Drug-Sniffing Drones Take To the Skies In the Netherlands 229
Ryan writes "Unmanned, drug-sniffing drones have been introduced in the Netherlands. They fly over houses (video), sniff for weed, and scan for grow lights. Police say they are not breaking the law because the samples can be taken without entering the building."
Re:News just in. (Score:0, Insightful)
Who wants this kind of tourists? Flying in on the cheap, spending about €100,- and doing about €100,- damage while helping to repel the sort of visitors who might be nice to have.
uh ha (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?
I could presume you are one of the enlightened folk who are against taxation? I'd prefer potatoes to be illegal so that I can buy them on the black market tax free.
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something incredibly sensible about regulating and taxing things the government has no business dealing with in the first place. OH, other governments do it, therefore, it's right, right?
I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?
No , it's not taxing of 'bad' things. Everything you buy is taxed. But offcourse , if goverment doesn't know it , you don't pay taxes.
How it works is that owner of the coffee shops , have to pay a percentage of what they sold , as taxes to the goverment( well , actually the customer pays that part ). Indeed , it also works like this for selling potatoes.
So , if you just have some potatoes in your garden , it's ok as long as you don't sell them in large quantities. Because then , the government needs it's share.
I assume they allow small time tax-free use, because it would cost them more to try to regulate it , then they could possible gain from it.
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that you do pay tax on your potatoes, potatoes and cannabis are quite different types of products.
Where do you draw the line? When *does* the government has 'business' dealing in the production and sale of a product. From your post I understand that you don't think they should get involved in potatoes or cannabis, how about firearms? radioactive material? human organs?
If you believe that there is at least 1 industry that the government should regulate, and at least 1 that it shouldn't it just becomes a fairly subjective matter of where you draw the line.
Re:Um. (Score:2, Insightful)
You may also grow one stem for your own purposes, as far as I know. Friends of mine have been doing so for years. And the laws go for the whole country, not just Amsterdam.
Question for you Dutch. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you REALLY believe this shit?
The cops can locate grow-ops FAR easier by tracking electrical usage and using infrared detectors(the heat detected is outside the house, so no warrant needed).
I think what you REALLY have is 1984 flying over your houses, and it ain't just looking for pot. It is CCTV flying around the place, nothing less. What ELSE might they be looking at?
Is that REALLY what you want your cops doing with your taxes?
Considering there is no human on board to generate a murder charge, that little fucker wouldn't last a minute over Los Angeles, but then again, we got guns.
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably why the average age of our population of heroin users goes up by about one year every year.
Let me add that the sight of a aged-29-looks-48 Rotterdam junkie I chatted to a few years ago was probably the most eye opening anti-heroin education I've ever had.
Re:Um. (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'd assume there are government regulations involving the sale of potatoes in many countries. I'd like my potatoes safe to eat, thanks.
Re:Um. (Score:1, Insightful)
"The police claim it is legal because they do not enter people's houses". That sounds more like a Nixonism in the sense of "If the police do it, it's not illegal."
My gut feeling says it should be illegal though. We , the people, don't want drones flying through the air spying on us. If democracy is worth anything, these things should be banned by voice of majority.
Re:Question for you Dutch. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Shoot at drone that is filming you.
2. Watch as drone drops from the sky over a densely populated area.
3. Continue watering plants.
What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Question for you Dutch. (Score:2, Insightful)
The cops can locate grow-ops FAR easier by tracking electrical usage and using infrared detectors(the heat detected is outside the house, so no warrant needed).
Ehmm, how do you suggest we find them based on tracking electrical usage since:
- the electrical meter is located inside the residence most of the time, and even it isn't the authorities can't obtain its readings without a warrant
- most of the time the electrical meter is (illegally) bypassed anyway
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least, you validated my point about you guys being direct ;o).
I didn't mean to offend about the 'race' thing, I couldn't find the appropriate word, but hopefully you understand what I mean, generally speaking, I like you guys! I saw the story about the attack on the queens birthday celebration and I was shocked and saddened, clearly you have complete idiots in your country just like every country does.
