• 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.

Compliance with New Drug Laws

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

F

FreeMan2000

Guest
(California)

Please consider the following and give any insight/legal strategies that come to mind:

1. Assume a given substance is newly scheduled (schedule II) in California.

2. An individual has been found to be in possession of said substance subsequent to the new law taking effect.

3. However, said individual can prove that he/she purchased and initially possessed said substance prior to the new law taking effect.

4. Arresting officer was unaware of the legal status of the substance and needed to contact DOJ. Defendant claims it is unreasonable to expect a citizen to have a better knowledge of newly passed law than law enforcement officials.

5. The substance in question continues to be openly sold in the state as an ingredient in a variety of commercial products.

Any thoughts appreciated.
 


T

Tracey

Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FreeMan2000:
(California)

Please consider the following and give any insight/legal strategies that come to mind:

1. Assume a given substance is newly scheduled (schedule II) in California.

2. An individual has been found to be in possession of said substance subsequent to the new law taking effect.

3. However, said individual can prove that he/she purchased and initially possessed said substance prior to the new law taking effect.

4. Arresting officer was unaware of the legal status of the substance and needed to contact DOJ. Defendant claims it is unreasonable to expect a citizen to have a better knowledge of newly passed law than law enforcement officials.

5. The substance in question continues to be openly sold in the state as an ingredient in a variety of commercial products.

Any thoughts appreciated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


3. Irrelevant. The possession continued after the law took effect & became criminal then. That defendatn previously possessed it legally is irrelevant unless the law specifically grandfathered in the purchase.

4. Irrelevant. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." This rule was laid down back in the 1600's & undures to this day. It is so firmly entrenched in our legal culture that the legislature has to specifically create the exception on a statute-by-statute basis. That it is ridiculous to expect the average citizen to *find* all the laws, let alone understand them, is just something the legal system refuses to acknowledge.

5. Irrelevant. It's illegal to possess the pure form of the drug. If it's used as an ingredient, it's being used legally & for a legitimate purpose.

Hire a lawyer to try to find some new legal arguments. Yours are sure losers.


------------------
This is not legal advice and you are not my client. Double check everything with your own attorney and your state's laws.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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