China and US cooperate vs drugs

[Dann]

China busts cocaine ring — with U.S. help

‘It’s a huge market,’ DEA agent says of Colombians entering Asia

Updated: 2:45 p.m. ET May 9, 2006

BEIJING - Chinese and U.S. agents seized more than 300 pounds of cocaine smuggled from Colombia, authorities said Tuesday — a record drug bust for China that underscores how South American narcotics gangs are aggressively moving into Asia.

Nine people were arrested. Chinese television footage showed a locker stacked high with dozens of bricks of smuggled cocaine, some with a yin yang symbol embossed on the solid white blocks.

The suspects include two Colombian citizens arrested in Hong Kong, along with suspects from Hong Kong and mainland China, said Liu Guangping, spokesman for the Customs General Administration of China.

“It’s pretty clear from this just how daunting a task we face,” Liu told reporters. He said it was by far the largest seizure of cocaine ever made in China.

'A huge market'
A joint inquiry by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and customs agents in Hong Kong and mainland China uncovered the network of Colombian drug gangs and criminals from Hong Kong and China. They were working to distribute “multi-hundred-kilogram (pound) quantities” of cocaine in Asia, said William Fiebig, a DEA special agent based in Beijing.

“This is extremely significant as it confirms that Colombian drug trafficking organizations are expanding their distribution operations into Asia and that large quantities of cocaine are already being imported into the mainland,” Fiebig said.

Agents said the gang intended to send at least some of the cocaine overseas again, first to Hong Kong, then to Thailand and as far away as West Africa.

“It’s a market, a huge market,” said Fiebig. “Why are other businesses coming to Asia?”

Liu said authorities also discovered a drug lab tied to the gang during their investigation. No details were given, although photos of the raid provided by police showed bottles of ethyl ether — a key ingredient in making highly addictive crack cocaine.

Following the communist revolution in 1949, China virtually wiped out opium use that had afflicted many as 20 million addicts and crippled the economy. Stocks were destroyed, traffickers executed and millions of users forced to quit cold turkey or be sent to labor camps.

Drug use came roaring back in the 1980s following economic and social reforms that raised incomes and curbed some government intrusions into daily life.

Most recent drug-related problems — including the spread of AIDS — have been linked to heroin from Southeast Asia’s “Golden Triangle,” of Burma, Laos and northern Thailand, which abut southern China, as well as from Central Asia’s opium-producing “Golden Crescent” region.

Ecstasy also makes inroads
But other narcotics are making inroads: Liu said Chinese agents have recorded a 435 percent increase in drug seizures in the first three months of this year from a year earlier, with almost half of them synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine, Ecstasy and ketamine. The remainder was mostly heroin.

Rogene Waite, a DEA spokeswoman in Washington, said, “As more money comes into the Chinese economy, the market for drugs, unfortunately, grows concomitantly.”

China has almost 1 million registered drug addicts, while the number of actual users is believed to be far higher. Concerns about the worsening drug problem prompted communist leaders in April 2005 to announce a “People’s War on Drugs,” appealing for public help to rehabilitate addicts and offering rewards for help in catching traffickers.

Arrests in the cocaine case began March 15 after a three-month investigation, agents said. Footage shown on state television showed plainclothes officers tackling suspects from behind and throwing them to the ground on the street and in a department store.

Most of the drugs were discovered inside a wooden bed frame in a building in Zhongshan, an industrial district in southern China just hours from the border with Hong Kong. The equivalent of about $25,000 in Chinese and Hong Kong currency also was seized, Liu said.

'A model for the future'
Arrests and seizures continued until March 17, Liu said, adding the investigation was aided by key intelligence from the DEA.

Chinese and U.S. authorities have been stepping up cooperation in recent years as the drug trade between the two countries grows. The DEA quietly opened an office in Beijing about five years ago.

Fiebig said the agency has been working closely with China’s anti-narcotics agency, but the cocaine case marked the first time Chinese customs has worked with U.S. authorities on a drug investigation.

“We hope this will lay out a model for the future,” Fiebig said. He wouldn’t reveal details of the investigation, but said agents “shared intelligence, combined investigation resources and coordinated investigation activities, all in real time.”

