com. v. leis

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

1/28

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,Suffolk.

COMMONWEALTHv.

Joseph D. LEIS. (and five companioncasesFN1).

FN1. Two of the companion casesare against Leis and the other threecases are against one Ivan Weiss.

Argued Dec. 2, 1968.

Decided Jan. 9, 1969.

Defendants were convicted in theDistrict Court for unlawfully having intheir possession marijuana and forconspiracy to violate the Narcotic DrugsAct. They appealed to the Superior Court.The Superior Court, Tauro, C.J., reportedthe cases. The Supreme Judicial Court,Spiegel, J., held that Narcotic Drugs Actwhich prohibits possession of marijuanawas not unconstitutional on ground that it

was irrational and unreasonable and that itserved no legitimate state interest.

Question answered in the affirmative.

West Headnotes

[1]Statutes 361 1009

361Statutes361IIn General

361k1009k. Powers and duties of

legislature in general.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 361k4)Legislature is not compelled to

thoroughly investigate available scientificand medical evidence when enacting a law.


361Statutes361VIIIValidity

361k1513k. Scope of inquiry.MostCited Cases

(Formerly 361k60, 92k47)Test of whether an act of legislature is

rational and reasonable is not whether therecords of the legislature contain sufficientbasis of fact to sustain that act.


361Statutes361VIIIValidity

361k1522 Presumptions andConstruction as to Validity

361k1523 k. In general. MostCited Cases

(Formerly 361k61, 92k48(1), 92k48)Legislature is presumed to have acted

rationally and reasonably in enacting a law.

[4]Constitutional Law 92 1055

92Constitutional Law92VIIConstitutional Rights in General

92VII(A)In General92k1055 k. Reasonableness or

rationality. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k48(1), 92k48)Unless act of the legislature cannot be

supported upon any rational basis of factthat reasonably can be conceived to sustainit, reviewing court has no power to strike itdown as violative of the Constitution.

[5]Controlled Substances 96H 6

96HControlled Substances96HIIn General

96Hk4 Statutes and OtherRegulations

96Hk6k. Validity. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 304k2 Poisons, 138k43.1,

243 N.E.2d 898 Page 1355 Mass. 189, 243 N.E.2d 898(Cite as: 355 Mass. 189, 243 N.E.2d 898)

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1009http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1009http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1009http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1522http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1522http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1523http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1523http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1523http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1055http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1055http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1055http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1055http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1523http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1523http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1523http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1522http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1513http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k1009http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k1009http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

2/28

138k43 Drugs and Narcotics)Narcotic Drugs Law which prohibits

possession of marijuana was notunconstitutional on ground that it wasirrational and unreasonable and that itserved no legitimate state interest.M.G.L.A. c. 94 205, 213A, 217B.


92Constitutional Law92XIRight to Privacy

92XI(B) Particular Issues andApplications

92k1273 k. Controlledsubstances. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k82(7), 92k82)The right to smoke marijuana is not

fundamental to the American scheme ofjustice necessary to an Anglo-Americanregime of ordered liberty and is not withinzone of privacy formed by penumbras ofthe First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and NinthAmendments to federal Constitution.M.G.L.A. c. 94, 205, 213A, 217B;U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1,35,9.

[7]Controlled Substances 96H 296HControlled Substances

96HIIn General96Hk1 Nature and Power to

Regulate96Hk2k. In general. Most Cited

Cases(Formerly 304k2 Poisons, 138k41

Drugs and Narcotics)There is no right, fundamental or

otherwise, to become intoxicated by means

of smoking of marijuana. M.G.L.A. c. 94 205, 213A, 217B.

[8]Health 198H 356

198HHealth198HIIPublic Health

198Hk355Constitutional, Statutory,and Regulatory Provisions

198Hk356 k. In general. MostCited Cases

(Formerly 199k20 Health andEnvironment)

Legislature is not bound to accept theleast restrictive alternative that wouldfulfill its purpose of protecting the health,safety and welfare of the community.

[9]Commerce 83 3

83Commerce83IPower to Regulate in General

83k2Constitutional Grant of Powerto Congress

83k3k. In general. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 92k1066, 92k81)

States 360 21(2)

360States360IIGovernment and Officers

360k21Government Powers360k21(2)k. Police power.Most

Cited Cases(Formerly 92k1066, 92k81)The least restrictive alternative

doctrine is limited to regulations affectinginterstate commerce, constitutionallysheltered activity and economicregulations.



96Hk1 Nature and Power toRegulate

96Hk2k. In general. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 304k2 Poisons, 138k41Drugs and Narcotics)

Doctrine of least restrictive


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XI%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XI%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1273http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1273http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIII&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIX&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198HIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk355http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk355http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk356http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=198Hk356http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=198Hk356http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83k2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83k3http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=83k3http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=83k3http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=83k3http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=83k3http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83k3http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83k2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=83http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=198Hk356http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=198Hk356http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk356http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk355http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198HIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIX&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIII&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDI&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1273http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1273http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XI%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

3/28

alternative did not prohibit legislaturefrom enacting Narcotic Drugs Law.M.G.L.A. c. 94 205, 213A, 217B.





(Formerly 304k2 Poisons, 138k43.1,138k43 Drugs and Narcotics)

Narcotic Drugs Law was notunconstitutional on ground that inclusionof marijuana in class of drugs defined to benarcotic drugs was arbitrary.M.G.L.A. c.94 197.


92Constitutional Law92XXVIEqual Protection

92XXVI(A)In General92XXVI(A)6Levels of Scrutiny

92k3052 Rational BasisStandard; Reasonableness

92k3058k. Police power;public safety and welfare. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 92k212, 92k211)The equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment does not take fromthe state the power to classify in theadoption of police laws, but admits of theexercise of a wide scope of discretion inthat regard, and avoids what is done onlywhen it is without any reasonable basis,

and therefore is purely arbitrary.U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.



92XXVI(A)In General92XXVI(A)5Scope of Doctrine

in General92k3031Limits of Doctrine

92k3035k. Perfect, exact,or complete equality or uniformity. MostCited Cases

(Formerly 92k211(2), 92k211)

Constitutional Law 92 3053


92XXVI(A)In General92XXVI(A)6Levels of Scrutiny

92k3052 Rational BasisStandard; Reasonableness

92k3053 k. In general.Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k211(2), 92k211)A classification having some

reasonable basis does not offend againstthe equal protection clause merely becauseit is not made with mathematical nicety, orbecause in practice it results in someinequality. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

[14]Constitutional Law 92 102192Constitutional Law

92VI Enforcement of ConstitutionalProvisions

92VI(C) Determination ofConstitutional Questions

92VI(C)3 Presumptions andConstruction as to Constitutionality

92k1006Particular Issues andApplications

92k1021 k. Equal

protection. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k48(6), 92k48)When classification in statute is called

in question, if any state of facts reasonablycan be conceived that would sustain it, theexistence of that state of facts at the timethe law was enacted must be assumed.


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%296http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3052http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3058http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3058http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3058http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%295http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3031http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3035http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3035http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3035http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%296http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3052http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3053http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3053http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%293http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1006http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1021http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1021http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1021http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1021http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1006http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%293http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3053http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3053http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3052http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%296http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3035http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3035http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3035http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3031http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%295http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3058http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3058http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3058http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3052http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%296http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96H

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

4/28

U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.


92Constitutional Law92VI Enforcement of Constitutional

Provisions92VI(C) Determination of

Constitutional Questions92VI(C)4Burden of Proof


92k1040 k. Equalprotection. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k48(6), 92k48)One who assails classification in statute

as being violative of equal protectionclause must carry burden of showing that itdoes not rest upon any reasonable basis,but is essentially arbitrary. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.



92XXVI(A)In General92XXVI(A)5Scope of Doctrine

in General92k3038Discrimination and

Classification92k3043k. Statutes and

other written regulations and rules. MostCited Cases

(Formerly 92k3039, 92k211(1),92k211)

A statute which proscribes generallycertain conduct is not discriminatorysimply because a certain group of persons

tend to engage more often in that conductthan others.U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.



92XXVI(F)Criminal Law92k3781 k. Creation and

classification of offenses. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 92k250.1(2), 304k2 Poisons,92k250)

Controlled Substances 96H 6




(Formerly 138k43.1, 138k43 Drugs andNarcotics)

Narcotic Drugs Law did not violateequal protection clause because itproscribed mild intoxication by marijuanaand did not proscribe mild intoxication byalcohol. M.G.L.A. c. 94 197;U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

[18]States 360 21(2)

360States360IIGovernment and Officers

360k21Government Powers360k21(2)k. Police power.Most

Cited Cases(Formerly 92k1066, 92k81)The legislature is free to recognize

degrees of harm and may confine itsrestrictions to instances where itdetermines the need for them is clearest.


