Irwin RAVIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent Supreme Court of Alaska – Opinion by RABINOWITZ: –

Irwin RAVIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent Supreme Court of Alaska – Opinion by RABINOWITZ: –
CANNANNEW REPORT

Irwin RAVIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent Supreme Court of Alaska 537 P.2d 494May 27, 1975   Rabinowitz, C.J., and Connor, Erwin, Boochever and Fitzgerald, JJ. Opinion by RABINOWITZ: The constitutionality of Alaska’s statute prohibiting possession of marijuana is put in issue in this case. Petitioner Ravin was arrested in 1972 and charged with violating AS 17.12.010. Before trial Ravin attacked the constitutionality of AS 17.12.010 by a motion to dismiss in which he asserted that the State had violated his right of privacy under both the federal and Alaska constitutions, and further violated the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions…. Here Ravin raises two basic claims: first, that there is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting possession of marijuana by adults for personal use, in view of the right to privacy; and secondly, that the statutory classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug, while use of alcohol and tobacco is not prohibited, denies him due process and equal protection of law. We first address petitioner’s contentions that his constitutionally protected right to privacy compels the conclusion that the State of Alaska is prohibited from penalizing the private possession and use of marijuana. Ravin’s basic thesis is that there exists under the federal and Alaska constitutions a fundamental right to privacy, the scope of which is sufficiently broad to encompass and protect the possession of marijuana for personal use. Given this fundamental constitutional right, the State would then have the burden of demonstrating a compelling state interest in prohibiting possession of marijuana. In light of these controlling principles, petitioner argues that the evidence submitted below by both sides demonstrates that marijuana is a relatively innocuous substance, at least as compared with other less-restricted substances, and that nothing even approaching a compelling state interest was proven by…

Excerpt only …
READ MORE BELOW
Source : Irwin RAVIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent Supreme Court of Alaska – Opinion by RABINOWITZ: –

reposted by Cannabis News World

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.