Nat. Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell
Decision Date | 11 February 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1897-73. |
Citation | 488 F. Supp. 123 |
Parties | The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR The REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), et al., Plaintiffs, v. Griffin B. BELL, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Allan P. MacKinnon, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Before TAMM, Circuit Judge, and ROBINSON and PARKER, JJ.
In this action, the National Organization for The Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML or plaintiff) challenges the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (1976) (CSA or Act), that prohibit the private possession and use of marijuana. Plaintiff asserts that the Act violates the Constitution's guarantees of privacy and equal protection and its prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Finding the Act to be a reasonable congressional attempt to deal with a difficult social problem, we must reject this challenge and leave NORML to seek redress through political channels.
NORML filed this action October 10, 1973,1 seeking a declaratory judgment that the CSA and District of Columbia Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, D.C.Code §§ 33-401 to 425 (1973), are unconstitutional in prohibiting the private possession and use of marijuana and requesting a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of those statutes.2 This court stayed the proceedings for a year while NORML tried to obtain administrative relief through a proceeding to reclassify marijuana.3 After the stay was vacated, the parties battled over preliminary motions for two years. Finally, in June 1978, this court heard five days of evidentiary hearings before Judge Aubrey Robinson. Both sides presented live and documentary evidence concerning the effects of marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact on the effects of marijuana and legal arguments for the court's consideration.
H.R.Rep. No. 1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 1 hereinafter cited as 1970 House Report, reprinted in 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 4566, 4567. It ended the patchwork federal effort against drug abuse and signaled a national commitment to deal with this problem by committing federal funds for rehabilitation programs.4
In addition to the rehabilitation programs, DAPCA also revised completely the federal drug laws dealing with drug control.5 Title II, called the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), establishes five schedules for classifying controlled substances according to specified criteria.6 Two criteria — the potential for abuse and the medical applications of a drug — are the major bases for classification,7 along with certain social and medical information. 21 U.S.C. §§ 811(c), 812(b).8 Congress, on the basis of information gathered from extensive hearings,9 made the initial classifications. Recognizing that scientific information concerning controlled substances would change, Congress empowered the Attorney General to hear petitions for the reclassification or removal of drugs from the schedules. Id. § 811.10
Congress also has revamped the penalties for distribution or possession of controlled substances. Heavy penalties — up to fifteen years and a $25,000 fine — are authorized for violators who manufacture or distribute Schedule I or II narcotic11 drugs. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The manufacture or distribution of a nonnarcotic Schedule I or II substance, or a Schedule III drug, carries a possible five year and $15,000 penalty. Id. § 841(b)(1)(B). The penalties for violations involving Schedules IV and V are correspondingly lower. Penalties double for second offenses.
In setting the penalties, Congress sought to reduce drug abuse by deterring suppliers through stiff penalties for drug distribution. Section 848 of DAPCA contains a special minimum term of ten years and a possible fine of $100,000 for anyone convicted of engaging in a "continuing criminal enterprise" involving five or more people in a series of drug violations. Id. § 848.12 These heavier penalties for distribution, combined with strict registration requirements for manufacturers and researchers of Schedule I and II substances, id. §§ 821-29, are designed to reduce trafficking in dangerous drugs.
Penalties for possession are not so severe. Possession of any controlled substance carries a maximum sentence of one year and a $5,000 fine, with no distinctions being drawn among drugs in different schedules. These penalties again double for a second offense. None of these penalties are mandatory, however, and this flexibility lets a judge impose a sentence that takes account of individual circumstances. In addition, a court may place first offenders on probation for one year; upon successful completion of probation, court proceedings are dismissed without an adjudication of guilt, and the conviction is not placed on the individual's record. Id. § 844(b)(1). A special provision places those dealing in a small amount of marijuana for no compensation under the possession penalties; thus, someone giving small amounts to friends is not subject to the stiff penalties for distribution. Id. § 841(b)(4).
Marijuana (cannabis sativa L.) is a psychoactive drug made of the leaves, flowers, and stems of the Indian Hemp plant. It derives its psychoactive properties from delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which exists in varying concentrations in the plant, depending on its origin, growing conditions, and cultivation. Marijuana and Health: A Report to the Congress from the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 13-14 (1971) hereinafter cited as 1971 HEW Report. The concentration of THC within the sections of the plant also varies widely. The resin contains the greatest concentration of THC; smaller amounts are found, respectively, in the flowers, the leaves, and the stems. The most potent form of the drug, hashish, is prepared from the resins of the flowers and contains 5-12% THC. Marijuana generally found in the United States is weaker, with around 1% THC. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding 50-51 (1972) hereinafter cited as Signal of Misunderstanding.
The drug produces a number of physiological and psychological effects. The short-term physiological effects have been well documented. They are reddening of the whites of the eye, dryness in the mouth, increased pulse rate, and impaired motor responses.13 Marihuana and Health: Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 84 (1975) hereinafter cited as 1975 HEW Report; 1971 HEW Report, supra at 57-58. The short-term psychological effects are equally well known:
Signal of Misunderstanding, supra at 56. The intensity of these reactions depends on dosage, method of use, metabolism, attitude and setting, tolerance, duration of use, and pattern of use. Id. at 50-53.14
Experiences under marijuana intoxication are usually pleasurable, but negative reactions are not infrequent. See id. at 56. These negative reactions include distortion of body image, depersonalization, acute panic anxiety reaction, nausea, and, more rarely, psychosis. Marihuana and Health: Sixth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 22-23 (1976) hereinafter cited as 1976 HEW Report; 1975 HEW Report, supra at 86-87; 1971 HEW Report, supra at 57. These reactions may be caused or exaggerated by pre-existing psychological problems. See 1976 HEW Report, supra at 21-22.
The long-term effects of marijuana are less well known. Studies have dispelled many of the myths about the drug: marijuana is not a narcotic, not addictive,15 and generally not a stepping-stone to other, more serious drugs.16 Furthermore, it causes neither aggressive behavior nor insanity. L. Grinspoon, Marijuana Reconsidered 230-322 (2d ed. 1977).
Despite these findings, questions about long-term use remain. Studies have indicated that marijuana may affect adversely the lungs and the endocrine, the immunity, and the cardiovascular systems. Some of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardison v. State
...these drugs, nor does it mean that marijuana should be treated identically. Nat'l Org. for Reform of Marijuana L. (NORML) v. Bell , 488 F. Supp. 123, 137–38 (D.D.C. 1980) ; see also State v. Mitchell , 563 S.W.2d 18, 25 (Mo. 1978) ("As to alcohol and tobacco, the legislature's decision to p......
-
Kuromiya v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-3439 (E.D. Pa. 3/10/1999), CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-3439.
...which one can discern a fundamental right to possess, use, grow, or sell marijuana, see, e.g., Maas, 551 F. Supp. at 646; NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 132 (D.D.C. 1980); United States v. Bergdoll, 412 F. Supp. 1308, 1313 (D.Del. 1976), it is equally untenable to claim that there is a Ni......
-
Kuromiya v. U.S.
...which one can discern a fundamental right to possess, use, grow, or sell marijuana, see, e.g., Maas, 551 F.Supp. at 646; NORML v. Bell, 488 F.Supp. 123, 132 (D.D.C.1980); United States v. Bergdoll, 412 F.Supp. 1308, 1313 (D.Del.1976), it is equally untenable to claim that there is a Ninth A......
-
United States v. Green
...United States v. Fogarty, 692 F.2d 542, 548 (8th Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted)); Nat'l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Bell, 488 F.Supp. 123, 140 (D.C. 1980) ("Even assuming, arguendo, that marijuana does not fall within a literal reading of Schedule I, the classi......
-
The Continuing Vitality of Ravin v. State: Alaskans Still Have a Constitutional Right to Possess Marijuana in the Privacy of Their Homes
...federal courts have held that there is no privacy interest in marijuana use. E.g., Nat'l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 132 (D.D.C. 1980) (holding that the prohibition of the possession of marijuana does not infringe an individual's constitutionally protect......
-
Overdue Process: Why Denial of Physician-prescribed Marijuana to Terminally Ill Patients Violates the United States Constitution
...applicable. 127. For advancements of these state interests, see generally Seeley, 132 Wash. 2d at 790, 940 P.2d at 618; NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 136, 139 (D.D.C. 1980); Kells, 259 N.W.2d at 128. See George J. Annas, Reefer Madness-The Federal Response to California's Medical-Marijua......