Dad gets life after cocaine kills infant

>>he shouldn't have taken that .000001% of a chance>>

still think that he (or you, if you were in his place) would have taken the chance because you wouldnt have known there was a chance of harm in the first place

>>who should have puts his children's well-being ahead of his own desires to get high>>

there is nothing to suggest that he put his desire to get high ahead of his child's welfare

>>Okay Gwe, i only got a little defensive after the whole 'i'm not gonna call you a dickhead' which was pretty much doing so without being direct>>

if you noticed, i didnt even mention the 'defensiveness' at all, and my little "refraining from calling you a dickhead" was more lighthearted than angry--it went along with the bill hicks thing i think. i have no hard feelings against you

(though you seem to have hard feelings against anyone who has a different opinion on this topic) <-- how does the drug war go on? emotional responses to drug incidents involving children

no, it is not 'legitimate fuel' for the anti drug propaganda. it's an accident like any other which just happens to be related to someone having drugs on their fingers. the media knew your type of reaction would be common, and so used it as fuel for anti drug propaganda

why couldnt you be high with a kid? besides psychedelics or absurd doses, or alcohol, drugs dont really mess with your thinking. shit, i do programming and third year calculus on drugs. opiates motivate me

p.s. its a Q not a G :P
 
Kstoner, I completely agree with you that the father should not have made such a stupid mistake, but is a sending this man to jail really nessecary. He is going to have to suffer the guilt of killing his own son the rest of his life and it's highly unlikey he will make a mistake this stupid ever again so what is the point of sending him to jail. Punishment?
 
KStoner6tb said:
That's comparing apples and oranges. Maybe Tylenol would have done the same thing. But tylenol's not illegal. Tylenol has also not been proved to be such a menace to society, whereas cocaine has. It's not consided morally wrong by society in general to take tylenol. I could go on and on.
Click to expand...

The legality of a substance should have nothing to do with it...

What would have happened if the man had peanut butter on his hands and the baby licked it off, then died because it had an allergy to peanuts that the parents were not aware of?
 
Wayne Gale said:
Kstoner, I completely agree with you that the father should not have made such a stupid mistake, but is a sending this man to jail really nessecary. He is going to have to suffer the guilt of killing his own son the rest of his life and it's highly unlikey he will make a mistake this stupid ever again so what is the point of sending him to jail. Punishment?
Click to expand...

It's still considered negligent homicide. Rethink the whole scenario of it wasn't HIS kid. That shouldn't carry too much weight. It was a human being's life. What if it was your child?? Think about how the rest of that family is feeling. Would you be completely understanding if one of your loved ones, accidentally poisoned your infant child with cocaine? Saying that the guilt alone should be enough punnishment? Am I the only drug-using conservative on this board??? =D

EDIT: qwe, sorry for the name calling, that was unnecessary on my part. I don't really have any hard feelings against you, nor anyone who does not agree with my viewpoint. I just get a little into the 'discussion.' Nothing personal man.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the multiple posts, my brain's running a little on the slow side today. But QWE I'm not going to get into the whole drug propaganda thing, but our whole arguement basically boils down to whether not you can be a responsible parent while using drugs. See, you think that's easily conceivable, and maybe you can do it. I on the other hand, completely disagree.

I just believe that once the children start arriving, the party needs to pretty much come to a hault. So yah, if you believe you can party, and responsibly raise a child(or solve the nation's mortgage crisis; I don't know what you like to do on opiates :)) that's your decision. But I will come down pretty hard if in some way a child is harmed in direct correlation to drug use. Sorry, that's about as much of a "middle ground" as we're going to find man!

EDIT: Damnit I initially put GWE again, I didn't even know what you meant by "it's a q, not a g" in your last post. Was thinking wtf does he mean?? Kstoner <<<<<<dumbass today
 
Last edited:
^a lot of people agree, so maybe a lot of people wouldnt be able to do drugs and raise kids. most of the parents i know say they stopped most of their drug use once they had kids, though they still dabble, they dont 'party hard' anymore

personally, i use opiates and marijuana (and mushrooms once or twice a year), and neither interfere with my functioning, whether im doing simple things like reading or complex things like programming 10k's of lines of code. in fact people like me much more if im high on opiates, because that is when im sociable (otherwise i get social anxiety). so perhaps im just different in this respect, but i know for a fact that i could raise kids on these drugs

raising a kid on alcohol on the other hand--that would just be asking for accidents to happen

but drugs like cocaine are sort of similar to caffeine or nicotine--they keep you alert, and a lil paranoid, they'd probably DECREASE the chances of accidents happening IMO!

