Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle

Reuters ^

[RCW2001]

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Three Israeli nationals were arrested and accused of trying to smuggle $42 million worth of hallucinogenic Ecstasy pills to the United States from Belgium, the largest such drug seizure ever in Europe, U.S. authorities said on Wednesday.

The three men tried to smuggle 1.4 million pills inside diamond polishing tables bound for New York by ship from Antwerp, according to a statement from the office of Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Tipped off by witnesses who saw two of the men stuffing the pills into three tables inside an Antwerp warehouse in August, authorities allowed the tables to be delivered -- without the pills -- to New York where they were put under surveillance.

The three men were arrested on Tuesday as they were retrieving the tables and trying to deliver the drugs to a buyer, the statement said.

The case marks the largest Ecstasy seizure in Europe and the third largest such seizure in the United States, with a wholesale value of about $14 million and a retail value of about $42 million, officials said.

Arrested were Nachshow Sinvanni, who allegedly wanted to buy 900,000 of the pills for distribution; and Ofir Lebar and Ofir Weizman, who were spotted packing the tables with drugs in Belgium, officials said. All three men live in Israel, authorities said.

They each were charged with conspiring to import MDMA, the technical name for Ecstasy and, if convicted, face a possible prison sentence of 20 years and a $1 million fine. ((New York newsdesk, 646 223 6280))

[GovernmentShrinker]

I agree that it's poor form to start a thread and then not stick around at all to participate. But I've seen plenty of it on FR, and as long as it's going to be allowed for one agenda or poster, it's only fair to allow it across the board. There was a poster (may even still be around -- his name has slipped my mind) who for several months kept posting links (no full article) to his own articles on some third rate Web news/opinion rag -- he'd post the first couple of sentences and then a link, and never participated in the threads. It was pretty clear that he was just trying to generate hits to his website.

[Rocksalt]

Well I am totally in favor of legalizing pot,which I don't smoke,for exactly the reasons you claim MDMA should be legal for.But I dont feel MDMA should be legal or condoned in any way due to it's extremly dangerous nature.It's a hard drug,not suitable for recreational use.The same goes for Meth.They are poisons.

[Rocksalt]

Did you see the "NOVA" segment that detailed a dozen people ending up in a catatonic state from a bad batch of MDMA? These folks could not even blink an eyelid.The batch was traced to the inventor of MDMA,a bathtub chemist from Berkley I belive.MDMA is a hard drug,which first appeared in powdered form,much like Meth.The chemical structure is basically a mutated Meth.Then it showed up as tablets,for easier marketing and appeal for the masses,many people think it's not dangerous because it is in pill form.I have heard that once it enters the body,it stays permanently in the spinal cord.The people who are making and marketing this stuff are preying on our youth,they are an evil breed of criminals who disrequard human life and futures.They are no different than the Speed cooks who cause trouble in our society.MDMA is not a safe drug,and the more of our young people that know that,the better.

[MrLeRoy]

I dont feel MDMA should be legal or condoned in any way due to it's extremly dangerous nature.

Please cite the text in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to prevent adults from doing "dangerous" things. Thanks.

[MrLeRoy]

Did you see the "NOVA" segment that detailed a dozen people ending up in a catatonic state from a bad batch of MDMA?

When the drug alcohol was illegal, there were dangerous bad batches of that drug. Legalization solved that problem for alcohol and can solve it for MDMA.

I have heard that once it enters the body,it stays permanently in the spinal cord.

Sounds like urban legend to me.

[DreamWeaver]

I know not why such use of FR for propaganda is condoned -

You call facts propaganda ?.. I find your reaction so typical. How about for once, address the issue, attack the message, but stop attacking the messenger !

[spodbox]

It is an urban legend. Originally, it was for LSD, but that has been disproven. So now it's been revived fro MDMA.

Rocksalt: I suggest you go read a few books that aren't published by the government.

[Rocksalt]

Are you saying this substance is not dangerous and should be legal and more widely available? I think it is a clear danger.

[Rocksalt]

I'm not saying there is anything in the constitution that empowers the goverment to protect us from dangerous things.I am saying this substance is harmful to our youth,it is a hard drug and that there are laws against making and selling it which might actually make sense.There is no medical usage for this stuff and I think there are good reasons for keeping it illegal.

[MrLeRoy]

Are you saying this substance is not dangerous

Of course not. Many things are dangerous but legal---alcoihol, tobacco, gasoline, ....

and should be legal

Yes.

and more widely available?

Market demand would determine that.

[MrLeRoy]

I'm not saying there is anything in the constitution that empowers the goverment to protect us from dangerous things.

Good, because there isn't.

I am saying this substance is harmful to our youth,it is a hard drug and that there are laws against making and selling it which might actually make sense.

So you're happy with violating the Constitution? I hope you have the decency to not call yourself a conservative.

[Rocksalt]

"I'm not saying there is anything in the constitution that empowers the goverment to protect us from dangerous things.

Good, because there isn't.

"I am saying this substance is harmful to our youth,it is a hard drug and that there are laws against making and selling it which might actually make sense."

"So you're happy with violating the Constitution? I hope you have the decency to not call yourself a conservative."

