Should Canada adopt a narcotics-amnesty law?

[White_Unifier]

I was landed on a documentary last night about a Canadian woman who had been fooled into visiting a person she thought was a friend in Columbia. After she took him up on his offer to invite her to visit him in Columbia, his organization kidnapped her and tried to pressure her to become a drug mule to smuggle cocaine into Canada under an artificial pregnant belly by refusing to allow her to return home to Canada until she agreed.

She refused for days so they starved her, eventually drugged her, raped her, and finally gave her an ultimatum between becoming a drug mule or a prostitute. She chose the former the day after she was raped.

Though she did have a few opportunities to contact authorities, fear gripped her each time she encountered an officer due to her mental state of mind at the time. Consequently, in her state of mind, she decided to just smuggle the drugs and get it over with.

She got caught at the airport before she had a chance to board the flight for Canada and consequently got charged with drug trafficking. Since she could not identify the acquaintance to the judge or provide his exact address, etc. or prove that she'd been trafficked, her counsel advised a plea bargain of 4 years of house arrest in Columbia. In a sense, if her story is true, the justice system essentially victimized her yet again.

Though I accept that we cannot know whether her story is true or not, apparently it was never proved untrue either. With that in mind, could a narcotics-amnesty law help to protect trafficked drug mules? For example, what if the law required customs to present a declarations gate prior to the investigations gate and to grant amnesty to any person who declares all illegal narcotics in his possession at the declarations gate before heading to the investigations gate? I can see two advantages with this:

1. It could result in a non-victimized drug mule getting cold feet and revealing all of his narcotics at the customs gate. When we consider that probably many narcotics get through undetected simply due to officers not having the time to check every nook and cranny on (and even in) each and every piece of luggage and even body of each and every passenger, a drug mule who gets cold feet could end up declaring narcotics that customs might otherwise never have discovered. Consequently, allowing amnesty for self-declarations at the declarations gate could achieve the goal of reducing the availability of narcotics in Canada (which to my mind from a public-health-and-safety standpoint is more important than just punishing a person who might have smuggled many kilograms of narcotics into the country before already).

2. It could give a trafficking victim the confidence to reveal his situation without fear of punishment for having drugs in his possession that his trafficker had forcefully attached to his body against his will for example. Though it's true that if the trafficker is traveling with him and is standing right next to him, his state of mind could be such that he would fear reprisals. A simple solution would be to require each person to step forward to the customs gate individually with the exception of people and their dependents. This way, the declarations officer would more probably be communicating with the victim one on one with the trafficker standing behind a line at least a few feet behind his victim, at least far enough away to make it difficult for him to hear the conversation. The gate could also have blinders on the sides to make lip-reading more difficult and to further muffle sound. Signs could be present before a person reaches the customs gate making it clear in multiple languages that any trafficked drug mule can declare any narcotics in his possession to the declarations officer without fear of punishment even if he cannot prove that he has been trafficked, but that this amnesty no longer applies if he does not declare all narcotics in his possession prior to passing the declarations gate to head to the investigations gate.

I think such a policy would have advantages beyond just protecting trafficking victims. It could encourage more people who might otherwise succeed in smuggling narcotics to turn them in voluntarily. Obviously amnesty does not mean that we will not confiscate the drug none-the-less. It also would not protect him if evidence comes to light later that ha had trafficked other narcotics in Canada other than the ones he declared at that gate.

In exchange for this, we could toughen the punishment that would apply to those who go past the declarations gate without having declared all narcotics in their possession. Think of it as a good cop bad cop approach. If a person is unsure, he might want to check all of his bags before reaching the declarations gate and if he does find drugs in his possession, then he'll know that it's best to declare them and hand them in.

What would be your thoughts on such a narcotics-amnesty law?

All the above being said, I would not be opposed to making heroin and other narcotics trafficking a capital offense. This way, when we consider the contrast between amnesty at the declarations gate and capital punishment at the investigations gate, many traffickers could decide that they're not in the mood to play Russian roulette with their lives anymore.

 

[petros]

There are no such thing as "friends" when you haven't met.

Instead of getting caught at the airport she should have turned herself in at security rather than attempting to go through security.

She made a string of stupid decisions.

 

[White_Unifier]

There are no such thing as "friends" when you haven't met.

Instead of getting caught at the airport she should have turned herself in at security rather than attempting to go through security.

She made a string of stupid decisions.

I agree. At one point before they even reached the airport, their coach had been stopped at a roadblock and an officer boarded to check. She could have called out to him there. But again, her trafficker was sitting next to her and fear could have gripped her concerning whether he could decide to hurt her there in desperation. Plus, she'd been starved for days and raped already, so it's difficult to ascertain her state of mind at that time.

At the airport too, she could have declared the narcotics at customs before going through. But again, she might have feared not being believed, in which case not declaring them and not getting caught would be preferable to declaring them and then being charged with trafficking.

With these factors in mind, an explicit law allowing amnesty at the declarations gate but not at the investigations gate afterwards could have reassured her that whether they believed her story or not, she could confidently declare the narcotics on her body. Under present laws, a trafficking victim could fear the risk of not being believed and so effectively incriminate himself needlessly.

 

[MHz]

What they should do is legalize all drugs and that would end the (Rothschild owned and operated) Black Market.

 

[White_Unifier]

What they should do is legalize all drugs and that would end the (Rothschild owned and operated) Black Market.

I'm in two minds about legalizing drugs. What I can say though is that whether drugs are legalized, criminalized, or decriminalized, the goal should always be to help fight addiction. With that, hyper-regulation of advertising would be be needed if drugs were ever legalized.

So even when i propose an amnesty law, it's not to give drug traffickers a free pass, but rather to protect victims of human trafficking while still confiscating the drug and so preventing it from reaching the streets.

 

[tay]

You say she got caught in Columbia where she is serving house arrest.

What does that have to do with whether Canada has a narcotics-amnesty law or not....?

 

[White_Unifier]

You say she got caught in Columbia where she is serving house arrest.

What does that have to do with whether Canada has a narcotics-amnesty law or not....?

I'm not aware of any Canadian narcotics-amnesty law at present, so we can safely presume that had she not been caught in Columbia, she would eventually have gone through Canadian customs and, had she been caught there and been unable to prove that she'd been forced to strap the cocaine to her belly, she would have then faced punishment in Canada instead just as she had in Columbia. So this shows that the legal flaw in Colombian law exists in Canadian law too.

The goal of drug laws should be to get drugs off the streets, not to re-victimize victims of human trafficking who are forced to work as drug mules.

 

[Murphy]

Never assume. It makes an ASS of U and ME.

 

[bill barilko]

1-learn the difference between Columbia-the river and Colombia the country.

2-every smuggling scumbag in jail has a story like this.

I guess I'm the only poster here who has actually exited Colombia by air/been checked under their strenuous protocol believe me there is NFW you can smuggle anything as an air passenger.

I was X-rayed three (3) times and my bags were scanned, sniffed by a drug dog, then opened in front of me and everything searched manually probably because I had a bunch of big game fishing tackle that looked odd under Xray not every bag underwent that.

Pregnant women are asked permission to have their stomachs Xrayed and under Colombian law they can legally refuse however they can then be denied permission to board then if the authorities suspect someone they can be taken into custody to be examined by a physician.

 

[White_Unifier]

Never assume. It makes an ASS of U and ME.

Hard to prove a negative without reading through all of the laws.

As far as I know, though yes a person caught with narcotics strapped onto him at a Canadian airport might be okay if he can prove that he was trafficked and forced to carry the drugs across the border, I'm not aware of any law that grants amnesty. In other words, if he goes through security with narcotics strapped onto him and he has no way to prove that he was forced to carry the narcotics, then he is left with a real gamble. He can either declare the narcotics as he goes through customs and then hope to God that a judge will take him at his word when he states that someone trafficked him, or say nothing and hope to God that the drugs aren't discovered. Seeing that both would be a roughly equal gamble, neither would really be better than the other.

Should Canada adopt a narcotics-amnesty law, then we give a trafficking victim a clear choice: Declare, and declare at the declaration and amnesty gate before you pass through to head to the investigation gate where no amnesty would be allowed.

In short, if you declare the narcotics at the declaration and amnesty gate, you won't need to prove that you were trafficked or worry about your ability to do so since you'll be granted amnesty anyway. But if you do not declare before you pass that gate, then it will be that much harder for a judge to believe that you were trafficked unless you can prove it.

The law could even require the declaration gate to post signs in all major languages making it clear to all readers that if they have narcotics to declare for amnesty, they are to do it at the declarations gate, after which the punishment for smuggling narcotics would be severe.

 

[MHz]

I'm in two minds about legalizing drugs. What I can say though is that whether drugs are legalized, criminalized, or decriminalized, the goal should always be to help fight addiction. With that, hyper-regulation of advertising would be be needed if drugs were ever legalized.

So even when i propose an amnesty law, it's not to give drug traffickers a free pass, but rather to protect victims of human trafficking while still confiscating the drug and so preventing it from reaching the streets.

The only ones busted for drugs are the least of the people involved in drugs. You would have to lock up most of the CIA if you were to go after the big dealers.
Do your two minds take that into account?

[youtube]qJkFZ4W4bjg[/youtube]
The Phony Drug War: How the US Government Deals Drugs (Documentary)

 

[White_Unifier]

1-learn the difference between Columbia-the river and Colombia the country.

2-every smuggling scumbag in jail has a story like this.

I guess I'm the only poster here who has actually exited Colombia by air/been checked under their strenuous protocol believe me there is NFW you can smuggle anything as an air passenger.

I was X-rayed three (3) times and my bags were scanned, sniffed by a drug dog, then opened in front of me and everything searched manually probably because I had a bunch of big game fishing tackle that looked odd under Xray not every bag underwent that.

Pregnant women are asked permission to have their stomachs Xrayed and under Colombian law they can legally refuse however they can then be denied permission to board then if the authorities suspect someone they can be taken into custody to be examined by a physician.

According to the documentary, they wanted her to wear a fake pregnant belly inside which she would hide the narcotics. Supposedly, even she did not believe it would work since apparently the material from which the fake belly was made was more rigid than a normal belly.

As for a criminal coming up with such a story, I have no doubt some do try to make up a story to get away with it, and she might fall into that category. Her claims were neither proved nor disproved, so who knows.


However, I have been reading a few online articles today on the subject, and apparently using trafficking victims as drug mules does happen more often than we might think. The question then becomes how do we ensure that we not re-victimize a victim while still ensuring a hard stance on the drug trade?

I think a narcotics-amnesty law would do the trick. Most victims would probably be quick to declare the drugs, whereas a criminal would more probably not declare with intent to smuggle. Of course a free smuggler who gets cold feet might decide to take advantage of the amnesty law just as a victim fearful of the trafficker standing next to him might choose to not declare out of fear of reprisal. However, this would probably improve the plight of human-trafficking victims forced to become drug mules at least somewhat by now providing them with a clear option where at present such an option does not exist.

We could compensate for the amnesty law by making the punishment for smuggling even tougher. With the contrast between the amnesty granted at the declaration gate and the punishment one could face once past that gate, many a smuggler might be tempted to forfeit his stash. We'd have no way to know for sure if he'd been forced or not, but at least the main goal of keeping the drug off the streets would be achieved.

The only ones busted for drugs are the least of the people involved in drugs. You would have to lock up most of the CIA if you were to go after the big dealers.
Do your two minds take that into account?

[youtube]qJkFZ4W4bjg[/youtube]
The Phony Drug War: How the US Government Deals Drugs (Documentary)

I agree in part that a person who freely chooses to smuggle narcotics through airport customs is not the high man on the totem pole, I still think that that still does not excuse him from punishment if he is caught freely choosing to smuggle narcotics across the border, especially if in the face of amnesty laws, he should choose to decline amnesty and try to smuggle anyway. If, in the face of such generosity, he turns down amnesty at the declarations counter and then gets caught at the investigation counter, then he should deserves all that's coming to him.

 

[taxslave]

Assuming she was telling the truth I can see her wanting to be busted or declare the drugs in Canada rather than Columbia.

 

[Murphy]

No assumptions or conditions.

It does not matter whether she was coerced or voluntarily agreed to carry the drugs. She is guilty of an offense. That is why bad guys get tourists to do it. The tourist gets busted and they lose their dope, but the criminals are still walking the streets.

I agree with Pete. She should have immediately surrendered to the authorities.

To answer your question, no, there should be no amnesty.

 

[White_Unifier]

Assuming she was telling the truth I can see her wanting to be busted or declare the drugs in Canada rather than Columbia.

Well, after spending a short time in a Colombian prison (yikes!), she was granted 4 years (or was it a couple of years I can't remember now) of house arrest in a plea bargain. I don't blame the judge entirely though. If she's lying and he takes her at her word, then any future trafficker could just claim the same. If she's telling the truth and he gives her the maximum punishment, then he's re-victimizing a victim. With no way of knowing, the judge appears to have chosen a compromise between the two extremes.

