Quote:

---

Drizzt396 said:

Quote:

---

Original Article

MINNEAPOLIS ? In Minnesota, bong water can count as an illegal drug.

That decision from Minnesota's Supreme Court on Thursday raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers in that state who fail to dump the water out of bong ? a type of water pipe often used to smoke drugs

The court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance.

Lower courts had held that bong water is drug paraphernalia. Possession of that is a misdemeanor crime.

The case involved a woman whose bong had about 2 1/2 tablespoons of liquid that tested positive for methamphetamine. A narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later.

---

Not too sure if this has been posted, I haven't been surfin the news feeds for awhile...

---

-------------------------------------

Quote:

---

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/28/seven-years-for-bong-water

Seven Years for Bong Water
Jacob Sullum | October 28, 2009

Last week the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that bong water is an illegal drug. Under state law, a controlled substance includes any "mixture" containing that substance, "regardless of purity." The consequences of reading that definition literally can be severe. In the case before the court, a woman whose bong contained 37 grams of water with traces of methamphetamine will now be treated as if she possessed 37 grams of speed, which converts possession of drug paraphernalia, a petty misdemeanor punishable by a $300 fine, into a a first-degree drug offense, punishable by seven or more years in prison. Three dissenting justices wrote that the majority's interpretation of the statute "misapplies the plain-meaning rule...runs counter to the legislative structure of our drug laws, does not make common sense, and borders on the absurd."

This sort of absurdity has a long pedigree. Back in 1993, I wrote a piece for Reason in which I highlighted the ridiculously unjust results of including the "carrier medium" for LSD (typically blotter paper) in calculating the drug's weight for sentencing purposes:

    Under federal sentencing guidelines, selling 100 doses of LSD in pure form triggers a minimum sentence of less than a year, but selling the same amount on paper will get you a sentence of at least two years, three months. And if you were old-fashioned enough to drop your acid onto sugar cubes, you will end up behind bars for no less than 15 years, eight months.

Like the Minnesota ruling, this interpretation of the law elicited amazed dissents. "All this seems crazy," the 7th Circuit's Richard Posner wrote in 1990. "To base punishment on the weight of the carrier medium makes about as much sense as basing punishment on the weight of the defendant." The arbitrary, incomplete fix that the U.S. Sentencing Commission devised for that problem?counting each dose in a carrier medium as 0.4 milligram to avoid "unwarranted disparity among offenses involving the same quantity of actual LSD"?is still in force, to judge by this 2006 sentencing manual (PDF). Many states also include "mixtures" in their definitions of illegal drugs; the earliest example I found was New York in 1969.

Rereading that 1993 article, I was also struck by the discussion of the disparity in sentences between crack and cocaine powder:

    Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, says the Sentencing Commission's proposed LSD amendment will probably take the pressure off Congress. Especially if the change is retroactive, the families of LSD defendants will be less noisy, and judges will find the sentences they're forced to impose less disturbing.

    Stewart is more optimistic about the possibility of a legislative solution for crack offenders. Federal law treats crack cocaine as if it were 100 times worse than the powdered form of the drug, cocaine hydrochloride. Thus 500 grams of crack triggers the same penalty as 50 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride. A first-time offender with 20 grams of cocaine hydrochloride faces a minimum sentence of 10 months, while a first-time offender with 20 grams of crack faces a minimum of six years, six months.

As I noted a couple weeks ago, it looks like the remedy that Stewart was optimistic about 16 years ago is finally coming to pass.

---

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:
"A narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later."


Thats bulllshit, who is going to inject fucking bong water into themselves, even if it has a little meth residue in it

---

Quote:

---

FarBeyondDriven said:
youve gotta be fuckin kidding me dude. i have never heard of people injecting bong water. maybe drink it once on a drunk dare (not me)

anybody know where i can get a quarter of some dank ass bong water?

---

yeah but my guy only takes credit cards, that straight

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:

Quote:

---

FarBeyondDriven said:
youve gotta be fuckin kidding me dude. i have never heard of people injecting bong water. maybe drink it once on a drunk dare (not me)

anybody know where i can get a quarter of some dank ass bong water?

---

yeah but my guy only takes credit cards, that straight

---

Quote:

---

NobodyImportant said:
But it already flew 

---

Quote:

---

Inverted said:
The only reason she was charged, and the only reason this occurred at all, is in the instance of other drug residue collecting and not cannabis bong water.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do a DAMN thing if it was just regular ole bong water.

If it was used to smoke meth/crack/dmt etc etc then yes I believe they will actually go through with a charge, whether or not it gets thrown out or goes through will be yet to be seen.

The moral of the story is, MN rocks and only crackheads and tweakers have anything to worry about, which they generally do anyways!

---

Quote:

---

Triptonic said:
now go enter the ban lotto lol

---

Quote:

---

Ummm who seems to think the laws are not relaxed in Minnesota?

---

Quote:

---

If so then I'd like to hear what kind of system your local area uses

---

  Ok, no prob  http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4525


Joking aside
You have a habit of running into cool cops. I use to, be careful that stops.

Quote:

---

Magash said:

Quote:

---

Ummm who seems to think the laws are not relaxed in Minnesota?

---

  I do. They are cool as long as you keep it under 42.5 grams.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4545 ;

Quote:

---

If so then I'd like to hear what kind of system your local area uses

---

  Ok, no prob  http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4525


Joking aside
You have a habit of running into cool cops. I use to, be careful that stops.

---

Quote:

---

Triptonic said:
GET OF HEROIN!

---

Quote:

---

Triptonic said:
Dude start a thread about it, I will be part of your support group. Please try. H is not good for ya man. Again start a thread about it people here will help you. Just listen to us.

---

Quote:

---

Triptonic said:
I do it all the time.

---

Drink or inject

Quote:

---

Triptonic said:
GET OF HEROIN!

---

Quote:

---

MasterHerbalist said:
Spilling bong water should be illegal!

---

Quote:

---

FarBeyondDriven said:

Quote:

---

MasterHerbalist said:
Spilling bong water should be illegal!

---

---

i think the spilling of the rancid bong water is punishment enough

Quote:

---

SmOakland said:
Sorry to change the subject- but I like how this was a shroomery news post that became a growery thread.  Can somebody change it so that if you click on the news thing from growery we can have a growery only discussion about it?

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Siekadellyk said:
then we would need a growery news forum to link to the headlines on the main page....

---

Quote:

---

bobby said:
yeaaaa that's pretty stupid! Does bong water even get u high?lol. Bong water smells HORRID! good i hate spilling that shit on my carpet. gotta use a shat load of baking soda to get the smell out. And i've never heard of anyone smoking meth otta a bong but then again the only thing i smoke and know bout is herb.

---

Quote:

---

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/28/seven-years-for-bong-water

Seven Years for Bong Water
Jacob Sullum | October 28, 2009

Last week the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that bong water is an illegal drug. Under state law, a controlled substance includes any "mixture" containing that substance, "regardless of purity." The consequences of reading that definition literally can be severe. In the case before the court, a woman whose bong contained 37 grams of water with traces of methamphetamine will now be treated as if she possessed 37 grams of speed, which converts possession of drug paraphernalia, a petty misdemeanor punishable by a $300 fine, into a a first-degree drug offense, punishable by seven or more years in prison. Three dissenting justices wrote that the majority's interpretation of the statute "misapplies the plain-meaning rule...runs counter to the legislative structure of our drug laws, does not make common sense, and borders on the absurd."

This sort of absurdity has a long pedigree. Back in 1993, I wrote a piece for Reason in which I highlighted the ridiculously unjust results of including the "carrier medium" for LSD (typically blotter paper) in calculating the drug's weight for sentencing purposes:

    Under federal sentencing guidelines, selling 100 doses of LSD in pure form triggers a minimum sentence of less than a year, but selling the same amount on paper will get you a sentence of at least two years, three months. And if you were old-fashioned enough to drop your acid onto sugar cubes, you will end up behind bars for no less than 15 years, eight months.

Like the Minnesota ruling, this interpretation of the law elicited amazed dissents. "All this seems crazy," the 7th Circuit's Richard Posner wrote in 1990. "To base punishment on the weight of the carrier medium makes about as much sense as basing punishment on the weight of the defendant." The arbitrary, incomplete fix that the U.S. Sentencing Commission devised for that problem?counting each dose in a carrier medium as 0.4 milligram to avoid "unwarranted disparity among offenses involving the same quantity of actual LSD"?is still in force, to judge by this 2006 sentencing manual (PDF). Many states also include "mixtures" in their definitions of illegal drugs; the earliest example I found was New York in 1969.

Rereading that 1993 article, I was also struck by the discussion of the disparity in sentences between crack and cocaine powder:

    Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, says the Sentencing Commission's proposed LSD amendment will probably take the pressure off Congress. Especially if the change is retroactive, the families of LSD defendants will be less noisy, and judges will find the sentences they're forced to impose less disturbing.

    Stewart is more optimistic about the possibility of a legislative solution for crack offenders. Federal law treats crack cocaine as if it were 100 times worse than the powdered form of the drug, cocaine hydrochloride. Thus 500 grams of crack triggers the same penalty as 50 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride. A first-time offender with 20 grams of cocaine hydrochloride faces a minimum sentence of 10 months, while a first-time offender with 20 grams of crack faces a minimum of six years, six months.

As I noted a couple weeks ago, it looks like the remedy that Stewart was optimistic about 16 years ago is finally coming to pass.

---

Quote:

---

Magash said:
So why exactly did this girl have meth in her bongwater?

---