Pubdate: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 Source: Chico News & Review, The (CA) Copyright: 2014 Chico Community Publishing, Inc. Contact: http://www.newsreview.com/chico/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/559 Author: Michael J. Dee Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v14/n599/a04.html DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION Re "Hemp in our future" (Greenways, by David Downs, July 17): It would be a lot quicker for a potential hemp farmer to get into federal court in a declaratory judgment lawsuit and have the court declare the federal classification of marijuana as a controlled substance is arbitrary, unreasonable and unnecessary use of police power and is unconstitutional. To declare the use of police power to threaten to deprive hemp farmers' fundamental rights is not justified by a compelling state interest. Declaring the use of police power is not protecting the rights of others. Declaring the proscription of hemp is property discrimination and the use of police power is unreasonable deprivation of plaintiff's fundamental rights to liberty, to property, to privacy, to be secure against unreasonable government intrusion contravening Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States. Why hasn't this been done? Ask the ACLU or NORML. Why have the courts reviewed the constitutionality of the marijuana laws by a rational basis? Rational basis is used when no rights have been deprived. The courts are saying being arrested for violating the marijuana laws is not deprivation of liberty. Marijuana and hemp are property and unlike slavery and alcohol, they are denied equal protection of Amendments IV and V. To change the hemp and marijuana laws by a political process makes hemp farmers nonpersons too. Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco doesn't understand the meaning of Amendment IV when he says the hemp laws are irrational. Michael J. Dee Augusta, Maine - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom