Well I guess the first step would be identification of targets. Who are some big name people supporting the prohibitionist agenda? Karen Tandy comes to mind, 'Karen Tandy is senior vice president of Public Affairs and Communications for Motorola' is her current position but she used to be head of the DEA. I wonder how good her security is? I mean does her limo take a predictable route on her way from her mansion to her place of business? How hard is it to make a mini UAV rigged up with some plastic explosives? That would be one strategy anyway. Assuming that she (or any other person in her position) has adequate security, you can always move down the list until you find one that doesn't. The best thing about prohibitionists is that they tend to work for these really centralized agencies with headquarter buildings and such. I mean , wiping out an entire building is certainly possible although it does carry the potential for a lot of collateral damage and that is something more fit of our enemies to accept than us. If enough small targets are identified a simultaneous attack against all of them would be of equal if not greater significance than an attack on a more highly protected bigger name target. For example, once identified a thousand law enforcement mailing addresses, dropping enough bomb packs to hit all of them is in the realm of possibility. Still brings up the issue of possible collateral damage though, we really shouldn't let anymore innocent people die from the war on drugs than already have. Wouldn't want DEA agents daughter to open up a bomb packet meant for her cockroach father, not that her cockroach father cares about the daughters who are dying from impure drugs. The best bet would of course be to maintain anonymity , you can have all the guns in the world and you can't match an army , but you can make a thousand bomb packets and anonymously mail them out in one go. Thinking in terms of traditional symmetric warfare would mean that we don't even do anything because we will be completely annihilated, but reality has shown that combatants who fully utilize certain strategies can successfully oppose much larger attackers. I guess one mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter would never be a more applicable statement.