Jump to content

Update Drug Possession Laws? - 103 Drug Possession - Gap in the law being exploited.


Recommended Posts

Hello all,

Regardless of what any of you think of me / any experiences you've had with me in the past - I wanted to bring up a pretty serious 'gap' in Space Law that I've arguably seen abused in multiple ways on multiple occasions. The attached screenshots are from the most recent time; which was the most annoying. The most important thing is always the charge itself - and the description of charge 103 only specifies 'The possession of: (list of drugs), by unauthorized personnel' ~ and only goes onto specify that Botanists and MedSci staff are exempt so long as they are not distributing or using them for profit or recreation. Its related, higher-tier charge, Narcotics Distribution, also only describes 'distributing narcotics and other controlled substances' ~ and even specifies that It is not illegal for them to be grown.

Nowhere in either of these two laws does it mention that being under the influence of or ingesting any substance is apart of the charge - or even its own crime; only that recreational use is not a valid reason for staff to posses drugs for departmental work. This is important, because (in my opinion), if ingestion or intoxication was intended to be enforced and punished by security or command, the equipment, laws and correct terminology would already be written, as it is with specifics on growing drugs and using them for jobs. I think its also pretty safe to assume when other charges of similar severity like Battery have ultra specific context, down to the number of times a person has shoved someone else -- that something as frequent as drugs and alcohol intoxication would have that same ultra specific context too, but it doesn't. Beyond nit picking space law in a pixel video game; why does this matter?

Because on multiple occasions crew members have been arrested and charged with either Possession of Drugs - Or Distribution, when they have only been under the influence of said drug. As a security player, I don't arrest people for being under the influence - I search them. If they have the physical contraband on them, then they get charged, but being under the influence itself doesn't appear to be a crime - otherwise you would have to arrest the entire bar, chem, RND & botany department every couple of shifts. When people do arrest and brig others for 'possession' with no physical evidence, just intoxication - I think its just straight up a false charge. The lack of any physical drugs to charge someone with - especially if there's no evidence of distribution either, means they should walk free - regardless if you can scan them and check for reagents in their blood. At most the detective should look into it; but even that seems like a waste.

Also assuming someone is chargeable with possession because 'they would've had to have willingly come into contact and possessed it' or someone 'possessing' in their bloodstream', is just ridiculous. What if they were unwillingly injected?, Food was spiked?, off-hand Ingestion from a chemical reaction? Ling made them hallucinate? You could argue that this could be explained to whomever was arresting, but in the heat of a red alert, most people are just happy to brig the clown running with no ID on meth and call it a day - specifics in law (and space law) exist to handle these types of trickier issues of which there are a lot. They also exist so that the brigging and charging process is black and white - and you don't have to worry about a persons story or trying to assume what they were thinking/doing;

if they broke a rule, its written down for you or not. And that is exactly the point. Its not written down.
There is no law punishing or enforcing intoxication - at any level, only for the items of contraband itself. Space Law is also written in quite a libertarian fashion - meaning that so long as your behaviour doesn't impact others, there will be no CC interreference. Things like revolver-suicide, extreme body modification (genes, robotics) and drinking yourself into coma at the bar are perfectly acceptable behaviours - as the right to self-autonomy is sort of a given, and not messed with (and in the case of brig suicide not even treated for). This is intentional by design, is it not?  

I see two options that will easily fix this: 
1. Amend charges 103, 203 to reflect that intoxication on any substance is not meant to be enforced and is not a breach of the law. (however the behaviour while under the influence of that substance is still chargeable - e.g. fighting, breaking stuff) 

OR

2. Add a new SEPERATE charge to Space Law, that describes being intoxicated or having restricted substances in a persons body.
      (e.g 104 - Public Intoxication) -- this only works IF a person being under the influence is really a security matter or meant to be
      charged at all (even though its not mentioned once in space law)

As for the specific round in the screenshots; i have no serious complaints so to speak, as the captain, HoS, IAA and Magistrate all agreed with the ruling that it counted as possession, and i guess that's the ruling for that shift; An AHelp seems to confirm this is a IC issue (?) - However, again, you shouldn't start making assumptions on 'willingness' or 'mindset' when charging someone - and even though people CAN just be warned for it by a warden, in this case they weren't and 10 minutes of processing and brig time went past. My aggressive words in arguing against this IC are a result of frustration - given that to me, this seems very open and shut with no specific text or law talking about it anywhere on the wiki or Space Law. If this is a case-by-case or In-character only type of thing, then we need the right tools to argue effectively with the ultimate backing of admins if needed - to ultimately avoid fights and annoyances like these in otherwise normal rounds.

Thanks for reading tho...

TL:DR -- People are being charged for drug possession when they are only intoxicated and have no items on them - with ruling on this  changing between shifts. For a 'crime' not written into law, someone could be searched, arrested and/or brigged, (even arguably on green as intoxication is very obvious) without a single specific mention of intoxication or ingestion of drugs in Space Law. 

"No, you don't posses shit without evidence!"

Screenshot (278).png

Screenshot (276).png

Screenshot (277).png

Screenshot (279).png

 

Screenshot (274).png

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
More photos + formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, for the sake of argument and the fact not every single potential law can be added, the idea that the possession law is used to ding someone for consumption seems a logical end point in game logic.

If the drug is not in you due someone else drugging you, you had to have possessed it, and if you possessed it, it was a crime.

If you get pulled over by the cops and eat any drugs you had with you, they dont ignore the fact you had possessed it moments prior.

