International drug trafficking

[Hugo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65337215

Pretty pessimistic report here that says that the battle against drug trafficking is all but lost in Europe. Apparently the narco gangs are too well organised, too well co-ordinated and too well financed so they can just bribe whoever they need to in order to go about their business. I had no idea that things were as bleak as this.

[Jim Lahey]

Fuck me, imagine the smell of that place after a month

[Blackmac]

It's been lost for 20 years mate.

[Hugo]

It's been lost for 20 years mate.

That's really sad to hear. When I read the article I just despaired tbh - I wish nation states were more inclined to co-operate and work to address issues like climate change & drug trafficking because they have a detrimental effect on the lives of all people.

[Ymx]

It's been lost for 20 years mate.

That's really sad to hear. When I read the article I just despaired tbh - I wish nation states were more inclined to co-operate and work to address issues like climate change & drug trafficking because they have a detrimental effect on the lives of all people.

And modern slavery, and poverty, and racism, and transphobia, don’t forget those.

How did you wrestle climate change in to this?

[Ymx]

On the submarine thing. That’s actually pretty cool I have to say. The guys in the thing are pretty bloody brave to travel in a home made sub across the Atlantic. Christ!

They had energy bars, cans of sardines and plastic bags they used for toilet facilities.

Just curious as to why these are not picked up by the navy? Fibreglass make them undetected?

[Ymx]

I wonder why they don’t up the game and autopilot these things. A bit of sonar and GPS.
Wouldn’t need to worry about oxygen systems, food, living space, number of smugglers who could run the thing.

[laurent]

On the submarine thing. That’s actually pretty cool I have to say. The guys in the thing are pretty bloody brave to travel in a home made sub across the Atlantic. Christ!

They had energy bars, cans of sardines and plastic bags they used for toilet facilities.

Just curious as to why these are not picked up by the navy? Fibreglass make them undetected?

The Ocean is vast and There are not so many Sub hunting Frigates/ destroyer.

[I like neeps]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65337215

Pretty pessimistic report here that says that the battle against drug trafficking is all but lost in Europe. Apparently the narco gangs are too well organised, too well co-ordinated and too well financed so they can just bribe whoever they need to in order to go about their business. I had no idea that things were as bleak as this.

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

[Gumboot]

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Yep.

But with so many vested interests making a fortune by continuing to wage the unwinnable war, that ain't gonna happen.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Yep.

But with so many vested interests making a fortune by continuing to wage the unwinnable war, that ain't gonna happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

[weegie01]

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Yep.

But with so many vested interests making a fortune by continuing to wage the unwinnable war, that ain't gonna happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

I did drugs related course at uni in the 70s. Even that far back the lecturers were saying that the only way to control drugs was by legalisation and regulation. Which would have the side effect of making the drugs safer.

The taking of some form of drugs is so normalised now that I doubt the counter argument that legalisation will result in a greater uptake holds water any more. Even if it did, surely it is better in a regulated, safe, environment where the dangers are both controlled and highlighted?

[PornDog]

Posted this before on the other place, truly eye opening -

[Ymx]

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Yep.

But with so many vested interests making a fortune by continuing to wage the unwinnable war, that ain't gonna happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

I’m not sure the low price and non-policing of fentanyl is particularly working in some US cities.

[PornDog]

Yep.

But with so many vested interests making a fortune by continuing to wage the unwinnable war, that ain't gonna happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

I’m not sure the low price and non-policing of fentanyl is particularly working in some US cities.

The key is not to give control to evil drug pushers.

[Hugo]

It's been lost for 20 years mate.

That's really sad to hear. When I read the article I just despaired tbh - I wish nation states were more inclined to co-operate and work to address issues like climate change & drug trafficking because they have a detrimental effect on the lives of all people.

And modern slavery, and poverty, and racism, and transphobia, don’t forget those.

How did you wrestle climate change in to this?

Its just the point that I fear the outlook in international relations is still primarily competitive and adversarial rather than supportive & co-operative.

[shaggy]

Yep.

But with so many vested interests making a fortune by continuing to wage the unwinnable war, that ain't gonna happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

I did drugs related course at uni in the 70s. Even that far back the lecturers were saying that the only way to control drugs was by legalisation and regulation. Which would have the side effect of making the drugs safer.

The taking of some form of drugs is so normalised now that I doubt the counter argument that legalisation will result in a greater uptake holds water any more. Even if it did, surely it is better in a regulated, safe, environment where the dangers are both controlled and highlighted?

Totally disagree on that front. There is a large volume of people out there that will not take drugs because they are illegal. Remove that barrier and they will have a greater potential to start taking drugs when under any kind of peer pressure.

Any person prevented from taking drugs is a win in my mind.

[Sandstorm]

The key is not to give control to evil drug pushers.

Rather give it to those kind multinational drug companies who always have our best interests at…..oh wait.

[Guy Smiley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

I did drugs related course at uni in the 70s. Even that far back the lecturers were saying that the only way to control drugs was by legalisation and regulation. Which would have the side effect of making the drugs safer.

The taking of some form of drugs is so normalised now that I doubt the counter argument that legalisation will result in a greater uptake holds water any more. Even if it did, surely it is better in a regulated, safe, environment where the dangers are both controlled and highlighted?

Totally disagree on that front. There is a large volume of people out there that will not take drugs because they are illegal. Remove that barrier and they will have a greater potential to start taking drugs when under any kind of peer pressure.

Any person prevented from taking drugs is a win in my mind.

That’s the unfortunate argument that stops progress in its tracks. I say unfortunate for a couple of reasons… firstly, the opportunity to try something safely is denied in favour of high risk exposure to criminals and overdose….

and the experience in countries like Portugal would suggest that it’s simply wrong. Since drugs were decriminalised there and began being treated as a health issue, not a criminal one, their drug use, drug related deaths and of course incarceration for drug crime, have all dropped and remain below the EU average.

The moralistic stance of ‘saving one soul’ is a serious mistake that costs many more… not to mention the enormous waste of resources spent pursuing the folly.

[sockwithaticket]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Most people don't have a problem with drugs, they have a problem with crime. The obvious fix then eludes them.

I did drugs related course at uni in the 70s. Even that far back the lecturers were saying that the only way to control drugs was by legalisation and regulation. Which would have the side effect of making the drugs safer.

The taking of some form of drugs is so normalised now that I doubt the counter argument that legalisation will result in a greater uptake holds water any more. Even if it did, surely it is better in a regulated, safe, environment where the dangers are both controlled and highlighted?

Totally disagree on that front. There is a large volume of people out there that will not take drugs because they are illegal. Remove that barrier and they will have a greater potential to start taking drugs when under any kind of peer pressure.

Any person prevented from taking drugs is a win in my mind.

I'm probably one of those. As much as I like to think I decided to be tee-total at the age of 14 (when many of my friends first started smoking weed and drinking underage) due to rational arguments like potential impact on a developing adolescent body and not supporting criminal enterprise that causes great suffering abroad, I am a bit of a goody two shoes who follows rules.

Conversely, I suspect many of the people I know who started out with weed and progressed through various other drugs did so because these were illicit, taboo things and it gave them an anti-authority thrill on top of any other positive effects of ingestion. I've certainly seen it argued that legalisation would deter some from usage on that basis.

[Guy Smiley]

It strikes me that this is a sort of 'halo effect' regarding drug use... on one hand the appeal of rebellion, on the other an equal appeal of avoiding trouble. If we 'dilute the halo' and use education and guidance to lay bare some truths about drug use and effects then we go a long way to negating that appeal, while decriminalising can divert lives away from falling into trouble and a slippery slope that accompanies that.

[Hugo]

I did drugs related course at uni in the 70s. Even that far back the lecturers were saying that the only way to control drugs was by legalisation and regulation. Which would have the side effect of making the drugs safer.

The taking of some form of drugs is so normalised now that I doubt the counter argument that legalisation will result in a greater uptake holds water any more. Even if it did, surely it is better in a regulated, safe, environment where the dangers are both controlled and highlighted?

Totally disagree on that front. There is a large volume of people out there that will not take drugs because they are illegal. Remove that barrier and they will have a greater potential to start taking drugs when under any kind of peer pressure.

Any person prevented from taking drugs is a win in my mind.

I'm probably one of those. As much as I like to think I decided to be tee-total at the age of 14 (when many of my friends first started smoking weed and drinking underage) due to rational arguments like potential impact on a developing adolescent body and not supporting criminal enterprise that causes great suffering abroad, I am a bit of a goody two shoes who follows rules.

Good points. Plus I think that you can't underestimate the impact of accessibility. For example, I've never done hard drugs and at no point in my life have I ever known how or where to get hold of heroin, cocaine etc.

The challenge & effort required to get hold of hard drugs might well have prevented widespread drug use amongst many people.

[Hugo]

And I'm not claiming authority on the subject I'm just saying that for me, the prospect of having to do some research and then meet up with some scumbag in a back alley to buy drugs has always been a deterrent.

[Guy Smiley]

And I'm not claiming authority on the subject I'm just saying that for me, the prospect of having to do some research and then meet up with some scumbag in a back alley to buy drugs has always been a deterrent.

That's a very romanticised version of the drug trade and highly inaccurate. Most people would simply ask at a party.

[Hugo]

And I'm not claiming authority on the subject I'm just saying that for me, the prospect of having to do some research and then meet up with some scumbag in a back alley to buy drugs has always been a deterrent.

That's a very romanticised version of the drug trade and highly inaccurate. Most people would simply ask at a party.

Fair enough but isn't this all very highly situational? It might be that I've lived a sheltered life but I've never seen someone snorting lines of cocaine at a party or been offered any.

It's actually one of those strange things about life, people might end up with a drug habit for no other reason than the fact they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[PornDog]

The key is not to give control to evil drug pushers.

Rather give it to those kind multinational drug companies who always have our best interests at…..oh wait.

That was my point dude - organised crime and cunts like the Sacklers. What's the difference?

But if we're talking about sunlit uplands solutions, then ideally policy would be based on what was best for public health, and what was best for public order, with considerations like 'morals' and 'politics' being kept as far away from the decision making as possible.

[sockwithaticket]

And I'm not claiming authority on the subject I'm just saying that for me, the prospect of having to do some research and then meet up with some scumbag in a back alley to buy drugs has always been a deterrent.

That's a very romanticised version of the drug trade and highly inaccurate. Most people would simply ask at a party.

Fair enough but isn't this all very highly situational? It might be that I've lived a sheltered life but I've never seen someone snorting lines of cocaine at a party or been offered any.

It's actually one of those strange things about life, people might end up with a drug habit for no other reason than the fact they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have been at those parties, but generally past the age of 18. The heaviest thing that got passed around when we were younger was Ket. Before reliably being able to bump into someone at a party my friends' drug hook up was exactly as you described - some dodgy bloke, though he was usually in the more wooded bits of the local park rather than a shady alley. I never found out how they'd come across him.

Also on accessibility, finances I'm sure had much to do with it. My parents, with my grandparents money, packed me off to relatively cheap private school for secondary. From the age of 12 I worked various jobs at the weekend from paper boy to sign holder to shop assistant in order to pay for things like credit for my phone whereas the new friends I'd made mostly had such mundane things taken care of for them and would often just be given £50 - £100 to go to London for the day. They had spare resources to spend on drugs. When I went back to the state system for 6th form I saw far less drug use, just a bit of underage drinking and less of that than I'd see with my private school friends because fewer people had the cash to indulge in a bit of teenage delinquency, they were mainly scrimping for driving lessons and car insurance.

[Blackmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65337215

Pretty pessimistic report here that says that the battle against drug trafficking is all but lost in Europe. Apparently the narco gangs are too well organised, too well co-ordinated and too well financed so they can just bribe whoever they need to in order to go about their business. I had no idea that things were as bleak as this.

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Nail. Head. Hammer.

[boere wors]

listen to this man!

[FalseBayFC]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65337215

Pretty pessimistic report here that says that the battle against drug trafficking is all but lost in Europe. Apparently the narco gangs are too well organised, too well co-ordinated and too well financed so they can just bribe whoever they need to in order to go about their business. I had no idea that things were as bleak as this.

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Nail. Head. Hammer.

Not sure about the legalization thing with opiates and meth. The opiate epidemic was created in the US by legal access to strong opiates. Once regulation tightened up, addicts moved to heroin or fentanyl sourced on the streets. Decriminalization in Portland and Vancouver has been disastrous. I'm all for weed, and the non-addictive hallucinogenics being legalized and maybe even cocaine. But the real destructive ones like meth and heroin are very scary.

I never see a legalization argument that convinces me. What do you do about the huge underage drug use? Fentanyl is now going for $1 a hit in Portland. Won't hard drugs just be sold and smuggled like cross channel tobacco and cigarettes? Instead of accessing your fix from some clinic that has you on their books and controls dosages etc, an addict will just order Uber delivery.

Fentanyl is as dangerous as a firearm. Leave a baggie of it on a coffee table or even the residue on a spoon and it can kill a toddler.

Synthetic opiates are a game changer and are replacing heroin.

[Guy Smiley]

Not sure about the legalization thing with opiates and meth. The opiate epidemic was created in the US by legal access to strong opiates. Once regulation tightened up, addicts moved to heroin or fentanyl sourced on the streets. Decriminalization in Portland and Vancouver has been disastrous. I'm all for weed, and the non-addictive hallucinogenics being legalized and maybe even cocaine. But the real destructive ones like meth and heroin are very scary.

Some of us have probably seen the videos of street life in Portland... it's a disaster zone.

The key to this is decriminalising the problem and moving it into a health issue. Using the USA as an example though, is just not going to fly. Their privatised health system is fucked. Dysfunctional at best, corrupt and rotten to the core more like. It's no model to hold up when you're talking about decriminalising drugs.

I deliberately chose the word decriminalise as despite being a pretty liberal type with very definite Left leaning political views, I don't support the notion of legalising all drugs and I'm uncomfortable with the word being used in a blanket way when discussing the issue.

You think about the sheer scope of the problem and wonder how you'd address that as a health related issue with various community treatment, education and recovery programs... then you think about the astronomical waste of resources that goes into fighting it as a legal issue (The War on Drugs) and I reckon there's money in the system to support it. It just needs diverting.

[shaggy]

Not sure about the legalization thing with opiates and meth. The opiate epidemic was created in the US by legal access to strong opiates. Once regulation tightened up, addicts moved to heroin or fentanyl sourced on the streets. Decriminalization in Portland and Vancouver has been disastrous. I'm all for weed, and the non-addictive hallucinogenics being legalized and maybe even cocaine. But the real destructive ones like meth and heroin are very scary.

Some of us have probably seen the videos of street life in Portland... it's a disaster zone.

The key to this is decriminalising the problem and moving it into a health issue. Using the USA as an example though, is just not going to fly. Their privatised health system is fucked. Dysfunctional at best, corrupt and rotten to the core more like. It's no model to hold up when you're talking about decriminalising drugs.

I deliberately chose the word decriminalise as despite being a pretty liberal type with very definite Left leaning political views, I don't support the notion of legalising all drugs and I'm uncomfortable with the word being used in a blanket way when discussing the issue.

You think about the sheer scope of the problem and wonder how you'd address that as a health related issue with various community treatment, education and recovery programs... then you think about the astronomical waste of resources that goes into fighting it as a legal issue (The War on Drugs) and I reckon there's money in the system to support it. It just needs diverting.

