Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Three Israeli nationals were arrested and accused of trying to smuggle $42 million worth of hallucinogenic Ecstasy pills to the United States from Belgium, the largest such drug seizure ever in Europe, U.S. authorities said on Wednesday.

The three men tried to smuggle 1.4 million pills inside diamond polishing tables bound for New York by ship from Antwerp, according to a statement from the office of Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Tipped off by witnesses who saw two of the men stuffing the pills into three tables inside an Antwerp warehouse in August, authorities allowed the tables to be delivered -- without the pills -- to New York where they were put under surveillance.

The three men were arrested on Tuesday as they were retrieving the tables and trying to deliver the drugs to a buyer, the statement said.

The case marks the largest Ecstasy seizure in Europe and the third largest such seizure in the United States, with a wholesale value of about $14 million and a retail value of about $42 million, officials said.

Arrested were Nachshow Sinvanni, who allegedly wanted to buy 900,000 of the pills for distribution; and Ofir Lebar and Ofir Weizman, who were spotted packing the tables with drugs in Belgium, officials said. All three men live in Israel, authorities said.

They each were charged with conspiring to import MDMA, the technical name for Ecstasy and, if convicted, face a possible prison sentence of 20 years and a $1 million fine. ((New York newsdesk, 646 223 6280))

We read lots of good stuff about Jews and Israelis here; why should the negative news be censored?

Since this poster never explains his posts, but continually posts negative stories about Jews, I believe that we are entitled to draw our own conclusion. If there is some reason for posting this article except to insinuate "Jews = Criminals," some point he is trying to make about an issue, the poster ought to have told us what it is. Since he hasn't, he has only himself to blame if he is viewed by civilized people as an antisemitic crackpot.

I don't make any assumptions about your own views, since I don't remember encountering you on FR before, but the phrasing of your remark (copied in above) is a little troublesome to me. This article is not "negative news" about Jews. It is negative news about Nachshow Sinvanni, Ofir Lebar, and Ofir Weizman, who are, as it happens, Jews. For this to be negative news about Jews, there would have to be some link between the criminal behavior of these men and the fact that they are Jews.

That is, I fear, what the poster is trying to insinuate, but I hope you will not, in the immortal words of Dan Ackroyd in Dragnet, let him drag you down into his private hell.

If these substances were legal and readily available, even more would be using them.

Not necessarily; the fact that alcohol use rose during the last several years of Prohibition shows that there is no ironclad correlation between legal status and level of use. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

But I agree the war on drugs is not fair to responsible citizens. I favor legal access for those already addicted.

Legal access for those already addicted does not address my question: "how is it moral or just to impose all the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility?" That would still place the remaining costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility.

"Not necessarily; the fact that alcohol use rose during the last several years of Prohibition shows that there is no ironclad correlation between legal status and level of use. Do you have evidence to support your claim?"

No,admittedly that was just speculation,but obviously lots of people want drugs,and I feel use would likely skyrocket if they were more readily available.

"Legal access for those already addicted does not address my question: "how is it moral or just to impose all the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility?" That would still place the remaining costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility."

I can't dispute what you are saying there,It would ideally be best if we did'nt have to protect people from their own stupidity/weaknesses.But is this reality-I don't think so.there is no shortage of idiots/weakness out there and I feel some people DO need to be protected from themselves.Either that or we can adopt a don't care attitude and let people drop like flys.That would do something for the population problem,but would show we really don't care about people.You are right though,there are some really good points for legalization,but I feel there are bad arguments for it too.It would be increased freedoms for some,but others would suffer negative impacts.

alcohol use rose during the last several years of Prohibition

obviously lots of people want drugs

They're already getting them despite the War On Some Drugs.

and I feel use would likely skyrocket if they were more readily available.

So the rest of us should bear the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs because of your fact-free "feeling"? Sounds like liberal emotionalism-as-policy to me.

I feel some people DO need to be protected from themselves.Either that or we can adopt a don't care attitude and let people drop like flys.That [...] would show we really don't care about people.

Sounds like liberal Nanny State-ism to me.

"They're already getting them despite the War On Some Drugs."

Your wish for more libertys and personal responsibilitys is commendable.It's just I feel your solutions are not realistic.Addiction to narcotics is much more rapid and compulsion to use sets in alot quicker than alcohol.You can't refute that point ace.

"So the rest of us should bear the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs because of your fact-free "feeling"? Sounds like liberal emotionalism-as-policy to me."

No,this is common sense.Look at it this way-you make an effort to keep the deadly poisons in your kitchen such as pipe cleaner out of the reach of small children.They don't have the ability to discern what they are,and need to be protected from them.But you would make no effort to keep deadly poisons out of reach of people who cannot discern what is good for them.I'm all for personal freedoms,but the fact is,with dangerous drugs,many others besides just the user are impacted.Over dose is much easier than with alcohol-no comparison.The WOD is costly no doubt.But would the costs of taking care of people addicted to narcotics be good either.You can't say don't care for them,let them die,because alot of decent people get hung up on drugs and do recover.

"I feel some people DO need to be protected from themselves.Either that or we can adopt a don't care attitude and let people drop like flys.That [...] would show we really don't care about people."

"Sounds like liberal Nanny State-ism to me."

Maybe my attitude on this issue does reek of liberal state-ism,but I am not defending the WOD,just giving my own spin on what the realitys of this situation are. As I said before,I am all for personal libertys and as little goverment control as is reasonable.I repeat reasonable. But some laws are necessary in order to have a civilized society.And some laws exist for the common good.Storm troopers busting into peoples houses in search of drugs is abhorable,this is true.Taxpayer money being wasted on the WOD is something I do not like to see.The real solution longterm would be for people to stop using drugs and there would be no market for them.This will never happen,granted,but I do not feel making them more available is a solution.
I have a friend,a fellow I worked with who is currently doing 7 years in a state pen as a result of drug addiction.He is an extremely bright young man,who was the head teller at the bank.He handed the money out at the beginning of the day,and counted it at the end.He also worked at a computer store where he was the top salesman.Drugs took over his life and he lost control quickly.He made his choices,true,but all this really impacted his family and friends.Drug users cause alot of chaos in everyones lives.The reality is drugs are poisons and they cannot be used safely.I'm all for people who are already addicted having access to them instead of having to commit crimes to get them.But no civilized country I'm aware of has legal narcotics available for anyone who desires them.There is a reason for that.

Addiction to narcotics is much more rapid and compulsion to use sets in alot quicker than alcohol.

Provide evidence for your claim; according to Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, alcohol produces more sever withdrawal syumptoms than heroin or cocaine and greater tolerance than cocaine. (And tobacco produces greater tolerance than heroin or cocaine.)

drugs are poisons and they cannot be used safely.

According to data from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Serices Administration, fewer than half of heroin users are addicted.

Anyway, who are you or the government to say that adults may not do "unsafe" things?

" alcohol produces more sever withdrawal syumptoms than heroin or cocaine and greater tolerance than cocaine"

Yes,this is likely true,but any idiot knows that people get addicted to crack cocaine and mainlining heroin way faster than alcohol.Addiction is nearly immediate in some cases.

"According to data from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Serices Administration, fewer than half of heroin users are addicted."

This means half of them are addicted.Keep your doors locked tonight because one might try and break in to support his habit.Heroin is a substance that has recently become "ok" for alot of teens to use.Your approach would foster this further.

"Anyway, who are you or the government to say that adults may not do "unsafe" things?"

Your solution to this problem is another form of goverment control-Drugs sanctioned by the goverment,and sold under their control.I would rather the goverment just ceased the WOD,and the barrel of a gun would provide drug enforcement.Simple-the first time I catch someone selling my daughter or my younger brother hard drugs,that person will cease to exist.This would be a far more effective method of drug and drug dealer eradication that the goverment's version of the WOD.This would be the true conservative approach,not your legal drugs/state licenced quasi-liberal ideal.

any idiot knows that people get addicted to crack cocaine and mainlining heroin way faster than alcohol.

Translation: "I have no proof of this but I really, really want you to believe it."

Addiction is nearly immediate in some cases.

With all due respect, that's laughable Reefer Madness-style propaganda.

Your solution to this problem is another form of goverment control-Drugs sanctioned by the goverment,and sold under their control.

More freedom is better than less. Respect for freedom does not obligate one to make the best an enemy of the good.

I would rather the goverment just ceased the WOD,and the barrel of a gun would provide drug enforcement.Simple-the first time I catch someone selling my daughter or my younger brother hard drugs,that person will cease to exist.

Can I waste the first person who hands one of my children an anti-Catholic pamphlet? Can the parent of an overweight child waste the first person who hands the child candy?

"Provide evidence for your claim; according to Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, alcohol produces more sever withdrawal syumptoms than heroin or cocaine and greater tolerance than cocaine. (And tobacco produces greater tolerance than heroin or cocaine.)"

