CTV News | Ex-crystal meth addict successfully sues dealer

Canada -   

Ex-crystal meth addict successfully sues dealer

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Sandra Bergen, sued drug dealer

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(94)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Wed. Jan. 9 2008 10:27 AM ET

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.

Sandra Bergen, 23, and her family launched a lawsuit against Clinton Davey in 2005 after she suffered a heart attack in Biggar, Sask. that left her in a coma for 11 days.

She has since developed a heart condition that leaves her constantly fatigued and limits her chances of ever having children.

In her statement of claim, Bergen said Davey knew the drug was highly addictive and the sale of the drug was "for the purpose of making money but was also for the purpose of intentionally inflicting physical and mental suffering on Sandra."

Bergen, who says she has been drug-free since the 2004 incident, told Canada AM on Wednesday that a lack of action within the criminal justice system left her and her family frustrated.

"We found a different way to hold him responsible through the civil justice system," she said from Saskatoon.

An unknown drug supplier, referred to as John Doe, was also named in the suit. Davey refused to name his alleged supplier during court proceedings, prompting a judge to strike his claim of defence.

Without a claim of defence, Davey effectively admitted his liability in the case leaving Bergen's suit unopposed.

Bergen is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 for medical costs and legal fees. A hearing to determine how much she will be awarded in damages is scheduled for a later date.

Bergen said she doesn't expect to gain much financially from winning the suit, but hopes the case will inspire others to sue drug dealers who profit from addicts.

"It's bigger than me and it's bigger than this guy," she said. "I think it's a different way to hit drug dealers financially and that's where it will really hurt them."

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."

In Davy's statement of defence, he claims Bergen "did assume the risk to her person when she voluntarily ingested the illegal drugs."

Bergen maintains she has taken responsibility for her poor choices by getting sober.

"I think that's taking responsibility for my actions, I don't think I need to take responsibility for both of our actions. He should have to meet me half way and that's what this lawsuit was about," Bergen said.

A drug addict since the age of 18, Bergen's overdose occurred in 2004.

Feelings anxious about her testimony in an upcoming sexual assault trial, one in which she was the victim, Bergen smoked crystal meth with Davey at his grandmother's house. She began to experience symptoms of a heart attack shortly after.

Statistics Canada estimates crystal meth offences increased by eight per cent last year. The drug already has a firm grip on the Prairies, where pharmacies have limited the sale of cold remedies that contain its key ingredient -- pseudoephedrine.

Crystal meth is a relatively cheap drug to make, which has prompted hundreds of illegal, and potentially volatile, drug labs to pop up across the country.

Police estimate an investment of $150 can produce up to $10,000 of the highly-addictive drug.

Comments are now closed for this story

P.R.
said
0 0

You're kidding.. a drug addict sues her dealer?

What is wrong with the legal system in Saskatchewan???

Am I the only one who see's the disgusting angle of this?


Dixie from Alberta
said
0 0

Only in Canada. What a great legal system. Can't send child molestors to prison, but sue your drug dealer - right on!! Talk about an upside down court system. Where is the drug dealer going to get his money to pay this lady ... sell more drugs?


Matt
said
0 0

No PR you're not alone. This is just crazy. I understand, from taking some courses on Canadian civil liability law (not a legal student, just part of an engineering program) that in Canada almost anyone involved in any operation can be held liable for almost anything that happens at any time ever. It all comes down to courts looking at precedent and making rational decisions, but the civil law is wide open.

Everyone is aware of the dangers of drugs, especially meth. This makes no more sense than suing cigarette companies for cancer, when packs have had warning labels for 40+ years, and quitting programs/advertisements have been increasingly imposed on us. I understand lawsuits filed 15-20 years ago by smokers who were misled but nowadays the warnings are clear.


Paul
said
0 0

Third world here we come........


Smokin Joe Canadian
said
0 0

I am a cigarette smoker. Can I sue the Federal Government for making money from the sale of cigarettes to me, knowing full well the dangers. I'll take 50 per cent responsibility if the federal government will.

Ya Right!!
Good Luck with that!!


Davis
said
0 0

What a disgrace! Lock them both up!


james
said
0 0

Seems like a classic case of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. Easier to blame someone else. If the dealer stuck a syringe in her arm while she was fighting, yeah, maybe I can see the case. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.


N.v.L
said
0 0

Seems like it pays to have a drug addiction...this is ridiculous.


N.v.L
said
0 0

If you jump off a bridge and died, would your family successfully sue the builder of the bridge because he made it available to you?? You made the choice. Good job for cleaning your life up but suing the dealer? Really??
Shouldn't the dealer just be arrested for selling drugs?? Neither of them are victims here.


dh
said
0 0

It is good that someone is taking action against the dealers, but come on...nobody forced her to use the drugs.


Jon
said
0 0

Yeah, P.R., this really doesn't make sense for an admitted addict to sue her drug dealer.

Might as well sue her parents at the same time for not helping her stop I guess? lol


Brian Livingstone
said
0 0

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the use of drugs, but this girl, knowing what the drug is and does, willingly bought the illegal product from whomever, sued and won!!!?
P.R. said it..what is wrong with the legal system altogether!


B.G.
said
0 0

If you can sue your drug dealer, why can't you sue the cigarette companies?!?!
What a joke!
I'm appalled and disgusted!


Fred
said
0 0

It's true, it does seem weird or backwards or something. Honestly though, if it makes dealers think twice before selling, it might be effective.

I don't understand how someone can sell meth to a kid with a clean conscience. I say we bring back public floggings for those people.


Eric
said
0 0

Does this open me up to sue MacDonalds for making me fat? Maybe I could sue Sony for the playstation making me lazy. This girl knew what she was taking. She should take responsibility for her actions and shortcomings and not blame her supplier.


Raymond
said
0 0

Nothing like taking responsibility for one's own actions. This is so sadly typical of modern society; that is to blame others for our own stupid decisions. Pathetic.


Alexander
said
0 0

What's disgusting is this blame the victim attitude. She got over her drug addiction, and she was frustrated with the lack of action in the criminal justice system. If you were in her shoes, you probably would have at least considered the same thing.


Lou
said
0 0

Did this girl not know the risks that comes with taking drugs? Did she not wonder why drugs are illegal? What a joke!!!


JJ
said
0 0

PR I guess you are the only one who thinks this is disgusting.

I commend this girl for being brave enough to sue her dealer. What gives the DEALER the right to provide drugs to people? Yes she was at fault as much as he was, but she wouldn't have become addicted and suffered a heart attack if he would not have provided the Deadly Drug.

my 2 cents



Lisa
said
0 0

This sets an interesting precedent. Did the girl expect the dealer to warn her of the dangers of meth? Was she expecting a disclaimer on the side effects? This is laughable if you ask me. Buyer beware baby! What ever happened to personal responsibility!?


Patrick
said
0 0

Bar owners can be sued and charged for negligence so why not drug dealers? How can you argue with something that might prevent the spread of drugs?


Shirley Catton
said
0 0

No. you're not the only one. When are we going to wake up and realize we are all responsible for our own decisions, nobody can make us do anything.
S.C.


JK
said
0 0

"In her statement of claim, Bergen said Davey knew the drug was highly addictive..."

And the girl didn't know it was addictive? Maybe she shouldn't have smoked it. Apparently, drug users are no longer responsible for their actions.


Amy
said
0 0

It's the new social norm - don't take responsibility for your own actions. It's somebody else's fault you take illegal drugs for the sole purpose of getting high? Don't tell me you didn't know it was addictive, illegal and dangerous before you took it - I'm not as naive as you would have to be.


P.R.P.
said
0 0

Yes P.R., you are probably one of the few mentally-challenged that "sees the disgusting angle" of this. All I can say is "RIGHT ON", as obviously the legal system is incapable of addressing the parasitic human destruction of these druggie low-lifes that continue to leach on our society. If the justice system cannot get these parasite dealers to do any real time, then by all means hit them as hard as possible in the pocket book. These low-life dealers don't deserve any form of consideration, and should be hunted with all and any resources that can be made available!


Anonymous commentor
said
0 0

Hope it is a successful case. It's too bad she took the toothbuster drug that got her heart damaged.


SD
said
0 0

I agree with you P.R.

She caused this problem herself, and its time she grows up and takes responsibility for her own life.

How much more of our Canadian Tax Dollars Must be wasted on pointless trials like this one?


Ian
said
0 0

Where is the legality in this?

This is why drugs are illegal because they can cause serious/fatal harm to people. You can’t take illegal drugs then complain about how they hurt you.

That's like if someone deliberately overdosed on a bottle of pills then blamed it on the manufacture. “Your pills hurt me when I took the whole bottle” DUH!

What’s wrong with Canada’s legal system!



Paul
said
0 0

Lawyers vs drug dealers. Who am I supposed to cheer for? :)


Sharon Corrant
said
0 0

Actually this is a great precedent! This could give others an opportunity to follow the same course of action - civil liabilities for those who help to get people high and who profit from getting people addicted.

Tamara
said
0 0

I think it is great. If it give the dealers of this country one more second of pause it is worth it.


PC
said
0 0

I think this is fantastic!

Then the drug dealer can sue his supplier, on and on all the way up the chain and then the police can just go and arrest the top guy as they'll have all the evidence they need from the court transcripts.

Brilliant.


D.B.
said
0 0

As much as I like to see the dealer punished in any way - I wonder what is next?

Suing my car dealer for selling me the truck that I run into a telephone pole while speeding?

Suing the LCBO for selling alcohol to the drunk before he drives into a ditch (or worse) ?


JH
said
0 0

Why not? Obviously jail ain't happening, so sue the scummy bastards. Something's gotta be done.


CA
said
0 0

It is about time !!
What's wrong with the legal system is that it allows drug dealers to roam the streets...period. And how about the creeps that disguise the drug in candy appearance and give it to children ??


J
said
0 0

No P.R your not the only one that sees it. Hopefully a smarter higher court judge will throw this nonsense out.


David in Ontario
said
0 0

This is absurd. SHE voluntarily injested the drug, and someone else is to blame? Forget climate change, our society will implode shortly, because "it's everyone else's fault but mine."

P.R. you are DEFINATELY not alone on this one!


S. Reynolds
said
0 0

I'm not sure why you are so offended by this, P.R. I applaud the legal system in Saskatchewan for this. The courts don't seem to want to do anything about drug dealers, giving them sentences that are JOKES, so if families can hit these guys in the wallet, then good for them!!

DM
said
0 0

Why not?

The drug dealers are fully aware of the effects their product has on people. Why shouldn't they be liable given the addictive nature of the product? The successful lawsuits against the tobacco insudtry in the USA clearly takes away liability from the user.

And by the way, selling illegal drugs is ILLEGAL!!
Who really cares if these criminals are sued?


R.B
said
0 0

P.R.

You must be a drug dealer for this to bother you...The only way to hurt these dealers is to go after there money, I think it's a great victory as Police have to much red tape in catching these dealers and making charges stick!


cam
said
0 0

nope you're not the only one P.R. No one wants to be responsible for their own actions anymore.


MD
said
0 0

That is ridiculous! She made the choice to use the drug,knowing drugs are addictive.She and her family should ashamed of themsleves.


Michael Miles
said
0 0

Personally I think the government should be the ones being sued. If a government cared enough about its population then these drugs would not be able to be made. Go to the pharmacy and all the ingredients to make crystal ,eth is on the shelves for easy sale.
This is the problem.
The only goal for the government is to keep its population down and out. A focused population is enough to bring down the government and they know it so they keep us down in misery.

