Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime

Mexican Cartels Lure Chemistry Students To Make Fentanyl (nytimes.com) 133

Posted by msmash from the stranger-than-fiction dept.
schwit1 writes: Recruiters approach students with tempting offers, often after observing them for weeks. Promising salaries of over $800 per month -- double the average pay for chemists in Mexican companies, along with potential bonuses like cars or housing -- recruiters capitalize on the financial struggles of young professionals.

These "cooks" are tasked with improving fentanyl's addictive quality and finding alternative synthesis methods to mitigate supply chain disruptions caused by stricter chemical export controls from China and pandemic-induced bottlenecks. The Times interviewed seven drug "cooks," three university chemistry students recruited by the Sinaloa cartel, two agents, a recruiter, and a university professor -- all anonymously to avoid cartel retaliation. According to the recruiter, candidates must be passionate, discreet, and indifferent to the ethical consequences of their work.

The university professor highlighted a disturbing trend: students openly expressed interest in synthesizing illicit drugs during lectures.

Mexican Cartels Lure Chemistry Students To Make Fentanyl More | Reply

Mexican Cartels Lure Chemistry Students To Make Fentanyl

Comments Filter:

  • Non-paywalled link (Score:5, Informative)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @07:48PM (#64986611)

    https://archive.is/Qm7PV [archive.is]

  • Who I'd worry about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Latent Heat ( 558884 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @07:53PM (#64986623)

    Yes, I would be worried about breaking the law and its consequences, but I would be even more worried about the Cartel as my employer.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 )
      Trump's plan won't work, but that doesn't mean he won't try [yahoo.com]. And chemical labs will be a high target.

      • Re:Who I'd worry about (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @08:31PM (#64986681) Homepage

        Seems like it would make more sense to address the issues which lead to drug abuse in the first place, rather than sending troops over to do battle with a Mexican cartel. Instead, well, we got the leadership we voted for. Off to the drug war with you, boys! May the odds be ever in your favor, or something.

        • Re:Who I'd worry about (Score:5, Insightful)

          by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @09:47PM (#64986777)

          Seems like it would make more sense to address the issues which lead to drug abuse in the first place,

          Demand for drugs. Catch the users and offer them a choice of jail or treatment. Catch the treatment graduates again and it's just jail the second time around.

          It's just basic economics. Supply and demand. Going after the supply (cartels, distribution networks, local dealers) just creates a scarcity, drives up prices and profits and makes the business look more attractive. Want to put the cartels out of business? Drive the prices down by drying up the demand.

          • Socialist!

            Why do you hate Capitalism??? /s

          • Yep, that worked so well for you in the past, its not like you have a huge prisoner population already. oh wait.

          • Demand for drugs. Catch the users and offer them a choice of jail or treatment. Catch the treatment graduates again and it's just jail the second time around.

            American jails are messed up places and one of the big sources of demand for drugs. This doesn't solve the problem as long as you have a privatized profit making jail system that is motivated to extract maximum money from inmates rather than curing them.

            Your basic premise of trying to reduce demand is sound though, but the treatment has to be more realistic and based around actual humans who can fail and sometimes be redeemed.

          • Re:Who I'd worry about (Score:5, Interesting)

            by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2024 @07:07AM (#64987369)
            You can't dry up the demand without drying up people. You can't sit there and say this list of drugs is good and fine and this is bad and not. If you really want to do something useful then make all drugs legal. The benefits of such are many.

            1) Remove power, money, control from criminal gangs if it is just another industry.
            2) All that drug money is now going into the economy and tax coffers instead of criminal empires causing suffering and misery.
            3) Funding, acceptance and support to those with problems to provide decent help. Currently the only real solution for someone with a real drugs problem is more drugs.
            4) A bunch of jobs I guess.
            5) Decriminalise a whole bunch of people who haven't really done anything wrong apart from preferring something else to alcohol.
            5) free up a whole bunch of prison space for actual criminals
            6) No more (or at least a lot less) drug related crimes by people affected by all the above.

          • Re:Who I'd worry about (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2024 @03:07PM (#64988419)

            Do you remember the War on Drugs? We tried this get tough approach and it failed utterly. But yes, the solution is at home and not with military interventions.

            An addict will not be detered by a single trip to jail. It's called an addiction because.. it's addictive.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by PPH ( 736903 )

              The Chinese tried it. Twice, they failed due to their military capabilities vis-Ã-vis Britain. But today, just see how easy it is to buy opium* on the street there. We just need to maintain our focus on the problem.

