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."
The DEA perfects the Depth Charge.
Sounds like the kind of thing that takes more than a few engineers to build. I wonder what toys they hand out at recruitment fairs?
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.
Can you imagine how bad the cartels would be hurting if this stuff got legalized? You'd better believe they'd be buying up senators left and right to keep it banned.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This should be motive enough to legalize some drugs or at least restrict sales such that it would stop the South Americans from shipping coke to the US.
Once naval and intelligence experts become concerned of the sub building capabilities and detection of these subs it acknowledges that this poses a risk to US security. I read earlier articles that indicated ex-Russian sub designers were being hired by the Cartels to build their sub.
I don't think there's any major worry of these subs being virtually undetectable like the current American subs or carrying nukes or torpedoes but I think there might be a concern that some of these people would go to work for some other country at some point. Hell, if they're building these kinds of subs in the jungle, I'd be concerned about what they can do if they don't have to be so conspicuous.
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.
I've been building autonomous vessels since 2004 and the very first potential customer was a guy who wanted to smuggle weed and cigs from Switzerland to Italy with one. Had to wait a few months for an actual legit customer and I get that sort of call/email twice a year on average. I could've made a lot of money, but eh.
I've heard of side-scan radar and side-scan sonar. What the fuck is side-scan GPS? Wouldn't the vessel have to be on the surface to receive a GPS signal, or if submerged, extend some sort of antenna above the ocean surface? What in the name of Cthulhu are they scanning laterally for? Does the US Navy have a secret GPS constellation that orbits underwater or something? Methinks the writer studied journalism at the University of Make Shit Up.
By having these drug laws, we provide incentive for criminals to circumvent them. It's no surprise that these drug rings have used more sophisticated methods to smuggle their products into the U.S. The more we ramp up "protecting" our population from drugs, the more drug lords ramp up their methods of importing drugs. Now that these methods exist, there's no reason why terrorists can't use it to piggyback dangerous devices. In summary, add another "+1" to the long list of negatives stemming from our War on Drugs.
You can bet the USN & CIA detection equipment from sea floor mounted sensors will be able to pick up the known propulsion signatures.
Sounds transmit underwater for very long distances which will limit the number of sensors particularly if "well placed" at known transit spots.
It won't be long before they can pretty much find, follow and intercept as they wish.
That would be the street price. The sub would transport high purity (>90%) coke, by the time it gets to the consumer it's usually around 10-15%.
However the authorities always grossly over-estimate the value of a haul. Looks good for their totals, and helps prosecutors secure higher sentences.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
"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
Right and legal drugs don't have an underground market. You name one drug including Tylenol and cough syrup and you can find a black market for it.
Hell American's are going to Canada to buy their prescription medications because those same drugs made by the same company are being sold in the USA at 10 times the price.
Just because you make it legal doesn't mean the price will go down on it. Drugs are dealt with poorly in this country for the sake of profits.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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
So, in your view, you prefer to COMBINE the effects of the "highly addictive substances" which "entrap lives" with all the side-effects of prohibition, since the prohibition has no chance of actually working in practice because in order to be effective, the counter measures require essentially a totalitarian police state apparatus to be erected, which also presents additional power concentration and profit opportunities for the "authorities" - see also: private prisons etc, not to mention dispensing with all of these inconvenient civil liberties and personal freedoms, Habeas Corpus and the like hindrances for the Holy Crusaders of Anti-Addiction.
So if you are intellectually honest with us, you also advocate a complete Big Brother 24/7/365 all-encompassing surveillance totalitarianism, since it is the only possible scenario under which the supposed "benefits" (i.e. no addicts) of the prohibition could ever be realized. That is, of course, if you are a believer in totalitarian police states and think Orwell's 1984 was an instruction manual.
All to "save us" from ourselves.
No?
Sometimes I read a post and stop after one sentence too.
"You name one drug including Tylenol and cough syrup and you can find a black market for it."
Per capita alcohol consumption in the US went down.
I don't have a link for that, but I get my numbers from a chart I saw in a museum at Mt. Vernon. Alcohol consumption per capita was massive at the end of the 19th century, but through Prohibition it stayed flat and when Prohibition ended, it decreased.
My first guess would be that the vicarious thrill of being a law-breaker increased consumption. I suspect that something like that is also true of drug consumption in the US. Take away the thrill of eating the forbidden fruit and consumption may just well drop.
That would be the street price. The sub would transport high purity (>90%) coke, by the time it gets to the consumer it's usually around 10-15%.
However the authorities always grossly over-estimate the value of a haul. Looks good for their totals, and helps prosecutors secure higher sentences.
I agree with your first point, so in this case it seems like your second point isn't true.
We agree it wouldn't make any sense to smuggle low-purity cocaine using so costly and risky a method. That's going to be nine tons of nearly pure coke.
But by my math, $250 million divided by nine tons comes out to a little less than $31 a gram, or $93 for an eight ball. Of pure cocaine? I don't think so. They could easily step on this shipment five times, still have the best stuff around, and make considerably more than $250 million.
If anything, it sounds like law enforcement is throwing out a number that downplays the amount of money involved in the drug trade.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
Enough of them certainly. Of course many object for moral reasons. Either because they fear the damage that will be caused to society (too late) or because they feel sorry for the victims who fall to addiction. Then there is the purported fact that the CIA actually dabbles in this business in order to pad their black ops budget. Regardless we can't even get relatively harmless Marijuana decriminalized so certainly harder stuff is out of the question.
The GGP must be proposing lifting those restrictions for cocaine as well, otherwise there will be a black market anyway. Besides, is there any statistical data whether the tax revenue from alcohol or tobacco is enough to pay off for all the medical issues they create? I recall hearing a tv report that it's not the case in Germany, by a very large margin.
Ah, found it: in Germany the yearly tax revenue from alcohol taxes is 3,5 billions EUR, but estimated 24,4 billions EUR are spent due to alcohol-related damage to the economy (medical services, accidents, insurances etc.). About 1 billion EUR is spent on alcohol advertisement each year. Similar situation is estimated for tobacco. So the two major legal drugs create more damage to the economy than the state could possibly repair through taxes. Why should it be different with cocaine?
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.
It is not as simple as you describe it. In the 1980ies Gorbachev more or less introduced alcohol prohibition to the USSR. And while it indeed lead to moonshine contaminated by poisons and alternative drug abuse, it actually lowered criminality somewhat, raised birth rates and boosted life expectancy to the highest value in the whole history of Russia before or after it.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
the bulk of the others are not just illegal; they're super bad for you in any kind of fun quantity
Citation needed. Yes, methamphetamine is a fairly dangerous drug to use, and it does cause brain damage, but where is the evidence that the "bulk" of other drugs are dangerous for you? Can you cite any studies that have found that those drugs are more dangerous than, say, alcohol?
Palm trees and 8
Gorbachev's changes were more about limited access. You could still buy vodka but you could only buy limited quantities and at limited times. Which drove sales to the black market. Which hurt the Russian economy.
Hell, that's kind of like Washington state's laws as of 10 years ago when you couldn't buy vodka on a Sunday because all the liquor stores are state-owned.
Alcohol (and other drugs) are complex subjects that cannot be "solved" with simplistic solutions.
Unfortunately, most politicians can only think in the most simplistic of sound-bites so that's all we ever get.
If you worry about the addicts, outlaw tobacco and alcohol. Let's not be hypocritical here, ok? As long as there's far more addictive substances legal and less addictive and damaging substances are illegal, let's not talk about "moral".
The difference is that there's an industry behind those two drugs and that industry is legal and pays taxes, and most of all there's public support for them. Start a campaign for pot akin to the one against smoking today and you'll see MJ legalized in a breeze.
But as long as there's little incentive from various industries to legalize anything but what's already legal and firmly in the hands of a few tobacco and booze corporations we won't see any change in that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's the reply that makes the least sense: If drugs were legal, everyone would use them.
Hello? Would anyone go "hey, it's Tuesday, let's try crack!"? Be serious for a single moment here and think. Yes, protect the kids and make handing drugs to them a crime (not the lala kind of "nono" it is today when it comes to cigs and beer), but if an adult willfully wants to ruin his life, by all means let him!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem was a combination of two things. First, it became cool to drink. It was a thrill ride because you never knew when the sting came and the fines were ridiculous, so you could just "risk" it.
And second, and more importantly, the law had no backing in the general population. There wasn't the big consensus that this was a good idea and that booze should be banned. Quite the opposite. And laws that have no backing in the population are dangerous. For more than one reason.
First, nobody cares about those that break that law. Yes, someone you know is smuggling booze, but he's "stickin' it to da man" rather than being a criminal in your eyes. It's not like he's murdering, then I'd turn him in, but booze running, hey, he's kinda a rebel! That was the general sentiment during those times.
To enforce a law against the will of the population, you have to establish a police state. And even that only works so long as the former east bloc shows.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
QUICK!!! Someone should tell Portugal before their addiction rates continue to drop, along with all the other benefits they've seen in the 10 years or so since they decriminalised ALL illegal drugs.
Really? The U.S. port industry was legal yet it was infiltrated by organized crime, La Cosa Nostra. The Teamsters were a legal trade union, but in thrall to the mob. What makes you think the organized crime syndicates running drugs are going to take legalization lying down? Cigarettes are legal yet there is a thriving underworld devoted to avoiding taxes and shipping them around the globe. Medical drugs are legal, yet there is a thriving industry devoted to producing and shipping counterfeit drugs. Hell, even the U.S. currency is legal, but counterfeiters are out there, even sovereign states like N. Korea and Iran counterfeit U.S. currency.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
The banksters, the politicians' actual bosses. Over one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) was laundered through the US banking system last year (yes, we ARE the world's largest money launderer), about half of that from drugs. The profit margin on money laundering is enormous, ranging from 10-15 percent, a business that the major banks call "private banking".
Think for a moment what happens to the US banking industry if drugs were to be legalized.
$1,000,000,000,000 * 10% = $1,000,000,000 / 2 = $500,000,000
Do you think that the banksters are going to let politicians wipe out a five hundred billion dollar revenue stream just because it's the sane thing to do?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
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.
Alcohol was made illegal and what happened?
Alcohol consumption dropped to less than one gallon per person per year.
1906-1910 2.60 gal.
1916-1919 1.96 gal.
1934 0.97 gal.
1955 2.0 gal.
1973 2.62 gal.
1980 2.76 gal.
2007 2.31 gal.
Apparent per capita ethanol consumption for the United States, 1850-2007. (Gallons of ethanol, based on population age 15 and older prior to 1970 and on population age 14 and other thereafter).
Higher addiction rates, instead of lower ones like you might expect
If this were true, you should be seeing higher liver cirrhosis mortality rates.
In fact, the rates between 1920 and 1940 are about half those of 1910. Age-Adjusted Liver Cirrhosis Mortality U.S. 1910-1996 [chart]
You forgot another consequence, when the feds poisoned alcohol to make people think it was more dangerous, and killed its own citizens as a result: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/
Which they tried again in the 1970's by spraying marijuana fields in Mexico with paraquat. Which failed miserably since paraquat sprayed pot isn't really all that poisonous.
The simple fact is that if shenanigans like this are required to convince people the stuff is dangerous, then it's not dangerous enough to justify federal regulation.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
...the source of this whole raging drug war river is "ZOMG, we can't let Joe Nobody in Pootville get high!"
First the pro drug crowd not only wants decriminalization but they also want a very special status in which product quality and purity is not examined or a path to taxation kept in view.
I'm pro-legalization of pretty much everything. I consider myself a 'moderate libertarian'.
My saying is 'legalize, tax, and regulate it'. Hell yes I'd be taxing and regulating it.
The thing about dropping the price is that they won't NEED to commit the crimes to get it, they won't be as messed up from contaminated drugs so they're more likely to be able to keep a regular job(and afford their habit), and since it's not illegal, it won't have the stigma to prevent people from getting treatment.
I don't read AC A human right
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.
the problem is, by my determination, legalization will result in a larger number of users. this problem, in my mind, is more potent than all the bad side effects of prohibition. so prohibition should continue, with highly addictive drugs
There's a couple of points to be made here, first I don't think there is any evidence that these drugs are not already affordable and accessible to those who wish to experiment with them, I have been offered methamphetamine/methylamphetamine (which the media here in NZ refer to as "P", and most users/dealers refer to as "speed"), more often than I have been offered cannabis, so anecdotally at least, I would say that it is just as accessible. So who exactly are we "freeing" from addiction here?
Methamphetamine's high street price and ease of manufacture means that it is the preferred revenue stream for gangs, who are the main producers of it. I can't quote a source, but fairly recently it was mentioned that only about 8% of the illicit pseudoephedrine (precursor) that goes through our ports is detected by customs, add to that the fact that pseudoephedrine itself is reasonably easy to produce, by fermenting glucose with a benzaldehyde (artificial almond essence) catalyst.
The clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine, although simple, is most often carried out by woefully unqualified and poorly equipt individuals, who are frequently users themselves, and horrifyingly, sometimes in the presence of children. Labs often explode, because of the highly flammable solvents used in the synthesis. The various pollutants produced by this clandestine manufacture are detected in rental accommodation and motels long after the lab is gone, these pollutants are known carcinogens and asthma inducers. None of these labs would exist if not for methampetamine prohibition.
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
Oh, bull crap. There were no private prisons when drugs were made illegal. Up until the early 20th century you could buy cocaine in the local drug store.
Drugs are illegal as a result of the same nanny-state impulse that brought us seat belt laws and Social Security. Some people can't resist the urge to run your life, and they'll enlist the government to do it.
You missed the point. This is a "for the greater good" argument. Not a single person here has said that addiction or the violence would go away. There is no reason to treat marijuana, crack, or any of the other illegal drugs different from alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco. There is evidence that the Prohibition made the addiction and the violence associated with alcohol worse. Applying that to this modern prohibition would lead to the idea that it might be better to legalize illegal drugs rather than allow this status quo to continue. There will still be addiction and violence, but there will be less of it.
Your second point falls apart. Drugs are BAD, there is no denying that. Legalization would help shed some light in those dark corners.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
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.
Oh no no no. Jesus tells us, our body is our temple, so defiling it with drugs would be unethical. We can explain it much better if you come to our church, where we (and our underage children) drink sacrificial alcohol as a condition for the salvation of our soul.
The GGP must be proposing lifting those restrictions for cocaine as well, otherwise there will be a black market anyway.
That's a very misleading false dichotomy. Of course there will be a black market for any restricted good, that doesn't mean that the only valid options are total prohibition or zero-tax unrestricted sale. Reducing the problem from a very expensive law enforcement issue on which no revenue is earned, to a customs issue on which potential profits for smuggling are much lower and tax is earned on the majority of sales, would be a major (and, as far as I can see, very beneficial) change.
Germany the yearly tax revenue from alcohol taxes is 3,5 billions EUR, but estimated 24,4 billions EUR are spent due to alcohol-related damage to the economy (medical services, accidents, insurances etc.). About 1 billion EUR is spent on alcohol advertisement each year. Similar situation is estimated for tobacco. So the two major legal drugs create more damage to the economy than the state could possibly repair through taxes. Why should it be different with cocaine?
Logically, tax revenues should not need to cover the total cost of treatment, only the cost of any potential increase in health problems after legalisation. There are drug related health costs now, after all, and the tax offset is zero. If illegal drug addiction currently costs €x in medical treatment, and would cost €x+y after legalisation, any tax revenue greater than €y is a net win.
Bearing in mind the fact that legalised drugs would be quality controlled, rather than cut with who knows what, and that there is (admittedly debatable) evidence that both consumption and addiction rates went down after the end of prohibition in the US, there is a very reasonable chance that 'y' would be a low or even negative number.
No, they won't. At least not to the same level. When prohibition ended, the criminals entered legal professions, many moving on to Las Vegas (more than average, and less than the movies say) and such. Sure, there was some violence in their next endeavors, but nearly the same as before, and it lessened over time. And if there wasn't prohibition before, then the criminals wouldn't have had all that money in the first place.
Come to think of it, your entire argument is that we should keep prohibition in place and failing just to keep the criminals employed. There are billions being spent on the criminals, and you want to keep that going because you are afraid of what forcibly retired criminals will do when they don't have billions at their disposal. And here I thought that would be a good thing...
Learn to love Alaska
You don't get any rights from your constitution. Your rights are an inalienable part of you. The constitution of the USA is simply a reminder to the government that you have these rights and they are not to pass any laws that infringe on them.
Anarchists never rule