The Recreational Drug Thread

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Go post in the politics forum and stop ruining our drug thread. Just because you live in the sticks doesn't mean the judicial system works like that everywhere. Silly redneck.

So silly, stoner-logic acronyms work as Get Out of Jail Free Cards where you live? Then I need to go over there and start calling myself IATNDCBIWB (I Am Totally Not a Dude and Can Be In the Women's Bathroom).

[Chula Vista]

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

So silly, stoner-logic acronyms work as Get Out of Jail Free Cards where you live? Then I need to go over there and start calling myself IATNDCBIWB (I Am Totally Not a Dude and Can Be In the Women's Bathroom).

You need proof the defendant is talking about themselves. It doesn't matter if you can logically deduce that they were, you need evidence. It's a double-edged sword. This kind of **** is how guilty people get away with stuff all the time.

People use code words in text messages for a reason.

[Frownland]

Unless you're violating parole I don't think that you can be indicted for being high in the past.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

You need proof the defendant is talking about themselves. It doesn't matter if you can logically deduce that they were, you need evidence. It's a double-edged sword. This kind of **** is how guilty people get away with stuff all the time.

People use code words in text messages for a reason.

I think using an acronym whose only purpose is to refer yourself is as much evidence as anyone would need to prove that you were, in fact, referring to yourself. You don't need to logically deduce anything, cause there's no other thing it could mean (deduction requires that there be at least one option to deduct). This sounds like one of those "If you ask a cop if he's a cop then he has to answer", kinds of BS.

[Zhanteimi]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Dude, if SWIM is an acronym created and used for the sole purpose of referring to oneself when committing some kind of crime, then I find it highly dubious that you'd be able to tell the cops, "I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about someone who isn't me." If I were to go on here and write about how "SWIM just touched a little boy today", do you really think saying that I wasn't talking about myself would hold up in court?

Good point. I'm an idiot. Nevermind.

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I think using an acronym whose only purpose is to refer yourself is as much evidence as anyone would need to prove that you were, in fact, referring to yourself. You don't need to logically deduce anything, cause there's no other thing it could mean (deduction requires that there be at least one option to deduct). This sounds like one of those "If you ask a cop if he's a cop then he has to answer", kinds of BS.

The point is they could simply say they were using SWIM as an acronym for someone else. I understand it's commonly used as a way to talk about yourself without talking about yourself. The system would have to have some kind of evidence or argument to prove the defendant was in fact talking about their self.

It could mean they are talking about themselves in code OR about someone else. It doesn't matter what the common use is, you still have to prove it's use in the situation.

Don't blame me, blame all the loopholes and inconsistencies in the justice system.

[Zhanteimi]

One time SWIM put on Sigur Ros' Kveikur at his acid peak and, oh ****!, it took hold of him like a puppeteer. The magical electricity of the music jolted him so much that, after he came down, he couldn't listen to music for a month. He needed that much time to recover...and to make sense of what had just happened. It was that night that he realized that music is magic. For real. Like, the artist has the ability to summon from beyond.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

The point is they could simply say they were using SWIM as an acronym for someone else. I understand it's commonly used as a way to talk about yourself without talking about yourself. The system would have to have some kind of evidence or argument to prove the defendant was in fact talking about their self.

It could mean they are talking about themselves in code OR about someone else. It doesn't matter what the common use is, you still have to prove it's use in the situation.

Don't blame me, blame all the loopholes and inconsistencies in the justice system.

You watch too much CSI. You only have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no other reasonable explanation for the use of SWIM in this kind of case other than it being a first person pronoun. I checked. There isn't. Not unless you think that "Southeast Unitarian Universalist Winter Institute in Miami got hella baked at the Phish concert yesterday", is a reasonable interpretation. And yes, the acronym for... that, is also SWIM.

You're wrong, you're stupid, put the bong down and go take a shower.

[DwnWthVwls]

I hate CSI. and I just used a little bowl... My point is while you are probably right in a majority of cases there will be some where SWIM has the potential to cause problems for the prosecutor. If you can't admit that you're just being stubborn.

I honestly thought he was actually referring to someone else before the meaning of SWIM was clarified. The potential for misuse is 100% reasonable.