Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« When Pigeon Meets Syringe | A Tale of Two YouTube Videos »

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Winning the War on Drugs

posted by on March 20 at 11:23 AM

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Ten-year-old Jayci Yaeger is dying of brain cancer, and has one final wish — to have her father spend some time at her bedside before she dies.

She’s in a Lincoln, Neb. hospice.

However, her father, Jason Yaeger, is in a federal minimum security prison in South Dakota, serving five-and-a-half years for a drug conviction. He has less than a year left in his sentence, and is set to be released to a halfway house in four months.

Jason and the Yaeger family have appealed many times to the warden for a 30-day supervised release, which could be allowed under “extraordinary circumstances.” However, the family says these appeals have been denied, and the prison tells them the circumstances are not “extraordinary.”

“She’s very scared,” Jayci’s mother, Vonda Yaeger says, “and I think she’s holding on for her father. She didn’t do anything wrong. He was there for her when she was born. He should be there for her when she goes.”

We’ve been told repeatedly that we need uncompromising drug laws to send the “right message to our children.” But what message does this send to Jayci Yaeger? The government won’t let your daddy come see you on your deathbed because it would send you the wrong message. Sorry, dying little girl. Don’t do drugs.

RSS icon Comments

1

I suppose somebody equally sensationalist could shower you with stories of children whose fathers were killed by drug gangs or by drugs themselves. This isn't a drug story it's a prison policy story, and our prison policy in general is harsh and unhelpful.

Posted by elenchos | March 20, 2008 11:33 AM
2

Elenchos, drugs are the reason he's in prison. It's a drug-law story. If we had different, more practical and rational drug policy, he'd be with his dying daughter right now. By the way, those sorts of improved laws would also reduce the number of people killed by drug gangs and overdoses.

Posted by Dominic Holden | March 20, 2008 11:39 AM
3

i'm curious...what kind of drug charges is this guy in jail for? i agree that the war against drugs, as well as our prison system, is harsh and unfair but if this guy was selling crack to kids or raised his dying little girl in a meth-lab then his ass should stay in jail.

Posted by k-la | March 20, 2008 11:41 AM
4

He was convicted on meth charges.

Posted by Dominic Holden | March 20, 2008 11:46 AM
5

Dominic, your argument is against the premise that you should punish people for drugs. How is a guy with a dying daughter any more deserving of being let out than one without? If the crime was robbery or murder, why would the daughter make a difference?

One issue is that drugs either should be criminalized or they shouldn't. A different issue is that our prisons should make hardship exceptions for convicted criminals or it shouldn't. You're mixing up the two questions.

So trying to garner sympathy because of the daughter is probably effective propaganda but it is beside the point, if one is being honest rather than just trying to move public opinion.

Posted by elenchos | March 20, 2008 11:49 AM
6

Less and less justice. Less and less free. Golly gee... what's missing is a little compassion. Less and less compassion. Poor babies.

Posted by Vince | March 20, 2008 11:50 AM
7

The "war" metaphor is what leads to this kind of tragedy. We are as likely to "win" the "war on drugs" as we are likely to "win" the war in Iraq. In a war, the better aspects of humanity--rationality, compassion--are thrown out the window. The only possible outcomes in a war are winning or losing.

Early last century, we finally cried uncle on the "war on alcohol". We figured out a way to live with a behavior that millions and millions of people were going to indulge in no matter what the law.

It's too bad that we have been so unbelievably slow to see how this is true for other drugs as well.

Posted by Westside forever | March 20, 2008 12:07 PM
8

Elenchos, you're confused. The article is about being able to visit his dying child. Not about freeing him and keeping someone else in jail.

The reason he can't see his child is because drug laws sent him to a prison system that punishes drug offenders the same way it punishes murderers. Personally, I don't think he should be in prison (he should be in mandatory treatment, perhaps), and he should be separated from violent criminals and be given permission to see his dying daughter. But he can't--because of our fucking drug laws. What's ironic is that we're supposedly tough on drugs to help kids.

Posted by Dominic Holden | March 20, 2008 12:10 PM
9

What kind of a drug conviction was it? Did he hurt anyone or do anything else rash in light of his conviction?

Posted by Gomez | March 20, 2008 12:21 PM
10

@8,

So, if he were an armed robber or a murderer, he shouldn't get to say goodbye to his kid.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 20, 2008 12:30 PM
11

Also, meth is a really fucked up drug that does really fucked up things to people's heads and turns them to very fucked up people. 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN' kinda belies that point.

Posted by Gomez | March 20, 2008 12:37 PM
12

No Dominic. You're confused. You're actually wavering between the two separate issues here right before our eyes. The irony is that sloppy, sentimental thinking is what got us into this stupid drug war in the first place.

Posted by elenchos | March 20, 2008 12:41 PM
13

@10) Each prisoner should be evaluated individually, I think. But, for reasons of public safety, there's more sense in denying a supervised release of a murderer than a non-violent drug offender.

Posted by Dominic Holden | March 20, 2008 12:43 PM
14

But the crime is NOT robbery, rape, or murder, but rather a drug charge several years ago.(I can't find out what the charge was, exactly). And the very problem with the drug war is that we lock drug users up with the murderers and rapists. Why is it so hard to understand that 1) we shouldn't be locking up drug users and cutting them off from their families and 2) this is a striking example of how a criminal justice approach to drug problems is at odds with our human needs for compassion and redemption?

In other words, did you suck on a lemon today or are you always so puckered up like that?

Posted by NaFun | March 20, 2008 12:45 PM
15

when i first read your post, i was truly sympathetic to this family's pleas to let this girls father be at her side when she passes. the girl is being punished for something that is beyond her control--her fathers mistakes. but then again, he was selling meth. all sympathy for him goes out the window. meth is an evil, soul sucking drug and i believe that anyone manufacturing or distributing it should rot in jail. in fact, it's quite possible some of his previous clients will end up with brain cancer--ironic.

Posted by miss jo | March 20, 2008 1:03 PM
16

Kid cancer stories make me so sad. I think I'll give my 10 year old daughter an extra round of hugs tonight. Yikes.

Oh, and sorry Dom- elenchos and keshmeshi are right. You're conflating two different issues.

Posted by Big Sven | March 20, 2008 1:06 PM
17

@ 16. Right, Big Sven, because he's not in prison for drugs...

Posted by Dominic Holden | March 20, 2008 1:08 PM
18

As much compassion I have for people who completely lose control to drug addiction, I have so little sympathy for meth dealers.

I feel bad for the little girl and hope she can hold on long enough to see her father, but honestly, having seen a friend's life ripped apart by meth addiction, I don't have a problem locking up meth dealers with rapists and murderers.

Posted by Hernandez | March 20, 2008 1:10 PM
19

So, meth dealers did that to your friend? Man, what assholes. You want to lock up all the bartenders who serve drinks to people killing themselves through alcoholism, too, right?

Posted by Dominic Holden | March 20, 2008 1:14 PM
20

@ 15

While I agree that Meth is a drug that should be avoided, I find it amusing that so many people are so staunchly opposed to methamphetamine. Mostly, because rarely a word is said about the fact that there are millions of prescriptions out there for amphetamines designed to treat sham "disorders" - a large portion of which are for children. In addition, abuse of these drugs by people without prescriptions is disgustingly common.

But these are "good" drugs, so it's okay. *rolls eyes*

Five years is far too long for just about any drug offense, in my opinion, especially since the average stay for violent offenders is a year less! While I can't find specifics on the conviction, I'm going to operate on the assumption that this man isn't quite the monster people are making him out to be.

There's no reason at all to disallow this man from seeing his dying daughter. What is lost RIGHT NOW by allowing this? What is gained?

Posted by Nick | March 20, 2008 1:21 PM
21

@ 20.
have you ever known anyone addicted to meth? i'm not saying that you are incorrect in your point about prescription amphetamines--you are right on. kids are so quickly put on drugs such ritalin just for acting like kids (oh no!! too much energy--must be ADD). it's ridiculous--and no i don't consider those "good drugs".
i also agree that five years is entirely too long to be locked up for a drug offense...EXCEPT when related to meth.

Posted by miss jo | March 20, 2008 1:34 PM
22

Dominic, already on shaky ground by basing his entire premise for this post on an appeal to emotion, has now jumped off the Fallacy cliff to desperately defend his POV that the dealer of a dangerous, life destroying drug should be freed, in a more and more thinly veiled attempt to further his anti-drug-law agenda. Comments 8, 13 and 19 have exposed the subtext.

C'mon, Dominic. There are better arguments to make in defense of your premise. Please at least try to appear objective with this discussion, even though some of us know you're not.

FWIW, I don't see a problem with letting him out, albeit temporarily and under heavily guarded supervision, to see his daughter's last days. But let's not use this to get on the soapbox and talk about how shitty some drug laws are.

And meth is far, far more damaging than alcohol, cigarettes or pot. There's not much of a correlation there.

Posted by Gomez | March 20, 2008 1:50 PM
23

As I started reading this post I was sure you were going to say that this dying little girls with was to take medical marijuana to ease her pain.

I'm a little high.

Posted by monkey | March 20, 2008 2:45 PM
24

Now of course I meant "wish" and not "with."

this dying little girl's last WISH... was to get baked.

:-) Maybe slightly more than a little high.

Posted by monkey | March 20, 2008 2:46 PM
25
And meth is far, far more damaging than alcohol, cigarettes or pot. There's not much of a correlation there.

In King County in 2006, there were:

18 meth-related deaths
56 heroin-related deaths
60 alcohol-related deaths
111 cocaine-related deaths
148 prescription opiate-related deaths
2,350 (approximate) tobacco-related deaths

http://depts.washington.edu/adai/pubs/pubindex.htm

Posted by lizzy | March 20, 2008 3:02 PM
26

@25,

And how does that relate to the number of people who use alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, or meth?

Hey, did you know? White people commit more crimes!

Posted by keshmeshi | March 20, 2008 3:08 PM
27

@22: "And meth is far, far more damaging than alcohol, cigarettes or pot. There's not much of a correlation there."


and the other comments about how bad meth is...

Got even the slightest shred of actual, you know, like evidence to back up those claims?

Or just what you've read/seen in the media and a few personal anecdotes?

Actual, pharmaceutical, methamphetamine is relatively benign.

Street meth -- and the profound harm it causes -- is a direct result of prohibition.

Posted by gnossos | March 20, 2008 3:42 PM
28

#26:

I'm not going to crunch a bunch of numbers that nobody's going to read, but 1.9% of 12th graders report doing meth in the past 30 days, and other indicators say meth use in KC isn't that much different than heroin or cocaine use.

To equal out the mortality rates, 15.6% of people would have to use prescription opiates, 11.7% would have to use cocaine, and 248% of people would have to use tobacco.

Posted by lizzy | March 20, 2008 3:45 PM
29

The guy is in a minimum security prison and is going to a halfway house in four months. There's a Federal provision that he can leave for a family crisis if the warden agrees that his 10-year-old daughter dying in a week or two constitutes a family crisis. The family is just asking that he get a furlough, not to shorten the sentence.

This is arbitrary and capricious and an example of someone abusing his power. It's also syptomatic of the empty rhetoric of the war on drugs that we're funding. Whether you think the purpose of the prison system is punishment, deterence or rehabilitation, this still is an injustice that will not be capable of being righted a few weeks from now. Love this kindler gentler America.

Posted by left coast | March 20, 2008 4:52 PM
30

27. Go live in a trailer park in the Midwest for a while. Or live in a shitty neighborhood in Vegas(or anyone who lost a loved one when that one guy on meth ran over all those people in front of that Strip casino because he thought they were demons). Or LA. Or just about any town in the south. Or hell, ask my older brother, who got addicted and watched his career, family and entire life slowly fall apart.

You must not have any idea what meth does to someone if you're even asking questions like that. And maybe people in Seattle, a place where meth is not a serious problem, really don't have any idea.

Posted by Gomez | March 20, 2008 7:07 PM
31

25. Meth is not the problem in Seattle that it is in the south and midwest, not even close. Bad sample.

Posted by Gomez | March 20, 2008 7:09 PM
32

Gomez, reread my post.

I said pharmaceutical meth is not all that bad. I said that street meth and all of the harm it causes is a consequence of prohibition.

Have you ever looked at what happened in the US during alcohol prohibition? You ever hear of anyone going blind from Bombay Gin? No. Of course not.

BTW, if you want to trade personal anecdotes or experiences with folks on meth you're gonna lose before we even get started. I've been working with meth users since before you were born.


Posted by gnossos | March 20, 2008 9:05 PM
33

if you'd like to help this kid instead of pointlessly debating idiotic drug policy, here are some contacts

http://www.state.sd.us/governor
(south dakota's gubner)

or even better, Yankton facility
phone: 605-665-3262
fax: 605-668-1113
email: YAN/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV

Posted by bjank | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
34

Thanks, #33

Reading through these comments reminds me that even in a liberal town like Seattle, a lot of folks still just don't get it. Drug abuse is a public health problem, not a police problem. Prohibition creates even more lethal drugs. There will always be people that want to get high. Our government is in denial of this and has created situations like this one with the dying girl. And I also find it interesting how people are basically saying "anything but meth." Those ads really do work on the feeble-minded who don't question authority (or big pharma).

Posted by Jamey | March 21, 2008 10:43 AM
35

Jason Yaeger has had three furloughs to visit his daughter. Two visits happened in the last month.

It is misleading to not include this information.

Posted by read more | March 22, 2008 7:53 AM
36

I don't understand how our government can TRY to control drugs when they can't even control the assholes who run the prisons. I don't think you should be punished for doing the drugs,but for the crimes you do under the influence of those drugs. Before anyone says "you don't know what drugs do to families",yes I do I have seen first hand how it destroys families. I don't think it is the drugs that rips a family apart more likely the police "war on drugs".You shouldn't be able to tell anyone what they can or can't put into their bodies.

Posted by oneta | March 25, 2008 10:18 AM
37

The man that is the warden of that prison must not be a father,because it is about heartless to let that little girl die without getting to spend some quality time with her father.If he is not a violent offender I don't see a problem with it.I have known alot of families that have had to deal with the screwed up drug laws all my life.It is these laws that ruin lives,homes and families.It is time to make a change as people of a "FREE COUNTRY".

Posted by oneta | March 25, 2008 10:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).