In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, the court may consider, in addition to all other relevant evidence, the following:
1. Constitutionally admissible statements by the accused concerning the use of the object;
2. The proximity of the object to marijuana or controlled substances, which proximity is actually known to the accused;
3. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;
4. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use;
5. National and local advertising within the actual knowledge of the accused concerning its use;
7. Whether the accused is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
8. Evidence of the ratio of sales of the objects defined in § 18.2-265.1 to the total sales of the business enterprise;
9. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community;
10. Expert testimony concerning its use or the purpose for which it was designed;
11. Relevant evidence of the intent of the accused to deliver it to persons who he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object with an illegal drug. The innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this article shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use or designed for use as drug paraphernalia.