Posted on 09/15/2006 11:13:07 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- USS Stephen W. Groves (FFG 29) recently scored her third successful take down of narcotics trafficking vessels in less than two weeks, and assisted in the take down of a fourth, interdicting an estimated 8.1 metric tons of cocaine during a counter-narco terrorism operations (CNT OPS) deployment for U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command.
While on patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in early August, Stephen W. Groves took down a “go fast” loaded with an estimated 2.6 metric tons of cocaine and interdicted another “go fast” that was preparing to onload narcotics. “Go fast” vessels are small, multi-engined speedboats commonly used to transport illicit narcotics.
Less than two weeks later, the ship’s crew, along with Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light) (46), Det. 8, and embarked Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) 105 interdicted a third “go fast” vessel. Stephen W. Groves was able to close to within a few miles of the “go fast” before being detected and having to give chase. Stephen W. Groves pursued the “go fast” at high speed for the next hour and a half before catching her and detaining her four crew members.
“It is really rare to capture a fully-fuelled 'go-fast' in a flat-out chase,” said Lt. j.g. Scott McCann, LEDET 105 officer in charge. "It is estimated this bust prevented 3 metric tons of cocaine from making it to the United States."
A 26-hour, 750-mile pursuit a few days later resulted in the interdiction of an additional 2.5 metric tons of cocaine and the detention of 10 suspects.
“Only with the precise coordination of everyone involved was the capture of these go-fasts possible,” added Stephen W. Groves’ Commanding Officer, Cmdr. Jon Kreitz. “We could not have had these successes without the terrific support of several maritime patrol aircraft and personnel ashore. We’ve had a terrific couple of weeks interdicting over eight tons of cocaine.”
Stephen W. Groves began her six-month counter-drug operations deployment to the U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command area of responsibility in early April. While deployed, Stephen W. Groves’ crew works with other assets from Joint Interagency Task Force South, the agency responsible for counter-drug operations in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean.
Homeported in Mayport, Fla., Stephen W. Groves is a Commander, Destroyer Squadron 14 ship. During the ship’s deployment, the crew will be patrolling nearly 4 million square nautical miles of water in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
"This is what I joined the Navy for, for a chance to get out and do what we train for, and for a chance to really make a difference," Quartermaster 2nd Class (SW) Zachary Bullock said. "I know that’s what we’re doing."
For more information on Stephen W. Groves, go to www.groves.navy.mil.
For more information on U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, go to www.cusns.navy.mil.
For related news, visit the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cusns/.
So you support increased enforcement -- so do I. At least we agree on that.
It can't be relevant unless drug testing is forced on ALL employers?
What other relevance could employer testing have to drug legality than as 'evidence' that drugs should be illegal?
So you support increased enforcement
Non sequitur. Enforcement didn't hurt rumrunners anywhere near as much as ending Prohibition did ... in fact, enforcement only boosted their profit margins.
Allowing the possession of marijuana in California while prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and transportation is destined to a similar fate. That's the point.
It is not necessary to force ALL employers to test in order for employer drug testing to have relevance.
Well, now you're simply arguing degees of hurt. Increased enforcement would "hurt them where it really counts". More enforcement, more hurt. Why wouldn't you support this if your goal is increased hurt?
EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN - A 50-foot "go-fast" vessel flees a U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement helicopter. The vessel, which is a favorite with drug smugglers, is completely enclosed with a small rear cockpit and can reach speeds nearing 40 knots. Official USCG photo.
What he didn't do was say that Prohibition wasn't really prohibition since it didn't work.
For you to say that prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol was "plenty" of prohibition in spite of the fact that it didn't work is ludicrous.
No, it's sticking to the terms of discussion he set forth. On his terms, his argument failed.
Now, on your terms: How was Prohibition any more of a failure than today's drug bans?
It is not necessary to force ALL employers to test in order for employer drug testing to have relevance.
A claim is not an answer. How is testing by some employers relevant to the issue of drug laws?
Those caught and punished would be hurt ... the remainder would be helped through increased prices.
Why wouldn't you support this if your goal is increased hurt?
My goal is significant hurt accompanied by lower taxpayer cost (or increased spending on preventing and punishing real crimes with actual victims) and an increase in individual liberty ... not a much lesser hurt accompanied by higher taxpayer cost (or decreased spending on preventing and punishing real crimes with actual victims) and an decrease in individual liberty.
I'm assuming a "go fast" is another name for offshore speedboat? if so, those things can fly so how can the Groves possibly catch them?????
Today's drug bans are not a failure. Rephrase.
Today's drug bans are not a failure.
Evidence?
Rephrase.
How was Prohibition a failure in a way today's drug bans are not?
You mean drug testing by public corporations involved in free market enterprises. Well, they're saying that they take the drug laws seriously and will not tolerate their employees breaking the law.
Relevant enough?
That's a very different statement from his: "folks who are in business and have to fight to stay in the game think the druggie crowd is not worth hiring."
Are you saying that the many employers that don't test don't take the drug laws seriously?
All you would have to do to change your mind is walk into a house where this stuff is being used regularly. Look around at the squallor, the children, the abject horror of the living conditions, the sheer lack of quality of life, where the consumptionnext hit of the drug is the center of focus, and you'd change your mind.
This is not some intellectual excercise, it's hell.
We're going in circles and we're right back to Moonman62's point -- Prohibition was a failure because it wasn't prohibition -- personal consumption was allowed.
Not any different than saying, "folks who are in business and have to fight to stay in the game think the druggie criminal crowd is not worth hiring."
Non sequitur. You asked for the relevance, I gave it to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.