              *And remember: During the Opium Wars, it wasn't even illegal in Britain. Sherlock Holmes was an addict and laudanum was popular.

          • Or, what if the government just starts flooding the market with super cheap drugs driving the cartels out of business? Now that is how the capitalists do it!

          • Seems like it would make more sense to address the issues which lead to drug abuse in the first place,

            Demand for drugs. Catch the users and offer them a choice of jail or treatment. Catch the treatment graduates again and it's just jail the second time around.

            It's just basic economics. Supply and demand. Going after the supply (cartels, distribution networks, local dealers) just creates a scarcity, drives up prices and profits and makes the business look more attractive. Want to put the cartels out of business? Drive the prices down by drying up the demand.

            That includes alcohol too, right?

        • Re:Who I'd worry about (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @09:50PM (#64986781) Homepage Journal

          One harm-mitigation strategy I've seen would be to imitate England back in the days just after the phase where Heroin was legal and considered a superior alternative to Opium. Basically, like Oxycontin, it had its day as the "superior" opioid.
          Anyways, they already had universal healthcare. It was determined to be impractical to try to get all the addicts to quit, many/most of whom had gotten addicted using legitimate doctor prescribed stuff and instructions. It was determined that most could remain functional so long as they had a steady supply. This was before methadone was developed either.
          So, if you became addicted to heroin, you go to the doctor who'd diagnose you as addicted, and you'd get a prescription for free heroin.
          The net effect of this was that anybody dealing heroin illegally went broke, because as soon as they got somebody dependent, off to the doctor and no longer paying them.
          Under this, England only generated a couple dozen addicts a year locally, with most addicts returning from overseas.
          Basically, I propose the same deal, because opioids can be dirt cheap. Addict shows up to doctor, doctor prescribes, they get maintenance doses of really pure medical grade stuff, in whatever form makes the most sense. Along with website/phone number/email/text to contact when they're ready to move to the next step.
          In short: Stop the whole heroin/fentanyl market by ensuring they can't make a profit.

          • That would be nice, but do you know about the illegal oxicontin trafficking from prescription patients?

            • Re:Who I'd worry about (Score:5, Insightful)

              by AvitarX ( 172628 ) <me AT brandywinehundred DOT org> on Tuesday December 03, 2024 @06:19AM (#64987295) Journal

              That's the point of the making official channels free.

              It's really hard to compete with free.

            • As AvitarX mentioned, that's the point of "free".
              Most illegal opioid users are addicts, at least the ones willing to pay "any price" are.
              It's harder for prescription patients to sell their oxy in a highly competitive environment where any addict can score their own free oxy by going to the doctor, and there's "plenty" of addicts with prescriptions to provide competition to the point that, well, hopefully you'd have a hard time giving the stuff away.
              Which a true addict isn't going to do. Ensuring a steady s

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                Then the opposition politicians start claiming the safe supply is being diverted to schools and kids as well as neighbouring jurisdictions where the drugs are still illegal.
                Amazing how the "my freedoms" right wingers will blame all the problems on the safe supply and how they need to force others to not do what they want with their bodies, usually why going on about their freedom to not use vaccines.

                • If you catch people selling to kids, then toss them in prison. Make sure people know that improper sale of your prescribed meds means losing the meds, at least while you're in prison.
                  I figure that at that point it would be individuals acting as suppliers/dealers, not gangs and cartels. Still a better situation.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by dryeo ( 100693 )

                    While I agree, the voters generally don't, based on the election here in BC last October. Even worse, Federally, the guy who is very likely to be our next leader, a supposed Libertarian, is promising to not only do away with the safe supply, but also the safe injection sites, which have saved a lot of lives as shooting up with a nurse present is much safer then doing it alone, and he is promising to suspend civil rights if the courts object.
                    As well, the national Police Chiefs union or whatever it is called

            • Oxycontin was a disaster almost by design. First marketing as less addictive, though it was essentially identical to oxycodone which has been around a long time (ie, as percoset and others), and there was inadequate testing of addictiveness. Second, the FDA should have caught this, but they were caught up in the politics of pushing out new drugs faster and with less bureaucracy (something the upcoming US government is also keen on). Third, probably most important, is that they marketed it for use with ch

              • A good analysis of the mess, I actually have some personal experience with it.
                Due to actual prosecutions and the fear of addiction and diversion, several members of my family have been routinely "underprescribed". Even as a 2nd time cancer patient, my dad was denied sufficient pain management. I blame his death at least partially on that - due to the pain, he didn't keep up with life tasks, experienced far more stress, and passed from a sudden heart attack/stroke. In a family line where we'd expected him

          • ... get a prescription for free heroin.

            There are 2 problems with this:

            • a) Addicts always want more. So some addicts would sell their drugs to other addicts, creating a secondary market. What happened to the now empty-handed addict is not mentioned. But usually welfare systems are not designed to prevent genuine victims stealing from it, so the system would deliver an emergency dose, somehow.
            • b) Clever entrepreneurs fake being an addict, then sell their unwanted drugs to real addicts.

            • a: Addicts don't actually always want more, especially if they're managing their addiction with a doctor's assistance. Addicts selling to other addicts is still not "fund cartels with billions of dollars" level of drug black market. Besides, why would Addict B pay Addict A for drugs when they can just go to the doctor to get more?
              You miss how cold welfare systems really are. Yes, if you sell your SNAP benefits, you can actually go hungry at the end of the month.
              b: Clever entrepreneurs are finding the r

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mjwx ( 966435 )

            One harm-mitigation strategy I've seen would be to imitate England back in the days just after the phase where Heroin was legal and considered a superior alternative to Opium. Basically, like Oxycontin, it had its day as the "superior" opioid.
            Anyways, they already had universal healthcare. It was determined to be impractical to try to get all the addicts to quit, many/most of whom had gotten addicted using legitimate doctor prescribed stuff and instructions. It was determined that most could remain functional so long as they had a steady supply. This was before methadone was developed either.
            So, if you became addicted to heroin, you go to the doctor who'd diagnose you as addicted, and you'd get a prescription for free heroin.
            The net effect of this was that anybody dealing heroin illegally went broke, because as soon as they got somebody dependent, off to the doctor and no longer paying them.
            Under this, England only generated a couple dozen addicts a year locally, with most addicts returning from overseas.
            Basically, I propose the same deal, because opioids can be dirt cheap. Addict shows up to doctor, doctor prescribes, they get maintenance doses of really pure medical grade stuff, in whatever form makes the most sense. Along with website/phone number/email/text to contact when they're ready to move to the next step.
            In short: Stop the whole heroin/fentanyl market by ensuring they can't make a profit.

            Erm, the whole reason that fentanyl is now a thing is that the US cracked down on oxycodone use. Oxycodone (Oxcontin) used to be called Hillbilly Heroin as it was being used for recreational use rather than pain management and was relatively easy to get a prescription for. As getting high is "wrong", a stop was put to it.

            The problem is really the American attitude towards drugs, specifically the "drugs are baaaad M'Kay" people who continue to support the war on drugs, or maybe it should just be called th

            • Erm, the whole reason that fentanyl is now a thing is that the US cracked down on oxycodone use.

              Well, obviously. Note how I specified Heroin when talking about the old policy, but switched to "Opioids" for the proposed modern version.

              And absolutely huge amounts of people got addicted to Oxy via the legal medical system, see people like Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather treat the addiction as a medical issue than a criminal one.

              The point is that if you remove the addicts from the demand, there really isn't enough of a market left of the non-addicts taking it recreationally to go through all this supply hassl

          • Dude. Excellent idea, but the moral brigade will fight in to the death.

          • No, Canada has done this as is pulling back now. The supply ends up diverted and sold by dealers all the same for stronger drugs like fentanyl, or whatever else.
        • I don't think Nixon ever intended to "win" the Drug War. He and those carrying the torch just wanted to keep the profitable war and prison machine going, and to destroy minority neighborhoods.
        • But war is what the USA does best! They're not so good at diplomacy, social care, civilian infrastructure, providing job security, preventing poverty & despair, etc.. You know, better to work towards one's strengths.

        • Seems like it would make more sense to address the issues which lead to drug abuse in the first place, rather than sending troops over to do battle with a Mexican cartel. Instead, well, we got the leadership we voted for. Off to the drug war with you, boys! May the odds be ever in your favor, or something.

          There's more profit in ratcheting up war-like relations than there is in addressing issues that lead to drug use. It's always about finding the profit.

        • Yes, it makes more sense. But the drawback is that this has historically been labeled a "liberal" plan that is not sufficiently "tough on crime". Without blood, tears, and lamentaton of the women, Trump won't believe that enough is being done. Remember, he's going to solve all the problems, everywhere, on day one. Sensible solutions have no place in the modern world!