Officials said they were still preparing charges against the nine suspects, who could face the death penalty in China if convicted of smuggling. No requests have been received to extradite the two Colombian suspects from Hong Kong to their homeland, they said.

Link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12703108/

Good job!

 

[Ayatollah So]

More supply-side drugonomics

The very meaning of the word "addiction" implies an inflexible demand curve. Addicts will do whatever it takes, legal or not. Disrupting supply leads to dramatically increased prices which leads to more crime. Look at the USA's war on drugs for evidence of this cycle.

 

[friskymike]

Word. Look at the (alcohol) prohibition era in the US to see how prohibition provides a ready income stream to organised crime. And for some arguments in favour of decriminalisation and how to go about it politically check Ben Elton's great novel High Society. The book is comedic tragedy really, but still has a message IMO.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I love the way they mentioned that it all happened in real time. You know, instead of taking turns.

 

[Red Stranger]

Following the communist revolution in 1949, China virtually wiped out opium use that had afflicted many as 20 million addicts and crippled the economy. Stocks were destroyed, traffickers executed and millions of users forced to quit cold turkey or be sent to labor camps.

The only thing that the Maoists did right. If there is only a way to wipe out all drug use...

 

[El_Machinae]

The very meaning of the word "addiction" implies an inflexible demand curve.

Assuming that a society wants to keep drugs out (which is actually the right of a society) - would you suggest demand-side drugonomics instead? Demotivate people to start using/continue using drugs? How would you do that?

It seems more fair to shoot drug dealers instead of drug users.

 

[bhsup]

It seems more fair to shoot drug dealers instead of drug users.

You got that right. Remove the supply side of things and the demand will be meaningless. I'm certainly no fan of authoritarian regimes, but they do frequently know just how to handle the druggie pushers.

Here's how I would handle drug pushers:

"Greetings. Your desire to push harmful drugs clearly shows your desire to destroy our nation, society in general, and ultimately the world. As an attempt to destroy a nation is clearly an act of war, you're now an enemy soldier. Hope you can dodge bullets well, the shooting starts in 5 seconds. Good luck!"

 

[El_Machinae]

I try to put an analogy between drug dealers and enemy occupiers, actually.

 

[Dann]

More supply-side drugonomics

The very meaning of the word "addiction" implies an inflexible demand curve. Addicts will do whatever it takes, legal or not. Disrupting supply leads to dramatically increased prices which leads to more crime. Look at the USA's war on drugs for evidence of this cycle.

So what do you suggest? That we (the world) go after the demand side instead? Round up drug addicts and shoot them?

@VRWCAgent
There is a good reason why they orchestrated this so that the traffickers were arrested on Chinese soil. Regardless of nationality these people are now going to die. No lawyers, no human rights BS.

What you described is really going to happen. Minus the latter part of the speech. But there won't be any chance to dodge the bullet.

 

[Atropos]

Why is suicide OK but drugs not?

People want to kill themselves, that's their problem.

Just a thought. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this issue.

 

[The Yankee]

You got that right. Remove the supply side of things and the demand will be meaningless.

And yet, the demand will certainly tempt those that wish to meet that demand. Especially if they're the only ones left in the market. It doesn't really end.

But, good to see that they have been combating the gangs that are supplying the drugs, who probably use the profits for other illegal activities.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why is suicide OK but drugs not?
People want to kill themselves, that's their problem.
Just a thought. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this issue.

It's not that drugs are bad, it's that the manufacturers/producers aren't liable for the damage that they cause.

I give you Big Tobacco. These guys vociferously lied about whether smoking caused cancer. They vociferously denied that smoking is addictive. Meanwhile, they sued anybody who tried to see if smoking caused cancer, and they mixed their cigarettes to make them more addictive.

Now - granted - anybody who started smoking after 1968 is really responsible for their own problems. I mean, everyone nowadays KNOWS they cause cancer and are addictive.

But, before that, Big Tobacco was responsible. And the law allows the addicts to sue for damages that they weren't expecting. Strangely, people who started smoking before 1968 never got a dime, and recently people have been getting money ... but that's the law for you. I get the feeling they're paying for past sins.

But someone who starts cocaine has a sales rep (their dealer) who's willing to lie to them in order to make the sale. "Naw, I have lots of clients who aren't addicted". They actively supress information or rumors that drugs are bad - maybe not in the media, but certainly on the street. Some kid hears that acid isn't bad ("it may screw up your sperm, but who cares?) and drops it for fun. Who does that kid sue when he's in a hospital 5 years later? Who, among the producers, is striving to make a safer product?

Basically, dealers are scum. They hurt people for profit, and they don't care.

 

[friskymike]

But someone who starts cocaine has a sales rep (their dealer) who's willing to lie to them in order to make the sale. "Naw, I have lots of clients who aren't addicted". They actively supress information or rumors that drugs are bad - maybe not in the media, but certainly on the street. Some kid hears that acid isn't bad ("it may screw up your sperm, but who cares?) and drops it for fun. Who does that kid sue when he's in a hospital 5 years later? Who, among the producers, is striving to make a safer product?

You shouldn't believe all the propoganda you hear, coke, LSD, ecstasy aren't actually that dangerous or addictive. I personally know dozens of people - engineers, lawyers, doctors, builders, recruitment consultants, physiotherapists, etc... you know, normal people - that have used these drugs recreationally and continued to lead normal productive lives.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hi Frisky:

Actually, I'm not hearing the propaganda - I work with the victims of the drug trade who have gone crazy. I understand that people can partake of the various drugs and not suffer obvious harm (opportunity cost springs to mind), just like there are 90-something grannies that smoke without side effects.

But there certainly ARE victims of the drug trade, and the people making the profits are not civilly liable for the damage they cause. You can sue Pfizer if they release a drug and lie about the side-effects. You can't sue your dealer. Pfizer will look at the literature and conduct safety studies (due diligence) - even if they do it poorly. I bet no dealer or producer of illegal drugs does any due diligence and then ramps down production if they suspect there's a problem.

Basically, they don't care who they hurt AND they're not liable for the damage.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Assuming that a society wants to keep drugs out (which is actually the right of a society) - would you suggest demand-side drugonomics instead? Demotivate people to start using/continue using drugs? How would you do that?

Provide treatment for addicts, and propaganda. Look at the recent American Legacy Foundation anti-tobacco ads for a propaganda model that actually works.

I don't agree that a society has a blanket right to keep drugs out. You have to consider the consequences. A lot of bystanders are being injured in the USA war on drugs.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't agree that a society has a blanket right to keep drugs out.

A society has a right to legislate against harmful activity. Do you think a society has the right to legislate against robbery? If a society was fine with robbery, do they have a duty to legislate against it anyway? They have the right to legislate to enforce contracts, and wise countries do that, too? Unless you object to your right to lie being taken away?

If one accepts that society provides a benefit and succor to its inhabitants, which it does, then it can also restrict activities. Of course, in a democracy, this is much more fair. Especially if someone has the right to leave their country, which often occurs in a democracy.

Societies have the right to legislate - it's what they DO

 

[friskymike]

Actually, I'm not hearing the propaganda - I work with the victims of the drug trade who have gone crazy. I understand that people can partake of the various drugs and not suffer obvious harm (opportunity cost springs to mind), just like there are 90-something grannies that smoke without side effects.

OK, I don't doubt that these people exist for a second, I hear of many anecodotal stories of friends of a friend who have lost it. However your position would be similar to somebody that works only with alcoholics, and uses them to make a judgement on the use of alcohol overall.

But there certainly ARE victims of the drug trade, and the people making the profits are not civilly liable for the damage they cause. You can sue Pfizer if they release a drug and lie about the side-effects. You can't sue your dealer. Pfizer will look at the literature and conduct safety studies (due diligence) - even if they do it poorly. I bet no dealer or producer of illegal drugs does any due diligence and then ramps down production if they suspect there's a problem.

That seems to me to be a reason to legalise recreational drugs, so there can be some accountability and real research done.

(Not to mention simultaneously wiping out the entire revenue stream for organised crime)

 

[El_Machinae]

I 100% agree.

But, until then, I feel that drug dealers are scum. Until you can ask a pot dealer "are you keeping abreast with the research in the Netherlands linking pot to schizophrenia?", they're probably not qualified to be selling the stuff.

It's simple (to me) standardisation of ethics. If you would expect Pfizer to keep abreast of the research or potential harms, AND expect Pfizer to be liable for any mistakes they make ... so should the drug dealer.