Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joepole
>Ok, show evidence of just one case where any American was convicted on American soil of a drug possession charge WITHOUT tangible drug evidence being found during the course of "the investigation".
I don't know of a case of that ever happening, I doubt it ever has. That, however, wasn't the point of the argument, that was a straw man you brought to the table. The point of the argument was that smoking requires possession, so there is no law against smoking marijuana because it would be superfluous, just as a law against putting it your ear would be superfluous.
|
Try paying attention this time.
The point, and I know this for a FACT
because I brought it up, Einstein, is that smoking pot is not illegal, possession is, and that even admission of drug use will not result in any type of drug possession charge. I have made this statement more or less in every single post I've made on this topic, so for you to imply that was NOT my point is quite laughable.
Since the wording of the law itself is apparently to complex for you to grasp the subtle difference, I asked you to show evidence to support your theory that smoking constitutes possession and therefore an individual can be arressted for his admission of drug use, and low and behold....you doubt it's
ever happened.
Quote:
|
Again, your non-sequiturs about cops and Bill Clinton (where the hell did that come from?) aside, the content of your post to which I originally replied was almost completely untrue. That was what I was addressing and that remains proven.
|
Gee, I wonder how I was able to relate a story about Bill Clinton admitting to smoking pot, and not being arrested, into a conversation about the legality of drug use vs. drug possession.