|This article was nominated for deletion on February 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Not a good reasonEdit
Neutral point of viewEdit
Clearly, there is a disagreement between Rocks, Buley, and Rosenzweig as to whether apples constitute drug paraphernalia under this ordinance. A big image of an apple saying that it is drug paraphernalia is clear endorsement one of these points of view. Per our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, the article must not contain such endorsements. Please write from the neutral point of view. Uncle G 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Article fails to mention role of "blunts" in promoting nicotine addition among youngstersEdit
The synergy of cannabinol and nicotine is such that users mixing them risk quickly getting addicted to nicotine and becoming part of the at-risk population of smokers (WHO 2003 estimate: 5.3 million deaths per year attributed to cigarette smoking). Many young persons don't know that the wrapper leaf from a cigar, used to wrap a cigarette-sized dosage of cannabis, contains nicotine.
It has been alleged that since the early 90's tobacco-marketing companies or organizations fed funding, promotion opportunities or other rewards to rap singers who included references to "blunts" in song lyrics. The presence of artists with names like "Tu-Pac" or "Cool" speaks for itself.
The classification of cannabis as a "drug" and consequent classificiation of equipment used to consume cannabis as "drug paraphernalia" serves the interest of the predatory tobacco marketing industry because
a. cannabis is an alternative substance which can be smoked instead of tobacco, threatening the industry profit margin;
b. lacking a substance such as nicotine which promotes habitual heavy overdosing, cannabis permits its users to get by with very small servings (as little as 25 mg. in a minitoke utensil, which anyone can make inexpensively). By branding such a utensil "drug paraphernalia", tobacco interests (through their tax-supported aiders and abettors in government) can achieve a situation of "compulsory overdose" where anyone who wants to possess and use an anti-overdose utensil, even only for purpose of tobacco use, risks social and legal sanctions based on the accusation of illegal cannabis use. This makes it easier to maneuver the large majority of tobacco users into the hot-burning-overdose category of many 700-mg. cigarettes every day.
a. Banning cannabis protects the industry profits represented by many lucrative drugs for which cannabis might allegedy substitute at far lower cost.
b. If cannabis legalization resulted in popularizing an anti-overdose utensil among present-day cigarette-smokers, the resulting possible drastic reduction in illnesses now caused by the hot-burning-overdose tobacco smoking method (cigarettes) could produce a similar drastic reduction in the sale of drugs and treatments for patients suffering from cigarette-related diseases.Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup and reductionEdit
Since this ordinance has been overturned, the detail (much of which was poorly written) which was previously given was inappropriate. Indeed, the article is only marginally notable at all. I've cut it down, documented the overturn, and removed all dead URL's. Because of the restrictions on original research and because of the general inability of the news media to adequately analyze legal matters, the real significance and notability of this ordinance and its eventual failure cannot be included in the article, to wit, that Philly was trying to create a broader and more easily-met definition of drug paraphernalia than the definition in state law in regard to what the PA Supreme Court called dual-use items, items which have a legitimate use but which can also be used for the consumption or storage of illicit drugs. The state law definition is somewhat complex and legally difficult to meet, especially when the items are sold by merchants who do not sell illicit drugs or openly admit that they're selling the items for illicit use. The ordinance, on the other hand, banned certain dual-use items outright and created a more easily-met legal standard for all dual-use items. What the state supreme court said was that the state had reserved the right to define what is and is not drug paraphernalia to itself and the city did not have the right to change the definition, saying, "Although the ordinance does not stand as an obstacle to the primary purpose of the Act, i.e., to decrease the unauthorized use of controlled substances, the ordinance does contradict an implied objective of the Act to protect those who sell dual-use items for legitimate purposes." (10 A.3d 902 at 913, emphasis added). If someone can find a reliable source that explains this, then this would be a much better article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)