Remember to: "SpaceLaw" isnt real law, its the way NT makes the universe and the REAL law (SolGov) think their at the bare minimum attempting to keep law and order within their section of space. Its not set in stone, to the degree NT makes no secret of the fact they will toss it into a woodchipper the moment it suits their needs.

Their security force is literally a group of jackbooted thugs who will happily crush your windpipe because you tried to argue with them, they arnt proper police, and the phrase "de-escalation" to them, means hit it until it stops moving

 

That being said, a public intoxication law would be nice, since dealing with people drunk on the LEGAL stuff has no proper counter.

Edited by Carthusia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carthusia said:

If the drug is not in you due someone else drugging you, you had to have possessed it, and if you possessed it, it was a crime. If you get pulled over by the cops and eat any drugs you had with you, they don't ignore the fact you had possessed it moments prior.

I totally agree that if a security officer has seen someone ingest, hold or pickup any drug related item (or got a report), they shouldn't 'ignore the fact you had it' if you are intoxicated. 

However basing the start of an entire arrest around someone being intoxicated on an unknown substance, without anything else happening, (SEE Screenshots) is legally empty in regards to space law (Intoxication isn't a crime) - and so is a search or brigging. If there's no evidence (witness testimony or physical) of the described crime ~ Possessing a Narcotic - then it makes no sense to set to arrest (or even brig) for being intoxicated. If you want to argue the physical evidence is the intoxication sure? - but then what happens when they brig/search them and there's no drugs to complete the charge of Possession of Drugs? (re the description of that charge) ~ Which is exactly what happened after the initial arrest and what caused the law to then be interpreted as under the influence could equal a possession of drugs charge (out of convenience during code red) and not to just justify a search and release (pulled over by cops). I get that the law is malleable and all the stuff you said about NT - but from a pure ooc perspective, how is that justified for a player at all?- its not a crime to be on drugs to begin with...

Another law added such as public intoxication would stop all of this from happening straight up - 'like there's John Doe, hes intox, lets search/charge'.

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carthusia said:

If the drug is not in you due someone else drugging you, you had to have possessed it, and if you possessed it, it was a crime.

Also not to be completely pedantic (but people getting charged often are) - but I can just as easily ask the bad chemist for a injection of meth without ever doing it myself, carrying or even touching any narcotics or item. How are you gonna get me with possession then? Aside from people re-writing laws to cover up their own over-policing, this is what I mean about a slight hole in the written laws and the wiki leaving the potential for bigger issues.

Some clarity whether intoxication, on any level, is meant to be policed would also be really good. Personally based on the lack of any mention on the  wiki or law (aside from departments being charged if the reason for having the drug is recreational), i don't think it is meant to be.

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
TLDR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an immense difference between being Assaulted (as per Space Law) by getting injected with meth and USING meth to be a nuisance to Crew and Security.

Meth in game has VERY distinct characteristics. Meth use itself can get you lethal’d by Security as per Space Law if you’re committing other crimes. I don’t personally believe it is much of a stretch to Brig someone for Drug Possession when they’re actively using meth openly on the Station.

Also, this is not real life. Of course there is “over-policing”, you work for a company that does not give a single damn about your rights and sees you as a tool to make money. They do not care for crime rates or rehabilitation. They see someone wasting time by running about high on drugs and tosses them into the Brig. The Law is VERY clear that meth counts as one of the drugs prohibited: “To possess space drugs, ambrosia, krokodil, crank, meth, aranesp, bath salts, THC, or other narcotics, by unauthorized personnel.” This case, if I recall, was an ASSISTANT, someone who in no way has permissions to even touch meth, running about on said substance.

Given how much of an absolute pain meth is to deal with ICly, I have no issues with people being brigged for meth use and would, as long as I was not in the round playing, agree as such if a Magistrate faxed us for CC’s opinion. It’s been my understanding that this has always been the case, at least for the past 4ish years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

However basing the start of an entire arrest around someone being intoxicated on an unknown substance, without anything else happening, (SEE Screenshots) is legally empty in regards to space law (Intoxication isn't a crime) - and so is a search or brigging. If there's no evidence (witness testimony or physical) of the described crime ~ Possessing a Narcotic - then it makes no sense to set to arrest (or even brig) for being intoxicated. If you want to argue the physical evidence is the intoxication sure? - but then what happens when they brig/search them and there's no drugs to complete the charge of Possession of Drugs? (re the description of that charge) ~ Which is exactly what happened after the initial arrest and what caused the law to then be interpreted as under the influence could equal a possession of drugs charge (out of convenience during code red) and not to just justify a search and release (pulled over by cops). I get that the law is malleable and all the stuff you said about NT - but from a pure ooc perspective, how is that justified for a player at all?- its not a crime to be on drugs to begin with...

First, if we write every single possible tiny thing into space law it'd be massive, its already large as is, for a good reason, but more will just make newbies struggle with it, since to play the game they have to read two full documents already (Rules, and kind-of space law if they don't wanna get in IC trouble)

Secondly, this is an IC issue of the person. If you were just shot with narcotics by someone, get your ass to medbay, scream in comms about it, report your atacker, and make it a reasonable situation for people to believe you, you won't be brigged. If you got meth'd by someone, why didn't you go to medbay and have it removed from your system, and de-addiction'd in a sleeper? (Yes sleepers remove addictions faster) 

If a person is having meth-characteristic spasms, and is indeed on psycodelics, they'll get brigged. They're in a professional enviroment, there to work, if they instead spend it high on drugs, they'll get issues. It has characteristic behavior that isn't similar to many other things, and even then, a simple upgraded medscanner that every doctor has can reveal either the contents in their blood, or the addiction.

As someone who's played security for a long time, things like this seem clear - Space Law is meant to be used to enforce a safe, professional enviroment on the station, allowing people to be on meth simply by the technicallity that they don't "have" meth on their person, but simply on their system, seems a bit far stretched. If they didn't report a crime if they got forced to take it, nor went to medbay or sought aid, its their fault that they ended in trouble with security once they were found being a disturbance and a bad example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

There is an immense difference between being Assaulted (as per Space Law) by getting injected with meth and USING meth to be a nuisance to Crew and Security.

Meth in game has VERY distinct characteristics. Meth use itself can get you lethal’d by Security as per Space Law if you’re committing other crimes. I don’t personally believe it is much of a stretch to Brig someone for Drug Possession when they’re actively using meth openly on the Station.

Also, this is not real life. Of course there is “over-policing”, you work for a company that does not give a single damn about your rights and sees you as a tool to make money. They do not care for crime rates or rehabilitation. They see someone wasting time by running about high on drugs and tosses them into the Brig. The Law is VERY clear that meth counts as one of the drugs prohibited: “To possess space drugs, ambrosia, krokodil, crank, meth, aranesp, bath salts, THC, or other narcotics, by unauthorized personnel.” This case, if I recall, was an ASSISTANT, someone who in no way has permissions to even touch meth, running about on said substance.

Given how much of an absolute pain meth is to deal with ICly, I have no issues with people being brigged for meth use and would, as long as I was not in the round playing, agree as such if a Magistrate faxed us for CC’s opinion. It’s been my understanding that this has always been the case, at least for the past 4ish years.

Hey there; i appreciate the response but i actually have an issue with some of the things you said. 

First, we're a little muddy on the actual important details here; i'm not talking about someone being on a substance and 'committing other crimes', like at all - we're talking about the charge of Drug Possession being used on someone who is ONLY under the influence, not doing anything else. Its a bit of a non-argument to pretend that everyone who takes drugs in the game for RP or other reasons is going to be a nuisance (thats why specific laws exist for different actions?). In the round in question, i believe there was multiple people brigged for DP - however the screenshots only show the one instance of a single individual being set to arrest for being intox, they weren't doing anything else at the time. I have seen this happen before - with completely different shifts.

I understand that this may have been the inherent understanding for the past 4 years - but if thats the case, why not just add it to the charge fix any and all future issues and discussions around this?? I know for a definite fact i am speaking for a few people here around this issue. Again i understand space law is a guideline, malleable, etc - IC the company & security reasons make complete sense; but im really trying to analyse this issue from an OOC perspective. One of the players who was brigged reached out to me and explained he consensually ingested drugs when they were offered, and was arrested afterwards for twitching and stuff, wasting up to about 15 minutes of his time for something that could and would be argued for much longer (if the magi or iaa felt differently). 

"Given how much of an absolute pain meth is to deal with IC" -- it seems like everyone is tacitly aware of this, so perhaps another statement in the same law, giving everyone the tool to arrest/ignore the behaviour would be a good thing? Its a little hard not to become frustrated at "we can't add every law', 'its a game'- when we're not exactly talking about a new page on the wiki so much as a new sentence on the already existing page clarifying wether intox is a crime or not as defacto. Thx tho <3

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

we're talking about the charge of Drug Possession being used on someone who is ONLY under the influence, not doing anything else. Its a bit of a non-argument to pretend that everyone who takes drugs in the game for RP or other reasons is going to be a nuisance (thats why specific laws exist for different actions?).

If I was using drugs at my workplace, I'd be fired. If you use drugs on the Station, you get brigged. I personally dont see the need to differentiate between use and possession in regards to Space Law. Both actions should get you brigged. And we do not really need to bloat Space Law to do so. Arguing that having it IN YOUR SYSTEM versus IN YOUR POCKET are different becomes an argument of semantics when at the end of the day NT does not want you doing drugs on their station, period.

OOCly, there is a very easy solution: just dont do meth? If youre a non-antag, there literally no reason to have OR use it. If you ARE using it (outside of Science or Botany) youre likely breaking SoP anyway too. Methheads or crackheads or whatever flavor of RP you can think of are ALSO a thing that we dont really want here. Youre supposed to be RPing as a functional member of the Station who would logically get hired to do a job. I cant think of any Science/Research center that's gonna be regularly employing meth addcits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eric6426 said:

First, if we write every single possible tiny thing into space law it'd be massive, its already large as is, for a good reason, but more will just make newbies struggle with it, since to play the game they have to read two full documents already (Rules, and kind-of space law if they don't wanna get in IC trouble)

Secondly, this is an IC issue of the person. If you were just shot with narcotics by someone, get your ass to medbay, scream in comms about it, report your atacker, and make it a reasonable situation for people to believe you, you won't be brigged. If you got meth'd by someone, why didn't you go to medbay and have it removed from your system, and de-addiction'd in a sleeper? (Yes sleepers remove addictions faster) 

If a person is having meth-characteristic spasms, and is indeed on psycodelics, they'll get brigged. They're in a professional enviroment, there to work, if they instead spend it high on drugs, they'll get issues. It has characteristic behavior that isn't similar to many other things, and even then, a simple upgraded medscanner that every doctor has can reveal either the contents in their blood, or the addiction.

As someone who's played security for a long time, things like this seem clear - Space Law is meant to be used to enforce a safe, professional enviroment on the station, allowing people to be on meth simply by the technicallity that they don't "have" meth on their person, but simply on their system, seems a bit far stretched. If they didn't report a crime if they got forced to take it, nor went to medbay or sought aid, its their fault that they ended in trouble with security once they were found being a disturbance and a bad example.

Heya Eric!
You and I both know that you are pretty fair and unbais - so i hope you will trust me when i say this isn't a shit-stir post or just me complaining and that im genuinely interested in this discussion. That being said i also have some issues with the arguments you just made. I'll say for the third time that i understand that the law is massive, burdens and a barrier for players - i also understand that its not updated a lot - if it ain't broke right? But we aren't talking about overhauling the entire system - we're talking about an extra sentence on one existing law to clarify wether intoxication is inherently a crime - this would be a useful tool, even for other situations not relating to this. 

Second, if the brigging someone for breaching the professional environment is truely the standard, then a new sentence in the existing; or whole new law on Intoxication should be standard too?? There simply is not a single solitary sentence in Space Law for security players or antags to use to their advantage - instead whatever the consensus of security and command staff is; goes. That may be fine for most things, but in this case i became frustrated and cryod along with 2 others due to the situation, as we disagreed (not the first time). Surely the professional environment IC stuff is more for the HoP to deal with using demotions not a brigging? 

Lastly, i'm really not trying to argue on the 'technicality' of 'no meth technically on persons' - im saying statuses should not be set until the person has committed an actual crime (as intox isn't listed as a crime) - nor should the entire security force act as if its a crime when its not even listed. "once they were found being a disturbance and a bad example" - this is the entire point; I have no issues with security arresting someone for their bad actions while on the drugs - but looking at the written document, the intoxication itself isn't written as a crime, but somehow seems to be understood as one; so for the IC players to interpret the law differently between shifts seems a little rough, when a new sentence could straighten it out. 

 

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MattTheFicus said:

If I was using drugs at my workplace, I'd be fired.

OOCly, there is a very easy solution: just dont do meth? If youre a non-antag, there literally no reason to have OR use it. If you ARE using it (outside of Science or Botany) youre likely breaking SoP anyway too. Methheads or crackheads or whatever flavor of RP you can think of are ALSO a thing that we dont really want here. Youre supposed to be RPing as a functional member of the Station who would logically get hired to do a job. 

This is a much better argument than just 'what if they're doing something bad' - And its also 1000% true, if you were using drugs at work, you'd be fired in a heartbeat. But would you get thrown into a cell by the security contractors at the place of employment? Demotion and a search would seem to make more sense to me in that case? (and if drugs are then found, then a nice brig charge). 

I can also completely respect that assistants running around taking meth is a flavor of RP thats a net-negative for the server, and obviously id be a moron for arguing in favor of. Methheads and Junkies only ever seem to end up with on result (in real life too). But what about a House M.D style doctor addicted to morphine?, the gruzzled old vet in the bar addicted to ethanol?, the clown who cant stop injecting fliptonium? -- there would seem to be some cases where a player taking substances, even in your department could make for interesting and fun rp - provided they aren't doing anything else wrong or are just charged and thrown into a cell for 5 minutes rather than demoted and stuff. If theyre only breaking sops that should be what happens anyway, not a brigging...

In truth there are a lot of different chems, so we aren't strictly speaking about a meth head assistant each time, nor should we probably assume that they'd break any rules inherently. But at the same time, its also probably naive to assume that a player intentionally taking drugs isn't also planning other shenanigans - but i thought that was the point of the detective or crew making a report, and officers responding :c - right now people being charged with possession for intox seems very cops and robbers to me. If the goal is for players to handle everything like this IC, then we need all the tools to do so. An extra sentence to clarify the default station position towards intoxication would again, fix all of this, as by definition to make the possession charge stick at the moment, you are interpreting the chemical in their bloodstream as them physically having it .-. 

(which from a players perspective, comes off as a really scummy choice made out of convenience in the moment)


 

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattTheFicus said:

 becomes an argument of semantics when at the end of the day NT does not want you doing drugs on their station, period.

Also if this was truely the case, why wouldn't there be a single solitary mention of ingesting or using the substance, when not in relation to departments having the physical item for work? Most other contingents about drugs are met in further explanation - how come NT didn't bother to provide law on something as prevalent as substance abuse? My answer is because its intended not to be as its pretty impossible to police - and unfair...

Like i said before the entirity of Space Law seems to be fairly libertarian - suicide, extreme body modifications, etc are all totally fine, but substance ingestion with no other sop or law breaking isn't? The law seems to reflect real drug laws in western countries that target the illegal distribution and trading/transfer of items between persons rather than personal use - even specifically allowing chemists to have them, etc. Again if it was intended to be a crime or tacit issue by itself, then i should be able to CTRL-F and find something, anything, anywhere. But...

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an entire space law section on those who grow, make or attempt to give away / sell drugs.

image.thumb.png.c6df5f080da0775d6f1c856d99f11e13.png

And then there is the law about having the drugs or taking them.

image.thumb.png.b67f94ed1a9de5e343c82d83c77c7728.png

Now, take note of the wording in both of the notes regarding those laws. "For distribution, see Narcotics Distribution." "For non-distributed drugs used for recreation, see Drug possession."

If you create, grow, or whatever the drugs.. and start handing them out, then you are distributing narcotics, a medium crime.