Wake up people. They are going to kill us.


T.F
said
0 0

Yes P.R., you are the only one. They are criminals dude!


C.C.
said
0 0

I agree with P.R. that this is a total joke. As soon as she came out of the coma she should have been transported directly to jail along with her dealer


Bruce in Edmonton
said
0 0

Just another example of how badly aligned our social and judicial systems are with reality. Who in their right mind could possibly justify the huge waste of tax dollars and court time with a totally pointless legal suit?


William Tepperman
said
0 0

I think it's a great idea. Less dealers = less addicts.


Lily
said
0 0

No you aren't. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Does it not exist in Saskatchewan?


KH
said
0 0

It seems fair to me - if the dealer misrepresented the product and brought undisclosed medical conditions, the dealer should be sued.


priska urben
said
0 0

JJ, give your head a shake - if she wouldn't have gotten the drugs from this dealer, she would have found another!
I totally agree with P.R. and all the others who feel it is high time that we all take responsibility for our own actions!
PU


A
said
0 0

Seems like the system wants to set examples out of dealers. Harm reduction strategy..picture this: the more drug-users shed light on their dealers, the more selective/clandestin dealers will become with their sales. This case could drive dealers to produce quality product (deter dealers from selling "cheap" and dangerous highs) for the sake of keeping their income. If not a scare to dealers, maybe drug abusers will avoid letting it get to the point of life/death and seek the happyeverafter deliverance that Prime Minister Harper promised in Oct 2007..


Former addict
said
0 0

Dear P.R.:
Obviously you don't know the facts about addiction and how powerless a person becomes once addicted to a substance. No, the dealer didn't force the victim to purchase the drug but he certainly helped support her habit by illegaly supplying it.

As a former addict (clean for six years now) I agree with the court's decision and I think this should be an example followed by other Provinces.

Withought the dealers on the streets, the initial "experimentation" with drugs would diminish significantly and prevent people from eventually getting "hooked" in the first place.

Dealers are breaking the law, they are ruining lives and families and they should pay for it.

If every addict (willing to get help) would follow suit and sue their dealers, you would see a decrease of dealers on the streets, and that's most important.


Lee H.
said
0 0

wow i suppose if you can sue tabacco or drug companies for unsafe product why not. I suspect this dealer knew the product was dangerous and sold it anyway.Burden of proof as far as this was the actual purchase that caused the incident could be difficult. Our culture has already accepted that we as individuals are not responsible for our own personal health or common sense, everything must be developed to reduce any harm coming to user no matter how obvious misuse can be.


JL
said
0 0

All this will do is clog up our already overworked court and legal system with ridiculous cases like this. This woman willingly took meth and (surprise!)it had adverse medical affects. Logical consequences?


M.R.
said
0 0

P.R.P. you're on the money. I couldn't agree more. This is excellent, the police are defenseless in many cases against these lowlifes and they end up walking free. The drug dealer enabled her, he is responsible and should be made to pay. Hopefully we see this happening all over the world now and end the irresponsible, wreckless greed of the illicit drug industry. Dealers don't care if the person lives or dies, they only care about their greed. So let's attack them where it hurts most. This is sweet payback!


Tom in Windsor
said
0 0

Why not?
She almost died and this dealer was going to get off scott-free?
If you can't get him one way, get him another.
She probably won't get a cent from this guy, and maybe she shouldn't, but at least the police have something else to use against him. If he doesn't pay up...they got him.
Dealers should be hit by the legal system any way possible.
What they really deal is death and misery.


David
said
0 0

Does this mean that she will "take responsibility for her poor choices" and meet him halfway by reimbursing 50% of her medical costs to the Province?


