My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Admin Order 53-88-02
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Administrative Orders
>
1985-89
>
Admin Order 53-88-02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:47:18 AM
Creation date
1/30/2009 3:13:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Recorder
CMO_Document_Type
Admin Orders
Document_Date
10/20/1988
Document_Number
53-88-02
CMO_Effective_Date
10/20/1988
Author
Micheal D. Gleason
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />CITY fULE NO. 5 ~ - ~ -(:) 1- A <br /> <br />FINDINGS <br />PROPOSED DRUG PARAPHERNALIA SALES RULES <br /> <br />The City of Eugene has set forth to adopt Administrative Rules for Drug <br />Paraphernalia Sales pursuant to authority granted in section 3.012 of the <br />Eugene code. These Rules are intended to provide detail for the establish- <br />ment of license fees, the form of various applications, records and affida- <br />vits and the establishment of procedures to implement the Drug Paraphernalia <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />Opportunity to comment on these rules was given by publication in the Regis- <br />ter Guard, a newspaper published in and of general circulation within the <br />City from September 8, 1988 to September 12, 1988, with the deadline for <br />submission of comments being September 26, 1988. <br /> <br />The only written comment or objection to the proposed rules was submitted on <br />behalf of the Independent Business Council, in which it was maintained that: <br />(1) The rules are deficient because they do not include a definition of <br />drug paraphernalia that "cures the vagueness of the definition of drug para- <br />phernalia in Eugene Ordinance No. 19552", and therefore "fail to make the <br />ordinance an ordinance that is constitutional and, hence, enforceable", and <br />(2) The rules impose a greater sanction than state law imposes for criminal <br />conduct by barring people who have been convicted of drug-or controlled <br />substance-related offenses from selling drug paraphernalia. <br /> <br />'. I have reviewed these comments and objections, and find they do not consti- <br />tute sufficient grounds for withholding approval of the foregoing rules. <br /> <br />In making these findings, consideration was given to comments concerning the <br />definition of drug paraphernalia in Section 3.005 of the Eugene code, 1971. <br />Those comments did not serve to alter the proposed rules because the analysis <br />behind the cited authority was found to be erroneous by the U.S. Supreme <br />Court in later decisions. <br /> <br />Consideration was also given to the suggestion that the prohibition against <br />selling drug paraphernalia by persons with certain drug convictions on their <br />criminal record imposed a greater sanction than state criminal law. The <br />applicable sections of the Eugene Code, 1971 are 3.302 and 3.304. The penal- <br />ty if a violation occurs is not a criminal penalty, carries no jail sentence, <br />and thus does not fall within the purview of the cited authority. In the <br />areas of civil or administrative ordinances regulating local conditions state <br />law does not displace local ordinances. The decision cited limited only a <br />city's use of criminal laws. The ordinances and rules relating to the sale <br />of drug paraphernalia are not criminal sanctions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.