The Mexican Cartel's Hi-Tech Drug Tunnels 448
In the past five years, more than 100 drug tunnels between Mexico and the U.S. have been discovered. This is double the number found over the previous 15 years. Not only are they growing in number, but the tunnels are becoming much more sophisticated, including electric rail systems, hydraulic elevators, and secret entrances (one opened via a fake water tap). From the article: "When architect Felipe de Jesus Corona built Mexico's most powerful drug lord a 200-foot-long tunnel under the U.S.-Mexican border with a hydraulic lift entrance opened by a fake water tap, the kingpin was impressed. The architect 'made me one f---ing cool tunnel' Joaquin 'Shorty' Guzman said, according to court testimony that helped sentence Corona to 18 years in prison in 2006. Built below a pool table in his lawyer's home, the tunnel was among the first of an increasingly sophisticated drug transport system used by Guzman's Sinaloa cartel. U.S. customs agents seized more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine which had allegedly been smuggled along the underground route."
Geek In Us All (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of thing speaks to the geek in me.
I mean, who else hasn't daydreamed about how we would do crime. Personally I'd never actually do anything of this nature... not only for reasons of morality and ethics.. but because I'm somewhat of a coward.
The thing that really gets me, is that we only hear about the guys who screw up.. and usually they screw up for dumb reasons. This would indicate to me that there are smarter people with even crazier schemes that have and will go undetected.
All about the drugs, guns and gasoline .... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former politician recently said, the truth with politics is that *everything* revolves around money generated by drugs, war and energy.
Re:You'd think... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that they could detect the activity required to build a tunnel.
Which 'they' are we talking about here? If you're talking about the Mexican authorities, bear in mind that right now just about any officer that attempts to do something about the cartels is killed off fairly quickly.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
If the leader of Mexico's most powerful drug cartel says "build me a tunnel", do you have to option of saying "no sir, that stuff is BAD for people"?
I know, it's a mistake to second-guess a jury verdict that I know almost nothing about, but superficially, 14 years in prison for choosing the "I'll stay alive, thank you," option seems like a lot. It's almost enough to make me wonder how effective the US drug enforcement laws and policies are.
Almost. But not quite. When it's time, I'll just head back to the voting booth and vote the way the straight-talking folks in my political party have told me is best. Thank you, "vote by party" option!
Re:It's working (Score:1, Insightful)
I love the way people blame the War on Drugs for all of the related problems.
If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff then the cartel's main income would dry up within a month, compared to the years to decades it'll take to convince the USA and other nations to legalise the stuff.
If you want to take drugs that's fine, it's your choice. But it's also your choice to give the money to the people who commit these crimes. Are the thrills really worth that, or do the users just not give a damn what they're doing to the Mexican people so long as they have their fun?
Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (Score:3, Insightful)
Support American Farmers
Boycott Mexican Dirt Weed
What a waste of time/money (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pointless trying to shut these operations down. The cartels don't care about loosing a tunnel or the drugs; they will just use/build another. The loss is written off as operating cost. I don't understand what drives the gov to continue this stuped cat-and-mouse game. I'd love to see the numbers for the US cost for one of these seizure operations though.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
You are assuming that he was willing to speak to the police at all after he was arrested. He may have been more fearful of his life then.
Unfortunately letting all underlings get off the hook with "They'd kill me if I didn't (x)!" would pretty much let all of them operate with impunity. Either they risk their life saying 'No' to the boss, they risk their life testifying against their boss when they get caught, or they take the prison sentence and be given a comfortable retirement by the mob when they are released (as their reward for serving a sentence in silence). This is assuming we won't give them all witness protection, which I guess we don't.
Re:You'd think... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never used marijuana, but at this point I don't see its' continued illegality being beneficial. Legalize it [..] Do that and you just gutted much of the business of the cartels, put many of the street gangs and lowlife dealers out of business, and would prevent it from being cut with dangerous chemicals.
You're going to have to add in cocaine, too: Forget Taxing Marijuana; The Real Money's In Cocaine [npr.org]
As always ... legalize it and tax it. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Move the production from off-shore to real USofA American farmers and small businesses. Then tax them.
2. Make sure that the products from #1 are "clean" and "certified". That means jobs for government workers filling in the paperwork and running the labs. And fees.
3. Distribution. Real Americans driving real trucks. (Tax their paychecks.)
4. Sales. More taxes.
One important thing would be to maintain the same price in every market in the nation so that there is no profit in smuggling it any more.
Another would be to limit the production by each grower. You do not want mega-corps involved. This is just to fight drug-related crime. Not to drive brand marketing. No "Joe Camel" ads. No ads at all. Plain black on white labels with the product name and the growers government ID and the health warning.
And dump some of the tax profits into FREE programs to get people to stop using the products.
Most of the people out there would be fine as recreational users. Just as with alcohol.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly the war on drugs is very successful and victory is immanent.
Actually, I think it has been successful. How else would law enforcement have been able to convince people that they need automatic weapons, panopticon surveillance capabilities, and the right to seize private property and recycle the proceeds into their own budgets? The war on drugs has been vastly successful for all the prison companies and their investors, the firearms companies and their investors, surveillance equipment makers, and all those politicians who can always vote for more war-on-drugs funding as a way to get some cheap votes.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff
But they won't. Any other fantasies you'd like to share?
Re:You'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
But the problem is, how do you negotiate that wage? Your "or I won't do it" is much less convincing than his "or I'll kill you and your family".
Re:Spics (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are there no Mexican Olympics? All the Mexicans who can run, swim, and jump are already in the USA.
In Texas it's popular to call Mexicans "wetbacks", because some of them got there by crossing the Rio Grande.
I'd like to ask the AC poster how much water *his* ancestors crossed to get here.
Why do they need tunnels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't they just run a 6" pipe under the ground and package the pot in cylinders moved by little cars - they can even slope the pipe so the cars just fall down - ?
That would be lots harder to find.
Re:It's working (Score:4, Insightful)
But then again how many people are qualified to build a tunnel? I'm sure you gotta factor stuff in like the ground composition and in this case the engine for the hydraulic pump, I'd imagine good tunnel builders are hard to find. Otherwise, take the "Breaking Bad" approach and eliminate your competition :) , doesn't make you much better than the cartels, but your no good dead either. I can't imagine the cartel threatening him like though, if they deal like that w everybody, nobody will step forward to do anything for them, and kidnappings only get you so far and probably cost more than just paying the guy.
He must have had a reason for working w the cartel in the first place though.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm interested in seeing what my generation does though, there is almost nobody who doesn't know what the drugs are or their effects if not first handed, and the current generation's political influence fades off. But for us to replace those people is another couple of decades, so bear on I guess.
Nope, doesn't work like that. Hell, my generation - who grew up in the '70's did plenty of drugs. So did half the current lawmakers. More than half if you include alcohol as a 'drug' (it is but most people don't think so - denial is a wonderful thing). Funny thing, entrenched bureaucracies tend to remain entrenched bureaucracies. That and the weird Calvinist (the preacher, not the kid) mindset that is deeply embedded in this country's psych will keep the Boogy man alive for many a generation.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the way people blame the War on Drugs for all of the related problems.
If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff then the cartel's main income would dry up within a month, compared to the years to decades it'll take to convince the USA and other nations to legalise the stuff.
Well, that would be simple, now wouldn't it? I take it you have no vices? If we arbitrarily made your favorite food illegal, I assume you would just stop eating it and be happy with that outcome.
Really though, the reason the War on Drugs is blamed is that it is what causes the violence and crime. If drugs were legal, the black market for them would cease to exist, or at least become a shadow of its former self. It is that black market, and the risks it entails, that causes the crime, not the drugs themselves. Alcohol prohibition should have taught us this, but we are slow learners it seems.
If you want to take drugs that's fine, it's your choice. But it's also your choice to give the money to the people who commit these crimes. Are the thrills really worth that, or do the users just not give a damn what they're doing to the Mexican people so long as they have their fun?
Again, it is not the user who causes the crime and violence. It is the behavior necessitated by the illegality. The ones who do not care about the suffering of the Mexican people are the Mexican and US governments. For it is they who keep the laws in place that cause the violence, corruption and crime. If they would allow a free and fair market to exist, we wouldn't have the trouble we have.
Or, we could just try your solution. It seems much more simple, right? All we need to do is stop millions of people from doing something they like to do. How hard could it be?
Re:As always ... legalize it and tax it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Drug use is expensive - let's not kid ourselves. Look at health care expenditures for our favorite drugs in the US - alcohol and tobacco. Hell, those drugs have their very own federal bureau. But humans do things that are counterproductive to our health and safety. It isn't the government's business to keep us all safely cocooned and protected from ourselves - it's the government's responsibility to keep us safe from each other.
So, yes, regulation (and treatment programs for those folks that get in trouble from the drugs) is expensive but that's what money is for. Good luck getting that bit of enlightenment past the brimfire and damnation ethos that runs through vast tracks of this country.
