9 ms·
The Mystery of the Tainted Cocaine
- ljf 16y agoYou can read more comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628216 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628216 , from when this story was last posted. It's still a great read.
- Alex3917 16y agoPart two was just posted a few days ago: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&mode=print http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&m... I'd encourage everyone to read this. About 1 in 3 Americans die from drug use or drug-related causes, so there is a real need for more people to become the 'drug geek' among their circle of friends.
- Retric 16y agoSource? 1 in 3 sounds ridiculously high.
- Alex3917 16y agoThere are about 435,000 annual deaths from smoking. This is about 1 in 5. Plus another 50,000 deaths from second hand smoke. Plus another 85,000 deaths from alcohol and alcohol-related fatalities. Plus another 7.5-10K from NSAIDS. Plus another 20K or so from illicit drugs. Plus another 106K from prescription drugs.[1] That's about 29.4% of the 2.4 million annual U.S. deaths right there. Plus IIRC most of these categories are undercounts because they are looking mostly at the proximate causes. (Smoking- and alcohol-related deaths are the obvious exceptions.) So they aren't necessarily considering someone who takes accutane and dies of liver failure 20 years later, someone who gets AIDS or Hep C from drug use, someone who gets MRSA after getting sent to prison for drug use, etc. And that's completely ignoring people who die because they weren't taking drugs they should have been taking, which is the other side of the same issue-- making poor decisions about drug use. Now I think we would need to be really conservative in any calculations we made here in order to for the fact that individuals can make decisions that we wouldn't personally make but that are still acceptable, but there are still a lot of blatantly obvious cases like people refusing antibiotics for staph infections and such. Plus all of the above is only counting mortality and completely ignoring morbidity, which is obviously much greater. [1] Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205. Suh DC, Woodall BS, Shin SK, Hermes-De Santis ER. Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2000 Dec;34(12):1373-9.
- ljf 16y agoOk, sorry I don't think you made it clear before you meant /all/ drugs - legal/prescription/illicit/etc. In that case then yes - I can believe that some form of drug use is related to 1/3 of deaths - but since this story was about illicit drugs, I'm sure you can see where the confusion stemmed.
- AndyKelley 16y agoI find all of this a little hokey. Death usually cannot be linked to a single cause. I mean, if you fall off a cliff, obviously it was the fall. But if someone dies of cancer, then you can't say that second hand smoke killed them. It could be a combination of their eating unhealthily, not exercising, breathing in second hand smoke, and being really old.
- carbocation 16y agoOf course, statistical studies typically control for these things, so this is not a huge problem.
- ljf 16y agoIt's more like 1 in 139 - not 'one in three': http://www.latimes.com/sns-viral-death-causes-pictures,0,4078414.photogallery http://www.latimes.com/sns-viral-death-causes-pictures,0,407... The leading cause of death (Heart Disease) kills 1 in 3 or 4 depending on the source: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa Illicit drug related deaths are relatively low, 17,000 deaths in 2000 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 - compared to nearly half a million deaths related to smoking. That said, you are totally right - everyone should be aware of the risks - even if you don't take drugs others around you might need educating. And part 2 is a great read.
- kenjackson 16y agoThanks... part II is actually better than part I.
- ldng 16y agoI agree. It's longer but quite well documented. It retakes most important points of the first part so I if you choose to read only one, read the part II. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&mode=print http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&m...
- __david__ 16y agoFrom one of the final paragraphs: > While Kerlikowske worked in Seattle, he was moderately progressive on drug issues—but as the nation's drug czar, he is legally bound (by the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998) to "oppose any attempt to legalize." Even if the nation's drug czar believes that prohibition has been a failure—and it has—it's against the law for him to say so. Wow. That is a crazy law we have there.
- bmj 16y agoI wonder why he took the job? Seems like he could do better work from the outside, as it were.
- zachster 16y agoI like this article. I like how they talk about drug smuggling technology in terms of natural selection against an inhospitable environment. It reminds me of hacking. Less people die from hacking.
- sliverstorm 16y agoWhich is one of the reasons I stick to computers and avoid the black market.
- zachster 16y agoYou're living your life in fear! <g>
- rywang 16y agoThe levamisole test kits should be made available to the smugglers. If the smugglers knew they were shipping (detectably) impure cocaine, there would be pressure on the producers to stop cutting the product. (... and a little voice in my head tells me that we'd be better off if drugs were regulated rather than illegal.)
- ljf 16y agoDecriminalisation, and to some extent regulation (addicts can take pure drugs in certain clinics as part of a process to stop taking drugs), is currently providing some improvement in user and crime rates in Portugal: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht...
- Alex3917 16y agoTechnically cocaine is already regulated and legal. It's just that the regulations are such that it's very difficult to get unless you're an ophthalmologist or ENT doctor.
- blahedo 16y ago> As Dr. Clark put it: "The idea of letting addicts die to make drugs scarier is reprehensible." Yes.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- scotus69 16y agoWhy? Let them have cake... and die. Let me explain what I mean. The "idea" may be reprehensible from a humanistic point of view and perhaps even from the drug pusher's point of view that it is bad business to kill your customers (too) quickly. However, from a purely psychological viewpoint, the cocaine addicts are merely trying to escape their current reality, albeit temporarily, but at a well publicised cost to themselves, their families and their country. So, why not make that uber costly escape permanent? The argument that drug addiction is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the drug addict is patently fatalistic and self-defeating. If you don't like the risk of dying of something then don't be involved in an activity that has a high propensity to lead to death by its very nature. Of course the wisecracks will always argue that life is a disease with a bad prognosis because the outcome is always death... But I say, if all an addict seeks is escape from life by patently dangerous means, then let them have it, for good. EDIT: Spelling & Grammar.
- crux_ 16y agoI suppose you had no problem with the poisoning of alcohol supplies during prohibition then? (Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/ http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/)
- scotus69 16y agoJust because a "drug" is socially acceptable does not make it any less dangerous, case in point: the tobacco industry in the seventies. And even alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/ http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/ No, I am not for deliberate poisoning of mass consumed "drugs". But certainly I don't care that people die of their addictions to dangerous substances.
- davidj 16y agomaybe its not cut with it, but a by-product of the manufacturing.
- kiba 16y agoThey have "drug experts". How do these people learns about the drug trade?
- sliverstorm 16y agoIf you're implying a drug expert must have been a druggie, consider: has a dolphin expert ever been a dolphin?
- erikano 16y agoThanks for linking to the print version - it is much more pleasant to read :) Note however, that in the print version, the graph[1] that shows Percentage of cocaine samples found to be cut with cattle-deworming drug levamisole vs. Total number of cocaine samples seized by the DEA for 2005-2009 is not included. [1]: http://www.thestranger.com/binary/98a1/Feature1-570.jpg http://www.thestranger.com/binary/98a1/Feature1-570.jpg Edit: What I find odd, is that while they (thestranger.com) have opted to remove the main image for the article, they include all comments - which, with 97 comments so far, means that those who print the article are going to end up with 4 pages containing the article and 13 pages of comments.
- protomyth 16y agoAs a work of fiction: Kyle Mills's Rising Phoenix deals with a group tainting drugs to create a panic.
- oliveoil 16y agojust a smuggling idea: why don't they build an unmanned sub to shuttle the drugs around the border? it could go much deeper (no air needed), move real slowly, stay submerged for a very long time at one place, navigate completely automatically using GPS (except someone needs to pick up the cargo on the other end) and if caught it's hard to catch the smugglers.
- ljf 16y agoCheck out: http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosub... - looks like mini subs have already been in use for some time Google Narcosubs for more
- jholman 16y agoThe air is probably for the diesel engines, not the humans. Before nuclear subs, that was the value of the schnorkel: stay mostly-submerged while running the diesels to recharge the electric batteries.
- hristov 16y agoRadio communications for subs are very problematic because water is conductive and more or less shields all radio waves. AFAIK there is a way to communicate through radio with an underwater sub but involves complex antennas very long radio waves and complex signal processing, etc. There is no way a sub would be able to get a GPS signal under water. It is possible to have a sub that runs under water most of the time and only occasionally pops up to get its location via GPS, but that would require very complex autopilot software, which the narco trafficers do not have yet.
- rdtsc 16y ago> Right-wing paramilitary death squads—which are on U.S. lists of international terrorist organizations. Wait, did I read that right? From what I now most right-wing paramilitary death squads are on CIA's payroll.
- __david__ 16y agoWhy do you think those are mutually exclusive?
- rdtsc 16y agoGood point.
- tomjen3 16y agoYes, but they are properly on the unofficial payroll. And they are properly payed through Chiquita, since they own a pretty big favor to the CIA from back when they was called United Fruits company and they got the CIA to instigate a coup for them.
- lwhi 16y agoWould terrorist groups ever choose to contaminate street drugs? Has this happened in the past?
- White_N_Nerdy 16y agoIf you do enough research on drug trafficking, you'll find that the ruling elite pretty much have that market locked up. It can be shown without a doubt that the CIA, the Mossad and British intelligence run about 70% of the world's drug supply. It's a 500 billion dollar a year business. More than oil. Think about it.
- scott_s 16y agoIt can be shown without a doubt that the CIA, the Mossad and British intelligence run about 70% of the world's drug supply. Then show it.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- White_N_Nerdy 16y agoLet me introduce you to google. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cia+mossad+intelligence+drugs http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...
- White_N_Nerdy 16y agoOh and if you want to go with a slightly more tame fact...the estimated value of illegal drugs, go with that. http://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+drug+trade+estimate http://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+drug+trade+estimate Once you're convinced of the estimated value...start using your own logic. The value of the market is absolutely tremendous. If you don't think that the ruling powers that run the governments around the world don't want a piece of that action, you'd better think again.
- scott_s 16y agoSaying "something is so because I can make an argument for it" is not enough. Just because something is possible does not mean it is. And there's still an enormous difference between constructing an argument for something and demonstrating that it is, in fact, possible. So. If you can show it, then show it. If you can't, then don't say you can. Instead say "I have no actual evidence to backup this claim, but my theory is..."
- AntiEstablish 16y agoTo solve this mystery you would need to know who traffics the cocaine. Your search might lead you here - http://www.google.com/search?q=cia+drug+trafficking http://www.google.com/search?q=cia+drug+trafficking
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nikcub 16y agoHere is a related report from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5849a3.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5849a3.htm First, I think it is too easy to write off the Columbians not cutting the cocaine themselves. It used to be that the drugs were imported in as pure a form as possible, to reduce the weight and volume that needs to be smuggled. But what has changed today is that the Columbians no longer control the entire supply chain. Mexicans pick up the coke from Columbia and transport it themselves across the border. In the 70s through to the 90s, Escobar, Ochoa and Lehder controlled everything from production to distribution in the USA (usually with Americans they hired - such as George Jung and the guys featured in Cocaine Cowboys). Today the Mexican cartels control all the smuggling and distribution in the USA - so it actually makes sense that the Columbians are cutting their product in order to increase profits. I read up on Levamisole to get more information about it (its melting point is 30% higher than coke - molecular mass of a third more) . I was looking into this speculating that the reason it is used as a cutting agent could be because it isn't picked up in purity tests that the cartels use. For some reason the CDC and DEA are finding it (perhaps because they explicitly test for it) while the Mexican cartels are not. It is also suitable to use as a cutting agent since it is metabolized into a compound that has similar effects to amphetamines (which have also been used to cut coke with previously). The article suggests this, as there is currently no easy test kit for Levamisole. Second part I would speculate on is that Levamisole is somehow finding its way into the production process unintentionally. It could be that livestock in Columbia is treated with the drug (de-worming etc.) and that the labs are contaminated because of the fertilizer used, or because of some other part of the process. Nowhere online does it mention the quantities of Levamisole found in the cocaine, which makes it difficult to speculate on the source. If it was one part per thousand, you could narrow it down to contamination or impurities passing through, if it was 1 part in 5, you could argue that it is a cutting agent.
- fragmede 16y agoIs there the remotest possibility that there is some problem on the cocoa plantations, and the South American suppliers are cutting the supply to hide the low production levels.