caffeine are completely legal, available to anyone, regardless of age. How many of us have acquaintances who are “addicted” to their Starbucks? This is not only an addiction to coffee, but to a particular multi-national brand of coffee. This comes at the expense of a Bohemian coffeehouse culture, but that's a topic for a different article. There is ongoing scientific research into the effects caffeine has on the human body, but there does seem to be some benefit of moderate consumption of coffee.
Nicotine is a substance that has a semi-legal existence. In the United States, it is legal to buy and smoke tobacco at the age of 18. Nicotine and the additives the tobacco industry includes in their products are proven carcinogens and yet, tobacco remains legal. In a hypocritical and Puritanical stance, various state and local agencies ban smoking in various locations, such as workplaces, restaurants and bars, and even public parks. Capitalist society says that, on the one hand, if one is over a certain age, one can smoke, but on the other hand, it's bad for you and we're going to restrict areas where you can smoke.
Alcohol is perhaps the most egregious example of the schizophrenia capitalist society has regarding the use of a semi-legal drug. In the United States, alcohol is now legal only for those 21 years of age and older. It is generally illegal to drink in public, except when eating on the sidewalk of a fancy restaurant. Young adults can do almost everything at the age of 18, get married, have consensual sexual relations, enter into contracts, buy tobacco. But they cannot legally buy or consume alcohol. Elsewhere in the world, the legal drinking age is 18. However, alcohol is “pushed” to those too young to legally drink in the United States. Beer is advertised on broadcast television, and hard alcohol of all types is advertised on cable channels, usually in glamorous settings with “sexy” women.
Alcohol has serious health risks, such as cirrhosis of the liver, high blood pressure (and related diseases) and brain damage. It changes behavior, and can lead to things like spousal and child abuse. While the percentage of alcohol-related deaths in automobile accidents has gone down, in 2004, 39% of all traffic fatalities in the US were alcohol-related, according to the US Department of Transportation (reported in Time Almanac 2007). Alcohol abuse can have a devastating effect, not only for the user, but also for his/her family, loved ones, and, at times, innocent bystanders.
Then there is the issue of illegal drugs, those substances which are either only available with a physician's prescription, or not at all. Things like marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamine and heroin are all illegal drugs. This, however, does not stop people from using these drugs.
Most know that Coca-Cola at one time had cocaine in its formula. Morphine was readily available, and there were various types of “tonics” sold. At one time, a decision was made: some drugs, like nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol, would be, for the most part, legal. Other drugs, like opiates, would not. This begs the question, why do people take drugs? Drugs are illegal, drugs are hard to come by, drugs are bad for you.
Let's go back to Marx. People take drugs because there is something in their lives which they want to numb. It is not from weakness or a moral flaw. It is because we, as workers, are ground down, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, from the time we first go to work until the day we retire (if we are able to do so). We want to change our mood. A drink or two, a few puffs on a joint, a hit of heroin, a line of crank; pick-me-ups, every one of them, and we start to feel better. Life becomes tolerable, if not a joy. We can forget about getting the rent money together, or if we'll be laid off in the next round of cutbacks. Sometimes, this is the only thing that allows a person to function. We see this in the increasing use of prescription anti-depressants.
As Marxists, we must look not only at the sociological reasons for drug use and abuse, but also the biological and physiological science behind drug use. The standard wisdom has been that marijuana, in particular, is a “gateway” drug. However, a recent study by the University of Pittsburgh, conducted over a twelve-year period, disputes this. While it found that some did follow the “gateway” path of drug use, it was not the only road used. The study looked at 214 boys, starting at age 10-12 and then looked at their drug use at the age of 22. All used legal or illegal drugs. While it found that the “gateway” pattern was the most common, it was in no way the only order of drug use. In the study, almost a quarter followed a reverse gateway pattern of drug use. The University of Pittsburgh researchers found that more significant in the study's subjects was the availability of drugs. Whatever was available, that became the drug of “choice,” whether that was alcohol or marijuana. The researchers also noted that certain environmental factors played a key role in the reverse pattern users, such as poor physical neighborhoods, lack of parental involvement, and more exposure to drugs. In both gateway pattern and reverse pattern users, the most significant factor was an inclination for “deviance” from (accepted) social behaviors. (This study was reported in the December 2006 issue of American Journal of Psychiatry.) Other recent studies on drug use patterns tend to back up the theories on use being one of opportunity.
