Drug Addict sues dealer....and wins!

[Kat Stevens]

So, we're good, then?  Give us a hug, I feel the need for some validation. 

 

[vonGarvin]

So, we're good, then?  Give us a hug, I feel the need for some validation.   

:rofl:

Well, I don't know about a hug...and I don't kiss men, so......


How about a gram of smack, on me.  First one's free  >

 

[observor 69]

:rofl:

Well, I don't know about a hug...and I don't kiss men, so......


How about a gram of smack, on me.  First one's free   >

Ya..... got to find that sarcasm smiley. 

 

[scoutfinch]

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

.... ahhhh, in fact, as you rightly pointed out, they don't.  They buy stuff with it... which is why I suggest they should seize any assets they own.  Frankly, organized dealers are hard for even Proceeds of Crime guys to get, but the average dealer is not that organized... or that smart.

 

[scoutfinch]

If you have ever seen an addict struggle to get off their drug of choice (alcohol or otherwise), you would realize that people don't really chose to be addicted.  They just are.

You and me -- we have a few wobbly pops and we don't have a problem.  An addict -- different story.  And it is truly tragic what it can do it a person. 

If you think about it as a matter of choice, ask yourself why in god's name would anyone choose to live the life of an addict.  It sure ain't pretty.  Then you realize that may be the addict doesn't exercise much choice at all.  Even the highly functioning alcoholic.  And god knows, the CF has seen enough of those in earlier years. 

I really don't think it is just a matter of saying NO.  Ask any smoker or reformed smoker.  It's just not that easy and I don't think that non-addicts can really understand.  I know I can't and I have seen it first hand.  But I just can't understand NEEDING to consume alcohol/drugs just so I feel normal.  And that feeling is THEIR normal.  (Me?  It's my idea of a good Friday night when I know my husband will be getting up with the kids in the morning! )

 

[meni0n]

.... ahhhh, in fact, as you rightly pointed out, they don't.  They buy stuff with it... which is why I suggest they should seize any assets they own.  Frankly, organized dealers are hard for even Proceeds of Crime guys to get, but the average dealer is not that organized... or that smart.

What you suggest is impractical. It would be hard to prove what was bought with drug money and what wasn't. Plus, what is to stop the dealer from selling everything for cash and declaring bankruptcy.

 

[fbr2o75]

Alcoholism is not an addiction, it is a sickness. There is a difference between alcoholism and an addiction.

 

[scoutfinch]

Alcoholism is not an addiction, it is a sickness. There is a difference between alcoholism and an addiction.

Wrong.  I am pretty sure if I dig out my DSM IV -- I can't because it is packed -- I could cite chapter and verse about alcohol abuse/addiction/dependance or alcoholism (whatever label you want to apply).

Alcoholism = Alcohol dependance = Addiction.  Addiction = Chronic Illness (as defined by the AMA).  Chronic illness = sickness.  So whatever way you want to get there, alcoholism is an addiction which is clinically identified as an illness. 

I can't imagine why you would have a problem with the proper application of a medical model to something that has for far too long been considered a matter of personal failing or weakness.

Edited to add:  I have reviewed your last two posts.  I think the missing link is that you aren't viewing addiction as an illness/sickness.  It is medically considered an illness... which is how alcohol addiction is classified as an illness.  The only differences between the addictions of alcohol, smack and tobacco are that two of the three are legal.  (Slight exaggeration but I trust you get my point). 

 

[fbr2o75]

Wrong.  I am pretty sure if I dig out my DSM IV -- I can't because it is packed -- I could cite chapter and verse about alcohol abuse/addiction/dependance or alcoholism (whatever label you want to apply).

Alcoholism = Alcohol dependance = Addiction.  Addiction = Chronic Illness (as defined by the AMA).  Chronic illness = sickness.  So whatever way you want to get there, alcoholism is an addiction which is clinically identified as an illness. 

I can't imagine why you would have a problem with the proper application of a medical model to something that has for far too long been considered a matter of personal failing or weakness.

I grew up with this in my family and listened to more than one impromptu AA meeting at the kitchen table in our house. Now i am no medical doctor, but if my memory serves me right there is a ppart of the brain that triggers the alcohol sickness, that is what makes one person an alcoholic and another not. If we all take drugs such as crack cocaine, heroine etc we will become addicted. Only a select few will become addicted to alcohol

 

[vonGarvin]

If you have ever seen an addict struggle to get off their drug of choice (alcohol or otherwise), you would realize that people don't really chose to be addicted.  They just are.

You and me -- we have a few wobbly pops and we don't have a problem.  An addict -- different story.  And it is truly tragic what it can do it a person. 

If you think about it as a matter of choice, ask yourself why in god's name would anyone choose to live the life of an addict.  It sure ain't pretty.  Then you realize that may be the addict doesn't exercise much choice at all.  Even the highly functioning alcoholic.  And god knows, the CF has seen enough of those in earlier years. 

I really don't think it is just a matter of saying NO.  Ask any smoker or reformed smoker.  It's just not that easy and I don't think that non-addicts can really understand.  I know I can't and I have seen it first hand.  But I just can't understand NEEDING to consume alcohol/drugs just so I feel normal.  And that feeling is THEIR normal.  (Me?  It's my idea of a good Friday night when I know my husband will be getting up with the kids in the morning! )

I realise that people don't want to live the life of a crack addicted street walker/whatever.  But they do.  At one point, said person was not addicted to (insert drug here).  At some point they took the first hit/swig/toke/whatever.  Some may have "external factors", but in the end, someone made a choice, albeit a bad one, perhaps even thinking "that won't happen to me".  The sad thing is that it does.

In the end, however, I think we are arguing over a label.  Me, I call it a "self-induced condition", sometimes with some condition that makes that person more susceptible to being addicted to "stuff".    As stated earlier, I too am an addict, but I wouldn't say by any stretch that I have an illness (I smoke).  To me (a non-physician, I may add), an illness implies that a person is infected/afflicted with "something".  Addicts, such as I, have chosen, at one point or another, for some reason or another, to at least injest their first "sample" of "stuff".

So, in the end, addicts need help in the form of treatment and follow up.  That goes without saying.  I guess I'm arguing a minor (moot?) point?

Still, to me, a non-physician, a layman if you will, have trouble with calling alcoholism a sickness/illness.  Again, I'm totally NOT trained, but I feel (again, only my opinion) that in calling it an illness/sickness, the person so afflicted is viewed as totally without fault.  I believe (again, only my personal opinion) that at some point, alcoholics make decisions (poor ones, at that), for whatever reason. Same with junkies, crack heads, smokers (myself included).

 

[aesop081]

If you have ever seen an addict struggle to get off their drug of choice (alcohol or otherwise), you would realize that people don't really chose to be addicted. 

They chose to engage in behaviour / actions that directly lead to that addiction.

This woman was not a victim. She commited an illegal act and ended up in hospital for it.

 

[scoutfinch]

They chose to engage in behaviour / actions that directly lead to that addiction.

This woman was not a victim. She commited an illegal act and ended up in hospital for it.

I don't disagree with yours or Rockpainter's comments on initial choices.  Not one bit.  You are both correct. 

I think the thread moved away from the original post somewhat and my more recent posts were referring to addictions generally being an illness. 

 

[aesop081]

my more recent posts were referring to addictions generally being an illness. 

An illness that is self-induced.

Can i now sue Molson's if i was to develop liver problems because i drank excessively ?

Or sue the local cassino because i lost my life's savings & family  playing at their tables ?

Where do this stop ?

 

[scoutfinch]

I think we part opinions on the addiction being self-induced.  And even if there is an element  of personal responsibility, I have worked in health care as a nurse and I believe in treating the disease without judging the person.  I don't blame obese diabetics for requiring insulin.  I don't blame the Type A lawyer for having a heart attack caused by stress and inactivity.  I don't blame a smoker for lung cancer because it goes against my training and experience.  In my mind by the time an addiction or any of these other ailments arise, it is already to late for the moralizing.  Get the person well again and then see if they stay on the straight and narrow.

I respect your opinion and I genuinely understand the logic behind the 'personal accountability' model of thinking about addictions.  I just don't agree with it based on what I know from personal experiences in the world of health care.  That being said, I suspect I am not going to change your mind and I am pretty sure that I am not going to change mine so I'll let it go at that...

 

[aesop081]

As i respect yours. I certainly understand your position.

I just find it impossible to think of addicts as victims unless they were tied down and injected against their will. This woman made a decision to use illegal drugs and suffered the after effects of doing so. I dont think she should be lauded as a hero or rewarded for being stupid. Listening to her interview just made me mad. She blamed things on the dealer. She had it in her power to say no and not use drugs. She chose not to. Fortunately for her she did not pay for that with her life. She should be accountable for her actions.

Like i said, where does it stop ?

 

[FascistLibertarian]

According to the CMA alcoholism is a disease.

As well, I think the fact that the user smoked it WITH her dealer is somewhat important. Since it was at the guys grandmothers house, and there is no law that says you have to call 911, its ironic that if he let her die he would have had to pay nothing but by doing the right thing and calling 911 and saving her life, he has to pay $$.

Feelings anxious about her testimony in an upcoming sexual assault trial, one in which she was the victim, Bergen smoked crystal meth with Davey at his grandmother's house. She began to experience symptoms of a heart attack shortly after.

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 Sandra."

I think Davey should sue himself and the government should have to pay.

Anyways, our liberal society is screwed however you look at it.

 

[scoutfinch]

Trust me, I am the last person in the world to celebrate the cult of victimhood.

Personally, I can find no acceptable reason for the use of illegal drugs or the abuse of prescription medications.  I don't care if you weren't breast feed by your mother for long enough (or maybe too long) or if your Dad didn't hug you enough (or maybe he hugged you too much).  Life is made of choices for which we have to be held accountable.  Some people have been through hell and make a good life for themselves because of their choices.  Others have life given to them on a platter and still manage to f*ck things up because of their choices.

I just don't believe being addicted is a choice.  Getting addicted - yes.  But, once you are addicted, it is too late and then you cease to be able to exercise choice.  Like I said, all it takes is to see an alcoholic in full bloom and you realize that they no longer have the same options before them that they once did.  

As a student nurse, I witnessed a patient guzzle straight vodka before 8 am just so they could feel normal... after years of alcohol addiction, that was their version of normal.  And that was how he explained it to me... and it was the first time I had any inkling of 'why' an addict did what they did.... simply to feel normal.  Which is incomprehensible to me because I wake up every morning feeling normal... and a glass or two of wine makes me feel 'abnormal'.  It was a real eye opener for me and it changed how I view addictions generally and alcoholism specifically.  Some time after I left I was told that this man eventually drank himself to death.  I know he didn't want to die.  He just couldn't stop drinking.  It was tragic to watch a good man with a bad problem struggle so terribly.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

once you are addicted, it is too late and then you cease to be able to exercise choice.

what about all the people who have quit smoking, booze, other drugs?

 

[scoutfinch]

You know what they say about addictions??

Two things:

(1)  You have to hit rock bottom before you get help; and

(2)  Once an addict, always an addict. 

That is why they are called sober addicts.  The idea behind hitting rock bottom is that you have reached a point where the only option is quitting.  Given the point that you have fallen to, continuing with your addiction is no longer an option.  Hence, there still is no real options... just the choice is more positive.

 

[scoutfinch]

Please keep in mind, that this thread has morphed from its original subject (a legal matter) to a discussion on addictions. 

Given that I have been trained as both a nurse and a lawyer, I see these issues from different perspectives, neither of which are entirely compatible with the other.