Proposed drug-induced homicide laws would take the state back to failed policies of the past

Yahoo

13-02-2025

Lawmakers in Annapolis are considering bills that would add additional penalties for anyone who distributes fentanyl or heroin that leads to the user's death or serious injury. (Stock photo by Bill Oxford via Getty Images)
Maryland, like much of the country, has been ravaged by the opioid epidemic. Over 20,000 Marylanders lost their lives to overdose over the last decade, with the worst years occurring during the pandemic and its aftermath.
The grief within families and communities is enormous, and people are demanding action. New drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws like Senate Bill 604 and House Bill 1398, which add decades of prison time to drug distribution charges, are not the answer.
These types of bills are often called drug-induced homicide (DIH), although in Maryland's case they do not technically make the crime a homicide, but instead add an enhanced penalty in the event heroin or fentanyl distribution that leads to death or serious bodily injury. We have tried many times before to deal with the intractable problems of addiction by imposing longer and longer prison sentences, but it has never worked. These laws may be well-intentioned, but they will not help prevent the overdose of our loved ones.
I understand the appeal of DIH laws. I lost my son to a drug overdose in 2010 and experienced unbelievable grief, anger and pain. I wanted to put my finger on the cause of my son's death, to understand why this tragedy happened. And I wanted someone to blame.
The premise behind DIH laws offered a simple and satisfying perspective: That someone else was responsible for my son's death and must be held accountable to prevent more tragedy. This made sense to me, and I supported it. I also felt called to help prevent overdose in other ways, however, and as I worked to support those struggling with addiction, I learned that things are not that simple.
Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at [e-mail].
We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates.
Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines.
Views of writers are their own.
My son's drug supplier was one of the dealers that the disgraced and disbanded Baltimore City Gun Trace Task Force protected. He went to federal prison in 2018, but his incarceration did nothing to stop or slow drug overdoses in and around Baltimore. New DIH laws and even longer prison sentences would not prevent overdose, discourage drug dealing or reduce the prevalence of fentanyl, either.
While it's true that people who distribute heroin and fentanyl are engaging in criminal behavior, charging them with murder is a gross overreach. Maryland already has laws in place to deal with drug dealers. Indeed, the state passed legislation in 2017 to impose longer sentences on anyone convicted of distributing fentanyl. This law increased the maximum penalty to 30 years in prison for the dealers who are contributing to the overdose crisis. There is simply no need to introduce yet another law.
Moreover, DIH laws could make the overdose problem worse by undermining the Maryland Good Samaritan law that provides important protections to those who report overdoses in good faith. It's a crucial safeguard designed to encourage people to report overdoses without fear of legal repercussions.
I recently met with a group of women from Halo Recovery in Baltimore who shared a story on how the Good Samaritan law saved a life. With tears streaming down her face, one of the women described how she was terrified of calling for help when a family member overdosed, but she did call. The police showed up before EMS and assured her that they were not going to arrest either of them. The next day, the woman and family member entered treatment.
If DIH laws are enacted, this protection and the lives it saves could be significantly weakened. Stories of people being charged under DIH laws for overdose deaths will inevitably circulate through communities, and the result will be clear: fewer people will report overdoses or seek medical help for fear of harsh criminal penalties. And while proponents of DIH laws argue that they offer protections for those reporting overdoses, the reality is that law enforcement and prosecutors can easily sidestep these protections. We've seen this play out in other states, where the subjective nature of who is culpable for an overdose makes DIH laws prone to misuse and overreach.
Instead of returning to the failed approach of piling on more harsh penalties that don't solve the problem, Maryland should focus on evidence-based solutions that work. We know that there is not a new miracle drug treatment or incarceration law that has helped reduce overdose deaths. We know what has helped prevent overdoses and support recovery: widespread naloxone distribution, harm reduction and peer recovery services, medications for opioid use disorder like suboxone and methadone, and overdose prevention centers. These interventions have been shown to prevent fatal overdoses and appear to be working. The state has seen a sharp decline in overdoses in the past year and should stay the course with these evidence-based approaches.
The overdose epidemic has already caused enough harm. Our response must focus on compassion, care and proven solutions — not longer prison sentences. Drug-induced homicide laws are a flawed, punitive response that will only make things worse. Maryland can lead the way by rejecting these laws and focusing on solutions that save lives.