spen666
Well-Known Member
If you want to be pedantic. Having class A drugs in your body is still the offence of possession of that drug.
American bombshell? Roe vs. Wade....
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
If you want to be pedantic. Having class A drugs in your body is still the offence of possession of that drug.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Is that true? Because I thought I remembered that they changed the law to make it so, but then I mentioned it to a toxicologist colleague of mine and she sort of laughed.
Hitchington
Wokey Dick
- Location
- New York-Paris-Pokemon
No one has been prosecuted for taking drugs. Once you've taken them and your body stats metabolising them then it's difficult to present them as evidence in a court case. So I can't see there is any law which states what you can and can't do to your own body, apart from aborting a fetus beyond 24weeks (unless it's exceptional circumstances).
AuroraSaab
Squire
As a society we routinely limit what people are allowed to do with their own bodies. We do this for perfectly good reasons, often to do with safeguarding and protection, especially of younger people. We do it by balancing an individual's rights with the rights of others and with the wider good of society. We nearly always do this by coming to a consensus.
This is hugely different to the banning of abortion from conception. Here the woman's rights are given no weight whatsoever and the law is being imposed by a minority, not agreed by consensus. It really is draconian to remove all bodily autonomy from a woman, and to give no weight whatsoever to her own rights, when the cost of that could be so physically and emotionally damaging.
This is hugely different to the banning of abortion from conception. Here the woman's rights are given no weight whatsoever and the law is being imposed by a minority, not agreed by consensus. It really is draconian to remove all bodily autonomy from a woman, and to give no weight whatsoever to her own rights, when the cost of that could be so physically and emotionally damaging.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Is there not an offence called 'under the influence ' where you can be prosecuted for the effects on you having taken said class A drug?
This has nothing to do with the abortion debate which clearly is a nonsense and in my opinion anyone who thinks Women should be forced to have a child when they don't want it is deluded.
spen666
Well-Known Member
S5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence.
The fact no one has been prosecuted does not mean it is not an offence. Driving at 31mph in a 30 zone is an offence, but no one has been prosecuted for that either
Hitchington
Wokey Dick
- Location
- New York-Paris-Pokemon
That particular section of the law is about possession. You said earlier that there are laws to "stop you putting drugs into your body" and I challenge your interpretation of the law. Whether you swallow, snort, smoke, inject drugs or pop a pill up your bottom, there is no law to stop you doing that act. Therefore there are currently no laws in our liberal society to "control what we do with our own bodies" which you claimed otherwise. It's important to point this out.
Hitchington
Wokey Dick
- Location
- New York-Paris-Pokemon
That's about driving a car while "under the influence". It's not illegal to be high. It is illegal to be high while driving 2 tonnes of metal.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
How about if I wanted to assault someone with part of my body, would that not count as 'controlling' what I did with it?
May as well talk complete b0ollox while we're at it.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
How about just walking down the street, I'm sure there used to be a D&D charge going about for people pissed up on foot.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
How do you know?
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Hitchington
Wokey Dick
- Location
- New York-Paris-Pokemon
Because while it is an offence to possess certain drugs, once the drugs leave your possession i.e. when you consume them, you are no longer committing the offence of possession.
If the drugs cause you to act in an illegal way, such as driving under the influence or eating a tramps face, then it is the action ( driving, face eating) that is illegal, not the consumption of the drugs.
Craig the cyclist
Über Member
Interesting, as we can never know. Unless there is an unknown tribe somewhere, all societies have evolved worshipping some deity or another, be it God, Allah, the Sun, Prince Phillip or a goat headed beaver.
So therefore all our sense of right and wrong has been at some point influenced by the fact that a society has worshipped a 'higher power'. You are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong, with no instruction by someone or other you would have no concept of it.
icowden
Legendary Member
I'm not sure it does actually. It specifically states:
I'm sure a good lawyer would look at the definition of "possession"
and argue that having consumed the controlled drug, the person no longer has it, owns it or controls it. The person can no longer give it to another person, nor can it be extracted from them. Thus they do not possess it.
Which is besides the point that there is no interest in prosecuting people who have taken drugs. The interest is in prosecuting the dealers and terminating the supply chain.
