norml22 - Page 13



Page 13 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 We recognize that the constitutionality of a
 statute, valid on its face may be assailed by
 proof of facts tending to show that the
 statute as applied to a particular article is
 without support in reason because the
 article, although within the prohibited
 class_ is so different from others of the
 class as to be without the reasons for the
 prohibition°
 There is ample precedent for the accused to demonstrate
 through expert testimony and empirical evidence that the statute
 as applied to marijuana is without support in reason because the
 articles although within the prohibited class_ is so different
 from others of the class as to be without the reason for the
 prohibition, in _dll/_er v. Or_g_Q_f 208 U_S. 412_ 28 SeCt. 324, 52
 L.Ed. 551 (1908)_ the first "Brandeis brief" cases the Court was
 presented with a challenge to a statute which imposed a
 limitation on the hours women might works but which did not also
 apply to men. Significant!y_ the Court examined a great deal of
 factual material as to the actual effect of "protective _' work
 legislation for women_ Based on the date presented, the Court
 upheld the statute. In Brg__ vL/_Qar_d_f_on_ 347 U.S.
 4S3, 74 S.Ct_ 686_ 98 L.Edo 873 (1954)_ the Court granted relief
 based upon extensive empirical data regarding the psychological
 effects on black children of segregated education° The Court
 stated:
 The effect of this separation on their
 educational opportunities was well stated by
 a finding (in the lower court) in the Kansas
 case o _ o: _Segregation of white and colored
 children in public schools has a detrimental
 effect upon the colored children. The impact
 is greater when it has the sanction of the
 law; for the policy of separating the races
 12




Previous , Next , Return to Index