(Aired on June 21, 2010)
The sad story of a young woman charged with smuggling drugs across the border is a far too common one, and unfortunately, we're only scratching the tip of the iceberg. Sadie Villars was arrested after border agents found her carrying bags of ecstasy tablets under her clothes as she crossed the border into the U.S. last week. Apparently, she was carrying the drugs for the quick cash, according to her mom.
These so-called drug mules are roped into the job for a variety of reasons. They may be trying to pay off a debt, either a personal debt or a debt to some criminal element who wants payback. Or they may do it because they think they'll get some quick cash for some baubles and toys and live the high life.
Many think they'll do it a couple of times and get out, but the problem is that once they start, getting out is difficult even if you put aside the attraction of the quick cash. Drug lords can put a lot of pressure on you once you're in. And as the drug trade heats up, more and more of these mules are being used to transport drugs, not just across the border between the U.S. and Canada, but around the world. And criminals are finding more and more tricks up their sleeves to avoid detection. But if these mules are ever caught, they're likely too scared to squeal on those who hired them, if they even know who hired them. And those higher up the ladder are so far removed from the chain they will never be associated with some kid who is picked up crossing the line.
Tracking down illicit drugs is almost like a crap shoot these days. The police do their best, but search warrants aren't easy to come by, privacy laws are so bad that the guilty often get more protection than the innocent, and unless police get lucky, many of these criminals continue to walk free. We will see many more stories about people like Sadie Villars. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times we live in.
Showing posts with label drug trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drug trade. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Privacy or Protection?
(Aired on May 27, 2010)
There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.
We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.
It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.
If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.
There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.
We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.
It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.
If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
