Date: 10 Dec 94 16:19:36 EST
From: "Clifford A. Schaffer" <72242.1727@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:drctalk-l@netco" <drctalk-l@netcom.com>
Subject: Persuasive Strategies - Full Text
Message-ID: <941210211936_72242.1727_FHF49-1@CompuServe.COM>

Persuasive Strategies

Dos

The issue is prison.
	The issue is not legalization or decriminalization because we really do
not know if we will ever do those things, or anything like them.  The issue is
prison.  The issue is how many millions of people will have to go to prison
before this policy is successful.
	You cannot successfully defend decriminalization or legalization to most
people at this point, because it is not here and they cannot see it.  Turn the
issue around on them, and make them defend what we are doing now.  The drug war
has not worked and there is not a drug law enforcement official in the United
States who pretends that it can work.  Once they are on the defensive, it is
easy to get them to admit that it is time to look for another approach --
whatever that approach might be.

Do your homework.  
	There is enough information in the references I have listed to sink
anyone who supports the use of jails for drugs.  That's why the reports were
written.

Be reasonable.
	If you can present a sound and reasonable approach to solving the drug
problem, and maintain that stance, you will short-circuit most of the negative
emotions and hostility which may be raised against you.  Notice that I have said
a reasonable approach to solving the drug problem, not a reasonable solution to
the drug problem.  By approach, I mean a method of finding a solution.  Do not
try to present a solution because, as discussed later, that only gets you into
trouble.  Instead, promote a fair and reasonable method of finding a solution --
such as the objective commission called for by the Hoover Resolution.
	At the same time, this reasonable stance forces our opponents to either
be reasonable and follow us toward reform, or adopt ever more extreme positions
on drugs.  One of my favorite questions for them is: What do you have against an
open and honest review of the evidence?
	If they do not agree to an open and honest review of the evidence then
they clearly demonstrate that they are too extreme to even consider the facts.
If they do agree to the review, then I have them every time because I have
already read the evidence and I know what it says.

Judo is better than boxing.
	You can beat someone with boxing, in which case you knock them down with
your weight.  Or, you can beat someone with judo, in which case you knock them
down with their own weight.  Judo is always better than boxing when you have to
persuade someone.  Use the arguments your audience finds persuasive, not the
arguments you find persuasive. 
	For example, if you encounter a fundamentalist Christian, nothing you
will say to them will have any meaning to them at all unless they believe that
Jesus Christ would support what you are saying.  So far most of them have
believe that drug users should be thrown in prison because drug use is immoral
-- that is, Jesus would not approve of drug use.  I have found that the best
approach to these people is to help them to understand it in their own terms.
What I say is:
	"You are certainly a better Christian than I am so you tell me.  If Jesus
came down here today and we gave the drug problem to him, what do you think he
would do?  Would he build bigger prisons?  Or would he build hospitals and
schools?"
	When the issue is stated in these simple terms, most of them will come
around right away.  They will immediately see the good sense in an approach that
heals, rather than punishes.

Avoid complex arguments
	The supporters of the drug war have, in keeping with their general
intellectual level, made the simplest propaganda possible.  The eggs in the
frying pan commercial is a good example.  In order to compete with them, it is
necessary to make arguments which are as simple and as easily understood as
possible.  There are a lot of ways to get really complicated in a drug argument
but two of the favorites are arguments based on civil liberties and economics.
Please keep in mind that I agree with the arguments based on civil liberties and
economics, I just don't find them persuasive to others.
	Arguments based on such topics as civil liberties or economics are not
likely to be persuasive for three reasons:  
1)	They are complicated issues which take a lot of thought.  Even if you
come up with a reasonable sounding argument today, someone will just confuse
them tomorrow with an equally good sounding argument. 
2)	 Surveys consistently show that a large portion of the American public
would readily sacrifice their civil liberties to try to solve some mythical
problem.
3)	 The people who are likely to be persuaded are already persuaded.
	There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but, in general, most
people will not be persuaded by philosophical arguments about civil liberties,
or arcane arguments about economics.  It may be sad, but it is true.  
	One of the major exceptions to this is property owners.  Property owners
in California have become very sensitive to the fact that their property can be
seized even though they knew nothing at all about criminal activity on the
property.  Property owners can be a pretty vocal group so they should not be
overlooked as allies.
	Economic arguments, when used, should be simplified to avoid long-winded
discussions which do not resolve anything.  For example:  With $500,000 of tax
money we can put one drug user in prison, or we can provide treatment or
education for more than 100 people.  Which do you think is the better deal?

 
Build agreement.
	Sales people know that a person is more likely to agree with you if they
have already agreed with you.  That is, if you can get them to agree that it is
a nice day, for example, they will be more likely to agree with whatever else
you may say.  You get them in the habit of saying "Yes" and they will keep
saying "Yes."
	There are certain issues on which nearly everyone will readily agree.
The first is that people who are sick should get whatever medicine they need.
If they understand that marijuana can help save the lives of people with AIDS
and cancer, and that heroin can help relieve extreme chronic pain, and may even
speed healing after surgery or injury, they will usually agree that -- for
medical purposes at least -- we should allow the use of these drugs.  Then point
out:  
	Sick people are suffering and dying because they need these medicines to
live.  If that was the only reason to re-examine our drug policy it would be
reason enough.  But, as you know, it is not the only reason to re-examine what
we are doing.  Isn't it time to examine all these problems and see what really
is the right thing to do?

Attack the very foundations of the drug laws.
 	The drug laws were the product of racism and ignorance.  They never did
have anything to do with public health and safety.  It is important that people
understand this point.  Most people wrongly assume that the drug laws were
passed because it was necessary to protect people against dangerous drugs.  Most
people do not know that, at the time the laws were passed, there was no medical
evidence to show that these drugs were dangerous, and that major newspapers like
the New York Times published articles with titles like Negro Cocaine Fiends, New
Southern Menace.  Once people begin to understand that there never was a good
reason for the laws in the first place, then it is perfectly legitimate to ask
what is the reason for these laws now.
	This can lead to a discussion of how the drug laws came to be (your
opponent loses by default); or the fact that half of all our prison inmates are
black, most of them there on drug charges; or the fact that in places like
Washington, DC, ninety percent of all the black men have already been to jail,
most of them on drug charges (your opponent loses by embarrassment).

One standard response
	The following sentence works for nearly anything your opponent may say:
"There is no evidence to support that assertion.  Every major study of drug
policy agreed that, even if it was true, decriminalization would still be a
better solution."
	For example, they may say that, if drugs are legalized that everyone will
become drug addicts.  You say:
	There is no evidence to support that assertion.  Every major study of
drug policy agreed that, even if drug use did increase, decriminalization would
still be a better solution.

Preface your sentences
	Put a prefix in front of your sentences.  The prefix is "Every major
study agreed . . ."  Without this phrase, the things you say will be interpreted
as your own opinion.  If you use this phrase, your opinions are seen more
clearly as the overwhelming weight of the evidence.  Also, this phrase will
force your opponent to debate on the basis of fact, where they are the weakest,
and will quickly flatten their best arguments.
 
Attack, Attack, Attack.  
	It is the only way you will win.  Even if people believed that
legalization was right, they would still support the current set of laws because
they aren't certain about legalization and believe the criminal laws do no harm.
They must be made to see that the current laws are worse than no laws at all.
You must put your opponents on the extreme defensive and keep them there.  Make
them justify all of the awful facts.  The subject is not legalization or
decriminalization.  The subject is prison.   

Keep it short and punchy.  
	Know what you are going to say and trim every excess word.  If you are
really lucky you will get a full fifteen minutes of media air time to explain
everything there is to know about drugs.  Hit the major facts as rapidly as you
can.

Memorize what you want to say
	Salesmen memorize their sales pitch because, once they have it down by
rote, they can say it without even thinking, thus freeing their tactical brain
to get an edge on their prospect.  With tricky subjects like drug policy reform
it is very easy to make verbal missteps which will weaken your case, or send
your audience into extreme cognitive dissonance (a mental shutdown) where they
will not hear another thing you say.  Be extremely careful about the phrasing
you use and stick with the phrasing which will keep you out of trouble.
Memorize the names of the studies so you can spit them out without thinking.

