Spring Break
Point-Counterpoint: Philadelphia's Drug Paraphernalia Ban (Pt. 2 of 2)
Ban shows lack of leadership
Derek Rosenzweig
Issue date: 2/16/07 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Philadelphia's new paraphernalia ban defines a wide spectrum of otherwise lawful products that can potentially be used illegally. Although most of the items included in the bill can be and are used for lawful purposes, business owners are going to be held responsible for individuals' choice in how they use those products. The ban can be read online at the City Council's Web site.
The paraphernalia ban inevitably acts as another barrier to keep business out of Philadelphia, and, just like the Business Privilege Tax, it will drive businesses out of the city. This mainly affects small businesses.
Under this law, the city will have to prove that the store owner knows that the items will be used illegally. Store clerks generally neither care nor notice how adults will use their products, especially those working in retail. It's simply not their responsibility how the person uses it once they buy it. This ban will end up costing the city and business owners' time and money. One good question is just how much money the city is willing to enforce it.
The measure also defines ex-post-facto penalties for offenses committed in years before the law even existed. Luckily, council members won't be able to get away with that in court because there are no criminal penalties; this is a civil matter. Even so, the fact that the City Council was misguided enough to pass it makes it clear that they know very little about the effects of the black market on society.
The city will likely enforce this bill only in "high-crime" or "high-drug" neighborhoods because these items are generally used for lawful purposes. Those neighborhoods statistically tend to be ones with a high minority population. The paraphernalia ban could be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution.
The relative number of minorities to whites incarcerated is already ridiculously disproportionate to the number of minorities to whites living in the city. In 2006, city police arrested 5,944 people for marijuana offenses, according to the most up-to-date information from the Pennsylvania Unified Crime Report. Of those arrested, only 21.7 percent were white, while 78.3 percent were black. According to the 2000 census, 45 percent of the city's population is white and 43.2 percent is black. Clearly, there is a huge discrepancy in who is arrested for marijuana offenses. Does the city really want to add more stress to that already sensitive and shameful issue?
The paraphernalia ban inevitably acts as another barrier to keep business out of Philadelphia, and, just like the Business Privilege Tax, it will drive businesses out of the city. This mainly affects small businesses.
Under this law, the city will have to prove that the store owner knows that the items will be used illegally. Store clerks generally neither care nor notice how adults will use their products, especially those working in retail. It's simply not their responsibility how the person uses it once they buy it. This ban will end up costing the city and business owners' time and money. One good question is just how much money the city is willing to enforce it.
The measure also defines ex-post-facto penalties for offenses committed in years before the law even existed. Luckily, council members won't be able to get away with that in court because there are no criminal penalties; this is a civil matter. Even so, the fact that the City Council was misguided enough to pass it makes it clear that they know very little about the effects of the black market on society.
The city will likely enforce this bill only in "high-crime" or "high-drug" neighborhoods because these items are generally used for lawful purposes. Those neighborhoods statistically tend to be ones with a high minority population. The paraphernalia ban could be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution.
The relative number of minorities to whites incarcerated is already ridiculously disproportionate to the number of minorities to whites living in the city. In 2006, city police arrested 5,944 people for marijuana offenses, according to the most up-to-date information from the Pennsylvania Unified Crime Report. Of those arrested, only 21.7 percent were white, while 78.3 percent were black. According to the 2000 census, 45 percent of the city's population is white and 43.2 percent is black. Clearly, there is a huge discrepancy in who is arrested for marijuana offenses. Does the city really want to add more stress to that already sensitive and shameful issue?
Be the first to comment on this story