Jun 05, 2015 11:35 AM

I do not know the answer, but your question makes me see this possible angle/answer:

Maybe in common law, in the case of "drugs" YOU is being charged with possession because there is a presumption that a private person/government has exclusive legal right, and/or title, and/or ultimate control of the use of those plants/drugs.

Apparently, a private person CLAIMS to be the OWNER of whatever they say are "drugs." And since YOU does not carry permission from the owner to have it in YOUR possession, with having a "license" for example, YOU is violating a some magical CODE. Therefore, YOU is all of the sudden a bad, bad slave! Someone must be called to ACCOUNT!

So, I think YOU is charged with POSSESSION, because there is a presumed OWNER of those "drugs." Don't take my word for it.

My thinking was that government own everything, legally. So if one were to register their drugs that would make government the legal owners... Which is why one doesn't get charged with owning drugs, rather, possession of them...

They have evidence and/or proof that one were in POSSESSION of these illegal substance.

No evidence and/or proof that one OWN these illegal substance.

That's why they charge you with POSSESSION of stolen property... Not OWNERSHIP of stolen property.

How does one have "illegal drugs ON their person"?..that person needs a meatbag to carry or hold, use, consume, abuse, possess anything..gotta kill the enjoined thingy..

They most likely define "on" Rick...

Thats what i was thinkn. gonna check it out

"On their Person" only refers to the visible.

They Search and DISCOVER and/or FOUND (Salvage) you to be IN POSSESSION.

"On their person", is only supposed to be used in reference to what is CLEARLY VISIBLE, and originated with the slave trade. "Police" (Slave Catchers).