How can we win the war on drugs?

[slimvictor]

So what is your action plan to do your part?

Well, it's not like I have the master plan, but I am hoping to generate discussion among intelligent anti-prohibition folk to come up with something more concrete together.

My opinion is that we have to start by changing our language, as I described in the initial post, and as SpaceHead described doing in a reply above.
Change in language doesn't come from the government, but from "below" - usually the hip sectors of society. If we can get something going, it might snowball into mainstream society, and part of our job would be taken care of.

The other part is to counter the propaganda. We need to broadcast different opinions, so that the people know that many, many diverse people choose to use chemicals for a range of reasons - from coffee to beer to LSD, people use each chemical in order to seek happiness in the way that they can. Why should some methods of seeking happiness be allowed, while others aren't?

Many bluelighters know why some are illegal - because the government is threatened, since a population that was tripping on LSD might not want to show up for work digging ditches or cleaning toilets or supersizing fries the next day. That might be true, but it also might point for a need to change society in some ways. Obviously, toilet cleaners are necessary, but maybe we could create living-wage minimum wages, so that people doing every job would feel respected and useful.

So, if you ask me, changing drug laws would necessitate other changes in society, and these other changes are incredibly scary to the rich and powerful (who want to hog the power, not to share it, since that is how they became rich and powerful).
This is the real reason why drugs (chemicals) are illegal, I believe (other than cultural factors that are now in play because of decades of propaganda).

However, my point is to discuss how to change people's minds about chemical use, and, for me, it comes down to the following:

1) Change the language we use about chemicals
2) Try to change the language other people use about chemicals by pointing out contradictions and links that they ignore by saying things such as "drugs and alcohol"
3) Try to change the way other people think about chemicals more directly, by arguing that the right to expand one's consciousness is a fundamental right, and that alcohol and nicotine are not exactly everything that we are talking about

Any ideas for concrete instantiation of these goals would be welcome.
I think that we can make a plan together, and work from there.

 

[Xaratoostrah]

So.... you want to win the war... Lets see.

I know my message is not going to be heard since everytime in other forums i have spoken of such matters i have been ignored or called a variety of adjectives.

For a prologue let me give some lines of the..."Logical song" from supertramp.


"Now watch what you say or theyll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Wont you sign up your name, wed like to feel youre
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!"

So here i am being a "radical, an "elitist", an "asshole" if you preffer :

The best ambassador for a change is ones image.

Noone is going to listen if one says cannabis is not addictive but the sayer seems addicted to it ,consuming it as if it were bread or water on a daily regime as if that his/her life depended on daily consumption. But now i say this people will tell me im trying to "control","dictate" their use. Well im not, please by all means ,smoke a ton of it a day i cant tell you what to do but personally i will follow the example i have given.

Same goes with psychedelics. Even the most adequate,logical,informed speech oozing with fervor looses credibility and "weight" at public's eyes at the slightest mishap. A guy abusing a substance and getting it ( his/her behaviour basically) to be an obstacle in his well being or his social life, a single instance of such an event cancels millions of well articulated speeches on the usefullness of psychedelics ,the bulletins of MAPS.org, the abstracts of Pubmed showing beneficial effects. But now some would tell me "Let us use our psychedlics the way we want, till we run into trouble ,till we complain of heavy HPPD,till we become posterchildren of multidrug abuse". By all means guys, go forth ,this "club" has been enrolling for years and it is always happy to see new candidates . Still, i choose to not get into trouble ,to not even go in a mode of use that could become "more often" or start some kind of trouble.

So here is the Masterplan ,and its called a Masterplan because human nature makes it so hard to achive.Modify our behaviours and give a good example.It might be not driving under the influence,it might be modifying usage intervals and dosages so as not to "loose it" or start having complains about "unwanted changes/side-effects". If we accomplish that then we can talk for more. But what am i saying, most people would remark, weekends are ahead! Pills are waiting and LSD tabs are sitting eagerly in the fridge, after all its that big party ahead ane everyone knows that parties without alteration are not parties (hmmm is that so? and is this the start of psychological addiction?). Oh and that big amount of cannabis sitting in the drawer has to be smoked ,doesnt it? 8)

Well feel free to completely ignore me.

Before changing others, we would better have a look at ourselves. It *miiiiight* be in our best interest let alone the picture projected to the general public. It would be quite difficult to accuse someone of something that he/she doesnt fill the criteria for ,isnt it?

Edit: Its undestandable that what i say is not pleasant to the eyes or the ears. Feel free to shoot the messenger,its an age old practice im sure it would feel good for some.

 

[slimvictor]

Xaratoostrah has a good point: responsible chemical use is more likely to be looked upon as benign by society at large.

But this doesn't obviate the need to change the connotations linked to the term "drugs", or the other linguistic issues. It also doesn't address how we can change the (false) images of drugs and drug users created through propaganda.

 

[Xaratoostrah]

Certainly it doesnt obviate the need for linguist changes ,and indeed i havent touched the issue of the false image, i just scratched the issue of not proving the false image correct by actions.

Here is a small pebble that one can put : Personaly what i do linguistically is to try and use (in my language,im not from an English speaking country) non-charged terms, that means most of the time im not using slang when talking about it to people, yes i can be a "cool kind of brother" i am not really as boring as i sound,but i try to use words that are not "tainted".A small example is that instead of reffering to the action as a "trip" i reffer to it as an "experience". While slang may provide shortcuts of communication it also reproduces some notions that are not to the best interest at someone interested in a more fair public view of psychedelics. Here one could really make a list of all colloquialisms and see which of them have negative connotations but they are gladly used and propagated by users of those substances. Actually they are indeed the operating lingo on the subject, many users might feel that in a matter having to do "only with recreation" light hearted terms are appropriate...Hmmm...Is it so?

Under "think globaly,act localy" i have taken a spoonfull of my aforementioned medicine and the results at times amazed me. Starting from my closer circle i saw other people starting using the "non charged terms" and actually incorporating it to their vocabulary like others have already incorporated slang as a standard. Also i notice that using this a more clever terminology makes the whole issue more accessible even to people that do not have a vested interest in those substances, that is what one would call "completely straight headed people" even the "drugs are bad,mmmkay?" category of people.

Sure, i didnt cause a revolution and the media didnt pick up on this simple practice ,but for starters it would be also good trying to spread this "virus". Its quite infective ! Try it today at your circles of friends! At first they might think that one has smoked something weird , but later on if they see one is serious about it or that a fine reasoning lies behind it they might actually find themselves...enjoying the new ,non charged terms.

Funny thing? Even "slang only" speaking people understand me and many of them want in one way or another to see "why i am speaking in such a way".So,here is an initiative to get their attention.What i propose/do , in other words, is not a "linguistic fascism" by any means, i can hold conversations with people using only slang and i dont smack their hands for saying "inappropriate" words . I just keep my linguistic course steady, if they like it its ok, if they dont still its ok.

Well ,the above is just an idea.

From the side of the Goverments, i dont think their only fear (or that their fear) is more or less that noone will supersize it .This would somehow imply knowledge of pattern-breaking potential of such psychoactive agents being a "standard" ,a "given" if i may say, in govermental circles which i believe its not. Its quite propable many officials are misinformed and they dont feel any need to check on their information to see if indeed they know the subject to an adequate depth.Still ,thing is that there are many avid users of such substances that "still supersize it to the max" so the goverment doesnt have to worry, let alone that exposure to a psychedelic doesnt guarantee that the person experiencing it cant ,by definition, be an -slang time!- utter tool in the fullest of its meaning!.

Its quite a positive step that the internet exists! I can read the DEA page i can also read Erowid. Some people also are capable of going over to Pubmed or read from journal articles so as to educate themselves better.It also gives the "layman" the chance to speak his/her view without having to spend thousands on a news channel studio.So i think that in this direction steps are already being taken. And indeed some media start catching on it ,for example the John Hopkins study on psilocybin containing mushrooms received some quite positive mainstream coverage! I expect we will be seeing more of this side as research has started again on this topic,now with better protocols and more sound followups than in the 60's.

So, Slimvictor as you can see we agree on many points.It is just my outlook that the most realistic change one can do without being in a "key" position or a millionare is start the education/reform from their own circle of friends,family etc.Petitions and letters to officials and "congressmen" wouldnt be bad ,but i wonder how mouch they could achieve.

