Drug Addict sues dealer....and wins!

[vonGarvin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080109/meth_lawsuit_080109/20080109?hub=TopStories

"In her statement of claim, Bergen said Davey knew the drug was highly addictive and the sale of the drug was "for the purpose of making money but was also for the purpose of intentionally inflicting physical and mental suffering on (her)."


So, Ms. Bergen DIDN'T know that meth was addictive?  Did she know that it's illegal? 


I mean, COME ON!  This is typical of the "It's not my fault" society, aka "It's everyone's fault, but mine"!

Gimme a break.  Throw the dealer and the user both in jail!  Or treatment.  Or whatever.  But suing a drug dealer? 

 

[GAP]

I think every one of the drug dealers should be sued by the parents/children/loved ones/victims they harm....then throw them in jail.

 

[Lazarus**]

Ha! that's the first time I've heard of anything like that.
I've heard of people counter-suing and winning but this is unreal!

 

[vonGarvin]

I think every one of the drug dealers should be sued by the parents/children/loved ones/victims they harm....then throw them in jail.

I disagree.  I believe if anyone is at fault, it is the users just as much as the dealers.  Supply is nothing without demand, and demand is nothing without supply.
As well, the parents (at least) should own some of the "fault" for not raising their kids differently (using the "it's not my fault" argument)

EDIT: Unless, of course, the person who was "drugged" was done so without their consent or knowledge (eg: someone bought them a Rupie Colada)

 

[geo]

While I feel that the user is prolly just as gulity as the dealer, I think it is high time that dealers are made to PAY for the damage they have caused to people and society.  make em pay and pay and pay some more.

While the user is in no uncertain terms "unfit" to deal with any financial restitution the courts may award, someone should be appointed to disburse amounts in a coherent & reasonnable manner..... this should not be a cash windfall for the druggie.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The plus side is it is easier to win a lawsuit for a civil action, than a criminal one, however unless they have identifiable assest and the winner gets effective enforcement it is hollow victory.

 

[Timmy!]

Next news flash will be, "Depress male adult sues knife company for making knives too sharp. Cause inflected pain."  :

Here's your sign.

 

[geo]

Colin, Same as with OJ.  Not guilty of murder but..... ordered to pay - if the lawyers are smart enough & the accused is dumb enough

Get the dealer to rat on his provider and sue your way back up the food chain.

 

[vonGarvin]

At least there's an upside to this story; read down a bit and you'll see that her druge OD left her unable to have children. At least she won't be able to further infect the gene pool.

Actually, it says:

She has since developed a heart condition that leaves her constantly fatigued and limits her chances of ever having children.

 

[scoutfinch]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080109/meth_lawsuit_080109/20080109?hub=TopStories

"In her statement of claim, Bergen said Davey knew the drug was highly addictive and the sale of the drug was "for the purpose of making money but was also for the purpose of intentionally inflicting physical and mental suffering on (her)."


So, Ms. Bergen DIDN'T know that meth was addictive?  Did she know that it's illegal? 


I mean, COME ON!  This is typical of the "It's not my fault" society, aka "It's everyone's fault, but mine"!

Gimme a break.  Throw the dealer and the user both in jail!  Or treatment.  Or whatever.  But suing a drug dealer? 

Hey... I think it is strategically brilliant.  Most dealers don't really care about the length of time they spend in jail -- they'll just start right up again when they get out.  Never forget that the only legal remedy for this plaintiff is $$$$ because it is a civil action.  So taking the dealers money and seizing their assets!  Brilliant.  That will actually hit them where they hurt.  (Besides, if said dealer is unable to pay his supplier for the drugs he has already sold because someone has frozen his accounts and seized his money, said supplier will deal with the debt in his own fashion.)

 

[vonGarvin]

Hey... I think it is strategically brilliant.  (Besides, if said dealer is unable to pay his supplier for the drugs he has already sold because someone has frozen his accounts and seized his money, said supplier will deal with the debt in his own fashion.)

Very good point.  And with the dealers out of the way....;D


Still, I guess it irks me that this "victim" is being lauded as a hero, crusader, or whatever.  THAT is what gets me (or, grinds my gears, if you will)

 

[scoutfinch]

I view addiction as an illness so I am probably a little more sympathetic to the plaintiff.  But I have ZERO tolerance for dealers who take advantage of the illness.

 

[geo]

Remember, from my perspective, while the plaintif may be a victim, she should not expect to receive a PRIZE.  Financial awards should NOT be given to her to spend as she sees fit.... not on your nellie!

 

[scoutfinch]

Good for you.  But that is not what the law says.  There is nothing to indicate that her competency is currently impaired. 

