What If Our Judges Were All Totally Baked, Dude?
By Mitch Berg
One of the irritating realities about the law, the part that most vexes us non-lawyers, is that laws pretty much mean what they say they mean, word for word, letter for letter.
Which isn’t, in and of itself, a bad thing; once you learn to read a statute, you get a pretty clear idea of what the “law” actually is (barring “case law”, or other courts’ decisions which bear on the law you’re reading, which is one of those things you need to hire a lawyer for, since finding cases is one of those things that is pretty much designed to be impenetrable to people who haven’t been to law school. And it’s designed that way by the people who write and pass the laws, most of whom have been to law school. Connect the dots, people. Connect the dots). And this can be enlightening; for starters, I’m able to tell people who say “if someone breaks into my house, I’m gonna shoot ’em, and nobody’s gonna do anything about it!” to “shut up and quit being an ignorant effing cracker” with some authority. (These people are never Minnesota carry permit holders, by the way).
I’ve digressed a bit, here.
The problem, of course, is that often the law is ambiguous. This is partly due to the fact that many legislators are idiots. It’s even more due to the fact that no legislator can anticipate all the possible implications of the law he/she is trying to write. This, indeed, is usually a good thing; would we want a clairvoyant legislature? Would it be a good thing if Phyllis Kahn could predict your future?
Again, I’ve digressed.
It’s when you mix vague, inconsistent, ambiguous laws with big, ugly, emotional topics – in this case, the “war on drugs”, which a third of Americans believe to be a quagmire, a third believe to be a righteous holy war, and a third of Americans don’t care about because they’re tweaking, jonesing, baked, zoobed out or bombed out of their minds?
Well, then you get decisions like this one from the Supreme Court of Minnesota:
In a 4-3 decision Thursday, the state’s highest 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.
The decision, which reverses two lower court rulings, came in the case of Sara Peck. Items seized during a search of her Rice County home in 2007 included a glass bong — a type of water pipe often used to smoke drugs — that contained 37 grams — about 2 1/2 tablespoons — of a liquid that tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine.
Note that this decision reverses two lower court rulings – which means that some county attorney spent tons and tons of taxpayer money to appeal the ruling all the way to the SCOM.
Over two teapoons of meth-infused bong spew.
The Supreme Court said that unambiguously counts as a drug “mixture” under the wording of state law and sent the case back to Rice County District Court for further proceedings. The decision, authored by Justice G. Barry Anderson, noted that the liquid wasn’t plain clear water, but had a pink color and fruity odor, and that a narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later.
The statute defines a drug “mixture” as “a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity.” When the language of a statute is unambiguous, the high court said, precedents prohibit courts from disregarding the letter of the law under the pretext of pursuing the letter of the law.
The possibilities are endless. If you have a roommate/spouse/family member who smokes a lot of pot, and the the smoke collects on the ceiling, and some narcotics officer testifies that sometimes stoners will lick residue off of ceilings for a cheap buzz, then is your paint-job a “drug mixture?”
If you snort some coke, and then blow your nose and toss the kleenex, could your host be prosecuted over your snot being in their wastebasket?
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Paul Anderson said the majority’s decision “does not make sense, and borders on the absurd.”
Paul Anderson is the hero of the day.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:09 am
I’ve always thought it was odd that head shops could sell a new pot pipe, but it was illegal for someone to carry a used one. Drug residue alone isn’t much proof that individuals have been doing drugs.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:12 am
What’s up with the comment moderation? Did I miss some change in policy, or is this another technical difficulty?
October 27th, 2009 at 7:51 am
I’ve been moderating comments for the past three years!
Everyone’s first comment is moderated. After that, certain keywords, or the presence of links in the comment, will put you in moderation.
The word “Dr*g” is VERY common in spam, so that one probably trips the mod queue.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I’m not upset by the decision.
The law is plain enough. The judges followed it. Yes, this leads to an idiotic result, but that’s the Legislature’s fault for writing an idiotic law, not the judge’s fault for following it.
The alternative is for judges to decide they won’t follow the law as written but instead will re-write it using their superior wisdom and noble intentions to achieve a better result. That’s called Judicial Activism and conservatives are against it.
Dred Scott was correctly decided considering the law in effect at the time. Roe v. Wade was not. Both caused societal upheavals but only the second was the court’s fault.
If there’s enough outcry, the Legislature will fix this law next session.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The law is plain enough. The judges followed it. Yes, this leads to an idiotic result, but that’s the Legislature’s fault for writing an idiotic law, not the judge’s fault for following it.
True. The legislature has little or no incentive to change the law though, especially since draconian drug laws make another favorite tactic possible — forfeiture of assets.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I’ve always thought it was odd that head shops could sell a new pot pipe, but it was illegal for someone to carry a used one.
Well if you want to get all “legalistic” it isn’t really a pot pipe until it’s been used to smoke pot.
Pot can be smoked in a number of creative ways. A dented soda or beer can, an apple with a channel carved in it are just two examples.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Kermit, actually if you want to all “legalistic” about it, If you smoke pot from a new pipe, then clean it really good, it really isn’t a pot pipe either.
Mitch – I don’t think even my first ever comment was moderated. I’ve pretty certain I’ve posted links before too, without getting moderated.
Must be the word drug or the word drugs. 🙂
October 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Well the problem is we do not legislate intentions, we legislate actions. A new pipe is not a crime (yet), but a pipe with illicit residue is.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I don’t think even my first ever comment was moderated.
Yep, it was. It’s entirely possible you submitted the comment right when I was moderating the queue – but everyone’s first comment is moderated, no exceptions.
And I think I screen starting at two links, to catch the spammers that’ll send dozens of ’em at a time.
But yes, the word “drug” probably did the trick.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I think they were wrong about: “unambiguously counts as a drug “mixture” under the wording of state law”.
The defense should have made it clear that the bong water was not an intended mixture but actually a contaminated waste by product that was to be used as a lubrication for acts of sodomy in the privacy of the bedroom…
And just because some people might sniff glue does not mean model car/airplane builders should be arrested for being glue sniffers.
I think the Drug Task Force should have done a major sting at the hobby store.
Note to drug officers: make sure to rip up and mix in at least 25 grams of carpeting or tissue paper or what ever you can find to make sure the “mixture” is enough for a conviction.