Sue Your Drug Dealer!

Kintarō Hattori · 10-01-2008 11:11AM #1

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 · 10-01-2008 11:24AM

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 · 10-01-2008 11:28AM

o_O

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

10-01-2008 11:53AM

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

seamus · 10-01-2008 11:59AM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:13PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:18PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:19PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:20PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:24PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:36PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:40PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:52PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:52PM

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

griffdaddy · 10-01-2008 12:53PM

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

seamus · 10-01-2008 12:56PM

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 · 10-01-2008 12:57PM

lads

omfg..
you sick ****s

it happened in Canada, not the US.

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

Kintarō Hattori · 10-01-2008 12:59PM

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* · 10-01-2008 01:04PM

The judge is a Yeti? That's mad!

WindSock · 10-01-2008 01:05PM

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

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 10-01-2008 01:07PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:07PM

WindSock wrote: »

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

It wasn't weed.

ScumLord · 10-01-2008 01:13PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:14PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:44PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:53PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:55PM

Please enjoy <beverage> responsibly.

Wacker · 10-01-2008 01:57PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:57PM

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 · 10-01-2008 01:58PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:01PM

Terry wrote: »

Please enjoy <beverage> responsibly.

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

Sue Your Drug Dealer!

Comments