Drug Dealers Did Not Kill Cecilia Gentili. Prohibition Did.
If drug warriors really wanted to punish "those responsible" for the transgender activist's death, they would start by arresting themselves.

A federal indictment unsealed this week charges two men, Antonio Venti and Michael Kuilan, with supplying the drugs that killed transgender activist Cecilia Gentili on February 6. Among other things, Venti and Kuilan are accused of causing Gentili's death by distributing a mixture of heroin and fentanyl, a felony punishable by a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life.
Gentili "was tragically poisoned in her Brooklyn home from fentanyl-laced heroin," says Breon Peace, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. "Fentanyl is a public health crisis. Our Office will spare no effort in the pursuit of justice for the many New Yorkers who have lost loved ones due to this lethal drug." The indictment "delivers a strong message to anyone who profits from poisoning our communities with illicit drugs," New York City Police Commissioner Edward Caban adds. "It is imperative that we continue to hold distributors accountable for their callous actions."
That self-righteous stance is pretty audacious given the role that drug warriors like Peace and Caban played in killing Gentili. If Venti and Kuilan were "callous," how should we describe public officials who are dedicated to enforcing laws that predictably cause thousands of deaths like this one every year?
Those laws create a black market in which the composition and potency of drugs is uncertain and highly variable. They also push traffickers toward highly potent drugs such as fentanyl, which are easier to conceal and smuggle. As a result, drug users like Gentili typically do not know exactly what they are consuming, which magnifies the risk of a fatal mistake. The "poisoning" that Peace and Caban decry therefore is a consequence of the policies they are proudly enforcing in this very case.
In this context, it would be perverse to hold Gentili responsible for causing her own death. Peace and Caban instead blame Venti and Kuilan, which might seem more plausible until you consider the complexities of illicit drug distribution. As the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) notes, "People who sell drugs rarely know the exact contents of their drug supply or a given dose. Research shows drug mixing is typically done at much higher levels of the supply chain."
It seems quite unlikely that Venti, who allegedly sold drugs to Gentili, knew exactly what the powder contained. Kuilan might be more culpable, since Peace's office says police "found hundreds of baggies of fentanyl" in his Brooklyn apartment. The New York Times reports that the bags contained "approximately 30 grams of the drug," which prosecutors said "was enough to administer lethal doses to several thousand people."
The implication seems to be that Kuilan produced the "fentanyl and heroin mixture" that Gentili took. But the statement from Peace's office does not mention any discovery of heroin separate from fentanyl, and both men are charged with distributing the mixture.
In any event, neither Kuilan nor Venti intended to kill Gentili. Yet the mandatory penalties they face are much more severe than the federal penalties for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter and New York's penalties for criminally negligent homicide. That distinction hinges on the legal status of the drugs they sold, as opposed to their culpability in Gentili's death.
Prosecutions like these make a mockery of justice. "Drug-induced homicide laws, mandatory minimum laws, and other severe penalties that people face when they sell or share drugs that result in a fatal overdose primarily punish people involved with low-level selling who often use drugs themselves," DPA notes. The Times reports that Venti, who was previously convicted of "petty larceny and attempted drug sales," is an electrician who has "struggled with drug addiction." Even drug users who merely share purchases with friends or relatives have been prosecuted for causing their deaths.
These attempts to convert accidental overdoses into homicides are dangerous as well as morally dubious. They "cost lives because fear of prosecution deters people from seeking help in an emergency," DPA argues. "Drug-induced homicide prosecutions may have the unintended consequence of people failing to seek medical help in a drug overdose situation, resulting in increased likelihood of death."
Prohibition, in short, creates the hazard that killed Gentili. It compounds that hazard by fostering the use of additives such as fentanyl and xylazine (which was also detected in Gentili's blood). And it makes the resulting overdoses more perilous by discouraging prompt intervention. The answer, according to Peace and Caban, is zealous enforcement of the same laws that produced this disaster.
Frank Tarentino, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's New York Division, concurs. "Fentanyl is a deadly drug that dealers mix into their product and has accounted for 70% of drug related deaths nationwide," he says. "Drug poisonings take too many lives too soon from communities nationwide and DEA is committed to bringing to justice those responsible." If Americans truly demanded accountability from "those responsible" for drug-related deaths, they would start with the politicians and law enforcement officials who are perversely committed to making drug use as dangerous as possible.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If narcotics is your thing, then you should go out and get some Percocet. Safe, controlled dose with predictable effects.
Wait ...
In a country dollarized and taken over by DEA sicarios, lawmakers in Ecuador manage to keep a cool grasp on reality while drafting legislation: Article 30 of Narcotic or Psychotropic Substances Law 108 states, under "Do not arrest the user: No person shall be deprived of liberty for appearing to be under the influence of controlled substances."
Drug use is and always will be dangerous.
Not dangerous like fast cars or guns.
Drugs alter the mind. People make bad choices under the influence. In fact it can be questioned if people even have the agency to make any choices while compromised.
Bad drugs do kill but so do bad choices and not just the drug users.
I wouldn’t have thought that libertarians would be so interested in advocating activities that remove agency.
Drugs don't remove agency. People are quite capable of making terrible decisions with or without drugs.
