I knew a guy living on campus at Manchester University who’d drained his radiator, diverted the water supply, and turned the entire thing into a giant bong.
I always thought in the past that a pipe or bong became illegal once it had been used for illegal purposes, such as when it had residue on it from being used to smoke marijuana. Until then it is just a piece of glass. How is that illegal?
Also, I have seen hookah lounges open around southern California, where one can go in, purchase various flavored tobaccos, and smoke them through a hookah (water pipe) while playing games, eating food, or conversing with others. Technically, these pipes are no different from the ones currently being confiscated. But their use is entirely legal. Should these places be shut down too? Who’s to say that the water pipe in my house isn’t to smoke legal substances. Until there is proof otherwise, I just don’t see how they can be assumed to be used for other purposes.
And is Ashcrofy going to start raiding 7-11’s for their zig-zag rolling papers. There is another item that can be used for either legal or illegal purposes. Does Ashcroft get to decide whether they are ok or not?
I didn’t even know there was a federal law prohibiting this stuff until I read the Washington Post article I posted a few minutes ago. This should come as a surprise to the folks running headshops in the West Village… 
Eh, just come to Montreal. We’ve got some great headshops, quite legal and unharassed despite giant neon signs of ganja leaves in the window. Plus it’s going to be legal here sooner or later anyway 
What can you expect? This is the same guy that brought you “You’re a terrorist if” commercials to prop up a whole list of unenforceable laws. What a jerk.
Perhaps. But the bureaucracy of the executive branch has been “making laws” through their regulatory processes for a very long time. Not only do they “make law” but they are also the cops, the judge, the jury and the executioner. This type of activity is most certainly not limited to Ashcroft; he didn’t invent it. I’m not saying your outrage isn’t justified, it’s just misdirected. Ashcroft is simply you current target because this issue is something you care about. How about the federal asset forfeiture laws that come into play upon convictions of drug laws? These are truly terrible and heinous regluations—all mandated, regulated and enforced by the executive branch. And they’ve been around far, far longer than Ashcroft has been A.G.
He’s only the point man for sure. Look at Reagan’s “War On Drugs”. What came from that? Oh yeah, CRACK COCAINE.
UncleBill, While I understand the “law and order” perspective that you are coming from, I respectfully suggest that it is not nuanced enough for this issue. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that a good portion of anger should be directed at the fools on the hill that have pushed this whole situation in to being, but I think that the whole story is somewhat larger.
Let us set aside the hot button issues of drugs and guns for a moment, and look at a different example. Jaywalking, for instance. Here is something that is clearly illegal, and has laws on the books stating as much. Yet, for the most part this law is not vigorously enforced. Now, I know from personal experience that law enforcement folks see people jaywalking all day long, but I have never seen a pedestrian get a ticket.
In talking to a friend of mine (who happens to be a cop) about this, the reason that I was given for this is that there are a whole lot of other things that demand their attention that are a whole lot more important. Basically, while the laws are technically on the books, it seems as if law enforcement has considerable leeway in deciding how to allocate enforcement resources.
Now imagine if a city mayor suddenly got a hard on for jaywalkers and demanded that the law enforcement folk clamp down on it. A lot of people would be pretty pissed. Not only because there are a lot more important things to worry about, but also because the state is now breaking a social contract which (while it may not have the force of law) up until then had the weight of custom. Much in the same way that the pedestrians of this city have the reasonable expectation that they can cross against the light if there is no car coming, the also expect to be able to buy a bong if it has the “for use with tobacco only” label.
So that means we can’t debate the issue? I don’t see where the OP was advocating an illegal act, though I concede that he was complaining about the law.
Actually, I though paraphernalia was mostly illegal already.
I don’t think he was trying to stifle debate: just expressing his opinion.
Don’t know about the US, but in the UK it’s not illegal, but it’s treated as “EODA” (Evidence Of Drug Abuse) and is grounds for searches, warrants, etc.
Your ignorance is appalling.
-
In what jurisdiction might we find the case law or statute that declares a baseball bat a concealed weapon unless there is a baseball with it?
-
What specific federal law do you claim Mr. Ashcroft is circumventing?
- Rick
I worked in a head shop a few years back, and we sold all kinds of “paraphenalia”. The catch was that it was sold as tobacco merchandise, to patrons 18 and older only. If some schmuck came in saying “Oohh, cool bong. Give me two of those so I can go get ripped!” or something similarly obvious, we were NOT allowed to sell to them. We even had signs up on the counters saying “Please use appropriate terminology” or something like that. I’m in Ohio, and I don’t know if that’s a state law or a federal one–but it seems to be the norm for any smoke shop I’ve ever visited.
You must be a Democrat. (Typical response)
Actually it’s some excellent legal advice. “Circumventing” may have been the wrong term. “Selective enforcement” might be better.
Why would a defense of Mr. Ashcroft make me a Democrat?
Selective enforcement is probably a defensible term. But it’s always been the perogative of the executive to decide how to enforce the law. We rarely see twelve-person undercover teams set up to catch jaywalkers, after all, so all law enforcement efforts constitute “selective enforcement.”
Is that what you meant, or does “selective enforcement” have a more specific meaning?
- Rick
I just blow smoke in their face, temporarily blinding them, and then whack them on the head with my 3 foot bong, and tie them up with Grateful Dead bootlegs.
Although I don’t think Dope should be illegal, it is illegal. Although guns can be used illegally, mere ownership of a pistol holster is never illegal. Mere ownership of a bong is illegal. It seems that if this is at all effective in controlling drugs (which is questionable) why not try it?
But see, that’s just it. There is no way on earth that this will even in a vague way be effective in controlling drug use.
As long as there are potatoes, apples, carrots, empty soda cans, or hardware stores (and probably 1001 other ways that McGyver types can cobble together) stoners will find a way to toke up. All that you are really accomplishing creating another facet to an already thriving black market (although I am sure that some juicy assets will be seized along the way).
And that’s just why I like this idea. This is what out country needs, good old-fashioned do-it-yourself stoners.
Why not? All sorts of products sell better because of increased convenience. Pop-top soda and beer cans. Automatic transmission. High speed internet hookup. Zippers. Velcro. Cigarettes (as opposed to papers and sacks of tobacco). TV dinners. Fast food restaurants. Take out food. Automatic dialing on telephones. Ball point pens. Cameras with automatic exposure and focus settings.
All these products sell better because of their convenience. It stands to reason that more people will do drugs if it’s more convenient. Counterwise, less convenience ought to reduce sales of drugs.
I find this amusing because soda and beer cans can be used to make pipes. Cigarettes can be emptied out and filled with marijuana. Ball point pens can be used to snort cocaine. See, you just listed a bunch of drug paraphenalia without even trying to
I think that is the point here. How could this possibly be effective when any 10 yr old can figure out a way to smoke pot without ever having to step foot into a head shop.