Slashdot Mirror


Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

schwit1 (797399) writes "There has been a huge surge in the number of hidden cannabis farms across Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Oldbury, towns on the outskirts of rural Shropshire some seven miles from central Birmingham. They require hydroponic lights for the marijuana plants to grow – and the huge amounts of excess heat given off make them easily spottable for a would-be criminal with a drone carrying infrared cameras. One such man says that after finding a property with a cannabis farm he and his crew either burgle or 'tax' the victim."

45 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Just one more reason by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... to legalize and regulate.

    1. Re:Just one more reason by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... to legalize and regulate.

      That is unlikely to happen in Britain. Politicians won't legalize it because there are too many special interest groups that want to keep the status quo of the endless "War on Drugs" and all the money that flows into it. In America, it has only been legalized in states with citizen referendums, so the politicians were bypassed.

    2. Re:Just one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only reason there were violent gangs who made money selling alcohol back in prohibition was because it was illegal. Once alcohol was legalized, it took a lot of power away from gangs. Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

    3. Re:Just one more reason by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

      Sure. But it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

    4. Re:Just one more reason by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure. But it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

      Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason.

      That's bullshit, police unions represents police officers, usually union policies are made by vote.

      I refuse to believe that most police officers want to lock up people for no good reason

      I believe it. In New York City, we had the stop and frisk laws. Officers got caught on tape telling the cops under their command to fill a quota of arrests -- and to arrest black people. Most of the arrests were pot busts after illegal searches. (Possessing marijuana was a violation, not a crime. The cops forced people to commit a misdemeanor by emptying their pockets and displaying marijuana, which was a crime.) That was the subject of a lawsuit, which was also reported on Slashdot. It all came out in court, and Judge Schendlin wrote it up in her written decision.

      The new police commissioner was complaining that cops arrest people towards the end of their shift so that they can get overtime pay. Think about that for a second. They're arresting people so that they can make more money.

      As I recall, one of the strongest opponents of liberalizing drug laws in California was the prison guards' union. It was pretty clear that they wanted to keep the prisons full to protect their jobs.

      That said, they may very well have insights into why weed is bad. They may have experience traffic accidents, etc.

      Oh, yeah. Who has more insight into why weed is bad -- cops? Or doctors, psychiatrists and scientists?

    5. Re:Just one more reason by careysub · · Score: 2

      Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason.

      Then you know nothing about the California "three strikes law" which was written by the prison guard union, and passed through an aggressive ad campaign that the union funded which invariably and exclusively used the stock phrase "violent criminal" to give the voter the impression that these were the only people being locked up for the rest of their lives.

      But the law only required the first two "strikes" be "serious", not violent, crime and the third strike could be virtually any thing at all (given prosecutor's ability to upgrade almost any charge to a felony of some kind). "Serious" crimes included simple robbery, and since it has long been a practice for poor, lower class defendants to plead guilty to questionable charges to get light sentences - large numbers of defendants found that old pleas (some quite ancient) suddenly made them "three strikes" fodder for any offense. In fact a large majority of "three strikes" convictions are for minor crimes.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:Just one more reason by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

      It's not a good thing, if your financial interests are aligned with the cartels.

      If I'm on Al Capone's payroll and you ask for my opinion of the 21st Amendment, I'm going to say it's a bad idea.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Just one more reason by Walter+White · · Score: 2

      Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason. ...
      I think it's more likely that private prisons advocate for more prison time, etc. That would be the American thing to do :)

      Are you suggesting that money is not a good reason?

      http://cca.com/

        Prison operation is now private and they want to grow the business.

  2. Duh... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the old days, criminals would just follow others out or use dogs trained to sniff out other peoples grow ops in some farmers field, woods/back wood lot/etc. They're just going hi-tech, nothing to see in that sense.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  3. So much nonsense in terms by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

    "They require hydroponic lights for the marijuana plants to grow"

    What the fuck is a hydroponic light? Are we talking sonoluminescence or what? That's gotta be inefficient.

    You mean an HID light, which produces tons of heat and is easy traceable from both ballast noise and heat.

    Shoulda gone LED, suckers.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:So much nonsense in terms by guevera · · Score: 2

      LEDs aren't there yet. You can't get cannabis to flower properly under LED lighting, nor can you get the sort of growth rates you'll get under HID lights. It might be useful for cloning...but flourescents work fine for that.

      Also, the newer digital HID ballasts are silent. Even older magnetic ballasts don't make much noise, especially if they're installed properly. Your biggest noise issue is going to come from exhaust fans, but that can be minimized as well if you know what you're doing. Or so I've heard..."

    2. Re:So much nonsense in terms by plover · · Score: 3, Informative

      LED lamps do not put out nearly as much heat as High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps. I have a (disconnected) 400W HPS that I could easily have cooked on the top of the reflector, and probably broiled meat directly beneath it. I replaced it with a 144W LED floodlamp, and now I can hold the operating heat sink in my hand; the glass lens pane on the bottom is at room temperature. I am no longer concerned about fire safety in my house.

      One major difference, though, is I'm growing orchids, which require far less light than cannabis. I need only two 144W LED floodlamps to illuminate a 72 square foot area. The pot growers will cram as many 400 W lamps in a grow operation as they can, sometimes a dozen or more in a single small room, whatever they can draw from the circuit breaker panel. They'll keep a large external vent fan running year round, including the dead of winter, to keep the room from igniting.

      If I were to grow pot, I'm sure I'd need a lot more light fixtures, but even a dozen LED lamps in the same room probably wouldn't risk burning my house down.

      --
      John
    3. Re:So much nonsense in terms by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      LED lamps do not put out nearly as much heat as High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps. I have a (disconnected) 400W HPS that I could easily have cooked on the top of the reflector, and probably broiled meat directly beneath it. I replaced it with a 144W LED floodlamp

      I'm guessing that the LEDs are putting out much less light, since the efficiency of HPS lamps is sustantially above most commercial LEDs. However that may be OK since the sodium vapour lamps are skewed towards orange, probably making them less good per lumen for plant growing.

      The other thing is that HPS lamps have an immense power to size ratio, meaing most of the substantial amount of head it emitted in a small region.

      Likewise if you replaced your setup with quality electronic ballast mercury fluorescents (not as good as HPS) you'd find the whole thing only got warm since you'd be spreading the head out over a low area.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:So much nonsense in terms by marsu_k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My sister-in-law works developing LED lamps. She's a biologist, was headhunted from the university after her PhD (that was about how different types of UV light affect plant growth) by some engineers. Basically what she does is she tests various configurations of LED lights and fixtures, checks how they affect plant growth, tells the engineers to build "that one". Rinse and repeat.

      What she's told me, and I have no reason to doubt this as she's not trying to sell me anything (and the fact that she's very proud of her work ethics), they're getting very much better results than with HIDs. With much less power consumption, obviously. Now, they specifically haven't tested cannabis, but I have a hard time believing the light requirements would be so drastically different than from other very light-needy plants.

      The thing is though, they're not yet selling to consumers, just to large commercial greenhouses. The company is still early stages. And she's been unwilling to loan me a unit for test purposes, dammit ;) But I'm willing to bet in a few years HIDs will no longer be the choice, at least when it comes to power consumption and heat; I expect the lights will be quite pricey, at least initially.

    5. Re:So much nonsense in terms by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      "HPS is in the >100 lumen/watt ballpark"

      Only in their more inefficient ranges like 250 and 400w. 600w can get up to 160l/w.

      "LEDs, while capable of much more efficiency when operated at currents below their maximum ratings, usually operate near the same 100lm/W efficiencies when operated at maximum current"

      Current LED tech is 130+ l/w and Cree's already popped 200+ at room temp 5600K 80mA drive with their MK-R, and in the lab, they've already hit 303+ at room temp 5150K color temp and 350mA drive.

