Possession Is Nine-Tenths... Uh, Not Always

Here's a slightly different take on the case of this Dunedin guy charged with drug trafficking in Hillsborough County, even though he had legal prescriptions for 58 Vicodin pills in his truck:

The appeals court called the reasoning behind Mark O'Hara's original conviction "absurd" and "ridiculous." It ordered a new trial. The jury wasn't told that it was legal to possess Vicodin with a prescription.

Okay, the jury ought to be able to consider that as a defense. Otherwise, as the appeals court noted, anybody who had more than a day's prescription could be considered a trafficker.

But having a prescription ought NOT be an automatic, slam-dunk defense. I've had a prescription to some good stuff too in my life, but I didn't get more than one prescription at a time, take all of it out and drive around with it. I especially wouldn't drive around with it while I was totin' marijuana as well.

The jury is entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances. If the jury is fully informed that he had a legal prescription but there is other competent evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) supporting a charge of trafficking, then the jury can still convict him. THAT's the test -- other competent evidence besides mere possession. If there ain't any, the charge should be dismissed; if there's enough to send it to a jury, then send it.

Comments

[David Mathews]

Arctic sea ice 'lowest in recorded history': scientist

http://tinyurl.com/2ykt5d

This is the sort of news which should concern the residents (and governments) of Pinellas county. The climate is changing in a dramatic fashion in the Arctic and this is a direct threat to the survival of Florida's coast.

Will Florida wait until the ocean drives people away from the coast? Wisdom suggests that the retreat from the coast should begin now. Sacrifices made by choice now are actually much less painful than sacrifices made by necessity in the future.

But no one is willing to sacrifice anything. Future generations will suffer because of the present-generations extreme greed.

***

"Real estate glut easing up

"Home listings drop to their lowest point in more than a year. That's mostly good news"
( http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/10/Business/Real_estate_glut_easi.shtml )

The St. Petersburg Times is again cheerleading and propagandizing on behalf of the Real Estate industry.

Real Estate advertisement revenues play such a significant role in newspaper advertising revenues that all news stories about real estate are about as reliable as anything found in Pravda (or even the Weekly World News).

Most of the people who are suffering because of the real estate bubble were encouraged in their greed by newspaper articles suggesting that investing in real estate was a sure bet, sort of like having the winning lottery numbers every week.

Have you considered that the glut is "easing" only because frustrated home sellers have removed their property from the market?

But the newspaper must sell homes if it wishes to remain profitable. That's a classic conflict of interest.

[David Mathews]

Newspapers are not in the business of telling the Truth to the public. Those who want the Truth have to search for it and if they are fortunate -- after decades or centuries or millennia of effort -- they will gather together a sand grain's worth of truth.

Newspapers are in the business of selling things and they do that job extremely well. In order to sustain the greed of America's flock of Obese Consumer Cattle the newspapers whisper sweet little lies into the consumer's ears. The message is subtle and barely perceptible but it is conveyed through so many channels that the public accepts it without question.

I've got bad news for the Cattle. Life is easy but you should keep in mind that the easy life comes at a hefty price. You do know the fate of cattle? Go to McDonald's and you'll find out easily enough.

This world that Americans are living in is not the "real world". Our world is more accurately described as a Mass Delusion, a virtual world built specifically to give the impression that humans really are the "Center of the Universe" and aide from the individual Self nothing else really matters.

For thousands of years humans entertained that delusion as a religious principle until Galileo and Newton and Darwin and Hubble revealed that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and Homo sapiens are not the crowning peak of either Creation or Evolution.

But this is a message which is unpalatable to the average human. Humans really want to believe that we are everything and everything is us. Capitalism has exploited this delusion of grandeur and constructed an entire civilization which makes the individual consumer the King or Queen of the Universe.

Unfortunately this sort of task requires the destruction of an entire planet, and the planet which capitaliam happened to destroy happened to be the only planet hospitable to human life in the Universe.

If you burn up your own home you cannot help but become homeless. But if you destroy your one & only planet what other options are there left for an especially violent and short-sighted species of hominid that just yesterday evolved from swinging in the trees of Africa?

Humans have got to wake up. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. About 99.999% of life's history occurred before Homo sapiens appeared on this scene. What this should tell us is that humans are not vital to Nature, the Earth or the Universe (nor even God, no offense to the religious).

What happens on a planet with 9,000,000,000 inhabitants when the Earth's natural resources become exhausted, the supply of food & fresh water are inadequate, and climate change begins radically altering both the weather & the coastline?

When I mention this danger to people I often receive the answer, "Bad things will happen, but Not in My Lifetime". 2040 isn't so very far away that people alive today should imagine that they will die before technological civilization collapses.

Those who love their own children must sacrifice the American consumer lifestyle now. That's a lot to ask but we are already in the Apocalypse and there is no guarantee that only the Iraqis will suffer & die because of our greed & gluttony.

[Susan]

Getting back to the subject at hand...to charge someone with drug trafficking, there should be some evidence that he attempted to sell--that he offered drugs to someone, for instance. A big wad of cash could be evidence, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. The fact that the defendant is clearly a moron should not open him to drug trafficking charges simply because he is stupid enough to carry his entire monthly prescription for vicodin plus his marijuana stash in his truck. The case, as it has been reported and as the appeals court said, is completely absurd.

[Keith]

You'd be surprised how often people are arrested for having their own prescriptions. Technically, if its not in the bottle, its illegal. Which is completely ridiculous - how are you supposed to even legally consume it then? I'm glad to see this sort of thing getting some attention. Some laws we enforce 'round these parts just don't make any sense.