Arizona laws regarding ownership of ground glassware for chemistry usage












19















I was watching a YouTube video that included an interview with a Clandestine Chemist, and at the 8:50 mark, he states:




In Arizona, mere possession of ground glassware is a felony, if you're not a licensed chemist.




I live in Arizona, and I do some organic chemistry on my spare time. So hearing this worries me, especially when it's coming from someone who has so much experience with the law in regards to chemistry and ground glassware. Granted, everything I have is 14/20 or 14/10 scale (mini and micro scale, respectively), which is as small as it gets. So if I was manufacturing narcotics, that would be the most tedious operation.



Does anyone know if the above statement is accurate? I tried looking for some ARS stating that it was illegal to own ground glassware, but wasn't able to come up with anything specifically stating that it's illegal.










share|improve this question





























    19















    I was watching a YouTube video that included an interview with a Clandestine Chemist, and at the 8:50 mark, he states:




    In Arizona, mere possession of ground glassware is a felony, if you're not a licensed chemist.




    I live in Arizona, and I do some organic chemistry on my spare time. So hearing this worries me, especially when it's coming from someone who has so much experience with the law in regards to chemistry and ground glassware. Granted, everything I have is 14/20 or 14/10 scale (mini and micro scale, respectively), which is as small as it gets. So if I was manufacturing narcotics, that would be the most tedious operation.



    Does anyone know if the above statement is accurate? I tried looking for some ARS stating that it was illegal to own ground glassware, but wasn't able to come up with anything specifically stating that it's illegal.










    share|improve this question



























      19












      19








      19


      1






      I was watching a YouTube video that included an interview with a Clandestine Chemist, and at the 8:50 mark, he states:




      In Arizona, mere possession of ground glassware is a felony, if you're not a licensed chemist.




      I live in Arizona, and I do some organic chemistry on my spare time. So hearing this worries me, especially when it's coming from someone who has so much experience with the law in regards to chemistry and ground glassware. Granted, everything I have is 14/20 or 14/10 scale (mini and micro scale, respectively), which is as small as it gets. So if I was manufacturing narcotics, that would be the most tedious operation.



      Does anyone know if the above statement is accurate? I tried looking for some ARS stating that it was illegal to own ground glassware, but wasn't able to come up with anything specifically stating that it's illegal.










      share|improve this question
















      I was watching a YouTube video that included an interview with a Clandestine Chemist, and at the 8:50 mark, he states:




      In Arizona, mere possession of ground glassware is a felony, if you're not a licensed chemist.




      I live in Arizona, and I do some organic chemistry on my spare time. So hearing this worries me, especially when it's coming from someone who has so much experience with the law in regards to chemistry and ground glassware. Granted, everything I have is 14/20 or 14/10 scale (mini and micro scale, respectively), which is as small as it gets. So if I was manufacturing narcotics, that would be the most tedious operation.



      Does anyone know if the above statement is accurate? I tried looking for some ARS stating that it was illegal to own ground glassware, but wasn't able to come up with anything specifically stating that it's illegal.







      criminal-law legal-research arizona






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Nij

      2,08231126




      2,08231126










      asked yesterday









      JustinJustin

      21327




      21327






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          30














          Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says




          In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or
          other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically
          relevant factors, the following:




          1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.


          2. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug.


          3. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter.


          4. The proximity of the object to drugs.


          5. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object.


          6. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he
            knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to
            facilitate a violation of this chapter.


          7. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.


          8. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.


          9. National and local advertising concerning its use.


          10. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.


          11. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as
            a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.


          12. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise.


          13. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.


          14. Expert testimony concerning its use.





          The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as




          all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used,
          intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating,
          cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding,
          converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
          packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
          ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a
          drug in violation of this chapter.




          so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 2





            I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

            – Justin
            yesterday






          • 12





            "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

            – sjl
            20 hours ago






          • 7





            @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

            – DonQuiKong
            20 hours ago






          • 3





            @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

            – Graham
            16 hours ago






          • 7





            @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

            – Peter A. Schneider
            16 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "617"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37450%2farizona-laws-regarding-ownership-of-ground-glassware-for-chemistry-usage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          30














          Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says




          In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or
          other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically
          relevant factors, the following:




          1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.


          2. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug.


          3. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter.


          4. The proximity of the object to drugs.


          5. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object.


          6. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he
            knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to
            facilitate a violation of this chapter.


          7. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.


          8. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.


          9. National and local advertising concerning its use.


          10. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.


          11. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as
            a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.


          12. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise.


          13. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.


