Sue Your Drug Dealer!

Kintarō Hattori

Crap like this just annoys me. She shouldn't be allowed sue him for financial gain, they should both be locked up. It looks like another case of cop on being thrown out the window in the courtrooms of North America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7180379.stm

A Canadian woman has successfully sued the dealer who sold her an illegal street drug that put her in a coma.
Sandra Bergen, 23, suffered a heart attack and spent 11 days in a coma after taking crystal methamphetamine.

justsomebloke

I actually think it is a great idea as it is more likely to deter dealers if they are financially responsible for what they sell, it would also mean the drugs would probably be purer as well.

Crumble Froo

o_O

she has admitted to buying and using illegal drugs. that has to count for something, surely?

Stories like this is why you can't get a decent cup of tea in America anymore. Luke-warm water, me arse.

seamus

jsb wrote: »

I actually think it is a great idea as it is more likely to deter dealers if they are financially responsible for what they sell, it would also mean the drugs would probably be purer as well.

Agreed 100%. If a pharmacist was selling cyclosporine laced with LSD and also neglecting to tell people that because it had cyclosporine there's an allergy risk, then he'd be liable to have the ass sued off him and rightly so.

If more people took civil cases against dealers then there'd be less dealers.

Of course a much easier solution would be to not buy the ****e in the first place.

People will of course say that if she managed to sue him, why can they not lock her up for buying and lock him up for selling? Well, if the US is anything like here, then the burden of proof in civil suits is less than in criminal ones. So the US courts may not be able to bring a criminal case because they lack any hard evidence, despite the civil case.

Sugar Drunk

its ridiculous!! How is it the dealers fault she was srupid enough to take meth? I hate these people they always want to be a victim...'they made me take the drugs your honour' my @rse they did love. If the majority of people can avoid not using drugs then why should this idiot benefit from having no self control?

and yes you are right on burden of proof. In the US in criminal cases its 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and in civil cases 'on the balance of probabilities' now that can mean 49% - 51%

seamus

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

its ridiculous!! How is it the dealers fault she was srupid enough to take meth? I hate these people they always want to be a victim...'they made me take the drugs your honour' my @rse they did love. If the majority of people can avoid not using drugs then why should this idiot benefit from having no self control?

Well, she made the choice to take them but he failed to inform her of the risks. In this country, if you supply or prescribe a controlled substance you are obliged to inform the recipient of all risks and precautions. I would imagine the US is similar.

cance

seamus wrote: »

Well, she made the choice to take them but he failed to inform her of the risks. In this country, if you supply or prescribe a controlled substance you are obliged to inform the recipient of all risks and precautions. I would imagine the US is similar.

with any luck she will win too!

and he will have her killed.

prendy

People will of course say that if she managed to sue him, why can they not lock her up for buying and lock him up for selling? Well, if the US is anything like here, then the burden of proof in civil suits is less than in criminal ones. So the US courts may not be able to bring a criminal case because they lack any hard evidence, despite the civil case

thats crazy...stupid americans.
she's admitting to using drugs so i dont see where the problem is.

seamus

prendy wrote: »

thats crazy...stupid americans.
she's admitting to using drugs so i dont see where the problem is.

Crazy people admit to stuff all the time. In the absence of any other evidence, it could easily be argued that someone admitted to a crime as a means of getting attention or a bed and some dinner.

Homeless people will quite often get involved in some petty crime (break a window, punch someone) just so they can spend a night in a warm cell and get brought a cup of tea and some breakfast. They can't just wander in off the street and say, "Lock me up, I kidnapped Madeline McCann"

Morlar

jsb wrote: »

I actually think it is a great idea as it is more likely to deter dealers if they are financially responsible for what they sell,

+1

that one makes perfect sense to me.

togster

seamus wrote: »

if you supply or prescribe a controlled substance you are obliged to inform the recipient of all risks and precautions. I would imagine the US is similar.

meth isn't a contolled substance it is an illegal substance so are you suggesting that people who supply illegal drugs should label the products dangerous! That in itself is ridiculous. The fact that it is illegal should relay the fact that it is in fact dangerous.

senordingdong

seamus wrote: »

Well, she made the choice to take them but he failed to inform her of the risks. In this country, if you supply or prescribe a controlled substance you are obliged to inform the recipient of all risks and precautions. I would imagine the US is similar.

That's the problem with the hype that sorrounds incidents like this.
Everyone fails to mention the technicality on which the 'victim' has won, and the state fails to change it accordingly.

Terry

Sue, come back. They're not on to you.

griffdaddy

Conversely, could i sue a dealer for selling me crappy hash that does nothing?

seamus

togster wrote: »

meth isn't a contolled substance it is an illegal substance so are you suggesting that people who supply illegal drugs should label the products dangerous! That in itself is ridiculous. The fact that it is illegal should relay the fact that it is in fact dangerous.

"Controlled" implies that the sale and supply are restricted by law. All illegal substances are controlled substances by nature. You'll find that the requirement to label controlled substances is rarely an issue because the requirement to not sell them in the first place takes precedent.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

lads

omfg..
you sick ****s

it happened in Canada, not the US.

you know Canada? this all makes perfect sense for Canada.

Kintarō Hattori

Its a silly situation. Its an illegal drug, she should have and most likely would have known that it was illegal and BAD for her, common sense.

Whatever the 'technicalities' of the situation she shouldn't be allowed sue her dealer. Even just typing 'sue her dealer' sounds like something that belongs in the realms of fantasty.

Both should be done for selling an illegal substance and possession.


Note : I don't do drugs myself, but I find this situation somewhat crazy.

BaZmO*

The judge is a Yeti? That's mad!

WindSock

She was buying weed in Canada. Weed doesn't have tough laws there.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Mr Davey refused to name his source of the drug, prompting the Saskatchewan judge to reject his defence - that Ms Bergen had taken the drug voluntarily.

saskatchewhatever is in Canada.

Kintarō Hattori

WindSock wrote: »

She was buying weed in Canada. Weed doesn't have tough laws there.

It wasn't weed.

ScumLord

I'd say the only reason she got away with this is because it's another way of getting at dealers. Which isn't exactly fair to just pick on someone because you don't agree with what there doing.

For the likes of heroin dealers and those that turn people into addicts just to milk them for cash, it's a good idea, **** them.

If she win's yermans going to have to move allot of drugs to pay the fine.

godtabh

WindSock wrote: »

She was buying weed in Canada. Weed doesn't have tough laws there.

A Canadian woman has successfully sued the dealer who sold her an illegal street drug that put her in a coma.
Sandra Bergen, 23, suffered a heart attack and spent 11 days in a coma after taking crystal methamphetamine.

Which was it? I wouldnt have thought weed would put you into a coma for 11 days.

I'd love to see some one try it here

Reku

Lets all go sue Diageo since they don't label the bottles/cans (at least last I'd checked) with information regarding what can happen if you get drunk or that alcohol can damage the liver & brain.:D
Yes we know it's bad for us and, yes, we're taking it voluntarily in spite of that but they're not warning us of the possible consequences!:rolleyes:

ScumLord

Actually drinks companies don't warn you of the dangers of drinking, I would have thought that would leave them wide open. Where's me suing shoes?

Terry

Please enjoy <beverage> responsibly.

Wacker

prendy wrote: »

thats crazy...stupid americans.

It was in Canada, not the US. An expression along the lines of :People in glass houses..." springs to mind. In the same way I always find it ironic when some of the stupidest people imaginable calling George W Bush an idiot.

Anyway, I don't like the way she sounds like a crusader against dealers in the article. The best way to get to dealers is not to give them any business, I'd have thought...?

Reku

ScumLord wrote: »

Actually drinks companies don't warn you of the dangers of drinking, I would have thought that would leave them wide open. Where's me suing shoes?

Woohoo! I've started a movement other than a BM.:D

ScumLord

Terry wrote: »

Please enjoy <beverage> responsibly.

But why and whats your idea of responcible? Drink as much as you like as long as you don't drive?

Kintarō Hattori

Terry wrote: »

Please enjoy <beverage> responsibly.

That statement doesn't tell you of the potential dangers though.

godtabh

eo980 wrote: »

That statement doesn't tell you of the potential dangers though.

What dangers are there if you drink responsibly?

togster

seamus wrote: »

"Controlled" implies that the sale and supply are restricted by law.

When you say restricted do you mean prevented? I am sure you have far more expertise than i in this area. It sounds ludicrous to me that someone can sue someone for supplying an illegal drug on the grounds that it was a harmful drug.

Overheal

Makes sense that she won the case to be fair: I suppose as long as you can establish that the dealer got you hooked [so that they can keep your business] heroine dealers do it all the time as I understand. Why not sue them and take huge chunks out of all that money theyve been earning illegaly.

Sugar Drunk

togster wrote: »

meth isn't a contolled substance it is an illegal substance so are you suggesting that people who supply illegal drugs should label the products dangerous! That in itself is ridiculous. The fact that it is illegal should relay the fact that it is in fact dangerous.

Exactly thank you. Its ludicrus to argue that drug dealers should have to give info leaflets its not mcdonalds! if you jbowingly buy A drug iff a dealer then you know its illegal and therefore you know it might do you harm.

My local off licence had a special offer on drink at christmas but did noot warn me of the dangers and they were advertising it like making me drink it oh dear will I sue them

Kintarō Hattori

kearnsr wrote: »

What dangers are there if you drink responsibly?

But that's responsibly? Most guys can have what 5-6 pints without getting woozy? I know someone people (the ladies especially) who get woozy after half a pint or one glass of wine.

