Has ANYONE ever been imprisoned for smoking pot?

09/21/02 | Libloather

[Libloather]

Fifty arrests made at Hash Bash

From the article provided -
The agencies made more than 50 arrests during the event, most for possession of marijuana.

Nice try but no dice. Please feel free to play again...

[Libloather]

So even if the charge is for possession, the crime is consumption. That's why the law is written the way it is: to give police wider latitude in enforcement.
It's still interesting - over 360 posts - and it's come down to your lame explanation of why you think laws were written and how you think they apply? Consumption isn't a crime (despite what the Liberteens may say).

So if you commit one act, are arrested for it, but charged with another act and imprisoned, why is it exactly that you were put in jail?
If charged for possession, there would be evidence - no? If not, that would be false imprisonment.

Why do you insist on fabricating things that don't exist?

[Libloather]

Very cool. The UCMJ does not allow pot use. It's a condition of employment.

Are these the folks the Liberteens are complaining about?

[Liberty Teeth]

No sh*t sherlock. To answer your question. No, nobody has been arrested for second hand smoke. But if they have a joint to their lips and they are *smoking* it they will be arrested.

Are you saying it is OK to smoke marijuana, just don't have it on you?

[Liberty Teeth]

Can I play?! I may have the answer.

[Libloather]

But if they have a joint to their lips and they are *smoking* it they will be arrested.

On what charge, Holmes?

[Liberty Teeth]

Well little fella, possession. The folks at the Hash Bash were *smoking* marijuana which means they had it on them.

No, nobody can be arrested for second hand marijuana smoke. If I was standing next to the guy at the hash bash who was smoking a *joint*, he will be arrested not me.

Is this why this thread is approaching 400 posts?

[Libloather]

Well, possession.

You must enjoy making my point for me - no? Now, since you think everyone at your party got busted for smoking, then they'll ALL be convicted on the same charge and sentenced for the same duration. Isn't that correct?

(I fully understand the initial question was pretty tough on most Liberteens, so I'll attempt to make any others toward you a bit easier...)

[Libloather]

Parole violation. Using a controlled substance.

I'm not willing to concede your point for several reasons.

1) This Indiana convict violated parole (as far as I know, based solely the MINOR details given by you) so he's back behind bars for just that, violating parole. His sentence reverts back to what the court decided on the first conviction - not the second.

2) 'Using a controlled substance' could mean anything. Was the goober sent back to the clink because of a failed mandatory golden flow test? That ain't "smokin' pot."

3) You failed to mention why this convict is behind bars in the first place. Was he sent to the hoosegow for running a drug cartel - or running too many red lights? Was it murder - or poppin' a cap in the neighbor's pooch? What? This would be important because of the nature of the parole violation.

4) You went out of your way to post HUGE hypothetical situations in an effort to prove your point yet went stoopid and clammed up on any details about convict mentioned above - a real sentenced criminal. You'll need to cough up MUCH more info to come close to being credible.

Oh, and we may have to discuss the quality of people you hang around on some later date...

[Liberty Teeth]

Your point? What, that you have none. And that this is an exercise in madness. I helped you out and gave you a chance to end it. Like I said, I cannot be arrested by association or second hand smoke. But if I am standing there with a joint in my mouth then I run the risk of being carted away.

IMO - I could care less what your *point* is. Much like I couldn't give a rats ass if someone has a bag of pot on them. However if we could jail people for perpetual boredom, I would give you a life sentence.

[Libloather]

Your point?
The Liberteens constantly complain about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS imprisoned for "smoking pot" yet can't come up with ONE example. Neither can you.

And that this is an exercise in madness.
To most Liberteens, I'm sure it is. (And I haven't even started on the myth that the Liberteens are the "smart ones" yet.)

But if I am standing there with a joint in my mouth then I run the risk of being carted away.
You'll be charged, prosecuted and convicted on the possession and the amount. Please be careful out there...

Much like I couldn't give a rats ass if someone has a bag of pot on them.
You aren't a cop - are you?

NEXT!

[Dakmar]

Oh, and we may have to discuss the quality of people you hang around on some later date...

I would appreciate it if you could lay off the personal attacks. You don't know me, you don't know the person I am talking about.

The fact is, this person is now in prison because he was found to be smoking marijuana while on parole. The title of this thread is Has ANYONE ever been imprisoned for smoking pot, and I have answered that. Are you going to argue that "because of" and "for" are significantly different? Actually, please do, your semantic contortions are quite amusing.

[Libloather]

The fact is, this person is now in prison because he was found to be smoking marijuana while on parole.

I may be able to look up the case if some sort of name of the convict is coughed up. Care to participate?

Otherwise, your so-called evidence is simply hearsay - and that ain't admissible...

[Dakmar]

I am not going to post personal information about someone, so you can forget that route. Just for the sake of argument, thought, let's say this person failed a urine test. That failure resulted in the person being returned to prison. Since there is only one thing that can cause a urine test to show positive for cannabis, and that would be consumuing cannabis. And please, I'm in no mood to go into the legal distinction between smoking pot and eating it.

Cause = smoking pot
Effect = prison

What could be more plain?

[Libloather]

I am not going to post personal information about someone, so you can forget that route.
If the convict was sentenced - (at least) twice - that ain't personal information - it's public information and is probably posted somewhere on the internet. A last name may do the trick.

Just for the sake of argument, thought, let's say this person failed a urine test.
Oh, my. I nailed it - didn't I? The convict came up positive after a golden flow. Darn the luck - but your convict wasn't busted for "smokin' pot." He got busted for being dumb enough to piss in a cup - while on parole. He was sent up the river - again - because of lab results.

Your friend is a complete idiot. (And not just one of those little ones. I'm talkin' GIANT here...)

So far, we've got the UCMJ having imprisonment provisions for smoking pot.

NEXT!

[Zon]

What did I tell you in my last post as well as said similar to you several times before that? I said this...

Are you going to tell "us" the profound insight you've been reveling in, or what? I mean, if and when you finally decide to post it, flag me then. And not until then." 288

* * *

You sure poked a touchy libertarian nerve.

The Liberteens have no idea what's comin'.

Please leave me in my revelry...

166 posted on 9/21/02 11:36 PM Eastern by Libloather

* * *

 

[Zon]

LL, If you think a person's marijuana use has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. After all, that's would you'd do if a person robbed you, right?

This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

[Libloather]

I revel in making Liberteens look like numbskulls. How am I doin'?

If you think a person's marijuana use has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury.
Use doesn't place someone behind bars. Don't you get it - yet?

After all, that's would you'd do if a person robbed you, right?
No. Are you a lawyer?

This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.
How about the truth every once in a while? I've yet to get it from ANY Liberteen...

[Libloather]

Zon wrote -
"As far as I know, ironically, there is no law that prohibits smoking marijuana."

Zon is correct - no?

[Sandy]

Please remove me from your ping list.