In re R.L.H. , 327 Mont. 520, 116 P.3d 791, ¶ 23 (Mont. 2005) ; Evans v. State , 24 Ala.App. 196, 197, 132 So. 601, 601 (Ala. App. 1931) (holding that "[p]ossession of whisky [sic] within the meaning of the prohibition law contemplates a control over the whisky, whereas when the whisky is in the man the whisky controls the man."). {¶31} However, "in a concealment case, the defendant ingests or otherwise inserts into the body a balloon, baggie, or similar container filled with an illegal substance.
If support is needed for this unremarkable conclusion it is contained in the cases upon which the opinion of the Attorney General relies and allied authority. Evans v. State (1931) 24 Ala. App. 196 [ 132 So. 601], a prohibition era case, held that whiskey was not "possessed" when it "is in the man" after consumption. (See also, e.g. Nethercutt v. Commonwealth (1931) 241 Ky. 47 [ 43 S.W.2d 330]; liquor in the stomach is not "possessed.") Similarly, State v. Downes (1977) 31 Or. App. 1183 [ 572 P.2d 1328, 1330], holds that phencyclidine (PCP) is not possessed by the user after it has been injected into his arm.