pud99
Senior Member
Smoking crack* is not a crime. Possession (whether simple or for the purposes of trafficking) is a crime. Trafficking (buying or selling) is a crime. Even if it could be proved that the use of crack to which Ford just admitted is the one seen in the video, the only way that he could be prosecuted would be by charging him with possession of the not-yet-vaporized crack that was in the pipe. Generally the police do not lay a possession charge on that basis alone. Moreover, if someone else was holding the pipe for him, no charge of possession would be sustainable on any basis. So, it is quite possible that the reason for Blair saying that the video provides no reasonable and probable grounds for charging Ford is not just that the recording might not support a beyond-reasonable-doubt conclusion that the pipe contained crack (at least not in the absence of the confession since made) but also that it would be contrary to normal police practice to lay a possession charge solely on the basis that Ford was in possession of a small amount of crack while in the process of smoking it.
*Pedantry alert! Properly speaking, a user inhales the product of vaporizing crack. Smoke is produced by burning a combustable material. Crack is vaporized by boiling it (raising its temperature to the point where it changes from a solid to a vapourous state).
*Pedantry alert! Properly speaking, a user inhales the product of vaporizing crack. Smoke is produced by burning a combustable material. Crack is vaporized by boiling it (raising its temperature to the point where it changes from a solid to a vapourous state).
Last edited: