How is this even remotely constitutional?

[Ben Kenobi]

Equipment which may be used for the purposes of gambling cannot be banned if they have other uses which do not involve gambling.

Your argument needs to be that tire irons can be used for assault, but that doesn't mean that the simple possession of a tire iron necessarily leads to assault. You cannot ban the tire iron outright because it has legitimate and lawful uses.

Same with gaming equipment. You can use it to gamble, or heaven forbid, play super mario.

Now, what they can do is confiscate equipment in the process of breaking the law. If you were to use gaming equipment to gamble, then the law could confiscate that equipment.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Darius871



Actually, generally courts have struck down convictions for drug paraphernalia possession where there is no confirmed drug residue, because their alternate use for tobacco or legal herbs renders a "blanket" ban either A) too arbitrary for Due Process or B) practically deficient on evidentiary grounds (e.g. State v. Glowacki, 723 N.E.2d 193 (Ohio App. 1999)). There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the possessor intended its later use for illegal drugs or knew of its substantial probability, which is of course difficult to prove without something literally on tape.

That's why if you walk into any bong shop it'll be plastered with "TOBACCO USE ONLY!" signs everywhere to cover their asses, even though deep down everybody knows the types of pipes & bongs they sell there are 99.99% for weed, crack, or meth use. Seriously, who's going to use a melting-bulb to smoke tobacco? Nobody, but it's 100% legal anyway. God bless America!

I don't think that the law is close to as clear cut as you portray it. Ashcroft infamously (successfully) prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling bongs over the interwebs (which is a federal crime if it's interstate traffic).

Government at all levels simply have a lot of discretion in this sort of thing. The real question is what Connecticut precedent says...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Darius871
Can you picture anyone smoking tobacco out of this? Me neither, and yet I could walk down the block to The Last Place on Earth and legally buy 50 of them if I wanted to:

Our you can just make on with a propane torch ($8.95 at Walmart) and a tube of car air freshener.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Our you can just make on with a propane torch ($8.95 at Walmart) and a tube of car air freshener.

Or a small light bulb, or a test tube, or one of those glass cigar containers... don't ask how I know these things, let's just say I've had some amusing roommates

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't think that the law is close to as clear cut as you portray it. Ashcroft infamously (successfully) prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling bongs over the interwebs (which is a federal crime if it's interstate traffic).

Government at all levels simply have a lot of discretion in this sort of thing. The real question is what Connecticut precedent says...

Oh definitely once there's unequivocal interstate commerce is involved all bets are off. In fact Raich made abundantly clear that even the subclass of legalized noncommercial intrastate cultivation of marijuana falls under federal interstate commerce regulation because Congress "might" rationally conclude that A) the potential of its being "diverted" into the illicit market and B) its alteration of supply/demand patterns would both have a sufficiently "substantial effect" on the interstate market regulated by the larger statutory scheme.

That same reasoning (only 3 years old) could probably be used to justify prosecuting purely local bong shops under the same federal regulations used against Chong, so the only real question is whether they'll bother to devote resources to that. Hopefully his case was just an anomaly because it was clearly 100% interstate, he was a celebrity they'd want to make an example of, and his public persona was deeply associated with the marijuana subculture, but considering the DEA's constant struggle to justify its own existence, my bet is they start expanding their reach beyond that anomaly.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Yeah, that's stupid. Unconstitutional, no idea... probably not, I imagine. Our constitution is funny, things are only unconstitutional if Jesus wouldn't have liked them.

It's constitutional. When setting out various liberties, our founding fathers forgot to list "Freedom of Pleasure."

[Arrian]

Huh. We used to have a casino party at Trinity too. I guess that's toast too.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
Huh. We used to have a casino party at Trinity too. I guess that's toast too.

-Arrian

Dang it! If you don't like the law, change it!

Organize the charitable organizations to make a pitch to a state leglistlator. It should be an easy pitch....helping folks at no cost to the state. They'll love it. You'll be hoisted onto the shoulders of legislators and trotted victoriously around the state capitol building.

[Arrian]

Actually, I don't give a ****. I don't like gambling*.

Now, you can make the case that this is about FREEDOM! and so I should fight the good fight. If it was put to a vote, I'd vote in favor of FREEDOM!, but I'm not going to actively campaign to change the law some colleges can have their casino parties back.

-Arrian

* - hypocrisy of saying this whilst investing in the stock market duly noted.

[Kuciwalker]

Uh, Arrian, there's no actual gambling going on.

[Arrian]

True. Which makes it even dumber. WTF, my state?

I still don't really care, though. Sue me.

-Arrian

[Blaupanzer]

Answer to OP: regulation of gambling is principally left to the states which may regulate more or less harshly as they please. Connecticutt has apparently gotten harsher.

Very little about drugs and associated materials is in the hands of any authority other than the Feds. So the Federal Appeals system is in play. Many of those judges are conservative --meaning they interpret the constitution narrowly. Such folk refuse to be stampeded into banning anything because it "might" be used for doing bad things. State judges in Connecticutt apparently think there is not a lot you can do with gaming machines except gamble. Silly them.