PORTLAND, Maine — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments Thursday on whether the state’s bath salts law is so vague that it is unconstitutional.
Defense attorney Jeremy Pratt argued before the state high court on behalf of his client David Reckards, 45, of Thomaston, who was charged in November 2012 with conspiracy and unlawful trafficking in synthetic hallucinogenic drugs. The defense had argued at the Superior Court level that the law was too vague, but the presiding justice disagreed.
The Thomaston man pleaded guilty to the offenses on a conditional basis, meaning that he can withdraw them if the appeal to the high court is successful. A sentence agreement calls for him to serve nine months in jail if his appeal fails.
Pratt told the justices on Thursday that the law was totally incomprehensible. He said no ordinary person could understand what is covered under the law. He said it was unconstitutional for an ordinary person to not know whether their actions fall under the law.
“I wager my fee that there is not one person in this room who could say what is or is not prohibited by the statute,” Pratt said.
Assistant Attorney General Katie Sibley said the law cannot be as specific as Pratt was contending it needed to be. She said drugs such as cocaine and heroin come from plants, but now there are drugs solely being created in labs, and the law needs to be complicated.
The justices questioned Pratt repeatedly about his contention that the law was too vague, suggesting a person simply shouldn’t manufacture drugs that will alter people’s minds.
“Wouldn’t it be fair to say to people don’t sell poison to a fragile population?” Justice Ellen Gorman asked.