A. RESEARCHING DRUG POLICY

1. Web/email

One of the easiest ways to get information about drugs is via the World Wide Web. (Those without access to Web browsers can access the text of Web documents by email. For more information, send an e-mail message with only the world HELP to one of the following addresses: web-mail@ebay.com , webmail@www.ucc.ie , agora@kamakura.mss.co.jp)

Good places to start looking for drug information include:

Yahoo's Drugs page:
http://www.yahoo.com/Health/Pharmacology/Drugs/
A hierarchically-organized, frequently updated list of links at the net-famous index. A good starting point because it lists information from a number of perspectives: government statistics sites, pro-user pages, policy reform groups, health and recovery groups, and more.

'Searching the Internet for Drug Information':
http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/newsline/searching.html
Advice from the Indiana Prevention Resource Center on finding pro-prevention information while avoiding the pro-user pages. Includes links to many of the major search pages, with descriptions.

DRCNet Online Drug Policy Library:
http://www.druglibrary.org/
The main index for the DRCNet Online Drug Policy Library, a collection of archives and organizations devoted to reforming the war on drugs.

2. Libraries

Two of the most common shelving/cataloging methods are the Dewey Decimal system and the Library of Congress system.

Dewey Decimal system: see the 363.45 call number section for books about drug politics. See the 362.29 section for books about drug use.

Library of Congress system: see the HV 5800 call number section for books about drug use and politics. See the RM 300 section for medical perspectives.

Almost all subject topics have a perspective on drug use; indexes and catalogs, which are usually as easy to use as your average newsreader, will help. Also look through journal/newspaper indexes.

If your nearest library doesn't have a book you'd like, ask if they have an "Inter-library Loan" program; usually this is free, and will get you almost any book you request, though probably only after a couple weeks.

3. Bookstores

"Politics", "Social issues", "Health", and "Recovery" are all good places to start. Call in to a bookstore and asking if they have such titles, or ask if they can check "Books in Print" or a similar database.

B. DISCUSSING DRUG POLITICS

1) Write for the format. Debating issues on Usenet is different from writing a print article or talking in public. Being aware of this and adapting to it can help you get your point across.

Ideally a Usenet 'thread' (series of related messages) would be read in order, so the progression of the argument would make sense. That is, someone would post an initial message to the newsgroup, someone would respond to it, someone would make a response to that, and so on.

It doesn't always work that way, though. Usenet discussions tend to fork off into several different sub-discussions that may or may not have anything to do with the initial posting. Furthermore, some readers start reading a thread halfway through; others may find messages missing from a thread, or receive the messages out of order; yet others come across a message through a Usenet archive service such as Dejanews (http://www.dejanews.com) or one of the drug information sites. Such is the nature of communication on Usenet.

It is best, therefore, to make messages as self-contained as possible: try to make a coherent point, quoting previous comments when necessary, but cutting out those previous comments that you're not referring to.

2) Know the facts, and be able to refer to them. If you're able to cite books, articles, TV programs, and/or Web sites, it'll make your argument stronger than those of someone who can only remember what they heard on public service announcements. It'll also give lurkers somewhere to go if they want more information on your perspective.

3) Be infinitely patient. Realize that even when you're arguing 'one on one' with someone, you've still got an audience of 'lurkers' (silent onlookers) in the hundreds if not thousands. You may not convince the person you're arguing with, but you may be able to convince those lurkers. Whether or not you do so often depends on how rational and straightforward you are.

Drug politics is a very emotional issue. Many people have had traumatic experiences with drug users or with police or in prison because of the drug laws. It is hard to be objective about drugs.

If you 'flame' (insult, degrade, and rant to) the person you're arguing with, this will only make your point look weak to most of those reading, as 'flaming' only convinces those who already agree with you. Even though most people are concerned about drug issues, most people aren't fanatical one way or another (see the ONDCP Gallup poll results at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/gallup.pdf -- requires Adobe Acrobat).

Instead of trying to show how stupid your opponents are, you're often better off showing how your solution to a certain problem is better than the solutions of those disagreeing with you. The Net allows us to turn debate from a war of opinions into a transfer of information.

Remember: the drugs situation is intolerable to everyone because these complex issues were previously treated with simplistic explanations. The Net offers us a chance to gain a greater understanding of these issues, but this requires effort and patience. If we are not willing to expend this effort and develop this patience, then the next 80 years of drug wars and abuse will be on our shoulders.

For specific information on debating drug issues see:

'Persuasive Strategies' by Cliff Schaffer:
http://www.calyx.com/~schaffer/ACTIVIST/persuas.html
'The issue is how many millions of people will have to go to prison before this policy is successful.'

'Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization' by the DEA: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/legaliz/contents.htm
'Few are prepared to answer such diverse questions thoroughly, let alone stay current on the research and spot the flaws and distortions in others' arguments. Yet, questions are asked and they must be answered.'

Of related interest:

'Constructing a Logical Argument' from the Atheism Web: http://freethought.tamu.edu/news/atheism/logic.html
'There is a great deal of argument on Usenet. Unfortunately, most of it is of very poor quality.'