WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?

[Duchess]

When one buys drugs from their dealer & the buyer abuses them, OD's and dies, who's responsible for the death? I'm not interested in the legalities, we all know about that, I'm interested in blame & personal responsibility.

[ramseycat]

I think you have to blame the user. The dealer is a dealer. Of course he's going to sell the drugs to whoever buys them.

[QueenBee]

I am with Ramsey. The dealer is not forced to sell to that particular user. And the user is the one ultimately responsible for his or her death.

[FAHQTOO]

The user is to blame.

If you buy a car and wreck it, it's not the dealers fault...unless there should have been a recall...like GM...and there wasn't.

[Donovan]

Surprisingly enough I come down on a different side of things. A seller or provider of ANY product with the potential to cause harm to the user is legally responsible to some extent for the effects of that sale, whether it's a legal or illegal substance. First off, a seller of drugs is committing a crime in the act of selling; therefore he or she is an accessory before the fact to any crimes that result from the use of that item.

For example, alcohol is 100% legal and theoretically sold to adults of sound mind; yet any bar or business that knowingly sells alcohol to a clearly intoxicated patron can be held liable for that person's acts up to and including vehicular homicide, death, misadventure, etc. Seen it happen plenty of times.

Right this minute in fact a woman in town is on trial related to the case in West Webster where a nutcase set fire to his neighborhood and killed a couple first responders. Queenbee shared the story. This chick didn't shoot anybody, didn't set fire to anything, didn't have anything at all to do with the nutjob's plan to wage war on the FD.

BUT

She DID knowingly provide weapons to a felon who was not supposed to own them and evidence shows she was aware he planned to kill his sister at least. So basically simply for assisting her neighbor to acquire guns later used in a crime, she is facing serious jail time. If the dude had killed himself or others with bad drugs she got him, it would be no different.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I see it about like Donovan. To me, dealers are scum because they sell a product that is illegal and in most cases harmful to people that are ultimately sick, from his products and weak individuals.

[HairOfTheDog]

To me, it doesn't matter whether the product or certain uses of the product are legal or not in determining who's responsible.

--If I buy a car, go street racing, and kill a person with my car; I'm responsible -- not the car seller or the manufacturer.
--If I buy 2 bottles and drink myself into a coma; I'm responsible -- not the liquor store or makers of Maker's Mark.
--If I purchase a bottle of prescribed Oxycotin, toss down a bunch of them and lose my mind; I'm responsible, not the pharmacy or the pharmaceutical company.
--If I buy a gun at a dealer and shoot myself in the foot cleaning it -- I'm responsible, not the dealer or Smith and Wesson.
--If I buy a bunch of heroin and OD -- I'm responsible, not my dealer or the manufacturer.

Since the car, the bottle, appropriately-prescribed pills and a by-the-book state-sanctioned gun purchase are legal, I'd probably have a better chance (or my family would, in the event that I died while using the product) in civil court than in criminal court if I or anyone wanted to blame the person/people who provided me access to the product that I misused or abused.

For heroin, illegally prescribed pills and illegally purchased/acquired guns, law enforcement can go after the dealers, the shady doctors/pill pushers, and the straw-purchasers or gun-traffickers for the specific crimes that they committed and I'm all for it. But, I don't think those law-breakers should be held responsible for the crimes that I committed or the repercussions (including death) that I suffered from misusing or abusing their products. That's all on me. IMO.

[crash]

I see it about like Donovan. To me, dealers are scum because they sell a product that is illegal and in most cases harmful to people that are ultimately sick, from his products and weak individuals.

See..

This is a slippery slope. The guy only exists because he has a market to supply. One could reasonably assume from your comments that the people who buy from this dealer guy are 'sick', a lower level of scum, or people that are willing to forgo their morals to get some drugs from somebody they know to be judged as scum from the majority of society. Kinda therefore, in turn, putting them on the same level as the dealer, previously established as scum.,

Sorry boss lady, F2, crash, Rams, Maggot, and whoever else has admitted to partaking in a little weed, you're all scum..

Hang in you say, that's just a little weed! Well, it's a prohibited substance. Dealers that are dealing it are probably dealing other stuff..

You see where that went?

If I don't buy it, dealer don't exist. If I don't but it, I don't do stupid shit on it.

[Duchess]

I'm not comfortable being scum. No, no, I'm not.

Puff, puff, pass.

[aussiefriend]

both.

[FAHQTOO]

I'm not comfortable being scum. No, no, I'm not.

Puff, puff, pass.

Ehhh...I'll be scum for the both of us if it makes you less uncomfy...hahaha...

Puff, puff, pass....

[HairOfTheDog]

When one buys drugs from their dealer & the buyer abuses them, OD's and dies, who's responsible for the death? I'm not interested in the legalities, we all know about that, I'm interested in blame & personal responsibility.