Intelligence: The Anti-drug
said
0 0

Although it's terrible that girl went through such agony in hospital, were the drugs forced into her? Was she tricked into taking them?

Doubtfully.

If you're stupid enough to buy and use meth, then you should take the punishment you get for it. You've gotta be pretty slow-witted right from the start to even put that rubbish in your body!!


Richard Le Clerc
said
0 0

I am the parent of a drug addict and all I can say is whatever works to hit these people then let's do it. A drug addict cannot always reason for themselves but a dealer can.


Lee
said
0 0

Sorry but I think this is ridiculous. That means we can all sue anyone who contributes to our ill health, Cigarettes, Alchol, fastfood chains, the list goes on. If meth addicts don't want to die ... get off of the stuff, get help. Nobody forced these addicts to use the drug they did it by choice the first time. The bad effects of this drug have been made public for years. We all know by common sense no drug you snort shoot smoke ingest, smoke or otherwise is good for you unless perscribed by a physician. You want to try it and get hooked ? Your choice. This has set a precedent now. Now every drug user will run around blame and try to get money. This is a horrible thing, i'm sorry she went through the health problems she did but then again this lady is the only one to blame for her own poor health not the pusher and money won't compensate a thing!


Dave
said
0 0

I wonder whether this lawsuit will have any practical effect. Let's face it, most drug dealers are not rich. They tend to smoke most of their profits. This woman may have a judgement against the drug dealer, but if he has no assets to seize, all she may get from the lawsuit is some personal warm feeling and a large legal bill.


Tom (Ottawa)
said
0 0

I believe that the only reason the Court has decided to favour the Addict in this case was to send a clear message to the dealers in that province that you are not safe.

It is a sort of twisted analogy, if it works good for the Courts, and any future resident of the province that might fall prey to drugs.

Drug dealers always give you a first "sample" to someone just curious about a drug. This is very similar to food tasting in the legal business.

If there are no drug dealers then the chances of ruining lives are curbed, not to say that that individual might not find personal means of acquiring a high.

Nonetheless, if you start taking out pieces of the puzzle then eventually it will cease to exist or another issue might arise.

In this case, I feel drugs of this nature should be outlawed and fine people a big sum for dealing and usage, once the fine is greater than the profit and trouble then it becomes less lucrative to sell and consume.


TC
said
0 0

I think this is a very innovative way of making a positive contribution during this woman's rehabilitation. Now, with that said - I'd rather the drug dealer's contribution was making my license plates, but if I can't have that this works.

Based on this case, if I were the government profiting from the sale of cigarettes then I'd be a bit worried.

Yah right! (dream on...)


NC
said
0 0

Misrepresented the product??? It was made in somebody's garage for crying out loud! Sorry, the court is way off base, this is a foolish act by the judge to hold the dealer accountable because it opens the door to future cases of "I'm stupid enough to take drugs but I shouldn't be held responsible for what happens to me" That's why illegal drugs were made ILLEGAL -they can't be controlled.


Allan Eizinas
said
0 0

Anyone can sue for anything that they want to in a civil court.

That is the nature of our judicial system.

If you win your suit or not depends on what kind of defence or counter-suit is presented.

In this case there was no defence so the suit was won by default.

It does not set a precedent for anything.



Peter - Calgary
said
0 0

I think its a great idea for dealers to be sued. Any legal weapon ought to be used against them.

What i'm worried about is a lot of money getting into the hands of addicts.

I'm a recovering addict myself and i'm saying this. Sure, it's possible, through a miracle, to stop. But trust me, the chances aren't that high.


Wag
said
0 0

The person who sold it should be prosecuted by the Crown as a criminal matter. This isn't a civil matter. The risks associated with this particular drug are well known. The girl took the drugs willingly and therefore can't claim ignorance.



