Originally Posted by Neo

What did the brown mouse say to the white mouse?????:D :eek:

Originally Posted by joepole

>Try again.


OK, I'll go slower.

>The difference between possessing and smoking is that if you are not caught with drugs on your person or in your vehicle ,then you have essentially "not" committed a drug violation regardless of admission or level of intoxication.

If a court can prove that you smoked marijuana then they have met the standard for possession of marijuana and you could be convicted of that crime:

LA R.S. 40§966.

C. Possession. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner or as provided in R.S. 40:978, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this Part.

Your non-sequitur about walking up to cops has nothing to do with whether or not it is against the law to smoke marijuana, a statement you originally made in support of a point (that "meeting a minor for a sexual encounter isn't illegal") that turned out to be untrue, anyway. Admitting to a cop that you previously smoked marijuana would garner the exact same result as admitting to a cop that you previously had a bag of unsmoked marijuana in your pocket.

As a practical matter I can't imagine many jurisdictions would waste the resources to prosecute a possession case like that, but the fact remains that you can't smoke marijuana without possessing it, so the act of smoking is covered by the statute. As is the act of licking marijuana, dancing with marijuana, or shoving marijuana in your ear.

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Well see thats the thing. If a pothead walks up to a cop reekin of weed and admits to usin it, the cop then has somethin called "probable cause", and once he has that, he (the cop) is then free to take any number of actions that could ultimately lead to an arrest for somethin MUCH more substantial than public intoxication. Maybe said pothead has some rollin papers in his wallet, or a pipe (possession of paraphenalia). This is why ya dont see too many stoners strollin up to the nearest cop to tell him all about the wicked **** he just smoked.

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

"Forgetting" you have paraphernalia on you is not the same as NOT having paraphernalia on you.

My contention is that "smoking" is not illegal, not that possession of paraphernalia is legal. Obviously being stupid in front of a cop constitutes reasonable suspicion. The purpose of the example was to show that even extreme situations won't result in a drug arrest without physical drug evidence.

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

And I'm tellin ya you're wrong. The police can arrest you for "disturbing the peace", which pretty much amounts to whatever the cop says "disturbing the peace" is. Admittedly its a misdemeanor just like public intoxication, but there doesnt need to be any physical evidence. They can arrest you for just about any damn thing, which is not to say that you'll be indicted, much less convicted of any crime. Police have extremely broad powers, including the power to ruin your day or make your life miserable. Its never a good idea to piss off a cop.

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

Any pothead can walk up to any cop in America reeking of pot and admit to it's use and cannot be arrested for anything more substantial than public intoxication.

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Looks like you said "CANNOT BE ARRESTED" to me. You seem to make these kinds of mistakes alot. Since you like splittin hairs so much, you should try to be a lil more circumspect.

Originally Posted by joepole

Admitting to use constitutes admitting to possession.

Originally Posted by rhertz

Well I'm remonstrated
Outdated I really want to be over-rated
I'm a brain and I'm a smasher
I'm not a loser and I ain't no crasher
I got the boys to make the noise
Won't ever let up
Hope it annoys you
Join the pack
Fill the crack
Well now you're here
There's no way back

Smash your brain! Metal Health'll drive you mad
Smash your brain! Metal Health'll drive you mad

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.