Wertz

So because this silly bitch doesn't have the cop on to know that crank is the devil in crystalline form, it's the fault of the schmuck that sold it to her? What in the name of f*ck?
It's like the "Contents May Be Hot" on the MaccyD's coffee cup, or "Product contains peanuts" on a Snickers; they're on there because some idiot successfully sued the company for something that was ultimately their own fault.
The lady in question was willing to take this crap, but wasn't willing to find out what in fact she was putting in her body to begin with....and the dealer is responsible? It's like suing a train driver for running you down when you were crossing a railway track.
I could somewhat understand her family suing the guy in the event of her having died, but that's not the case. I could also somewhat understand if this was a contaminant in something less destructive, like weed or E, sold to her without her knowledge
Sounds to me like she is now a reformed character (few meth heads ever get that chance) and has decided that it was absolutely everyone elses' fault that she went on a mission to destroy her own life.

togster

Overheal wrote: »

Makes sense that she won the case to be fair: I suppose as long as you can establish that the dealer got you hooked [so that they can keep your business] heroine dealers do it all the time as I understand. Why not sue them and take huge chunks out of all that money theyve been earning illegaly.

I think you are missing the point. As far as i can see she sued on the grounds that the drug she used induced a heart attack and subsequent coma. She did not recieve judgement on the basis that the dealer got her addicted.

Kazobel

I think this trial should be judged by Judge Judy, it'd be total car crash TV! She'd be booted out of the courtroom

Canis Lupus

I think it's interesting from two angles.

A: Anti drugs angle. If you can sue a drug dealer they are going to start vanishing, potentially less drugs on the street. It may even be feasible to suggest that she was 'allowed' to win and that maaaaybe the forces of justice were thinking along the same lines.

B: Yeah she took one of ****tiest illegal drugs out there and paid the price. It's like putting your hand in a fire, getting burned and attempting to sue the fire. She's a muppet and what I'd happily do as a judge is take her winnings and donate them to a drug addiction charity and promise not to arrest her for buying a controlled substance.


Funny old world never the less.

Overheal

togster wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. As far as i can see she sued on the grounds that the drug she used induced a heart attack and subsequent coma. She did not recieve judgement on the basis that the dealer got her addicted.

true she received compensation only for the medical expense but the dealer messed up in this regard as his defense was around the idea that she took the drug voluntarily. Her defense proved that the dealer got her hopelessly addicted to the substance - removing much of the voluntary element.

AARRRGH

In theory she's right (although I was agree she's a ****tard.)

You can actually sue for all kinds of things. For example, if you call me a "retard" or "moron" on Boards.ie, I can sue Boards.ie Ltd. for slander. I'd win too.

Anyone remember that one about the burglar who injured himself while breaking into someone's house, so decided to sue the owners? I think he won that one too.

rubadub

What if it was a mate of yours was in a country where alcohol was illegal to sell. And a dealer sold it and they overdosed, contaminated or not. Same thing really and I bet people would have more sympathy, coz mammy drinks.

Stark

Wacker wrote: »

thats crazy...stupid americans.

It was in Canada, not the US. An expression along the lines of :People in glass houses..." springs to mind. In the same way I always find it ironic when some of the stupidest people imaginable calling George W Bush an idiot.

Anyway, I don't like

Canada's in America; the US doesn't take up the whole continent

I agree on the glass houses part though, not like our judical system hasn't come out with plenty for other countries to laugh at. I still remember that article on msn.com about the judge who left a guy off for speeding because the didn't look as bad when you converted it to mph. One of the quotes was "The episode underscored Ireland’s slow mental conversion to metric. " (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21560119/)

Wacker

Stark wrote: »

Canada's in America; the US doesn't take up the whole continent

I knew that was coming. Cheers!

Overheal

rubadub wrote: »

What if it was a mate of yours was in a country where alcohol was illegal to sell. And a dealer sold it and they overdosed, contaminated or not. Same thing really and I bet people would have more sympathy, coz mammy drinks.

I don't think you have the same addiction argument there to be honest. Crystal Meth is a somewhat different league.

WindSock

kearnsr wrote: »

Which was it? I wouldnt have thought weed would put you into a coma for 11 days.

I'd love to see some one try it here

D'oh.

Executive Steve

jsb wrote: »

I actually think it is a great idea as it is more likely to deter dealers if they are financially responsible for what they sell, it would also mean the drugs would probably be purer as well.

it actually WON'T deter dealers, not in the long term.


drugs are expensive not because they're expensive to produce but because there's an added cost in covering the risk to the seller that they might get caught / shot / and now maybe sued.

the harsher the penalties imposed upon trade, the less dealers will take the risk of engaging in trade, the more the prices rise, the more likely more dealers are going to want a cut of the action and the increased profits.


it's not rocket science, it's economics.


it's also why prohibition doesn't really work.

Overheal

higher costs lower demand: also economics.

I've become hopelessly addicted to Boards. I've missed college time due to it. Can I sue Cloud/De Vore?

BaZmO*

Overheal wrote: »

higher costs lower demand: also economics.

Higher costs => more exclusivity => more demand => Veblen Goods