Drug Use Education.org



About Us

Contact Us



News Archives



Pro-Positive Public Policy



1851...  Electro-Chemical Age

Anti-Drug Disorder

Attitude Transformation

Boomers Retire Violent Crime

Civil Rights War

Comparative Study

Comparative Study Details

DEA Controlled Substances List 

Denial of Medication

Dose-Time Scale

Drug Use

Drug Dealers Reign

Drug Free is Not Anti-Drug

Drug Control

Drug Timeline

Drug Testing

Drug Use Education: Concept

Drug Use Education

DUE: A Recipe for Common Sense

DUE Basics

DUE Effect on Drug Admin

DUE For a Change

DUE: Into the Future

DUE: No "Bad" Choices Left Behind

Electronic Medical Records


Getting Personal in the ECA

Harm Reduction

Harmful Drugs: Better & Worse

Health Damage

History: Inside Nixon's Doll House

History: US Prohibition (1920-33)


Illicit Street Drugs

Law Enforcement

Logical Solution

Medical Malpractice

Meth and AIDS


Parental Advice 

Pleasure Death

Pro-Positive Drug Education

Recreational Drug Use


Someday After the War Ends...

STOP! The War NOW!

Story of Og

Think WOD Is A Smart Idea?

To Those Who Support a War

Tools in Parallel Development

USA Freedom Blackout

Use & Disorders in the ECA

We Teach What We Know

When Prevention is DUE

Why Drug War Won't End

WOD & DUE Applied to Meth

Yellow Rose Mission

Your Brain on the WOD

Zero Tolerance




Addiction (Dependency)

Anti-Drug Disorder


Drug Free

Electro-Chemical Age



DUE Para 2

new index









Drug use is so misunderstood by everyone in our society.  Even the drug users themselves can't justify their behavior... that is, until now.  If our goal is to end drug abuse, we must first understand what drug use is and how it is distinguished from drug abuse.  The paragraphs below provide the details of what we know today, and what we see for tomorrow. 


The short but complete answer to the question can be expressed as a very simple formula:

The Right Drug

It is still commonly believed that only a qualified physician can and should provide the medication that will work best for a patient.  In some cases, this is true, however, this concept originated during the days when a majority of the public couldn't read or write.  Thee authority on medicine was the apothecary superseded by the physician.  The "druggist" who is today known as the pharmacist, had expertise understanding medicine, while the physician understood both the medicine and human health.  The physician was someone who had knowledge about disease and the medicine that could eliminate the problem.   But in today's drug-savvy society, the physician can easily be challenged by patients who dedicate their time to understand their own illness and, perhaps having tried multiple drugs, is more aware of what works better for the patient. 

It's logical that patients will have an increasing role in medical decision-making for the future.  Choosing the right drug will one day be the patient's responsibility.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Government under the George W. Bush  administration has crippled the healthcare industry by supporting costly security-based programs that police healthcare providers and patients.  The Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) in 38 states is one of the most tragic misuses of government.  The program blocks drugs from getting to the people who need them.  As a result, there are an increasing number of patients who cannot obtain medication they need.  To cope with patient inability to get the right drug, patients have been forced to self-medicate.   Thus, today, an illicit drug might very well be the Right Drug simply because the U.S. Government has placed a ban on so many. 


The Right Dose

Why does America have such an enormous problem with drug abuse?  Lay the blame on government, advertising, parents, teachers, law enforcement, and anyone else who refuses to discuss the subject of drugs with youth today.  Richard Nixon introduced the WOD in 1971.  Today, the WOD is the source of ignorance and fear that exacerbates the problem of drug abuse; it doesn't stop it.  Drug abuse is the excessive administration of any drug.  When it comes to psychoactive drugs, the unwritten rule has long been to rely on the brain to determine how much is enough.  That is the reason why dosage information doesn't appear on cigarette packaging and the reason why none was ever formulated for alcohol until the Department of Transportation set the dosage levels for those who operate motor vehicles.  The western culture is unconcerned about providing regulations for the right dose.  In the U.S., abstinence is dictated to the public.  But abstinence is self-deprivation.  

