norml21 - Page 89

 irrelevant. If it can do little or no harm regardless of what he
 does with its of what moment is it that the defendant may
 allegedly have been possessed with an intent to distribute it or
 conspired with others to do so?
 Defendant does not dispute that the commercial use or
 distribution of marijuana can validly be regulated by civil
 economic means_ Under the Commerce Clause_ it could be taxed, or
 required to be sold in specific outlets or forms, and under state
 inspection, as is done with alcohol or tobacco° What defendant
 disputes is the improper and unconstitutional use of the police
 power to infringe upon his rights to possess it regardless o£
 intent, absent a showing by the Government of a compelling
 interest justifying the imposition of criminal sanctions to
 compel him to not possess ito
 It has been established through scientific research that
 marijuana is a relatively harmless substance, certainly less
 harmful than alcohol or tobacco, two substances, drugs if you
 will, that are regulated solely by economic means° The alleged
 activities of the defendant caused harm to no one° By his
 alleged possession with intent to distribute marijuanar he was
 not forcing this drug upon persons unwilling to accept it or
 visiting physical or psychological damage upon other persons
 unwillingly° Indeed, his alleged behavior, if it affected
 anyone, affected only himself°
 89