norml23 - Page 12

Page 12 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 Id. at p. 38, n. 68. See also Turner v. United States, 396 U.S.
 398, 90 S.Ct. 64.2, 24. L.Ed.2d 6t0 (1970); Block Vo Hirsch, supra.
 When such evidence is presented, the court must seriously
 consider it in determining the vaJidity of the challenged
 legislation, and when such evidence is overwhelming, the court
 may not rely on a presumption of "reasonableness" to sustain the
 Jegislation. This is true for two reasons. First, the
 presumption of legislative validity mast be rebuttable; yet if
 overwhelming ev{dence as to the irrationality of the legislation
 is not sufficient to overcome that presumption, then the
 presumption is effectiveJy irrebuttable. More important, the
 scope of scientific and empirical knowledge is constantly
 increasing, and society's definition of "arbitrary" and
 "irrationaP' changes over time° As the United States Supreme
 Court declared in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Education,
 333 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 1039, 92 LEd° 1010 91966), striking
 down the poll tax even though it was "an oJd familiar form of
 IT]he Equal Protection CJause is not shackled
 to the political theory of a particuJar era.
 In determining what lines are
 constitutionally discriminatory, we have
 never been confined to historic notions of
 equaJity, any more than we have restricted
 due process to a fixed cataJogue of what was
 at a given time deemed to be the _imits of
 fundamentam rights, o. Notions of what
 constitutes equaF treatment for purpose of
 the Equal Protection Clause do change.
 Courts have taken particular pains to assess the true state
 of facts in cases invoMng marijuana and other drugs, since the
 body of medical, scientific, psychological and sociological
 knowledge has grown rapidly in the past few years_ See e.g.,
 Leafy vo United States, supra; Turner v. United States, supra;
 State v. Zornes, supra; People v. NcCabe, supra; People v.
 Sinclair, supra; State v. Carus, supra; Sam v. State, supra;
 Nationam Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Drug
 Enforcement Administration, 559 F.2d 735, 74.8 (D.C. Cir. 1977)o

Previous , Next , Return to Index