Drug WarRant

John at High has been working on a drug war documentary. A five-minute segment of it — Drug War in a Nutshell — is a available as a torrent file download (if you know how to do that).
Good data and a fun format. Check it out.

Thanks to scottp, comes this breaking news from New Scientist: Cannabis doubles the risk of fatal crashes.
Now since all the reliable data I’ve found indicates that, while smoking pot while driving is a bad idea, it actually causes drivers to be cautious and is actually safer than driving while fatigued, or any of a host of other distractions. So the alarmist nature of this article aroused my curiosity, especially these statements:

Whoa. Just what did this study discover?
Let’s look. I’m quoting extensively so you can get a real feel for the extent of this ‘scientific reporting.’

There are so many questionable assumptions in this piece that I have absolutely no idea whether there is a lick of real science involved. I do see that cannabis is somehow “responsible” for 2.5% versus 29.0% for alcohol, which certainly doesn’t make cannabis look very bad. And the “more vulnerable to the effects of the crash” stuff? — WTF??
If anybody can track down an English version of the actual research or an abstract from it, please let me know. I have a feeling that we’ll be seeing this quoted by prohibitionists without them having a clue to the actual methodology, and I want to be prepared.
Update: Thanks to everyone who tracked down information. I’ve spent some time reading the study, and I lack the skills to completely parse everything in it.
There were, however, a couple of questionable assumptions used. For example, the study assumes that the prevalence of cannabis use within the overall driving population could be accurately represented by analyzing those drivers involved in minor injury crashes (and this is critical to forming an odds analysis of responsibility). I’m not so sure that it’s a reasonable assumption. Additionally, I question some of the decisions used in determining responsibility for fatal crashes, and groups excluded.

Back in August, I mentioned the case of Essam Magid, a DEA informant that the agency continued to use after the FBI dismissed him for revealing his undercover status and identifying two agents.
Today, the LA Times has a four-page story: Snagging a Rogue Snitch. It’s a stark look at how the DEA operates. Using questionable informants who frame innocent victims while living high on DEA cash. And then DEA agents lie in court to protect their snitches. Fortunately, one Judge wasn’t going along:

Time for the DEA to pay up for lawless behavior.
Note: This is a problem that goes all the way up to the top. I wrote some time ago about Deputy DEA Director Michele Leonhart and her questionable connections with super-snitch Andrew Chambers.

Walters and the other prohibitionists have been bragging recently about a recent spike in the street price of cocaine.
CATO’s Ted Galen Carpenter, writing at NRO, stuffs that spike down their throat:

Carpenter uses Walter’s numbers against him to demonstrate that the claims are baseless.

In conclusion, Carpenter takes on the entire philosophy of the drug warrior:

That last is a very interesting point, which is often overlooked. The one caveat I’d add, is that while I agree with Carpenter’s conclusion — including, to a degree, the likely results if the supply side strategy of drug prohibition “succeeds” — I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that it is possilble for such a strategy to succeed.

Cannabis Could Reverse Psychosis

The marijuana-psychosis links have always been questionable, due to methodology and self-medication issues. Now it may be that there are also countering elements within marijuana.
Just like marijuana smoke has carcinogenic compounds, and yet marijuana itself counters with anti-cancer properties.
Every bit of evidence so far seems to show cannabis to be the most amazing plant in creation. If only we weren’t so afraid to study it.

Nguyen Tuong Van was hung in Singapore a couple of hours ago. But before we spend too much time discussing this individual who was put to death for smuggling drugs, keep in mind that he has a lot of company in certain parts of the world.
From this article in CNN today [thanks to dwrr], the use of execution for drug crimes is startlingly common.
Despite the fact that death penalty figures are kept a closely guarded secret in many countries (so detailed statistics are often hard to track down), it appears that

Despite the profligate use of the death penalty for drug cases (Aren’t there worse criminals for them to go after?), drug use and trafficking still seem to flourish in those countries.
And how about Thailand? Less than an ounce? If you’ve got any enemies, it sure would be easy for them to slip less than an ounce in your pocket without your knowledge as you’re heading for the airport.
Well, I think I know some of the countries I’m crossing off my vacation itinerary.

Link

So you’ve got corrupt Mexican federal agents in an all-out revenge war with corrupt former soldiers who were trained by the U.S. to hunt drug traffickers.
The drug war is so corrupt that we now have a situation where both sides of feuding drug gangs are made up of former “good” guys. You never have a shortage of bad guys with a drug war. Prohibition just makes more of them for you!

Well, I think it’s finally time to reserve the rubber room for Bill O’Reilly.
I don’t know if you’ve been following his rants about how stores shouldn’t use the phrase “Happy Holidays” because it’s offensive to Christians and therefore Americans. This silly campaign became ridiculously sublime when it was discovered that the Fox News store was selling holiday ornaments for your holiday tree, including a Bill O’Reilly one (they’ve since changed the wording in their store).
So what’s behind this anti-Christian, anti-American effort to destroy Christmas by uttering the offensive words “happy” and “holidays”? On Neil Cavuto’s show, O’Reilly made it clear:

Happy Holidays, Bill.
[I wish someone would tell the progressives that they’re supposed to be for legalized drugs.]

The AP discusses a GAO report:

Do they even see how clueless they appear? The government continues to look at quantities of drugs seized as if that was a measure of “winning.” And then they act baffled that the prices and availability have, somehow, not been significantly affected.
Drug traffickers treat seizures in much the same way that department stores account for shoplifting — as a normal write-off in their business.

DARE Generation Diary pointed out this outrageous TV ad…

The implication? Smoking pot leads to HIV. Of course, this is stupid on the surface since the likelihood of “getting stupid” (and thus having unprotected sex, thereby getting HIV) is not very likely to be stimulated by pot use.
On a deeper level, this ad is seriously offensive, since, while the documented incidents of people getting HIV from smoking pot have to be about nil, there is a verified epidemic of HIV as a result of needle sharing, and this same government has obstructed and opposed needle-exchange programs which have been proven to save lives and limit the spread of HIV.
In fact, the whole notion of a website with the address hiv.drugabuse.gov is offensive. Even more so is the fact that there is not a single mention on that site of HIV contracted through needles (and of course, no mention of needle exchange or harm reduction programs).
Correction: bcoherent points out that the ad does not seem to implicate pot, but rather some unspecified pills (I should have watched it closer instead of so quickly getting upset by the message). That reduces my surface objection to the ad (the pot issue), and I’m all for people not “getting stupid” at parties, but it doesn’t change the offensiveness of a campaign that projects hiv fear onto unspecified drug use, while ignoring what the government has done to block harm reduction efforts (sexual and drug related) that would reduce the spread of hiv.