norml23 - Page 63

Page 63 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 the other substances of abuse, and the present
 mar[juana[aws have embittered, confused :and
 disillusioned a large segment of this Nation's young
 people, including those who do not use any drugs at all.
 The marijuana controversy is baffling to the genera[
 public and to the parents as well as the young people.
 The span of arguments on this drug ranges from
 the death penaJty to compXete _egalization of the
 drug° The gross ignorance and misundersta_ding
 regarding this probEem aggravates it and makes it
 worse than it already is.
 [t was determined that an authoritative report
 from a group of experts on this matter is needed to
 provide better understanding with respect to the
 substantial dangers associated with this drug°
 See also: 116 Cong. Rec. 994 CoL 1 (1970) (remarks of Sen. Mansfield);
 ld., at 978 Co[. 1, 993 CoL 2 (remarks of Sen. Dodd); [d., at 33306
 Co[. 3 (remarks of Rep. Nelson); _do, at 33654 Co[s. 1-3 (remarks of
 Repo Hanna); [do, at 33658 CoJs, 1-2(remarks of Rep. Cohelan); [do, at
 33659 Col. 3 (remarks of Rep. Koch).
 The second reason why it wou{d be inappropriate to presume that
 marijuana should remain in Schedule _ is that counsel for the
 government has recently acknowledged that there is no "rational basis
 for classifying marijuana in Schedule [. This acknowledgement was made
 during final argument, on February 16, 1979, before a three-judge
 district court in the D.C. Circuit, NORML v. 8ell, Civil Action No.
 73-1897. This case involves a constitutional challenge to the marijuana
 prohibition in the CSA as it applies to the private possession and use
 for marijuana by adults. NORML sought a decJaratory judgment that the
 marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to such private
 possession and use, and an injunction against enforcement of the
 statute° The Court found for the defendant. NORML v. Bell 488 F. Supp.
 123 (Dist. D.C. 1980).
 The Federal Defendants in that suit were represented at final
 argument of Nro A[Jan P. NacKinnon, the Justice Department attorney who
 has acted as the Defendants' lead counsel° Mr. Mac:Kinnon was also the
 lead counsel for DEA and HEW in the most recent NORML v. DEA appeaJ,
 and was one of the attorneys representing the government in the two
 eadier NORML reschedu[ing appeals, NORML v. Ingersoll, supra, and

Previous , Next , Return to Index