Stick to the issue.  
	Don't let the discussion stray into related social issues.  Drug policy
is one of those issues which is closely intertwined with other issues such as
morality, education, health care, welfare, and many others.  Dont get
sidetracked into arguments over welfare reform or some other complicated issue
You don't have time for it and most Americans don't have the brain capacity to
understand the complexities anyway.  The issue is whether building massive
prisons will solve the drug problem.

Get the facts out.  
	Most people do not know the actual statistics on things like drug deaths,
the number of people in prison, the percentage of black men who will go to
prison and the plight of medical patients who cannot get these medicines.  When
they hear the facts, they really begin to wonder about the current policy.

Win by inches.
	Don't try to bring people too far in their thinking.  The concept of
legalization or decriminalization is a big intellectual and emotional stretch
for a lot of people and you could easily spend years getting them to fully
believe it.  It is simply not practical, or necessary, to try to bring people
over to the legalization side all at once.  People will naturally come to the
legalization point of view if you can simply convince them that our current
policy is a disaster which could never work (and that is really easy!).  Once
they agree that the current policy is not working, and cannot work, then they
will ask themselves -- if prisons don't work, what should we do?  When they
confront this question, they have started down the slippery slope to
decriminalization.  
	Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein said, "Unthinking acceptance of the
current drug policy is unreasonable."  If we can just get people to admit that
there is a real problem with what we are doing now, and that we must look for a
better solution, they will eventually agree with you.
	An interesting thing happened to Judge James P. Gray.  A man wrote Judge
Gray a letter in which he started out by telling Judge Gray how wrong Judge Gray
was about legalization.  The guy tried to tell Judge Gray why he was so wrong
and, in the space of three written pages, wound up realizing that Judge Gray was
right.  He convinced himself once he just sat down and thought about it.

Take the moral high ground
	Our opponents like to take the stance that anyone who does not believe in
huge prisons full of drug dealers is less than moral, beneath contempt, and is
probably selling drugs to grade-school children in their spare time.  It is time
to tear down this moral charade.
	There is nothing moral about incarcerating most of the black men in
America.  There is nothing moral about denying legitimate medicines to people
who are suffering and dying.  There is nothing moral about a drug policy which
seeks to destroy people, not heal them.  The damage being done by this policy is
too great to allow anyone to maintain the pretense that this drug war is
something holy and moral.

 
Don'ts

Don't use the "L" word, the "D" word, or the M word.
	Don't use "legalization," "decriminalization," or medicalization.  These
words tend to set some peoples heads on fire.  In the first place, these words
will cause many people to go into an immediate complete mental shut-down and
they will not hear another thing you say.  In the second place, it is wrong to
reduce what must necessarily be a complex policy under any circumstances, to a
single word.  It only serves to further distort the issue.  Besides, you don't
have to use the words to win.
	Some people have mentioned that the word legalization must be used sooner
or later in the public debate simply because a recognition that prison is wrong
will lead people to consider the alternatives, which will ultimately lead to
prison.  This is certainly true.  However, I would recommend that you let your
opponent use it first, and that you do not promote it as a cause.  

Don't defend the use of drugs.
	Don't tell people that everyone has a God-given right to put whatever
they want to in to their body.  You may be right, and I happen to agree, but it
won't play in Peoria.  Many people just view this as an excuse to get loaded
(and, in many cases, they are right).

Don't advance your own plan for selling drugs.
	Do not discuss your personal plan for how legalization would work  The
reasons are: 

a)	You can only sell one product at a time.  First convince them whether we
should change the laws. We will have plenty of time for how later.
  
b)	When you suggest how it should be done then your individual ideas become
the focus.  If your plan fails for any reason, then your whole argument will
fail, and; 

c)	The real secret is that there is no right answer to drug policy.  Every
idea you will suggest is only the lesser of multiple evils and leaves you open
to violent emotional attack. 

Don't get tied up in debates over the health risks.
	First let me state that the evidence is quite clear that, by any standard
of comparison, alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than almost any of the
illegal drugs.  However, the relative health risks are not really the issue.

