Counsel whose client has a California conviction of possession of paraphernalia, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11364, may distinguish Luu-Le v. INS , 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir 2000), which held an Arizona possession of drug paraphernalia conviction constituted a controlled substances conviction, by point out that the Arizona offense in that case was structured to eliminate innocent uses of paraphernalia: Arizona has 14 tests to assure that convictions for violation of this statute are in fact drug-related. By contrast, the California statute that prohibits possession of paraphernalia has no such tests. Health and Safety Code 11364. California law-makers have considered the use of evidentiary tests for use of paraphernalia, and have put them only in the law prohibiting stores from selling paraphernalia. (Compare the 10-point test under the sale of paraphernalia statute for determining the purpose of the sale, Health and Safety Code 11364.5, with the absence of such tests in the possession section.) It is inappropriate for the California paraphernalia law, lacking Arizona's evidentiary protections, to be used in denying application of the Federal First Offender Act. That conclusion is supported by the case of Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, No. 97-70672 (9th Cir. 2000), in which the Ninth Circuit found that possession of paraphernalia is a less serious offense than possession of drugs, and therefore an expungement under a state rehabilitative statute eliminates the conviction for all immigration purposes by analogy to the FFOA. The same argument may be made with respect to California convictions of possession of a hypodermic needle, in violation of Business & Prof. Code 4149.