Slashdot Mirror
Drug Runners Perfect Long-Range Subs
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Authorities have captured a 74-foot camouflaged submarine — nearly twice as long as a city bus — with twin propellers and a 5-foot conning tower that, with a crew of four to six, has a maximum operational range of 6,800 nautical miles on the surface, can go 10 days without refueling and was probably designed to ferry cocaine underwater to Mexico. The vessel carries a payload of 9 tons of cocaine with a street value of about $250 million and uses a GPS chart plotter with side-scan capabilities, a high-frequency radio, an electro-optical periscope and an infrared camera mounted on the conning tower—visual aids that supplement two miniature windows in the makeshift cockpit. "This is the most sophisticated sub we've seen to date," says Jon Wallace who has headed the Personal Submersibles Organization, or Psubs, for 15 years. "It's a very good design in terms of shape and controls." In the meantime jungle shipbuilders continue to perfect their craft."
Can we just fucking legalise and tax drugs, rather than let murderous druglords make billions off the black market? It 's a choice of two evils, but at least the corporations will pay tax.
I can't believe people think that if you pretend it doesn't happen it will go away. Let's fucking deal with it using scientific enquiry and logical, rational arguments related to economics and crime. Emotional appeals to 'the evil drugs' are a fucking waste of time. It's a shame that it is political suicide to even entertain ideas about legalisation, thanks to all the fuckwit voters out there. Mostly old people stuck in their conservative ways. I can't wait for these people to die off and we can start learning lessons from history and move forward as a species.
Let me be the first to say though, 9 tons of processed plant matter should not be worth $250 million. Isn't that $14k/lb? Who the heck is snorting it at that price?
It's been said a before, I know, but it's a direct result of the legal restrictions on the trade - they reduce supply and increase the risks of doing business, both of which increase the sale price. Of course, the profits to be had go (by definition) to outlaws, and those who already operate outside the law are more likely to protect their business by violent means, further increasing price by (literally) killing off competition, as well as creating the destabilising gang warfare as seen in Mexico.
If the manufacture and sale of drugs were a legitimate business, of course, then this revenue stream to organised crime would be dramatically curtailed, and the combination of increased tax revenue and reduced enforcement costs would more than account for any predicted increase in addiction treatment costs. The one thing I can't work out is why there is so little debate on the matter among those with the power to change it, despite repeated calls for reform from their scientific advisers. I'm not that surprised that they ignore the scientists, but I am surprised that they miss an opportunity to take money and power from the criminals and exploit it themselves.
The increase in violence, if any, will be temporary. People won't continue fighting if there isn't that much money to be made.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
"The one thing I can't work out is why there is so little debate on the matter among those with the power to change it"
Three words: Private prison lobbyists
Just wanted to add to what you said: look at the parallels to Prohibition in the twenties and early thirties.
Alcohol was made illegal and what happened? Gang warfare. Smuggling. Higher addiction rates, instead of lower ones like you might expect, only now the addicts are going broke because of the increased prices. Criminality of all stripes caused by desperate, broke addicts. Illegal products contaminated by poisons (methanol, mostly). Law enforcement resources diverted when they were sorely needed elsewhere. Officials bribed and corrupted. Assassination and murder for hire, the inevitable result of unscrupulous people flush with cash operating outside the law. This was not a good time to be alive.
Every negative consequence of Prohibition is mirrored in the modern War on Drugs. And what happened when Prohibition was repealed? The problems slowly went away. There wasn't an explosion of alcoholism; the addicts were there all along and nobody suddenly decided to join their number now that it was legal to do so. The criminal empires built on moonshine and smuggling collapsed. Things got better once we stopped trying to force people to live up to the ideals of sobriety, as if it were ever possible to coerce someone to be a better person.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I've been around rich people and around poor people. Almost without exception, the poor people have been more honest and a better class of people.
You are extremely naive if you don't think that a large percentage of the drug money isn't being laundered into the hands of the 'legitimate' people who run the government and wear three piece suites. That is why the drug trade is allowed to go on. It is making too many people too much money. If there was a real desire to shut down the trade, it could be shut down overnight. It would be nice if drugs were legalized, but i don't think it will happen as long as so many people are making so much money.
Think about it. The coast guard and the DEA are the drug runners best friends. Who else would artificially inflate the price of these plants. Likewise the DEA, and coast guard have to love the drug runners. Their jobs, and all the neat toys they get to play with are all purchased to fight this endless war on drugs.
When prohibition was finally lifted, it was the rum runners who came to power in the USA (Kennedy et. al) The ironic thing is that even when alcohol was legitimately taxed, it was still the rum runners who were making the money (Kennedy et. al). The only difference is the instead of the crooked individuals being gangsters they became politicians.
Outlaws are going to become fucking billionaires. They are going to spend a lot of that money arming their own private armies. Thousands of innocent people will be slaughtered and displaced.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
The problem isn't attack, this thing has a crush depth of under 100 feet and is 'armed' only to the extent that the cartels probably send a heavy or two along to make sure that the crew don't decide to find a higher bidder for the cargo.
