[repiret]

Do you really think people stung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"?

That said, chances are most jurisdictions have some variation of "dunk in public" that isn't as particular about the intoxicant. Even so, the criminal justice system hasn't proven itself to be an especially good solution to substance abusers.

[thaumasiotes]

> Do you really think people st[r]ung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"?

No, but as you'll note that is not an element of the crime. It suffices to act in a way that "recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm".

[sumy23]

I wouldn’t say heroin addicts act with purpose to cause inconvenience. They do cause inconvenience, but that’s not the purpose of their actions.

[thaumasiotes]

How is that a response to my comment? Why would it matter whether they have the purpose of causing inconvenience? It's not an element of the crime.

[uoaei]

Because that's the language of the very statutes cited above.

[thaumasiotes]

Well, sure, if you can't read more than 14 words in one sitting. But for everyone capable of reading entire sentences at once.. no, that's not the language of the statute, you would have to be intentionally misreading it to make that statement.

[sumy23]

Sorry, I’m not understanding what you’re seeing. The law says “purpose to cause” and then lists two things joined by an OR clause. But you’re arguing that the “purpose to cause” language is irrelevant. I don’t see that in my reading. Can you break it down for me?

[c22]

I guess this is why people hire lawyers...

[Brigand]

There is an OR in the statement, ie purpose is only one part of the condition.