I wonder how much of this is just a publicity stunt. Last time I dove deep into studying corruption in Latin America at University, Colombia was pretty much captive to the cartels. Hope it has gotten better now but I’m not sure if that’s the case given the massive Colombian diaspora that keeps increasing.
The thought is that things had improved in Columbia, until a recent attempt on a Columbian senator.
Miguel Uribe is in the minority conservative party and was shot three times at campaign event by an underage youth who was hired for this purpose. A number of arrests have taken place.
The leftist president Gustavo Petro has not strongly reacted against this event, and the U.S. recently recalled their ambassador for somewhat confusing reasons (Columbia did the same).
I just came across this podcast in the last week after wondering what ever happened to the FARC and AUC (right wing death squads) after the peace deal. How did things end up playing out relative compared to what was expected and feared at the time.
It’s a pretty batshit story that focuses on what became of the right wing death squads (they run the start of the cocaine supply chain it turns out among many other things) that’s extremely well researched and has amazing access. A strong recommendation from me https://insightcrime.org/audio-from-the-ground-up/the-shadow...
Perhaps because they watched it long enough to know that it is not going to rendezvous with anyone, and if they wait longer it may turn around and they will lose sight of it?
Cartels are already diversifying, thanks to bullish gold market they are going full tilt on gold. "In Colombia and Peru gangs are now thought to make more money from gold than from the sale of narcotics."[1]
Coffee, avocados, and oil aren't illegal. But I'm pretty sure if you banned coffee it would spawn criminal gangs that made 1920s prohibition look tame.
There's no substitute for the margins you can get in the illegal drug trade. Take away the primary source of funding and you make it much easier to break the gangs. We've already gone through this. Just legalize it already.
Exactly. These cartels are basically competing governments. They're in the drugs industry in the same way that there's state oil industries. The only choose crime because that activity has to exist outside the existing government system.
Applies to corporations as well but they do it legally and we consider part of our 'economy'. Heck we even subsidize them and give them the power to lobby and legally be a 'person'.
- Problem? What Problem? I don't see no stinkin' Problem!
They'll probably move onto mass producing weaponry, which, depending on the sophistication and scale, could be big issues for the rest of the world. They already partner with terrorist groups and other unsavory orgs as-is. Any group worth mentioning these days interfaces with the cartels
Not really, the competition with the existing governments will significantly limit the amount of replacement cash they can demand, so they won't be able to sustain the same scale of man/firepower
That would be the humane and sensible thing to do, so obviously we are not going to do that. Let’s double down on enforcement so violence, corruption and profits increase.
We really did not learn anything from the alcohol prohibition.
We should OTC all drugs, recreational and prescription. For example, insulin had been made OTC because it means someone who has run out of insulin, understands how to use it, can get some in a pinch. Similar to "Plan B" birth control. Gating this on a physician visit introduces massive bureaucracies, scheduling, pain points, and insurance also jumps in the fray. Similarly, I'm willing to wager in the US, if drugs related to blood pressure & statins were OTC, we'd have way way less heart attacks and strokes.
There is the issue of side-effects which is why many drugs are prescription only, for example, when using anti-clotting drugs (warfarin), usually requires bloodwork. A blackbox warning ("you're risking death, requires bloodwork") would suffice here.
I would consider an exception for antibiotics and antivirals since physician stewartship is to be trusted more than the general public. Failing that would mean the rise of pan-drug resistant strains. Me abusing those drugs may in fact impact my neighbor. Most other drugs, it doesn't harm my neighbor at all, it's my choice.
I don't expect this would ever happen, but it's nice to imagine such a world.
I would say yes, but I would 100x more say yes to cocaine. Cocaine usage is statistically less deadly than alcohol usage, and the vast majority of cocaine deaths are due to mixing depressive drugs with cocaine to keep them awake and able to take more depressive drugs until the cocaine wears off and they die from the heroic doses of pills or heroin or alcohol they consumed. And a lot of that problem can be mitigated with education, knowledge, and clean source material that doesn't have other cheaper drugs mixed in already.
