Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#31

Post by pstuart »

adsr wrote: post #30
pstuart wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently the thread is too deep to reply to you directly: but yes, I have tried hard drugs and walked away. My brother was not so lucky -- he died of a heroin overdose. I have lost other friends to meth. My mother was an alcoholic who died homeless. Is that enough "cred"?

I think there's a time limit in place to make you think twice before you reply, and avoid flame wars. It has little to do with credibility, but your comment appeared as pretty naive. Your reply surprise me since you know "what happens when a cheap and potentially addictive drug is available in society"

I don't want to flame you but your attitude just makes me crazy angry.

The drug wars have nothing to do with protecting people from hurting themselves -- it's just another tool for controlling the masses.

I will return the favor and suggest that your attitude about this is rather naive. Drugs are out there. People will want to use them even if you don't. You cannot make them go away.

The sensible "adult" approach to this is to legalize them all, tax and regulate the hell out of them and be prepared to help those that need help. Simple, cost-effective, and respectful of peoples personal choices.

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#32

Post by zeteo »

I wonder why they need to put a crew in it. Building a robotic submarine should be easy in this age of GPS, pressure sensors and satellite phones. It would also decrease cost, while increasing cargo (no life support or living quarters needed for the crew).

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#33

Post by adsr »

pstuart wrote: post #31
adsr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a time limit in place to make you think twice before you reply, and avoid flame wars. It has little to do with credibility, but your comment appeared as pretty naive. Your reply surprise me since you know "what happens when a cheap and potentially addictive drug is available in society"

I don't want to flame you but your attitude just makes me crazy angry. The drug wars have nothing to do with protecting people from hurting themselves -- it's just another tool for controlling the masses. I will return the favor and suggest that your attitude about this is rather naive. Drugs are out there. People will want to use them even if you don't. You cannot make them go away. The sensible "adult" approach to…

Well, I'm 38 years old, I am aware that drugs is out there and people want them.

I'm not suggesting that what is done currently works, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be open to thinking about the problem differently. I'm certainly not suggesting that help to those that need help shouldn't be offered. Keep in mind though that the example given earlier about Portugal, is more a case of reallocating finite resources towards the big guys. Thus, more money is spent to preventing smuggling and the folks building these subs that this article is about. I remember reading quite a lot about this when it was first introduced in the early 90's.

In my opinion it's not an easy problem to solve, and any easy solution makes me suspicious. Your opinion doesn't make me angry, it's clearly just an opinion, your free to have it and a discussion is healthy.

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#34

Post by blahblahblah »

adsr wrote: post #18
jaysonelliot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very sweeping and unsupported generalization. Legalizing drugs: -raises tax revenue -raises the quality of drugs (eliminating one of the greatest dangers--people ingesting unknown and even more deadly substances) -lowers costs, meaning addicts don't have to turn to a life of crime to support their habit -allows society to have responsible, adult discussions about the personal risks of different drugs -reduce…

Yes, however free supply will drive down prices. The current street price that people are perfectly willing to pay for 1 gram of cocaine tells a lot about the demand, and just how addictive the drug is. There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society? I've seen the argument before, mostly applied to lighter drug…

"There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society?"

It seems to me the most reasonable approach to legalization is to deliberately set up a negative feedback loop by taxing the drug and funding harm reduction programs (prevention/treatment) directly from the tax proceeds. As long as the price is set within a range that is low enough to prevent black market distribution from being so profitable that criminals are willing to take on the associated risks, the government would effectively be able to set the equilibrium via the tax rate. Eliminating the black market would go a long way towards eliminating the violent crime associated with the drug trade.

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#35

Post by Cossolus »

blahblahblah wrote: post #34
adsr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, however free supply will drive down prices. The current street price that people are perfectly willing to pay for 1 gram of cocaine tells a lot about the demand, and just how addictive the drug is. There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society? I've seen the argument before, mostly applied to lighter drug…

"There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society?" It seems to me the most reasonable approach to legalization is to deliberately set up a negative feedback loop by taxing the drug and funding harm reduction programs (prevention/treatment) directly from the tax proceeds. As long as the price is set within a rang…

Let me get this straight... you think you're going to regulate the behavior of a crackhead by changing his tax rate?

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#36

Post by blahblahblah »

Cossolus wrote: post #35
blahblahblah wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society?" It seems to me the most reasonable approach to legalization is to deliberately set up a negative feedback loop by taxing the drug and funding harm reduction programs (prevention/treatment) directly from the tax proceeds. As long as the price is set within a rang…

Let me get this straight... you think you're going to regulate the behavior of a crackhead by changing his tax rate?