Drug users generally go the extra mile to obtain information about deciding what constitutes a dose.  Sometimes this information is derived from an analysis of FDA-approved drug guidelines; other times it is based on logic.  Common sense dose levels don't always produce optimal results, especially among those who develop a tolerance to a drug.  What government medical bodies need to do is to surrender their idealism for a more realistic approach.  If drugs were legalized and dosage information was printed on labels, drug abuse would decline significantly.  However, advertisers would rather minimize dose information because it doesn't foster the goal to sell more product.  For that reason, drugs have come under the control of the government.  In the future, this will have to change.  As there become an increasing number of drug users, the government in the U.S. and elsewhere will be forced to provide dosage restrictions or the penalty will be paid with a greater number of drug abusers, leading to tragic consequences.   


The Right Time

Unemployment in the U.S. is associated with increased drug abuse /misuse as the those without jobs use recreational drugs to escape their pain.  One of the surest ways to end intentional drug abuse is by putting the general public to work.  Since the beginning of the Nixonian Era, the lack of jobs has become an enormous problem in the U.S.  The Board of Directors in a typical corporation are the first to support the theory that drug abuse spawns crime.  Naturally, the lack of jobs will cause crime to spike, moreso than drug use/abuse/dependency.  




ne word...? GLAMOUR.... More succinctly, it is the fear that in a society where free speech has led to the glamorization of alcohol and tobacco, those who self-administer psycho-active drugs for whatever purpose will be "glorified" by the media, causing a dramatic trend towards drug use.  By turning drugs into an adversity, the portrayals of drugs in art, literature, movies, and television will reflect the negative aspects of drugs and thus, there will be fewer users.  This thinking was as realistic as the idea of a link between homosexual behavior and drugs.  The philosophy that propagated this originated in the Nixon administration and carried over in the Reagan-Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations.  

The foresight of the US and other governments has always been directed towards the possibility of a mass upheaval in society that could result from a public impaired by chemical substances.  However, what the majority of the population doesn't understand is that: 1) Humans are categorically different and the way one person responds to a certain drug does not mean that everyone will respond that way; 2) Anytime that a drug is administered in large quantities over a short period of time (drug abuse), the benefits of that drug are reduced and the harmful side effects become prominent; 3) No formal training is provided for drug users who learn from others, sometimes with fatal consequences all which could be avoided if training were provided; 4) No one wants to use illicit drugs, given the choice, a large majority of drug users would rather an FDA-approved drug that they could buy from a legitimate establishment.  And to prove this last point, consider the number of clandestine operations which manufacture cigarettes or alcoholic beverages.  Once the WOD is over and drugs become legalized, anyone involved in the illicit drug trade is out of business.   

When Europe applied harm reduction philosophy to drug use, tolerance led to an immediate drop in the number of users.  To begin with, government became more credible because they were showing the public that their only motive was to reduce harm.   On the other hand, the US Government has only shown drug users that they want to cause harm.  When the population experiences more harm from government policy than from the drugs themselves, they will tend to increase their drug use, challenging government credibility.  This impacts other government issues and is the primary reason why many drug users don't vote or participate in politics.    

