The Technology of Drug Prohibition 724
ches_grin writes "Although the GWOT gets all the headlines, technology is proving to be the key factor in the 'war on drugs'. This article and slideshow take a look at the current state-of-the-art for both federal agents and drug traffickers, from greenhouses to Predator drones: 'In the pitched battle surrounding illegal drugs, each side has its advantages. Law enforcement can take advantage of private sector expertise, expensive machines, and, of course, the law. Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand.'"
Another "war" without end.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Feh!
War on drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found in 2004 that about 20% high school seniors had used marijuana in the preceding month.
If 20% of your kids are actively sleeping with the enemy, you've already lost the war. No technology in the world will help you when the enemy has wide spread grass root support in your own country. It'd probably be a good idea to start to negotiate a cease fire.
I'd rather see money be spent on helping those trying to get out of enemy territory than punishing those who want to be there
And before writing an angry rant about how your cousin's roomate was kidnapped by dealers and forced into drug addiction and prostitution, please see my sig.
Re:Another "war" without end.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Jaysyn
Don't you mean the war on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all "psychotropic" substances.
Re:Legalise Drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
But if alcohol is legal, why is marijuana not? It's less harmful to the user and much much less harmful to others around the user. (Assuming you ignore second-hand smoke. And maybe even then.)
And yet instead, it are illegal and expensive. People are forced to break the law to get their fix, so breaking the law again to get the money to get their fix isn't that much of a stretch. Once you are on a path, good or bad, it is much easier to continue on that path than step off it.
Instead, we should be regulating drugs as we do all prescription medicines. In particular, the medicines for sexual stimulation.
Re:Legalise Drugs (Score:2, Interesting)
Last Saturday (Score:1, Interesting)
I already see a lot of posts of people shouting "legalize them!" and I have to disagree. Is it fairly easy to get them even though they are illegal? Yes, I guess but it depends on who you know. I don't associate with anyone who takes illegal drugs so I wouldn't know where to start and it would be fairly difficult for me to attain them. Now, if they were legal and I could walk into a store any time I want to purchase them removes some hoops I'd have to jump through making them even more attainable. So, are they just as attainable now than if they were legal? Not necessarily.
Many people who champion the cause of legalization attribute it to recreational use and people should have dominion over what they put into their own bodies. Yes and no. How many recreation alcohol consumers kill children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters each year? Did the right to dominion over their own bodies also include a right over someone else's?
The problems go much deeper than whether or not legalize. Drugs are glamourized in a sense and this would be the case whether they were legal or not. Music, movies, television all play a part in it. Same goes for alcohol. However, most people are not hooked on alcohol as quickly as they are with crack and meth. If they were, I'd think it would be reasonable to outlaw alcohol again.
Personally, I don't want to be around these drugs. I made that choice in my life and I feel I am better for it. Legalize them and you shove them in my face and make them even more attainable so kids who might have never done it think hey, its legal maybe I should try it. Has anyone thought that having them outlawed may actually deter some people? I guess that doesn't matter though because if you want them legalized you see no problem with people trying to have fun by distorting their thought processes or covering up problems by blocking them with a "high". And before anyone starts in with "what about alcohol, its a drug!" or "what about cigarettes!" trying to turn my opinions around...ban them all. There are too many adverse effects to using any of them.
Re:Last Saturday (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The tin foil hats got it right... (Score:4, Interesting)
actually it's worse than that. Due to the laws of supply and demand, By failing to reduce the market for drugs, all the war on drugs has done is increase the financial incentives to be a drug dealer.
it is no suprise therefore that many of your local terrorist organisations.. already very criminal by nature have moved into the drugs trade, because of the vast amount of money to be made
so the war on drugs is in direct conflict the war on terror due to economics
the farce of the taliban and heroin in afghanistan is particularly depressing.
prohibition leads to vast wealth going to criminals... choose the lesser of two evils legalise it and make that wealth go to the state.
mind you from my limited knowledge of american history, i seem to recall that many of your blue blooded super rich political families made money bootlegging whisky during prohibition, the kennedy's in particular.
anyone know what the bushes were doing in prohibition?
Re:Legalise "Them"?? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It allows for the users without self-restraint to remove themselves from the picture, usually through death. It sounds hardhearted, but this really is the only way to convince some people. This has the side effect of showing a generation of would-be users just how awful addiction really is, and during their childhood to top it off!
2) It allows law enforcement to get back to its REAL job - enforcing laws to benefit society. There's nothing beneficial in forcing useless people to stop killing themselves. Allow them to die and enforce the laws that benefit the "greater good". Now, this doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye when someone in their death throes decides to stir trouble for everyone else. If you murder, steal, etc. you should still be held accountable for that.
I don't think drugs are good. Not even marijuana. But I think that people who are stupid enough to harm themselves should be allowed to. It's a long-forgotten concept here in America... "Freedom" they used to call it. Free will and the ability to exercise it are a necessity. Consequences should arise from conflicting interests, not from arbitrary rules.
Re:Why?? (Score:1, Interesting)
Illegal drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
Talk and Action? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I popped into this thread, I was expecting to see the usual arguments. I was expecting to spend a little time combatting ignorance. I wasn't expecting any actual progress.
However, what amazed me was that every highly rated comment (I browse at +3) was pro-legalization. Every single one. Sure, they were responding to some of the same tired old arguments, but it seemed that the pro-legalization camp was far more strongly represented by both posters and mods. That surprised me and made me hopeful. I'm a regular financial supporter of The Marijuana Policy Project [mpp.org]. There are so many lost causes in the world, improvements I'd love to see that will never happen. But I believe this is one issue that we might actually see resolved in our lifetimes.
I live in the Las Vegas area, and there is a statutory initiative [reviewjournal.com] on the ballot this upcoming election [reviewjournal.com]. Please, please, please, if you live in the Las Vegas area get out and vote. There are initiatives in other states as well, but I don't know the details there.
I am convinced now there is more than enough support to pass legalization in many states. But people need to get active about it. They need to watch the issue an vote. If this is an issue you care about, please take the time. We're at a possible turning point in the next 10 to 20 years. We can make things better.
Cheers.
Re:Legalise "Them"?? (Score:4, Interesting)
You typically can't arrest a problem; you can usually only arrest its symptoms.
Nevada (I think) has legalized prostitution, with certain restrictions and such by the government. From what I've heard, legalized prostitution is less of a problem than illegal prostitution: less disease, less loitering, less time required by law enforcement, and less abuse of sex workers.
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
There are some people who are mature enough to handle drugs. However, many people don't know the first thing about how drugs affect their brain and body...
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
One potential problem is that employers might start screening potential employees against the list of people with licenses; I'm not sure if it would be possible to keep the license list private and unavailable to the public, except perhaps if it's considered part of freedom of religion. (Maybe a better name for the license would be "Ceremonial substance permit.")
Re:Another "war" without end.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the following scenario: you shop at various grocery stores. One of them has a habit of jacking up their prices right as you're checking out in an attempt to milk more money out of you. (Assume this is legal, and they give you the option to walk out entirely without buying anything.) Is this going to make you want to shop there? No, it won't. It may ensare you a few times, but long term it will just make people avoid that store. Now, people may still shop there, but only if it offers much lower prices to begin with so that the final price people expect to pay, *anticipating* the jacking-up of the price, will be competitive.
This is analagous to an investor purchasing labor. If a union randomly strikes and demands above-market compensation (which it would be, otherwise they'd just switch jobs), is that going to help wages long term? No, it won't: like with the grocery store, it will make them systematically discount the expected value of the labor (due to losses from slowdowns), bidding down wages, just as you systematically discounted the value of the goods at the asshat grocery store, bidding down their prices.
In light of this explanation, on what basis can you claim unions achieve, over the long term, better compensation for workers? See if you can answer without changing the topic.
Re:Marijuana vs. Other Drugs (Score:2, Interesting)
Highly unlikely. Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are typically transported across great distances at considerable risk, resulting in a high price. If legal, they could be produced from plants grown in greenhouses in the country where they are wanted and supplied directly to stores. The savings would be vast and the illegal market would not be able to compete. The drug production process could be regulated just as other consumables are, such as by the FDA. Remember this - when you support the 'war on drugs', you support the 'brutal cartels' and all the violence involved.
