Victimless Crime File: Arizona Tweaker Gets 10 Years for Putting Baby in Freezer

A couple of weeks ago pretentious libertarian Megan McArdle made the somewhat specious argument that the “ancillary” costs of keeping meth illegal was worse than the damage meth itself caused … because being limited to buying one or two packets of cold medicine each pharmacy visit was in some way hurting sick people. But McArdle makes the same mistake many anti-prohibition activists make in assuming that meth users and cookers only hurt themselves.

One of the strongest argument for prohibition is that it provides the state with a means to remove children from dangerous environments before the children are injured. A meth or crack addict now can have their children removed simply because they’re doing something illegal. Once prohibition ends (and it likely will end for meth within our lifetimes) then children whose parents are addicted to dangerous drugs will only be removed from that environment something after happens to them. Libertarians tend not to care about this, but most people do.

In this case a tweaker was left in charge of a child and mayhem ensued, which is a pattern that we see all too often. The difference now is that if your son and his skanky baby momma were tweakers you could call the cops and get the child out of there. Once prohibition is repealed you’ll have to wait until this happens:

PHOENIX — A judge has sentenced a suburban Phoenix man to 10 years in prison for putting his 7-month-old son in a freezer.

Judge Robert Gottsfield also sentenced 24-year-old Chance Kracke Tuesday to lifetime probation after Kracke pleaded guilty to two counts of child abuse.

Chandler police say Kracke told them in August he was high on methamphetamine when he put the boy on the bottom shelf of his freezer and closed the door because the kitchen floor was too dirty.

Kracke says he removed the baby after a few minutes when he began crying.

Kracke’s wife, Leanne, was also sentenced to lifetime probation for child abuse.

Police say the 7-month-old suffered only a forehead laceration, possibly from the freezer door.

The kid actually got off lucky. I’ve covered cases where dust heads ate the eyes out of their sons, stoners slept through their children being eaten alive by the dogs that they were starving (to conserve money for pot) and coke heads pimping out their pre-teen grandkids for money. All of those behaviors will still characterize drug users, but once prohibition ends we’ll actually have to allow those behaviors to express themselves fully before removing the children.

But hey, it’s a victimless crime.

Comments

20 Responses to “Victimless Crime File: Arizona Tweaker Gets 10 Years for Putting Baby in Freezer”

  1. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 1:13 pm

    Tweakers = dead weight

  2. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 1:16 pm

    No more than any other user.

  3. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 1:30 pm

    Just so you know, Rob, meth is one of the substances I still believe should remain illegal, along with crack, PCP, roofies, and the strongest opioids. I personally doubt very much that any of those substances will ever be legalized, as they are not nearly as popular as, say, cannabis or ecstasy. But remember that these ultra-hard drugs (and the damage they do) are actually fruits of the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs. Since the milder alternatives have been banned, they are either made stronger (to increase profitability and concealment) or new (often worse) drugs are created. That is the Iron Law of Prohibition.

    It also is true that drug addicts (and alcoholics) don’t exactly make ideal parents, to put it mildly. But that does not mean that all such substances should be illegal, or that all users should be punished for the actions of a few. And child abuse/neglect will remain illegal regardless. A better alternative would be to increase funding for drug treatment and honest education, enforce existing laws against child abuse and neglect, and possibly do what Project Prevention does (pay addicts/alcoholics to voluntarily get sterilized). If we let a few monsters make our society less free, then the monsters have won.

  4. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 1:37 pm

    That eliminates the benefits of repealing prohibition. If you claim people should go to jail for dealing or holding, and that gangs only exist to deal illegal drugs then how does only legalizing one or two drugs make sense?

    You’re arguing for you to be free to do the drugs you want, but others should not be free to do the drugs they want. Prohibition will end, and if it does it should end for all substances.

  5. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 1:44 pm

    So you’re implicitly equating cannabis with meth or PCP now? LOL! They’re not even in the same league, for chrissakes. Remember that the ultra-hard drugs like meth are far less popular than cannabis, most likely because they are far more dangerous. So keeping those drugs illegal would imply a much smaller drug market and fewer gangs. When alcohol was legalized in 1933, that did not mean that coke or heroin was next to be legalized. And I don’t see you complaining about the fact that alcohol is legal but heroin is not.

  6. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 1:59 pm

    The behavior of long time users is not different enough to make a difference, which is why I put a variety of stories in the bottom. The woman being charged with killing her baby for being possessed was a pot smoker (she stopped to smoke two bowls before calling 911) and her baby is dead, while the meth heads survived.

    Some stoners in my were trying to break into my neighbors house and let their two dogs out accidentally. One dog subsequently attacked a kid. If they were tweakers the result would be the same. Users are who they are no matter what they’re using. They eventually run out of money, and then they will steal from you, or neglect their child or whatever. People who are high or drunk will always injure their children in some way.

