Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops 258
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."
Just one more reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just one more reason (Score:4, 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.
Economic Threat (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.
Re:Just one more reason (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.
Re:Just one more reason (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.
Re:Left-Wing Propoganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello America!
I think you will find that both the Democrats and the Republicans are firmly right wing.
Sincerely,
The Rest of the World
Re:Left-Wing Propoganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Left-Wing Propoganda (Score:4, 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?
Re:Cartels will be fine.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So much nonsense in terms (Score:4, 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).