norml21 - Page 86
Page 86
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
rights° By the defendant's alleged actions in possessing with
intent to distribute a quantity of marijuanas he has not
interfered with the right of others to do or refrain from doing
the same. No other person_s rights to life, liberty or the
pursuit of happiness have been affected° No one's rights to free
speech, press, religion, association, due process, equal
protection, or any of the remaining panoply of rights
specifically guaranteed by the Constitution haw_ been affected by
the defendant's alleged activities.
The remaining question is whether by his activity he has
endangered the _'evident good of the co_unity. '_ In analyzing
this question, the first issue to be considered is whether 21
U.SoCo §841(a) (I)_ which prohibits possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, is regulation which effects the behavior of
competent adults. The answer is so obvious that: it hardly needs
to be belabored. No one would seriously contend that a statute
which prohibits possession with intent to distribute marijuana is
directed solely to the behavior of minors. It is rather obvious
that the prohibitions of the statute are directed_ and were
intended to be directed by Congress, toward the behavior of adult
citizens. We do not contend here that Congress could not
properly direct this statute to the behavior of minors only. We
are concerned only with the effect of the statute on the behavior
of competent adults°
86
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index