A.L.
said
0 0

[QUOTE]
KH
It seems fair to me - if the dealer misrepresented the product and brought undisclosed medical conditions, the dealer should be sued.
[/QUOTE]

How did the dealer misrepresent the drug and bring about "undisclosed medical conditions" ... The pharmacology of the drug is a KNOWN central nervous system stimulant which affecting neurochemical mechanisms responsible for regulating heart rate (among others).


Cj
said
0 0

I heard this girl talk at a conference against drug addiction and it was horrible. She has taken no responsibility for the choices that she made. She paid money for drugs that she voluntarily took.

I believe that drug dealers should be held accountable but this girl needs to deal with her own issues and not blame them on someone else.


Bejhan
said
0 0

I cannot believe that she won this case. She voluntarily used crystal meth - a drug known to most people, who haven't had their heads buried in sand for the last year, as one of the most dangerous as it is highly addictive and comes with countless health risks. I was thinking I wanted a new car, I should just go buy ecstasy from the local drug dealer, take too much and not drink any water and when I end up in the hospital in critical condition I will sue the dealer! Canada's legal system is ridiculous, first of all the their laws regarding child molestation and animal cruelty aren't nearly harsh enough, and second of all you can pretty much commit any crime and serve less that half of your sentence. People who commit murder and are sentenced to 25 years can get out in 10. I'm glad to see everyone else is as outraged as me.


Zand
said
0 0

Honestly, I don't condone drug use, or the selling of illegal drugs, or making drugs look like candy... but this was a case of two consenting adults both of whom knew the dangers associated with crystal meth.

Yes I'm glad that there is one less dealer on the street. Am I happy about the way he got there? No.

I am glad the "victim" acknowledges that she will probably not profit from her win. Why should she? There wasn't a gun held to her head and forcing her to do the meth with her dealer.

I am sorry to hear that she has now developed life long health issues and may not be able to have children, but perhaps this too will give people pause. If making an example out of the dealer will stop someone else from dealing, perhaps she too will be an example for people to not engage in illegal drug use.



FC - Ontario
said
0 0

What a crock! The addict should be ordered to provide urine samples for the next extended period of time - any signs of re-use (of anything); pay the settelement back - plus interest.

Where is the focus here? Smokin Joe - you're right on! Same goes for the Liquor Stores.

This judge should be ashamed at this decision as well as the cost to the taxpayer!


Pam
said
0 0

I agree everyone should take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time, who cares what happens to this drug dealer? Have you ever had a child who was going out and getting drugs? I had friends in this terrible situation growing up and their parents (and I, their friend) were powerless to stop them. Yes, I realize this raises werid issues on responsibility, but the fact remains this man was peddling meth - which is one of the most debilitating, toxic street drug.

All of this "I'd rather be in the third world" nonsense is extremely short-sighted and seems just plain ignorant.


Tim
said
0 0

Why all the negativity from people? This is good news! I have no sympathy for the drug dealer. Finally we see some justice in the legal system. These people who sell this junk to people need to be prosecuted any way possible. Shame on all you commentators who oppose this step in the right direction for our legal system. You knowingly create physical harm, then pay the price.


J.P.
said
0 0

Can the Canadian Government sue her for negligence to cover the cost of her hospital visit? Taxpayer money is pooled for things like medical attention due to accident. The fact that she was hurt while commiting an illegal act tells me she is at fault and should have to compensate the government for the medical treatment she received. I am a compassionate person but it is hard to feel sorrow for people who do not adhere to laws created to protect them from this exact problem. That money should be used to educate others on why crystal meth is dangerous, like they don't already know.


ishmael
said
0 0

It's great to see a drug dealer getting punished but to sue him as though he was running some legal business that sold her shoddy product... I'm not sure how to feel about this.
Time will tell if the courts will be flooded with more cases like this.


Steve
said
0 0

Drug dealers don't sell drugs, drugs sell themselves. Your delusional if you think this decision will have any deterrent effect on drug dealing. The demand for drugs has always and will always be there.


