Baxter Drug Hearing on July 10

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Darren said:
It's difficult to see how one can take drugs without being in possession of them :)
Click to expand...

Well, you can have taken drugs (and not being caught in possession of them), and walk up to po-po (I hope you'll excuse the phrase... I'm neither black nor 'merican, but I am re-watching The Wire :D) and you could say "I've just necked an e" and there is nothing (s)he could do about it!

I admit, it would be a pretty stupid thing to do, as you almost certainly give them reasonable suspicion for a search. Still (as far as I can remember) there is nothing you can be charged with! IIRC there is even a case where they tried to nail someone for possession from a blood test and failed? (I wrote an essay on this topic a long while ago, but haven't got a clue what the case was!).

Edit (just to clarify the distinction): you have to be caught in physical possession of illegal tangibles. I.E. you have to be caught in the preparation of drug use, rather than the aftermath (therefore, planning to take drugs IS illegal, having taken drugs is NOT illegal. no?).
 

Not read all of the thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned but Portugal decriminalized(?) (I don't know the technical terms) use of all drugs - including the ones that are even worse then alcohol - a few years ago, and is obviously now a nightmarish wasteland of crack dens and shooting galleries with piles of hollow-eyed corpses littering city centres staring blankly at the sky.

Meanwhile in suburbia their Daily Hate Mail readers cower in terror inside gated communities.

Hang on...

In April 2009, the Cato Institute published a comprehensive case study of the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal. Empirical data from that report indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates. However, drug-related pathologies - such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage - have decreased dramatically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Hmmm. So why, exactly, are some drugs illegal?

The war is about the disposal of what Simon called, in his most unforgiving but cogent term, "excess Americans": once a labour force, but no longer of use to capitalism. He went so far as to call the war on drugs "a holocaust in slow motion".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/25/the-wire-creator-us-drug-laws

Well that's one point of view.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Not read all of the thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned but Portugal decriminalized(?) (I don't know the technical terms) use of all drugs - including the ones that are even worse then alcohol - a few years ago, and is obviously now a nightmarish wasteland of crack dens and shooting galleries with piles of hollow-eyed corpses littering city centres staring blankly at the sky.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Leeds
 
Flawed said:
Well, you can have taken drugs (and not being caught in possession of them), and walk up to po-po (I hope you'll excuse the phrase... I'm neither black nor 'merican, but I am re-watching The Wire :D) and you could say "I've just necked an e" and there is nothing (s)he could do about it!

I admit, it would be a pretty stupid thing to do, as you almost certainly give them reasonable suspicion for a search. Still (as far as I can remember) there is nothing you can be charged with! IIRC there is even a case where they tried to nail someone for possession from a blood test and failed? (I wrote an essay on this topic a long while ago, but haven't got a clue what the case was!).

Edit (just to clarify the distinction): you have to be caught in physical possession of illegal tangibles. I.E. you have to be caught in the preparation of drug use, rather than the aftermath (therefore, planning to take drugs IS illegal, having taken drugs is NOT illegal. no?).
Click to expand...

Indeed, but my point is that, at some point, Baxter was in possession of drugs and thus did commit a criminal offence. To be prosecuted, of course, there would have to be evidence of possession at some point, but, in theory*, you could be charged with possession, even after you had taken the drug. For example, if you confessed to the crime - "I scored some coke last Friday and 3pm, stuck it in my pocket and then snorted it at 5pm" - that would be enough evidence of possession for a conviction.

* In practice, of course, no-one is going to waste their time on this.
 
Darren said:
Indeed, but my point is that, at some point, Baxter was in possession of drugs and thus did commit a criminal offence. To be prosecuted, of course, there would have to be evidence of possession at some point, but, in theory*, you could be charged with possession, even after you had taken the drug. For example, if you confessed to the crime - "I scored some coke last Friday and 3pm, stuck it in my pocket and then snorted it at 5pm" - that would be enough evidence of possession for a conviction.

* In practice, of course, no-one is going to waste their time on this.
Click to expand...

Don't think this follows. There has to be intent. Otherwise in the obviously highly unlikely event that one rogue bad apple police officer planted a handful of pills on him or you or me then he'd be or we'd be in possession in the English sense but not in possession in the legal sense.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Don't think this follows. There has to be intent. Otherwise in the obviously highly unlikely event that one rogue bad apple police officer planted a handful of pills on him or you or me then he'd be or we'd be in possession in the English sense but not in possession in the legal sense.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have to be voluntarily and knowingly in possession. I would have thought that went without saying.
 
Darren said:
you could be charged with possession, even after you had taken the drug
Click to expand...

Case law on the subject says you can't, that is exactly what I'm saying is not true. You can only be charged with "past possession" if you are still in possession of traces of the same substance (traces = the amount is too small to be used to get high - Pragiola). Otherwise a possession prosecution requires "visible, tangible, measurable" amounts, the concept needs "physical control or custody of a thing" (and mens rea).

You can't even prove past possession with an admission AND a positive blood/piss test (Hambleton v Callinan 1968), ironically now being used by the (PDF!! ...) Northern Ireland police as justification why their own officers don't face prosecution for drug offence!
 
Flawed said:
Case law on the subject says you can't, that is exactly what I'm saying is not true. You can only be charged with "past possession" if you are still in possession of traces of the same substance (traces = the amount is too small to be used to get high - Pragiola). Otherwise a possession prosecution requires "visible, tangible, measurable" amounts, the concept needs "physical control or custody of a thing" (and mens rea).

You can't even prove past possession with an admission AND a positive blood/piss test (Hambleton v Callinan 1968), ironically now being used by the (PDF!! ...) Northern Ireland police as justification why their own officers don't face prosecution for drug offence!
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but at some point Baxter was in possession (assuming he took it voluntarily) of the drug in question and thus did commit a criminal offence, even if he can't be charged with it now.
So there!
 
It does indeed make absloutely no sense why the FA must intervene with Baxter if they let the Evans case slide past them. The fact of the matter is that he's now able to play for us (unless sold, as long as we have a replacement better than him there'll be no complaints from me). Whether people like to hear or not he was one of our more influential players last season and the season before. The stats do not lie. Hopefully Adkins can get the best out of him and he can see this situation as a wake up call because despite what many people say about him, he has undeniable talent. Unless you're Sitwell of course. It's a case of whether José wants his career or not. Although we really ought to be looking for players with desire to exit this league via the top.
 
After such a let off it is my sincere hope that Baxter will prove to be one of Adkins' most influential players this season.

I contend that if Baxter is played in his preferred position of "No.10" in that area of the field between strikers and midfield, in a team which has runners looking to take the ball in their stride in positive areas, then Baxter will pull the strings and excel.

Baxter feeding Sharp, Done, Adams and Murphy sounds great to me. Any play-maker needs options and movement.
 
As long as it's passes he's feeding them, not smiley pills
 
In terms of the FA ban the Wolves keeper got pretty much the same for a similar offence and defence
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom