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
Despite your kind instruction and informativeness, my position has stayed the same, that possession of marijuana at small quantities should be treated similarly to drunk driving.
You can imagine me doing gymnastics on the beach, if that's where your mind wants to go, but I'm just standing here.
He got reasonable treatment, which is not to say that the laws aren't overly harsh.
I have been attempting to communicate with you. If you choose not to communicate with me, knowing very well what I am saying (that you do yourself no favor in refusing to consider that things can occur outside of the "natural' man-perceiving world) then I'll just take it that you are not communicating, whatever you write.
You mentioned that you do not believe that the world is the center of the universe. Neither is man.