I mean, if I am prescribed oxycontin, can I legally have the drug in my system for the rest of my life?
I mean, if I am prescribed oxycontin, can I legally have the drug in my system for the rest of my life?
[1] https://edfolsomlaw.com/2013/01/illegal-possession-of-your-o...
Christ. That is insane. What are people supposed to do for medicines that are used only in the case of an emergency? I really wonder what goes through some of these prosecutor's heads sometimes.
(Re)elections.
E.g., with alcohol, the “in the blood is illegal” rule would criminalize auto-brewery syndrome occuring in those legally denied alcohol (e.g., due to age), while the “in the blood is admissible as evidence of use” would not, though those with the syndrome might need to present evidence of it to avoid charges.
The myth is that "lie after" should be read as "equals", which is often far from the truth apparently.
Are you implying that you still hold this assumption and are looking for someone to convince you otherwise? If so, I can't even conceive of where you got this idea in the first place, let alone argue against it. Let's slap a little Occam's Razor on this: how would you even begin to enforce this?
But yes, I am interested in a definitive answer.
Laws around prescription pills are sometimes unexpected, like every prescription pill in your Mon-Tues-Wed-etc pill box (outside their prescription container) being a felony. So my grandma has numerous unexpected felonies in her purse.