GW
said
0 0

Why are so many appalled by this? Who cares if she sues this guy and wins? Must be all the cigarette smokers stepping up and sharing their twisted view on human rights. Have another cigarette.


DD from Alberta
said
0 0

Whoever thinks this is going to curb anyone’s decision to deal drug is living in dream land. Generally people who involve themselves in this sort of activity convince themselves that they will not get caught…that’s why they do it. Courts extorting money from the dealers, I would suspect would force them to sell more drugs, and why wouldn’t they? There are a lot of “victims” willing to buy their product. The dealer should be punished, but the girl should also be charged for fueling the demand


Jamie from Ontario
said
0 0

First, this is not necessarily a denying of responsibility on the part of the victim - the suit recognizes the victim did something wrong, but so did the dealer. We call this contributory negligence or multiple defendants - shared responsibility. I always say if someone punches you - sue them. The criminal justice system is not really geared to help the victim - aside from the dubious protection of deterrence, so it is appropriate to sue someone who harms you. I also think you should be able to sue tobacco companie - the law does recognize your own responsibility for your stupidity, but recognizes the tobacco dealer's as well. Good on her!


KG
said
0 0

I can sympathize with the frustration that this person must have felt due to the legal system failing to help her out. However, I question her methods. Suing the dealer seems like an easy way out. Shouldn't she, instead, be campaigning for the laws to change? This would be more difficult, but would benefit all future victims, if successful.


JD
said
0 0

After reading the article and reviewing the comments, one thing is clear. People are stupid.

The self centered commenter’s are concerned about their tax dollars instead of the well being of society.

The ignorant commenter’s regurgitate the propaganda they’ve been indoctrinated by. “Punish the dealer and the problem will go away.”

And while the majority of commenter’s believe this is one individuals attempt to neglect the free will and choice of personal responsibility, they are still suffering from the illusion this is a simple right and wrong situation.

While the legal proceedings that will follow are likely to be the topic of comedic punch lines for weeks to come, the only true value apparent in this story is the media attention it has been receiving. This coverage will hopefully contribute to the ongoing awareness campaign about the dangers of meth.

Drug use is complex. It has been universally woven and entrenched into the societal fabric of mankind. Almost everyone here has passed judgment without coming to the realization they too have involvement with drug trafficking. History has shown revolutions being suppressed and lands being stolen as personal ambitions empower us to deploy drugs as an weapon against our fellowman.

Drug trafficking, next to prostitution, is the oldest industry of our race. It’s time we treated drug use for what it is. A societal problem derived from human nature.



Stephan
said
0 0

This girl has totally cleaned up her life, she's dealing with life long side-effects, and is donating her time to schools and groups to bring attention to a huge issue.

Sounds like she's taking responsibility to me.

If you don't do anything about a problem, chances are it wont just go away.

Commendable job on doing your part to put a stop to this Sandy!!!!




kevin
said
0 0

well i have to be on the fence with this one as of course the addiction and affects of taking the drug should not be blamed on anyone else other then the user of such drugs at the same time the dealer did profit from selling illegal substances to the user so as the supplier being the one making the addictive drug being used available does hold some responsibilty and of course the criminal system sure isnt getting the dealers off the street so if this is one way to hurt them then go ahead. In the end i think the dealer should be fined the $50,000 but it should not go to the user it should be paid toward the costs of the court preceedings and back into the tax dollars.


Jennifer Gierl
said
0 0

This whole case is a double sided sword. I think what she did was great but she also needs to acknowledge her own responsiblility. We need to make the dealer responsible too. They continue to target younger and younger children that don't know the risks and addictiveness of these drugs. They just tell them it's candy. It's a way of protecting them.


Kayla
said
0 0

I find some of these comments interesting.

I think it is very simplistic to say that if you get rid of the dealers, then there will be no drugs, and then there will be no addicts. There's something called supply and demand. There are way too many factors at play to say that a reduced supply will lessen the demand. Doesn't work that way.

