In this excerpt from a talk and Q&A given at the Institute for the Radical Imagination on 08/10/2019 titled ‘For a Left that Dares to Speak its Name’, Zizek …
I don't know why anyone wants to listen to this bullshitter
All American communists think Communists abroad actually tolerate drug degenerates. Damn.
haha nothing like being a left wing philosopher and stating that you're open to drug prohibition to piss off your audience. Shows he still thinks for himself and not through the masses. I like him 🙂
Drugs are such a popular topic nowadays. People should really ask themselves why this so. Which subject desires drugs? You know, the theory of the subject is so radical, but I don't think many are aware of it: "desire is the desire of the Other's desire".
Is it "free choice" when you're consuming an addictive substance? I want opinions.
“People is stupid so they don’t know what is good for themselves” you are people too, so you are stupid too, but magically you know what’s the best for me and and you and everyone. His ideas sometimes are just non-sense.
This really is the stupidest position I’ve heard him take. Ignorant on the topic, ignorant on the implications.
Disappointingly unfocused argument.
Only users lose drugs
I am sorry, but Weed is not even close to be a drug next to alcohol. The damage Alcohol and Tobacco does to one, is ridiculously higher than Marijuana. Weed and ¬other drugs¬ are not the same topic when it comes to legalization. The arguments to not allow weed to be legalized in Western countries are simply not real, because weed is way less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, as well as less addictive.
please change the thumbnail. He's talking about serious drugs, not marijuana
The title is overly simplistic –I think it is misleading
One problem (& a fundamental one because very few recognize it as such, either right wing or left) is the constitutional one (& this applies to any issue).
Most government agencies in the USA — from ones like the CIA & NSA to others like the EPA & FDA etc. etc were created solely by legislative & executive Fiat, not by proper constitutional amendments,& this is why people only give constitutional arguments on a few issues. You unfortunately will not see Earth Justice or NRDC or anyone else argue against the constitutionality of corporate welfare even though it is what is the root cause of most environmental destruction. They will argue against such things on valid grounds, but not ones that are so fundamental & constitutional that if they prevailed, most such mass pollution and deforestation etc.would end
Look up the argument that Tom Jefferson had against the loose interpretation of the "general welfare" clause. If Jefferson had prevailed (and he had followed this strict rules he advocated himself while prez) every give-away could not have happened
But Jefferson, like the rest of the founders, unfortunately did not follow his own professed rules and philosophy of limited government except where it applies against the poor and "foreigners" that we invade or meddle with.
Oh well, hell's bells! (As Jessy said)
He grew up in Yugoslavia, in the 60s and 70s, Yugoslavia's communism was liberal but it wasn't LSD at a festival kind of liberal…
The thumbnail is a little deceiving as he is talking about hard drugs which would be more dangerous than smoking tobacco, thus more dangerous than marijuana.
Ta aí, encontrei um vídeo ruim do Zizek
I wonder if he drinks coffe/tea, or takes cold medicine when he gets sick … those are drugs too
Makes me remember a point italian songwriter Willie Peyote made in his song "The dictatorship of non-smokers" as he ironically sings: "From tomorrow, whoever wants to will be able to smoke, but only inside his own home, with the windows shut – with all that passive smoke there's no excuse […] I quit smoking a couple of years ago, maybe five or six, but I have to admit that when I snort a lot of dope I'd fancy a cig"
My impression is, that he really didn't have a view into this topic at all so far. He speaks of "leaving the decision to people", meaning the decision to take drugs or not. This decision is already here, no matter of the prohibition. Cannabis is the most obvious example but it's actually not different with other so called "hard" drugs. The question is not: how dangerous is a substance, but: Does it more damage on the black market or on a regulated market? He didn't discuss this, but hey: you cannot have a qualified opinion on everything. 🙂
Drugs are not dangerous, it's the user that holds the danger.
Choice, Objectively, some substances are harmful. But it is an individual's choice. As long as the person is an adult, that's their call.
Zizek doesn't say he's against drug legalization, as the title suggests. Rather, he seems to be saying that drug prohibition is based on ideology by pointing out the contradiction of allowing smoking or drinking alcohol, which is actually more harmful than many illegal drugs, but disallowing others if the justification for banning certain drugs is that they are harmful. There are reasons for this to happen that aren't purely ideological, first smoking tobacco doesn't alter your state of mind the same way heroin or cocaine, and drinking alcohol isn't so fastly addictive as heroin or cocaine. Smoking and drinking are more accepted in society simply because the impact they have on people isn't so fastly destructive, you can keep functioning for a longer time. Many people confuse or don't know the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Decriminalization has been proven statically the most effective way to deal with drug epidemics. It works especially well with class A drugs like heroin and cocaine. By not penalizing drug consumption and even assisting in the use of these drugs, you create first a better statistical knowledge of the net of consumers, allowing for a better comprehension of the dynamics of use, where they buy, what they buy, how much they buy, etc. And with these data not only you can more effectively help the drug consumer to fight against addiction, you can also better combat the drug business, and understand how and where they operate. The problem with legalization is that it doesn't render obsolete the traffic, traffic still happens, it often lowers the price and creates secondary nets of drug dealing, it's true that by taxing this drugs it would help financing programs of recovery but it also introduces a ethical confrontation/dilemma, should the state be part of a business that causes harm to their citizens?
Finally, a leftist who has spoken the truth.
Do I understand him right to in fact just support radical centralization of power for sake of consistency, effectiveness, effienciency and the use of reason in each and everyone's individual life and in all societal and economic phanomenons?
Adopting his ideology, there also had to be a ban on sugar, sweetener, hard liquor and tabacco.
I think that he doesnt know cocaine classified as a drug.
I believe that drug trafficking cannot be possible without a help of state. I even believe that all big drug dealers are employed by state. And then bureacracy write anti-drug strategies, which is a good way to steal money from tax payers.
Get Zizek on Rogan
Lol I once asked slavoj if he’d smoke a joint with me and he went off on that exact answer of being a product of Stalinist paranoid environment and that’s he’d never even smoked a cigarette
Should drugs be legalized? I think so. Should drugs be commercialized and commodified no. At some level they already are and legalization brings a higher level of it for the mainstream capitalist market. Why? To make money in order to support research? That's a problem with the system. So drugs should be legal and not commercialized is my belief, and more so after seeing legalization of pot in Country of Socialized healthcare. Capitalism gets it's way, or gets in the way. I can't say.
he bodied them all. The host to his left clearly disappointed in his lack of support for drug legalisation and tried to get him to move on hahah
The problem is what to do with mafia, with the violence and dirty monet that it generates.. the total.corruption and so on..when anyway prohibition doesnt work, people still consuming all kinds of drugs, it just makes the business more profitable and violent
He's right. The enemies can attack. These enemies might not be people, these enemies might be constructs in your mind.
hear,hear prof. you tell em 1
He ends up not touching the point of the genocide of black and poor people which is what fuels the war on drugs, or the experience of countries having less drug addicts after legalisation. It's certainly an excerpt that doesn't do Zizek any good, only useful for those interested in (questionably) funny anecdotes.
I think his satirical and often lighter way of talking about capitalism has its drawbacks on the possibilities of the discourse. Not necessarily a criticism, since it's how he gets his message to more people.
sniffstouches nose and so on, and so on…
Lol what a fraud
He wipes his nose and sniffs more than any drug free person I know. Didn't expect that. Haha
If you're against the legalization of drugs,then you must also be for the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco,2 of the most harmful drugs. If you're not,than you're a hippocrite.
Based.
well, duh! cause GOD!
They gave labrats addictive drugs. Some they put in cages and they went to the drug before they went for food. They gave others more freedom and better conditions and they went for the food first. I don't have the details and it is aterrible model but the argument stands analysis. Treating people like lab rats is going to be bad for at least half of us.
Maybe the drugs are not the problem so much as the situations people find themselves in.
His mannerism gives me anxiety and then I just focus on cutting his nose off and miss what he says entirely.
"What do you think about drug decriminalisation?" It's not that hard to say.
who the fuck cares what this anti-American, commie piece of shit thinks?
Not all drugs are "just as dangerous", the danger varies quite a lot actually, both in quantity and quality. Anyway Zizek didn't address legalisation or decriminalisation in the current system, only that he's not fundamentally against state regulation or intervention for certain things. He also gave the anecdote of people who were rigidly anti-smoking while engaging with other drugs, however that same hypocrisy is mirrored exactly in the current legal precedent.
alchool is a dangerous drug…you can buy it anywhere dirt cheap…quit the mainstream bullshit dominant speech… heres the challenge…how many families were destroyed and disfunctional because of alchool?!and how many cause of weed?
