🏴☠️#USEmpire 🍔🦠#USA
WARNING 18+ Adult content & US racism.
Perhaps the most depraved, racist & disgusting thing we have ever reported:
Sick Americans are making porn based on the US government & ETIM claim of genocide & concentration camps in Xinjiang, China.
Nothing more needs saying from us, just look at this degenerate crap.
🥭@mangopress
Liberals calling themselves tankies for laughing at some memes but never bothered to read any theory: b-but what if the porn actor/actress “consents” though, downvoot!
Also liberals: wait, is non-consensual sex immoral?
Contrary to the mainstream liberal “feminist” belief, there is a reason Communists always support sex trade abolition
Seriously - they make the same argument as libertarians. They laugh that argument off as ridiculous when it’s applied to general labour, correctly recognizing the coercive nature of markets, but then adamantly stand by it when it’s applied to porn/prostitution. The cognitive dissonance is astounding…
If the person had a job requireing any amount of average labour (and by average i mean world average) maybe they wouldn’t judge industries as a whole but maybe chose their targets more specifically. f.e. abusive corporations, churches, biker gangs…
I mean, there are men diving in shit regularily risking their lives so our fecies can fulfill its destiny. and imagine you would attack the field of shit-diving for its coercive labour relationships (you being forced into shifts or overtime… having to break your back while diving in shit… having a shitty boss…), instead of attacking and regulating the power differential at the workplace (better pay, better work security, better healthcare, better regulations, flat hierarchies…) - OR KILL SHIT DIVING “as a concept” (in our current market) all you will achieve is your toilet being clogged and all of it coming up the pipes and flooding your house.
and this is exactly what will happen if such people are let lose on society without at least having been reminded that society is full of people who are fucked in the head and who need to be given a place, whose pathologies have to be mitigated and given purpose e.t.c. and this often can look strange to people who don’t ever walk a mile in their shoes. this is something even the state religions have understood. i m just of the opinion that their fix isn’t really working for anyone but them…
Holy fuck you’re obsessed with me. Stop thinking about me and chill the fuck out. I’m the most boring person and you accuse me of being an agent. Are you sure you’re on your right mind?
Stop talking to me, stop talking about me. Disengage. Actually, stop talking on the internet and call a person you know IRL. This is insane behavior.
i won’t go into this much further since you 're going to cry mommy to the admins, because you can’t actually engage with arguments in the public forum you participate in out of your free will thus provoking responses which you are not obliged to like. but since you ve been editing your posts way down into our misguided “conversation” at least give me time to properly edit my posts, before you throw your projections around, will you. thx, out…
in regards to assange, yes you are an agent, i would rather call you a drone. you don’t even know the real argument you are making here. you don’t even know to what ends your topical argument will be used and who runs its narrative course.
I don’t believe you’re mentally stable. I will not engage with your arguments because: I wasn’t fit to do so (which I let you know) and now I don’t believe it will make any sense.
You’re a spammer. You’re rambling, irate and deluded. Go talk to someone who cares about you. I’m not insulting you, I’m doing you a favour.
OK so everyone is coerced to perform labor under capitalism, which means anyone performing sex work is in some sense being coerced into having sex. The question is why is that worse than being coerced into any other labor?
It seems to me that this position is disingenuously conflating the, shall we say, passive coercion everyone faces under capitalism with the kind of active coercion that takes place in e.g. sex trafficking. In the latter, people are literally kidnapped and forced to have sex against their will. In the former, people have to choose some way of making money, and for some people they find their best option to be sex work.
Sex trafficking and any other directly forced sex is quite obviously abhorrent. But when we say that any sex work, even when it is chosen by the worker, is similarly unconscionable, we have to either agree that under capitalism, construction work, data entry work, and food service industry work are also just as immoral and must be abolished, or else explain why being coerced by the system into selling one’s body to perform labor, say, building a community center or coding a video game is different than labor that involves sex.
If you believe that sex is inherently different than any other physical or mental activity, why?
Now, I could see an argument that it is difficult to be sure that people starring in pornography aren’t being forced to do so as sex slaves, so for practical purposes it’s best to just ban it outright. If that’s the position, I’d say it’s somewhat reasonable, as long as it wouldn’t be illegal for my wife and I to continue making and watching our own videos of ourselves. This position doesn’t really work for illustrated or animated pornography, though.
If you believe that sex is inherently different than any other physical or mental activity, why?