92Constitutional Law92VI Enforcement of Constitutional

Provisions92VI(A) Persons Entitled to Raise

Constitutional Questions; Standing92VI(A)3Particular Questions or

Grounds of Attack in General


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%294http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1032http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1040http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1040http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%295http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3038http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3043http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3043http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3043http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28F%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28F%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3781http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3781http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3781http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28A%293http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28A%293http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21%282%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k21http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3781http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3781http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3781http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28F%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3043http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3043http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3038http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%295http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k1040http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1040http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k1032http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%294http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VI%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92VIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

5/28

92k698Criminal Law92k700k. Sentencing and

punishment.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k42.1(3), 92k42)Where defendants had not as yet been

convicted of offenses with which they werecharged, defendants did not have standingto challenge penalties provided for offensesunder the Narcotic Drugs Law. M.G.L.A.c. 94, 205, 213A, 217B.

[20]Constitutional Law 92 2507(3)

92Constitutional Law92XXSeparation of Powers

92XX(C) Judicial Powers andFunctions

92XX(C)2 Encroachment onLegislature


92k2507Criminal Law92k2507(3) k.

Sentencing and punishment. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 92k70.1(10))Unless punishment exceeds a

constitutional limit, the task of assigningpenalties is for the legislature.

[21]Criminal Law 110 5

110Criminal Law110INature and Elements of Crime

110k2 Power to Define and PunishCrime

110k5 k. States. Most CitedCases

Sentencing and Punishment 350H 6350HSentencing and Punishment

350HIPunishment in General350HI(A)In General

350Hk5Constitutional, Statutory,and Regulatory Provisions

350Hk6k. In general. MostCited Cases

(Formerly 110k1206.2(1), 110k1206(2))Legislature is not required to fix or

impose any particular penalty for anycrime or to impose the same orproportionate sentences for separate andindependent crimes.





(Formerly 304k2 Poisons, 138k43.1,138k43 Drugs and Narcotics)

The Narcotic Drugs Law isconstitutional. M.G.L.A. c. 94, 205,213A, 217B.

*190 **900 Joseph S. Oteri, Boston(Harvey A. Silverglate, Cambridge, withhim), for defendants.

James D. St. Clair, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty.(Robert Y. Murray, Asst. Dist. Atty., withhim), for the Commonwealth.

Before *189 WILKINS, C.J., andSPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER,KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

SPIEGEL, Justice.There were complaints against the

defendants for unlawfully having in theirpossession a certain narcotic drug,

marihuana,FN2 and for conspiracy toviolate the Narcotic Drugs Law.FN3 Theywere found guilty in the District Court andappeals were filed in the Superior Court. Inaddition the defendants were indicted forillegal possession of marihuana with intentto sell it unlawfully.FN4 In the Superior


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k698http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k700http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k700http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XX%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XX%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XX%28C%292http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2499http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2507http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k2507%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k2507%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k5http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k5http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k5http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350HI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350HI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350Hk5http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=350Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=350Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hk4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=96Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=350Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=350Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350Hk6http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350Hk5http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350HI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350HIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=350Hhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k5http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k5http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k5http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k2http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k2507%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k2507%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2507%283%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2507http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2499http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XX%28C%292http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XX%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k700http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k700http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k698

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

6/28

**901 Court the defendants filed motionsto dismiss the complaints and theindictments, asserting that the statutoryprovisions regulating the possession, useand sale of marihuana in thisCommonwealth are unconstitutional. Aftera lengthy hearing at which eighteen expertwitnesses testified,

FN5the trial judge

denied the defendants' motions andreported the cases on the followingquestion: Are the provisions of G.L.chapter 94, sections 205, 213A and 217Bconstitutional as applied to the defendants,or either*191of them under the provisionsof the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution and Article I, part 1;Article IV, part 2; Article VII, part 1;Article XIV, part 1; and Article XXVI, part1, of the Constitution of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts? Thetranscript of the hearing is before us.

FN2. General Laws c. 94, s 205, asamended through St.1958, c. 95, s1, provides in part: Whoever * * *is in possession of any narcotic

drug, other than heroin, except byreason of a prescription lawfullyand properly issued, shall bepunished by a fine of not more thanone thousand dollars or byimprisonment in the state prison fornot more than three and one-halfyears, or in a jail or house of correction for not more than twoand one-half years.

FN3. General Laws c. 94, s 213A,

as amended through St.1960, c. 204,s 2, provides in part: Whoever * ** conspires with another person toviolate the narcotic drugs law * * *may be punished by imprisonmentin the state prison for not more than

five years, or by imprisonment in ajail or house of correction for notmore than two years or by a fine ofnot less than five hundred dollarsnor more than five thousanddollars.

