Bob brings in wasabi in the container he usually uses for guac, and sticks it in the fridge. Larry strolls by, sees green noms, and helps himself.
Using those names, your own quote above says that *Bob caused the chips *to be adulterated with wasabi. But that’s not the case. Larry opened the container, Larry swiped a chip through the green stuff, and Larry lifted the chip to his own mouth with his own hands. Saying Bob “caused” the chips to be adulterated strikes me as the same as when little kids say “He made me!” Larry was, in fact, the one who adulterated the chip, as he is the one who made the initial chip-to-green-stuff contact. No?
I think it would be hard to make a case for “adulterate,” under those facts. The sense of “adulterate” is to replace ingredients with other ingredients, or to add ingredients to a whole, not to simply replace the whole.
But Virginia might not be done with you:
Given the potential for wasabi to cause physical pain in high doses, I think “destructive substance” is covered.
The person eating the wasabi determined the dose himself.
Not that there’s the slightest chance in hell this would ever be prosecuted. Any statutory basis for a criminal charge would be so specious as to be laughable.
Here’s a story about a a kid who provided laxative brownies to students and teachers. He was charged with a Minnesota offense called “felony adulteration resulting in bodily harm.”
I’m surprised that the more you dig, Bricker, the more you are finding. I was starting to come to the conclusion that a lot of people talk about doing this, but few ever actually do.
**Whoever, knowing or having reason to know that the adulteration will cause or is capable of causing death, bodily harm or illness, adulterates any substance with the intent to cause death, bodily harm or illness is guilty of a crime… **
It doesn’t say anything about giving or not giving or taking or not taking.
The person isn’t capable of knowing they will be stolen and has a right to assume that they will not be. Admit it. You’ve got nothing. You cannot cite a single case of anyone being charged criminally because somebody else stole their food and got the shits.
According to your ridiculous interepretation of that statute, by the way, you’re saying it’s illegal for me to put peanut butter on a banana I intend to eat myself.
Are there too many clauses for you to work out the pertinent bits? Let me help you:
This is crystal clear.
You might feel confident that you would be able to persuade a judge that it was not your intent for someone else to eat a senna pod sandwich, but this position would likely be met with a jaundiced eye.
Whoever, knowing or having reason to know that the adulteration will cause or is capable of causing death, bodily harm or illness, adulterates any substance with the intent to cause death, bodily harm or illness is guilty of a crime…