The idea that doing drugs is a victimless crime is doubtless the most frequently peddled totally preposterous notion out there. And I'm not just talking about impaired driving, although that's a big part of the problem. I'm talking about something more fundamental: You can be part of a perfectly ordinary family, take drugs in the privacy of your home, simply sit there to get the high you wanted, and do grotesque damage to other people.
Here's the latest example. The Associated Press story begins:
A woman whose two young sons died in a bathroom flooded with scalding water while she was in a drug-induced stupor is trying to get her infant daughter back from child welfare authorities, saying she's turned her life around.
Too bad the two boys won't get the chance to "turn their lives around."
Hello Mr. Otis,
This is tragic. I don't address whether she should get her child back.
But, I am not sure where you are going with this example. Are you suggesting that the drugs are what caused the children to be neglected? Or that making drugs illegal would have prevented this? I presume that the drugs she used were already illegal. What if instead she had been drunk when the children died. According to the referenced article she is drug free after participating in a treatment program. She required treatment whether the drugs were illegal or not.
" Are you suggesting that the drugs are what caused the children to be neglected?"
The article states point-blank that the children were neglected because she was in a drug-induced stupor.
"Or that making drugs illegal would have prevented this?"
Murder is highly illegal, but there are over 13,000 of them each year. Making X illegal will not stop X. But it will tamp down on X, because people will take steps to avoid punishment.
"What if instead she had been drunk when the children died."
The fact that we allow one very abuse-prone substance is a reason that we should be more cautious, not more carefree, before allowing more.
"According to the referenced article she is drug free after participating in a treatment program."
According to her lawyer, anyway.
"She required treatment whether the drugs were illegal or not."
She required a great deal more than treatment. I would say around 50 years. Allowing small children to die a horrible, suffering death so you can get smashed is as awful as human behavior gets.
Hello Again,
I will focus solely on this, "Making X illegal will not stop X. But it will tamp down on X, because people will take steps to avoid punishment."
That is now what happened here. The drugs were already illegal and she did not avoid them or use less to avoid punishment. If the narrative went along the lines, "the children lived because the mom realized that she needed to be more careful in her use of illegal drugs", then that would be evidence in support of your statement. But that is not the case. She used drugs to excess and killed her kids. This lady only got cleaned up after she killed her kids, not because she realized that she shouldn't use illegal drugs.
I blame the mom for her criminal acts against her children. Based on your other writing, I think that you tend to blame the perpetrator, of most crimes, for their actions; as well you should.
Blaming drugs for ones personal failings, is analogous to the arguments blaming guns for murder, blaming poverty for crime, or blaming video games for violence. If you are willing to accept one of those arguments then you fall prey to them all.
The mother gets plenty of blame and so do the drugs. So far as we have any evidence, but for the drugs, there is no stupor, and without the stupor, the kids are still alive. The drugs are therefore a but-for cause of their deaths, and that's enough for me.