. .:::::. .::::::::. ...:::::::::.. :::::::::::: ..:::::::::::::::::.. ::::: :::: .::: ::::::: :::. :::::. : :: ::::: :: :::::::. : ::: : :::::::::. ::: :::::::: ::: ::::: ::::: : :::: ::::: oxic :::......:::: hock .:::::::. ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::: presents Parity: the Drug Paraphernalia Issue Toxic File #86 Source HIGH TIMES, April 87 p30 By Jon Gettman, NORML Director Keyed by Fetal Juice Critics claim that the purpose of drug paraphernalia is to glamorize drugs and entice the young. Consequently, they have spent much of the last ten years making it a criminal act to possess or sell drug paraphernalia in many parts of the country. Drug paraphernalia is hard to define, which is why you can still buy it. We all know what it is, critics know what it is, but no one can write a law that can adequately distinguish our water pipes from the tobacconist's - hence, the long shelf life of the drug paraphernalia issue. I think it is time to turn this important issue to our advantage. In the late '70s, the proponents of making criminals out of drug paraphernalia merchants thought they were on to something big. The drug paraphernalia issue began as the vehicle for a backlash against the decriminalization of marijuana. Since then, this "movement" has stalled in a fog of complicated legalities. My interest in this issue predates my involvement with NORML. I spent eight years in the drug paraphernalia business before discovering other things in life were more important to me then making money - like public service. I would like to offer a few words in the defense of this much - maligned industry, as well as a candid assessment of its faults prior to the current era of excessive regulation and official harassment. The first object of selling drug paraphernalia was, and still is, to make money. In the '70s we were all led to believe that not only was making money a respectable persuit but also that pioneering a new, legal to do it was admirable. The paraphernalia industry was a free - market capitalism at its best. The problem with the freewheeling paraphernalia market I participated in was that we were pandering to an illegal interest in the marketing of our goods. Much like sex is used to sell cars, we were, in retrospect, using drugs to sell knick - knacks. Just as the exploitation of women in commercials offends people, our exploitation of drugs was offensive to some, especially to parents trying to keep their kids away from any drug use, illegal or otherwise. Marketing products involves some glamorization. And some of the young are attracted by glamor, though no one as yet offered any hard evidence that young kids decide to try marijuana because they want to try out some neat new bong. Actually, the principal complaint against paraphernalia, that its very existence somehow bestows legitimacy on the drug scene, is absurd; it is the widespread use of marijuana itself that bestows legitimacy. Since marijuana is the drug of choice for an overwhelming number of illegal drug users, the majority of drug paraphernalia sold in head shops concerns marijuana use. But sometimes, knowingly or not, goods were sold to teenagers partly because we heads were sympathetic to rebellion. Our arrogance precluded any consideration of self regulation, and eventually various communities attempted to either regulate or eliminate paraphernalia stores. At this level, the solution seemed simple: set an age limit, tone down the marketing, and pursue peaceful coexistence. However, it was not that simple. The real problem being confronted by both sides was a disparity between myth and reality. The myth was the marijuana was dangerous, and that only fools, degenerates, and other social misfits used it, and that most people respected the laws banning its use, possession, and sale. The reality was that there was a vibrant marijiana subculture which was quite blatantly open. The existence of head shops and other vendors of drug paraphernalia was a visible refutation of the myth. With their livelihood threatened, paraphernalia merchants acted like most honest American capitalists: they either adapted to the new laws or went out of business. Compelled by some very surreal legislation, most of the industry began to pretend that their customers wern't marijuana smokers or cocaine users, but tobacco and snuff consumers. The store I used to manage is now Washington's premier tobacco shop. And its owners don't even pretend: it IS a tobacco store, shamelessly marketing one of the most addicitve substances on earth - as well as selling most of the merchandise I sold there five years ago. For the enemies of marijuana decriminalization, the move to ban drug paraphernalia was an effective tactic which delayed further reform of marijuana laws for over a decade. It reduced funding from the industry to the decrim movement, drove the drug subculture underground, and changed the fundamental public question from "Should adults go to jail for marijuana use?" to "How can we keep drugs away from our childern?" They changed the question to preserve their myth, because the answer to their question was to pretend that no one in there right mind uses illegal drugs. In fact, the whole campaign to go after the user of drugs as well as the supplier, the foundation of the Reagan drug policy, is an outgrowth of the movement to criminalize drug paraphernalia. We must acknowledge that the paraphernalia industry requires some legislation. I think it was, and is, wrong to market adult items to childern - whether it be tobacco, illegal drug taking, or gambling. I also think it is wrong to inflame people's lust to sell merchandise. But most paraphernalia legislation goes far beyond there measures, actually restraining First Amendment rights of free speech and expression, and encouraging a climate of hypocrisy. My approval stops when regulation becomes cultural harassment. Our opponents have actually handed us a great opportunity. We have reached a point in our social history when it is finally possible to attain parity between marijuana and the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Consider this: Society now says, in effect, if you are going to sell paraphernalia for marijuana use you have to sell it on the same footing as that which is sold for tobacco use. There are social rules for the marketing of tobacco, alcohol, and thier attendant paraphernalia; they must be followed with marijuana as well. Society disapproves of the advertising of drugs or drug - related activity which encourages kids to copy adult drug taking. The constructive parts of anti-paraphernalia laws are those which make merchants follow the same rules and customs for marketing marijuana paraphernalia that the alcohol and tobacco merchants must follow: not in front of the childern. Society has determined not to depict drug use in public. People rarely are protrayed smoking tobacco on television. People are not seen actually drinking beer in commercials. The rule is that drug use itself can't be used as marketing tool. So beer commercials focus on taste, image, calories - but not how their product provides a better high then another brand. Society has also raised the drinking age to 21 to cut down the flow of alcohol to teenagers, and is considering further restriction on tobacco advertising. Once again, the guiding philosophy is "not in front of the childern." There is a pattern here that we best respect. Though hampered by extremism, this concern about how adult-oriented markets influence childern opens and opportunity for us to prove that we have learned a little more responsibility about conducting our affairs. Excessive regulation and harassment is counterproductive because it merely makes the paraphernalia a forbidden fruit, making it "cool" for a teenager to get his or her hands on the banned items. It also means that paraphernalia is much more profitable for the merchant; for some of the industy barons of the '70s, this last decade of regulations has been very enriching. Futhermore, to seriously influence drug abuse, you have to reach the drug user. Attaching health information to illicite drug paraphernalia would be an effective way, but this violates the rule that we all have to pretend that it's not drug paraphernalia. NORML came up against this obstacle in an early challenge to a state-wide paraphernalia law in Virgina. NORML was told by a court that our First Amendment rights to distribute literature, and presumably drug education literature, were valid but superseded by the seriousness of the drug problem. Consequently, we have the surreal situation where, because society wants to fight drug abuse by banning paraphernalia, we can't distribute antidrug abuse information in paraphernalia shops! We should advocate that our communities accept the notion of parity between marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco as potentially harmful substances that responsible adults, like it or not, indulge in. Clear statements need to be made that there are some things that adults do that childern and teenagers should not do. I think it is time for marijuana consumers, the merchants of tobacco accessories, parents' groups, and antidrug crusaders to put aside our differences and work together on the issues on which we all seem to agree - keeping out of the hands of kids. (c)opied right from High Times..Fetal Juice/Toxic Shock July 1990