Pajamas Media

34 Comments

1. BI:

If the “war on drugs” is so vital to America’s interests, then why does the government not look at where the problem may really lie.

A ten or fifteen year sentence together with mandatory rehab for possession or use, a fifteen or twenty year sentence for trafficking plus a very large fine might make many re-consider use of illegal drugs.

Of course, then there would be the problem of making sure that drugs were not available in prisons.

After all, many countries are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco by limiting and attacking the consumers, not the suppliers.

One question: how much does illegal drug use cost in medical terms?

Oct 20, 2008 - 1:50 am 2. RightwingHippyChick:

Well, there goes the war on drugs, it’s as futile as ever, but it makes a lot of criminals rich — the fact that they can afford submarines and all manner of fancy gadgets should tell you something…

Oct 20, 2008 - 1:58 am 3. Spinoneone:

There doesn’t seem to be a war on alcohol at the moment; Government at every level reaps a reward on its use via taxes. These taxes, in part, pay for health care for abusers. Would the Government be ahead if it legalized, taxed, and regulated opiates and other addictive drugs? I believe it would reduce crime and the cost of chasing these people. In the long run we would be likely to save on medical and prison costs, too. Just a thought.

Oct 20, 2008 - 3:22 am 4. ken magalnik:

Note to the author:
When digging up biblical references, it is best to pick one that doesn’t cast your side as the bad guys. I’m just saying.

And the great solution to this epidemic is outlawing private submersibles? Really? Does that strike anyone else as a bad idea?

Oct 20, 2008 - 3:44 am 5. Brian Richard Allen:

The so-called “war” on drugs was lost the instant our feral gummint — followed by those of the rest of the civilized world’s — created the massive profits that flow from prohibition.

But all is not lost. Repeal prohibition and the flow of the Trillions of Dollars that flow from that insanity into the coffers of the world’s most evil men will dry up in a week.

As will every other of prohibition’s other and associated criminal activities.

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles – CalifOBAMAcated — and the Far Abroad

Oct 20, 2008 - 5:24 am 6. Lifeofthemind:

These unregistered illegal vessels are used to weaken America’s civil society and raise money for narco-terrorists who are allied with both Communist and Islamist revolutionary forces that are a serious national security threat. They should be treated as Unlawful Combatants or indeed as Pirates and when encountered they should be destroyed on the spot. The use of submersibles by private interests presents a threat qualitatively different than that posed by private aircraft. This is due to the vastly greater difficulty in tracking objects in the complex dense fluid of the ocean. The ongoing situation of the apparent effort of Iran to send a seaborne dirty bomb to Israel highlights the reality of a threat from an undetected maritime transport. The US needs to seriously improve its coastal defense resources. The number of US Navy submarines has been allowed to decline by a third and we refuse to build the small conventional or fuel cell powered boats that would be most useful for inshore and shallow water warfare.

The good news is that Senator Biden unlike Senator Obama does do some work as a member of the Senate. While I disagree with Senator Biden on a host of issues he comes off well when compared to his partner who has never held a meeting of his sub-committee.

Oct 20, 2008 - 5:35 am 7. deguello:

As long as Americanscontinue to use illegal drugs,no number of subs,weapons or aircraft,will stanch the flow. The good news is that submarine,and other technologies with potential military applications are becoming available to private groups.The monopoly of military power that characterizes the modern plutocratic, pig/nanny state,is beginning to lessen,even as its power to indoctrinate through schools, media,and prestige is waning thanks to talk radio, home schooling, and the internet.`Tis a consumation,devoutly to be wished.

Oct 20, 2008 - 7:09 am 8. Will Sharpe:

Our government nonsensically proposed a wall bordering Mexico to prevent illegal immigration; I’m surprised there has not been a proposal for a net streching around the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico to prevent these submarine vessels from reaching our shores.

Oct 20, 2008 - 7:17 am 9. jvon:

That’s crazy, an enemy would never use a submarine to smuggle people or materials into the country for something like that.

http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/local/1963.html

Oct 20, 2008 - 9:08 am 10. AlexinCT:

The only way I will consider a repealing the drug ban as better than what we have now is if it comes with a guarantee that those using are on their own and we have hefty laws to punish them for causing harm in their addled state. I am no puritan, but I see nothing but problems coming from allowing drug use. If legalized what will happen of course is that government will create an entire new entitlement industry to support the idiots that end up addicted to the stuff while claiming drugs are cool or cause them no harm or which are hurt by the idiots high on drugs. So those claiming the problem will go away are being seriously disingenuous at best. In fact I bet it ends up causing much the same problems as alcohol does. I guess the people making out big will be the lawyers again.

