They weren't qualifiers. They were descriptions. Making consequences fit the illegal act is hardly equal to legalization.
Making consequences fit the illegal act is hardly equal to legalization.You're making my case for me. Your "newest scenario" indicates no illegal act took place at all as there are no consequences.
A person guilty of a "serious" traffic offense or drunk driving hardly comes away with a "don't get in trouble for a year". There will be monetary fines
at minumum.
And you don't call that de facto legalization?
Huuuuuuh...(large intake of breath)...do you think he did it as a "test case"? It seemed to work! He's basically walking away free without even a fine! Is the "cult of personality" at play here?
And what was the crime? "Possession"?
New York25 g or less (subsequent offense)
misdemeanor 15 days $250
25 g to 2 oz
* misdemeanor
3 months $500*Includes any amount in public where marijuana is burning or open to public view.From your 359 link...
Benjamin Curtis, a 22-year-old New York University drama student, was arraigned Monday on a misdemeanor drug possession charge. The charge assumes a suspect is not carrying more than a "use amount" — enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes. (is that the continuance of a lie? seems like it)
Yep! That and having marijuana "open to public view"!
"...the defendants knowingly and unlawfully
possessed marijuana in a public place and such was burning or
open to public view;..."
"Deponent further states that he observed both of the defendants holding this baggie of marijuana in a public place and
open to public view."
Actually it was a misdemeanor, which is fine by me, so long as they don't throw someone in the slammer for having one joint.
It could happen. /Judy Tenuta