Suing the drug dealer

[dragon wench]

Suing the drug dealer

Lawsuit could be a first in Canada
By CP


REGINA -- Sandy Bergen has never had a problem wearing her troubles on her sleeve.

Ever since a crystal meth overdose almost killed her 18 months ago, the 21-year-old recovering addict has told anyone who will listen about the perils of the dangerously addictive street drug.

She's spoken with school kids and other addicts - she's even told her story to politicians at the provincial legislature.

It's with that same determination that Bergen has undertaken her next crusade against crystal meth.

She and her parents have filed a negligence lawsuit against the person she says sold her the drug, hoping it will make dealers think twice before they peddle a substance they know has the potential to ruin lives.

"It's not so much for the monetary gains," Bergen says from her home in Biggar, Sask., a small community west of Saskatoon. "It's just to kind of take control. I think it's a good way to get the victim to have a voice in all of this."

It's a suit that is believed to be the first of its kind in Canada. In the U.S., several states have passed laws that allow for drug dealers to be held financially liable for their crimes, but there is no such legislation in this country.

Annalise Acorn, a law professor at the University of Alberta, says a case such as Bergen's is not necessarily frivolous.

"The difficulty arises because you are trying to engage the legal system around an activity that is illegal, but at the same time obviously a wrong has been committed against the woman and I think there are a good number of legal ways in," Acorn says.

"The classic statement of negligence is where you know harm is reasonably foreseeable to your neighbour, there is a standard of care for you to act so that the harm doesn't take place."

Bergen says she started doing crystal meth when she was 18 and was hooked the first time she tried it. She had thought she had kicked the habit until a relapse in May 2004.

She alleges that it was her dealer who forced that relapse because he did the drug in front of her only days before Bergen was to testify in a sexual-assault trial.

Bergen says she was powerless to resist, given the stressful state she was in.

But after doing the drug, she says she knew immediately something was wrong.

"It felt like someone stuck a pencil in my brain," she says.

She began sweating and throwing up. Her legs and arms turned blue. She was taken to the hospital by her mother hours later, where it was discovered she had had a heart attack.

Over the next few days her condition worsened. Her heart, liver, kidneys and lungs all failed and she lapsed into a coma.

Miraculously, Bergen was able to recover after only 14 days in the hospital, but she has permanent damage to her heart.

She says she sleeps a lot more than she did before and can't work a regular job because she gets tired too easily.

The man's grandmother is included in the lawsuit because that is where Bergen overdosed. The person who sold the drugs to her dealer has also been included, though Bergen doesn't know who that is yet.

The statement of claim contains allegations that have not been proven in court. A statement of defence has yet to be filed.

I thought this was an interesting situation from a legal standpoint because what is not clear is whether the drug dealer forced the more recent encounter and coerced Bergen into taking crystal meth again, or if she was in his presence voluntarily.
Now.. my own take on this is that if the woman returned to the drug dealer's of her own accord the lawsuit holds no water.

Thoughts? Okay.. I know it's a bizarre topic. But it caught my attention, and I was curious to see what the minds here would make of it

[Hill-Shatar]

Quote:

Thoughts? Okay.. I know it's a bizarre topic. But it caught my attention, and I was curious to see what the minds here would make of it

But HighLordDave, fable and CE are not here.

*looks around*

You really should start adding no spam to the titles of your threads.

Anyways, considering the highly addictive nature on this drug and its ability to replace some vital chemicals, ect, in the human blood, it is no surprise that a human could give in so heavily.

What I want to really know is, the same as DW, why was she with her delaer and how did he seat her down long enough for him to do the drug in front of her? Why would he go to one of his old targets when you can easily find some new ones?

Oh wait, you read back, and find that he was at the dealers grandmothers? What was she doing there? That really is a mystery, as to why she would go to someones house, that she barely knows, that has both her dealer and the man whyo sells the meth to her dealer, present? What, exactly, was she doing there?

Anyways, the risks behind meth are high, like every drug. With her use of it, she was risking much more tha just a heart attack. She could have easily gone braindead, if she ODed. Shew used meth, combined with the stressful state. I do not know whether meth is a "upper" or a "downer" but it did lead to a heart attack. If she willingly toke this drug, she is just as guilty of taking it as the dealer of trafficing, ect.

[Athena]

Okay, the numbers are the allegiations and the 'd' stands for the defense.

1."filed a negligence lawsuit against the person she says sold her the drug, hoping it will make dealers think twice before they peddle a substance they know has the potential to ruin lives."
d.Buying a drug on the black market does pose risks, such as the substance being *coughillegal* dangerous. Anyone that might purchace these things should be 'wise' enough to know what they're in for. Always remember to indulge in moderation.

2."drug dealers to be held financially liable for their crimes,"
d.Drug dealers are merely pawns. It's the users that do the giving in.

3."The classic statement of negligence is where you know harm is reasonably foreseeable to your neighbour, there is a standard of care for you to act so that the harm doesn't take place."
d.Au' Contrar, negligence is blaming your neighbor for that last dose you took.

4."She alleges that it was her dealer who forced that relapse because he did the drug in front of her only days before Bergen was to testify in a sexual-assault trial.

Bergen says she was powerless to resist, given the stressful state she was in."
d.Could she find a few more ways to blame it on someone else!

P.S. Hill, Meth is an upper.

[dragon wench]

Indeed.
And I suspect it is no coincidence that how the woman came to be at the drug dealer's remains obscure. My guess is that any legal case would rest on that precise point.
Certainly, the drug dealer knew he was selling Bergen an addictive substance. But equally, she was just as aware of its addictive nature...

I'm hardly trying to justify the drug dealer's position, or anything like that. IMO, those people are scum.
However, I also believe that there is such a thing as taking some individual responsibility. If the dealer did not stalk and coerce Bergen..if she was there, at his grandmother's, voluntarily, surely Bergen bears at least as much culpability in this situation.

But, admittedly, I'm coming at this from the remote outside, and I've never had any substance abuse problems....

[Athena]

Meth swallows people's souls.

[dj_venom]

I've just got a quest... aren't illegal drugs just that, illegal?

How can someone be liable if they are already not following the law. Now, they have no written contracts, and as they say, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on . So she has no proof of any deals between her and the dealer.

And how can she say this isn't for the money, all kids would have been told that drugs are bad, her included. Now, she says by doing this she will send a message... lady, the message has already been out there, no one listens to it, so this won't make a difference.

I doubt this case will be proceeded, and if it is, I seriously doubt that it will be in favour of her. Just think, the courts would be flooded if this set a precident, so they will be anxious about doing that too.

But hey, this is just my ramblings, as I can't really talk because I don't know the Canadian legal system, so count me out.

[Fiona]

@DJ Just one small point. Prostitution is illegal in this country but there was a legal case which established they are liable to pay tax on their earnings.

[dj_venom]

Now isn't that just another case of the law being stupid.

And hey, if the goverment gains money from illegal activities, then surely they should be arrested too.

[asdfjklsemi]

Negligence during the commission of a crime doesn't erase the negligence; it compounds the crime. Negligence has little to do with whether the other party is willing or not; it's about your own, well, *negligence* in doing something essentially harmful. See the recent tobacco lawsuits.

Why is it stupid that taxes are owed from illegal activities? If it were otherwise, everyone would simply become criminals and never pay taxes. Income tax is exactly that--*income* tax, not legal activities tax. Naturally, if criminal activity were reported as the source of income, the government would not only take the tax money but pursue the case. Tax evasion is a major way significant criminals are brought down. What about that makes the government--which issued the money in the first place--criminal?

[dj_venom]

So you think the government should let the illegal activities go on as long as they are getting money? The end justifies the mean aye?

Well I think that if an activity is illegal it should not be taxed, rather, it should be halted immediately. To get the tax, you need to have the information, and once you have that, you can easily arrest someone.

Now, when they arrest them, yes, I would support the goverment seizing the ill-gotten loot, however I don't think that should be thought of as tax.

[asdfjklsemi]

I said exactly the opposite. Or rather, I noted that's exactly what the gov't already does. You seem to bizarrely be accusing the gov't of committing the criminal's crime. If you are suggesting the gov't *doesn't* immediately prosecute people who report criminal activity as a source of income, you're incorrect and beating a straw man.

What alternative system do you propose for collecting taxes and somehow predistinguishing whether the taxpayer's gains are ill-gotten or not? Crystal balls? Time machines?

[dj_venom]

No, when I said that the goverment was illegal, I was joking.

And as for telling whether the taxes are illegal, when you pay taxes, all the necessary information must also be attached, such as where you work and complete earnings with proof. So if people are gaining money from illegal activities, then they will obviously be found out if they pay tax, so therefore, they don't.

Anyway, I think this is all a matter of minunderstanding, so I'm willing to drop it... plus, between you and me, I think it's a tad off topic, sorry mods .

[Chanak]

Criminals suing criminals: another example of how out of control the legal system has become, at least in the US.

When one violates the law via a criminal act, they violate the social contract. This has the effect of negating what rights they may possess under the law to be afforded the protection of the law as it applies to the criminal activity in question. The conduct of a criminal enterpise/entity by definition does not fall under the auspices of business law and code; rather, it falls under criminal law.

In the US, it is possible to sue anyone or anything via a civil suit. It is through this avenue that some of the most absurd and pathetic travesties of justice occur in the US. Example: the criminal that sues the victim for injuries incurred during the commission of a crime. That courts agree to hear cases such as this is a statement about this society.

The same applies to the drug abuser attempting to utilize the legal system to pursue legal action against a drug dealer. The drug abuser committed a crime in the purchase of the illegal substance in the first place; this alone should disqualify such an individual from being able to purse legal action in regards to their own criminal activity, or the criminal activity of another in association with their crime.

To the best of my knowledge, any income derived from criminal activity, far from being subject to taxation, is subject to seizure by legal authorities. The same applies to assets such as land, vehicles, jewelry, etc. This is the case in the US; I cannot speak for the legal systems of other countries.

[Phreddie]

In the U.S. if you commit a crime your right of protection under the law are not void, certain rights are taken away ie the right to vote but you are still a citizen and stil gauranteed equal protection.

[slade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanak Criminals suing criminals: another example of how out of control the legal system has become, at least in the US.

Or even worse is a criminal sueing because he hurt himself commiting a crime. There was a case a while back that a thief broke into someones house and while attempting to do that the person broke his leg or arm and sued and actually won.