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 therof.

Page 2

In order for government to remain free, it must recognize individual rights are limits on government. Rights came first, then the form of government we chose to protect those rights.

We will argue that the prohibition of Cannabis Sativa by the federal government and by the government of the state of Arizona, is unconstitutional, a violation of the fundamental principles, and a violation of free government, which is responsible for the security of individual rights.

In addition, directly relating to Cannabis prohibition in Arizona, are Treaties into which the U.S. Government has entered, including in this case, the United Nations Charter, and the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic use, 1962. Both treaties have meaning in this case through Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding..."

The defendant asks the court to re-establish an inalienable right to farm, taken away by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Sixty (60), years is a long time to fail to question such an important prohibition, one with such devastating consequences, as we will show, on our inalienable and fundamental rights. Alcohol Prohibition by comparison lasted only 13 years, was executed by Constitutional Amendment, and should have been precedent for any other prohibition. Even then drinking was not prohibited, as smoking Cannabis now is.

The Marijuana Tax Act and all subsesquent Cannabis laws, including those of Arizona should be repealed by the court as unconstitutional, as should U.N. Cannabis Laws be removed from all drug schedules.

The defendant has standing to invoke Article II, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, as he is charged with four felony counts that could total more than twenty-seven(27), years in prison for selling five (5), grams of Cannabis Flowers that were his property, grown by the defendant on his land, and sold at market, in the inalienable American tradition of farming, with the complicity of the Arizona Government(Cannabis Dealer's License and Cannabis Luxury tax Law.) The five (5), grams of Cannabis were an accompaniment to an educational packet stamped as required by Title 42 of the Arizona Revised Codes, with Arizona Department of Revenue Cannabis Tax Stamps.

Because it is timely, and related to Cannabis Prohibition, and is subject of Arizona States Rights vs. Federal Rights, and fundamental voting rights, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of the Legislature to overturn Proposition 200 based on faulty drug scheduling of Cannabis, and faulty Federal authority based on Cannabis Prohibition. Voting Rights are considered a fundamental right under the constitution. The defendant asks the court to establish that Initiative rights are voting rights and may not be burdened by the legislature for less than compelling reasons, which Cannabis Prohibition is not. For example, we now know that Cannabis is safer than many foods we consume, non-toxic, and has no deaths associated with its consumption in five thousand(5,000), years of recorded history (DEA Docket#86-22,p.27, Uncontroverted fact No.15.). In addition we ask that Proposition 200 be examined for violations of fundamental freedoms in regard to Cannabis, based on the right to privacy and equal protection, and "no harm no foul."

Page 2 of 18


Technical Comments to the Webmaster [email protected]
Copyright 1997 Richard Davis