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.'"
So basically, the cartels have been watching season 4 of Weeds, which had exactly this tunnel between Mexico and US. Hahah.
And I thought the city was bad...
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.
Just hope one of these doesn't hit a "hidden" steel well casing that everyone knows about. Those cartels will end up being MONTHS behind.
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.
I guess that people like a 'buzz' and as long as there is demand there is a suplier willing to take riscs to deliver.
Its basically the whole 'prohibition era' all over again with some new tech.
So keep fighting it guys! We all know what the end result will be!
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Well hell they have their own submarines and now large tunneling machines. Seems like drones are the next logical step.
If they get to the point where they have their own space program I say we just surrender in the war on drugs and let them run things.
Duh. Why do you think we can wage war against whoever has oil at the drop of a hat but can't find the slightest hint of an excuse to bomb countries with drugs back to the stone age?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Seems they have such insanely sensitive seismometers these days they could just put a few out there and "hear" them digging them.
Or just use some of the intervening land (assuming it's unpopulated and in the middle of nowhere) as a random place to test new GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs.
So, was there a second pipeline for all the cash to flow back into Mexico?
You wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of drugs for something as inconsequential as cash.
~~
It's just heaps more difficult to produce high quality booze or cigs.
It is? Why don't you come up to Canada and ask the natives how they're doing at it. Not only that two of the biggest things that they're involved with and in, is the legal manufacture of high-quality cig's, and the illegal distribution of them to the US.
Om, nomnomnom...
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)
And man am I stoned - LEGALLY stoned mofos! I am expecting a call from Obama telling me I am under arrest just because I eat to the beat!
I think that the laws around the "recreational" drugs were mostly racially inspired. Or at the very least they have been racially prosecuted.
I'm in Seattle. I like that we've started addressing this. I think we need to go further though. And I don't think that this will have any effect on us other than bringing in some more tax dollars.
If the average person can handle alcohol (beer and wine sold all over) then why wouldn't that person be able to handle cannabis?
Reuters coverage in 2011. Congressional testimony from 2011 describes a 13,000 foot tunnel.
Trenchless technology marches on. Microtunneling is getting easier. This gear is normally used to avoid digging up streets.
no way in hell with those running it ever give up the billions they get and the powet the get.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
Depends how you define 'high quality.' Moonshine is a long-established tradition.
... Surely the good guys deserve some press here as well, Slashdot?
The good guys? You mean the people who created the situation that encourages this behaviour in the first place? The good guys are the legislators in the states who have, at last, started down the road to end prohibition and cut the fiscal ties to the drug cartels and smugglers. Kudos to you all, for the war on drugs in an unwinnable war, and if they don't know it they are truly delusional! Historians tell us we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors, and just as alcohol prohibition funded the Mafia, so the "War On Drugs" funds the drug cartels.
The logical, hell, the ONLY, solution is to legalise ALL drugs. The reduced cost of policing plus the tax take on the companies that manufacture, process, and sell the resulting narcotics would fill the coffers and throw in the reduced cost of incarcerating the unlucky folks just wanting a little high and the reduced cost 'to society' of drugs cut with draino and the like ... it's a win-win, apart from those craving the power derived from the War On Drugs, and surely those are exactly the sorts of people who shouldn't be given the power!
Legalise It And Tax It!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Legalise It And Tax It!
...and then subsidize it!
...and a house close to Apple HQ.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
...you hide the drugs in regular fruit shipments, dispense with the costly and annoying consumer distribution system and let the local discounter handle it. :-)
I feel so sig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#The_parable
No sig today...
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.
I know that in the UK, the drugs laws were basically created by some members of the rich educated elite in order to ensure that they remained that. In particular, the doctors. Given the pretty dumb state of real medicine back then (late victorian IIRC), as soon as they lose their grip on the control of narcotics and the like, they're out of a job, as everyone would self-medicate. You'll notice that everything that was made an illegal drug was actually a prescription drug, the ambiguity in that four-letter word is no coincidence.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
to the tune of a couple of hundred million per year:
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
If they get to the point where they have their own space program I say we just surrender in the war on drugs and let them run things.
It's when they start taking over pizza delivery franchises that you have to really begin to worry.
Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
The war on drugs have totally torn several countries apart. They are now practically lawless, ruthless and scary places to live and even visit. All because of a fruitless fight to protect people from themselves. Sadly it will now be impossible (at least in the short to medium term) to bring these places back to stability, even if we finally gave up the war on drugs, because the drug cartels have amassed too much money and weaponry, all because of the immense profits possible because the product has been made illegal.
I wouldn't be surprised if the drug cartels have been bribing government officials to keep the hard line on drugs going.
Ten inch pipe seems like overkill? Why not a simple pneumatic tube? Seems like it'd be more than sufficient to move a large quantity of "product" a great distance... Then again, why would they limit themselves to the length they can drill directionally? With the current state of autopilot driven R/C multicopters and planes I'd be surprised if the cartels wouldn't be flying their product great distances across the border on a nightly basis.
