Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Mexican Cartel's Hi-Tech Drug Tunnels

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the demand-based-technology dept.

Crime 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."

cancel ×

448 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Spics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343660)

Why are there no Mexican Olympics? All the Mexicans who can run, swim, and jump are already in the USA.

They're not illegal aliens. They're unregistered Democrats!

Re:Spics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343918)

How did they hire anyone to build this thing? From the have Casa Depot parking lot?

Re:Spics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344226)

Flaming Troll Alert

Re:Spics (1, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344276)

Why are there no Mexican Olympics? All the Mexicans who can run, swim, and jump are already in the USA.

In Texas it's popular to call Mexicans "wetbacks", because some of them got there by crossing the Rio Grande.

I'd like to ask the AC poster how much water *his* ancestors crossed to get here.

Sounds like (4, Funny)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343674)

somebody has been playing too much minecraft!

Re:Sounds like (5, Funny)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343714)

Funny I was thinking they watched too much Hogan's Heros.

Re:Sounds like (5, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343752)

I really like how the Mole People are pinning this on the Mexicans. They are obviously more clever than I thought they were.

Re:Sounds like (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343768)

I thought of a version of Breaking Bad, were Walt is a mining engineer.

Re:Sounds like (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343826)

This might work as a game mode, where everything would have a local price. Few teams would secretly burrow, one team would build fences and vandalize. (i forgot how minecraft vandalism is called)

Re:Sounds like (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343870)

It's called "griefing".

Re:Sounds like (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344262)

Some griefers are professionals too.

Why build a tunnel to smuggle drugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344206)

An easier solution would be bury a small diameter pipe and to dissolve the drugs in water and pump from Mexico

Re:Why build a tunnel to smuggle drugs? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344334)

An easier solution would be bury a small diameter pipe and to dissolve the drugs in water and pump from Mexico

You would then be infringing on the Oil Company's turf. You don't want to do that. They make the Narco boys look like prissy little angels.

Ah, the war on drugs... (5, Funny)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Ah, the war on drugs... (3, Interesting)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343780)

Why does Amerikuh hates the holy Free Market?!!!

Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343812)

Libertarian bumpersticker:

-- Drugs Not Thugs --

Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344348)

Libertarian bumpersticker:

-- Drugs Not Thugs --

I think "Drugs AND Thugs" would be more appropriate.

Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343846)

2x the number in 1/3 the time, we are already 6x more effective!

I think you sir, are right!

And so does my sock puppet binki. He also tells me than anchovies are actually from mars, here to take over the world, and that politicians and corporate executives really do have our best interest at heart, and aren't at all a bunch of greedy, black-hearted, selfish pricks.

Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343942)

Support American Farmers
Boycott Mexican Dirt Weed

Re:Ah, the war on drugs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344320)

Seriously dude, a trustworthy "Grown in the USA" label would be most appreciated.

It's working (5, Funny)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343712)

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

Re:It's working (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343808)

Just like the war on spelling.

Re:It's working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343896)

Nah, we lost that one in September of 1993.

Re:It's working (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343912)

http://www.ldoceonline.com/popup/popupmode.html?search_str=immanent
It's almost a perfect pun, regardless of whether it was accidental.

Re:It's working (3, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344142)

Hay! Knot owl off use half spill chuckers!

Re:It's working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343878)

Luckily is completely legal to smoke cannabis everywhere in the world or they would never win that war.

Re:It's working (4, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's working (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344114)

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 (4, Insightful)

b0bby (201198) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's working (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343916)

I love the way people blame the War on Drugs for all of the related problems.

If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff then the cartel's main income would dry up within a month, compared to the years to decades it'll take to convince the USA and other nations to legalise the stuff.

If you want to take drugs that's fine, it's your choice. But it's also your choice to give the money to the people who commit these crimes. Are the thrills really worth that, or do the users just not give a damn what they're doing to the Mexican people so long as they have their fun?

Re:It's working (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344048)

If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff

But they won't. Any other fantasies you'd like to share?

Re:It's working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344176)

> If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff

1) Take drugs
2) Write comment about people getting clean by denying payment for drugs
3) ...
4) Take more drugs

Re:It's working (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344244)

Are the thrills really worth that, or do the users just not give a damn what they're doing to the Mexican people so long as they have their fun?

Yes, and yes. Any other stupid questions?

Re:It's working (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344266)

I love the way people blame the War on Drugs for all of the related problems.

It is responsible for all the related problems.

If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff then the cartel's main income would dry up within a month

Yeah, and if the cat would stop puking on the floor I wouldn't have to clean it up. The same was said about alcohol in the 1920s, but guess what? Alcohol consumption doubled during prohibition. People have been intoxicating themselves since before they were people, and they're not going to stop just because some idiot writes a law against it.

The only way you're going to stop the violence, graft, corruption, and all the other ills caused by the drug laws is how we stopped it in 1933 -- legalize, tax, and regulate. You'd have far fewer heroin overdoses if purity was standardized.

If crack was legal and crackheads could buy the stuff for a dollat an ounce they wouldn't have to break into my house to support their habits. The drug laws are counterproductive and insane.

Re:It's working (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344462)

It is responsible for all the related problems.

If crack was legal and crackheads could buy the stuff for a dollat an ounce they wouldn't have to break into my house to support their habits.

Hang on, how is a crack-head's addiction a consequence of the war on drugs? There are alcoholics even though alcohol is legal. The war on drugs doesn't create addiction, the drugs themselves and the reactions of the user do. I can't see why you think the WoD is "responsible for all the related problems" where drugs are concerned. If anything freely, legally available and cheap drugs of assured purity would probably only increase the number of addicts, not reduce it.

Yeah, and if the cat would stop puking on the floor I wouldn't have to clean it up.

And if the politicians would legalise.....and if things were regulated....and if the purity was guaranteed...and if it was a dollar an ounce...

I'm not saying people need to stop taking drugs full stop: like I said earlier it's your choice. But you've got to acknowledge the consequences of that choice further back in the production line. Yeah, maybe legalisation would make everything better, but it's also not going to happen anytime soon. Kicking your habit can happen today, though, unless you don't care about what the cartels are doing to people with the money you're giving them, at which point I think you've lost the objectivity to properly consider a change in the laws on drugs.

Re:It's working (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's working (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344172)

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 influence fades off. But for us to replace those people is another couple of decades, so bear on I guess.

Re:It's working (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344448)

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.

Guillermo... (2)

broginator (1955750) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343728)

...Garcia Gomez unavailable for comment.

Sophicated? (1, Troll)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343758)

1900's tech is sophisticated?

Concealed (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343860)

As TWX's comment [slashdot.org] appears to imply, it's not the tunnel tech but the concealment tech that's sophisticated.

Re:Concealed (1, Flamebait)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344180)

So again "sophisticated" there isn't anything sophisticated about any of the things mentioned, though I would allow some moronic Texas cop might think so, but calling it sophisticated is truly stretching the word.

Re:Sophicated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343876)

Uh, yes? Do you have any idea the amount of complexity and sophistication it took the human race to get there? You dumbfuck, you couldn't even grow a potato on your own and you're being dismissive? When was the maiden flight of the 747? The F-15? Idiot.

Geek In Us All (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Geek In Us All (5, Funny)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343908)

Like the guys at wall street.

Re:Geek In Us All (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Geek In Us All (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343976)

> 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 restrict the activity in question. It is no more unethical to transmit contraband over a border than escaped slaves, in some people's minds (including my own).

On the other hand..... these cartels are not just moving drugs, they often expand their business, traffic human beings AS slaves. etc. Some people have moral and ethical problems with that, even if they don't have one with the border subversion and drug trafficking.

Between that and the very practical matter of working for people who may bury you in a ditch if you mess up, yet are willing to name names themselves and tell the courts how you built them an amazing tunnel when its their ass on the line? Who needs ethics or morals to decide working for them is just a bad idea. Thats now cowardice, thats sanity.

