I was just watching a video and this thought occurred to me. If a public figure were to go to Seattle to do an interview that would be broadcast nationally and in the course of it, light up a joint, how does that play in the backward 48 states? When the footage airs in Omaha, would it be seen as promoting an illegal activity? Are there any legal issues/liabilities for something like this? Does it matter if the joint is later claimed to be fake?
Depends on what type of “Public Figure.” Entertainer? Sports? Politician?
It’s a non-starter for me, personally, as I don’t partake but I also don’t care if you do (as long as you are responsible, not driving under the influence of anything, etc.)
:rolleyes:
Seems that you are adding a value judgement. Please provide proof that the 48 states are backward. And what is the other “forward” state?
It makes that public figure a liar either way with a major credibility problem.
Legal or not, there are certain activities that raise questions about a public figure because of people’s feelings about them. President Obama has received a lot of criticism for smoking cigarettes, a perfectly legal activity. Public figures are also often criticized for their use of alcohol, even if they don’t violate any laws (I’m talking about being sloppily drunk in public, not just having the occasional drink). I’ve also seen criticism of public figures who gamble in legal venues. I think the question of whether it’s legal there is less relevant than the attitude of the observers toward the activity. I don’t think we’re much more critical of someone getting drunk in a wet county vs. a dry county. Would our reaction to Elliot Spitzer’s activities be different if he had only paid thousands of dollars to prostitutes at a legal brothel in Nevada?
Well, it is an illegal activity. The state of WA doesn’t have the power to amend the Controlled Substances Act.