We do have a problem with the current drug enforcement policy however that makes the whole process feel like herding cats. Going after the suppliers is a losing battle. The only way to break this beast is to stop the demand. Of course considering how people already complain about how harsh sentencing for users are I doubt that they would want to do what really would need to be done to stop people from wanting to use.

Oct 20, 2008 - 9:28 am 11. Professor Guvinoff:

If this kind of sub had been detected by the russian counterpart of our coast guard, they would have been blown out of the water without prior notice. One can argue against the deterrent value of the death penalty as administrated by our judicial system, but when the process is bypassed by immediate and irrevocable action, the argument falls apart.

In the US we have due process, so it will take longer. In the meantime, nearly a half-million dollars worth of drug trade seized and 8 sub crew members in custody is not a bad catch at all!

Nice to know we do have diligent patrols. If one of the subs got away this time, there is still a chance to catch it on the way back, unless these guys operate on a “one way rental” kind of a contract.

I think this heist also does a good job of building the case for the allocation of more anti-sub assets to this new kind of chase.

Oct 20, 2008 - 9:32 am 12. deguello:

What is needed is not a wall but ruinous fines imposed on the greedheads who emply/exploit illegal aliens,together with public condemnation of their liberal shoills, like the idiot Sharpe,who aid and abet the continued invasion of the US.

Oct 20, 2008 - 9:35 am 13. deguello:

Legalize all drugs, and we won’t need to buy new subs,or continue to militarize law enforcement. The latter is a far greater threat to our freedoms, than Colombian cocaine.

Oct 20, 2008 - 9:53 am 14. SAF:

Who cares about drugs? Not having a 100% intercept rate means the Jihadists will use this technique to bring in the nuke undetected.

Now that’s a real scary thought. And oh by the way do you think the death penalty actually would dissuade someone from doing this?

Oct 20, 2008 - 11:07 am 15. Alan Burton:

I agree we the idea of decriminalizing drugs and making them in chemically regular doses for users. These could be taxed much as alcohol is and would remove the presently enormous profit motive drug runners have. Yes, I know there are still some manufacturers of moonshine booze who escape tax but their product has fallen into poor repute due to quality issues. Present moonshiners are not the artists that some of my family members were who made truly aged but untaxed liquor of excellent quality. The present price differential between moonshine and legally purchased liquor isn’t sufficient to lure many people into the business.

Do the same with drugs and get people going to doctors who can write prescriptions without fear of reprisals and the problem will moderate as it has before. The US has had several manais for illegal drugs over the years and they tend to fall apart when profits are low and the ill-results are well-known. I recall the LSD business in the 1960s and that is still being used but on far from the scale of 1967.

Another observation: During WW II we employed diirigibles and blimps to cruise over the seas surrounding the US. Most were armed with depth charges. They ordinarily radioed for help from destroyers and even sank several Axis submarines on their own.

The advantages of lighter than air craft for such surveillance are: 1. They can move fast enough to keep pace with almost and ship and certainly all subs and partly submersibles. 2. They can maintain a fair sized crew and remain on station cheaply in terms of helium and fuel. They are far cheaper to operate in terms of fuel that either helicopters or fixed wing aircraft. 3. They can now be equipped with GPS locating equipment and even if they can’t destroy the suspect vessel itself, they can give its location. 4. With modern weaponry, including air to sea missiles, they can have excellent attack capabilities against either surface ships or submersibles. 5. Though modern dirigibles and blimps must deal with winds, they can fly against the wind at speeds fast enough to take evasive action. Against an aircraft carrier, they would be defenseless but against a sub, they might be able to exert overwhelming force and summon assistance.6. It is technically possible for an airship of modern design to remain on station for a week at a time before requiring service.7. Cruising speeds can be as much as 60 knots and ranges are excellent.

I believe if these two things are done, we can 1. Remove profit from drug cartels and cause them to search for other ways to make huge profits. 2. We can give drug users safer narcotics and possibly get them into treatment programs that are cheaper than imprisonment. 3. We can patrol waters crucial to our trade in an economical manner. The “war” would no longer be so assymetrical. 4. We could better protect our shipping and coasts against terrorist deliveries by sea.

I think my arguments are reasonable and offer a some help in a thorny area at a cost far less than sending large ships in pursuit of drugrunners, The cost of construction and operation of these airships is far less than the cost of a single Coast Guard cutter and would perform some functions cheaper and better that cutters or destroyers with far less crew and support staff. I will not claim they make submarines or cutters of helicopters unnecessary but believe that airships would be a productive addiition to our capabilities.

