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
taxation":
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