Posted by SLS on September 24, 2001, at 14:36:23
In reply to Re: Yes, prescription needed, posted by Mitchell on September 18, 2001, at 20:03:51
> Juries can use common sense to weigh the merits of factual claims, but to return a criminal conviction, courts require a citation of law. Try US Code : Title 21, Section 844, with regard to possession, and US Code : Title 21, Section 829 with regard to dispensing of controlled substances. "Controlled substance" is defined at US Code : Title 21, Section 802. Schedules of controlled substances are at US Code: Title 13, Section 812. Revised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs
Please forgive me for not reading the entire thread before writing this. I hope it's not too out of place. Some of the posts are really long.I pretty much know where I'm at with all of this, but am not yet ready to make any declarations. I would rather play Devil's advocate for now. However, at this point, I am beginning to think the best answer to this question is also the most simple. I am so glad that someone started this thread. This is a crucial issue, the resolution of which will determine the fundamental nature of Psycho-Babble. I know I'm pretentious, but I'm sure this can be overlooked. I seem to like the sound of my own keystrokes.
I experienced something very interesting as I tried to read through some of Mitchell's posts. It actually served as a real-life reflection of something I wrote along a relevant thread on Psycho-Babble (original flavor). As I was reaching the end of his commentary in his second post, I stopped and smiled. I realized that I was becoming an unwitting accomplice in placing myself in a position to make carefully considered, perfectly logical, but very possibly misguided decisions. At some point early in his first post, I came to assume that Mitchell was a legal scholar. His verbiage and sophistication of approach seemed extremely authoritative. In high school, I discovered that I possess an aptitude for legal reasoning and rhetoric. I am confident in my ability to understand and assess points of law. However, I am without factual knowledge. Given the big words used by Mitchell in his posts, I found myself ready to rely on his statements as being accurate in fact and his interpretations as learned. I was doing this unconsciously. I don't think I am unique in displaying this tendency, although I might be so among the people participating in this discussion. The point is, I became vulnerable to making injurious decisions based upon the statements and opinions of someone I just "met", and without knowing the first thing about his background. I had no less freedom to make decisions for myself then than I do now. I am over 18 years old. I consider myself to be reasonably smart. Yet, because of my absolute ignorance of the law, I tended to defer to someone else the decision-making process.
Interesting. For all I know, a few unlucky innocents may have considered my gibberish similarly authoritative.
By the way, I still hold Mitchell in high regard at this point.
I feel very lucky to be exposed to and have available to me the facts, intellect, judgment, and passion possessed by the people here. I find Psycho-Babble to be a real asset to me.
Sincerely,
Scott
poster:SLS
thread:2069
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/2117.html