What’s neat about this is it’s not going to help any children, they know it won’t help any children, and they don’t want it to. It’s an excuse to put more people in prison for longer because a Fucking Lot of people make money every time someone goes to prison. It’s an excuse to boost police budgets that are already inflated, and to erode our civil liberties even further than they already have. We joke that we’re losing the drug war and we regular citizens are, but not to drugs. The drug war is a proxy war that the moneyed establishment is waging against the working class. That’s who’s winning the drug war that we’re losing, and losing so many of our loved ones to.
deleted by creator
Hmm, I’m a bit confused… Are you arguing against charging parents who endangered their child by exposing them to overdosing amounts of fentanyl?
Pretty sure they’re arguing that charging parents won’t help children. We have a fentanyl problem so severe that children are dying at unprecedented rates, because the drug is so deadly is only takes an amount equivalent to the weight of a mosquito to be lethal.
And we are choosing to address that problem, as we have for 40 years, through stricter prison sentencing, which has never improved or otherwise addressed the root causes of addiction. Punishing addicts makes everyone feel better, because…children dying is fucking devastating and we need someone held accountable, and the parents do bear at least some responsibility.
But just because it makes us feel better doesn’t mean it is effective.
Detectives testified that when Waite found her daughter unresponsive she rushed to a pharmacy to buy naloxone, a drug used to reverse an opioid overdose. The couple did not call 911 until hours later when Allison started having trouble breathing.
These parents made a pretty disgusting choice, but they did it because they thought they had a chance of keeping their child. If we could set aside our impotent outrage and acknowledge that offering support and oversight to parents in these situations, rather than the heavy hammer of “justice”, this little girl might still be alive. Our appetite for vengeance would be unsated, but we would save more children and help people improve their lives.
There are many other things that need doing–many, many things–to make a dent in America’s drug epidemic, and headlines like this are frustrating because we keep pulling out the same useless tool.
You know those visual gags about someone about to engage in a duel choosing between an assortment of weapons and they pick something silly like a banana? This is the banana, and the joke is so, so old.
If we follow your reasoning, then there is also no reason to punish someone who kills a pedestrian while driving drunk.
No, absolutely not. The difference there is that their choices hurt someone else, driving drunk isn’t inherent to alcoholism, and alcohol isn’t regulated like other drugs so it doesn’t have the same issues with getting help when you need it, dirty supply lines and market pressure to make it as strong as possible.
The choices of those parents also hurt someone else. Accidentally poisoning children is not inherent to opiate addiction - in fact, it is less common than accidentally killing a pedestrian while DUI. And there are resources for both alcoholics and opiate addicts, usually under the same roof.
If you assume both scenarios are identical, then yes. It’s a really bad assumption, because…they’re completely different substances with completely different characteristics (and just completely different scenarios), but if you make it anyway I would agree with you.
We are choosing to address drunk driving, as we have for years, through stricter prison sentencing, which has never improved or otherwise addressed the root causes of drunk driving. Punishing drunk drivers makes everyone feel better, because…children dying is fucking devastating and we need someone held accountable, and drunk drivers do bear at least some responsibility. But just because it makes us feel better doesn’t mean it is effective.
There are many other things that need doing–many, many things–to make a dent in drunk driving, and we keep pulling out the same useless tool.
Do you disagree with any of that?
they’re completely different substances with completely different characteristics (and just completely different scenarios)
They aren’t completely different, they have in common a direct link to harming bystanders. And usually we punish people who cause harm to bystanders.
So if you have a specific difference in mind that justifies lenience towards opiate addicts who harm bystanders but does not also apply to alcoholics who do the same, then you should spell it out.
Yes I absolutely am, because it won’t help kids any at all. This model we follow where we wait until someone dies and then swoop in, designate someone else to be responsible and then hurt that person as much as possible just doesn’t work. In fifty years it has not helped one addict get clean, it hasn’t prevented one person becoming an addict, and it hadn’t stopped one overdose death. We’ve doubled down so hard on this that there are people doing life for simple possession of marijuana. If this was a good idea that worked it would have had some measurable impact by now, but the numbers say that things are getting exponentially worse. I’ve buried 5 close friends and family members due to addiction. I’m sick of doing the same stupid thing over and over again and then when it inevitably doesn’t work just doubling down again.
sounds entirely appropriate, and necessary
As it should be
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) — Madison Bernard climbed into bed before dawn with her toddler, Charlotte, who was asleep next to a nightstand strewn with straws, burned tinfoil and a white powder.
Some 20 states have so-called “drug-induced homicide” laws, which allow prosecutors to press murder or manslaughter charges against anyone who supplies or exposes a person to drugs causing a fatal overdose.
“These are tragic cases because drug addiction has destroyed a precious life and the parents face the consequences of their reckless actions,” said Charlie Smith, the top prosecutor in Frederick County, Maryland, and president of the National District Attorneys Association.
The National District Attorneys Association doesn’t track how many parents have been charged for exposing their children to fentanyl, but news reports and interviews with prosecutors show such cases have been on the rise since the onset of the pandemic.
In Sonoma County, where Charlotte slept with her mom in a messy apartment in Santa Rosa, first responders testified at a preliminary hearing that they found fentanyl in powder form on a nightstand next to the bed.
A judge is expected to set a trial date at a Sept. 11 hearing for Charlotte’s mother, Bernard, who woke up to find her daughter struggling to breathe, and her father, Evan Frostick.
Saved 81% of original text.