>>That kind of underminds the purpose of laws, don't you think??>>

his point was that whether its peanut butter or tylenol or cocaine, it was the same sort of mistake, the same sort of intent, the same sort of accident. the only reason cocaine should come into play is if you want to charge the man with cocaine possession.

but if you say cocaine or his cocaine habit killed the baby and he should go to jail for that, you'd have to say the same for the tylenol or peanut butter case. which would be silly. the peanut butter case really highlights how it was a freak accident
 
kids dont die from sids after 6 months i have 5 kids and 4 of them being premature twins we were kept well informed considering it was a scary but very realistic factor.my wife and i didnt sleep much for 6 months and some time after that just to be sure
 
qwe said:
>>That kind of underminds the purpose of laws, don't you think??>>

his point was that whether its peanut butter or tylenol or cocaine, it was the same sort of mistake, the same sort of intent, the same sort of accident. the only reason cocaine should come into play is if you want to charge the man with cocaine possession.
Click to expand...
That's not true because tylenol or peanut butter are not against the law. You can go back to the car wreck scenario. If you simply get into a (true)accident, and kill someone, there will be zero legal action taken. On the other hand, if it's proven that you broke any law which contributed to the accident(whether it be DWI, wreckless driving, etc) there will be some sort of consequence.

The fact that something is against the law has to bare some weight in the justification of his punnishment. Dosen't that seem like part of the reason for laws after all??

Second point besides the whole parenting deal is whether he deserved the punnishment dealt out; and yes, life is a lengthy sentence. But at least he's still breathing on this earth.
 
KStoner6tb said:
It's still considered negligent homicide. Rethink the whole scenario of it wasn't HIS kid. That shouldn't carry too much weight. It was a human being's life. What if it was your child?? Think about how the rest of that family is feeling. Would you be completely understanding if one of your loved ones, accidentally poisoned your infant child with cocaine? Saying that the guilt alone should be enough punnishment? Am I the only drug-using conservative on this board??? =D
Click to expand...
Completely understanding? Your missing my point. Of course I wouldn't be if someone accidentially killed my child, I said before this guy is a complete idiot for doing what he did, however I still don't see any point in sending him to prison and I don't see why you should feel the way you do. Sure the family might want him punished, I wouldn't agree with it but at least the death affected themm, but why do you feel so strongly about the need to imprison this man.
 
Wayne Gale said:
Completely understanding? Your missing my point. Of course I wouldn't be if someone accidentially killed my child, I said before this guy is a complete idiot for doing what he did, however I still don't see any point in sending him to prison and I don't see why you should feel the way you do. Sure the family might want him punished, I wouldn't agree with it but at least the death affected themm, but why do you feel so strongly about the need to imprison this man.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should call up your state senator and ask him that question; as he would have a more detailed, elaborative answer than me.

Why would congress pass certain laws such as NEGLIGENT homicide?? Don't you believe this man acted in a negligent manner?? Christ am I missing something here??
 
^^^^ Yeah, he did. But there are lots of ways people act negligently:

Get drunk and smash a car into someone, don't shovel the sidewalk so someone slips/falls/becomes a parapalegic, run a tobacco company while keeping research data away from smokers and thus killing millions for profit, placing a sub-six-month-old face-down in the crib so they die from SIDS, declaring war on a country full of brown people for fun & profit, giving peanut butter to someone with a nut allergy, etc.

These are just a few things that kill people because someone wasn't thinking. In this case, a heightened emotional response was elicited because:

A. The victim was a baby, and
B. An illicit drug was involved

This makes some people cry harder for blood because somehow they believe the baby's life contains more intrinsic value than say, a Gulf-war infantryman coming home in a box.