          (he was quite inspired by the Everything Everywhere All At Once movie, mostly because it featured large hands)

      • Hitting "unauthorized labs" with Drones would be a perfect match. There's No knowing what follow-on reactions from the Mexican Government? Trump may choose to invoke a Border crossing Shutdown. It won't last long before all the US businesses whine.

      • Trump's plan won't work, but that doesn't mean he won't try [yahoo.com]. And chemical labs will be a high target.

        Your citation is excellent and informative!

        • I have to say though, the Cato Institute loses points for considering the Cartels a "near peer." Near Peer needs to have an airforce, otherwise it has no chance.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        From TFA:

        Over the years it has acquired a broad range of modern weaponry, including assault rifles, grenade launchers, drones, anti-personnel mines, anti-tank weapons and grenades.
        ....
        There have also been documented cases of cartels using surface-to-air missiles while intelligence points to them having obtained anti-tank rockets.

        But this is the perfect application of drone-launched Hellfire (AGM-114) missiles. Conventional warheads for the drug labs and the flying Ginsu (R9X) variant to go after the cartel bosses.
        We don't want to capture and hold territory. We just need a scorched earth policy. No tanks or personnel need to be risked. And so what if we lose a few drones.

        âoeOverall, while the cartels pose a serious threat, a military solution could lead to further instability and might necessitate prolonged US involvement with limited success,â

        But instability is our goal. Or the Mexican government can get on our side and move in afterwards to keep the peace in their own territory (which we won't

        • Not an expert, and unlike some commenters I won't pretend to have expertise when I don't, but there are a few rather obvious questions raised by your post:

          How do you plan to use missiles (whether Hellfire or flying-Ginsu) in densely populated urban areas without inflicting massive civilian casualties?

          What good is it to ask "the Mexican government" (presumably you mean municipal, state and federal LEOs) to "move in afterwards and keep the peace", when virtually all the Mexican LEOs are hopelessly corrupt?

          Eve

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            How do you plan to use missiles (whether Hellfire or flying-Ginsu) in densely populated urban areas without inflicting massive civilian casualties?

            That's exactly what the R9X (flying-Ginsu) was developed for.

            virtually all the Mexican LEOs are hopelessly corrupt?

            The corrupt (by choice) officials get the Ginsu. Some are corrupt due to coercion (play ball with the cartels or else). They can live.

            what's to prevent someone else from taking their place? Are you just going to start over when that happens?

            Yes.

            how much money are you willing to spend on this, and how many American casualties are you willing to accept?

            Much money but few casualties. That's why this will largely be an AI war. Look at how much money has been proposed for UBI to keep a bunch of junkies fed and housed. That's a good figure to start from.

            • Are you aware that, according to one recent estimate, there are about 175,000 active cartel members in Mexico (making them the fifth-largest employer in Mexico)? There are also 331,000 police officers in Mexico. Based on what I've read, you'd need to kill a rather large fraction of those, too. That's a lot of RX9 missiles (the cost of each RX9 is classified, but the basic Hellfire platform they are built on costs $150,000 per missile).

              Then, of course, you acknowledge that you'd have to kill all the peopl

              • AND if any of that really succeeds then there will be a major incentive for people inside the US to start producing the drugs at a massive scale. The only reason this is currently outsourced to Mexico is that is as usual is cheaper, not that it _have_ to be produced there.
      • I've seen that movie. In the end the prez got in trouble. No longer realistic.

    • the cops are on the take so we can just kill you and get away with it.

    • It is a sad reflection on the failures of the gov when the only people willing to invest in industry are criminals.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      Mexico isn't a particularly cheap place to live.

      I'm most worried that chemists are making $5-10k/year

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Yes, I would be worried about breaking the law and its consequences, but I would be even more worried about the Cartel as my employer.

      The worry about putting food on the table overrides both of those by a huge margin. And I mean that literally, as in actual food on an actual table.

      The cartels are offering twice what the average Mexican chemist gets, so probably over 3 times what a graduate is looking at.

      If you want to solve the problem of fentanyl, you need to stop the demand for it. Try decriminalising more popular, less dangerous drugs like Marijuana, Cocaine and MDMA, or at least stop putting weed smokers in Federal PMITA prison.

    • Yes, I would be worried about breaking the law and its consequences, but I would be even more worried about the Cartel as my employer.

      Yeah, I'd be worried about what they interpret "severance pay" to mean. You can bet they'd also be extra paranoid about employees sticking to their "NDAs." You know, a lot of severely punished false positives.

