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? :D What is this drug?
Speaking complete gibberish is a fairly common effect of drugs. You have to be more specific.
I'm inclined to believe that God did tell these guys to beat up someone they know. Old Testament style.
Quote from: The Brain on February 22, 2010, 10:18:03 AM
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?
Life?
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.
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?
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 11:23:22 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 11:23:22 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 11:23:22 AM
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.
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.
QuoteWhen 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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
QuoteWhen 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?
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...
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2010, 12:18:27 PMSo 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).
Quote from: RS 14:15Where 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.
sounds like some bad acid to me. every strain of acid back in the day had nicknames like that, blue pear etc...
Quote from: ulmont on February 22, 2010, 01:06:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2010, 12:18:27 PMSo 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).
Quote from: RS 14:15Where 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.
:moon:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 12:48:55 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 01:44:38 PM
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.
Quote from: HVC on February 22, 2010, 12:50:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 22, 2010, 12:50:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:31:31 PM
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).
Quote from: ulmont on February 22, 2010, 01:55:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:31:31 PM
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...
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:58:44 PM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on February 22, 2010, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:58:44 PM
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.
I'm confused.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 02:13:58 PM
Huh. Didn't know that.
Quote from: Crimes Act of 1805All 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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 11:27:57 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 03:52:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 11:27:57 AM
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.
This strikes me as a strange response.
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
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?
A spiked drink is not self-induced. I'm pretty sure there has been courtcases on this.
However, using drugs and then claiming you're not responsible of your actions... it depends on the judge. There was a case in Quebec of a man who smoked cannabis and had a car accident where he killed someone. He raised the point that he was under the influence of cannabis and he was addicted to the drug in his defense. IIRC, he won the first battle, but lost on appeal. Or the opposite... :unsure:
Imho, you do know you are consuming an illegal drug for wich, as Malthus said, there really is no sure way of knowing what you get. So you are taking a deliberate risk while in full control of yourself. There shouldn't be any defense for that.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2010, 12:57:08 PM
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.
remind me again why we should legalize drugs?
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2010, 03:54:18 PM
This strikes me as a strange response.
I understand why people would want to ski off the trail in some mountain, I get that.
I get base jumping, shark diving, all that stuff.
But drug uses always seemed totally irrational, in the sense that you never know what you get. Smoke pot? It's been dipped in PCP, but you didn't know. It contains dried dog shit, but you don't know that either. Want some cocaine? Yeah, sure... pure cocaine will make your nose bleed, so they cut the coke with crushed glass to make sure your nose really bleed.
Seems silly to me.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 04:02:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2010, 12:57:08 PM
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.
remind me again why we should legalize drugs?
If you run down Angel's Trumpet, the problem there is that there can be a wide variation in potency between plants, etc. Get a legal product, and it can be standardized and therefore safer (plus, everyone will be just smoking weed then anyway).
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
But drug uses always seemed totally irrational, in the sense that you never know what you get. Smoke pot? It's been dipped in PCP, but you didn't know. It contains dried dog shit, but you don't know that either. Want some cocaine? Yeah, sure... pure cocaine will make your nose bleed, so they cut the coke with crushed glass to make sure your nose really bleed.
Seems silly to me.
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you
feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
I understand why people would want to ski off the trail in some mountain, I get that.
I get base jumping, shark diving, all that stuff.
But drug uses always seemed totally irrational, in the sense that you never know what you get. Smoke pot? It's been dipped in PCP, but you didn't know. It contains dried dog shit, but you don't know that either. Want some cocaine? Yeah, sure... pure cocaine will make your nose bleed, so they cut the coke with crushed glass to make sure your nose really bleed.
Seems silly to me.
How is the latter group sillier than the group that you "understand"? After all, while there are supposedly standards for the first, that doesn't mean that you will always know "what you will get." Drugs are just another way of having fun / feeling good...although a method that is not regulated as they are illegal*. :P
*leaving aside "recreational" use of prescription drugs as those are generally regulated.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:11:23 PM
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
To be honest, wanting to feel good seems like a rational goal. You can't always choose the means. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2010, 04:14:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:11:23 PM
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
To be honest, wanting to feel good seems like a rational goal. You can't always choose the means. :(
It's not particularily rational because it's pretty universally agreed that using drugs (in particular hard drugs) tend to reduce overall happiness in the long term. As does alcohol use, eating fatty food, not exercising, etc.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:16:32 PM
It's not particularily rational because it's pretty universally agreed that using drugs (in particular hard drugs) tend to reduce overall happiness in the long term. As does alcohol use, eating fatty food, not exercising, etc.
Who says that it has to be a long-term strategy?
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2010, 04:21:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:16:32 PM
It's not particularily rational because it's pretty universally agreed that using drugs (in particular hard drugs) tend to reduce overall happiness in the long term. As does alcohol use, eating fatty food, not exercising, etc.
Who says that it has to be a long-term strategy?
Addiction.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
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?
A spiked drink is not self-induced. I'm pretty sure there has been courtcases on this.
However, using drugs and then claiming you're not responsible of your actions... it depends on the judge. There was a case in Quebec of a man who smoked cannabis and had a car accident where he killed someone. He raised the point that he was under the influence of cannabis and he was addicted to the drug in his defense. IIRC, he won the first battle, but lost on appeal. Or the opposite... :unsure:
Imho, you do know you are consuming an illegal drug for wich, as Malthus said, there really is no sure way of knowing what you get. So you are taking a deliberate risk while in full control of yourself. There shouldn't be any defense for that.
It's a different sort of risk.
Taking a lot of booze when you are a bad drunk and I agree, you cannot blame anyone but yourself.
Take what you think is a drug not known for having a bad effect, and getting an entirely different drug - that's a different issue.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 04:02:43 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2010, 12:57:08 PM
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.
remind me again why we should legalize drugs?
Many plant & fungus products that cause bad effects are not "illegal" per se, because they are common weeds; also, no-one in their right mind would take them, because their effects are highly dangerous and/or unpleasant.
See for example Amanita Muscaria - a known (if rather unpleasant) hallucinogen. Or Jimson Weed (also known as "loco weed" for obvious reasons), even worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimson_weed
Generally, the better for you and more pleasant plant products tend to be illegal, the scary harsh ones they often don't bother with - knowing full well no-one will do them voluntarily more than once.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:11:23 PM
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
It's just that at some point, you try some shit, you try to kill everyone you love 'cause you're on some kind of buzz, you end up in psychiatric emergency, and the day after, you do it again.
I don't get the "feel good" part.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 06:26:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:11:23 PM
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
It's just that at some point, you try some shit, you try to kill everyone you love 'cause you're on some kind of buzz, you end up in psychiatric emergency, and the day after, you do it again.
I don't get the "feel good" part.
'but it's a rare exception - you'll never let yourself get that high again, plus your body starts to feel really crappy when you go through withdrawl...'
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2010, 04:13:11 PM
How is the latter group sillier than the group that you "understand"?
Because you are in control? And you know what's going to happen, what you face. But using drugs when you are never sure of what you will get, that's just silly. I could maybe be persuaded that there is logic in using heroin if you have, say, over 95% chances of getting pure heroin. You know the buzz, you know what you will get, it gives you pleasure, you do it.
But drugs like PCP, this new speed thing (I say new, 'cause in my time, speed was a simple drug to keep you awake, not the kind of thing that makes you want to kill everyone around you) and other shit, I just don't get it. Apparently it's the cheap price. You can stay high for 2 days with about 80$ while you need a couple 1000k$ to do it with coke. Still...
Ah, anyway. Never understood the part where you get to have some great fun but don't remember why there's a tiger in your bathroom... :D
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 06:26:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:11:23 PM
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
It's just that at some point, you try some shit, you try to kill everyone you love 'cause you're on some kind of buzz, you end up in psychiatric emergency, and the day after, you do it again.
I don't get the "feel good" part.
Um, that doesn't actually happen very often, any more than any person who ever drinks a beer or a glass of wine is likely, at some point, to go on a drunken rampage and kill people. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2010, 06:36:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 06:26:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 04:11:23 PM
It isn't very rational, but it's understandable. It makes you feel good. Really good. It has some long-term health impacts, but how often does that stop people (fast food industry is still doing well). The risk of contaminated drugs are there, but honestly fairly remote.
Until you reach the point where you're addicted, and it becomes really, really hard to stop.
It's just that at some point, you try some shit, you try to kill everyone you love 'cause you're on some kind of buzz, you end up in psychiatric emergency, and the day after, you do it again.
I don't get the "feel good" part.
Um, that doesn't actually happen very often, any more than any person who ever drinks a beer or a glass of wine is likely, at some point, to go on a drunken rampage and kill people. :lol:
That happens more than you'd think... :ph34r:
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2010, 12:18:27 PM
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.
The way Polish law handles this is that you are liable for actions carried out while under self-induced influence of a substanceunless you can show that you could not reasonably predict the influence it would take on you (a sort of "twinkie defense").
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 12:48:55 PM
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...
I would say this is up to a standard of due diligence in such circumstances - to what extent should one predict being given a wrong drug.
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 06:42:37 PM
That happens more than you'd think... :ph34r:
Yeah, but prosecutors exiled to the frozen north have *reason* for booze-fueled rampages. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 22, 2010, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:58:44 PM
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.
Same situation as in Quebec. The Napoleon Code / Civil Code is, as its name suggests, only applicable in «civil» matters.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 22, 2010, 08:09:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 22, 2010, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 22, 2010, 01:58:44 PM
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.
Same situation as in Quebec. The Napoleon Code / Civil Code is, as its name suggests, only applicable in «civil» matters.
That I knew, but it is because the criminal law is the domain of the federal government.
In the US, criminal law is controlled by the states, so I was surprised that the state of Louisiana would adopt the common law for criminal matters.
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2010, 03:54:18 PM
This strikes me as a strange response.
I understand why people would want to ski off the trail in some mountain, I get that.
I get base jumping, shark diving, all that stuff.
But drug uses always seemed totally irrational, in the sense that you never know what you get. Smoke pot? It's been dipped in PCP, but you didn't know. It contains dried dog shit, but you don't know that either. Want some cocaine? Yeah, sure... pure cocaine will make your nose bleed, so they cut the coke with crushed glass to make sure your nose really bleed.
Seems silly to me.
Don't buy your drugs from sketchy dudes by the bus station, then.
You know how much work it is to make drugs? almost nobody "spikes" their drugs unless they want to themselves. If you sell people weed laced with PCP (and they live) they will come find you and kick your ass, or worse tell everyome you sell evil shit like that, and you will have no customers.
the whole "spiking" phenomenon is largely an urban myth, at least in terms of malicious intent.
Social networks, ftw! :yes:
Buying drugs at the bus station often results in buying no drugs at all