Ever since the first Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, capitalist society has moved away from a “moral” explanation for drug abuse, and towards a “medical” one, while at the same time taking a pretty harsh view legally for abusers, especially drug abusers. A glaring example of this are the penalties for cocaine use versus crack cocaine use, with the added class distinction that powdered coke is favored by the rich, and crack by those in poor, inner city communities. So what should the revolutionary's response to the issue of drug use, both legal and illegal, be?
The legal, or rather, illegal, status of many drugs should cause revolutionaries to be cautious of drug use. Some organizations forbid drug use among members because it lends itself to arrest. Illegal drugs are still considered by many to be evil, in and of themselves. Arrests of comrades can bring discredit, right or wrong, on the entire organization. This comes out of a pragmatic approach to the safety of comrades and the desire to protect the reputation of the organization, rather than a moral position on drug use.
The Irish Republican Socialist Party has recently initiated several calls against drug dealers, in Dublin and Belfast. In Dublin, in particular, there is an attempt to criminalize the IRSP through members who may or may not be in the Irish National Liberation Army. The Garda are doing this by alleging that the INLA are involved in a “feud” with drug gangs. The IRSM's position is the protection of the name of the INLA. Of course, any and all misuses of the name of the Irish National Liberation Army should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. This is a separate issue from campaigning against drug dealers. The main problem with campaigns of this sort, whether it is against drug dealers in a certain community, or against prostitutes on a certain street, is that the police or community activists can run them off for a while, but they don't put them out of business. Most just go to a different street corner. It becomes a different community's problem. Then when the vice police run them out there, they go back. To and fro it goes.
In May, the IRSP in Short Strand, Belfast participated in a rally against drug dealers. In their call, issued a list of the evils of drug use, including cannabis. The list stated that drugs “Cause severe health problems such as damage to liver and kidneys, diabetes in later life and impotence; Severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia and depression.” The statement included points on debt of drug users and suicide.
Let's break this down. First, this is directed, not at the scourge of drug dealers, but at users, and is reminiscent of anti-drug public service announcements on television. It is also unscientific. Where is the evidence that marijuana causes liver and kidney damage? Are young people who suffer from depression already use drugs to self-medicate? Or do the drugs cause the depression? What about all the people who have used drugs and who aren't schizophrenic? Again, which came first, the disease or the drugs? The comment about impotence, while true in some cases, is frankly, sexist, as it is a concern for men, and not so much for women.
As these concerns are directed more at potential users, what is the IRSP doing to prevent young people, especially, from using drugs? It seems that the only thing the IRSP provides youth are membership in bands and/or Republican Socialist Youth Movement. For these, one would have to already be somewhat politicized.
In the invective against drugs, there is absolutely no mention of alcohol! Every evil on the list is also a consequence of alcohol abuse. There are far more livers destroyed by drinking than by shooting heroin. There are far more brain cells obliterated by whiskey than by marijuana. It comes across as little more than Carrie Nations at a Temperance meeting.
There is more than a little hypocrisy in the IRSP's campaign against drug dealers, such as when, in Dublin, IRSP comrades there have denounced drug dealers at events held in pubs. There are a lot of social ills for the working class caused by the abuse of alcohol. Yet, the IRSP has no problem using pubs for event venues.
The campaign comes across as petty bourgeois moralizing. Drugs are bad, so drug dealers must go. It would be one thing if dealers were attacked as members of the petty bourgeoisie, but there is no such analysis in the IRSP statements. There is no real class politics, other than Gerard Forward saying, “For too long working class communities have suffered under the plight of drug dealers—often employed by the RUC/PSNI as informers.” There is no analysis on why the black market economy exists, or what purpose having a percentage of working class youth addicted has for the bourgeois. And the double standard regarding no criticism of alcohol abuse, as though accepting it as being a “social standard” that exists in Ireland. Is that the role of a revolutionary party? The role of a revolutionary party is revolution! Those of us who have class-consciousness are supposed to challenge bourgeois society, to change it.
For example, in Oakland, California, there are community groups which protest granting or expanding liquor licenses in working class communities. This is not to advocate that the IRSP, or any other revolutionary party, should be teetotalers, just that we need to be consistent in our policies regarding drug use, be it legal or illegal drugs. We must also look at the broader implications of legal and illegal drug use. Why are some drugs legal and others not? What are the physiological, biological and neurological reactions in our brains that cause some of us to use drugs and others not? What are the social implications for the working class for the legal status of various drugs? As revolutionaries, we must look at these issues and reach our conclusion, not based on a morality we seek to overthrow, but from a dialectical approach. If we truly wish to eliminate the scourge of drugs, both legal and illegal, we must create a society in which we don't seek to numb ourselves just to be able to “get through” the day. We must create a world in which opium, either literal or metaphorical, is not needed.