A different kind of drug dog

[Torsten]

This stuff makes my blood boil. People with ethics like that should no be allowed to breed.

=========================

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_..._drug_smugglers

N.Y.-Bound Puppies Used As Drug Couriers

By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 31 minutes ago

Colombian smugglers turned puppies into drug mules by surgically implanting them with packets of liquid heroin, authorities said.

Investigators believe the ring used the dogs, as well as people who swallowed the drugs, to conceal millions of dollars of heroin on commercial flights into New York for distribution on the East Coast.

Ten puppies, including Labrador retrievers, were rescued during a 2005 raid on a farm in Colombia, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said Wednesday, while announcing more than 30 arrests.

A veterinarian had stitched a total of 3 kilograms of heroin into the bellies of six pups. Three died from infections after the drugs were removed.

The surviving dogs "are still alive and well, we're told," said John P. Gilbride, head of the DEA's New York office.

Colombian police said they adopted three dogs, one of which was being trained to sniff for drugs.

It was unclear how many dogs might have been used in the smuggling scheme, Gilbride said.

"I think it's outrageous and heinous that they'd use small, innocent puppies in this way," he said.

Besides the pups and human swallowers, authorities said the ring based in Medellin also concealed drugs in body creams, aerosol cans, and the linings of purses and luggage.

Recent raids in Colombia resulted in more than 20 arrests; another 10 suspects were in custody in New York, Florida and North Carolina. About 24 kilograms of heroin was seized, officials said.

[ballzac]

I have the utmost contemp for the perpetrators, but it is my opinion that the authorities are to blame for making the illegal drug trade possible. While there is prohibition, there are always going to be people who will do anything to smuggle drugs. The authorities know this, but allow it to happen just so they can have their little power game at telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies, and so they can feel somehow morally superior. It's a fucked up world.

[Amulte]

thats fucked! i love puppies and dogs

[prier]

That's so wrong. Yet I do find it interesting to know how people are smuggling drugs around, I imagine with the new technologies and what not these days smuggling Heroin must be a pretty tricky job.

[Francois le Danque]

Who's seen Blow? good movie.

just thought i'd bring it up.

on topic: yeah thats pretty retarded....like, why did they have to surgically implant them? and in puppies....disgusting.

[SaBReT00tH]

that sucks! It's also sick that the authorities carried out the spiteful action of using one of the dogs against the columbians as a drug sniffing dog. These types of drugs are illegal because the people in power plan it this way because lots of this money goes to them and their causes. If heroine were legal it'd be worth nothing, same with all other drugs. I was thinking the other day, about how Laudenem (deritive from Opium) used to be used by detectives and rich people in England (like in the movie From Hell). Iisn't it totally amazing how alcohol is currently the only publicly accepted legal drug. Another reason for writing and pondering upon this theory is because the other day I was in an Irish bar in Adelaide and rolled up a vanilla banks rollie cigarette and added a little brugmansia purely for flavour and placebo'd relaxation. The security guard came up to me and said is that a joint (marijuana)? I said no, and continued to say no, whilst he kept on acting suspicious, and he said why's it so fat then. I said because I can't roll very well, and finally he left me alone. This really annoys me how anyone can smoke commercially rolled cigarettes with thousands of chemicals added to them but when someone chooses to roll any other of the millions of herbs or plants in this world, the person is automatically accused of smoking the illegal Marijuana. It just annoys me so much. Also, Blow's a good movie by the way, Johnny Depp's awesome in it!

[Dirty Old Man]

What arseholes.

They should have heroin inserted and stitched up in there nut sacks.

[naja naja]

I feel sick now!

[Rev]

"I think it's outrageous and heinous that they'd use small, innocent puppies in this way," he said.

yeah yeah you're outraged everybodies outraged

u know if people spent less time being outraged and just accepted that there is nothing people wont do for money then you all live more balanced less turbulent less outraged lives

it gives me the shits

like the news today harping on about that alleged terrorist guy who isnt actually a terrorist saying he'd happily kill americans ra ra ra

shock horror and the media runs around - i swear it sounds like a barn full of turkeys

complete with the 'gobbling'

just makes me want to slap them, hard

just makes me laugh and start to agree with him

Reality is just so non-ordinary that being outraged is just fucking worthless.

Being outraged achieves nothing but to bolster someone elses ideology as everybody cackles and gobbles along. Nothing is changed for the better. Nobody wins. its the most ridiculous reaction there is.

A dog after all is a dog. They look cute because they are evolved to look that way to us. Its a con played by the dogs genes on our monkey brains. They are in fact no more special than the rats or rhesus in the vivisection lab or indeed the Cattle and pigs on their way to a slaughterhouse to be electrocuted and factory dissasembled. which are all in turn no more important than any other living thing from amoeba to ancient forest tree and so on. we define importance personally as it has no bearing on any true reality

in Houston they have motel rooms for dogs while people go homeless, In the arctic circle they ride them hard then eat them to ward off starvation, In beijing they farm and eat them for health, In denpasar dogs are mere garbage disposers along with rats and chickens, and round here they bait and shoot some and pamper others. So in colombia they use them to smuggle drugs.

its not nice but if niceness is supposed to be a human quality then its not an overiding one

My point is people choose to be outraged. There is no cause to be if the person doesnt want to be. Why do people want to be outraged?

so yeah this rant isnt about dogs, really

its just a tired rant against outraged poultry

Edited April 14, 2006 by Rev

[naja naja]

Three died from infections after the drugs were removed.

No animal deserves to die like this! I don't agree with the meat industry either. If u r gona kill an animal to eat then thats fine, but do it quickly and humainly, not eaten alive and in a torturous manner like some cultures do!(Would u eat the brains out of a live monkey?).I am not vegetarian, just have ethics. I will eat free range chickens raised at mine or a mates house and also fish that I catch myself, but apart from the odd bit of steak a mate butchers locally, I don't support the meat industry. If I eat an animal, I like to know it had a happy and fullfilling life before hand.Smallholders r the way to go!

But thats diff from using an animal and then letting it die a painful and agonizing death due to infection for your own monetry gain.(If they had them surgically implanted why not get them surgically extracted? Oh thats rite, no money in that!) It's just plain sick and I would be just as sickened had they used any animal, inc poor$$$ human mules who would do it for cash.

I would not have cared anywhere near as much if the dogs were well cared for afterwards, maybe recycled again or just flat out killed humainly for easy drug removal(wat I thought they would have done, spose it shows sum humanity)

I love all animals equally, sum just taste better than others! lol

:ph34r:

[VINS]

Rev

what do think about the geneva convention ?

so is there a limit to your concept ?

ps: my foot size in dog baby is 43 but i prefer baby seal more confortable during the winter :D

[Rev]

what do think about the geneva convention ?

so is there a limit to your concept ?

yes i agree with the geneva convention. its needed to curb cruel excesses in war because we still get that chimpanzee bloodlust which can make us very nasty indeed.

yes i am a species'ist

i do consider human life far more valuable than animal life because we are self aware and because i am a human. to me there are only two value levels - all humans are equal in inherent value, The only difference in application is that given a hard choice id save the person i know vs the one i dont. and all other life has a lesser but equal value be it animal plant or microbe. to me they are valuable collectively as a species or breed and for the role they play, but not individually. In application it means i think rehabilitating common wildlife is a waste of effort whereas land clearing and fishing bycatch are a tragedy

i dont like the notion of anthropomorphising animals. it only leads to confusion and silly situations like in the US - read the current national geographic zip code article on dogs in houston.TX

and i do like dogs, im just clear on how far my empathy goes and how non-universal dogs as pets and the cultural associations are.

the article is highy emotive. 3 elements. Puppies (aww cute), Drugs (Bad mkay), animal exploitation for illicit profit (evil)

but lets interchange

puppies for rats (ooh yuck)

illicit drugs for obesity wonder drugs (oh medicine - so noble)

and keep the exploitation for profiteering motive but in a corporate role (pillar of society)

the story is now transforemed from an outrage to biomedical science breakthrough story where all but the most ardent animal liberationsits would be disracted by the positive angle

Edited April 15, 2006 by Rev

[VINS]

Reville, i played the devil advocate game because i am absolutly not shocked by this pet story ! i am more concerned when human must eat drug packet.

(now i have some work on the table to translate your answer )

[ballzac]

i do consider human life far more valuable than animal life because we are self aware and because i am a human.

I am not saying I disagree with your main contention. After all, I am a meat-eating human who would sacrifice any animal to save a human life...well most human's anyway. But do you really believe that humans are the only animals to be blessed with self-awareness? There might be a point at which the capacity for awareness is so greatly diminished that self-awareness is impossible (say in arthropods), but there is clearly a continuum of awareness of which we are probably on the top. I have no doubt that cats, rats, bats, and elephants are all, to some degree, self-aware. At the forefront of this continuum are the great apes (including us), and dolphins. These are the only animals known to recognise their reflection. Doesn't that specifically display a certain level of self-awareness?

Bonobos have been taught English, responding using a keypad of symbols. They can tell you they're self-aware. Maybe the process of learning a language causes an entity to become self-aware, as it allows for complex thought? Either way, do we have any evidence that we are the only species to have language?

