💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › TOXICSHOCK › ts-086.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 14:49:06.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
.
.:::::. .::::::::.
...:::::::::.. ::::::::::::
..:::::::::::::::::.. ::::: ::::
.::: ::::::: :::. :::::. :
:: ::::: :: :::::::.
: ::: : :::::::::.
::: ::::::::
::: :::::
::::: : ::::
::::: 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