Where is it in the constitution that there are to be no laws protecting the citizens from reasonable harm?I'm all for reasonable freedoms,but your comments make me think you would favor a lawless society,at least where dangerous drugs are concerned.I'm assuming you would be in favor of legalizing all drugs,requardless of how dangerous they are?

[Rocksalt]

"Market demand would determine that"

At what expense? Would millions of the healthy minds and bodies of our youth be too much of a price to pay for your tastes? Would this be too high a price to pay for your vision of "freedom"?

[MrLeRoy]

Where is it in the constitution that there are to be no laws protecting the citizens from reasonable harm?

As the Tenth Amendment makes quite clear, this is the wrong question. The correct question is: Where is it in the Constitution that Congress is authorized to pass laws protecting the citizens from reasonable harm?

[MrLeRoy]

At what expense? Would millions of the healthy minds and bodies of our youth be too much of a price to pay for your tastes? Would this be too high a price to pay for your vision of "freedom"?

Alcohol and tobacco are by far the greatest scourges of American youth and adults. When you can answer your own questions as they apply to alcohol and tobacco, you'll understand my position (or you'll have come out for banning alcohol and tobacco).

[Rocksalt]

"Alcohol and tobacco are by far the greatest scourges of American youth and adults. When you can answer your own questions as they apply to alcohol and tobacco, you'll understand my position (or you'll have come out for banning alcohol and tobacco"

As I stated before,I am not in favor of alcohol and tobbacco prohibition. One reason is these are the choice of your average working man,which MDMA,heroin,etc. are not. Alcohol and Tobbacco are not even in the same league as hard drugs such as MDMA. I'm not for making anything illegal,I think citizens should have as many freedoms as possible,but I think the only positive aspect to legalizing all drugs would be elimination of the black markets for these substances.There's no easy solution to the drug problem,there is no black and white absolutes on this issue.

[MrLeRoy]

I am not in favor of alcohol and tobbacco prohibition. One reason is these are the choice of your average working man,which MDMA,heroin,etc. are not.

Why is popularity a justification for legalization of deadly addictive drugs?

Alcohol and Tobbacco are not even in the same league as hard drugs such as MDMA.

Nonsense. Alcohol is highly addictive, and tobacco is #1---more addictive than heroin or cocaine. And alcohol can kill you in a single evening of use.

the only positive aspect to legalizing all drugs would be elimination of the black markets for these substances.

"Only"? That's a HUGE benefit. Think of what the black market involves: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches.

There's no easy solution to the drug problem

The only problem not solved by legalization is the self-destruction of some users---but there is NO governmentally imposeable solution to that problem.

[Rocksalt]

"Nonsense. Alcohol is highly addictive, and tobacco is #1---more addictive than heroin or cocaine. And alcohol can kill you in a single evening of use."

Compare these substances with marijuana.You cannot OD on pot,it is easily grown by anyone,almost anywhere.

Drugs like MDMA require laboratorys to make them.Legalizing these drugs would require either the goverment or drug companys to manafacture them.Thus you would have goverment control,or control by drug corporations.Pot,on the other hand is hard for the goverment to control,because it is so easy to grow.so you tell me,how can drugs that require difficult processes to make ever be free of goverment control,FDA control etc.? Good luck getting through this hoop,and talking about private companys being in control of these substances won't help,as some form of regulation will still be required. I'm listening and willing to consider something that might work.I'm also interested to hear how the UK's legalized heroin and cocaine programs have reduced addictions.My understanding is their program is geared towards maintaining people already addicted,not enabling just anyone to walk in and have access.Cheers.

[MrLeRoy]

Drugs like MDMA require laboratorys to make them. Legalizing these drugs would require either the goverment or drug companys to manafacture them. [...] how can drugs that require difficult processes to make ever be free of goverment control,FDA control etc.? [...] some form of regulation will still be required.

Hard liquor (which I've never heard of anyone making at home) is legal and made by the private sector but regulated; I advocate the same approach for other manufactured drugs.

[Rocksalt]

"Hard liquor (which I've never heard of anyone making at home) is legal and made by the private sector but regulated; I advocate the same approach for other manufactured drugs."

Never been to Tennessee I suppose.Good White Lightning down in those parts.Not too difficult to make.

Well,guess what-I agree with your position that there would be positive aspects to legalizing all drugs.The black marketeers would lose their hold on the illicit drug market,that would be one benefit.But I would not agree with legalizing hard drugs to the point that it made access to them easy and readily availible to everyone.Giving addicts,who are already addicted cheap drugs(this is what the UK did some time ago) does make sense,it prevents them from having to break into my house and steal my computer to maintain their habit.This has happened to me before,I awoke at 8:30 on a saturday morning to find a junkie across the room from me and my wife in our bedroom.With an 8 inch Bowie knife down his pants,which the police discovered when they busted him down the street.Believe me,I am well aware of the need to stop the crime associated with narcotics.But I cannot see any wisdom in making drugs available to anyone who wants to shoot up.It is obvious there is a huge desire for illicit drugs here in the US. Some sort of handle needs to be kept on the problem. A "free for all", with narcotics being sold in state run stores would be a death sentence for millions of irresponsible americans. There's no shortage of idiots out there,I'm sure you would agree with that.Sure you could say they are responsible for their own actions,but reality is they are not.