They also believe that the involvement of an illicit drug should be penalized more severely than a licit one, though this doesn't explain the gallows mentality associated with a drunk who takes out a whole family in a car crash.

It was negligence, there was no intent to kill. :\
 
tobala said:
^^^^ Yeah, he did. But there are lots of ways people act negligently:

Get drunk and smash a car into someone, don't shovel the sidewalk so someone slips/falls/becomes a parapalegic, run a tobacco company while keeping research data away from smokers and thus killing millions for profit, placing a sub-six-month-old face-down in the crib so they die from SIDS, declaring war on a country full of brown people for fun & profit, giving peanut butter to someone with a nut allergy, etc.

These are just a few things that kill people because someone wasn't thinking. In this case, a heightened emotional response was elicited because:

A. The victim was a baby, and
B. An illicit drug was involved

This makes some people cry harder for blood because somehow they believe the baby's life contains more in/trinsic value than say, a Gulf-war infantryman coming home in a box.

They also believe that the involvement of an illicit drug should be penalized more severely than a licit one, though this doesn't explain the gallows mentality associated with a drunk who takes out a whole family in a car crash.

It was negligence, there was no intent to kill. :\
Click to expand...

Tobala, I see what you're saying. But, what if I drank 12 beers, and decided get in my truck to drive a 100 mile drunken adventure? I never departed with the intent of killing some family of 5 on the way, but shit happens. Yes, everybody is a lot more informed on the dangers of drinking and driving, true. But you should also worry about handling illicit narcotics, then associating with an infant. I'm just saying, certain things are illegal for a reason.

How many people have died because of a peanut allergice reaction? Then compare that to the number from anything cocaine related. Hence the reason peanut butter is legal and coaine is not. What do you think goes into consideration while determining a certain law? I'm just saying, we can go back and forth all day on which certain laws are appropriate, but the fact is cocaine use is illegal. This baby died in some *connection* with cocaine. Therefore the whole legallity issue has to be taken into consideration
 
My feeling is that this guy doesn't deserve life in prison when people who are negligent in other ways and cause just as much or more carnage get off with probation, or a few years.

I think the emotional response has caused the penalty to go over the top and he has suffered so much already.

But understand that I see where you're coming from. There's a lot of reason to be angry with the man, and no one likes to see babies die. But a fair penalty--relative to other negligent acts committed by other people--is important too.
 
tobala said:
My feeling is that this guy doesn't deserve life in prison when people who are negligent in other ways and cause just as much or more carnage get off with probation, or a few years.

I think the emotional response has caused the penalty to go over the top and he has suffered so much already.

But understand that I see where you're coming from. There's a lot of reason to be angry with the man, and no one likes to see babies die. But a fair penalty--relative to other negligent acts committed by other people--is important too.
Click to expand...

Yah I understand what you're saying. I guess the circumstances you mentioned probably did sway the sentence(over the top) a little bit. Could be considered cruel and unusual punnishment. He should be prosecuted for the crime comitted, but not life; I agree.

QUOTE=FrostyMcFailure]hahahaha[/QUOTE]

Lol, brown people?? c'mon brother!!!
 
7zark7 said:
The legality of a substance should have nothing to do with it...

What would have happened if the man had peanut butter on his hands and the baby licked it off, then died because it had an allergy to peanuts that the parents were not aware of?
Click to expand...

The legality of the substance has a whole lot to do with the dangers involved with and associated with the substance, and such dangers have EVERYTHING to do with this case and why this man deserves to be put behind bars.

You seriously think this situation can be compared to that of a peanut butter allergy? Give me a fucking break. If peanut butter were a known toxic substance to 100% of the population then you could make that comparison.
 
eon_blue said:
The legality of the substance has a whole lot to do with the dangers involved with and associated with the substance, and such dangers have EVERYTHING to do with this case and why this man deserves to be put behind bars.

You seriously think this situation can be compared to that of a peanut butter allergy? Give me a fucking break. If peanut butter were a known toxic substance to 100% of the population then you could make that comparison.
Click to expand...

Thank you eon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top