I was a juror on a drug trial. And punked the laws.

i would say both 1 and 2 must be proven.

Which one was the correct answer again?


To commit an offense, both the possession must be an intentional act done knowingly, and they must know or intend for it to be a controlled substance.

The act of possession was already specially defined in the charge as having to be an intentional act done knowingly.

It was established that the man knew he was intentionally and knowingly putting the paper in his pocket (found in his destroyed home) but they really hadn't argued anything to the point that he intended or knew it to be methamphetamine.

The other 11 jurors said that the intention and knowing referred to the act of possessing and NOT the state of it being a controlled substance.



Without knowing too much about the case itself, what did the guy think he was buying?? I am skeptical that he didn't know he was out copping meth.

Without knowing too much about the case itself, what did the guy think he was buying?? I am skeptical that he didn't know he was out copping meth.


The man's daughter was a meth head. His neighbor was also a meth head, and IMO the one who got his daughter addicted. He was a retired man who worked the same job for 27 years and had build his home by hand. He broke his leg and had to stay with his daughter until he could get around again. While he was not in his house, his daughter and neighbor turned the place into a methlab. When he came back, he found his place destroyed. He saw a paper of meth on his beautiful destroyed pool table and thought it might be important, so he picked it up. He became nauseated by the fumes and ran to the bathroom to shit his brains out and was still on the pot when the police broke down his door...

Thanks for the details, OP, it makes things a whole lot clearer & why there was 'reasonable doubt' as the old guy (possibly) had no idea what that paper was.

(Had to reboot, I may have a different IP#?)

i would say both 1 and 2 must be proven.

Which one was the correct answer again?


To commit an offense, both the possession must be an intentional act done knowingly, and they must know or intend for it to be a controlled substance.

The act of possession was already specially defined in the charge as having to be an intentional act done knowingly.

It was established that the man knew he was intentionally and knowingly putting the paper in his pocket (found in his destroyed home) but they really hadn't argued anything to the point that he intended or knew it to be methamphetamine.

The other 11 jurors said that the intention and knowing referred to the act of possessing and NOT the state of it being a controlled substance.


Meth amphetamines manufacture and use are not victimless activities.

The manufacturing process result in fires and explosions. (Gee, I wonder how his home was destroyed.) The drugs themselves are highly dangerous. Users become pariahs on society, even to their own children.

Users also become thieves, stealing anything they can to resell so they can buy more meth.

The OP was extremely arrogant and foolish at the same time. Another meth abuser possibly back out on the street causing even more havoc.

Hey fucknuts! Meth would not exist if drugs were legal.

Under common law, there is no injured party and the state can not be the victim. We have become beholding to the creation of government that was made to serve us. We now serve it. The greatest thing about this situation is, we know who they are.

And then they get hooked when meth is involved.