Also, comparing drug dealers to bar owners is a little silly. Alcohol is a legal substance in this county and it's production, sales, and consumption are governed by various agencies. By agreeing to participate with those activities they are agreeing to the rules that apply. Since illegal drugs are not regulated then the same rules shouldn’t apply. The victim should not expect a duty of care from the drug dealer.



Shelley S
said
0 0

Speaking as a drug addict and alcoholic in recovery, I can sympathize with the 'victim', however this is a dangerous road to travel, since it removes accountability and choice from Miss Bergen (where it belongs) and places it on somebody else. If I used that kind of attitude in MY recovery program, I never would have stayed clean for the past 8 years...


Khai
said
0 0

While each side brings to the table a considerable standpoint, there's one other perspective that I am concerned about and that is boosting the "invincibility mentality" of potential drug users, especially youth.
We teach our citizens that illegal drug use is to be avoided at all costs, but then reward them in a Canadian court of law? When considering drug use, new users now may feel a sense of protection for negative outcomes that may befall them. "Oh well, even if I get addicted, I'll just sue my dealer!" seems like a get-rich-quick scheme that holds financial appeal for many would-be users, and may weight then should I/shouldn't I equation more heavily in the drug-use direction.
This removal of consequences is an unfortunate stand to take on a subject that negatively impacts the health of so many.


Disappointed in Edmonton
said
0 0

Let's all slow down and read the article.
The reporting Journalist clearly states that the drug dealer did not have a defense filed. It was an undefended judgment, and really as simple a concept there is out there, no defense means the Plaintiff gets the judgment.
Beyond being novel there is remarkable about this case, what is remarkable is the willingness of Canadians to continue to criticize the judicial system in circumstances where it would appear as though many of the commentators didn't read beyond the title of the article.
You don't need to have a doctorate on the operation of our legal system, but before you take the opportunity to pontificate on the shortfallings of the legal system, try educating yourself first -- perhaps try starting at actually reading and understanding the journalist's article.


Wendy
said
0 0

As a follow-up to my previous rather lengthy post, Sharon and others, drug dealers do not make people become addicted to drugs, the users make themselves become addicted to drugs. The dealers do not make people get high, the users are the ones who make themselves get high. They all have a choice and it is their choice to get high and become addicted to drugs. You are making excuses for drug users and addicts.


A.D.
said
0 0

Sounds like most of you have no idea what its like to have a drug problem , and thats why you dont understand this case... I do.
She is brave and I think its a brilliant way to get drug dealers to think twice. Maybe this is a step in the right direction for our somewhat faulty legal system.
Good Job Sandy!!!

David
said
0 0

I was a former hard drug user in and I did not take drugs for 7 years now. I add to have conseling to get rid of the addiction Like all person who as a drug problem, I BLAMED EVERYONE BUTH MYSELF for all the problem that I had. The most important things that made me get rid of that was that I learned that I and only I was the only reason of my downfall. That I had to take responsibility for my actions and errors. Nobody forced me to take those drugs and starting at grade school we are teached about danger of drugs. Seems to me she his still as irresponsible and dosent have the will to assume her past errors. The only solution would biger sentencing drug traffic and also starting to give sentence to simple possession of drugs.


CJ
said
0 0

I think it's a great precedent for our future. Maybe then drug dealers will think twice about selling drugs. It may even help to reduce drug trafficing which in turn would reduce drug use. You can't use the drugs if you can't buy them.


Rick
said
0 0

A lot of comments on the "precedent" this is setting. My interpretation is that by not naming the co-defendant, which theoretically should be no problem if he is not liable, he implied that he was liable. I my opinion this has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the drug user is responsible. Has the drug dealer revealed his co-defendant the case probobly would have been thrown out and given the police an extra lead in other investigations. He didn't so his statement of defence could not be accepted by the court. My 2 cents.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz