A growing number of parents across the U.S. are being criminally charged with murder or manslaughter after their children die from exposure to 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.
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.
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.
Both of you are trying to argue that opiate addicts deserve more leniency than other types of addicts, but I don’t think you’ve made your point well at all.
In fact, some of the arguments seem exactly backwards. For example, opiates are more highly regulated than alcohol, which implies we should be less tolerant of accidental deaths causes by opiates.
It’s not “leniency.” You’re still acting like there’s one available response and you either slide it up or slide it down, but that’s transparently untrue. This concept is at the core of this entire discussion and the fact you keep ignoring it indicates you’re here to troll, not engage.
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.
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 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.
Honestly reverendsteveii already addressed this with you.
Forgive me, but you’re not very good at whatever you’re trying to do.
I already replied to them.
Both of you are trying to argue that opiate addicts deserve more leniency than other types of addicts, but I don’t think you’ve made your point well at all.
In fact, some of the arguments seem exactly backwards. For example, opiates are more highly regulated than alcohol, which implies we should be less tolerant of accidental deaths causes by opiates.
It’s not “leniency.” You’re still acting like there’s one available response and you either slide it up or slide it down, but that’s transparently untrue. This concept is at the core of this entire discussion and the fact you keep ignoring it indicates you’re here to troll, not engage.
I’m out 🫡