Re:Why?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, in the 1980s, an actor named Ronald Reagen, ascending to the office of president from his former job as governor of California, where he knocked the state university down a few notches, decided that America needs to spend all the money it gave back in tax cuts on arresting people who use drugs. Furthermore, we would begin saturating our children with anti-drug propaganda, riddled with half-truths and missing information but disguised as legitimate findings. We would adopt the Christian 12-step programs' philosophy of lifetime addictions ("addiction" has no agreed upon medical definition, by the way. Doctors use the terms "abuse" and "dependence" to describe specific behaviors), then tell the parents that if their kids become intoxicated with any illegal substances they will be lying in the gutters and become complete failures in life. Then, we use this theory that if a drug is illegal it is fundamentally bad in order to justify keeping all drugs illegal, until a new generation arises that grew up surrounded by the propaganda who won't even think to question something that they have been told since the age of 5.
Don't believe me? Consider a substance known as Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; street name is ecstasy). MDMA was sometimes used by psychiatrists for its ability to help people open up, and some research indicated that small amounts of the substance (below the threshold for getting high) could help cure cluster headaches. Then, a couple of techno fans discovered that the high from MDMA was kinda cool at their parties, and soon MDMA became the most popular party drug after alcohol and marijuana. The response of the US government? Reschedule MDMA as a "schedule I" substance, which classifies it as having no known medical use, and tell everybody that MDMA is the new plague threatening their kids. Tell all the kids that MDMA is going to get them in a lot of trouble in life, but don't bother to tell them what effects MDMA actually has, and create mass hysteria about the substance. Then, perform an experiment on primates that shows MDMA is as neurotoxic as methamphetamine is, and then hide the face that the research was recalled because instead of using MDMA, the scientists accidentally used methamphetamine. Result? People are taken about at the suggestion of legalization.
The funny thing is that nobody ever needs to present any evidence to support a claim that drugs are a plague to our society. The claims don't even have to make sense: many people believe that crack is a worse substance than cocaine...because nobody informed them that they are the same drug, taken in a different form (crack is smoked and therefore absorbed faster; but cocaine can be injected, and absorbed still faster). What is the difference between morphine and heroine? One is prescribed by a doctor, one is not (pure heroine and pure morphine have similar effects, both physical and mental). Why isn't alcohol demonized the way other drugs are? What about caffeine, don't people become dependent (physically and ment
Re:The tin foil hats got it right... (Score:3, Interesting)
The "war on drugs" (Score:5, Interesting)
Gigantic megacorps that run farms like factories can ride out yearly dips and rises in the commodity price of staple crops, but some peasant trying to grow wheat cant say to his kids "wheat is worthless this year, but we can eat next year"; so the peasant farmers of colombia have to find a crop that has constant demand no matter what the US government is subsidising, embargoing or shipping out as aid, and that crop is coca and cannabis.
Re:Legalise Drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, you take away the insane profit ratios and there is no incentive to produce that product anymore.
Re:Legalization question (Score:3, Interesting)
With the zero-tolerance laws where I grew up on alcohol, it was easier to find drugs if you're under age. Talk about the law of unintended consequences there.... it's easier for a 15 year old to get meth than a beer. And then at 15, you've just popped your breaking the law cherry. Congratulations.
On the prescription drugs, the FDA's responsibility is to protect citizens from danger. So then, why not just give out information, and let people make their own choices. If I want a buy Seldane, even though I used it every day in the 80's, I cannot. It works better than Allegra or Claratin, but if you take 8 of those a day (1 is the correct dose) for many months you can die. So I don't get to use them (funny this drug got banned exactly when their patent ran out, and we all switched to magical Allegra). If I have a cold, ephedrine will fix your runny nose in 30 minutes and stay gone for 6 hours, but its easy to turn that into meth, so no dice.
We Americans are too stupid to make our own choices, according to our politicians voting records, and we continue to prove it by not voting out politicians who believe we are stupid. (Actually, I think it's more along the lines that everybody thinks everyone else is stupid, and everyone else's congressmen is corrupt, kinda like everyone thinks they're a good driver unlike everybody else).
The system is broken. Spread real, reliable information, and let people make their own choices. That is how our government can truly help us. Think nutrition labels. We now know that a whopper has 1000 calories, so I eat them once a month instead of once a week. Information is progress.
Re:Legalise "Them"?? (Score:4, Interesting)
But why not give it a shot, when the trillions spent already have done nothing to stem the demand?
"But the societal problems of alcohol use remained."
Yes, and they'll remain unless you eradicate every possible way for a human to mess with his brain in a psychologically addictive way. Since that's highly unlikely to ever happen, why not try a more reasonable approach?
From a former foot soldier in the WoD (Score:3, Interesting)
The WoD will never be won. Never, ever, ever. If the US Govt can't even keep drugs out of prisons how are going to keep them out of anywhere else? It's all about the money. The money drives the passion to find new ways to maximize profits. The illegal drug industry is incredibly creative. Here's a couple of examples:
- Back in the '80s New Bedford, MA was an entry point for heroin. Larger fishing boats would stuff the drugs in a trash fish (any type of fish with little or no resale valve) out at sea, flash freeze and bury them with their catch. The trash fish and drugs would be quietly put aside while unloading or prepossessing. We're talking a few fish out of hundreds of pounds of catch. Virtually impossible to catch.
- In the Pacific Northwest bails of marijuana are towed behind boats from Canada, sealed and partly weighed down. If they think they're going to get caught they note the position on GPS, cut the line and the bails sink. The weights dragging the bails down are held together with zinc connections that are meant to break in a day or two. The bails re-float and are retrieved.
- Large fishing boats with three fuel tanks. Well, one real and two for the drugs. To conceal the true purpose of these outer tanks they'd seal the sounding tubes and fill partly with fuel. A LEO would check the tank, see it had fuel and assume it was a real fuel tank.
- Submarine found in Colombian Andes [cnn.com]. Unreal.
It's a war that can not be won. IMO the solution is to legalize (and tax) marijuana like alcohol and allow MDs to prescribe Schedule I/II/III drugs "for maintenance" of a habit. The latter will greatly help slow the spread of blood born diseases and control dosing (a critical part in helping those addicted in finally stopping their habit).
Prohibition is a total fucking failure. The only proponents are those that make their living off of it: the Police, the rehab industry and those that sell them the tools. Go read Jacob Sullum's landmark book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" for an eye openner.
Re:Legalise Drugs (Score:1, Interesting)
That depends where you live. In the midwest farm planted hemp from WWII still grows wild. Even though it has near zero THC, the police are still working hard to eradicate it.
Re:Legalise Drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! And just to back you up everyone should go watch The History of Marijuana [archive.org] narrated by Woody Harrelson.
Re:Why?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can we have a war on the term "war on" (Score:3, Interesting)
The "war on" isn't supposed to make you feel safe, terms like Social "Security" or Medi"care" are supposed to do that.
The "War on x" snowclone [wikipedia.org] is supposed to imply that it is worth a significant sacrifice to get rid of X. It also implies that everyone agrees that X is the enemy.
So the War on Drugs implies that everyone agrees that mary j is bad while b33r and smokes are not. Now, if you called it the War on Organized Crime I think more people would concur, but then you couldn't justify pee pee tests and arbitrary lists of controlled substances.
Similarly, the War on Poverty assumes that everyone needs to acquire some arbitrary level of material wealth. I guess it sounds better than the Welfare State...
And the GWOT declares war on a set of strategies and tactics. The Islamofascists regularly hold hatefests saying that they're going to bring down the Great Satan and kill the Joooos. We could call that "their war on us," it just involves acknowledging that they're serious.
Red Herring: Alchol & Tobacco are easy to make (Score:3, Interesting)
The Beer making process requires: (1) A Stove, (2) a Big Pot to sterilize water, (3) a Big Jug (such as a 5 gallon water bottle from the office cooler), (4) Wheat (and rice in the case of most american beer), (5) Yeast, and (6) Bottles - Most people still buy beer at the goverment taxed store. It's a case of speace effeciency and instanst gratification: To make Beer you have to Boil the water & Grain, Pour them in your office water cooler jug, let it cool, dump in the yeast, and wait a month. Then when the primary fermentation is done: You have to bottle and wait a few more months for the carbot content to go up. (OK, I left out the oxygen trap. If you don't use swing top bottles, you need a capper and caps - add $15)(Side note: Making harder alchol is also simple, take your primary fermentation of *whatever*, and simmer it using a condensing coil to capture & condense the alchol vapors into a bottle.)
In short, Alchol (and Good Beer especially) is extremely easy to make. However, you have to wait months for it, or get a carbon dioxide tank to force carbonization (and still must wait at least a month). You also need to have the space to dedicate to storing beer "in progress", and schedule your consumption to meet your demand. This is why the government taxed beer is so popular.
Making Tobacco (I imagine) is quite a similar process: You need (1) Land, and (2) a place to dry your tobacco. The steps for this are: Grow Tobacco, Harvest; Hang to dry. Then if you want cigarettes, roll them. This is also a process that takes months. I have read statistics that a pack of cigarettes costs less than $1 to make and transport. Since they generally are not found for less than $3 ($5 in DC, $8 in NY) the rest is profit and tax.
Even though making cigarettes costs a fraction of the price of buying them pre-rolled, everyone buys them in packs. (sometimes singles @$.25 ea.) Why, it's the same breakdown of resources (space and time) that get in the way of instant gratification.
As far as Marijuana goes, there is no reason that it could not be taxed at a high rate and still have a largely taxed consumption base. It is perfectly analagous to cigarettes. In addition, marijuanna legalization would free up a lot of resources for other purposes. (Although some resources would have to go for things like improved public transportation.) I suspect that Marijuanna is the most used "illegal" substance around (say 50%). What could be done if those people in jail for having it freed space in the system for harder drug pushers, or violent offenders? Or if the police chasing people for having Marijuana could be redeployed to chase down "minor crimes" - say the person who made my wife late for work Tuesday by stealing her bicycle?
The arguement that Marijuana would not be taxed, because everyone would grow it is a red herring. You can look at either the alchol or tobacco industry for a counter example. Freeing the resources spent on chasing down, prosecuting, and improsing Marijuana offenders would help society at large & help everyone.
Re:Legalise Drugs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh? But now lets turn it around (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you some kind of counselor or therapist? This is the problem with basing policy on worst case scenarios. You've only seen messed up people with horrible, abusive childhoods and hopeless lives, and pin it all on whatever substance or activity they do to escape from their miserable reality. However, you never stop and ask that regular, decent person who you see on the street or interact with daily how much they drink or what recreational drugs they use.
OTOH, there are plenty of people who have 2-3 drinks a day and live well into their nineties (look at my grandparents, or most of Europe for God's sake). There are people who regularly toke marijuana or do some coke or herion to get going in the morning or to relax. You have the Native American church with almost 7 million members eating multiple peyote buttons in weekly ceremonies, and they don't freak out and ruin their lives -- in fact a lot of members credit the church with helping them to deal with alcholism and emotional issues. Same goes with the Santo Daime and the União do Vegetal churches of Brazil, where they use ayahuasca instead of peyote.
The decent, upstanding citizen who uses drugs and alcohol regularly keep very quiet about it.The only reason you don't hear about them is because they keep their illegal habit quiet, since if anyone found out, they would lose thier jobs, family, and reputation and be forced into rehab where the only way you can get out is to admit that you are are powerless against alcohol, mj, video games, etc. and your life is completely controlled by that.
I had a roommate who was convinced that LSD makes you crazy because her mom worked at a psych ward and all of the paranoid schizophrenics had done LSD. The problem with that reasoning is that a lot of baby boomers had done LSD in the sixties, and then they went on to lead regular, happy, productive lives. In fact a lot of people credit LSD with opening their minds and giving them the interest to pursue some religious affiliation or intellectual activity. However, the individuals who were abused and come from a family history of mental illness went on to go crazy, and and then because they did LSD a few times, that must have done it. You know what? All of those people in the psych ward were smokers too. So then does nicotine make you go crazy? In fact, some people argue that LSD, marijuana, and nicotine are used as self-medication by people with mental illness to reduce their symptoms.
Now, please read and understand what I am saying. I am not saying that drugs are completely harmless. But people become addicted to them because of other factors in their lives, not because these drugs are like steel chains of addiction. Yes, meth, crack and paint thinner are very dangerous and destructive, but perhaps people wouldn't be interested in that if the less dangerous alternatives like LSD and peyote were more readily available. Or if we actually funded decent mental health care in this country.