No Tokers Over the Line

It was bad enough when our government decided a Canadian psychotherapist could no longer visit his children and colleagues in the U.S. because he used psychedelics in the '60s. Now U.S. Customs and Border Protection is preventing a Canadian woman, Glendene Grant, from crossing the border to seek police help in finding her daughter, who apparently was kidnapped in Las Vegas last year. Grant was convicted of cocaine and marijuana possession two decades ago. Enough said.

Comments

[The Downtown Talent Scout]

We're turning into the CCCP!

[Episiarch]

The Canadians are already retaliating, as I understand it. Want to go to Montreal? Ever been convicted of DUI? Well, too fucking bad for you.

The "longest undefended border in the world" is now becoming a pissing match of stupidity. Thank you, government.

[Warren]

Jesus H Christ in an interrogation cell. How far is too far? How many people have to be disappeared before anybody can be bothered to give a shit.

[sarcasmo]

I wonder how long it takes us to forgive violent (AKA "real") crimes, like rape & murder??
JMR

[Isaac Bartram]

The Canadians are already retaliating, as I understand it. Want to go to Montreal? Ever been convicted of DUI? Well, too fucking bad for you.

That has been Canadian government policy for years. However in the past it was relatively easy to circumvent.

The case of psychotherapist who used psychedelics in the '60s is interesting in light of the fact that most of the research into psychedelics in Canada was done with grants from the CIA and DOD. And that some of the 1960's psychedelic use came out of that research.

heheheh! Unintended consequences or just plain hypocricy.

Surely though, if Customs and Border Protection can keep out threats like dope using psychotherapists and housewives they can keep out Mexican peons coming here to take American jobs. Can't they?

[Jake Boone]

I foresee tunnels - like the ones occasionally found connecting Mexico and the US - being dug under the border between Canada and the US. They'll be twice as lucrative, because they'll draw traffic in both directions!

[Dan T.]

Mr. Sullum doesn't mention that the woman simply has to apply for a waiver in order to gain admission to the US.

[Christopher Monnier]

> Mr. Sullum doesn't mention that the woman simply has to apply for a waiver in order to gain admission to the US.

Mr. T. doesn't mention this:

The process [to obtain a waiver] takes "perhaps four to six weeks, maybe longer," said Miles.

'Cause, you know, a 4-6 week delay in a missing persons case isn't a big deal...

[R C Dean]

And Dan doesn't mention that a waiver has to be granted - its not automatic, and I for one wonder why they would turn her away and then give her a waiver.

[Eric]

"She asked if my daughter had chosen to go to Las Vegas, and when I said yes, she said 'Then I guess she made her own choices, didn't she?' When I asked 'Are you telling me my daughter chose to be kidnapped?' she threw me out of the office..."

Never answer stupid questions with a smart one.

[Dan T.]

And Dan doesn't mention that a waiver has to be granted - its not automatic, and I for one wonder why they would turn her away and then give her a waiver.

Well, they'd turn her away because the law says they must. The waiver process allows her to state why an exception should be granted her.

[thoreau]

Dan-

There's a difference between "No" and "I'm sorry, the procedures won't allow us to admit you, but given your circumstances if you fill out this waiver paperwork I can get it processed ASAP and hopefully get it cleared."

[Seitz]

Dan also doesn't mention that the application for a waiver (non-guaranteed) is a non-refundable $265, which is money that Ms. Grant doesn't have.

[miche]

And there is this beauty of a problem:

"I don't have $265," Grant protested. "We have to fundraise for everything we do. I can't work very much, we can't afford to keep going, but we do. But I don't have $265." [Ed: There is a donation form at the Jessie Foster web site linked to above.]

[Dan T.]

Actually, upon further review the US has already let her into the country three times without the waiver. Not really sure what to make of that.

[jh]

Dan T.:

The issue here isn't whether the appellate process is available and timely enough and reasonably adjudicated. The issue is whether the underlying offense should even be illegal, much less cause, two decades later, to prevent a person from trying to find a missing child. If Cheerios were illegal and someone prevented you from entering the U.S. to try to save the life of your kidnapped child because of a Cheerios bust two decades ago, would you be sanguine about that refusal to enter the country because you had the right to appeal, even if the appellate process would likely deny you entry because, after all, you HAD consumed Cheerios two decades ago and were a risk to society?

[Rhywun]

If I were this women, I would already be dead, my bullet-ridden body having been carted off after prying my hands off Patricia Lundy's throat.

[Cracker\'s Boy]

IIRC, didn't the psychotherapist use the psychedelics BEFORE they were illegal? He's not even a lawbreaker who is being denied.

A stretch, I know... somebody come up with a better example: Let's see... it's illegal TODAY to own a fully automatic weapon that is not licensed, and has not had the transfer stamp tax paid on it (meaning I know that it is legal to own certain automatic weapons in certain circumstances). Okay... if I owned a fully automatic weapon 40 years ago, it would have been legal, no matter what. But it would not have been registered, nor would it have been stamped. So 'today' ownership of that weapon would be illegal.

Would the fact that 40 years ago, I behaved in a perfectly legal behaviour that is NOW illegal, keep me from being able to enter the country?

CB

[CFisher]

The issue is one of justice and the justness of a given law or rule.

It is presumed that once a convicted person had served the punishment meted out to them that they had been sufficiently punished and would be restored to society, although sometimes the restoration of certain rights would take time to ensure that the convicted person would not slide back into crime.

I find the drug laws foolish and repugnant, but even as written, it is difficult to justify assessing what is, in fact, a second punishment on her for an offense that took place two decades prior for which she paid the price the law demanded of her, and when there is no evidence to suggest that she has since violated the immoral law a second time.

[Jennifer]

If Cheerios were illegal and someone prevented you from entering the U.S. to try to save the life of your kidnapped child because of a Cheerios bust two decades ago, would you be sanguine about that refusal to enter the country

Whether or not Dan T. were sanguine about it depends entirely on how the Hit and Run crowd responds. If Jacob Sullum makes a post talking about how stupid it is to keep someone out of the country for a Cheerios bust, Dan will criticize Sullum's arguments. If Sullum says keeping out people busted for Cheerios is vital to national security, Dan will criticize Sullum's arguments.

[Dan T.]

I find the drug laws foolish and repugnant, but even as written, it is difficult to justify assessing what is, in fact, a second punishment on her for an offense that took place two decades prior for which she paid the price the law demanded of her, and when there is no evidence to suggest that she has since violated the immoral law a second time.

I don't know if anybody's being punished - this is simply a case of a country deciding what kind of people it wants to let in.

I'm not a big fan of the drug wars either but I do see the logic in not wanting to take in another country's degenerates. We already know that Mom has a record of disregarding the rule of law.

Let's keep in mind that we're all just assuming that the daughter (who seems to have wanted to get away from Mom anyway) was kidnapped. The Las Vegas police have no leads so it seems unclear what good allowing Mom into the country for a fourth time is really going to accomplish.

[Dan T.]

Whether or not Dan T. were sanguine about it depends entirely on how the Hit and Run crowd responds. If Jacob Sullum makes a post talking about how stupid it is to keep someone out of the country for a Cheerios bust, Dan will criticize Sullum's arguments. If Sullum says keeping out people busted for Cheerios is vital to national security, Dan will criticize Sullum's arguments.

Let's assume this is true. So what?

The validity of a statement does not depend on the sincerity of the person making it.

I like being a devil's advocate and enjoy being able to see both sides of the issue. I fail to understand why this fact bothers people so much.

[Jennifer]

I like being a devil's advocate and enjoy being able to see both sides of the issue

No, you like being an attention-whoring troll and enjoy being able to annoy people because it's the only human interaction you get.

[Dan T.]

Jenny, lighten up a little. For everybody's sake. Life is not that bad.

[Jennifer]

Danny, stop being such a troll. For everybody's sake. Your life is not (or shouldn't be) that empty.

[NeonCat]

I was fortunate enough to attend a talk given by a uniformed officer of the Customs and Border Patrol Service. He told us directly that CBP sees it as their job to keep as many people out of the country as possible, and is basically engaged in a turf battle with the State Dept because of it, since the State Dept wants foreign tourists, skilled workers, etc. to come here. I think the CBP really does have the mindset that they are the thin line between America and The Enemy.

[Acolyte of Grotius]

Jennifer,
If you think that Dan T. is annoying people just to get attention, what good is served by pointing that out?

[Jennifer]

If you think that Dan T. is annoying people just to get attention, what good is served by pointing that out?

The hope that at least others will stop taking his idiot questions seriously.

And a bit of venting.

By the way, if you're gonna be an acolyte, you should choose to follow someone who doesn't change his life history every six months or so. Consistency maters.

[Acolyte of Grotius]

There may be someone somewhere who appreciates your altruism, but many of us can fend for and think for ourselves.

[Jake Boone]

There may be someone somewhere who appreciates your altruism, but many of us can fend for and think for ourselves.

Damn straight! Of course, that also implies that we don't need someone coming in here to dishonestly play devil's advocate, either.

[Dan T.]

Let this thread be an illustration of how I was willing and able to discuss the topic in a civil tone until Jennifer busted in to make the thread (once again) about me.

[Robert]

I think Dan T. makes interesting comments.

[Acolyte of Grotius]

Dan T.,
It is difficult to disagree with you this time.

[Jake Boone]

Let this thread be an illustration of how I was willing and able to discuss the topic in a civil tone[...]

Let this thread also be an illustration of the principle I like to call "Too Little, Too Late."

[Jennifer]

This time, the boy was speaking the truth when he said wolves were attacking the sheep. Yet nobody believed him. How very, very odd.

[dj_of_raleigh]

This is not a poster child story.
US drug convicted people aren't admitted to Canada, either. The woman's daughter did go on her own to Vegas where she was a prostitute. She went missing, but I haven't seen where it is "apparent" that she was kidnapped. She may be. The mother, who can't afford $265 to seek a waiver, probably can't exist in Vegas without donations. She will have to communicate via emails and phone calls. It's a sad story, a poor mother who was using drugs when pregnant with a child that is now missing. She's been admitted to the US three times over the disappearance, been on US TV, etc. This case condemns the mother's drug use and questions her subsequent life. In it is a all too common pattern.