Re:Geek In Us All (2)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344086)

Have you seen some of the research into serial killings? One study [physorg.com] 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 noses" and we're all happy that it's over, but in reality it just keeps going with some other criminal a little ways down the road...

Re:Geek In Us All (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344474)

I interviewed w/ a publisher in Philadelphia, and one of the things which appealed to me about the work-place was that the door to the conference room was hidden as one set of shelves in a wall of bookshelves.

William

We won! (4, Funny)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343786)

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

Re:We won! (5, Funny)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344132)

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

In other news, after the 250 pounds of blow was submitted into evidence, a flood of cheap blow somehow made its way onto the streets.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343790)

Hogan!!!

Re:Obligatory (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343932)

I see nothing! I know nothing!

- Schultz

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

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#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... (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343862)

...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's not as easy as you think. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343994)

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... (3, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 [npr.org]

As always ... legalize it and tax it. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:As always ... legalize it and tax it. (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344236)

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 crime...

Re:As always ... legalize it and tax it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344340)

Hmmm, is this based on the effects of mind altering drugs or "gasp" sound reasoning? We have to put a stop to both!

Sincerely,
Your Government

Re:You'd think... (3, Insightful)

didacticotl (1645097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344074)

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.

Re:You'd think... (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344256)

Pharmaceutical interests?

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

Re:You'd think... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344452)

Although, weed is a completely different story than cocaine.

Cocaine is God's way of telling you you have too damned much money. If it were legal it would be cheaper and maybe the crackheads would stop burglarizing my house.

Has nobody noticed that although it's legal, tobacco use has steadily fallen in the last 40 years, while use of the illegal weed has increased?

Re:You'd think... (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344080)

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)...is 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?

Re:You'd think... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344436)

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.

Maybe so, but even a sub-optimal scheme would be far better than what we're inflicting on ourselves now.

Re:You'd think... (0)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344102)

Problem is, nicotine are in and our of your system relatively quick. THC stays in the body much longer, with varying effect. Some people report "flashback" highs, days or weeks later after using the drug. Also, if suspected of DUI, a test could reveal positive for THC even if the person has not used it recently.

Re:You'd think... (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344122)

Ugh, that should say "alcohol and nicotine".

Re:You'd think... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344292)

Flashback highs? Methinks you've never actually partook.

Re:You'd think... (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344394)

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.

Mx Engineering (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343810)

En resumen, hay muy buenos ingenieros en mexico...

All about the drugs, guns and gasoline .... (5, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343838)

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

Re:All about the drugs, guns and gasoline .... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344460)

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

Some pundits say that the biggest worry of US financial interests is that the international drug and arms markets will switch from the dollar to the Euro.

(Though I suppose they can sleep better now, with the Euro-union in such wobbly state.)

the all new anti-tunnel, ditch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343888)

just build a deep ditch at the border, 1m wide, 50m down, with bridges over.

Re:the all new anti-tunnel, ditch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343984)

m as in meter or mile?

Re:the all new anti-tunnel, ditch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344290)

just build a deep ditch at the border, 1m wide, 50m down, with bridges over.

Sweet! We'll call this new ditch the "dilhole canal" in honor of you, the dilhole that suggested it. Oh, and enjoy the submarines now cruising in the dilhole canal.

Satellites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343928)

It seems to me that I remember that SAC released some images of the aquifers from the Nile to show off the underground sensing capability of the satellites.

Why isn't this technology being used to discover these tunnel complexes?

Finally a use for all those fancy bunker-busters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38343944)

Sounds like what you need is a DMZ with Mexico that you just periodically pummel the shit out of.

Eventually, you may even get your very own Panama Canal.

It's just like Prohibition! (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343952)

Only now, we're giving power to Mexican Cartels instead of Al Capones.

Re:It's just like Prohibition! (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344158)

Damned outsourcing!

Re:It's just like Prohibition! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344476)

Only now, we're giving power to Mexican Cartels instead of Al Capones.

Plenty of gangs in the USA too.

Whenever you hear on the news about a "gang killing", it's probably actually a "drug-money killing".

Perfect spot for underground explosives tests... (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38343954)

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.

Re:Perfect spot for underground explosives tests.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344050)

>You can't dig a tunnel through sand.

The Boston subway system (built in the 19th century) would disagree.

Re:Perfect spot for underground explosives tests.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344070)

That's a lot of border to monitor and it will just mean that the cartels switch to another method of transporting their drugs. There's no way to stop it. Some is always going to get through.

Re:Perfect spot for underground explosives tests.. (2)

Eyeballs (64172) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344108)

It can be done if you use a 'Tunnel Shield':
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/tunnel/challenge/sand/shield.html

Re:Perfect spot for underground explosives tests.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344178)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border).

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnelling_shield).

Like I said, just minor quibbles really.

Re:Perfect spot for underground explosives tests.. (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344194)

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.

Re:Perfect spot for underground explosives tests.. (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344204)

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.

What a waste of time/money (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Ban Assault Shovels! (5, Funny)

niko9 (315647) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344106)

We should obviously BAN illegal assault shovels! No citizen needs a shovel that's painted black and has rubber grip with finger grooves! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202562616/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Or one with a adjustable handle! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202819477/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) 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.

The first to build a Star Trek transporter . . . (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344148)

. . . 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.

An endless task, discovering tunnels (1)

rentadeautos (2530066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344166)

Hello everyone. The drugs are a big problem for Mexico and the US. Today Mexico is working hard on discovering these tunnels. Nevertheless I think this is an endless task. The problem with the drugs will endure forever because there are so many people in the U.S. that consume drugs. The drug lords will always find ways to transport the drugs into the U.S. Recently, I heard from a friend that the drug lords tried to rent 20 cars to this company http://www.iubik.com/renta-de-autos-en-mexico.php [iubik.com] in Tijuana. They discovered that there was something strange with the guys before they gave the cars away. Nevertheless, what I want to express is that the business is so big and the consumers so much, that the drug lords will always find a way to transport the drug to the U.S. What I think would be the best strategy to control this drug issue, will be to make drugs legal in Mexico. In the Netherlands there is a law called something like: "The Blind Eyes Law" which basically states that the government will never know how drugs get into the coffee shops. Interesting isn't it?

Re:An endless task, discovering tunnels (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344444)

What I think would be the best strategy to control this drug issue, will be to make drugs legal in Mexico. In the Netherlands there is a law called something like: "The Blind Eyes Law" which basically states that the government will never know how drugs get into the coffee shops.

Interesting isn't it?

Dutch drug law is quite insane really. It's illegal to import/export/produce. But you are allowed to sell it in small quantities. Also, the penalties for "soft" drugs (mainly cannabis) are quite low. This makes people take the weaker drugs, making the weaker drugs visible makes the strong nasty stuff less attractive.

--Someone from The Netherlands, who never used drugs himself.

A Better Pipeline (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344248)

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.

Re:A Better Pipeline (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344404)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing, tho.... I don't give to shits about the feds. If they were smart, they would give up on this fools errand entirely, and realize that they created this problem by creating the huge black market. Pfizer wouldn't do this, Glaxco-Smith-Kline would produce these people out of business. There is a much simpler solution here....its called ending prohibition (again).

In the mean time.... a cocaine pipeline would be easy to build. Dissolve in vats of solvent on one end, send it through, distill the solvent out at the other end, and send it back.... assuming you want to reduce waste and recycle. Sadly as there are no evnironmental regulations on the black market, and prohibition has sent their profit margins so high, they would likely just evaporate it off or dump the left over solvent into a sump.

Another "win" for prohibition.

Why do they need tunnels? (3, Insightful)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344282)

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.

Re:Why do they need tunnels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38344402)

It'd be hilarious to see one of those pneumatic delivery systems used for moving drugs.

Re:Why do they need tunnels? (4, Informative)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38344420)

Someone (or many someones) probably are.

That's the interesting thing with this stuff. We only hear about the guys who get caught. We don't get to hear about the guys who run their operations successfully because success is pretty much defined by not getting caught.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>