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°

Previous , Next , Return to Index