Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Crime United States Technology

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Mexican Cartel's Hi-Tech Drug Tunnels

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like (Score:5, Funny)

    by IrquiM ( 471313 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:17PM (#38343674) Homepage
    somebody has been playing too much minecraft!
  • by clonehappy ( 655530 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:17PM (#38343690)
    Remember, if we just increase the enforcement budget a little more and give up just a couple more of our basic rights, next time, we'll get them all for sure.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Thud457 ( 234763 )
      Why does Amerikuh hates the holy Free Market?!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Support American Farmers
      Boycott Mexican Dirt Weed

  • by AdrianKemp ( 1988748 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:19PM (#38343712)

    Clearly the war on drugs is very successful and victory is immanent.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:25PM (#38343808)

      Just like the war on spelling.

    • Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdgeorge ( 18767 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:33PM (#38343902)

      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:5, Insightful)

        by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:41PM (#38343996)

        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.

        • There's a lesson to be learned here... if building a tunnel for a mexi drug lord, ensure he pays you enough to get far away and live comfortably upon completion.

          • Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)

            by b0bby ( 201198 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:55PM (#38344190)

            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:It's working (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Synerg1y ( 2169962 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:11PM (#38344422)

              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.

            • If what I have heard is correct, the drug smugglers often kill the low level after their work is done. ( Low level as in diggers This gives the term a whole new meaning. ) They do this because the workers know the location of the tunnel and "dead men tell no tales". The architect probably didn't have to be killed if he just designed the tunnel and didn't know where it was. At any rate, if they plan to kill the workers later for security reasons, they can promise very high salaries knowing that they won'

            • Re:It's working (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @03:01PM (#38345842) Journal

              Yeah, like the kidnappings of telecom workers in NE Mexico. Unlike all other kidnappings, there has never been a demand for ransom, just dead bodies of those who chose the "I won't do it" option. There have been mass kidnappings at conferences. The cartels are building their own communications infrastructure.

        • Re:It's working (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Jaqenn ( 996058 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @03:14PM (#38345990)

          ...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)...

          I can't offer a source (sorry), but I was listening to this podcast on criminal justice a few years ago, and they talked about it being semi-common in Japan for the Yakuza to assassinate their own members in prison. It wasn't because they were afraid the guy would rat them out, it was because he was just a low level employee that they didn't feel like they owed very much to, and it was cheaper to pay for him to be killed then to be obligated to pay his retirement when he got out.

          I wonder if that ever happens stateside.

      • Re:It's working (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:38PM (#38344746) Homepage
        Without knowing the details of the case, it seems likely that this might have involved what is known as "Superior Orders" [], more commonly known as the Nuremberg Defence. The architect in question presumably knew (or could reasonably have expected to have known) that he was getting involved with drug dealers from the combination of the tunnel requirement and proximity to the US border. In the case of the Nazis it was determined that such a plea was insufficient to escape punishment, but could lessen it, so possibly the same applied here; 18 years instead of many more.

        Of course, the original point is still valid in the general case and possibly in Corona's too, assuming that he didn't enter into the deal willingly. How might an honest Mexican safely decline a job once they have ascertained that their employer's trade typically has a very literal implementation of "head count reduction" with regards to terminating employment? Given the alledged levels of corruption within Mexican law enforcement, I doubt their Witness Protection Program is going to be seen as a particularly safe option...
    • Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:43PM (#38344040)

      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.

      • It'll certainly blow up in their faces one day, but remember who is leading the war on drugs, and that's parents who are too lazy / stupid to teach their kids not to snort coke at 16. They are the loudest and most obnoxious about fighting drugs and thus get law enforcement their autos and their abusive rights.

        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 influen

        • Re:It's working (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:13PM (#38344448) Homepage

          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.

  • Geek In Us All (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:23PM (#38343772)

    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.

    • by Requiem18th ( 742389 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:33PM (#38343908)

      Like the guys at wall street.

    • Re:Geek In Us All (Score:5, Interesting)

      by vlm ( 69642 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:34PM (#38343922)

      This kind of thing speaks to the geek in me.

      I think of it just like building a model railroad, except its a model subway. And its about half scale instead of "N" or "HO" scale.

      It would be fun to have your own subway, just for the sake of having your own subway.

      And you get to build an electric car, well, a electric railroad car, without having to hear an infinity of people whining about how it only has a 300 mile range per charge and is therefore useless under all conditions.

      If I ever have enough rural property to build a railroad, I'm going to way outdo the live steamers have a subway instead of an aboveground railroad.

    • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

      > 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.

      Well ethics? I dunno, that all depends on where your ethics and morality derive from. Law is not ethics, and neither is morality, all three can be in conflict. There is nothing unethical, or immoral, about breaking the law, especially if you don't believe in the rights of the government to restr

    • Have you seen some of the research into serial killings? One study [] from 2007 implied that we may underestimate the number of people killed by serial killers each year by a factor of 10.

      So yeah, I agree that there are probably hundreds of thousands of small- to big-time crooks that are getting away with their crimes on a year-to-year basis, undetected, not making all the dumb mistakes. Occasionally one of them gets caught and makes the news and we're all horrified that this was happening "just under our no

  • We won! (Score:5, Funny)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) <> on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:24PM (#38343786) Homepage Journal

    With the discovery of this tunnel and the seizure of 2000 pounds of blow, the War on Drugs is clearly all but over.

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:24PM (#38343790)
  • You'd think... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:25PM (#38343800)

    ...that they could detect the activity required to build a tunnel.

    I've never used marijuana, but at this point I don't see its' continued illegality being beneficial. Legalize it for those of-age, require standards for safety, and regulate it in a fashion similar to tobacco and alcohol, where one can't smoke it in public generally outside of the marijuana-equivalent of a beer garden similar to how tobacco consumption is prohibited in many places, where one can't drive after consuming it like a DUI, but where some businesses could get licenses to allow consumption on the property, and where people could consume it in their homes, provided that it doesn't impact their neighbors and if they're renting, that it's permitted by their landlord, similar to cigarettes. Allow employers to dismiss employees who show up high in the same fashion as dismissing employees who show up drunk.

    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.

    • Re:You'd think... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:31PM (#38343862) Homepage

      ...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.

    • It would look just like any other building project, since you always have to dig a hole in the ground for your foundation. Sure, they'd be removing more dirt, but it's not hard to conceal that.

      Also, this tunnel as used for moving cocaine, which also should not be illegal.

    • Re:You'd think... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Raenex ( 947668 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:41PM (#38344008)

      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 []

      • Or just all drugs. Why are we continuing to pretend that the issue is "which drugs should be legal" as opposed to simply "let's end the war on drugs?"
    • by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:43PM (#38344036)

      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.

      • by Anrego ( 830717 ) *

        I actually wonder about the economics of this.

        One would need to create all kinds of new laws, regulations, and enforcement agencies.. none of which would be particularily cheap.

        I still think it's the right thing to do. As I see it crime around drug dealing is the big problem with drugs, not the drugs themselves. There is crime around drug using as well, but the same can be said about alcohol .. and more importantly it's not going anywhere. At least if drugs were legalized, we'd get rid of _some_ of the drug

        • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:29PM (#38344630) Homepage

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I generally agree with your statement. Marijuana is only still illegal because of major pharmaceutical, corporate, and political interests. Although, weed is a completely different story than cocaine.
      • by Anrego ( 830717 ) *

        Pharmaceutical interests?

        It wouldn't surprise me at all.. but I can't think of a reason for them to care.

        • People spend endless amounts of money on prescription pills.

          What would happen if the general public realized you can eat/smoke this simple plant to ease your pain, nausea, insomnia, depression, anxiety, etc? Instead of paying hundreds of dollars a month to pharmaceutical companies an individual could just grow a couple marijuana plants.

          Obviously there is a need for medicine. I am not saying we should replace penicillin with weed.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          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:You'd think... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <[ten.tenaprac] [ta] [cjs]> on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:46PM (#38344080) Homepage

      I am with you but...on some things I have to ask why?

      Why should we assume that the exact same regulatory scheme is correct for pot as it is alcohol? In fact, there is ample evidence that they are wildly different, and should be treated as such.

      Should prohibition on driving, for example, be based on actual evidence of risk? Sadly, only one study has ever been done that wasn't tained by bad process. I hope we can all agree that pulling non-smokers off the street, to experience it for their first time, for driving tests is not an accurate measurement of impairment. Secondly, I hope we can agree that looking at "marijuana related accidents" without any attempt to seperate out those on marijuana from those drunk who also smoked (which accounted for the majority of cases btw) also suboptimal.

      Only one study (of which I am aware), by the UK Highway Safety Administration, saw these errors, commented on them, and did a better study, using actual smokers in actual impairment tests. What did they find? They found little to no impairment. In fact, they found that what little decreases in reaction time were measured were more than made up for by an abundance of caution on the part of drivers.

      So... shouldn't we.... actually attempt to get some unbiased studies around the issue BEFORE we decide how to regulate it? Maybe, I don't know, take the ability to approve or disapprove studies away from the NIDA who has no interest in anything but proving their existing conclusion?

    • I've never used marijuana, but at this point I don't see its' continued illegality being beneficial.

      Same here. But in the unlikely event that a politician starts making progress toward rolling back the New Prohibition, they'd probably be assassinated by someone who'd stand to lose gigabucks if they succeeded.

      But no politician is going to make progress on that topic in this f*cked up country. So the best approach for citizens is to adopt vices that don't put money in the hands of organized crime or neighborhood thugs.

  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:29PM (#38343838) Journal

    As a former politician recently said, the truth with politics is that *everything* revolves around money generated by drugs, war and energy.

  • Only now, we're giving power to Mexican Cartels instead of Al Capones.
  • Why not bore holes along the US/Mex border, about 50 ft deep, drop in some TNT and break up the rock?

    You can't dig a tunnel through sand.

    Seems some seismic listening devices could be used, as well, to identify tunneling activity.

    • by Eyeballs ( 64172 )

      It can be done if you use a 'Tunnel Shield':

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Your plan sounds flawless, except for two minor quibbles, so minor that I feel almost bad for bringing them up...

      Quibble one: a smidgeon under 2000 miles of border takes a lot of dynamite to turn to sand (

      Quibble two: the evil Mexican drug runners might have access to Wikipedia too, and might find out that it is, in fact, entirely possible to tunnel through sand. The tunnel shield method was even patented in 1818 (

    • Just convince the oil companies that there are billions of billions of barrels of oil down there on the border. They just need to frack it enough to get it out.

      Frack it really hard.

      All that fracking ought to make tunnel building a bit uncomfortable.

    • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

      What a waste of time, money, and explosives. I have a better question.... why bother? The drug war is not just a lost cause, it was never a great idea to begin with. It was predicated upon lies, and the need to find something for federal agents to do once alcohol prohibition was over. Its results have been far worst, and far more damaging than alcohol prohibition ever was.

      All to deny people their most basic human right, the right to make decisions for their own bodies and minds. It is disgraceful.

  • by sl4shd0rk ( 755837 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:38PM (#38343964)

    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.

  • by niko9 ( 315647 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @12:48PM (#38344106)

    We should obviously BAN illegal assault shovels! No citizen needs a shovel that's painted black and has rubber grip with finger grooves! ( Or one with a adjustable handle! ( Just like a telescoping stock, these adjustable shovels only have one use: to build hi-tech drug tunnels!!

    I say we force landscapers, contractors and other manual laborers to be fingerprinted, obtain a shovel license and be limited to buying one shovel a month. Who the hell needs more than one shovel a month! Plus, you must specify the make, length and blade material on your shovel application. And specify exactly show good cause for needing a shovel. Though, the licensing officials will never objectively define what "good cause" is.

  • . . . will be a Mexican drug cartel. Hey, that's where the money is to be made, and will attract he best and brightest, and be able to invest the most money in the new technology.

    Wow! Won't that be ironic . . . the first stuff to boldly go . . . will be drugs.

  • You can shove a hell of a lot more materials through a pipe, even a small one, than you can through a man size tunnel.

    If I were the feds I'ld be watching & listening for horizontal drilling or use of old unused water, drainage and oil pipelines that can be commandered.

