Drug users, to me!

[viper37]

Reading some news, they talk about some drugs some guys took, wich induced a psychosis (they both tought God told them to beat the crap out of some dude they knew).

The drugs they used are described as such:
«Je me suis acheté une «on star» et deux poires bleues», a raconté  Schmouth au procès. On en a gobé une chaque. C'est la première fois  qu'on prenait ça, de la poire bleue. Ça a claqué en tabarnak.»

1 - on star
2 - poires bleues (blue pears ?? ).

And the last sentence would be something like: "it hit like hell" (meaning, they were stoner then they ever were).

So, anybody could enlighten this poor soul here?     What is this drug?

[The Brain]

Speaking complete gibberish is a fairly common effect of drugs. You have to be more specific.

[Razgovory]

I'm inclined to believe that God did tell these guys to beat up someone they know.  Old Testament style.

[viper37]

Speaking complete gibberish is a fairly common effect of drugs. You have to be more specific.

two guys get stoned.
They take the bus to another city.
They get 40$ from an ATM.
They buy some drugs.
They are stoner than they ever were before.
They believe themselves to be invested by a mission from God, wich is to beat some guy who wears an inverted crucifix.
They process to beat the guy and throw a 61 year old man down the stairs.

Once accused, with psychiatric evaluation and all, it becomes clear that the dude is perfectly sane under normal circumstances, but he became totally delusional under the effects of some drugs.
He's trying an appeal on this ground, that he couldn't know what he was doing, hence he's not responsible for beating someone nearly to death.

So, I want to know what is this kind of drug, the one they call "on star" and the one possibly called "blue pears".  Is that some kind of speed?

[The Brain]

Life?

[Malthus]

PCP has the reputation for causing violent psychosis, but I have no idea if it really does - never taken any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine#Effects

Drug nicknames are no clue at all as to what was in the drug, which may not have been what was advertised anyway - drugs being an illegal business and not subject to any sort of quality control.

[viper37]

Apparently, something similar happenned to someone I know, he wanted to kill his mother and his sister while under influence.  His other sister told me all he took was "speed"... but since when did speed became such a dangerous drug?

[The Brain]

Apparently, something similar happenned to someone I know, he wanted to kill his mother and his sister while under influence.  His other sister told me all he took was "speed"... but since when did speed became such a dangerous drug?

Drugs just make you lose your inhibitions, 'sall.

[Malthus]

Apparently, something similar happenned to someone I know, he wanted to kill his mother and his sister while under influence.  His other sister told me all he took was "speed"... but since when did speed became such a dangerous drug?

People often have no real idea what drugs they have taken - what is sold as drug X may well be drug Y.

[Lucidor]

Apparently, something similar happenned to someone I know, he wanted to kill his mother and his sister while under influence.  His other sister told me all he took was "speed"... but since when did speed became such a dangerous drug?

If speed is amphetamine, I wouldn't call it innocent. Had a patient requiring two orderlies and two policemen (one woman) and a can of pepper spray on the psych emergency room during my rotation there. He was completely delusional and out of it.

[Berkut]

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is a drug that results in a perfectly sane person acting in a psychotic manner.

Lets also assume, for the sake af argument, that the person in question had no reasonable reason to believe that taking said drug would cause such a reaction. Assume that the person simply thought they would be on some kind of standard "trip" normally associated with shrooms or something like that.

So the person takes the drug, has some kind of psychotic episode, and beats someone up, murders someone, etc., etc.

Can he make a legal argument that has any weight that he was not responsible for his actions?

Can he make a moral argument that has any weight that he was not responsibly for his actions?

I cannot answer the first question, but I think I could see a moral argument for the second. If there really was not any reason to believe that taking the drug could result in such a episode, and one can show that one would not normally act in such a manner, then I cannot see how I could hold them responsible for their actions - beyond the basic responsibility people have for engaging in illegal activities like illicit drug use.

[Barrister]

When defence not available

33.1 (1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).

Criminal fault by reason of intoxication

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.

Application

(3) This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.

The relevant Canadian law on the subject.

As well if a person has an underlying mental defect, they may be able to rely on a "not guilty by reason of mental defect" defense.  That being said merely consuming drugs is not a mental defect.  But if you had an underlying, say, schizophrenia, and the drugs put you in a state where you could not tell right from wrong, you may have a defense.

[Malthus]

When defence not available

33.1 (1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).

Criminal fault by reason of intoxication

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.

Application

(3) This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.

The relevant Canadian law on the subject.

As well if a person has an underlying mental defect, they may be able to rely on a "not guilty by reason of mental defect" defense.  That being said merely consuming drugs is not a mental defect.  But if you had an underlying, say, schizophrenia, and the drugs put you in a state where you could not tell right from wrong, you may have a defense.

The problem lies in the interpretation of "self-induced intoxication".

If someone gets drunk in a bar, that is clearly "self-induced". But what if someone spikes their drink with PCP, without their knowledge? Is that "self-induced"?

What if, in Berkut's fact situation, they intend to take drug X but were really given drug Y? Isn't that the same as having your drink spiked?

[Barrister]

Well I imagine that is something you'd get to argue in court about.

A spiked drink is clearly not self-induced intoxication.  Taking crack that is laced with PCP however?

And Malthus, that is hardly the only problem in these kinds of cases...

[HVC]

The problem lies in the interpretation of "self-induced intoxication".

If someone gets drunk in a bar, that is clearly "self-induced". But what if someone spikes their drink with PCP, without their knowledge? Is that "self-induced"?

What if, in Berkut's fact situation, they intend to take drug X but were really given drug Y? Isn't that the same as having your drink spiked?

i think the difference is that at a bar you have the reasonable expectation that when you buy a beer it's only beer, but like you said when you buy a drug you have no reasonable expectiation that if you buy x you're getting x. it's one of the expected and accepted variables of drug life.