Is *using* illegal drugs illegal in the US? This may seem like an obvious, of course, it is. The problem is, it seems that, while US government prohibit possessing drugs, it doesn't prohibit using. So drug usage is a bit like prostitution or online gambling. In some country, the act itself is legal but the acts around it are criminalized. I look around. There is no law that I know that prohibit using drugs. If someone is caught and tests show that he uses drugs, he is not punished because using the drug is legal. If he is caught possessing drugs then he goes to jail. I may be wrong. Am I? Why it is so is probably more suitable for political StackExchange. Of course, anyone using a drug must have possessed the drug first before using it. I couldn't imagine anyone using a drug without possessing it. However, it seems that the law cannot put the 2+2 = 4 together. If someone tested positive of using ganja, any jury will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person must have possessed ganja in the past. Perhaps some law perspective on why possession, instead of usage, is illegal can be said too. This question is mainly about whether the law is as I think it is and how it's actually applied. Some research: In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from a small fine to a prison sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs It doesn't say usage. I also cannot find anyone going to jail for "usage" For comparisson http://www.flevin.com/id/lgso/translations/JICA%20Mirror/english/4868_UU_35_2009_e.html In Indonesian law article 127 says: (1) Every abusers: a. Narcotics Category I for themselves shall be punished with imprisonment of 4 (four) years; b. Narcotics Category II for themselves shall be punished with imprisonment of 2 (two) years, and c. Narcotics of category III for themselves shall be punished with imprisonment of 1 (one) year. That explicitly prohibit "usage". Of course, most users are not really abusers and are just casual users. However, I don't think the court think that way.
In the U.S., Law enforcement favors going after the distribution of narcotics over the use. Going after the users just means dealers will seek out new customers whereas going after dealers means eliminating the supply chain. And Law Enforcement would much rather have a dealer flip on a manufacturer at that. The bigger the fish they bring in, the more damage they can do to the supply chain. The U.S. has recently been moving towards treating the use of illicit substances as a disease rather than an crime, especially when the use is tied to addiction. To this end, the current trend is to get the users to clinics that can specialize in breaking addiction rather than jailing a user. Prisons and jails do not have a strong track record for this, but they do have programs for substance abuse. The U.S. also favors plea bargins rather than taking every case to trial. 90% of all legal cases are settled out of court with a negotiation between the prosecution and the defense. Usually this acts in a "you scratch my back" arrangement where the offender will plea to a lesser charge and in exchange, help the investigators find that bigger fish. This may be testifying against them or giving them the supplier or even acting as a mole. This also benifits the state as the prosecution doesn't have to pay for all the costs of arguing a case a trial. For example, if the cops bust a user, he will be charged with Possession, but they might drop charges if the user can name the dealer and will testify against him. If the cops bust the dealer, the dealer is charged with Possession (with intent to sell), but if he's low on the totem pole, they can ask him to name the supplier he gets his goods and testify against the supplier and in exchange, they drop the charge to Possession. They will be less inclined to bring this fact up, but Possession is easier to prove in court than Possession (With Intent to Sell) because the former requires finding drugs on the person and his property. The later needs to prove that the drugs were not for personal use but instead for distribution to others. Almost universally, anyone convicted on mere possession charges probably did something a lot worse. Law enforcement tends to charge as many crimes as possible... as long as they can prove guilt on one, they can put someone away for a while. Al Capone famously went to one of the most notorious prisons in the United States for Tax Evasion (a very white collared crime that typically results in fines and very minimum jail time. While we're on the subject, the IRS has a 98% conviction rate, and ties with Secret Service (the guys who protect the President) for most successful Federal Law Enforcement Agency, to give you an idea of where the priorities lie in the United States. All Federal Law Enforcement is ridiculously good, to the point that bringing charges against anyone is almost as good as saying they're guilty). Another reason Use of drugs isn't pushed is that, well, producing that evidence is difficult. The common user bust is drinking and driving (since alcohol is legal in the U.S., use based crimes are the top level of enforcement. You legally cannot hold a firearm in the U.S. while drunk, even if you could do so while sober). A brethalizer is built to measure the amount of alcohol is in one's system and if it is over the limit for what is safe. Most illicit drug tests don't do this and rather look for chemicals in general and will ping if there's any trace... even if the last use was a month ago. Certain substances linger for a while, especially if they can deposit in hair folicle. You could be six months sober and still ping the test. Other issuses include drugs that contain components of legal substances. Opiods (the big problem drug right now) are manufactured from the Poppy Plant... which also is grown for legal consumable products. There are cases where the Opiod tests pings positive on people who have consumed Poppy-Seed Bagels (perfectlly legal and quite common) for breakfast the day of the test. Other tests aren't reliable and will give a false positive from time to time. Edit: Typically, Possession of a controlled substance assumes you will use it. Reasonable Doubt is harder to make for having the stuff then it is for using it. Someone under the influence could claim they were drugged and law enforcement would have to prove that they weren't to convict (There's actually a known problem where law enforcement agents can get dosed by accident while handling contraband evidence. There was an episode of CSI: Miami where one character had this happen to her... and they realized where the drugs were hidden in a warehouse she served a warrant on but didn't find any evidence. DVD extras featured a police consultant who explained that the whole sequence was thought up because it happened to her for real.). Having the stuff in your possession is much more difficult as they have to show you had it (someone slipping it into your pocket without your knowledge is your job to prove). In the U.S., Prosecution Discretion means that the Prosecutor can choose not to press the case for any number of reasons, they don't have the resources to fight it, to they don't think they can win with the evidence they have, to political motives (they don't agree with the law... this can be risky depending on the nature of the crime). Typically a simple possession charge where the amount is clearly small enough that it's only for personal use and no other crimes are charged wouldn't be worth the amount of resources to fully prosecute. TO give an example, while Marijuana is legal in the State of Colorado, it's still illegal under Federal Law, so smoking for recreational use in Colorado is still a crime, but not one enforced by the State of Colorado but the Department of Justice (U.S. Federal Law enforcement department... usually). Remember the Feds generally deal with bigger crimes than someone getting high under the bleachers while listening to Jimmy Hendrix, so it only really comes up if you did something bigger (kidnapping a girl, driving over state lines into Colorado, go to a school to get high under the bleachers while listening to Hendrix would get you a Federal Possession charge... but the real concern is the Kidnapping, not controlled drug use). And most crimes that occur in entirely one state, Feds are content to let those states deal with the problem and rarely get involved.
I think this relates to individual stores interpretation of California's "ABC Laws": § 25658. Sale to and consumption by person under 21 years of age; Use by peace officers to apprehend sellers of alcoholic beverages to minors (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Except as provided in Section 25667 or 25668, any person under 21 years of age who purchases any alcoholic beverage, or any person under 21 years of age who consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Any person who violates subdivision (a) by purchasing any alcoholic beverage for, or furnishing, giving, or giving away any alcoholic beverage to, a person under 21 years of age, and the person under 21 years of age thereafter consumes the alcohol and thereby proximately causes great bodily injury or death to himself, herself, or any other person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The last part is the part that scares business owners. Some interpret it as "if they furnish alcohol to you (a person over 21) and have reasonable suspicion that the purchase will be given to the minor, the person furnishing the alcohol is guilty of a misdemeanor". This is absolutely true in the case of bar owners/bartenders. If they sell somebody a drink, even if that person is over 21, and that drink is then given to a minor, they can be (probably not successfully) held responsible in some form for any injury that person sustains or commits as a result of alcohol consumption. Some stores take this much more seriously (because a violation can mean the loss/suspension of the liquor license) than others, and it is at the stores discretion to deny the sale based on any suspicion, whether based in reality or not.
