Drug users, to me!

[Darth Wagtaros]

Angel's Trumpet, which is an herb can cause some messed up effects.  I remember reading about this idiot who made a tea from it and his mother later found him wandering around with blood pouring frmo his mouth and crotch. He cut out his tongue and castrated himself and suffered a permanent psychotic break. 

So, the possiblities are endless.

[ulmont]

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?

Under Louisiana law (the law I can remember best at the moment), voluntary intoxication may only be used to negate specific intent (intent to commit a felony or theft inside a house to trigger burglary, specific intent to kill for murder, that sort of thing).

Where the circumstances indicate that an intoxicated or drugged condition has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of special knowledge required in a particular crime, this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution for that crime.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

sounds like some bad acid to me. every strain of acid back in the day had nicknames like that, blue pear etc...

[Barrister]

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?

Under Louisiana law (the law I can remember best at the moment), voluntary intoxication may only be used to negate specific intent (intent to commit a felony or theft inside a house to trigger burglary, specific intent to kill for murder, that sort of thing).

Where the circumstances indicate that an intoxicated or drugged condition has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of special knowledge required in a particular crime, this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution for that crime.

Intoxication as a defense to specific intent offences has always been available.

Here we had a wonky case from the SCC that held you might have intoxication as a defense to general intent offences.  s. 33.1 was the response.

[Malthus]

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...

Seems to me the two are comparable, if it is proven that it's the PCP that caused the reaction. Sure, taking crack is illegal, but I'm not seeing any reason why indulging in an illegal degree of intoxication should automatically make a difference. What if the bar-goer was underage?

Certainly that is not the only problem with such cases. 

[Barrister]

Seems to me the two are comparable, if it is proven that it's the PCP that caused the reaction. Sure, taking crack is illegal, but I'm not seeing any reason why indulging in an illegal degree of intoxication should automatically make a difference. What if the bar-goer was underage?

Certainly that is not the only problem with such cases. 

It's not the fact that it is illegal, but rather the fact you pointed out - it is fairly common for street drugs to be mislabeled, mis-represented, etc.  The intoxication does not need to be from a specific source or substance - it need merely be 'self-induced'.  So if you take a substance known to be mind-altering, it may be hard to argue your intoxication wasn't self-induced merely because it had different mind-altering effects that you were expecting.

[Malthus]

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.

So, if you take a drink in a really seedy after-hours place and it is spiked, no defence, but if you take a drink at a bar in an upscale hotel lobby you have a defence if it is spiked?

[Barrister]

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.

So, if you take a drink in a really seedy after-hours place and it is spiked, no defence, but if you take a drink at a bar in an upscale hotel lobby you have a defence if it is spiked?

Make the 'drink' in the seedy after hours place a drink of moonshine from a big brown jug, and yeah, pretty much.

[ulmont]

Intoxication as a defense to specific intent offences has always been available.

Here we had a wonky case from the SCC that held you might have intoxication as a defense to general intent offences.  s. 33.1 was the response.

Ok; I was just giving a US perspective generally (which seems to be much the same as Canada in this regard).

[Barrister]

Intoxication as a defense to specific intent offences has always been available.

Here we had a wonky case from the SCC that held you might have intoxication as a defense to general intent offences.  s. 33.1 was the response.

Ok; I was just giving a US perspective generally (which seems to be much the same as Canada in this regard).

Yeah, it all evolved from the same common law sources.

Which makes it funny you'd post about the one US state that doesn't follow the common law...

[ulmont]

Which makes it funny you'd post about the one US state that doesn't follow the common law...

Louisiana's criminal law is almost all common law.

[Barrister]

Which makes it funny you'd post about the one US state that doesn't follow the common law...

Louisiana's criminal law is pure common law.

Huh.  Didn't know that.

[The Brain]

I'm confused.

[ulmont]

Huh.  Didn't know that.

All crimes, offenses and misdemeanors shall be taken, intended and construed, according to and in conformity with the common law of England, and the forms of indictment (divested, however, of unnecessary prolixity), the method of trial, the rules of evidence, and all other proceedings whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes, offenses and misdemeanors, changing what ought to be changed, shall be according to common law, unless otherwise provided

The Crimes Act of 1805 lasted until 1942 for the definitions of crimes and 1966 for criminal procedure.

[viper37]

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

I would ask why do people even bother with drugs then, but I suppose I don't really need to.