Helen Pierpoint
A BRITISH man has been arrested after police swooped on the ‘largest illegal marijuana plantation in Europe’.
Sixteen greenhouses with more than 10,000 plants were found on the premises in Lliber, Alicante.
Two people, a 45-year-old Briton and an 18-year-old Spaniard, have been arrested in connection with the plantation and one has already been imprisoned.
Police also seized 43 kilos of vacuum-packed marijuana ready for distribution along with a British-registered van with a false floor where the drugs could be hidden.
It is thought the van was destined for Holland and Belgium.
Police are not ruling out the possibility of more arrests as a luxury villa containing mobile phones and computer equipment has also been found near the site.
The operation was launched by police after it was learned greenhouses had been installed without a licence from Lliber Town Hall.
They Should Legalize, regulate and tax cannabis
In a way I agree, anything to eliminate those thieving, corrupting, murdering thugs who control the drug trade.
But let the proceeds of a legalised trade go to the State to finance those in dire need of heart surgery, cancer treatment, limb replacement, etc., caused by a lifetime of honest work.
But there should first be an effective method of protecting the public, to detect for instance, drug-sodden drivers.
At the moment alcohol is the main enemy of road users, but legalisation of drugs, i.e. cheap, could lead to an escalation of accidents.
If druggies couldn’t get State drugs cheap enough the aforementioned drug-barons would still operate.
I’d personally attract druggies onto an island where drugs would be distributed free – let them kill themselves off, they’re no good to humanity and the money spent nowadays on ‘rehabilitation’ could be used for those in real need.
Said ‘tongue-in-cheek’!!!
The “War on Drugs” is just the worst example of a whole raft of unbelievably stupid and damaging policies that the unfortunate combination of the Reagan and Thatcher governments introduced.
Christopher – Richard Nixon, in 1970 or so, is the one who screwed us. They had already done away with the Cannabis Tax Act of 1937, finally. thats when people like Sam the Skunkman and Shantibaba, Neville and others started traveling looking for landraces and other rare cannabis strains to share with the word. Then came tricky Dick, who decided that if they could arrest everyone who was protesting, theyd be able to eventually stop the protests, and since it was those who smoked pot who “threatened” soceity, we gave way to the outright lies that have become the drug war.
Not surprised that Nixon got involved with the abuse of the weed, he was a particularly nasty piece of work.
Of course, the war on weed in particular was done at the behest of various American businesses who cynically used its effects as a justification to get rid of a rival source of products from canvas to fuel by lying to the US Government of the time.
You can’t chose which laws you obey in a democratic civilised society. All you apologists who can’t get by without a fix should head back to the jungle where you’ll find plenty of plants. Grow up!
John Simpson,
but it’s OK to get drunk on legal alcohol and kill on the roads, rape and cause death in the home and workplace – I think it’s you who should head for the jungle.
It’s the legal drug dealers – tobacco and alcohol who demanded their lackeys in congress and parliament crack down on ganja – it was costing them money.
It was’nt criminals who first brought ganja/hash to Europe but ordinary people. They got frightened away by the elite’s bootboys (the police) – enter the criminal and the rest is history.
They soon found, like the Grey Wolves (Turkish mafia) that there was more money in heroin, than Turkish hash.
Let’s make tobacco and alcohol class A drugs – a very good idea.
Stuart speaks history as usual. As one who doesn’t smoke, very rarely drinks and certainly doesn’t need highs, I don’t see the need for others to do so and lose control of their senses. I would think, using your analogies, there are more accidents caused by drivers dropping ciggies in their laps than is recognised. As you say though there is too much distinction and inequities between the various ills of society and their punishment.
I don’t need to visit the jungle, I am very happy with life in both CDS and the West Country
John Simpson,
You are mistaken in saying that people “can’t chose which laws you obey in a democratic civilised society”.
People have always broken unjust or simply stupid laws and quite rightly so, as even the most superficial understanding of history would confirm.
As to your sober lifestyle, are you seeking to force in onto others or are you prepared to allow other people the right to enjoy life as they see fit?
You could say that.. you could also say why is Stuart so bloody angry all the time? He said he’s a supposed moderator of another forum too!
Ban yourself Stuart!
Yep Christopher let’s all be anarchic, Laws are for other people, right. Great philosophy. Pleased to be sober if it means being a worthwhile member of society rather than it appears just a lush with no moral values. How can we all do what we like? Would you be happy if someone were to harm you or your family because it pleases them. Behave yourself, have some pride and stop encouraging others to break the law
All arguments are relevant when it comes to substance abuse – whether alcohol. drugs, tobacco, or whatever, but some arguments need more careful formulation than others.
For instance, if all these substances were to be suddenly freely and cheaply available, without government interference such as prohibition laws, high taxes, etc., to the apparent (according to Stuart, and others) benefit of society, why has the UK Government drastically increased the tax on alcohol?
Of course it couldn’t be that substances cheaply and freely available might possibly be detrimental to certain sections of society, could it? Must be criminals and governments cashing in?
Once you equate drug consumption with that of alcohol and tobacco you must also apply equality to any laws of control, which unfortunately those certain sections of society will always need. Bang goes your home-grown marijuana, same as bang goes home distillation of alcohol, etc.
That’s just my argument, maybe flawed, as are most!
John Simpson: Clearly in your case abstinence is a wise choice, but that doesn’t mean everybody else is as fragile or hysterical as you. Get back to me if or when you calm down and have any rational arguments to contribute.
Antonio: Is anybody actually suggesting that these substances be legalised without any regulatory framework? Not that I am aware of.
The point about legalisation is that dealing with any problems becomes a medical health issue not a criminal matter. The money that is currently being wasted on law enforcement would be better spent on treatment.
There is a difference between home cultivation for personal use and commercial activity, just as there is a difference between home beer brewing and commercial beer production.
Christopher, perhaps you could set out the main elements which you would think suitable for a ‘regulatory framework’, which would work and help stop the appalling abuse of drugs which is happening right now?
I know of a teacher (I won’t say which country) in a large village, she says that drug abuse (I don’t mean alcohol or tobacco, although both would additionally be used) is rampant in the village and in the school; young children come to school under their influence, cannot learn and she cannot believe the rumours of goings-on in some of the homes. How would regulation stop this? Addicts will always get their supplies, within the regulatory framework, or if this doesn’t suit them, outside of it. If I was an addict, no way would I go to any government agency for supplies, where registration would be necessary and rationing practised. Enter the criminals, as always, with protection in high places, which is one of the reasons for the partial failure of existing laws.
As I see it, the comfortably off, educated, self-controlled among us can quite easily avoid abusing their drug habit. Carry on. No problem, just keep it under control. But a huge slice of the population, which includes children, are not that well-endowed, find it a struggle to live and the temptation of drugs too easily taken up. Drugs come into Spain in such huge quantities that they are cheap, cheaper than a bottle of plonk.
But quite apart from considerations of the consumer, how would regulation stop criminals in the supply chain? It seems to me that any sort of ‘regulatory framework’ would rapidly collapse as cheaper and unregulated ‘black market’ supplies would soon make it unworkable.
I know nothing about the drugs trade, as must be obvious, but I’m trying to inject a bit of common sense (as I see it) into its discussion.
Hola Antonio,
That’s a pretty big question; let me start by asking you what exactly you are referring to by saying “the appalling abuse of drugs which is happening right now”?
It’s pretty hard to make any meaningful comment on the experience of one teacher in an anonymous village and country as I don’t know what the legal and social framework would be, but if it is anywhere in the West, there are certainly resources available.
Regulation can’t prevent behaviour, it can only provide a framework for action as and when problems arise.
The main ways legalisation would reduce the influence of criminal elements is that it would take away their profits at a stroke.
I don’t agree with your black market supplies argument; it doesn’t happen with cigarettes or alcohol so why would it with other things?