Utah has a lot of public parks, so to point in the right direction, I will assume that this is a public park in Salt Lake City, it's just a plain old grassy field, and it's not during a special event. A person is suspected of some crime like selling drugs, not arrested, but told by a police officer to go away and never come back. This is way beyond the power of the police. After due legal process, a proven (not just suspected) public menace could be ordered by the court to stay away from the park. A police officer can, of course, order a person to leave a park when they violate a park rule, in fact rule number 1 is "It is unlawful for any person to do or to allow or permit any of the acts prohibited by this chapter in any park in Salt Lake City", so the police cannot legally turn a blind eye to rule violations. Violation of park rules is an infraction which can earn you a ticket of up to $299. However, the officer can tell you to go away, rather than giving you a ticket or arresting you. But an police order cannot issue a unilateral restraining order. Apart from city laws, there are general state laws regarding trespass and destruction of property. The state criminal trespass law says that A person is guilty of criminal trespass if...knowing the person's... entry or presence is unlawful, the person enters or remains on to which notice against entering is given by...personal communication to the person by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner In this case, the owner is the city, and the officer has apparent authority to act for that owner. In the case of private property, the owner or his agent has very broad authority to give notice requiring you to leave (e.g. if you don't like their politics or their shirt); but in the case of public property, the government has more narrowly circumscribed authority to kick you out.
California Penal Code 647f states that being intoxicated in public is prohibited. When the police arrived, they were confronted with probable cause for an arrest. They (presumably) became aware of the matter because the doctor called the police, since she believe that you would drive drunk. (We can inquire into whether that was a reasonable belief, but it doesn't matter, what matters is that she had the belief and acted on it). Now the question is whether the doctor acting on the belief (making the call) was legal. A negative answer does not affect the legality of the arrest. There is also a law imposing on medical professionals a duty to report, which is fairly wordy, but does not seem to directly require reporting the fact that a person is publicly intoxicated. However, attending circumstances could have suggested one of the triggering causes for mandatory reporting (wounds, for example). Again, it does not matter (to a point) if, in the light of close scrutiny, the doctor's conclusions were mistaken. When doctors are required to report facts to the police, reasonable over-reporting is not penalized. There is also no law against calling 911 to report a potential DUI (the usual public-campaign focus is on those actually driving). So calling the police under the circumstances falls between "allowed" and "required". The HIPAA privacy rule could be relevant because that theoretically could block the doctor from making the call. (Note that the doctor, and not the patient, is bound by the confidentiality requirements). §160.203 allows exceptions to the confidentiality requirement if "necessary... For purposes of serving a compelling need related to public health, safety, or welfare", so an exception may have been granted. If this was done within the scope of a mandatory reporting law, it is legal to disclose PHI; under §164.512 it is allowed, "to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public". A confidentiality agreement would not increase your chances of being arrested. If the doctor's confidentiality statement were less restrictive than HIPAA, HIPAA prevails (the law trumps contract terms). If it is the same as HIPAA, it has no effect (and simply states what HIPAA says – the normal case). If the agreement were more restrictive, it is possible that the doctor calling the police would be a breach of contract, unless the call was required by law. You would have to see what in the agreement would have prohibited calling the police. But that would not affect the validity of the arrest. To re-phrase the matter: the arrest was because you were found to be intoxicated in public. The police were there and could judge your state (probable cause). They were there by permission of the property owner, so the arrest was not unlawful for lack of a warrant. That is as far as one can go in searching for an illegality to the arrest itself. One might go further and ask whether the doctor has committed an actionable wrong by calling the police with her suspicions. This could go either way: it really depends on the full set of details, regarding your condition. If the doctor suspected that your actions fell under one of the mandatory reporting categories, she had to report, and otherwise it is not prohibited under HIPAA. If a person is intoxicated and answers the question "Would you normally proceed to drive home in this state?" in the affirmative, then it is a reasonable inference that the person will do so. An answer "No, absolutely not", on the other hand would work against the "public danger" inference: that has no effect on the arrest, but could have an effect in a suit against the doctor (violation of the privacy rule). In such a suit, the doctor's defense would presumably be that despite the answer, she still had a reasonable belief that you were a public danger. Then the matter would reduce to what other facts she knew of that would support a public danger conclusion.
