Richard Davis' "Constitutional Challenge," against the State of Arizona and the Federal Government for the Right to possess as property, plant, grow, harvest, sell and consume (as food, medicine, sacrament and recreationally), Cannabis Sativa and its seed and all Extracts thereof.

Page 17

The courts have deferred to the rationality of the legislature in proscribing the possession of marijuana even though no legislative histories have been published which could offer the courts the basis for the legislature's promulgation of such laws. All that the courts have upon which to base their deference is the stated purpose of the statute. To Justice Holmes, the proposition that a mere statement of a proposition is sufficient to establish that proposition as a factual justification for a statute is erroneous:

    "Obviously the facts should be accurately ascertained and carefully weighed, and this can be done more conveniently in the Supreme Court of the District than here. The evidence should be preserved so that is necessary it can be considered by this court."

For purposes of  this argument the state may have a compelling interest to regulate man made drugs, but Cannabis Sativa may not be rationally included within this category. Scientific evidence of any "compelling,"  harm from this natural plant must be challenged by the defendant. This may have been the belief of the legislators at the time the law was passed. A Court has an on-going duty to examine legislation in light of modern developments. See, for example, Abie State bank vs.Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 at 772., stating:

    "...Even though a police power enactment have been or may have seemed to be valid when made, later events or later- discovered facts may show it to be arbitrary and confiscatory."

Thus, in performing this duty, this Court must look into the factual situation which exists in light of today's knowledge. (See Suffolk L. Rev. 55 (1968) at 59, 60.) The defendant urges the Court to consider the potential benefits wasted by misclassification and prohibition of the plant Cannabis Sativa. The totality of the arguments herein show present classification of Cannabis so erroneous that such classification is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth (14th), Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona.

Page 17 of 18
Technical Comments to the Webmaster [email protected]
Copyright 1997 Richard Davis