Despite the strong effects cocaine has on users, it isn't really especially dangerous or damaging except to people with heart problems who would have similar issues with other stimulants like caffeine. The most dangerous thing about cocaine might just be how obtaining it involves interacting with such serious and expensive criminal markets and the legal problems of getting caught with it. The War on Drugs has propagandized it seem to like some super-drug of the most dangerous order that drives people mad and turn into cannibals or some outlandish shit, but it is a huge mischaracterization; basically the same kind of thing they tried to do to marijuana in making people think it turns you into a rapist or makes you a drooling idiot.
Of course, "the powers that be" can want things to change, but not want to pay the cost required to truly change it.
As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach, and it dramatically reduced crime, but it's not clear that citizens are actually happy with this outcome as.
Of course, it could be possible that leaders are corrupt, but it could simply be that the cost to fixing things is very high.
Cocaine, I could maybe see the argument. But the article also said there was another submarine seized with 4.5BN worth of meth aboard. And I really hope you aren't suggesting legalising meth. I could see the argument that if other amphetamines were legal no one would use meth, but.....I don't think that's necessarily true. All the illegal meth would have to do to keep existing is to be cheaper than legal speed.
Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it.
We need to
a) legalize drugs,
b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and
c) get unsafe drugs off the streets.
I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose. What we’re doing now is not working.
We already have legal meth, it's branded Adderall® and we regularly prescribe it to children, grad students, and hedge fund managers. You just have to be rich enough to afford the 'scrip.
Addicts need help, if we want to reduce drug use we can do it through education and support. That's how tobacco use has dropped in western countries, not by banning it and using violence.
If amphetamines were legal we could get a lot of people to switch away from black market meth into cleaner and safer amphetamines in better controlled doses though. With most amphetamines being illegal and the fewer medical amphetamines being highly controlled and restricted to limit supply, you guarantee people are going to be taking black market street meth of unknown quality and type. There is a reason prescribed adderall has 4 different amphetamine salts in it and not just one random one, and is a large reason why problems with adderall abuse are so less common and severe than problems with unregulated meth abuse.
If your goal it to have zero bad effects from people using drugs, and you think you can achieve atleast close to that, then prohibition does seem like an ideal policy. But if you believe a decent number of people will find or produce and consume drugs regardless of the law or enforcement capabilities, as evident by the last 60+ years of failed strong illegal drug policies, prohibition drug policies for any drug is silly and leaves you almost no room to educate people about drug usage or how to minimize harm and addiction and limites their choices in being able to pick the safest versions of a drug.
We don't do that precisely because that's how you end up with this situation. We wonder how history repeats itself, but we can't be bothered to know history from over 40 years ago.
This has been a failed experiment. When you legalize drugs, it comes at increased cost due to taxes and regulations.
The black market can easily compete because they can sell a cheaper product without either of these things (and now that it's legal, it makes it easier to bring shipments into the country under the guise of a legal business) and it eventually drives the legitimate companies out of business.
This has now been seen in both Colorado and California.
Violence still drives the business and it only makes the cartels richer. I'm also tired of all the pot smoke you can smell everyone now in every US city where it's legalized.
The people like me, that didn't want drugs legalized, predicted all this would happen a decade or so ago.
I'm kind of curious how much this matters to Colombia now. For this who haven't been following the drug wars, most of the action, and money, has moved to Mexico. If you only know this stuff through pop culture, Mexico today is what Colombia was in the 80's and 90's: the violence, level of corruption, money flowing through, etc.
Colombia produces the raw materials, so it is "essential" in that sense, but that is not where the money and power is now (that's Mexico). Kind of like how your iPhone is manufactured in China, but the world's-richest-company status goes to Apple, in the US.
Quoting an AI summary (because I'm looking for a quick answer here):
Mexico has become the primary financial beneficiary of cocaine money today. Mexican cartels now control the most lucrative parts of the supply chain - smuggling into the US market and wholesale distribution. They've essentially become the "middlemen" who buy cocaine from Colombian producers at relatively low prices and then sell it in the US at much higher prices, capturing most of the profit margin.
Colombia remains important as a producer of coca and cocaine, but the economics have changed dramatically. Colombian groups now often function more as suppliers to Mexican cartels rather than controlling the entire supply chain themselves. The raw materials and initial processing generate far less revenue than the final distribution stages.
Cocaine is still produced overwhelmingly in South America. Yes, it does have to go through Mexico. But the start of the trade route is Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru.
