Pubdate: Tue, 08 Nov 2005
Source: Abbotsford News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2005 Hacker Press Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.abbynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1155
Author: Scott Taylor

DRUG USERS HAVE TO ASSUME SOME RISKS

It seems that every day we either read or hear about lives lost or 
ruined as a consequence of selling or using illicit drugs. Efforts of 
politicians, police and our court system appear powerless to stop the 
mounting toll in human misery and social cost.

That's why I believe one recent news story, describing a different 
approach received as much media attention as it did, being heralded 
as a novel, but potential breakthrough strategy, in the war on drugs. 
Sadly, it's a view I don't share.

The story involved a Saskatchewan woman who suffered the misfortune 
of overdosing on crystal meth last year. As a result of the overdose, 
which put her in a coma for 10 days, she claims to have suffered 
permanent heart damage. What makes this story newsworthy is the fact 
that she recently commenced a civil negligence action in Saskatchewan 
court against the person who sold her the drug.

So what do I think are this woman's chance of success with her 
action? For any one of a variety of legal defences, slim and none, 
and slim is leaving town.

That's because in Canadian negligence law there are several key 
elements that must be to proven. Firstly, there is the negligent act 
itself, which presumes a duty or standard of care between the 
parties. In the case of the woman and her drug supplier, I can't see 
how a court could determine there is an appropriate standard of care 
which exists between this drug user and her supplier.

Secondly, to be successful with her claim the woman also needs to 
prove a causal link between the use of the drug and the damage to her 
heart. Considering the excessive lifestyle and unhealthy habits of 
most drug users I believe it would be virtually impossible to 
establish a causal connection between the drug she purchased on this 
particular occasion and her health problem.

And even assuming that the woman is able to overcome these difficult 
evidentiary hurdles she's still not guaranteed success because there 
are also several legal defences available which could effectively 
destroy or reduce her claim. The defence which I believe would be 
most effective is the defence known as the "voluntary assumption of risk."

By taking the illicit drug the woman is deemed to have assumed the 
risk and associated health damage caused by its usage.

All in all, despite the media hype, this claim by drug user versus 
drug supplier will not establish any useful legal precedent in 
society's battle with drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman