Home | Community | Message Board


Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Community >> The Pub

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Original Seeds Store Shop: Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict
    #11333956 - 10/27/09 09:09 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

(I read this in my "50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know" book by Russ Kick. It's part of the 'Disinfo' series...
Usually their info is pretty legit, but I want to hear what the Shroomery thinks about this.)

THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO INGEST ANY DRUG, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE AN ADDICT

In the early 1920s, Dr. Linder was convicted of selling one morphine tablet and three cocaine tablets to a patient who was addicted to narcotics. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, declaring that providing an addicted patient with a fairy small amount of drugs is an acceptable medical practice "when designed temporarily to alleviate an addict's pains." (Linder v. United States.)

In 1962, the Court heard the case of a man who had been sent to the clink under a California state law that made being an addict a criminal offense. Once again, the verdict was tossed out, with the Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel and unusual and, thus, unconstitutional. (Robinson v. California.)

Six years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in Powell v. Texas. A man who was arrested for being drunk in public said that, because he was an alcoholic, he couldn't help it. He invoked the Robinson decision as precedent. The Court upheld his conviction because it had been based on an action (being wasted in public), not on the general condition of his addiction to booze. Justice White supported this decision, yet for different reasons than the others. In his concurring opinion, he expanded Robinson:

If it cannot be a crime to have an irresistible compulsion to use narcotics,... I do not see how it can constitutionally be a crime to yield to such a compulsion. Punishing an addict for using drugs convicts for addiction under a different name. Distinguishing between the two crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick with flu or epilepsy, but permitting punishment for running a fever or having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law. Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume alcohol should not be punishable for drinking or for being drunk.

Commenting on these cases, Superior Court Judge James P. Gray, an outspoken critic of drug prohibition, has recently written:

What difference is there between alcohol and any other dangerous and sometimes addictive drug? The primary difference is that one is legal while the others are not. And the US Supreme Court has said as much on at least two occasions, finding both in 1925 and 1962 that to punish a person for the disease of drug addiction violated the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If that is true, why do we continue to prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when it would be unconstitutional to prosecute them for their addiction?

Judge Gray gets right to the heart of the matter: "In effect, this 'forgotten precedent' says that one can only be constitutionally punishable for one's conduct, such as assaults, burglary, and driving under the influence, and not simply for what one puts into one's own body."

If only the Supreme Court and the rest of the justice/law-enforcement complex would apply these decisions, we'd be living in a saner society.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Adamist]
    #11334076 - 10/27/09 09:29 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Robinson v. California just meant that you cannot make it a crime "to be" something. You have to commit an act. Basically it said that the being an addict is not a crime, but drug use still is a crime. Aka you can't be arrested for being an addict.

That concurring opinion is just a concurring opinion, i'm not a 100% sure but i don't that the concurring opinion applies to anything.

I don't see where it says you're allowed to ingest any drug.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoc_T
Random Dude
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado Flag
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: learningtofly]
    #11334088 - 10/27/09 09:31 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Exactly. It's not against the law to be on drugs, it's against the law to have drugs.


--------------------
You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMrBump
Third prize is you're fired
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,254
Loc: Where Art Meets Crime
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Adamist]
    #11334100 - 10/27/09 09:33 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO INGEST ANY DRUG, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE AN ADDICT




A nice dream, but not true.

In Robinson the addict simply had track marks on his arms. He wasnt, to my knowledge, currently under the influence of a drug, nor in possession. He was simply arrested for being "sick" w/ a disease of addiction. It cant be a crime to have a disease.

Powell was an alcoholic, who at the time of his arrest, was currently under the influence of the substance to which he was addicted.
The Court ruled he wasnt being punished or his disease, but for his actions while being addicted.

In short, you can walk down the street w/ a major hangover or suffering withdrawals w/o fear of being arrested. You can be arrested for public actions while on a drug, being in possession of a drug, but not for simply being an addict.


--------------------
If it weren't for the bloody corpses, I wouldn't have any corpses at all.