It's important from a supply chain perspective, but not in the getting-rich-off-of-this sense anymore. The analogy I use is Apple in the USA (Mexico) and Foxconn in China (Colombia).
This strikes me as not a very good technique. With minimal help from starlink law enforcement could find every sub out there. Anyhow, what does this buy you that an offline gps connected controller does not?
If you have direct control you need far less automation and can potentially solve more problems at sea or change destination as needed or retrieve it faster if it breaks down by telling you exactly what is wrong, and it requires less skills to build all the hardware. Your entire radio communications setup is as close to plug-and-play as it gets and it both looks like "legitimate" radio signals and is far less likely to detected on the ground as a remote control link since it is using phased array antennas pointed at the sky rather than at the horizon.
You also have to remember its not like they are building tons of identical subs and moved an entire fleet over to starlink. They could have a dozen very different setups running with just a few guys tinkering around with whatever devices are easy to obtain under the radar, and it prevents single design vulnerabilities from collapsing your entire sub delivery supply line at once. Even if it only evades enforcement a single time by being novel, the cocaine it delivers out values whatever hardware and work it took to setup in the first place.
Because the cargo is high value and illegal, real time connectivity is needed. If it was on autopilot, how could they verify delivery? What if a third party was tipped by an insider and intercepted the shipment? What if it simply sank along the route?
This seems difficult. Even with two Starlinks: one to control it in Colombia, and one to control it at the destination coast, killing power to each. And make it autonomous on the way. This leaves the problem that there is a sudden (dis-)appearance of the link at sea, which might still make you light up like a lighthouse in analysis.
However, it would seem cartels could use a cubesat and make their own links?
One cubesat launched as a rideshare payload wouldn't cut it. Those typically get dropped off in a highly inclined low earth orbit -- around the world, roughly pole to pole, in 90 minutes. Any given satellite in that sort of orbit will only be useful to a ground station when it has line-of-sight for maybe 5-10 minutes every few days.
At the very least you'd need a few dozen. Iridium manages to get coverage from 66.
Then there are the power/cooling/antenna size issues.
GPS is only a confirmation of positioning. It doesn't free you from having a pilot in the vehicle.
Starlink opens the possibility for remote command & control. It opens up the possibility to fully remote drone capabilities.
Starlink should probably be disabled except to rarely report sensor data and accept new routing commands, so law enforcement can’t use EM scanning to find the source.
That’s some level of confidence on the part of the Colombian military. I thought it was still customary to declare at least half otherwise nobody would believe you.
I'm sure it's very rewarding, but I'm also sure it's a one-way street. So either enjoy your single life while it lasts, and/or use crypto to channel your income to people you care, without being able to enjoy it _with_ them for their own safety.
Wrong antenna choice—should've used Starlink Mini to avoid motor damage from oscillation and salt exposure. Some suggest fiber optics instead of satellite comms, but these aren't submarines—they're boats, and autopilot technology is already reliable. Not sure why real-time communication is necessary; a "fire and forget" approach would suffice to reach the intended target.
Readit News
He does videos on youtube too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO-VQllYIZo
Its very likely the mainstream media pick up this stuff because they follow him :D
Why wouldn't they track it and wait until it rendezvoused with people they could arrest?
Also, today I learned it's illegal to operate a semi-submersible in Colombia.
Miguel Uribe is in the minority conservative party and was shot three times at campaign event by an underage youth who was hired for this purpose. A number of arrests have taken place.
The leftist president Gustavo Petro has not strongly reacted against this event, and the U.S. recently recalled their ambassador for somewhat confusing reasons (Columbia did the same).
https://thecitypaperbogota.com/
It’s a pretty batshit story that focuses on what became of the right wing death squads (they run the start of the cocaine supply chain it turns out among many other things) that’s extremely well researched and has amazing access. A strong recommendation from me https://insightcrime.org/audio-from-the-ground-up/the-shadow...
[1]: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/06/26/the-gold-b...
When you have accumulated so much power you can demand cash from the world around you.
There's no substitute for the margins you can get in the illegal drug trade. Take away the primary source of funding and you make it much easier to break the gangs. We've already gone through this. Just legalize it already.
- Problem? What Problem? I don't see no stinkin' Problem!
We really did not learn anything from the alcohol prohibition.
There is the issue of side-effects which is why many drugs are prescription only, for example, when using anti-clotting drugs (warfarin), usually requires bloodwork. A blackbox warning ("you're risking death, requires bloodwork") would suffice here.
I would consider an exception for antibiotics and antivirals since physician stewartship is to be trusted more than the general public. Failing that would mean the rise of pan-drug resistant strains. Me abusing those drugs may in fact impact my neighbor. Most other drugs, it doesn't harm my neighbor at all, it's my choice.
I don't expect this would ever happen, but it's nice to imagine such a world.
Despite the strong effects cocaine has on users, it isn't really especially dangerous or damaging except to people with heart problems who would have similar issues with other stimulants like caffeine. The most dangerous thing about cocaine might just be how obtaining it involves interacting with such serious and expensive criminal markets and the legal problems of getting caught with it. The War on Drugs has propagandized it seem to like some super-drug of the most dangerous order that drives people mad and turn into cannibals or some outlandish shit, but it is a huge mischaracterization; basically the same kind of thing they tried to do to marijuana in making people think it turns you into a rapist or makes you a drooling idiot.
As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach, and it dramatically reduced crime, but it's not clear that citizens are actually happy with this outcome as.
Of course, it could be possible that leaders are corrupt, but it could simply be that the cost to fixing things is very high.
Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it.
We need to a) legalize drugs, b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and c) get unsafe drugs off the streets.
I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose. What we’re doing now is not working.
If your goal it to have zero bad effects from people using drugs, and you think you can achieve atleast close to that, then prohibition does seem like an ideal policy. But if you believe a decent number of people will find or produce and consume drugs regardless of the law or enforcement capabilities, as evident by the last 60+ years of failed strong illegal drug policies, prohibition drug policies for any drug is silly and leaves you almost no room to educate people about drug usage or how to minimize harm and addiction and limites their choices in being able to pick the safest versions of a drug.
Check the weight then compare with wholesale prices
The black market can easily compete because they can sell a cheaper product without either of these things (and now that it's legal, it makes it easier to bring shipments into the country under the guise of a legal business) and it eventually drives the legitimate companies out of business.
This has now been seen in both Colorado and California.
Violence still drives the business and it only makes the cartels richer. I'm also tired of all the pot smoke you can smell everyone now in every US city where it's legalized.
The people like me, that didn't want drugs legalized, predicted all this would happen a decade or so ago.
Update: you know I'm right
Quoting an AI summary (because I'm looking for a quick answer here):
Mexico has become the primary financial beneficiary of cocaine money today. Mexican cartels now control the most lucrative parts of the supply chain - smuggling into the US market and wholesale distribution. They've essentially become the "middlemen" who buy cocaine from Colombian producers at relatively low prices and then sell it in the US at much higher prices, capturing most of the profit margin.
Colombia remains important as a producer of coca and cocaine, but the economics have changed dramatically. Colombian groups now often function more as suppliers to Mexican cartels rather than controlling the entire supply chain themselves. The raw materials and initial processing generate far less revenue than the final distribution stages.
So yeah, South America is still a main hub of the drug trade.
You also have to remember its not like they are building tons of identical subs and moved an entire fleet over to starlink. They could have a dozen very different setups running with just a few guys tinkering around with whatever devices are easy to obtain under the radar, and it prevents single design vulnerabilities from collapsing your entire sub delivery supply line at once. Even if it only evades enforcement a single time by being novel, the cocaine it delivers out values whatever hardware and work it took to setup in the first place.
You put in a cheap SIM card and it will pick up signal when you get close to the coast and send a message saying it reached its destination.
This seems difficult. Even with two Starlinks: one to control it in Colombia, and one to control it at the destination coast, killing power to each. And make it autonomous on the way. This leaves the problem that there is a sudden (dis-)appearance of the link at sea, which might still make you light up like a lighthouse in analysis.
However, it would seem cartels could use a cubesat and make their own links?
At the very least you'd need a few dozen. Iridium manages to get coverage from 66.
Then there are the power/cooling/antenna size issues.
Starlink opens the possibility for remote command & control. It opens up the possibility to fully remote drone capabilities.
Starlink should probably be disabled except to rarely report sensor data and accept new routing commands, so law enforcement can’t use EM scanning to find the source.
That’s some level of confidence on the part of the Colombian military. I thought it was still customary to declare at least half otherwise nobody would believe you.