If Amnesty laws had been in place in Colombia, the judge's job would have been that much easier. If after crossing the declaration gate and knowing she was ow safe from her trafficker, she had turned around and declared she had drugs on her, then amnesty, no worries. If not, then the judge would have no choice but to reject her claim and give her the full punishment that the law allows. Not a perfect system and errors would occur in that system too, but it would make the judge's job somewhat easier by making it somewhat more black and white.

No assumptions or conditions.

It does not matter whether she was coerced or voluntarily agreed to carry the drugs. She is guilty of an offense. That is why bad guys get tourists to do it. The tourist gets busted and they lose their dope, but the criminals are still walking the streets.

I agree with Pete. She should have immediately surrendered to the authorities.

To answer your question, no, there should be no amnesty.

So if a person is kidnapped, raped, and then gets drugs strapped onto her (as in the case of the documentary yesterday) or forced to swallow condoms (as also occurs to victims from what I've read today), she should be forced to make a choice between declaring the drugs with no guarantee that she'll be believed (in which case she's basically helping the authorities to re-victimize her (or him, as I suppose it could happen to men too) or protect herself from this injustice by not declaring it to the authorities in the hopes of not getting caught (in which case she could still declare that she was a trafficking victim if she does get caught.

That's a tough position to be in.

Furthermore, the trafficker might even use the present laws to his advantage by reminding the victim that no guarantee a judge will believe if he declares as a was to incite him to smuggle instead. That increases profits for the trafficker.

However, if a person could be guaranteed amnesty, then forcing a person through coercion to become a drug mule doesn't work anymore because now any trafficking victim would have no fear of declaring all of the drugs in his possession at the declaration counter. Consequently, drug traffickers would now ant to find willing volunteers to smuggle the drugs instead knowing that these volunteers will not declare the drugs at the declarations and amnesty gate in the hopes of smuggling the drugs for a part of the profit themselves. Seeing how many are not caught, making it easier for a victim to declare the drug could help to not only protect victims but also take more drugs off the streets.

 

[Murphy]

...So if a person is kidnapped, raped, and then gets drugs strapped onto her (as in the case of the documentary yesterday) or forced to swallow condoms (as also occurs to victims from what I've read today), she should be forced to make a choice between declaring the drugs with no guarantee that she'll be believed (in which case she's basically helping the authorities to re-victimize her (or him, as I suppose it could happen to men too) or protect herself from this injustice by not declaring it to the authorities in the hopes of not getting caught (in which case she could still declare that she was a trafficking victim if she does get caught.

That's a tough position to be in...

Your logic is flawed. There can be no "what ifs". The individual must surrender him or herself to authorities. You continually add conditions, or 'what ifs', to the situation. Here are some more 'what ifs".

What if the cop had a fight with his wife, is pissed off and decides to charge an individual?
What if the prosecutor doesn't like (insert ethnicity here)?
What if the cop was looking for a promotion and needed a few more busts to secure his move up the ladder?

You cannot platy the 'what if' game. Here's one thing that's absolute: If you knowingly break the law, you will be arrested and charged. The prosecutor will ask, "Why did you not tell us before we went through all this?"

Police arrest and charge. They are the first responders and let the courts sort things out. Telling the police, and subsequently, the prosecutor what happened at the outset has a higher probability that you will NOT be charged.

Nothing is absolute in this life. You risk more by remaining silent.

 

[taxslave]

Well, after spending a short time in a Colombian prison (yikes!), she was granted 4 years (or was it a couple of years I can't remember now) of house arrest in a plea bargain. I don't blame the judge entirely though. If she's lying and he takes her at her word, then any future trafficker could just claim the same. If she's telling the truth and he gives her the maximum punishment, then he's re-victimizing a victim. With no way of knowing, the judge appears to have chosen a compromise between the two extremes.

If Amnesty laws had been in place in Colombia, the judge's job would have been that much easier. If after crossing the declaration gate and knowing she was ow safe from her trafficker, she had turned around and declared she had drugs on her, then amnesty, no worries. If not, then the judge would have no choice but to reject her claim and give her the full punishment that the law allows. Not a perfect system and errors would occur in that system too, but it would make the judge's job somewhat easier by making it somewhat more black and white.



So if a person is kidnapped, raped, and then gets drugs strapped onto her (as in the case of the documentary yesterday) or forced to swallow condoms (as also occurs to victims from what I've read today), she should be forced to make a choice between declaring the drugs with no guarantee that she'll be believed (in which case she's basically helping the authorities to re-victimize her (or him, as I suppose it could happen to men too) or protect herself from this injustice by not declaring it to the authorities in the hopes of not getting caught (in which case she could still declare that she was a trafficking victim if she does get caught.

That's a tough position to be in.

Furthermore, the trafficker might even use the present laws to his advantage by reminding the victim that no guarantee a judge will believe if he declares as a was to incite him to smuggle instead. That increases profits for the trafficker.

However, if a person could be guaranteed amnesty, then forcing a person through coercion to become a drug mule doesn't work anymore because now any trafficking victim would have no fear of declaring all of the drugs in his possession at the declaration counter. Consequently, drug traffickers would now ant to find willing volunteers to smuggle the drugs instead knowing that these volunteers will not declare the drugs at the declarations and amnesty gate in the hopes of smuggling the drugs for a part of the profit themselves. Seeing how many are not caught, making it easier for a victim to declare the drug could help to not only protect victims but also take more drugs off the streets.

You forgot the part about when the mule declares he/she is carrying drugs get a pass and goes home but the owners of the drugs then expect the mule to pay street value for said drugs.

 

[White_Unifier]

You forgot the part about when the mule declares he/she is carrying drugs get a pass and goes home but the owners of the drugs then expect the mule to pay street value for said drugs.

I guess that could depend on circumstances.

In the particular case of the documentary, though she feared the men, it seems that they did not want her to sell the drugs but merely take them across the border to then give to someone else with no compensation for her. All risk, no reward. Hmmm... classic definition of trafficking I guess.

I suppose that we could give a choice between anonymous amnesty boxes even before a person reaches the declarations desk. In the case of the documentary yesterday that would not have been an option since the fake belly was so tightly wrapped onto her, she had even tried to remove it in the washroom at the Colombian airport but when she saw the time, gave up and decided to take the risk since she just wanted back in Canada. After starvation and rape, her mindset would not necessarily be so clearheaded. So in her case, seeing that she might even need the officers' help to even just get the drugs off of her, she'd probably chose the less anonymous declaration at the gate along with a declaration that she'd been trafficked. The fact that she could have gotten amnesty at that gate with no explanation require means that to provide an explanation where one is not required is no longer just trying to cover her crime but rather a genuine plea for help.

Once the police know, they could then start taking steps to protect her. Of course she couldn't be sure that she knew the legal name of the man from Columbia and so would have a hard time providing a name for the CBSA to keep an eye out for, and I suppose they could try to hunt her down, but they'd more probably just cut their losses seeing how hunting her down just wastes precious time.

 

[MHz]

I agree in part that a person who freely chooses to smuggle narcotics through airport customs is not the high man on the totem pole, I still think that that still does not excuse him from punishment if he is caught freely choosing to smuggle narcotics across the border, especially if in the face of amnesty laws, he should choose to decline amnesty and try to smuggle anyway. If, in the face of such generosity, he turns down amnesty at the declarations counter and then gets caught at the investigation counter, then he should deserves all that's coming to him.

My point is it is always the lowest level that gets caught and punished. The term for the woman is 'mule', anybody above that level is a 'protected person'. Mules and local users are the only ones that see the inside of a prison and the sentences are much stiffer than they need to be.
That goes for all crimes basically, if you are rich you can buy a 'not guilty' verdict if it ever went that far. (it doesn't)

 

[White_Unifier]

My point is it is always the lowest level that gets caught and punished. The term for the woman is 'mule', anybody above that level is a 'protected person'. Mules and local users are the only ones that see the inside of a prison and the sentences are much stiffer than they need to be.
That goes for all crimes basically, if you are rich you can buy a 'not guilty' verdict if it ever went that far. (it doesn't)

A trafficked mule should not get punishment obviously. But if a person chooses to mule, he should still get punished. Sure his supeiors might not get caught, but he chose to mule and his activities encourage his superiors. So the fact that his superiors get away with it does not excuse him.

The pronblem though is ensuring that he truly was a freely-consenting and willing mule and not a trafficking victim.