"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
news:rM-dnfSKpsf3a3TanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
> news:47e9e44e$0$25981$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> "Bo Raxo" wrote in message
>> news:poednQtjzYamQ3TanZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
>>> news:64u2avF2dc8sbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>> >
>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>
>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>> without committing a felony.
>>
>
> He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party, asks if
> you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering to share their
> drugs.
Conspiracy to distribute/possess
> No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess.
If there is an offer, agreement and acceptance to engage in criminal
activity, and an overt act in furtherance of that crime, you have
conspiracy. Ipso facto
That you don't know basic criminal law doesn't change that fact..
> If you're inclined, you step in to the bathroom or wherever, you snort it
> up. Or smoke it, whatever.
>
>>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>>
>> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
>> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>>
>
> I'm not an attorney,
Nor are you aware of basic criminal law.
> but I understand some drug use can violate state laws without touching
> federal laws.
So tell us how obtaining, purchasing, possessing and/or using
cocaine in the USA as David Patterson confessed to did not
violate Federal Drug laws.
> Federal law is based on the interstate commerce clause, so if you merely
> use what someone offers you, no commerce involved.
If only your ignorance were reality.
Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 7:36 AM EDT (1136 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be
blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused
by cancer or other serious illnesses.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the
backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader
social and financial implications.
"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic
'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority
At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use
of "patient pot."
The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of
marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government
argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited
patient exceptions.
The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the
drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the
use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested
was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis
in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.
A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was
non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of
"economic enterprise."
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that
homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden
patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it
imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of
whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
>>>> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>
>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>>
>
> I don't know, and neither do you.
The point being he obtained it from someone, unless you're asserting
he grew coca and processed his own cocaine all outside the jurisdiction
of the U$A.
> People offer drugs, it happens. I've had it happen many times.
And offering/accepting illegal drugs IS distribution, numbnuts.
What part don't you conprehend?
>
>>>I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>
>> Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> No conspiracy.
Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
> No distribution.
Yep, if you accept the drugs.
>No possession,
ROTFLMAO!
> Someone hands you the mirror, you partake
Possession, dipshit.
> (or don't).
If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
> No possession.
Wrong again.
> No distribution.
And wrong again.
> No conspiracy.
Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
>
> Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
>
>>
>>> at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down they
>>> think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
>>
>> Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
>>
>
> The person who gives it to you *might* meet the test of distribution
> (though I doubt it).
Your "doubts" about the reality of law will get you 5-10.
> The recipient does not.
>
>>> no conspiracy,
>>
>> Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an "overt
>> step"
>> toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
>
> You really need to read the conspiracy statute. If someone hands you a
> joint and you take a puff and hand it backed, you didn't conspire and you
> didn't possess.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks.
>
>>
>>> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
>>
>> And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
>> those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
>
> It would constitute a state crime. But not neccesarily a federal one if
> you never purchased.
Really? So if one doesn't "purchase" the drugs, no Federal crime is
committed, eh moron?
> And not a felony.
So cite the Federal "misdemeanor" that involves the distribution, sale,
possession and/or use of cocaine.
|