"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

No, because that would deny the legal beagles another source of perpetual
income

Balderdash.

It's because if you want to protect something an easy way is to make private
possesion of that something, or anything associated with it, a crime. This
means all the prosecution has to do is show that you possessed it. You
don't even have to have actual knowledge of the possession.

(I.E., if you lend your car to a friend and that friend smokes a joint in
the car and leaves the roach in the ash tray you can be found guilty of
simple possesion of MJ even if you could show that you did NOT have actual
knowledge of the roach. The law presumes you are in possesion of all items
in your vehicle. So if you possessed the vehicle you possessed the MJ.
Next case.)

--if we ruled out frivolous criminal charges and (worse yet) frivolous
lawsuits, half of the esteemed bar would perish due to lack of business.

Rubbish. They would just dream up new methods of employement.

No
to mention the enforcement branch bureaucrats out scratching for
violations
of these stupid laws--not a lot of need for the skills of your average
"possum cop" in the private sector. Of course, we could carry out
significant legal reforms...if the lawyers were not so entrenched in our
political process. So the vicious cycle continues.

Yeah, nobody likes lawyers 'till they hear the words, "You have the right to
remain silent."

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.