[Oberon]

That would make you wrong. Not a little bit wrong, not somewhat wrong - totally, completely, 100% wrong.

Ahh... but the cop wouldn't have given you a second look if you hadn't lit up in front of him (in our little sample exercise). 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.

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?

Case in point: Al Capone. He was a smuggler, a crime boss, a murderer, an extortionist, and a thief. He was put in jail on the basis of a charge for tax evasion.

So why was he put in prison? I submit to you that his commission of the former crimes are what let to his imprisonment for the latter.

Why do you insist on separating the dancer from the dance?

[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?