The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc.

Business 2.0 ^ | 07/01/02 | Paul Kaihla

[PFKEY]

The central feature of the facility was a $1.5 million IBM AS400 mainframe...

Another example of a journalist who fails to do a little research. An AS/400 is not a Mainframe and I doubt the price tag is $1.5 million. If this was the core of their computer center then I'm not too impressed.

[WyldKard]

Laws against stealing, a bankrobber's best friend.

Strawman, strawman, straw.....man.

Bankrobbers do not profit from the actual laws prohibiting the robbing of banks. They are not encouraged to rob banks by the very fact of the act being illegal. Bank robbery (theft), murder, rape, kidnapping, etc etc, are all common in that they are one person initiating force against another person to violate their basic Constitutional rights.

Drug Lords, on the other hand, profit from laws making drugs illegal. Drug illegality ENCOURAGES people to sell illegal drugs. It creates a black market that they can profit from. They don't have to answer to Government oversight, don't have to submit to quality controls, or guarentee a safe product, and best of all, there's nothing holding them back from killing their competition outright. But the actual act of one person buying a gram of coke and snorting it up doesn't involve the initiation of force, where one person tries to violate the others Constitutional rights. It is nothing more than a mere economic exchange, supply and demand.

Those who wish to use the Government to control economic structures along with day to day morality are usually known as Socialists. Are you sure you are REALLY a *recovering* Democrat? If it quacks like a duck...

As for all the POTENTIAL problems you mentioned with coke use: These are ALL health problems. Everything you've said in #26 is a problem with alcohol as well, a perfectly legal substance. In fact, booze, prescription drugs and tobacco cause FAR FAR FAR more sociatal damage than any illegal drug ever could.

While there is certainly no reason not to immediately legalize marijuana, these "rare white powders" are a nastier lot, I'll grant you that. But I think anyone who's ever seen Less Than Zero or Trainspotting knowns that heroin and coke are not fun drugs that lead to long term success in life.

If you really cared about the Constitution, and what is being done to destroy it, you'd wake up and realize what a corrupt sham the War on (some) Drugs really is.

[Red Jones]

you have some excellent points.

Let me add this: I think that if the cigarette manufacturers were only allowed to make cigarettes out of natural tobacco without any additive chemicals in the cigarettes, then they'd be a lot less addictive and harmful to people.

[Zon]

That was ten years ago and probably using a five year old machine.

[-YYZ-]

And the really perverse thing about attempts to control the supply of drugs: the better you do at reducing the supply, the higher the price on the street goes, giving ever more incentive to supply the drugs.

[Jorge]

"Laws against stealing which artificially inflate the price of the prohibited object is what causes or gives incentive to a person to rob banks."

IMO you're very wrong and not very sensical.
How do you figure that laws against stealing inflate the price of prohibited objects? The object being prohibited increases the price.

I'm glad you think it is "wrong and not very sensical" because I was simply repeating the poster's own argument back to him.

By the way, there is no such word as "sensical".

[Jorge]

"The victims of coke heads are endless."

Your illusional allusions are endless too. So what personal tragedy backs your stance? A relative die? A close friend's life "ruined"?

Anyone who's truly been close to the problem of cocaine/crack addiction knows as well as I do that nothing I spoke of is the least bit illusional.

People's friendships, families, marriages, careers, credit and personal reputations literally destroyed as the result of cocaine addiction.
And yes, people die as well.

Even those who have never touched cocaine, but have had close friends or family members addicted to it can tell you the horror stories, and the astounding ability of coke addicts to reap havoc in the lives of those around them.

I was personally addicted to coke and crack for around 6 or 7 years, it was one of the lowest periods in my life.
There is nothing illusional about anything I've said. The things I've mentioned already barely scratch the surface of what I could tell you.

[Jorge]

"I never said laws against robbing banks give incentive to rob banks. I said laws against stealing."

Laws against stealing include laws against stealing from banks, Duh! Think First man.

But not all laws against stealing are about robbing banks.
My original statement had a broader more general application outside the single example of robbing banks.

My point was, if you're going to address somebody's argument, you shouldn't change their words to suit your response.

But I don't want to be all negative here.
You are right that robbing a bank is a form of stealing. Kudos.
Brilliant observation!

