What about the statute of limitations issue? I have no idea what it is, but there must be one for drug use.
True, but I believe “public intoxication” laws are pretty much reserved for getting annoying drunks (and possibly druggies) off the streets and into the drunk tank. If a cop walked past you and noticed that your pupils were dilated, say, but your behavior was otherwise normal, I seriously doubt they would be able to drum up public intoxication charges. If you were stumbling around, singing at the top of your lungs, they might have a case.
Thanks for trying to clear things up, but I know you need posession to be arrested, but why don’t the cops do an impromptu search of these celebrities? Now this is the part i’m shaky about, but could they make a search warrant on the basis of song lyrics being adequate proof? I mean, i’ve seen music videos with artists with joints in their hands in the recording studio. But since most of the times the drug is marijuana, and marijuana posession without the intent of distribution is a relatively minor offense (a “chico” friend of mine told me that he got caught with a joint several times, but since he didn’t have a copious amount, they let it pass more or less).
So it means one of 4 things.
- They can’t get search warrants on basis of song lyrics alone.
- They do bust in, but those rascally artists are too good at hiding their stash.
- Since the artists probably don’t intend to sell, the cops don’t really care.
- The cops are on a payroll.
Song lyrics and videos are FICTION. Fiction is not probable cause.
So is that a #1?
Even though i firmly believe that Dr. Dre, Cypress Hill, Manu Chao (who reportedly smokes pot on stage. But this is outside the states, so…), and thousands more are in fact marijuana users, on the assumption that their whole personae are completely fictional, they would not be allowed to get a search warrant? That’s pretty funky.
You just plain need more than that for a showing of probable cause. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances and make a determination that a particular crime has been or is being committed.
It’s not enough to say that an individual has criminal tendancies or predilictions in a certain direction, and a that you believe a search of thier premises will certainly turn up evidence to corraborate that opinion. You’d need much more verification of particulars of individual crimes. The police can’t raid you on the basis of your bad reputation in general.
At least in the city I live in, if you called the police for someone passed out on the street they would not take them in. The police would come and wait for an ambulance to take them to the hospital to sober up, but they would not be charged with public intoxication. I know that different states have different laws, but that is how it is here in MI. The police just cannot take in people who are not causing harm or danger to others while intoxicated. This unfortunately overflows our inner city ER’s with intoxicated persons.
Even with information about people who were selling drugs, it was difficult for the DEA to get a search warrent for their homes or to search them on the streets. They would pretty much have to be caught in the act for it to matter. In that light, I am fairly sure song lyrics (works of fiction) would not be enough evidence to search someone. Police would work for months to bust a known crack house. They would never be able to follow up on every celebrity who made a comment about having used drugs or sang about it.
This country’s attitude concerning drug possession/use is pretty schizophrenic. We consider it a crime and apparently a prett bad one based on the sentences imposed for it and yet a public admission of previous use (yesterday? last year?) is applauded and seems to be ignored by the police. It truly seems to be a case of “if you don’t get cauhgt, it’s okay.”
Imagine if instead, Whitney had said “I used to rob banks, but I’ve given that up.” Granted it’s a stretch but I’m pretty sure she’d have FBI agents at the door the next day.
They would still need physical evidence.
I can state publically that i’ve killed over 3,000 people,but if there is no evidence to back it up its worthless to law enforcement.
True, but the authorities would be FAR more motivated in finding evidence to back up your admission of mass murder, as opposed to doing a couple of lines. To say nothing of what it would do to your reputation.
Also true, the US is completely whacked when it comes to how we react to what celebrities admit. (Even President Bush hinted at doing coke in the past, didn’t he?) Do a few drugs, and nobody cares. But dangle a baby out the window? CRUCIFY the fucker!!!