But it’ll never really be an issue: there’s no denying that things made out of plastic goop aren’t really useful for much. I think the 3D printer ‘revolution’ is greatly exaggerated. The real revolution will come from small B2B links with China: email them a design for an aluminum part and, three weeks later, get back a box full of them. It’ll never quite be doable at the hobbyist scale, but there might be enough competition to make it a cost-plus-small-profit sort of business.

Knowing how to kill a man does not make you a homicidal maniac. The only two crime I know of which does not incorporate implicit action, but only knowledge are treason – and even that requires transmission of knowledge vitally important to the country – and instigation of a crime, which requires criminal intention.

So knowledge itself cannot be illegal, only its transmission if it contains secrets of vital importance to a country or is meant to instigate a crime. I fail to see vital importance for any country in plans for a bong nor the intention of instigation to use it for a crime, so it could hardly be illegal, at least in a sane country (I am not 100% sure which countries are sane ATM, so bear with me until we find out).

Greetings, LX

My issue with this thing is a bong can be made with almost anything and frankly most “Old-school/naturalist” approaches are the best. First, glass is the best medium, simply because it’s chemically inert for most operations. Second, while buying a fancy pipe is luxury, just a ‘glass/masonry’ drill bit and any bottle can be converted into one. Third, even an apple can be made into a bong/pipe.

I wouldn’t necessarily want to make a bong with a ‘maker’ right now, inhaling all that plastic stuff. Of course they could be used as “Molds” to make other things, such as a modular one that you then melt glass and pour stuff into to make something that’d be too complex for old school glass making as long as you don’t mind welded seams.

Also, as pointed out above, the best ‘dodge’ is “These are pipes ONLY for ‘Fine Tobacco’ or other ‘Legal Herbs’”…

So would it make any difference to such silly statutes if they plans were labeled “Water Pipe”?

Most jurisdictions don’t require a “gun license.” Read your Second Amendment.

I have the “recipie” to make heroin. But simply having the knowledge of how to do it, doesn’t make it illegal, if I do so, in thus breaking the law, then I’m in trouble.

However, some information, such as information about people in the witness protection programs, or advanced designs for say a nuclear bomb that would enable an ordinary person to create and detonate them, I could understand why mearly the information, would be illegal. In this case there is nothing more than “information” on making a bong. There are designs that show how to make a bong out of household objects, I don’t see why this would be any difference.

Although it’s a thought provoking question, it’s only being raised because it’s technology, and relatively new, and there are not previous legal precedents.

For other things: Depends on the 3D printer and what you want. Toy printers typically use low-temp, low-strength materials because they’re cheaper to work with. But for many applications that’s all you need, and there are 3D printers which use more durable materials. In particular, I’m pretty sure there are ones which print a ceramic or related substance which would work for this purpose (maybe after being fired), and in any case even weak plastic would work fine as long as the firebowl is made from something else.

In any case, a water pipe is a pretty trivial device. I’m sure I could throw one together out of off-the-shelf lab glassware in a few minutes, if I had any interest in doing so. Hardly worth “designing”, except for aesthetics.

Drug paraphernalia laws are the equivalent of burglarous implement laws. They let the police confiscate things in the proximity of a crime without having to prove beforehand that these items are evidence of that particular crime. Sloppy solution at best.

there now we’re all criminals

Love all the “Americans are such twits” comments up thread. Thanks for lumping us all together, I know how much you love it when do it to you wacky foreigners. Quite a few places in the US bongs and pot are entirely legal. In other places not so much. And I’m sure some misguided idiot somewhere is writing legislation to ban plans for bongs.

“The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing”

Criminal law issues were beyond the scope of this paper, although they will certainly arise – as will liability. What happens if I make available a 3D mesh for a car spare and it turns out, either through design flaw or inadequate materials, to fail catastrophically. Who is to blame – me for making available a bad design, or you for using it without making sure it is suitable for the task?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYoNYuUVk0

Seriously, though, it ain’t the knowledge, it is its existence in a externally concretized form (and thus accessible to others) the possession of which may be punished, which the Authorities are aiming at. Like outlawing bibles, or korans, or torahs, or pagan verses….
or in fact the laws outlawing the possession of all or any form of written pornography, for eg., would all be examples of the outlawing of the mere possession of concretized external “knowledge”, that is, information.
I’m sure some would punish others for their mere thoughts, if they could figure out some way to do so.
People have tried quite often to “outlaw” types of thought, or thinking, with which they do not agree, and with which they do not wish to argue. That not having worked very well, they then go after the books and plans, or whatever or whomever else they can literally get their hands on. That can work tolerably well to suppress inconvenient thinking by others, and for quite some time too.
IIRC there was a time when the mere knowledge and awareness of religions other than the local variant of Christianity was, in itself and with nothing more, a good reason to investigate or prosecute on charges of suspicion of witchcraft, not hesitating to use the full spectra of physical torture to elicit “co-operation” in their “investigations”.
The “good old days”.
Have we changed all that much?
I sincerely hope so!

Paraphenalia laws target items whose primary use is for taking drugs. You can’t smoke a bud through a digital file of a bong. Not until I finish the holodeck anyway.

An image of a bong (which 3D plans are a type of) could never be illegal under mere prohibition of paraphernalia because it would quite obviously violate the right to free speech.

Obviously in the future there could be a specific law made to target plans for bongs in the same way plans for bomb making are illegal.

21 USC Sec. 863
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa/863.htm

“d) ”Drug paraphernalia” defined:

The term ”drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in … ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter.”

i.e. it has to be a material object.

Later it says that instructions on the use of an object can be used to determine whether its primary purpose is drug taking. So if you fabricate a bong and they find a Thingiverse web page in your browsing history which says “how to fab a bong for smoking weed” then you might be fucked.

What about a design for a working gun on Thingiverse? What if a person with a gun license makes one?

Frankly, if I had written either of those sentences when I was in school, any teacher would have told me they were ambiguous. This is probably not an accident; most of the constitution was left ambiguous for future generations to work out the details. But which is the one that is part of the constitution? The one with the extra commas, or without?

Gun rights, and questions about their extent, are important, but it is usually a mistake to think the answer lies in the second amendment itself.

The gunsmithing / gun making crowd is a good case to look at, because in that scenario, the difference between law abiding and federal prison is a very simple, stamped piece of sheet metal the size of a quarter[1] that even a simple home machine shop can produce. No 3-D plans necessary – probably only a paper cut-out required.

And these plans, for full auto rifles, or sound suppressors, etc., are available. Again, in most cases, you could probably build it from a spoken instruction, especially in the case of a sound suppressor.

Mix in the seriousness of the BATFE and the general headline grabbing LEAs about sexy firearm busts and I think you can conclude: If plans for illegal objects were going to be unlawful, they would have been a long time in the case of firearms.

[1] drop in auto-sear for an AR-15, for instance