Of course I wouldn't suggest anyone should take up an opioid habit. But everyone is still personally responsible for everything they do.
Of course drugs remove agency.
They mess with the brain, responsible for executing agency.
Some drugs stay active in the brain for months, affecting agency even when people “think” they’re sober.
are you sure an even better agency is not established?
“Poor decision-making is a central feature of substance use disorder (SUD). “
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5747988/
my citations would all be anecdata
From your link:
"It remains unclear whether decision-making deficits precede or are caused by substance use."
In other words, existing data can't distinguish if poor decision making is an effect of substance use disorders or a cause of them.
The opioid epidemic would be so much worse without opioids. Hahaha
Everything you consume or do affects the brain. You are stealing a lot of bases here. But then again, you aren't very smart.
Heroin vs sugar. Hahaha
Who’s going to take seriously things like GMO’s when so many are ingesting drugs that we know cause poor decision making?
The article you linked to above explicitly states that we don't know if substance use causes poor decision making or if poor decision making causes substance use.
Hahaha.
The fact remains that drugs alter the brain that is responsible for decision making and that
“Poor decision-making is a central feature of substance use disorder (SUD). “
Let’s blame the system that wants to stop drug abuse instead of the druggie, producers, or distributors!
It’s ultimately on the dumbass for taking drugs. Dealers mixing in shit and misrepresenting their product certainly should be culpable if the user overdoses on what would be a safe amount of the advertised product. I understand that legalizing drugs makes it clearer who is in the wrong and who deserves prosecution but find it lazy to blame the prohibitionists when an asshole basically feeds someone poison.
As an aside, using female pronouns for a dude is annoying. He is dead. Deadnaming is fine
the system that wants to stop drug abuse
Which system would that be? The system that throws drug users in prison?
Yeah, because everyone gets a perfect childhood with two loving parents and a Leave it to Beaver sitcom life.
Oh wait. No they don't. The number of single mother families is on the rise and growing up without a father is a very reliable predictor of turning to a life of crime and living on the edge of the poverty line with a lof shitty people around you.
A lack of a father is a HUGE issue for a kid. Sure some fight and get their degree in something useful so they aren't a net burden on society but most don't find that strength. Most follow the well worn path of low self esteem, low self worth and no dicipline in their lives to a shitty life with shitty friends and no hope.
But fuck 'em. Right. If they are weak and turn to illegal drugs to aleiviate their pain they may as well die because you don't give a shit.
"find it lazy to blame the prohibitionists when an asshole basically feeds someone poison."
Would there be more or less assholes feeding people poison in the absence of prohibition? Would users be obtaining drugs from assholes or pharmacies in the absence of prohibition?
Legitimate products cost more to make, overhead, quality control, insurance, record keeping etc etc.
When crooks can make a cheaper unregulated product, and distribute it to destitute users with chronic poor decision making, they aren’t going to “pharmacies”.
Drugs cause harm. Nobody’s ever made them harmless.
I find it odd that so many libertarians advocate activities that compromise agency.
"Our Office will spare no effort" to keep non-toxic alternatives such as marijuana, LSD, MDMA, MMDA, mescalin, DMT and other save drugs from competing with fentanyl and heroin.
No, Reason.com. You are incorrect. Drug prohibition did not kill this person. The person's intake of dangerous drugs for the purposes of getting high killed them. If they were fully aware that the drugs contained the particular chemicals in the particular quantities that existed and simply made a mistake in overdosing themselves then that fault lies with them and them alone. If they or perhaps even the dealers were not aware of the exact makeup of the drugs then the fault lies with the dealers for misleading their buyers as to the exact nature of the product they are selling.
Note that nowhere do I address the legality of selling dangerous chemicals for the purposes of getting high. Even if heroin were completely legal, the blame would still lie in those exact same places. It being illegal didn't stop the overdosee from locating it, buying it, and injecting it into their own body. Legalizing it wouldn't magically make anything going on here safe and in fact one of the primary reasons for making drugs illegal is the fact that people who are high on drugs all the time don't make rational decisions and often engage in other dangerous/illegal/antisocial behavior.
Legalization only allows greater pressure on suppliers to be held accountable for product quality and labeling. If it was legal then there would be more of a basis to lock up the dealers for their part in the overdose death. Pointing the finger at a third party that didn't produce, distribute, or consume the drugs is just passing off personal responsibility
If heroin can legally be sold, regular consumer protections would mean that consumers would know that they're buying heroin not fentanyl. Any American consumers died recently from buying legal liquor contaminated with methanol? It wasn't the heroin that killed Gentili.
DEA sicario detected.
People who are “transgender activists” have already made some very poor choices.
Very true. Thry come from families that don't show them they are wanted, loved and respected. They come from broken homes, many have single mothers or step fathers who just want to screw their mother and not be a father to the child. Thus they seek attention and love elsewhere. The Alphabet Mafia is real good at finding those kids and recruiting them.
Dug dealers are also good at finding those kids and offering them an escape from their shitty reality. A couple hours of feeling on top of the world is a good deal for a kid who can only get negative attention from their parents.
