Drug info - Help! Law Trouble as School [long post]

[wiggyziG]

Just to clarify because I didn't want to have a 1000 word title, this isn't police trouble this is trouble with the school penal code and them trying to charge my girlfriend's beaver with something BOGUS. So read on if you would like to help a beaver in need..

For the full story of his experience.. http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...063#post472063

If you don't want to read it all..
Background: The other day the beaver had an experience where some security officers at his school came across him and some beaver buddies when they had Sally (they mistook it for maryjane). Only my girlfriends beaver had any, and I should add that the others weren't even intending to use it - they were there to observe and make sure all was safe. The security officers documented the beavers, told them nothing was going to happen if it was in fact Sally, and he received a letter of discipline 2 days later...

Apparently this is what he's being put through the punitive system for...

"Illegal or inappropriate use of substances to cause intoxication or hallucinations is prohibited."

The beaver didn't write this rule, but he's pretty sure that a rule like this (Especially when the schools head of security didn't even know what Salvia was when he freakin' talked to him yesterday) exists so that people aren't extracting DXM from cold medicine or so people don't sniff glue or insufflate their pain medication or something along those lines...

So I told the beaver that this whole situation is BOGUS and that he couldn't possibly be convicted of anything, especially since he didn't Hallucinate! The security guard caught him literally seconds after he smoked the joint of salvia, and after doing some research its apparent that the effects of smoking a joint of 5X salvia do not come anywhere near hallucinatory levels, and any effect that it did have would have been present at the arrival of the security guards.

*The Beaver's argument thus far...*

His letter of discipline began by saying that he "admitted to smoking and being under the influence of S. divinorum", and because the policy that the officials site indicates that the illegal nature of this incident is that he was hallucinating, this must mean by means of deduction that he must have hallucinated to qualify as "being under the influence of S. divinorum."

3 things are wrong with this statement:

1) How is this an illegal or improper use of this substance if it isn't illegal to begin with? Salvia is sold as a herb to be smoked, and this by definition must be legal or else NY state would have made it illegal.

2) As I have already mentioned - the beaver didn't hallucinate nor did he ever admit to be "under the influence"! The security officers apprehended him within seconds and, if one were to look up the definition of what a hallucination is, they could list the behaviors that must have existed and the security officers would surely have to say NO.

3) He doesn't quite remember what he said in his statement that he made to the officers, but he is sure that even if he had said that he smoked any amount of it that doesn't necessitate that he had been under the influence, and thus hallucinating, in any amount.. Take for example DXM: when you take cough syrup does that necessarily mean that you ingested enough to feel its intoxicating effects?

Its all about dosage; nobody gets intoxicated off alcohol with the small dosages that are incorporated in medications, and if they try saying something along the lines of "intent" there isn't a line anywhere in the book of school policies that say anything about intent to use a substance to hallucinate.

The head of security indicated that research had to be done via the internet in order to determine what Salvia is and what its effects were upon smoking it; his conclusion was that the hallucinatory effects were very devastating - the beaver supposes that the officer found some kind of youtube video displaying this or he read something online from some "trustworthy" website... Wouldn't this further corroborate the beavers argument that he was not hallucinating especially if the officer still smelled the smoke (indicating that it had very recently been done) and the behaviors of the characteristic hallucinations were not present?

The officer cannot also simply pick and chose what information about the drug to use; he must have come across the fact that just because you do any of it doesn't mean that the effects are felt to the extent that this policy violation states.

Since a couple of his beaver friends were there making sure that all was well in the event that anything did happen that night, he is able to use them as witnesses to denounce the claims made that he was hallucinating.

So....

Does anybody else have any other reasoning, argument, angle, etc. that can help my girlfriend's beaver in this situation? Any help is very much appreciated, constructive criticism regarding the beaver's current angles would also be very helpful. He wants to prepare for his meeting so that when the time comes he is able to come away from this situation without a scratch. The beaver is a VERY good student with a strong background in all the sciences because this is what he is studying at school. He's a senior, a deans-list student, no tarnishes on his record at all, realizes the school is tryin' to screw him royally in the ass, and would very much like to return the favor.

FYI - if the meeting goes wrong and a situation arises where he would find himself forfeiting his housing on campus (and thus the 10K that it costs), OR should they brand his records with this policy violation which would hinder his ability to go onto graduate school, he plans on taking legal action. But he would like to avoid that rout at all costs.

Sorry for the long post.

[Richi]

Sounds like a lot of semantics. In short, did the beaver specifically break and school rules?

From the experience report, it appears as though the beaver was intoxicated. If intoxication is against school rules, the beaver is in trouble.
If consumption of such intoxicant is against school rules, and it was consumed on school grounds, once again the beaver is in trouble.

A friend of mine would suggest that one approach this situation in one of two ways, depending on which one is optimal, depending on the nature of this 'meeting'.

1. If the record is clean than such offense may result in a slap on the wrist, fine, or other minor incident. Go to the meeting, sit down, and shut up. They did something wrong, apologize, promise not to do it again.

2. Argue on whatever legal grounds they can. Bring up the point that S. divinorum is legal, that it is legal to smoke herbs anywhere in the state, and herbs were being smoked on campus. No illegal activity was taking place, etc. Sure, smoking of large amounts of S. divinorum can cause hallucinations, so can holding one's breath to pass out. This was not the intent though.

[dpayne]

What is the previous policy and form of action the school takes when dealing with students caught drinking or smoking MJ or smoking in general when in the same situation?

Swim would think what if it were MJ what would happen?
From this information swim would be able to work out his best plan of deffence.
Swim knows MJ is forbiden but it happens person X story ra ra ra if thats what person X gets and thats an illegal substance then Salvia isnt illegal and the penality has to be dramatically lesser becuase it wasnt a violation of law just a policy and then reffer to tobacco policy/ alcohol policy and try to factor salv into a lesser violation than alcohol again becuase its not age regstricted by law. Salvia is unrestricted, are Staff aloud to comsume alcohol on school grounds at all? Does it happen? If so then swim would start building his deffence are deffending being caught SMOKING on school property and only that or an apeal that in swims mind thats how he sees it but if its not the schools view then he is sintherly sorry and would like to offer his time in preparing a bulletin about Salvia and the reason why in the schools eyes its unaceptable on and off school premisses ra ra ra ra ra
Give em something to think about and throw the whole thing up in the air and be pro active instead of ultra deffensive.
Swim thinks if school has a history for expulsion for MJ offences then swim really not be rocking any boats becuase the the precedents are there. The deffense when compared to DXM would be total outrage as you most certainly do not involve yourself in prescription medication use for recreational use. Claim you cant afford a ps3 and this was the next major talked about fad at that ethically you let yourself believe wasnt doing any harm.
Really depends on the schools stance towards other students in the past tho this could be way over kill but just how swim would start thinking in such situations. Hopefully critism or expansion of views can be added becuase it will give swim an idea as to how the school might see it alsol.

[Salvinorin A]

Definitely make the case that salvia is legal to possess. It basically has the same legal status as if carrying around some leaves swiy found in the park.

As for smoking? This may be against school policy, and in that case, swiy's girlfriend could be in trouble (a lot of schools have that policy where swiy can't smoke within a thousand feet or something).

And if they don't get swiy for smoking...they can get swiy for the "drug imitation" crap. SWIM has seen that policy in schools as well.

Swiy just needs to read the actualy school penal code, or ask them directly what part of the code swiy's girlfriend broke, and they should tell swiy.

Sal-A

P.S. Your girlfriend's BEAVER?.....you seriously need to change the animal you're talking about....make it badger or something. lol

[Euthanatos93420]

Well...here goes...

The law you are quote is directly indicitive of something call PRE-CRIME.

Just like Hate Crime legislation it concerns not the act that was done but the INTENT behind the act.

Get documentation about methods of ingestion of Salvia and you will EASILY be able to prove that smoke a salvia joint is COMPLETELY ineffective in producing anything more than a slight 'head change' and can nowhere near produce hallucinatory levels.

Therefore argue one's level of intelligence, commiment to education about substances ingested and that the VERIFIABLE AND ADMITTED METHOD OF INGESTION DEFINITIVELY PROVES A LACK OF INTENT TO CAUSE HALLUCINATIONS.

Use their own damn words against them. They're only words.

Moreover swim may want to edit his other thread for certain contraindicitive reasons as Sal-A pointed out Swiy's rather puniful choice of SI terms.

These arguments may be made as a last resort. Generally just talking to people as if they are human beings and showing them the love and respect all human being deserve for being such creative and powerful individuals....tends to yield more positive results. Again however....always avoid self incriminations and be sure to speak in hypotheticals but be equally careful not to diminish the apparent intelligence of law officials regardless of their actual capacity. General such individuals working in such areas already feel intimidated by the vast intelligences that surround them (Particularily pointing out the age differences of these capacities).