Pubdate: Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Source: Chico News & Review, The (CA)
Copyright: 2014 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Author: Michael J. Dee


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