Just like Slashdot's inability to figure out the Apple demographic, most of us can't quite figure out how fucking weird an enormous swath of the US really is when it comes to moral issues. I mean, Michelle Bachman? Really? She makes Sarah Palin look sane.
Re:You'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)
Painkillers like Advil and Tylenol can be easily and much more cheaply replaced with their herbal options.
Palliative care, oncology and minor surgical procedures would be a lot cheaper when patients (or a hospital) can just grow their own medicine.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
The real solution is to legalize drugs, and tax them. Instead of spending all sorts of tax dollars on a losing proposition, the government could be making hand over fist in revenue AND take the narco gangs out of the picture. Mexico isn't a dangerous place because of drugs, it is a dangerous place because of the WAR on drugs.
But then again, that is pure fantasy of mine.
Re:You'd think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I see, if "some guy on slashdot" went and "put a camera on his car" that sounds way more valid than a test done by a real organization whose entire existence is to research how to make highways safer. Of course, your assessment of that rigorous study does, in fact, agree with the UK Highway Safety Council. They did, in fact, find they could measure reaction times as slower.... but... thats not really the whole story.
Driving is not all about reaction time and who can twitch on the brakes the fastest, The person who gives more following distance, and avoids situations where he doesn't have an out (among other good habbits) doesn't put himself in as many situations where he needs those twitchy reactions.
Having been drunk and stoned at various points, I can honestly say, the difference is pretty fucking obvious to me. Alcohol's worst effect, in my mind, is that for many people it increases confidence and makes people think they are capable. I remember my first time drunk, sitting on a couch next to a friend of mine, plastered off my ass, saying "I don't see the problem, I could totally drive right now, no issue"... at which point i stood up, took one step, and fell flat on my face. I have seen similar countless times, and even seen people jump in the car and drive away in that state.
This is an effect, very specifically, of alcohol. By the same token, ive seen people take a few hits of some pot, and then insist that they can't get off the couch, and are far too stoned to even talk (or so they claim.... verbally.... talking....)
Some drugs have similar effects to alcohol, but many don't. Hell even cocaine shouldn't be in the same discussion, or meth. Can you really argue that meth causes impairment when its given to fighter pilots who have to stay up for inordinate amounts of time?
Each is different, if we are going to have these sorts of regulations, they should be based on scientific evidence not guesses and anecdotes.
Re:It's working (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah, no one thinks about that stuff
money from pot and cocaine goes back to mexico and filters through the rest of south america, fueling all sorts of violence across the border. heroin funds those same people, plus ends up in the hands of the warlords in afghanistan and pakistan that our troops are fighting. But the disconnect is too great for anyone to correlate their use to the massive amounts of violence at the other end of the chain.
But then, if our concern was trully about the welfare of people, whether they be our own people who are either addicted or rotting in jail, or people in the source countries who are living lives under constant fear of the drug funded narco groups, we'd have to look at things objectively and ask: "which is more realistic, asking the millions of us citizens who are well aware of these dynamics to put aside their vices, let alone asking people whose drug use has escalated to the point that they no longer care about their own well being to endure withdrawal and the complete change of lifestyle required to get off of the stuff, in order to help nameless, faceless peasants half a world away OR legalizing the stuff, regulating it, and allowing companies and individuals to produce it here and distribute it on the cheap, thereby removing billions of dollars from the narco groups coffers?"
One solution requires the getting millions of people who are either unaware or willfully ignorant to make substantial changes to their lifestyle for no descrenable benefit. The other solution requires the majority of about 535 people who are either well informed on the direct and indirect consequences or who are surrounded by people with a lot of knowledge on that issue, to write legislation that would put a permanent end to the black market and all the associated woes involved.
I tend to think the second solution is the only realistic way to put an end it. If you think otherwise, perhaps you'd suggest a realistic solution.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
It is responsible for all the related problems.
If crack was legal and crackheads could buy the stuff for a dollat an ounce they wouldn't have to break into my house to support their habits.
Hang on, how is a crack-head's addiction a consequence of the war on drugs?
I don't think that's what mcgrew was saying. I read that as "if it was legal, it would be cheaper. If it was cheaper, crackheads could beg just like the alcoholics do to support their habit, rather than breaking into my house to pay for the shit.".
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
Immanent: taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it.
Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to have control over your own body.
Re:You just can't legalize ALL substances. (Score:5, Insightful)
If some of the "harder" more addictive substances were legalized and made cheaper we would see a huge increase in abuse.