 

[delsymfan]

agreed with your assessment. We need to alter the negative connections people make with the term drugs.

People need to see the possible benefits. Unfortunately mass media has scared the shit out of everyone.

I look at DXM as a fine example. Great drug. Very useful for introspection. Yet all the government anti drug materials show every experience of kids dying, because OTHER INGREDIENTS were present. Its just stupid. Its all a big scare

Personally, I think it will naturally open up. How in the hell can things like Alcohol/Tobacco, and Abortion, be legal when something that affects only yourself is not? Its a right to choose sort of thing.

If you can end a human beings life cause you were stupid, you should be able to smoke some pot.

 

[Lost and Confused]

It will take an idea, mr creedy.

They are bullet proof. Viva la revolution.

 

[Lost and Confused]

agreed with your assessment. We need to alter the negative connections people make with the term drugs.

People need to see the possible benefits. Unfortunately mass media has scared the shit out of everyone.

I look at DXM as a fine example. Great drug. Very useful for introspection. Yet all the government anti drug materials show every experience of kids dying, because OTHER INGREDIENTS were present. Its just stupid. Its all a big scare

Personally, I think it will naturally open up. How in the hell can things like Alcohol/Tobacco, and Abortion, be legal when something that affects only yourself is not? Its a right to choose sort of thing.

If you can end a human beings life cause you were stupid, you should be able to smoke some pot.

Easy, $.

 

[Titus]

Well, it's not like I have the master plan, but I am hoping to generate discussion among intelligent anti-prohibition folk to come up with something more concrete together.

My opinion is that we have to start by changing our language, as I described in the initial post, and as SpaceHead described doing in a reply above.
Change in language doesn't come from the government, but from "below" - usually the hip sectors of society. If we can get something going, it might snowball into mainstream society, and part of our job would be taken care of.

The other part is to counter the propaganda. We need to broadcast different opinions, so that the people know that many, many diverse people choose to use chemicals for a range of reasons - from coffee to beer to LSD, people use each chemical in order to seek happiness in the way that they can. Why should some methods of seeking happiness be allowed, while others aren't?

Many bluelighters know why some are illegal - because the government is threatened, since a population that was tripping on LSD might not want to show up for work digging ditches or cleaning toilets or supersizing fries the next day. That might be true, but it also might point for a need to change society in some ways. Obviously, toilet cleaners are necessary, but maybe we could create living-wage minimum wages, so that people doing every job would feel respected and useful.

So, if you ask me, changing drug laws would necessitate other changes in society, and these other changes are incredibly scary to the rich and powerful (who want to hog the power, not to share it, since that is how they became rich and powerful).
This is the real reason why drugs (chemicals) are illegal, I believe (other than cultural factors that are now in play because of decades of propaganda).

However, my point is to discuss how to change people's minds about chemical use, and, for me, it comes down to the following:

1) Change the language we use about chemicals
2) Try to change the language other people use about chemicals by pointing out contradictions and links that they ignore by saying things such as "drugs and alcohol"
3) Try to change the way other people think about chemicals more directly, by arguing that the right to expand one's consciousness is a fundamental right, and that alcohol and nicotine are not exactly everything that we are talking about

Any ideas for concrete instantiation of these goals would be welcome.
I think that we can make a plan together, and work from there.

I like your ideas a lot man and didn't mean to come across like a dick. Sorry if it sounded like that. Drug prohibiton is something that irks me to no end, not simply because I hold libertarian beliefs but because drug prohibition CAUSES CRIME, CAUSES MURDER, CAUSES THEFT, CAUSES kids growing up without daddies, etc, etc, etc. It is the plague of the 21st century.

www.leap.cc has some great info, they are law enforcement against prohibition.

That's right, current and former cops AGAINST the war on drugs!

 

[organo_khemy]

the best bet is to wait for the results from social experiments in places like portugal where all drugs have been legalised. once the stats are in- as they are in holland, it will be difficult for the politicians to continue their lie. difficult- but not impossible- they will fight hard as the lobbyists have money to burn. when there are clear and concise reports people need to lobby their politicans themselves. remind your local representatives of reports like this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/ especially if they are trying to spin a different story.

 

[naginnudej]

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.

I highly recommend you become familiar with the work of Luce Irigaray. Irigaray allocated a significant portion of her work—namely This Sex Which is Not One—to the discussion of (albeit in pseudo-narrative) the repression of the female voice in a phallic-dominated language; although the content of her work is largely grounded in the feminist movement, it should not be difficult to apply her logic to other fields of inquiry.

ya dig?

 

[JimenyRickets]

There is only one thing we can do, and that thing is to join a facebook group. LEGALIZE IBOGAINE!

 

[daddysgone]

the best bet is to wait for the results from social experiments in places like portugal where all drugs have been legalised. once the stats are in- as they are in holland, it will be difficult for the politicians to continue their lie. difficult- but not impossible- they will fight hard as the lobbyists have money to burn. when there are clear and concise reports people need to lobby their politicans themselves. remind your local representatives of reports like this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/ especially if they are trying to spin a different story.

I agree with this in theory, but what about Switzerland?
They conducted the largest study ever involving the decriminalization and regulation of heroin for the purpose of examining what effect this would have on things like overdoses, crime, addiction, etc. They found that across the board, both the users and society greatly benefited from the decriminalization and regulation of the heroin. Overdoses were rare, crime rate went way down since addicts no longer had to find a way to support the inflated cost which results from black market drugs.

There is no disputing the data which came out of this heroin experiment, and yet it does not seem as though the US, or any other countries are rushing to follow suit. Unfortunately it seems as though drugs are still a subject where governments do not base their policy on data or studies. You can present 100 flawless studies to the US government which illustrate the benefits of decriminalization and regulation, and government would still balk at the idea because they feel as though decriminalization equals condoning drug use.
Unfortunately I think we have a looooong way to go before "winning the war on drugs" is even a remote possibility.-DG

 

[xxl]

Sometimes I think that the only people who are really fighting the war-on-drugs (rather than let themselves lead into jail like sheep) are the Taliban. Their war is about opium and they're ready to fight. Pacifism leads nowhere (except to the gas chamber). If we were one hundreth times as ready to fight as the Taliban, all drugs would've been decriminalized ages ago.

 

[Unlucky]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this topic!

Just because drugs feel good does not mean that its actually good for you, sure if it was legal it would save a lot of trouble for those who want to get high and they could obtain it easily and use it without breaking the law but that alone does not justify the fact that chemicals are risky business and countless people have overdosed, died, damaged their health, and ruined their lives because of drugs.

You may be a responsible user but a lot of us are not, and if drugs were legal it would give a lot of users even more freedom to abuse the shit out of it resulting in more unfortunate incidences.

A lot of things are bad for you in this world and I have tried alot of them legally and illegally but in the end it was only the harder drugs that actually left me disabled and ruined my life. They are illegal for a reason, as much as you like to belive its all propaganda its actually not. If you want to risk your well being then by all means go about the way of obtaining your drugs the illegal way but I dont think the government should serve it to anyone on silver platter so that everytime someone fucks up they can point the finger back.

If you were reffering to cannibis then I would be more supportive of your thread but if your actually reffering to winning the war on heavier drugs such as crack, meth, ice, heroin , etc. I dont wanna see or hear about anymore people ending up disabled like me from an drug overdose, as for a lot of my raver buddies most of them are now in psych wards with various mental conditions, and other ilnesses like aids and hepatitis they contracted sharing needles whaking up their pills and coke , some of them have teeth fallin out, sinus prblems from snorting, collapsed veins, speed bumps. I personally have a dislocated jaw and constant jaw problems from all the years of teeth grinding on pills and amphetamines along with a damaged autonomic nervouse system and constant fevers for the past 9 years.

I hope for the sake of humanity heavier drugs are never legalised.

 

[toxide]

Move to or start a country where there are no drug laws

 

[xxl]

Move to or start a country where there are no drug laws

That country would be invaded on day 1 of its independence. At present, drug prohibition is pretty much a world wide consensus at political level.