No. I'm saying that you put a hefty tax on the drug so that when the crackhead buys it most of the money paid for the drug goes toward:

1) Funding programs to educate people with factual information about the dangers of substance abuse to persuade as many people as possible that using drugs is probably not in their best interest and, in particular, to persuade some of the individuals who are most at risk of going down that path that maybe spending some time on the psychotherapist's couch dealing with the root causes of their problems would be a good idea

2) Funding programs for at risk people without health insurance to provide affordable access to mental health services so they can resolve their problems before they resort to the dysfunctional strategy of using mood-altering substances to cope

3) Funding treatment for the addicts who want to get off drugs to successfully do so

Right now, 0% of the money that an addict spends on purchasing drugs goes towards anything positive. 100% goes straight into the pockets of the drug cartels and their middlemen with no social benefit whatsoever. What I'm saying is that you could lower the price of the drug just enough to make the profit-to-risk ratio unattractive to the cartels (and reduce the likelihood that a crackhead is going to have to burglarize your house in order to fund his drug habit) and simultaneously bring in enough tax revenue to fund programs aimed both at reducing the demand for drugs and reducing the societal impact of the problem by improving public mental health and providing treatment for addicts.

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#37

Post by [deleted] »

blahblahblah wrote: post #36
Cossolus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight... you think you're going to regulate the behavior of a crackhead by changing his tax rate?

No. I'm saying that you put a hefty tax on the drug so that when the crackhead buys it most of the money paid for the drug goes toward: 1) Funding programs to educate people with factual information about the dangers of substance abuse to persuade as many people as possible that using drugs is probably not in their best interest and, in particular, to persuade some of the individuals who are most at risk of going dow…

[deleted]

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#38

Post by Cossolus »

blahblahblah wrote: post #36
Cossolus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight... you think you're going to regulate the behavior of a crackhead by changing his tax rate?

No. I'm saying that you put a hefty tax on the drug so that when the crackhead buys it most of the money paid for the drug goes toward: 1) Funding programs to educate people with factual information about the dangers of substance abuse to persuade as many people as possible that using drugs is probably not in their best interest and, in particular, to persuade some of the individuals who are most at risk of going dow…

Here's how I see it. You have all these knobs you can twiddle with and see the results. Here's what happens when you turn the knobs:

make crack legal -----> crack-use increases a LOT

make crack cheaper -----> crack-use increases

increase mental health services -----> small/no effect

increase education ----> crack-use decreases moderately

So what have you gained by legalizing crack? In my opinion, you've shifted the beneficiary (the people at the top of the financial food chain) from being the dealers and their lawyers to being the government and their cronies.

The only half-decent proposal I've heard so far is to have the govt. purchase Colombia's supply of cocaine paste every year and destroy it. That would hugely drive up the street price and result in a net decrease in usage.

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#39

Post by hjrnunes »

philthy wrote: post #10
jschuur wrote: post #5

I wonder if they make remote controlled ones.

Why spend more money on robotics when you have an almost unlimited supply of patsies. A 2 weeks trip originating in narrow Jungle swamps and transiting deep ocean water would require serious robotic control. But if they keep making so much money I wouldn't be surprised if they went all Mars rover on the subs. Hell when I first saw these things a few years back they were just fiberglass boats with no top, that Feb 1st…

Actually, they only load the vessels once they're on the ocean already.

In the VBS.tv piece mentioned before, a guy that purportedly was involved in making and presenting a kind of towed torpedo to the cartels, said he wouldn't be surprised they'd have such a remote controlled device already, and that he was sure they we're already looking into it. You can watch it.

And I remember seeing something in the news, not long ago, that they we're already doing it for shipping cocaine directly to Europe.

Re: Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

#40

Post by blahblahblah »

Cossolus wrote: post #38
blahblahblah wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm saying that you put a hefty tax on the drug so that when the crackhead buys it most of the money paid for the drug goes toward: 1) Funding programs to educate people with factual information about the dangers of substance abuse to persuade as many people as possible that using drugs is probably not in their best interest and, in particular, to persuade some of the individuals who are most at risk of going dow…

Here's how I see it. You have all these knobs you can twiddle with and see the results. Here's what happens when you turn the knobs: make crack legal -----> crack-use increases a LOT make crack cheaper -----> crack-use increases increase mental health services -----> small/no effect increase education ----> crack-use decreases moderately So what have you gained by legalizing crack? In my opinion, you've shifted the b…

>>make crack legal -----> crack-use increases a LOT

Seriously? You really believe that? Would you, personally, be down at the government crack store buying some rock to smoke today if it were legal (I'm assuming that you currently abstain from doing such things)? I know that on my own list of reasons why I'm not a crack user, the #1 reason is that I have enough self-respect to not want to piss my life away on such things. The illegality of it is entirely irrelevant to my decision. I suspect the real effect of legalization on the prevalence of crack-use in the population would be almost nil.

>>make crack cheaper -----> crack-use increases

Again, I think the vast majority of people who are not currently crack-users would remain that way. Paint thinner is super cheap and easily obtained at the local Home Depot, but we don't see a huge epidemic of ordinary folks deciding to huff toluene on the weekends to get high.

>>increase mental health services -----> small/no effect

I agree that focusing solely on the availability of mental health services would have little effect, but that's not what I'm proposing. You have to also actively promote utilization of those services and work on changing public attitudes about them (get rid of the stigmatization problem) through health education in the schools, advertising, etc.

Post reply on HN