The problem is unwanted and unloved children. Children whose parents had an unplanned pregnancy and were somehow convinced to not abort the unwanted child. Maybe it was the anti abortion folks outside the clinic waving pictures of aborted babies and screaming that the woman will go to hell if she has an abortion. Maybe it was the passive peer pressure of their church. Maybe it was the billboards and commercials targeting exactly the kind of young woman who would best benefit from aborting an unwanted child.
No matter which reason an unloved and unwanted child came into the world to a single young woman who made a horrible mother and raised a vulnerable child who was targeted by people who promised love if only the child joined their wacko cult.
People die from alcohol. Druggies are not rational actors. Clean markets will have little effect. See Portland.
If clean markets will have little effect, then legalise on cost savings alone.
Won't work. Look at marijuana "legalization". The legal dispensary prices are so high that almost all users ignore them and continue to buy from the black market.
TTBOMK most of the states where cannabis is legal still regulate fairly strictly. And even so, are black market arrests, prosecutions and convictions continuing at the same rate as before?
Um, did you mean African-American market arrests, prosecutions and convictions?
"The legal dispensary prices are so high that almost all users ignore them and continue to buy from the black market."
Not true. Not in my experience. There are are very few, if any, illegal weed dealers in California. The ones I knew aren’t dealing anymore, driven out of business.
Back in the late ’90s, the price of an 1/8 oz of reasonably sticky sinsemilla bud was from $40 – $60, if I recall correctly. Nowadays, at the local dispensary, that same eighth ounce, about 3.5 grams, of sinsemilla bud goes for $16 to $40 at my local dispensary depending upon potency (which is all greater than pre-legalization street bud). And 2024 dollars are way cheaper than 1999 dollars, which means the price is even cheaper nowadays after legalization in Californica.
Sure. As long as you soros acolytes hold druggie accountable for theft and violence.
1. Yes.
2. Should I assume that you therefore favour legalisation provided there is such accountability?
I mean I've made my stance clear on the topic for a decade. Believe this is even the 2nd time you've asked.
1.) Drugs legal if property and individual rights maintained.
2.) I also have no issues with enhancements for crimes done while under the influence.
There are a lot if people who post here. You expect us to form a personal relationship with each one to remember their precise positions on all issue?
I don't know that much about my brothers positions on things. Why should I keep more of an eye on you?
Shrike has a special hatred of me. He remembers. It isnt hard to remember peoples primary beliefs. At all. Just takes a functioning brain.
Clearly you put way too much thought into this internet stuff. I have a real life and save my mental effort for the real people I deal with.
For all I know you are a 14 year old transgendered girl who is being sexually molested by your father and you are LARPing as thus charachter.
Therefore 'druggies' must be treated as imbeciles, wards of the state, to be taken care of by daddy government. Got it.
Heroin addicts ARE imbeciles.
I've known some pretty smart junkies. Starting the habit was a dumb move. But not every user is a mentally ill street person.
Most have poor relationships with their fathers and lack the confidence to deal with life unadulterated. Also they tend to be on the lower social rungs and don't have access to good insurance to get anti depressant or anti anxiety meds from a psychotherapist. Without realizing it most are self medicating for mental issues.
But Conservative Christians don't give a shit about them. As long as their parents didn't have abortions, even if they didn't really want kids and did a shit job of raising them, as long as they weren't aborted. That's all that matters.
Lol. Why the fuck should “conservative Christians” give a fuck about a junkie? They don’t even care about themselves.
Do you try to link abortion to every topic, or just dead tranny junkies?
Junkies are not born, they are raised by shitty parents who are just phoning in the job. I've yet to meet a heavy illegal drug user who had a stellar relationship with their parents.
Add in the trans stuff and you've got a strong case for a kid whose parents realty didn't give a shit about and likely didn't care much about.
Since you don't care about illegal drug users then wouldnt it have been better if their parents had aborted them with a clean conscious and no judgements from the cross cultists in their lives?
I dont care about Armenians, but this atheist thinks that the Turks should feel some guilt about trying to genocide them.
Genocide is a strong word.
I'm not saying only black women should be getting abortions. Only Chinese women should be getting abortions.
I'm saying that better the woman who is considering killing her child get the abortion than try to raise a child she does not want.
There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. At the very least, people who become junkies have poor decision making and impulse control.
Where do you think that poor impulse control and poor decision making skills come from? Does Lucifer whisper in their ear and tempt the kid to do stupid shit? Are they genetically predisposed to poor choices? Or, more likely, are they a product of a shitty home environment? We have an, I hate to use this word but it's the media buzz word these days, epidemic of single mothers raising kids they didn't want and don't love. Those kids are fucked. You need to get to them when they are young to prevent this shit. If you don't, this is where they go.
There's a reason we have so many screwed up kids becoming totally fucked up adults. Single motherhood is an excellent predictor of adult criminal behavior.
How very Sangerian
I'm not picking specific groups. Just saying women who want to kill their children aren't likely to make good parents. We have too many unwanted children already. Why go out of one's way to try and make more unwanted children?
These conservative hate the state charity programs, hate the federal charity programs, hate paying for health care for poor people and hate pretty much every social safety net.
Yet, if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant and knows she won't be able to provide a child with everything that child will need without going on just about every government program out there these same conservatives will do all they can to stop Saud girl from getting an abortion.
I don't know what the fuck they think is going to happen by preventing abortions. It's like they can't see any unintended consequences of that policy. Save all the babies but take away all the social safety nets that help support those same babies.
Jacob's tone deafness making a "truth in advertising" argument regarding the death of a transgender activist is funny if not utterly idiotic.
Clean markets will have little effect. See Portland.
What does Portland have to do with clean markets?
He meant clean products, not that there won't be poop on the floor.
I didn’t mean that either. I meant there was no legal market in Portland.
Portland offers test kits. Guess how often they are used.
Zeb and I are on the same track here. So I won't make you repeat yourself since his point below is exactly what I was thinking.
What does Portland have to do with clean anything? Shit, why is Portland even being used as an example? It's Ike using Canada as an example of something.
When did Portland have clean drug markets? The supply was always still in the hands of criminals. Maybe look at Portugal or Switzerland.
Portland is a great example of why decriminalization of use by itself isn't a good policy. You need other things too like a safe supply not owned by criminal gangs, and effective enforcement of laws against actual violence and property crimes.
Clean needles and test kits have been offered for years. To an addict they don't care.
OK, those programs have nothing to do with what I assumed "clean markets" meant. I would have thought it meant a clean, reliable supply of known composition that isn't controlled by criminal gangs.
I don't think that "harm reduction" things like providing supplies are going to help much. I favor some kind of actual legalization combined with actually holding people accountable for things they do to victimize others.
The point is that a druggie can utilize clean product now. They will always choose cost over quality. It is why they transition to harder drugs after time. Adding costs through proper development and testing will not cause an irrational abuser to buy those products. They will still search out alternatives and end up with unclean product anyways.
This is seen on California and other states where people are buying cheaper laced weed despite a legal drug market.
What do those tests tell the user? They know they're using fentanyl, they just don't know the potency.
I agree with you that addicts will nearly always choose the cheapest product. If you look at alcoholics, many drink the cheapest stuff but it doesn't suddenly kill them or blind them like it did during prohibition. A black market can't compete in any significant way with a relatively free legal market. Of course if you look at NY or CA pot markets they screwed it up. It's the same as their housing and minimum wage stuff. What haven't they screwed up with over-regulation, taxes and DEI?
It tells them many different things. Fentanyl is one of them.
But they've been doing things like testing ecstacy quality for over a decade.
It [drug tests] tells them many different things.
It tells us nothing about “clean” markets.
Do you think the dealer is going to let the buyer test a sample without paying for it?
Poor people usually chose cost over quality. Cost is influenced by the effort required to get a dose of the fix to the end user. Weed falls out of fashion because moving huge bales across the border isn't easy. Cocaine, Heroin and Phentanol provide a bigger bang for the gram. Thus they are more popular.
Weed is still the most popular and even has a robust black market in states with dispensaries. Don't know what to tell you.
Again, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the drug market. Or at least you claim to be. What is your experience or do you just believe whatever the media tells you about drugs?
He isn’t wrong. And in the NW we have plenty of legal, and black market cannabis. The best stuff on earth.
You seem to think yourself an expert on the exotic domestic junkie. How have you gained such knowledge? Are you a former heroin junkie? Did you snort the Peruvian marching powder? Have you spent time in rehab on methadone? Been to prison and shot junk with dirty needles?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Expert how? By using facts, research, data, paying attention to failed dem run programs?
Look. I get ignorance is bliss. But unlike you I choose to not be ignorant.
Have friends and family who have been junkies as well.
I'm taking it you are a junkie based on your defensiveness. Do you buddy.
Everything I take is prescribed by my doctors. None of it is weed. Haven't smoked weed since the 90s. Even then it was rare. Haven't done anything illegal since the 90s. Been down right boring I guess. But the doctors worry about interactions so I stay away from non prescription stuff.
Just curious on your "research". How much of that is consuming major media sources that are full of shit?
Legalization of hard narcotics is a childish fantasy. There will never be a time when heroin and fentanyl are hanging on a hook at Walgreen's next to the aspirin. If some kind of "legalization" under strict government control (the only kind that has even a slight chance in hell of ever happening), it would be a giant clusterfuck, as "legalization" of marijuana in many states has shown us. As with marijuana, the black market would continue to dominate sales, with most users eschewing the inevitable rigamarole and sky high prices that buying legally would entail.
Yes, the people who mixed and sold the mixture are partly responsible for the death and should be punished. At least they killed someone we're better off without.
Yes, the people who mixed and sold the mixture are partly responsible for the death and should be punished.
The world where a SCOTUS nominee isn't enough of a biologist to answer the question what is a woman but your corner amateur drug dealer is expected to have a pharmacology degree would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
I merely expect drug dealers to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. I don't care what their education level is.
[Draws "100% safe and effective with no downsides" trump card from sleeve]
"Legalization of hard liquor is a childish fantasy. There will never be a time when vodka and gin are sitting on shelves at Walgreen’s next to the aspirin."
The issue is that legalisation has been hampered by heavy regulation. All the ills you complain of are due to restrictions not liberalisation.