FN4. General Laws c. 94, s 217B,as amended through St.1960, c. 204,s 3, provides in part: Whoever hasin his possession with intent to sella narcotic drug, other than heroin ** * shall for the first offense bepunished by imprisonment in thestate prison for not less than five

nor more than ten years * * *.Except in the case of a convictionfor the first offense for a violationof this section the imposition orexecution of the sentence shall notbe suspended.

FN5. Among these witnesses werepsychiatrists, pharmacologists,sociologists, a toxicologist, abotanist, a law enforcement officialand a professor of comparative

religions.

The parties have stipulated to thefollowing facts. The defendants werearrested at Logan International Airport * ** on March 11, 1967 by * * * members ofthe Boston Vice Squad when one of thedefendants presented a claims check for atrunk at an airline baggage terminal. Thetrunk contained fifty pounds of sand andfive pounds of marihuana. * * * (N)eitherof the defendants has been convicted

previously for any violation of the narcoticdrug laws of the Commonwealth.

1. The defendants allege that theNarcotic Drugs Law of the Commonwealthis arbitrary and irrational and not suited toachieve any valid legislative end in that * *



8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

7/28

* it imposes harsh penalties upon merepossession of marihuana, or possessionwith intent to sell, or being present wheremarihuana is kept, without a showing thatuse of this substance poses a threat to thepublic health, safety, welfare or morals.They conclude that it therefore violatesPart II, c. 1, s 1, art. 4, of the Constitution*192 of the Commonwealth FN6 and theDue Process Clause of the FourtenthAmendment of the Constitution of theUnited States.

FN7The defendants contend

that the law, as applied to marihuana, goesbeyond the police power of theCommonwealth in that it is not and cannot

be aimed at achieving any valid legislativeend, namely protection of the health,safety, welfare and morals. They assertthat it therefore violates, in addition to PartII, c. 1, s 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of theCommonwealth and the Due ProcessClause of the Fourteenth Amendment oftheConstitution of the United States, art. 7FN8 and art. 1FN9 of the Declaration ofRights of the Constitution of theCommonwealth.

FN6. (F)ull power and authorityare hereby given and granted to thesaid general court, from time totime, to make, ordain, and establish,all manner of wholesome andreasonable orders, laws, statutes,and ordinances, directions andinstructions, either with penalties orwithout * * * as they shall judge tobe for the good and welfare of thiscommonwealth, and for the

government and ordering thereof,and of the subjects of the same.

FN7. No state shall * * * depriveany person of life, liberty, orproperty, without due process oflaw.

FN8. Government is instituted forthe common good; for theprotection, safety, prosperity andhappiness of the people.

FN9. All men are born free andequal, and have certain natural,essential, and unalienable rights;among which may be reckoned theright of enjoying and defendingtheir lives and liberties; that ofacquiring, possessing, andprotecting property; in fine, that ofseeking and obtaining their safetyand happiness.

The defendants first argue that the lawis irrational and unreasonable because theLegislature did not thoroughly investigatethe available scientific and medicalevidence concerning marihuana whenenacting and revising the law.

[1][2][3][4] We know of nothing thatcomples the Legislature to thoroughlyinvestigate **902 the available scientificand medical evidence when enacting a law.

The test of whether an act of theLegislature is rational and reasonable is notwhether the records of the Legislaturecontain a sufficient basis of fact to sustainthat act. The Legislature is presumed tohave acted rationally and reasonably. SeeCommonwealth v. Finnigan, 326 Mass.378, 379, 96 N.E.2d 715;Coffee-Rich, Inc.v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 348 Mass.414, 422, 204 N.E.2d 281. Unless the actof the Legislature cannot be supportedupon any rational basis of fact that

reasonably can be conceived to sustain it,the court has no power to strike it down asviolative of the Constitution. Sperry &Hutchinson Co. v. Director of the Div. onthe Necessaries of Life of Commonwealth,307 Mass. 408, 418, 30 N.E.2d 269, 274,131 A.L.R. 1254. See United States v.


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTVII&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951108428http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951108428http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965115864http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965115864http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965115864http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940112252http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965115864http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965115864http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965115864http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951108428http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951108428http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTVII&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MACOPT2C1S1ART4&FindType=L

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

8/28

Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 154, 58S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234.

[5] The defendants then argue that the

law is irrational and unreasonable and thatit serves no legitimate State interestbecause there is no evidence thatmarihuana endangers the health, safety,welfare or morals of the community. Theyassert, inter alia, that there is no evidenceto support the allegations' that thesmoking of marihuana causes psychoticreactions or psychotic breaks' and that theuse of marihuana leads to the use of moredangerous drugs. *193 They summarily

dispose of '(t)he charge that marihuanacauses disorientation, psychomotordiscoordination, excitement and confusionas merely a statement that marihuanacauses a state of intoxication if used toexcess, and of the charge that marihuanacauses automobile accidents as purespeculation.

The testimony of the experts fullyjustifies the conclusion that marihuana is amind-altering drug. There was evidence

that the effect of such a drug is a complexinteraction between the physical orpharmacological properties of that drug * ** and most importantly the personality orcharacter structure of the personconsuming that drug, and * * * the socialsetting or context in which the drug istaken, including expectations, attitudes, etcetera. The smoking of marihuana maycause a state of euphoria and hallucinationsor mental confusion and acute panic. Ittends to exacerbate an underlying mental

condition and to accentuate the smoker'sbasic personality makeup. When used bypersons who have personality disorders orwho are predisposed to psychotic breaks,it may contribute to the onset of apsychotic break.'

FN10The problem is

magnified by the fact that persons havingpersonality disorders and predispositions topsychotic breaks' are more likely toexperiment with marihuana and to becomepsychologically dependent upon it.Although the smoking of marihuanatriggers only acute (short-term) psychoticbreaks' and does not apparently causepermanent psychotic injury or mentaldeterioration, an acute psychotic break,while it lasts, is as serious as a chronicmental disorder.

FN10. The defendants point to onewitness at the hearing who denied

that psychotic breaks triggered bymarihuana exist and to another whoconsidered the so-called psychoticbreak to be so rare as to benon-existent. They overlookhowever other witnesses whotestified that between one and tenper cent of the population of theUnited States are susceptible tothem. The credibility or reliabilityof these witnesses is not lessened bythe fact they had not personally

observed a substantial number ofmarihuana-induced psychoticbreaks. They were not testifyingonly with regard to their personalexperiences and experiments butalso with regard to informationgathered from the vast amount ofliterature concerning marihuana. Inaddition, we note that the psychoticbreaks triggered by marihuana areacute, and that it is unlikely that

persons suffering from them wouldseek medical attention during theeffects of the drug.

*194 Essentially the experts do notpoint to any evidence of a direct, causalrelationship betwen the smoking of


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1938122797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1938122797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1938122797http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1938122797

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

9/28

marihuana and the use of more dangerousdrugs. **903 The studies that do existdiscount the once prevalent belief that thesmoking of marihuana inevitably leads tothe use of more dangerous drugs. FN11

However, it it not necessary to show such adirect, causal relationship. There isconsiderable evidence that marihuana doeslead some people to the use of moredangerous drugs. The progression frommarihuana to heroin or LSD is a frequentsequence.

FN11. A study of 1,034 adults inCalifornia whose first arrest

resulted from their involvementwith marihuana showed that withinfive years 12.8% had been arrestedfor offences concerning heroin andbetween eleven and thirteen percent for offences concerning otherdangerous drugs. A similar studyshowed that 22.3% of the personsarrested during one year foroffences concerning heroin hadprior identifiable marihuanahistories. The results of a study of

opiate addicts admitted to theFederal hospitals at Lexington,Kentucky, and Fort Worth, Texas,suggest that the apparentprogression from marihuana to theopiates is the result of environmental conditions and notan inherent characteristic ormarihuana. See J. Ball, C.Chambers and M. Ball, TheAssociation of Marihuana Smoking

with Opiate Addiction in the UnitedStates, 59 J.Crim.L., Crim. andPolice Science, 171 (1968).

In an attempt to disprove the claim thatthe use of marihuana may causeautomobile accidents, the defendants say

that no evidence (was) produced linkingmarihuana use with * * * (such) accidents.The evidence, however, showed there is noaccurate, reliable scientific means ofdetermining whether the operator of amotor vehicle has recently smokedmarihuana. A person high on marihuana isunlikely to stagger or weave when hewalks. While the smoking of marihuanamay cause dilatation of the conjunctivalblood vessels, there is recent evidence thatit does not cause pupillary dilatation.

FN12

The burning of marihuana does produce arecognizable odor, but that odor could beeasily disguised. These properties of the

drug undoubtedly account for theunavailability of statistical data. However,there is agreement among the experts *195that marihuana causes an alteration ofsensory perception, a degree of psychomotor discoordination and aninability to concentrate. All of these effectsof marihuana would interfere with theoperation of a motor vehicle.

FN12. Weil, Zinberg and Nelsen,Clinical and Psychological Effects

of Marihuana in Man, 162 Science1234 (1968). In what they proclaimto be the first attempt to investigatemarihuana in a formal, double-blindexperiment with the appropriatecontrols' and the first attempt tocollect basic clincial andpsychological information on thedrug by observing its effects onmarihuana-naive human subjects ina neutral laboratory setting, the

authors also found that thecognitive function, muscularcoordination and attention of themarihuana-naive subjects wasaffected. Id. at 1235, 1240.

We do not think that the present



8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

10/28

unavailability of or inability to collectabsolute, statistical and scientific proof thatthe smoking of marihuana (1) triggerspsychotic breaks, (2) leads to the use ofmore dangerous drugs and (3) causesautomobile accidents prevents theLegislature from acting to prohibit its use.Surely the defendants would not contend,for example, that unless experimentsabsolutely establish that thalidomidecauses birth defects the Legislature couldnot prevent the distribution of that drug. Toprevent psychotic breaks, to guardagainst the use of more dangerous drugsand to eliminate a cause of automobile

accidents are valid State interests.

[6][7] The defendants insist that theright to smoke marihuana is guaranteed bythe Constitutions of the Commonwealthand of the United States and must bebalanced against the interests of the Statein prohibiting its use. No such right exists.It is not specifically preserved by eitherConstitution. The right to smoke marihuanais not fundamental to the Americanscheme of justice * * * necessary to an

Anglo-American regime of orderedliberty. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S.145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 14471448, n. 14, 20L.Ed.2d 491. It is not within a zone ofprivacy **904 formed by penumbras' ofthe First, Third, Fourth and FifthAmendments and the Ninth Amendment ofthe Constitution of the United States. SeeGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,484, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510. Thedefendants have no right, fundamental or

otherwise, to become intoxicated by meansof the smoking of marihuana. SeeRobinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 664,82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758.Cf.Crane v.Campbell, 245 U.S. 304, 307308, 38S.Ct. 98, 62 L.Ed. 304.

[8][9][10] We do not agree with thedefendants that the Legislature is bound toadopt the least restrictive alternative thatwould fulfill its purpose of protecting thehealth, safety and welfare of thecommunity. The least restrictive alternativedoctrine does not apply to the instant case.It has been *196 limited to regulationsaffecting interstate commerce (see e.g.Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340U.S. 349, 354, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329),constitutionally sheltered activity (see e.g.Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S.500, 512, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992),and economic regulations (see e.g. Weaver

v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402,414415, 46 S.Ct. 320, 70 L.Ed. 654).The Narcotic Drugs Law is not aneconomic regulations. It affects neitherinterstate commerce nor constitutionallysheltered activity.

In any event, there is amplejustification for the Legislature to concludethat the total prohibition of marihuana isthe least restrictive alternative. Theevidence indicates that the effects of

smoking marihuana are unpredictable. Noone can predict how a given person willreact, or how such a person will react to thedrug at any given time. There is not knownmeans of determining whether a person hassmoked marihuana, how much he hassmoked or even how much causesintoxication. The difficulty of establishingthe intoxication of the driver who is underthe influence of marihuana renders G.L. c.90, s 24(1)(a),FN13 as amended through

St.1963, c. 369, s 2, an insufficientsafeguard with regard to the danger ofautomobile accidents.

FN13. Whoever * * * operates amotor vehicle while under theinfluence of * * * narcotic drugs, as


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131174&ReferencePosition=1447http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131174&ReferencePosition=1447http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131174&ReferencePosition=1447http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965125098http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965125098http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1962127658http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1962127658http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100525http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100525http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100525http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951116931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951116931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964100215http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964100215http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926122400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926122400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926122400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST90S24&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST90S24&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST90S24&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST90S24&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926122400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926122400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926122400http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964100215http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964100215http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951116931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951116931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100525http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100525http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100525http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1962127658http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1962127658http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965125098http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965125098http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131174&ReferencePosition=1447http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131174&ReferencePosition=1447http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131174&ReferencePosition=1447

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

11/28

defined in section one hundred andninety-seven of chapter ninety-four* * * shall be punished by a fine ofnot less than thirty-five nor morethan one thousand dollars, or byimprisonment for not less than twoweeks nor more than two years, orboth.

