norml23 - Page 4
Page 4
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
A. Several Court Decisions Have Declared MarUuana
Laws Unconstitutional on Misciassification Grounds
Simitar to Those Raised in This Case.
tn State v. Zornes, 78 Wash. 2d 9, 469 Po2d 552 (1970),
the defendant had been convicted for possession of marijuana
under a statute classified marijuana as a narcotic:, The Supreme
Court of Washington compared empiricam evidence on the effects of
marijuana with evidence of the effects of narcotics and concluded
that the effects of the drugs were so different that the
statutory classification was arbitrary and irrational. Nothing
that it "is doubtful whether a _egislative declaration contrary
to all the evidence can be sustained as constitutional, "ido at
20, the court heJd that the convictions could not stand.
In People Vo McCabe, 49 _ll. 2d 338, 275 N.E.2d 407 (1971),
the Supreme Court of illinois held that classification of
marijuana with narcotic drugs under the state Narcotic Drug Act
was arbitrary and deprived the defendant of the constitutional
guarantee of equal protection of the _aws. After comparing the
effects of marijuana with those of narcotics and other dangerous
drugs, the court concluded:
Observations to be drawn on marijuana are
that is not a narcotic and it is not truly
addictib_e, its use does not invoJve
tolerance, physical dependence or the
withdrawal syndrome. Physicam iJl effects
from its use are, so far as is known,
relatively moderate. _ts abuse does not have
the profound and its consequences observed in
the use of some of the other drugs
considered. Its use does not singularly or
extraordinariJy lead to opiate addiction or
to aggressive behavior or criminam
activity... We do not find a rationaJ basis
for the classification ...
275 N.E.2d at 413.
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index