I'm wondering whether, once the War On Drugs is over (and legalisation/harm-minimisation is likely to do to the cartels what the end of prohibition did to bootleg distillers in the US), one of the results will be places like Colombia and Mexico having highly competent engineering industries directly traceable to the need to build drug-smuggling submarines and tunnel boring machines. Perhaps in a few decades' time, a city somewhere in North America will start building a subway and, instead of Germany or Japan, will go to Mexico for the boring machines?
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!
People can grow potatoes too, and yet no one you know prefers to do that shit over what McDonalds has to offer for a couple bucks.
Assuming Americans are anything but fucking lazy is what is un-American, and there are no pot shops going out of business in Colorado or Washington right now because people can grow weed.
Look up the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars - battles for control of the drugs via ice cream van trade
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
we illegally funded drug cartels through two presidencies to back insurgencies in countless south american and central american countries which then proceeded to use terrorism to destroy hospitals, schools and police stations in an epidemic of violence designed to hijack the democratic process and install pro-america dictators.
these drug trades are directly empowered today by a failed american drug policy designed to incarcerate minorities for petty drug convictions and generate a permanent, unspoken underclass of ex convicts in america who promise private prisons guaranteed recidivism by systems in place designed to deny them government assistance, housing, voting rights and mandate they pay reparations for their imprisonment.
the headline should read "cartels use sophisticated mining and drilling equipment to create transnational underground pipeline" but thats not as funny as 'fire-truck sized' which serves to distract the audience from how the largely downplayed cartels in mexico managed to secure over a million dollars in heavy equipment and expertise to do this.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Of course whatever they do will have a certain shelf life but this seems an excellent, expensive and drilling at angles is not for the average crew, technical effort. Down side, the more technical the more uncommon people involved, the more uncommon people the more the likelihood you are going to tell someone something you don't want them to know. That will most probably the failure.
Finally package delivery through a pneumatic tube system takes off! And we have years to perfect it before the year 3000 when everyone will be to lazy to walk across town and just take the tube.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
My neighbor is a cop and a pretty conservative guy.
I've been on ride-a-longs with him and one thing that surprised me was the amount of "paperwork" (which is really just database entry, not actual paper) associated with pretty much any call. We went to a house that was under renovation that had been broken into. Lockbox smashed and door opened. As it happens, the house was nearly done and they had just finished doing the hardwood floors -- the place was EMPTY, no tools, nothing at all to steal. The only thing that had happened was the breaking and entering. We were at the house and talked to the owner for maybe 10 minutes. We were at the precinct entering data for nearly an HOUR!
I asked him what he does when he finds pot on someone. He said mostly nothing if its a small amount -- dump it on the ground and grind it up with this boot -- "You saw how much paperwork there is. If wrote every guy up with pot, I'd catch hell from my supervisor because I wouldn't be taking enough other calls."
But, I suspect that despite that street cops don't want to or can't arrest everyone, cops generally LIKE that pot is illegal because it gives them a LEVER. A tool to use against people to justify stopping them and searching them. Look at Stop and Frisk in NYC -- so many arrests there are from stopping someone, making them dump their pockets and then arresting them for public display of marijuana.
The DEA and the like organizationally don't like legalization because it undercuts their bureaucracy, but they really don't like the loss of authority.
if this goes on, we can see big jumps in the quantum teleportation field. They have the money and the motivation.
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.
But even in countries where the conservative right is not so much about small government, they are resolutely pro war-on-drugs.
Actually, it's quite easy to produce high quality booze or cigarettes. The uncle of my mother used to grow tabacco and ferment it. My father was distilling a quite good cherry schnaps just for fun once (made from our own cherries). It's something each somewhat dedicated amateur will master.
Let's just hope they don't upgrade their HDDs to SSDs!
Depending on the strain you're growing you can have "Best in the world" quality pot in a few months just by planting a seed outside and leaving it alone. Brewing moonshine is a hell of a lot of work. It takes less time to produce maybe, but you get less of it, it takes a large initial investment in equipment and if you do it wrong the product can kill you. If you do pot wrong, you just get a lower yield.
That's what I find the most funny about legalization efforts. They think there's going to be this huge tax windfall... give it 5 years and everyone will have a plant in their backyard over the summer. 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?
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
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
You'd be surprised at how many people can't grow a decent tomato.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Somehow, I don't think a no resuscitation policy is going to have much effect on stoners.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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.
Religion hates competition, if you can get peace from a plant you don't need church. So the preachers preach against it in spite of Genesis 1:12 and the various other positive cannabis references in the bible, like the recipe for anointing oil. The end!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"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
And I'll wager the guy who introduced this technology to the smugglers has his Eureka moment in line at the drive-through teller. Hmmm...tubes, huh?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I used to think the same, but unless one can sell their backyard grown product to their neighbor (legally), then it's all just a rouse. Think about tobacco. I can grow it legally, at about the same difficulty level as pot. But I can't sell it to my neighbor. I don't even think I'm allowed to give it away. This has nothing to do with human rights or constitutional freedoms: it's because there's a lot of money to be made in taxing packs of cigarettes.
