People who use cannabis as medicine have a number of obstacles in their way, the biggest being that their medicine is still illegal. Prohibition must be repealed before medical cannabis users will gain truly safe access. This will come about when the government finally reacts to public pressure. But it is hard to get people interested in legalization, since most people don’t think it is that important. I think it is very important, because not only has prohibition been a hugely expensive and completely unsuccessful endeavor, it speaks to bigger problems of government control of civil rights and civil liberties. Personally I am appalled that anyone could be imprisoned for what they choose to put into their own bodies.

The media has been instrumental in prohibition being as big a deal as it is. They love to do exciting stories of organized crime gangs and dangerous "grow-ops", but stories about how cannabis is saving people’s lives is just not as thrilling. Let’s face it, headlines like "Cannabis Stops Seizures" are not as thrilling as "Police Make Million Dollar Drug Seizure", and will likely never make the front page.

Recent polls estimate that over 80% of Canadians are in favor of ending cannabis prohibition, and replacing it with some form of regulation, yet too few people do anything about it.

Not everyone can organize political rallies and file lawsuits against the government, but just about anyone can write an LTE, or "letter to the editor". These are wonderful tools for activism, and sources of information because it shows what the average citizen thinks, not just what a reporter or editor thinks. We can all use our freedom of speech, but it has a bigger impact when you have a bigger audience.

When an LTE gets published, it has the potential to reach thousands of readers, and influence public opinion. People read LTE’s, and it changes their thinking about a topic. It may even change their opinion entirely. Whether online or in hard copy, not everyone reads that section of the paper, but thousands do.

I was asked to write this article, as I have the odd distinction of having had so many letters to the editor published over the past 2 years. I had seven published in the month of July 2004 alone, in various Canadian publications, all on the topic of cannabis legalization.

I believe the reason that I had such an unusually high number of letters published on one topic is because I write so many that don’t get in. My method is to write one letter, and email them to 120 or more publications. I will write anywhere from 5 to 15 in a week, sometimes 3 in one day.

Even if your letters don’t get published, they are being read. If enough people send in letters endorsing legalization, the editor will eventually see a consensus developing, and hopefully their reporting will change accordingly to reflect the views of the public, rather than the views of the few. The reason so many stories about police busting growers get into the news, is because the police send the media press releases. If more people sent in more stories about the benefits of cannabis and the problems with prohibition, there would be more stories reflecting that.

Here are a few tricks (in no particular order) that I have learned. They aren’t absolute, but it is what has worked for me.

Keep it simple.

A rambling 900 word letter is not only unlikely to be published, it is unlikely to be read by many people if it does. Twenty-first century humans are constantly bombarded with information, subsequently, they have ever shortening attention spans. A few choice lines can say more than a paragraph, so try to be concise. Point out the problem, then offer alternatives. Shorten sentences, or combine many into one, but use as few words as possible to get your point across.

Don’t Make It About You.

Prohibition affects everyone in that it is taxpayers’ money that is funding it, and innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire in the War On Drugs. Writing about how prohibition is affecting everyone in the community makes it seem like the readers’ problem, not just yours. Complaining that government policies negatively affect you could be construed by a cynical public as whining, but telling readers how their money is being mismanaged and their safety is being put at risk, will make them think that they are being affected. This is an important selling point for regulation rather than continued prohibition.

Know Your Audience.

When writing to a paper with a conservative or decidedly right-wing bent, pretend you are on their side. If you sound like a "cannabis enthusiast", and go on about "freedom of choice" and "government oppression" and so on, your views will likely be regarded as left-wing, and probably ignored. Criticizing the Liberal government is always a good tactic when trying to get a letter into The Ottawa Sun, for example. Instead of saying "Decades of prohibition has cost Canada…", try saying "Eleven years of Liberal mismanagement has caused….". This won’t work on every editor, so be careful where you send it.

Don’t Call People Names

Prohibition is fraught with corruption. Using words like "corrupt" when discussing the entire government might get you published, depending on the publication, and the topic, but when talking about an individual, it might be better to use words like "misguided". Accusations of corruption and wrong-doing can backfire and make enemies where it’s not necessary. Sometimes letters will get published because they are inflammatory, but often they annoy more people than not. People end up thinking the reader is a crack-pot. The same rules apply when talking about the police. There are many higher-ups in law enforcement who want to protect their budgets, so they endorse "staying the course" with prohibition, but your average officer on the beat doesn’t need to be insulted for something he cannot control. Police are obligated to uphold the criminal code, no matter how discriminatory and dysfunctional it may be, and don’t need to be hassled for something that their boss made them do.

Name calling is often hard to avoid, but it is best to do it in an indirect way, like in the form of a question.

Ask Questions.

My favorite tactic. Questions make the reader think about what the answer might be, and then he thinks the answer was his idea. That way he can "own" the idea, and you now have him on your side. Telling people what they want, even if you are 100% right, will make the reader resent you. "Who is this guy, telling me what is right for me?" is the likely visceral response of a reader who is talked down to. Decide what point you want to make, and put it in the form of a question. Example: "Prohibition has done no good and too much harm." Could be changed to "Just what good has ever come from prohibition?" The reader now has to think about that, then he realizes that nothing good has ever come from prohibition, and he will feel like he participated.

Don’t Insult The Media

Even though "lazy journalism" and editorial bias run rampant in North American journalism, it is a waste of time to insult the media. They often deserve insults, but they will not publish the letter if it makes them look bad. You can criticize them, tell them how you would like to see things done differently, and point out mistakes that they make, but insulting them is a waste of time and energy.

They Will Edit You.

Whether it is to save space, or helping you to be more concise, editors will often change what you have written. They won’t change the attitude of the letter or the message contained, but they will change lines, phrases and even paragraphs. Most letters I have had published have had lines or even entire paragraphs removed. Sometimes editors have taken two sentences and made them into one. That is what editing is. Don’t be insulted if they do this, it is not censorship. Editors are being inundated with hundreds, even thousands of letters, on a large number of topics, and you are very lucky if you get even one letter in per month.

Sarcasm Is A Slippery Slope

As fun as it can be, sarcasm is a tough tool to employ properly. Trying to be ironic is just as difficult, and may inadvertently insult the people you are trying to defend. Be very careful. Your average reader is likely to catch what you mean, but if it is too subtle, or too heavy handed, the message contained can often disappear. Write what you mean, and mean what you write. Life is not a sit-com, so try to communicate clearly.

Mix it up a little.

Much like the difference between a "sharp shooter" and a "machine gunner", I often write one letter, and send it to 20 publications via email. This saves time, but there is a downside to this, however. Editors want the letter you send to be about something they actually published, something you actually read in their paper. If you send out letters to 20 newspapers, make sure they are relevant to that particular publication.

One Email, One Address

Don’t send one letter with 20 email addresses on it. Editors like to think you thought of them as special, and if your letter has 20 email addresses in the "CC" box, they will realize they got a "form letter". The are unlikely to publish this no matter how good it is. It might also be good to change a line or two, so that the letter is not exactly the same as all the others.

I had the same letter published in The National Post on June 30^th, and The Ottawa Citizen on July 5^th, although the editors had each altered them a bit.

Keep Writing!

It doesn’t matter if you get published or not, just keep at it. One will get through eventually, and even if they don’t, you are speaking out, which is the one of the most important rights we have in a democracy. If you reserve your comments to your friends, family, or the water cooler at work, things won’t change.