Does the benefit have to be clear to keep them legal? You’re missing the point of what’s being said, I think. This isn’t about benefits, this is about illegalizing something that has no inherent illegal quality.
Extending the car analogy a little bit, the benefit of SUV’s over other cars is unclear to many people. And yet many SUV owners will strongly express their right to own the vehicle of their choice, despite the fact that SUV’s can be more dangerous to other drivers and the environment in general. And you know something? They’re right.
Similarly, the benefit of firearms to society is murky at best, and they are used for both legal and illegal purposes. Should gun shops be raided and gun owners arrested just because they are in possession of firearms, whether or not they were using the legally?
I don’t support banning pipes for the same reason I don’t support banning SUV’s or firearms. Unless somebody is actually using it for an illegal purpose, there’s no reason to make it illegal..
As for Ashcroft’s little raids yesterday, I’m with Spavined Gelding. These raids are not actually about doing anything in their self-induced “War on Drugs”… they’re about making it look like they’re doing something. It’s about spotlighting one minor thing in the hopes that we ignore the rest of the issue. Ashcroft is proving himself remarkably short-sighted… par for the course, I suppose.
First of all, I’m in favor of the legalization of many drugs. However, these arguments are ridiculous. So before this turns into backstage at the Snoop Dogg concert, let me interject a few points.
The fact that an item has a plausible legal use does not mean that it should be legal for everyone. The lockpicks example is great. You could plausibly use an M-1 Abrams tank to drive your kids to school. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to own one.
The fact that any stoner with half a brain can find ways around not having a bong doesn’t mean that bongs should be legal. When I was a kid, we used to make potato and tennis ball guns with tubes and gasoline. Does that mean I should be allowed to buy that bazooka I’ve had my eye on? Plus, I heard about this ex-football player that may have murdered his ex-wife with a knife. See how easy it is to get around those assault weapons bans? And people murder other people all the time. These laws against murder aren’t stopping people from killing anyone. So let’s stop this self-induced “War on Murder,” too.
An attorney general enforcing drug laws, despite the fact that there are more serious offenses being committed? What an absolute nutbar. Thank goodness no other AG has tried to enforce our drug laws. Otherwise, all the other criminals would have gone free.
. . . If only there was some way that Ashcroft could share his load with other governmental employees so that he would be able to enforce more than one law . . . Maybe he could hire some employees, or share the work with other governmental agencies . . . I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work.
What about the fact that it’s simply an ineffective way to fight the drug war. It is a misallocation of limited resources. Confiscating bongs from head shops is about as effective as confiscating lime green suits from pimp shops.
One matter that causes confusion here is that we’re discussing three largely separate questions, two of which aren’t all that inter-related. They are actually (IMHO, of course)
What is the standard for making something ab initio illegal (rather than legal until used for illegal purposes)? Which doesn’t have THAT much to do with…
Should we pursue the war on drugs in this time of national crisis, which is definitely related to…
Is cracking down on head shops and paraphenalia an effective way to fight drug use?, which ties back to question #1 pretty well. A nice little circle, but not really “one” question…
The problem this causes is that I’m seeing an awful lotta switcheroo here – someone posts about the differences between a car and a bong, for instance, and gets “yeah! but Ashcroft is evil and must be stopped” as the pseudo-response.
Or someone makes points about Ashcroft wasting resources to get some play in the press for himself, and someone else comes back with “but yeah, pipes should be illegal because we all KNOW what they’re used for”…
So for my part to try and keep this apples/apples here, I will try to better express myself than previousle in answer to the questions at hand as I perceive them:
I believe the standard of ab initio illegality is if the most common use of the object is illegal. All of the examples given above (guns, cars, bongs, etc.) would make sense within this standard. And yes, it would probably mean making those EZ-Wider rolling papers at 7-11 illegal…
I think that we do not give up pursuing other criminal activity simply because there’s a war and/or terrorist threat on… You can’t say “Okay, until we corner al-qaida and wipe 'em out, it’s rape-at-will folks”… That applies to drugs too. If you just flat out think drugs shouldn’t be illegal, that’s a whole other debate – let’s go start another thread…
Whether bongs and such are legal OR illegal, I think that busting head shops for selling them is a pretty bass-ackward way of pursuing a war on drugs, and the latest round of it probably WAS as much about generating “buzz” for Ashcroft as anything (yes, yes, very funny, you know I mean press & societal “buzz”). I don’t think it’s wrong or sinister or terrible… Just not an effective use of resources.
That was excellent post, DrLizardo, if I may say so. You cleared up a lot of the different stuff that was flying around thus far, and you compartmentalized it well. Your post led me to ask a question to which I don’t know the answer, and couldn’t find after a bit of Googling…
With regard to #1 of your comments, ab initio illgailty, do you know if drug paraphernalia (such as bongs, rolling papers, etc.) already carries this status in the United States? Or is it simply applied on a case-by-case basis?
It seems to me that this issue could hinge on that distinction.
You make good points in that post. I want to address the one that I quoted in particular.
It seems it would be easier to make these items illegal when they can be proven to have been used for illegal purposes. Such as:
A bong that is coated with a years worth of marijuana resin.
A package of rolling papers in car that has a roach in the ashtray.
Even a mirror that is covered with cocaine residue.
But, I know quite a few people that do roll their own cigarettes. It is much cheaper to do so. Are we really accomplishing anything by the paper being illegal? It’s paper, for goodness sake! And something like a roach clip? Geez, they call those alligator clips as well and I believe you can walk into any Radio Shack in the country and buy them. Do we yank those too, because they are the exact same item, just in a different store.
The drugs are illegal. Possesing them and using them is illegal. Perhaps if the drug problem were eradicated, these stores wouldn’t have any customers. Who the hell needs a bong when they can’t find anything to put in it.
Now, we all know that this isn’t going to happen because of the ineffectiveness of the drug war. I think these raids are a good example of why this war can’t be won. It isn’t about taking away the gadgets or even the supply of drugs. It’s about taking away the demand. And until you figure out how to do that, there will continue to be drugs and tools to use them. All of the raids in the world won’t change that. It’s all about demand.
I’ll vote with the majority here: this is just damn stupid.
I own a hashish pipe, which my sister bought in a bazaar in Morocco. It’s really pretty! I’ll never smoke anything in it; I just like it for the decorative metalwork. (It’s made of aluminum, but whoever made it put a LOT of effort into the embellishment.)
I’ve also got some “alligator clips,” which are the usual electrician’s clips, with cute little sculpted alligators (the reptile!) molded on top. Funny, yes? Just a dumb visual pun. I’ve never smoked anything with them.
And what about the coke spoon? I own one. It’s a SYMBOL! I’ve never snuffed ANYTHING from it. It’s a form of symbolic speech, not a form of drug use.
Gawd. I’m gonna go out and buy a hookah – and put dry ice in it to look like smoke – and a glass bong – and put a bulb in it to make a lamp.
I salute your dedication to libertarian thought, but I disagree. Bongs are primarily intended and designed to be used to inhale illegal drugs. That is an “inherent illegal quality.”
Did you know the feds investigate every purchase of large quantities of fertilizer? Large quantities of fertilizer can be used on farms, but it can also be used to make bombs. Personally, I have no problem with prohibiting the sale of large quantities of fertilizer to a Republic of Texas member who lives in an apartment in downtown Dallas. Do we need to wait until that guy makes a bomb before assuming that he shouldn’t have the fertilizer?
That’s certainly a valid argument. I’m willing to concede that cracking down on drug delivering devices isn’t as likely to combat drug use as, to take an extreme example, busting Pablo Escobar (or his modern equivalent). Having said that:
an ineffective method of enforcing the law isn’t necessarily an invalid one;
allowing the open and obvious sale of bongs hurts the credibility of attempts to enforce drug prohibitions;
these types of drug busts are obviously largely about perception, but they are about creating a perception in the minds of drug users, as well as non-drug users, which is intended to have a detrimental affect on drug use;
I can’t say whether those smaller benefits are the best use of the government’s limited personnel because I don’t know how much time the feds spend doing other things – after all, there are a limited number of feds, but there are also a limited number of big-time drug busts coming down the pipe (sorry, bad joke).
If the feds do this stuff to fill in the time between bigger busts on terrorism or against drug suppliers or child pornographers, then I don’t see a problem. If they’re doing this to the exclusion of those more important activities, then I agree that they could certainly be using their personnel more effectively.
photopat, no need to move quite yet. See AZCowboy’s excellent cite below on why mirrors and currency aren’t prohibited.