TL;DR: Selling or giving away your backyard pot will be made illegal through some perverse interpretation of "inter-state trade". Something about pollen (see: Monsanto) will be said. You heard it here first.
somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
if(color==blue){speed--;}
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.
Efficiencies of scale, and specialization, mean that most people prefer to buy products from a competitive marketplace rather than produce their own.
For example: You can grow tomatoes in your backyard, but most people prefer to get them from the store, even in growing season. Despite the fact that home-grown tomatoes are fresher and better tasting!
The same would be true of marijuana.
> 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
Legalize drugs, and the corporate world will take over growing and transporting them.
Regulate and tax them like they already do Alcohol and Tobacco
Real simple and will save a ton of wasted money on drug laws and bring in a metric Shit-TON on money in taxes.
I know of no firetruck that can fit into a ten inch tunnel.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
ou'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.
Because drug use has such detrimental effects on society. Witness the issues with meth, squatters taking over people's homes, general neglect of both property and person. Perhaps the judge in this case summed it up best:
âoeYou liked drugs. For that, your children suffered. They suffered terribly.â
Considering how much noise the right makes about a woman having an abortion (which is odd considering it is about individual freedom of choice), it would stand to reason they wouldn't want drugs because of the suffering they incur.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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
Why not use drones?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Capricious enforcement of the law is a good indicator of a corrupt system.
We need ED-209.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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
No, there would be no post war on drugs peace dividend.
It will end up like the post-cold war peace dividend. Some dimbulb will squander it by starting multiple pointless and counterproductive wars while building up a police state mechanism to keep the $$$$$ flowing to well-connected contractors.
We'd be better off just giving them money to not do a thing and stay out of trouble.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There was a great talk at the 30th Chaos Computer Congress about this, I was just watching on youtube. The talk is called "Four Wars" and it by a former MI5 whistleblower from the 90s. She makes some good observations, basically....her prediction is this will happen.
The reason being that the war on drugs is no longer useful for the state apparatus. The war on terror replaced it.
Look before the WOT and what do you see? Before the 90s, how often were people's homes raided and why? Where were all the swat teams and justifications for wiretaps? It was drugs, it was drugs for a long time. Drugs was used to both fund and justify so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G81tJI2Pls
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Six sentences need a TL;DR? Has it got that bad around here?
Yep, I'm in the UK and wish our government would wise up to this, but it looks like they've got too much vested interest in keeping as many things illegal as possible.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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.
If they get to the point where they have their own space program I say we just surrender in the war on drugs and let them run things.
Ironically it would be cheaper to put a kilo heroin or cocaine into space than smuggle it into the US.
If only there were a third option...
Getting bag of weed delivered with your pizza sounds like a pretty good idea.
Considering how much noise the right makes about a woman having an abortion (which is odd considering it is about individual freedom of choice) . . .
Actually, it's not odd at all, if you consider the unborn child an individual, who has all the rights any other individual has, including the right to simply live. That's actually also what's odd about the left on this issue. The left strongly advocates for women's choice/freedom regarding their body, but then completely ignores the choice/freedom of the unborn to live.
. . . it would stand to reason they wouldn't want drugs because of the suffering they incur.
While the left is inconsistent on the abortion issue, I agree that the right is inconsistent on the drug issue, since favoring the prohibition of drugs is inconsistent with individual liberty. I think many on the right feel their position is consistent with protecting individual liberty because they feel those who take drugs are likely to impede the freedom and liberty of others. Sadly, this leads us to punish people for crimes they haven't even committed. Since we already have laws to protect the freedom and liberty of individuals, laws against drugs for this purpose are unnecessary, redundant, and overbearing. Not to mention that not everyone or even most people who use drugs or alcohol will abuse them or break the law in doing so.
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.
First off, there are conservatives who are consistent about this. They're a minority, but they do exist.
For many in the US, though, it's about using drug laws as a means of preventing a segment of the population from having equal rights or achieving too much. The idea is pretty simple: If you enforce drug laws only against the portion of the population you are trying to oppress, then you can combine that with laws preventing anyone with a drug conviction from voting and private companies using drug convictions to screen out potential employees, and you have cut the political and financial power of that portion of the population in half.
And when a lot of right-wing rhetoric and policy is about keeping the almost-bottom rung people focused on fearing and hating the bottom-rung people, this kind of thing is both logical and expected. This is the same crowd that argues that men ought to be the boss of their wives, and again it's about creating a hierarchy where their target constituents are not quite at the bottom.
I am officially gone from
Clearly drugs can be dangerous, to users in particular. But most of the downsides for society in general that you mention seem due to the illegality of anything remotely drug related, more than it seems due to the compounds themselves. Not easy to get objectively educated about them, much less get help when problems arise as you are basically turning yourself in as a criminal.
The money currently spent on investigation and prosecution would go a long, long way toward treatment of the more tragic cases. If the war on drugs ended, and the market made legal and subject to regulation and inspection, there would be less criminal profits by the billions.
The major source of income of barbaric gangs would dry up, which murder one another in unbelievable numbers for a taste from that source -- as well as anyone else who gets in the way. You don't nearly have the worst of it within the US.
