Has anyone suggested ecstasy? MDMA didn’t become hip and trendy until the late 80’s but was definitely available much earlier, and a rich celebrity could easily acquire it.
You know, the more I think about it, I think that this is probably true in a lot of cases. If you’re even a little crafty, and fairly observant, you can pick out women in denial about how much they drink, and prey on them.
I just remembered a friend of a friend in college who had to be taken to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. I wasn’t present for the consumption, not the ER visit, but a couple of days later, this woman, who I already thought was pretty deep into alcoholism, the ER visit notwithstanding, had convinced herself that someone had slipped he something, because she KNOWS how much she can drink before she 1) gets tipsy, and 2) needs medical treatment. She couldn’t possibly have had to go to the hospital because she merely drank too much. Someone must have slipped her something. There was no reason for anyone to do such a thing, since she wasn’t assaulted or robbed, or even harassed, but she was sure it happened anyway.
I still think that there are a factor of luck involved for Cosby, though, in that no one ever needed medical treatment.
I’m not sure there’s an epidemic of young women who are completely out of touch (or “in denial” as you put it) with how much they’ve had. I have seen both men and women have too much. I’ve also seen both genders describe with wide-eyed innocence how unusually strong the drinks were the next morning. They’re embarrassed at their behavior, so they postulate an unusual condition. Maybe that’s what your friend was doing.
But let’s imagine a young woman who has been incapacitated (whether by too much alcohol or by a sociopathic guy with roofies, or both). She wakes up and believes she’s been raped. If she’s able to work up the nerve to report the rape, she’s likely to be told that she brought it on herself by drinking too much or even by drinking at all. Of course a woman in that situation is likely to minimize how much she had. It’s the only rational thing for her to do.
She knows she is likely to be dismissed because alcohol was involved, so she soft-pedals the drinking. She shouldn’t have to, but that’s the reality. As long as she’s not perjuring herself, I think it’s a pretty sane thing to do. If she really was drugged, the accused’s first line of defense is likely to be “I didn’t drug you; you had way too much to drink.”
The law says it doesn’t matter how much she had to drink, but the reality of these investigations is not nearly so cut-and-dried. Rape is generally hard to prove, and the victim needs the best (true) narrative she can relay. As long as she’s not fabricating facts to support a vendetta (which is vanishingly rare) then it’s in her interest to minimize the role it played (within fairly narrow limits).
MDMA doesn’t really fit the memory-loss profile, and it’s not reliably time-predictable either, as anyone who has prematurely came up mightily while at the front of the queue to get in to a club can attest.
Errr, if the accused does that then he is basically putting cuffs on his own his own hands and signing his own incarceration order. In the circumstances you describe, he has admitted she was so drunk as to be in incapacitated and that he knew it, in other words he is admitting rape.
Again wrong. For consent to be invalidated; being buzzed is not enough. Nor is being tipsy. Nor is being drunk. She (or he) has to be so drunk as to be incapacitated. While what exactly constitutes incapacity is a question of fact, you are talking unable to walk, slurry speech, basically much more than simply being drunk.
Since level of incapacity in alleged sexual assaults is largely self reported by the accuser unless there’s is reliable witness info, cameras or something similar of what occurred it still often comes down to conflicting assertions and witness reports.
Also, out of curiosity, where in US law or code are these “factual” incapacity distinctions you cite laid out?
They are going to be in the criminal law of each state - for example, here is NY’s. The pertinent sections regarding drinking are :
Voluntarily getting a little tipsy isn’t going to qualify under either - and although you’re correct it often comes down to conflicting assertions, you might be surprised at how often ( not just in rape cases) people make damaging admissions because they don’t actually believe they did anything wrong.
Good to know. The preferred SD style though is IANADoctor IANAPharmacist IANARapist.
If any of them become as popular as lawyers around here the final initial can stand alone.
ETA: not exactly a tl;dr (since we’re on that whole abbreviation thing), but what’s this about Concerta and rape drugs? I’m on a maximum dose of that stuff daily. No itch, no blur, no if-I-were-a-woman-maybe-this-would-feel-like-I-could-be-taken-advantage-of.
Didn’t Cosby say “it was only quaaludes” about one accusation?
What exactly does it mean for someone to be “temporarily incapable of appraising […] his conduct”?
It sounds like anything could fit into that.
You know how people say “he’s so drunk (or high) he doesn’t know what he’s doing”? It’s like that, only to fit under that statute, person A isn’t that drunk or high because of something he or she voluntarily ingested. Person A is in that state because person B slipped some GHB into person A’s drink without A’s knowledge, or handed person A an Ambien when asked for Motrin.
Recallng the byplay upthread on relaxants, an anesthesiologist told me that back in the day (pre-1980s?) a patient scheduled for minor surgery the next day (dental, or, in my case, a colonoscopy) would be given a Xanax to take home, sans paperwork, and take if he felt like he needed it.
This thread was originally posted as a general question about the various allegations against Cosby. But now, the criminal trial has begun, and the relevant stories are of two women whose testimonies have been admitted. Andrea Constand, whose allegations are what Cosby is being tried over, and Kelly Johnson, whose allegations are being allowed as possibly showing a pattern of prior conduct.
So I think the question is now narrowed to whether there are any drugs that fit the allegations being made by these specific women.
On looking around a bit, I see that “Prosecutors this week plan to call a toxicologist to discuss the effects of drugs like quaaludes, a powerful sedative, and the cold and allergy medicine Benadryl, both of which Cosby has acknowledged giving women before sexual encounters.” So I suppose we’ll see this threshed out in testimony and cross-examination.
But how would you get medical / scientific reports that apply to the typical date rape drug scenario? Tests on applying a drug orally vs. IV are done in a controlled setting and WITH WATER while date rape drugs are in a relaxed setting and usually (esp. with bitter taste in whiskey) mixed WITH ALCOHOL. So I would expect the effect of any drug mixed with alcohol to be different than taken with water.
I would also wonder how many studies about the effects of drug have been done on men (the typical test case for harmless drugs* are apparently young mostly healthy college students, many of them male), while date rape drugs are mostly administered to women - lower body weight, easier affected by alcohol, different hormones**
- as opposed to trials for serious drugs like cancer, which should be done on people suffering from the disease, though giving half of the group a placebo is ethically still a bit problematic, even if the give informed consent.
** This has been discussed, along with the problem of meds for children, only recently: with different hormone concentration, and lower average body weight, women react differently to a lot of drugs then men do, so if clinical trials are only / mostly done on men, it’s not enough to re-calculate the dosage for body weight, you will get different effects of the drug. It took some difficult digging by some doctors / scientists in the past decades to figure that out and prove it’s not a minor, but a big problem.
Next problem is finding enough female volunteers to do the tests properly / redo them for old meds.
In some psychological article, they cited a study done (in a kind of pub atmosphere): everybody got cocktails (so people couldn’t tell by taste if there was alcohol), one part got alcohol and was told “non-alcoholic” and the other part got non-alcoholic and was told “Alcohol”.
The people doing the experiment were very surprised that what was said affected the outcome stronger - the people who were told “alcoholic” acted drunk, the people who were told “non-alcoholic” didn’t. They didn’t expect this, because of the usual known reaction to alcohol lowering inhibitions, they thought only biochemical reactions caused the “drunken-acting-up” behaviour.
Further observation also noted that whether alcohol makes people aggressive drunks or fun drunks depends not just on the individual, but very much on the culture: in some countries, alcohol mostly leads to aggressiveness, in other cultures, mostly to fun/ outgoing/ relaxed/ lower inhibitions.
That’s another big difference between “a drug used legitametly by doctors to knock somebody out” - which needs to reliably work on a cross-section of population and “a predator who gets his own ideas from Hollywood movies / pulp novels, uses the drug only on young, healthy women, and has no idea that of the 20 women he drugged, 4 could have had adverse reactions and died, but luckily didn’t, and two didn’t react to the drug, just to the alcohol (which was enough for his purpose”.
The movies never show any adverse effects to a Mickey Finn, like allergy or over/ underreaction to drugs (which in a large sample size 5-10% will show to any drug) or cross-reaction, so the predators think drugging women is no big medical problem.
Don’t predators usually have a broad type - young women within a certain range of body weight? And a predator probably doesn’t invite a young woman home and gives her a drink the minute she walks in. They will either eat dinner together (and a first glass of wine or similar) or they will make small talk - what did you eat today?
Pick one drink and one drug that worked and stick with it?
A pharma company and the doctors using official drugs want to apply it to young and old, men and women, with previous diseases (if they are about to undergo surgery) and varying health status.
They also want to use it on thousands of patients each year, even if the trial may be only a few hundred.
A predator has only to drug those women who are not already (in Cosbys case) dazzled by his star status and thus willing; or not reacting “well” enough to plain alcohol on its own.
So you have a potential sample size of relativly young (not older than 30 I would assume) narrow body weight distribution (no fat women) mostly healthy (no sick women) who need “help” to be willing/ unable to resist - how many would those be over the years, given how many would be willing? 20? 50? Less than a normal drug trial.
I’ve noticed that you say this a lot. What exactly does it mean though? Did you take some classes in college? If you actually had a degree in behavioral neuroscience or psychopharmacology I think you’d say so.
I was in a PhD program in behavioral neuroscience at Dartmouth but never completed it - hence the “background” and not degree. I also have an undergraduate degree in neuroscience and interned in a psychopharmacology lab for two years. The two fields are very closely related. I work in pharmaceutical IT now. All I meant is that that we can skip the simplistic explanations for questions like this because I already tried to come up with the answer on my own and it wasn’t working.