There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: start climbing or sit on an acorn.

Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Doc_T]
    #11334108 - 10/27/09 09:34 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Doc_T said:
Exactly. It's not against the law to be on drugs, it's against the law to have drugs.




Kind of, you can still be arrested for public intoxication.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Doc_T]
    #11334116 - 10/27/09 09:36 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Doc_T said:
Exactly. It's not against the law to be on drugs, it's against the law to have drugs.




possession via consumption, it's a popular charge now


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoc_T
Random Dude
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado Flag
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11334158 - 10/27/09 09:39 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

No shit?!? Tell me more. Have the Supremes seen it yet?


--------------------
You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejustinsanity
Sanityinjust
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/01/08
Posts: 1,458
Loc: Projection Room Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11334205 - 10/27/09 09:45 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Doc_T said:
Exactly. It's not against the law to be on drugs, it's against the law to have drugs.




possession via consumption, it's a popular charge now




I failed the breathalyzer and got a possession of alcohol. I got caught coming out of the woods at night high and got a possession of marijuana. What the hell is that?!

I can just picture a cop saying "Well it's inside your body, so your touching it. That's just the same as having it in your pocket."


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: justinsanity]
    #11334261 - 10/27/09 09:55 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

justinsanity said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Doc_T said:
Exactly. It's not against the law to be on drugs, it's against the law to have drugs.




possession via consumption, it's a popular charge now




I failed the breathalyzer and got a possession of alcohol. I got caught coming out of the woods at night high and got a possession of marijuana. What the hell is that?!

I can just picture a cop saying "Well it's inside your body, so your touching it. That's just the same as having it in your pocket."



I'd make a citizen's arrest on the officer for possession of DMT in his brain.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefatso
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 3,088
Loc: LA Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Silversoul]
    #11334330 - 10/27/09 10:03 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

last time i checked, its not proven that there dmt in the brain


--------------------
   
My old Papaver Somniferums var. Gigantum and my Passion Flower...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejustinsanity
Sanityinjust
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/01/08
Posts: 1,458
Loc: Projection Room Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: fatso]
    #11334344 - 10/27/09 10:05 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Adamist]
    #11334346 - 10/27/09 10:06 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Once again, the verdict was tossed out, with the Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel and unusual and, thus, unconstitutional.



Quote:

"Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume alcohol should not be punishable for drinking or for being drunk."





It seems to me he's implying that if you're addicted to a substance, you shouldn't be punished for not only usage but possession, or attempted possession. Punishment for these "crimes" would come pretty close to being unconstitutional. If you arrest a junkie and send him to jail, you're forcing him to go into withdrawal, which would fit "cruel and unusual punishment"... What you *do* while high is treated the same as if you were sober- you can't blame drugs for a crime. But possession of a drug that your body/brain requires shouldn't be a criminal offense.

I don't know much about law though, just common sense. :shrug:


Edited by Adamist (10/27/09 10:11 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Silversoul]
    #11334377 - 10/27/09 10:09 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

justinsanity said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:

Doc_T said:
Exactly. It's not against the law to be on drugs, it's against the law to have drugs.




possession via consumption, it's a popular charge now




I failed the breathalyzer and got a possession of alcohol. I got caught coming out of the woods at night high and got a possession of marijuana. What the hell is that?!

I can just picture a cop saying "Well it's inside your body, so your touching it. That's just the same as having it in your pocket."



I'd make a citizen's arrest on the officer for possession of DMT in his brain.





prove there's DMT in his brain and it's not just some speculation from
tim leary... you know the guy that dosed people then tested for it


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoc_T
Random Dude
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado Flag
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: justinsanity]
    #11334504 - 10/27/09 10:24 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

justinsanity said:
I got caught coming out of the woods at night high and got a possession of marijuana.




You weren't in possession? Just high?


--------------------
You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDeekay
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 3,219
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #11334512 - 10/27/09 10:24 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

don't hold your breath :smirk:


--------------------
Check out my gallery :sun:

Do YOU have The Band's sheet music books? I am paying cash!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMrBump
Third prize is you're fired
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,254
Loc: Where Art Meets Crime
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Adamist]
    #11334575 - 10/27/09 10:32 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Adamist said:
Quote:

Once again, the verdict was tossed out, with the Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel and unusual and, thus, unconstitutional.



Quote:

"Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume alcohol should not be punishable for drinking or for being drunk."





It seems to me he's implying that if you're addicted to a substance, you shouldn't be punished for not only usage but possession, or attempted possession. Punishment for these "crimes" would come pretty close to being unconstitutional. If you arrest a junkie and send him to jail, you're forcing him to go into withdrawal, which would fit "cruel and unusual punishment"... What you *do* while high is treated the same as if you were sober- you can't blame drugs for a crime. But possession of a drug that your body/brain requires shouldn't be a criminal offense.

I don't know much about law though, just common sense. :shrug:




However, what the individual is addicted to is illegal to use and consume.

Pederasts may have an addiction to having sex w/ underage boys; shall the author of this article propose that sex offenders who commit crimes against children go unpunished?


--------------------
If it weren't for the bloody corpses, I wouldn't have any corpses at all.

There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: start climbing or sit on an acorn.

Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoc_T
Random Dude
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado Flag
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: MrBump]
    #11334597 - 10/27/09 10:34 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MrBump said:
Pederasts may have an addiction to having sex w/ underage boys; shall the author of this article propose that sex offenders who commit crimes against children go unpunished?




Obviously, those who wish to commit acts like that- but don't- are free of criminal guilt. No punishment.


--------------------
You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineChubba
Vape hungry

Registered: 07/05/07
Posts: 6,785
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: MrBump]
    #11334606 - 10/27/09 10:36 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Pederasts may have an addiction to having sex w/ underage boys; shall the author of this article propose that sex offenders who commit crimes against children go unpunished?




Ones a victimless crime, the other has a clear victim.

You can't make that arguement at all.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Chubba]
    #11334669 - 10/27/09 10:45 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


However, what the individual is addicted to is illegal to use and consume.

Pederasts may have an addiction to having sex w/ underage boys; shall the author of this article propose that sex offenders who commit crimes against children go unpunished?




If insulin were illegal, should a diabetic be punished for possessing it?
When you're hooked on an addictive drug, your body craves it to the point you will physically suffer without it.
The same can't be said for a pedo's lack of kid sex.. :rolleyes:


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineneopet nub
Stranger


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 2,408
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: justinsanity]
    #11334699 - 10/27/09 10:51 PM (7 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

justinsanity said:
You think so huh?




I always love proof by wikipedia


--------------------
Ego death from weed!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Original Seeds Store Shop: Cannabis Seeds

Community >> The Pub

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court rules it OK for local Governments to seize personal property DeadPhan 525 1 06/23/05 03:09 PM
by gdman
* Get your official facepalm right here!: Minnesota Court Rules Bong Water Illegal.
( 1 2 all )
LobsterSauce 1,642 25 10/25/09 10:08 AM
by feifen
* U.S. court ruling on Tasers worries Canadian doctors Visionary Tools 1,188 19 05/08/08 06:34 PM
by nalyudi
* Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage *DELETED* kelsey_07 733 14 04/04/09 11:55 AM
by Swyfty Swyf
* Pot Ruling pottypatty 538 3 03/15/07 02:25 PM
by makaveli8x8
* Federal Anti-Drug Laws Trump State Pot Rules
THE KRAT BARON
1,196 6 06/08/05 11:26 AM
by barfightlard
* California High Court to Decide Gay Marriage Case - EDIT: Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
( 1 2 all )
Ferris 3,689 25 05/15/08 05:45 PM
by JacquesCousteau
* Court Allows Church's Hallucinogenic Tea
( 1 2 all )
killme 3,088 31 02/23/06 12:27 AM
by Divided_Sky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
3,513 topic views. 21 members, 107 guests and 45 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 21 queries.