So an Ice user who rages out and bashes his girlfriend within an inch of her life is an "indirect" effect in your book?
Take a look in the mirror before calling others fools champ
You fool:
To answer your question, yes. Taking drugs and bashing someone to within an inch of their life is an indirect effect of drug use at best. It was the person who did the action. The girl was directly effected by the actions of the person bashing her. The drugs did not bash her. Makes sense, not every drug user bashes their girlfriend.
Howver, if someone steals my property I am always directly effected by not having property.
FYI: and I am positive this will be beyond you; Interestingly you can in criminal law sometimes blame drugs as playing a cause of the violence. If the drug user had his drink spiked and was suffering hallucinations caused by the drugs and thought as he was bashing his girl friend that he was defending himself from a monster he may claim the drugs had him acting automatically and he had not done the action deliberately so the aactus reus of the offence was not satisfied due to sane automatism, regardless of lacking the requisite intent which is the mens rea. Try selling that to a jury! But importantly - no scientist can say the drugs had the direct effect of causing the girl to be bashed. It does not happen every time someone takes drugs. Thus it is an indirect effect at best. But every time someone steals my property - I am directly effected.
Got it?
Good.