That's a fallacy. Alcohol use and abuse soared during prohibition. Tobacco use has been falling for decades, while marijuana use has increased. Cocaine was still illegal in the eighties when crack was invented.
Crack use has declined because people see what it does. Anybody who would smoke crack under any circumstances at all is already smoking it. Would you smoke it if it were legal? All of the illegal substances are easily obtained on the black market. The laws aren't stopping anyone.
Re:It's working (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Legalizing drugs would lead to more drug users and addicts. A vast majority of crime is perpetrated by drug users (alcohol included)
2. Legalizing and then taxing drugs would lead to... wait for it... black market for untaxed or cheaper drugs ! (see cigarettes, alcohol, past attempts at legalizing drugs like opium)
3. Legalizing and sanctioning drugs would lead to drugs with potentially limited potency due to Government control on the product which leads to.. black market
4. Drug dealers, runners, and general baddies are not going to suddenly because good citizens just because drugs can be purchased over the counter. The sell this shit for money, cause they want money... See #2 and #3 - they won't be out of a job anyways.
5. Imagine our healthcare costs when we increase drug users drastically by making drugs acceptable and more available. We've already wasted lives, energy, and costs on smokers and heavy drinkers, why on Earth would we want to add more to this???
Legalizing these things just redefines the problem.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
Others have already pointed out the fallacy in your argument, so I'll zero in on this:
it will be very, very difficult to implement any sort of drug testing for employment. You really can't test for and ban employment because of a legal substance. For example, it is not legal to exclude someone from a job based on alchohol use, although you can fire them later for being drunk on the job.
That's a GOOD thing. If the bus driver isn't getting high on the job then there's no reason she shouldn't be driving a bus, any more than she should be fired for having a beer after work. Sorry, but your argument is just stupid.
Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Legalizing drugs would lead to more drug users and addicts. A vast majority of crime is perpetrated by drug users (alcohol included)
This is unsupported by data. Wherever drug laws are liberalized drug use stays the same or decreases. Also, you're starting off on a disingenuous note. The vast majority of *everything* is perpetuated by drug users because the vast majority of humanity uses drugs.
2. Legalizing and then taxing drugs would lead to... wait for it... black market for untaxed or cheaper drugs ! (see cigarettes, alcohol, past attempts at legalizing drugs like opium)
We already have a black market for untaxed drugs. Legalizing would move at least some of that into the legal market. Looking at alcohol and tobacco, most of that traffic is legal. Wouldn't we benefit by doing the same with other drugs?
3. Legalizing and sanctioning drugs would lead to drugs with potentially limited potency due to Government control on the product which leads to.. black market
Which is why a sound drug policy wouldn't do that.
4. Drug dealers, runners, and general baddies are not going to suddenly because good citizens just because drugs can be purchased over the counter. The sell this shit for money, cause they want money... See #2 and #3 - they won't be out of a job anyways.
Organized crime will never disappear, but we can make it less profitable. You've offered no reason why we shouldn't.
5. Imagine our healthcare costs when we increase drug users drastically by making drugs acceptable and more available. We've already wasted lives, energy, and costs on smokers and heavy drinkers, why on Earth would we want to add more to this???
It's more likely that drug abusers will die more rapidly than the rest of the population. That will save us money on end of life health care. This is the case with tobacco today.
Legalizing these things just redefines the problem.
F. U. D.
Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (Score:5, Insightful)
jack booted thugs throwing flash bang grenades terrorizing your family and killing your pets in the night from bad intel,
You can add to that list people who've been killed in their own homes by jack-booted police, because the police failed to announce themselves as police and the homeowner thought they were dealing with an armed robbery.
Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving is a separate action from drinking or taking drugs.
Anyway, Google and others are working on driverless cars. Hopefully the problem will resolve itself.
Re:substance DEPENDENCE (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you do have control. This is shown by the fact that the "outside interference" you mention absolutely will not work unless you willingly cooperate with it and want to get better.
Your life and your body are your own, and you have every right to destroy them if you wish.
That's not a given by any means, and in any event you're setting up a strawman by implying that "legalize drugs" equates to "don't hold people responsible for the harm they cause while on drugs".
If drugs become legal, most people won't really bother producing their own, because they'll be able to buy them from the stores that currently sell alcohol and tobacco. How often do you see a liquor store getting burned down by rumrunners these days?
It's also a strawman. Nobody claims that legalizing drugs will magically make all drug-related problems disappear, any more than ending Prohibition put a stop to drunk driving.
Demonstratably false, as the removal of enforcement against alcohol brought about positive change despite drinking not having been made "completely unpalatable and unacceptable" by society.