Sofia Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/02/...pups/index.html (CNN) -- A two-year investigation into a Colombian heroin ring netted more than 65 pounds of drugs, resulted in the arrests of more than 20 people and saved the lives of some drug-smuggling Labrador retrievers, the Drug Enforcement Agency said Wednesday. Ten wayward pups were found during a raid on a Colombian farm in 2005, and six of them were carrying more than 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) of liquid heroin in their stomachs, said DEA spokesman Rusty Payne. Puppy smugglers are another take on the human "mule," or "swallower" in DEA parlance -- someone who ingests packets of drugs and transports them in their stomachs. The puppies, however, had little say in the matter. In the case of the puppies found during the 2005 raid, the dogs' bellies had been cut open, and heroin packets were stitched into their stomachs, Payne said. The pups, mostly purebred Labrador retrievers, were sewn back up and prepared for shipment to the United States, he added. "The organization's outrageous and heinous smuggling method of implanting heroin inside puppies is a true indication of the extent that drug dealers go to make their profit," said Special Agent in Charge John Gilbride in a written statement. Though the 10 dogs were rescued before being shipped, it wasn't enough to save all of their lives. "Three of the six died of infection when the drugs were removed," Payne said, adding that four other puppies "were going to be used and obviously were saved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 And thus we see what stems from the Drug Prohibition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 And thus we see what stems from the Drug Prohibition... Sad... but true... so very true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 And thus we see what stems from the Drug Prohibition... Exactly, anything as economically elastic as drugs will create problems of this sort if prohibited. The problem isn't the drugs themselves, but the unnatural clamp down on supply when demand remains steady. The war on drugs is far more harmful than the alternative. Moreover, the war on drugs harms the innocent, whereas those harmed with the alternative would be willing participants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I have to agree with the other posters. The way these dogs were treated is very wrong, but it pales in comparison to the human lives that have been ruined by the "War on Drugs". I think it's incredibly stupid to use heroin, but the War on Drugs is not preventing that. Instead of giving immoral thugs a reason to use puppies and people as drug "mules", we should decriminalize drug use, tax it and use the funds to educate people to the dangers and provide treatment options to people who abuse it. Cigarette usage is also incredibly damaging to our society, yet it's not been criminalized. Education and taxes have been able to reduce usage dramatically. Punish the puppy abusers to the full extent of the law AND end the War on Drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Precisely - and how many people here are drug-free and are so because they were either educated about the dangers of drugs or had experimented and learned first-hand how harmful drugs are? No, how many people here are drug-free only because they got into legal trouble for it? My point is that everyone avoids drugs because of education, either gained through experience or applying the facts that are readily available and using common sense to not ingest poison. Education seems to be the better weapon against drug use than legal penalties, so this is where the emphasis should lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I used to have this book of strange facts when I was young. They talked about a lace frenzy in Europe in like the 1700s. Apperntly lace was smuggled across hostile nation borders the same way, by putting it inside dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Sick fuckers... These people would probably have no problem abusing humans or animals regardless of prohibition. They don't see anything wrong with it obviously. Sure, these puppies may have been saved if the didn't have to smuggle the drugs in, but that is not going to stop the way they feel towards animals, or people for that matter. This stuff just pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Exactly, anything as economically elastic as drugs will create problems of this sort if prohibited. The problem isn't the drugs themselves, but the unnatural clamp down on supply when demand remains steady. The war on drugs is far more harmful than the alternative. Moreover, the war on drugs harms the innocent, whereas those harmed with the alternative would be willing participants. True. We need a WAR on IGNORANCE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I just don't understand. If so many Americans share anti-war on drugs sentiments, why are we unable to do anything about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I just don't understand. If so many Americans share anti-war on drugs sentiments, why are we unable to do anything about it? You ask that like you believe you really live in a democracy or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Sick fuckers... These people would probably have no problem abusing humans or animals regardless of prohibition. They don't see anything wrong with it obviously. Sure, these puppies may have been saved if the didn't have to smuggle the drugs in, but that is not going to stop the way they feel towards animals, or people for that matter. This stuff just pisses me off. I didn't mean to say that those who abuse humans or animals are guiltless. Their actions are their own, but it's the result of an unnecessary and futile war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Sick fuckers... These people would probably have no problem abusing humans or animals regardless of prohibition. They don't see anything wrong with it obviously. Sure, these puppies may have been saved if the didn't have to smuggle the drugs in, but that is not going to stop the way they feel towards animals, or people for that matter. This stuff just pisses me off. I didn't mean to say that those who abuse humans or animals are guiltless. Their actions are their own, but it's the result of an unnecessary and futile war. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to implicate anyone in my remark. That was just pure anger speaking. I do understand what you are saying. I sometimes forget that I'm supposed to understand why people act the way they do. It's just when innocents are harmed, I am real fast to place blame and then I think about it later. My sympathies and anger don't get along very well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Agreed on all counts. But this sham operation (The War on Drugs) will never end because it's too profitable to too many people in charge of its operation. What was done to those poor puppies is just more in the decades-old saga of hyprocrisy surrounding the U.S.A.'s alleged mission of mercy. The puppy story is intended to elicit sympathy for those who would put an end to the "heartless and conscienceless drug lords" when, actually, the leaders of the War on Drugs are the very ones perpetuating drug trafficking. The Cia "fox" guards the crackhouse. From: http://www.ciadrugs.com/ Evidence Of CIA Drug Trafficking Stich had been gathering information on CIA drug trafficking for decades. He first encountered these activities while he was an airline captain flying for Japan Airlines out of Tokyo and also out of Beirut, Baghdad and other Middle East locations in the early 1950s. While talking to other pilots and in normal pilot-to-pilot conversations, many pilots described to him that they were flying for CIA-related operations and airlines and hauling drugs. They made no big deal out of it; it was simply another job for which pilots were increasingly involved. These pilots included those who flew for Air America, Civil Air Transport, and other covert CIA operations. Over the next four decades Stich continued to receive information about the CIA drug trafficking from pilots who actually flew the drugs. Some of these pilots were from covert CIA airlines including Air America, and some of them came to work for the same airline that he worked for. These pilots had no agenda or reason to fabricate these comments to their fellow pilots. They were speaking the truth. During the past ten years Stich developed many sources in the CIA and DEA who had direct knowledge of the CIA drug trafficking. He learned that it wasn't only the CIA involved in these criminal activities. The drug trafficking included the CIA, DEA, the military, the State Department, the White House's National Security Council, among others. Thousands of hours of often deposition-like questioning was involved These activities are detailed and documented in the third edition, hard cover book, Defrauding America, and the first edition of Drugging America. Example of his many sources who are listed in the book are: FBI Special Agent who repeatedly reported CIA drug trafficking to his supervisors and to FBI Director William Sessions, and to Congress. Some of these drug activities were funding terrorist cells based in New Jersey and New York. Justice Department personnel retaliated against him for reporting these matters and falsely charged him with a federal offense (once using a government credit card to refuel his personal automobile being used on government business), and then having New York state prosecutors charge him with offenses involving boys. The extraordinary 80-year sentence insured that his exposure actions would be silenced and that he would be discredited. Paradoxically, the terrorists who crashed an American and United Boeing 767 into the World Trade Center are believed to have received some of their funding and/or assistance from the New Jersey and New York terrorist cells that were previously protected by Justice Department personnel (and a former New York City mayor). Another example of "blowback." Former head of a CIA proprietary airline for over a decade, who described in great detail the drugs that he carried for the CIA, how the CIA set up his airline, how the CIA funded the operation, how the CIA armed terrorists, including the IRA. Former head of a large CIA financial operation based in Hawaii who had provided Stich with a great amount of data and documentation. He provided information concerning how the CIA and FBI, in Los Angeles in 1995, refused the offer of several dozen surface-to-air missiles offered to the United States at no charge by Afghan General Rashid Dostum, thereby permitting the missiles to be acquired by Afghan terrorists. CIA operatives who operated covert CIA financial institutions, describing the looting of the HUD program, the savings and loans, and other financial scams. Many pilots who flew drugs for the CIA and DEA, who gave Stich hundreds of hours of specific details of these operations, including maps. Military personnel who described to Stich the existence of CIA drug trafficking at the military base at which they were stationed. Vice squad detective who repeatedly reported to his New York City superiors of the CIA involvement in drug trafficking. And many other inside sources acquired during years of friendship and research. Confidential transcripts of testimony given to members of Congress by CIA operatives of the CIA's dealing in drugs, dealing with organized crime families, laundering of drug money for organized crime families and the CIA itself. Many books have been written by DEA agents and others who described the CIA drug trafficking that they observed in their area of operations. Iran-Contra hearings that showed the White House's and National Security Council's involvement in drug smuggling. Coalition of present and former government agents, drug traffickers, Mafia family members, who are part of a witness list prepared by Rodney Stich, who can testify about the various criminal activities that Stich writes about in his three books, and who are willing to testify at a meaningful and open hearing into these activities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 So, I guess it's a lot more money than taxes on legalization would bring in huh...and it keeps the ones that don't want it legal happy. Killing two birds with one penny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I considered the idea of decriminalizing drugs unilaterally, but then when you realize that the gov't would get a hold of it and make sure it never went away, it's hard to say for certain that that's the best way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I considered the idea of decriminalizing drugs unilaterally, but then when you realize that the gov't would get a hold of it and make sure it never went away, it's hard to say for certain that that's the best way. Not sure I'm understanding this, D. notblindedbytheblight Posted Yesterday, 04:59 PM So, I guess it's a lot more money than taxes on legalization would bring in huh...and it keeps the ones that don't want it legal happy. Killing two birds with one penny... Seems like a pretty apt synopsis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts