I was not dismissing the difference. I was pointing out that conviction was not a part of the criteria that you, yourself, set up. Remember? It was about laws, on books? I provided that.
You seem to have this overpowering need to misdirect, kid.
Um, obviously Drs and pharmacists that prescribed and filled in an appropriate manner. That was my whole point Einstein. You stated that whether the drugs were illegal or not had absolutely no bearing on the case. I proved differently.
Your inability to follow a discussion is striking. I provided a distinction above, for the 10th time! Do you just refuse to read, or do you have a learning disability?
You're right. That sounds a lot like the position that I have stated specifically and clearly in multiple posts, but which you still said was untenable, irrational and indefensible. Yet again, you prove a striking inability to follow clear points, even when they are repeatedly stated in an a+b=c format.
Except, I opened it up to "any illegal" prescription, like the links I posted, and specifically, the law on the books that I linked to.
No. I don't. Try to keep up with your own criteria. I quoted a specific law on the books that parallels my position exactly. I can think of a very recent, and very public case that proves that conviction is not the greatest test for how well US law is applied.
Or, you could read the law that I've posted twice already that makes no mention of "should-have-known". It just states that the criteria is "felony violation" involving delivery--. i.e. illegal delivery. Just like I stated.
For the THIRD time, kid...
Quote:
Although the Meeks case is an unusual one, a subsection of the Arkansas Code Annotated which deals with homicides states that a capital murder charge is supported if a person acting alone or with one or more other persons “commits or attempts to commit a felony violation of the Uniformed Controlled Substances Act (defined in A.C.A. Section 5-64-101 through 5-64-508) involving an actual delivery of a controlled substance."
Thanks for clearing that up.
I've already stated on multiple occasions that is he obtained his drugs by legitimate means, he bears sole responsibility. Do you actually bother to read, or do you have a learning disability?
I've already written two clarifications and stated that when I wrote that, I did not know what was in his system. Also, the fact that my original statements were centered on "illegal\irresponsible delivery of drugs and "drug dealers", a person of even below average intelligence probably should have been able to comprehend that, even without the two clarifications that followed.
So, I ask again, do you actually read, or do you have a learning disability?
I've answered this twice that I had not. Do you actually read, or do you have a learning disability?
Falling back to spelling ability is the last ploy of someone who has had their proverbial cheeks handed to them. But I will try to do better in the future. With that said, I'm not sure that a correct spelling would have made a lot of difference, considering my suspicion that you either choose not to read what I write, or have a very serious learning disability.
Perhaps. But, and I repeat yet again... When there are laws on the books that describe both charge and sentence in cases where a person ODs because someone distributed drugs to them illegally, your distinction is misplaced.
When your criteria for my point was-- how did you put it...? Laws on the books of any civilized society? Your distinction is misplaced...