"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
news:64veooF2dqmctU1@mid.individual.net:
> 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 don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm not distributing cocaine
by hoovering it. I have to perform some act that gets the drug to other
people. Drug users are not necessarily drug dealers.
>> 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?
Let me check. Er, no. The room spins when I'm 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?
Purchasing drugs is not distributing drugs. Most of the cocaine users I
know don't mule, don't sell, don't get their drugs by mail, don't travel
across state lines, and stay the hell off the phone.
>>>> 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)
This isn't about consumption. It's about manufacture. The government
sucessfully argued that even if you grew weed for and only for your own
use, it was still manufacture.
> 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.
If the end user is the grower, he may not successfully argue that he's
not really a grower because he's the only user. What's so hard about
this?
>>>>>>> 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.
Of course, but the distributor is not the consumer.
>>>> 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)?
You're arguing that I'm running a store when I buy something at Target.
>>Your dealer may be.
>
> Prisons are full of naive clueless drug users like you and BoRax,
What makes you think I'm a drug user?
> and Prosecutors like Larry easily convict delusional nitwits who
> falsely assume the crime of "just using" can be completed in a legal
> vacuum.
Of course not. Using and possession are crimes. Just not the one you
claim.
>
>>
>>>> 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.
Maybe it's my drug-addled state, but I can't. Help me out.
>>>> 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.
So you can't. OK. So stop yelling at me. You're harshing my mellow.
|