| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Thu, Apr 17 2008, 8:29 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy !
Ha Ha Ha |
|
 |
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Mar 10 2008, 11:53 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
| Well that's why we have open container laws too. I'm not talking about driving home from the liquor store after buying a case of beer, in terms of the concern. I guess we have to hope that this guy just happened to be driving home after buying some pot, which was neatly packaged for smoking when he arrived safely at his destination. Alcohol, pot, cocaine...whatever, it is a danger when you combine it with an automobile. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to say someone should be in trouble for thinking about smoking some pot. That's not what the write up says happened. The guy was speeding, he had pot and stuff and that's why he got in trouble. He wasn't just sitting around "thinking." |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Mar 10 2008, 10:52 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
While the "potential" was there, that is something that you cant prove. There is "potential" if you were driving with liquor or beer in your car too. Luckily you cant be convicted of Thoughtcrime yet.
Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.
-Winston Smith, 1984 |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Mar 9 2008, 9:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
| I understand. That's why I said potential of driving under the influence. It still represents a danger to my mind. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Mar 9 2008, 9:12 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
| Guest wrote: | | It isn't the substance so much but the concern about the potential of driving under the influence. You can do a great deal of harm behind the wheel of a car if your reflexes are impaired. Keep to the privacy of your own home and then others are not in harms way. |
He was charged with 'Drug Possession,' not DUI. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Mar 9 2008, 8:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
| It isn't the substance so much but the concern about the potential of driving under the influence. You can do a great deal of harm behind the wheel of a car if your reflexes are impaired. Keep to the privacy of your own home and then others are not in harms way. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Mar 9 2008, 8:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Patrick Ward, 31, of Cranbury was charged with possession of marijuana under 50 grams and drug paraphernalia after being pulled over for speeding on Route 571 at Southfield Road at 11 p.m. Friday, police reported. It was determined he was in possession of marijuana and a pipe, police said. - From the Princeton Packet, March 4th, 2008 |
What harm did the man do to others?
It's a bogus human-made 'law' that says you cannot posses a certain kind of plant! |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Mar 9 2008, 6:38 pm EDT Post subject: Cranbury Man Charged with Drug Possession |
|
| Patrick Ward, 31, of Cranbury was charged with possession of marijuana under 50 grams and drug paraphernalia after being pulled over for speeding on Route 571 at Southfield Road at 11 p.m. Friday, police reported. It was determined he was in possession of marijuana and a pipe, police said. - From the Princeton Packet, March 4th, 2008 |
|
|