Slashdot Mirror


Drug-Sniffing Drones Take To the Skies In the Netherlands

Ryan writes "Unmanned, drug-sniffing drones have been introduced in the Netherlands. They fly over houses (video), sniff for weed, and scan for grow lights. Police say they are not breaking the law because the samples can be taken without entering the building."

229 comments

  1. News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Dutch tourist industry goes bankrupt.

    1. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Who wants this kind of tourists? Flying in on the cheap, spending about €100,- and doing about €100,- damage while helping to repel the sort of visitors who might be nice to have.

    2. Re:News just in. by repapetilto · · Score: 4, Funny

      sounds like you got a good deal, or youre one of those rare high assholes. I probably spent 300 euros over there over the course of 5 days, I dunno what damage I caused. Some local hoodlums tried to steal our bikes though. And the da vinci museum is terrifying, the chilling park outside it is awesome though.

    3. Re:News just in. by drfool · · Score: 3, Funny

      looks like we got a narc

    4. Re:News just in. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It means your browser sucks at unicode for EUD.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      the da vinci museum is terrifying, the chilling park outside it is awesome though.

      Yeah, it's awsome.
      That was some potent stuff; you're getting Milan and Amsterdam mixed up.

    6. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heh this fight has been going on for years.

      Weed is still illegal here. We have a "gedoogbeleid"... basically you can have 5 grams of weed and it'll be tolerated. Growing 5 plants for your own consumption is allowed BUT: outdoors, without lamps and so on. How you can harvest 5 plants without having more than 5 grams... I have no idea... you can grow HUGE plants outdoors if you trim them right ;-) The weed is nowhere near indoor quality though. There's some variants that'll grow fine in our climate but the buds just aren't that great.

      So... I can smoke, I can buy it in a coffeeshop... but the coffeeshop isn't allowed to buy it from a grower. Heh. That's still illegal trade.

      I grew 10 plants on my attic for a while. Went really nice. If you want to do it right it takes a lot of learning and equipment. It's also a chore, you need to give them water at very specific times. I used a 600 watt and a 400 watt lamp. When they turn on the plants get thirsty. I kept 100 grams for myself and sold like 600 to a guy owning a coffeeshop.

      So what I did was illegal and would have been prosecuted if they cared to. I usually started out with 18 cuttings, while having space for 10 plants. So I threw out the 8 worst to get more grams for the wattage ;-) It was indoors, using 2 lamps, chains and pulleys to raise them, a fan to move air around, a heater, floor isolation in the winter (the concrete got too cold), an exhaust fan pushing air through the chimney, a GOOD timer (with a relay), a water vaporizer (to grow the cuttings) an air dehumidifier (really hate mold), and very specific nutrients, boosters and enzymes.

      I can honestly say it was better weed then the best I've ever bought in a coffeeshop.

      If I was caught and punished... first the police would probably contract someone to remove my installation and send me a bill for it. With 2 lamps and 10 plants that's not a huge bill. Then I'd probably get 20-40 hours doing community service. And then... here's the real bitch... they're gonna estimate how much profit you've had, and "take it away from you"... in other words, you'll have a nice debt to the government.

      The more plants you have, the higher the probability you get caught (more hassle, more people involved, more smell), and the higher your sentences will be.

      The police here isn't really after someone like me. It was a small installation, I did it in a sensible way, on my own, using good equipment, safely installed, absolutely no fire hazard. They're after criminal organizations who get people to turn half their house into a greenery for a small share of the profit. The larger it gets, the easier it goes wrong. One place burnt down completely even though good equipment was used. A big fat cable got stuck under a door, bent, got hot, hotter, and so on. People die in these accidents. Fire deaths are horrible.

      These criminal gangs also cause trouble like gun violence. And a lot of trouble with countries surrounding us. Our weed is now a 2 billion export market (nice for a country with like 16 million people)... There have been shortages in our coffeeshop because too much of the grass was exported! Cities like Maastricht (close to Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg) really do have a lot of trouble with streams of people just coming there to buy grass. There's a lot of growing going on there too, causing a lot of trouble, wrecked homes, fires, and so on.

      The solution is... LEGALIZE AND REGULATE... just like alcohol... so growing weed can become a business like any other and doesn't need to be hidden on attics! So the coffeeshop can buy their weed, now of controlled quality, legally and the government get those taxes too!

      But oh, these international treaties... right...

    7. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only you hadn't posted anonymously, I could be your fan right now!

    8. Re:News just in. by Dreadneck · · Score: 1

      Who wants this kind of tourists? Flying in on the cheap, spending about €100,- and doing about €100,- damage while helping to repel the sort of visitors who might be nice to have.

      I think you're confusing Manchester United fans for tourists.

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    9. Re:News just in. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The US is closer to legalizing than the EU is. Some states allow it and the Feds aren't making it a priority to enforce the national laws. After one more generation of voting old fogies kicks off...

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    10. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I kept 100 grams for myself and sold like 600 to a guy owning a coffeeshop.

      So you got high on your own supply, huh? :P

    11. Re:News just in. by Altus · · Score: 1

      If growing is only illegal due to international treaties, why spend money to deploy drug sniffing drones to hunt down the people growing.

      Seems a little backwards to me, unless its just a way of taxing the product by busting a few large ops

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    12. Re:News just in. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      It will never be more acceptable than tobacco smoking. Look what's happening with that in the US. Even in the states that are "close" to legalizing marijuana.

    13. Re:News just in. by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 1

      It's true... there's no rule that says 'every subsequent generation will be more liberal'.

      I saw a few news stories before about teens having less sex, drinking less, and doing less drugs. I can't imagine that generation growing up to relax drug laws.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    14. Re:News just in. by orkybash · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't fall for that "aren't making it a priority" thing. I don't know about the feds, but here in Missoula the city passed a "resolution" asking the police officers to deprioritize marijuana enforcement.

      Well guess what? There are now more marijuana busts than ever because people who are doing it are bolder about it because they think "deprioritize" means "legalize."

    15. Re:News just in. by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also a way to avoid international disputes about cross-border drug trade.

      For example, if Canada were to effectively legalize the growing of marijuana, the cross-border trade would be enormous as American drug syndicates move to Canada to grow in safety and export to the US.

      For that reason, the US wants to be assured that Canada is not relaxing its stance on the growing of marijuana. Should the US feel that is the case, then there could be all sorts of diplomatic issues.

      I would be willing to guess that the issue is similar between The Netherlands and their neighbors.

      Legalizing drugs would require the assent of a larger area; all of North America, for instance.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    16. Re:News just in. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It will never be more acceptable than tobacco smoking. Look what's happening with that in the US. Even in the states that are "close" to legalizing marijuana.

      If you're referring to the health issues associated with inhaling any kind of smoke, the current trend of vaporization, rather than actually burning the leaves, may be something of a boon to the decriminalize/legalize effort. Alternatively, pot can also be eaten/ingested. (Though, out of curiosity, I've never heard of anyone brewing a tea from it; I guess that doesn't work? Anyone care to brave an answer?)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    17. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it. Cannabis is one of the safest recreation (and medicinal) choices anyone can make. 0 Overdoses, and 0 deaths relating to cancer etc. have ever been reported to any medical institution or university, you cannot find one. This includes Cannabis smokers, along with those whom vaporize/chow down on edibles. To answer your question, the rate of solubility for marijuana in water is quite low. Basically, you would not be able to make normal tea and get high from it. What most people do is steep the weed in a fat, like milk or butter, then make tea :)

    18. Re:News just in. by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      Tea wouldn't work, sadly. THC needs a non-polar solvent, so water's no good. There has to be an oil or fat to dissolve it in. I have a had a rather tasty and intoxicating pesto-like sauce made from it on pasta, though.

    19. Re:News just in. by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      (Just thought of this, so replying to myself)

      You could try mate de coca if you're looking for a Schedule I tea, though. :)

    20. Re:News just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teens are using more pot than ever, and there is enough information out there on it that they simply will not believe the hype of previous generations about the dangers.

      Its not about "relaxing drug laws" its about reality. Marijuana is not harmful. Kids know that. When they grow up, they will not suddenly become hard on it because it is bad. Their parents smoke it. They smoke it. Their friends and their friends parents smoke it.

      Its not about being liberal and I'm sorry, but seeing a "few news stories" about teens doesn't mean jack. High school kids these days are using more and stronger pot than I ever had, thats for sure. And they are proud of it, unashamed and very open about it.

      Marijuana will be legalized, eventually, simply because it is a good thing. The plant is good for man kind. Short term ignorance aside. 100 years from now the prohibition of marijuana will be seen as some silly puritan episode that has long been put to rest. Like the prohibition of alcohol.

  2. The 911 call by afaik_ianal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That 911 call is absolutely hilarious. Is that for real?

  3. Um. by adolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought weed was quasi-legal in at least the city of Amsterdam.

    Would the locals care to elaborate on the incongruity of thought that I am currently experiencing?

    1. Re:Um. by Dripdry · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I understand it the law allows one to possess mary jane, but growing it is illegal.

      --
      -
    2. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in: governments worldwide have been found to attract berserk, power-mad cretins. Ric Romero has more at 11.

    3. Re:Um. by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not from Amsterdam but I have family there, so I am there fairly often, perhaps I can help.

      Your question depends on your definition of 'quasi-legal'. Cannabis is *not* legal in Holland. However, they have made a decision not to prosecute small time offenders. This means, a blind eye is turned to possession when the amount is very low (personal use amounts). They also grant licenses to owners of 'coffee-shops' to sell cannabis with some fairly tight regulations. I believe the idea behind this is that, as has been discovered in basically every other country on earth, people want to smoke a joint from time to time, and it is better they get it from a regulated (and more importantly, taxed!) business, rather than some guy on the street who will almost certainly try to push the more addictive stuff on to the customer for higher (tax free!) profits.

      However, what is not tolerated, is massive scale, cannabis farming which is then sold on for huge profits (without tax being paid, are you spotting a theme here??).

      The Dutch are an eminently sensible race. Probably my favourite bunch of people. They are smart, direct (this comes across as rude at first, but once you get used to it, it's quite charming!), and very business minded. They actually are quite liberal, but they are also completely aware of how much extra gold goes in the coffers from all those tourists who you will see sparked out on a public bench at 10AM.

      People will smoke weed, people will pay for sex, it simply cannot be prevented in any society that has the slightest freedom (or isn't batshit crazy religious!). The dutch say.... ok, get on with it, pay your taxes and don't make a nuisance of yourself and you are fine by us! I reiterate... eminently sensible!

    4. Re:Um. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      There's something incredibly sensible about regulating and taxing things the government has no business dealing with in the first place. OH, other governments do it, therefore, it's right, right?

      I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?

    5. Re:Um. by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I understand it the law allows one to possess mary jane, but growing it is illegal.

      Yeah, it's like the prostitution laws in Canada; you can legally sell your body for sex, but it is illegal to advertise that you are willing to sell your body for sex. And so too medical marijuana is legal in Canada and yet people are (at least sometimes) arrested for growing medical marijuana, and after they win their court case the police refuse to compensate the victims.

      This is another case of police fanaticism; they don't only want it to be illegal, but they will go out of their way to hunt you down for growing it, no matter how discrete the grower may attempt to be. I don't understand why the police would go out of their way to make portray themselves as evil.

    6. Re:Um. by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

      If you follow the letter of the law in Holland possession of, selling and growing weed is illegal.

      However exceptions are made for small quantities for personal use and coffeeshops are allowed to have a small stack in their shops for sales.

      However it is illegal to grow it.. It's a bit odd to explain to foreigners.. :)

      The idea with the drone isn't that new really. The police have been doing searches with normal helicopters equiped with heat detectors for quite a while now.. I guess this is the high-tech version of that.

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    7. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The Dutch are an eminently sensible race. Probably my favourite bunch of people.

      Yes, they were the last in Europe to abolish slavery, I get your point.

    8. Re:Um. by kdemetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's something incredibly sensible about regulating and taxing things the government has no business dealing with in the first place. OH, other governments do it, therefore, it's right, right?

      I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?

      No , it's not taxing of 'bad' things. Everything you buy is taxed. But offcourse , if goverment doesn't know it , you don't pay taxes.

      How it works is that owner of the coffee shops , have to pay a percentage of what they sold , as taxes to the goverment( well , actually the customer pays that part ). Indeed , it also works like this for selling potatoes.

      So , if you just have some potatoes in your garden , it's ok as long as you don't sell them in large quantities. Because then , the government needs it's share.

      I assume they allow small time tax-free use, because it would cost them more to try to regulate it , then they could possible gain from it.

    9. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Eminently sensible huh? Personal Freedom eh? Then why don't they regulate/legalize and tax all drug and drug manufacturers/producers thereby this philosophy full cycle? Oh, thats right, its because the Netherlands are still playing little bitch to the prohibition special interest groups in Washington and the EU.

    10. Re:Um. by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aside from the fact that you do pay tax on your potatoes, potatoes and cannabis are quite different types of products.

      Where do you draw the line? When *does* the government has 'business' dealing in the production and sale of a product. From your post I understand that you don't think they should get involved in potatoes or cannabis, how about firearms? radioactive material? human organs?

      If you believe that there is at least 1 industry that the government should regulate, and at least 1 that it shouldn't it just becomes a fairly subjective matter of where you draw the line.

    11. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may also grow one stem for your own purposes, as far as I know. Friends of mine have been doing so for years. And the laws go for the whole country, not just Amsterdam.

    12. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your logic is a wee bit flawed.

      Pot is not "addictive," in terms of its physical effects. So potency is not directly linked to any nefariousness, in fact, it may be inversely related (dirt weed being produced en-masse by hooligan types, and potent weed being grown by good, conscientious folk). It CAN BE habit-forming, but in much the same way that a good food is.

      This seems like the wrong direction to go.

      Marijuana should be decriminalized, but it may be wise to make it (keep it, elsewhere) illegal to sell, but LEGAL to grow your own, perhaps up to a small number of plants.

      The currency transaction is the worst part about the substance, not its use, nor the effects.

      This would combat the laziness and motivational issues of young smokers, some who never get off the couch to brush their teeth, let alone get a job. It would encourage the acquisition of a nice abode, the attention to caring for another organism, and the relationship one has with the plant would become that much more rich and thorough; respectful.

      Plain decriminalization would hand the market to the tobacco industry. BAD MOVE. THEY are the ones manipulating addictive properties (and perhaps big agri-business and chemical-food manufacturers). The average grower is not looking to increase addictive properties. Potent marijuana is actually healthier, as you smoke less, treat it with more reverence, and mete it out carefully.

      Fun fact:

      Carl Sagan used marijuana to stimulate his creative, scientific, and analytic thought.

      I've known (employed) Aeronautical Engineers that take bong rips while working on multipage math problems.

      Also, the Dutch are not a race. They may be eminently sensible, but so are the French!

      COGNITIVE LIBERTY NOW!
            (or we are not free)

    13. Re:Um. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?

      Do you know of any western nation that does NOT regulate agro-business and tax its profits?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    14. Re:Um. by wijsneus · · Score: 1

      Let me add to this that over here in the Netherlands we have decided that drug (ab)use is a matter of public health, not a matter of crime. This is probably why the average age of our population of heroin users goes up by about one year every year.

    15. Re:Um. by tpgp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is probably why the average age of our population of heroin users goes up by about one year every year.

      Let me add that the sight of a aged-29-looks-48 Rotterdam junkie I chatted to a few years ago was probably the most eye opening anti-heroin education I've ever had.

      --
      My pics.
    16. Re:Um. by Xenna · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, we're not sensible. We aren't a race either.

      Making cannabis semi-legal is a huge mistake. It attracts a lot of drugs tourism, from the US and UK, Germany, Belgium and France.

      The result is that 4 billion euros are pumped into a half-legal economy yearly. The stores that sell it (the coffeeshops) are mostly legal, but everything else, from distributors to growers is illegal.

      Some city districts have been tranformed into cannabis growing plantations. People grow large scale cannabis in their lofts and in their cellars and they can make quite a lot of money with it (usually to supplement their unemployment benefit). Of course, it's still illegal...

      So if you get into trouble. You distributor won't pay you, or you get ripped off by someone who specializes in this, you have nowhere to go but to hire other criminals to protect you and your business. More and more deaths are turning up in and around cannabis plantations.

      It's legal to grow up to five plants in Holland, so perfectly ordinary people start out that way. Make some money and then want to make more. To avoid detection they normally tap illegal electricity for the necessary lamps.

      So what have we got here? A nice system for turning ordinary citizens into criminals. What a great idea!

      It's madness in my opinion. I have nothing against legalizing cannabis, but do it the right way. Legalize everything so that professional growers (or amateurs turning professional) can make legal money with it or don't legalize it at all.

      Also do it *at least* Europe-wide. We really don't need all European losers to come here to get high.

      The Dutch solution is not sensible at all. It's cowardly and stupid.

      BTW: One of your favourite bunch of people just killed five innocent people celebrating the queen's birthday. Perhaps you need a reality check.

      X. (yeah Dutch)

    17. Re:Um. by shaitand · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see why it should be illegal to sell or use marijuana. It is a fairly harmless substance and is safer than most things found in the herbal supplement isle or on the shelves of GNC. It is certainly safer than anything on the over the counter medication shelf.

      However, if you are going to make personal growing legal it shouldn't be based on the number of plants. The most sensible way to grow enough marijuana for personal use (about an ounce of bud per month per person) is to keep one mother plant that you take cuttings from and grow many smaller plants rather than a few big ones. Also you would have some plants in the flowering stage which requires 12light/12dark light cycle and another set going at the same time on vegatative light cycle. In a cabinet the size of a wardrobe you might have as many as 20-40 plants that will yield only enough to keep one person in smoke. You will need more if you want to people to be able to eat or vaporize instead of smoking.

      'The average grower is not looking to increase addictive properties.'

      Marijuana doesn't have addictive properties to increase. You would actually have to add a foreign substance to it in order to make it addictive.

    18. Re:Um. by pmarini · · Score: 1

      I thought it had been falling from the sky at winter for the last 6000 years, god why are they stopping the supplies?

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    19. Re:Um. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      But where exactly is the weed for coffeeshops and personal use supposed to come from?

    20. Re:Um. by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I'd assume there are government regulations involving the sale of potatoes in many countries. I'd like my potatoes safe to eat, thanks.

    21. Re:Um. by atamido · · Score: 1

      Helicopters and people in them are extremely expensive to operate and maintain. A small drone that doesn't get tired could be much more efficient.

    22. Re:Um. by damburger · · Score: 1

      Honesty?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    23. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "The police claim it is legal because they do not enter people's houses". That sounds more like a Nixonism in the sense of "If the police do it, it's not illegal."

      My gut feeling says it should be illegal though. We , the people, don't want drones flying through the air spying on us. If democracy is worth anything, these things should be banned by voice of majority.

    24. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Would the locals care to elaborate on the incongruity of thought that I am currently experiencing?

      Personally I'm far more interested in a different incongruity:

      When new technology is made available to people, laws like CALEA (Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, in the US) require that any new tech must be hobbled with requirements that allow the bastard cops to e.g. have routers required to be made with LE-available backdoors and wiretappingg capability.

      Meanwhile, when the sonofabitch government comes up with new intrusion technology, there is no requirement that the people's right to privacy be similarly expanded to thwart the new tech.

      All we hear in such cases is shrieks of, "You have no expectation of privacy in a public place", which the cocksucking courts have narrowed down to little more than being in your bathroom in your own home, with the door locked. It's a goddamned wonder they haven't limited you to one flush per hour, in case you're trying to keep them from snooping on a potential illicit conversation in there.

      Thank you Larry Fucking Ellison. You came up with your mantra, "There's no such thing as privacy any more -- get used to it" just so you could sell more goddamned Oracle databases to the "data aggregators". Their capability far exceeds Stalin's wettest dreams. To the white-hot pit of hell with you.

    25. Re:Um. by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Government must step in when stuff is advertised falsely and it is not directly visible for the customer.

      As an example, even hard drugs are nobody's business, as long as the customer is an adult. We all know what cocaine does, right? So we are able to decide whether we want to put our body through that.

      When they sell you rat poison, though, you'll probably not know until you're foaming at the mouth.

      I have nothing against taxing drugs (other than the belief that government taxes way too much anyway ;)) but I see no justifiable reason to prohibit them. I've yet to hear a logical reason why it's okay to smoke and drunk but not to use cocaine.

    26. Re:Um. by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

      Now that is the 1 million dollar question....

      And the reason this system is almost impossible to explain to "outsiders".. :)

      I think the best way is to use a movie qoute:
      "the first rule about selling weed is: you do not talk about growing weed"

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    27. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      To avoid detection they normally tap illegal electricity for the necessary lamps.

      Well, we're about to get a dose of Dutch-style snooping (without going inside the house) here in the San Francisco bay area.

      Pacific Gas & Electric is in the process of "upgrading" us with new "smart meters" that wirelessly report your usage of gas and electricity every fifteen minutes. (Great chance to fire some more union scum (in management's eyes) meter readers, too.)

      It won't be in effect for an hour before the fucking SFPD and the rest of the local yokels are hammering on the power company's doors demanding a "feed" from the accounting process so they can pore over the stats looking for instances of "potential unauthorized indoor agriculture".

      Warrant, my ass. All they have to do is tout it as "a valuable crime-fighting tool" and the courts will roll backwards and spread their legs again. Like the whores they've always been.

    28. Re:Um. by borizz · · Score: 1

      No, we're not sensible. We aren't a race either.

      Making cannabis semi-legal is a huge mistake. It attracts a lot of drugs tourism, from the US and UK, Germany, Belgium and France.

      The result is that 4 billion euros are pumped into a half-legal economy yearly. The stores that sell it (the coffeeshops) are mostly legal, but everything else, from distributors to growers is illegal.

      Some city districts have been tranformed into cannabis growing plantations. People grow large scale cannabis in their lofts and in their cellars and they can make quite a lot of money with it (usually to supplement their unemployment benefit). Of course, it's still illegal...

      So if you get into trouble. You distributor won't pay you, or you get ripped off by someone who specializes in this, you have nowhere to go but to hire other criminals to protect you and your business. More and more deaths are turning up in and around cannabis plantations.

      It's legal to grow up to five plants in Holland, so perfectly ordinary people start out that way. Make some money and then want to make more. To avoid detection they normally tap illegal electricity for the necessary lamps.

      So what have we got here? A nice system for turning ordinary citizens into criminals. What a great idea!

      It's madness in my opinion. I have nothing against legalizing cannabis, but do it the right way. Legalize everything so that professional growers (or amateurs turning professional) can make legal money with it or don't legalize it at all.

      Also do it *at least* Europe-wide. We really don't need all European losers to come here to get high.

      The Dutch solution is not sensible at all. It's cowardly and stupid.

      BTW: One of your favourite bunch of people just killed five innocent people celebrating the queen's birthday. Perhaps you need a reality check.

      X. (yeah Dutch)

      And a lot of people died in a shooting in India. So what?

    29. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what you're saying is, It's legal but it ain't hundred percent legal.

      From what I understand it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it, and if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, but...but that dosen't matter, 'cause, get a load of this; all right, if you get stopped by a cop in Amsterdam, it's illegal for them to search you.

      Is this about right?

    30. Re:Um. by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      If it is (or has a high risk of being) harmful for people other than the user/consumer you regulate it more tightly.

      If it's only harmful for the user/consumer you apply the more general, light regulation (i.e. make sure it's properly labeled and people know what it does and then stand out of the way).

      Which is why say, cars, guns and tobacco are more tightly regulated while potatoes, fishing rods and tricycles are not.

      Drug laws fall outside this pattern in that the drugs themselves are really only harmful for the consumer and yet drug laws represent some of the tightest regulation there is (in some countries they'll even incarcerate the consumers, which pretty much proves those laws are not there to protect consumers).

    31. Re:Um. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Informative

      5 plants in a household, to my knowledge.

      As to the legality of growing weed, one of the big issues is that people do it in attics, connecting several megawatts worth of electrical equipment in really haphazard ways, often bypassing the electrical meter. This in turn is a massive fire hazard.

