The U.S. Constitution and Drug Paraphernalia

Home | Canna Law Blog | The U.S. Constitution and Drug Paraphernalia The U.S. Constitution gives Congress certain enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8), with powers "not delegated to the [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (Tenth Amendment). While one of the enumerated powers is the regulation of interstate commerce, the federal drug paraphernalia statute, part of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), renders the sale of drug paraphernalia illegal, even where a sale takes place exclusively within the borders of a state. How can this be squared with the Constitution's clear language on what the Congress can and cannot do? Well, arguably, it cannot be squared, unless quite a bit of creativity is deployed. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you stand on certain issues) Congress and the federal courts do not lack creativity, as they have demonstrated in their approach to drug paraphernalia in the CSA and court decisions interpreting the same. According to 21 U.S.C. § 863(a), it is unlawful: (1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia; (2) to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia; or (3) to import or export drug paraphernalia. It is easy to see the connection between Congress's enumerated powers, and the second and third of Section 863(a)'s prohibitions. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." In addition, Congress has the power "to establish Post Offices and post Roads." Regulation of what merchandise can "use the mails" is a logical adjunct of that power. However, when it comes to Section 863(a)(1), one could spend hours looking at the powers enumerated in the Constitution without finding any language that would support the proposition that Congress can prohibit the sale of a bong, within the borders of Washington State, between two residents of the same state. If the transaction involves the use of dollars, then perhaps Congress's power "to coin Money," also granted by the Constitution, might provide a jurisdictional hook. But what if the bong's buyer pays in kind? Or what if there is only a offer of sale, not followed by an actual sale involving money? In Fry v. United States (421 U.S. 542 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that "even activity that is purely intrastate in character may be regulated by Congress, where the activity affects commerce among the States or with foreign nations." This is very broad language that can cover just about any activity. Moreover, Congress does not "need make particularized findings" on whether an activity affects interstate commerce. Perez v. United States (402 U.S. 146 (1971)). This is an elegant way of saying that Congress does not need to look at facts when it decides that, yes, something has an impact on interstate commerce. The fact that the Framers of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce makes it clear that they understood the issues raised by the movement of goods across state borders. It is reasonable to assume that they also knew that purely intrastate activities could have an impact on interstate commerce, yet the power given to Congress remained linguistically narrow. If the Framers wanted to give Congress the power to regulate activities that "affect" interstate commerce, they could have made that clear in the Constitution. Yet they chose not to. Later moves to expand federal power appear cynical in this context. We can, and should, question whether the federal drug paraphernalia statute is consistent with the Framers' vision. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, federal courts have not had any issues finding that the statute is constitutional, even to the extent it regulates purely intrastate activities. Until such time as Congress or the courts decide to start giving effect to the "several States" part of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, citizens are left with no choice than to abide by the current, expansive definition of "interstate commerce". Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Federal law and policy, Legal Issues Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply