norml21 - Page 72

 absence of scientific proof of harm of marijuana. Accordingly_
 the court upheld the "right to privacy" which is "more than
 freedom from governmental surveillance°" it guarantees to the
 individual the full measure of control over his own personality
 consistent with the security of himself and others:
 Moreover, marijuana produces experiences
 affecting the thoughts emotions and
 sensations of the user - these experiences
 being mental in nature are thus among the
 most personal and private experiences
 possible.
 493 P.2d at 315.
 Justice Evinson thus expanded upon the interpretation of
 "privacy" given by previous decisions of the Supreme Court. He
 held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional the law making
 possession of marijuana illegal because it invades personal
 rights and liberty of the individual citizen without meeting the
 burden of establishing a reasonable relation to some purpose
 within the competence of the state.
 Despite their long-standing reluctance to independently test
 the facts behind legislative decisions, courts have realized that
 the function of judicial review compels some scrutiny of the
 legislative conclusion° Rosen articulately demonstrated the
 problems posed by the courts' reluctance:
 Had Harland_s dictum [in Powell v.
 Pennsylvania_ 127 UoS. 678_ 8 S. Cto 992, 32
 Lo Ed_283 (1888)] that courts should not
 "conduct investigations of facts entering
 72