Mid-North Coast NSW annual eradication program

[geeunit]

Well, I'm sure many of you guys and gals have heard and seen on the news the recent mid-north coast nsw drug operation. Have a gander: http://www.dailytele...i-1225998352161

 

TUCKED away in the state's forests and national parks are millions of dollars worth of cannabis plants just waiting to be harvested by criminals. Often small and well hidden, these "cash crops" are springing up all over NSW and, according to police, criminals are increasingly using Crown land.

 

The NSW Police drug squad this week set off on its annual eradication program, finding and destroying thousands of illegal plants across the Mid-North Coast.

 

"The cannabis eradication program is not about arrests, it's about hurting supply, taking drugs off the street and driving the price up," drug squad head Detective Superintendent Nick Bingham said.

 

For drug growers, there is a well-known saying: "Plant by Father's Day, pull them by Mother's Day."

 

The drug squad likes to spend November to February eradicating the plants, ruining Mother's Day for the illegal harvesters.

 

This week, a squad of officers has 62 target areas on the Mid-North Coast in their sight, targeted after receiving information from local police and existing drug intelligence.

 

Supt Bingham said the traditional larger-style crops of up to 3000 plants had been replaced by smaller ones.

 

"The bigger plantations are easy to detect, and now criminals are planting a lot more smaller crops in more remote areas," Supt Bingham said.

 

After securing a crop of 100 plants found at Ballengarra State Forest, about 25km inland from Port Macquarie, police left a business card.

 

Tacked to a tree it says: "With compliments, the NSW Drug Squad."

 

This is in-your-face overt policing.

 

 

 

I see, that is a very logical goal to aim for! Any other bright ideas how you can hurt the pockets of the honest men/women of Australia more?! (hint the sarcasm) To me that is just recognition that prohibition is not and will not ever work.

 

I died a bit on the inside when watching all the healthy crops been ripped out and I'm sure many others did too.

 

Cheers.

[MongyMan]

"The cannabis eradication program is not about arrests, it's about hurting supply, taking drugs off the street and driving the price up," drug squad head Detective Superintendent Nick Bingham said.

 

 

So the facts are, Detective Superintendent Nick Bingham.......

.

1. is targeting outdoor grown supplies......

2. his main aim is to increase prices on the street......

 

Are you serious Detective Superintendent Nick Bingham ? You may as well work for organised crime gangs. (or do you?)

 

1. is targeting outdoor grown supplies......... (sounds like a dream come true to organised crime gangs to me who grow indoor predominately........Your just muscle knocking out competition Nick )

 

2. his main aim is to increase prices on the street......( again a dream come true for organised crime gangs...........and what better insentive to start growing cannabis if they're not already)

 

All you will achieve is to make organised crime gangs richer Nick..............many of whom are using that money to fiance importing heroin and cocaine into Australia.

 

You may think your a hero Nick but the truth is you do alot of damage with your 'good deeds'.

 

Peace MM

[smashed1]

you hit the nail rite on the head there mongyman , i bet most crops they rip are small personal / freind use,not for sale anyway ,

the arseholes

Edited February 3, 2011 by smashed1

[brick]

And the arse hole damaged a tree as well.

Driving the price up? Does any body know what education level you need to become a fucking dumb arsed cop? No wonder their paper work takes so long. Programmed brainwashed dumb fuck cops. How could they expect anyone to treat them with respect with statements like that.

[geeunit]

Upping street prices is a completely irrational aim for a drug squad trying to make a difference. Protecting the population should be their number once concern, and if it was then they would not be targeting cannabis cultivation full-stop. They would be better off investing their time and money searching shipments at ports around Australia to seize potentially harmful drugs.

[geeunit]

Smashed, some of them were quite sizable crops of around 100 healthy plants, but still- their logic behind the operation is wrong.

[bush buggered]

Still, if their not worrying about arrests, i'm happy with that..I'll quote that if the bastards bust me..

