What can anyone do to help end the war on drugs? I am aware of many groups trying to do this, such as LEAP, NORML, and many others, but they all seem to be pretty futile, why question is, what are they doing wrong? What tactics do you think will work the best to help end the war on drugs, and restore our freedoms and liberties?

I have few ideas as how to do this, most being related to Saul Alkinsky's rules for radicals -- he is an evil son of a bitch, but I think it has application when it comes to helping fight the war on drugs, with grassroots community organizing.

I'd like to hear what you all have to say about it though.

I think that is mostly true -- Perception changes behavior. If we can get it so people realize that drugs are not as dangerous as the DEA makes them to be, are more commonly used, and not a big problem, it will change they way people behave -- which will allow for laws to change.

I have wondered this myself, more often of late due to the current buzz with Head Shops and Legal highs and despite being in favour of making drugs available; I cannot condone these establishments. It might sound hypocritical but these people are making major money with no contribution made to the people who suffer ill effects through misuse or even to the cause of the war on drugs. They stand on the sidelines appeasing the authorities and profiting from the trade without helping move the situation forward.

It was in the beginning something I was in favour. I liked the idea of being able to go into a shop and buy a few pills or powders without a care in the world. It seemed like progress. It was when these people stopped giving names to what they were selling and keeping mystery ingredients that I started to turn. I am aware that it sounds silly saying on one hand I have bought these things and on the other that they should not be sold but that is the case. I enjoyed what I took but at no stage was I given any real directions from the guys selling these things.

I know what an LD50 is, what the symptoms of toxicity are, that hyperthermia is dangerous even when you mightn't expect it. Not everyone has the formal background I have and not everyone knows how to keep themselves safe. Well as safe as can be. There is no safety data readily available in a manner that makes sense to the average customer. There needs to be professionals to answer the questions on these chemicals. Perhaps the pharmacists, who knows.

The head shops are doing deliveries to house parties 24/7 to people hardly in a position to make a rational choice.These establishments have set the drug war back decades. Society will not cop to shops selling drugs in the high street yet. We went from 0-90 without any time to adjust and now we are going to feel the backlash.

Over here the drug war isn't what it is in the states. There is money to be made on both sides for sure but I don't think that is the reason that drugs are banned. I think it is a problem of integration. I don't know how society could handle people openly taking every drug out there with only their own limits to stop them. Not well initially I would imagine. Until someone can answer that question we are in limbo where people pretend they are not taking drugs and everything works fairly alright for the average drug user. The abusers still fall foul of the system but I believe that the average person can get off their face without too much flak once they pay for their gear and keep it low key. It is nearly a situation of double think where the response to the drug war from the authorities increases the more vocal the opposition becomes and the more visible the resistance grows. The vast majorities of groups and individuals do more harm than good trying to bring about change. I nearly cringe watching seasoned pot heads try and reason with camera men in the hopes that a documentary will change legislation. We need respectable NON DRUG USERS to make the case. If we cannot get someone who doesn't use drugs and who the (lets face it) majority can relate to then we are doomed.

Back on topic I think the only way forward is the kind of work that MAPS are doing with MDMA and Psilocybin. Providing hard evidence of medical use and, in order for that use to be accepted, demonstrating a lack of toxicity. I think those guys are taking small but impressive steps forward when no one else is. Many are trying but as far as I can see these are the only actions gaining traction. It will take baby steps but if people can open their minds to these chemicals as therapeutic then we can start to dispel the propaganda that is being flooded to the masses and really start to welcome drugs. It is easy to forget if you have an interest in mind altering substances that not everyone does. Not everyone wants to, or should but we need to be in a position to make people accept that they can be handled RESPONSIBLY by the public in general before they can be made legal.

We have a lot of work to do yet.

To answer VESP, what are they doing wrong?

They have no plan for integration. They suggest end prohibition with no plan for change management. No strategy for distribution for knowledge dispersal for what drugs can be allowed and what ones can't. In short they have an idea not a plan.

It sounds like the kind of blurb the HR droids churn out but we need a co-ordinated management team with a plan to repeal the laws but it is not something that will happen overnight.

My 2 cents

yeah I hear you about the doctors and pharmacists but if not them then whom? it is an unanswered question that does need addressing. There are 2 sides to any job that would aim to distribute drugs. The first would be a requirement to understand safety and dosage (setting too) and the second would be to address the psychological issues that may arise from drug use. Here i mean a guide rather than a counsellor. someone who can help navigate a bad trip rather than someone setting out to "heal" etc.

It galls me to suggest it but perhaps Leary was on the right track with some type of license. maybe something like a car where you are supervised for lessons before being given the licence to buy whatever chemical you are licensed for. It is far from ideal but its about time we accepted that a miraculous overnight repeal is never coming.

Pressing the "its my right" issue doesnt hold weight with authorities for 2 reasons. Firstly no one gives a shit about any rights when it doesnt suit them and secondly because with rights come responsibilities to conduct yourself correctly and sadly this is far from the rule with drug takers.  like it or not many peoples only exposure to drugs will be when addicts beg them for change in the street so legalization is kind of a hard sell.

One other thing that needs to change and the MAPS guys have pushed a little on this is the word "drugs." It might seem silly but the word itself is terribly wrong. Using the word in any sentance is effectively comparing weed to fentanyl since with this term they come under the same umbrella. When someone says to legalise drugs my mind thinks obviously lets start with weed but thats not what the request sounds like. It was a subtle but powerful blow to the war giving it a name like the war on drugs but its one that beats us down always. Accepting government terminology doesnt help us. only them.

As far as the internet goes the argument is valid but has a souble edge. You are more likely to see a thousand
"I can has cheezeburger" pictures than a rational article on drugs. unfortunately.

I think what we ought to focus on is perhaps states rights -- say that all drugs need to be federally decriminalized, and put into the hands of the states instead. Or at least say that marijuana is federally decriminalized and left up to the states -- other drugs may follow.


The states and its politicians would perhaps like this because it would give them more power and would allow places like California, Colorado, etc to do their more socially liberal things like legalize marijuana. Along with some hardcore community organizing, I think it could make a little bit of headway towards a more free society. I guess this would only work in America, or places that have a similiar government.

I think what we ought to focus on is perhaps states rights

Constitutionally, it should be a state issue.  But why let that silly old piece of paper get in the way of a perfectly good regulation.

t can be shown that there will not be much of an increase in hard drug use if they were legalized

the best way to legalize drugs is through grassroots campaigns like SSDP, of which i was once an active member.

I'd like to see some more information on your first comment, if you happen to have any readily available, if not, that is cool too -- I'll look for some.

I think a combination of grassroots organization as well as encouraging states rights would help to squish out the federal governments say on it.

I also think their needs to become a movement that helps join all of the pro-drug groups together -- get SSDP, LEAP, NORML, etc all communicating and creating a larger community together, and get them help organize people and get them to make a hell of a lot of noise -- by calling their politicians, etc.
Another thing I think is important is to do projects such as art contests that will make the DEA, and other federal drug regulation programs show how they negatively effect individuals -- if you had a 1000 dollar reward for the best Pro-Drug/Anti-DEA type pictures, you could get it so many people would paint/draw images like this, which would eventually end up in art galleries, houses, shops, and so on -- this could help change the public perception of drugs, and those who use and regulation them.

I think, though it might be easy to argue otherwise, that it will also be important to focus on individual liberty -- how we all will be better off individually.

It seems like arguments that oppose drug legalization will thrive with collectivist thinking --  that we all must sacrifice for the greater good, etc.

If it is possible to make it seem best to federally decriminalize drugs on an individual basis, and on a collectivist basis, it would easier to get more people interesting in this movement.


Perception is related to behavior. Changing the perception can lead to a change in behavior.

 

 seriously though....have you considered a few things,,,,

a) "Forbidden fruits taste sweetest"...............How many people do you know who "experimented with drugs" BECAUSE they,,, "weren't supposed to " 

 (it seems to me to be part of our 'nature' as humans,,,to 'rebel' against our "parents,,teachers & co",,,,,,so that the,, "diversity",,, required by 'nature' to continue 'evolving',,, is maintained)

 How much sponzoola do you think those HUGE pharmaceutical companies would lose,,in yearly sales,,,,,IF,,,,, 'Joe. Semi. Average' "learnt" to,,, 'Self Medicate',,, successfully??? eh???

 Have you ever taken time out,,,, to 'do the maths',,, on "how much income" a "successful drug" generates for the Company who 'owns it' Just imagine what a scary concept "successful self medication" IS,, to these guys???,,,,,wanna get rich???  These "multinational bastards" know how!!!! 
  "drugs" can,,(and are) usually are,,,patented,,,allowing the "Parent Company" of 'said' drug,,,a 25 year monopoly on THAT "product",,, a,, "Goverment Guaranteed" MONOPOLY!!!!! Faaaaarkin Hell!!!.....with a "popular drug" Its a licence to "print money" almost!!!!
  50% of bankrupticies in the US are "due to",,, unpaid/unaffordable medical 'expenses!!!
 A good friend of mine who was working in the US a few months ago,,"sprained her wrist",,,it was hurting her and she didnt know what was wrong,,,so she went to the local hospital Emergency dept for some "diagnostics and care"---several hours later (she WAS/IS Fully insured) left "said hospital" with one wrist,, 'in a splint',,,which had been treated with (an injection of ) "cortisone",,and the other hand holding a Bill for $900--which was ONLY "half" of her treatment costs!!!!
 new page time...sorry folks

""drugs" can,,(and are) usually are,,,patented,,,allowing the "Parent Company" of 'said' drug,,,a 25 year monopoly on THAT "product",,, a,, "Goverment Guaranteed" MONOPOLY!!!!! Faaaaarkin Hell!!!.....with a "popular drug" Its a licence to "print money" almost!!!! Shocked"

That really depends on the drug in question......


Like Coca Cola for example, they did not file a patent for Coke but their invention is protected using trade secrets. If they did file a patent it would have been copied by everyone, and their business ruined. Coke stays in business by being the only one selling coke, and this technique of protecting your product can be and is, used by Big Pharma also. And big pharma in the old days used to simply file a patent, but wised up quick when generics arrived on the scene! and big pharma would be the biggest users of Trade Secrets today!;

"To acquire a patent, full information about the method or product has to be supplied to the patent office and upon publication or issuance, will then be available to all. After expiration of the patent, competitors can copy the method or product legally. The temporary monopoly on the subject matter of the patent is regarded as a quid pro quo for thus disclosing the information to the public.
One popular misconception held by many is that trade secret protection is incompatible with patent protection. It is typically said that if you apply for a patent you can no longer maintain a trade secret on the invention, but this is an oversimplification.[3] It is true that in order to obtain a patent you must disclose your invention so that others will be able to both make and use the invention, and, to obtain a patent in the United States, if you have any preferences you must likewise disclose your preferences.[4] What is typically not appreciated though is that the critical time for satisfying this disclosure requirement is at the time the application is filed. In many if not most situations, improvements will be made to an invention even after filing of the patent application, and additional information will be learned. None of this additional information must be disclosed and can instead be kept as a secret.[5] Virtually all patent licenses include clauses that require the inventor to disclose any trade secrets they have. Frequently it is this information not disclosed in the patent that is the most commercially viable. Thus, if you are attempting to sell or license your patent rights you want to make sure that you take steps to continue to maintain your trade secrets as secrets, otherwise they will be lost. Accordingly, before disclosing any secrets not already protected by an issued patent you should use a non-disclosure agreement."

from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

Believe me, they protect their behinds in more than one way! And trade secrets are now protected thoroughly by federal law! As when big pharma was donating massive amounts of money to certain politicians to get certain bills passed, the Uniform Trade Secrets act being one such example.

From the Editor: Best Practices or Trade Secrets?
"Few companies guard intellectual property and trade secrets more zealously than pharmaceutical manufacturers. Their survival depends on it. Some have been burned in the past — Amgen, for example, allowed a team of Japanese journalists into one of its sites years ago, only to learn that they had been busy photographing documents, equipment and sensitive areas within the plant."
http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2005/267.html



edit;
"In many if not most situations, improvements will be made to an invention even after filing of the patent application, and additional information will be learned. None of this additional information must be disclosed and can instead be kept as a secret."

That is the loophole they use to intentionally misguide people with the wrong information as they do not want to really disclose the right info in the first place as wiki stated businesses see having to reveal that information to the public a necessary evil to insure protection of the product, with trade secrets you can file a patent and get the protection for your product but also give the wrong procedure and keep it secret (they win twice as when the patent is up, still no one is able to copy). And intentionally doing that, and if questioned later you can simply say. Ohh we learned that a day after filing the patent and it was kept a trade secret so we could monopolize the market, which after the Uniform Trade secrets act was passed that is perfectly legal!

A good example was a patent for growing claviceps in submerged culture, they had ridiculous things in the substrate. It could be argued it would not have worked with them in there, but if asked the writers of that patent could have simply said it was kept as a trade secret but we found out soon after it was better not to use those things. And therefore is perfectly legal, but could be argued that they were intentionally misguiding so others had trouble copying!

I haven't commented here so ill make a quick post stating my thoughts here.....

You can't end the war on drugs. That would be akin to the government eliminating taxes one day. Its just not going to happen.

Sorry for being cynical I want revision just as much as the next guy but it was determined from the start that drugs are the glue that holds together those that may oppose and take down the government. Dissolve the glue and the foundation falls apart. Hell.... I have conspiricy theorys of my own that the deaths of hendrix morrison and joplin where all part of there plan to destroy the drug cultures vision of utopia. There is documentation of covert operations to implant false "Hippies" into the mix to bring the movements down from the inside and what a better way then to OD all there heros?

Anyway....

What im saying is that they seen from the start that drugs can
 A: bring them down to there knees and force them to no longer do what they will and be a function of the people instead of a function of there religion.
 B: Bring them in more money then they could imagin before in the way of taxes and fines...


Conclusion...... you can't stop a tank thats running over americans with americas permission. They have convinced the right people that this is needed to maintain there safety.....When you live in a multimillion dollar mansion and they have you convinced that a crackhead could move next door and robb you what do you think they will vote for?