norml22 - Page 20

Page 20 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 In light of the various studies and reports and the current
 state of the scientific and medical knowledge_ it is only prudent
 for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing at which it would be
 demonstrated that there exists no rational basis for the
 classification of marijuana in Schedule I. This is especially so
 in light of the continued legalization of alcohol and tobacco.
 At a hearing, the accused would present evidence refuting the
 limited information available to Congress when the CSA was
 passed, as well as the exaggerated and distorted claims about
 marijuana which have often appeared in the media°
 As explained in Dr_ Musto_s book, __2_Rg__icaD___i___, the
 federal government sought to criminalize marijuana as a direct
 response to the perceived problems associated with Mexican
 immigrants. _
 Likewise, Professor John C. McWilliams of The
 Pennsylvania State University_ in an affidavit in which he places
 federal drug control policy in its historical contexts notes that
 _'no drug currently illegal was outlawed until after it was
 closely associated (even if inaccurately so) with a deviant or
 marginal groupt as defined by the dominant, white culture, w See
 Affidavit of John C. McWilliams at 2, a copy of which is attached
 hereto as Exhibit B. Professor McWilliams credits Harry Jo
 Anslinger_ Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
 ("FBN _') from 1930 through 19626 with the passage of The Marijuana
 Tax Act of !937 due to "his success in making 'marijuana fiends _
 Musto, David F0_ MoD., 2hg___A/BgdlJ___l___D_i_2_ O_i_iD_9__
 __Q__C_qn_tr_Ql0 Oxford Univ. Press (1987) at 219-223.

Previous , Next , Return to Index