My best friend's bong.jpgWe expect ATL friend Mark Herrmann at Drug and Device Law to weigh in on this matter fully and with much glee. But in the meantime, we wanted to alert the more botanical subset of our readership of some breaking news: if the cops surprise you, you don’t have to drink the bong water. At least not in Minnesota … unless of course you want to.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has decided:

Because the post-use by-product of a methamphetamine bong is created through drug use and not prepared for the purpose of drug use, sale, or manufacturing, the water contained in the post-use by-product is not a mixture as defined in § 152.01, subd. 9a.

That is very interesting news, but don’t tell the kids. Hilarity will ensue, trust me.

For instance, you might be able to get somebody to do this:

[A] police officer testified–at a contested omnibus hearing–that drug users who are indigent or who do not have a readily available source for drugs retain the water from a methamphetamine bong for future consumption either orally or by injection. The officer testified that he knew of drug users who had consumed bong water containing methamphetamine.

God I miss college.

Anyway, after the jump, if bong water is distinguishable from a controlled substance, what is it comparable to?


The Court tries to bore you to death with “law stuff” before they let you in on the best holding of the case:

Water left over in a bong can have some of the drug in it because traces are left behind as smoke passes through the water. Bong water, then, is essentially an infusion, like tea.

Tea? Brilliant! “Hello Vicker … care for some tea?”

Salary and bonus news got you down? Go down to your local community college and start selling “Minnesota Tea.” It’ll be glorious.

Minnesota v. Peck.pdf


comments sponsored by

52 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments