4 ms·

We agree mostly. I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon.

We agree mostly. I don't think that the public should be able to get a device which they can, using rudimentary skills, turn into a proverbial nuclear weapon. I.e. buy cheap drug, make it better, die. > There is only one party involved in possession and use, by definition of those terms. I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. They are a party. My point is that there are parties who engineer for profit without limits. Though I agree with you on possession/use and prison sentences. It doesn't solve a problem worth solving. > Prohibiting trafficking in some items is outside of the scope of my comment Hurrah, I believe we agree good sir.

int_19h 9y ago
> I cannot possess something that I did not manufacture myself if I did not procure it from someone who did. You can, e.g. by taking possession inadvertently. But setting that aside, I suppose I could clarify it to possession/use/procurement - but excluding distribution. So, buying something like that shouldn't be illegal, but selling it might be (and the buyer could be subpoenaed to testify etc). In any case, the distinction is clearly important from legal perspective - it's why our drug laws (and gun laws etc) all talk about possession and transfer separately.