[Rev]

i appreciate your point

there is a shifting line in the sand with more intelligent animals like the great apes, some cetaceans, some parrots and Elephants as we continue to define boundaries of consciousness.

I do think well settle on a line one day though as i cant imagine self awareness by degrees

Babies are responsive and very human but when you watch them they seem to switch on around 2 years old

its a conceptual leap when they understand 'No' and 'Mine' and start to grasp the notion of Deceit

at the same time i grapple with the existential questions about life death and sufferring.

We all suffer and we all die. Its is unavoidable

We all have a drive to live, a bilogical imperative that almost always makes us soldier on even when conditions are deplorable. But if we live we suffer more. eventually as we age sufferring becomes unbearable as we die of disease or degeneracy

but what really matters? and is there anything we can do about it? or is life just about consciously engaging your fate? whatever it be

im afraid im getting too deep for myself now. its all a big puzzle maybe i need to ask sid for advice again ;)

[ballzac]

I do think well settle on a line one day though as i cant imagine self awareness by degrees

I totally disagree. I think humans are not as self-aware as they think they are, including myself. And I know that at different stages of my life, and under the influence of different chemicals, I have been at times more - and at other times less - self-aware (and indeed generally aware) than I am at this point in time. I find it hard to believe that there is a sudden moment when a child becomes self-aware, even if there IS quick development in that area.

[Rev]

I think humans are not as self-aware as they think they are, including myself.

That you can entertain that complex notion perhaps indicates that you very well are

Plenty of other animals can act in their own best interest but how many question the existence and purpose of their existence?

its hard to prove this. we know people do because they do funny things like join religions and commit suicide

To my current thoughts the former is commonplace. when you take the imperative of life and add intelligence.

I think intelligence is not what makes human special though as other animals are intelligent also, even up to the age of a 3 year old child.

For me its the latter emergent ability that most likely defines us.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Rev

[ballzac]

That you can entertain that complex notion perhaps indicates that you very well are

Maybe I 'woke up' for a moment as I contemplated that. I think that through 90% of the day I am totally unaware of my 'self' or of my existance, and only become aware of it when I stop to think about it.

Plenty of other animals can act in their own best interest but how many question the existence and purpose of their existence?

For me its the latter emergent ability that most likely defines us.

I personally believe that 'self' is an illusion anyway. There is no 'I' to have a purpose as far as I'm concerned. So really, the self-aware are the deluded.

[botanika]

Police use dogs to sniff out drugs and bombs, colombian drug runners use dogs for transport. Is it really an issue of ethics? Neither dog is running free. Dogs have been bred by humans for 10,000+ years...who suddenly decides what's ethical and whats not? Is there really much difference in cruelty between keeping a dog in a tiny suburban backyard (with us being a poor substitue of a pack) or using a horse to pull your heavy plough, sending a dog into space on a test run thats likely to blow up, and using a dog to run drugs? Humans USE animals to our advantage...just like humans use humans to advantage. That's the whole problem of black markets, people taking advantage of others. Colombia would not be what it is today if there was no black market. The fault is ours collectively. We're all a bunch of pussies The ethical debarkle should be how we breed, use and influence billions of lifeforms (all subjectively cute in their own way) across the planet, not so much how someone breeds a small number of puppies, that happen to make attractive news because they're cute things we have a soft spot for, further persuading people to view 'drugs as bad'. There are degrees of care and respect for animals each of which can make people mad, sad or happy... Im beginning to think ethics is a folly of a word when we are an overpopulated top of the food chain. The tourist in exotic lands is a classic paradox of this - they'll eat all sorts of whacky animals and weird dishes but be shocked when they find dog is on the menu. "oh no no I can't eat this!"

If someone was innovative they could probably use cute fluffy puppies to the worlds advantage more often. Forget anti war rallies - if someone had said there was lots of puppy pet stores in downtown baghdad things might have been different a few years back :D

Bush: 'We ready to lock n load and kick some iraqi ass?'

Cheney: 'Yes Mr President, but we still haven't found any WMD's'

Bush: 'Dont you worry 'bout that son, lets rock n roll'

Rumsfeld: 'The french aren't supporting us'

Bush: 'And your point being?'

Cheney: 'The public polls dont have much confidence in us'

Bush: 'Pay Fox and Turner a couple more million, we'll be right'

Rice: 'Apparently there's fluffy puppies and kittens in Bahgdad'

Bush: 'Wha!! Oh no! This is not good... this will delay us...is there any evidence of the fluffy critters? We can't let the public know about this - we can craft the media to believe we need to invade another country out of terror, spend billions of tax payer dollars and kill lots of innocent lives, sweat shop the 3rd world, chop down the amazon and rape the earth for oil... but being cruel to fluffy pets...this ones gonna be hard to figure out lads... let me call my dad'

[Anodyne]

I tend to get a bit suspicious of stories like this. They seem like they're designed to make drug-smugglers look as bad as possible. Maybe it really happened, but why puppies, for godsakes? Why not a more spacious, fully-grown dog, or perhaps a cow? Far more sensible, far less sensational story.

[Qhorakuna tantani]

Not nice to hear but I'd say the word 'puppies' is used very specifically and well.

Plenty of other animals can act in their own best interest but how many question the existence and purpose of their existence?

I was discussing this with a firend recently and brought up the idea that maybe we are the only ones without self-awareness, or some higher form of it. We are the only species that will willingly and knowingly destroy our environment and make things harder for ourselves for superficial reasons and as much as we do work in our own self interests in the shortrun, overall we don't work in our self interests in the long run. I said to him that maybe all other animals somehow recognise themselves, but don't question it, they simply accept it and act how they are meant to. Are we, or at least the majority of humans it would seem, really more highly evolved because we challenge things, seeing as it seems to be resulting in the slow failure of the species. Kind of funny really.

[botanika]

Are we, or at least the majority of humans it would seem, really more highly evolved because we challenge things, seeing as it seems to be resulting in the slow failure of the species. Kind of funny really.

We're only really more evolved in our brain and hands. You could say dinosaurs are more evolved than us because they evolved into birds and needn't que up at airport security. Its a subjective thing and so is whether we're 'failing'. Maybe everything we see around us, including destruction, is a completely natural cycle of what happens when intelligent beings communicate, compete, overpopulate and reflect on it all searching for answers, trying to make a living and importantly procreating. Maybe this happens in other planets all the time. We're not the first hominid species on the planet and I doubt we'll be the last. Maybe we're actually incredibly successful from a universal point of view and eventually all of this will influence us into a being with a recessive destructive gene. Maybe the next hominid in the far future will be even more destructive and selfish and we dont know how good we have it now.

[Rev]

Not nice to hear but I'd say the word 'puppies' is used very specifically and well.

I was discussing this with a firend recently and brought up the idea that maybe we are the only ones without self-awareness, or some higher form of it. We are the only species that will willingly and knowingly destroy our environment and make things harder for ourselves for superficial reasons and as much as we do work in our own self interests in the shortrun, overall we don't work in our self interests in the long run. I said to him that maybe all other animals somehow recognise themselves, but don't question it, they simply accept it and act how they are meant to. Are we, or at least the majority of humans it would seem, really more highly evolved because we challenge things, seeing as it seems to be resulting in the slow failure of the species. Kind of funny really.

i can see what you mean but i still think the human animal has progressed beyond that of the animals into an uncomfortable transition phase

like adolescence

and we will either perish or mature into another stable form that is at peace with its own existence also yet still not the same as the animals

We're not the first hominid species on the planet and I doubt we'll be the last.

Lol yeah i think this too.

Maybe the next family on earth to evolve sentience will look back on the fossil record at the age of the primates

successive waves in the earhs history puntuacted by climate change and mass exctinctione where several lineages of primates rose to ecosystem dominance

so many primates alive today are preadapted to evolve further. they just need the window of opportunity

if we wipe ourselves out we probably wont do so before we also wipe out many specilaist organisms and most large predatory animals

what we will leave is a more homogenised world of ecological generalists - monkeys, some apes , pigeons, rats, cattle, racoons, dogs,horses and donkeys, roos etc etc

more than enough to explode in radial evolution once we are gone- and all their traditional predators like eagles, tigers, wolves, lions, bears and so on are also gone which gives them the window

in addition evoluton would be fostered by the complex landscapes (cities and ruins) and impoved food resources (feral food forests) we leave behind

i hope we last but we may not in which case i definitely dont think we are the last primate to rise to the top of the heap

Edited April 24, 2006 by Rev

[SaBReT00tH]

just wondering, if someone were to go to Amsterdam and put say a few, maybe even just 3, or 1 super skunk seed in some bubble gum and have this in their mouth whilst going through customs, and swallowed it if a dog started barking, wouldn't this be a foolproof method of getting these rare strains of cannabis into another country? Why hasn't this happened already with many different strains of cannabis in Oz?

[ballzac]

Just thought I'd post this as it relates to the discussion Rev and I were having earlier in the thread:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060508/full/060508-2.html