Sue Your Drug Dealer!

godtabh · 10-01-2008 02:13PM

eo980 wrote: »

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

What dangers are there if you drink responsibly?

togster · 10-01-2008 02:13PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:14PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:15PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:21PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:24PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:25PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:31PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:35PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:38PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:39PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:46PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:54PM

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 · 10-01-2008 02:59PM

Stark wrote: »

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

I knew that was coming. Cheers!

Overheal · 10-01-2008 03:15PM

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 · 10-01-2008 03:19PM

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 · 11-01-2008 11:55AM

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 · 11-01-2008 01:13PM

higher costs lower demand: also economics.

11-01-2008 01:23PM

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

BaZmO* · 11-01-2008 01:32PM

Overheal wrote: »

higher costs lower demand: also economics.

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

Wertz · 11-01-2008 01:37PM

Overheal wrote: »

higher costs lower demand: also economics.

You could argue that most drugs are as much a necessitated commodity as they are a luxury item, so demand will never really fall below a certain level regardless of price. I'm no economist but that's how I would see it...price has little impact on the decision to buy drugs...if money ios tight some may just cut spending in other areas to be able to afford them, and perhaps increase their criminality (if applicable) to fund their purchase...

utick · 12-01-2008 11:43PM

this is the equivellent of a terrorist accidentally hurting himself with his bomb then looking to sue the person who gave him the bomb because it didnt have a warning label on that it was dangerous

c0rk3r · 13-01-2008 12:10AM

Madness

I remember watching Americas dumbest criminals where someone arrived at a police station saying his dealer sold him bad weed. The guy was immediately arrested for purchasing an illegel substance.

What does she want for her dealer to hire a scientist to conduct Ir, HPLC, Ms, NMR etc tests. Consult the pharmacopeia, package and label the product? Your buying an illegal substance here. You get it in a little baggie and shut the fvck up. Theres no contacting Ann fitzgerald whos chief executive of the National Consumer Agency, going to arbitrators or going down the garda/ court route. You cant start a thread in Consumer Issues and ask dubara your rights because he'll tell you you have none. Your are as much to blame as the dealer. Supply and demand

Similarly dealers dont seek the police, courts, mrs ann fitzgerald or any other agency when costumers owe them money. Imagine the fvcking cheek if a dealer went to court to recover debts from various costumers. That avenue just isnt open to them. So they use other methods fear, violence and intimidation. Thats how it works. It wouldnt surprise me if the women ends up in a ditch somewhere.

People slag the americans...

Sue Your Drug Dealer!

Comments