Skip to comments.Has ANYONE ever been imprisoned for smoking pot?
Posted on 09/21/2002 5:49:50 PM PDT by Libloather
click here to read article
He didn't sell it, so it had to be smoking it.
Your exercise in symantics is stupid.
So you don't know the specifics. Why post anything, let alone a false claim?
Your exercise in symantics is stupid.
Too many Liberteen idiots claim that MILLIONS (maybe BILLIONS) of other idiots are imprisoned for smoking pot - when, in fact, NONE are - because smoking pot isn't a crime. Thanks for your contribution...
To smoke pot, you must 'posses' a match. No one person - before you, or after you - has EVER gone to prison for that.
How much pot did your perp friend 'posses' while the cuffs went on? (My wild guess - 18 months worth...)
...and by the way, extending DUI to marijuana is unscientific malarky. The NTSB, and the Calif. Hwy Patrol both ran extensive controlled experiments on stoned drivers to try to metricize the blood stream level that could be deemed DUI. No such levels were found. No matter how stoned the stoned drivers got, they still outperformed their control counterparts on a large percentage of the tests. Turns out that while marijuana produces a slight temporary reduction of short-term memory, it compensates by making users more attentive to the moment, and memory isn't as useful to drivers as attentiveness.
If you'd like to test this report, try asking a cop what the exact level of cannabanoids in the blood stream is that consititues DUI--the answer will be: ANY. Pretty remarkable, eh, given that they did extensive testing to establish exactly that. Just another example of what brazen, out-and-out thugs the drug warriors are.
Except for, I'll guesstimate, a couple of hundred arsonists.
In certain circumstances, yes, it is against the law. Care to tell us what circumstances they might be?
You've got someone who loves you,
you've got someone who cares,
you've got someone who will fix you up
if ever you need repairs!
You've got someone who'll take the time,
to listen to your prayers,
I've got, you've got, everybody do got,
someone who cares, by the name of...
In certain circumstances, it is a crime to carry a gun, but that does not make carrying a gun, per se, illegal. We already talked about being asleep. Being stoned, per se, is not a crime in this country. "Certain circumstances" and "per se", do not delineate overlapping events, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.
Poser, you gettin' any of this? And your perp friend went to prison for what - again?
He undoubtedly went to jail for possession, if he had a mind-bogglingly miniscule amount on him, or more likely, possession with intent to distribute, if he had enough on him to last a week or more. What thrills you so about this distinction?. On the available scientific evidence, it makes more sense to put someone in jail for possession of turkey eggs, than it does of marijuana. Unlike the case with turkey eggs, the consumption of marijuana has virtually no clinical record of causing significant harm to anyone.
You know that - but Poser doesn't? Can you folks PLEASE get together with the evidence prior to making fools of yourselves? The World-Wide-Web sure would appreciate it...
There's no such word. Do you care to define your terms or is that asking for more intellectual rigor than you can manage?
I vaguely remember, some two or more decades ago, what our criteria was when we got stoned. Didn't have to worry about wrecking, killing someone, or doing major damage to someone's vehicle, for you didn't exceed 35 mph's.
After while, go to my place, put on some Stones, Blue Oyster Cult, or Pink Floyd, kick back and rock. Munchies meant a trip to Dairy Queen for a "hot fudge cake." Yep, brings back some memories from deep with in the vault of memories. Those were the days, when even the cops would party with you.
Sure there is. You saw it in post #1 and have copied and pasted it - twice. Your assistance in it's distribution is greatly appreciated.
Have a grownup check your medication for you
Smoking pot. He had one joint and was smoking it in his car. The cop saw him smoking it and arrested him. One joint, 18 months.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
While I can't provide the references, the historical accounts I've read say that prior to federal prohibition, there were a few state and local laws against smoking marijuana. Phohibition of possession wouldn't have been practical, since hemp was still commonly grown as a commodity crop. I shouldn't think it unreasonable to assume that there were some successful prosecutions and incarcerations for violations of those laws.
Consider addressing the concern that putting people in jail for either posession OR being high is still iniquiteous in either case. One can almost always rely on prohibitionists to hide in some pointless nitpicking corner, rather than address the non-existence of a scientific basis for pot prohibition.
"Libertine", NOT "liberteen". You give the appearance of a kid with severe Attention Deficit Disorder. Do you ever respond to the meat of an argument, or does your entire argument consist of baiting anyone who disagrees with you?
You're getting warmer...
Let's not waste any more time with this individual, it's likely that he has been standing too close to a microwave oven with a bad seal
It does seem to be some manner of malsentience.
Ah well, as Twain once said, "Never blame on malice what you can explain with stupidity"
Beeber might be stuned, too. Without a coherent moose/cheese index it's hard to tell.
See "Licit and Illicit Drugs", by the Editors of the Consumer's Union, an extremely well-sourced, and well-regarded academic resource. Without federal prodding, there would probably never have been state laws regarding marijuana--it was too far below the radar for anyone to be interested before the feds started looking for new crimes to invent.
Phohibition of possession wouldn't have been practical, since hemp was still commonly grown as a commodity crop. I shouldn't think it unreasonable to assume that there were some successful prosecutions and incarcerations for violations of those laws.
Medical marijuana was regarded as about the same as aspirin is now, until the mid 1920's. The really astonishing thing about this period, is that it required an amendment to the Constitution to ban alcohol, whose detrimental nature is plain, whereas to ban marijuana, all Anslinger had to do was make up a bunch of racist stories about how you "cain't stop them spics and nigras from raping white women while hyped up on Marijuana with a 45". And tell these stories to a Senate committee, which later reported these stories, and NOT the AMA's strong objections, to the full Senate before the vote. The transcript of these hearings is about the most unshamefully racist document to be produced by our government in the 20th century. The war on marijuana started with deeply fraudulant testimony, and has been maintained by fraudulant testimony ever since.
The deceptions started before the first testimony was even heard. Why name the bill the "Marijuana Tax Act" at a time when very few people had ever heard the term, but virtually everyone knew what "hemp" or "cannabis" were? If you want people to know what you're talking about, you refer to it by terms they are familiar with. The only reason to adopt terminology they are unfamiliar with to refer to something they are familiar with is if you have something to hide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.