    But you can’t be arguing that because you think pots better for you than coke we should legalize the one you like and keep the “drug war” you hate going on the others. That’s hypocrisy at it’s most basic.

  7. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 2:16 pm

    “The woman being charged with killing her baby for being possessed was a pot smoker (she stopped to smoke two bowls before calling 911) and her baby is dead, while the meth heads survived.”

    Which story exactly is that, and was she actually high when it happened? Sorry, but cannabis-only users (all 30-50 million of them) killing their own kids is a rare aberration, while tweakers (or crackheads or poly-drug users) doing such horrific things is (unfortunately) hardly unusual among such users. And Andrea Yates did not appear to need any substances at all to make her do what she did.

    “Some stoners in my were trying to break into my neighbors house and let their two dogs out accidentally. One dog subsequently attacked a kid. If they were tweakers the result would be the same. Users are who they are no matter what they’re using. They eventually run out of money, and then they will steal from you, or neglect their child or whatever. People who are high or drunk will always injure their children in some way.”

    Hasty generalization much? The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, Rob. If that’s true, then there must be 30-50 million burglars/ child abusers/neglecters/killers on the loose every year! And how do you know that the “stoners” in that unfortunate tragedy were not users of other substances?

    And furthermore, I never said people should go to jail for simple possession (for personal use) of anything, even the ultra-hard drugs. That does more harm than good. I am not a big fan of the drug war, but keeping the sale of less popular (and most dangerous) drugs illegal is far more rational than locking up users of all currently illegal substances.

  8. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 2:32 pm

    You haven’t heard about the woman who killed her baby and is saying she thought is was possessed? I’m working on a post on it now you can read it.

    Look, you either are for repealing prohibition or not. There’s no drug user hierarchy. If a person has a right to get high, they have a right to get high. Every supposed benefit of repealing prohibition is lost when you don’t apply it to all drugs.

    And that is what is coming down the pike.

  9. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 2:53 pm

    “You haven’t heard about the woman who killed her baby and is saying she thought is was possessed? I’m working on a post on it now you can read it.”

    No, but I have read about other such murders (and attempted ones) like it with a similar premise that apparently did NOT involve cannabis. Some, like Andrea Yates, did not involve any illegal drugs in fact.

    “Look, you either are for repealing prohibition or not. There’s no drug user hierarchy. If a person has a right to get high, they have a right to get high. Every supposed benefit of repealing prohibition is lost when you don’t apply it to all drugs.”

    That’s the classic “either/or” fallacy (aka false dilemma or bifurcation), which I have already debunked. But let’s assume that for argument’s sake. I will allow Thomas Jefferson to answer that one: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies (sic) attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

    “And that is what is coming down the pike.”

    Don’t you wish.

  10. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 3:08 pm

    How have you debunked any “fallacy” by trolling here. You like pot so you want it legalized, and use arguments about the illegality of drugs being worse than the drug use. But you don’t like coke or meth, so you want that to remain illegal.

    But then the supposed drug gangs will still be in business, as will dealers etc. So repealing prohibition should include all drugs if you think drugs being illegal causes more crime than the drugs.The fallacy here is that you’re claiming your drugs use is OK and others is not. Sounds like what you accuse drinkers of doing to potheads.

    And no, I don’t wish drugs were legalized, but they will be as tax revenues fall and food becomes more scarce. The government will need to raise money and keep people docile – drug legalization will accomplish both.

    I take it you don’t work? It’s just odd that when ever I’m around you want to have this EXACT same argument over and over again. This is not a dating service, we are not frineds, click an ad or get lost. I have two articles I need to write.

  11. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 3:39 pm

    “How have you debunked any “fallacy” by trolling here. You like pot so you want it legalized, and use arguments about the illegality of drugs being worse than the drug use. But you don’t like coke or meth, so you want that to remain illegal.”

    For example I hate tobacco too, but I do not think that should be outlawed. I don’t use and have never used ecstasy, LSD, shrooms, coke, or the lesser amphetamines either, but I do not oppose the legalization and regulation of those substances. It’s only the stronger versions of each drug category that make sense banning completely in a free society, similar to how most states ban Everclear but allow weaker forms of booze.

    “But then the supposed drug gangs will still be in business, as will dealers etc.”

    Not nearly as much as now if only a few unpopular drugs are banned.

    “And no, I don’t wish drugs were legalized, but they will be as tax revenues fall and food becomes more scarce. The government will need to raise money and keep people docile – drug legalization will accomplish both.”

    I doubt meth and PCP would ever be legalized, as only extremely hardcore libertarians (and tweakers) would support that. In fact, only cannabis legalization has the support of the majority of the population.

    Oh yeah, is Amber Bracci the monster who killed her child becuase she thought he was possessed? I found the story and, like Yates, there is no mention of drugs of any kind.

    http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=160141&catid=175
    http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13825315

  12. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 4:30 pm

    If you watched the news you’d know the original reason she was held was that she admitted to finding her baby unresponsive, then smoked two bowls before calling 911. Her boyfriend is out on bond because his defense is that he didn’t hit the baby, just got high while she did.

    The second story you posted SAYS THAT. Third paragraph. You should read stories before claiming they support you.

  13. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 5:11 pm

    OK, so I didn’t read the second link thoroughly. So she smoked some ganja before calling 911, most likely to calm herself down when she realized the horror of what had happened. The alleged abuse occurred several days prior to her finding the baby unresponsive, and there was no evidence she got high at the time of the abuse. Thus, ithere is no evidence that cannabis caused this tragedy. That being said, I hope they lock that incubator up and throw away the key–either prison or the loony bin. And if the boyfriend witnessed the alleged abuse and did nothing about it, he is just as bad as her.

  14. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 5:19 pm

    Are you serious? She and her boyfriend got high while the kid died. She thought the kid was possessed. He knew she was abusing the child but decided to get high rather than stop it.

    Are you really so dishonest that you won’t admit mind altering substances alter perception and behavior even though that is the main reason you yourself do it?

  15. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 6:07 pm

    “Are you serious? She and her boyfriend got high while the kid died. She thought the kid was possessed. He knew she was abusing the child but decided to get high rather than stop it.”

    At this point, who really knows what his role was since they are both pointing fingers at each other now. Correlation is not causation, Rob. And would it really be any different if they didn’t get high? Poor Rowan would still be dead, and the fatal injuries occurred days before he became unresponsive.

    “Are you really so dishonest that you won’t admit mind altering substances alter perception and behavior even though that is the main reason you yourself do it?”

    FACT: Cannabis has no proven causal link to violence. That was debunked as far back as the LaGuardia Committee Report in 1944. Even if it did, tragedies like this occur with alcohol as well. Should all drinkers be punished because of a few drunken baby-killers? Should all religious fanatics be punished for what Andrea Yates did? No, because we live in a (supposedly) free society. I rest my case.

  16. Rob Taylor on February 9th, 2011 6:12 pm

    You’re as paranoid as any smoker. Did I say all smokers should be punished- or that drug users get high and people who get high act like people who ar high. When I worked at childrens programs if a parent showed up to pick up their kids drunk we were legally required to not hand over the kid. Is that wrong?

    You get high to change your reality. People watching children shouldn’t be changing their reality. Why is that so upsetting to you? You babysitting while high?

  17. Ajax the Great on February 9th, 2011 6:24 pm

    “You’re as paranoid as any smoker. Did I say all smokers should be punished- or that drug users get high and people who get high act like people who ar high.”

    Another ad hominem attack, complete with stereotyping nonetheless. Paranoid? Maybe you didn’t directly say it, but every time you speak favorably about prohibition you imply that all tokers should be punished.

    “When I worked at childrens programs if a parent showed up to pick up their kids drunk we were legally required to not hand over the kid. Is that wrong?”

    No, that’s not wrong. Such a policy is perfrectly fine, and it does not require making alcohol illegal. Why should cannabis be any different?

    “You get high to change your reality. People watching children shouldn’t be changing their reality. Why is that so upsetting to you? You babysitting while high?”

    No, I do not babysit high, drunk, or under the influence of anything other than caffeine. What irks me is how whenever something horrible happens, you can’t wait to blame it on cannabis since you apparently have an axe to grind against it for whatever reason. It is almost as if you feel disappointed if a tragedy like this does NOT involve any mention of drugs.

  18. amgAcommenter on February 23rd, 2011 2:39 pm

    So I first see Rob, in the comments of the girl who went to sleep and her puppy basically, ate the child. Rob your comments were assinine and your really not open minded. Im not trying to change your views or trying to start a fight. But gosh just chill out. And yeah thats kinda the only way I can explain it to you. Just chill man. I mean if it doesnt concern you, or effect you in any way shape or form why should you even care. Personally if you want to get your opinion across run for offices make an impact. Im not stating that your way of thinking is wrong, because we all have a differnt view and I respect the views of others its just, your missplacing your comments and thoughts.

    amgAcommenter

  19. Rob Taylor on February 23rd, 2011 5:01 pm

    Are you serious? If a child is abused you shouldn’t be concerned unless it effects you? That’s insane.

  20. Stop the Pot Gestapo on March 26th, 2011 10:21 pm

    Andrea Yates crime had everything to do with drugs she was addicted to Prescription Drugs SO YES SHE WAS A DRUG USER!!! Ajax needs to get his facts straight!

Leave a Reply