norml17 - Page 19

 classification must be "purely arbitrary" to overcome the presumption of
 constitudonafity.
 It would appear that a success_l attack on the proNbition of medical
 marijuana use might be launched under these criteria. Even under the
 minimal scrutiny test, what is the legitimate state interest in classifying
 persons who need marijuana as separate from those who need morphine? Or
 those who need THC who can absorb it through their digestive system, and
 those who cannot? The DEA's own Administrative Law Judge has stated
 unequivocally that these protfiNtions are "arbitrary and capficious. ''72
 A plaintiff might reach heightened or strict scrutiny because, in other
 contexts, courts have found a fundamental fight of a physician to freely
 practice medicine, 7_ and that the state has a "substanfi_fl interest in ensuring its
 citizens unimpeded access to necessary medical care. TM
 But there may be even more hkelihood of prevailing under a separate
 analysis, bringing additional protection under the state constitution. In a
 recent concurring opinion regarding a statute denting with the fights of
 juveniles in criminal proceedings, 75 Justice Robert Utter provided a complete
 analysis of the state's privileges and immuNfies clause as contrasted
 with the federal equal protections guarantees of the I4th amendment, and
 concluded that all six Gunwat! factors were met, requMng an independent
 analysis to determine whether the challenged law violated Washingtoffs
 article I, § 7. (Since his analysis does cover all six factors, I wN not cover
 that same ground regardk_g the privileges and immunities clause in this
 paper.)
 We return to the sigrfificance of Oregon having undertaken independent
 state analysis, mentioned above. Because our constitution is based on
 Oregon's and is nearly identical Justice Utter states that we may look to
 Oregon law for guidance.
 The Oregon Supreme Court set forth a four-part test: (1) Was the
 challenged state action properly performed under lawful authority? (2) Does
 7z Opinion of 3udge Young, supra, note 8o
 73 ,iI.edi.,_g.x,.SJamg., _ note 6I, at 227.
 74 Id, at 225.
 75 State_y__.S.gl.ilil, _ note 71, at 281-291.
 I9