Unbreakable
Bluelighter
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
source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHVIxlxVGf_RhEXiukiRU0j9KWIAD9BGDS1G0
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
source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHVIxlxVGf_RhEXiukiRU0j9KWIAD9BGDS1G0
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
