|
04-19-2007, 08:12 PM | #16 | |
SBLive! Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the woods
Posts: 1,819
Rep Power: 270
|
Quote:
|
|
04-19-2007, 08:17 PM | #17 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Bill Clinton admitted to smoking pot, Einstein. Never came up during his impeachment. Now why do you reckon every single Republican ignored this fact during the Clinton impeachment hearings if smoking constitutes possession, and therefore a crime? Here's a clue, smoking DOES NOT constitute possession. Now if you care to show a court case where someone was convicted of possession simple because the court proved they were a user, then I'm all ears.....errr eyes. |
|
04-19-2007, 08:25 PM | #18 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
"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. |
|
04-19-2007, 08:29 PM | #19 |
SBLive! Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 299
|
So how about those Online Sexual Predators??
|
04-19-2007, 08:31 PM | #20 |
SBLive! Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the woods
Posts: 1,819
Rep Power: 270
|
As a parent, I hope they hunt them all down and lock em up. I love the watch Dateline where they lure the predator to a house and the predator is expecting a "child". Then bam all of a sudden it's Stone Phillips or somebody. It's great to see them with the handcuffs on and getting carted off to jail. Serves them right. The scary thing is how many of them are out there just lurking all over the Internet.
|
04-19-2007, 08:33 PM | #21 | |
Advanced Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 849
Rep Power: 252
|
Quote:
__________________
Molon Labe! |
|
04-19-2007, 08:43 PM | #22 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
You can't be given a DRUG CHARGE without tangible drug evidence. Neither being high nor admission to use constitutes possession and no amount of being stupid in front of a cop will change that. |
|
04-19-2007, 08:51 PM | #23 | |
Advanced Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 849
Rep Power: 252
|
Quote:
__________________
Molon Labe! |
|
04-19-2007, 09:10 PM | #24 |
SBLive! Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 299
|
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Outdated I really want to be over-rated I'm a brain and I'm a smasher I'm not a loser and I ain't no crasher I got the boys to make the noise Won't ever let up Hope it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 |
04-19-2007, 10:06 PM | #25 |
SBLive! Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 264
|
Admitting to use constitutes admitting to possession.
|
04-20-2007, 04:54 AM | #26 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
The truly disgusting aspect is you even quoted the statement and STILL tried to lie about it's meaning by taking a phrase out of context specifically for the purpose of manipulation. The ENTIRE sentence reads, and I quote" "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." Apparently questioning your intelligence rather than your motive was a mistake on my part. Even you can't be stupid enough to NOT realize what you were doing. Last edited by BrainSmashR; 04-20-2007 at 05:08 AM. |
|
04-20-2007, 05:01 AM | #27 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Time for you to put up or shut up...... Last edited by BrainSmashR; 04-20-2007 at 05:32 AM. |
|
04-20-2007, 05:06 AM | #28 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Gee, I wish I was that "creative". |
|
04-20-2007, 10:03 AM | #29 |
SBLive! Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,606
Rep Power: 264
|
>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. 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. |
04-20-2007, 11:47 AM | #30 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|