To me it's a matter of principle, not a matter of summing up how many people were hurt or incapacitated by drugs. Even supposing drugs maimed 3,9 billion people on Earth, this still wouldn't make it right for me as a "1" individual to be prevented against my will do as I see fit with my own body and mind. The reason is simple: nobody forced those 3,9 billion to take drugs.

Unlucky (an apt avatar), you are blaming drugs and you have good reasons to. But suppose you had been maimed in a car crash. Would you stand for a ban on private motor vehicle? No you wouldn't!

As for me, I may still die of OD some day. What I resent however is something else, namely that the powers-that-be are out to free a rapist or a murderer from prison to make room for me.

 

[Ducks®™]

May I Plz say how can we win the war on drugs... Post..... first of all whom are you speaking of ..............WE...and you say WAR... the only war created has to be from a hostile thinking environment to begin with,,,,, sounds like propaganda..

 

[Unlucky]

Unlucky (an apt avatar), you are blaming drugs and you have good reasons to. But suppose you had been maimed in a car crash. Would you stand for a ban on private motor vehicle? No you wouldn't!

First of all I think the war the Op is reffering to is the war between the people who are in favour of drug use and those who are against, whether it may be the government, law enforcement, media or just those who oppose drugs for whatever reason, it is a war of ideas.

I have been on both ideas of the war, when I had my health and I used to take party drugs several times a week at raves and clubs and I actually thought drugs were the bees knees and I used to argue how it should be all legalised and that the world would be a better place if everyone got high and now that I have lost my health I think of drugs as poison because I have seen the damage they do and realised the darker side to them that i never knew existed so now I want them to stay illicit....

So I know exactly where you guys are coming from because I've been there. I also respect your choice to harm yourself without any one elses intervention but my reasons for opposing go beyond that..... I dont mean any offence but it is too late for you guys because you have already chosen and established a life style that no one else has the righ to interfere with so my argument is to save the newcomers, because if there is any chance making drugs legal would bring new people into it that potentially would not have had it stayed illegal then they are the people I want to save. After all we are not speaking about fruit or vitamins, we are talking about addictive substances that react differently with every indivdual resulting in various outcomes once abuse comes into play.

I dont agree that people should go to prison for choosing to harm themselves, that is ridicilious, I still have resentment towards law enforcement for arresting me at rave party and charging me for possesion of ecstacy, amphetamines, lsd and cannibis, however that argument alone does not justify making drugs legal, because if your only worried about the way law treats people for drug use then the focus should be sending users to drug education programs rather than prison.

If I had a car accident of course I would not blame the car and I certainly would not blame myself either, I would blame the other driver because I am a very careful and cautious driver, but in this instance I do blame myself for having abused drugs and ruining my life and I also blame my friend who supllied me with the pills because he off loaded a bad batch onto me that he didn't like, but unfortunately none of us can sue our dealer when we overdose, however if drugs were legal and had I been left diabled from an overdose under legally purchased drugs then I would be rolling in cash right now after having taken the government to court.

 

[any major dude]

Sometimes I think that the only people who are really fighting the war-on-drugs (rather than let themselves lead into jail like sheep) are the Taliban. Their war is about opium and they're ready to fight. Pacifism leads nowhere (except to the gas chamber). If we were one hundreth times as ready to fight as the Taliban, all drugs would've been decriminalized ages ago.

This is a bit inaccurate. The taliban eliminated roughly 95% of the illegal opium growing operations in Afghanistan, basically by ruling with an iron fist. Their motivation was likely partly religious, but mostly financial, as several U.N. nations agreed to lift sanctions, offer assistance, humanitarian aid etc on Afghanistan if they made a legitimate reduction in the opium trade. The Northern Alliance, with whom the "Coalition of The Willing" allied, were basically the remaining dope dealers. The taliban fell rather quickly and opium production levels shot back up to prewar levels, and is now possibly exceeding them. There have always been allegations of the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) being involved in drug trafficking in order to finance operations that their respective governments won't or can't. I've got no hard data, but I would imagine they're getting a piece of that smack money somehow.

 

[toxide]

maybe if we could get everyone high on like extacy or something, then they'd come our side mwahahaha. Or better yet get everyone stoned, then they'd be too a-motivated to bother.

War is a buzz-kill man. fuck that shit.