I also understand your points about problems further up the distribution chain, but understand that all of these kinds of problems exist in other countries too. People in Holland have the same decision as people in all other countries, get involved in the drug trade, with huge rewards but also huge risks... or don't. We (in the UK) have the exact same system for turning citizens into criminals except that in Holland it is possible to be your standard occasional, recreational, cannabis user without crossing that line. It does seem a bit daft to criminalise the distribution chain, but elsewhere we are even more daft by sending those who like the occasional joint through the legal system (and in the USA, possibly to a high security prison for a long stretch).
I happen to be one of those european losers that come to Amsterdam to get high, but I also come for the lovely architecture, the great people, and the best place to eat on the planet.... FEBO!! (Ok, that last one wasn't so serious). I am a quiet/loner sort of chap and like to bar hop with a good pop-sci book (the selfish gene on my last trip, recommended!), but I do appreciate that some of my fellow brits are not nearly as quiet or respectful. All I can say on that point is, they will probably come to visit you anyway... you are much better off with them high than with them drunk. You can ask our other euro neighbors to confirm that point!
Re:Um. (Score:4, Insightful)
Prohibition of any social drug like this will fail, and of course, it always does fail. In every country. All Prohibition of alcohol did in the US was create and bankroll organized crime as we now know it, and I'd bet that huge multinational enterprise is still very dependent on anti-drug laws in order to thrive. Organized crime would simply lose its control of the market if drugs were decriminalized and properly regulated. It is not possible to properly regulate an illegal activity. This is also the real rational behind the completely illogical illegality of prostitution.
Which means that most countries are engaging in a Kafkaesque sideshow, dragging people into court, keep the police's wheels spinning on minor drug busts when they should be doing something useful, and waging war on their own citizens - for what? - just to keep the profits flowing into a huge economy owned by organized crime and corruption.
Religious, moral, social impact and health reasons are just the sales pitch that most people feel good about buying into.
If this were not the case, then logically there would be an absolute ban on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, which cause far more social and health problems than the entire impact of illicit drugs combined.
Now, marijuana is not harmless, it has a higher tar content than tobacco and so has tar-related health effects on the lungs. Also it is psychoactive and should not be used, especially heavily for sustained periods, by people with some propensity for mental illness (quite a lot of the population probably). So it has risks. So do lots of things.
In a rational society, we give people information and choices and regulate and tax substances sensibly. If they still want to bong themselves to death, so be it, they should be allowed to.
I don't see how anyone can argue that the outlawing of marijuana works for the public good. Yes, educate people about moderation and hazards, restrict where it can be smoked, The Dutch have had the right general idea - allow this under controlled circumstances - but they have not followed through to make this consistent.
Re:Um. (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that only a problem with it being illegal to grow weed? If we weren't so moronic about the plant people would be growing it in their backyards or greenhouses without any risk of fire.
Re:Um. (Score:3, Insightful)
Meant by whom, exactly? Apart from myself, who has the authority to decide just how my brain should be "rocked", and why?
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
We could end the war on drugs, undermine the narcotics cartels, fund interdiction of truly bad drugs like meth and heroin as well as fund rehab for anyone who wants it with one simple action: tax weed. The government could control production and distribution and police could stop wasting everyone's time on the victimless pseudo-crime of pot possession. Prohibition showed us that outlawing alcohol merely forced it underground, fueled organized crime and turned virtually everyone into a criminal. The current situation with pot is essentially no different.
I don't like drug use; I've seen too many people destroy themselves and waste their lives getting high, but making it illegal does nothing to stop them. We need to recognize the practical realities regarding drug use in order to get a handle on it.
Re:Um. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen too many people destroy themselves and waste their lives getting high
Honestly, why do you even care what other people are doing to their lives? Do you feel the same way when you see an obese person?
Re:Um. (Score:2, Insightful)
Answering for the GP...
I don't try to project paternalism on people walking down the street. However, when you know someone, especially someone close to you, I think it's appropriate to be concerned when they abuse anything (food, weed, alcohol). How you handle that concern is a different issue.
Re:Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
gotta echo that previous poster's point.
worry about the drunks and NOT the stoners.
anyone who has had any real (actual, not watching about it on tv or being preached about it at church) experience with booze and pot KNOWS which one is the dangerous one.
this is the biggest lie of them all. and its known to be a lie by those who have experience. yet GETTING experience so you can know first-hand is limited to getting boozed over; in most countries you are not even allowed to sample MJ so you can't even know, on your own, how harmless it really is.
interesting how the information, itself, is essentially regulated to keep people dumbed down and fed only propaganda.