      " But a 400W LED fixture would produce nearly the same heat overall. It just wouldn't get as hot ;-) "

      Comparing 400w HID to 400w LED, full power, the LED will produce on average 15-20% less heat, with that heat difference made up as light output.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:So much nonsense in terms by marsu_k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would they need less power consumption. The lumens per watt of most HID lamps is the same or better than LEDs. This Wikipedia page has several examples of the efficiency of different kinds of lights. Most of the LED examples they give show around 50-100 lumens per watt. For metal halide, they show 65-115 l/w, for high pressure sodium it's 85-150 l/w and for low pressure sodium it's 100-200 l/w. It sounds to me like the HID lamps are MORE efficient than the LEDs, so why is it obvious that the LEDs would use "much less power consumption"?

      I'm not pretending to be an expert on the issue, as stated this is second hand information - however, that Wikipedia page seems to describe the kind of lights one would use in general lighting. The lights she's shown me are nothing of the kind, mostly a mixture of red(ish) and blue(ish) LEDs. Apparently that's what plants crave (I suppose the light has electrolytes).

    7. Re:So much nonsense in terms by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Let's take one of the crops I've done. Wheat fodder grass for animals. Using current traditional soil methods, one acre of fodder grass will require 100,000 gallons of water. Most of this water is lost via transpiration of the plant and evaporation from the soil.

      I can build you a 1/8 acre building, load it up with recirculating vertical-stacked NFT channels, and you could produce that same acre of grass using 1,000 gallons of water.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... - have one of the UK projects I worked on.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:So much nonsense in terms by Khyber · · Score: 2

      You've listened to wayyyyy too much marketing and read too much ill-educated nonsense on cannabis forums.

      The light cycle itself triggers flowering. Red light just happens to be a bit more efficient than blue for photosynthesis. I've done flowering under pure blue light and still obtained the typical stated yield from the seed supplier's website.

      HPS gets used for flowering because the intense green output, which can go through the canopy, down to lower sections of the plant, where the green has overall superior quantum yield, as red and blue will not penetrate that far. IR has minor effect.

      Guess what? We've got white LEDs pushing well past anything HPS lamps can do in terms of lumens per watt (really we're looking for photon flux density) and at color temperatures much closer to the natural light of the sun. HID? Finished.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  4. Economic Threat by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will lead to thousands of drug enforcement pilot jobs getting offshored to afghanistan where militants can remotely fly drug search drones around England for 100th of the price of a guy in a Cessna.

  5. Can have trippy cake and eat it too by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    You can easily legalize MJ and continue your money-generatin war on all the other drugs. It's like a token gesture to the people to make them think the government has given them something, while at the same time pacifying them even further. Win/Win (for the government).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Where? by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Halesowen? Cradley Heath? Oldbury? Shropshire? Where are these towns, Middle Earth?

    1. Re:Where? by dkf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Halesowen? Cradley Heath? Oldbury? Shropshire? Where are these towns, Middle Earth?

      Where do you think Tolkien stole the names from? Though he should've avoided getting creative with "Mordor" and stuck with Wolverhampton.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  7. Left-Wing Propoganda by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the Colorado Government is already at it with their right wing propaganda

    Colorado is (narrowly) governed by the Democrats, not right wing. The Democratic governor is trying to slow down states from legalizing, despite it being a roaring success for everyone.

    In fact what you'll find these days, is that most right-wing people lean libertarian - which is exactly why the people of Colorado (who lead independent/to the right) were perfectly fine legalizing something so many people did all the time anyway.

    Look to the Democrats to shut it down... They are the ones that need the massive funds the government gets from the war on drugs to help fund lots of other progressive measures.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Left-Wing Propoganda by Plunky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Colorado is (narrowly) governed by the Democrats, not right wing

      Hello America!

      I think you will find that both the Democrats and the Republicans are firmly right wing.

      Sincerely,
      The Rest of the World

    2. Re:Left-Wing Propoganda by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, most right-wing people *claim* they lean libertarian.

      And they do. Except on drugs. And media regulation. And pornography. And abortion. And federal abstinance-only funding. And gay marriage. And government religious endorsement. And assisted suicide.

      'Libertarian' in the US is essentially a codeword for 'conservative, but don't want to admit it.' The only true libertarian aspect they have left is their economic policy, which stems less from any form of idealism than it does from the influence of corporate pressure groups who regard any form of regulation as a direct attack on their profit-making ability.

    3. Re:Left-Wing Propoganda by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's everyone's business, because we all have live on this planet together. Most of the world realises this, and we'd all feel a lot more comfortable if America would realise it too.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    4. Re:Left-Wing Propoganda by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then I guess Iraq was OK. After all, Hussein was abusing the locals and funding terror in the rest of the world. Glad we've got that cleared up.

      Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to look like a dumbshit on Slashdot. Quick quiz, how did Saddam Hussein come to power in the first place?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Which is why the smart grow underground by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many growers have been doing this for years. Its not a big deal. You dig out a big hole in the ground, line it with concrete, throw a roof on it, and then pile dirt on top of the roof. No infrared signature.

    You can even put it under your house or another greenhouse that has vegetables and flowers. If anyone quizzes you about all the materials you say its for that.

    There is an issue with the smell. Nothing you can really do about dogs besides creating a hermetically sealed compartment that has very serious airfilters. Which is sort of the Walter White solution.

    Anyway, build underground... its easy and works.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Which is why the smart grow underground by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Couple years ago there was a town where some pranksters had it seeded and growing everywhere, even in that plaza fountain in the middle of town hall.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:Which is why the smart grow underground by swb · · Score: 2

      A guy I used to know in college was from a rural area. There was a small river that was navigable by canoe, and his brother used to go canoeing in the spring and plant seeds along the river.

      He'd make a few trips during the summer to check up on them, in the fall he'd come by, cut them down to dry and then make one last trip to pick up the most promising plants.

  9. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except for that's not how it's panning out in places like Colorado and the Netherlands, where it's largely smaller growers who are making money....

  10. Re:There is another answer by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    You don't necessarily even need a hard kill, with the accompanying risks of damage/injury to bystanders and their property...

    Thanks at least in part to the robust market for green diode-pumped solid state lasers, moderately alarming and dangerous IR lasers are ubiquitous and cheap. Depending on the quality of your optics and the robustness of theirs, outcomes ranging from temporary washout of the image to swift and permanent death of the imager are highly likely.

  11. Dealers also use webcams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to a newspaper article in sweden (translated)
    Drug dealers have set up webcams to be able to monitor police activity in the area.

  12. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except for that's not how it's panning out in places like Colorado and the Netherlands, where it's largely smaller growers who are making money....

    The Netherlands here. Not quite. We have this utterly silly situation where the selling of mj is sort of legal, up to a certain weight and only in designated establishments (the famous coffeeshops). However the growing and distributing is quite illegal.

    The mom and pop growers are entirely insignificant compared to organized criminals. The latter produce way more than local demand, so much of that is exported.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  13. Re:Ummm by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    These are noteable for being a few of the places in the UK where the pronounciation actually reflects the spelling.

  14. Catch the drone with a Net Gun ! by advid.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The best answer would be a Net Gun.

    From market or DIY. That's $400 or $60-$80.

    I think many of the catched drone parts can be salvaged, after the fall.

  15. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by Zumbs · · Score: 2

    If I understand you correctly, any marijuana sold at Dutch coffee shops must then have been either grown illegally or smuggled into the country?

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  16. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is correct. Like I said, an utterly silly state of affairs. So the output of these coffeeshops is legal (provided they respect the weight limits, don't sell to underage visitors, etc) while their inputs aren't.