    • but I would be even more worried about the Cartel as my employer.

      You think Bill Lumbergh is a unholy, disgusting pig of a boss.

  • Perfect timing (Score:4, Funny)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @07:53PM (#64986627)

    I'm sat here watching Breaking Bad.

  • I think the show Breaking Bad may have glamorized this sort of thing, and makes it seem like kind of a cool lifestyle.
  • I am somewhat confused as to why they are putting so much effort into "improving" fentanyl. The toxicity and death rate of users would seem to limit the market compared to less toxic drugs take cocaine or heroin.

    • it will likely get cut with fillers on the other end.

      The bigger problem for the cartels is that the easy-bake chemistry of their current fentanyl depends on vast quantities of precursor chemicals shipped in from China. For a variety of reasons (better profit margins, supply chain risk, etc.), they want to wean themselves from that dependency.

    • Etonitazene is 10X more powerful than Fentanyl, which means that 1 KG makes 5 million strong doses. That is very little to smuggle for $50M+ in value. The problem comes in cutting such a powerful drug evenly, you need to get not just the chemistry right but the electrostatics of dry mixing right so that there is no clumping ... just like when you weaponize anthrax. :/

    • I am somewhat confused as to why they are putting so much effort into "improving" fentanyl.

      It's already been done: carfentanyl is 10,000 times more potent than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl. It is used to sedate large animals like elephants. It is so potent that it poses a significant danger to law enforcement since exposure to even tiny quantities can prove fatal...and yes according to the news at least there are people with such an utter disregard for human life that they are making and selling it.

  • Something isn't right about this article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday December 02, 2024 @09:17PM (#64986741)
    Right off the bat the median income in Mexico is $1,700 a month. Chemists are educated people.

    That pay might be for the guys who mix the drugs but it's not for the guys who formulate them.

    Whatever the case we could make all this go away tomorrow just by legalizing hard drugs and treating them as a medical condition. Just don't let private companies sell them. You have to have the government give them away in a controlled setting with treatment options and social services immediately ready. And here's the hard part you have to actually take care of drug addicts even though everybody hates them with a passion.

    It's infinitely cheaper and more humane but it's absolutely no fun.

    • New York City say the first government-approved supervised drug injection sites

      • Which is a good first step, but from what I've seen, it fails to address the "illegal dealer" and associated violence problems by still requiring the addicts show up with the stuff.
        It should be more like methadone clinics, or over in the Netherlands. The government gives them medical grade heroin, so they don't need to find the cash to pay illegal dealers, and the illegal dealers and associated supply lines get their money supply cut off, the surest way to actually get rid of them.

        Heroin, medical grade, sh

    • Cartels don't pay their top chemists as much as is portrayed in BreakingBad.

      • Cartels don't pay their top chemists as much as is portrayed in BreakingBad.

        The premise of Breaking Bad that Walter was able to create a better, higher quality methamphetamine than everyone else. He had to break into the market without the cartel.

    • Whatever the case we could make all this go away tomorrow just by legalizing hard drugs and treating them as a medical condition. Just don't let private companies sell them. You have to have the government give them away in a controlled setting with treatment options and social services immediately ready. And here's the hard part you have to actually take care of drug addicts even though everybody hates them with a passion. It's infinitely cheaper and more humane but it's absolutely no fun.

      Sounds great in theory, but, so far, it’s been self defeating in practice. It turns out that addressing the problem not only requires carrots, but also sticks.

      Oregon just tried exactly that, but with disastrous results. It recently reversed itself.

      Similarly, California just voted in ballot initiatives to roll back its decriminalization statewide. It’ll soon be harder to loot without consequence (addicts are looting to “pay” for their “free” lifestyles), and the police wil

    • The majority of people use drugs cause they make you feel good. What addiction are you treating? The addiction to feeling good? Good luck with that.

    • And here's the hard part you have to actually take care of drug addicts even though everybody hates them with a passion.

      I thought that was politicians.

  • Nice to see some mention of help from China on this issue, and implications that the fentanyl in question isn't actually made in China...contrary to what many people seem to be saying.

    Why is this such a problem in the USA?

  • What is this, a recruitment post?

  • 401k and healthcare? Union membership?

  • Until you become one of those headless corpses hanging on a bridge in full view to strike fear in the authorities and the general public.

    Be stupid and greedy, accept a Darwin award.

  • ...at least for some their college degree pays out in the end.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.

Close