Posted on 10/23/2009 5:01:23 PM PDT by Palin Republic
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Paul Anderson said the majority's decision "does not make sense, and borders on the absurd." He said it isn't consistent with what the Legislature intended when it wrote the state's drug laws. And he blasted Rice County authorities for charging Peck with such a serious crime.
If bong water is considered a drug mixture, and it weighs enough to raise the crime to a first-degree drug offense, the presumed sentence for a first-time offender is seven years and two months in prison, and a felony drug offense goes on his or her record, Paul Anderson wrote.
But if the bong water is treated as part of the drug paraphernalia, as the lower courts held, he wrote, the same defendant would face no more than a $300 fine and the petty misdemeanor conviction would not go on his or her record.
Justices Alan Page and Helen Meyer joined in Paul Anderson's dissent.
Attorney Bradford Delapena, who represents Peck, said he had not yet had a chance to discuss the ruling with her, but he said the dissent correctly pointed out the problems the ruling raises.
"They're treating Ms. Peck, who had two tablespoons of bong water, as if she were a major drug wholesaler," he said.
Delapena said Peck's case now goes back to the trial court, where he said prosecutors could use the ruling to try to extract a guilty plea to a more serious offense with a stiffer sentence than a $300 fine on a petty misdemeanor. He laughed at the suggestion that it means dope smokers should empty their bongs promptly.
"I wouldn't presume to draw that lesson," he said. "I would just stick with the legal lessons."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I agree with the judicial dissent.
— of a liquid that tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine.
I’ll never understand why people attack police for laws made by lawmakers.
Its a stupid decision but attacking police for it is at least as moronic.
Does that mean Al Franken will now have to stop drinking it?
And anyway, bong water stinks so bad!!
Uh...I’ve been told that anyway.
The slow slide to insanity is picking up speed (literally).
People shouldn’t be drinking it anyway. :^)
Bong water! arrrggghhhhh!!!!!
Hmmm! Don’t use a bong.
This is ridiculous. The dissenting judge was right.
Evaporator ?
Dopers hate the actual law and want judges to invent their own laws from the bench.
Thank you for your voice of reason.
“I vas unly followink orders...”
The goofy ‘libertarian wing’ of FR just eats up on all this shit.
Then take it up with the people who make the law.
If they’re too stupid to go to the source then they deserve the “gestapo” they themselves have allowed.
Perhaps because Americans never buy into the "I was just following orders" defense for tyrannizing the people.
If the need ever arises to use the Second Amendment to maintain the security of a free state, who is likely to be standing in the front lines of the enemies of the people?
“We were only following orders, it was all legal.”
Didn’t work for the Nazis, and they were soldiers fighting a war.
Why should it work for police, who enjoy ironclad job security and a plethora of fringe benefits, in addition to their generous salaries?
They take an oath to defend the Constitution. They should use their discretion and avoid enforcing unconstitutional laws.
They don’t need to play soldier, shoot people’s dogs, and so on!
The Police are more than symbolic of the Police State, because they are its enforcers.
Does that help you “understand why people attack police for laws made by lawmakers?”
Or does it still seem “moronic?”
Maybe you should try to understand where people are coming from, instead of bashing their opinions.
Like I said, too stupid to go to the source.
You can't smoke meth and leave contaminated drug paraphernalia lying around in a house with filled with children? TYRANNY!!!!
The courts should sample some bong water before rendering this decision. On second thought, maybe they did.
I think you’re a coward for calling police nazis for enforcing the laws that YOUR lawmakers make. Fortunatey people like you are kind of meaningless to the electoral process because you make it clear that you have no faith in it anf just hope for free goodies if you even bother to vote at all.
Are you really a proponent of meth?
I think I remember using the bong water for tea the next morning!
Have you never heard the term "tyranny of the majority"? If the majority of people wish to give up their freedoms and live in slavery, it does no good to "go to the source".
The War on Some Drugs, starting with the prohibition of alcohol early in the twentieth century, has damaged the Bill of Rights perhaps beyond repair. If even some Freepers like this War, what chance of changing the policy democratically exists?
“Then take it up with the people who make the law.”
-
I can take it up with both the people who make the law
and the people who are employed to enforce it.
If the law says to go door to door and confiscate weapons,
where do you stand on those who are employed to enforce the law?
>Dopers hate the actual law and want judges to invent their own laws from the bench.
Statists hate Justice and want judges to lock up citizens innocent of the crimes for which they are convicted.
It was predictable, but I’m glad you showed up to defend this absurd, tyrannical ruling.
You should change your name to NoLegalization, because 90% of your posts are you bashing legalization and anyone that supports it, or merely questions the glorious War on Drugs.
This doesn’t surprise me. Heck, if the state wants to, marijuana found in your system can be considered possession.
>Are you really a proponent of meth?
Have you gone a week without beating your dog?
If I’m endorsing meth, then so are the dissenting judges.
You didn’t even have to click through to know that.
I’ll take your (non)response as meaning you agree with me.
Do whatever you want victim.
>>If the law says to go door to door and confiscate weapons
>Starwman argument.
It’s not a strawman. You either defend the Constitution or you don’t.
Obviously, you would be the first to endorse house to house gun searches, as long as they say they’re also looking for evil, scary drugs.
So run away from the argument you’re afraid to participate in.
Don’t worry, Mojave will waste time pointlessly defending Prohibition in your place.
The perp was guilty. Truth and drug apologists don't mix.
And then, following the logic of this ruling, use your body weight as the total weight of illegal drugs. "165 pounds of weed! He's a major drug kingpin!"
Or if you're a leftist newbie fresh from DU, you pretend that the Constitution has a meth clause.
One more clown completely lacking responsibility.
Hey I have it on good authority that Obama will be giving away some free money in detroit. If you hurry you can get to the front of the line.
Good lord I’m surrounded by victims of the man. LOL
I didn't draw this cartoon, nor am I alone in sharing the sentiment it represents.
Did you notice that the pig cop's hat is labeled "Police State?" I think you know what the word "symbol" means.
There are millions of us, and we're going to kick your tax-fattened Prohibitionist behinds out of the GOP!
We're sick of paying taxes to support the endless, futile War on Drugs.
Fund it yourself, if it's that important to you.
“Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by
individuals.” —Thomas Jefferson
>>You either defend the Constitution or you don’t.
>Or if you’re a leftist newbie fresh from DU, you pretend that the Constitution has a meth clause.
“Anything not explicitly not permitted by the Constitution, is Forbidden.” -Mojave the tax fattened police statist’s expert opinion
Yup, you got it. Thats what Mandatory Minimum Sentencing laws are all about. LSD on a sugar cube? The weight of the cube determines the lentgh of the sentence. All a judge can say is “sorry son, but you’re going away for a long time’’. Theres no appealing such a ruling.
Umm, what was the question again?
Well, there's the first principles authority argument you make, and there's the common sense aspect. Do you look favorably at the zero-tolerance judgements of school officials, such as the attempt to send a first grader to reform school for bring his boyscout messkit ("spork") to school? After all, they are appointed by or hired by OUR elected officials, operating within the laws and regulations that are set up. In my book, bong-water is closer to spork than major drug felon.
You should know that no less a conservative Republican than the late William F. Buckley supported ending laws against marijuana. So did Casper Weinberger and George Shultz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.