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