The sex trade / rape industry cannot be equated to other industries, and especially to production. It is based on the historical patriarchal exploitation of women’s bodies and reproductive capacity, and today’s sex trade is the culmination of thousands of years of women’s oppression. No one, especially men, are entitled to sex. Production is necessary, rape isn’t.
The battleground here is women’s bodies and sexual autonomy, fighting to preserve their bodily autonomy from rapists holding the money that allow them to survive.
passive coercion everyone faces under capitalism with the kind of active coercion
Once you start learning about the horrorshow of the sex trade, you’ll see how blurred those lines are, so as to make the distinction between trafficked women and poverty-forced prostitution meaningless.
It is based on the historical patriarchal exploitation of women’s bodies and reproductive capacity, and today’s sex trade is the culmination of thousands of years of women’s oppression.
You must be very strongly against the institution of marriage then.
And where do trafficked boys fit into your theory?
You must be very strongly against the institution of marriage then.
Have you ever even talked to a Marxist feminist? The answer is yes. Communists have even written about how difficult it is to fight prostitution when the institution of marriage exists.
No, having sex is NOT the same as performing general labour. Do you really need someone to sit down with you and explain why, like are you really that dense?
the only system under which prostitution could be considered voluntary is a system that meets the basic needs of food, shelter, heating, electricity, childcare and healthcare. Which is by coincidence also the only system that would probably reduce the market for prostitution to a minimum, because few women would come under the economic pressure.
Currently i see two groups of “legal” prostitutes: self employed people who need money and or people who take too much drugs and need money. both usually with certain pschological drives based in abuse, poverty, psychotrauma, & so on.
making it illegal just feeds the desperate into the depths of state violence, police & wage abuse, exploitation and so on. we are not making it better by criminalizing it, but we can harshly regulate it to push pimp culture out of the market. Kinda like the legality of drugs & guns. you can’t leave the market to criminals, but you can also not just destroy the market in a top down measure, without becoming a dictatorship - and or/thus driving the demand & price. all you do is increase the suffering of people who are already caught in a downward spiral they were enticed into and provided with by the current economic system
I believe poverty alleviation and stronger workers rights (if we can’t get socialism) is the best way to fight prostitution. And have programs that focus on marginalized people who turn to sex work (women, LGBT people, poor people, immigrants… sadly, teens). I’m against the legalization of buying sex and pimping but I don’t oppose explicit legal protections for sex workers like making sure you can’t evict sex workers or stop arrests for simply working and defending themselves from clients.
as much as i agree, pretending “poverty allevation” is on the horizon is just naive. it’s not coming for the foreseeable (pre-revolutionary) future. so why crack down on something for which no alternative is being given to the extent that sex workers would choose said alternative. and i m not talking about forced prostitution or human trafficking because these should be criminalized where they are not already. unfortunately, the definition of who is a refugee helper and who is a human trafficker is a political decision. so i against any reduction in personal liberties as long as the state is not functional, democratic or a means of redistibution.
Why do anything if you don’t believe a better future is possible? I can’t believe a “communist” would speak this way. Do you think organizing is just a meme?
Be honest with me. Have you ever seriously engaged with Marxist feminist theory?
changing the course of history begins with understanding its trajectory and who threw the thing to want ends.
I only know marxist theory. and i know feminist discourses and the feminist discourses i respect are the ones which derive from anticolonialism, black & indigenous women, the subalternous classes, not western white academia who basically represent todays suffragettes (which i consider white rightwing middle/upper class outrage based policy of todays Corp-Dems, historically used to RE-ENSLAVE the freed black slaves into CRIMINAL CLASSES by means of PROHIBITION, which the suffragette led government achieved by deludeing women into having electoral power over an oligarchical, patriarchical economy which they had long removed from any government influence…). Same goes for the whole “democracy” bullshit. where are we democratic? show me at your workplace…
Organizing is a thing, but i m not going for anyones witchhunt against a concept they cannot get rid of. it’s like the war on drugs and the war on terror. if you really wanna wage them, you need to fight for poverty alleviation FIRST & FOREMOST. as such i do not respect such fringing out of marxist discourses into gender/race boxes and putting gender-sentiments of a non-economic nature into the forefront. formulate your economic problem (where there is exploitation, we shall fight it, independent of pseudomoralistic religious sentiments)
to put it bluntly: women are a class, as such i don’t have to know more than how class oppression and alleviation works. and it doesn’t work by reducing options but not giving alternatives. and since there are no alternatives being given to those in the field, the only thing you can do is to siphon off money from the top (taxing). and don’t you think that the cost isn’t handed down until the state actually gets involved in regulating this industry
which exists even in the most conservative, most shut down backwards theocracy, as much as they are trying to get rid of it…
While i understand why they did this, banning drugs is not an ideal scenario. Drugs should be legalized and regulated, so that addicts and casual users can have access to them safely. Most of the harm from drugs comes from the crap that is put in them by cartels. Banning drugs and simply forcing addicts off the drugs cold turkey is inhumane and rarely works. If the state had put me in prison and forced me off heroin cold turkey back when i was addicted to heroin, i would have probably killed myself. People think drug withdrawal is a joke, a minor discomfort. Its not, its an unbearable atrocious pain, it traumatizes you. I have never gone through full on cold turkey heroin withdrawal, the most ive been through is 2 days of withdrawal, and yet that still left a scar. Now i cant stand sweating, even a little bit, because it reminds me of heroin withdrawal and gives me anxiety (heroin withdrawal causes among other things intense cold sweating). Imagine the scar id have if id gone full cold turkey. Drugs need to be legalized. I can understand poor socialist countries not doing it because of lack of resources, i get that. But for rich global north nations, there is no excuse to not do it, since the resources are there.
Yeah, most people who have never used or seen drugs have no idea about them. It also doesnt help that media reporting about them is insanely sensationalistic and false, its meant to scare people and get clicks. If you ever see a western media article on some “new scary drug that will totally destroy society” you can bet its bullshit. Ive tried most of the common drugs (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, LSD, MDMA, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, tramadol, codeine, dihydrocodeine, morphine, oxycodone, nitrous oxide, pregabalin, DXM, ketamine and heroin) and ive never had any problems with it except for heroin. And besides, that was because of personal psychological problems (Covid lockdown + other shit), since i have several friends that use heroin very occasionally and have had 0 problems. Drugs dont cause addiction, psychological problems cause addiction, most of them stemming from capitalism. Thus, under socialism/communism drugs would cause very few addiction problems, if any.
I can tell you for real, even with the supposed “evil hard drugs” like cocaine, meth or heroin, most users arent addicted, even in hypercapitalist fucked up societies like the USA. Medical studies have shown that in the USA, only 25% of heroin users become addicts. Now imagine how low the figure would be in a successful socialist/communist society where alienation and poverty are no longer a thing. Drugs have been a thing for all human history, banning them is stupid. Now this isnt to say that socialist countries with 0 drug use like DPRK or Cuba should allow them, that would be pointless, they have no drug problem in the first place. But in China for example, where they do have a drug problem (although much lower than the west), i think it would be a good move, since they definetely have the resources to produce legal drugs for drug addicts (unlike Cuba or DPRK for example). In fact, the CPC is realizing this, albeit slowly. While in the past they would arrest heroin addicts and force them off heroin cold turkey, which is terrible, now they have started implementing methadone programs, which is a step in the right direction.
The same stupid head in the sand, backward mentallity.
Forbid it and it will not disappear.
On the contrary, there will be much more crime and deaths.
Portugal has proven this .
While i agree with your position that drugs should be legalized, you are very mistaken. Portugal did NOT legalize drugs. It never did, this is a very common misconception. Portugal only decriminalized drugs, meaning drug use and possession was legal, but production and sale was not. While this is certainly good for drug users and addicts, in the overall scheme of things its terrible. You make the job of drug dealers easier, since they can exploit the legal loophole of possession for personal use to avoid drug trafficking charges. You also dont fix the problem of harmful drugs, since the drug market continues to be in the hands of gangsters and cartels, so theres 0 quality control on what the drugs contain. While decriminalization would definetely be good in countries with high drug incarceration like the USA, it would be terrible and stupid in countries with low drug use.
What you have to do is legalize drugs, not decriminalize them. You create legal access to drugs, regulated, so that those who are addicted or simply like to use them can do so without danger and without funding cartels. A real example of this is Switzerland, which legalized heroin. Heroin addicts can get access to 100% pure pharmaceutical heroin for free. This reduces the damage of the drug a lot and allows them to lead normal lives.
well, they did not do that because of benevolence or positive effects on society, they did it because the state was run on alcohol and held the monopoly to the sale. on the other hand, there was an active ongoing attempt of the UK/US to flood Russia with heroin, so the leadership wouldn’t want foreign gangsters to earn money on their soil. i think this was more crimethink and counter-intelligence rather than based on human rights or socioeconomic ideals.
i might add, that christian inflicted alcohol monopolies and drug prohibitions are a CHRISTIAN dogma, not a communist/socialist one. plz resume downvoting…
Liberals calling themselves tankies for laughing at some memes but never bothered to read any theory: b-but what if the porn actor/actress “consents” though, downvoot!
