• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

You're Allowed To Ingest Any Drug!!

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

jaysar25

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? california

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 conviction, 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 P 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 one 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.
 


tranquility

Senior Member
While I think the OP proof is stupid, I don't agree the "war on drugs" has in any way been successful.

There are tens of thousands of drug addicted babies and children that would argue that
A tragedy. It should certainly be a crime to abuse children like that. We should also make belts illegal because some people use them to abuse their children.

... not to mention tens of thousands of AIDS and hepatitis infected IV drug users.
Bad argument. It is not drugs which cause this problem, but the illegality or expense of obtaining clean needles. The drug laws are the source of this problem and is one example of why some think the current laws are insane.

What about family members robbed by their drug addled sons and daughters?
Again, this problem is more related to the laws than the drug. The sons and daughters are not robbing because of drugs per se, they are robbing because of the cost of the drugs which are artificially enhanced because of the prohibition mentality.

Or children cared for by foster parents because their so-called "real" parents can't be bothered to feed or clothe them?
Another tragedy. It should certainly be a crime to abuse children like that. If the cost of drugs came down, freeing up more household money, would that money now be spent on the children? My guess is no. The parent would get nicer clothes, more music or a fancier car. Drugs are not the problem here, the person is the problem.

How about the people who get robbed or burglarized by drug addicts so they can feed their habits?
Again, the cost of drugs is the problem, not the usage (per se).

"Victimless" crime, my ass.
The real crime is the assault on freedom and the twisting of logic that flows from the war on drugs. How many crimes are committed by the police in the pursuit of a person who's only crime is drugs? Don't come to me with figures as we all know how everything gets down to a cop's word against a citizen's. If you don't know of any cop who fabricated PC based on a lie you have your head in as much fog as any drug user. And, an intentional lie to violate a citizen's constitional rights is a felony.

The balance of hurt/benefit to society from the current laws do not seem to favor their continuation. There are problems with drugs. Just as there are problems with a high-fat diet, video games, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking and a host of other legal activities. Heck, even the Nixon administration's study pointed out the biggest harm to users came from the criminal justice system over the drugs effects on them. That was back in 1972. Nothing has changed since then and more and more people are realizing this. Don't even get me started on the drug warrior's position on compassionate use of marijuana, my goodness.

That does not mean people are well to use drugs. Better they should find God. They will find a greater joy that uplifts them rather than bring them down. But, what is freedom? I guess that's part of the question. I left my mother behind when I became a man. Some may still want their mother or believe some mothers didn't do a good job so want government to stand in their stead. I choose no, if asked.

To prevent the usual ad hominem attack when such a postion is taken I must disclose that the only psychoactive drugs I now take are alcohol and caffiene. (Alcohol only rarely.) Unlike the former president, I did occasionally inhale about 30 years ago. I never used any other psychoactive drug.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Must ... resist ... must resist ... must resist ... don't reply ... tell myself, don't reply ... AAGH!

- Carl
 

smutlydog

Member
Read the statutes, Hammerhead.

It's not ingestion... it's possession that's prohibited.


Really? Define "saner".

There are tens of thousands of drug addicted babies and children that would argue that... not to mention tens of thousands of AIDS and hepatitis infected IV drug users. What about family members robbed by their drug addled sons and daughters? Or children cared for by foster parents because their so-called "real" parents can't be bothered to feed or clothe them? How about the people who get robbed or burglarized by drug addicts so they can feed their habits?

"Victimless" crime, my ass.
If the price of beer rose to $40.00 a six pack it wouldn't be safe to step outside of your front door. Substance abuse is a serious illness and should be treated as such.Look it up in the DSM Manual. Who knows maybe I am wrong. After all what does the American Psychiatric Association know about substance abuse anyway?:rolleyes:
 

gawm

Senior Member
Must ... resist ... must resist ... must resist ... don't reply ... tell myself, don't reply ... AAGH!

- Carl
Since Carl is not replying, I can only take that to mean tranquility's logic is finally rubbing off on him. Wow, maybe Carl is more open minded than we thought.:D
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
gawm said:
Since Carl is not replying, I can only take that to mean tranquility's logic is finally rubbing off on him. Wow, maybe Carl is more open minded than we thought.:D
Heavens, no! :eek:

Like guns and abortion, drug legalization is an argument that most everyone has a cemented position on so arguing the pros and cons is an exercise in frustration.

I keep resisting the urge to counter some of what I have read her ... I must resist.

'Nuff said.

- Carl
 

c_hayhurst

Junior Member
Read the statutes, Hammerhead.

It's not ingestion... it's possession that's prohibited.


Really? Define "saner".

There are tens of thousands of drug addicted babies and children that would argue that... not to mention tens of thousands of AIDS and hepatitis infected IV drug users. What about family members robbed by their drug addled sons and daughters? Or children cared for by foster parents because their so-called "real" parents can't be bothered to feed or clothe them? How about the people who get robbed or burglarized by drug addicts so they can feed their habits?

"Victimless" crime, my ass.
Drug-addicted babies? No, we don't want that.
Street crime linked to drugs? No, we don't want that.
Increased costs of law enforcement to deal with drug user? No, we don't want that.
The spread of AIDS and hepatitis through intravenious (sp?) drug users? No, we don't want that.
A person's friends and family watching them destroy their life with drugs? No, we don't want that.

Yeah, thank God drugs ARE illegal, so all of the above doesn't happen. Oh, wait...IN SPITE of drugs being illegal, all of the above DOES happen with alarming regularity.

Well, that obviously proves the futility of prohibition.

Wait...what if we make drugs MORE illegal? Yeah!

Drug prohibition is like drinking sour milk: if drinking a little is bad, why would you think drinking more will slake your thirst? All you'll end up doing is creating more problems than you started out with.

Besides, one just has to look back at recent history in the 1920's to see how harmful, pointless and expensive Prohibition was. If you can honestly say with a straight face that Prohibition was a good thing and that it helped American society, well...you're an idiot.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
That they make a butt load of money treating addiction as a disease.
Nowhere near the money made by the prision industrial complex housing criminals who's only crime is drug-related. While I believe in the sincerity of the drug warriors (in that they believe they are making society better), it's clear there is a lot of money made from all actions taken by government related to criminalization of drug usage.

That is not even getting to the huge criminal empires created from the increased profit in drugs due to prohibition.
 

jaysar25

Junior Member
My point is:

Why should the government spend billions and billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs?
Insead of putting drug addicted users in prison, they need a better program. Why not give them education classes such as, "starting your own business", or "how to write a business plan". Give them a make over, a suit, and the knowledge of running a business. I think this would be more beneficial than prison. Keep them for 30 days in a business like routine and environment. Jail is not the answer.

What about Rev. Ted Haggard ? He admitted to purchasing meth. Is he being charged for that? I guess we will see.
 

gawm

Senior Member
Why should the government spend billions and billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs?
Because it is good for the economy.
Insead of putting drug addicted users in prison, they need a better program.
I agree
Why not give them education classes such as, "starting your own business", or "how to write a business plan".
Because if they were really interested in that type of class they would have not dropped out of high school and taken those classes in college
Give them a make over, a suit,
Didn't work for the people on Jenny Jones for more than a day. What makes you think that would help? Besides, once you are on dope awhile, your appearance matters very little to yourself.
and the knowledge of running a business.
If only it were that easy.(we would all be Donald Trump)
I think this would be more beneficial than prison.
To who? The druggie? I'm sure they will agree.
Keep them for 30 days in a business like routine and environment.
Like they would stay there, that's why jail has bars.
Jail is not the answer.
To an Extent, I agree. For some people though, it IS the answer.
What about Rev. Ted Haggard ?
A typical Christian Hypocrite
He admitted to purchasing meth. Is he being charged for that?
I don't think anyone has ever been charged with Admitting to purchasing meth, is that a new law?
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top