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."

Comments

News just in.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dutch tourist industry goes bankrupt.

Re:News just in.

[repapetilto]

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.

Re:News just in.

[drfool]

looks like we got a narc

Re:News just in.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:News just in.

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Um.

[adolf]

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?

Re:Um.

[Dripdry]

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

Re:Um.

[D-Cypell]

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!

Re:Um.

[unlametheweak]

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.

Re:Um.

[kdemetter]

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.

Re:Um.

[D-Cypell]

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.

Re:Um.

[tpgp]

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.

Re:Um.

[VON-MAN]

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Re:Um.

[Xenna]

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)

Re:Um.

[shaitand]

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.

Re:Um.

[XDirtypunkX]

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.

Re:Um.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Um.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Um.

[Jedi Alec]

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).

Re:Um.

[D-Cypell]

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!

Re:Um.

[wdef]

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.

Re:Um.

[amRadioHed]

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.

Re:Um.

[RMH101]

"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.

Re:Um.

[John Betonschaar]

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'.

Re:Um.

[aurispector]

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.

Re:Um.

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

And in a related story...

[msimm]

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.

Question for you Dutch.

[Anachragnome]

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.

Re:Question for you Dutch.

[drfool]

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.

Re:Range?

[julesh]

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.

Re:Bad move...

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.

Some background

[DogPhilosopher]

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.