The judge is not playing dumb. For example, if the user is 60% guilty, then the dealer can only be 40% guilty? Of course not. Each is responsible for his own actions.

Sure, the user is 60% or 100% responsible for her actions. That says nothing about the dealer's responsibilities. Dealer also is responsible - separately - for his own actions. A dealer who can cast blame on the guilty party (his provider), could have claimed he did not know the material was manufactured defectively. But the dealer has taken the position of 'prime contractor'. The 'prime contractor' takes responsibility for the actions of his subcontractors.

By not naming his provider, the dealer is a 'prime contractor' and therefore fully responsible for integrity (safety) of the product. This dealer sold dangerous product and is 100% guilty for selling a defective product.

That 100% guilt upon the dealer is completely independent of another irresponsible action by the user.

In a separate action, 6 ruffians kill a man. Each actively participated in the murder. Is each only 17% guilty of murder? Of course not. Each man is 100% responsible for his actions in a murder - regardless of how many others also participated. Some instead want to break blame up into pieces. Does not matter how many participated. Each guilty party is 100% responsible for what his own actions do - regardless of what others also do.

As I read it, the product was not defective. It was just by its nature a dangerous drug.
In some situations - such as car crashes, personal injury and unfair dismissals - I have seen judgments that apportion responsibility, but as you say, I've never seen it in a criminal trial.

But is it a "defect" when crystal meth gives the user a heart attack, or just a known risk? Gun manufacturers are not responsible when the buyers accidentally shoot themselves, why is this drug dealer automatically responsible for the fact that drugs are inherently dangerous?

Double Standard?

Guns can be seen as both good and bad while I don't know a single person that can point out a positive effect of crystal meth. There is no other motive to selling crystal meth besides getting money off other people's addictions. While I don't give the dealer 100% of the responsiblity, the dealer deserves a lot. As tw stated, it shouldn't go "the woman gets 40% of the responsibility and the dealer has 60%", both parties are 90-100% responsible for what happened unless there was some sort of sneaky coercion by the dealer.

Also, heart attacks could be a realistic side effect of pure crystal meth.

http://menshealth.about.com/cs/stds/...tal_meth_2.htm

I'm assuming heart attack can fall under that.


If it was defective crystal meth, then it is still the dealers fault but it still should be wary that these could be avoided by legalized and regulated drug use.

Yes, in criminal cases, more than one person can be 100% guilty. But in civil cases, it's not the same. The victim does not "get" anything in the punishment of the criminal, only society does. But assigning a dollar value that is direct restitution for the victim implies that the guilt can be measured. If she's 100% responsible for taking it, then giving her money for taking it doesn't make sense. She's only 100% responsible in a criminal court, where they can both receive appropriate punishment for their individual actions. As it is, he is being punished and she is being rewarded.

Yes, I agree that is fucked up.

What clear and utter bullshit. No one, NO ONE, taking a mind altering substance bought on the street is a victim.

It's way too simple. Both parties are 100% responsible for their actions.

The dealer, breaking the law selling illegal drugs. Is responsible for selling illegal drugs.


The woman breaking the law buying the illegal drugs. Is responsible for putting the drugs into her body. Period.

I'm tired of this PC bullshit trying to make a genderless world full of victims with no responsibility for our own actions. :rant:

Yes, and this has resulted in another bizarre legislative item in the War on Drugs:cop::joint: - The Marijuana tax stamp.

In order to make the case that illegal marijuana growers were given the opportunity to pay taxes on their illegal crop, the government in 1937 passed a tax act that taxed marijuana (or marihuana), even though it was illegal. In 1969, the court ruled that this violated the 5th amendment by forcing a person to admit to a criminal act (thanks to Timothy Leary).

This has not stopped states from getting into the game. Many states have recently passed similar laws, some of which have withstood constitutional challenges. I'm just guessing but possibly the thinking was that since states did not enforce federal drug laws there would be no direct self incrimination (I am not a lawyer and this is just speculation). What would be interesting is if the marijuana was for medical use and the state did call in the Feds, would they be violating HIPAA?

Update: I was close. The Oklahoma Tax Law that survived the challenge in theory granted immunity from state prosecution. This, coupled with the theory that the person buying the stamp did not have to prove that he was the possessor of the substance gave the court enough room to conclude that the law did not violate the 5th. Of course in the real world, the idea that someone could walk in, buy one of these stamps, and walk out without being subjected to any official scrutiny is ridiculous.

Apparently she won the suit! Does this open the floodgates for every junkie who isn't happy with his "count" or the quality of the drugs bought?

That will make the dealers make sure that what they sell is pure, not horse manure.

Speaking of horse manure...