DRUG USERS HAVE TO ASSUME SOME RISKS

It seems that every day we either read or hear about lives lost or
ruined as a consequence of selling or using illicit drugs. Efforts of
politicians, police and our court system appear powerless to stop the
mounting toll in human misery and social cost.

That's why I believe one recent news story, describing a different
approach received as much media attention as it did, being heralded
as a novel, but potential breakthrough strategy, in the war on drugs.
Sadly, it's a view I don't share.

The story involved a Saskatchewan woman who suffered the misfortune
of overdosing on crystal meth last year. As a result of the overdose,
which put her in a coma for 10 days, she claims to have suffered
permanent heart damage. What makes this story newsworthy is the fact
that she recently commenced a civil negligence action in Saskatchewan
court against the person who sold her the drug.

So what do I think are this woman's chance of success with her
action? For any one of a variety of legal defences, slim and none,
and slim is leaving town.

That's because in Canadian negligence law there are several key
elements that must be to proven. Firstly, there is the negligent act
itself, which presumes a duty or standard of care between the
parties. In the case of the woman and her drug supplier, I can't see
how a court could determine there is an appropriate standard of care
which exists between this drug user and her supplier.

Secondly, to be successful with her claim the woman also needs to
prove a causal link between the use of the drug and the damage to her
heart. Considering the excessive lifestyle and unhealthy habits of
most drug users I believe it would be virtually impossible to
establish a causal connection between the drug she purchased on this
particular occasion and her health problem.

And even assuming that the woman is able to overcome these difficult
evidentiary hurdles she's still not guaranteed success because there
are also several legal defences available which could effectively
destroy or reduce her claim. The defence which I believe would be
most effective is the defence known as the "voluntary assumption of risk."

By taking the illicit drug the woman is deemed to have assumed the
risk and associated health damage caused by its usage.

All in all, despite the media hype, this claim by drug user versus
drug supplier will not establish any useful legal precedent in
society's battle with drugs.