3 ms·
But there’s no obligation to show anyone prescription, and proving guilt means proving a negative. What would that trial look like?
by 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 agoThese 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 agoIn 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 agoSimply 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 agoIt’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 agoIt 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 agoThis airport is in the constitution free zone.