Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.hemp,talk.politics.drugs
From: [h--wa--d] at [crash.cts.com] (Howard Knight)
Subject: Sell Rolling Papers, Go to Prison?
Date: 24 May 94 13:48:14 PDT

An article appeared on "clari.news.usa.law.supreme" that should
be of grave concern to all of us.  Following is the article
in its entirety (my comments follow):

----------------------Article start-------------------------------------

	WASHINGTON (AP) -- Prosecutors do not need to prove that
defendants charged with selling drug paraphernalia knew the buyer
would use the items with illegal drugs, the Supreme Court ruled
Monday.
	The court's unanimous decision in an Iowa case said prosecutors
need only show that a defendant knew customers are likely to use
the items in connection with drugs.
	``Requiring that a seller of drug paraphernalia act with the
`purpose' that the items be used with illegal drugs would be
inappropriate,'' Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote for the court.
	``It is sufficient that the defendant be aware that customers in
general are likely to use the merchandise with drugs,'' Blackmun
said. ``Therefore, the government must establish that the defendant
knew that the items at issue are likely to be used with illegal
drugs.''
	Monday's ruling upheld a Des Moines woman's conviction on drug
paraphernalia charges.
	During a search of Lana Christine Acty's home and business,
Posters 'N' Things, officials confiscated pipes, scales and
chemicals often used to dilute illegal drugs.
	Acty and the business were convicted in 1990 of conspiracy and
using interstate means in a scheme to sell drug paraphernalia. She
also was convicted of aiding the manufacture and sale of cocaine,
money laundering and other related charges.
	Acty was sentenced to nine years in prison and fined $150,000,
and her company was fined $75,000.
	Federal law specifies that some items, such as water pipes, are
drug paraphernalia. The trial judge gave jurors a list of rules to
use in deciding whether other items qualified as drug
paraphernalia.
	The judge told jurors they must decide whether Acty knew ``the
nature and character of the items,'' but did not require them to
decide whether she intended that they be used with illegal drugs.
	The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that
interpretation of the law in July 1992.
	Acty's lawyers had told the Supreme Court that none of the items
seized in the search was primarily intended for use with drugs.
Prosecutors should have been required to prove that she intended
such use, they said.
	But Justice Department lawyers said the law only requires proof
that a defendant knew the items are used primarily with illegal
drugs.
	In Monday's ruling, Blackmun said, ``Although the government
must establish that the defendant knew that the items at issue are
likely to be used with illegal drugs, it need not prove specific
knowledge that the items are `drug paraphernalia' within the
meaning of the statute.''
	The case is Posters 'N' Things vs. U.S., 92-903.

----------------------Article end---------------------------------------

What does this ruling say about the thousands upon thousands of stores
that sell rolling papers?  My guess is that 90% or more of the rolling
papers sold are used for marijuana cigarettes.  According to this
ruling, stores that sell rolling papers are liable for selling drug
paraphernalia.

It is truly sad that this case even made it to the Supreme Court.
(For that matter, it's sad that there are drug paraphernalia laws at
all.)  The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, is SICK,
SICK, SICK!  Our Supreme Court is supposed to have ultimate wisdom and
knowledge of the law.  What a crock of shit!

Howard Knight