---
A PAIR of crooks will be forced to pay back thousands of pounds made
from their seedy livelihoods.

Police were successful in obtaining confiscation orders against Martin
Timothy (47), of Fenton Way, Chatteris, and Troy Jolly (19), of Pendula
Road, Wisbech.

Timothy will have to pay back £8,797.10 and Jolly £10,000 after
financial investigators got on their case.

Timothy was jailed for 15 months after 821 cannabis plants were seized
from a property in the Honeysome Road industrial estate in Chatteris in
June, as well as a substantial amount of prohibited ammunition.

Jolly was given 175 hours unpaid work for possession with intent to
supply cannabis, after officers discovered cannabis, a stun gun and
£1,680 of cash at his home.

All confiscated assets go to the Home Office.

Once a year, one-sixth of the total confiscation amount for
Cambridgeshire Constabulary is handed back to the force, while another
sixth goes to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Crime manager for central division Detective Chief Inspector Paul
Fullwood said: "This is excellent work from the financial investigators
involved, and all officers who worked on these cases."

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Pair-told-to-pay-back.3619361.jp

---
A 33-year-old Gloucester man whose house had been "given over to the
cultivation of cannabis" was jailed today for two years.

Mark Jukes was nurturing 346 plants at his London Road home and
supplying the produce to a dealer who was selling them on, Gloucester
crown court heard.

Prosecutor Julian Kesner said six of the eight rooms in the property had
been given over to growing the Class C drug and 34 six-hundred watt
lights were keeping them well lit.

He said five separate search warrants were executed by police on April
13 - one of them at Mr Jukes' terraced home.

The barrister said that officers found six out of the eight rooms had
been given over to growing the drug. Four of them contained mature
flowering plants and the other two housed seedlings.

After looking at photographs, Judge Martin Picton commented: "Quite a
tidy little operation really."

Mr Kesner said 346 plants were found and if the seedlings had reached
maturity a total of between 12 and 15 kilos of flower based "skunk"
would have been produced with a value of £9,000 to £11,400 accordingly.

He added that the electricity supply at the house indicated full blown
cultivation of the plants during a seven to eight month period between
August 2006 and April this year.

Jukes pleaded guilty at Gloucester Magistrates Court to acquiring
criminal property, producing a Class C drug, possession of Class C with
intent, and supplying a Class C drug.

The case was committed to crown court for sentence.

He had one previous conviction, the court heard - not relevant to this case.

Defending, Anna Midgeley said her client's problems started in 2003 with
his mother's death and when his use of alcohol and cannabis escalated.

"Mr Jukes has had eight months to consider his behaviour and the
seriousness of his problems," she said, adding that it was not an
operation he could have run alone.

When Judge Picton asked if he had ever named the man he was supplying,
he was told he had not.

Miss Midgeley said Jukes had no significant record - his last conviction
being ten years ago and for this offence had pleaded guilty at the
earliest possible opportunity.

She recommended to the judge a suspended sentence.

But Judge Picton said it had to be immediate custody.

He said from August 2006 to April this year, he had been running a
"sophisticated" operation in the form of a cottage industry.

He said he would keep the sentence as short as he could, which would be
two years, of which Jukes will serve half before being released on licence.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/

---
It APPEARS reader Alan Buffry disagrees with my stance on drugs.
http://ccguide.org.uk/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=13085

I will make no apologies for that; my hatred of drugs stems from
personal experience. While I agree cannabis does not affect everyone the
same way, who can tell before taking it? The facts are that cannabis is
a mind-altering substance that causes paranoia and schizophrenia in
people who are susceptible. Mr Buffry states it is pointless advocating
a prohibition policy that has failed. The reason it is failing is lack
of determination and punishment on the part of our Government and the
justice system. I have no problem with cannabis being used for medicinal
purposes to alleviate pain, but do not support recreational use in any
form. Whenever the liberal elite have their way, they are not satisfied.
They want more and more. Well as for Mr Buffry and Mrs Dilys Woods' call
for legislation, I for one will not support this insanity.

