Home | Community | Message Board



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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineBrainChemistry
Captain Obvious
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/07
Posts: 3,657
Loc: Mountains of N. America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
DRUGS ARE LEGAL IF YOU"RE AN ADDICT
    #8808974 - 08/22/08 02:07 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

While possession of most drugs is still illegal, ingesting and being under the influence of them actually is not.

So all you trippers and $%#ed up people get out there and hit the streets!

:omgawesome:



Quote:


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
con-viction, declaring that providing an addicted patient with a fairly 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 R 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 >ni!
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.




Kick, Russ. 50 Things You're Not Supposed to Know. New York: The Disinformation Company, 2003.

Got this off torrents, here it is if you want.


--------------------
Word to your mom.


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


Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: DRUGS ARE LEGAL IF YOU"RE AN ADDICT [Re: BrainChemistry]
    #8808982 - 08/22/08 02:08 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

theyll slap on inhebriated in public ive seen it dun


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrainChemistry
Captain Obvious
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/07
Posts: 3,657
Loc: Mountains of N. America Flag
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: DRUGS ARE LEGAL IF YOU"RE AN ADDICT [Re: Coaster]
    #8809022 - 08/22/08 02:16 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

True, the po are dicks they'll find someway to write you up. But apparently you can "legally" receive or sell drugs from somebody if you can call yourself an addict.

If someone tries to bust me for buying an 8th from my dealer I'll just tell them I have a Marry J addiction.


--------------------
Word to your mom.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCptnGarden
fuck this site

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 11,945
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: DRUGS ARE LEGAL IF YOU"RE AN ADDICT [Re: Coaster]
    #8809025 - 08/22/08 02:16 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

they already go against the constitution, of course they wouldnt stick to their word.


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


Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: DRUGS ARE LEGAL IF YOU"RE AN ADDICT [Re: BrainChemistry]
    #8809027 - 08/22/08 02:16 AM (9 years, 9 months ago)

ya lawl good luck holding up that defense in court :thumbup:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Community >> The Pub

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Drug Banners!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
EffedS 9,137 172 12/24/08 03:24 PM
by ltd
* Drugs are needed for our society to continue...
( 1 2 all )
DailyPot 3,799 23 03/06/17 11:13 PM
by triphead9428
* Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? circularvortex 764 6 11/16/09 12:11 PM
by GoshAllMighty
* Phish and Ferris Robinson SoDak_Stranger 797 1 06/25/04 01:27 PM
by OneMoreRobot3021
* The Rise in the Use of Hallucinogenic Drugs in the 1990s I_Fart_Blue 1,791 9 10/03/16 06:31 PM
by g00ru
* bush against constitutional rights for gays, vows to amend
( 1 2 all )
Mitchnast 2,425 28 11/21/03 05:40 PM
by Mitchnast
* Chris Robinson and The New Earth Mud SoDak_Stranger 565 4 06/30/04 12:15 AM
by wandrnshaman
* What is YOUR anti-drug?
( 1 2 3 all )
kilgore_trout 4,355 43 03/09/04 02:09 PM
by dr_gonz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
681 topic views. 14 members, 58 guests and 45 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 19 queries.