Again I’m amazed. People toss Mr. Ashcroft’s name around here as the villain of the piece. For example, Mr2001 believes that any object should be legal to buy if it would be legal to construct one yourself, in apparent disagreement with extant federal law. But have you, Mr2001, communicated that view to Mrs. Murray and Ms. Cantwell?
If you haven’t - why not?
I think this needs to be continued in an IMHO thread of “how to build a bong out of household materials”.
One of the easiest, and one that will totally kick your ass, is a gravity bong made from a 2 litre bottle with the bottom cut out, a bit of foil for a bowl, and a bucket (or sink) full of water.
Even an apple makes a nice little pipe.
I’m a conservative, and I don’t agree with this kind of thing either.
Legally? Yes, the authorities absolutely need to wait, and for some of the same reasons you used to criticize my earlier post. Until he makes a bomb, that guy has done nothing illegal. Just as there is a different status between guns and bongs, so too there is a differing status between fertilizer and bombs. Would you not agree with this?
While your fertilizer example is a very poor one, I will cede the point in the limited case of bongs/hash pipes. (Sorry if my language is outdated here; I’ve only smoked pot once, a year ago, and didn’t much like it.) I’ll agree that the legality of the issue seems to weigh on Ashcroft’s side, especially considering DrLizardo’s thoughtful post.
However, when looking at the raids from a practical standpoint, this is a very poor method. Even if one agrees that the “War on Drugs” is just and can be won (which I don’t), then this is attacking the issue from the wrong end. It’s a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere, and to me it looks a hell of a lot like Ashcroft grandstanding, trying to show people he’s accomplishing something when he really isn’t. It’s also indicative to me that trying to attack the supply end of the drug war has proven too difficult, so they’re going after easier targets.
And to answer Bricker’s question, since it sort of applies to me too, I have indeed communicated much of this to Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, as well as Rep. Jay Inslee. Inslee, historically, has been the best about making substantive responses when asked directly about issues. I think he probably knows me by name now. 
Though I have not yet received a response from him on this issue (it usually takes at least a couple weeks), I suspect he would largely agree with what I’m saying, based on past responses I’ve received from him on other issues.
I think I may have done a poor job of explaining my arguments. I apologize.
Legally, the authorities don’t need to wait. As soon as Mr. Republic O’Texas starts assembling the component parts with the intention of making a bomb, he’s engaged in the manufacture of a destructive or explosive device without a license, which is prohibited by most (if not all) states, as well as the federal government. In addition, he’s probably taking action in the furtherance of a plan or conspiracy to blow something up, which is another criminal act. The feds can bust in at any time to put a stop to these criminal acts.
guns vs. bongs – I was trying to point out that there is a Constitutional right to bear arms that restricts the government’s ability to prohibit guns. Bongs/hash pipes do not have Constitutionally protected status. So I don’t think you can legitimately compare government restrictions on guns to government restrictions on bongs. The government can’t restrict guns without some serious judicial scrutiny; bongs are not afforded the same level of protection.
fertilizer for bombs - I was trying to rebut your statement that “Unless somebody is actually using it for an illegal purpose, there’s no reason to make it illegal.” The fact that someone is almost definitely going to use something for illegal purposes is plenty of reason to make it illegal, as is the fact that someone intends to use it for an illegal purpose. Requiring the government to wait until the bomb is complete and counting down toward zero is a ridiculous limitation on the government’s ability to protect its citizens. (Although it does make for good movies.)
Same with bongs. We all know that they are only rarely (if ever) used to smoke tobacco. They aren’t designed for that, and they’re not terribly effective at it. If the government can legitimately prohibit drug use, they can also legitimately prohibit drug delivery devices. They don’t need to wait until you’ve actually lit marijuana in a pipe before they can stop you from assembling the parts necessary to do so.
Excluding bongs for a second. The last time I checked, pipes weren’t illegal. My grandfather smokes a pipe. I could use the same pipe to smoke marijuana, if I so desired. Once I had, I can see the argument that because it was used for illegal purposes, it itself is illegal, and there would be, in fact, evidence on the pipe itself that it was used for an illegal activity. But until then, it was only used for lawful activity.
I have no problem with less leeway being allowed in the bomb/fertilizer example. You are talking about the possibility of a device that could kill hundreds of people. But with a pipe, you are talking about a victimless crime and a misdemeaner at that. I question whether there is the same necessity for a no-tolerance approach when many people do use these items for legal purposes.
