slimvictor
Bluelight Crew
We can win, but we need to change something more important than laws – something that will lead to changes in all of the important laws, but something deeper than law. We need to change the way that people think.
I believe that our biggest problem is with the way that the entire situation is framed, or portrayed – the perspective hidden in the words used to talk about it. The way it is talked about gives us the short end of the stick right from the beginning.
If we are going to enlighten the closed-minded to the facts that people should have the freedom to expand their own consciousness, we need to take the debate and “untwist” it. The anti-drug people have controlled the debate since Harry Ainslinger in the 1920’s, and now we need to take it back.
For instance, take the question “How can we win the war on drugs?” This question assumes that someone can “win” such a “war”, which actually seems improbable, and it’s not entirely clear what winning would even mean. It also accepts the idea of a “war on drugs”, which is similar to the “war on terror” in that it is based on the false premise that we can fight something extremely abstract. You can’t have a war on drugs, unless you fight hand-to-stalk with the marijuana plant, and it fights back. The fight is not a “war,” which is typically a fight between two nation states, but it is a governmental action carried out primarily by the police against people who grow, make, distribute, and use drugs. Drugs, unlike a typical enemy against whom one would declare war, cannot “fight back”. Of course, the powers-that-be make use of the metaphor that the “damage drugs do to society” is their “attack”, but this is merely a metaphor. It is true that drugs negatively influence some people’s lives, but they also enrich some people’s lives. We should continually highlight the good that drugs do in society in order to counter this metaphorical attack. We need to gather and publicize the stories of people whose lives change for the better due to their drug use, which can be found on Erowid, for example.
There is a huge problem with the word “drugs”. It is typically used to mean something like “the chemicals (including plants) that induce a change in consciousness but are not registered to a pharmaceutical company, and that bad people utilize for their own pleasure, excluding foods and certain chemicals that have already made their way into the mainstream.” This is very bad for our side. If you asked 100 random people for their impression of a “drug-user”, a majority would give you a negative impression – even some of those who have used drugs, since they don’t see themselves as “drug-users”. This is not just due to the propaganda about drug-users, but also due to the negativity associated with the word “drugs”.
We need to change the negative associations with the word “drugs”, but it may already be too late. If we want to try to change this, we need to show people that the border between marijuana and LSD (etc.), on the one hand, and caffeine, sugar, and Prozac (etc.), on the other, is something artificial. We need to begin by
a) showing that other chemicals are very similar to what is more commonly known as “drugs” and
b) show that what are more commonly known as “drugs” are very similar to other chemicals.
In order to achieve (a), we need to try to make it commonplace to refer to things such as Prozac, alcohol, sugar, caffeine and tobacco as “drugs”. If you hear people using other terms for them, such as “medicine” or “food” or “my daily java”, you have a chance to correct this and re-frame it. I usually make a point of bringing conversations about caffeine addiction, for example, back to here.
In order to achieve (b), we need to make it commonplace to refer to marijuana and LSD (etc.) as “medicines” (or “consciousness expanders”, or some other term that highlights the benefits of these substances, or at least “chemicals”, which highlights what they have in common with Prozac and caffeine). This is more difficult to do without letting people know that we are “drug-users” (there’s that awful term), but it is equally important. To remain safe, we can use the word “chemicals”, which doesn’t reveal us to be “drug-users” but is effective in re-framing the picture.
If we can’t create a more neutral association with the word “drugs”, we should drop it and create or borrow a new word that has no negative association. I believe that we may already be in this boat, though the tactics discussed in the paragraph above certainly won’t hurt in getting people to think about drugs differently, even if we abandon the word “drugs”.
My vote is to use the word “chemical”, which is almost guaranteed to maintain a neutral meaning because of its association with chemistry and its meaning in that field. The main problem with it is that it is not “cool”, which may make the masses resistant to using it.
We need to change the way people talk about chemicals in order to change the way that they think about them.
Chemical lovers unite – take back the fight!
I believe that our biggest problem is with the way that the entire situation is framed, or portrayed – the perspective hidden in the words used to talk about it. The way it is talked about gives us the short end of the stick right from the beginning.
If we are going to enlighten the closed-minded to the facts that people should have the freedom to expand their own consciousness, we need to take the debate and “untwist” it. The anti-drug people have controlled the debate since Harry Ainslinger in the 1920’s, and now we need to take it back.
For instance, take the question “How can we win the war on drugs?” This question assumes that someone can “win” such a “war”, which actually seems improbable, and it’s not entirely clear what winning would even mean. It also accepts the idea of a “war on drugs”, which is similar to the “war on terror” in that it is based on the false premise that we can fight something extremely abstract. You can’t have a war on drugs, unless you fight hand-to-stalk with the marijuana plant, and it fights back. The fight is not a “war,” which is typically a fight between two nation states, but it is a governmental action carried out primarily by the police against people who grow, make, distribute, and use drugs. Drugs, unlike a typical enemy against whom one would declare war, cannot “fight back”. Of course, the powers-that-be make use of the metaphor that the “damage drugs do to society” is their “attack”, but this is merely a metaphor. It is true that drugs negatively influence some people’s lives, but they also enrich some people’s lives. We should continually highlight the good that drugs do in society in order to counter this metaphorical attack. We need to gather and publicize the stories of people whose lives change for the better due to their drug use, which can be found on Erowid, for example.
There is a huge problem with the word “drugs”. It is typically used to mean something like “the chemicals (including plants) that induce a change in consciousness but are not registered to a pharmaceutical company, and that bad people utilize for their own pleasure, excluding foods and certain chemicals that have already made their way into the mainstream.” This is very bad for our side. If you asked 100 random people for their impression of a “drug-user”, a majority would give you a negative impression – even some of those who have used drugs, since they don’t see themselves as “drug-users”. This is not just due to the propaganda about drug-users, but also due to the negativity associated with the word “drugs”.
We need to change the negative associations with the word “drugs”, but it may already be too late. If we want to try to change this, we need to show people that the border between marijuana and LSD (etc.), on the one hand, and caffeine, sugar, and Prozac (etc.), on the other, is something artificial. We need to begin by
a) showing that other chemicals are very similar to what is more commonly known as “drugs” and
b) show that what are more commonly known as “drugs” are very similar to other chemicals.
In order to achieve (a), we need to try to make it commonplace to refer to things such as Prozac, alcohol, sugar, caffeine and tobacco as “drugs”. If you hear people using other terms for them, such as “medicine” or “food” or “my daily java”, you have a chance to correct this and re-frame it. I usually make a point of bringing conversations about caffeine addiction, for example, back to here.
In order to achieve (b), we need to make it commonplace to refer to marijuana and LSD (etc.) as “medicines” (or “consciousness expanders”, or some other term that highlights the benefits of these substances, or at least “chemicals”, which highlights what they have in common with Prozac and caffeine). This is more difficult to do without letting people know that we are “drug-users” (there’s that awful term), but it is equally important. To remain safe, we can use the word “chemicals”, which doesn’t reveal us to be “drug-users” but is effective in re-framing the picture.
If we can’t create a more neutral association with the word “drugs”, we should drop it and create or borrow a new word that has no negative association. I believe that we may already be in this boat, though the tactics discussed in the paragraph above certainly won’t hurt in getting people to think about drugs differently, even if we abandon the word “drugs”.
My vote is to use the word “chemical”, which is almost guaranteed to maintain a neutral meaning because of its association with chemistry and its meaning in that field. The main problem with it is that it is not “cool”, which may make the masses resistant to using it.
We need to change the way people talk about chemicals in order to change the way that they think about them.
Chemical lovers unite – take back the fight!
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