There are many reasons why the first step towards legalizing drugs must begin with clear  anti-drug disorder (ADD2).  And here is where we must make a distinction between ADD2 and a Drug-Free Attitude (DFA). Those who have a DFA are psychologically well-balanced individuals who may have tried drugs and decided it's not for them.  They've accepted the fact that some people are drug users and they aren't concerned about that segment of the population because DFAs realize this is the real world and as long as no one is imposing drug use on them, they are totally fine.  DFAs can even put up with the drug abusers, providing that they aren't violating their own civil rights, but as soon as someone has been mentally handicapped by drug abuse such that they are trespassing into the lives of others, then it's time for them to undergo treatment.  Naturally, the basis of such society would have to be education that doesn't exist today.    Perhaps the one and only valid point against the legalization of drugs is the glamour and the allure that would come from advertising agencies peddling their client's psycho-active substances and turning out mega-bucks in profit.  The last thing we need is Madison Avenue rolling out their full-page advertisements that intrigue those who are non-users and reinforce users.  And if it isn't Ogilvy & Mather or the other star-studded advertising agencies, someone would be advertising it.  You would have to be born, raised, and living on a deserted island not to realize the impact this would have on drug useThen all of a sudden, everyone from LA to NY is being twisted and contorted on a "recreational" drug binge.  That's when all those who now have anti-drug disorder (ADD2) start rolling off the deep end, and those who were drug users and drug abusers and even the chemically dependent would recoil.  They'd be selling off their stock supplies of hypodermic needles and their tourniquets to the former ADD2 crowd, shaking their heads as they trod lifelessly into the office where they'd sit quietly at their desk, staring into a corner of their cubicle as the tears streaked down their cheeks.  Now, they were no longer part of the "special" crowd.  As they flip through the web, a pop-up advertisement for heroin promises everything from sunny skies to fabulous sex, but the former abuser/user feels like regurgitating breakfast.  Meanwhile, the admin assistant comes prancing into the room sporting green hair with yellow spikes, claiming to be a parrot.   She's been awake all night and now it's taking her 3 hours to write an email that says, "Let's go to lunch."  Or maybe it should stay: "Hi!  What are you doing for lunch?"  Or maybe "Hi there.  Whatch'ya doin' at noon today?"  Or maybe... you get the point.

That's not what legalizing drugs will do, providing that legislators adopt the right policy.  If you think for a second, drugs are not the problem.  The people who use drugs are not the problem.  There is nothing wrong with responsible self-medication.  The problem lies with the opportunists.  The ones who "push" drugs.  That would be the corporations and advertising agencies. Just think how different the world would be if drugs were legal and available to everyone but all the restrictions, penalties,  and life sentences were moved to the heads of corporations manufacturing drugs and the advertising agencies that promote the advertising.  Why not forbid them to advertise drugs?  Why not wrap psycho-stimulants in an unattractive-looking plain package?  Why not make them available to those who want them, but under certain conditions? 

Today, we leak tons of chemicals into the air that are absorbed by the skin.  Right now, no matter where you are, there is electronic radiation bombarding your body.  These are dangerous levels of radiation that are coming right from your computer monitor. There are chemicals saturating the air that you breathe.  If you are living within 100 miles from a chemical plant, your skin is collecting chemicals that could be far more deadly than heroin and tobacco.  Every time you take a breath of "fresh" air, your lungs is like a vacuum cleaner, sucking in thousands of chemical particles.  It's been proven that today's urban joggers are more likely to be exposed to harmful gases and dust, asbestos, and high octane gasoline.  We talk about sidestream smoke and how it can cause cancer. Just think about how many carcinogens the average citizen encounters during the course of a year.  Are these pollutants somehow healthier than an encounter with gamma-hydroxybutylrate (GHB), a substance that's actually found in the body?  The smog-filled air that winds it's way up from the Los Angeles Basin and nests in the highlands and through Pasedena contains a high concentration of chemicals that could be condensed into a material that would look like a piece of brown transluscent plastic.  When JPL performed a study on this during the 1980s, they said that it contained gases that  but if someone recovering from cancer   But who wants that? Legalizing drugs doesn't mean a throwback to the 1970s.  We're moving forward.   Not backward.   

First of all, I couldn't agree more that the so-called "recreational" use of substances should not be allowed in the workplace PERIOD.  During the mid-80s, I worked at a dance-bar in Manhattan spinning records.  I was proud of the mixes I performed and I payed quite a bit of money for my records.  The bar owner, John would come up into the DJ's booth where I was working and would throw out thick lines of cocaine and order me to do them.  I said "No!  I can't do that stuff."  At least not when I was working. Then again recreational drugs never appealed to me.  The idea behind a recreational drug is destructive.  That's not what we mean by "drug use". 

Meanwhile, John would snort up these great big huge lines and throw some music on and act ridiculous.  No matter what kind of job one does, drugs don't belong in the workplace when they are interfering with the job.  On the other hand, there are some people who can't possibly work without them. I don't believe that so-called "recreational drugs", we simply fine them... suspend their license to use drugs and have them retreat to drug


Coppyright C: 2006-2008