Users would likely forego the really nasty stuff like meth, for obvious reasons, if the good stuff were reliably available minus the cartel markup.
The war on drugs is more detrimental to public health and safety, in the totality of its effects, than it is beneficial, IMHO. Moreover, I believe the people responsible for sustaining this war on drugs, all the way back to Nixon when it became official, understand this too and therefore I can't believe that public health and safety is actually among their motives for not ending it.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
No, tobacco doesn't. But on the other hand "show[s] promise as" is not the same as "actually does these things".
A drum often beaten by those on the pro-cannabis side, conveniently forgetting that physical addiction is not the only form of addiction.
So sayeth years of pro-cannibis propoganda (as with the items above) and some sometimes rather sloppy science.
Mind you, I'm in favor of legalization, but that doesn't mean I mindlessly repeat propaganda.
The Left is not really in favor of legalized drugs, just look at their zero-tolerance attitude towards nicotine. The right-leaning leftist just wants to prohibit drugs now rather than later.
The Right hates abortion because to do so appeals to the noisy, religious groups that they need to win over. They also hate any government assistance to help out infants because to do so appeals to the noise, low tax/small government groups that they need to win over. It's the consequence of a two-party system, and for it the US suffers greatly.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You can't seriously be suggesting that the criminal proceeds of the illegal drug trade be laundered by spending it on food markets and opening a restaurant. It doesn't scale to the billions, you see.
Which is why the AC above s right: yes, supposedly bona fide banks are up to their necks in this business, and yes they get off with a slap on the wrist when this is proven in courts.
See this article for a pretty shocking example.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Obviously, they just need to put on a few warning stickers and that'll solve that problem. There's plenty of "unsafe" products on sale already - it's surprisingly easy to die from drinking a whole bottle of vodka.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Just look up the funding appropriations for the DEA, it's literlaly in the billions. Look at the ridiculous money spent on that fence by Bush (that only covered 30 miles). There's just too much money for both sides for them allow the legalization drugs. If you make drugs legal, then, the profit margin drops for the cartels and the USG awarded contracts stops. It will never be legalized at the Federal level.
Tell that to the DEA, local law enforcement who likes anti-drug money, companies who make the ridiculous equipment supplied to the above, the privately run prison system, "tough on crime" politicians who like getting re-elected, the private pharmaceutical companies, etc. who make a shit-ton of money off of the prohibition. And let's not forget the companies and government orgs. who benefit from having a destabilized Central America and all that entails.
If you can convince enough of them that legalizing and taxing the softer stuff, then switching the rest to a rehab-friendly environment is the way to go, then awesome. But that's a lot of money and power to get through first.
Oh, I didn't realise there'd be opposition. Best forget the whole idea then.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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)
Genesis 1:12 refers to fruit and seed
It says, more or less after translation, everything seed-bearing is for our use.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I grew tomatoes in a container one summer. Worst tomatoes ever. I don't know what I did wrong. Ended up letting the squirrels eat them.
I guess I should try again because everybody says they are better.
It does seem obvious, and I'm on your side, but consider the mindset of the other side. There are people, a *lot* of people, who consider using almost any kind of recreational drugs to be deeply immoral.
Their concerns are not born of the violence of the drug business, but the chemical itself. If you miracled up a pot plant from another dimension and used it in perfect isolation, they'd still consider that act to be immoral and worth society's effort to stamp out.
You're not going to win the day with arguments of practicality. The pro-legalization forces have to beat both the folks who think that the War on Drugs is an important ethical position, and the folks who benefit from the growing police state that the War on Drugs sponsors.
Haha, I didn't say I disagree. Just saying the opposition would be tougher than planned.
I agree with what Colorado and Washington are doing, and hope a few more states jump on board until it tips. It'll just take some doing.
A drum often beaten by those on the pro-cannabis side, conveniently forgetting that physical addiction is not the only form of addiction.
If you're going to make a huge deal about non-physical addiction, then get behind the people who want to ban sex, social media usage, video games, pop music, nail-biting and all other forms of non-physically "addictive" activities.
Physical addiction is also known as dependence, meaning your body was actually producing something naturally that the drug you were taking is supplementing (typically dopamine, but depending on the drug can be all sorts of things) to the point where your body, in its all-too-efficient biological way of doing things, decides it's getting enough of that drug from an external source that it can just shut down those glands altogether. You can literally *DIE* from going cold-turkey off a drug like alcohol or heroin if your body is too dependent on it. You may /feel/ like you're going to die if you can't use Twitter for a month, but it won't actually happen. Big difference.
Physical addiction is immeasurably more serious than any other annoying little habit a person might get too used to. Medically speaking, "addiction" outside the scope of physical dependence doesn't even exist, it's just a word that people like to misuse and reappropriate for all kinds of shit. I have an uncle who died at age 40 from an alcohol addiction, so every time I hear people throw the word "addiction" around when it comes to things like sex, weed or Facebook, it really pisses me off to see how sheltered from death and reality some of you out there really are.
Even with what happened to my uncle, at least his drug passed social approval, so despite the end result, he was surrounded by doctors, counselers, family members and rehab workers at least *trying* to help him, which is how it should be for every addict. If he were addicted to cocaine, it would be prosecutors, cops, jail guards and inmates providing company for him, and none of his family would be able to see him, at least not nearly as easily. An addict is someone who needs help and support, regardless of what drug they put into their own body to fuck themselves up so bad. Shame, ostracising and oppression just make it worse, it makes the drug your only friend, the only one that understands you, the only thing that comforts you when everyone else is shouting at you.
I use cannabis to help with the osteoarthritis in my back and hands, depression and anxiety, chronic environmental allergies, problems with eating and sleeping, preventing cancer (as I have a lot of genetic predisposition), and I use it to help motivate me to not just sit around doing nothing with myself, despite what garbage is out there regarding "demotivational syndrome" and other anti-marijuana shit that still smells like the ass it was pulled from. You tell me with a straight face that my drug is going to be worse for me than the alternative -- a cocktail of percocets, oxycodone, codeine, acetaminophen, ibuprofen and all that other shit I'm proud to be avoiding. Tell me how I'm still supposed to live my day, pick up groceries, prepare food, exercise on my longboard, maintain an Arch Linux installation, learn new and often complicated software (because I like it that way), please my partners sexually, keep track of my bills and still stand on two feet without getting too dizzy to fall over if I'm to treat my back pain "legally".
If you're really for legalization, then get the hell off the fence and learn what physical addiction is, because otherwise you're making pointless arguments over non-issues. There's a reason why pro-cannabis people make a distinction for physical addiction, because it's in a whole other class of personal torture, medical expense and risk to one's life compared to every other form of "addiction" (really just habitual behaviour) that looks like pussy shit by comparison. Am I psychologically addicted to cannabis? Who can tell, I've probably been constantly hig
When I hear most people talk about decriminalization, it's regarding marijuana. Generally this is based on its rather low level of side-effects or negative health effects in comparison to legal drugs such as alcohol or cigarettes etc. They also mentioned various potential health effects esp in the treatment of certain medical conditions.
What I don't generally hear is people supporting decriminalization of cocaine, heroin, etc, much of which is provided by these the drug cartels. It's wishful thinking that legalizing pot would kill the cartels, as it's not really a primary cash product for them anyhow. It might put the seedy dealer on your street corner out of business and free up cops to deal with other issues, but legalizing pot is not going to do much about drug tunnels, cartels, or the criminal activity associated with them.
I appreciate that laws/politics are influenced by lots of different factors, but it's absolutely ridiculous to base laws purely on morality without taking the practicality into account. (Not calling you ridiculous - just the present system)
Humans invariably disagree on what is moral and not. For example, a lot of people (myself included) think that raising animals in cages just so that we can eat them is immoral. However, outlawing caged animal farming would probably cause more problems than it solves.
Morality is for the philosophers.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
People who argue that hard drugs should stay illegal only point to the harm they do, not the practical impossibility of stopping the illegal drug trade, which is at present a $300bn worldwide industry run by organised crime. Prohibition doesn't work, enforces the current status quo ($300bn organised crime industry with no safety regulation beyond the simple economic fact that dead people don't make good customers). Prohibition has no effect on the demand for chemical highs, and the desire for hard drugs. A fundamental rethink is needed, but hardly any politician would dare to undertake it. Thus we are stuck in this perpetual war, spending billions on ineffective enforcement, whilst billions are paid to organised crime for these drugs. It is not enough that an approach is 'morally right': it actually does need to be effective to be worth doing (and just making a token effort can be worse than doing nothing).
John_Chalisque
Too late - I've already forgotten about it.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I used to think the same, but unless one can sell their backyard grown product to their neighbor (legally), then it's all just a rouse. Think about tobacco. I can grow it legally, at about the same difficulty level as pot. But I can't sell it to my neighbor. I don't even think I'm allowed to give it away. This has nothing to do with human rights or constitutional freedoms: it's because there's a lot of money to be made in taxing packs of cigarettes.
Welcome to Wickard v. Filburn only it was wheat and price controls not tax, but your 72 years late.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
... - they'd be at war with each other if they hadn't found a common enemy in the liberals.
Yes, because STUPID isn't apparently anything they are having a conflict with.
Did the morality laws make people better or less sinful? No.
Does the war on drugs make economic sense? No.
Do liberals generally think we shouldn't be criminalizing drugs and that treatment is more economical, human and ends up with fewer addicts? Yes.
Sounds like a group that defines itself by NOT agreeing with Liberals more than a common cause or any practicality. Seriously, other than not being Liberal, why would a fiscal conservative object to Democrats who are to the right of Nixon on anything economic?
Well at least it's not just because the President is from Hawaii anymore.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I'm pretty sure they do demographic research to try and split the vote 50/50.
However as the country gets dumber, they have to get the crazy rhetoric on a CERTAIN SIDE of this 50/50 split slightly crazier. I'll leave it as homework to figure out which one.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
...I say we just surrender in the war on drugs and let them run things.
They're beating out the combined efforts of the NSA, aka world-police and the DEA with funding from the US federal government. Billions of dollars has been spent in stopping these guys. The government knows who they are, where they are, and what they plan to do, and yet, they cannot do anything about it. So either they (the drug cartels) have already won, or the 'war on drugs' is total bullshit, and the very activity of these cartels is probably funding the world-terrorists that probably live in the US, and probably work in one or more governmental agencies.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I have friends who were in Operation Just Cause, United States Invasion of Panama, and they would literaly get on the cell phone, pay with their credit cards and Dominoes would deliver pizza right to their foxholes!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
if [ can_kill_you && addictive ]; then
ILLEGAL
else
LEGAL
fi
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Yeah and now there is a shortage of Velveeta, next it'll be Rotel tomatoes and nacho chips!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
They correctly identify the number of people who would remain productive members of society while consuming drugs as very small.
Right, there are very few productive people that drink alcohol in the US. Very small group indeed.
I think I acknowledged a difference between alcohol, marijuana and the aggregate majority of abused substances and addressed it. That said, the whole issue is conflated nicely and is hard to split apart in most people's heads.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Morality is for the philosophers.
No, it's not. That's what you've been told, taught and conditioned. All the time, every day ordinary people deal with moral issues and make decisions that are based on their own internal morals. It is not difficult. And the only reason, I believe, you say morality is for philosophers is because you're cruelly and sadistically practical and favor the utilitarian solution to a problem, regardless of what people want. This only works if you impose your will and force other people to do your bidding so that YOUR ideas/solutions are implemented.
Now that we have that out of the way, let me explain some things for you. The solution to any and all problems is for you to NOT FUCKING SOLVE THEM. Period. Absolutely, just stay the hell out of it. There is no morality involved in this concept; you just have to realize that what YOU think is irrelevant, as people will have their own individual/personal morals and live their lives based off of them. If you don't like it, move elsewhere and barricade your sound-proof home in a mountain. While the rest of us voluntarily solve our own problems, and work together in cooperative groups (whatever size they may be) to solve the problems we deem necessary, and in the way we deem moral and right.
Actually, it's not the Left, that is anti-nicotine, and it's not the nicotine, they are against. If you manage to find a way to smoke without actually producing smoke, everthing is fine.
Oh yes it is.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
The fact that the US has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than most other nations is well known.
The reasons why are less well-known. Mandatory sentences play their part, but blaming the war on drugs for this is a little shortsighted. I see the US at war with an insurgency within its borders, except the government has chosen to combat it with a criminal justice approach. This approach does not work - and note that the enforcers look more and more like an army every day, with every little municipality having a SWAT team with automatic weapons, and people being summarily executed in their homes by supposed law enforcers for little to no reason. The insurgency started when the government chose to intrude on matters that had previously been left to individual liberty and the best judgement of the population. It is a very low-intensity sort of conflict, but the signs are all around us. The war on drugs is just one slice of the entire problem. The totalization of state control is the problem.
I am not offering solutions, as I doubt any of the possible ways out would be paths taken.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Looks like the guy you responded to gets butthurt by clean logic.
Was this what Palin had in mind, one wonders? :-)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
So the answer is to throw people in jail for doing something that most likely doesn't harm anyone else? Guess what that leads to: increased tax burden to pay for more prisoners, and damaging the possibility for people to ever hold down any sort of decent job through which they would have to pay income taxes.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Before drugs it was Prohibition. At that when Prohibition ended the government (at least parts of it) were very receptive to propping up Hearsts pulp paper industry through drug prohibition. They also learned their lesson, ignore the Constitution rather then change it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
At least where I live, medical help for nicotine addiction is freely available including anti-smoking drugs, nicotine patches and gum etc. A much saner approach then the war on drugs. (We also have safe injection sites that the right hates, they'd rather drug users die horrible deaths then have the option of a clean needle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Most all ODs are caused by variations in the drugs. People used to impure heroin suddenly get some very pure heroin and they drop like flies. Given a consistent product they wouldn't be ODing.
There are also many well off drug users who not only don't OD but are actually productive members of society. Some of the same applies, a consistent product allows using less when it is time to go to work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I don't think its entirely fair to just blame the paper industry. After prohibition ended the FBN, precursor to the DEA which was created to enforce alcohol laws, was very involved in pushing for the new anti-marijuana laws.
It seems the laws were the result of a confluence of forces, not the least of which was a government agency with precious little to do that was looking for ways to justify its own job.
Some of the correspondence of the time would be hillarious if not for what it really meant was going on.... Harry Anslinger (FBN chief) was sending out letters to police chiefs around the country asking them to keep tabs on "jazz musicians" because they had a reputation for smoking pot...and how there was going to be some operation to round them all up one day.
Most violence causing drug in the history of mankind..... lol...pot.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
At one time pizzas used to come with a little sachet of green bits. I didn't realize I was supposed to smoke it, maybe it would've tasted of something if I had.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Either legalise pot or ban tobacco. I don't much care which, but the contradiction is untidy.
Not to mention the other uses besides the biological intake. People forget that the US Constitution is written on hemp parchment. The list of uses for hemp fibers is astounding, and for us to shoot ourselves in the foot by denying ourselves use of such a prolific crop is a huge disadvantage economically. It's almost as stupid as if we were to ban silicon chips and thus electronics because kids get fat playing video games.
Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
Yeah, yeah, with the ad slogan, "buy 3 and get the seeing-eye dog for free"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Remember that Anslinger was related to Hearst, through marriage IIRC. Hearst had a lot of power, much like Murdock today and had heavily invested in the wood pulp paper process when the break through for processing hemp came.
You are right though that it was a confluence of forces, which is basically what I was trying to say.
The same thing is happening today with copyright. The government is very happy to exercise extra powers in the name of protecting the *AAs business model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, just stay out of everyone else's lives.
With billions of drug dollars in the banks watch them ask for more bailouts; that is, assuming you can pull that kind of money away from them overnight--- which you can't because they will not allow you to do that.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Getting bag of weed delivered with your pizza sounds like a pretty good idea.
Hmmm. I'm in Colorado. You've just given me an idea!
Then I can use the pizza parlor / weed shop to launder the money I'll be making from my underground drug tunnel that I'm digging under the New Mexico state line.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
They would be very hard to spot, and only need to travel one way, recharge, then travel the other way again but this time with cash.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
it's called an electronic cigarette.
Your logic is circular... meth is bad, people who use meth are bad, and they make more people who use meth, which is bad, because meth is bad.
Desoxyn is prescribed... is it as bad as meth? Or are there problems with the process that creates the street version of desoxyn? Is it the chemical directly that causes the health problems, the impurities or the lifestyle required to obtain an outlawed substance.
The point the state has the right to intervene in the family is at the point of abuse, neglect or possibly suspicion or risk of abuse or neglect... Not general lifestyle choices, like what products they chose to consume. The crime is abuse or neglect, not smoking meth, drinking, gambling, or even being a workaholic who loses everything in a stock market crash and takes it out on his children. The abuse and neglect are all that matter.
At best, the state should tax the drugs enough to cover health care issues and rehab programs... these are the negative externalities of the drugs that can be paid with pigovian taxes... the current system creates a hell of a lot of problems for people that shouldn't have them... gangs, etc...
Food markets you say ? Hmm, I recently saw this documentary where they bought a car-wash... heck , they almost bought 2 !
ps: they also mentioned nail-salons
If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
No, I won't!
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I don't understand your actual point. If the current situation is so corrupt, then surely we can only benefit from changing it.
You think that people who have lost someone to drugs will be anti-legalization, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If you've been personally affected, then why would you want the current situation to stay the same? Why not make it easier for people in trouble to get help rather than stigmatizing them and ensuring that they feel like outcasts?
No matter how bad the government is, the first step to dealing with drug problems is to take some measure of control which involves legalizing drugs. Keeping them illegal just increases the number of problems and never mind the moral implications of imprisoning people with problems rather than trying to help them.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_271.html
The nephews of Gaetano Badalamenti operated pizzerias - and distributed heroin - out of small mid-western towns. The Sicilians dominated the heroin trade, while the American mobsters received a cut for allowing the Sicilians to operate in their territory. Manufacturers of cheese, olive oil and tomatoes could also be useful export vehicles for smuggling drugs into the United States. Joe Pistone, an FBI agent who infiltrated the Bonanno family, quoted one Bonanno member: The zips are Sicilians brought into this country to distribute heroin. They set up pizza parlors, where they received and distributed heroin, laundered money. The zips were clannish and secretive - the meanest killers in the business.
> Remember that Anslinger was related to Hearst, through marriage IIRC.
That I did not know.
I guess nothing ever really changes. Hell wasn't it just in the past 2 years that Florida's governor was pushing for drug testing everyone on welfare, and using the drug testing company his Wife owned. He made millions off that, and the program didn't save a dime - it cost somewhere around $7000 for every dollar in revoked benefit that it resulted in.
Not just a bad idea, an ineffective one.....at least he made money hand over fist on the deal (sorry, his wife did...how could I ever confuse the two)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It may not be but I generally prefer youtube links because watching videos anywhere else requires a minute or two of fiddling with my requestpolicy settings to figure out which site is actually hosting the video and allow its player.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Look at homebrewing beer and wine, there is a very active network of people exchanging and selling homebrew, legally and non, despite the gov't wanting tax revenue. Pot will be the same. Tobacco is different because it is hard to do right. I tried growing tobacco and processing the leaves was tricky. I ended up with some foul tasting stuff that took many hours to produce. Tobacco smokers don't like to change brands, let alone try some moldy crud.
Man, you really need that seminar!
If the average person can handle alcohol (beer and wine sold all over) then why wouldn't that person be able to handle cannabis?
I suspect it's the lack of a quick and reliable roadside test for intoxication levels, such as the breathalyzer is for alcohol. If such a similar portable, quick, reliable, non-invasive method of detecting whether someone is high at this exact moment were to be developed, I think the last few objections to legalization would quickly crumble.
Alas, THC lingers in the bloodstream long after the intoxicating effects have faded, unlike alcohol.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Some years back there was a tobacco bootlegging operation in full force in the south island of New Zealand, they were even selling the stuff from the local stores. when they were finally busted and put out of business, the locals were PISSED that they couldn't get good quality tobacco anymore, only the crap that big tobacco pedals which is full of additives http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10335841
But what to do with all of the infrastructure, ingenuity, business acumen, and cut throat (literally!) tacticians that have made the drug trade so profitable and effective? I say we harness the power of prohibition! Since prohibition is so great at forcing the development of low cost methods of acquisition, production, and distribution it would be a shame and great disservice to just let it collapse on itself and atrophy. Let's outlaw alternate fuels and green energy. Lets outlaw cybernetic implants. Lets outlaw safe sex! Then we will be certain to have a constant supply of these newly banned services at unheard of low prices and without even a the faintest hint of elitist bias in distribution. And why should this work? Because, well, that's just the nature of prohibition, and man for that matter.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
There is a small Chinese restaurant in a strip mall near my home. It's been there for over thirty years. It has five or six tables and few if any customers. It is always open and you can get a meal, but you will be the only one there. It's family run and after school there is usually a child doing homework who will take your order if you come in and grandma will shout in Chinese to a man in the back and in a bit you get your food. No way that restaurant supports this family. Multiply that by hundreds or even thousands of small restaurants that for some reason are incredably profitable and you could launder billions of dollars.
> So sayeth years of pro-cannibis propoganda (as with the items above) and some sometimes rather sloppy science.
get on some of the medical databases (if you know any med or nursing students they will have access) and have them to searches - bonus if the databases they have access to include Canada, the EU, and Israel. You will find many thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
Step outside of the American bubble for a moment. Our government has been stifling this all over lies to protect Big Pharma and the logging industry - and more recently big oil now that Canabis/hemp show promise for carbon-neutral fuels and plastics normally derived from petroleum.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Get a clue or an IQ transplant - then you'll realize that none of that alters the basic truth "shows promise as" is not the same as "actually does these things". Nor does "peer-reviewed" automagically equate to "non sloppy science".
No, pretty much nobody has been stifling things - because there's pretty much fuck-all to stifle. The state of research and the results thereof have been vastly overstated for decades in pro-cannibis propaganda. This has resulted in morons like you parroting BS under the mistake impression you have a clue beneath your tinfoil.
> No, tobacco doesn't. But on the other hand "show[s] promise as" is not the same as "actually does these things".
Do you have any friends who are med or nursing students? If so they have access to many medical databases, some have access to international databases of medical studies. Ask them to run some queries on marijuana and you will find many, many thousands of peer-reviewed studies in countries that are not The united States of America, and most of those studies confirm the claims that "stoners" have been making for thousands of years. Here most medical professionals have avoided conducting studies because the DEA would yank their licenses at ludicrous speed.
Also, THC is super-easy to avoid if you don't need it for a given ailment even with high-THC strains. Just run it in a vaporizer at 157C without capturing the vapor, then run it through capturing the vapor at a higher temp for the specific CBDs you need for treatment, then you have your near-THC-free treatment regardless of strain. See: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/543218-Specific-boiling-points-and-roles-of-cannabinoids and http://forum.grasscity.com/recreational-marijuana-use/221715-phytocannabinoids-their-boiling-points-properties.html
There is plenty of scientifically-confirmed data out there, as it has been studied extensively in $NATIONS-NOT-USA, particularly in Israel so the only issue is picking the best delivery method to remain productive and the best strain to maintain cost effectiveness.
Face it - we have been lied to by the government for decades. Until about six months ago I was completely against it, although given my libertarian leanings I thought it should be decriminalized given the victimless nature of such "crimes" however now that I am more informed having read the science I am all for the full legalization of it and am considering it for my migraines rather than Imitrex and narcotics which have confirmed side effects and risks which simply do not exist with cannabis, and cannabis is far less (read: not at all) physically addictive.
Get informed - you just might be surprised at how blatently incorrect the DEA's propaganda is regarding MJ. See:
> Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:
> The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
MJ has less abuse potential than alcohol
> The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Key word: accepted.. Many diet, pain, and mental condition meds (as well as alcohol, a legal recreational drug) have very serious, life-threatening side effects (damaging the heart, liver, kidneys) while some brain meds even have the potential to create sociopathic behavior (see: mass murders, domestic abuse) while Cannabis is totally devoid of all of these side effects. The worst side effect is that high THC might give you the munchies (great for cancer patients who suffer from nausea) - but high CBD can actually suppress appetite a bit (great for treating over-eating).
It also can help alleviate withdrawl symptoms from opiates.
> There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[25]
Again, "lack of accepted" - which in the case of cannabis is purely political; it is a racket to protect the logging and pharmaceutical industies, and also racist since it enables the prison industry to profit on certain socioeconomic groups in large cities. There are tens of thousands of minorities in prisons for simple possession charges - possession of a substance which should never have been criminalized in the first place. This is hugely profitable to the private prison industry (yes, most prisons are private businesses and some
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4642527&cid=45918585
You are the one who needs to 'get a clue or an IQ transplant'
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50