[Nick Bingham]

Dear Budding and each of you having some angst about my quote regarding 'driving up prices'. Lucky I'm thick skinned! Whilst I don't resile from the fact I made that comment, just remember not everything is as it seems when quoted in the media. I understand you have a bias towards the use of cannabis and that is your choice, albeit an illegal one. The Drug Squad (and NSW Police generally)do not target drug users, though users do get caught up in operations on dealers. What you probably don't know is we are heavily involved in the National Drug Strategy which has three main pillars, being Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Minimisation. Just one of our strategies relating to Supply Reduction is the Eradication Program. We do a lot of work with other government departments, agencies and industry relating to these pillars on all legal and illicit drugs. You may not accept the fact that even the most liberal minded now concede cannabis is a gateway drug and that the abuse (note the word abuse not use) of cannabis can lead to various mental health issues and cannabis, despite the cries of many in the cannabis community is not a safe/soft drug, is just as addictive as the other drugs out there and apart from the legal drug alcohol, is the the drug responsible for most hospital presentations nationally. I hope you accept I'm entitled to my opinion as you are. I'm not a 'hero' as Mongyman sarcastically suggested but I do this work for the greater good of the community. I would also be surprised if you held any of your dealers in high esteem, given the fact that they often have all trappings of life you would like but gain their wealth through illegal acts and the exploitation of those who must have/desire/crave a little THC enhancement. I wish you all well. ps: none of the crop sites located were for 'perso' as one suggested unless the grower smoked pot 24 hours a day for the next decade.

[MongyMan]

Hi Nick and thank you for your reply It's refreshing to have a member of the NSW Police Force, especially one who holds the high ranking you do, talk to the Australian cannabis community openly rather than the peeking through the curtains like a sneaky voyeur or the home invading many here are more accustomed to from them. IMO open discussion is better than a "WAR ON CANNABIS" any day. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I hope you understand some of the replies you receive may be a bit 'heated' given the unnecessary impact cannabis prohibition has had on some here personally but I do ask that any posters keep it civil.

 

Isn't it a shame though, that I and others can't openly use our real name as you have to talk to you?

I and many others here fear unjust and possible unlawful persecution due to the "thick skin" of the NSW Police Force

Unlike yourself, who has their protection.

 

Anyway, again thank you for having the courtesy to reply and to answer you......

 

Dear Budding and each of you having some angst about my quote regarding 'driving up prices'. Lucky I'm thick skinned! Whilst I don't resile from the fact I made that comment.................

 

Your driving up prices....I get it

What I don't get is how you think this fits into "Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Minimisation"?

 

How does it reduce demand? I thought you said it was an addictive drug? There is plenty of scientific evidence to say it isn't by the way but given YOU believe it is, How does "driving up prices" reduce demand for "this addictive drug". Hasn't history proven over and over that it only increases CRIME to PAY for that drug? How is that in the public's interest?

 

How does it reduce supply? As an untaxed, unregulated black market it is driven totally by the simple economic law of supply. If demand is higher than supply prices go up (the mechanism you are trying to influence I presume?) and as a result supply will increase as more take advantage of the more profitable market. (did you overlook the second part?)

The Federal Police are well aware that there are Asian and other organised crime gangs taking advantage of this market and using the money to finance the importing of heroin, cocaine and other drugs Australia REALLY doesn't need. Is the NSW Police Force aware of this also?

How is that in the public's interest?

 

From a harm reduction point of view how does it make sense to 'drive prices up'? There is an endless list of reasons it increases not reduces harm. How is that in the public's interest?

 

Are "Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Minimisation" things you are really serious about Nick or is it just a mantra you chant? I honestly can't see how driving up prices can be in the public's interest at all and I'd love you to explain to me how it is as I'm sure others would?

 

 

.........just remember not everything is as it seems when quoted in the media.

 

Ummmm I don't think you need to tell the Australian cannabis community that NIck. We are a victim of it more than you could probably ever comprehend. The NPCIC was formed specifically to ensure that was the case with cannabis as just 1 example.

 

I understand you have a bias towards the use of cannabis and that is your choice, albeit an illegal one.

 

You have a bias against cannabis, albeit an illogical one. The reality is that not all cannabis in NSW is illegal and not all growers and users have committed a crime but you should already know that?

 

"The Drug Squad (and NSW Police generally)do not target drug users, though users do get caught up in operations on dealers.

 

That's the same as someone saying sorry I shot you in the foot but I was aiming for the the guy behind you. It makes no difference to the guy who got shot in the foot Nick,

 

What you probably don't know is we are heavily involved in the National Drug Strategy which has three main pillars, being Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Minimisation. Just one of our strategies relating to Supply Reduction is the Eradication Program. We do a lot of work with other government departments, agencies and industry relating to these pillars on all legal and illicit drugs.

 

Well aware of the involvement Nick. It's how effective is that involvement is my concern. From what I and many others see it causes more harm than good for society in alot of ways. How are the Australian cannabis community liaised with and involved in the National Drug Strategy in a proactive way Nick or are we just a target of it?

I am also very interested to know what legal drugs you are concerned with in regards to Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Minimisation other than alcohol which is for obvious reasons?

 

You may not accept the fact that even the most liberal minded now concede cannabis is a gateway drug and that the abuse (note the word abuse not use) of cannabis can lead to various mental health issues and cannabis, despite the cries of many in the cannabis community is not a safe/soft drug, is just as addictive as the other drugs out there and apart from the legal drug alcohol, is the the drug responsible for most hospital presentations nationally.

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea "even the most liberal minded now concede cannabis is a gateway drug........etc." I presume you circulate in a small circle of people who all have similar views? The reality is it seems it's you that can't admit more are seeing the "war on cannabis" for what it is and are seeing it is more of a problem to society than cannabis could ever be.

Id love to see the scientific evidence to back up those claims of addiction, mental health issues and the gateway theory if they exist Nick? And where you got those figures from that say cannabis 'apart from the legal drug alcohol, is the the drug responsible for most hospital presentations nationally'? Other than that, how do YOU define abuse? From what you have written I get the feeling ANY cannabis use is abuse in your eyes?

 

I hope you accept I'm entitled to my opinion as you are. I'm not a 'hero' as Mongyman sarcastically suggested but I do this work for the greater good of the community.

 

Yes you are entitled to your opinion Nick and you misinterpreted me if you thought 'hero' was meant as sarcasm aimed at you. It was aimed at the media's way of 'hero worshiping' cannabis busters. I understand you honestly believe you are doing a good community service Nick but there is more people than you obviously realise that don't agree and many of them don't use cannabis as you might assume. They can just see the damage the "war on cannabis" really does.

 

I would also be surprised if you held any of your dealers in high esteem, given the fact that they often have all trappings of life you would like but gain their wealth through illegal acts and the exploitation of those who must have/desire/crave a little THC enhancement. [

 

So you want to drive the prices up again why? To make these people richer? As I said I'd love you to explains how this works because to me it looks like you have it all the wrong way round.

 

I wish you all well. ps: none of the crop sites located were for 'perso' as one suggested unless the grower smoked pot 24 hours a day for the next decade.

 

I wish you well also Nick (except in finding crops ) and thank you again for the courtesy of your reply here ps....I know people who only grow every 4 or 5 years for 'perso' and often it's done as a group of friends. I'm pretty sure if you found one of those crops there would be no convincing you it wasn't commercial? How many plants do you consider non-comercial Nick out of interest?

 

Peace MM

[CactusGumnut]

Wow... just wow.

 

Or should I say, same old same old.

 

The NSW Police department are still planning their strategies behind assumptions, rather than solid scientific and empirical evidence. While we're at it, lets go back to teaching that the world is flat.

 

I've got one name for you, Nick. Ethan Nadelmann.

 

Since you missed his appearances on T.V, clearly, you should search his name on Youtube and have a listen to someone who isn't lying to himself every day.

 

EDIT: Here it is for you

 

"TRACEY BOWDEN, PRESENTER: Elsewhere across Victoria today police launched one of the biggest anti drugs operations the state has ever seen.

 

More than 600 officers raided a cannabis and heroin syndicate that police allege made $400 million in just the past two years.

 

But as police were claiming victory in that battle, a visiting expert on narcotics law was telling the National Press Club that the wider international war on drugs can't be won.

 

Ethen Nadelmann heads the George Soros funded Policy Alliance in New York. He says that privately more and more politicians, police and health authorities know prohibition of drugs can't succeed and in fact only benefits criminals.

 

And he argues a move to decriminalise soft drugs and regulate supply of narcotics in countries like Australia is only a matter of time.

 

I spoke to Ethan Nadelmann in Sydney.

 

Ethan Nadelmann, who is winning the drug war? Is it in fact winnable?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE: There's probably only two groups that are really benefiting from the drug war these days.

 

On the one hand, you have all the criminal organisations in Mexico and Afghanistan, in Australia, in the United States that are making billions and billions of dollars. And so long as they're not getting caught or going to prison, they're benefitting.

 

And the other group that's benefitting essentially is the prison industrial complex. It's the hundreds and thousands - the millions of people around the world getting paid to enforce these laws, getting paid to put people in prison, getting paid, paid, paid, basically to keep arresting people in what's a bottomless pit.

 

In a way what's happened over the last few decades is that the organised criminals keep making more and more money, the law enforcement establishment keeps getting bigger and bigger.

 

They're benefitting and everybody else is worse off.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: You make it sound very easy - legally regulate it and everything will be fine. But what is your plan? How easy would that be?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: Well I think the first thing is we need to transform nature of the debate.

 

I mean, so much of the debate in your country and mine is about which new law enforcement approach might work better.

 

But I think the really important debate is between those people who would say 'Let's legalise the whole shebang' and those who say 'Let's not legalise but we need a much more sensible public health policy, one that focuses on reducing the death, the disease, the crime and suffering associated both with drugs and our failed prohibitionist policies'.

 

Then you can ask, what are the best policies that we could have to reduce the harms of drugs?

 

And with that I would say, first of all, with cannabis, take cannabis out of the criminal justice system. I mean, let's face it, we've justified the laws against marijuana forever and ever as some great big Child Protection Act when everybody knows that the people have who have the best access to marijuana are in fact young people.

 

With respect to the harder drugs - heroin, cocaine, especially with heroin - I would say let's allow the hard core addicts - the people who are committed to using these drugs, who are going to get them from the black market no matter what we do, allow them to obtain it from legal sources, from clinics, from pharmacies, whatever it may be.

 

It's the heroin maintenance programs you now have in Europe and Canada - something that Australians once led in talking about.

 

I think those are two very pragmatic policies that could result in less death, less disease, less crime and less waste of taxpayer money.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: You are talking about substances here that can harm people physically and mentally, can kill people. How do you ethically overcome the idea of legalising them?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: Trying to create a drug-free society makes no sense. There's never been a drug free society. There's never going to be a drug-free society.

 

The real challenge for us is not 'How do we keep these drugs at bay? How do we build a moat between these drugs and our children?

 

The real question is, ‘How do we accept the fact that these drugs are here to stay, and that the real challenge is to learn how to live with them so they cause the least possible harm and in some cases the greatest possible benefits?’

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: What do you do, say, when it reaches the point where there is the first death of someone who was a registered heroin user - so essentially the government has if you like provided the drug? What happens when the first person in that situation dies?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: Thousands and thousands of people are dying are overdoses, right? Heroin overdoses, pharmaceutical opiate overdoses. If we set up a legal program like they now have in the Netherlands or they have in Germany or Switzerland or Denmark or Canada... You know, so far by the way there have been no fatalities in those programs.

 

But if there was a fatality, I would say that would be one fatality in a program which has saved hundreds of lives, saved taxpayers millions of dollars, reduced the spread of HIV and Hep C. It would be unfortunate but the odds are that that person likely would have died if that program had never existed in the first place.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: We're told that drugs are very easy to get now. If they're legal does that mean they're going to be even be easier to get and therefore more people will try them?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: Well I know at least in the United States that there are now at least three surveys in which teenagers say it is easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol. So if ever there were an indictment of the current marijuana prohibition policy, that seems to be it.

 

I mean, if marijuana were legalised it's not going to make it more available to young people 'cause they already have easy access. What I'm saying is not 'Let's have a free for all'. What I'm saying is not 'Let's eliminate regulations'.

 

What I'm saying is, 'Let's regulate this stuff to reduce the harms associated both with drugs and with our drug control policies'.

 

People make the mistake of assuming that prohibition represents the ultimate form of regulation when in fact prohibition represents the abdication of regulation.

 

It means that whatever you don't effectively prohibit is left in the hands of the criminals.

 

What I'm interested in is a sensible, intelligent, tough regulatory policy that reduces the harms of drugs and that also reduces the harms of our failed prohibitionist policies.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: Californians recently voted against legalising marijuana. What does that tell you about where the public debate is, what the public view is at the moment?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: I and my organisation the Drug Policy Alliance were deeply involved in that campaign. We didn't start it but we played a major role. And I have to say, I never expected the initiative would get 46.3 per cent of the vote.

 

I was prepared for much less than that but if anything, the nature of the debate around legalising marijuana has been transformed in the last two years. Two years ago, that debate was considered a fringe issue. Now it's a mainstream political issue.

 

By and large, what you see in the United States is a growing sentiment that although marijuana may not be the safest drug for everybody, that we're better off taxing it, controlling it and regulating it. And that arresting 800,000 Americans a year - over 40 per cent of all of our drug arrests - for marijuana possession makes no sense.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: Now, while you're here in Australia you're going to be speaking to people behind the scenes, no doubt - police, medical people, maybe politicians. Do you have a sense that they want change?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: My sense is that the number of people in Australia, especially in the upper echelons, who privately believe it's time for a different policy, it's growing.

 

It's true all around the world that the number of... that there's a growing disparity between what elected officials and other prominent individuals say publicly and what they will say privately. What's beginning to happen is that more and more people are finally beginning to say publicly what they would only previously say privately.

 

Look what just happened in Mexico, where not just the current President Calderón said 'Okay we need a debate on legalisation' but his predecessor Vicente Fox said 'That's the answer' and his predecessor President Zedillo said 'We need a bigger debate'.

 

So what you're seeing is people beginning to cross over from expressing themselves privately to expressing themselves publicly. I think we're going to see that crossover happening in Australia in the next year or two as well.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: Do you understand that for a lot of people that big stumbling block is the fact that these are substances that can cause psychotic episodes - can cause, potentially, schizophrenia? Legalising something like that troubles people.

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: I think once you accept the reality that these drugs are here, whether we like it or not, once you accept that we have to find ways to better control them and to minimise their harms, then you begin to accept that criminalisation may not be the best way to deal with this.

 

I remember there's a Dutch scientist who was one of the first ones who showed that there may be some link between heavy use of marijuana at a young age and premature onset of schizophrenia.

 

Somebody said 'So what does that say to you about legalising marijuana?'

 

His response is 'It says to me that's why we have to legalise, that marijuana, while it may be safe for most people who use it, it's too dangerous to be left in the hands of the criminals. We need to bring this above the ground where it be effectively regulated in a responsible way. We can't rely on the criminals to effectively regulate substances which can be as dangerous as these are'.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: Is there proof that your model would work?

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: There is proof from abroad that, for example, decriminalising marijuana and allowing people to obtain it legally for medicinal purposes is not associated with any great increase in use.

 

There is overwhelming proof published in the scientific journals that allowing committed heroin addicts to obtain their heroin legally from a legal clinic does reduce addiction, disease, crime, saves taxpayers money. Overwhelming proof.

 

There is proof now coming from Portugal - a wonderful report out just this week in the British Journal of Criminology by Alex Stevens - that Portugal's policy of decriminalising possession of all drugs has not resulted in an increase in drug use, but it has resulted in a reduction in crime, reduction of HIV, hep C and other drug related ills. So there's powerful evidence.

 

The thing I'm at a loss to understand is Australia, which 20 years ago took the lead in the world in saying 'Let's have a heroin maintenance trial' and then abandoned it. And now seven other countries are doing it and some have it as a matter of national policy and in Australia you still have politicians saying 'It would send the wrong message' as if the right message is "Let those people die" rather than institute a policy which has been proven to work in a half a dozen foreign countries.

 

That I don't get.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: Ethan Nadelmann, thank you for speaking to us.

 

ETHAN NADELMANN: Thank you very much.

 

TRACEY BOWDEN: Some provocative views there on a very controversial subject and that's the program for tonight."

 

Any more comments?

Edited February 4, 2011 by CactusGumnut