I can't wait to see what toxic chemical processes is invented to distill the active components of this stuff after it's made illegal and, somehow, demand doesn't magically disappear.

Find anything mind altering: automatically ban it.

Great post, Brendan.

Right there with you on your critique of biased media coverage.

However, just the other week you commented that there is no such thing as objective journalism. Moreover, The Stranger regularly covers complex, grey issues (tunnel, Chihuly museum, the flawed MJ legalization initiative) without any pretense of being objective while righteously waving the banner of "advocacy journalism."

Strictly speaking, you're right that pure objectivity is impossible to achieve. Yet, the essential ingredients - honesty, intelligence, facts, reason, and transparency - are by no means beyond the reach of journalism, any more than they are beyond the reach of science.

So, which is it? Should we throw up our hands and accept the (cynical) advocacy/adversary model favored by the news departments at The Stranger and Fox? Or should we demand more from journalism, as you have done in this post?

Ultimately, it's a false distinction, seandr. You can demand more truth AND more advocacy journalism. In fact, I think advocacy journalism is often more honest because (when it's good) it interrogates received wisdom and rejects cliches.

You can use facts, form an opinion, and write about a story honestly and openly. Or you can do a sloppy job by presenting false facts and misleading connotations as truth and pretend you're being an objective journalist. Like the writer of the story I'm critiquing did.

@5: You are right that one can reasonably go into advocacy mode based on an objective (lowercase "o") analysis of a lopsided issue. Gay marriage is a good example - reason, facts, honesty, etc. fall pretty much exclusively on the pro side, whereas the con side basically reduces to "I personally don't like it".

But that doesn't mean the distinction is false. When you consider media coverage of messier issues where both sides can appeal to reason and facts, the distinction between advocacy and objectivity is as real and obvious as the distinction between a New Yorker article and an episode of Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

I'm on the New Yorker's side, obviously. Not only is that approach more informative, and therefore beneficial, to the public, but an article that gives an issue fair treatment has the potential to be more persuasive towards one side or the other than one that has an obvious and single-minded agenda.

Seems like we're essentially in agreement, though I get the impression some folks over at Stranger headquarters don't think too deeply about this stuff.

'more bold and fearless and easy to control.'

How does making someone "more bold and fearless" make them easier to control? Generally the bolder someone is, the LESS they submit to authority! This is a dead giveaway that they are bullshitting to scare people by conjuring a mental image of youth turned into aggressive zombies to serve a malevolent power. Give me a break!

I'm becoming ever more convinced that the first and most important step to legalization is to slow-strangle, or even fast-kill, the DEA. Merge it with another law-enforcement agency, divert its resources over time to other, more useful purposes, and finally kill it. Neglect of enforcement and the elimination of the agency that seeks to perpetuate itself at the expense of the rest of us will pave the way for greater acceptance and ultimately full legalization.

Love your insights, Brendan. Kratom is safe with responsible users. Excessive use -- which we are likely to see increase as inexperienced druggies learn of the plant through the new media attention -- is best avoided.

@ 6. I hear you. But I don't have much to add at this juncture.

@ 8. I'm in favor of keeping the DEA, but changing its mission. (Not least because any politician running on an "abolish the DEA" plank will never be elected in our lifetimes.) That will be a slow process involving carefully hiring the right people with the brains to change the culture there but the fortitude and grace to deal with the heavy static that will come with any reforms.

But making it more like the ATF (or at least a storybook ideal of the ATF), an entity that regulates a controlled market, seems like a much better long-term solution than having DEA employees thinking of themselves as the shock troops of drug prohibition.

Bottom line is that Kratom saved my behind from a LEGAL DOCTOR PRESCRIBED opiate addiction in 2 days, allowing for withdraw without all the negative effects. I did not require any Kratom after my recovery and know that there is nothing this effective that BIG PHARMA has to offer and thats why they want to see Kratom banned, just like the State of Indiana did in its recent House Bill banning synthetic drugs like bath salts and k2(aka synthetic marijuana). KRATOM is not a synthetic but a natural botanical with more benefits than people know and were are just starting to touch the surface on what this botanical has the potential to treat, including the treatment of Roscatia (sp? a skin condition that looks like acne).