norml22 - Page 9

 C.A.2d 730 (1975) s held that a provision of the Health and Safety
 Code precluding parole consideration for five years for a person
 convicted of possession of marijuana, who had previously been
 convicted twice of narcotics violations, violated the ban against
 cruel and unusual punishments.
 Finally, the Supreme Court of Alaska held, in Rav/dl___
 Sta___ 537 P.2d 494 (1975), that the right of privacy protects
 the personal use of marijuana in the home_ After reviewing the
 testimony of expert witnesses present at the hearing at the trial
 court and numerous studies and scientific reports on the effects
 of marijuana, the court concluded:
 It appears that the use of marijuana as it is
 presently used in the United States today,
 does not constitute a public health problem
 of any significant dimensions° It is, for
 instance, far more innocuous in terms of
 physiological and social damage than alcohol
 or tobacco_
 It appears that effects of marijuana on the
 individual are not serious enough to justify
 widespread concern at least as compared with
 the far more dangerous effects of alcohol;
 barbiturates and amphetamines_ Moreover, the
 current patterns of use in the United States
 are not such as would warrant concern that in
 the future consumption patterns are likely to
 change _ . .
 Thus we conclude that no adequate
 justification for the state's intrusion into
 the citizen's right to privacy by its
 prohibition of possession of marijuana by an
 adult for personal consumption in the home
 has been shown. The privacy of the
 individual's home cannot be breached absent a
 persuasive showing of a close and substantial
 relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate
 governmental interest. Here_ scientific
 doubts will not suffice. The state must
 demonstrate a need based on proof that the
 8