The tricky bit is detection: There's a lot of ocean out there, and a composite-skinned boat barely sticking out of the water is going to have a comparatively minimal radar presence, a worthwhile thermal signature only if they are running on diesel, and probably count as fairly quiet by the standards of all but substantially more expensive combat subs.
Actually you are quite right. The true reason for all the "prohibitions" is pencil-necked control-freaks who positively cannot stand someone, somewhere doing something in private they do not approve of. All the whining about "addictions" (in case of drugs) or "innocent children" (in case of sexual material on the net) is just a smoke screen.
Sexual gratification they derive from enforcing their will on others is what it is all about.
The cartels already have the capital. If drugs get legalized, they'll just move more heavily into kidnapping and slavery.
Same thing as after Prohibition, organized crime just moved into other territories. There is no way to turn back the clock and prevent the cartels from coming to power in the first place.
Not that this is an argument against legalization, mind you. It's just the observation that one particular argument for legalization doesn't hold that much weight.
That's a poor counter-argument. The cartels are already heavily involved in those other areas as they are profitable, and it's not like the demand for sex slaves is going to double just because people aren't buying illegal drugs. If there was additional unserved demand in those areas, they would already be exploiting it.
Now we only need to figure out how to make drug smuggling to Mars profitable and we'll have manned interplanetary space flight in no time.
Hmm, gotta need to read the Constitution and the Bill of Human Rights again... How could I possibly miss the right to be high or/and drunk?!
Freedoms aren't just what is enumerated as rights, but any imposition on our actions.
The money which is spent on social services, roads, schools etc. instead of providing additional services and facilities to deal with the aftermath of excessive tobacco or alcohol consume?
So what? These governments don't need to provide these services. I'm not interested in curtailing my freedom merely because government has created yet another service which needs protection from my actions.
Seriously, a society which is held permanently drunk or high is much easier to control by the government since the people tend to think less and to doubt less. Sure, there is no denying that a man can't be forbidden to wish such things, but it's still giving away the essential freedoms for temporary happiness while damaging the society you live in. Will deserve neither and lose both ;-)
So what? It's not nor should be the job of government to attempt to force citizens to be patriotic or virtuous.
Because they don't tax alcohol enough, and don't count the money saved by undercutting a booze mafia. Cocaine could be enough to keep its prices at about $50 a (real, not diluted) gram and it would bring in about 90% its current revenue $billions in taxes. While reducing the costs (money and personally) of the cocaine mafia. Converting Mexico, Colombia and much of Bolivia, Peru, Panama and the rest of Latin America back from drug lord countries would save the Western Hemisphere and much of the Eastern many $billions every year.
--
make install -not war
With the same accuracy, can you please tell me how much PCP is currently consumed? What about Marijuana? How's about crack? Since none of those operate on an open market, all of these statistics would be heavily inferred from other proxy variables, and all would be WAY off the mark. If you're seeing a drop, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a drop, but instead there was a change in reporting. Additionally, even in an unregulated market with an open exchange giving us all the awesome information we could want, it can be hard to estimate these rates. While I would have expected prohibition to have had an effect, from seeing documentaries about people who lived in that time, and talking to people who lived through it, I know that the effect was more for show.
In fact, the rates between those dates, from the source you've listed, are under-reported by its own admission. They did not calculate those rates over this period, which is odd, given they were calculating it consistently before and after. This could suggest that the rates didn't change at all. In fact, given the market was flooded with lower quality alcohol (READ: Dangerous), it could mean it was higher. But that's just speculation.
Additionally when looking at epidemiology (an often deeply flawed method), you need to scrutinize what they're doing to the data to display it. For instance, this data is mostly Age-Adjusted, which means that it likely doesn't truly represent the observed rate at that time.
Lastly, while liver cirrhosis is terrible, I think the worst thing about prohibition was the "super gangs" it created. Some of which are still around, and many of which used this model for other things that were made illegal, that shouldn't have been. The statistics from that, would be way worse than any others, but calculating run on effects, is always hard.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Try this: find a kid in high school and ask her what's easier to buy: booze or weed.
If weed is so easy to purchase today, it doesn't follow that legalization will create a significant increase is usage.
Get away from the bias of wanting to believe that legalization will significantly or dramatically increase drug use and abuse, and you're left with the realization that the current form of government addressing the ill of drug abuse is far worse than the abuse itself.
damaged by dogma
Apparent per capita ethanol consumption. If you read the papers linked to the Wiki, you will see that the estimates based on cirrhosis rates and on drunkenness arrests show a 10-20% improvement at best. Your figures come from retail, as far as I can tell, and it totally makes sense that right after prohibition has ended, the established underground market did not go away all at once, hence the dip in the apparent consumption. The actual consumption was not affected in any significant way.