Also liberals: wait, is non-consensual sex immoral?
Contrary to the mainstream liberal “feminist” belief, there is a reason Communists always support sex trade abolition
Seriously - they make the same argument as libertarians. They laugh that argument off as ridiculous when it’s applied to general labour, correctly recognizing the coercive nature of markets, but then adamantly stand by it when it’s applied to porn/prostitution. The cognitive dissonance is astounding…
“Wage labour is slavery!”
“Coerced sex from your boss is rape!”
“Paid sex and recordings are… uhhhhh”
So you don’t have a job then?
Smooth brain take
If the person had a job requireing any amount of average labour (and by average i mean world average) maybe they wouldn’t judge industries as a whole but maybe chose their targets more specifically. f.e. abusive corporations, churches, biker gangs…
I mean, there are men diving in shit regularily risking their lives so our fecies can fulfill its destiny. and imagine you would attack the field of shit-diving for its coercive labour relationships (you being forced into shifts or overtime… having to break your back while diving in shit… having a shitty boss…), instead of attacking and regulating the power differential at the workplace (better pay, better work security, better healthcare, better regulations, flat hierarchies…) - OR KILL SHIT DIVING “as a concept” (in our current market) all you will achieve is your toilet being clogged and all of it coming up the pipes and flooding your house.
and this is exactly what will happen if such people are let lose on society without at least having been reminded that society is full of people who are fucked in the head and who need to be given a place, whose pathologies have to be mitigated and given purpose e.t.c. and this often can look strange to people who don’t ever walk a mile in their shoes. this is something even the state religions have understood. i m just of the opinion that their fix isn’t really working for anyone but them…
Personally, i think this is a Don Quixote
Holy fuck you’re obsessed with me. Stop thinking about me and chill the fuck out. I’m the most boring person and you accuse me of being an agent. Are you sure you’re on your right mind?
Stop talking to me, stop talking about me. Disengage. Actually, stop talking on the internet and call a person you know IRL. This is insane behavior.
i won’t go into this much further since you 're going to cry mommy to the admins, because you can’t actually engage with arguments in the public forum you participate in out of your free will thus provoking responses which you are not obliged to like. but since you ve been editing your posts way down into our misguided “conversation” at least give me time to properly edit my posts, before you throw your projections around, will you. thx, out…
in regards to assange, yes you are an agent, i would rather call you a drone. you don’t even know the real argument you are making here. you don’t even know to what ends your topical argument will be used and who runs its narrative course.
I don’t believe you’re mentally stable. I will not engage with your arguments because: I wasn’t fit to do so (which I let you know) and now I don’t believe it will make any sense.
You’re a spammer. You’re rambling, irate and deluded. Go talk to someone who cares about you. I’m not insulting you, I’m doing you a favour.
you have no arguments, you have gaslighting smearing and framing
OK so everyone is coerced to perform labor under capitalism, which means anyone performing sex work is in some sense being coerced into having sex. The question is why is that worse than being coerced into any other labor?
It seems to me that this position is disingenuously conflating the, shall we say, passive coercion everyone faces under capitalism with the kind of active coercion that takes place in e.g. sex trafficking. In the latter, people are literally kidnapped and forced to have sex against their will. In the former, people have to choose some way of making money, and for some people they find their best option to be sex work.
Sex trafficking and any other directly forced sex is quite obviously abhorrent. But when we say that any sex work, even when it is chosen by the worker, is similarly unconscionable, we have to either agree that under capitalism, construction work, data entry work, and food service industry work are also just as immoral and must be abolished, or else explain why being coerced by the system into selling one’s body to perform labor, say, building a community center or coding a video game is different than labor that involves sex.
If you believe that sex is inherently different than any other physical or mental activity, why?
Now, I could see an argument that it is difficult to be sure that people starring in pornography aren’t being forced to do so as sex slaves, so for practical purposes it’s best to just ban it outright. If that’s the position, I’d say it’s somewhat reasonable, as long as it wouldn’t be illegal for my wife and I to continue making and watching our own videos of ourselves. This position doesn’t really work for illustrated or animated pornography, though.
The sex trade / rape industry cannot be equated to other industries, and especially to production. It is based on the historical patriarchal exploitation of women’s bodies and reproductive capacity, and today’s sex trade is the culmination of thousands of years of women’s oppression. No one, especially men, are entitled to sex. Production is necessary, rape isn’t.
The battleground here is women’s bodies and sexual autonomy, fighting to preserve their bodily autonomy from rapists holding the money that allow them to survive.
Once you start learning about the horrorshow of the sex trade, you’ll see how blurred those lines are, so as to make the distinction between trafficked women and poverty-forced prostitution meaningless.
You must be very strongly against the institution of marriage then.
And where do trafficked boys fit into your theory?
Have you ever even talked to a Marxist feminist? The answer is yes. Communists have even written about how difficult it is to fight prostitution when the institution of marriage exists.
Sorry, I should’ve included the trafficking of children, also an important aspect of the sex trade.
And yes communists unsurprisingly have a lot to say about the institution of bourgeios marriage.
What do you call coerced sex? What makes you when you enjoy having sex with someone who is coerced?
Edit: Discussing sexual violence is triggering to me. I can’t offer a fair discussion right now. Sorry.
No, having sex is NOT the same as performing general labour. Do you really need someone to sit down with you and explain why, like are you really that dense?
the only system under which prostitution could be considered voluntary is a system that meets the basic needs of food, shelter, heating, electricity, childcare and healthcare. Which is by coincidence also the only system that would probably reduce the market for prostitution to a minimum, because few women would come under the economic pressure.
Currently i see two groups of “legal” prostitutes: self employed people who need money and or people who take too much drugs and need money. both usually with certain pschological drives based in abuse, poverty, psychotrauma, & so on.
making it illegal just feeds the desperate into the depths of state violence, police & wage abuse, exploitation and so on. we are not making it better by criminalizing it, but we can harshly regulate it to push pimp culture out of the market. Kinda like the legality of drugs & guns. you can’t leave the market to criminals, but you can also not just destroy the market in a top down measure, without becoming a dictatorship - and or/thus driving the demand & price. all you do is increase the suffering of people who are already caught in a downward spiral they were enticed into and provided with by the current economic system
I believe poverty alleviation and stronger workers rights (if we can’t get socialism) is the best way to fight prostitution. And have programs that focus on marginalized people who turn to sex work (women, LGBT people, poor people, immigrants… sadly, teens). I’m against the legalization of buying sex and pimping but I don’t oppose explicit legal protections for sex workers like making sure you can’t evict sex workers or stop arrests for simply working and defending themselves from clients.
as much as i agree, pretending “poverty allevation” is on the horizon is just naive. it’s not coming for the foreseeable (pre-revolutionary) future. so why crack down on something for which no alternative is being given to the extent that sex workers would choose said alternative. and i m not talking about forced prostitution or human trafficking because these should be criminalized where they are not already. unfortunately, the definition of who is a refugee helper and who is a human trafficker is a political decision. so i against any reduction in personal liberties as long as the state is not functional, democratic or a means of redistibution.
Why do anything if you don’t believe a better future is possible? I can’t believe a “communist” would speak this way. Do you think organizing is just a meme?
Be honest with me. Have you ever seriously engaged with Marxist feminist theory?
changing the course of history begins with understanding its trajectory and who threw the thing to want ends.
I only know marxist theory. and i know feminist discourses and the feminist discourses i respect are the ones which derive from anticolonialism, black & indigenous women, the subalternous classes, not western white academia who basically represent todays suffragettes (which i consider white rightwing middle/upper class outrage based policy of todays Corp-Dems, historically used to RE-ENSLAVE the freed black slaves into CRIMINAL CLASSES by means of PROHIBITION, which the suffragette led government achieved by deludeing women into having electoral power over an oligarchical, patriarchical economy which they had long removed from any government influence…). Same goes for the whole “democracy” bullshit. where are we democratic? show me at your workplace…
Organizing is a thing, but i m not going for anyones witchhunt against a concept they cannot get rid of. it’s like the war on drugs and the war on terror. if you really wanna wage them, you need to fight for poverty alleviation FIRST & FOREMOST. as such i do not respect such fringing out of marxist discourses into gender/race boxes and putting gender-sentiments of a non-economic nature into the forefront. formulate your economic problem (where there is exploitation, we shall fight it, independent of pseudomoralistic religious sentiments)
to put it bluntly: women are a class, as such i don’t have to know more than how class oppression and alleviation works. and it doesn’t work by reducing options but not giving alternatives. and since there are no alternatives being given to those in the field, the only thing you can do is to siphon off money from the top (taxing). and don’t you think that the cost isn’t handed down until the state actually gets involved in regulating this industry
which exists even in the most conservative, most shut down backwards theocracy, as much as they are trying to get rid of it…
deleted by creator
While i understand why they did this, banning drugs is not an ideal scenario. Drugs should be legalized and regulated, so that addicts and casual users can have access to them safely. Most of the harm from drugs comes from the crap that is put in them by cartels. Banning drugs and simply forcing addicts off the drugs cold turkey is inhumane and rarely works. If the state had put me in prison and forced me off heroin cold turkey back when i was addicted to heroin, i would have probably killed myself. People think drug withdrawal is a joke, a minor discomfort. Its not, its an unbearable atrocious pain, it traumatizes you. I have never gone through full on cold turkey heroin withdrawal, the most ive been through is 2 days of withdrawal, and yet that still left a scar. Now i cant stand sweating, even a little bit, because it reminds me of heroin withdrawal and gives me anxiety (heroin withdrawal causes among other things intense cold sweating). Imagine the scar id have if id gone full cold turkey. Drugs need to be legalized. I can understand poor socialist countries not doing it because of lack of resources, i get that. But for rich global north nations, there is no excuse to not do it, since the resources are there.