      In the winter it's pretty easy to spot the growers though. If all the roofs in a street are covered with snow except for one, it might be time to get a warrant(or send this toy for a flyby).

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    32. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the winter it's pretty easy to spot the growers though. If all the roofs in a street are covered with snow except for one, it might be time to get a warrant(or send this toy for a flyby).

      Except for mine because my roof is isolated very well while my neighbours' isnt... their snow was gone sooner than mine... heheh... ;-)

    33. Re:Um. by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Yah, but what do they call a quarter pounder with cheese?

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    34. Re:Um. by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the very least, you validated my point about you guys being direct ;o).

      I didn't mean to offend about the 'race' thing, I couldn't find the appropriate word, but hopefully you understand what I mean, generally speaking, I like you guys! I saw the story about the attack on the queens birthday celebration and I was shocked and saddened, clearly you have complete idiots in your country just like every country does.

      I also understand your points about problems further up the distribution chain, but understand that all of these kinds of problems exist in other countries too. People in Holland have the same decision as people in all other countries, get involved in the drug trade, with huge rewards but also huge risks... or don't. We (in the UK) have the exact same system for turning citizens into criminals except that in Holland it is possible to be your standard occasional, recreational, cannabis user without crossing that line. It does seem a bit daft to criminalise the distribution chain, but elsewhere we are even more daft by sending those who like the occasional joint through the legal system (and in the USA, possibly to a high security prison for a long stretch).

      I happen to be one of those european losers that come to Amsterdam to get high, but I also come for the lovely architecture, the great people, and the best place to eat on the planet.... FEBO!! (Ok, that last one wasn't so serious). I am a quiet/loner sort of chap and like to bar hop with a good pop-sci book (the selfish gene on my last trip, recommended!), but I do appreciate that some of my fellow brits are not nearly as quiet or respectful. All I can say on that point is, they will probably come to visit you anyway... you are much better off with them high than with them drunk. You can ask our other euro neighbors to confirm that point!

    35. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, but what do they call a quarter pounder with cheese?

      I don't know what they call it, but I call it a dick in need of some personal hygiene.

    36. Re:Um. by rarity · · Score: 1

      However, what is not tolerated, is massive scale, cannabis farming which is then sold on for huge profits (without tax being paid, are you spotting a theme here??).

      That's the part that always confused me - if you're not allowed to grow it large-scale, where does all the "product" in the shops come from? Are there legalised farms as well, or something?

    37. Re:Um. by DerPflanz · · Score: 1

      Well, I live in one or the "drug tourist ridden" border towns. And there is a coffee shop just around the corner of my house. I have no problems at all with that. No nuisance.

      I think people choose themselves to become criminals. If you have a few plants, that are legal, you know that having more will make you a criminal. You know when you are selling cannabis on a larger scale is illegal (if only because you are not paying taxes).

      I do agree with you though on the European, or at least national scale, of really legalising the drug. There was a cannabis-summit not so long ago with all the mayors of the border towns. They all agreed the current system is far from ideal. Too bad we have a conservative-christian government right now that doesn't want to touch the subject.

      BTW: do not judge a people based on the actions of a madman.

      --
      -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
    38. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But where exactly is the weed for coffeeshops and personal use supposed to come from?

      Virgin birth?

    39. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in the netherlands, the weed-law in short:
      1) You can smoke it.
      2) You can buy it.
      3) You cannot grow it.
      4) You cannot transport it.
      5) When the weed gets in the coffeeshop, it suddenly is just there, nothing was deliverd, it just 'materialized' inside the coffeeshop and it is now legal to sell and smoke.

    40. Re:Um. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Utter bullshit hyperbole. Whole city districts cannabis farms? Provide a cite, or I'll call you what you are: a liar.

      Mart, also Dutch.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    41. Re:Um. by wdef · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As I understand it, it is the inconsistency of the drug laws in Holland that is at fault here. While there are these licensed coffee shops for weed, the proprietors are forced to buy from illegal suppliers because there is no legal means of production. This drives an illegal industry where there clearly needs to be legal supply lines.

      Prohibition of any social drug like this will fail, and of course, it always does fail. In every country. All Prohibition of alcohol did in the US was create and bankroll organized crime as we now know it, and I'd bet that huge multinational enterprise is still very dependent on anti-drug laws in order to thrive. Organized crime would simply lose its control of the market if drugs were decriminalized and properly regulated. It is not possible to properly regulate an illegal activity. This is also the real rational behind the completely illogical illegality of prostitution.

      Which means that most countries are engaging in a Kafkaesque sideshow, dragging people into court, keep the police's wheels spinning on minor drug busts when they should be doing something useful, and waging war on their own citizens - for what? - just to keep the profits flowing into a huge economy owned by organized crime and corruption.

      Religious, moral, social impact and health reasons are just the sales pitch that most people feel good about buying into.

      If this were not the case, then logically there would be an absolute ban on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, which cause far more social and health problems than the entire impact of illicit drugs combined.

      Now, marijuana is not harmless, it has a higher tar content than tobacco and so has tar-related health effects on the lungs. Also it is psychoactive and should not be used, especially heavily for sustained periods, by people with some propensity for mental illness (quite a lot of the population probably). So it has risks. So do lots of things.

      In a rational society, we give people information and choices and regulate and tax substances sensibly. If they still want to bong themselves to death, so be it, they should be allowed to.

      I don't see how anyone can argue that the outlawing of marijuana works for the public good. Yes, educate people about moderation and hazards, restrict where it can be smoked, The Dutch have had the right general idea - allow this under controlled circumstances - but they have not followed through to make this consistent.

    42. Re:Um. by wdef · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say cowardly. The coffee shops are quite a brave statement in my view in the face of ever increasing conservatism. But it is mind-bogglingly inconsistent. They need to create a legal supply chain for the coffee shops.

    43. Re:Um. by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't that only a problem with it being illegal to grow weed? If we weren't so moronic about the plant people would be growing it in their backyards or greenhouses without any risk of fire.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    44. Re:Um. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      So what have we got here? A nice system for turning ordinary citizens into criminals. What a great idea!

      It's madness in my opinion. I have nothing against legalizing cannabis, but do it the right way. Legalize everything so that professional growers (or amateurs turning professional) can make legal money with it or don't legalize it at all.

      Yeah it's madness, but you're still lightyears ahead of the US and many other countries.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    45. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think is simplistic to say cannabis isn't addictive, in fact its simplistic to say that cannabis is cannabis. There are various major and minor landrace species the major being indica and sativa. The effects of the indica are narcotic and addictive. In certain areas of Thailand its been known for the locals to warn against smoking the local wild species because "it will make you go mad" and then go on to recommend the tourist go to the next valley if they want good quality and thats a sativa area.. (it might just be a polite way to run the hippies out town however).

    46. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need huge amounts of stuff to grow your own. An Oz per month per person is overkill IMHO. Last year I started 2 plants in the last week of march (actually 3 but one turned out male) which took 8 or 9 weeks to reach harvest and that crop has just run out this week. If I had a constant supply I would get nothing else done.

      I use a converted 42U server cabinet lined with plastic sheeting and a single 400W growlight. I grow using a NFT growtank with minimal nutrient usage and ventilate with a 4" RVK extractor running through a carbon filter. As I work away all week, it all works off a timer and costs about 7 per week in electricity. There is no way any authorities could detect a heat sig from outside the building as the cabinet is not in the attic or near a window and it's on the ground floor of a 4 story building. I can't feel any heat when I am stood next to the cabinet even. The ballast gets hotter than the cabinet ! The air coming from the extractor is ambient temperature so that's not detectable either. The fire risk is minimal as I can place my hand on the light reflector easily and it is no worse than leaving my home server running 24/7 or a few light bulbs running.

      At current street prices, my last crop was worth nearly 5000, but cost me less than 80 in electricity and 330 to set up (the cabinet was a scrapper). This time around it will be just the electricity costs. I didn't sell any whatsoever, although I did give away a couple of Oz to friends. I also only harvested buds, no leaves. I'm not in it for industrial purposes. I also brew my own beer. In other words, fuck the government. The only way I could get caught is if I got grassed up, which is why I don't sell any.

    47. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grow enough marijuana for personal use (about an ounce of bud per month per person)

      Well if by "about an ounce per month" you really mean a quarter pound a month I won't laugh at you.

      If not, well then I have to laugh at you, and then I have to steal your ounce and those of two of your friends as well.

    48. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Begone ye troll!

    49. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being dutch and the son of a cop, I can tell you that at least the police is very much in favour of de-criminalising the growing of the stuff too, so the whole chain can be regulated. Having it (semi-)legal is actually a boon for the police, since they can focus on the criminals.

      Actually, I hear a lot of info about this standpoint doing a lot to help beat criminal drug activity. A lot of European countries are currently actively looking into the Dutch system (including France, who dispised the Dutch for it a few years ago...).

      That said, legalising the whole chain or actually having tightly-government-controlled manufacturing would be so much better.

    50. Re:Um. by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > That's the part that always confused me - if you're not allowed to grow it large-scale, where does all the "product" in the shops come from? Are there legalised farms as well, or something?

      It's a "don't ask, don't tell" kinda thing. Everybody knows for a fact that coffee shops are breaking the law to get their "product" (it is impossible not to) but the police kinda ignore it. I for one would support real legalization instead of the 'gedoogbeleid' we have now, if only because it would make the law a little less insane.

    51. Re:Um. by RMH101 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Marijuana doesn't have addictive properties to increase. You would actually have to add a foreign substance to it in order to make it addictive."
      I think the point is that if you let Big Tobacco sell the stuff, they'd sell pre-rolled spliffs that contained tobacco/nicotine - and the end result would be addictive in the sense that conventional cigarettes are addictive.

    52. Re:Um. by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's an interesting argument that's made on a regular basis by many people here. Not by mayors, politicians or coffeeshop owners though, because they're not only sensible enough to see that full-force war on cannabis does much more harm than good, but also sensible enough to interpret factual data and knowledge about hard drugs, to know that legalizing e.g. coke or heroin would result in a lot of people devastating their lives.

      It's funny how some governments (the Bush adminstration to name on) think or thought the best way to prevent drug abuse is to keep hammering on cannabis as a 'gateway drug', which when tolerated would lead to more hard drugs users, effectively treating it just like heroin or cocaine. All this while here in the Netherlands we think completely the other way around: tolerating mostly harmless substances like cannabis actually prevents people getting the much more dangerous stuff, because they don't need to incriminate themselves to get heroin if they can just smoke a joint every now and then.

      You could argue which of the 2 ways of dealing with the unsolvable drug problem (people will keep using drugs whatever you try to prevent them) would be 'more utalitarian' so to say. The facts seem to favour the dutch approach: we have less cannabis users, less drug-related crimes, and most importantly *much* less harddrugs users than all countries surrounding us, and most of the rest of the western world. Compared to France for example, where they've tradinionally always had a zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs, the harddrugs problems in the Netherlands are virtually non-existent.

      Maybe the Obama administration will get to a somewhat more opportunistic, utalitarian view of drugs legislation. He does seem to be more of a "it doesn't have to be perfect if it's better than before, jus get things done" kind of guy than Bush.

      Last but not least you're mostly right about the Netherlands playing little bitch to the EU and US, sadly. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the dutch government will bend over and destroy everything we've built for decades to limit drug-related problems and go the way of the French or the US. Probably in exchange of a little extra influence in the EU, some cuts to the EU contributions or some other stupid exchange of ideals to hold up the illusion of a 'united Europe'.

    53. Re:Um. by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      Although you're mostly right, the current situation is still much, much better than criminalizing cannabis. Also, I don't think we should try to harmonize all drugs legislation in the EU, because it wouldn't work, sadly some of the most influential countries of the EU will never, ever, change their point of view that prohibition of any substance classified as 'drugs' is the only way to go. Hence, trying to attack drug-related problems as a pan-European problem is idealistic, naive and suboptimal. I'd say just work out a scheme to prevent drug tourism, which should be perfectly possible, ways of limiting drug tourism from Belgium and France are already being proposed. Let all the other member states have the freedom to implement their own point of view as long as they don't pressurize us to change our policy.

      Also, your referral to the insane idiot that drove into the crowd at queens day, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, does not really support anything you said on-topic.

      (Yeah, also dutch and mostly proud of it)

    54. Re:Um. by blahrvat · · Score: 1

      I think it's like the US Cigarette tax, like all things sold though, the government wants it's cut on the sales tax. Selling black market goods only mean that the government doesn't get any tax from it, thus is considered quasi-illegal, if you just sell a bushel or 2 of spuds a year you're too small to care about, if you're selling potatoes by the truckload however, the government is going to want to see a little something floated their way.

    55. Re:Um. by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed, you figured it out. It's hyperbole.

      X.

    56. Re:Um. by Xenna · · Score: 1

      That's the old point of view. For decades the Dutch have congratulated themselves on the success of their liberal policies. And there are undoubtedly some advantages. But the long term effects are starting to become more and more clear. Read this report, for instance:

      http://www.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/aanpak-van-de-criminele-organisaties-achter-de-wietteelt-nulmeting.aspx

      X.

    57. Re:Um. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      It is much easier to regulate before the fact than investigate cases of false labeling.

      There are some very potent and addictive drugs that rock your brain in such a way it was not meant to be rocked. I think there is a reasonable case to be made against allowing people to use meth, heroine, and crack. As for cocaine in general, I would put it in more of a gray area, it does not rock the brain or addict near as much as the previous.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    58. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The queens day reference was mostly in reply to the TS who thought the Dutch were his favourite kind of people. Try living here for 10 years then I'll take it seriously.

      Many foreigners have some kind of Disneyland-idea of Holland. That's obviously invalid.

      Especially in the 21st century where we had two political murders already followed by this it's pretty plain the Dutch are no angels. People are rude and have a complete disregard for any rule they care to disobey.

      X.

    59. Re:Um. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Considering the face that the poster spelled the word "favorite" f-a-v-o-u-r-i-t-e, it is likely he isn't American.

      This makes me happy, but then again I think about the state of the schools that my American "race" goes to and think that conclusions based on spelling are suspect.

       

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    60. Re:Um. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      So , if you just have some potatoes in your garden , it's ok as long as you don't sell them in large quantities. Because then , the government needs it's share.

      So does Tony Soprano. Your point being...?

    61. Re:Um. by Apatharch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are some very potent and addictive drugs that rock your brain in such a way it was not meant to be rocked.

      Meant by whom, exactly? Apart from myself, who has the authority to decide just how my brain should be "rocked", and why?

    62. Re:Um. by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not. Even as a Dutchman I'd drawn that conclusion. He obviously admitted to being a Brit in a later post ;)

      X.

    63. Re:Um. by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      Ok, I think I know what you mean. I've always thought americans to be rude and unfriendly because it's a stereotype that Europeans in general like to adhere to. When I went there a while ago it turned out to be completely the other way around, compared to the dutch guy in the street people were much more friendly, helpful and polite over there. I guess it's all a matter of perception, and somehow people everywhere like the occational stranger better than their everyday compatriot.

      That said, you just can't have it all. You'll find assholes and idiots wherever you go. In general, I do think the dutch have a very open, direct attitude and a good sense of humor, and are not hampered by any kind of misplaced pride or sense of superiority, which makes it easy to set aside and accept differences, but still be to-the-point when necessary. Foreigners appreciate this attitude, something I hear all the time from my US colleagues, in telecons or when they visit our office, on a regular basis. But like you said, we're no angels, but I think you won't find angels anywhere.

    64. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that entirely correct, though? That's what I used to think, but I've since had a couple of friends who, when they take a break after smoking daily for months, expierence nasty headaches and aniexty and stuff of the sort. It's not horrible, and the effects only happen after you're already a heavy user (rather than addictive properties leading to heavy usage, as which more addictive drugs), but I think saying that there are literally zero physically adictive properties may not be 100% true.

    65. Re:Um. by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We could end the war on drugs, undermine the narcotics cartels, fund interdiction of truly bad drugs like meth and heroin as well as fund rehab for anyone who wants it with one simple action: tax weed. The government could control production and distribution and police could stop wasting everyone's time on the victimless pseudo-crime of pot possession. Prohibition showed us that outlawing alcohol merely forced it underground, fueled organized crime and turned virtually everyone into a criminal. The current situation with pot is essentially no different.

      I don't like drug use; I've seen too many people destroy themselves and waste their lives getting high, but making it illegal does nothing to stop them. We need to recognize the practical realities regarding drug use in order to get a handle on it.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    66. Re:Um. by neumayr · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, and how things are done there, but in Western Europe the state provides the infrastructure required for conducting business, and takes a part of the profits to cover the costs.
      In theory at least, there's a lot to be desired in how tax money is spent of course.
      But in principle that's how it works, and yes, it is sensible.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    67. Re:Um. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've seen too many people destroy themselves and waste their lives getting high

      Honestly, why do you even care what other people are doing to their lives? Do you feel the same way when you see an obese person?

    68. Re:Um. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      One problem with your argument; I don't pay tax on potatoes anyway. So I can grow and sell all the potatoes I want, and the only tax I'd have to worry about is income tax.

    69. Re:Um. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I don't.. if you want to fuck up your brain, its YOUR brain to fuck up. If you die, I don't care. You're just as bad as the war on drugs people, putting arbitrary lines in the sand.

      At the end of the day, it's MY body, MY life, and MY right to put whatever I want into it.

    70. Re:Um. by glennpratt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Answering for the GP...

      I don't try to project paternalism on people walking down the street. However, when you know someone, especially someone close to you, I think it's appropriate to be concerned when they abuse anything (food, weed, alcohol). How you handle that concern is a different issue.

    71. Re:Um. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      The guy holding your leash, apparently... :/

    72. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah they'd just add things to make it burn better smoother...

      these are the chems that kill btw - salt peter anyone?

    73. Re:Um. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Some may think Dutch frankness seems rude, but there is an easy solution. On your trip to Europe, visit France first. After that, everyone you meet in other countries will seem downright sweet.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    74. Re:Um. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      gotta echo that previous poster's point.

      worry about the drunks and NOT the stoners.

      anyone who has had any real (actual, not watching about it on tv or being preached about it at church) experience with booze and pot KNOWS which one is the dangerous one.

      this is the biggest lie of them all. and its known to be a lie by those who have experience. yet GETTING experience so you can know first-hand is limited to getting boozed over; in most countries you are not even allowed to sample MJ so you can't even know, on your own, how harmless it really is.

      interesting how the information, itself, is essentially regulated to keep people dumbed down and fed only propaganda.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    75. Re:Um. by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      There are some very potent and addictive drugs that rock your brain in such a way it was not meant to be rocked.

      I assume you mean Electric Six? Cocaine, alcohol, and (smoked) nicotine are the most deleterious drugs. Two of them are already legal. Why not make it 3 for 3? Meth is quite bad, but surprisingly heroin is quite benign in terms of direct damage it does to the body. The crippling addiction is the real problem.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    76. Re:Um. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      It is called legislative schizophrenia.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    77. Re:Um. by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      And it's debatable how harmful the majority of recreational drugs really are, if used in safe, known doses of unadulterated quality. Yes, even cocaine, crack, and meth. Most people will not overuse these substances, which can be shown through the vast differences in rates for lifetime use of the drug, vs. past month use. These figures can be had here.

      These figures show quite clearly that the vast majority of meth, cocaine, and heroin users try it, maybe use it for a while, and quit. That's a bit of a different picture than what the ONDCP tries to paint.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    78. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So weed is like firearms now? Weed is infinitely closer to potatoes than firearms. They both grow in the ground and are relatively harmless - or I suppose a spud launcher could put an eye out... but if the line is to be drawn, it certainly shouldn't be with weed. How many people die a year from being too high? (not to be confused with the number who are pissed off about other people being high)

    79. Re:Um. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      There will always be people who seek out instant pleasure. Whether it is narcotics, alcohol, gambling, too much shopping, etc. It will always be the case. The "war against drugs" has become far worse than the problem it claims to be fighting. The laws have destroyed more lives with prison sentences, criminal records, and breeding organized crime than the drugs have. Huge amounts of money has been spent on enforcement that could've been used for other things. It is time to legalize them. Treat the mildest ones like pot as alcohol. Maybe even a bit stricter (no advertising?). Make the other drugs available only with a doctor's permission and then you have to a clinic to get them. That way someone can keep track of your health and you aren't shooting up hidden at home. Someone is always offering treatment options, the police know who the users are, etc. Spend some of the enforcement money on medical and mental treament instead. I beleive they did this in the UK for heroin (don't know if they still do) and it worked pretty well.

      The down side would be law enforcement would lose its biggest cash cow, drug enforcement bucks, so would prisons which are mostly full of drug convictions. The average person would also have to face the fact that some people are always going to do drugs and it is better to keep it in the open and controled instead of trying to hide it in the closet.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    80. Re:Um. by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      but also sensible enough to interpret factual data and knowledge about hard drugs, to know that legalizing e.g. coke or heroin would result in a lot of people devastating their lives

      It's not at all clear that this would be the effect. In the experiment the British did in the 70's with providing legal heroin to addicts, the majority of the users were able to return to normal, productive lives while continuing to use heroin. The British ended the program under pressure from the US, and the addicts returned to criminal lives when their legal supply was shut off. This indicates pretty strongly that the big problem with heroin usage is the criminal lives that users are forced to turn to in order to obtain the drug, not the drug itself.

      In Colombia and Bolivia, cocaine is readily available, as is coca tea. What do we here about a raging cocaine epidemic there? What we see is that coca tea is preferred over the harder drug. Many observers predict that this would be true in a legalization scenario in the US. In a orderly market, the legally available drugs would be provided in strengths preferred by the users, rather than strengths preferred by the suppliers. Currently, suppliers prefer stronger/purer concentrations, because it makes the drug easier to smuggle. In a legal scenario, users are likely to prefer "Beer and Wine" strengths of drugs over "whiskey/everclear" strengths, because it's easier to have a good time without getting too fucked up.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    81. Re:Um. by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone just got done watching Reefer Madness

      --
      MG
    82. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! It's a good thing that they don't tax you for comma usage.

    83. Re:Um. by w1d3 · · Score: 1

      If all the roofs in a street are covered with snow

      Ok but be realistic.. this happens once in 5 years in the Netherlands :)

    84. Re:Um. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, it is the inconsistency of the drug laws in Holland that is at fault here. While there are these licensed coffee shops for weed, the proprietors are forced to buy from illegal suppliers because there is no legal means of production. This drives an illegal industry where there clearly needs to be legal supply lines.

      That's nuts. And confusing. They should just legalize and regulate it fully. What the hell, they're already 50% of the way there, or at least years ahead of where most other countries are.
      That said, I can sort of understand why they'd currently want to monitor large farms, if it's fueling crime or posing fire hazards.
      Other than that, I haven't much to add to the thread, I basically agree with all the sentiments here. Prohibtion of pot creates more problems than it "solves" (if any). Making pot illegal is the only thing that makes it a "gateway" drug. Make it legal and you remove users from that criminal environment. Plus, the economy would recover in record time. The income from taxation would go a long way towards reducing the deficit.
      Legalization might not be as unrealistic as some people think: I know quite a few people in law enforcement, many of whom personally and confidentially believe it ought to to be legalized. They're not all narcs blindly hellbent on ridding the world of "herbal evils".
      Researchers are also starting to acknowledge it's medicinal applications, where that was usually refuted before. It's slow going but progress is being made. People also need better education in understanding that "hemp", as used for rope and textiles, has no THC in it at all.
      Basically, they just need to stop demonizing inanimate (or non-human)objects and make people accept a little more personal responsibility for their actions.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    85. Re:Um. by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not Dutch (legally speaking, but I am half-Dutch by blood). I speak enough to read that and also have pretty close ties to the Netherlands in general (including having lived there a while back, although I'm in Germany these days).

      I consider that the problem isn't a failure of the liberal policies, but instead an erosion of them that caused some problems, and that gave those looking for a change to more restrictions to point the finger and say that the liberal policies themselves caused the problems. The EU itself a problem - the Netherlands NEEDS to be a part of it, so there's no way it could even consider backing out now, but the EU laws/policies/guidelines are just far too restrictive in some ways, and it's crushing some of the things that the Dutch used to hold so dear.

