Faves for this Web page

• drew_s - Jan 13 2008 | law, news, health

  I think there might be a collectibility problem with suing drug dealers, but it is certainly interesting. See comments section for scathing reactions to the news.

  Quoted: A Saskatchewan woman who overdosed on crystal methamphetamine has successfully won a precedent-setting civil lawsuit against the drug dealer who sold her the highly addictive drug.

  • baorao - Jan 13 2008
    

    civil lawsuit for what? medical bills? isn't that free in Canada?

  • drew_s - Jan 14 2008
    

    non-economic damages: pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc.

  • baorao - Jan 14 2008
    

    Quoted: Bergen, who now uses her story to educate others about the dangers of drug use, said she is often judged unfairly by people who "don't know the circumstances."

    So her excuse is that she smoked crystal meth in order to calm her nerves ahead of a sexual assault trial in which she was the victim. However the math tells a different story.

    She is 23 now. According to the article she has been a drug addict since she was 18. The crystal meth heart attack occurred in 2004. So she was a drug addict for two full years before this incident, yet its the dealer's fault for selling her drugs?

    Canada sucks.

  • drew_s - Jan 14 2008
    

    A lot of the details seem shaky. My guess is that the reporter is responsible for the confusion and not the victim of a web of lies. Never in my life have I seen the meth-dealing community defended so vehemently. But I see your point.

  • baorao - Jan 14 2008
    

    I don't have a problem busting the dealer if he is admitting to selling her crystal meth. I just don't think the pain and suffering has any merit. Its the same with the Super Size Me fatasses that sue McDonalds.