Drug dealer sued, and loses.

[Police Officer]

David Lorenz of McHenry, Ill., was awarded $16 million in a lawsuit against three convicted drug dealers filed after his 17-year-old son, Steven, died from an overdose, the Chicago Daily Herald reported March 16.


One of the dealers sold the ecstasy-like drugs to Steven; the others did not, but sold similar drugs elsewhere in the community.

"I think this will mean something," said Lorenz. "Now people will know that if you hurt somebody by trafficking drugs, you might have to pay for it. Maybe they'll reconsider what they're doing."

Lorenz filed the lawsuit under the Illinois Drug Dealer Liability Act. The award by McHenry County Judge Michael Caldwell is believed to be the first time in state history that convicted drug dealers were ordered to pay monetary damages to the family of an overdose victim.

Sean Kucharski of Crystal Lake, Charlotte Cox of McHenry, and Rafael Vigneron of Prospect Heights are currently serving prison sentences on drug convictions. It is doubtful that they would have financial assets upon their release to pay the award.
But Lorenz said the lawsuit was not about the money, but rather the message. "I've lost my son and money is not going to bring him back," he said. "In a way, Steve's had his day in court finally. Even though he paid the price, the people who did this are paying a price, as well."

[Sitbcknchill]

Does this mean we can start suing Anheuser-Busch for every alcohol related death in this country? Sound like a plan?

[old hippie 56]

Well, couldn't the drug dealers file suit against the cartels for ruining their lives? No one held a gun to their heads and make them take the drug, did they? Sounds like the anti-gun people suits against the gun makers.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by old hippie 56

Well, couldn't the drug dealers file suit against the cartels for ruining their lives? No one held a gun to their heads and make them take the drug, did they? Sounds like the anti-gun people suits against the gun makers.

I dont know this law quite as good as most of the others, but from what I understand the drug dealers CAN sue the cartels. The drug dealers are permitted to sue their suppliers.

[Benga]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I dont know this law quite as good as most of the others, but from what I understand the drug dealers CAN sue the cartels. The drug dealers are permitted to sue their suppliers.

on what base since the whole chain of production and supply, and associated transactions are illegal ?
could you give details or legal precedents ?
through a legalisation of use and control of distribution of psychoactive substances, a state run authority could have some control economic and medical issues, notably by keeping the prices down and under control (hence diminishing the need for parallel criminal activity and cutting substance retail as a powerful source of income for criminal groups), and most of all install a precise quality control - implying that the user would know exactly what stabilized, standard and correctly dosed product he is taking ( in the same way that this applies to alcohol or medically prescribed substances) as well as making sure that the potential user gets the proper information regarding use and potential medico-social consequences of use. This authority, through its distribution outlets, could also facilitate or encourage access to socio-medical councelling for the user.

In such a context ( ie substance use turned from a legal and political problem to a medico-social one), I could see how there would be a real control, from the production line to distribution since this is what we're talking about, but I don't see how, on what base a north-american illegal substance dealer could for instance sue a south american illegal substance production-distribution cartel.

b

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well put.

[Felonious Skunk]

I almost hope that the legal cases generated by this nonsense stand up to the scrutiny of the pseudo-intellectuals sitting on the Supreme Court. The establishment of such precedents will open the door for lawsuits against politicians who pass laws that create the illicit drug market. As we are all aware, this illicit market is uncontrolled and on occasion results in tragedies such as the fentanyl deaths that occurred in 2006.

Extending the logic of the "Drug Dealer Liability Act" a bit further, there's no reason why legislation along the lines of the "Drug Black Market Enabler Act" shouldn't be passed to punish politicians who create drug black markets of which one in particular (fentanyl) has caused the deaths of over 1000 US citizens (according to DEA stats).

It's the junkies' own fault, you say? Not according to the "Drug Dealer Liability Act"...

[Sitbcknchill]

I guess in this day and age nobody can be held responsible for their own action, always blaming the next person.



I read up a little on the Illinois Drug Dealer Liability Act earlier and this caught my eye when reading another article on it. Ever heard of "Market Liability"?

The DDLA is a products liability act for illegal drugs. It establishes a form of “market liability” so that the individual plaintiff need not prove a particular defendant's illegal drugs were distributed to him or her, a near impossible task. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was distributing illegal drugs in the community at the time of his or her exposure and injury by that dealer's type of drug.

[D.U.M.B]

Originally Posted by Sitbcknchill

I guess in this day and age nobody can be held responsible for their own action, always blaming the next person.

Good point, People are always suing somebody because of something he or she did. Why blame a fast food outlet for you being fat, you're the one who ate 3 or 4 big meals a day, Why sue a tobacco company when you're the one smoking 60 a day

SWIM wishes he could sue the government for codeming him to a life where he cannot openly enjoy natural drugs like Cannabis