Backcountry Drug War(biographic.com)
biographic.com
Backcountry Drug War
https://www.biographic.com/posts/sto/backcountry-drug-war
49 comments
The article claims that the drugs are grown for sale into out of state black markets, so legalization is having an impact, but it will need to be legalized federally to put the illegal grows out of operation.
This is so tragic. I wonder if legalizing the recreational use of pot nationally will take enough of the profits out of it to reduce demand for this kind of illegal grow site.
Well certainly nobody feels its necessary to run illegal corn growing operations in national parks. But as long as legalized drugs have a significant price premium over black market drugs, then incentives for this behavior would still be in place.
Well we dont really see illegal tobacco growing operations despite the significant tax burden. The significant price premium must be significantly above the cost of production.
The stigma against smoking tobacco is increasing more and more though, and there is an increasingly popular and cheaper nicotine alternative in vaping.
We do see black market tobacco sales, however.
But only smuggled. We also dont see commercially viable Heroin production and poppy cultivation in the destination countries, despite the favorable climate. Growing and producing some drugs inland is just not a viable option, despite an significant price premium caused by smuggling.
Counter point: I can probably brew alcohol for cheaper than I can buy it. But the convenience, availability, and legality makes up for the cost.
It's not illegal to brew your own alcohol, and it's easy to get started, it's just difficult and time-consuming to do well.
(Although it is illegal to distill without a licence).
(Although it is illegal to distill without a licence).
It's not illegal to grow marijuana in my state, and while I know quite a few people that use marijuana recreationally or medically, I only know of a few that grow it themselves even though it's not particularly difficult.
It’s actually laughably easy. I did it once. I had zero gardening experience but did this indoors in a walk-in closet. It probably took a total of a regular work week of actual work and a few days of research beforehand, and I got over 1/4 lb. and was very high quality. But the main thing I got from it was a love of gardening haha.
alcohol is a bit different than other drugs in that people also appreciate it as a culinary experience. most users of other drugs are not willing to pay 2-10x as much for the same drug in a better tasting form.
Having been to a legal marijuana shop and having had several pothead friends growing up I can confirm that marijuana users have all kinds of appreciation for culinary aspects of their drug. That's obviously different with pharma drugs, but for plants I think there's a comparison.
honestly I would believe this, but in my experience people are spending the extra money to get strains that are either more potent or have different subjective effects. I've never known anyone who would pay $100 for a gram just for it to taste good.
Lots and lots of stoners would disagree with you. Maybe this isn’t true for some things, but I remembers when ecstasy was really popular hearing people talk about different kinds.
As far as I know making alcohol is much more work than growing weed though.
Alcohol is really easy to brew and relatively easy to distill. Now, making good alcohol is another story.
But for that matter, growing good weed is another story and properly dry-curing it is too (it's not as simple as dehydrating the crap out of it to get good pot for smoking).
But for that matter, growing good weed is another story and properly dry-curing it is too (it's not as simple as dehydrating the crap out of it to get good pot for smoking).
Exactly. Growing extremely high quality weed is a piece of cake. The plant does all the work, and all you have to pay it is light and water (a large amount). Those things are mostly invincible.
leave juice out in an area with yeast (so... almost anywhere) and the juice will ferment. You'll get more alcohol faster if you dump in some yeast (even the stuff for making bread would work, if we are trying to do this without anything designed to make alcohol)
It probably will be super gross at this point, but will get you drunk.
Search amazon for 'countertop water distiller' for under a hundred bucks, they'll ship you a "countertop water distiller" - run your spoilt juice through that thing a few times, and i'm not saying it will be good vodka; it won't... but it will be mostly alcohol, and it will be something you could probably choke down when mixed with something that tastes strong enough.
I mean, making booze that tastes good, that's an art. but if you just wanna get drunk? Probably easier than making decent bread.
It probably will be super gross at this point, but will get you drunk.
Search amazon for 'countertop water distiller' for under a hundred bucks, they'll ship you a "countertop water distiller" - run your spoilt juice through that thing a few times, and i'm not saying it will be good vodka; it won't... but it will be mostly alcohol, and it will be something you could probably choke down when mixed with something that tastes strong enough.
I mean, making booze that tastes good, that's an art. but if you just wanna get drunk? Probably easier than making decent bread.
I doubt you can, considering your opportunity cost.
Counter Counter Point: The supply chain has been a place for a long time and is pretty convenient, I'd say even more so.
Well, illegal growing in a state where marijuana is legal seems strange but if you read the article, the grows described here are primarily targeting the illegal markets in other states.