	Just because something is dangerous does not automatically mean that the
best approach to those dangers is to throw millions of people in prison.  We all
know that tobacco, and alcohol, and AIDS are hazardous to your health.  But we
all would agree that prison is not the best public policy for those hazards.
Prison, in fact, would be a terrible mistake.  
	It is the same principle with illegal drugs. We can assume that drugs are
dangerous.  That is not the question.  The question is:  What is the best public
policy for those dangers?  On this question, every major study of drug policy
has agreed that, whatever the dangers may be, prison is the wrong approach.
Every major study recommended decriminalization because of those dangers, and
because prison is the worst approach.  Bigger prisons do not equal better public
health policy.

Don't get stuck on questions which cannot be answered.  
	Congressman Charles Rangel likes to ask the question, "How do you propose
that we go about legalizing drugs?  Should we have crack stores next to liquor
stores?"  The trick is that there really is no perfect answer, and any answer
you give leaves you open to attack.  It turns the issue into one of your
personal social ideas rather than the objective truth that all studies agree
that decriminalization, under almost any scenario, is a better approach.

Don't Overdose
	I generally avoid mention of overdoses because the word itself distorts
the issue in a very emotional sense.  The drug which produces the most overdoses
is alcohol.  No one thinks of a drunk high school kid puking into a toilet as a
drug overdose, even when you point it out to them.  Consumers Union found that
there are very few real drug overdoses and none at all for marijuana.  Most of
the so-called "overdoses" were clearly attributable to other causes, such as
impurities in the drugs.

Don't get the issues stuck between you
	People are more likely to believe you and be persuaded by what you say if
they feel that you share their same basic concerns, that is, if they feel you
are "on their side."  Always explain you answers in terms of their thoughts and
goals.  Your goals are probably the same as theirs anyway -- reducing the harm
done by drugs, keeping drugs away from kids, controlling the social costs of
drugs, etc.

Don't let them have anything.  
	There are many, many myths about drugs and drug use.  Like for instance,
the old myth that pushers spike marijuana with heroin and cocaine to get
unsuspecting kids hooked.  It doesn't happen.  Licit and Illicit Drugs
effectively explodes most of these myths.  If your opponent mentions such a
myth, jump down his throat and point out that there is no evidence at all to
support what he is saying.  Make them prove it.  You can prove what you say,
they can't.

Dont get stuck on Constitutional issues.
	Issues based on the US Constitution will generally not be persuasive for
a number of reasons:
1. They are complicated.  They require a lot of knowledge of history, law, and
other subjects which most people, including you, are not likely to have.  Like
any other complicated issue, anyone can make long-winded discussions go on
forever with no clear resolution.  Complicated arguments are best avoided
because they just dont win.
 
2. The people who are likely to agree with you probably already agree with you.
Many Americans, including some intelligent ones, do not understand the
protections afforded by the Constitution and why they are so important.  Many
people tend to feel that the protections of the Constitution were only meant to
be given to the law-abiding citizens like them and, besides, if innocent people
are hurt because the police have violated their rights, then that is just the
price we have to pay for law and order.  It is pointless to argue with these
people on this point because, for the most part, you are not going to change
their basic attitude about it.
 
3. Even if you win, you dont win anything. Even if you get your opponent to
agree that Fourth Amendment rights (or some other rights) are being violated by
the police, it can be dismissed as simple bad management.  That is, they will
argue that we should manage it a little better, but we still ought to continue
the war on drugs.  Constitutional arguments in general do not effectively
address the point that the drug war is morally and practically wrong at its very
foundations.


 Answers to Specific Arguments

If we legalize/decriminalize drugs then everyone will become drug addicts.
	Every major study of drug policy agreed that there is no evidence to
support this belief and, even if drug use did increase, decriminalization would
still be a better approach.  In Europe, several countries have decriminalized
drugs and actually seen a significant drop in drug use.

We need a combined approach of education, treatment, prevention, and stiff law
enforcement.
	(This is a smoke screen, designed to cloud the issue and make your
opponent seem like they are taking the most rational, balanced approach while
you are the one who is suggesting the extremist measures.  Don't let them get
away with it.  You can kick all of their extraneous arguments out of the way and
refocus the issue 
	We agree one hundred percent on education, treatment, and prevention.
The only place where we part company is on prisons.  My opponent wants to build
prisons larger than the Nazi concentration camps of World War II.  I don't think
that is necessarily a good idea.

We have to keep these drugs illegal to protect our children.
	I agree.  That's why I am looking for a better solution -- because what
we are doing now is obviously not working.  In fact, the current policy is one
of the main reasons that drug users find it profitable to get kids involved in
drugs and distribute drugs free on school campuses.  I believe that we can find
a better approach which would stop this.

My son/daughter was turned into a psycho by drugs so we have to stamp out this
evil menace.
	(Keep in mind that the person who says this kind of thing is probably
under tremendous emotional stress so it would not be polite or productive to
suggest that their kid was probably a psycho all along.  Keep a gentle,
sympathetic demeanor.)
	We have made these drugs as illegal as they can be and these kinds of
tragedies still happen.  The fact that your son/daughter became a victim of
these drugs shows, in itself, that the current policy did not work for you and
your family.  All it really does is to make it harder to provide treatment for
the people who need it.  I believe that there may be a better way to handle the
problem, that just might have saved your son/daughter.  Don't you think that we
should at least explore the possibility of a better way to handle the problem?
	Or:
	What happened to your child is certainly a tragedy.  But tell me, would
your child have been better off if they spent twenty years in prison?  

I used to be a junkie until I was saved from the life of evil and I know that
drugs should not be legalized!
1)	It is illegal now and that didn't stop you.  All it really does is keep
most people from getting help sooner because we are spending all of our money on
prisons and we cannot provide adequate treatment.
2)	Would you be better off if you had spent twenty years in prison?  If we
really did it the way you are suggesting, you would still be in prison and would
not be here to talk to me.

You just want to legalize it -- you commie scum!
	Of course, I have my own ideas about what might be a good solution to the
problem, but that is not the point.  The point is that we need to bring all of
our best minds together to consider your ideas for a better solution, as well as
mine.  The only way that we will ever find a better approach is by an open and
honest discussion of the evidence and all of the possible approaches to the
problem.  

They tried this in Europe with Needle Park and it didn't work so they are going
back to throwing people in prison.
	Absolutely not true.  Europe, in general, is committed to
decriminalization and we invite anyone to talk to the law enforcement officials
in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, or Liverpool, and see for themselves.  There have been
some policies which the European officials admit did not work as well as others,
such as Needle Park, but they are still committed to a non-criminal approach to
drugs.   In addition, England, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, and Colombia
have all taken steps toward the legalization or decriminalization of drugs.  In
addition, both the head of Interpol and the British Association of Chiefs of
Police have called for an end to drug prohibition.

What do you think we should do about drugs?
	I have my own ideas about what might be a good solution to the problem,
but that is not the point, because I don't have all the answers and nobody else
does either.  The point is that we need to bring all of our best minds together
to consider your ideas for a better solution, as well as mine.  The only way
that we will ever find a better approach is by an open and honest discussion of
the evidence and all of the possible approaches to the problem.  
	For starters, we might just take the recommendations of any major study
of drug policy that you like and start from there.  (Then hand them a list of
the studies of drug policy.)

Well, why dont we legalize murder, and robbery, and all the other crimes, and
then we wont have a crime problem.
	Drug use and murder are not the same in any sense so this is a silly
comparison to begin with.  But let's consider this arguments on its merits.
There are about 25,000 homicides in the United States each year, and there are
about thirty million people who use illegal drugs.
	If we had thirty million murderers or robbers, we would have to find
another way to deal with the problem, simply because the criminal justice system
could not handle the load.  This is the case with the drug problem. It doesnt
matter whether we want to put all the drug users or dealers in prison, it simply
is not possible to do it by any stretch of the imagination.
	But that avoids the real issue.  The real issue is what is the most
effective way to deal with the problem.  Even if we all agree that drugs are
bad, all of the evidence states that prison only makes the problem worse.

We should make all the drug users get treatment and put all the drug dealers in
jail.
Lets suppose I agree with you one hundred percent and I will run out right now
and place the order for the new prison cells we will need.  Now, please tell me,
exactly how many prison cells will we need to build to carry out your plan?

	If they say:
	I dont know.
	That is precisely the problem.  No one has ever thought it through as to
what it will take to succeed with prison.


 
Aren't you really promoting drug use?
	Not at all, and let me give you example.  I personally think that cigars
are one of the most disgusting things I have ever encountered.  They are
addictive, dangerous to the health of the smoker and the people around them, and
they smell awful.  I will do everything I reasonably can to keep people from
smoking them in my presence, and to encourage them to quit.  However, at the
same time, I have the good sense to recognize that it would not accomplish
anything to throw George Burns in jail.

We can't legalize drugs because it would send the wrong message to our children.
	How many millions of people should we put in prison to send just the
right message?  
	Is this really the best way you can think of to send a message to
children?  If you can't do any better than that, perhaps we should be spending
our money on some simple courses in basic communication or child-rearing.
 
Show Stopper Questions for Your Opponent

Please keep in mind with all of these questions that your opponents will try
their best to squirm out of an answer.  If you are talking to a politician, they
will typically try to put out a ten-minute smoke screen and hope no one
recognizes that they never did answer the question.  If they try the smoke
screen, try the approach listed under Smokescreen:


How many millions of people will have to go to prison in order to solve the drug
problem this way?

Their Answer
	Any answer to this question is bound to be wrong.  If they mention a low
number, point out that we already have hundreds of thousands of people in prison
for illegal drugs and millions have been arrested and prosecuted.  That
obviously did not stamp out drugs, so a small increase in the prisoners will not
have any good effect.
	If they mention five, ten, or twenty million, multiply the number they
mention by $500,000 and tell them the cost of that approach.  For example, the
cost to incarcerate 1 million people is five hundred billion dollars; 2 million
is one trillion Dollars, 10 million is five trillion dollars, and so forth. Then
crucify them for wanting to build prisons larger than the Nazi concentration
camps.
	If they say they don't know, then say, "That is precisely the problem.
No one, including you, has ever sat down to figure it out.  If you did, you
would find out soon enough that it is just plain impossible to solve the problem
this way."

Smokescreen
Excuse me for interrupting, but that was not an essay question.  The question
can be answered with just a simple number.  What will it take, 5 million, 10
million, 20 million?  How many millions of people will have to go to prison to
solve the drug problem this way? 

 
I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years.
Every one of them recommended decriminalization.  Do you agree that the
overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports
decriminalization?  
Before you answer, let me remind you that there are only three possible answers
to this question.  
The first possible answer is yes, you agree.
The second possible answer is no, you do not agree, in which case you should be
able to provide a list of studies of drug policy comparable in quality and
quantity to the list I have provided.
The third possible answer is that you don't have a clue what the scholarly
evidence says because you have never read the most basic research on the
subject.

Their Answer
	The answers that I have gotten to this question include:
	The scholarly evidence is not important.  (From Bob Martinez, former Drug
Czar)
	Is the scholarly evidence not important in science, medicine, and every
other field of law?  Or is it not important only when it comes to drug policy?

	I don't think anyone really knows the answer.
	Can you name any major study of drug policy which supported what we are
currently doing?  (They probably can't.) So we have ten major studies, including
the largest studies ever conducted by the governments of the United States,
Britain, and Canada, which supported decriminalization and none that supported
the current policy.  Wouldn't you say that is the overwhelming weight of the
evidence?

	I don't have a clue.
	That is precisely the problem.  You want to tell us what drug policy
should be when you have not even bothered to read the most basic research on the
subject.

Smokescreen
	Excuse me for interrupting, but that was not an essay question.  That was
multiple choice.  What is your answer; yes, no, or don't have a clue?

 
	It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in
prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a
new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years.  For the
same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred
people.  Which do you think is the better deal?

Their Answer:
	Almost no one will attempt to argue that prison for one person is better
than education or treatment for several hundred. Most often they will say, "It's
not that simple, you can't just say that because you are not going to put one
person in prison that you automatically have the money for treatment or
education."

	You answer:
	It IS that simple.  Right now, California and several other states are
closing schools, libraries, and medical facilities in order to build more
prisons.  The money is being taken from education and treatment to fund more
prisons.