  • by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:02PM (#38344282) Homepage

    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.

  • by asylumx ( 881307 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:50PM (#38344970)
    Either something about how it's working because we found this, or something about how it's not working because we found this. It doesn't seem to matter which, somehow the evidence supports my opinion!
  • Submarines too! (Score:4, Informative)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @02:03PM (#38345146)
    The Columbian drug cartels are now building advanced submarines (not just semi-submersibles). []

  • junkie-geek sezs.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, 2011 @02:42PM (#38345616)

    ... (Hi, my name is Yuropian Stonah and I'm an addict!) a few things.

    First, I cannot believe how many uninformed, apologetic postings in favor of current US / EU drug policy are gathered here. Come on, isn't this a hub of scientists, bright minds and people who know their empirics from mere belief? Every scientific evaluation of man's natural tendency to get high - and it's just that, a natural tendency ranging from apes in Africa eating moldy fruit to get their groove on to Professor Shulgin making crazy new synthetical enthegoens - has shown just how futile a totally abstinence oriented lawmaking ethos is. I mean, we can probably all agree on the fact that humankind is flawed in some aspects, for example I doubt anyone here would say there's any way to get rid of our general egocentrism, so any man-made system is probably subject to corruption. Why not just once and for all accept that people are going to do drugs, no matter what? The most popular ones, caffeine, alcohol and nicotine for our Western world and current time period, are usually just seperated from most of the other narcotics in their status in most people's thoughts. That doesn't make them, and here is the part where I really think the scientists in you should have no problem understanding, NOT DRUGS. Yeah, a lot of functioning people punch down a liter or two of red a night. Every other TV series has that male, older character with the complete bar in his office gulping down Scotch while handing down jovial advice to other characters. I for one, mid twenties German addicted to morphine and some other pharms with a rich history of drug abuse, state that alcoholism is worse and more devastating than any opiate addiction could ever be - 72 hours in hell and you're off smack for good whereas I remember people withdrawing from as little as a bottle of wine a day in their third week of detox still having seizures and crying for help at night. I guess what bothers me is, like everywhere else, the hypocrisy of advocating abstinence without admitting to the fact that a great, great majority of society IS in fact suffering from some kind of addiction. If you are telling people to not use drugs, why use made up arguments?

    Heroin, for example, will shorten your life by not a single day IF administered in pure form. Of course, that also calls for sterile equipment and firm background knowledge on the topic. So why is it banned? I mean, seriously? Maintenance treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, morphine or heroin itself has shown how people on those drugs for decades have little to no tendency to crime or other life-shortening hobbies if given the chance to take part in social life without stigma. Cocaine and methamphetamine etc. are all quite strainous on the heart, yeah. But lots of the negative effects of black market usage are due to the life style forced onto people with a taste for these kinds of yummies. Switzerland research on Cocaine addict maintenance on pharmaceutical stimulant drugs has pretty much shown how unnecessary that is, though.

    I for one am getting my daily dosage of morphine from the nice guy at the pharmacy with whom I often chat about recent developments in his scientific field. I then go about my academic/social/professional life which I will not, for obvious reasons, further depict. But I can tell you, my not-12-stepping-kinda-NA-group consists of two thirds academics, a lot of medical doctors and even people in administrative, political positions. You'd be surprised. I for one have pretty much recovered from the blows my life got delivered from the struggle that is illegal drug addiction and have been focused on my academic work ever since. I'm on enough morphine to kill an elephant (900 milligrams/day over 24 hour slow release) and 80 milligrams of methylphenidate for ADHD treatment, but neither prevents me from getting good grades. Or having a social life. Hell, I even get along with my family again since admitting to my addiction, seeking and getting help. But it's my personal luck that I have found both a very

  • Portugal (Score:4, Informative)

    by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Monday December 12, 2011 @02:54PM (#38345762)
    Funny we never hear about the success Portugal has enjoyed by legalizing drugs, isn't it? Crime has plummeted and even overdoses and usage rates have dropped, but you'll never hear about it from the money-addicted Jonnny Laws nor the corporate news organs.

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.