Opinions - So you want to end the drug war

[Heretic.Ape.]

There is a lot of scattered discussion throughout the policy, law and order, and drug news (and pretty much everywhere else in the forums) about various peoples ideas on how crazy the drug war and drug policy is, different ideas on what needs to be done about it, reasons things are the way they are, lamenting about it, and how to go about making changes. Here's a place to really get down to the brass tacks of the matter.
Here's how we'll play this game if anyone is interested in playing with me.

1) No ideology allowed. There's all kinds of discussion about how immoral, insane, etc things are and all kinds of philosophical treatise on Utopian visions of how it ought to be. Stay grounded. Politics have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ideals beyond how ideals can be spread and used as leverage. As far as people involved in policy, they are concerned with money and maintaining power (getting funding and getting reelected). As far as regular citizens, they will not care at all about drug issues unless they see a damn good reason that it's relevant to them. This will NOT be because current policy is illogical or "wrong". Most people in developed nations couldn't give a shit about revolution as long as they can still get fast food and 100 channels of TV. There are practical reasons for everything. This does not necessarily mean these reasons are logical. This leads us to the next rule.

2) Don't count on logic for your impelling force. Do not assume that the fact that your argument is logical and the Truth with a capital T that anyone will give a shit. People do not in actuality base their actions or realities on what is reasonable and are rarely motivated by lofty ambitions of a world run in accordance with Truth, Justice, Freedom, etc. Most people just want to make some money, buy some toys to play with, impress someone attractive so they can get laid, and to look good in front of their peers.

3) If you have an article that is relevant or something like that please post it in it's appropriate forum and provide a link to it here with your comments on its relevance, etc rather than posting the whole article here so we can avoid making this thread overly cluttered. (it's bound to be cluttered enough as it is)


Here are a few random thoughts and questions to get the ball rolling. I'm sure most of you are aware that policy is made by and for the benefit of multi-national corporations, very wealthy families and such. If you think policy is made "by the people, for the people" go do some more studying and come back when your bubble is burst and your cherry popped in how democracy works. What most of us live in is not so much democracy as oligarchy.

We see immediately that action must be broken into two categories of people to address, two audiences. Those who are involved in policy and the average citizen. In focusing on those who actually make policy we need to address why they benefit and possible plausible alternatives to present them with that do not fuck with their bottom line. Oh, sure we could discuss overthrowing the bastards, I'm open to that, but be practical and don't count on any large scale revolution--remember, most people are ruled by apathy.

As far as addressing the average citizen it is mainly education to turn around public opinion so that the policy makers will not lose face in going "soft on drugs", and ideally (I know, I'm breaking my own rule) getting people riled up enough they might even demand some action however unlikely that may be.

Some of the logical questions to address are things like who in this pantheon of power is invested in the drug war? Why? Who has the resources to pay for policy and benefits from prohibition? Be specific. Saying "the government" won't fly. Who is "the government"? That's a sweeping term covering millions of people from peons to monarchs. What industries are effected? What leverage does looking "tough on drugs" give politicians?

In this regard you might consider the fact that many governments are being taken over by Christians and other people toting religion to attract easy votes by seeming "moral". So in addressing this we might ask further why are drugs considered immoral? Who says? What are their arguments and how valid are they? How can we change that view? By focusing on addicts as needing salvation (appealing to the Christian thing)? Etc.

A common thing said is that we need to educate the public about drugs. What do we need to educate them about? Usually people focus on the myths of drugs as being what we need to address. Do you think people will care about the "truth about drugs"? Why? Remember people don't care about Truth. How does it impact them? It is definitely true we need to get the truth about drugs out there but not as an impetus for action from the everyman. Education in this regard most likely is relevant for making people accept any changes we can manage to make in policy makers actions (saving them face for turning their views around, etc).

Would it perhaps be more beneficial to focus on educating about the negative impacts of the drug war on society as a whole? What aspects? How should we convey this message in a way that will make someone care, and in less than 30 seconds? If you think anyone's going to listen to you for longer than that you may be deluded. You probably have around that long to get them feeling engaged, meaning it has to be immediately relevant. Emotion works much better than logic in doing this. So how do we play on emotion? What emotions should we try to play on--self-righteous indignation, fear, sympathy/compassion, guilt, being "hip", "cool", or "with it"? What emotional messages will people ignore because they are too soft, which ones will be ignored because they make people uncomfortable (too hard), and which ones will hold peoples attention, giving just enough of a slap to catch attention without being too hot for people to hold on to?

How do we distribute information at a level that will actually be heard? Do you think any of the neoliberal controlled media (most media that people actually see) is going to run a flashy headline story for this side of the argument? Is it possible to get proper financial backing to run ad campaigns for awareness? How do we make these look catchy and credible at the same time? How do we get the money to actually be visible?


Now, it can be surmised from the above that we're looking at a very conservative angle (trying to be realistic) because I don't think the current zietgiest would offer us a chance at any widespread revolution. If we want to we can start a separate thread dealing with more radical ideas like how to orchestrate, incite, and carry out an actual revolution that would disrupt the power (im)balance. Let me know if you're interested in this and I'll start another thread.

Ok, if anyone is interested I'd love to hear some thoughts and discussion. Happy brainstorming
h.a.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	WoD thread, thought about making one myself.
	Thanks for starting this thread. Too bad there hasn't been much activity in it lately.
	cool read

[Felonious Skunk]

1. Since Joe Citizen is so absorbed watching his 100 TV channels, I think a good start would be to get some cable channels rolling that advance the ideas of enlightened drug use and policy. Examples:

i. Trip TV - Will follow the host(s) on expeditions to mushroom patches, clandestine phenethylamine labs, and ergot infestations around the world.

ii. Pot TV - I think this already exists.

iii. The Drug History Channel - covering the discovery of LSD, shamans and medicine men in the rainforests, etc. The history of drug policy around the world.

iiii. Drug Policy TV - If Joe can be persuaded to tune in, this would be an opportunity to debunk the illogic and immorality behind "drug wars." Of course, that's a big "if." It will take some really hot babes as hosts for the shows on this channel for Joe to even slow down as he's flipping through the channels.

2. Stamp US currency with your thoughts on the "drug war." It's illegal to deface money, but so is smoking pot. How much extra time could it possibly get you?

Order a custom rubber stamper that puts a nice fat stogey in the lips of George Fucking Washington. Abe Lincoln looks grand in dark glasses and a Grateful Dead cap. Ben Franklin is absolutely poetic with a cartoon bubble containing his very own words:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

3. Pull your kids out of any school that institutes a drug-testing program. Write the school board telling them why, and tell them that when they're ready to start educating again instead of trying to take over your parental duties you'll re-enroll them.

4. Letters to the editors of newspapers in support of drug policy reform actually get published. When you read a letter from a Prohibitionist commenting on some local issue, answer it with logic. It's easy to make him look like an imbecile and might wake up a few readers. You'd be surprised at how often this is happening these days. It's not a given anymore that the op-ed pages are all one-sided in favor of the "drug war."

Not sure if this is what you're looking for Ape, but if so it's just a start.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good ideas, good sir.
	Excellent approach.

[Heretic.Ape.]

Good stuff skunk, I was hoping that you would join the conversation . Keep it coming. Perhaps some ideas on how to get drug TV going... I'm a big fan of using media events and entertainment to educate people despite themselves.
I could see a show with a couple of interesting hosts (yes, preferably one of which is a good looking girl, heh) going around the world taking part in native shamanic ceremonies, talking about drug culture, with all kinds of fun tidbits about policy and history thrown in. As long as the hosts are entertaining, going around doing interesting things, I imagine a fair number of people would watch it. Anybody out there got contacts in TV land? I'll be a host

[Felonious Skunk]

Well Trip TV would likely have to be eased into the psyche of contemporary culture. Among a few of the shows I've seen, one revolves around some guy eating exotic foods, another catches deadly snakes, etc., so the idea would be to combine anthropology with psychedelia at first, almost a daring version of National Geographic. The public might be interested in yopo snuffing with Guahibo Indians, or ayahuasca tourism. From there it could hopefully evolve into more risky programming like a clandestine lab series, but at all times would show the responsible side of illicit drug culture that is exemplified by things like Drugs Forum.

Of course, the reason why such programming is currently nonexistent is that the television industry has been controlled for a long time by conservatives like Ted Turner. I've always found it interesting that you can get just about anything into print (ex: High Times, PIHKAL, etc.), but trying to get those things--or even an ad promoting drug policy reform--on TV is nearly impossible, and I don't think it's completely a factor of advertiser influence.

The government knows that TV is by far most powerful media tool in existence for social engineering, and thus there are obviously many checkpoints along the way to ensure that the engineering proceeds in ways that promote civil obedience.

It's interesting that the news can report stories about government corruption, bureaucratic screwups, etc. because these things don't really have a big effect on shaping Joe Citizen into a subserviant twit. But something like Trip TV would be very threatening to prohibitionist government because it would deliver doses of psychedelic culture and traditions in such a way as to possibly break Joe from the conditioning that began when he was in kindergarten.

The Drug Policy Channel would be ghastly for any self-respecting drug warrior. Every week images of the fallacy that is the "drug war" would be on display: corrupt cops, nonviolent family men behind bars for trading in plant material, investigations into the profits generated by putting people in cages.

I don't believe the average citizen has any idea that the government charges LSD salesmen with drug quantities based on carrier weight, and that people are serving 20, 30, and 40 additional years for the weight of paper or water. This unfairness has reached new lows with the O'Hara Vicodin case, where the prosecutor included the weight of pill fillers and Tylenol when calculating the charges and sentence.

I believe that even many people who, for whatever reasons they might have, support the "drug war" would be outraged by the immoral legal manipulations employed by law enforcement and prosecutors if they were presented in ways other than transient sound bites. Any decent person with a sense of fairness would consider these tactics to be unacceptable.

But such are pipe dreams. How would such programming ever see the light of day? The market is limited, sponsors nearly nonexistent, and control of the airwaves by the FCC virtually absolute.

And yeah, I just wanted to concur with the point you made about educating people despite themselves. For the stuff to really work, the educational parts would almost have to be snuck in between the shamanic shrieking rituals, or the host's titties. If Joe thinks he might learn something, forget it, there's a WWE championship final two channels down...

[Heretic.Ape.]

Comedy would probably be the easiest way to ease into a TV presence. Something making fun of current irrational beliefs and the insanity of drug policy, etc... the easiest way to look at truth is with a laugh. Plus comedy can get away with much more, push the envelope without getting the hammer brought down.

[Nagognog2]

Giving people the truth, in a style that captures audience attention (exemplified above) is a excellent idea. Now to get a bit more "direct-action" oriented:

Follow the money trail. Find out what/who funds this modern-day pogrom. Who is pushing it and why. Who is it serving the interests of? Once this has been established - go after the most vital portion of this beast's anatomy. To wit - The Financial Artery. And sever it.

How to do this can use elements of the above poster's suggestion of humor/comedy to get people going along. In other words, an economic boycott. Using varied methods to help it stick in people's memory, educate people not to purchase the products from those who want to lock your brothers and sisters in the corporate jails for smoking some weed etc.

But when you take away a toy from a child (yes, the average American has the brains of a 6 year old - yell at me later for this if neeeded), you should replace the toy with one that won't, by proxy, kill them. In so doing, one can be providing the equivalent of free (and highly effective) advertising. And you know what? You might be able to finagle money from those who are benefiting by your knocking down their competition. Use this to up the volume.

Get it?

[Heretic.Ape.]

^ ah, just the man I was hoping might join this little brainstorm. Got any leads on the money flow, where we might find the financial artery? Also could you elaborate on the toy analogy, not sure I'm completely following you.

Edit: Also I'm glad you siad "follow the money", this was a main point I intended to mention in the original post but got sidetracked in my own rambling.

[Nagognog2]

You could begin by chasing down the Partnership For A Drug-Free America (and it's subsidieries). Who bank-rolls it? Find that out and your well on your way.

Re: Toys. Once you find out who is behind the above (and your eyes go back in their sockets - having popped out) - you'll see what particular toy I'm refering to.

[Heretic.Ape.]

Hahaha! *popping eyes back in head* That's incredible. Several million from big pharma, alcohol, and tobacco. Very interesting... I need to look into this more...
Edit: oh, scratch the tobacco and alcohol, stopped taking gifts from them... still willing to take pharma's cash though... thanks Nag, this is looking interesting. Hope to see more of you on this thread.
anything we should know about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation other than it's ties with Johnson and Johnson?

[Nagognog2]

Looking at the surface are we? Find the names of seeming "moral, Christian" contrubutors (always) and find out who actually owns them. Things are not always as they appear.

You want to see more of me? Watch your ass, kid. I'm an old (personal) friend of the Hoffman family - read: Abbie. I know lots of tricks. Wanna see me pull a habit out of my rat?

[Heretic.Ape.]

Dammit, just when things get really intriguing I've got to take off. Have to study up a little more tomorrow if I have the time

[Nagognog2]

Re-opened. Who closed it remains a mystery.

[Heretic.Ape.]

Thanks Nag. whoever closed it feel free to contact me if something is wrong with this thread and I'll try to remedy it or start a new thread that avoids the problem

Due to seeing that around half of the funding for the Partnership for a Drug Free America comes from big pharma, I've started a separate thread on examining pharma's place in this here: Big Pharma and the Drug War

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

...Several million from big pharma, alcohol, and tobacco. Very interesting... I need to look into this more...
Edit: oh, scratch the tobacco and alcohol, stopped taking gifts from them... still willing to take pharma's cash though...

Don't for one second think that big pharma, alcohol, and tobacco have stopped piping money into PDFA, the contributions are just disguised as bogus companies. Following the money trail a little deeper would show this to be true. Don't forget that PDFA is also funded big-time by insurance companies, many of whom would essentially go bankrupt if crime were to drop precipitously following drug decriminalization.

If one still needs proof that abolishing drug prohibition would do just that, a look both to the past (the original Prohibition) and also to those whose futures would be threatened will spell it out very clearly.

Interestingly enough, the PDFA was founded by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and this obscure little fact closes a big circle:

Can anyone guess who some big, big advertising agency clients are?

[FuBai]

I found a paper that was written and circulated amongst a group of like minded people at work via e-mail. I don't know who wrote it, but it might be useful.

"A Political Game: Drug Legalization and reality.

There are moments in the life of any person where the entirety of their perspective shifts. In fact, it happens continuously, on a small scale, in everyday life. When we are thinking about something, following a particular train of thought, and someone mentions another topic wholly outside that, we get a brief moment of confusion as we re-align our perception. Comedians understand how it works, and rely heavily upon it. An otherwise unfunny comment or clichéd joke is suddenly amusing if you are introduced to it in a certain way, or by building up a line of thought that leaves the audience un-suspecting of the final conclusion.

These are relatively minor moments; they aren’t greatly inspirational, they are simply brief instances where we switch between ways of viewing things. It is simply a useful function of the brain, allowing us to concentrate. However, occasionally in our lives we will experience something which is almost revelatory in nature. A sudden momentous leap of perspective when so many of our often ill-conceived pre-conceptions are shattered, even those which seemed so immutably central to life itself. The one everyone talks about is religion; divine revelation and the WORD. The history of the world is littered with, if not dominated by, individuals who claim to have had a sudden searing moment of revelation, sometimes even causing the founding of whole religions that rapidly come to dominate the world stage. It is understandable that this should be the case – for many people their religion is the founding bed-rock of their whole set of moral perspectives so the greatest and most powerful perspective shifts occur there. But these great perspective shifts don’t all occur within religion. One of the greatest and most morally confusing perspective shifts that can happen to anyone brought up in the strictly propaganda saturated societies of the United Kingdom and the USA concerns that most heinous and beguiling subject; Drugs.

The word is enough, by itself, to provoke a moral reaction. Its impact is almost the same as swearing; in fact, nowadays, it’s probably a whole lot more hard hitting. It’s really not just drugs; it’s Drugs, the Scourge of Humanity. We all know that drugs are death in a pill, that they smash your brains like hammers on eggs and within a week of your first line of coke, you’re on the street, whoring yourself out for smack. Perhaps that’s a bit of an overstatement, but, as a society, both the UK and the USA are paranoid about drugs. We are saturated by anti-drug advertising – in the USA there are very dramatic, very powerful adverts against crystal meth, which is the massive problem drug for the western states, in Britain we are subject to similar campaigns, and we have been under the influence of these adverts for a while. The adverts are dramatic, both consciously and subliminally, horrific and shocking, terrifying images of what these drugs supposedly can do. For many years the populace at large has been indoctrinated in this code, in the belief that, somehow, the legalized use of drugs would result in anarchy and societal chaos, and that the drugs themselves are immutably harmful.

This is not to suggest that there is some government conspiracy to maintain the illegality of drugs – far from it. The majority of legislation that has come out of Westminster has been well intentioned – even those laws originally banning it. To understand why this is so, it is important to remember that, at the beginning of the 20th centaury, there was a great ignorance about drugs and their effects. They entertained the false divide between the mainstream vices of alcohol and tobacco and the much less common use of opium, cocaine and other substances (including marijuana), and saw these drugs as far more damaging than their mainstream counterparts. In a world before cigarettes had ever been linked to cancer, Britain banned cocaine, heroin, morphine and marijuana as they became symbols of decadent conspicuous consumption, associated with those most licentious groups: poets, artists and the stage. Little was known about their actual effects upon the body, but it was clear that they were powerfully addictive and therefore dangerous.
Yet, as I shall explain later, drugs are not nearly as harmful as the average man thinks – not nearly so harmful as the Americans thought cocaine; a drug which supposedly sent the ‘nigger’ laborers crazy. Cocaine was banned following pressure by the southern states after reports of rampages by black workers. Marijuana was seen as a drug that sent people into such a state of psychosis that they would, according to one report, decapitate their best friend and, upon recovery from the effects of the drug, be as shocked as anyone else that they had done it.

As, in the past few years, there has been a general recognition amongst many doctors that drugs are not nearly as harmful as they were first thought, the anti-drug advertising has, if anything, increased in the dramatic and hysterical manner in which it sends its message. To understand why this is, it must be remembered that whilst illegal drug use is rampant in the UK and the USA, the majority of the population confine their psychoactive exploits to alcohol, and have very little understanding of drugs. Everything that they know is derived from brief yet intense commercials which demonize its use from every angle possible. Thus we are presented by the central problem of any democratic system – that the majority of people don’t understand the issue, and are easily swayed by the media. What’s more, the hysterical advertising has deeply ingrained in them an emotional reflex reaction; one that it will require a similarly dramatic perspective shift to undo. This really is the central problem for anyone who wishes to legalize drugs, that of undoing the great amount of indoctrination that is present in the minds of most people. Liberal elements in government that support legalization are faced with the same problem – they cannot afford to look ‘soft’ on drugs, because this will lose them votes, and without votes they cannot hope for re-election. Thus activists must resort to way legalization through staunch pressure group activity and independently financed advertising campaigns to try to change the minds of voters. However, corporate donations to drug legalization groups are not good for PR, and the majority of individuals passionate about the issue are not the best placed to make the large donations necessary.

This piece is not written to justify legalization, I take as a given that legalization should be enacted. It is written to highlight the political problems with pushing forward to that righteous conclusion. The question is not “Should drugs be legalized?” but “how is it politically feasible?” It requires an understanding of how the political system works, how democracy functions and the role of pressure groups etcetera within this system. I have studied both the American system and the British political system, but I shall focus on the British political reality for now.

The first step requires an assessment of the political expediency of legalization. We should remember two things – firstly that politicians usually get involved with politics for ideological reasons, and have a real desire to change things. Secondly politicians also need to be elected; it is the only way to retain their jobs, especially if they hold ministerial positions that rely upon their party being re-elected. We should not criticize too heavily those politicians whom we either know or guess to be playing a ‘political game’ for the sake of their careers. The beautiful thing about democracy is that it accepts self interest as a major driving force. With these two precepts in mind we are drawn to the following conclusion; that the requirements for legalization are a strong sense of the righteousness of legalization within the executive and legislature, or a similarly strong feeling amongst constituents.

As I have previously explained, the populace is indoctrinated with an hysteria towards drugs; and the only way to change this is by creating anti-prohibition propaganda and financing popular campaigns, similarly dramatic in nature (although with a greater adherence to the truth) to effect an emotional reaction. This requires a great deal of funding, skilled advertising work etc.. Influencing the legislature and executive must appeal to a sense of morality, social expediency and rationality, and, most of all, it should not be seen as a great vote loser. Thus we see that influencing government may only work in a political climate less hostile to drugs than we see at the moment. Here Britain has a better chance than America. America and American politics seem more prone to firm and immutable moral precepts, often religiously inspired, whilst religiosity in the British Parliament is much less of a powerful force (note that catholic adoption agencies were forced to allow gay couples to adopt, that the Conservative catholic women’s right is losing ground in attempting to put restrictions on abortion). America’s predilection for firm and often simplistic value statements can lead legislators to feel they must take an ‘all or nothing’ stance on an issue where strong religious dissent appears within their constituents. The comparatively secular nature of British society and politics has allowed a greater tolerance on these issues – in fact, the British public already favor the legalization of Marijuana. However, party politics means that Early day motions are almost entirely tabled and signed by back-bench MPs, as those MPs who hope to move upwards within the party cannot sign them if it is against the directives of the party leadership.

In very recent times, Britain has also started to drop the highly dramatic advertising to a certain extent. Now very few high impact, dramatic adverts are broadcast, if any; Talk to Frank is the new government initiative. The Talk to Frank adverts are far less dramatic than their American counterparts, making the issues seem semi-comedic by using a little boy in silly attire who asks questions like “what does that smell like?” in reference to cocaine etc. The Talk to Frank initiative is also interesting as the information given on its website is accurate (misleading in certain areas, but accurate), and it seems to accept that drugs will be used. There is no more of the simplistic ‘just say no’ advertising that we used to be subject to, and the Frank website provides useful information about how to stay safe whilst under the influence of drugs, etc. However, because government advise on drug use, and because of the hysterical attitude of people considered to be of the ‘establishment’, there is a great deal of distrust amongst the drug using populace as to the accuracy of any information given by the government.

In recent years a large number of Early Day motions have been tabled to attempt to get Marijuana legalized for medical purposes (and in some cases recreational). The general trend has been that, in the last five years, the number of MPs signing them has increased. Lists of some of the early day motions and signatures can be found on the UK Cannabis Internet Activist’s (UKCIA) website. Whilst it is hard to gauge the true attitude of many ministers and MPs, there are indications that the Conservative Leader, David Cameron, may introduce a public debate on the subject. According to Transform (The leading British legalization pressure group) he voted ‘yes’ on initiating such a discussion in the past. Some of the latest and important political developments happened this year (2007), in March. The House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology heard a report by leading specialists (including members of the governmental ACMD (advisory council on the Misuse of Drugs) which ranked 20 recreation drugs in order of damage caused (the assessment parameters have come into question but most of the peer scrutiny has found it to be a reasonably fair method of analysis). The outcome that alcohol was more harmful that ecstasy, LSD or Marijuana was splashed across newspaper headlines and has encouraged some debate.

In the UK it is advisable to avoid making arguments that are purely fiscal, or to place too much emphasis on the savings made. Popular campaigns should aim to strike at the issue from an almost entirely emotional level, using imagery demonstrating the depravations of prohibition, and suggesting that drug prohibition funds terrorism (terrorism is a hot topic both here and in the USA, where both countries have apparently declared war on an abstract concept. Good luck with that one. But it still provokes a strong emotional reaction of the sort that will be needed to sway the indoctrinated population.)

At the moment, Britain seems the more likely candidate to legalize drugs. In a way this seems like a shame – a study of Early American history would have suggested that the American love of freedom should have prevented any moves towards prohibition in the first place. Instead we have the ridiculous situation where the government ensures people have ample tools for killing and hurting each other, but prevents individuals from deciding whether or not to use drugs.

This is an update on the political realities of drug legalization as I see them in the UK today."

Reputation Comments on this post:

a nice addition

[Nagognog2]

Okay. We want an end to it. As the title of said thread infers. Let's focus on the end of this madness - rather than it's historical rationale. Bitch & Moan is to the right, three doors down.

[Heretic.Ape.]

So I've been playing vaguely with a notion in my head. One component of control is the morality card. It's big to try to convince people that you're a good Christian to get elected and be in a position to actually decide policy, that you're in good with God in decisions as a nation. What about a campaign pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the Right's Christian angle.
Jesus was anti-materialism, anti-violence, taught not to judge others, only to love them, and taught the value in humility. Obviously those who are most successfully manipulating this important demographic do not adhere to any of these principles. What about trying to show this somehow? How about showing that anti-consumerism, making peace top priority, not judging others (and what they choose to do), etc are Christian ideals and the conservative dominant big-business fascists are completely contrary to everything that Jesus taught?
Just a random thought to keep the discussion going.

Reputation Comments on this post:

You're hitting the right note here.

[TMM]

^ The religion card is a very difficult one to implement successfully without either straight-out lying or compromising your own morality in some way. A pro-drug argument hinging on Jesus will be shouted down as automatically hypocritical, which of course isn't true, but since when has truth held any particular sway? As many have stated before me, it's all how you spin it. A concern when playing the religion card is that, without meaning to insult any Christians, it's mainly going to be playing towards the lowest common denominator. Such a (comparatively) radical argument requires serious logical backing, the sort of thing that doesn't appeal to these sorts of people, who see the War as a righteous crusade to end evil and save lives.

Then again, the downside of a consumer society, evil corporations and the overabundance of materialism are often portrayed on TV and in cinema. Not all people, but a good number of people know that it's there. These people have to be reached in a way that shows them how it actually effects their lives, rather than merely being a fictional tool used for dramatic effect. I don't think it's a good move to demonise the Right, when the Left has so much to answer for as well. In fact, everything turning into a Right/Left debate dumbs it down by such a degree that it's not worth even going there.

If only the US was in more of a Vietnam kind of situation, and so many more people were against the current wars. An advertising campaign of sorts could be launched, drawing parallels between the war and the war on drugs, showing how people's lives are devastated by both wars, etc. It'd be filthy propaganda, sure, but effective... perhaps.

As for ideas to strike hard on a financial level, unfortunately I have none.

[KBLSD]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Looking at the surface are we? Find the names of seeming "moral, Christian" contrubutors (always) and find out who actually owns them. Things are not always as they appear.

You want to see more of me? Watch your ass, kid. I'm an old (personal) friend of the Hoffman family - read: Abbie. I know lots of tricks. Wanna see me pull a habit out of my rat?

ive always hated how the way christians thought and i thought they all thought that way, until recently on myspace ive seen 4-5 christians myspace pages with 1000's of friends and they all have been posting bullitens that are telling the christian community to support ron paul so i messaged these groups and there leaders why they support Ron Paul since he is against the war on drugs and such in the messaged i sent them i asked if the The christian community supported the war on drugs. i expected to get some bullshit answer preaching how they dont support it. this is the answer i got back from most all of them basically

"Most Christians aren't. But the ones who realize the origin of the whole governmental "war on drugs" are against it. People have a freedom to choose how they're going to live. As long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others, we should be allowed to do as we please. Morality cannot and should not be legislated. Christians have really missed it in that area."

than i messaged them back but only got a message back from one and this is what it said

"the message of freedom is strong on my heart. it's why i support Ron Paul. limited government, personal responsibility"

so i found a new respect for some of the christian community not all of them are complete morons

[El Calico Loco]

It's very easy to claim to be a Christian; it's very difficult to act like one.

Jesus said, "Love others as yourself." That means everyone. Though it may not be possible for non-saints to actually love those who trespass against us, one who thinks themselves a Christian should always act as if they loved everyone, even if they can't quite bring themselves to feel it inside. Everyone should be treated as a member of the family.

With that in mind, here's an ad addressed to those who think themselves Christian (rough draft, $logic = off):


Jesus said, "Love others as yourself." Love every human being as you would a close friend or family member.

What would you do if you discovered that a loved one had a drug problem? Would your first impulse be to lock them in a cage with thieves, rapists, and murders?

Of course not. Your first impulse would be to try and get them some help. You would do your best to help them escape their addiction so that they could have a fulfilling life.

And yet, locking addicts in cages with violent people is exactly what our current drug policy does. It does nothing to cure them of their afflictions. Given the rate of drug use in prison, it probably makes them worse. It "protects" addicts from themselves by taking away years of their lives and putting them in places where they are likely to be tortured by real criminals.

We don't imprison alcoholics and chain smokers. Why do we imprison those addicted to more powerful drugs? Why do we imprison those already imprisoned by addiction? This is not an act of love. It's an act of fear.

Choose Christ. Choose compassion. End the War on Drugs, and let faith and medicine take its place.

-- brought to you by the Partnership for a Christian America



ECL

Reputation Comments on this post:

	A man after my own heart. Pragmatism above ideology, use thier religious fiction of choice to beat them at thier own gam...
	Very interesting, thanks for sharing this.
	Quite sublime, just what I was thinking only I couldn't have expressed it so beautifully :-)

[chrisbx]

we all need to be pro active - use the media and demonstrate. We need to take the debate into the faces of the MPs who stiffle the debate. Here is a link to some things that may help and the UK's leading voice in the debate
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm#tools

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by hit12

the UK's leading voice in the debate
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm#tools

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

In response to hit12's enthusiastic linking to Transform in at least 2 threads I would say that Transform's agenda needs to be carefully scrutinised before forum users give it the thumbs up. See also http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38227

[Perception Addict]

Forgive me if this has been covered already, or if it's no longer relevant, but what about the ACLU? As far as i know, they're all about drug reform, which is a huge part of why i'm a member. I was just on their site and they have a large portion of the organization dedicated to drug reform, etc. I'm not sure how they could actually help, but when looking for support, i'm sure they'd love to give it.

Here's an angle: the ACLU is big on connecting racism to the war on drugs. It's pretty unpopular right now to say that you're racist, and they make a case for anti-drug laws promoting racism. Could this be used to incite minority populations, as well as anyone who doesn't wish to be considered racist, to action?

[Bikelbees]

ACLU, yes indeed - they cover an array of issues. I went to a conference with Prof. Nadine Stossen speaking. I thought they were 90% right on free-speech (I think they drew the line at incitement and some hate speech which I thought was a cop-out but I digress). I'm not sure about that angle, I think it needs thinking thru. As far as governments are concerned, anti-racism is just the new racism, another excuse to censor and regulate. When you say "they make a case for anti-drug laws promoting racism" are you miss-stating your point? I can't see anything progressive in using this angle either way you look at it to be blunt.

We have on this site a Wiki database which really needs updating, number 6 is for organisations. We should all endeavor to improve the archives, resources on this site.

[Perception Addict]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

When you say "they make a case for anti-drug laws promoting racism" are you miss-stating your point? I can't see anything progressive in using this angle either way you look at it to be blunt.

Not sure that this helps, but I was trying to say that the ACLU is saying that the war on drugs promotes racism. I don't believe that Americans would support drug reform just because they don't want to be labeled racist, which was what i may have come across as believing, but simply that it might be potential leverage to add weight to the drug reform case.