T Cope
Tunstall

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/

---
We need a thoughtful approach to tackling our so-called cocaine crisis
rather than overhyping the problem or opting for legalisation, argues
Patrick Kenny

IT IS clear for all to see that Ireland has a growing cocaine problem
which we must face in a sensible and coherent manner. But in the process
of tackling the problem, we must steer a careful path between two major
mistakes that would make the situation worse.

The first mistake is that of normalising the problem by hyping its
prevalence. The recent Prime Time Investigates programme grabbed the
headlines with its findings that cocaine traces can be found in most
pubs and nightclubs. But that is a long way from showing that most
individuals take cocaine. If we create the impression that "everyone"
takes cocaine when they clearly don't, and if we communicate the idea
that cocaine use is now the expected behaviour for young people, we can
make the problem worse because of the powerful effect of social norm
perceptions on human behaviour.

The second, and even greater, danger is to indulge in poorly thought-out
policy reactions that will have the ultimate effect of making the
problem worse. That's why arguments about legalising cocaine and other
drugs, must be rejected.

One of the arguments for legalisation is that state controls would put
the crime lords out of business. But there is absolutely no evidence for
this. Do we really believe that the gangs who have made millions, and
who are prepared to kill to protect their narcotic empires, will simply
walk away and retire?

At what age should children be allowed to buy legal cocaine? One study
released earlier this year indicated that 40 per cent of Irish
15-year-olds have dabbled in illegal drugs. Should cocaine be legal for
kids of this age? Unless we make cocaine more freely available than
alcohol and tobacco, and place no age limits on it, a black market for
underage cocaine will remain. In such a scenario, what's to stop our
drug lords killing each other to capture the teen coke market? And what
if the cocaine magnates diversify into other banned substances, creating
a new, expanded market where they won't have to compete against the
local cocaine-selling pharmacy? Do we really want expert drug pushers
pursuing our teenagers in this way? What about the cost of legal
cocaine? What's to stop the criminal gangs from undercutting the price
of legal cocaine?

But even if, in some alternative reality, the decriminalisation of
cocaine would reduce crime, we still face a choice between two major
evils and must ask ourselves which of them is the lesser: gangs wiping
each other out or the prospect of even greater drug abuse and death in
the rest of the population due to decriminalisation?

Legalising cocaine would inevitably increase drug consumption levels and
with them, drug-related tragedies because the law plays a significant
role in influencing human behaviour. Of course, it is peers that have
the most intensely powerful impact on our behaviour, precisely because
friends help to establish the social norms. But if this potent peer
pressure has already led to a significant cocaine problem, how much
greater would our problem be if the State endorsed cocaine?

Britain, in taking a softer approach to marijuana, has seen a 22 per
cent increase in hospital admissions of cannabis users. The Netherlands,
with its enlightened drugs policy, has seen a dramatic rise in heroin
use since soft drugs were legalised. Meanwhile, Sweden, with some of the
toughest drugs laws has Europe's lowest consumption rate.

After the recent cocaine-related death of Kevin Doyle, 21, of Waterford,
his family said that they "sincerely hope that no family has to suffer
the pain that we are going through".

Can we really believe that a dangerous experiment with legalised cocaine
would help their wish to come true?

Patrick Kenny is a lecturer in marketing in the Dublin Institute of
Technology.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lets-not-go-soft-on-hard-drugs-1253207.html
--
LCA FORUM invites YOU: http://www.lca-uk.org/lcaforum/

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/webbooks05

---
Most people associate cannabis with Rastafarianism and cannabis growing
with countries like Jamaica. So I was interested to hear a report on the
BBC this week, which suggested that Britain might actually have become a
net exporter of cannabis.

Traditionally Britain has imported most of its cannabis. There were, of
course, always people who grew cannabis for personal use. This ranged
from the odd straggly pot plant to rows of rows of cannabis plants
carefully grown in a loft under special lamps.

But cannabis has never been commercially grown in Britain. That has all
changed. In the last six years the cultivation of cannabis as a cash
crop has grown exponentially. This is not done outdoors. We have too
little sunshine to make that viable.

Instead, the commercial growers use houses bought specially, in areas
where housing is cheap. The houses have their curtains drawn tight all
day long. And every room is given over to growing cannabis.

Growing cannabis commercially is not just confined to inner-city areas.
There are 51 police forces in Britain. Forty-seven of them have reported
commercial cannabis cultivation. In Glasgow, Scotland, police have
closed down 61 cannabis factories in nine months. In (largely rural)
Derbyshire they have closed 200 factories in a year. And in London, the
Metropolitan police have closed down over 1,500 factories in the past
two years - three a day. But the commercial cannabis growers that
actually get shut down are the tip of the iceberg.

The police admit that closing down these enterprises is low on their
list of priorities. It is apparently a very time-consuming operation.
There need to be weeks of research and surveillance and a team of men on
the day. Understandably the police think dealing with robbery, burglary
and violent crime is more important.

The police say that commercial cannabis-growing is dominated by a single
ethnic group. And that is not, as some people might suspect, West
Indians. The ethnic group that control the business are the Vietnamese.
And it is also associated with illegal Vietnamese immigration.

Nobody knows how they came to dominate commercial cannabis- growing in
Britain. But they have discovered a gap in the market and moved
energetically to supply the need.

Apparently Morocco in North Africa had a particularly successful
cannabis eradication programme some years ago, which cut their exports
by half.

So Britain's domestic commercial cannabis production expanded rapidly to
meet demand. It is estimated that domestic production currently supplies
60% of the cannabis consumed in this country. But police are convinced
that, because they are seeing so much commercial production, some of it
must be for export.

The debate rages as to how damaging smoking cannabis really is. All the
medical evidence shows that it less harmful than alcohol. And, it is
certainly less likely to lead to violent crime.

On the other hand, it is argued that the new strains of cannabis being
commercially cultivated indoors in artificial conditions in Britain and
the rest of Europe are actually stronger and more toxic than the
cannabis grown more naturally in the open air in Jamaica and elsewhere.

But the continued rise of commercial production in Britain proves that
pressuring poor countries like Jamaica and Morocco to burn their crops
is pointless. Unless something is done about demand, other suppliers
(including domestic producers) will emerge to fill the gap.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com


--
LCA FORUM invites YOU: http://www.lca-uk.org/lcaforum/

---
Most people associate cannabis with Rastafarianism and cannabis growing
with countries like Jamaica. So I was interested to hear a report on the
BBC this week, which suggested that Britain might actually have become a
net exporter of cannabis.

Traditionally Britain has imported most of its cannabis. There were, of
course, always people who grew cannabis for personal use. This ranged
from the odd straggly pot plant to rows of rows of cannabis plants
carefully grown in a loft under special lamps.

But cannabis has never been commercially grown in Britain. That has all
changed. In the last six years the cultivation of cannabis as a cash
crop has grown exponentially. This is not done outdoors. We have too
little sunshine to make that viable.

Instead, the commercial growers use houses bought specially, in areas
where housing is cheap. The houses have their curtains drawn tight all
day long. And every room is given over to growing cannabis.

Growing cannabis commercially is not just confined to inner-city areas.
There are 51 police forces in Britain. Forty-seven of them have reported
commercial cannabis cultivation. In Glasgow, Scotland, police have
closed down 61 cannabis factories in nine months. In (largely rural)
Derbyshire they have closed 200 factories in a year. And in London, the
Metropolitan police have closed down over 1,500 factories in the past
two years - three a day. But the commercial cannabis growers that
actually get shut down are the tip of the iceberg.

The police admit that closing down these enterprises is low on their
list of priorities. It is apparently a very time-consuming operation.
There need to be weeks of research and surveillance and a team of men on
the day. Understandably the police think dealing with robbery, burglary
and violent crime is more important.

The police say that commercial cannabis-growing is dominated by a single
ethnic group. And that is not, as some people might suspect, West
Indians. The ethnic group that control the business are the Vietnamese.
And it is also associated with illegal Vietnamese immigration.

Nobody knows how they came to dominate commercial cannabis- growing in
Britain. But they have discovered a gap in the market and moved
energetically to supply the need.

Apparently Morocco in North Africa had a particularly successful
cannabis eradication programme some years ago, which cut their exports
by half.

So Britain's domestic commercial cannabis production expanded rapidly to
meet demand. It is estimated that domestic production currently supplies
60% of the cannabis consumed in this country. But police are convinced
that, because they are seeing so much commercial production, some of it
must be for export.

The debate rages as to how damaging smoking cannabis really is. All the
medical evidence shows that it less harmful than alcohol. And, it is
certainly less likely to lead to violent crime.

On the other hand, it is argued that the new strains of cannabis being
commercially cultivated indoors in artificial conditions in Britain and
the rest of Europe are actually stronger and more toxic than the
cannabis grown more naturally in the open air in Jamaica and elsewhere.

But the continued rise of commercial production in Britain proves that
pressuring poor countries like Jamaica and Morocco to burn their crops
is pointless. Unless something is done about demand, other suppliers
(including domestic producers) will emerge to fill the gap.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com


--
LCA FORUM invites YOU: http://www.lca-uk.org/lcaforum/

I'm going to be on the road for the next week visiting family. My online access will be spotty, but I'll be stopping in now and then adding some more posts when I can. For those of you traveling - be safe. And I wish all of you a wonderful Christmas. Just a Girl in short shorts talking about whatever brings us a delightfully quirky and moving story: A Christmas Miracle in Colombia Via Blog Reload, revelations from Bill Conroy of Narco News that the mysterious downed cocaine plane in Mexico was part of a Department of Homeland Security Operation (not the downing, but the transporting) and that the Mexican government is keeping Immigration and Custom Enforcement's (ICE) involvement quiet to avoid messing up the huge drug war funding bonus from the U.S. Oops. Nice letter from Howard Wooldridge in the Amarillo Globe-News We could save money by giving canine officers a quarter to flip, instead of a dog. Expert: Drug dogs wrong 48% of the time. You don't have to feed a quarter or pick up after it. Something the kaptin's been saying is coming... Alex at Drug Law Blog talks about Gov. Schwarzenegger proposal to release 20,000 low-risk prison inmates early because of budgetary problems. Apparently Drug WarRant is in the top 55 liberal bloggers/sites by traffic, according to this article. I'll take the compliment with pleasure, even though Drug WarRant doesn't specifically define itself as being either liberal or conservative. I'm also pretty sure that's higher than my normal traffic numbers -- probably hit me on a day I got a big boost from digg. But thanks, Kevin! This is from a while ago, and I can't remember who pointed it out to me, but it's sitting on my desktop, and it's such classic reefer madness stuff... Did you know this? According to reporter James Schugel, "High-grade marijuana is four times more addictive than commercial grade." Four times. Not three. Wow. Read this article about homicides in Allentown and see the strange disconnects... Intelligent people interviewed about drugs and gangs who understand the basic problems -- that the drug war doesn't work, that it's about black market territories and profits, that arresting one dealer just means adding another one and increasing violence. They get it... but just can't connect that last dot. ...So they're talking about re-instituting DARE. Drug Sense Weekly

---
"Cannabis undoubtedly poisons the mind, and very often will lead to
psychological problems, if not schizophrenia...very few will be able to
formulate an objective and sincere opinion on the subject when
confronted with a sensible opposing view." John Pye, The Sentinel,
Thursday December 13.

I would like to challenge Mr Pye to a public debate. Irrespective of how
many people experience problems with cannabis (actually it seems like a
very small number of users), the question remains; why should cannabis
users who have done no harm to others be punished by law?

ALAN BUFFRY
Stoke-on-Trent
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/

Via MPP - a statement from Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums

"As the mayor of a city that believes in compassionate care, we support Medical Cannabis Dispensaries. We are discouraged to learn of the DEA's actions that appear to be in opposition to the will of the residents of this city. Rep. Conyers, Chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, expressed deep concern over the DEA landlord threats and other efforts to undermine California law, and committed to sharply questioning these tactics as part of the committee's oversight efforts. I am grateful for and supportive of Rep. Conyers' concerns."

He's also sent a letter to Conyers, urging hearings

The DEA's recent surge tactics, such as the dissemination of threatening letters to property owners and unrelenting raids that continue to place citizens in harm's way, undermine state and local authority, and jeopardize the integrity of state law. We urge the House Judiciary Committee to expeditiously hold hearings and examine this very important issue.

They're So Scared They Put 20 Tons on One Ship! by Jacob Sullum at Hit and Run

Is a rising seizure total a sign of success or a sign that the volume crossing the border has increased? Is an increase in large-volume seizures a sign of smugglers' desperation or a sign that smugglers are not terribly worried about interdiction, treating the risk as a cost of doing business? [...] However much the Coast Guard seizes, enough drugs always get through to meet the demand. The most drug warriors can expect is to temporarily increase prices by raising traffickers' cost of doing business. Since the cost of replacing seized drugs is very small compared to their retail value, with most of the markup occurring after they arrive in the U.S., interdiction is a highly inefficient way of discouraging drug use. But don't tell John Walters. The drug czar thinks "every load of drugs seized represents that much less that can be used to poison our young people and harm our nation."

And that is the point, exactly, why supply side interdiction bragging is absolutely moronic -- particularly with an illegal commodity, where the markup is so high (many reports peg the the markup for cocaine at 100:1. Let's take a made-up example to demonstrate: Bob Wilson owns a factory that makes widgets. For some strange reason, these widgets are in high demand and there isn't much competition out there. It costs Bob ten cents per widget in manufacturing costs, but he can sell them in the stores for $10. He sells a million widgets each year for a total income of $10 million and a total manufacturing cost of $100,000 (for a gross profit of $9,900,000). Not bad. But these widgets are popular, and Wilson's Widgets is in a bad section of town, so some of his shipments out of the factory get highjacked and the widgets stolen. Bob doesn't like it, and he does what he can to disguise the trucks, or send them out at unusual times, but he knows that a certain percentage of them will be lost. Does this mean he won't be able to sell a million widgets in the stores? Of course not! He has a factory -- he just makes more widgets. If a truck gets highjacked, he sends out another truck. But what about the financial cost of all those lost widgets? Won't that dramatically change the price? Let's take a look. Assume that ten percent of Wilson's Widgets normal annual production are highjacked. That's significant. That means that he'd have to make an additional 100,000 widgets at a cost of $10,000 to replace the highjacked widgets. That extra cost means raising the price in the stores to make up for the losses, right? Gee, I wonder if that will get expensive... In order to make the same gross profit of $9,900,000, Bob will have to raise the price in the stores from $10 per widget to... $10.01 That's right. A penny more. If half of Wilson's Widgets' usual million widgets were highjacked, so that Bob had to manufacture an additional half million widgets, the price would go up from $10 to... $10.05 If two million widgets were highjacked, so that Bob had to manufacture three million in order to supply one million, the price would go up from $10 to... $10.20 There is no way that supply side interdiction can work, unless you can seize 100% of all product -- an impossibility in the illicit drug market. Now, the example I gave above is simplified somewhat to make the numbers easier -- drug cartels have additional costs along the process (transportation, bribes, middlemen, etc.) -- but the principles remain the same. One difference between the widgets and the cocaine, however. In the Wilson scenario, an assumption is made that the crooks don't do anything with the widgets they highjacked (it might be helpful to imagine it as a percentage of the widgets having melted, rather than being stolen). It's hard to imagine crooks highjacking all those valuable widgets without going into business. If they were to sell all those widgets that they stole, then it could dramatically cut into Bob Wilson's widget business and he'd stop making money. However, with cocaine, the federal government obligingly destroys what they highjack (for the most part), keeping the rest of the supply highly profitable for the cartels. Study Question:

Supply-side interdiction of illicit commodities is:

1. A stupid idea
2. A really stupid idea

Thus ends the Economics 101 lesson.