Why is it okay to admit you did drugs?

[Cehrabehra]

I didn't read it that way Danny, I read it as just some facts that were then backed up with credentials. Not that anyone WILL go around arresting and prosecuting former drug users but that blatantly ignoring them isn't the way the law is written to be enforced.

Besides, I wasn't scared... I'll even go on record that I'll do them sometime in the future

 

[partgypsy]

I guess the simplest answer is as someone already said, that doing drugs is not illegal, it's possession of. And if you did the drugs, they are no longer in your "possession". Especially if someone is confessing to something that occurred in the past, no ones is going to be prosecuted for that. You also don't want to make a deterrent for people to get help with their addiction, which is what would happen if you made it a crime to "confess". It would make clinician's jobs alot harder because no one would be honest about that part of their medical history if there were consequences like that.

I don't see drug use as a "victimless crime". Working in the VA system I see how it has destroyed lives, careers, relationships, financial security, I can go on and on. It doesn't just affect the person but usually everyone around him or her.

The only exception I would make is for pot smoking. Honestly I've known so many people who have smoked pot at one time in their life or other, while still holding down prestigious scholarships, big time jobs (lawyers, executives) the biggest negative seems the threat of arrest and prison if they are discovered with it. But I still wouldn't want my children smoking it, just like I wouldn't want them to start smoking cigarettes.

 

[ProseCuter]

I don't see drug use as a "victimless crime". Working in the VA system I see how it has destroyed lives, careers, relationships, financial security, I can go on and on. It doesn't just affect the person but usually everyone around him or her.

I agree, and would add that most people who use and abuse illegal drugs can't afford them, so to finance their habit they either start selling them themselves, or commit other crimes, such as theft or prostitution. If you have ever been burglarized or robbed, there is a good chance drugs had something to do with it. Drug use is definitely not a victimless crime.

 

[ProseCuter]

Possession is the crime, as is dealing and what you do under the influence of drugs. Even if you admitted it and it can be proven, you won't get arrested. Rightfully so. Why would you want to waste the time of officers and clog up the legal system/jails with people who smoked a little pot as a teen?

The decision to charge someone with a crime is at the discretion of the district attorney. If from the police reports it appears that there is enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is within the statute of limitations, it should be charged. Considering whether the case will "clog up the courts" is not a proper consideration in determining whether or not to charge a case.

I'm also not an attorney and my opinion is merely just that-an opinion.

I am deputy district attorney and am not posting my opinion. I'm posting what the law is.

Well, then. Why don't you dig up some cases of teens who allegedly smoked pot ten years ago? Good luck. You know as well as I do that that never happens in the US. Why even pretend.

And, yes, discretion would involve not wasting time and resources on such as a farcical case.

You obviously didn't read all of my comments. The statute of limitations is always an issue, and so is proof. I never said anyone is prosecuted in the US for admitting to drug use 10 years prior. To repeat for you, no one can be convicted by their own admission without other proof. And if an act happened beyond the statutory time limit, no prosecution can happen at all.

 

[ProseCuter]

For the misdemeanor crime of being under the influence of a controlled substance, a drug recognition expert (DRE) is going to have to test the person to determine what it is believed they are under the influence of, and a blood test will have to be done to show if anything was actually in their system. If you were under the influence in the past and just admit to it, again, there is no corpus delicti.

And that's a great thing. I've seen a DRE come to poor neighborhood, look at someone who was high on ice for ten days, and turn around and leave, insisting they can't tell anything. Because poor people who are terrorizing other poor people don't seem to matter to the police. DRE. That's a joke.

And when you say a blood test will have to be done, are you in the habit of advocating sticking needles in people's arms and taking their blood to see if they can be prosecuted?

If this is how law enforcement purports to act no wonder they get no respect for the so called "war on drugs" and no wonder it's a spectacular failure.

And, please, stop scarring people who aren't citizens of the US about drug arrests for people who smoked pot when they were teenagers. No such thing happens in the US, period.

I'm not in the habit of drawing blood from anyone, sir. I'm a prosecutor, not a phlebotemist. If a law enforcement officer is investigating a crime, and suspects someone is under the influence, they can transport them to have their blood drawn by a trained professional. Law enforcement must work within the law in all searches and seizures they perform, or the cases will ultimately be unprosecutable by DAs.

I am not trying to scare people about drug arrests. I'm trying to educate people about the laws and criminal procedure. If you think you know more about our system, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I don't see drug use as a "victimless crime". Working in the VA system I see how it has destroyed lives, careers, relationships, financial security, I can go on and on. It doesn't just affect the person but usually everyone around him or her.

I agree, and would add that most people who use and abuse illegal drugs can't afford them, so to finance their habit they either start selling them themselves, or commit other crimes, such as theft or prostitution. If you have ever been burglarized or robbed, there is a good chance drugs had something to do with it. Drug use is definitely not a victimless crime.

I cannot agree that this is a blanket truth though - assuming one could opt out of the whole drug culture and grow their own weed, and assuming that their interest in smoking (or baking/ingesting) weed was infrequent (no more than 5 times a year no less than every 3 years), and assuming that they were as responsible about things as the best drinkers out there (no operating machinery) - I don't see where the victim is.

And I don't think those are unreasonable assumptions, I know for a fact that people live like this.

 

[Imdanny]

Possession is the crime, as is dealing and what you do under the influence of drugs. Even if you admitted it and it can be proven, you won't get arrested. Rightfully so. Why would you want to waste the time of officers and clog up the legal system/jails with people who smoked a little pot as a teen?

The decision to charge someone with a crime is at the discretion of the district attorney. If from the police reports it appears that there is enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is within the statute of limitations, it should be charged. Considering whether the case will "clog up the courts" is not a proper consideration in determining whether or not to charge a case.

I'm also not an attorney and my opinion is merely just that-an opinion.

I am deputy district attorney and am not posting my opinion. I'm posting what the law is.

Well, then. Why don't you dig up some cases of teens who allegedly smoked pot ten years ago? Good luck. You know as well as I do that that never happens in the US. Why even pretend.

And, yes, discretion would involve not wasting time and resources on such as a farcical case.

You obviously didn't read all of my comments. The statute of limitations is always an issue, and so is proof. I never said anyone is prosecuted in the US for admitting to drug use 10 years prior. To repeat for you, no one can be convicted by their own admission without other proof. And if an act happened beyond the statutory time limit, no prosecution can happen at all.

The reason I took issue with your comments was that fiery wrote, "Why would you want to waste the time of officers and clog up the legal system/jails with people who smoked a little pot as a teen?" to which you directly replied, "The decision to charge someone with a crime is at the discretion of the district attorney. If from the police reports it appears that there is enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is within the statute of limitations, it should be charged. Considering whether the case will "clog up the courts" is not a proper consideration in determining whether or not to charge a case."

As such, it did seem to me that you were directly commenting on what fiery said, again, "Why would you want to waste the time of officers and clog up the legal system/jails with people who smoked a little pot as a teen?"

The correct answer to her rhetorical question is, "You wouldn't." You launched into a dissertation about how, "The decision to charge someone with a crime is at the discretion of the district attorney."

To which I replied, it really doesn't matter according to the topic of this thread- no district attorney in the US has any interest in prosecuting people for smoking pot when they were teenagers. fiery was correct and your reply was a non-sequitar. And do you really think that discretion doesn't involve decisions about the allocation of resources, since you brought it up?

OP, it's Ok for people in the US to say that they smoked marijuana when they were teenagers because to think that they would be prosecuted for doing this years ago under any circumstances is a joke. I hope that's clear enough.