Nothing you have said here refutes my point about narcotics resulting in addiction faster than alcohol.I will repeat,any idiot knows crack results in addiction faster than alcohol or tobbacco.

"Anyway, who are you or the government to say that adults may not do "unsafe" things?"

I'm not making the laws,but they do exist,maybe for good reasons.I am not advocating goverment controls over our freedoms.I think people already addicted to narcotics should be able to access them without having to steal to get them.I also think the WOD is an uphill battle,that needs to stop.But I think we need think all the ramifications of legalization through.No civilized country I am aware of permits anyone who desires narcotics across the board access.

"Would you leave alone the adults who sell to other adults? Would you support legal punishment for those who killed adults who sell to other adults?"

I think this whole idea I have mentioned here is more of a sentinent than something that could ever become reality.The bottom line is,people just need to realise narcotics are a dead end trap,and they are the road to nowhere.Agree? Maybe the solution is just every person for themselves,dog eat dog,total personal responsibility,and if you do drugs and ruin your life,that's your own fault.If someone breaks into a home and gets shot,that's their own fault too.But as I have said before,there is no shortage of idiots out there,and this would end up being really hard on alot parents out there,and causing alot of suffering.But I am interested in hearing your idea of how a system of legalized drugs could actually be implemented.

any idiot knows

Translation: "Here's some baseless propaganda that I insist you accept."

I'm not making the laws

You're vocally supporting them, and voting for the politicians who make them.

I am not advocating goverment controls over our freedoms.

Yes you are---you want the government to continue to restrict our freedom to put what we choose into our own bodies.

No civilized country I am aware of permits anyone who desires narcotics across the board access.

The US Constitution instituted a system of government that at the time was used by no civilized country. Should it not have been ratified because of that?

people just need to realise narcotics are a dead end trap,and they are the road to nowhere.Agree?

I use no drugs---including the deadly addictive legal drugs alcohol and tobacco. That's my choice for my body; other adults should be free to make their choices for their bodies.

Maybe the solution is just every person for themselves,dog eat dog,total personal responsibility,and if you do drugs and ruin your life,that's your own fault.

Helping such people is not government's business, but charity's.

If someone breaks into a home and gets shot,that's their own fault too.

Yep.

this would end up being really hard on alot parents out there,and causing alot of suffering.

Not government's business.

But I am interested in hearing your idea of how a system of legalized drugs could actually be implemented.

Repeal existing anti-drug laws.

"any idiot knows"

You cannot refute my point,and I won't even bother to dig up statistics.There's no comparison in the addictive qualitys of narcotics and alcohol.

"I'm not making the laws"

No,I am not making the laws.And I already have stated that I feel registered addicts should have access the narcotics.I do not like the implications the WOD has on our freedoms.But I am not seeing any realistic way of implementing needed changes.If you come up with a plan of how narcotics could be legalized without goverment controls and the FDA being involved,or private business being able to control and promote substances,I am listening.

"The US Constitution instituted a system of government that at the time was used by no civilized country. Should it not have been ratified because of that?"

Never said it should not have been ratified.With this issue,I am looking at what would be the best for the general populace,what would actually work in this day day and age.Would you also be in favor of abolishing police forces because they interfere with our rights to travel freely?What would be the effect of this? MrLeroy,I see where you are coming from,and I applaud your quest for freedoms.I just don't think a vision of legalized narcotics is realistic,there would be too much colateral damage.Many other conservatives feel this way as well.

"Helping such people is not government's business, but charity's"

Most charitys are goverment funded,so what's the difference.There is not a drug treatment facility in my area that is not funded by the federal goverment.And as it is,they cannot keep up with the flow of junkies needing treatment.

"If someone breaks into a home and gets shot,that's their own fault too.

Yep."

I agree,but I can't help but have sympathy for the parents of a young person who might end up dead as a result of the perils of narcotics.

"this would end up being really hard on alot parents out there,and causing alot of suffering.

"Not government's business."

Legal narcotics would end up causing alot of suffering for millions of americans,if this ends up coming to fruition,we will just have to accept that,and it will be every man for himself,every family for themselves.

"But I am interested in hearing your idea of how a system of legalized drugs could actually be implemented.

"Repeal existing anti-drug laws."

And what system of dispersal would take it's place? I'm guessing all out anarchy.Really,what do you think would happen if existing laws were suddenly repealed?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.