Jhony5
New member
Well you're right to some extent. When a predefined consequence of any action is laid out, and one chooses to run the risk....well its a cause and effect situation. Same as the East Germans knew the consequence when they decided to make West for the barbed wire. Point being, sometimes the consequence is far to extreme.IF I go and buy drugs, I KNOW the potential consequences...everyone does, just because the outcome of being caught can be potentially ****** up, like it was with your friend, we ALL (unless you're retarded) know what can happen...
Well it was circumstance that resulted in him having two bags instead of one large. The guy he bought it from didn't have a whole ounce, rather two halves. So he didn't take the time to put them together in one bag. For those of you not following. When they find you with drugs in two packages, it show motive toward distribution. That and he had his $700 in cash left from his check. Even though he could prove he had cashed a check that afternoon for more than that amount, they took it anyway as he couldn't prove that particular $700 was indeed from his check.Two half ounce bags ON HIM?. That's "supply".
I agree. He couldn't blame anyone but that **** dog for his ill circumstance. But the point of my mentioning that instance, was to reinforce the point that victimless crimes being punished so vigorously are detrimental to society, as opposed to what we are told. A hard working family man with no criminal record had his life thrown onto the rocks because of mandatory sentencing and overpowered judicial tactics. Prosecution that involves ignoring extenuating circumstance (the fact that he had two bags instead of one/ his possession of $700)....but right now it's criminal activity, we all know it, and we all know the potential consequences
Our laws, especially concerning drugs, have been finagled to a point where they prefer wrongful conviction over no conviction. Take this for example. Many states have adopted a law called "Constructive possession". What this means and where its applied is when they pull over a car with 4 people in it. Upon searching the vehicle they find a bag of cocaine under the seat. Under the terms of "Constructive possession" all people in the car are charged with possession of the same substance if no one admits ownership. Defying logic. No, its silly to assert that 4 people can possess the same object.
The other people might have had no knowledge whatsoever of the fact that any drugs were in the car, but they go to jail anyway. Because the law refuses to let people have a chance of getting away with a crime.
Good question. Seems obvious at first, but spin doctors will provide loose fitting explanations of how being in possession of a bag of weed indeed produces victims. If you buy illegal drugs from a dealer, you are perpetuating his illegal activity. Therefor you are in part, financing his illegal activity which down the line will result in kids buying drugs from this same fella. Theres yer victims. Right? By buying drugs I have indirectly perpetuated an activity that allowed some poor kid to get hooked on dope.But how do you define "victimless" crime?...
I however find these sort of semantics purely laughable. Buying, growing or possessing dope in no way directly or indirectly victimizes anyone, save for maybe yourself by way of having a habit. The logic that follows this is the same logic that has made attempted suicide a crime. Public intoxication, thats a ******* crime? Ya buddy it is. But who was the victim? Stand out on the sidewalk in front of your home, drunk, and your breaking the law. Show me the victim please.
Think you catch my drift, Moko?