          14. Expert testimony concerning its use.





          The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as




          all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used,
          intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating,
          cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding,
          converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
          packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
          ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a
          drug in violation of this chapter.




          so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 2





            I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

            – Justin
            yesterday






          • 12





            "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

            – sjl
            20 hours ago






          • 7





            @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

            – DonQuiKong
            20 hours ago






          • 3





            @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

            – Graham
            16 hours ago






          • 7





            @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

            – Peter A. Schneider
            16 hours ago
















          30














          Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says




          In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or
          other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically
          relevant factors, the following:




          1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.


          2. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug.


          3. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter.


          4. The proximity of the object to drugs.


          5. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object.


          6. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he
            knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to
            facilitate a violation of this chapter.


          7. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.


          8. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.


          9. National and local advertising concerning its use.


          10. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.


          11. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as
            a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.


          12. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise.


          13. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.


          14. Expert testimony concerning its use.





          The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as




          all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used,
          intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating,
          cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding,
          converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
          packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
          ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a
          drug in violation of this chapter.




          so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 2





            I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

            – Justin
            yesterday






          • 12





            "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

            – sjl
            20 hours ago






          • 7





            @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

            – DonQuiKong
            20 hours ago






          • 3





            @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

            – Graham
            16 hours ago






          • 7





            @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

            – Peter A. Schneider
            16 hours ago














          30












          30








          30







          Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says




          In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or
          other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically
          relevant factors, the following:




          1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.


          2. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug.


          3. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter.


          4. The proximity of the object to drugs.


          5. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object.


          6. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he
            knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to
            facilitate a violation of this chapter.


          7. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.


          8. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.


          9. National and local advertising concerning its use.


          10. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.


          11. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as
            a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.


          12. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise.


          13. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.


          14. Expert testimony concerning its use.





          The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as




          all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used,
          intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating,
          cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding,
          converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
          packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
          ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a
          drug in violation of this chapter.




          so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.






          share|improve this answer















          Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says




          In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or
          other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically
          relevant factors, the following:




          1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.


          2. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug.


          3. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter.


          4. The proximity of the object to drugs.


          5. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object.


          6. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he
            knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to
            facilitate a violation of this chapter.


          7. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.


          8. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.


          9. National and local advertising concerning its use.


          10. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.


          11. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as
            a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.


          12. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise.


          13. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.


          14. Expert testimony concerning its use.





          The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as




          all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used,
          intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating,
          cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding,
          converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
          packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting,
          ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a
          drug in violation of this chapter.




          so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 10 hours ago









          psmears

          1092




          1092










          answered yesterday









          user6726user6726

          59.5k454101




          59.5k454101








          • 2





            I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

            – Justin
            yesterday






          • 12





            "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

            – sjl
            20 hours ago






          • 7





            @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

            – DonQuiKong
            20 hours ago






          • 3





            @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

            – Graham
            16 hours ago






          • 7





            @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

            – Peter A. Schneider
            16 hours ago














          • 2





            I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

            – Justin
            yesterday






          • 12





            "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

            – sjl
            20 hours ago






          • 7





            @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

            – DonQuiKong
            20 hours ago






          • 3





            @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

            – Graham
            16 hours ago






          • 7





            @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

            – Peter A. Schneider
            16 hours ago








          2




          2





          I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

          – Justin
          yesterday





          I came across a lot of this info when I was researching it on my own, and came to nearly the same conclusion. Thank you for confirming it for me.

          – Justin
          yesterday




          12




          12





          "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

          – sjl
          20 hours ago





          "Materials of any kind" would seem to include dihydrogen monoxide.

          – sjl
          20 hours ago




          7




          7





          @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

          – DonQuiKong
          20 hours ago





          @sjl it does. Now read point 13. again.

          – DonQuiKong
          20 hours ago




          3




          3





          @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

          – Graham
          16 hours ago





          @PeterA.Schneider Isn't the point though that they do have to prove it? They just don't have to catch them actually in the process of making drugs using that equipment.

          – Graham
          16 hours ago




          7




          7





          @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

          – Peter A. Schneider
          16 hours ago





          @sgf "That everybody [just] knows" is not sufficient for a conviction, and for good reason. All the rules of law have been written in blood [read: are the result of bad experience and have been fought for against the powerful], starting with the Magna Carta. In the 1600s they "just knew" she was a witch, not least because of the paraphernalia in her hut. In the 1950s they "just knew" they were traitors because of the Communist Manifest, and so on.

          – Peter A. Schneider
          16 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37450%2farizona-laws-regarding-ownership-of-ground-glassware-for-chemistry-usage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to label and detect the document text images

          Vallis Paradisi

          Tabula Rosettana