
The Mystery of the Tainted Cocaine - sorbus
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=4683741&mode=print
======
rywang
The 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
Decriminalisation, 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.ht...](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)

------
blahedo
> _As Dr. Clark put it: "The idea of letting addicts die to make drugs scarier
> is reprehensible."_

Yes.

~~~
scotus69
Why? 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.

~~~
barrkel
Do you consume caffeine for "escape"? How does your argument look if you
replace cocaine with caffeine?

Your comment reads like you're regurgitating government propaganda swallowed
wholesale.

~~~
scotus69
Sure. Just because the government is saying something, even truth, does not
automatically make it false.

Replacing cocaine with not only "caffeine", but also "theophylline" and
"sildenafil citrate" also works. Only, neither of those has the propensity for
"addiction" or "dependence" to the degree that "cocaine" does.

Or perhaps you have done some research that proves otherwise?

~~~
Alex3917
According to the WHO, cocaine use, when done safely and responsibly, is non-
addictive causes essentially zero problems in the vast majority of users:

"Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor
physical or social problems ... a minority of people start using cocaine or
related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little
or no negative consequences, even after years of use. ... Use of coca leaves
appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic,
sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations."[1]

Also, there is a wealth of research indicating that cocaine is vastly safer
than caffeine, especially when it comes to the health and safety of unborn
babies.

[1] <http://www.tni.org/archives/drugscoca-docs_sixhorsemen>

~~~
scotus69
Perhaps your references need updating.

The current WHO statement is here:
[http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.ht...](http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.html)

Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March
1995 (unpublished Briefing Kit)."

An "unpublished Briefing Kit", oh come on !!! ??? !!!

~~~
Alex3917
You conveniently left out the part about it being the largest survey of
cocaine use ever conducted. But no matter, the Consumer Reports guide to drugs
will tell you essentially the same thing:

[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen...](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm)

------
Alex3917
Part two was just posted a few days ago:

[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&m...](http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&mode=print)

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.

~~~
ljf
It's more like 1 in 139 - not 'one in three': [http://www.latimes.com/sns-
viral-death-causes-pictures,0,407...](http://www.latimes.com/sns-viral-death-
causes-pictures,0,4078414.photogallery)

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>

Illicit drug related deaths are relatively low, 17,000 deaths in 2000
<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.

~~~
palish
About heart disease --- are there any simple things I can do now (when I'm 22)
that will save my life when I'm 60, 70, 80, 90?

~~~
olefoo
Eat right and don't live a sedentary lifestyle. It's not an absolute panacea,
but you will be less likely to suffer that fate.

------
zachster
I 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
Which is one of the reasons I stick to computers and avoid the black market.

~~~
zachster
You're living your life in fear! <g>

------
nikcub
Here is a related report from the CDC:

<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.

------
rdtsc
> 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__
Why do you think those are mutually exclusive?

~~~
rdtsc
Good point.

------
ljf
You can read more comments here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628216>
, from when this story was last posted.

It's still a great read.

------
erikano
Thanks 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>

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.

------
oliveoil
just 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.

~~~
hristov
Radio 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.

~~~
tomjen3
They will get it at some point though - not only are there a lot of
programmers who would love to write something as complex as that, but they can
afford to pay very, very well.

~~~
ianium
They basically need a GAVIA[1] system with an extra couple of battery modules
and one of the dvl/ins modules to allow for long travel distances with less
accumulated error. Build a payload module and screw them all together and
you're there. [1]<http://www.gavia.is/Products/Gavia-Technology/Payloads/>

------
AntiEstablish
To 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>

------
fragmede
Is 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.

------
protomyth
As a work of fiction: Kyle Mills's Rising Phoenix deals with a group tainting
drugs to create a panic.

------
lwhi
Would terrorist groups ever choose to contaminate street drugs? Has this
happened in the past?

------
White_N_Nerdy
If 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
_It 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.

~~~
White_N_Nerdy
Oh 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>

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
Saying "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..."

~~~
sliverstorm
I think he knows that. I think he's just avoiding actually making his argument
because nobody can counter his points if we don't know what they are.

Also, to White_N_Nerdy, before you go 'look at how much it's worth, they MUST
want that and are therefore involved'- consider that the USA GDP is 15
trillion dollars. There's no way our government could control the entire drug
trade, which means a fraction of 500 billion is the best they could do, and
what's a chunk of 500 billion to the US gov't? Besides, is a chunk of 500
billion actually worth the risk of the ENTIRE WORLD discovering our government
is the most evil and corrupt organization ever to walk the earth? (not that
they are, but they would be if they were orchestrating the entire drug trade)

~~~
alttab
One could argue the US Government still is - but the list of reasons they
would provide is long and may not contain any bullet points related to drugs.

America is the land of the free (for all). I consider the steady-state
employment of government powers at the federal level nothing more than a score
board on a death match server.

------
davidj
maybe its not cut with it, but a by-product of the manufacturing.

------
kiba
They have "drug experts". How do these people learns about the drug trade?

~~~
sliverstorm
If you're implying a drug expert must have been a druggie, consider: has a
dolphin expert ever been a dolphin?

