Just saw an episode of Dog the Bounty Hunter where some guy is charged with promoting ice. I gather ‘ice’ is methamphetamine, but what is ‘promoting’? It seems a bizarre way to describe selling, if that’s what it means.
It means posession. From the Hawaii statutes:
“A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree if the person knowingly possesses any dangerous drug in any amount.”
There’s also promotion in the second degree and promotion in the first degree, and that depends on quantity of the drug in question.
One would think that ‘promotion’ would involve some sort of publicity (“I’ve got some real good gong.”), and would often occur just before ‘solicitation’ (“Want some?”)
The quoted statute seems to be grossly misleading.
Just confusing, because it uses “promotion” as a term of art. To make it even more complicated, Hawaii law distinguishes between “Dangerous Drugs” (Schedule I and Schedule II), “Harmful Drugs” (Schedule III and Schedule IV), and “Detrimental Drugs” (Schedule V plus marijuana).
Ah. So ‘term of art’ means “Let’s use this word, but we’ll make it mean something other than what it really means?” Of is it simply a technical meaning?
A little from column A, a little from column B. Every technical profession develops its own and the best anyone can do is learn them. (For example, the computer networking world has a definition of the word ‘packet’ that’s only vaguely related to what the rest of the world thinks it means. It makes sense in context, though.)
Moving it from private use to general use.
That would make sense if the charge were distribution of the drug. But, as Captain Amazing informed us, it means simple possession. I know that logic and usage often don’t go together but it does seem a weird choice of word.
Can I assume Hawaii is alone in this bit of legalese?
Whoosh!
… and marijuana is Schedule I. Aren’t laws fun?
I would have thought promoting the drug would mean encouraging others to use it.
:smack:
SO what does ‘promotion’ mean in this technical sense?
I was oversimplifying. In the statute, the definition of “dangerous drugs” specifically excludes marijuana.
It’s actually an extremely deceptive and unethical way of wording a simple possession charge. And, yes, Hawaii is alone in this shameful practice. All 49 other states use the direct and accurate term “possession” for a possession charge. But, for some reason (and it’s clearly a dishonest reason), Hawaii has decided and maintained using the phrase “promotion of a dangerous drug in the 3rd degree” for a possession charge. It’s important to know that whem a background check is conducted those are the only words that appear when someome has been arrested and/or convicted of a possession charge. The following sentence that follows and explains “Promotion of a damgerois drug in the 3rd degree” is in actuality a possession charge of a very small amount of drugs does not appear on the background check. So, really what the Hawaii legislature has done is played fast and loose with the facts and used extremely misleading language in order to make it appear that the user/addict was in fact involved in the distribution of drugs. Why they believed that misrepresenting a charge in such a blatant manner was a good idea is mind boggling. The legislature should be sued for fraud for purposely using a term that is much more synonymous with “distribution” then it is with “possession”. The legislature has gotten away with portraying someone who is guilty of possession with a much more serious charge of distribution. They have effectively made individuals charged with simple possession unemployable and they have succeeded in marginalizing and stigmatizing them and made their chances for recovery very slim. I sincerely hope and pray that the legislature that engaged in this fraudulent and predatory behavior be held accountable for their despicable actions one day.
Anyway, this is just another prime example of the scale of dishonesty and fraudulent behavior that has become the norm amongst “our” representatives. What a disgrace.
Moderator Note
Wage Slave, political commentary of this kind (as well as in the rest of your post) is against the rules of General Questions. If you are going to post a response in GQ, keep it strictly factual. No warning issued since you’re new here, but don’t do this again.
Others please note this thread is from 2008.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator