Don't Blame Dealers for Fentanyl Deaths. Blame Drug Warriors.
Prosecutors' attempts to convert accidental overdoses into homicides are dangerous and morally dubious.

An April 1 federal indictment charged two men, Antonio Venti and Michael Kuilan, with supplying the drugs that killed transgender activist Cecilia Gentili in February. 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 [by] fentanyl-laced heroin," Breon Peace, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a press release. "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 added. "It is imperative that we continue to hold distributors accountable for their callous actions."
That self-righteous stance obscures 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 tens of 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 don't know exactly what they are consuming, which magnifies the risk of a fatal mistake. The "poisoning" that Peace and Caban decried therefore is a consequence of the policies they were 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 blamed Venti and Kuilan, which might seem more plausible until you consider the complexities of illicit drug distribution. As the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) noted, "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 is clear 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," the DPA noted. The New York Times reported 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," the 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, created the hazard that killed Gentili. It compounded that hazard by fostering the use of additives such as fentanyl and the animal tranquilizer xylazine (which was also detected in Gentili's blood). And it made 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, concurred. "Fentanyl is a deadly drug that dealers mix into their product and has accounted for 70% of drug related deaths nationwide," he said in Peace's press release. "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.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Blaming Dealers for Drug Deaths Misses Another Culprit."
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
Will 'green' politicians be charged with murder when people freeze to death during power outages because they cant get gas heat?
Or die of starvation on the way to a grocery store waiting for their mandated electric cars to charge via windmills?
Stalin already addressed such outcomes. They're just a bunch of kulaks and wreckers.
drug users like Gentili typically don't know exactly what they are consuming,...In this context, it would be perverse to hold Gentili responsible for causing her own death.
It sounds perfectly reasonable to hold Gentili responsible.
Most nanny and police state types are dedicated to perversion of liberty.
It’s well known that black market drugs are of poor and inconsistent quality. Anyone who knowingly ingests them is taking upon himself the risk of death. It’s the same as playing Russian Roulette where the odds of dying is one in six. Just because the odds of dying from a bad batch of drugs is somewhat better doesn’t make the act any less stupid. No one knows the death rate from street drugs whether it’s 1 in 100 or 1 in 100,000 so Gentili spun the cylinder to find out and came up dead.
Maybe he meant that it would be perverse to hold someone so mentally incoherent that they can't tell if they're male or female responsible for causing his... aw, who am I kidding... this is Sullum and Reason, they want these people on the dote and locked into the most medically invasive regime possible so they can vote Team Blue and force everyone else to subsidize their delusions.
Yes, I found that statement odd as well. Any human is ultimately responsible for any black market drug, food, etc they ingest. Not criminally, but health wise.
Why can't wr blame the people actually using the drugs? No self agency?
No. Drug addiction destroys self-agency.
Wrong. Drug addiction is a choice made by those with agency.
I agree. The key question: do people have the right to destroy their own lives? I say yes, and I believe that is both the libertarian answer and the option that prevents "compassionate" nanny state infringement.
But in most cases narcotics addicts are goners without coercive intervention, and it's nonsense to say they are "choosing" that. This is a case where doctrinaire libertarianism just doesn't work. Don't follow your principles over a cliff.
No, it is a choice they made. Live with it or die from it; I don't care.
What else are you eager to keep people from doing?
I'm not "eager" to stop anyone from doing anything, but sometimes it's necessary. Tell me, do you think nursing home employees should just open the door for demented people who want to leave?
Tell me, who do you think gets to choose who gets incarcerated?
Agreed, specifically since claiming otherwise means there is no objective limit to the government intruding into every corner of your life.
VD just *MIGHT* be someone who hasn't yet given real thought to the issue, or (as seems more likely) someone who imagines the state should have control over personal choices.
Sort of like those shits who claim: "I support the first amendment, but..."
Fucking ignoramuses...
Prosecutors' attempts to convert accidental overdoses into homicides are dangerous and evil.
FTFY
But paying your lawyer for legal expenses or borrowing against the market value of your property is more evil. Sorry but watching "Libertarians" coming out as full throated marxism defenders has been both funny and sad.
Drugs are an exception to, "My body. My choice", as are sex work, alcohol, cigarettes, organ sales, tattoos, and everything else except abortion and transition.
Also what wealth you might earn with your body (including your brain). And what you might choose to exchange that wealth for.
That list includes coerced COVID “vaccinations”.
See “everything else”.
Don't forget addicts needle-fixing insulin.
Don't blame the person putting bullets in a suicidal man's gun. Blame the person telling him to not off himself.
Ultimate responsibility goes to the individual. It's silly to pass all the blame to the one discouraging the destructive behavior
There's nothing "accidental" about the hundreds of thousands of deaths from overdoses. We are under attack from hostile foreign powers using chemical weapons.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
It’s our beloved government that’s waging chemical warfare on us.
Why can't people just do what our betters tell us to do?
Really- is this any kind of actual loss? It seems the amount of uglyness and general fucked upness in the world was reduced. Is it not some measure of how screwed up this guy was that he had to be a junkie to put up with the world? It's not a choice or an expression, it's the fact that he was sexually abused as a child. All the same, people should be free to do as they please, to the extent of offing themselves if they so choose.
Fascist! Only our benevolent government has the right to your suicide.
After years of enduring their bullshit here, we all have a right to the suicides of Jeffy, Shrike, Sarc, and Mod.
Narcotics addicts are not free to do as they choose. Treatment almost always begins with coercion, and fails most of the time.
There was a time when they weren’t junkies. Nobody is born that way.
But once they are junkies, they cannot simply choose not to be. If you don't know that, then you haven't had to deal with junkies in your life.
At some point, they made a choice that led them down a dead end road. Nobody’s fault but their own.
…they cannot simply choose not to be.
It’s not just “choosing “ not to be an addict, it’s actually hard work, but it can be done.
And in almost all cases, it doesn't happen unless it starts with coercive intervention. Sometimes, as with addicts, the severely mentally ill, young children, the demented, etc., helping people against their stated will is morally necessary and necessary to safeguard their rights. No, that's not "libertarian", but that shows that doctrinaire libertarianism has practical limits.
…helping people against their stated will is morally necessary …
I think I found the problem.
Yeah, VD is willing to have you enforce his fantasies on someone else.
There's the problem. And it's VD's, not mine.
You have no morals?
Yes, that’s why I don’t force things on others.
That will make it easier and cheaper for you if you ever have a loved one suffering from diminished capacity who needs help. I don't see that as moral.
Are you saying drug addicts are demented?
It's always easy to tell what I'm saying: read what I wrote. If you don't see it written there, it's not what I'm saying.
Yes, I do; it's a shame you don't.
Yeah, don't blame the guys who said, "Give it to some girls, lol".
Rest assured, nothing like that would ever happen with legal drugs that are all 100% safe and effective, with no downsides.
The main reason drugs are dangerous is because they are illegal.
Consumers harmed by tainted products (an “overdose” is rarely caused by someone knowingly taking too much) have no recourse in the courts to sue the suppliers.
It’s the same reason that Drug Prohibition (like Alcohol Prohibition before it) has led to gang violence in the streets and the attendant police corruption — because legitimate companies aren’t allowed to peacefully compete with each other, through advertising, pricing, product variety and innovation. When was the last time Anheuser-Busch and Coors sent out gangsters to do drive-by shootings because of territorial infringement?
Horse shit. You can OD on Tylenol and it's over the counter and totally legal.
But not with a normal dose. No quality control with street drugs.
I just think it's an absurd claim that legalization is a magic bullet for things like overdoses.
It isn't, and the simple observation that people OD on similar 'legal' versions of those drugs all the time with the dosages normalized AND a prescription should make that pretty clear to anyone with a brain.
It's just as probable that legalization would lead to higher usage rates and, by association, higher numbers of overdose deaths. That's a lot of effort for the same ultimate end point if you think about it, so maybe ask yourself what you're actually trying to accomplish. If it's more freedom, sure that's fine. If it's fewer OD deaths, maybe look elsewhere.
Doctrinaire libertarians assert that dying from overdoses is a human right.
Yes, you have a right to decide how you want to die; I don't care.
Faux libertarians assert that they can constrain your choices and behavior, for your own good.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, narcotics addicts are not making any "choice". They've lost the ability to do that and need help.
As you've claimed, and you are wrong.
You don’t think that sarc has a right to drink himself to death?
You know, I watched Leaving Las Vegas. That dude was buttfucking Elizabeth Shue...
Something to aspire to, if ever a chronic alcoholic needed inspiration.
I just wish he would speed up the process.
I just think it’s an absurd claim that legalization is a magic bullet for things like overdoses.
Never said that.
But what you did say was that legalization would lead to completely 'normal dose' and 'quality control', in response to someone pointing out (rightly) that people still OD on completely legal and OTC drugs.
Was what you said a non-sequitur, or did you at the time feel it was a valid response but now are trying to back away from it?
NOBODY died of accidental overdoses other than gin in 1903-1905. There were no drug gangs. Everything was legal. Occasionally someone would suicide by morphine as less painful than strychnine. But freedom is evil by altruist ethics, therefore prohibition, mass poisoning, gangs, war.
Because they don't give you a euphoric buzz that motivates you to take abusive doses. Apples and doorknobs.
That's true. Eight of those and a beer can kill you as dead as two gallons of water.
Fortunately, your naïve fantasy of heroin hanging on a hook at RiteAid next to the aspirin, where junkies will buy it, and take it home to use it carefully according to the label directions, will never be attempted in the real world, because normal people understand why we can't allow that. Some drugs are illegal because they are dangerous.
Guns, booze, cars, skydiving are all dangerous, yet legal.
Apples, doorknobs, and tacos. Skydiving does not impair your ability to make decisions for yourself.
But you did make the decision to do the dangerous thing to begin with, and were willing to accept the risk.
It's ridiculous to equate that with drug addiction. Addicts are not "willing". They're addicted.
"...Skydiving does not impair your ability to make decisions for yourself."
If your chute doesn't open, that decision you made earlier just proved to be a mistake.
You could've warned me that that photo was coming, ya know.
Ugliest mug I’ve seen in a long time.
He's got the plastic-skinned, eyes-wide-apart blobfish look that seems to be all the rage in Hollywood and among the elites who need to be seen as beautiful.
Do you think the doctors show them photos like that going in? A nice sit-down lecture about how, with some hormones, a lot of surgery, good genetics, and some luck, this is the kind of excellent result they could hope to achieve. Did you see the before-and-after pictures of The Wachowski Brothers and Eddie Izzard in the waiting room? That's the kind of phenomenal results we produce around here!
"It is clear neither Kuilan nor Venti intended to kill Gentili. "
True, but just as Gentili decided to roll the dice and find out the odds of dying from street drugs was worse than he thought, the dealers also knew that their supplier provided inferior quality drugs. Selling these drugs with the implication that they are safe, is negligence.
Just because the formal cause of Gentili's death was prohibition, it doesn't mean that the efficient cause was not his dealer's negligence.
Observe the mental confusion and evasion of actual facts. Those hooked on the initiation of force are in the grip of ignorance that does not yield to argument or inference.
Drugs are good, cops are stupid.
What ever happened to the 4th Amendment?
As in Nazi Germany, better to cop a plea than to have 12 illiterate superstitious nazis burn you at the stake for being a jew, doper or other laissez-faire trader.
What is this 'agency' that everybody is squealing about? When you do drugs the very first time, you accept the consequences. And you can't make the argument that drugs erase free choice, because that would be catastrophic to the whole 'libertarian' ethos, such as it is. Don't you morons think these things through?
"What is this ‘agency’ that everybody is squealing about? When you do drugs the very first time, you accept the consequences..."
You've answered your own question, and the consequences are not by any means 100% Michael Jackson or this twit. I've known functional heroin addicts who are yet living.
Regardless, as an agent, you make your choices throughout your life and get the results, good or bad. You do NOT get to claim permanent infantilism, which VD seems to use to justify government intervention.
VD is either not a commenter worthy of regard, or perhaps hasn't spent the thought required; given his/her justification, there is no objective limit to government intrusion into every corner of your life.
And if you're a heartless bastard who values philosophical purity over compassion for other human beings , you just accept that "choice" when people are trapped in those consequences. Let's be better than that.
… compassion for other human beings..
And yet you are willing to force them to do something you want.
So, do you think nursing home employees should open the door for patients with severe dementia if the want to leave? Should children be allowed to get sex change treatment if they want it? Should anorexics being allowed to starve themselves to death without treatment? Should bartenders continue to serve someone who is staggering drunk? How far do you go with withholding compassion for people suffering from diminished capacity in order to maintain your libertarian conformity?
You are equating people with self inflicted drug addiction to dementia patients and children?
They are all people with various forms of diminished capacity, and who therefore require care from others. No, I am not "equating" them; there are differing forms of diminished capacity.
Good thing we have you to step in and back-fill capacity for people.
"So, do you think nursing home employees should open the door for..."
So, as a slimy pile of lefty shit, you imagine the rest of us should accept the strawman you offered?
Your life is yours to live, as is mine for me, absent government intervention, and to piles of lefty shit like you, that seems to be hard to understand.
OK, FOAD, shit bag.
“And if you’re a heartless bastard who values philosophical purity over compassion for other human beings”
No, you slimy pile of lefty shit, I’m an aware human who accepts that other humans are capable of making their decisions, unlike you, as a slimy pile of lefty shit, who assumes YOU make the proper decisions for everyone.
Can I possibly make this more clear? Fuck Off and Die, you steaming pile of lefty shit! Addressed to the slimly pile of lefty shit Vernon Depner, please let me know if that message is not clear enough, ass-wipe.
When "compassion" is exercised through government force, it's NOT compassionate. Prohibitionists always slide from trying to keep people from making what they consider bad choices to harming and even killing those that did not respect their authority - not only giving young people who used drugs or sold them to their friends a criminal record that prevents them ever getting a good job, but adding deadlier poisons to industrial alcohol in the 1920's, spraying poison on marijuana fields in the 1960's, and now leaving prisoners with medical problems to die unattended in prison cells.
To make sure this is clear to any and all readers/viewers, the lefty shit Vernon Depner has championed the view that those who he views as "addicted" should be subject to government intervention regarding their activities.
1) Vernon Depner provides no definition of the claimed condition other than what the asshole whines about.
2) We are now to employ the government (and your money) to 'fix' what the asshole desires.
Do you now get how fucked up you opinion (rather that statement of facts) are, shit pile? If not, keep posting; you might (maybe) learn but I have my doubts; you really are an ignoramus.
Not to mention that zero cost volunteer organizations of lay people, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous have much better outcomes than the armies of sociology, psychology college graduates competing for government jobs.
Leftists can only function with taxpayer funded paychecks and that’s all there is to this. If they had to work in private enterprise they’d be fired for incompetency.
Note to foreign readers: national socialists call lay socialists leftists; these in turn call nazis the right. Both are pejorative and neither looter faction refers to itself by the label used buy the nearly identical competition. Fear of libertarian spoiler votes again shuffling half the electoral votes it takes one looter to beat another has caused christian national socialists to infiltrate us rather than change their platforms to drop coercive shilling. Lay socialists drop the more moronic planks and for this reason get more sinecures.
Note to all readers: This (^) steaming pile of lefty shit is an unlettered ignoramus.
Sources with political views ranging from Tony Judt ("Post War") to Adam Tooze ("Wages of Destruction") and Richard Pipes ("The Russian Revolution") are clear that Hitler was certainly a socialist who was tracking Lenin's efforts almost to the month in collectivizing the German economy, but started a war and didn't get to finish it.
FOAD, scummy pile of shit.
Like the war on terror, the war on drugs cannot be won.
Voters are mesmerized by the idea that "winning" is wasting you vote on the looter that will have the most idiots robbed, jailed and shot. To achieve this you sacrifice what you value and replace it with what you do NOT value. Q.E.D.
Speaking of competing or substitute products. Gov Ronnie Reagan decreed a ban on harmless acid when nobody in California cared for cocaine. Hippies reliably got laid by turning girls on to acid. Once the looters crushed that, coke tended to work nearly as well. As the one vanishes the other takes over the logistics replacement curve. Both are harmless compared to legal gin, cigarettes and glue. Substances that have survived prohibition gird up and buy looter politicians to ban better goods. The pols do the market distorting.
Looking up my 1929 Almanac I find in the NY World (as in Pulitzer) supplement mendacities "The World of the Living Dead," a 1928 drug horror story by Alan Macdonald. This is memory-holed so efficiently one suspects the narcs and prohis don't want anyone to ever find it.
As a result, drug users like Gentili typically don't know exactly what they are consuming
NONSENSE.
They know EXACTLY what they're consuming: ILLICIT DRUGS.
Prohibition, in short, created the hazard that killed Gentili.
No, Gentili's voluntary decision to do a bunch of drugs killed Gentili.
And let's not forget that transgenders love to kill themselves. I notice you omitted that fact about the LGBT pedo-induced mental health crisis, as you stumped for Stoned America.
But then, you're Jake Sullum. Put on the nose, Clown World.
If Americans truly demanded accountability from "those responsible" for [CRIME]-related deaths, they would start with the politicians and law enforcement officials who are perversely committed to making [CRIME] as dangerous as possible.
YOU. ARE. CLOWN. WORLD.
You're an anarchist, a nihilist, and a clown. Waving a banner of "Reason."
Go die in a fire, Jake.
"....transgender activist Cecilia Gentili"
I only opened this article to find out why a woman promoted in such a way could be so homely.
LOl same. Im like, why TF is there some ogre that looks like they just came out of "bad plastic surgery world"
..."transgender activist"
Oh, that checks out
“bad plastic surgery world”
You mean Beverly Hills.
I mean, yes. But the result is exacerbated when trying to turn on ogre into an elf, using the same methods that normally turn normal looking elves into freaks
Won't anyone think of those poor drug dealers?!
Since Gentili made the free choice to use drugs such as heroine, is it any wonder why he/she/it managed to commit suicide by using fentanyl laced smack.
The 100,000 plus Americans who OD'd last year proves how well the market works. Supply and demand.
Americans demand stronger drugs to feed their ever increasing addiction until they eventually become slab jockeys and another statistic.
Close the border.
Blame Biden, Harris and Myorcass for the problem.
Does anyone think that by legalizing (or not criminalizing at least) drugs like fentanyl, somehow the Chinese suppliers and Mexican cartels are going to get better at quality control?
Your statement is like thinking that Lucky Luciano and Al Capone would have dominated the market for liquor after Prohibition ended. Create a reasonable legal market, and gangsters cannot compete.