Pee? I’m sure I don’t know. And anyone who tells you different is a goddamned liar!
Marijuana? Sorta earthy herby. It tastes green. The burnt end tastes like burnt ashes on your charcoal grill. The paper tastes, I assume, like paper.
Pee? Like beer. Seriously. Warm, it tastes like warm beer. Cold, it tastes like cold beer.
I assume you drink a lot of Budweiser.
For drug-testing.
Serious answer: it tastes more like a nice bitter Guinness. With about a teaspoon of salt dumped into it.
Fun answer: Hell, no! That stuff tastes like piss! 
No, I meant possessing. I’m sure you remember that old phrase, “possession is 9/10 of the law”? It’s because they need to seize it from you in order to have evidence to present in court - it’s too flimsy to make a case that at some point in the past, the defendant may have used an illegal drug, and try to back that up with witnesses, video, or drug test evidence. All of these types of evidence are highly contestable and/or unreliable in such a case and just wouldn’t be worth going through the hassle.
So yes, it’s only possession that’s illegal. Even if an officer says he saw a guy smoking a joint, but he didn’t manage to seize anything from him, he’s pretty much home free. It looks like in this case, as Contrapuntal points out, they did seize a small amount of marijuana from the kid, which was stupid on his part.
Can I get a cite for that?
It looks like, as with everything, it can vary by jurisdiction. Here’s a discussion on use vs. possession.
They go on to explain an interesting case in South Dakota where a man was convicted purely on the basis of a positive drug test. But South Dakota certainly does not represent the norm across the country in this regard.
Seriously.
Sigh. So, no one’s going to ask whynot how she knows what pee tastes like. Ok. Ok.
It’s in the username. 
I wouldve said warm salt water. But then I’m not a beer drinker.
Does a person have to possess it at the time of arrest? I’d think if there are 30 witnesses, that would be enough proff that he had possessed it in the classroom.
There’s a reason it’s called DOPE.
I agree that eating the joint was a good idea, but still having some more in his possession rather flushed that plan, didn’t it?
Since this happened in Washington state, I can tell you how the law works on this.
Even if a trained police officer (yes, they actually had us smell burning marijuana in academy so that we know the smell) were there to smell the smoke, that almost certainly wouldn’t be enough for a conviction. I have to run microscopic and chemical tests on marijuana to be able to testify that it’s really pot.
In Washington, it is not illegal to be under the influence of drugs (unless you’re driving).
Washington courts have ruled repeatedly that once you consume something, you are no longer in possession of it. The reasoning is that you can no longer control it in any way. So, to make a possession case (for drugs or alcohol), we have to be able to prove where and when you were in possession.
So, if the idiot had been smart enough to be completely clean when the cops showed up, he almost certainly would not be convicted of marijuana possession. He would. however, probably get expelled from school. The burden of proof for school discipline is much lower than a criminal charge.
I’d guess they found specs that fell out the end of the joint. Something nearly microscopic. It might have been among the lint of his pocket from way before, too.
Civil resistance is meant to provoke the state into reacting. I suspect it will react quite strongly.
I just dropped in to say that today, while walking home, I stopped a few blocks away at an independent convenience store. They were offering a selection of several small, brightly colored plastic bongs, standing proud on one side of the counter.
I was rather astonished! And, to be honest, initially rather pleased to see it, considering I’m pro-legalization. OTOH I’m not pro-legalization as far as kids are concerned, and therefore, on reconsideration, I don’t think it’s appropriate to display or offer bongs that way. I should probably report the store, but all I want is for them to not offer the bongs right on the counter. I don’t want the owner-operator of the store to be fined some ungodly sum, or worse.
And if he tests positive, then what? He won’t be breaking any law.
It may not be very persuasive, but it’s memorable. Perhaps the kid will be a fair activist when he gets out of juvie - unless there’s something good on TV or he has to make a run to the store for a bag of Fritos.
I don’t expect the school to let a student get away with something like this, and part of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment that comes with it. However I admit there’s a certain low-level irony to the school encouraging students to create rebellious rhetoric and then being shocked a student actually attempted to create a demonstration rather than letting the speech be empty words.