Beyond state ballot initiatives, local and state re-prioritizing of law enforcement resources, and growing public recognition that the War on Drugs is designed to fail, each and every citizen has a very powerful tool at their disposal to end this costly nightmare: Jury duty. The federal government, as insulated as it is to changes in society, is not going to change on its own for quite a long time - they are going to continue wasting our tax money and valuable police time chasing after drug dealers (most of whom are peaceful) when they could be focused on going after violent criminals, con artists, white collar crooks, and theft rings: I.e., the ones who actually hurt people. But you can send a clear, unambiguous message: Deny prosecutors the convictions they seek in drug cases.
The practice of juries refusing to convict on moral grounds is known as nullification, and despite being technically contrary to law, was one of the major reasons for the establishment of the jury system in Western jurisprudence. It was recognized that, even with an ethical government, sometimes the institutions passing and enforcing laws are so divorced from the lives of the people that they must have final refusal on punishing violators. On occasion this power has been abused - such as the refusal of white Southern juries to convict Klan members of crimes for which they were clearly guilty - but it remains an essential check on judicial authority.
Now, the courts have tried and rejected the legality of nullification - no surprise there, considering that it's basically an arbitrary exercise of discretion by twelve individual citizens - but that only means that defense attorneys may not argue for it. Judges cannot practically limit what a jury takes into consideration in rendering a verdict, they can only issue instructions that are obeyed or not. Prosecutors are quite adept at identifying and removing jurors who support or are likely to support nullification during jury selection, so this isn't often an issue, but once a jury is empaneled and deliberating there's almost nothing they can do to stop it.
Here, then, is the simple fact of the matter: Prosecuting attorneys depend on convictions to advance their careers, and for the most part they will only pursue a prosecution if they are confident of conviction. Entire generations of DAs and US Attorneys have risen through the ranks of their respective institutions going after drugs, doing little to improve the lives of the people while spending vast sums of taxpayer money racking up impressive-looking statistics. The War on Drugs is therefore not a policy in this community - not a testable idea that can be changed because it doesn't work - it's the entire foundation of what they do, and it works great for them.
Most drug defendants take plea deals, and those who don't may end up spending the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison because they were riding in a car with someone who had a given quantity of a controlled substance. It flies in the face not only of justice, but common sense and responsible policy - and yet it unfolds this way because people are generally credulous about drug prohibition: If someone is involved in or even associated with drug dealing, then they might as well be Tony Montana and walk around Miami in a white suit coat. So the state gets away with issuing sentences in drug cases that are often more criminal than the defendants.
But here's a thought - if you serve on a jury in a drug case, simply refuse to convict. Feel free to convict the defendant of any charge unrelated to drugs, provided the evidence permits, but just don't allow this destructive, hypocritical farce to continue any longer. If there is a real doubt about their guilt on the drug charge, pounce on it and do your best Henry Fonda impersonation to persuade the other jurors. If there is minimal doubt, exercise your sophistry skills to exaggerate it. And if there is no doubt, then be ballsy and tell it like it is - nothing on this Earth will cause you to send someone to jail for a victimless crime. If the other jurors are determined to convict, at worst it's a deadlock and the state ends up having to pay twice for one conviction. But if enough people bring about acquittals, prosecutors will get the message and see that there's no percentage in going after drugs.
If they want to go after violent drug gangs, they should go after the violence and convictions would be had - but otherwise they should know that prosecuting drugs is not worth the effort. Obstinate Drug Warriors would eventually lose their careers after an ongoing string of costly losses, they would have fewer prospects in politics, and police would learn to target violent drug dealers for the violence rather than the drugs, and arrest degenerate drug addicts for thieving to support their habit rather than merely possessing drugs (since most who possess are not, and never will be thieves or addicts).
Should you find yourself being questioned during jury selection, here are some hints to avoid being dismissed: Try to seem open but credulous, institutional-minded, and utterly conventional. If asked a question about the authority of the judge, always answer in a way that defers to them - do not, in any way, intimate that you consider the authority of juries to extend beyond the finding of fact. You may still be dismissed for trivial demographic reasons, but this will increase your chances of being selected if you wish to be on a jury - though, of course, you don't know before selection what kind of case is being tried.
And if you find yourself confronted by a defendant who is a genuine piece of shit, and you really don't want to let them go, then so be it - throw them away on drugs, if that's all the prosecutor has. But if they're saying this person is a piece of shit solely because they're involved in drugs, and they're telling you to lock this person up for a dozen or more years simply because they did something they were told not to, then hand down an acquittal with both middle fingers extended.