Let me preface this (as I have with all of my drug related posts lately, due to my reputation here on the boards) by saying that I have been totally clean for several months now.
Anyway- last year, 2C-T-7, an experimental research chemical, was a big hit in clubs and raves across the country. Stimulant effects, plus strong empathetic feelings reminiscent of ecstacy, and hallucinatinatory effects came with it, and it was totally legal at that time. Pharmaceutical supply companies could and would sell it in pure form in large quantities to anyone with the cash, and many of them would sell it to clubbers and ravers at a markup.
The DEA caught wind of it, and after a couple of deaths related to massive doses of the stuff combined with other substances, they put it on emergency scheduling, making it illegal immediately pending study results.
This morning I found 2 gelcaps full of the stuff where I had hidden them in a bottle of vitamins many moons ago, purchased during the legal days. I had no desire to take them, and I just threw them away, but it raised a question in my mind:
What are you supposed to do with a substance that is illegalized? Hand it over to the authorities? Throw it away? If you handed it over to police, could you be charged? If they found it in your trash? (I know the likelihood is zero, and it’s not a concern, this is just a question that’s been bugging me all morning). What do you do when one day a substance is legal and you have it, and the next it’s illegal, and you still have it?
Well yeah, practically, but I mean LEGALLY speaking. It’s purely a curiosity question, not a “What am I gonna do?” question.
When the government illegalizes something that you legally own, what are you supposed to do with it? Toss it in to the street and denounce it? Set fire to it? What?
Technically, if it becomes illegal to possess something whilst you are possessing it, then you are comitting a crime - unless the legislation provides otherwise.
One would hope that a person would have had sufficient advanced warning to dispose of any items about to become illegal, but if not, a possessor should destroy the item, if possible, or otherwise hand it over to the authorities.
I would hope that the police and the prosecutors would have the common sense to see that this was a person now complying with the law rather than breaking it (this prosecutor certainly would).
In the example you provide, the correct course of action would be to destroy the gelcaps - which is what you did. You were thus taking action to dispose of an item which had become illegal to possess after you had first come into possession of it.
There is an interesting argument that it would only be continued possession in the knowledge that it was now illegal which would be the crime. Thus it would only be once you had found and kept these gelcaps, knowing they were now illegal, which would be the crime. However, most jurisdictions don’t allow for ignorance of the law to be a defence. Forgetting that you had possession of the items is usually not a defence either.
Your possession of these items was therefore a crime (or would be in my jurisdiction), even though it was one you were unaware you were committing!
Query: Why was it necessary to go through all the pain and expense of a constitutional amendment (of which there have been–after the first ten–fewer than 20) to make alcohol illegal while as described some pointy-haired bureaucrat can make a drug illegal on speculation?
Its not just drugs - now a days a LOT of laws are created at the whim of some nameless bureaucrat rather than by being voted in by our elected representatives.
Get a lawyer, hand stuff over to the laywer. He can make sure the item in question is dealt with legally and handle your interests in the matter. This is one thing that lawyers should be very good at.
In order to convict someone for a crime, is it not necessary to prove intent? Yes, not knowing that performing some action is a crime is not a valid defence, but IIRC the prosection must at least show that the defendant intended to perform said criminal action. That is, “I didn’t know this drug I had was illegal” is an invalid defence, but “I didn’t know I had this drug at all” should be. So why is forgetting not a valid defence? I imagine it would be notoriously difficult to prove, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be accepted by a court if it is indeed shown to be true.
Isn’t the law effectively an ex post facto law if it doesn’t provide some sort of grace period to get rid of the outlawed substance?
That is, the moment the law takes effect, everyone who has any of this substance instantly becomes a criminal, because of something that happened in the past. Once the law is passed, there’s no point in time when they avoid breaking the law.
I don’t believe this is a fact. What many people call bureaucratic “laws” are regulations that are originated by the executive department in order to implement and administer the laws passed by Congress.
When Congress passes a law they ordinarily don’t go into the details of how it is to be administered and enforced. The executive department then sets up a bunch of proposed regulations to carry out the law and publishes them in the Federal Register. A certain length of time is allowed for comments and protests to these regulations and after all the dust settles the regulations go into effect.
But I’m pretty sure that the regulations are subsidiary to the law that authorizes them.
For example, the armed services are authorized by Congress to let contracts for the development of various items, the purchase of items on the open market, and all sorts of other procurement activities.
The method of accomplishing these procurements are all carefully detailed in the Armed Services Procurement Regulations (ASPR). Included in ASPR is the method of settling such problems as contractual disputes through boards of contract appeals and other administrative actions.
All of these regulatory actions are authorized by Congress and if the underlaying law is changed then the ASPR is also changed to reflect that.
[/hijack]