norml17 - Page 17

 eighth arnendrnent. 6_ This would seem ripe for arguing in the matter of
 medical marijuana, since denial of the drug for therapeutic reasons is not
 "unusual," but is arguably "cruel°"
 The legal wall confronting this attack is in the word "purdshn_nt." The
 term has been held to apply only to a sentence or fine. Even a person who
 received a suspended life sentence had ao standdng to raise the constitutional
 issue of the "cruelty,." of the sentence until the suspended sentence was
 revoked and the fife sentence imposed. 63
 Likewise, the seizare and forfeiture of property under the drug laws is
 considered a civil, not criminal, proceeding, with the state needing to show
 only by civil law standards (preponderance of the evidence) that the real or
 personal property seized was intended to be used in il]_egal drug-related
 acfivit-yA 4 The Washington Supreme Court held that "forfeiture is strictly a
 civil proceeding in rein," and the "proceedings are quasi-criminal ha nature
 only with respect to the need to protect certain Fourth and Fifth Amendment
 rights. TM Thus, civil foffeitexe does not merit consideration as "punishment,"
 cruel or otherwise.
 In 1980, the Supreme Court of Washington held that the statutory
 sentences for possession of marijuana did not rise to the level of cruel and
 unusual ptnfishmento °_ Justice James Dolfiver wrote a 14-page dissent,
 contending that a sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and loss
 of civil fights as a felon, for mere possession of more than 40 grams of
 marijuana, does violate both the eighth amendment and article 1, § 14.67 (He
 did not analyze the greater protection of the state constitution.) Two other
 justices concurred. It seems likely, even probable_ that by enhancing Justice
 Dolfiver's carefully presented logic with the additional irrationality of
 prohibiting therapeutic use to prevent suffering (bolstered with scientific data
 62 S_tate__x. FAdu, 94 Wn.2d 387, 617 P.2d 720 (1980).
 63 State v. Lan_laad_ 42 Wn. App. 287, 711 P. 2d 1039 (1985).
 64 RCW 69.50.505.
 65 _, 116 Wn.2d 342, 35I, 804 P.2d 24 (1991). The colin ao_xi that Ro_aer'_ claims to
 greater protection under the state cor_stitution were Dot properly briefed under the Gunwall factors, but
 would not prevail iri any case because the express purpose of the law in question wa,s to provide
 aniformity with the federal law, and in any event, state and federal due process clauses ate exactly the
 same. 116 Wno2d at 352.
 66 _, 93 Wn.2d 329, 610 P.2d 869 (1980)
 67 r_ 93 Wn.2d at 354-367.
 17