2. The defendants maintain that theNarcotic Drugs Law has singled out forprohibition and punishment possessors ofand possessors of with intent to sell,marihuana, while the laws permit theregulated use, sale and possession of

substances far more harmful thanmarihuana * * * punish less harshlypossession and sale of substances far moreharmful than marihuana * * * and punishequally harshly substances far moreharmful than marihuana. Therefore, theysay that it violates art. 1 of the Declarationof Rights of the Constitution of theCommonwealth and the Equal ProtectionClause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe Constitution of the UnitedStates.FN14

FN14. No state shall * * * deny toany person within its jurisdictionthe equal protection of the laws.

*197 [11][12][13][14] The defendantsargue that the inclusion of marihuana in theclass of drugs defined byG.L. c. 94, s 197,to be narcotic drugs' is arbitrary. Thisargument ignores the rules by which thiscontention must be tested * * * 1. Theequal portection clause of the 14thAmendment does not take from the state

the power to classify in the adoption ofpolice laws, but admits of the exercise of awide scope of discretion in that regard, andavoids what is done only when it is withoutany reasonable basis, and therefore ispurely arbitrary. 2. A classification havingsome reasonable basis does not offend

against that clause merely because it is notmade with mathematical nicety, or becausein practice it results in some inequality.**905 3. When the classification in such alaw is called in question, if any state offacts reasonably can be conceived thatwould sustain it, the existence of that stateof facts at the time the law was enactedmust be assumed. 4. One who assails theclassification in such a law must carry theburden of showing that it does not restupon any reasonable basis, but isessentially arbitrary. Lindsley v. NaturalCarbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 7879, 31S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369.

Narcotic drug as defined in G.L. c.94, s 197, as amended through St.1966, c.71, ss 1 and 2, includes coca leaves,cocaine, alpha or beta eucaine * * * opium,morphine, heroin, codeine, apomorphine,isonipecaine, amidone, isoamidone,ketobemidone, peyote, LSD, psilocybin,D.M.T. * * * and cannabis (sometimescalled marihuana * * *). All of thesesubstances are mind-altering drugs. Thefact that some are more potent or more

dangerous than others does not render theclassification arbitrary. To some degreethey are all capable of producing psychoticdisorders, states of intoxication andpsychological dependency, andconsequently present some danger to thehealth and safety of the community. We donot think that the classification ofmarihuana with the others is arbitrary orirrational.

The defendants also contend that the

noninclusion of other mind-altering drugsin G.L. c. 94, s 197, as amended throughSt.1966, c. 71, ss 1 and 2, which areacknowledged to be * * * more harmfulthan marihuana, causes the law *198 torun afoul of the requirements of equal


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1911103416&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1911103416&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1911103416&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1911103416&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1911103416&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1911103416&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000042&DocName=MAST94S197&FindType=L

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

12/28

protection.' They concede that theLegislature may select the kinds ofbehavior that it wishes to proscribe. Theyclaim, however, that this does not meanthat a Legislature may actually proscribebehavior of one class of people (e.g., thosewho choose to obtain a mild state ofintoxication with marihuana) and allowanother class of people to freely indulge inbehavior of an exactly similar nature (e.g.,those who choose to obtain a mild state ofintoxication with alcohol).

[15][16][17] We do not think that astatute which proscribes generally certain

conduct can be said to be discriminatorysimply because a certain group of personstend to engage more often in that conductthan others. Such de facto discriminationdoes not violate the Equal ProtectionClause. There are at least two distinctionsbetween alcohol and the mind-alteringintoxicants that are defined by the law tobe narcotic drugs. First, alcohol issusceptible to a less restrictive alternativemeans of control. There are recognized,accurate means of determining its use and

its abuse. Second, the effects of alcoholupon the user are known. We think that theLegislature is warranted in treating thisknown intoxicant differently frommarihuana, LSD or heroin, the effects ofwhich are largely still unknown and subjectto extensive dispute. The Legislature is freeto recognize degrees of harm and mayconfine its restrictions to instances where itdetermines the need for them is clearest.See Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S.

539, 556557, 37 S.Ct. 217, 61 L.Ed. 480;Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 539540, 62S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655; Mulligan v.Hilton, 305 Mass. 5, 13, 24 N.E.2d 676,133 A.L.R. 376.

[18] 3. Finally, the defendants contendthat the penalties provided for offensesunder the Narcotic Drugs Law, as appliedto marihuana, constitute cruel andexcessive punishment. They contend thatit therefore violates art. 26 of theDeclaration of Rights of the Constitution ofthe Commonwealth

FN15and the Eighth

Amendment of the Constitution of theUnited States.FN16

FN15. No magistrate or court oflaw, shall * * * impose excessivefines, or inflict cruel or unusualpunishments.

FN16. (E)xcessive fines (shall notbe) imposed, nor cruel and unusualpunishments inflicted.

*199 **906 The defendants wereconvicted and sentenced on the complaintsin the District Court. They have appealedto the Superior Court and are awaitingtrials de novo on the complaints in thatcourt. They have not yet been tried on theindictments. As they have not as yet been

convicted of the offenses with which theyare charged, it is doubtful that they havestanding to even challenge the minimumpenalties provided by G.L. c. 94. SeeWeems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793; Lehon v. City ofAtlanta, 242 U.S. 53, 56, 37 S.Ct. 70, 61L.Ed. 145. In any event, no mandatoryminimum penalty is provided in the law forany of the violations charged. G.L. c. 94, ss205, 213A and 217B. See Watson v.United States (Ct.App.D.C.).FNa The

defendants could be found guilty of allthree violations and not be required toserve any sentence or to pay any fine.

FNa. (December 24, 1968) 37U.S.C. Week 2352.


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100057http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100057http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1942122820http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1942122820http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1942122820http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940111930http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940111930http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940111930http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1910100401http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1910100401http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1916100508http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1916100508http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1916100508http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1916100508http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1916100508http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1916100508http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1910100401http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1910100401http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940111930http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940111930http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940111930http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1942122820http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1942122820http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1942122820http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100057http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1917100057

8/13/2019 Com. v. Leis

13/28

[19][20][21] The defendants also arguethat any sentence would be excessive orthat the incidental consequences of beingconvicted constitute cruel and unusualpunishment. The defendants are notcharged with having a status' over whichthey have no control. See Robinson v.California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8L.Ed.2d 758. The basic conceptunderlying the Eighth Amendment isnothing less than the dignity of man. * * *Fines, imprisonment and even executionmay be imposed depending upon theenormity of the crime. Trop v. Dulles,356 U.S. 86, 100, 78 S.Ct. 590, 597, 2

L.Ed.2d 630. Unless the punishmentexceeds a constitutional limit, the task ofassigning penalties is for the Legislature.Neither constitution requires theLegislature to fix or impose any particularpenalty for any crime * * * or to imposethe same or proportionate sentences forseparate and independent crimes.'Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 586,79 S.Ct. 421, 3 L.Ed.2d 516. See Hardingv. Commonwealth, 283 Mass. 369, 374,186 N.E. 556. Here the Legislature hasseen fit to give the trial judge considerableleeway in sentencing. We have no reasonto believe that a judge will not continue toexercise this discretion wisely and fail todistinguish between the youth who wasexperimenting with marihuana or even aconstant user of the drug and the pusheror person trafficking in marihuana forfinancial gain.

4. Because of the extensive testimony

introduced at the *200

hearing we havecommented on a number of the factualcontentions. It is clear that the Legislatureacted well within constitutional limitations.

[22]5. The question is answered in theaffirmative.

So ordered.

KIRK, Justice (concurring).I concur in the conclusions reached on

all of the points discussed in the opinion.The findings of the judge contain muchthat is highly informative on a currentlycontroversial subject. I have gravemisgivings, however, about the proprietyand scope of the hearing in the SuperiorCourt. These misgivings have beenincreased rather than dispelled by themajority's treatment of the reportedquestion. Implicit in the hearing and in theopinion is the assumption that on the

record of the case before it the judicialdepartment of the government had thepower to institute and to pursue to aconclusion an inquirty to establish thatthere was a factual foundation for thejudgment made by the General Court, in itsexercise of the police power, thatmarihuana should be classified as anarcotic. The assumption, I respectfullysuggest, is wrong, without precedent, andin contravention of art. 30 of theDeclaration of Rights of the Constitution of

the Commonwealth.

The governing principles are few andhave often been stated in our decisions andin opinions of the Supreme Court of theUnited States. Every presumption is **907indulged in favor of the validity of astatute. Howes Bros. Co. v.Massachusetts UnemploymentCompensation Comm., 296 Mass. 275,284, 5 N.E.2d 720; Slome v. Chief ofPolice of Fitchburg, 304 Mass. 187, 192,

23 N.E.2d 133; Druzik v. Board of Healthof Haverhill, 324 Mass. 129, 138, 85N.E.2d 232. The presumption ofconstitutionality must prevail in theabsence of some factual foun

com. v. leis

Documents