|
|
488 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT |
|
123 |
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
The REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS
(NORML), et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Griffin B. BELL, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 1897-73.
United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Feb. 11, 1980.
Organization
brought action challenging provisions of the Controlled Substances Act prohibiting the
private possession and use of marijuana. The Three-Judge District Court, Tamm,
Circuit Judge, held that: (1) the prohibition of the private possession and use of
marijuana did not violate the constitutional right of privacy in one's home, since smoking
marijuana does not qualify as a fundamental right; (2) the exclusion of alcohol and
tobacco from the Controlled Substances Act does not render the Act unconstitutional; (3)
even assuming that marijuana does not fall within a literal reading of the statutory
criteria for Schedule I substances under the Controlled Substances Act, the classification
of marijuana under Schedule I was rational, since placing marijuana in Schedule I
furthered the regulatory purposes of Congress, and since the statutory criteria are guides
in determining the schedule to which a drug belongs, but they are not dispositive; and (4)
statutory penalties of one-year imprisonment and $5,000 fine for possession of marijuana
did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Order accordingly.
1. Constitutional Law 82(7)
The right of privacy exists only in conjunction with
specific constitutional guarantees that serve as substantive bases for the privacy rights.
2. Constitutional Law 82(1)
In ascertaining whether a right is fundamental, court
must determine whether the right is explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the
Constitution.
3. Constitutional Law 82(7)
The prohibition of the private possession and use of
marijuana did not violate the constitutional right of privacy in one's home, since smoking
marijuana does not qualify as a fundamental right.
4. Constitutional Law 253.2(2)
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment requires
that federal legislation satisfy the same standards of equal protection of law that are
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
5. Constitutional Law 213.1(2)
Legislation that does not affect a
"fundamental" right or a "suspect" class need only bear a rational
relationship to legitimate state interest, and such standard of judicial review gives
legislature wide discretion and permits them to attack problems in any rational manner.
U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
6. Constitutional Law 213.1(2)
Classification which does not affect fundamental right
or a suspect class will be upheld unless the varying treatment of different groups or
persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that
court can only conclude that legislature's actions were irrational. U.S.C.A. Const.
Amends. 5, 14.
7. Constitutional Law 250.1(2)
Drugs and Narcotics 43
The inclusion of marijuana as a controlled
substance under the Controlled Substances Act is rational and does not violate equal
protection, in view of the continuing debate as to whether marijuana has substantial
detrimental effect. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,
§§ 101-1016 as amended 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-966; U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
8. Constitutional Law 211(2)
To be successful in an equal protection challenge based
on underinclusiveness, plaintiff must show that governmental choice is clearly wrong, a
display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5,
14.
9. Constitutional Law 211(2)
Failure to address a certain problem in an otherwise
comprehensive legislative scheme is not fatal to the legislative plan.
U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14.
10. Drugs and Narcotics 43
The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Controlled
Substances Act does not render the Act unconstitutional. Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, §§ 101-1016 as amended 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-966;
U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
11. Constitutional Law 250.3(1)
The "rational basis" test governs a challenge
to the relative severity of penalties under the Controlled Substances Act.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, §§ 101-1016 as amended 21
U.S.C.A. §§ 801-966; U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
12. Drugs and Narcotics 133
When deciding on penalties, Congress need not consider
only the potential harm from a drug; it may also consider the magnitude of social
problems, the deterrent effect of a particular penalty, and any special regulatory
problems involved with a penalty scheme.
13. Drugs and Narcotics 133
In determining penalties, the legal classification of a
drug does not have to match its medical classification, since Congress may consider other
issues not involving a drug's medical properties; in addition, the penalties do not need
to be graduated according to the potential harm of the drug.
14. Constitutional Law 250.3(1)
In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress did
not act irrationally when it established the same penalties for possession of marijuana as
for possessory offenses involving other controlled substances. Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, §§101-1016 as amended 21 U.S.C.A. §§
801-966; U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
15. Drugs and Narcotics 43
Even assuming that marijuana does not fall within a
literal reading of the statutory criteria for Schedule I substances under the Controlled
Substances Act, the classification of marijuana under Schedule I was rational, since
placing marijuana in Schedule I furthered the regulatory purposes of Congress, and since
the statutory criteria are guides in determining the schedule to which a drug belongs, but
they are not dispositive. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970, §§ 101-709, 202(b)(1) as amended 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-904, 812(b)(1); U.S.C.A.
Const. Amends. 5, 14.
16. Constitutional Law 47
In ruling on a challenge to the severity of a criminal
statute, court must compare the severity of the offense being punished and its sentence
with punishment imposed for other crimes in the jurisdiction and for the same crime in
other jurisdictions; in evaluating those factors, court must consider evolving standards
of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
17. Criminal Law 1213
Statutory penalties of one-year imprisonment and a
$5,000 fine for possession of marijuana did not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on
cruel and unusual punishment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8.
|