this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2233 readers
18 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 🫡
I could've sworn you were arguing against the "heavy hammer of justice". But if you aren't actually calling for leniency then we agree: these particular parents deserve to be charged, and addicts of all types deserve more systemic support.