Courts fear addicts injecting bong water, must be controlled!

[FungalFractoids]

On Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that drug smokers could face longer sentences if at least 25 grams of bong water is found to contain traces of a controlled substance.

The ruling comes as a result of a case where police had tested the 2 1/2 tablespoons of liquid found in a bong belonging to a woman, and discovering it contained methamphetamine.

Bong water was deemed drug paraphernalia by lower courts, possession of which carries a misdemeanor. Testimony was also heard from one narcotics officer that said that sometimes, drug users will later inject or drink bong water that they save.

The ruling is here (http://www.mncourts.gov/). The ruling seems to hinge on whether bong water constitutes a "mixture" under MN statute 152.01.9a (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/), defined as "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity.", or whether the bong water is simply "paraphernalia" under MN statute 152.01.18 (same link as above), defined as "all equipment, products, and materials of any kind... which are knowingly or intentionally used primarily in... [manufacturing, consuming, testing, or enhancing]... a controlled substance."

The crime is defined in MN statute 152.021.1.1 (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/), where one is guilty of a 1st degree felony controlled substance crime if one "possesses one or more mixtures of a total weight of 25 grams or more containing cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine".

The 4-3 majority of the court decided there was no ambiguity in the definitions in the law, and the bong water containing meth was a mixture. Because they saw the law as "clear", intent didn't matter. The dissenting minority saw differently, and saw that there was ambiguity. Keep in mind that the courts really only decided a very small issue (whether "mixture" was ambiguously defined in the law).

Overall, I'd say bad move on the prosecution's part for pushing the case. Common sense would say if the water had been found separated from the bong, then it might constitute a "mixture", but in the bong, it'd qualify better as paraphernalia. Spending the time and money to push this to the state supreme court seems unjustified

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...j9KWIAD9BGDS1G0

[rahli]

Sounds like they are smoking ice through the bong and its tainted the water.

Doudt anyone would inject bong water..... unless they wanted to commit suicide.

[mac]

W.T.F the shit people do ?

oh well im off for my daily bong water enema

[Chiral]

I guess it's more like if you have a baggy of speed and you neck all the powder, leaving the baggy empty...you can't get charged with possession of the drug inside your system, but they might be able to press charges of possession with the bag still containing residue, if you hap hazardly place back in your pocket etc...that's the way I see it. Perhaps I'm way off, someone correct me if I am as it's an area of the law that needs to be understood by users.

[AndyAmine.]

You can be charged for having drugs in your system in the USA but not in Australia.

Fuggn nuts if you ask me...

[t st tantra]

there was a local bust here a couple years back,among other things they displayed about 200 used baggies .

an old friend was basically too slack to go from his sleep out to get water,claims he didnt want to disturb his family.so used his bong water.in hospital with blood poisoning.

i expect hes died from alcohol by now.

t s t .

[santiago]

The ruling comes as a result of a case where police had tested the 2 1/2 tablespoons of liquid found in a bong belonging to a woman, and discovering it contained methamphetamine.

I dont really get how the stuff went into the bong, did she panic and turf whatever stash she had by pouring it in..akin to say flushing it down the dunny, logic says she probably hoped the actual bong wouldnt get found or if it did the police naturally would think it was just a bong with sepid brown water. If it didnt get found i suppose she may drink it later, if it did get found what clever detective would really think there was meth in a bong water.

Or maybe she might of eaten some earlier had a couple of bongs and transferred traces in through saliva. No wonder the courts gave up on it, who can prove what the fucks goin on. Being a common shared object as well how could you prove without doubt you did put it in.

Somebody might have spiked the bong, people are always trying stupid things like that. When a nightclubber goes out and gets there drink spiked, do they get charged for having drugs in a spiked drink.

Hmm new thread idea.