deleted by creator
Yeah, most people who have never used or seen drugs have no idea about them. It also doesnt help that media reporting about them is insanely sensationalistic and false, its meant to scare people and get clicks. If you ever see a western media article on some “new scary drug that will totally destroy society” you can bet its bullshit. Ive tried most of the common drugs (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, LSD, MDMA, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, tramadol, codeine, dihydrocodeine, morphine, oxycodone, nitrous oxide, pregabalin, DXM, ketamine and heroin) and ive never had any problems with it except for heroin. And besides, that was because of personal psychological problems (Covid lockdown + other shit), since i have several friends that use heroin very occasionally and have had 0 problems. Drugs dont cause addiction, psychological problems cause addiction, most of them stemming from capitalism. Thus, under socialism/communism drugs would cause very few addiction problems, if any.
I can tell you for real, even with the supposed “evil hard drugs” like cocaine, meth or heroin, most users arent addicted, even in hypercapitalist fucked up societies like the USA. Medical studies have shown that in the USA, only 25% of heroin users become addicts. Now imagine how low the figure would be in a successful socialist/communist society where alienation and poverty are no longer a thing. Drugs have been a thing for all human history, banning them is stupid. Now this isnt to say that socialist countries with 0 drug use like DPRK or Cuba should allow them, that would be pointless, they have no drug problem in the first place. But in China for example, where they do have a drug problem (although much lower than the west), i think it would be a good move, since they definetely have the resources to produce legal drugs for drug addicts (unlike Cuba or DPRK for example). In fact, the CPC is realizing this, albeit slowly. While in the past they would arrest heroin addicts and force them off heroin cold turkey, which is terrible, now they have started implementing methadone programs, which is a step in the right direction.
The same stupid head in the sand, backward mentallity. Forbid it and it will not disappear. On the contrary, there will be much more crime and deaths. Portugal has proven this .
deleted by creator
While i agree with your position that drugs should be legalized, you are very mistaken. Portugal did NOT legalize drugs. It never did, this is a very common misconception. Portugal only decriminalized drugs, meaning drug use and possession was legal, but production and sale was not. While this is certainly good for drug users and addicts, in the overall scheme of things its terrible. You make the job of drug dealers easier, since they can exploit the legal loophole of possession for personal use to avoid drug trafficking charges. You also dont fix the problem of harmful drugs, since the drug market continues to be in the hands of gangsters and cartels, so theres 0 quality control on what the drugs contain. While decriminalization would definetely be good in countries with high drug incarceration like the USA, it would be terrible and stupid in countries with low drug use.
What you have to do is legalize drugs, not decriminalize them. You create legal access to drugs, regulated, so that those who are addicted or simply like to use them can do so without danger and without funding cartels. A real example of this is Switzerland, which legalized heroin. Heroin addicts can get access to 100% pure pharmaceutical heroin for free. This reduces the damage of the drug a lot and allows them to lead normal lives.
well, they did not do that because of benevolence or positive effects on society, they did it because the state was run on alcohol and held the monopoly to the sale. on the other hand, there was an active ongoing attempt of the UK/US to flood Russia with heroin, so the leadership wouldn’t want foreign gangsters to earn money on their soil. i think this was more crimethink and counter-intelligence rather than based on human rights or socioeconomic ideals.
i might add, that christian inflicted alcohol monopolies and drug prohibitions are a CHRISTIAN dogma, not a communist/socialist one. plz resume downvoting…