Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-265.1 (2026)

Definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this article, "drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are either designed for use or which are intended by the person charged with violating § 18.2-265.3 for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, strength testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body marijuana or a controlled substance. "Drug paraphernalia" includes:

1. Kits intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, or harvesting marijuana or any species of plant which is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance can be derived;

2. Kits intended for use or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing marijuana or controlled substances;

3. Isomerization devices intended for use or designed for use in increasing the potency of marijuana or any species of plant which is a controlled substance;

4. Testing equipment intended for use or designed for use in identifying or in analyzing the strength or effectiveness of marijuana or controlled substances, other than drug checking products used to determine the presence or concentration of a contaminant that can cause physical harm or death;

5. Scales and balances intended for use or designed for use in weighing or measuring marijuana or controlled substances;

6. Diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, or mannite, intended for use or designed for use in cutting controlled substances;

7. Separation gins and sifters intended for use or designed for use in removing twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning or refining, marijuana;

8. Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, and mixing devices intended for use or designed for use in compounding controlled substances;

9. Capsules, balloons, envelopes, and other containers intended for use or designed for use in packaging small quantities of marijuana or controlled substances;

10. Containers and other objects intended for use or designed for use in storing or concealing marijuana or controlled substances;

11. Hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects intended for use or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body;

12. Objects intended for use or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, such as:

a. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;

b. Water pipes;

c. Carburetion tubes and devices;

d. Smoking and carburetion masks;

e. Roach clips, meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marijuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;

f. Miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials;

g. Chamber pipes;

h. Carburetor pipes;

i. Electric pipes;

j. Air-driven pipes;

k. Chillums;

l. Bongs;

m. Ice pipes or chillers.

1981, c. 598; 1983, c. 535; 2019, c. 215; 2025, cc. 266, 281.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1983–2015 · leading case: Morrison v. Commonwealth, 557 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Morrison v. Commonwealth, 557 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 22× “Appellant moved to strike the evidence, arguing the items seized from the Fatty Shack did not fall within the definition of drug paraphernalia in Code §§ 18.2-265.1 and 18.2-265.2. Appellant also claimed the Commonwealth had failed to prove he knew the purchasers of these items…”

Battle v. Commonwealth, 406 S.E.2d 195 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Compare Code §§ 18.2-265.1(5) and 18.2-265.3. We agree with Battle’s contention that scales are not controlled paraphernalia under Code § 54.”

William Stoianoff D/B/A the Jt. Effort, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. State of Montana, Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants, 695 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1983). “35, §§ 780-102(b), -113 (a)(32-34), —113(i), -128(a)(1) (Purdon Supp. 1982)); Texas (Tex.Stat.”

State v. Newman, 696 P.2d 856 (Idaho 1985). “tit. 63, §§ 2-101(32), -101.-1, -405, -503 (West Supp.”

Robert Chianelli, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 770 S.E.2d 778 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, certain items listed in Code § 18.2-265.1(12) are per se drug paraphernalia because they have no other use than to consume illegal substances.”

Commonwealth of VA v. Dante Rodriquez Gay, s/k/a (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “It was drug paraphernalia, Code § 18.2-265.1, 2 and subject to seizure and confiscation.”

Commonwealth v. Stevens, 14 Va. Cir. 103 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. 1988). · cites it 2× “Section 18.2-265.1, the definition of drug paraphernalia, does not include the substances themselves, and in addition, the two offenses do not pass the double jeopardy test of Blockburger v.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-265.1(12) — 2 cases

Morrison v. Commonwealth, 557 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “Appellant moved to strike the evidence, arguing the items seized from the Fatty Shack did not fall within the definition of drug paraphernalia in Code §§ 18.2-265.1 and 18.2-265.2. Appellant also claimed the Commonwealth had failed to prove he knew the purchasers of these items…”

Robert Chianelli, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 770 S.E.2d 778 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “Furthermore, certain items listed in Code § 18.2-265.1(12) are per se drug paraphernalia because they have no other use than to consume illegal substances.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-265.1(5) — 1 case

Battle v. Commonwealth, 406 S.E.2d 195 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “Compare Code §§ 18.2-265.1(5) and 18.2-265.3. We agree with Battle’s contention that scales are not controlled paraphernalia under Code § 54.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.