Slashdot Mirror
Cartels Are Using Firetruck-Sized Drillers To Make Drug Pipelines
Daniel_Stuckey writes "In the beginning, they used catapults, dune buggies, 'jalapeños,' $1 million submarines, and sophisticated drug tunnels to move drugs northward. Now, Mexican drug cartels are taking to high-end industrial drills to carve out literal drug pipelines into the U.S. It's the next big leap in the evolution of the narcos' ingenious smuggle tech. The future of borderland drug running, it turns out, is boring. Jason Kersten reports on the phenomenon in a great GQ feature that focuses on the Sinaloa Cartel, the international crime syndicate believed to be behind the first known narco pipeline in 2008: '...Mexican authorities, responding to reports of a cave-in and flooding near the [All-American] canal, discovered a tunnel unlike anything they'd ever seen. Only ten inches wide, it was essentially a pipe. The Mexican cops traced it back to a house about 600 feet from the border, where they found a tractor-like vehicle with a long barrel on its side—a horizontal directional drill, or HDD.'"
Just think about all US government agencies and their budgets on "war on drugs" They only exists as long drug cartel exist. Huge shipments of firearms from US side, drugs to US, hundreds of thousand jobs.
They love each other.
Free market finds a way. Where gov't erects legal barriers, free market becomes black market. Gov't has no business in drugs ( and almost anything except national security actually). Declaring drugs illegal is destroying individual freedoms and distorting markets and creating criminals. The real problem is gov't, not criminals that gov't creates.
You can't handle the truth.
It's a losing battle trying to fight the forces of economics. The Prohibition was basically a gift for the criminals and gangs to make easy money. We're seeing the same thing here. Why is weed illegal anyway? It's arguably just as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. I'm certain that Colorado an Washington won't crumble into anarchy as a result of legalization.
The sooner we decriminalize drugs, the sooner this sort of idiotic "war on drugs" can end. It's one that the US law enforcement can never win, which is the perfect sort of war for a government agency, isn't it? I'm not saying there aren't well-meaning people in those agencies, or among those that advocate such policies, but it's those same well-meaning policies that also gave us the mob during the Prohibition era. Same dance, different partners.
BTW, we recently decriminalized weed here in Washington State, and now people are setting up shops to sell the stuff. I'm betting the world won't come to an end.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It's just heaps more difficult to produce high quality booze or cigs. If people can get plastered on drugs they can grow at home at the same quality that you could sell them... that's just so un-American!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, which is why the reverse is equally true: the cartels will only exist as long as the war on drugs exists.
You've got to wonder why the folks on the right who care so deeply about individual freedom of choice and despise government intrusion in personal affairs are such big fans of the war on drugs.
If it were about protecting the people from harm (which drugs can undoubtedly do to its users) or about reducing crime, the exact opposite approach would make much more sense.
I believe there might be a hint in the fact that sentencing in cases involving cheap drugs is so much harsher than cases involving expensive drugs.
Combined with the infamous two-tier justice system, and the various ways in which ex-convicts are reduced to subhuman status well after they formally did their time, it is effectively a war on the poor, and their vote.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Because the group referred to as 'the right' actually consists of several contradicting ideologies forced together by the nature of the US political system. While they do hold to the principle of small government and individual freedom, these are not their highest priority goals and so will be ignored when a seemingly more important idea is in contradiction. This happens quite often, as the political conservative and social conservative factions are fundamentally conflicted - they'd be at war with each other if they hadn't found a common enemy in the liberals.
The War on Drugs is just bullshit talk. Nobody in power is really serious about stopping stuff, they're just interesting in keeping a profitable War going on.
The reason why the drug lords have the money for submarines, tunneling machines, armies and actual wars is because big banks launder billions for them AND the people involved in that mostly get away with it.
If people know they might end up in jail for laundering, you'd see more of them start getting formal approval from their bosses for dubious stuff, and their bosses will say "No", or pass stuff up to their own bosses and so on. There won't be any bullshit about no trails. A bank could believably claim it lost track of a few hundred dollars here and there, but not when billions are being transferred.
Stop the laundering of billions of dollars and the drug lord budgets will shrink.
Drones will surely happen. I predict that at that time they will obviously have won. (They have won a long time ago, the "war on drugs" is just authoritarians trying desperately to tell others how to live and what to think, regardless of how much more damage that does.)
The space program is a nice idea though.
While I am not a drug user (beyond the obvious mood-altering substances: Alcohol, Caffeine, Sugar, Fat, Chocolate), safe (as far as possible, but see the dangers of legal drugs), medical-quality and reasonably priced drugs in general availability are the only sane thing to do. Everything else costs far, far too much.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
During WWI both sides brought in miners to the front to dig tunnels under the front line for espionage and planting explosives under targets. The idea of digging tunnels for various (nefarious?) purposes under a border or slowly moving front line is probably as old as fences and walls to keep another party out of your area.
It's much more complicated than just "the evil banks launder drug money". If you use the money from drug sales to buy lets say on the next food market, then open up a restaurant and sell the food there, you already have washed your money, because then your drug money gets orderly booked and taxed and is as clean as you want. Do this with several layers of legit companies and then even a very investigative reporter or police officer will have a hard time to prove money laundering.
Rather than letting the drug cartels run things, why don't we just legalise the drugs and put the cartels out of business by having the goverment sell drugs and thus earn some tax revenue.
Seems so obvious to me.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
"Most people aren't going to be able to smoke as much as a single plant can produce in a year... why would they ever buy it?"
Same reason people buy vegetables from the store and hamburgers from McDonalds. Convenience.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It's worth noting that "the liberals" are more or less the same way. The game theory behind the U.S. political system more-or-less mandates a maximum of two viable parties, so each has an ideology that is moderately incoherent and is frequently defined in terms of opposition to whatever the other guys are doing.
Further, there's a neat psychological phenomenon (that I forget the name for) where people who identify with one party because of their views on one issue will gradually pick up that party's views on other issues even if there's no particular logical reason to do so.
> Why is weed illegal anyway? It's arguably just as harmful as alcohol and tobacco.
It is nowhere near as harmful as either. Does Tobacco show promise as a cancer-fighting, epilepsy-siezure-preventing drug, stress reducing, migraine treating, cluster headache killing, sinus and bronchial congestion reducing, muscle cramp reducing, eating disorder treating, antiemetic, appetite correcting, MS tremor reducing, parkinsons, glaucoma-treating, inflammation-reducing, pain reducing, mood lifting and NOT PHSYSICALLY ADDICTIVE (and can actually be used to treat addicts coming off harmful addictive drugs!!!) drug that is impossible to overdose on? (okay you can theoretically OD on it if you combust many pounds of it over the period of an hour or two - just like you can "OD" on water) Does Alcohol show any promise? Hmm, perhaps then you should not use the word "harmful" anywhere near any word specifying cannabis nor compare it to harmful drugs.
As far as the few potential effects may be concerned? The mental "high" can be avoided by either choosing a low-THC, high-CBD strain or by selecting a method of delivery which limits the release of THC. Tar? Not really tar but there are resins, and those can be avoided by vaporizing it, making extracts, infused oil for cooking, adding it to salad dressings, baking it into cookies, brownies, etc. and avoiding combustion, CO2 and CO exposure. Short-term memory loss? Sure the effect is real, but it is temporary and limited (only while high) for all but chronic users.
There is no miracle drug, but Cannabis may very well be the next closest thing.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's a tough choice between crime cartels and the government, but at least the government sometimes pretends to be benevolent.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
That's what we're doing in Washington and Colorado. And I should note that in the latest polls 58% of Americans favor that exact policy.
I am officially gone from
It appears no one has answered this question, so I will. Why are people on the right so resolutely anti-drug?
If you spent your whole life working - regardless of the delivered value to society - the idea of paying an able-bodied person's way in life is antithetical. Those on the right perceive drugs as a certain way to turn an able-bodied person into someone who requires social welfare. No one on the right trusts the individual to make logical choices in the presence in the corrupting influence of a mind-altering drug. They correctly identify the number of people who would remain productive members of society while consuming drugs as very small.
Legalizing drugs would amount to at least removing society's disfavor from the consumption of same. The right expects that an ever-increasing crop of wastrels who do not work will be the result, increasing their tax burden and further damaging the perception that work is the correct pathway to life success. To the right, there is no upside to legalization.
Wresting alcohol and marijuana from this perception goes far to explain why blue laws are still prevalent in many areas and that the first commercial legalization of marijuana happened this year.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Thanks for taking the time, it is certainly a very considered and eloquent piece.
There are many countries where substance abusers are considered similar to alcoholics, which is to say as having a condition (a complex of psychological and physiological factors) which one can hope to alleviate by professional, targeted treatment -- instead of locking them up together with actual criminals (I mean the kind that leave victims).
I live in one such country, the Netherlands, and while it is of course only a single anecdotal observation, I don't believe we have a noticeably larger fraction of our population on welfare due to drug-use than the US, or any other tough-on-drugs nation I am aware of. We do however have a whole lot less people in jail, per capita.
I'm not sure how widely this fact is known, but the US rather stands out when it comes to incarceration. With 5% of the world population, it holds 25% of the world's prisoners.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)