« 300,000
Human exceptionalism »

Smuggling Drugs for Non-Existent Albino Buffalo Calves

I believe that drugs should be legal. All drugs. Thats why I was extremely amused by the following drug-smuggling excuse story. It’s ridiculous, but then, drug laws which lock people up for victimless crimes are ridiculous too.

An accused New Zealand drug smuggler says he brought ephedrine into Australia not to make illicit drugs but to cure a sick, rare albino buffalo calf he wanted to sell to an Indonesian sultan.

Bushfires in NSW threatened his unique herd of albino buffalo and he had to walk them out of harm’s way. “It took me eight weeks. They couldn’t be trucked, they had to be walked through the Great Dividing Range,”

He was arrested on arrival at Port Hedland International Airport with 729 grams of ephedrine in four packs strapped to his thighs and groin.

Two months after his apparent mercy dash, [having skipped bail], Gordon was caught in northern Queensland following a traffic infringement and extradited back to Perth.

Gordon’s lawyer Luka Margaretic argu[ed] his client was the only albino buffalo breeder in the world and had to act when the bushfires broke out.

“They’re very valuable. They’re worth apparently $A150,000 each because of their rarity,” Mr Margaretic said.

Gordon bought the drug over the counter in Indonesia to cure a sick buffalo calf he wanted to sell to an Indonesian sultan.

Mr Margaretic said Gordon was loath to even discuss the whereabouts of the buffalo herd because the animals were so rare he feared they would be stolen.

Albino buffalo are considered sacred by many Native American tribes.

Hilarious. The absurdity of both the story and the drug charges – any drug charges – is so surreal.

  • ScoopIt
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • TailRank

Posted by Luke H on Friday, April 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pm.

11 Responses to “Smuggling Drugs for Non-Existent Albino Buffalo Calves”

While I think drug laws are absurd, what makes you think the story is?

If I had a $150k calf I’d take some pretty desperate measures to keep it a live, cooking P included :-P

Gravatar

Left by MikeE on April 20th, 2007

Hehe, yes MikeE, I would fully toke it up if it were necessary to protect my investment. :-)

In fact now that I think about it, perhaps I would fully toke it up even if it wasn’t necessary to protect an investment!

Gravatar

Left by Luke on April 20th, 2007

I would agree that some drugs should be legalised. But I do not think drugs such a Meth and heroine should be.

What I do find interesting and was talking about with a friend the other day is this: A man that wants to become a woman can go to a doctor and be prescribed estrogen to alter his voice and grow breast tissue. Conversly a man that wants to become ‘more manly’ can not go to a doctor and be prescribed testosterone to help grow more muscle.

That is absurd!!!

Gravatar

Left by Eric Flis on April 20th, 2007

Eric, it is obvious that some drugs – like P and heroin – produce pathetic addicts and have detrimental physical effects. But if all drugs were equally legalised, people would use safe, healthy drugs (like ecstasy and marijuana) more than dangerous negative ones.

Also, given that legalised drugs would be much cheaper, addicts wouldn’t be driven to steal or prostitute themselves to get drugs. They would be more similar to alcoholics or heavy smokers.

Gravatar

Left by Luke on April 20th, 2007

Luke,

I don’t know that I agree with your second point there.

Plenty of alcoholics rob and steal, quite violently too, particularly if they are under the influence.

Gravatar

Left by Eric Flis on April 20th, 2007

The only reason P exists is because of prohibition:

“That law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market constraints. [10] The Iron Law undermines the prohibitionist case and reduces or outweighs the benefits ascribed to a decrease in consumption.”

Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

I just did a little drug rant myself today:

http://mikeenz.blogspot.com/2007/04/bzp-jackie-dean-law-reform-and-future.html

Tell me what you think.

Still wondering why I haven’t been added to the links :-P

Gravatar

Left by MikeE on April 20th, 2007

Well Eric, I was referring to addicts who steal specifically to support their habit.

The crimes you are referring to are committed with alcohol consumed beforehand to loosen inhibitions and cause people to get angry and violent. That’s the effect that alcohol has on many people, and its not very nice. But I think you’ll find those people are mentally unstable to begin with.

I don’t think many alcoholics steal specifically to afford more alcohol because they are addicted to it.

Gravatar

Left by Luke on April 20th, 2007

I think thats a great rant MikeE! I don’t why you weren’t on the links list before – I just assumed you were on it!

Gravatar

Left by Luke on April 21st, 2007

I particularily like it when she starts comparing BZP to rape and murder.

Gravatar

Left by MikeE on April 21st, 2007

Eric: regardless of the crimes committed by alcoholics – a small minority of people who drink alcohol – alcohol remains legal. Prohibition in the US provides us with a great example of what happens when a drug is banned: alcoholic drinks became more potent and dangerous, the number of alcoholics did not decline and organized crime reaped massive profits, with an accompanying increase in violence.

Cocaine, opium and hemp were easily available, often in chemists, in the 19th century. Rates of drug addiction were lower than they are today, even though the minority of people who became addicts provided one motivation for the ban (another was racism). And addiction wasn’t as destructive as it is today because drugs were more affordable. So apart from the principled arguments you can argue against drug prohibition on practical grounds using such comparisons.

Gravatar

Left by Phil on April 21st, 2007

Luke,

I was not referring to alcoholics who are violent or committed crimes after they drink.

There are many alcoholics who steal etc. to support a drinking habit.

Then you have ‘indirect’ actions such as stealing to pay rent because they have spent all their money on alcohol.

I am not sayin alcohol should be band by the way, merely pointing out that alcohol is drug too and for some has major consequences from using.

Gravatar

Left by Eric on April 22nd, 2007

Something to say?