[tacticalogic]

I was personally addicted to coke and crack for around 6 or 7 years, it was one of the lowest periods in my life.

Would it have made any difference in your life if you could have gone to your doctor, told him you were addicted, and gotten a prescription for it to keep you from stealing and buying it off the street until you got yourself straightened out?

[Jorge]

Do you support prohibition of alcohol as well?

Sorry but your attempt to equate alcohol with cocaine by plugging your words into my post just doesn't work.

Who has lived in a neighborhood where people drink and the alcoholics are breaking into houses and smash out car windows trying to find something to buy their next alcohol fix?

With all due respect the comparison looks pretty silly.

But you can ask anybody who lives in a neighborhood where crack addiction is widespread and they will tell you that the amount of destruction and suffering is beyond description.

The problems cause by alcohol aren't even in the same league.

[Jorge]

Maybe if the government would get out of it altogether, quit providing free health care and other social services to drug users, quit giving food stamps and housing, etc, and let employees get fired by their employers if they aren't competent to do a job. The government allows people to fail by providing a safety net they never have to leave.

Good point.
While I believe it is beneficial to society to offer help to those who show they want it.... to provide services that accommodate drug addictions hurts not only society but the drug addict as well.

Let's face it, most people will not give up a destructive habit if do-gooders are always there to make sure they avoid consequences and the normal warnings signs that they are on a road to destruction.

[Jorge]

"The friends and family members who get ripped off and whose lives are made miserable by the never ending travails of their strung out loved ones."

... to say nothing of the friends and family of those killed or jailed in the War On (some) Drugs.

Well, I guess we can all agree that we are against the suffering of innocent victims everywhere.

However, there is a big difference between suffering the unintended side effects of doing something evil and doing something nobel and good.

Your argument sounds like that of those who try to equate the U.S. Govt with terrorists simply because at times there are unintended civilian casualties in the war against terrorism.

[Jorge]

"The employer whose got a crack head who doesn't show up the day after payday, whose performance is compromised..."

This is a problem of truancy, not coke toking. There are people who toke but show up for work (and, do a good job) and there are those who quit work, or do shoddy work, who don't toke.

With all due respect you are living in a dream world.
The idea that coke, which has stimulant qualities that are well known for keeping people awake all night..and sometimes nights on end...has NOTHING to do with truancy on the job, doesn't pass the laugh test.
Apologists for legalization of drugs have a such a capacity for denial, it's just amazing.

[Jorge]

"...for all the automobile owners who had their windows smashed out for a quarter on their dashboard..."

This is a problem of burglars, not tokers. Again there are burglars who don't toke, and tokers who don't steal.

You've obviously never lived in a neighborhood overrun by crack heads.
Anybody who has... can tell you that nothing of value is safe in a crack neighborhood.

In one section of Miami, I actually used to have to take the battery out of my car at night and put it back in the morning to drive to work, because the crack heads would steal it otherwise.

[Jorge]

amen to that friend, people who favor legalizing cocaine don't have friends or relatives who've become cocaine addicts.

Thank you. It just astounds me how little some of these people know about cocaine addiction and the misery it brings to people's lives.

[Jorge]

"Laws against stealing, a bankrobber's best friend."

Strawman, strawman, straw.....man.

"Prohibition, a gangster's best friend."

Strawman, strawman, straw.....man!

Bankrobbers do not profit from the actual laws prohibiting the robbing of banks. They are not encouraged to rob banks by the very fact of the act being illegal.

Wrong. If it was legal to just walk into banks and help yourself to whatever money you wanted there would be no need to hold up a bank. Bank robbers would be out of business.

Bank robbery (theft), murder, rape, kidnapping, etc etc, are all common in that they are one person initiating force against another person to violate their basic Constitutional rights.

That's nice. But none of this has a thing to do with my point. I wasn't making a comparison based on whether there is "force" used or whether a person's "Constitutional rights" are violated.

I was addressing the argument that making something illegal is to blame for people breaking the law.

[Jhoffa_]

They even use a fleet of submarines, mini-subs, and semisubmersibles to ferry drugs

I always wondered why they didn't use subs for this type of thing.

Now I know that by the time it dawned on me they probably had a fleet of them.

