|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict
#11333956 - 10/27/09 07:09 PM (14 years, 5 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.
-------------------- { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 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 07:29 PM (14 years, 5 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.
--------------------
|
Doc_T
Random Dude
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
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 07:31 PM (14 years, 5 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?
|
MrBump
Third prize is you're fired
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,263
Loc: Denver, Colorado
Last seen: 4 years, 8 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 07:33 PM (14 years, 5 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?
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 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 07:34 PM (14 years, 5 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.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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 07:36 PM (14 years, 5 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
|
Doc_T
Random Dude
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
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 07:39 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
No shit?!? Tell me more. Have the Supremes seen it yet?
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
justinsanity
Sanityinjust
Registered: 10/01/08
Posts: 1,458
Loc: Projection Room
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
|
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 07:45 PM (14 years, 5 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."
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
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 07:55 PM (14 years, 5 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.
--------------------
|
fatso
Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 3,088
Loc: LA
Last seen: 11 years, 8 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 08:03 PM (14 years, 5 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...
|
justinsanity
Sanityinjust
Registered: 10/01/08
Posts: 1,458
Loc: Projection Room
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
|
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 08:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
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 08:06 PM (14 years, 5 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.
Edited by Adamist (10/27/09 08:11 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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 08:09 PM (14 years, 5 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
|
Doc_T
Random Dude
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
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 08:24 PM (14 years, 5 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?
|
Deekay
Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 3,220
Loc:
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 addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11334512 - 10/27/09 08:24 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
don't hold your breath
|
MrBump
Third prize is you're fired
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,263
Loc: Denver, Colorado
Last seen: 4 years, 8 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 08:32 PM (14 years, 5 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.
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?
|
Doc_T
Random Dude
Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
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 08:34 PM (14 years, 5 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?
|
Chubba
Vape hungry
Registered: 07/05/07
Posts: 6,785
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
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 08:36 PM (14 years, 5 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.
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
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 08:45 PM (14 years, 5 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..
-------------------- { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
neopet nub
Stranger
Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 2,408
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
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 08:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
justinsanity said: You think so huh?
I always love proof by wikipedia
-------------------- Ego death from weed!
|
Chubba
Vape hungry
Registered: 07/05/07
Posts: 6,785
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Adamist]
#11334721 - 10/27/09 08:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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..
That's still completely beside the point.
Ones a victimless crime, the other has a victim (the kid), WORLDS apart. His example doesn't belong in this thread at all, no point trying to argue.
Using insulin is a victimless crime.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
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: Prisoner#1]
#11334783 - 10/27/09 09:02 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: 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
I can't prove to you that there's DMT in the brain, but I can prove that the research behind this theory was conducted by Dr. Rick Strassman, not Timothy Leary.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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]
#11334791 - 10/27/09 09:03 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Doc_T said:
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?
he had an illegal substance in his blood stream, that's possession under these new laws
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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]
#11334803 - 10/27/09 09:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: 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
I can't prove to you that there's DMT in the brain, but I can prove that the research behind this theory was conducted by Dr. Rick Strassman, not Timothy Leary.
ok, so I got the twat wrong, it's still just his conjecture
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
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: Prisoner#1]
#11334829 - 10/27/09 09:09 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: 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
I can't prove to you that there's DMT in the brain, but I can prove that the research behind this theory was conducted by Dr. Rick Strassman, not Timothy Leary.
ok, so I got the twat wrong, it's still just his conjecture
It hasn't been proven yet, but we do know that the necessary constituents to make DMT are all found in the pineal gland, so it's a plausible hypothesis.
--------------------
|
fatso
Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 3,088
Loc: LA
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: neopet nub]
#11334961 - 10/27/09 09:31 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
neopet nub said:
Quote:
justinsanity said: You think so huh?
I always love proof by wikipedia
WIKIPEDIA ISNT PROOF. even ive written things on wiki. they only stayed on the site for a day or 2 but it was still there
-------------------- My old Papaver Somniferums var. Gigantum and my Passion Flower...
|
MrBump
Third prize is you're fired
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,263
Loc: Denver, Colorado
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Chubba]
#11334970 - 10/27/09 09:33 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chubba said:
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.
Why cant I? pederastery can be an addiction, just like an opiate addiction. sex w/ kids is illegal, as well as possession of small amounts of heroin, no?
In that way they are similar.
however, no one would defend the sex offender when he pleads an addiction, but many (at least here) would defend the drug addict.
It's not the disease that is illegal, its your actions while under the influence of your disease (like driving) that's illegal.
-------------------- 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?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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]
#11335148 - 10/27/09 09:56 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: It hasn't been proven yet, but we do know that the necessary constituents to make DMT are all found in the pineal gland, so it's a plausible hypothesis.
so there goes arresting the cop for DMT posession
so in the 14 years since the publication of the book, no one has thought to check to see if strassman was correct?
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: MrBump]
#11335160 - 10/27/09 09:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why cant I? pederastery can be an addiction, just like an opiate addiction. sex w/ kids is illegal, as well as possession of small amounts of heroin, no?
As Chubba already stated, one is a victimless crime, the other with a clear victim.
And keeping pedophiles from kids does not cause physical suffering to the pedophile, like keeping a junkie from heroin would.
Causing someone to suffer through withdrawal by sending them to jail seems unconstitutional to me.
-------------------- { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
Chubba
Vape hungry
Registered: 07/05/07
Posts: 6,785
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: MrBump]
#11335173 - 10/27/09 10:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why cant I? pederastery can be an addiction, just like an opiate addiction. sex w/ kids is illegal, as well as possession of small amounts of heroin, no?
In that way they are similar.
however, no one would defend the sex offender when he pleads an addiction, but many (at least here) would defend the drug addict.
It's not the disease that is illegal, its your actions while under the influence of your disease (like driving) that's illegal.
Take the legality out of the equation.
The opiate addiction is a victimless crime that hurts the user.
The pedophile is a crime that has a clear victim, the child, who has to suffer sexual abuse.
Noone would defend the sex offender because he's molesting children, the opiate addict on the other hand is hurting nobody but himself.
It's very clear.
|
Muppet
Nomadic Jester
Registered: 08/14/02
Posts: 28,785
Loc: (523) 327-2836
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Adamist]
#11335282 - 10/27/09 10:21 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Adamist said: 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
ah-men to that
if I've said it once - I've said it a million times:
"it's not the drug itself that's a problem here...it's people's reactions to it"
and I'm glad to see that the powers that be can understand that simple truth themselves
-------------------- Ravings of a Madman
|
Muppet
Nomadic Jester
Registered: 08/14/02
Posts: 28,785
Loc: (523) 327-2836
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Muppet]
#11335303 - 10/27/09 10:23 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
but then again (like you said) what exists 'on paper' don't mean dick if that's not what's being enforced
-------------------- Ravings of a Madman
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11335359 - 10/27/09 10:31 PM (14 years, 5 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.
1. Citizen's arrest doesn't really mean anything 2. You can't arrest someone for possession of endogenous DMT because they are not willingly possessing it (they cannot regulate their metabolism consciously)
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: It hasn't been proven yet, but we do know that the necessary constituents to make DMT are all found in the pineal gland, so it's a plausible hypothesis.
so there goes arresting the cop for DMT posession
so in the 14 years since the publication of the book, no one has thought to check to see if strassman was correct?
It's kinda hard to open up a living person's pineal gland and look around without some sort of ethical issues arising.
--------------------
|
laserpig
Weedmaster_P
Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Adamist]
#11335435 - 10/27/09 10:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Adamist said: 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.
QFT
if a law can only be upheld by violating constitutional rights, should it be upheld? i suppose that is technically debatable ... but i'm pretty sure that if we're honest with ourselves, we all know what the people who WROTE the constitution would say
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: laserpig]
#11335476 - 10/27/09 10:52 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
yah they would say if you're black or a woman gtfo and get me a sandwich b4 i kill you.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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: learningtofly]
#11335507 - 10/27/09 10:56 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
learningtofly said: It's kinda hard to open up a living person's pineal gland and look around without some sort of ethical issues arising.
nope, not to mention it would remain for at least a short time after death
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11335511 - 10/27/09 10:58 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
oh. well in the book i recall something about the reason why he didn't actually test it was because there were ethical boundaries.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
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: learningtofly]
#11335532 - 10/27/09 11:01 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
there's lots of brain surgery being done, some even experimentally, the vast majority of times it's for correction of some issue like a tumor but it's not unheard of for exploration to be conducted
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11335561 - 10/27/09 11:03 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
maybe its cuz he had to jump thru a grip of hoops just to use DMT in a study. so saying "Ya i wanna open up a few brains to look for DMT..." wouldn't fly too well.
--------------------
|
MrBump
Third prize is you're fired
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 4,263
Loc: Denver, Colorado
Last seen: 4 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addict [Re: Chubba]
#11335568 - 10/27/09 11:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chubba said:
Take the legality out of the equation.
The opiate addiction is a victimless crime that hurts the user.
The pedophile is a crime that has a clear victim, the child, who has to suffer sexual abuse.
Noone would defend the sex offender because he's molesting children, the opiate addict on the other hand is hurting nobody but himself.
It's very clear.
It's clear that my argument makes little sense when you remove the realities that form my argument. Heroin possession is a crime. you cant simply dismiss its illegal status. People get arrested for doing illegal activities.
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."
This is the quote that brought about my analogy.
Public inebriation on narcotics or liquor is a crime. Accept if you are an addict. But not all users of narcotics or alcohol are addicts. So if you are publicly intoxicated, but not an addict, you can be arrested, b/c public intoxication is illegal for the non-addicted. But if your proven to be an alcoholic, your public drunkenness is excused, b/c you cannot control your urges to drink.
I was simply playing devils advocate w/ the pederast comparison. We could try kleptomania if you want. My point is that you would be setting a dangerous precedent by excusing illegal activities (like public intox) b/c an individual cannot control his ability to engage in the illegal activity ie. the individual is powerless over his addiction - be it an addiction to heroin or an addiction to theft.
-------------------- 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?
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: MrBump]
#11335610 - 10/27/09 11:10 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dangerous precedent by excusing illegal activities (like public intox) b/c an individual cannot control his ability to engage in the illegal activity
we already have that in place....
--------------------
|
Nymphaea
Money-less Wanderer
Registered: 04/16/09
Posts: 2,061
Loc: Mitten
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Doc_T]
#11335628 - 10/27/09 11:14 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Sex is as addicting as heroin according to my new stoner friend I met.
Quote:
Doc_T said:
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?
In Michigan some of my friends have been charged with "use" of marijuana. I was surprised because I was also under the impression that you couldn't be charged for use. I guess according to the Supreme court you can't.
The thing about the "use" charge is that it is just a money grab by the government. It's a small fine and you don't have to go to court for it. The courts are clogged up so they are reducing the charge of possession to the charge of use all the time so that they can get their money and be done with you.
-------------------- Plant Trees
|
Muppet
Nomadic Jester
Registered: 08/14/02
Posts: 28,785
Loc: (523) 327-2836
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Supreme Court has ruled that you're allowed to ingest any drug, especially if you're an addi [Re: Nymphaea]
#11335912 - 10/28/09 12:09 AM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nymphaea said: The thing about the "use" charge is that it is just a money grab by the government. It's a small fine and you don't have to go to court for it. The courts are clogged up so they are reducing the charge of possession to the charge of use all the time so that they can get their money and be done with you.
yeah...that sounds about right
-------------------- Ravings of a Madman
|
|