Comments on: Minnesota high court moves into uncharted waters

By: Andy Mergendahl

Andy Mergendahl — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:34:52 +0000

Mr. Gallagher’s blog post is worth reading to understand the utter absurdity of this decision. What an embarrassment. Here’s the heart of Justice Anderson’s dissent, which any layperson can fully grasp:

“The majority’s decision to permit bong water to be used to support a first-degree felony controlled-substance charge runs counter to the legislative structure of our drug laws, does not make common sense, and borders on the absurd…the result is a decision that has the potential to undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system.”

By: Mark Cohen

Mark Cohen — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:30:14 +0000

Love the music salute. Nothing like leaving our blog readers with a bong, err… song in their hearts …

By: Newly Minted 2009

Newly Minted 2009 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:30:32 +0000

This one goes out to the Supremes …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmjXY1BDMEA

By: Thomas Gallagher

Thomas Gallagher — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:52:37 +0000

Since drugs are now in river water (search: “drugs in water supply”) and cities get their water from rivers, city water is a “mixture” of illegal drugs, according to the absurd logic of this majority of four Minnesota Supreme Court judges. So – now that all of us living in Minnesota are criminals possessing “drug mixture” water in our homes and toilets – shall we wake up, end the abuse of government power, and repeal all laws criminalizing drugs possession?

For more discussion of this Minnesota case, and it’s excellent dissent, see my law blog post:

Minnesota Court Waters Down Legal Definition of Illegal Drugs: Toilet Water Now Criminal to Possess
http://wp.me/pAFjr-2g

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:37:54 +0000

Cypress Hill would be so mad.

By: Zombie Nixon

Zombie Nixon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:44:40 +0000

We just won the war on drugs!! Break open the booze and cigars, boys.