How is this even remotely constitutional?

[Jaguar]

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26403

Casino Night could be gone for good

Yale’s popular annual Casino Night may be all played out.

Officials at the Connecticut Division of Special Revenue, which oversees gambling throughout the state, told the News on Monday that it is unlikely the event will take place in the future. Still, when Ezra Stiles and Morse colleges canceled Casino Night on Friday afternoon, the masters of both colleges said they would, for future years, try to obtain a legal exemption from the state law that prohibits casino games.

DSR spokesman Paul Bernstein said he understood the cancellation of Casino Night was “frustrating,” but emphasized that the DSR cannot approve an activity prohibited by state statutes.

“We have no authority to permit an activity that is no longer lawful within the state,” Bernstein said.

In an interview with the News on Monday, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal LAW ’73 said he was open to discussions with Yale officials, but was not optimistic about Yale’s chances of obtaining an exemption.

“If they have points they want to bring to our attention, I certainly would be happy to meet with … any official who wanted to speak with me,” Blumenthal said.

Known as the “casino nights law,” the 2003 Act to Repeal Las Vegas Night Games overturned previous statutes that had allowed nonprofit organizations to hold gaming nights to raise money for charity.

DSR officials said it was unclear why it took so long for the act to affect Casino Night, since Casino Night has been a campus staple for years. After the act was passed in 2003, DSR staff informed all of the organizations registered with the state of the new regulations, said Anne Stiver, an attorney at DSR.

“The problem was, some of the organizations never even registered with the division,” Stiver said, “so they kept holding these events without even applying for a permit.”

University spokesman Tom Conroy said it was initially unclear whether the law would apply to events such as Casino Night, during which nothing of value is exchanged in the gaming, but the state government began to clarify the law’s reach in 2004, prompting the DSR to instruct police departments to crack down on such events.

The 2003 act made possession of gaming equipment illegal, a provision that may ultimately doom Casino Night to no more than a fond memory for Yale alumni. Bernstein said prosecuting businesses that rent or sell gaming equipment, such as blackjack tables and roulette wheels, was a more pressing problem for the DSR than regulating small nonprofit events.

Bernstein confirmed that the use of gambling equipment during Casino Night made the event clearly illegal, even if the event may have fallen in a gray area because no money was exchanged at the tables.

Ezra Stiles Student Activities Committee co-Chair Jasper Frank ’10 said Morse and Stiles owned most of the equipment and gambling paraphernalia. It was left over from past Casino Nights, he explained.

The masters of Stiles and Morse colleges said they could not comment on the future of Casino Night until they held further discussions with the University’s Office of the General Counsel.

“This is a complicated legal matter and I simply am not in a position to say what those next steps will be,” Morse College Master Frank Keil said.

A party at my school got canceled because parties with a "casino-like atmosphere" are now illegal in Connecticut, and apparently the possession of "gaming equipment" is also illegal by the same act.

WTF, Connecticut?

[Unimatrix11]

play russian roulette - you always have the right for that gambling equipment, dont you ?

[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.

[Berzerker]

if you wanna gamble, go to Mexico... everything is legal down there, its the American way



sorry, that was Uncle Jimbo from South Park

[Darius871]

The right question is "which Constitutional provision could possibly preclude this?" There are none.

I was hoping this thread would have something real, but a measly ban on gambling and its instruments? Are you kidding me?

[KrazyHorse]

How would any constitutional issue raised here be different than that which could equivalently be raised regarding the possession of drug paraphernalia?

[Darius871]

I guess theoretically you could argue that banning the mere equipment, even when used only for entertainment and with no money involved, is an arbitrary broad-sword method that doesn't rationally relate to the legitimate state goal of eliminating the social ill of compulsive gambling, in which case the deprivation of liberty might be so extreme as to violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, but that's a gigantic stretch.

Connecticut's police power to foster its citizens' health & welfare would be given enormous deference, and their means doesn't even need to factually accomplish the end sought; the legislature merely needs to have had a "rational basis" for having concluded that keeping the equipment out of everybody's hands puts a significant dent in illicit gambling, in which case those at the margins who don't use it for real money just have to suck it.

This is roughly analogous to Gonzales v. Raich's 2005 overturning of California's medical marijuana legalization: because Congress "might" rationally conclude that allowing individual cultivation for medical use would inevitably cause some to end up in the illicit marketplace, then the court had to defer to Congress' judgment. Granted that case was about the federal government's Interstate Commerce power as opposed to the 14th Amendment's constraint on state power, but the tests and logic are roughly the same: because "some" people "might" use ostensibly entertainment-oriented gambling equipment for illicit purposes when nobody's looking, there is enough of a rational basis to withstand the 14th Amendment analysis' very deferential scrutiny. Something more juicy like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. would get a much more strict scrutiny, but none of them are invoked here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871
I guess theoretically you could argue that banning the mere equipment, even when used only for entertainment and with no money involved, is an arbitrary broad-sword method that doesn't rationally relate to the legitimate state goal of eliminating the social ill of compulsive gambling, in which case the deprivation of liberty might be so extreme as to violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, but that's a gigantic stretch

My point is to ask if this is any different than the exact same argument raised by banning drug paraphernalia.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How would any constitutional issue raised here be different than that which could equivalently be raised regarding the possession of drug paraphernalia?

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My point is to ask if this is any different than the exact same argument raised by banning drug paraphernalia.

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!

[Darius871]

dp

[Darius871]

Signs don't just happen by accident:

[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:

[Imran Siddiqui]

ere equipment, even when used only for entertainment and with no money involved, is an arbitrary broad-sword method that doesn't rationally relate to the legitimate state goal of eliminating the social ill of compulsive gambling

But it still is intended to be used for gambling. It may not be exactly used for gambling with money, but it definitely can continue an addiction or begin an addiction that will be realized later. After all, there isn't a "this is just for tobacco use" type of defense here. Playing for free can also further the addiction.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

ere equipment, even when used only for entertainment and with no money involved, is an arbitrary broad-sword method that doesn't rationally relate to the legitimate state goal of eliminating the social ill of compulsive gambling

But it still is intended to be used for gambling. It may not be exactly used for gambling with money, but it definitely can continue an addiction or begin an addiction that will be realized later. After all, there isn't a "this is just for tobacco use" type of defense here. Playing for free can also further the addiction.

Looking at drug paraphernalia can further the addiction

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But it still is intended to be used for gambling. It may not be exactly used for gambling with money, but it definitely can continue an addiction or begin an addiction that will be realized later. After all, there isn't a "this is just for tobacco use" type of defense here. Playing for free can also further the addiction.

Yes, that would be the argument, which is why attacking its very validity on Due Process grounds would be a gigantic stretch. Attacking one's individual conviction on evidentiary grounds (there's only an actus reus, no proven mens rea) might get somewhat better traction based on bong-shop precedents, but even then you'd need a damned sympathetic judge.

Edit: and yeah, what KH said too. I defy any former meth addict to smoke some tobacco out of that melting-bulb in the picture above and not immediately start jonesing for crank. The temptation would be irresistible, and yet those pipes are legal.