|
>Ok, show evidence of just one case where any American was convicted on American soil of a drug possession charge WITHOUT tangible drug evidence being found during the course of "the investigation".
I don't know of a case of that ever happening, I doubt it ever has. That, however, wasn't the point of the argument, that was a straw man you brought to the table. The point of the argument was that smoking requires possession, so there is no law against smoking marijuana because it would be superfluous, just as a law against putting it your ear would be superfluous.
Again, your non-sequiturs about cops and Bill Clinton (where the hell did that come from?) aside, the content of your post to which I originally replied was almost completely untrue. That was what I was addressing and that remains proven.
|