Drug user sues dealer

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by scotthayes, Jan 10, 2008.

  1. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #1
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    I'm truly, truly, stunned. We're all having a good giggle in the office.

    The drug dealer should have her killed, he must know people who would do it. What a stupid bitch.
     
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    You're all class.
     
  4. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    Not often I'd side with a drug dealer, but really, she's got some ****ing nerve.
     
  5. scotthayes thread starter macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #5
    It sums up the blame culture we live in. You can just imagine her in the lawyers office... "I took some drugs and nearly died, but hey it's not my fault as the dealer sold them to me"

    When the f*** are people going to stop all this f***ing moaning and take responsibility for their own life
     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    That's your way of reading it. From the article it seems just as likely she's getting revenge and going after her drug dealer with a civil suit in absence of a criminal case.

    I know it's cool to hate on drug users and wave the personal responsibility flag but it swings both ways. The dealer also has personal responsibility and shouldn't have sold drugs period, let alone to a friend. I've got no sympathy for either of them but i've got some empathy for her situation, especially if she's kicked it as she claims. She's been burnt by her actions and there's no reason the dealer shouldn't be taken down a notch or two if there is a case.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    I like the case minus one reason. It just adding to the fact that everyone wants to sue everyone else for anything that goes wrong in their lives. People are blaming everyone but them selves.
    At least it is not some insane amount of money and only $50k.
     
  8. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #8
    I have to admit that this is an interesting case, it's kind of like suing the liquor store that sold alcohol to a someone last week and had them get in a wreck while drunk from that alcohol.

    Can statements in a civil suit be used to start criminal proceedings? If someone were to sue their dealer in a civil suit like this, and in the trial the dealer admits to selling drugs, can the cops come in and arrest him for drug dealing? If a system could be set up so that just enough of the cases get one, it might get more addicts to sue their dealers to get some $$ and give us an interesting way to ferret out the dealers...
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    I've been predicting this kind of thing for a while. Welcome to your world. We'll be seeing more of this.
     
  10. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    This reminds me of a few years ago where some lady called the cops to report that some dude had stolen her pot.
     
  11. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    awwww, what a shame! I'm sure society is really going to miss out!


    I hope the $50k she gets from suing the dealer pays for her habit for years to come and maybe even her next overdose... properly.



    you know what? I've gained a bit of weight lately, DAMN these forks and spoons! :mad:
     
  12. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #12
    Actually it's not. The analogy would be more akin to being sold the alcohol illegally (i.e. you were underage). In that case you might have some recourse to sue for damages. I'm sure a lawyer on the forums would be able to clarify for us.

    You've been predicting people engaging in illegal activities being sued for damages as a results of their actions? The outrage.

    It's cool and edgy to openly celebrate moral superiority by reveling in the misfortune and deaths of others.
     
  13. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #13
    .Andy, no one made this girl take crystal meth and become an addict to the point of very nearly dying. Her actions are 100% her responsibility. Blaming the dealer it's absurd. Not that the dealer shouldn't be taken of the streets anyway, but it shouldn't be because one of their arsehole clients couldn't handle their gear.
     
  14. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #14
    Considering both the buyer and seller were engaged in illegal activities I see the legal sale of alcohol being more akin than selling to an underage. Both parties knew what they were doing beforehand, although what you do with a product sold to you is not really the fault of the seller.

    If I buy a TV from Best Buy and after a month of having it at home drop it on my foot, is it Best Buy's fault for selling me the potentially harmful heavy TV?

    Is a forest fire started by someone throwing a cigarette butt out their car window the fault of the gas station that sold the cigarettes?

    It never ceases to amaze me (although I should be over it by now) how far people will go to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.
     
  15. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #15
    Give me a frickin break. Is it cool and edgy and morally superior to be sensitive to it all then?

    Suing your dealer because they sold you addictive drugs is ridiculous. Pardon me all over the place for not being overwhelmed with pity and understanding.

    I have been there, I have used ****loads of drugs and had to go through hell in getting off of them, and I don't go on blaming others or suing my dealers for my bad choices.
     
  16. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #16
    what a moron. Laws have failed if an illegal purchase can be grounds for civil suits. Surprised it was in Canada. It sounds very American.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    No- I've been predicting that people would start abdicating personal responsibility more and more. This is a perfect example. We should all be horrified that this woman won this suit, but no one wants to be responsible for anything they do anymore, everything is someone else's fault.
     
  18. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #18
    Well, I hope for her sake she is clean. I can't imagine she's going to get a fix anywhere now.
     
  19. devilot Moderator emeritus

    devilot

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    #19
    Ugh. Too bad street level dealers aren't the real problem... And I realize the article takes place in Canada, but that's part of the problem here in the US. There will always be another street-level dealer to replace the one that's incarcerated.

    And yeah, it definitely seems a bit silly that this woman has sued the drug dealer. Also silly that she doesn't seem to acknowledge her own part in this by purchasing and using (more than once) drugs from her ol' buddy-- then turning around and blaming it all on him.

    Do they not use the 12-step program in Canada? I guess she hasn't gone through such a program as I seem to recall a step taking full-responsibility for your actions, another step is making amends, and I really don't recall a step suing your dealer. Shrug. I might be wrong, though.
     
  20. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #20
    Hmm. Criminals suing criminals. Sounds like a Fox reality show or something.

    While I'd like to be appalled at the ruling, the fact that the "victim" in this ruling was a criminal makes it easier to swallow. I couldn't care less that he has to fork over $50K - perhaps it will make him think twice about selling crack.

