Ecstasy Argumentative Essay

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

Client comes to treatment because she has been mandated by the court to receive services for her drug and alcohol usage. Client self-reports an extensive history of drug and alcohol usage, as well as, issues with controlling and maintaining her anger. Client is more concerned with her anger issues then her drug and alcohol usage. Client feels that if she can control her anger then she will not have to turn to drugs and alcohol. Client appears to be self-medicating with drugs and alcohol.

LSD, Psilocybin, DMT, MDMA, Ketamine and Adrenochrome… what do they all have in common? They are all psychedelic drugs. Psychedelic drugs are drugs that cause hallucinations and apparent expansion of consciousness. There are many unanswered questions about the drug, what exactly is a psychedelic and what defines it also, what is the purpose of a psychedelic drug? Psychedelics are usually thought of as one of the most profound times in your life or one of the worst decisions you have ever made, but either way it is a life changing experience. Another aspect of psychedelic drugs is the myths and misconceptions about the different types, some are exponentially more dangerous than the others and in the end each drug has a different effect on whomever

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

The following pages will explore the issue of illegal drug use as it relates to tougher sentencing guidelines in an effort to determine whether stronger sentences are keeping dangerous criminals off the streets and reducing the use of illegal drugs in the US.

When facing criminal drug charges, there is nothing more indispensable than a criminal drug attorney. The legal consequences in these types of criminal cases can be grave. A drugs attorney is absolutely necessary to help a defendant through the complex legal landscape that is to follow. It is important to note, though, that not all attorneys are the same and that it is important to be careful when choosing a lawyer. There are certain key factors to look for in a drug attorney search that any competent criminal drug attorney will have.

Mr. Brie was convicted of the manufacturing and distribution of a controlled substance analogue in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (Analogue Act), federal statutes, 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(32), 812, 813, 841(a), & 841(b)(1)(C) (2012), which is an offense that has a scienter element the Government has the burden of proving. McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015). The scienter element is developed through the following relevant provisions. A controlled substance analogue is defined as a substance which: 1) the chemical structure is substantially similar to schedule I and II substances, 2) has effects similar to (or greater than) those of substances that are schedule I or II, or 3) is

Good morning, my names is Yaquelin Madrigal and the two gentleman at my left are Dr. Lee and Mr. Right. Today, we are going to discuss the of case Mr. Mario. A man who could have indanger innocent people because of his act. He was arrested after being stop by the Phoenix police department on November 15. After the individual was stop, the officer smelled an alcohol oder comming from Mario's mouth. He was arrested for a DUI. But, what happen when the officers search the car? They found an amount methamphemine. This would have add to Mario's sentence.

First, the supreme court rejected all of the prosecution’s case law it relied on to support that the jury’s inference of knowledge was reasonable under the circumstances. Then, the majority then crafted their own logic, not rooted in possession case law, to justify convicting Fischer of possession of methamphetamine. The court’s logic was

The court held that the expert medical witness testimony regarding the Herbel Study, his own experiences as a physician, and the medical record of the defendant did not provide enough evidence to justify the forced medication of the defendant even though all three concerned patients with delusional disorders. Watson, 793 F.3d at 428. The court found that the fourteen year-old Herbel study was inherently flawed due to its design and did not justify the forced medication of the defendant because the information provided about its subjects was neither similar enough nor specific enough to the situation of the defendant at hand. Id. at 426. Similarly, the court faulted the government’s reliance on the personal experiences of the witness because the information provided regarding his patients was not specific enough to the defendant’s situation. In particular, the testimony did not indicate that the previously treated patients had delusions that were “meaningfully similar in nature and persistence” to those of the defendants. The medical record of the defendant was also inadequate because although it reported that he had previously been given the, it only indicated that he had been treated and released. Id. at

PER REPORTER: Richard was arrested on 6/17/2015. The reporter said Graysin told her that “daddy went to jail and I was with him”. Richard was arrested for possession of a control substance. It is unknown by the reporter what kind of control substance. Per reporter Richard’s girlfriend Amanda was arrested on 1/1/2015 for a felony charge for possession of a control substance. It is unknown where Graysin was during the time of her arrest. It is unknown by the reporter is Garysin has been hurt or harm due to Richard and Amanda having possession to control substances. It is unknown if the substances are been manufactured in the home. It is unknown if Graysin has access to the substances. It is unknown if they are using the substance around Graysin.

In conclusion, Adderall is a dangerous drug that should not be used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Students and people everywhere taking these pills non medically need to understand the dangers associated with taking Adderall and the risks being taken every time they consume this dangerous medication. Parents of the young children being prescribed Adderall need to look into different treatment options before just giving their child a dangerous schedule II drug. Though Adderall can help some of its users, it should not be given to children. It is a dangerous drug to use even for the people that actually need it, everyone with ADHD should look into other options for treatment. Doctors need to step up and stop giving these

v. Oakes’ case, the presence of the narcotic drug on the accused illustrates a legal challenge of creating a balance on whether the accused intended to traffic the drug or not (Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, 2017). Therefore, due to the proof that the accused possessed the drugs, an assumption emanates of the accused intention of engaging in trafficking such that he may be found guilty. However, the case may favor him if he opposes the assumption using various probabilities (Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, 2017). The same situation applies to Clarke’s case, by which the basis for his arrest was that he was found at the playground and was in possession of a camera and hence guilty. However, if he opposes the assumption by presenting various probabilities on why he was at the playground and why he was in possession of the camera, then the case might favor

Since, he is in denial of having a problem with drug use, it is this counselors professional opinion that the client has met the criteria for Opioid Use Disorder because Keane has demonstrated compulsive, prolonged self-administration of an opioid that he has no legitimate medical purpose to

The summarized facts are that Oakes challenged the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, which contains that, if established to have possessed narcotics, the accused is presumed guilty and convicted of possession for trafficking purposes, unless they can substantiate innocence. By presuming the accused’s guilt and placing on the accused the burden to establish innocence, Oakes argued and the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that Section 8 violates Section 11 (d) of the Charter: the right to the presumption of innocence. The Crown appealed to Supreme Court of Canada with the specified constitutional question being whether Section 8 violated Section 11 (d), and so did not have legal force or effect. If there was a violation,