The reality is that here in the real world, legitimate retailers are never going to sell heroin, fentanyl, and meth OTC to any comers. This fantasy of completely unrestricted narcotics sale is not going to happen. If you want to do something about addiction and overdose deaths, then advocate for measures that actually might happen.
“Legalization of hard liquor is a childish fantasy. There will never be a time when vodka and gin are sitting on shelves at Walgreen’s next to the aspirin.”
Hard liquor is NOT on the shelf at Walgreen's. Its sale is heavily regulated, as is production. The regulations would inevitably be much more stringent for "legal" narcotics. We need reality-based responses to the addiction problem, not dreams.
Hard liquor is NOT on the shelf at Walgreen’s. Its sale is heavily regulated, as is production
This is what most legalizers mean by legalization.
Hard liquor is NOT on the shelf at Walgreen’s.
In my state, hard liquor is very much "on the shelf" at CVS.
I mean, you have to ask a guy to unlock the cabinet for you, but that is an anti-theft measure, not a government regulation measure.
That's because cities license establishments for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Hard liquor licenses are, well, hard to get. Selling wine and beer is a no brainer as the licensing rules are easier to deal with. Typically food sales automatically qualify beer and wine sales.
If liquor sales weren't so heavily regulated they would definitely put some hard liquor with the wine. Probably cheep shit, after all, it's Walgreens.
There’s a huge difference between hard liquor and hard drugs, but I was able to get all manner of hard liquor at the corner CVS in New Orleans the last time I went there (granted that was like 10 years ago).
In the region where I live liquor is only available at state liquor stores. News to me that you can get it at pharmacies in other areas. Doesn't change my point that OTC heroin and meth is not going to happen.
It'll be sold at special stores or available at pharmacies "over the counter" from a pharmacist or pharm tech, but not "off the shelf". There'll be special places - opium and drug dens for drugs, like bars are for alcohol.
Not a chance in hell.
You will need to find in the new testament proof that Jesus smoked weed. Otherwise you're not going to move these religious nuts.
You know it’s possible to come to their conclusions without using religion, right?
We get it bro, you’re super hardcore atheist.
Better watch it. MrM will care shame you if you don’t care about a dead junkie. And then he’ll shoehorn in unrelated thoughts on abortion and religion.
He’s a little scattered.
If you don't care if junkies die then why be so all fired worried about their mothers having abortions? If you're not going to care simply because they chose something you would not then why care if they died before being born?
If youre going to try to convince people, you need to understand their reasoning. If youre just rage posting, carry on.
Atheists, such as myself, care about fetuses, because they are living humans. (Some atheists care about bees being used for slave labor) I am personally more sympathetic to fetuses and children because they are blank slates, whether anyone cares about them or not.
No. You need to believe it's a sin to cry about the evils of illegal drugs. Well, racism can bring you there too I suppose. But I'm not one to scream racism at the drop of a hat.
So, manufactures and sellers are responciblle for the deaths their products cause.
So you support going after gun manufacturers and sellers when one of their products causes a death. Right. Same principle. Prosecute the sellers of a product that kills someone.
Nope. Selling someone a deadly adulterated or concentrated product without the buyer's knowledge of what they're getting is completely different from selling them a product with known risks. Guns do not cause deaths; shooting people with a gun does. The gun manufacturer has nothing to do with that. Gun sellers CAN in fact be prosecuted if they sell someone a firearm KNOWING the buyer intends to commit a crime with it.
Sure there's a difference. Dead leaking bodies are dead leaking bodies. Doesn't matter if it's from an overdose or a .38 slug through the brain pan.
Dead is dead and if the sellers and producers should be liable then it doesn't matter if it's a drug, a car, a train, a plane, a gun or a baseball bat. Making the people who sell something liable for the individuals misuse of the product is wrong no matter the product.
Just because it's a product you personally don't use doesn't mean shit. You attack the left for their insistance that gun makers and sellers should be liable for their products use, show some consistency of principle.
Oh, I forgot. Gawd told you drugs are a sin and guns are good so you don't have to be consistent since you don't have principles, just faith.
Oh. Got it. Leftist idiot. Explains a lot.
Coming from you that means nothing.
You're an idiot.
No. I disagree with you.
But hey, if you're going to act like a leftist on drug policy then why not act like a leftist in an argument.
On mute you go, then. Idiot.
Not surprised at all, you can’t form a coherent argument defending your position so you hide from honest debate.
If your lame insults won't drive someone off you just don't have any options.
"Sure there’s a difference. Dead leaking bodies are dead leaking bodies. Doesn’t matter if it’s from an overdose or a .38 slug through the brain pan."
So..,.no problem with sellers adding additives to drugs without informing the buyer?
That's the thing, 100+ years ago drugs were largely legal. You could go to the store and buy opium, cocaine, heroin, etc
Even then if the niggers and spics weren't using the particular drug the racists in government didn't bother to criminalize it. It took hippies protesting Nixon, a man crying out to be made fun of, to increase the scope of what was illegal.
The pains to which Sullum went to avoid printing “(D)” in this article are hilarious.
Like *somebody*… Maybe pouncing prohibitionist Christian Nationalists Republicans, maybe somebody else, who knows?… is clamoring to prosecute the drug dealers that pulled the old switcheroo and gave their tranny client more than they bargained for.
*Somebody* besides the insane progressive ideology that supports transgenderism and sterilization of children, widespread refutation of biological fact, deliberately misinformative identity politics, and caps it all off with bald faced lies and salutory contradictions about their support for it all who would totally support legalization right up until it affected their preferred class de jure and then toss it aside like used TERFs. Nope. Couldn’t be those people on this prohibitionist jag.
Trans activist dying of trans heroin is just another day in libertopia AFAICT.
Yet again, “My body, my choice” only applies in certain circumstances.
Hey Jacob, you think there could possibly be any interrelation or spillover between this story and the NY pot legalization failure/enforcement ramp up? Or all just a bunch of co-inky-dinks that aren't in any way linked to or between any of Reason's other political positions and this story just happened to percolate to the top of everyone's news feed for no particular reason at all?
Probably the latter and it just would've been this case or some other well-known transgender activist heroin addict from Nebraska or Idaho or South Dakota or Anytown, USA really.
What sort of walking-around stash is exempt from deadly coercion in Ecuador? A CONSEP Resolution establishes non-offense thresholds for nominally illicit drugs. Marijuana (10 grams), coca paste (2 grams, smokes like crack, no needles), cocaine (1 gram), heroin (10 milligrams), amphetamines (40 milligrams, same as 3 strong pills). Nobody seems to want heroin in Ecuador. Yet that small allowance may explain why a mere six ampules of diluted fentanyl made the news late last year.
Yet again, it's drug related so the Conservative Christians here give up on any libertarian principles they pretended to have because they believe recreational drug use is a "sin".
The "victim" being a trans makes it even more biblical, two sins adding up to death. As one poster said it's someone we don't care about. That's about normal for Christians. Fuck 'em if they aren't living a biblical life.
That is what I keep saying. It is simple, really.
Do you believe liberty is a birthright of all human beings? Yes or no?
The correct answer for libertarians is “yes”.
But most right-wingers will answer “no”.
So if that is the case, liberty is NOT a birthright of all, then liberty has a hierarchy. Some will have a lot, others will have little or none.
The hierarchy that right-wingers, in general, tend to settle upon, is that liberty is allocated according to moral worth. Those who are more moral are entitled to more liberty; those who are less moral are not.
That is why they are willing to claim they are “pro-life” to restrict abortion rights, yet still maintain exceptions for rape and incest. Because it isn’t really about saving the life of the unborn child. If that were the case, then why not save the life of the unborn child that is the product of rape or incest? Isn’t that life just as worthy of being saved? Instead, it is about the moral hierarchy of liberty: slutty women (immoral) don’t deserve the liberty, while victims of crimes (presumed moral) do deserve it.
That is why they are totally willing to speed up the death penalty process to make it easier to execute convicted criminals. Because they believe that once a person has committed that type of crime, then that person is so immoral he/she loses all claim to liberty. So just executing the person as rapidly as possible is totally acceptable at that point.
It is the same with drugs. They view drug addiction as not a disease, but a moral issue. Once a person becomes a drug addict, that person is so immoral he/she loses a substantial claim to liberty. So it is just and right to lock that person up “for his/her own good”. Not as bad as a convicted murderer, but definitely on the low end of the liberty hierarchy.
What the fuck are you two idiots even talking about? Some tranny ODs and you’re on about some “liberty” being denied? The liberty to do what? Inject drugs? Change pronouns? Get an abortion?
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair.
Yes. People should have the individual liberty to do stupid shit. That's what being a free people is all about. Hold them responsible for any actual crimes against people or property they may commit while doing their stupid but otherwise government should leave people alone to sin all they want. It's not your business what people do unless they actually cause real physical harm.
Well said.
The issue is when their idiotic decisions impact ME.
I do not care what you do.
Once your actions impact me, then no, I will not support it.
Exactly. And this is one of the worst things about democrats. It’s not that they want these people to be able to do what they want, it’s that they want to force their bullshit on the rest of us. With consequences for us not putting up with them, even involving overtly violent criminal behavior.
“So just executing the person as rapidly as possible is totally acceptable at that point.”
Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Even jeff and sarc are impressed with that strawman. Lol.
Lol. Lame, self righteous virtue signal of the year candidate above. ^
So, name calling instead of debating the points offered. Fuck, you guys really do go full leftist on some issues up to and including the style of "debate". Why not call us Nazis and Fascists for not agreeing with you?
>>"those responsible" for the transgender activist's death
ooh I know! the transgender activist.
The laws have killed far more than the drugs have. Just like during prohibition, the government has poisoned the drug supply then they blame the pusher. It's time to legalize drugs for the safety of all.
That one won't get past the Moral Moronity of the Conservatives. You see, they figure their imaginary sky father won't "give" you a burden you can't carry so turning to drugs, legal or illegal, is seen as weakness and a lack of faith.
Unless it's booze. Then fuck it, drink a bottle of Crown Royal every night to deal with the fact that your kids hate you for being a tyrant and that the only real love you will ever get is from a couple of little mop dogs.
By the way, I am no fan of social conservatives, and I am not particularly religious, but I don't think it is right to talk about "imaginary sky father". That is just unnecessarily insulting.