[WyldKard]

Wrong. If it was legal to just walk into banks and help yourself to whatever money you wanted there would be no need to hold up a bank. Bank robbers would be out of business.

Oh give me a break, boy. You really are a moron, aren't you? Or maybe you have a cushy Government job pretending to stop drugs, so you can live on my taxes?

Bank robbing is not a job. It's a crime. There is no economic factor to it other than straight up piracy. For he crime to be commited, force have to be employed against another person, and someone has to have their rights violated. Thus, it is inherantly and automatically in the public interest for the Government to protect people and their money from being stolen. Plus, it is considered the job of the bank to protect money. I pay them monthly fees, to protect my money, make it available to me, and give me interest on my savings. Thus, bank robbery is also a pirate action that interferes in a capitalistic transaction. There is no way you can "legalize" bank robbery, and not immediately decend into chaos. You can't "legalize" any action that requires the rights of someone else to be violated, in order for that action to be performed. Just the act of selling drugs is merely an economic act. Buyer buys from dealer, money changes hands, etc etc. While there are peripheral crimes that can follow along (due to the unrestricted nature of the black market), the basic act of buying and selling drugs is pure supply and demand economics, that at best only hurts the user stupid enough to use something really dangerous, like coke or speed. Those peripheral crimes associated with black market drug use go mostly away once Prohibition is stopped. You can argue all you like against it, history is on my side in this issue. I think this is something that even a Socialist commie like you can understand.

That's nice. But none of this has a thing to do with my point. I wasn't making a comparison based on whether there is "force" used or whether a person's "Constitutional rights" are violated.

It has everything to do with your point. You are trying to make a specious and laughly riduclous argument directly comparing bank robbery to black market drug sales. And of course, now you start engaging in backpeddling..not surprising...

I was addressing the argument that making something illegal is to blame for people breaking the law.

I'm blaming the Government for creating crime, corruption, and excessive fraud and waste through the act of Prohibition. How many bootleggers do you see in business today, now that booze is legal again? Substance abuse is a health and social problem, not an inherantly criminal problem, and making it a criminal issue only creates more crime. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing real criminals like muggers, bank robbers, and rapists going out on early parole because we have to clear more jail space for someone who got toking in the privacy of his own home. I'm tired of billions of my tax dollars, virtually extracted at gunpoint, fund this wasteful destruction of the Constitution.

[WyldKard]

With all due respect you are living in a dream world. The idea that coke, which has stimulant qualities that are well known for keeping people awake all night..and sometimes nights on end...has NOTHING to do with truancy on the job, doesn't pass the laugh test. Apologists for legalization of drugs have a such a capacity for denial, it's just amazing.

Well, if you hadn't flunked Logic 101, you might understand what he's talking about:

Certainly, cocaine use can be factor for a problem with truancy, but it's use doesn't guarentee it. More productive hours are lost through abuse of cigaretts (Cig Breaks outside most office buildings now), perscription drugs, and ESPECIALLY alcohol, than will ever be lost by cocaine. And lets not forget all the productivity lost because people are just general f**k-ups, and want to try and get themselves on welfare.

And of course, on the other side, you have some drug users who are perfectly functional. You mostly see functional alcholics and cigarette users, no doubt due to the legality and availablity of the product. Hell, companies ply their own workers with coffee, essentially pushing an addictive drug on their workers to make them more productive.

By that token of logic, maybe you should start campaigning to make smokes, perscription narcotics, laziness and alcohol completely illegal. After all, think of all the problems that could fix! We must do this for the children! We must save society from itself! Laziness is counter-revolutionary!

Did I get all of your socialist battle cries, or do you know a few more from your "old" days as a Democrat (snicker)

[Jorge]

"Wrong. If it was legal to just walk into banks and help yourself to whatever money you wanted there would be no need to hold up a bank. Bank robbers would be out of business."

Oh give me a break, boy. You really are a moron, aren't you? Or maybe you have a cushy Government job pretending to stop drugs, so you can live on my taxes?

What you talkin' bout BOY? How typical for FR lightweights to resort to name-calling and personal insults when they are unable to challenge another poster's point.
Nothing you say addresses a single point I made in my post.
Try again boy! LOL