Well, yes and no. He has the power to shift resoures from one project to another. When he beefs up the DEA, and tells them to focus on paraphernalia, he may not be “interpreting” the law, per se, but he is assigninig it a higher relative importance.
In the extreme, the executive branch has the power to legalize drugs overnight, simply by re-assigning all DEA agents to other tasks. (Congress would, of course, react to this…)
I also wonder why he would emphasize a line of enforcement that is so risky in First Amendment terms. Sooner or later, someone is going to win a case by proving that his hookah was either used only for tobacco, or was solely decorative and never used at all. At that point, the entire law goes away, and Ashcroft looks foolish.
Fair enough… I shoul’da said, “John Ashcroft is being wasteful in his allocation of DOJ assets to trivial and peripheral enforcement.”
Trinopus
No, I was unaware that I was supposed to contact my Congresswomen before posting my views on the SDMB. However, you and Avalonian have inspired me. Maybe I’ll do it tonight.
But what’s the actual crime? Last I checked, the laws prohibited possession of marijuana, not use. A bong doesn’t facilitate possession at all… the “drug delivery device” is more likely to be a plastic sandwich bag.
In the manner of the true Puritan, Ashcroft is gravely troubled by the suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having more fun than he.
Put me in the “DOJ has better things to do with its resources” camp.
Good grief. The law makes possession of marijuana illegal to keep people from using it. Do you really think that lcops would arrest you if they saw you with a dime bag, but let you go if you were smoking a doob?
A fair point. I was using “pipe” as short for “hash pipe,” which is a bit different than the pipe your grandfather (and my father) smoke(d). But your point is valid as applied to regular pipes, which aren’t prohibited by federal law because they aren’t designed and used primarily for the inhalation of controlled substances.
Some people would disagree with your characterization of drug use as a victimless crime. (I think it’s victimless enough that the goverment should leave it for individual decision.) Also, drug possession/use isn’t always a misdemeanor. But again, I agree there are substantial differences of degree between making bombs and loading a bong, and one certainly calls for stricter scrutiny.
My point is just that government attempts to strictly enforce drug laws strictly aren’t necessarily illegitimate. They take this stuff seriously (in my opinion, too seriously). But I can at least see where they’re coming from.
Of course they’d arrest you for smoking a joint… but what would it say on your record? Possession of marijuana. If you’re smoking some pot, obviously you’re in possession of it. But a pipe doesn’t help you gain or maintain that possession; if you’re using a bong to smoke pot, you’ve already committed the crime before you even touched the bong.
If you use a bong to smoke tobacco–which is possible, if unpleasant, and people concerned with lung cancer might consider the benefit of water filtering to offset the unpleasantness–then not only are you not breaking the law, but the bong won’t help you break the law in the future, even if you want to.
Ok, let’s try this – the Washington State Uniform Controlled Substances Act – RCW 69.50.412:
Obviously, the State of Washington prohibits the use or distribution of drug paraphernalia out of concern that drugs will be used. So can we at least put to rest this odd notion that the government is only concerned with possession of drugs?
You’re correct that you’re not breaking the law (unless you bought the bong intending to fill it with drugs at some point in the future). But the bong will certainly help you break the law in the future (see above quoted provision about the use of drug paraphernelia to ingest or inhale drugs).
Interesting. Pennsylvania’s laws seem to be similarly worded, so in the interest of laziness, I’ll concede that all the states targeted by Operation Pipe Dreams probably have laws against using paraphernalia to consume drugs.
However, please note that the laws are just as applicable to cigars, funnels, and soda cans as they are to bongs and crack pipes:
Next thing you know, we will be arresting for owning a copy of the movie “Up in Smoke” because it promotes a druggie lifestyle.
No, that’s not so.
A cigar or funnel becomes illegal if used to inhale illegal drugs. A bong is illegal from the beginning because it’s designed for for that use.
But Rick, I would be willing to bet you can smoke tobacco in a bong.
Not that I use tobacco.
Not according to the manufacturers or retailers. From inspecting the design, one can only determine that it’s intended to filter, cool, and concentrate smoke. Where’s the evidence that a device marketed and sold as a “tobacco water pipe” was in fact designed for using illegal drugs?