the statutory language ois n'est yes holding that that's term refers only to gases that are designed to kill or injure and thus does not include the substance in hydrous ammonia because interpretation cannot be squared with the statute is plain unambiguous language this court should reverse the possession of a deadly substance to the statute prohibits as is relevant in this case an individual from possessing any poisonous gas with the intent that the gas be used to commit a felony here the defendant was charged with possessing and hydrous ammonia with the intent to commit a felony offense of methamphetamine manufacturing the statute does not define the term poisonous gas so it's permissible for for this court to look to the the officers were not wearing protective gear but they testified that they made a knowing and informed decision that they could inspect the tank briefly to determine what the tank contained while remaining  ammonia is is poisonous at just about any level but there is no specific testimony regarding the connection between the amount in this case and the toxic or poisonous nature of the gas here the defendant possess approximately a thirty pound propane tank and the responding officers testified that the tank was about three quarters full but not entirely full statute in violation of well settled rules of statutory interpretation since the ordinary meaning of the term poison is something that is harmful or fatal to humans in suitable quantity one is absorbed by or comes into contact with that organism note that the terms ordinary meaning draws the meaning is drawn from the the harmful or adverse effects that the gas has when it comes into contact with a human or is absorbed by a human rather than the purpose for which the gas is and the evidence in this case to the extent the defendant may be raising a sufficiency of the evidence argument that even a suit even assuming that the term poisonous gas refers to gases that are not strictly designed to kill injure the evidence was more than sufficient to allow a rational finder of fact to term that anhydrous ammonia was a poisonous gas others testimony from a illinois state trooper who is an expert in the hazard of transportation of hazardous materials that  is particularly unsafe as in this case when it's stored in a container not approved for that purpose here the defendant had a propane tank with an altered valve  so he was i believe is referring to inhalation and come into contact with the skin shows in passing the statute the statute uses the term any which this court has recognized on multiple occasions signals the general somebodies intent to sweep broadly and that's particularly appropriate here  any poisonous gas since the the ultimate objective of the statute is not mere possession of the poisonous substance but possession of that substance with the intent that it be used to commit a felony and the testimony in this case shows that an useful in the commission of a felony even though it's not specifically dot designed for an illicit purpose what about is there any significance to the fact that legislature has made statutory interpretation but even looking to the to the methamphetamine law bedstead with the passage of that statute in two thousand and five cannot be construed as repealing by negative implication the money from the deadly substances law i think most importantly the methamphetamine law reaches cases that are not reached by the possession of the deadly substances law and the deadly substances large reaches cases that are not reached by the methamphetamine law section twenty five of the methamphetamine statute is the possession prohibits possession procurement storage delivery or transportation of with intent to manufacture methamphetamine but the deadly substances law reaches the additional action of manufacturing the poisonous substance in this case and hydrogen monia the methamphetamine law committee so discussed in discussing that bill the speaker indicated that perhaps one of the motivations or one of the one of the substances to be outlawed by the deadly substances law was sarin gas or mustard gas but in an act in the statute the general assembly used a broader term poisonous gas rather than a narrower term such as poison gas which the appellate court failed to recognize in this case refers only to gases that are to the possession of a deadly substances law referred to the senate bill five zero nine which established that offense but also establish a series of other fences and made changes to certain statutes one of those changes an amendment to the pain to the disorderly conduct statute in the general assembly amended as statute prohibit the transmission of false alarms respecting the existence of a canister containing poison gas and so that ship and that shows that the general assembly was aware of the difference between the broader term poisonous gas which was used with respect to the statute at issue in this case and the narrower term poison gas that refers only to guesses that are designed to kill or injure and i'd like to turn to turn back to the appellate court's analysis in this case they determined that the statute wasn't being us as it could reasonably be construed as referring not only to gases that are harmful or fatal unsuitable quantities but also to gases  are poisonous gases that are designed to kill or injure and that was a erroneous for three reasons as the court's aware statute is is a big u s only if it can be reasonably interpreted in two different ways here was unreasonable for the court to adopt the second definition the the definition respect in gas is designed to kill or injure because as page on page nine of our opening brief is such forth the definition of poison gas and that term is defined  subset of the broader term poisonous yes so it's unreasonable to to construe the broad language any poisonous gas as referring to only certain kinds of poisonous gases those yes's that are designed to kill or injure and second closely related to that in searching for that second definition the appellate court consider the definition of a term that does not appear in the statute which is in conflict with this court's precedent instructing courts not to attempt to read statutes other than in the way they are written even if the score word to find out the statutory language of poisonous gases ambiguous there are a number of reasons counsel in favor of construing that term in favor of reaching gases like and hydrous and monia that are harmful or fatal to humans and the primaries i've discussed briefly is the the use of the narrower term poison gas in the the amendments to the disorderly conduct statute again that that statute was amended as part of a senate bill five zero nine which also established the offense of possession of a deadly substance and so that shows that the general assembly was aware of the difference between these two terms and when they knew wanted to require evidence that a gas was designed to kill or injure they knew how to do so and this court's recent decision and people versus hudson provides that one different languages used in different parts of the statute presumably different meanings are intended  second be the possession soon the senate bill five zero nine amended the heinous battery statute provided that anyone who commits in committing a battery causes great bodily harm to another by means of a poisonous gas edge of a heinous battery and that's important here because that shows that when the general somebody used the term poisonous gas their concern was with the harms that result from that from the use of that broadly in the end any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the broader term or the broader definition of gases that are in suitable quantities armful or fatal to humans poker in this case also noted that also adopted the the more restrictive meat interpretation of poisonous gas by noting in comments made by senator dillard who was the sponsor of senate bill five zero nine that the senate bill as a whole was aimed at terrorism related offenses and it's important to note that the majorities interpret even even assuming that the majority was correct in holding that that that that isolated comment should can control the plain meaning of the statute which which is not correct but even even granting that point the majority interpretation is inconsistent and in fact undermines the general somebodies intent in passing the bombing which was a terrorist act so by adopting the appellate court's interpretation of poisonous gas the the the intent to the extent that the statute is about anti terrorism offenses  the key here is that his and hydrous ammonia a poison gas for the purpose of the statute label deadly substance i mean that's what we're here for i agree that poison gas is not a fine and that i agree we should l to webster's to define it i believe that the definition that we should use is it designed to kill injure or disable as in chemical warfare that was a purpose for this statu and you said and i believe in your briefs you point out that there are multiple definitions of poisonous gas and as a result of that that creates the ambiguity you like the know well that that's why i started by saying that if indeed it is not ambiguous if the wording is not in bigger was we don't go to other tools the statutory construction we stated differently the fact that both gases were designed to inflict death and there are gases that in suitable quantities are harmful or fatal to humans both of those type of gases can be defined as poisonous  poisonous cares it says the statute clearly says any poisonous if it dies out which in compas is both of the definitions of webster and so i guess my question really comes down to how do we get to other mean they didn't say any gas any gas back of her chair they said any place in it and they said any poisonous gas under days subject of deadly substance i mean you've got to read that all together you can't just take isolated words that we're legislative history by what the senator said you know back in ninety nine when they're debating this that's what they're talking about we don't have a statute that prevents terrorists from getting staring that we need one very had a statute for transport  as i was touched on earlier they came up with a mess i asked you in two thousand and five was nominated a class x or class one to transport and hydrogen money and the reason they came up with that because they didn't have a statue for you gotta read but you would indeed have indicated that any force news yes would encompass both gases designed to inflict death and gases and again it's a destitute that i but the key is what is poisonous gas mean under the statute we have to appellate court both decided that it is ambiguous and both of these opinions pretty much track each other in there and there how they come to the conclusion that they come as far as the dangerousness of ammonia i dress and hydrous i would like to point out even the facts of this case the trooper testified that this is a class v out of range and shot it i mean he didn't think it was all that dangerous they didn't use all this hazardous material stuff and then they took the pan of the propane tank and put it in their office and left it there are these deadly substances they didn't treat it that way again i think and i understand and their family course of concern but if there is an ambiguous ness i think you have to try to figure out what they want and if you look at the other words in the latin word i'm going to try to pronounce it no deadly biological chemical contaminants that's how you have to look at this in how this court rules obviously is going to use down the line and the prosecutors want to use deadly substance for my contact with the during their their police activities certainly it's a it's appropriate again we properly do that it would be it would be appropriate for this court to do that in to the extent that the defendant has raised the sufficiency of the evidence argument to consider in the trial took the propane tank with the n hydrous ammonia to dispose of it at that time and this is a page one seventy six and one seventy seven of the trial record he was wearing a fireman's coat rubber gloves a gas and a gas mask with air filters so that shows money is a dangerous substance and law enforcement is where that and when they're dealing with it they're going to be taking those precautions turning back to opposing counsel primary argument it's in this case there's only one definition of the term poisonous gas and that is a gas that's does that is unsuitable quantities harmful or fatal to humans the defense is a gasoline be covered by that army and the fumes from gasoline include that definition yes they could but then first someone to be prosecuted under the statute they would the prosecutors here would also have to show that that individual intended to use that gas to commit a felony and that's an important court dealt with the interpretation of the official misconduct statute and whether specifically a violation of a duty imposed by the state constitution and serve as the predicate unlawful act in this court's opinion expressed openly expressed skepticism about the plain meaning of the statute but nevertheless and here properly to it noting that concerns about whether the statute whether statute was too broad or was wise or sound policy or appropriate objections to be made to the general assembly and also no that courts don't read in restrictions into the plain language of the statute to follow going just curious question is sort of somebody that's carrying gasoline engine setting be used in the commission of a felony so i don't know that that that application would fall under the statute if the defense counsel also points out that and i did or contends then how does the money is not that deadly since it's classified as a class the substance which means that the gas is considered poisonous at a concentration of three thousand five thousand parts per million but the testimony in this case was that the concentration of five hundred parts per million exposure to harvest alone is going to cause can cause blindness can cause burning of the long lines and can cause death and finally affording the that may be innocuous in certain situations but one put in a larger quantity or put to an illicit purpose can assist them in the commission of felonies and that's exactly the case with anhydrous ammonia there are no further questions we've asked of this court