We have discussed this at work as I work in a high hazard industry and any move to decriminalise will result in uptake on usage and the ownership of managing that risk then lies firmly with the employer. We will D&A test every employee going to a company Site on a daily/shift basis with contract termination the outcome on a failure . Random D&A would no longer be viable.

[I like neeps]

They could win the battle tomorrow if governments internationally just legalised it.

Nail. Head. Hammer.

Not sure about the legalization thing with opiates and meth. The opiate epidemic was created in the US by legal access to strong opiates. Once regulation tightened up, addicts moved to heroin or fentanyl sourced on the streets. Decriminalization in Portland and Vancouver has been disastrous. I'm all for weed, and the non-addictive hallucinogenics being legalized and maybe even cocaine. But the real destructive ones like meth and heroin are very scary.

I never see a legalization argument that convinces me. What do you do about the huge underage drug use? Fentanyl is now going for $1 a hit in Portland. Won't hard drugs just be sold and smuggled like cross channel tobacco and cigarettes? Instead of accessing your fix from some clinic that has you on their books and controls dosages etc, an addict will just order Uber delivery.

Fentanyl is as dangerous as a firearm. Leave a baggie of it on a coffee table or even the residue on a spoon and it can kill a toddler.

Synthetic opiates are a game changer and are replacing heroin.

The reality is in the US you have legal access to weapons grade painkillers and then it's a slidy slope to addiction. You have to treat addiction, legalise drugs with higher taxes and use the tax for health and employment then maybe really basic housing to treat addiction and you'll likely solve the issue.

Portland, Vancouver I don't think looked to treat addiction when they decriminalised drugs.

Also criminalisation in the UK really only affects one strata of society. I'm middle class and since school my middle class friends have done drugs with no fear of the police. When Gove is raking up lines with his spads he's not scared either. Nor anyone in the city. Those people probably would be ones who don't fancy a trip to Pentonville but they also know they won't be punished if they're found out.

And I don't think smuggling is an issue at all, I might be dim but everyone I know just buys cigarettes in a supermarket (in the UK). Fentanyl snuggling is run by the cartels who have achieved such a resilient and effective supplychain it's beyond belief. If you destroy the supply chain with legalisation then the smuggling becomes less lucrative and therefore people aren't getting into that submarine at the top of the article.

The realty is drugs have won the war on drugs. I don't think there's much in it for anyone anymore to continually destabilise Latin American countries or have your people in poverty in prison or dead (or maybe there is...).

[Guy Smiley]

We have discussed this at work as I work in a high hazard industry and any move to decriminalise will result in uptake on usage and the ownership of managing that risk then lies firmly with the employer. We will D&A test every employee going to a company Site on a daily/shift basis with contract termination the outcome on a failure . Random D&A would no longer be viable.

I'm the same, actually

I spent close to 13 years or so working underground in Australia on remote sites where everyone flew into site and lived in camp for their 1, 2 or 3 week roster. Everyone faced compulsory breath testing every day for alcohol while the random drug tests were slowly getting ramped up and becoming more comprehensive. The shift is obvious and will end up being the same daily screen...

but now I'm back in NZ in the same work and it's a daily drive in site with everyone living at home. The whole Health and Safety scene here is years behind what I'm used to although it is slowly beginning to shuffle along towards a sort of catching up... and over the last 6 months we've lost about 6 workers to random drug screens. It still surprises me to see the paradigm shift that's needed here to get close to a professional standard.

High risk industry will need to protect itself and comprehensive screening is the only way I can see that it can work.

(I read an interesting article written for a Perth paper about 10 years or so back, well researched and presented and arguing that it was the mining industry's massive safety driven shift to regular D&A screening in WA in the 90s that paved the way for the hard drug epidemic---mainly meth--- that erupted into the 2010s. Workers couldn't afford the risk of getting picked up for weed which hangs around the body too long so they moved on to Class As which flush through in a day or two, in time to go back to work. It's a sound theory)

[FalseBayFC]

OK so how does legalisation work? Dealer X sells fentanyl or meth to high schoolers with no fear of the law? I'm not sure that most countries have a health or social care system that will every be able to deal with these problems.

[FalseBayFC]

Producing opiates no longer requires huge resources like labour, land and inputs. Its done by semi-skilled labour anywhere in a shed. India and China pump out the precursors with glee at absurdly low cost. Weed is a different thing altogether and poses minimal threat to the common good.

[PornDog]

I really dislike the Netherlands/Belgian model of decriminalisation. There's no regulation, no control of THC levels and its all still very much a mess. Okay, so you have grannies growing a few plants in their window boxes making a few quid instead of organised criminals, but apart from that I don't see the advantage.

Legalise it, regulate it, commercialise it and of course tax it! All with extensive education/information campaigns.


The likes of Heroin and Cocaine are very different animals. I dont' think anyone is suggesting being able to walk into your local 7/11 and buying yourself a hit. However, properly trained healthcare professionals should have the ability to treat addicts, including being able to prescribe diamorphine as a part of that treatment.

By removing the criminal element of the treatment of the disease, as well as the potential for harm from self treatment, you remove a significant number fo the problems associated with it. Addicts can continue to have jobs, families and go about their daily lives the same as anyone else.

[I like neeps]

OK so how does legalisation work? Dealer X sells fentanyl or meth to high schoolers with no fear of the law? I'm not sure that most countries have a health or social care system that will every be able to deal with these problems.

As much as I appreciate bad faith questions 10 seconds thoughts and you'd have realised (a) there's no dealers in a legalised market it's regulated shops, (b) there's already restrictions on children buying harmful substances, (c) fentanyl and meth would be sold in controlled amounts/potencies etc and the illegal market would be mostly destroyed - you can't just sell anything in legal markets look at food and drink quality standards apply and (d) what happens if we keep it illegal, cartels and dealers run amok and the drug problem gets worse every year anyway at a ridiculous cost to the tax payer?

[FalseBayFC]

OK so how does legalisation work? Dealer X sells fentanyl or meth to high schoolers with no fear of the law? I'm not sure that most countries have a health or social care system that will every be able to deal with these problems.

As much as I appreciate bad faith questions 10 seconds thoughts and you'd have realised (a) there's no dealers in a legalised market it's regulated shops, (b) there's already restrictions on children buying harmful substances, (c) fentanyl and meth would be sold in controlled amounts/potencies etc and the illegal market would be mostly destroyed - you can't just sell anything in legal markets look at food and drink quality standards apply and (d) what happens if we keep it illegal, cartels and dealers run amok and the drug problem gets worse every year anyway at a ridiculous cost to the tax payer?

OK so how would you stop school kids from buying from illegal dealers? I don't believe that legalizing it is going to stop the black market. Because users like buying cocaine at 2am in the morning and having it delivered to their doorstep. Also with such a lucrative market why would anyone want to pay VAT or income tax?

[FalseBayFC]

OK so how does legalisation work? Dealer X sells fentanyl or meth to high schoolers with no fear of the law? I'm not sure that most countries have a health or social care system that will every be able to deal with these problems.

As much as I appreciate bad faith questions 10 seconds thoughts and you'd have realised (a) there's no dealers in a legalised market it's regulated shops, (b) there's already restrictions on children buying harmful substances, (c) fentanyl and meth would be sold in controlled amounts/potencies etc and the illegal market would be mostly destroyed - you can't just sell anything in legal markets look at food and drink quality standards apply and (d) what happens if we keep it illegal, cartels and dealers run amok and the drug problem gets worse every year anyway at a ridiculous cost to the tax payer?

And not a bad faith question. In South Africa both tobacco and alcohol are heavily regulated. But a massive black market exists for both. And as far as I know tobacco smuggling in the UK amounts to billions of pounds. When I lived in Poland, the Swedes would arrive in their cars, fill them up wih booze and go back on the ferry.