      It wasn't that long ago that people were proud to be Dutch, and I'm still proud of my Dutch heritage. It seems these days though, it's getting harder and harder to find Dutch that actually are happy to be so. There's a negative view of the country that's been slowly creeping in for a long time, and is beginning to reach a critical point. Being "more like the rest of the EU" or even "more like the world" is NOT what needs to happen. What needs to happen is that the Dutch need to look at their history and realise that they were the creators, the inventors, and the explorers of the world. There were so many different rulers, alliances, and crappy politics going on all around them, but the Dutch people just "got on with it", did what they did, and founded one of the greatest nations on Earth.

      Back closer to the topic at hand - I agree with the other posters that say the whole chain needs to be legalised, and controlled. Let the people controlling it be mierenneukers if that's what it takes to keep it under control, but just let it free.

      Just as a side note: I don't smoke it myself - I hate the stuff and how it makes me feel. But I believe it should be the right of any adult to use it should they want to. As far as the "tourist" problem goes - that's always there in any place where there are extra freedoms - they all spend their time in the red light district of Amsterdam or the border towns anyway. I lived in De Pijp in Amsterdam, which I'm sure you know is pretty damn close to the centre, but hardly saw any tourists at all.

      As a related topic, the new situation with mushrooms saddens me a bit... one more piece of real freedom gone.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    86. Re:Um. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Because the spillover costs of your being a homeless, withering, stinking addict do exist.

      Even legalized the use of crack and meth would have massive costs to society (though probably not as much as the current war on drugs).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    87. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An oz a month!!!? Remind me to never come to your house for a spliff.

      Back when I smoked, at the peak at least, I used to get through a 1/2 oz a day. I wouldn't advise anybody to do that (or to do drugs at all, for that matter) but if somebody has the money to pay for that much, or grows a lot like I did, then why should they be limited to 1 oz a month? I would be interested to know why you came to that particular number - perhaps because that's what you consume and you should be the benchmark for all humanity?

    88. Re:Um. by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      I watched a morbidly obese guy scooter out of McDonalds with a giant sack of burgers perched on his belly. Is laughing the same as caring?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    89. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'd like my potatoes safe to eat, thanks.

      Then buy them from a well-known supplier (it is well-known because the customers survived and lived to tell the tale).

      I don't get the big deal with having a bureaucracy somehow magically determine whether your food is safe or not. It's not like they can check every single item themselves, so what will they do? Right, make the vendors themselves check. Which is what the vendors do anyway because of their own self-interest.

      Strange, this.

    90. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not from Amsterdam but I have family there, so I am there fairly often, perhaps I can help.

      Your question depends on your definition of 'quasi-legal'. Cannabis is *not* legal in Holland. However, they have made a decision not to prosecute small time offenders.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong. Using marijuana, and selling it with a coffee shop license is perfectly legal in the Netherlands. It's just that some people do not seem to understand that legality is not only derived from laws, but also from jurisprudence and ordinances. There's an ordinance on drugs that has made marijuana legal under certain restrictions. Therefore, for instance, if a copper catches you with weed in the nl, he or she won't confiscate it.

    91. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with this argument (believe me, I support it) is that commercial production of marijuana will change the entire economics of it. It will no longer be the huge industry it currently is, not dollar wise. The taxation of pot will not be what many think, because of the scale of production.

      If grown on farms, how much would it cost? Look at the price of tobacco, or a pound of corn, potatoes, etc.

      A bag of weed would cost a couple dollars, not the amounts people pay today.

      However, it WOULD change the black markey enormously. Its not the tax panacea people make it out to be, but its still a very good idea.

    92. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, legalizing the growing of marijuana will destroy their tax profits from the coffee shops. You see, because of the illegal nature of the growing, the price of pot is high. So the end user pays a much higher amount of taxes on the purchased product.

      If you farmed it legally, how much would it cost?

      How much does corn and wheat cost? Tomatoes? A few cents per pound. Marijuana is sold for thousands of EU per pound. Hence, the tax revenue of the coffee shops but the illegality of the growing operations.

    93. Re:Um. by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      It could be a great tax earner. People are willing to pay $200 an ounce for really good stuff, and $30 an ounce for leaf tips from ditch weed. If it's grown widely enough that a good ounce costs $5 to grow, process, package, and ship, then tax it at $25 or even $45 an ounce. People'd still be getting it cheaper than they are now.

    94. Re:Um. by ksheff · · Score: 1

      If the govt controls the production and taxation, then you would still have the various law enforcement agencies cracking down on people growing it illegally, just like they do with people who produce & sell alcohol & tobacco products illegally.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    95. Re:Um. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without going into comparing social effects, which also prove your point dramatically, my favorite one is to compare LD50's.

      heh captcha: arrests

    96. Re:Um. by Kattspya · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you ever seen a doctor that's addicted to opiates? Neither have I because it's not the drug itself that harms you in any spectacular way. The junkie you saw is an excellent argument against street junkie life but not against opiate abuse.

    97. Re:Um. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'I think is simplistic to say cannabis isn't addictive, in fact its simplistic to say that cannabis is cannabis.'

      Why? The bogus addiction numbers come from addiction and drug abuse clinics. These are for profit organizations that make a profit is mommy finds a pipe in jimmies drawer and carts him right off to rehab.

      Additionally, if someone comes in addicted to say, heroin and also admits to smoking marijuana they automatically get labeled as a marijuana abuser by the addiction clinics.

      Last but not least, people who are admitting themselves often like to admit themselves for marijuana rather than heroine or cocaine because they don't think it sounds as bad to others.

      Heroine, Morphine, any opiate, alcohol in people with the right genetics, these things convert directly into highly addictive neurochemicals. Marijuana on the other hand stimulates pleasure centers in the brain which in turn makes neurochemicals that are addictive. What the addiction clinics don't tell you is that if you love soccer (football for the foreigners) your brain will produce the same potentially addictive neurochemicals.

      In other words, being addicted to pot is being addicted to being happy. You can literally do anything else that makes you happy instead of smoking pot. There really aren't many people who want to quit smoking pot in the first place. Not because they are addicted but because it is a relatively harmless and enjoyable activity.

    98. Re:Um. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      An OZ per month is what pretty much any heavy smoker goes through. Someone with severe pain would need at least that much.

      Someone who just smokes a joint or two on the weekends obviously would not need so much. A 1/4oz a week is not enough to keep someone high all the time. You'd go through it about two days like that.

    99. Re:Um. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If you are smoking an OZ a week, yourself, without sharing with a group of friends then I have to laugh at you. You must really have some dirt weed buddy.

      Besides that, you must do almost nothing else besides smoke weed.

    100. Re:Um. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      hey you can certainly use a lot more than that. But that is what most people with a job smoke. Get paid on friday (or whatever), buy a quarter oz, rinse and repeat. If you were smoking 1/2oz a day then first of all, you were smoking low grade stuff with seeds in it and such and you were sharing with friends.

      'Remind me to never come to your house for a spliff'

      I'm working on the assumption that we can grow for personal use and everyone who comes over has their own weed now.

    101. Re:Um. by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Actually I do, not that I'd proselytize. Honestly, why DON'T you care? BTW lack of empathy is also considered a sign of mental illness.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    102. Re:Um. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Actually I do, not that I'd proselytize.

      Well, I suggest you mind your own business, and keep out of othere's lives. At most you should care that obese people are the cause of rising healthcare costs... but the solution is to fix the insurance so that unhealthy people pay more, not ban food.

      Honestly, why DON'T you care?

      Because I don't know them, so I don't care what happens to them. I only care on the level that it affects my life.. causing my health premiums to go up even though I take care of my self.

      BTW lack of empathy is also considered a sign of mental illness.

      Oh, and where did you get your PhD? Being gay used to be called a mental illness too. I have plenty of empathy for family and friends... but not for someone I don't know from a hole in the wall. And it seems that is pretty normal... so perhaps you can actually answer my question honestly instead of trying to put yourself onto a pedistal:

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1867735,00.html

    103. Re:Um. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Because the spillover costs of your being a homeless, withering, stinking addict do exist.

      Oh, and you have evidence for this? There's a very real "spillover cost" for you driving your car too... but we aren't banning cars are we?

      Even legalized the use of crack and meth would have massive costs to society (though probably not as much as the current war on drugs).

      Probably? It's not even in the same ballpark. Or do you think legal crack sellers would be allowed to mix in rat poison?

      People said the same thing about alcohol, and society hasn't collapsed since that was re-legalized. Of course thanks to Prohibition we now have to deal with things we never did before... like the mob, which is STILL around today (thanks to Prohibition for drugs and gambling).

  4. Great by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    This is sure to result in another Norse invasion of Europe just to "get away from that buzzing sound, man!"

    It's just what we needed: Thousands of stoned, paranoid Norsemen looking at each going "Did you hear something, man? I thought I heard something! Look out the window, in the sky!"

    --
    -
  5. Norse? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm guessing you're not from Europe...

    1. Re:Norse? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just trying... to... yeah. I see what I did there.

      --
      -
    2. Re:Norse? by mellon · · Score: 1

      Superior Dutch technology wins again. Who knew the drones could fly so far? And against stiff ocean breezes, no less!

    3. Re:Norse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah... it just got, like, way high, and got blown away a bit.

    4. Re:Norse? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >I'm guessing you're not from Europe...
      Yet.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    5. Re:Norse? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      They were obviously pining for the fjords.

  6. Bad move... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    If anti-drug drones become a standard part of the "war on drugs" - the US military is going to pay the price.

    The drug lords make tens of billions of dollars each year. If drones start to significantly hurt their business, they will invest in the development of anti-drone technology. Once invented, it can't be un-invented and it isn't like its going to be stamped top-secret and kept in a scif either - it will spread to anyone who thinks they need to protect themselves from drones.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Bad move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be cheaper to hire a clay pigeon shooter to spend all day on a lawn chair and shoot down any hovering drone using a shotgun.

    2. Re:Bad move... by drfool · · Score: 1

      You do realize, the only reason "drug lords make tens of billions of dollars each year" is because cops/politicians allow them to. This drone will not amount to anything, the only reason things like this get invented and covered in the news is so that the old folk sitting at home watching their television sets can think to themselves "we're making progress".

      What would happen if we won the war on drugs? Utopian society? Politicians everywhere will have lost one of their most prized possessions and would be running around in circles trying to find the next boogie man.

    3. Re:Bad move... by atamido · · Score: 1

      The next boogie man? You mean like Mexican Swine Flu? They aren't worried about losing a boogie man because there is always another one to pick up.

    4. Re:Bad move... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. This is why I am opposed to the california tax plan. It isn't that marijuana shouldn't be legal and taxed (as in sales tax and income tax the same as any other good, not a separate tax) its that the taxes they want to impose are ridiculous and largely based on current police exaggerations of black market prices.

      Marijuana is only as expensive as it is because it is illegal. It's actually a pretty hardy and easy to grow plant under the light of the sun. Inside growers might get 100w per square foot, they need fans and air conditioners for climate control and carbon dioxide to supplement and expensive nutrients. Outside you have a free 2000w per square foot grow light and need a pile of shit and a hose. In cali they wanted to tax the grower for the plant and the buyer. The $100 per plant they wanted is more than the retail price of a plants output if legalized!

    5. Re:Bad move... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>If drones start to significantly hurt their business, they will invest in the development of anti-drone technology.

      Huh, I just can't see a bunch of Colombians walking into General Dynamics and investing in anti-drone technologies. I mean, maybe they'll figure out that a 30 ought 6 can take one out, but that doesn't take billions. It also doesn't have the slightest impact on Columbia, since they probably don't need to use grow lights. And if they shut down production in the Netherlands, well, more demand for them to supply, right?

      Fortunately, aerial flyovers of houses with thermal sensors scanning for grow lights was ruled unconstitutional in America (unconstitutional search and seizure) without a warrant, IIRC.

    6. Re:Bad move... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Just because the war on some drugs is bought and paid for doesn't mean that laws and policies which escalate the war on some drugs don't get implemented. In fact, that seems to be the way it normally goes, just look at how much more violent the drug trade has become in the last few years, mexico is really getting fucked over by it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Bad move... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I think they'd mourn the loss of a very steady income rather than the loss of a boogie man. It takes money to make money and a lot of that money goes to politicians and law enforcement.

      Anyways, there's always terrorists.

      Or the old classic, are going to rape our white women!

      But those "threats" don't pay nearly as well.

    8. Re:Bad move... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Stupid slashdot eating brackets in plain text mode...

      Insert [race|ethnicity|culture|religion] after the comma and before "are".

    9. Re:Bad move... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I just can't see a bunch of Colombians walking into General Dynamics and investing in anti-drone technologies.

      That sort of thinking is exactly the same as what the british did when they stood in formation and let the patriots pick them off from their hiding spots in the woods. Those guys in iraq didn't go to GD and ask them to build them any land mines either.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. And in a related story... by msimm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dutch citizens test Dutch lawmakers sewage water and household garbage for signs of drugs or illegal activity. Citizens say they are not breaking the law because the samples can be taken without entering the building.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:And in a related story... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      yea, well that sort of situation always comes down to who has the bigger bank, or bigger balls, but in the civilized world its the bank one.

    2. Re:And in a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Dutch citizens test Dutch lawmakers sewage water and household garbage for signs of drugs or illegal activity. Citizens say they are not breaking the law because the samples can be taken without entering the building.

      Won't work -- at least in California.

      For years, the garbage companies wanted nothing to do with recycling. When it became profitable, you could put newspapers and cardboard out with the garbage can. Guys used to roam the neighborhoods at night in Toyota pickups heavily laden with paper and cardboard.

      So the garbage fucks bought a law passed declaring that anything put out immediately became their "property", so they could harass the little guys with threats of arrest for "theft".

      Buttfucking sons of bitches.

    3. Re:And in a related story... by knewter · · Score: 1

      I think it comes down to the ones with the bigger guns, no?

      --
      -knewter
    4. Re:And in a related story... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      That's actually *explicitly* illegal over here. It's illegal to search anyones garbage without having proper authority to do so. Of course, that wasn't entirely your point, but just in case someone starts to dig and gets arrested...

    5. Re:And in a related story... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      That's actually *explicitly* illegal over here. It's illegal to search anyones garbage without having proper authority to do so. Of course, that wasn't entirely your point, but just in case someone starts to dig and gets arrested...

      Where is 'over here'?

      Over here in Pennsylvania, my grandfather made quite a successful living as a junk-man. We used to go round on 'big trash day' and see what we could scrounge up. Lamps, desks, dressers, and scrap material were our primary trade. My grandfather even had a system where he knew what type of scrap to take to what auction and what time of year to do it to get the best prices.

      But the short of it was this:

      Recycling in my neighborhood was stronger BEFORE the municipal recycling programs started. I knew a family that supported themselves by collecting newspapers and cans for the city.

      When the city implemented it's own mandatory recycling program, they lost their income. Now they sell newspapers on the street corner. It breaks my heart, as the one lady is nearing 80 and is now suffering from Alzheimer's. The daughter keeps them together, as the two other siblings also have development issues.

      They won't accept charity, but I always buy extra from them when I drive by. I just tell them that it's for our break room.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    6. Re:And in a related story... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly how much of that is illegal. There's certainly a lot of people that go though the rougher garbage (taken separately), without the police doing anything about that. But going through peoples garbage looking for pieces of paper or incriminating evidence certainly is illegal, and that's what this was about.

      With over here I meant the Netherlands. In many places (such as where I live) garbage is stored in underground containers before it is taken to the incinerator, so looking for anything in there might be a bit tricky. You might get burned doing that :)

  8. Re:Technically,,, by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

    Ah, someone that speaks from experience.

  9. uh ha by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?

    I could presume you are one of the enlightened folk who are against taxation? I'd prefer potatoes to be illegal so that I can buy them on the black market tax free.

    1. Re:uh ha by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'I'd prefer potatoes to be illegal so that I can buy them on the black market tax free.'

      Yeah for a 3000x markup. That's the big problem with the cali legalization and taxation plan, it uses the bogus law enforcement valuation numbers as a base. What was it, 100 per plant to grow... grown on large scale in a legalized society the output of a single plant would be than a fifth of that, let alone the tax.

    2. Re:uh ha by joelmax · · Score: 1

      A hundred what? Dollars per plant?? If your output per plant is such that the yield doesn't cover $100 you need to either get out of the business, or learn to grow. Where I live, I have seen ops that have plants that will each pull in $3000-$4000.. Now, not all plants can have that yield, but the better your green thumb, the better the yield and the better the return. Now, you may not mean $100 per plant, and I hope you don't, but if you don't mean $100 then please clairify..

    3. Re:uh ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you can't express yield in terms of dollars effectively because the market price is highly variable. I've seen it in the US for $20-25 for 1/4 ounce (about 7 grams). I've also seen it in the same market and time period for 8 times that price. I'm sure it's more expensive than that in some places, and possibly cheaper in others. Quality, perceived supply, etc. all affect the price.

      I grow my own in a very small grow box that I built to fit under a closet shelf. It takes about 3 months if you grow from seed, I only use a 150W high-pressure sodium lamp and an exhaust fan to keep air flowing and control heat from the light. I built the box mostly from scratch (bought a few components) for around $300 and a few evenings in the garage working on it. I can buy high quality strains in seed form (illegaly) from many sources over the web. This is probably the riskiest part of the operation, but most outlets have some good "stealth" shipping methods. The seeds vary quite a bit in price also, but the cost is trivial compared to the value of the output. With my setup I can get about 4-5 ounces from one plant after drying and curing. With more space and a more powerful light, you can get many times this yield from a single plant. Outdoors (or without artificial controls on size like container size) plants often get over 6 feet tall.

      so if we say I could buy weed of similar quality for $400/ounce (pretty close in my market) then my harvest would be worth about $1600 - $2000.

      The big problem with outdoor cultivation (other that risk of discovery where it's illegal) is pollen. Female plants will yield more and higher quality bud if they are left unfertilized. This also normally prevents seeds from forming, which is desirable unless you are a breeder.

      so how much would weed cost if it were legal? well if you take the cost + markup approach to pricing, if I were to sell any of my output (I don't) then my costs would be roughly:

      cost of box $300 - estimated life 20 grows - call it $15/grow

      maintenance on box (bulbs, etc) $10/grow

      I'll estimate high on electricity and say $150 per year (the bulb is on continuously for 1 month and then on 12 hrs/day for the next 2 months each grow cycle) - 4 grow cycles/year - let's say $50/grow, which is a high estimate.

      cost of nutrients - I use expensive all-organic stuff, so for me this is probably about $20 per grow.

      seeds we'll use $20 each, although many varieties are cheaper.

      So that comes out to $105 per grow in cost, not including labor and a bunch of other stuff. Let's double it and say it cost $200 per grow.

      If I wanted to make a 100% profit, I could sell my 5 ounces (optimistic in my case) of very high quality smoke for under $100 per ounce, or very roughly one-fourth of what it would cost me to buy something similar on the market now.

      Now imagine it were legal. Apply some economies of scale, commercial growing methods, and some capitalist competition, and it is easy to imagine that someday we could be buying high-quality weed from a legal source for a tenth of what it costs now.

      Of course I haven't accounted for labor, but my system is pretty well automated, and I'd imagine a commercial grow setup would likely be even more automated. I know this is an oversimplified analysis, but I think it's obvious that the black market enjoys a large markup. Most of this is probably because of the large distribution network that is required (with every dealer taking a profit). Legalization would lead to smaller, leaner distribution networks and reduce total profit margins quite a bit.

    4. Re:uh ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      shaitland wrote:

      grown on large scale in a legalized society the output of a single plant would be..

      You wrote

      Where I live, I have seen ops that have plants that will each pull in $3000-$4000...

      You're talking about completely different things. To get an idea of what numbers are realistic, look at legal farming and gardening. You know, where you're competing in a market that includes Monsanto growing stuff that is for sale at Wal-Mart.

      Maybe (it's hard for me to believe but I don't really know the numbers) an apple tree can make $3000 worth of produce in its lifetime (or are we talking about a single season?) but I'll be very happy if any of my backyard hop plants make $100 worth of hops over a few years. Yeah, the professional Yakima Valley growers maybe can do that, but even they aren't gonna make $3000 on one plant, no way.

  10. Drug sniffing robots? by drfool · · Score: 1

    cops everywhere must be pissed...

  11. New Product Launch by Dodder · · Score: 1

    Perfect timing! I was just about to launch my newest product line. Chimney sized fabric softener sheets!

  12. Question for you Dutch. by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you REALLY believe this shit?

    The cops can locate grow-ops FAR easier by tracking electrical usage and using infrared detectors(the heat detected is outside the house, so no warrant needed).

    I think what you REALLY have is 1984 flying over your houses, and it ain't just looking for pot. It is CCTV flying around the place, nothing less. What ELSE might they be looking at?

    Is that REALLY what you want your cops doing with your taxes?

    Considering there is no human on board to generate a murder charge, that little fucker wouldn't last a minute over Los Angeles, but then again, we got guns.

    1. Re:Question for you Dutch. by drfool · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're just another one of them dangerous folk trying to stir trouble, for shame! The government has a genuine interest in our safety, I wish we had drug robots in Glorious America to protect us from the degenerate substance abusers that have so plagued our great society.

    2. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Xenna · · Score: 1

      1984! No, I believe *that* paranoid shit. ;)

      I don't really believe this will work that well, though. They're just trying. Obviously current detection methods aren't working very well. Electricity is tapped by bypassing the meters making detection harder.

      Lately growers have resorted to using natural gas powered generators to generate the electricity. Also they're growing cannabis outside between regular crops. That's where this toy might perhaps come in handy.

      It's perfectly legal for the police to fly manned helicopters to keep track of things, so I don't know what's particularly 1984ish about this. I don't expect to ever see one of these things. My guess is that it's an experiment that'll soon fail.

      X.

    3. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really understand the problem.
      The government there just wants people to practice their aim on a flying target.

    4. Re:Question for you Dutch. by VON-MAN · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY believe this shit? The cops can locate grow-ops FAR easier by tracking electrical usage and using infrared detectors(the heat detected is outside the house, so no warrant needed).

      What about hothouses? There's a whole region of the Netherlands called "the glass city", lots of hot windows and roofs there. Guess you'd need a sniffer there.

      Considering there is no human on board to generate a murder charge, that little fucker wouldn't last a minute over Los Angeles, but then again, we got guns.

      Yes, I know, however we've got brains.

    5. Re:Question for you Dutch. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yeah but at least here in the US electrical usage and infrared detectors aren't actually proof of anything or even enough to get a warrant to search and look for proof. They just let the law enforcement know who to look at more closely.

    6. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just so to say, watch the video: it says the drones detect the heat from the lighting... which I guess is done through IR sensors.

      Well, quick fix: use low-consumptions grow-lights. Seems you can get the equivalent of 500-600W classic ones with 100-150W low-consumptions. Plus it will also lower you electricity charges, so not to drag cops with your billings.

      Of course, do not grow your pot under the roof. Roof's purpose is to serve as an isolation to lower stairs, and is rarely very well isolated in itself (plus rockwhool above something you'd smoke is kinda retarded). Rather grow it in small cabinets that you will be able to hide inside a classic room. Here it is: heat problem solved.

      As for the smell (guess the drones have particles sensors), well, easy: use fast growing seeds (such as those that grow and make flowers in less than two monthes), and make those grow like bonsais. Faster growing cycle, smaller plants: lesser need to ventilate, hence, making it easy not to have to cope with an overwhelming smell in your habitat. Better: drones could not be able to detect smaller quantities of THC particles, or whatever they sniff.

      And voila: fuck you, flying-nazi-bots :p

    7. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah: killing bots to slaughter those degenerated GMO eaters and producers! I like the idea.

    8. Re:Question for you Dutch. by luigi517 · · Score: 1

      yes but our guns are bigger

    9. Re:Question for you Dutch. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Considering there is no human on board to generate a murder charge, that little fucker wouldn't last a minute over Los Angeles, but then again, we got guns."

      1. Shoot at drone that is filming you.
      2. Watch as drone drops from the sky over a densely populated area.
      3. Continue watering plants.
      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I really need right now is a mod category +0 I can't tell if you're being serious or ironic

    11. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cops can locate grow-ops FAR easier by tracking electrical usage and using infrared detectors(the heat detected is outside the house, so no warrant needed).

      Ehmm, how do you suggest we find them based on tracking electrical usage since:

      - the electrical meter is located inside the residence most of the time, and even it isn't the authorities can't obtain its readings without a warrant
      - most of the time the electrical meter is (illegally) bypassed anyway

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    12. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, i'm REALLY dutch and have no clue what a 1984 is.

    13. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that possible, we bought all our guns from US. ehm, you!

    14. Re:Question for you Dutch. by hattig · · Score: 1

      People have a right to reasonable privacy in their gardens, not just within their houses. A drone that is effectively infra-red (and other wavelengths?) CCTV that can also see into back gardens is surely an invasion of the privacy of the innocent people that it will also record.

      I agree that it's just flying CCTV, Half Life 2 style, to keep the masses in check. Even if it starts out being used at high altitudes for this purpose, someone will abuse it down the line to get detailed imagery of people where they expect reasonable privacy.

    15. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am still waiting for the cops to raid the house of my 89 year old neighbour - senior citizens tend to heat their houses excessively.

    16. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      Is that REALLY what you want your cops doing with your taxes?

      Um, you didn't actually mention what it is you think they are REALLY doing, all you did was make a vague reference to CCTV and a 60 year old novel.

      We would have to know what your particular conspiracy theory actually is before we could say whether we agree or disagree with it.

      Btw, due to the way most current suburban electrical grids work, heat dissipation is wildly acknowledged as the best way of detecting cannabis cultivation.

    17. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      Have you actually read 1984?

      Major themes include suppression of sexuality, nationalism and strict following of political doctrine. For someone from the USA (one of the most conservative societies in the western world) to be criticizing one of the most tolerant and liberal societies in the western world that they are entering a 1984 style era, is pretty ironic to say the least!

    18. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Imrik · · Score: 2, Informative
    19. Re:Question for you Dutch. by SiggyRadiation · · Score: 1

      Bij deze is uw geek-card ingetrokken.

      --
      This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
    20. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you're misinformed, on a number of points:

      1. Due to the large turnover of weed, growers are very professional when it comes to isolating their homes. Saves energy, and reduces chances of detection.

      2. Electrical usage is hard to track, as it's generally stolen or multiply-sourced. Run a few cables through the wall, result: local average use is higher and yours is lower.

      3. The 'copter shown on TV has a very small camera and a very large sniffer. I'd say the camera was ther for navigation and landing, and the primary means of detection is chemical. Wouldn't surprise me it it also would sniff XTC production, as that's another problem here.

      4. Good luck looking inside a house with a camera anyway. About the only thing you could spot through a roof is the IR signature of a poorly-isolated room kept well above normal temperatures.

      5. You're showing the typical paranoia of a inhabitant of a 1-party or 2-party state. The Netherlands is a multi-party state with ever-changing coalitions. That's a pretty effective antidote to 1984-style control.

    21. Re:Question for you Dutch. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't be too hard to design a laser targetting system to blind it... The hard part might be to make to it doesn't blind live pilots, but then those don't tend to look at naked ladies taking the sun in the garden while they fly.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    22. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong?

      The drone might crash into your plants.

    23. Re:Question for you Dutch. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      How's that possible, we bought all our guns from US. ehm, you!

      We keep the good shit for ourselves.

      Why just today I was shining up my belt-fed, air-cooled 20mm autocannon.

      I mean, you just never know when you have to punch though a few inches of armor in order to defend yourself from murders, rapists and Liberals.

    24. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always thought it was bat shit crazy to allow people carry guns the way you do in the US, but hell, I kinda see your point now. Now if you excuse me, i'll go on and hone my drone-sniping skills...

    25. Re:Question for you Dutch. by dryueh · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that the result would likely be very different in the US. There are cases that have held that using things like infrared scans or even the heightened senses of drug-sniffing dogs are an unreasonable violation of privacy without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The flying robots in the story similarly have such "heightened senses" and, thus, would probably violate US citizens' Constitutional rights.

    26. Re:Question for you Dutch. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Considering there is no human on board to generate a murder charge, that little fucker wouldn't last a minute over Los Angeles, but then again, we got guns."

      Unless you have flak pieces, good luck with that.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    27. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I really need right now is a mod category +0 I can't tell if you're being serious or ironic

      You need a brain check. ;) Clearly he was being sarcastic.

    28. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering there is no human on board to generate a murder charge ....

      Not needed -- when that little fucker comes down into a busload of pregnant nuns, they'll hit you with forty murders at once.

    29. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but at least here in the US electrical usage and infrared detectors aren't actually proof of anything or even enough to get a warrant to search and look for proof. They just let the law enforcement know who to look at more closely.

      How naive are you? All they have to do is "thought I herd screams coming from inside the house. Everyone was OK, but I happened to notice funny plants".

      Just like if a cop wants to stop you, all he has to assert is "The driver was weaving in traffic". Try to disprove that one. Hell, try to _define_ it.

    30. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - the electrical meter is located inside the residence most of the time, and even it isn't the authorities can't obtain its readings without a warrant

      And didn't it joost to be true that they couldn't have the telcos build secret rooms through which all traffic was passed through "machines that don't exist" without a warrant?

      Grow up, this is Amerika.

    31. Re:Question for you Dutch. by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      When I lived in San Jose, CA. as a kid, people (quite a few) were shooting at the helicopters that were spraying Malathion all over residential neighborhoods. It was an attempt to simply wipe out a Medfly infestation, yet people were willing to SHOOT at human occupied helicopters to keep them from spraying.

      Never underestimate a patriot with a gun, even if they are misguided.

  13. Billy Mays here... by heyitsjon · · Score: 1

    Now the pot has met the bot!

    1. Re:Billy Mays here... by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      More like the bot has met the shotgun pellets.

  14. Unconstitutional in the USA by WizKidr · · Score: 1

    This wouldn't fly in the USA thanks to Kyllo v. USA.

  15. I realize that this was tongue-in-cheek, but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I can't vouch for the "sniffers", but in the United States similar infrared instruments have already been ruled to be illegal surveillance without a warrant.

  16. Range? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the range is on this thing, and in related thoughts i wonder what frequencies it uses to communicate with HQ?

    1) block frequencies
    2) wait for it to crash into wall
    3) steal scraps
    4) ???
    5) profit

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    1. Re:Range? by julesh · · Score: 3, Funny

      1) block frequencies
      2) wait for it to crash into wall
      3) steal scraps
      4)
      get beaten up by cops who are pissed off you wrecked their toy, while you are filming covertly
      5) profit

      There. Finished that for you.

    2. Re:Range? by neumayr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Technology is past that - UAVs are capable of some degree of autonomy, most likely enough to avoid flying into walls.
      Check out what those quadcopter people are playing around with, they've got some advanced stuff, and it's safe to assume government developed UAVs are further advanced than that.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  17. Hehe well let me write that piece for you then... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Amsterdam (AP). Dutch intelligence services have uncovered a terror cell operating in the Dutch capital of Amsterdam. Kas Buurmeester, spokesperson of the Dutch Ministry of Inner Security announced during a press conference earlier this morning that a number of dutch citizens were apprehended outside the homes of various members of the European Parliament. The suspects displayed a keen interest in the contents of rubbish bins and in one case evidence of an attempt was uncovered to tap into the municipal sewage system, ostensibly to obtain samples of sewage from those residences. "There is not a single modus of operandi you can point to and that's how terrorists operate", so David Rosenthal, security advisor to the United Nations, "Each case is different and it really depends on the terrorist's objectives". With this in mind, tragedy may have been prevented in Amsterdam, but the population of this European metropolis looks into an uncertain and worrisome future.

  18. What a waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the world wasting so much time and energy fighting the losing battle of keeping marijuana illegal. A very large part of the population smokes it and its becoming more common everyday. The reasons its illegal are generally very silly, like what happened in the US.

    Hell, I work in an office of over 75 people and I would take a guess that at least 40 of them smoke pot at least once a week. 15 or so every day. We do our jobs, we do them very well and have fun hanging out after work with each other. We are not a bunch of college kids, everyone ranges from ages 30 to 50.

    Its just ridiculous that the governments are investing so many resources into bothering people who want to relax after a long day at the office. Let me live my fucking life, and you go deal with yours. Stop invading my life with your personal morals.

  19. Lets get to the core. A FORMAL CHALLANGE. by Froody42 · · Score: 1

    I doubt this technology is going to be restricted to "kingpens" and that its use is going to be limited to the Netherlands. I FORMALLY CHALLANGE slashdot contributers to come up with the a diy device that can block RF transmitters for a suitable range Without becoming a beacon for enforcement. i issue this challenge not because i do not possess the technical knowledge to do this (irrelevant), but out of love. is it out of protocol to issue a formal challenge on a first post?

  20. Some background by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in the Netherlands, the background to this story:

    Using cannabis is considered a victimless crime and thus low priority for law enforcement. This is true for most countries in Europe, but the Netherlands is known for this because it's in the open. So, yes, it's tolerated, but this is far from unique and has little to do with government income from taxes, as someone on this thread suggested.

    The national laws regarding drugs are somewhat hazy (the same with squatting). This is intentional, it gives city councils room to adapt their policies to the local situation. Some cities on the borders get thousands of drug tourists a day, which creates all kinds of problems. Maastricht has banned its coffeeshops to a `drug boulevard' outside the city, other places work with a pass system so that only locals can visit coffeeshops. Most other places don't experience such problems, so do not need such measures.

    However, things have changed in the last decade. Modern designer plants literally drip with THC, the content of some weed is actually so high that it is considered hallucinogenic and thus a hard drug. Also, the growers are not old ladies or hippies anymore. It's now big business run by criminal gangs that grow for export, not just local use.

    These are reasons for the police to crack down on the growers. It's also part of a political trend, the current coalition includes two christian parties. They are the parties responsible for the Netherlands joining Bush's wars. The former minister for science belongs to one of them, she kept telling universities they should look into ID, so they're quite extreme. Both parties spout rethoric about moral reconstruction of the country, they're also pushing for stiff jail sentences for squatters. City councils are against this, they tolerate squatters to make life difficult for real-estate speculators.

    Concerning the drone, the police says they'll only use it if they suspect the presence of a cannabis farm. Maybe they get tipped of by electricity companies (growers rig their meters). What worries me far more than this silly drone, which seems to be mainly a deterrent, is a proposed law concerning smart meters. The ID woman is now minister of economy, and she's trying to make smart meters obligatory. Refusing to have them installed would be an economic crime, which implies high fines and even jail.

    These meters send data about your minute-to-minute electricity use over the interwebtubes to your energy company, they in turn provide records to government upon request. So it just comes down to government spying, and since the meters have been hacked already, it means criminals can spy on you as well. They can then burgle your house while you're on holiday, so as not to inconvenience you too much. So it's a win-win situation. The motivation for this bill is that it will help consumers to be more energy efficient.

    Most. Transparent. Excuse. Ever.

    1. Re:Some background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point about the smart meters.

      However, LED-based lighting systems are getting better and better, allowing you to get 600w+ of light out of less than 100w of power. The "industry" will adapt.

    2. Re:Some background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the Netherlands...

      What a coincidence, so do I.

      Using cannabis is considered a victimless crime and thus low priority for law enforcement.

      No, actually it's legal, just as prostitution has not been considered a "victimless crime" but has actually been legal since the sixties. The reason it took so long to get an actual law on prostitution, is because a christian party has been part of most governments, and tolerating it but not actually legalizing it was a dutch "polder" compromise.

      This is true for most countries in Europe, but the Netherlands is known for this because it's in the open. So, yes, it's tolerated, but this is far from unique and has little to do with government income from taxes, as someone on this thread suggested.

      I can think of no other European country other than the Netherlands where your weed would not be confiscated if found by the coppers.

      The national laws regarding drugs are somewhat hazy (the same with squatting).

      Actually both are crystal clear, thanks to the practice of jurisprudence. It's legal for adults to carry weed up to 5 grams and to use it in their homes (though even if used on the street, I have never heard of a conviction or even an arrest for this specific misdemeanor). You're also allowed to have a couple of plants (I thought about 5). As for squatting: it's perfectly legal to squat a house that has not been in use for at least 1 year.

      This is intentional, it gives city councils room to adapt their policies to the local situation.

      There is near limitless room for mayors (whom are btw not elected, but appointed by the government) to bypass laws or even the constitution using special ordinances. The Hague mayor Deetman for instance banned demonstrations (except those that were requests a week beforehand and confined themselves to small fenced regions). Additionally, several laws (for instance the law on prostitution) have specific clauses in them for local exceptions. Once again a polder-construction to appease christian parties.

      However, things have changed in the last decade. Modern designer plants literally drip with THC, the content of some weed is actually so high that it is considered hallucinogenic and thus a hard drug.

      Total and complete hogwash:
      1. Like all other plants, cannabis has been bred for maximum yield / quality. No "designing" took place.
      2. Hashish has not gained in strength, is and was stronger in THC content than all weed. Yet hashish has always been considered a soft drug.
      3. Some weed is only mildly hallucinogenic.
      4. Hallucinogenic drugs are generally soft drugs. (Remember the mushrooms, until our christian secretary of health decided to bypass all scientfic advice based on inaccurate newspaper headlines on tourists performing suicidal because of the mushrooms).
      5. Stronger weed means you use less of it. Just like any other substance: If sugar is twice as strong, you use half as many lumps in your tea.

    3. Re:Some background by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 1

      No, actually it's legal,

      Are you absolutely sure cannabis is not mentioned in the narcotics law anymore? AFAIK the 5 grams thing was more a rule of thumb that the police made up for themselves. They also don't bother with shoplifters that steal less than 10 euros worth of stuff, but that's doesn't make shoplifting legal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Non-enforcement

      "Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine."

      That seems pretty clear, not sure how up to date wikipedia is in this regard though.

      just as prostitution has not been considered a "victimless crime" but has actually been legal since the sixties. The reason it took so long to get an actual law on prostitution, is because a christian party has been part of most governments, and tolerating it but not actually legalizing it was a dutch "polder" compromise.

      I think we have a misunderstanding about the semantics of `legal' here. I meant `legal' as in `having a law about it'. Prostitution was tolerated, but technically illegal, in the sixties.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

      "Prostitution was defined as a legal profession in January 1988."

      "When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000 it was to protect the women by giving them work permits but some fear that this business cannot be normalized."

      I can think of no other European country other than the Netherlands where your weed would not be confiscated if found by the coppers.

      Sorry to contradict you, but when backpacking through Europe (early '90s) I found that weed is everywhere, often much more visible than in the Netherlands. When I got of the train in Lisbon, the first thing I saw was a welcoming committee of dealers on the platform openly wielding huge chunks of hashish. One followed me through the station hall into a bank, he was trying to sell me his chunk while I was changing money. We passed quite a few policemen who did not seem to care at all.

      And the first impression I got of Barcelona was a group of spanish guys parading around a square smoking weed, again in front of the police. I later heard from a local that there's another square in Barcelona where basically anything goes, the police is always present there but only intervenes when things get out of hand.

      And then there's Camden Lock in London, there are always a few (very pushy) hash dealers hanging around there. I'm 100% sure the police knows about this, but they don't intervene. I've been to Canada, and got the strong impression that it's the same over there.

      My point was not that it's legal anywhere else in Europe, but that in practice there is little to no enforcement. France may be a notable exception. Caveat: I'm not advocating possession and/or use of illegal substances in European countries (or anywhere else for that matter). Don't blame me if you get thrown in jail!

      The national laws regarding drugs are somewhat hazy (the same with squatting).

      Actually both are crystal clear, thanks to the practice of jurisprudence. It's legal for adults to carry weed up to 5 grams and to use it in their homes (though even if used on the street, I have never heard of a conviction or even an arrest for this specific misdemeanor)

      .

      I have, but admittedly it's rare. There's a zero-tolerance policy in place for UItrecht Central station and adjacent shopping mall. And occasionally a major may decide to have a temporary zero-tolerance policy for a specific event (dance festivals etc).

      So that's what I meant by `hazy'.

      You're also allowed to have a couple of plants (I thought about 5).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Non-enforcement

      A maximum of five Cannabis

  21. So what are they sniffing for over De Wallen? by cavehobbit · · Score: 1
  22. Some random facts about MJ in Holland by Farenji · · Score: 2, Informative

    - There are hundreds, thousands of "coffeeshops" all over Holland, where everyone over 18 is allowed to buy as much as 5 grammes hash or weed;
    - As a result, selling weed is legal for coffeeshops;
    - The same coffeeshops are not allowed to sell alcohol;
    - Smoking tobacco is not allowed in coffeeshops, however, smoking pure hash/weed is okay. No one cares.
    - The coffeeshops are *not* allowed to buy weed/hash from growers (so technically, they have to commit crimes on a daily basis to be able to stay in business)
    - The police will look the other way for this so it's only illegal on paper.
    - On the other hand, growing weed is prohibited, and police are actively looking for plantations, and prosecuting the owners;
    - But: it is legal for anyone to grow up to 4 plants in their home, "for personal use". You cannot sell any of that.
    - The dutch take pride in this confusing, schizofrenic mess, calling it "tolerant".

    Yes, we're a crazy lot.

    1. Re:Some random facts about MJ in Holland by santax · · Score: 2, Funny

      Neh, you're just doing it wrong. All that really starts making sense after a couple of smokes.

  23. Out of curiosity, you understand by maroberts · · Score: 1

    What is the greenest most low energy way of growing the stuff? Presumably insulating the roof of the premises is a good idea, and also low-energy lighting may be good, but I understand there is no escaping the need for an infra-red(heat?) component.... or is there?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Out of curiosity, you understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I understand there is no escaping the need for an infra-red(heat?) component.... or is there?

      The infra-red emission problem can be solved: water-cooled lights (commercially available) plus advanced IR-reflecting insulation for the ceilings and walls of the grow space. The exact strategy for managing this depends on scale of the operation and the local conditions.

      Also, operate the daytime phase of the light schedule during the daytime, when solar energy is saturating exposed surfaces. This alone will often suffice for eradicating detectable thermal signatures.

  24. it's not the drug. it's the culture & crime by cornercuttin · · Score: 1

    with most of this stuff, it is not the drug that countries/governments are worried about. it is the culture that drugs generate and the crime that can be associated with it.

    drugs seem to attract organized crime, and turn neighborhoods into very dangerous places. alcohol doesn't seem to attract crime, but it seems to bring out the idiot in people. i tend to think the idiot is less dangerous (in most cases)

    personally, i don't do drugs. i enjoy a good drink from time to time, but i do so responsibly. but i know a lot of people who do drugs, and they are not quality people. they steal, lie & cheat their way through life. personally, i don't want that in my neighborhood.

    if you would like to see what drug culture can do, visit the south-central or south-east side of a major american city (NYC, LA, St Louis, Atlanta, Chicago).

    it's not the drugs i have a problem with. it is the culture that comes with them.

    1. Re:it's not the drug. it's the culture & crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alcohol doesn't seem to attract crime

      It did when it was illegal. Noticing a pattern?

    2. Re:it's not the drug. it's the culture & crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have known quite a few people who do drugs. Some are liars, certainly, but many others are successful, fairly well-adjusted people. Some of them even have families (who they do lots of things with and care very much about!).

      Although your experience may be that drug users (this includes myself, as a business owner with important responsibilities to others) are depraved, but that is not the case everywhere.

      Drug culture does not necessarily produce organized crime. What produces organized crime, many times, is making these drugs illegal. Of course some of them should be, like heroin for instance. Others are less harmful than alcohol, and making them criminal creates an entire underground market that will exist no matter what.

      Finally, is the LEGAL drug culture any better? The LEGAL pharmas get people just as hooked on drugs which clearly can have very detrimental side effects. People pumping themselves full of anti-depressants because they can't spend the time to get their emotions in good enough working order to hold together their life? A society that worships endless work and toil over the well-being of human beings? That seems just as brutal and terrifying in its ultimate implications compared to the crime you are talking about.

      Just my 2 cents.

  25. Was that an earthquake... by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    ...or the collective shudder of Digg users everywhere?

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  26. Chocolate detector vans, anyone? by makomk · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the chocolate detector vans from Bootleg - an amusing TV mini-series (originally a book) satirising, amongst other things, the war on drugs.

    1. Re:Chocolate detector vans, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Flying pigs are so last century by Akita24 · · Score: 1
  28. Picture accompanying article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think this guy should be using HPS at this point? Those plants look pretty young... I'd have my mercury bulb out.

    1. Re:Picture accompanying article by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 1

      Mercury Vapour? Are not a good bulb to use at any stage of growing. They are the 12$ ones that you find at home hardware. What you can do is take a ballast that was used in conjunction with a Mercury Vapour and it will fire up a Metal Halide giving off an ideal spectrum for vegatative growth. You can use this same ballast to power a HPS (High Pressure Sodium) only if it has the firing mechanism in it. This can be done by buying a switchable ballast or converting it manually by opening up the ballast and adding/removing the fire mechanism. A merc vapour/MH ballast is a typical ballast seen on street lamps and in grocery stores and can be bought fairly cheaply, the fire mechanism can be acquired for about 15$ to convert it to HPS.

      Mercury Vapour should never be used to grow.

  29. Ah, the good old police state... by cagrin · · Score: 1

    i can't wait till 1984 catches up with us :(

    --
    ~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
  30. Cultural Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Dutch. There also is somewhat of a cultural difference w.r.t. to smoking joints.

    For (most of) the Dutch, smoking joints is something you do as a juvenile, and at some point in their early twenties, 99.99% stop smoking and prefer the occasional beer or wine.

    The 'stoner' as such, as depicted in many US movies, hardly exists in the Netherlands. Maybe except for the occasional 'bird-of-paradise' left-over from the sixties. But, yeah, well, hard to take them seriously.

    This is way different than, for example, somewhat larger small groups of Germans who actually (sometimes) still see smoking weed as a kind of sixties 'liberalizing' act.

    To most of the Dutch, smoking weed as an act is a non-issue. The problem is the legal part, the tourists it attracts, and our dealings with foreign nations.

  31. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antihero here, take me serious, www.myspace.com/an_anti_hero

    pot is medicine, marijuana is medicine, its a recretaional drug, you cant overdose on it, cigarettes are legal, listen

    IF SWINE FLU WAS REAL, IF THEY MADE IT IN A LABORATORY, WEED should be legal to anyone who wants it as medicine

    No!!!Fascism!! spending thousands of dollars on some stupid drone plane to fly through the air and invade our freedoms?

    NO. NO. NO.

    I believe people that believe in one world government should be hung dead, because those illuminati/zionists are behind 9/11, iraq, afghanistan, torture, financial crisis/bailout, they're behind...

    The bible says: By their fruits you shall know them.

  32. all that for weed? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    No seriously. All of that money and effort for weed?!? You can walk through Big Ben park and see the stuff growing wild. It rarely grows beyond a sprout but... Hunting out people growing weed?!? OMFG what a useless waist of time and energy.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  33. It shouldn't be had to put them down by g00ey · · Score: 1

    I imagine that these devices are quite expensive.
    A shotgun and a few rocks would prolly take them all down in no-time. Then it would take the pigs a year to get funding from the dole/govment for new units. Some gasoline and a few matches could be handy just to make sure that they get fubar.

  34. Not worth it by mirdamad · · Score: 1

    I think the expense factor of these drones and the technology they use outweighs the benefits of preventing people from growing weed in their homes. One has to remember that it is legal to smoke weed in the Netherlands, and that there are even coffee shops where weed is a prominent part of the experience. This seems like a huge waste of money to me. I think the Netherlands and every country for that matter have much better things to spend a large amount of money such as this on. In addition, although the police seem to think that this would not be breaking the law, I would have to disagree. I think there must be some sort of privacy law in the Netherlands that would not allow something like this to happen. These planes have no just cause to be scanning the homes of people in the first place.

  35. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robo-Nazis