How Responsible Is the Drug Dealer for the Actions of the Drug User?

[CLICKHEREx]

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237948

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The death of actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman from an apparent heroin overdose has triggered an interesting debate as to whether the individuals who sold Mr. Hoffman the drugs should be criminally liable for his death. Presently, however, New York State has no crime on its books that specifically addresses this issue. Should an overzealous district attorney seek to explore any potential crimes, the charges would most likely have to fit into some aspect of the homicide statutes. Given that this is clearly not an intentional act, the DA would have argue that the drug dealers acted recklessly or grossly negligent when they sold the drugs that were the source of the overdose. Needless to say, this is a very tall order for any prosecutor.

What is confusing the matter is the fact that the NYPD, no doubt as a result of the high profile nature of the case, arrested 4 individuals that they claim sold heroin to Mr. Hoffman. Putting aside the idea that the NYPD routinely come across OD cases and are nowhere near as interested in finding the drug sellers who actually supplied the drugs to the OD victim (we'll save that discussion for another Sullivan Brill blog post), one is left to believe that the DA is considering charging these alleged drug sellers with being responsible for Mr. Hoffman's death. Again, New York State Penal Law does not address this scenario in its drug statutes so the DA would need to look elsewhere.

Now, although New York does not specifically criminalize a drug seller's conduct if the drugs buyer/user ODs as a result of the drugs sold, United States Code -- the federal criminal statutes -- address this issue in its sentencing laws specifically. Under the penalty enhancement provision of the Controlled Substances Act in 21 U.S.C. §841( (1)©, a defendant is subjected to a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence when he unlawfully distributes a Schedule I or II drug and death or serious bodily injury results from the use of that substance. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court recently rendered a decision in U.S. v. Burrage (No. 12-7515) in which Justice Scalia discusses, in detail, what the phrase from the use of actually means.

In Burrage, Joshua Banka, a long time drug user died on April 14, 2010, following an extended drug binge. During that binge, the Mr. Banka used marijuana in the morning of the 14th followed by the crushing, cooking and injecting of oxycodone pills. Later in the day, he met with the defendant, Mr. Burrage and purchase one gram of heroin which he injected throughout the night and into the morning of the 15th. In the early morning hours of the 15th, Mr. Banka's girlfriend found him dead in the bathroom. A search of his Mr. Banka's home uncovered several syringes, over a half a gram of heroin, and various prescription drugs and tablets.

Mr. Burrage was charged with two counts of distributing heroin in violation of §841(a)(1) and the government provided notice that it would seek the "death results" enhancement under §841( (1)©, exposing Mr. Burrage to a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence. At trial, the government successfully convinced a jury that because the drugs distributed by the defendant need only contribute to an aggregate force that lead to death. The jury agreed with the government and Mr. Burrage was sentenced in line with this mandatory minimum sentence.

Mr. Burrage exhausted his appellate rights -- unsuccessfully -- and ultimately filed a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted. The question the Supreme Court set out to answer whether a defendant can be convicted under the "death results" provision of §841 when the use of the controlled substance was a contributing cause of the death. Justice Scalia answered the question in the negative and reversed the conviction holding that a defendant cannot be held liable for the penalty enhancement (20 year mandatory minimum) unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury. In other words, unless a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug user would have lived but for his heroin use, the sentencing enhancement is not applicable. In a nutshell, the drug distributed by the defendant must be an independently sufficient cause of the victim's death for a defendant to be liable under the sentencing enhancement provision.

Whether or not a seller should ever be responsible for the user's death is a interesting question. Surely if a seller knows of a "beat" or tainted product, the case could be a bit easier for a prosecutor. But in viewing both arguments, I tend to lean towards the underlying concept we are all personally responsible for our actions and that a user's decision to use, which might tragically lead to an overdose, should not in any way be attributed to, or worsen the conduct, of the drug seller.

2/18/2014

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4789637

Read more: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237948#ixzz2tkyRDAd8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Various viewer comments onsite

[bullit]

I feel bad

[-RC-]

So fucking dumb.

A regulated, legal market would make such a case open and shut. Instead we have bullshit, get-nowhere circle talk, and people keep dying an fighting each other because it's dog eat dog, and we pick up what's left over.

It's not fucking rocket science

[ThunderIdeal]

you said it RC.

maybe this is already the case, but i sort of think if you can prove that a dealer knowingly misrepresented a toxic drug (for instance, knowingly sold nbom and claimed it was lsd) which led to incident then additional charges could be appropriate.

realistically, i doubt a heroin dealer is going to sell strong heroin but claim that its weak and a bigger dose will be required. realistically the dealer might claim that it's strong 100% of the time even though the last twenty times it wasn't. i can imagine that leading to an overdose but whose fault is that, like RC i'd blame the laws. i wouldn't really finger the dealer for being dishonest about purity, that's just what they do, it's the nature of their unregulated illicit profession and there is already a law against that.

what about doctors? there must be some degree of accountability for them, i know they were gonna charge michael jackson's doctor.

[Bigred]

Most overdoses have a lot of contributing factors Benzo's are the biggest Most Heroin users are poly drug users

and having a zanax with you fix is said to greatly improve the effect of the heroin . But will also contribute to a higher chance

of overdose .In qld at the moment addicts can apply to have a narcan pen in the event of a overdose it reverses the effects

of opiates. Also a lot of street heroin is not always dia morphine it can be fentanyl which is a very potent synthetic opiate

and has been responsible for a lot of overdoses lately . But by saying the dealer is responsible i get the idea what about

the poppy farmer in the golden triangle or the refining labs in the mountains. Where do you draw the line the ladder goes pretty high.

this is a narcan pen that contains naloxone

Edited February 20, 2014 by Bigred

[Francois le Danque]

Nice, bigred, i had no idea there were (any) such progressive policies in QLD. Do you still get fined there for being too poor?

Re: pens; give them to the kids with peanut allergies (with adrenaline in them instead of course), so other kids don't have to have their school lunch boxes scrutinised as if by the TSA. People need to be able to handle their own shit, and not pile it on others to deal with. If your kid is allergic to peanuts it's up to you to either keep them indoors their entire life or (better) teach them to survive an encounter with their allergen (asthmatic kids can do it). Just because your child's reactions to normal food products are out of your control doesn't mean you have the right to attempt to control others. Besides, you can never ban peanuts in public, so why train your child to not have to worry when this isn't how real life is going to work? just like same sex schools...

Similarly, why are snake bite antivenoms scheduled so highly? why not just give them to isolated farmers and other at-risk individuals? It's not like they have abuse potential.

Again, control of the plight of the individual should rest in their own hands.

/rant

[Bigred]

Most snake antivenin is schedule 4 its more to do with the price . My uncle has a massive property in north qld they have the full anti antivenin kits

they are really expensive to maintain. As they are only viable for a year some even 3 months to give them out would deplete stocks as the way to

get the antivenin is to milk snakes and either use horses to make the anti venom or biosynthesis . As with the narcan pens its a great idea and

we do have great clean needle programs and a ok opioid treatment program . We had a drug court in Ipswich but it failed more due to the fact

the halfway houses were in high risk neighborhoods and the occupants we not given enough supervision . We have also had great failures

like with the naltrexone program that killed many and ruined lots of people . The sad part was it was done through a loop hole and now any

chance of a responsible naltrexone program will be tarnished . But back to the topic most street level dealers do it to support .there own habbits

we already have sentences for large scale trafficking were people get 25 years . Which is basically life as murder in qld is 25 years( life)

[IndianDreaming]

Hopefully the day they make drug dealers responsible for their actions will be the day you see the cig company directors lined up against the wall, and the liquor licensing committee etc... lol - haha 'as if' right? It's fine for the big boys to commit murder via the products they sell...

[Francois le Danque]

I think that you can stop someone from acquiring drugs if you think they might "do damage" with them (or do 'harm'), but ultimately it isn't your fault what a person does with a substance of their own volition. The only exceptions of course are people too stupid or young or mentally infirm to know what they are doing (note this might include people heavily inebriated). But really unless the user declares they will kill themselves or someone else with the substance, or use it to commit rape or burglary or whatever the fuck, then it's really a 'buyer beware' style scenario right now (under a prohibitive framework).

Not intended for human consumption.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Frank leDank

[IndianDreaming]

^ Good points, especially the 'heavily inebriated' - I'd probably add 'heavily addicted' to that too, I doubt you could say the user is 100% in the right state of mind to choose for themselves when they're driven by an addiction.

[Anodyne]

How Responsible Is the Drug Dealer for the Actions of the Drug User?

This is one of those rhetorical questions, right?

[Bigred]

There once was a man named jim it was a long time ago .I was young with some girls i meet from school

( we were all over 18 at the time after school n stuff) It got a bit roudy and jim racked up a line . then offered me

some I contribute this to me becoming a degenerate Ahh JIM you SOORLY will be missed if you catch my drift

Brisbane I live here for my sins

[Anodyne]

Now Bigred, you can't put all the responsibility on ol' Jim - you need to save some so you can blame the drugs too!

[AndyAmine.]

What about manufacturers and or importers?

There was a guy in the USA that made MPTP instead of MPPP giving users instant, advanced Parkinson's disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPweFxq_bD4

Personally, I think he should be held responsible.

This is the main reason I keep clear of untested or unresearched RCs and random 'party powders'.

Edited February 27, 2014 by AndyAmine.

[Anodyne]

Personally, I think he should be held responsible.

In what way? The chemist fucked up, but I don't believe they knew the risk. No one did. And you'll notice the lack of further poisonings after the link was discovered, which suggests that subsequent syntheses were done more carefully. It's tragic, but I see it only as an argument for legalisation/regulation, not for punishing clandestine chemists. Punishing them even more, that is. I imagine anyone cooking up enough synthetic smack to get four states high is already gonna get a fairly hefty sentence if caught.

If Hoffman's dealers were representing their drugs as "100% safe injectable vitamins" or some such, then maybe they could be held accountable for his OD. Otherwise, this debate is just diverting attention away from any kind of sensible harm minimisation measures.

[Francois le Danque]

How Responsible Is the Drug Dealer for the Actions of the Drug User?

How Responsible is the Drug User for the Actions of the Drug Dealer?

[DiscoStu]

should a drug dealer test their wares on themselves before distributing to the wider community? should the manufacturer?

[Francois le Danque]

Definitely, mister 6. I don't know any stoners who trust a weed dealer who doesn't smoke...