Deadrat wrote:
> "Reality_Check©" wrote in
>> "Bo Raxo" wrote in message
>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
>>>> "Bo Raxo" wrote in message
>>>>> "Reality_Check©" wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>
> Sure, but it must be the same criminal act. If I buy drugs, I'm not
> conspiring with a drug dealer to distribute drugs.
Bullshit. Are the drugs not being distributed to you? Have you
not agreed and taken an overt act in effecting that distribution?
> I'm using
> (possibly on my own), and he's selling (and not with me; I'm buying)
You can't possibly be that stupid. I'm an truly stunned. Are you drunk?
>>
>> 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.
>
> I can't find use prohibited in the USC,
Correct, use per se was not prohibited under federal code as far
as I recall.
> which concerns itself with
> manufacture, importation, and distribution. Can you point me to title
> and section?
Can you point me to a cocaine user who didn't either purchase, distribute,
possess, transport, use the interstate telephone system, use the interstate
banking
system, use the US postal system, and/or travel across state lines and/or
conspire
to do any aspect or element of the above in furtherance of the multi-various
crimes inherently necessary before the drugs end up in the body of the end user?
>
>>> 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
>
> But that's manufacture.
>
>
Stupid rat --
"The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not
recognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) were assigned to break up California's medical marijuana
co-ops and seize their assets. This activity was the result of the belief that
federal law preempted that of California. The government argued that if a single
exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become
unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that **consuming**
one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market
of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate-and
prohibit-**such consumption.**" (emphasis added for addle-brained rats)
So again, unless the marijuana is falling from the skies like manna from heaven,
the end user is part and parcel to the distribution/production/trafficking of
said drugs,
and has an "effect" on the interstate market as a whole, whether positive or
negative.
>
>>>>>> 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 comprehend?
>>
>>>
>>>>> I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>>>
>>>> Conspiracy to Distribute/Possess.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> No conspiracy.
>>
>> Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
>
> I don't believe this is correct. You have to be in concert for there
> to be a conspiracy. One person is buying and one is selling. These
> are separate crimes.
Are you really that daft on drug law? No $$ or other compensation
needs to change hands for DISTRIBUTION to take place.
>
>>
>>> No distribution.
>>
>> Yep, if you accept the drugs.
>
> Distribution is giving drugs to another person.
Yep.
> You're not distributing drugs if you're merely using them.
You clueless .-chop. Exactly how does the user obtain
the drugs if not part of a distribution (or self-manufacture)?
>Your dealer may be.
Prisons are full of naive clueless drug users like you and BoRax,
and Prosecutors like Larry easily convict delusional nitwits who
falsely assume the crime of "just using" can be completed in a legal
vacuum.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Could you point us to the statutes on distribution?
You can find them.
>>
>>> Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
>>
>> Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
>
> Since you can't take drugs in cyberspace, can you point us to the
> statutes?
Sure, start at google, then findlaw.com if you are still stumped, stimpy.
>
>>>>> 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.
|