If you create, grow, or manage to get hold of drugs in anyway, be it from yourself, or from another.. even holding onto them, or using them.. you are in drug possession, a minor crime

/. Its much like how multiple people get done with DUI (Driving under the influence) of narcotics, or alcohol. The drugs / alcohol is gone, in the persons body / system, but they are still charged with possession and DUI.

As an example under UK law;

Quote

You can get a fine or prison sentence if you:

take drugs

carry drugs

make drugs

sell, deal or share drugs (also called ‘supplying’ them)

The penalties depend on the type of drug or substance, the amount you have, and whether you’re also dealing or producing it.

And US laws;

Quote

Drug Use and Possession

Simple possession is a crime that occurs when a person has a small amount of a substance on their person or available for their own use. For simple possession to apply, there must be no intent to sell or give the drug to someone else.

If an individual is caught with possession of illegal drugs or controlled substances, they can face jail time. The length of jail time differs according to the state in which the offense occurs and the previous criminal record of the individual. Under federal law, simple possession is a misdemeanor offense that can lead to a prison term of a year or less for a first offense; however, for subsequent offenses, felony charges and additional years of jail time may apply.

In addition, individuals in the U.S. could face steep fines for possession of drugs. At the federal level, simple possession carries a fine of at least $1,000. Some judges may require that the individual commit a large number of hours to community service as well

Additional Charges and Penalties

Along with possession and trafficking, people can receive drug-related charges for:

Manufacturing – Using ingredients to produce or manipulate controlled substances can bring about penalties that equal or surpass those for drug dealing.

Paraphernalia – Possessing or advertising any materials primarily associated with growing, storing, packaging, or using controlled substances can lead to fines and, in some cases, jail time.

Driving while intoxicated – Operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, including prescribed medications, can result in jail times, fines, and driver’s license revocation.

If you have drugs, or seen under the influence / taking drugs, you are guilty of drug possession. You are merely arguing "But it doesn't SAY that, it HAS to be written down." When anyone can go "Yeah, that guy is on drugs, so he has drugs or is capable of making them."

And yes, someone forcing you or tricking you into taking a drug, is assault on their part. You are not charged with possession if it happened without your knowledge / consent.

Edited by Abydos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Abydos said:

There's an entire space law section on those who grow, make or attempt to give away / sell drugs.

image.thumb.png.c6df5f080da0775d6f1c856d99f11e13.png

And then there is the law about having the drugs or taking them.

image.thumb.png.b67f94ed1a9de5e343c82d83c77c7728.png

You are merely arguing "But it doesn't SAY that, it HAS to be written down." When anyone can go "Yeah, that guy is on drugs, so he has drugs or is capable of making them."

Notice right, how the charge reads 'poses' and 'distribute' on space law right - and in real life it reads 'take drugs' 'ingest drugs'....
You just said 'there's the law about having or 'taking' - when the only thing close to a mention of 'taking', even in your own screenshot, is 'recreation' in relation to a stated reason for exemption by staff for holding the substance...

Arguing that 'it HAS to be written down' is kinda the dang point  when you want people to follow a list of rules - and you also want people to enforce them?? Also you can't arrest someone just because they have the capability to do something, even if the evidence suggests there might be more going on... If I had the capability to make a shotgun, and you found me with a shotgun injury - im still not guilty of weapon possession even if the evidence is spelling that out crystal clear..

It also seems like the entire administration team has now said, - correctly, that; "getting ahold of drugs in anyway, be it from yourself, or from another.. even holding onto them" counts as possession. Yes it does? Casually adding "or using them" on the end of that list, when its not written ANYWHERE (apart from in relation to a stated reason for physical exemption) might clarify the stance you all seem to take on the issue, that's fine. Even if command staff rules that way during rounds, its fine.

But if that is the stance administration, (CC), takes, and if that is how you want security and command to enforce it...

Can ya add the sentence clarifying that? :3

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are arguing schematics, for the sake of arguing schematics.

You got hold of some drugs. You then take those drugs.. you are guilty of taking drugs and being in possession of drugs. You are literally just arguing the entire point "But its bad for you to have drugs, it doesn't say about taking them." 

That is entirely a moot and regardless point, the drugs are in your system right now. No cop in the entire world would go "We can't arrest them, they had drugs, but they took them.". That doesn't work like that, and is a pointless argument. If you've got ten people who see you take a drug, and they tell Security that you took that drug.. you can't say "Yes, I had drugs, but I took them, so its fine, its not against the law."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Abydos said:

Again, you are arguing schematics, for the sake of arguing schematics.

You got hold of some drugs. You then take those drugs.. you are guilty of taking drugs and being in possession of drugs. You are literally just arguing the entire point "But its bad for you to have drugs, it doesn't say about taking them." 

That is entirely a moot and regardless point, the drugs are in your system right now. No cop in the entire world would go "We can't arrest them, they had drugs, but they took them.". That doesn't work like that, and is a pointless argument. If you've got ten people who see you take a drug, and they tell Security that you took that drug.. you can't say "Yes, I had drugs, but I took them, so its fine, its not against the law."
 

Semantics* are important when you want everyone to follow rules and enforce them. Sorry for sounding frustrated, but right now your laws read incorrectly, and an extra sentence would fix my gripe - and the gripe that's been popping up once a day for a while. It is most definitely not a moot point - your basis to argue from is not written in any rule, law, document or wiki page; but the lack of is causing a problem.

"You can't say: "Yes, I had drugs, but I took them, so its fine, its not against the law." -- If i carry no drugs - and never did (clown injects me, willingly - pretty much identical to what happened above), and there isn't a single law, or mention of intoxication under the law, then its not against the law... Just add a sentence and it would be.

I'm not arguing this because I'm a reddit warrior law veteran picking apart your system for fun with semantics and gotcha arguments; I think its important because gaps in the rules always get exploited, from both sides (good and bad), because currently the ruling that is unwritten causes about 10 minutes worth of arguments on sec side when people go looking through the law properly, and because for a player trying to follow the rules, they might spend A LOT OF time in the brig arguing and fighting this for what would otherwise be 5 minutes. 

I can also argue, with supreme confidence in this area, that cops very much do release people for being intoxicated in public, especially when they carry nothing on them lmao - either that or a public intoxication charge / public disturbance charge - Easier to release a harmless druggy back to his hole than spend an hour on paperwork charging him with nothing...  
 

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

 If i carry no drugs

The drugs are in your system right now.

1 minute ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

and never did (clown injects me, willingly - pretty much identical to what happened above)

If the clown injected you, which you willingly agreed to, that is still drug possession.

If the clown injected, which you didn't agree to, then that is assault on his part. And anyone would naturally assume you would report them to Security.

2 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

there isn't a single law, or mention of intoxication under the law, then its not against the law... Just add a sentence and it would be.

Why? Anyone can connect the dots. Anyone can see what the law means. Anyone knows "If I was eating food and it was laced with space drugs, I'd tell security" or "If I'm talking to a friend, and the clown shoots me with a syringe.. I'd tell security.". You are literally the only person within years to suddenly go "I'm going to willingly take drugs, and then bitch when I get arrested for it, because its not written down."

You are literally the only person who is making an entire scene around one thing, because you got arrested for taking drugs, and wanted to bitch about schematics involving it. And yes, I do mean schematics, because that is your entire argument. You are taking a schematic, a design.. and going "This is all wrong, you should add X" when X.. is already defined, just not YOUR version of it.

There is honestly no reason to change anything in space law, when it is already defined, hinted and linked to.. just because you want to argue exact wording. That'd honestly be like taking 502, Murder, and argue "Yes, I did murder this guy BUT he was willing and wanted me to. Space law says nothing about wilful murder".. Murder is murder. Taking or having drugs on you, is drug possession. Someone forcing or tricking you into taking drugs, is assault. If you break space law, you break space law.

8 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

argue, with supreme confidence in this area, that cops very much do release people for being intoxicated in public, especially when they carry nothing on them lmao - either that or a public intoxication charge / public disturbance charge

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about then, as those people are not given a slap on the wrist, and sent off into the public. They are arrested / detained, and held in drunk tanks, or a jail cell for a day / until they are sober. Often given a fine or even a criminal record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_tank

In the US, they are called Sobering centers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobering_center

You claiming to have "3 years in the justice system", have no idea what you are talking about when it actually comes to the law, have no idea what a drunk tank is, and honestly believe that the cops just slap people on the wrist, and allow them to drive home, or stumble into a fight or injury is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Abydos said:

The drugs are in your system right now.

If the clown injected you, which you willingly agreed to, that is still drug possession.

If the clown injected, which you didn't agree to, then that is assault on his part. And anyone would naturally assume you would report them to Security.

Why? Anyone can connect the dots. Anyone can see what the law means. Anyone knows "If I was eating food and it was laced with space drugs, I'd tell security" or "If I'm talking to a friend, and the clown shoots me with a syringe.. I'd tell security.". You are literally the only person within years to suddenly go "I'm going to willingly take drugs, and then bitch when I get arrested for it, because its not written down."

You are literally the only person who is making an entire scene around one thing, because you got arrested for taking drugs, and wanted to bitch about schematics involving it. And yes, I do mean schematics, because that is your entire argument. You are taking a schematic, a design.. and going "This is all wrong, you should add X" when X.. is already defined, just not YOUR version of it.

There is honestly no reason to change anything in space law, when it is already defined, hinted and linked to.. just because you want to argue exact wording. That'd honestly be like taking 502, Murder, and argue "Yes, I did murder this guy BUT he was willing and wanted me to. Space law says nothing about wilful murder".. Murder is murder. Taking or having drugs on you, is drug possession. Someone forcing or tricking you into taking drugs, is assault. If you break space law, you break space law.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about then, as those people are not given a slap on the wrist, and sent off into the public. They are arrested / detained, and held in drunk tanks, or a jail cell for a day / until they are sober. Often given a fine or even a criminal record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_tank

In the US, they are called Sobering centers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobering_center

You claiming to have "3 years in the justice system", have no idea what you are talking about when it actually comes to the law, have no idea what a drunk tank is, and honestly believe that the cops just slap people on the wrist, and allow them to drive home, or stumble into a fight or injury is laughable.

Disappointing that you would be so completely hostile when I'm genuinely trying to argue about something that I saw was affecting people negatively, not just me.
I think ill address your entire comment and then leave this thread to rot - as well as my paradise account lmao, sorry im not welcome :D

"If the clown injected you, which you willingly agreed to, that is still drug possession" 
then write the law, wait the sentence, explaining that ingestion is still possession. 

"Why? Anyone can connect the dots. Anyone can see what the law means. Anyone knows "If I was eating food and it was laced with space drugs, I'd tell security" or "If I'm talking to a friend, and the clown shoots me with a syringe.. I'd tell security.". You are literally the only person within years to suddenly go "I'm going to willingly take drugs, and then bitch when I get arrested for it, because its not written down."  
First off- I never was jailed for taking drugs, I was the one arresting. I thought it was pretty unfair when it wasn't even written down, that's why I'm bitching - 2. not everyone knows and understand that that is how the laws been interpreted for 4+ years my dude. I clearly didn't, people in my screenshots didn't, new players won't and certainly new security players haven't got the faintest idea. 

"...an entire scene around one thing, because you got arrested for taking drugs, and wanted to bitch about schematics involving it"
I suppose i have incorrectly assumed that making a forum post instead of bothering game admins was the right thing to do, didn't realise it was making a scene. And again, I was the arresting officer, not the person being arrested. 

You are taking a schematic, a design.. and going "This is all wrong, you should add X" when X.. is already defined, just not YOUR version of it.
I am asking for the addition of a sentence to an existing law to close the loop, or a new law to make it a crime. I have no issues with any other part of the law otherwise. 

honestly be like taking 502,
Murder is one person harming another - we're talking about one person taking drugs themselves and breaking department sops or someone else giving it to them willingly. Not really sure what this is supposed to point out. 

Very glad pms that i sent privately In-game were shared with multiple staff members - and now weaponised against me publicly :D (my '3 years' thing was also sent privately to avoid any chance of a dox so cheers) 

Maybe i do have no idea what I'm talking about - only 9 months of police academy and 3 years in Communications & Radio and then Prosecutions.
And over here in 'Straya, we put belligerent drunks or addicts into the watchhouse overnight (holding cells) and serve them their charges in the morning, either that or let them walk off if they're not a danger or public nuisance, like most addicts aren't. Be curious to hear your life experience or legal / law enforcement credentials tho. Next time just get your head admin or whoever runs the wiki to just say 'nah', rather than me thinking i could discuss and improve my argument or suggestion here... 

Hope you have a better day bud. 

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

Disappointing that you would be so completely hostile when I'm genuinely trying to argue about something that I saw was affecting people negatively, not just me.
I think ill address your entire comment and then leave this thread to rot - as well as my paradise account lmao, sorry im not welcome :D

That is fine, and you are more than welcome to. None of this was hostile, this was challenging you and asking you why this should happen.. and all you have to say about it is "Because it has to be written down". Why? Absolutely everyone knows this law, how it is enforced, and conducted. No one is gonna look at that law and go "Oh its okay to use drugs", when using drugs, means you have drugs.

And frankly, you won't have any such luck in any of the other servers, as they ALL have the SAME law.

TG:

image.png.342bb91a9f86c8047a8af38a3470af03.png

Goonstation:

image.thumb.png.404aaff330b9e96cedeac783cdc3692c.png

Yogstation:

image.thumb.png.ebf500dad4d4d56e66315d24085ceb6c.png

Beestation:

image.png.6f9f9465d1793f23462e16850f7dac7c.png

 

Even CM with Marine Law, has the same wording:

image.png.d06d7535a69c280b0bc1430663f73d06.png

 

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

then write the law, wait the sentence, explaining that ingestion is still possession. 

Do we have to write down that willingly murdering someone who wants to be killed is still murder? No, we don't, as its common sense for that to be murder.

Do we have to write down, that breaking a window or wall, unless its to do with engineering / construction work, is breaking station assets? No, we don't, as it is common sense.

Do we have to write down, that Cargo ordering weapon crates and arming themselves up is possession of restricted weaponary? No, we don't.. as despite them ordering those crates / guns "legally", them breaking them open and arming up is still possession of restricted weaponary.

There is common sense, and just wilfully ignoring the entire intent of the law, simply because "You don't have <x>" under a full blanket.

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

First off- I never was jailed for taking drugs, I was the one arresting. I thought it was pretty unfair when it wasn't even written down, that's why I'm bitching

It is written down, again, you are simply arguing not "ONE" word is on that list.

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

2. not everyone knows and understand that that is how the laws been interpreted for 4+ years my dude.

Absolutely everyone knows, understands, that having drugs or taking drugs means you can be arrested for drug possession. Absolutely no one has had an issue with it apart from you. If over 90 people playing on the server every single day understands what the law means, and 1 person does not, and wants to argue one word.. then the issue lies not in the multiple people, but the one attempting to abuse or argue against the law.

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

I clearly didn't, people in my screenshots didn't, new players won't and certainly new security players haven't got the faintest idea. 

Everyone in those screenshots knew, and understood what the law was. The only one making a huge thing out of it was yourself.

 

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

Murder is one person harming another - we're talking about one person taking drugs themselves and breaking department sops or someone else giving it to them willingly. Not really sure what this is supposed to point out. 

Again, that is already covered. If they were given the drugs by another person, they are guilty of drug possession and the provider, guilty of Distribution. If they found, made or took the drug themselves, still guilty of drug possession. If another person forced them to have drugs, such as spiking food, injections, fake pills or the like.. they are not guilty of drug possession (As they did not KNOW it was a drug), and the person who gave it to them, is guilty of assault.

Literally, everything you are trying to argue against, is already pointed out and provided for. You are still arguing over one word, when that is pretty much already clear on the matter. And the murder was an example.. it clearly says "Killing another person is murder", but from the argument route you are going, with this whole thing, making it out as if "But what if the person wanted to die? Its not written down". Can you see how silly that is?

 

43 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

Very glad pms that i sent privately In-game were shared with multiple staff members - and now weaponised against me publicly :D (my '3 years' thing was also sent privately to avoid any chance of a dox so cheers) 

You were the one who informed the staff of such, and absolutely no one is going to beable to dox you, purely because someone said "You said you have 3 years in the justice system". Okay, and? I've been a paradise admin for over 3 years, coming up to 4.. doesn't mean everyone is suddenly gonna know "Abydos lives at <x> and his full name is <x>". 

It was brought up because you are constantly attempting to argue exact technical areas, claim knowledge of law or even RL law, yet, bring up facts or situations that are completely untrue. Or claiming that you have "confidence" that <x> law isn't enforced in real life.. if it wasn't, the amount of drunk driving, public intoxication, fights, injuries, death, ect would skyrocket in every single country.

You even confirm that those people who do such a thing, are indeed arrested or detained. Sure, one or two may get slipped by because they aren't overly dangerous / fully drunk, but you can't say "confidently" that every one is given a slap on the wrist.

 

If this entire thing of you being informed "We don't see any reason to change one aspect of space law, as it is has been working for years and only one person has an issue with it" is the reason you leave, then hope you luck on whatever server you pick. But as shown before, you won't have any other luck in attempting to get them to change their aspect of space law if that is the only thing you can focus on.

Edited by Abydos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Abydos said:

That is fine, and you are more than welcome to. None of this was hostile, this was challenging you and asking you why this should happen.. and all you have to say about it is "Because it has to be written down". Why? Absolutely everyone knows this law, how it is enforced, and conducted. No one is gonna look at that law and go "Oh its okay to use drugs", when using drugs, means you have drugs. It was brought up because you are constantly attempting to argue exact technical areas, claim knowledge of law or even RL law, yet, bring up facts or situations that are completely untrue. 

You said I was bitching, while literally misstating the facts of the issue
You said I was making a scene when im just trying to make a suggestion with reasonable feedback
You called me 'laughable' 'uninformed' - you made out like I literally have no idea what im saying and inferring that im lying about things?
You brought up privately shared, personal information about me that i gave to another administrator in private, in order to win an argument about fictional law. 

Thats pretty fucking hostile dude.

You love stating my arguments for me "attempting to argue exact technical areas, claim knowledge of law or even RL law" - what an excellent summary, with no specifics or counters to my arguments at all? Just saying something is untrue doesn't make it so. At least i was able to point out your lack of supporting evidence other than "that's the way we've done it for years". And just saying 'everyone is aware' doesn't complete that argument, when people were just as confused as I was. 

You're an asshole, that can't hold any respectful dialogue, even over text - who then gaslights others like nothing happened when you cross the line. Peace. 

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so damn stupid.

Being under the influence of drugs is evidence that you either were in possession of them, or were assaulted. You're also possessing the drugs in your system.

This is a you problem, and you're being unnecessarily argumentative and failing to use common sense. 

IRL, laws are pages and pages of definitions. We replace that with common sense. And the most basic amount of common sense tells you if someone is getting high on drugs they're in possession. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, necaladun said:

 You're also possessing the drugs in your system.
This is a you problem, and you're being unnecessarily argumentative and failing to use common sense. 

I'm arguing back when people make their arguments? How is that unnecessary? I posted the thread, i want to defend my ideas.
Why the fuck is this category titled "Debates and Discussions" If I'm not allowed to debate things? Ironic that you want to have go at my conduct when I've been fairly respectful and made it pretty clear I'm here to discuss this small issue and the bigger idea, and not to delve into mild personal attacks or anecdotes - like your staff.

I now understand this forum, and your community is not the place to discuss ideas in a respectful manner so I'm very sorry indeed. 
Also, its common sense that someone is possessing a drug INSIDE their system?  (to have and hold as property - to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill.  - or to seize and take control of)

Also hilarious that you would slap me a Discord ban, for this post and subsequent complaints.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
  • clown 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NarrowlyAvoidingABan said:

Also hilarious that you would slap me a Discord ban, for this post. 

Nobody banned you, you left of your own accord. You spoke up this huge thing about a debate, but when admins decide not to choose your side, you go to insulting us, only nit picking pieces of our response and now trying to pull the "ADMINS BANNED ME FOR SPEAKING".

image.png.2ef278d10a49f5dfa2b0cd9383ab5654.png

image.png.1a0d0e9038c16d9eb28c8bfc9112dd10.png

Edited by Abydos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Abydos said:

Nobody banned you, you left of your own accord. You spoke up this huge thing about a debate, but when admins decide not to choose your side, you go to insulting us, only nit picking pieces of our response and now trying to pull the "ADMINS BANNED ME FOR SPEAKING".

image.png.2ef278d10a49f5dfa2b0cd9383ab5654.png

image.png.1a0d0e9038c16d9eb28c8bfc9112dd10.png

Well my brother - you need to put the snowflake in when you search for me on discord first of all. 

Secondly i was absolutely banned / kicked and did not leave on my own accord as I reached out to head admins to make a complaint - VIA the discord. Ultimately received nothing back and block/ban. 

Keep the act up, it will work on some people for sure 100

Edited by NarrowlyAvoidingABan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not debating in good faith. You're being obtuse and taking a stupid stance that flies in the face of common sense.

And no, no one banned you from the discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, necaladun said:

You're not debating in good faith. You're being obtuse and taking a stupid stance that flies in the face of common sense.

And no, no one banned you from the discord.

Okay well no-cap i was just kicked or banned so check the audit logs lmfao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use