I don't know why anyone wants to listen to this bullshitter
All American communists think Communists abroad actually tolerate drug degenerates. Damn.
haha nothing like being a left wing philosopher and stating that you're open to drug prohibition to piss off your audience. Shows he still thinks for himself and not through the masses. I like him 🙂
Drugs are such a popular topic nowadays. People should really ask themselves why this so. Which subject desires drugs? You know, the theory of the subject is so radical, but I don't think many are aware of it: "desire is the desire of the Other's desire".
Is it "free choice" when you're consuming an addictive substance? I want opinions.
“People is stupid so they don’t know what is good for themselves” you are people too, so you are stupid too, but magically you know what’s the best for me and and you and everyone. His ideas sometimes are just non-sense.
This really is the stupidest position I’ve heard him take. Ignorant on the topic, ignorant on the implications.
Disappointingly unfocused argument.
Only users lose drugs
I am sorry, but Weed is not even close to be a drug next to alcohol. The damage Alcohol and Tobacco does to one, is ridiculously higher than Marijuana. Weed and ¬other drugs¬ are not the same topic when it comes to legalization. The arguments to not allow weed to be legalized in Western countries are simply not real, because weed is way less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, as well as less addictive.
please change the thumbnail. He's talking about serious drugs, not marijuana
The title is overly simplistic –I think it is misleading
One problem (& a fundamental one because very few recognize it as such, either right wing or left) is the constitutional one (& this applies to any issue).
Most government agencies in the USA — from ones like the CIA & NSA to others like the EPA & FDA etc. etc were created solely by legislative & executive Fiat, not by proper constitutional amendments,& this is why people only give constitutional arguments on a few issues. You unfortunately will not see Earth Justice or NRDC or anyone else argue against the constitutionality of corporate welfare even though it is what is the root cause of most environmental destruction. They will argue against such things on valid grounds, but not ones that are so fundamental & constitutional that if they prevailed, most such mass pollution and deforestation etc.would end
Look up the argument that Tom Jefferson had against the loose interpretation of the "general welfare" clause. If Jefferson had prevailed (and he had followed this strict rules he advocated himself while prez) every give-away could not have happened
But Jefferson, like the rest of the founders, unfortunately did not follow his own professed rules and philosophy of limited government except where it applies against the poor and "foreigners" that we invade or meddle with.
Oh well, hell's bells! (As Jessy said)
He grew up in Yugoslavia, in the 60s and 70s, Yugoslavia's communism was liberal but it wasn't LSD at a festival kind of liberal…
The thumbnail is a little deceiving as he is talking about hard drugs which would be more dangerous than smoking tobacco, thus more dangerous than marijuana.
Ta aí, encontrei um vídeo ruim do Zizek
I wonder if he drinks coffe/tea, or takes cold medicine when he gets sick … those are drugs too
Makes me remember a point italian songwriter Willie Peyote made in his song "The dictatorship of non-smokers" as he ironically sings: "From tomorrow, whoever wants to will be able to smoke, but only inside his own home, with the windows shut – with all that passive smoke there's no excuse […] I quit smoking a couple of years ago, maybe five or six, but I have to admit that when I snort a lot of dope I'd fancy a cig"
My impression is, that he really didn't have a view into this topic at all so far. He speaks of "leaving the decision to people", meaning the decision to take drugs or not. This decision is already here, no matter of the prohibition. Cannabis is the most obvious example but it's actually not different with other so called "hard" drugs.
The question is not: how dangerous is a substance, but: Does it more damage on the black market or on a regulated market? He didn't discuss this, but hey: you cannot have a qualified opinion on everything. 🙂
Drugs are not dangerous, it's the user that holds the danger.
Choice, Objectively, some substances are harmful. But it is an individual's choice. As long as the person is an adult, that's their call.
Zizek doesn't say he's against drug legalization, as the title suggests. Rather, he seems to be saying that drug prohibition is based on ideology by pointing out the contradiction of allowing smoking or drinking alcohol, which is actually more harmful than many illegal drugs, but disallowing others if the justification for banning certain drugs is that they are harmful. There are reasons for this to happen that aren't purely ideological, first smoking tobacco doesn't alter your state of mind the same way heroin or cocaine, and drinking alcohol isn't so fastly addictive as heroin or cocaine. Smoking and drinking are more accepted in society simply because the impact they have on people isn't so fastly destructive, you can keep functioning for a longer time.
Many people confuse or don't know the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Decriminalization has been proven statically the most effective way to deal with drug epidemics. It works especially well with class A drugs like heroin and cocaine. By not penalizing drug consumption and even assisting in the use of these drugs, you create first a better statistical knowledge of the net of consumers, allowing for a better comprehension of the dynamics of use, where they buy, what they buy, how much they buy, etc. And with these data not only you can more effectively help the drug consumer to fight against addiction, you can also better combat the drug business, and understand how and where they operate. The problem with legalization is that it doesn't render obsolete the traffic, traffic still happens, it often lowers the price and creates secondary nets of drug dealing, it's true that by taxing this drugs it would help financing programs of recovery but it also introduces a ethical confrontation/dilemma, should the state be part of a business that causes harm to their citizens?
Finally, a leftist who has spoken the truth.
Do I understand him right to in fact just support radical centralization of power for sake of consistency, effectiveness, effienciency and the use of reason in each and everyone's individual life and in all societal and economic phanomenons?
Adopting his ideology, there also had to be a ban on sugar, sweetener, hard liquor and tabacco.
I think that he doesnt know cocaine classified as a drug.
I believe that drug trafficking cannot be possible without a help of state. I even believe that all big drug dealers are employed by state. And then bureacracy write anti-drug strategies, which is a good way to steal money from tax payers.
Get Zizek on Rogan
Lol I once asked slavoj if he’d smoke a joint with me and he went off on that exact answer of being a product of Stalinist paranoid environment and that’s he’d never even smoked a cigarette
Should drugs be legalized? I think so. Should drugs be commercialized and commodified no. At some level they already are and legalization brings a higher level of it for the mainstream capitalist market. Why? To make money in order to support research? That's a problem with the system. So drugs should be legal and not commercialized is my belief, and more so after seeing legalization of pot in Country of Socialized healthcare. Capitalism gets it's way, or gets in the way. I can't say.
he bodied them all. The host to his left clearly disappointed in his lack of support for drug legalisation and tried to get him to move on hahah
The problem is what to do with mafia, with the violence and dirty monet that it generates.. the total.corruption and so on..when anyway prohibition doesnt work, people still consuming all kinds of drugs, it just makes the business more profitable and violent
He's right. The enemies can attack. These enemies might not be people, these enemies might be constructs in your mind.
hear,hear prof. you tell em 1
He ends up not touching the point of the genocide of black and poor people which is what fuels the war on drugs, or the experience of countries having less drug addicts after legalisation. It's certainly an excerpt that doesn't do Zizek any good, only useful for those interested in (questionably) funny anecdotes.
I think his satirical and often lighter way of talking about capitalism has its drawbacks on the possibilities of the discourse. Not necessarily a criticism, since it's how he gets his message to more people.
sniffs touches nose and so on, and so on…
Lol what a fraud
He wipes his nose and sniffs more than any drug free person I know. Didn't expect that. Haha
If you're against the legalization of drugs,then you must also be for the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco,2 of the most harmful drugs.
If you're not,than you're a hippocrite.
Based.
well, duh! cause GOD!
They gave labrats addictive drugs. Some they put in cages and they went to the drug before they went for food. They gave others more freedom and better conditions and they went for the food first. I don't have the details and it is aterrible model but the argument stands analysis. Treating people like lab rats is going to be bad for at least half of us.
Maybe the drugs are not the problem so much as the situations people find themselves in.
His mannerism gives me anxiety and then I just focus on cutting his nose off and miss what he says entirely.
"What do you think about drug decriminalisation?"
It's not that hard to say.
who the fuck cares what this anti-American, commie piece of shit thinks?
Not all drugs are "just as dangerous", the danger varies quite a lot actually, both in quantity and quality. Anyway Zizek didn't address legalisation or decriminalisation in the current system, only that he's not fundamentally against state regulation or intervention for certain things. He also gave the anecdote of people who were rigidly anti-smoking while engaging with other drugs, however that same hypocrisy is mirrored exactly in the current legal precedent.
alchool is a dangerous drug…you can buy it anywhere dirt cheap…quit the mainstream bullshit dominant speech…
heres the challenge…how many families were destroyed and disfunctional because of alchool?!and how many cause of weed?
He's going too statist. Such a disappointment.
Bro.. dude weed isn’t a drugs bro………