“…drugs, and the latest round of it probably WAS as much about generating “buzz” for Ashcroft as anything (yes, yes, very funny, you know I mean press & societal “buzz”). I don’t think it’s wrong or sinister or terrible… Just not an effective use of resources”
Even in light of the fact that the government is all about the “ineffective use of resources” I DO see something that looks sinister to me…
I agree with whoever said the only way to win this “war” is to impede demand. I have to believe the Feds. are smart enough to figure this out too.
I never see this issue addressed. Which leads me to believe the Feds. aren’t really TRYING to win the war on drugs…Why?
IMHO it’s because they’ve determined that there is probably more money to be made with less effort expended if they leave the dealers alone and prey on the users instead.
Where I live, the state makes anywhere from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 on each arrest with subsequent fines, etc. whether or not there is a conviction. With a guilty plea and/or a conviction those figures more than double. (and that’s “per person”) As long as there is no prison time and very little “county” jail time involved, it’s almost 100% profit for the State.
I guess it would be a huge blow to a State’s economy if they lost the source of this revenue, huh?
Wow, you just figured out a way to solve the CA state budget crisis. Legalize pot, make it a gov’t monopoly, and faster than you can say “Don’t bogart that joint…”, we’re home free.
This thing is pretty silly, but bong manufcturers shouldn’t act so naiive. They know exactly what they’re doing.
Next up, grocery stores raided for selling powdered milk and oregano.
I must disagree. I believe any object should be legal to buy if it would be legal to construct one yourself.
For example, “video stabilizers” are commonly used to get around Macrovision protection to make bootleg copies of videotapes and DVDs… but they’re also necessary for running a DVD player through a VCR if you have an old TV.
Even though the illegal use is much more common, it’s still legal to make your own circuit to filter out the Macrovision signal so you can play DVDs on your old TV… so why should it be illegal to pay someone else to make one for you?
Similarly, it’s legal to make your own water pipe to smoke tobacco. Why should it be illegal to pay someone else to make one for you, just because other people tend to use that same object for an illegal purpose?
Holy crap, this is probably why my Mom’s DVD player has weird brightness effects. We had to run it through a VCR because the TV’s inputs don’t seem to work. Thanks Mr2001!
This sort of post is exactly my point. Whether these items you mention are illegal to possess or not, Ashcroft being nuts or not has nothing to do with it. Ashcroft is in charge of ENFORCEMENT of the law, not interpretation. The Supreme Court (ultimately) is in charge of that… He can arrest as many folks as he wants for possession of lawn-sprinkling devices and every one will get tossed out. Whether he should have done it or not, whether he’s using those arrests for political ends, whether he’s abusing his power or not by doing so, all are relevant questions. But whether ‘lawn sprinkling devices’ should be illegal or not has nothing to do with John Ashcroft.
So, while you make some interesting points about “paraphenalia” – your tag-on at the end simply (for me at least) reduces your credibility and weakens your point. You’da been better off without it.
As a moderate, slightly right-leaning guy, let me also chime in on the side of most in this thread - this is the kind of BS that scares me about Ashcroft and pisses me off when I dutifully send in my check to the IRS every April.
Kindly concentrate on the assholes trying to kill us, Mr. Attorney General.
But don’t you all see the inherent wisdom behind all this? By smoking pot we support the terrorists, but when we buy good old American made bongs and pipes we support the crappy economy… wait that’s not quite what I meant. It gets strangerer and strangerer.
But seriously, if you have ever seen any drug user (not that I have of course) you will immediately realize that these folks can create a piece of paraphenalia out of an old boot if they so desire in a matter of minutes.
Another punch line to the joke of “War on Drugs” also known as “our hard earned tax dollars at work”.
I think psifireus had it right, our duly elected representatives only want the appearance of trying to eliminate drugs, because if the “War on Drugs” was actually successful, a whole bunch of self-important, righteous people would be out of a job.
It is possible to make a bong with a 1L soda bottle, a pen tube, tape, and tin foil. Maybe 3 min. flat.
If they want to reduce the amount of marijuana being used they should go after the marijuana. I personally am for the legalization of marijuana, but I just gotta point out… The government is pretty pathetic if it thinks that simply getting rid of bongs will stop the use of marijuana in our nation.
And besides, I’d be happier if my nation put its resources on stopping a terrorist from killing my ass rather than spending my tax dollars to keep me from doing something that (if anything) will keep me from doing anything harmful to anyone else. You ever see someone stoned try to get into a fight? No.
Now beer… Ever see a drunk person get into a fight? Not that uncommon, huh?
I think our leaders have their priorities out of wack.