The U.S. Forest Service has purchased a pair of flying drones to track down marijuana cultivators operating in remote California woodlands.

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service, tells The Associated Press the pilotless aircraft will allow agency law enforcement officers to pinpoint marijuana fields and size up potential dangers before agents make arrests.
…

The SkySeer drones cost $100,000 each and weigh only four pounds. [AP]

Isn't that just the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard? F'ing robots flying around the woods trying to catch you growing weed? I predict that outdoor marijuana cultivation remains unaffected, but reported UFO sightings increase dramatically.

And the creepy thing about all this is that it was reported just one week after my initial expose on this topic. Could it be that the drug war geniuses are taking cues from my blog? Just in case, let me clarify that my point wasn't that it's a good idea for the drug warriors to build horrible robots, but simply that they are mad enough to do it. I guess I was right either way.

[Thanks to tv/movie star Aaron Houston for the link]

 Editor's Note: Amanda Shaffer is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section.

An innovative documentary that will reduce drug abuse or a sick exploitation of Atlanta's homeless in their most vulnerable moments?As my Internet search for anti-drug messages continues, I have uncovered a "documentary" that shows purported crack addicts performing a variety of acts on the streets of urban Atlanta (including everything from dancing and singing to having sex).  Click here for the news report from Fox 5.

"Crack Heads Gone Wild" producer Daryl Smith pays people addicted to crack to perform these unfathomable acts, encouraging and even cheering them on at times. Smith professes that the purpose of this film is not to sell DVDs, but to expose the dangers of drug abuse in the hopes of preventing others from using drugs.

Has Smith successfully rekindled a previously popular method known as the "scared straight" tactic? Or is it a sleazy ploy to make money?

I set out to learn the truth by contacting the film's producers. After numerous unanswered emails and phone calls, I was finally able to get in touch with a spokesman from the company. The first strange thing that occurred during our conversation was his skepticism of who I was. I told him I was a college student doing a research paper on drugs and the media (which is true), and he proceeded to ask me questions regarding where I was calling from and how old I was.

After the brief interrogation, he was willing, but reluctant, to answer my questions. The spokesman informed me that the film has currently sold over 100,000 copies, however this figure is most likely higher due to the sales from bootleggers. I then asked him, "How much money has this film grossed to-date." He responded, "Approximately $1.5 million." Next I explained to him that I watched the Fox interview where Smith made a promise to donate a portion of the film's proceeds to charities. I wanted to know if they had followed through. He replied, "As I said earlier the film was bootlegged so we haven't made any money off of this movie." Hmm…that's odd… at the time of the aforementioned interview, before it was stolen by bootleggers: Smith announced the film had made $250,000. Also, how would he have known that $1.5 million was grossed if the money wasn't going to the company? Something here just isn't adding up.

My next question involved the type of feedback they have received. The spokesman stated, "most people say it is interesting, they think it needs to be edited down so it can be shown in middle and high schools, that is why we are releasing a second version that is edited down more. The first film was more exploitative and was really not made to be educational; the second installment is an anti-drug film." This response speaks for itself, the film was never meant to be a prevention tool but simply to make some dough. Why was Smith preaching about exposing the truth in the Fox News interview? It appears quite evident he wanted to quiet the critics.

So is the creation of the second installment (subtitled "Scared Straight") truly meant to be an anti-drug film? The spokesman directed me to the trailer on YouTube.com to see for myself.

An anti-drug film he says? I felt it more closely resembled a horror movie. And what aspects of the film were "edited down" to be more youth-friendly? The trailer showcases a topless woman taking a hit of crack. I sincerely doubt any parents would want their 13-year-olds viewing clips of this movie in health class.

Seriously, who are the producers of these atrocious films trying to fool? The only difference I found in the two films is that the first uses humor (albeit of the sick variety) to attract the audience, while the second specifically focuses on fear. I find it hard to believe that either of these films was created to prevent drug use. I mean, what professionals/academics did they consult to decide their methods? 

Additionally, there is a clear morality issue at stake. Crack addicts are being paid to act out on camera when they are at their most vulnerable moments. Smith is encouraging this deviant behavior and is then promoting it through the media. Smith even acknowledged that he is exploiting these people during the Fox interview, "These people are at a point where nothing else matters. They don't care if it's 5 in the morning or a camera is on, they will do anything for 5 bucks." Is it fair to say that one person's health and livelihood is more important than another? Also, who is Daryl Smith to deduce that someone's life is hopeless, and that even with proper treatment they have no chance of recovering? I do not believe he has a degree in psychology or neuroscience.

Editor's Note: Eric B. Wilhelm is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. His bio is in our "staff" section.

As the recent frenzy over the herb salvia divinorum and attempts to ban it have heated up in a number of states, the opportunity to honestly and realistically discuss the matter in terms of drug policy has been mostly lost in favor of irresponsible journalism and knee-jerk political reactions.

Opportunistic politicians have come out with particularly harsh demands for criminalization in order to appear protective of troubled youth, while journalists stand by, failing to challenge orthodox prohibitionist assumptions. One example of rampant alarmism and distortion is the March 11 article by the Associated Press entitled "Is Salvia the Next Marijuana?" Without even detailing how this widely distributed piece is unbalanced and lacking, we can merely examine the title to see the way that utterly misleading beliefs about drugs are perpetuated by the media.

It's really quite simple why salvia is so far from being "the next marijuana." The offending article itself establishes early on that the herb "is a hallucinogen that gives users an out-of-body sense of traveling through time and space or merging with inanimate objects." Even the most dishonest drug warrior wouldn't claim marijuana does anything like that to users. Other recent articles quote users who say the salvia high is simply not fun or long-lasting enough to make people want to try it more than once.

Marijuana lasts much longer, often induces euphoria and laughter, and merely alters the user's perceptions a bit -- it does not immediately "blast them into outer space." Because the dissociative and hallucinogenic qualities of salvia are so intense and jarring to the psyche, few choose to consume it very frequently. The tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana generally are not looking to dissociate themselves from their bodies or their surroundings, but often to do the very opposite - to enhance their experiences or simply to relax in their surroundings. Anyone who has any doubt that the use of a hallucinogen will never overtake marijuana use can check the Monitoring the Future survey of drug use by high school students. The most recent data shows that for every 12th grader who used ANY hallucinogen (LSD, magic mushrooms, PCP, mescaline, salvia etc.) in the past month there are 11 who have used marijuana in that time.

Looking beyond the absurdity of claims that salvia may become the "next marijuana," in terms of popularity or frequency of use (as implied by the media hype), there are a few ways in which salvia may become quite similar to America's favorite illegal drug. As salvia becomes a banned drug in more and more states, illicit drug dealers will no doubt pick up the slack in demand. Curious adolescents will no longer have to find their way to the head shop across town in order to buy some -- trying to convince someone 18 or older to actually buy it if they are underage -- because their neighborhood drug dealer might be offering it to them the next time they score some pot. Alternatively, salvia users who grow their own plants in their home or garden, which is reportedly an easy task, will soon become the subject of the kind of SWAT raids that often claim the lives of innocent people. By the way, this little bit of gardening will get you a mandatory minimum of 2 years in prison in Louisiana.

I have to wonder whether concerned citizens who are passionately calling for outright criminalization have truly considered what the potential results of their demands. In some states the possession of salvia is a felony, which could include years in prison and hard labor. We ought to seriously consider whether we want the government and police to be deciding how to deal with young people who begin experimenting with this substance or if the guidance or punishment should be left up to parents. Is hard labor really what a bored and curious young person needs to "straighten them out"? And what about the users of salvia who claim to be consuming the drug responsibly and for the purpose of gaining spiritual insight or to foster deep introspection? How will society at large benefit from spending our collective resources tracking down and imprisoning them?

If it makes no sense criminalizing salvia, how can we justify the rest of the War on Drugs? There is no way to arrive at a rational drug policy without asking such questions. As it stands though, challenging conventional beliefs about drug laws is about as alien to most politicians as salvia trips, so the task of thinking clearly and demanding change belongs to the people.