Legalization and standardization of presently illegal drugs would damage the profit motive for smugglers. It has been found in numerous studies in reputable medical
journals that such approaches have a good success rate and are far less costly than locking people people up at present rates.

I will be glad to discuss any disagreement people have with this approach as long as it is’nt in the form of “ad hominem” attacks. If I have erred, I wish to learn how I may have erred and would discuss alternatives.The observations above are simply my opinion.

Oct 20, 2008 - 12:38 pm 16. When David is Bad and Goliath is Good : The New Nixon: News and Commentary about the President, his Times, and his Legacy:

[...] Jacobsen on the nimbleness of Colombian drug cartels: It was David and Goliath on the high seas, with David being the bad guy [...]

Oct 20, 2008 - 1:32 pm 17. cedarford:

Who cares about drugs? Not having a 100% intercept rate means the Jihadists will use this technique to bring in the nuke undetected.

Now that’s a real scary thought.

Nothing new. No defense is 100% foolproof against attack and infiltration – no matter how much money you spend. The US and for that matter, the Russians and Chinese have always been vulnerable to someone smuggling a nuke in. What stopped it was agreement (The 4th Protocol) that smuggling one in or detection of enemy nukes being tried to be smuggled in would trigger all-out nuclear war.

The Neocons keep saying that unlike Hitler being deterred from using chem warfare or the Soviets deterred from smuggling in “decapitation nukes” against China’s leaders – the Mighty 10-foot tall Muslims are Undeterrable. And Our Only Chance is impervious defense and preemptive war. Which ignores that the Ummah would not like to be blown up, Mecca made a crater and several tens of millions of “innocent civilians” incinerated
because they gave some hotheads a few nukes.

That said, it is harmful for the US to make illegal drugs and illegal immigrant smuggling so profitable that American demand dollars help create sophisticated smuggling networks in place that enemy agents can exploit.

Oct 20, 2008 - 2:01 pm 18. Lifeofthemind:

@Alan Burton,
Interesting. May I suggest that you take the time to write up 2500 words and see if Naval Institute Proceedings will look at it?

Oct 20, 2008 - 2:20 pm 19. kabud:

same vessels will be or already were used to bring in tonnes of bioweapon substances and many more other WMD

russians built those subs

drugs should be legalized: it will make it obsolete to smuggle and kgb drug empire will desolve

Oct 20, 2008 - 2:25 pm 20. deguello:

To All: The most dangerous mind-corroding drug today isn’t cocaine;it’s American popular “culture”.

Oct 20, 2008 - 2:48 pm 21. Rusty Iron:

I’m missing something. Why don’t we sink them?

Oct 20, 2008 - 3:39 pm 22. Joshua II:

ken magalnik (#4): Note to the author:
When digging up biblical references, it is best to pick one that doesn’t cast your side as the bad guys. I’m just saying.

Um, Ken, the author didn’t cast our side as the bad guy. He did cast the sub-smugglers as “David” vs. our “Goliath”, but he also explicitly said that in this case “David” is the villain.

Oct 20, 2008 - 4:18 pm 23. Shef Rogers:

I had to laugh out loud when I realized the Feds are the “David” in this story. If conservatives stand for personal freedom, how in the world can we support massive government repression over people’s choice of intoxicant? If you’d told the Founding Fathers that drugs like opium would be illegal in America, they’d have said you were crazy.

Oct 20, 2008 - 4:32 pm 24. kabud:

drugs are bad but in our situation we should resort to legalize first, then put it under proper control then phase it out it in a smart way

and not because we approve of drugs but because it is a mater of national security

well with a budget of around 50 billion a year war on drugs is winning the battle with American People

we have to realize that WARONDRUGS fights for the interest of organized crime and corrupted politicians

against

me and you

Oct 20, 2008 - 7:21 pm 25. myth buster:

I’m with the just blow them out of the water crowd. Time to see how well those Mark 48 torpedoes work against live targets. Send a few Los Angelos and Seawolf Class attack subs after them, and watch them get blown out of the water. As for nuke smuggling, the good news is that the sub would have to surface before they could detonate a nuclear weapon; otherwise the water would absorb the blast instead of the intended target. Furthermore, they would have to surface inside of a harbor in order to get a major city within range. A detonation on water leaves only minor fallout because the water droplets either quickly fall back to earth over the target area, or they wind up in the upper troposphere in clouds, where the radioisotopes may have several days to dissipate their radiation.

Oct 20, 2008 - 8:19 pm 26. Marc Malone:

I believe there is plenty of legal justification for simply shooting first and asking questions later. I’m no maritime legal expert, but the military history I’ve read gives a reason for the requirement of flying a flag. Anyone who does not state his alignment by flying a flag is a hostile enemy in your waters. Fire a broadside!

Oct 20, 2008 - 11:26 pm 27. Phineas Worthington:

Weren’t the signatures of many who signed the Declaration of Independence those of criminal smugglers?

And isn’t a key difference between the war on drugs and the war on terror that no one consumes terror voluntarily?

Oct 21, 2008 - 3:13 am 28. Dave:

Drug war–

some define it as ‘government attempts to interdict supply’..

I define it as ‘people using drugs that wreck them physically, cause mental illness and make their behavior irrational.’

NOT exactly something our society can tolerate. Cocaine wrecks you mentally and physically. Opiates, when kicked in, make you drowsy and physically slow. What, you’re going to make a law that says they can’t drive or operate heavy machinery while on opiates? In the first place, laws don’t stop drunk driving. In the second place, opiates are something you have to be on ALL THE TIME once you’re hooked, or else it’s withdrawal. Opiates are worse than alcohol, which most drunks can stop drinking for several hours in the morning.

And dope smoking is like smoking twenty packs of cigarettes a day. Eventually an addict (not everyone gets addicted to dope, of course) is a physical wreck who will need publicly financed medical care for emphysema or stroke or cancer, because he’s spent all his money on dope and can’t hold a job.

These are NOT OPTIONS for any society which wishes to remain productive and self-determinative. Drugs, more or less, create slaves. Make them legal and you have ’subsidized’ them, and you’ve vastly expanded the number of dangerous or useless people to be cared for and fed by the rest of us.

There are only drunk drivers now, in excess, because it’s not illegal to drink. Imagine how many dangerous drivers you’ll have at late stage cocaine addiction, opiate addiction and so forth. People lose their MINDS over this stuff. Do you want to work with them, drive with them, care for them, feed them?

It’s bad enough now. Without the putative attempts by our government to protect some of us from the rest of us by interdicting, America could change so radically that you wouldn’t recognize it in twenty five years.

Oct 21, 2008 - 5:28 am 29. Thatguy:

How expensive are 3″ shells? Stealthy craft, from a foreign country, probably armed, shoot first.

Oct 21, 2008 - 7:15 am 30. BattleofthePyramids:

These are problems with simple solutions: Execute drug addicts. Institute mandatory nationwide drug testing with mandatory natiuonwide executions for drug use, and the drug profits will stop. Simple as that. As for the cries of civil liberties, sorry, but if we expect soldiers and policemen to risk their lives to stop drugs, we should certainly put the lives of drug users at risk as well.

Oct 21, 2008 - 12:54 pm 31. Shef Rogers:

Comment #30 does a wonderful job of illustrating the difference between conservatives and fascists.

Oct 21, 2008 - 3:49 pm 32. Dave:

Having been addicted to opiate painkiller pills, I very heartily oppose execution, or even beatings or torture. Withdrawal is quite torture enough, thanks. Most addiction begins in circumstances such that by the time we realize we’re addicted, it’s too late to stop.

so, under the circumstances of addiction, I’d like to amend #30 to propose that only non-addicted ‘weekend recreational users’ of this sort of drug be executed.

but seriously, folks. I did get off them, and without robbing anyone or running over any children.

YOu know why? Because I came up against choices I COULD NOT MAKE, and getting off the drugs was easier than becoming a thug and a criminal.

If you remove the barriers of law, and therefore approve of and subsidize addiction, you put many millions more people in a bad place, people who right now are NOT there because they want to be good citizens. With legalized drugs, nobody will feel they shouldn’t use drugs. The country would eventually collapse under the weight of mentally ill and otherwise useless people.

Oct 21, 2008 - 5:08 pm 33. Marc Malone:

Phineas Wothington – Define criminal smugglers. Back in 1761, King George V declared the colonies to be in rebellion, because they were crying out from everything having to be shipped to England, before it could be shipped to anywhere in the colonies. The colonists took to smuggling to avoid this onerous cost and time (it took about 3 months, roundtrip) burden. That’s what the Boston Tea Party was about. The “smugglers weren’t dealing in anything illicit, but just trying to engage in normal commerec without the gross interference by government and the King’s favored big-business cronies.

Oct 23, 2008 - 2:04 am 34. Sea Links « New Wars:

[...] Drug Subs: David and Goliath on the High Seas. [...]

Oct 24, 2008 - 2:47 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: