norml21 - Page 59

 Public Workg__ v. M__ 330 U.S. 75, 67 S. Ct. 550 (1946).
 2. Second, it must be shown that the activity asserted as a
 protected right neither infringes upon another's asserted or
 constitutionally protected right; nor endangers the evident good
 of the community° The fact that it is a personal right which
 only the minority upholds as essential ne:_ther denies nor
 disparages Ninth Amendment protection° In analyzing the "evident
 good of the community _' the following sub-questions must be
 answered:
 a. Does the challenged regulation affect the behavior of
 competent adults?
 bo Does the law limit the ability of the individual to
 shape his conscience or plan his lifestyle?
 c. Does the behavior which the law attempts to modify affect
 persons other than the actor?
 Third, once a prima facie showing is made that the asserted
 right is an V'individual liberty," not an '_economic liberty, _' and
 that the liberty espoused does not interfere with the rights of
 another or do harm to another person_ the presumption of
 constitutionality of the statute falls and the burden then shifts
 to the state to prove that infringement of the asserted Ninth
 Amendment rights by applying criminal sanctions, is justified by
 a compelling state interest° As the Supreme Court has noted in a
 similar context:
 59