4 ms·

I assume they mean the person was unable to show a prescription obtained for the drugs at all, not that they didn't have the Rx on them.

pyuser583 4y ago
But there’s no obligation to show anyone prescription, and proving guilt means proving a negative. What would that trial look like?
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  These are scheduled substances, right? So in the trial you would be able to present proof from the doctor’s office that gave you the prescription. If you can’t do that, how did you get the pills in a legal way?
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    In US courts, the prosecution has to prove guilt. Prosecutors must show that no doctor in any country prescribed be the medications. It would be helpful for me to present a script. But if I don’t, it’s still on the prosecution to prove a large negative. I bet they got the folks to confess. I don’t see how else you could prove this.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      Simply having it and being caught with it is guilt unless you have proof that you're legally allowed to possess said narcotic. lol what else do you need for a crime other than a smoking gun? Are you listening to yourself?
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        It’s not. There’s no obligation to have any evidence the medication was prescribed. I had assumed there was. At least carrying the medication in the original container. But nope. You can carry it around in a tic-tac container. And burden of proof is on prosecution. They have to show you don’t have a script. Maybe if they showed you bought it from someone who wasn’t a pharmacist? Or had messages on your phone about buying it illegally? Or confessing, I guess.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  It would look like you had a controlled substance on you, and you don't have any proof that you ever had a prescription. That's a crime, and doubly so at an airport where you're getting ready to cross state lines. It's really simple, actually.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  This airport is in the constitution free zone.
kadoban 4y ago
You assume too much. This could really mean anything, including that their meds were next to too much cash for the cop to resist taking, or that the person was annoying.
- hjkl0 4y ago
  Sounds like you’re making much more wild and less founded assumptions
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > This could really mean anything, including Nope.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  No i didn't, if you have what can be considered narcotics and don't back that up with a prescription at some point you can certainly be arrested and charged with a crime, especially at an airport where it becomes a federal crime. It's as simple as that.

pyuser583 4y ago

But there’s no obligation to show anyone prescription, and proving guilt means proving a negative. What would that trial look like?

hombre_fatal 4y ago
These are scheduled substances, right? So in the trial you would be able to present proof from the doctor’s office that gave you the prescription. If you can’t do that, how did you get the pills in a legal way?
- pyuser583 4y ago
  In US courts, the prosecution has to prove guilt. Prosecutors must show that no doctor in any country prescribed be the medications. It would be helpful for me to present a script. But if I don’t, it’s still on the prosecution to prove a large negative. I bet they got the folks to confess. I don’t see how else you could prove this.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Simply having it and being caught with it is guilt unless you have proof that you're legally allowed to possess said narcotic. lol what else do you need for a crime other than a smoking gun? Are you listening to yourself?
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      It’s not. There’s no obligation to have any evidence the medication was prescribed. I had assumed there was. At least carrying the medication in the original container. But nope. You can carry it around in a tic-tac container. And burden of proof is on prosecution. They have to show you don’t have a script. Maybe if they showed you bought it from someone who wasn’t a pharmacist? Or had messages on your phone about buying it illegally? Or confessing, I guess.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
It would look like you had a controlled substance on you, and you don't have any proof that you ever had a prescription. That's a crime, and doubly so at an airport where you're getting ready to cross state lines. It's really simple, actually.
tinus_hn 4y ago
This airport is in the constitution free zone.

kadoban 4y ago

You assume too much. This could really mean anything, including that their meds were next to too much cash for the cop to resist taking, or that the person was annoying.

hjkl0 4y ago
Sounds like you’re making much more wild and less founded assumptions
- kadoban 4y ago
  > This could really mean anything, including Nope.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
No i didn't, if you have what can be considered narcotics and don't back that up with a prescription at some point you can certainly be arrested and charged with a crime, especially at an airport where it becomes a federal crime. It's as simple as that.