A good question that arises from stupid lawmaking. As Wikipedia notes: United States Tyramine is not scheduled at the federal level in the United States and is therefore legal to buy, sell, or possess. Status in Florida Tyramine is a Schedule I controlled substance, categorized as a hallucinogen, making it illegal to buy, sell, or possess in the state of Florida without a license at any purity level or any form whatsoever. The language in the Florida statute says tyramine is illegal in &quot;any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any quantity of [tyramine] or that contains any of [its] salts, isomers, including optical, positional, or geometric isomers, and salts of isomers, if the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.&quot; This ban is likely the product of lawmakers overly eager to ban substituted phenethylamines, which tyramine is, in the mistaken belief that ring-substituted phenethylamines are hallucinogenic drugs like the 2C series of psychedelic substituted phenethylamines. The further banning of tyramine's optical isomers, positional isomers, or geometric isomers, and salts of isomers where they exist, means that meta-tyramine and phenylethanolamine, a substance found in every living human body, and other common, non-hallucinogenic substances are also illegal to buy, sell, or possess in Florida. Given that tyramine occurs naturally in many foods and drinks (most commonly as a by-product of bacterial fermentation), e.g. wine, cheese, and chocolate, Florida's total ban on the substance may prove difficult to enforce. But lawmakers, in principle, are allowed to pass stupid laws, and an evil-meaning police officer confronting a German citizen with a technically correct interpretation of a duly enacted law, even if it makes no sense, is hardly a fanciful scenario. The mostly likely result would be that a judge would interpret the Controlled Substance designation to apply only to synthetic and meaningfully concentrated version of the chemical in order to avoid absurdity, even if this is not the most plain reading of the statute, in order to reflect legislative intent. Also, while the statute doesn't have an express de minimis exception, one can look by analogy to the fact that no one is prosecuted because the currency they receive as change from a restaurant has trace amounts of cocaine (which 80% of dollar bills in circulation do). Another potential challenge under the federal constitution would be based upon the dormant commerce clause (as in impediment to interstate and international commerce in ordinary trade goods), under a &quot;rational basis test&quot; argument under the Equal Protection Clause (to highlight the lack of any positive reason to enact the law read broadly), or under a &quot;void for vagueness&quot; analysis that assuming the law wasn't intended to have absurd consequences it isn't clear how far it was intended to go. Lack of knowledge that one is in possession of the substance due to lack of advanced chemical knowledge not shared by most members of the legislature would also be a defense in many cases, because many controlled substances offenses require you to have knowledge that you are in possession of a controlled substance.
The controlling federal (US) law is: 21 U.S. Code § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances 21 US Code 812 and &quot;Marijuana&quot; is specifically listed among Schedule 1 substances. Just as with any other federal law, for this to be changed, Congress would need to amend or repeal this statute so that Marijuana no longer appears in the list and the act would then need to be signed into law by the President, allowed to take effect without signature, or vetoed and overridden by Congress. I suppose another possibility would be for a federal court to rule that 21 U.S. Code § 812 (or Marijuana's inclusion in the list) is unconstitutional.
Many times. See pages 4 and onward here. The 11th circuit (which includes FL) recognizes sentencing manipulation but not sentencing entrapment. The one example from the 11th circuit in that document (US v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264) was an unsuccessful claim of sentence manipulation, but it shows the analysis that goes into deciding these types of claims. They say: While our Circuit does not recognize sentencing entrapment as a viable defense, we do recognize the outrageous government conduct defense, and we have considered sentencing manipulation as a viable defense. ... Ciszkowski, however, has not met his burden of establishing that the government's conduct is sufficiently reprehensible to constitute sentencing factor manipulation. Government-created reverse sting operations are recognized and useful methods of law enforcement investigation. Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1413. The fact that law enforcement may provide drugs or guns essential to a willing and predisposed offender does not necessarily constitute misconduct. We have previously declined to find that the government engaged in prohibited sentencing factor manipulation in other similar contexts.
Let's say you leave fake drugs in someone's yard. Eg, you expect the police to be dumb enough to believe it and arrest the other person Obstructing a public officer, specifically "deliberately hindering a public officer from carrying out official duties". Trespassing.