I agree with Justice Acoba that: (1) on the record in this case, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Carmichael's motion to dismiss Count II of the indictment -- charging him with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (1993 & Supp. 1999) -- as de minimis pursuant to HRS § 702-236 (1993), see Justice Acoba's dissenting opinion at 3; (2) contrary to Justice Ramil's view, "there is no conflict between HRS § 702-236 and HRS § 712-1243, and, accordingly, both statutes are to be given application, where appropriate," see id.; and (3) "in the absence of attendant circumstances that '[cause or] threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by [HRS § 712-1243]'" or "[do] so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction," see HRS § 702-236(1)(b), possession of an amount of a controlled substance that is "so minuscule that it cannot be sold or used in such a way as to have any discernible effect on the human body," see State v. Viernes, 92 Hawai`i 130, 134, 988 P.2d 195, 199 (1999) (citing State v. Vance, 61 Haw. 291, 307, 602 P.2d 933, 944 (1979)), constitutes a de minimis infraction as a matter of law, see Justice Acoba's dissenting opinion at 3. I wish to emphasize, however, that I neither read Justice Acoba's dissenting opinion as establishing a bright line rule, as a universal matter, as to which infractions are factually de minimis as a matter of law and which are not, nor necessarily subscribe to the particulars of Justice Acoba's analysis regarding the foregoing three general propositions.