That isn't entirely true. There's a thriving black and grey market around THC oil today, in particular, in California. Counterfeits are a well-known problem. It's not improbable to think that the oil for those counterfeits could come from illegal grow ops.
Anecdotally... Many of my neighbors started smoking when it was legalized here. Neighbors on both sides toke pretty much every day in their backyards. Well actually at first they vaped mostly, that wasn't so noxious, just occasionally caught a whiff of it. Now it seems they have figured out they can buy weed from the resident dealer for a lot less without all those pesky taxes, at least I see them talking to him a lot more often these days.
I could think you could look at the end of Prohibition as a similar case study. Is there still illegal alcohol? For sure. But, it is far less profitable and far less violent than it was during Prohibition.
That said, I'm fine with legalizing marijuana. Not so much so with the likes of cocaine, meth or heroine. Soft drugs, sure, hard drugs, keep a leash on it.
That said, I'm fine with legalizing marijuana. Not so much so with the likes of cocaine, meth or heroine. Soft drugs, sure, hard drugs, keep a leash on it.
> That said, I'm fine with legalizing marijuana. Not so much so with the likes of cocaine, meth or heroine. Soft drugs, sure, hard drugs, keep a leash on it.
I realize that this is becoming a popular opinion, but why? I almost understand the full prohibition mindset more.
as long as there are any illegal drugs with strong demand, people are going to get killed over it. legalizing weed isn't going to make much difference; there's way more money in the hard stuff.
so I gotta ask, do you think you will personally be hurt if hard drugs are legal (or even decriminalized), or are you taking it upon yourself to protect other people from themselves?
I realize that this is becoming a popular opinion, but why? I almost understand the full prohibition mindset more.
as long as there are any illegal drugs with strong demand, people are going to get killed over it. legalizing weed isn't going to make much difference; there's way more money in the hard stuff.
so I gotta ask, do you think you will personally be hurt if hard drugs are legal (or even decriminalized), or are you taking it upon yourself to protect other people from themselves?
Is it wrong to want the others around you to not have access to drugs that can destroy their lives?
I'm of the legalize everything mindset, but heroin (and fentanyl) have killed many people I personally know. Weed has not. It is not illogical for people to want to treat them differently.
I'm of the legalize everything mindset, but heroin (and fentanyl) have killed many people I personally know. Weed has not. It is not illogical for people to want to treat them differently.
Trying to keep the drugs out is clearly not working though. Someone who wants the drugs will always find a way to get access to them. Even in prisons people manage to get to drugs. If we can't even keep them out of an environment that's as controlled as a prison... Meanwhile lots of harm comes from unreliable quality of drugs. This is something that a regulated market is well suited to address.
In addition, it seems like drugs are frequently more of a symptom than the root cause of problems. Happy people with a fulfilled life rarely OD.
In addition, it seems like drugs are frequently more of a symptom than the root cause of problems. Happy people with a fulfilled life rarely OD.
Not wrong at all, but not wanting others to have access to drugs and supporting laws that marginally accomplish it at great cost (esp. to other people who may not be around you) are two different things.
> Is it wrong to want the others around you to not have access to drugs that can destroy their lives?
it's fine for you to want that; it's not okay for you to support the use of state violence to make it so.
I also have lost many friends and years of my own life to heroin. worrying about the cops didn't help any of us.
it's fine for you to want that; it's not okay for you to support the use of state violence to make it so.
I also have lost many friends and years of my own life to heroin. worrying about the cops didn't help any of us.
> I realize that this is becoming a popular opinion, but why? I almost understand the full prohibition mindset more.
I was simply trying to explain why. I think the full prohibition mindset makes no sense personally. It would include more state violence, so I am confused why you think that is as valid as the parent comment's opinion of treating each drug differently.
I was simply trying to explain why. I think the full prohibition mindset makes no sense personally. It would include more state violence, so I am confused why you think that is as valid as the parent comment's opinion of treating each drug differently.
You can decriminalize possession of small quantities but still make the drug's production and distribution illegal. Instead of state violence (which is basically moot in a decriminalized use environment), let's talk about the violence of addiction [to hard drugs]. It does violence to mind, body, family and many other things.
> You can decriminalize possession of small quantities but still make the drug's production and distribution illegal.
sure, this at least makes it possible for drug users to seek help without fearing legal repercussions, but it doesn't do much to stop people from overdosing due to inconsistent purity and nasty cuts (eg, fentanyl and friends). it does nothing to stop the killings in source countries and poor communities where drugs are sold.
sure, this at least makes it possible for drug users to seek help without fearing legal repercussions, but it doesn't do much to stop people from overdosing due to inconsistent purity and nasty cuts (eg, fentanyl and friends). it does nothing to stop the killings in source countries and poor communities where drugs are sold.
I'm sorry for your loss.
No one is getting killed by fentanyl on purpose - those deaths are the direct result of prohibition. Until it is legal to buy clean drugs, people will continue to be killed by dirty drugs.
No one is getting killed by fentanyl on purpose - those deaths are the direct result of prohibition. Until it is legal to buy clean drugs, people will continue to be killed by dirty drugs.
I'm afraid the analogy to prohibition doesn't work.
Following the end of prohibition, beer truck drivers became beer truck drivers, bartenders became bartenders, but the violent criminals moved into other rackets: drugs, prostitution, gambling, extortion, and the big one corruption. What are the violent element and the large number of financially distressed workers in the rural pot industry going to do?
Once you create a criminal class, it does not go away. Only the Chinese, the Filipino, and the Argentine governments have found the means to eliminate these classes. Their means are far too brutal to mention here. I would never advocate them. We are mostly helpless.
I live in Mexico half the year. Once pot is legalized on a widespread basis, these *s will show up at my door demanding $100 a month or else.
Don't get me wrong as I believe there is nothing we can do. Perhaps improving the situation with vigorous law enforcement would keep the problem under control.
Following the end of prohibition, beer truck drivers became beer truck drivers, bartenders became bartenders, but the violent criminals moved into other rackets: drugs, prostitution, gambling, extortion, and the big one corruption. What are the violent element and the large number of financially distressed workers in the rural pot industry going to do?
Once you create a criminal class, it does not go away. Only the Chinese, the Filipino, and the Argentine governments have found the means to eliminate these classes. Their means are far too brutal to mention here. I would never advocate them. We are mostly helpless.
I live in Mexico half the year. Once pot is legalized on a widespread basis, these *s will show up at my door demanding $100 a month or else.
Don't get me wrong as I believe there is nothing we can do. Perhaps improving the situation with vigorous law enforcement would keep the problem under control.
All forms of crime are not fungible. Drug prohibition is hard to enforce because none of the parties involved object to the transaction. Extortion rackets are not scalable - at least one party is inclined to look at law enforcement as the hero in the story. Corruption isn't something you just set up on a street corner. Prostitution isn't that big of a business and at the end of the day, the prostitutes really don't need you. Gambling is already legal pretty much anywhere there's an Indian reservation (here in the US, at any rate).
The criminal class may not go away immediately, but you can take away most of their income. No other form of crime is as lucrative. Drugs really are special.
The criminal class may not go away immediately, but you can take away most of their income. No other form of crime is as lucrative. Drugs really are special.
While it feels odd to be advocating surveillance, a massive network of UAVs equipped with infrared imaging would be very useful here.
Have that same network double as forest fire early warning, and it'd probably pay for itself.
Have that same network double as forest fire early warning, and it'd probably pay for itself.
Having grown up in Western Montana in the 80s and 90s on the edge of the national forest, we became very accustomed to having unmarked black helicopters flying low and slow over our land. Closest thing to nefarious was my brother & I taking shots at soda cans with the .22 rifle & 20 gauge shotgun.
We also had low and slow flying Cessnas for fire spotting, and we were also in the flight line of retardant bombers flying south. So, summers were generally pretty noisy for us as far as aircraft noise goes. The Cessnas & retardant bombers were flying so low, slow & close to the house, you could read the tail numbers with your naked eye. The old bombers in particular really stuggled to gain altitude. We were about 20 miles from the airport, and about 1000 feet over the value floor, and they were seldom higher than straight out horizontal from our deck.
Don't need UAVs for forest fire detection - already have MODIS [0] (and other) satellite imagery for that. New fires are detected via infrared usually in less than 24 hours.
[0] https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/
We also had low and slow flying Cessnas for fire spotting, and we were also in the flight line of retardant bombers flying south. So, summers were generally pretty noisy for us as far as aircraft noise goes. The Cessnas & retardant bombers were flying so low, slow & close to the house, you could read the tail numbers with your naked eye. The old bombers in particular really stuggled to gain altitude. We were about 20 miles from the airport, and about 1000 feet over the value floor, and they were seldom higher than straight out horizontal from our deck.
Don't need UAVs for forest fire detection - already have MODIS [0] (and other) satellite imagery for that. New fires are detected via infrared usually in less than 24 hours.
[0] https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/
>New fires are detected via infrared usually in less than 24 hours.
That's not enough. Per the forecasted fire danger map[0]:
"Extreme - Fires start quickly, spread furiously, and burn intensely. All fires are potentially serious. Development into high intensity burning will usually be faster and occur from smaller fires than in the very high fire danger class. Direct attack is rarely possible and may be dangerous except immediately after ignition."
The lesser two classes have similar narratives. Given the speed at which fire spreads, earlier the detection the merrier.
As an aside, I was going to suggest artillery as a potential candidate for immediate response, but it seems that's already been thought up.[1]
[0] https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/current.php?sensor=modis&extent=...
[1] https://wildfiretoday.com/2016/08/25/boeing-wants-to-fight-w...
That's not enough. Per the forecasted fire danger map[0]:
"Extreme - Fires start quickly, spread furiously, and burn intensely. All fires are potentially serious. Development into high intensity burning will usually be faster and occur from smaller fires than in the very high fire danger class. Direct attack is rarely possible and may be dangerous except immediately after ignition."
The lesser two classes have similar narratives. Given the speed at which fire spreads, earlier the detection the merrier.
As an aside, I was going to suggest artillery as a potential candidate for immediate response, but it seems that's already been thought up.[1]
[0] https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/current.php?sensor=modis&extent=...
[1] https://wildfiretoday.com/2016/08/25/boeing-wants-to-fight-w...
Generally, fires that start close to populated areas are reported quickly, in my experience. And are responded to fairly well.
Last year, a slow moving fire in Montana that started from lightening ended up costing my parents' home after it made a small move, out of town hotspots made a shit call and lit a back burn on a Western facing slope, and then just watched it all burn down in the heat of afternoon and the height of eastern blowing winds. In other words, they lit the fire, expecting it to go west, but hot, dry winds blowing to the east blew it right onto the areas they sought to protect. Lawsuit is still pending, but my parents are at least covered by insurance, but the FWS also showed growes negligence that day, in my opinion.
Prior to that experience, we'd had 3 or 4 lightning strikes in the area. All reported locally, and crews were on site within 48 hours. Difference was, this time, the strike was in very difficult terrain, they couldnt get to it, so they let it burn. They put in fire breaks and ran hoses for sprinklers along the firebreak, but they didn't even have the lines charged for the sprinklers when they lit the back burn. Then, like I said, they just watched while homes burned that they had setup to protect.
Last year, a slow moving fire in Montana that started from lightening ended up costing my parents' home after it made a small move, out of town hotspots made a shit call and lit a back burn on a Western facing slope, and then just watched it all burn down in the heat of afternoon and the height of eastern blowing winds. In other words, they lit the fire, expecting it to go west, but hot, dry winds blowing to the east blew it right onto the areas they sought to protect. Lawsuit is still pending, but my parents are at least covered by insurance, but the FWS also showed growes negligence that day, in my opinion.
Prior to that experience, we'd had 3 or 4 lightning strikes in the area. All reported locally, and crews were on site within 48 hours. Difference was, this time, the strike was in very difficult terrain, they couldnt get to it, so they let it burn. They put in fire breaks and ran hoses for sprinklers along the firebreak, but they didn't even have the lines charged for the sprinklers when they lit the back burn. Then, like I said, they just watched while homes burned that they had setup to protect.
Lots of companies are building constellations of small satellites and advertising how their imagery can be used for agricultural purposes. Assuming this stuff needs the sky to grow well and can't be grown under tree cover then changes could be observed.
No, just a bigger waste of money. When I was growing up in the 90s in upstate ny, they constantly had helicopters and other vehicles looking for grow operations around our house.
Keep taking the money out of it, and these people will go away.
Keep taking the money out of it, and these people will go away.
So I can't view the site in a mobile browser without rotating to portrait "please rotate your device", and when I force desktop browser, I can't zoom.
Why do sites do things like this?
Why do sites do things like this?
I can't even open the site in Firefox. Had to get the text-only version from Google cache. And yes, why make it so hard to read (you know) text?
Hmm, viewabiliy okay for me on Nexus 7 tablet, with Firefox.
OTOH, both copy-paste and reader mode are broken.
OTOH, both copy-paste and reader mode are broken.
>Why do sites do things like this?
My guess? Because the ads they are serving aren't mobile-responsive, this forces you to see them as is.
My guess? Because the ads they are serving aren't mobile-responsive, this forces you to see them as is.
It's a problem because I like hiking up there but there are no go zones where you have to be afraid of running across pot growers or meth labs. Fortunately at least they aren't interested in the higher altitude areas. But a good part of the land in the county is simply public land (there's only one town in the county) so you have to be a local to stay out of trouble.