Lemme ask you a something: If you were walking down the street (and, just for fun, lets assume you're sober), and I apprached you and asked you what you were doing, where you were going, etc..., would you feel inclined to answer?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

And that doesn't suck? How exactly was that person being a menace to society?

__________________
This land was made for you and me
-Woody Guthrie

mmmm, moon pies and penny whistles

__________________
This land was made for you and me
-Woody Guthrie

I would not, but if you would then identify yourself as a law enforcement officer and state reasonable causes for your questions, I would answer.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

As psychoactive substances are the topic I know more about than anything else it's somewhat difficult to take a discussion of legal restrictions on alcohol in the United States seriously, because alcohol (and tobacco) are specifically exempted from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) without any explanation. The CSA (1970) established federal "drug scheduling" to place a given psychoactive substance on one of five levels ("schedules") according to their safety, potential for abuse and addiction/dependence, and accepted medical use. Schedule I drugs, which include marijuana and heroin, are totally illegal. Schedules II through V are all available (with decreasing restrictions) for pharmacological purposes. Methamphetamine is Schedule II.

Laws against psychoactive substances tend to lose their meaning when they are applied arbitrarily. Alcohol clearly meets the conditions required to place it in Schedule I, thereby criminalizing its possession, consumption, manufacture, and distribution across the board. Ultimately it falls on the public to exercise what little common sense they can muster (by virtue of lack of education and/or experience) in all matters related to drugs, including alcohol.

Quite.

If I had a reasonable cause to ask you these questions, would it matter if I were a cop?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

It absolutely sucks, and I saw nothing to suggest he was being a menace to society.

But he was arrested for public intoxication...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You?

No, I wouldn't.

Why would I?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Where has it been established that it would be illegal?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

A police officer making this request has no more right to question you than do I unless he suspects criminal activity.
On a personal level, feel free to bend over if someone in uniform asks you to do so. I'm just saying...you are not required to.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Of course, you could look it up yourself. Or, you could continue to work on unfounded assumptions.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

You asked if I would feel inclined to respond, not if I would feel required to respond.

Surely that's a distinction you can make.

And, on the whole "bend over" thing, keep that amongst you and your friends, huh? No need for stupid bullshit like that here...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You're saying it would be illegal.

Fine.

Please provide a reference to some case law which demonstrates that a policeman asking you a question, when there is no reason to suspect you're involved in a crime, is illegal...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Do you having a reading comprehension problem? JHC listed a case for you twice:

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that, without probable cause or a warrant, the police can briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Court determined that such a stop need not be based upon probable cause necessary to effect an arrest under the Fourth Amendment, but must be based upon specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The case was Terry v. Ohio. Note the bolded parts - they can't just stop you for no reason - they have to have a reasonable suspicion that you're doing something illegal.

Let's say a cop stops you on the street and asks you who you are, where you're going, yadayadayada.

Who makes the determination, right then and there, as to whether or not those questions are warranted? I got a buck that says it isn't you...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"