Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Try this on for size then, Socrates:
>>
>> If the end user is the distributee, he may not successfully argue
>> that he's not really part of the chain/conspiracy of distribution
>> because he's only the user.
>>
>> What's so hard about that?
>
> I haven't looked up the statute to see if manufacture and
> distribution are separate crimes. For the sake of argument, let's
> assume they're not. Then growing is manufacture and falls under the
> statute. Even if you're the only user.
>
> Not growing but holding is a different crime.
And how did you come to "hold" the drugs, if you
didn't grow/manufacture them yourself, or conspire
with a distributor for the sale/distribution of those
drugs to you, eh Gomer?
> You must think abusive posts will change that fact.
You must think that willful pig-ignorance and stupidity
change legal reality.
>
> But you're wrong about that, too.
Ditto.
|