 

[meni0n]

Hey... I think it is strategically brilliant.  Most dealers don't really care about the length of time they spend in jail -- they'll just start right up again when they get out.  Never forget that the only legal remedy for this plaintiff is $$$$ because it is a civil action.  So taking the dealers money and seizing their assets!  Brilliant.  That will actually hit them where they hurt.  (Besides, if said dealer is unable to pay his supplier for the drugs he has already sold because someone has frozen his accounts and seized his money, said supplier will deal with the debt in his own fashion.)

Because everyone knows dealers keep all the income from their activities in the bank. 

 

[vonGarvin]

I view addiction as an illness so I am probably a little more sympathetic to the plaintiff.  But I have ZERO tolerance for dealers who take advantage of the illness.

Though I am not a physician, I have trouble identifying addiction as an illness.  I mean, I can call work and say that my arthritis is acting up, but can I call up and say that my alcoholism is acting up?

I say that with tongue partially in cheek.  People with addictions do need help, with that I agree, but I think that "illness" is a bit of a stretch, as it implies no culpability to the person so inflicted.  I know that people don't choose to be addicted to "stuff", but there's a reason why most of us don't "sample" meth, heroin or other "stuff".  They are addictive (they cause the addiction), but when all is said and done, at one point, the person so afflicted with an addiction CHOSE to "sample" said "stuff".  Therin lies their culpability.

Yes, I understand that some people are more prone to addiction than others.  Take alcohol or gambling as examples.  I drink and I occasionally gamble, but by no stretch of any definition am I an addict to either.  To tobacco?  Yes I am, but that's MY fault, nobody else's, and I certainly don't feel "ill" or that I have an illness.

In general, we seem at times to have a blameless society.  There are troubles all around, and everyone is to blame, save for the persons who act out, beat their wives, gamble away their savings, cheat on taxes, whatever. 

 

[fbr2o75]

In the medical community alcoholism is recognised as a sickness.

 

[vonGarvin]

In the medical community alcoholism is recognised as a sickness.

I understand that, and as I stated, I am NOT a physician.  I just don't understand why it is a sickness, vice a "self-imposed condition".

If I catch a cold, or Ebola, I get it from some source, perhaps partially due to me not washing my hands, but not through some overt, deliberate act.

Again, as I stated earlier, people with addictions DO need help, but they will have to earn my sympathy.  That is just my opinion, that's all. 

This is probably why I am so vehemently opposed to any government funded "clean needle" program, vice taking those people and giving them real help, vice becoming an enabler.  I realise that clean needles reduces AIDS, but if a crack head or junkie lives an extra 10 years, what benefit to society is that?  I mean, really?  Another 10 years of a drug addict living his/her life with one goal in mind: the next score at all costs.  I say: clean them up.  It may be "judgemental on their actions", but in the end, I am sure it would not only cost society less, but those people could start to live fruitful lives.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I disagree.  I believe if anyone is at fault, it is the users just as much as the dealers.  Supply is nothing without demand, and demand is nothing without supply.
As well, the parents (at least) should own some of the "fault" for not raising their kids differently (using the "it's not my fault" argument)

EDIT: Unless, of course, the person who was "drugged" was done so without their consent or knowledge (eg: someone bought them a Rupie Colada)

You can't have it both ways.  Blame Daddy, or blame the druggie, which is it? You can only provide your kids with the tools, if they choose to build an outhouse instead of a mansion, how is that on me?  I control my kids as far as my eyes can see and my voice can carry; THAT'S IT.  At the end of the day, sleep in the bed you made, don't blame Daddy cause he never hugged you for your meth habit, that's pure concentrated bullshit.

 

[vonGarvin]

You can't have it both ways.  Blame Daddy, or blame the druggie, which is it? You can only provide your kids with the tools, if they choose to build an outhouse instead of a mansion, how is that on me?  I control my kids as far as my eyes can see and my voice can carry; THAT'S IT.  At the end of the day, sleep in the bed you made, don't blame Daddy cause he never hugged you for your meth habit, that's pure concentrated bullshit.

In all honesty, I have to find the sarcasm smiley.  My point was to show the absurdity in the system of blaming parents, teachers, dealers, media, music and everything else under the sun instead of blaming the person who owns the responsibility: the person themselves.  You are right, parents can only do so much (and I understand that frustration!).  As with you, I only control my kids to the same limit as you.  Same with any parent.

EDIT: reminds me of a story once told to me.  A boy of 16 joined the army in 1916 or so.  On his 17th birthday, he writes home to his father to "get me out of here: I'm too young!".  The father wrote back "You made your bed: lie in it". 

Apparently a true story.