NCJ Number
84893
Journal
Baylor Law Review Volume: 34 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1982) Pages: 247-262
Date Published
1982
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This comment examines the constitutionality of the Texas Controlled Substances Act, which makes drug paraphernalia sales a crime, by comparing it to the Model Drug Paraphernalia Act (MDPA) and by discussing cases that have construed the MDPA.
Abstract
The organization of the Texas Act is identical to that of the MDPA. The acts' three sections focus on definition, offense and penalty, and civil forfeiture. The two acts differ significantly in how they define drug paraphernalia and criminal offense. The Texas Act's definition of drug paraphernalia is more restricted than that of the MDPA. With regard to offense and penalty differences, the MDPA defines three categories of offenses: use or possession, delivery, and advertisement of drug paraphernalia. The Texas Act defines only two: (1) use or possession and (2) delivery. The constitutionality of the MDPA was challenged in the 1981 case of Village of Hoffman v. Flipside, Hoffman Est. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance enacted under MDPA was neither overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague. It is therefore anticipated that the Texas Act will be upheld by the courts, although some definitional areas may pose problems in future cases. The article provides 95 footnotes; legislation is appended.