Yellow Journalism in action. Check out this article in the Daily Mail: Legal but lethal: So-called ‘legal highs’ are every bit as deadly as heroin and cocaine. It’s so quintessentially Daily Mail in tone. Actually, the research done for the article is relatively impressive â€” assuming any of it is to be believed â€” and I may have learned something. But the breathless melodramatic automatic condemnation of anything drug-related makes the article almost unreadable.
The General’s Drug Problem in USA Today is an interesting article about the apparent rampant use/addiction to prescription drugs in the military.
Standing before a packed hall of 700 military doctors and medics here, the deputy commander of the nation’s elite special operations forces warned about an epidemic of chronic pain sweeping through the U.S. military after a decade of continuous war. […]
An internal Army investigation report released Tuesday revealed that 25% to 35% of about 10,000 soldiers assigned to special units for the wounded, ill or injured are addicted to or dependent on drugs, according to their nurses and case managers. Doctors in those care units told investigators they need training in other ways to manage pain besides only using narcotics.
I suppose they could try cannabis.
Coca-chewing Bolivians press for end to UN ban
Article about the Bolivian protests against the United States for opposing the amendment that would remove coca chewing from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The real kicker is in the closing paragraph.
The US embassy, in a statement reaffirming US opposition to the proposed amendment to the UN convention, said it was willing to work with the Bolivian government “out of respect for these millennial practices.”
Translation: We know it’s not enforced and there’s no way to enforce it, but we want to have it on the books so we can use it against you whenever we want to complain that you’re not doing enough in the drug war.
Increased Violence as a Drug War Metric by Steven Taylor at Ouside the Beltway. I can’t even count the number of times we’ve seen someone say that the violence in Mexico is a sign that we’re winning. Here’s another one:
Via the BBC: Hillary Clinton backs Mexico drug war comes the following:
The Mexican authorities argue that the rising violence shows that the gangs are being weakened and turning increasingly on each other, but critics argue the use of troops has only served to provoke increasingly gruesome murders.
Taylor usefully provides a chart to show how well we’re doing.
That’s a whole lotta “success” there.
Scott Morgan reminds us: If You Have Drugs, Don’t Agree to a Police Search. For obvious reasons if you read the article. And actually, the same is true if you don’t have drugs. Never consent to a search. There are tons of good reasons not to consent regardless of whether you have drugs.
Scott says: “It seems like such a simple concept, but for some irrational reason, a lot of people still don’t get it.” Exactly. I still run into people like that all the time. They somehow think that it’s better not to antagonize the officer and let them search. But every defense attorney will tell you two things: Never consent to a search, and shut the f#ck up.
(I think I’d have a harder time with the second one, actually. I’d have a desire to try to “convert” them.)
This is an open thread (as if that made any difference).