    The way it is now (but this is being debated constantly) we are basically not enjoying the major potential benefit of decriminalisation, which is taking the wind out of the sails of organized crime.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  17. Re:sorry but by Dan1701 · · Score: 2

    Actually, if you read the original story this is just one man talking, and there's a pretty good chance he could just be spinning a yarn for a journalist. Drone aircraft are rare here in Britain, and thermal cameras are similarly rare and expensive to buy (the thermal imagers fitted to high-end BMW cars are about the cheapest such units).

    All UK police forces which operate helicopters (which is pretty much all of them) have a stated policy of keeping the thermal image camera turned on whenever the helicopter is in flight, and the operator has standing orders to note the location of any unusually warm buildings for later assessment by ground units. This is likely where this man has got his idea from, but I seriously doubt that he is actually putting it into practice.

  18. Re:While I'm inclined to agree... by Anonymice · · Score: 2

    The people who are the real problem are the criminals. The only way to resolve that issue is by cutting them out of the market.

    The only other problems are a public health issue. You'll have more cases of people driving under the influence, and smoking in general increases the cancer risk of the population. Now whilst those are credible issues, they're no worse than the legalisation of tobacco & alcohol. In fact, you could argue that tobacco & alcohol are worse due to their higher incidence of addiction & the latter's habit of causing an increase violence.

  19. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    Drugs would no longer be grown by organised criminal gangs.

    They would be grown by respectable businessmen who have no problem with killing 50% of the people who buy their products while deliberately making them more addictive.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  20. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

    AFAIK you can grow hemp for fiber legally in the Netherlands. I would not be surprised if that is how people got the cannabis in the first place.

    Possibly so, at first. However, these days the strains used for industrial use (rope, clothes, paper) are almost a different species from the ones for, um, recreational use. In fact, some of the mom and pop growers specifically do so because they find the stuff from the coffeeshops too potent.

    Is the law on cultivation actively enforced or not? If the law is only on paper but not enforced it might as well not be there.

    Yes, it is actively enforced. Everything over 5 plants constitutes a rather serious offense, and people do get caught.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  21. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by Copid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For all of the badness of Philip Morris, I think I'd still rather they be running the show than the guys who kidnap busloads of people, rape them or make them fight to the death, and then bury them in the desert.

    I don't think that's just personal squeamishness talking. It may very well be that the sociopaths who did bad stuff for the cigarette companies are just as evil as the sociopaths who run the cartels. But they do seem to control themselves a little better when they can make tons of money by staying in the law's good graces.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  22. Re:Cartels will be fine.... by Copid · · Score: 2

    Let's say we go after the bastards, then. Make tobacco illegal and drive them underground. We could outsource the production and distribution of tobacco to Los Zetas and it would be a net win, right? At least that terror Philip Morris would be out of the picture.

    To some extent, I measure how threatening they are by how dangerous they are to me as a bystander. I'd much rather see a major cigarette outlet near my house than an illegal marijuana distribution center. I can avoid most of the problems with a cigarette outlet by simply not going in. Not so much with the drug import hub.

    We seem to have managed to neuter them pretty effectively by taxing cigarettes and making the public aware of just how bad they are for us. It looks like smoking is down about 60% in the US just due to minor regulation and social trends. Our approach with other drugs doesn't seem to be following the same trend.

    Finally, measuring "evil" in absolute numbers is fraught with problems. If all we care about is number of dead rather than how they died and why, we'd be pounding on GM's door too. And of course, I don't think we Americans would be so unconcerned about the drug war if it was our country that they were turning into a failed state. Deaths notwithstanding, the total collapse of law and order in a democracy is something that should be talled on the "drug cartels are bad" side of the ledger, even if it's not our country they're doing it to. Duffel bags full of the heads of police officers and elected officials in some foreign country aren't a really big deal for us, so we tend to turn down the knob on "evil" when we assess it.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  23. Re:STOP SPREADING PARANOIA by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    The cops go looking just before dawn. When the lights have been on all night and the air is coldest. Only a moron would go looking in the middle of the afternoon.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'