    In fact, why not do more civil suits against criminals to help shoulder the financial burden of prosecution, victim support, medical costs, etc.

    What concerns me is the potential that this opens the door for other illegal activities to become potential lawsuits against law-abiding citizens or companies. Burglars suing homeowners if they hurt themselves breaking into a home. Carjackers suing drivers if they get hurt in a police chase. Where does it end?
     
  21. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #21
    But this is where I see the confusion. To me the case is about whether the illegal activites of person A resulted in injury of person B. It doesn't matter what person B was doing and their personal responsibility, that's not the case at hand. Regardless it appears she won on default as the judge threw out the defense's case because they wouldn't cough up the name of the supplier. She was initially given the drugs free by the dealer to get her hooked when she was 13. Should 13 year old areshole client girls be able to handle free crystal meth?

    An underage kid buying alcohol knows they are buying alcohol illegally as well. Your analogy doesn't work. This is the case of a liquor store owner seeking out and giving free alcohol to a 13 year old girl to give her a taste for it. And then continually selling it to her illegally.

    I'm still not sure where you are getting this from. Who says she isn't taking responsibility for her actions? That's not what the case was about. The case was about whether the dealer had some responsibility.

    It seems to me that her motivation was more to take down a drug dealer and make him take some responsibility for his actions, not absolve her own responsibility for her actions;

    Here's more responsibility you're all missing: She's exposed herself as a user worldwide (good luck getting a job with that one) and exposed a dealer for a possible paltry $50 000. She also named a supplier in her suit. As it is a don't see it as a win for anyone. A user and a dealer are both in the negative. She's got lifelong medical (and likely socioeconomic) problems and the dealer is out of pocket. A suppliers name is also out.

    That's sincerely great. No matter what I think of you taking drugs I hope that if you ever go back to drugs you don't OD and die. Frankly I don't care who you are or what you've done, I'd treat you exactly as any other person that turned up to my ED.


    Except you of course..... Here's a simple question: does a drug dealer have any person responsibility for giving free crystal meth to a 13 year old girl?

    And google news if anyone wants to read more about the ruling.
    http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&ned=au&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1125995302

    I wish everyone who evokes a slippery slope argument could immediately be banned from PRSI for a week. But then it would eventually become two weeks. And then three weeks. And then life. Where does it end!
     
  22. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #22
    So your contention is that no one should ever be concerned about potential ramifications of an issue? We should only be concerned about an isolated incident and ignore its potential impact down the road?

    My assertion is completely valid. This case essentially made it okay for someone who has knowingly engaged in illegal activities to file a civil suit against someone else claiming that the other party was responsible for injuries they sustained while engaging in those illegal activities.

    Sure, she says she started getting hooked when she was 13 in that one link, but there's no proof. In other links it says she's been an addict since she was 18. Which was it?
     
  23. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #23
    But where does any seller get off from the responsibility of their product doing any harm? I'm not trying to defend a drug dealer here, but if someone were to start using Photoshop off of a free trial and continue to use it, and then doctored a picture that they used to destroy someone's career and life, is that the fault of the software vendor? At what point do the sellers and manufacturers lose responsibility for what the customer does with their product.

    Sure the drug dealer was selling an illegal product, but she was making the decision to buy it. There are paths to remedy this situaion, suing the dealer for harm she voluntarily inflicted on herself was not the correct path. She could have just as easily checked herself into rehab and gone to police and offered to be a witness in a full criminal case for his illegal drug dealing. Instead she opted for a route that looks as though she's trying to blame someone else for her choices. Unless the dealer strapped her down and forcibly injected or forced the drugs down her throat, at some point the decision to take the free drugs was hers to make.

    They used to send me hundreds of free AOL CDs, I made a conscious decision not to use them despite plenty of free access. Just because someone seeks you out and gives you something for free does not mean you have to use it.
     
  24. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #24
    But if I did, that would be my problem. That's all I'm really getting at here - a little self accountability.

    Even if she was 13 (which I only read where it said she was 18) I have yet to find a 13 year old anywhere that is not aware that drugs are bad and will eff you up. I started around that age and I was perfectly aware of that sticky fact. Again, I don't want any pity for my lousy choices and I blame no one for them.

    Drug dealers can be smack peddling douche bags till the end of time but they exist because of supply and demand from willing clientele. That may be screwed up but the vast majority of the time both parties know what they are getting into.

    It's just a bunk lawsuit.
     
  25. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #25
    Are you really comparing the use of photoshop and AOL CDs to crystal meth :p? You should have at least used macrumors as something addictive :D!

    Addiction is the difference here. I did a few months drug and alcohol unit seeing patients who were addicted to different drugs was quite disturbing. Even though they could fully be aware that their habits were doing them harm, they are physically unable to stop. They do literally have to use it and have no choice in the matter. Some had been coming to get their methodone injections for over a decade and were likely to have to need in for decades more. Addiction to drugs changes brain chemistry, which is practically irreversible in some cases, whilst in others it can take decades to reverse. It's horrible. Although I have to admit not speaking to anyone on crystal meth. It's not that big in Australia.

    You can be concerned about ramifications of an issue without resorting to slippery slope arguments. Slippery slopes are the antithesis of logic. The precedent here is that person A, whilst engaged in illegal activities hurts person B, has some liability. This is completely incompatible with your hypothetical burglars suing homeowners or carjackers suing drivers. You've made a jump with your slippery slope that is logically flawed.
     

Share This Page