AP reports:
MILLVALE, Pa. (AP) -- A 9-month-old boy found dead in a Pittsburgh-area apartment is believed to have starved after his mother died of an apparent overdose, leaving no one to care for him, authorities said Friday.
The woman's brother found the two dead early Friday morning when he went to check on his sister, Sara Kessler, 22, after not hearing from her for several days, Assistant Allegheny County police Superintendent James Morton said.
Morton said Kessler may have died a week or two earlier. She was found on her bed, with the son, Casey, in the living room. He said there were no signs of foul play.
By my definition, this child's death was a "violent crime." I can't even imagine the amount of agony and suffering that poor baby experienced before dying.
I don't know why we punish the people who sell this kind of poison...we ought to just give this poison away! (heavy sarcasm)
-ZCB
Where was the father? Could he be charged with homicide in PA law?
And isn't this just further proof that blanket criminal drug prohibition --- especially with respect to marijuana --- is a failed policy to prevent these kinds of tragedies? All I know for sure is this mother did not die/OD from a marijuana overdose, because that is impossible. I wonder if Big Pharma was the pusher of the opiates she died from. If so, I wonder if they could/should be charged with homicide under PA law.
No, I think tragedies such as this would be more common if hard drugs were legalized. Prohibition has been far less than 100% effective, to be sure, but more than 0%, which is what the full-blown legalization promoted by some would be.
It is possible that she died of opiates produced by "Big Pharma," but street drugs are more likely.
I doubt that anyone could be charged with homicide in this case, since the person who caused the infant's death is also deceased.
My post was not intended to say anything about the marijuana legalization controversy.
Doug --
Doesn't this post put the lie to the notion that drug abuse is a victimless crime?
And doesn't it also put the lie to the libertarian anthem that "what you put in your body is no one else's concern"?
Kent: there is emerging research that states with medical marijuana reform have fewer opiate overdose deaths, so prohibition of marijuana in states like Penn might have made this tragic result MORE likely. I agree that Prohibition of certain dangerous items can reduce the harms those items cause, but prohibition can also create lots of other harms, too. That is why I oppose prohibition of guns, even though I think such a law would greatly reduce the number of gun tragedies.
Bill: I do not view drug abuse as a victimless crime (though in many cases involving abuse of prescription drugs or alcohol or tobacco, it is technically not even a crime). Similarly, I do not view other legal decision to excessive personal liberty (e.g., buying a gun or buying a Big Gulp or buying a gas-guzzling car) to be without potential victims as well. I do think the value of liberty --- combined with a lot of skepticism about the government's ability to make better choices for people than adults make for themselves --- calls for a strong presumption against government intrusion on personal liberty unless and until their is a very clear connection to harm to others (e.g., second-hand smoke).
Do you disagree that liberty is an important consideration in these matters, especially when it comes to historically ineffectual and costly efforts to prohibit certain personal behaviors?
Doug --
"Do you disagree that liberty is an important consideration in these matters..."
No, I do not disagree. Liberty includes, however, the now non-existent liberty of Ms. Kessler's little boy, who was left to starve to death because his mother wanted to get groooovy.
"...especially when it comes to historically ineffectual and costly efforts to prohibit certain personal behaviors?"
Depends on the behavior, I guess, and who's defining "ineffectual."
As I've said many times, pot is de facto legal, and the hard drugs are not and should not be legal in any sense. There is so little support for legalizing them that the question has never even been polled, to my knowledge. It may be popular with CATO, but in the population at large, it's a fringe position.
Bill: If you truly think pot is already de facto legal, am I right to believe you would now favor --- so that the law is honest and consistent --- making it de jure legal? Among other benefits besides honesty and candor in the law is the opportunity to better regulate, tax and enforce regulations/taxes around this activity (as we do with alcohol and gambling and guns).
Douglas stated: "And isn't this just further proof that blanket criminal drug prohibition --- especially with respect to marijuana --- is a failed policy to prevent these kinds of tragedies?"
Can I use this with my college frosh critical thinking classes as an example that even people with top notch educations are often forced to resort to logical fallacies?
It is a picture perfect example of a perfectionist fallacy.
Let me know. I will even remove your name to spare the embarrassment if you want.
Tarls, I hope you know that I was not seeking to make a logical argument that this tragic death alone really proves anything (about drug prohibition or anything else).
What I was hoping to highlight was the point I had a chance to make via my follow-up to Kent's comment --- namely that "there is emerging research that states with medical marijuana reform have fewer opiate overdose deaths, so prohibition of marijuana in states like Penn might [statistically speaking] have made this tragic result MORE likely."
Are you aware, Tarls, of the emerging empirical research showing that tragedies like the one in this post seem to happen less frequently in states that have back off blanket marijuana prohibition? If the data bears out this reality over time --- namely the reality that marijuana reform can REDUCE the kind of harms noted in this post --- will you become a supporter of at least some marijuana reforms?
Douglas stated: "Tarls, I hope you know that I was not seeking to make a logical argument that this tragic death alone really proves anything (about drug prohibition or anything else)."
Well, let's look at YOUR WORDS:
"And isn't this just further proof that blanket criminal drug prohibition --- especially with respect to marijuana --- is a failed policy to prevent these kinds of tragedies?"
It sure as hell looks like that is what you were "seeking" to do.
Fair enough, Tarls, that I was sloppy with my use of the word proof initially, and I will try to be more precise in the future. Meanwhile, I remain interested in knowing if you have seen the research about marijuana reform states having fewer opiate overdoses and whether you think such research provide a good reason to be supportive of marijuana reform as a drug abuse harm reduction strategy.