When they stop trying to blame all of the Communist death totals on my lack of faith I will consider not calling their imaginary friends silly names.
Good for the goose is good for the gander.
Nobody blames it on YOUR lack of faith. Unless you’re also a communist.
This is the tell from leftists pretending to be drug warriors. What is the current VP most famous for dummy? What is the president well known for dummy?
Good ignorant democrat. Lol.
Good little religious fanatic. Don't ask hard questions, just go with what the preacher tells you to believe.
I know...anything you support has never been "Really" tried.
I've seen what your preferences caused in Seattle and SF.
Drug Dealers Did Not Kill Cecilia Gentili. Prohibition Did.
Prohibition did not kill Cecilia Gentili. Cecilia Gentili's poor life choices did.
As a result, drug users like Gentili typically do not know exactly what they are consuming
Nonsense. They know exactly what they're consuming: Drugs.
It seems quite unlikely that Venti, who allegedly sold drugs to Gentili, knew exactly what the powder contained.
Nonsense. He knew exactly what the powder contained: Drugs.
In any event, neither Kuilan nor Venti intended to kill Gentili.
No, they just facilitated making it really really easy to occur unnaturally.
As if Gentili said, "I'm feeling super suicidal," and Kuilan/Venti started the tub and left a shiny new razor next to it. Then took her money and walked out the door.
"Drug-induced homicide prosecutions may have the unintended consequence of people failing to seek medical help in a drug overdose situation, resulting in increased likelihood of death."
That's true for any criminal activity. A guy who's gutshot in a botched armed robbery usually doesn't make the hospital his first destination either. Criminals are stupid that way. Drug criminals especially, because they're self-destructive on top of being stupid.
It’s not the junkies fault. It’s conservatives fault.
So goes the logic of morons with a persecution complex posting above.
I think it was Chris Rock who said, "Keep your kids off the pipe and off the pole, and you're ahead of the game."
The junkie has agency, they could have sucked it up, worked hard and made something of themselves. They have agency.
However dealing with a fucked up childhood isn't easy and unless you can afford very pricey therapists the help just isn't there. Turning to people who claim to care is a lot easier than bootstrapping yourself up.
I'm asking a simple question here. If you aren't going to give a shit about them when they are grown up why are you so all fired up to stop their mothers from having aborted them in the first place?
Single mothers, the absolute worst home situation for a child, should not be guilted or intimidated into keeping their babies. They should be encouraged to abort because the kids they will raise are very likely to become these kinds of kids you aren't going to care about.
Sort of a, “I’m killing you for your own good,” mentality, huh? “You’ll thank me for killing you. (Oh no you won’t because you’re dead.)”
This is an oft-used but tortured pro-bort (and, incidentally, pro-genocide) argument that asserts an arrogance that’s beyond measure. It’s the natural extension of Eugenics. The reality is that you just want the person dead. The doom and gloom scenario you present is just a cheap arrogant rationalization to pretend like there’s some kind of nobility or compassion in the act.
You then try to equate this with indifference towards the fate of those who made poor life choices.
A) it’s not indifference. In this case I’m one of the few people here arguing that drastic measures should have been taken to help keep the smack out of that girl’s arm – including but not limited to locking her up against her will until she can detox and be rehab’d into a functioning member of society; locking up her dealers and throwing them down a hole forever; and waging outright war against the cultivators and traffickers of the drugs themselves. If anything, it’s the “Whoa man, chill drugs are like super cool bruuuuh” degenerates who are the indifferent ones to this woman’s needless death.
B) I don’t want the junkie dead. I want the junkie saved. But that cannot be accomplished by empowering/facilitating her self-destructive actions. And it certainly can’t be accomplished by asserting that she’d have been better off strangled in her crib before she could go down the path she went.
C) Even if I didn’t give a rip about junkies, or even outright wished they were dead, it still wouldn’t change the fact that such a determination cannot be made FOR them – especially long before they get to that point in their existence.
Nobody gets to decide for you, MM, the value of your own life. If I look at you and decide you must be miserable, (or maybe possibly kinda might be at some indeterminate date in the future – which is more what you’re talking about), it doesn’t mean you should die. And for me to claim you’d be “better off” for it, is that supreme arrogance at work. Not every kid that grows up hard ends up a junkie, and for that reason alone we have no right to fatally curb their growth rather than letting it play out for themselves.
There’s not some Happiness Scale where you can draw a line and say, “These miserable curs are better off dead.” (The subtext of that being, “And the rest of us are better off with them dead too.” Eugenics.) And your argument just as easily applies to a woman deciding it about her three year old, or 12yr old. Mom’s determination that HER circumstances are creating a “screwed up childhood” for her kids doesn’t mean she gets to unilaterally abort them. So why should it apply to ANY kid of ANY age, including pre-born? I’m asking a simple question here.
And while I’m on the subject – here’s another simple question. If you believe everything you say, then why instead of abortion for the child a knocked-up single mother; why not advocate instead of the mother’s suicide? Why isn’t your argument, “Hey lady, you’re risking single motherhood with your behavior. That’s the absolute worst situation for a child. Why don’t you do everyone a favor and just kill yourself before you bring one into the world?”
Why isn’t that your argument?
This line stood out from your screed.
There’s not some Happiness Scale where you can draw a line and say, “These miserable curs are better off dead.”
Have you read what some people have said here? They say she was just a junkie so who cares about her. Some figure she isn't worth anything just for being trans. There's plenty of people saying, in one form or another, that these kind of people are better off dead. That's my exact point. If you can write them off so easily as an adult why can't you do the same when they are unborn?
As for your suicide point...
If the potential single mother chose suicide then I wouldn't cry for her. Clearly she is a person who has been raised in a shitty situation and doesn't have the self esteem to resist the charms of teenage boys. So yeah, she will not be missed by NASA.
Chosing the unborn over the already born is simply damage control. Living people form connections and those connections are harmed in an emotional way by the suicide. The abortion doesn't hurt as many people. In fact it hurts no one if it's ended in the first trimester before the woman starts to show and assuming she kept her mouth shut about it.
Here's a nugget to chew on. If a woman would prefer an abortion to raising a child do you think she will make a good mother in the first place? It's a self selecting group that seeks an abortion in the first place. Let's grant that it's murder to abort. Here you have a woman who is thinking about killing her kid. You want her to keep that kid and raise it if she sees murdering it as a viable option? What the fuck do you think she will be like under the stresses of parenthood. All it takes is screaming, "I should have had an abortion!" at a kid once to set some serious ficked up shit in a kids mind.
Have you read what some people have said here?
No.
If you can write them off so easily as an adult why can’t you do the same when they are unborn?
Are you asking me to defend arguments I didn’t make?
The abortion doesn’t hurt as many people.
Just the one who gets zero say in the matter.
If a woman would prefer an abortion to raising a child do you think she will make a good mother in the first place?
I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything we’ve discussed. Are kids with bad mothers better off dead? Do we get to decide that for them?
Also, who gets to define "good mother" and "bad mother" - and on what criteria?
All it takes is screaming, “I should have had an abortion!” at a kid once to set some serious ficked up shit in a kids mind.
Yea, but the kid can recover from that. He can’t recover from being killed. Again, you’re just doing what I pointed out in the first place – you’re trying to rationalize a kill you want to support by dressing it up in faux-nobility. “I’m killing you for your own good!”
It’s bogus on its face. (Again, in reality, it’s “The rest of us are better off killing you.”) But if you think otherwise, by all means explain to me why Person A should get to decide for Person B how much their life is worth, and cut if short if they deem it unworthy.
Try not to plagiarize Sanger when you do. Or Hitler.
So you want to kill babies because the outcomes of their childhood might be worse? Ok, then I want the option to exterminate those I deem to be Marxist because of THEIR impact on us. That’s what collective rights are all about.
If you are going to sell drugs, you have a moral obligation to know what you are selling.
Just because it's illegal doesn't absolve the dealers from responsibility for their actions.
So you are arguing that sellers of products are liable for the use or misuse of their products?
""So you are arguing that sellers of products are liable for the use or misuse of their products?""
I would say no, but this very argument is being made against gun manufactures.
I know. It's either wrong for everyone or right for everyone. It can't be pick and chose. So conservatives want to prosecute everyone on the chain if a kid ODs on a drug. But if a kid shoots up a school with a Colt Arms AR 15 then it's just the kid being an idiot and only an idiot would prosecute Colt Arms.
How do you not get the difference between the two?
I know why retarded anti-gun people don’t get the difference, but I didn’t take you for a moron.
"So you are arguing that sellers of products are liable for the use or misuse of their products?"
If you're lying about what you're selling...then yes.
Producers of food products are potentially on the hook for criminal negligence if their products become fatally contaminated.
It is the system's fault because people who use and sell hard drugs have no self control and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. They are essentially animals, by Sullum's moral framework here.
Sure. That's what everyone is saying.
So, if they are going to turn out to be shit people then why fight so hard to prevent their mothers from aborting them? After all, they aren't people you care about.
I think you completely misunderstood me. The question is whether it is because of a lack of comprehension or deliberate maliciousness.
Oh, I see, a pro-abortion zealot. So, if it is fine to eliminate undesirables in the womb, then why not the gas chamber?
No. I hate the idea of abortion. The idea that we as a society need such a thing is as abhorrent to me as is the death penalty. In my youth I would happily adopt a child from any young women I knew before counciling an abortion. Not these days since I'm getting too old to raise a kid but I would do all I can to find an adoptive family to take the child before advising an abortion. However if there were no other options yes I would support her and even hold her hand through the procedure and help her out afterward. Unloved and unwanted children are something our society cannot afford now.
However I'm not so blinded by my hate to ignore that there are a lot of kids being born to people who make horrible parents. If those people who aren't ready, aren't financially stable or plain don't have a partner to help raise the kid why would anyone who cares deny the possible mother the ability to not be a parent? Sure, I'd like the world to be all Ozzy and Harriet or Leave it to Beaver but it isn't. You have to adapt to the world as it is and work to change the world for the better. Bullying girls into becoming mothers before they are ready, willing and able is not sane behavior.
looks like mrs bezos. scary stuff.