Hard for me to take the "legalities" out of it, but I feel the same way about it whether looked at from a legal or personal/moral perspective.

You sell illegal drugs to someone and they die from abusing those drugs (rather than because you cut the drugs with something fatal), you have to live with that knowledge and risk getting busted for dealing, distribution, etc.. But, you're not to blame for the OD death, IMO. The responsibility/blame for buying/using the drugs and the OD lies with the dead guy/girl.

[aussiefriend]

Even from a consumer point of view, you should be able to get some compensation for not getting what you paid for.

[Duchess]

Insomnia, Aussie?

[HairOfTheDog]

Even from a consumer point of view, you should be able to get some compensation for not getting what you paid for.

If the drugs were cut or laced and that directly led to the death, I'd agree.

But, we're talking about people buying drugs and over-consuming them -- overdosing. That's very different.

From a consumer point of view, the OP scenario is similar to living on a diet of Big Macs and fries then trying to blame McDonalds because you're obese. Or, buying a case of your favorite Shiraz and then trying to blame the winery because you drunk yourself silly and ended up with alcohol poisoning. Or, having working done on your face all of the time and then trying to blame the doctors because you look unnatural.

In each case, the consumer got what they paid for and over-consumed it -- which was their choice (or if they had a legitimate addiction, their personal burden). The supplier isn't responsible for the consumer abusing or overusing its product or service.

[Donovan]

HotD, does this reasoning hold true if the seller of the item knowingly sells something he has directly made toxic? Because this is the argument big tobacco and Monsanto use to avoid responsibility for the poisons they've knowingly sold. "Hey we didn't twist anyone's arm." But they did add known poisons to their products, tinker with the processing to include stuff with proven deadly effects, specifically obscure data and lie to hide any negative reports, and add addictive elements to the products in order to ensure difficulty in "just saying no." Behavior perfected by drug dealers the world over. Provide a product, make it highly addictive, choke off any other options, add toxic stuff to dilute the purity, PROFIT.

[HairOfTheDog]

For suppliers of heroin and other products that are illegal, they're responsible for breaking the laws against production/distribution/selling, etc... They're to blame for any legal consequences they might face as a result.

For consumers of heroin and other illegal products (which haven't been cut or laced), they know that they're purchasing a product with negative health impacts. They take the risk and it's their responsibility.

Same with alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, etc -- the negative health impacts are well known; it's each individual's personal responsibility to control their consumption.

When a supplier illegally fails to disclose ingredients or follow regulations and secretly knowingly renders a product toxic, then I think the supplier should be held responsible and is to blame for the negative impacts on its consumers -- the supplier is liable.

There are many cases where suppliers/companies knowingly broke laws and disregarded regulations in the process of putting profits over people's lives. Every time civil suit litigants and criminal prosecutors succeed in getting astronomical judgements against them or putting the decision-makers and their accomplices behind bars, I smile and hope that means that other suppliers/companies will be deterred from engaging in such unethical and/or illegal practices. But, I know that the penalties have to exceed the gross profit potential before some of the worst will be deterred in the slightest (or the regulations have to be increased and/or more strictly enforced).

Addiction complicates things when it comes to holding people personally responsible for their own knowing consumption because it's questionable as to whether the addict is able to make a choice or be held accountable for his/her actions in some cases. I get that reasoning and often sympathize with addicts and their loved ones when they OD or royally fuck up their lives. Still, I don't think the scummy illegal drug dealer is responsible for the addiction or the death of his law-breaking customers any more than I think the local bartender is responsible for the alcohol-related death of his customers.

These are just my general opinions regarding personal responsibility for our own adult actions, and other people's responsibilities to those who use/consume their products or services -- they might change depending on the specifics in some cases.

[aussiefriend]

Insomnia, Aussie?

yes it was. It's good to have somewhere to go when I have it.

[sally]

It's the User's fault. Alcohol, cigarettes and prescription narcotics cause just as much, death, suffering and addiction as any other substance. The only difference is the government says it's legal and there is a disclaimer on the package.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's the User's fault. Alcohol, cigarettes and prescription narcotics cause just as much, death, suffering and addiction as any other substance. The only difference is the government says it's legal and there is a disclaimer on the package.

Yeah, it comes down to choice for me too.

Suppliers who knowingly contaminate water and food with toxins that can cause disease, deformity, or death (as alleged to be the case with PGE Hinkley, Monsanto, Dow, etc...) are a different story. If those suppliers lie and cover-up / refuse to disclose / fail to correct the problems...because they don't want to bear the associated costs, they should be held accountable and liable for any health crises they can be shown to have perpetrated.

But, that's not really comparable to the OP scenario in my mind because the consumer has no choice or knowledge of the risks when drinking the water or eating the crops that were contaminated, though he does when he chooses to consume products like drugs, alcohol, cigarettes...