2. Under any analysis or "level of scrutiny," the plaintiff should prevail. The "privileges and immunities" clause couldn't be more straightforward: No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations. Wash. Const. art. 1 § 12. The plaintiff's situation regarding medicinal marijuana may be phrased in several ways which invoke the clause: The plaintiff is denied the privilege of ending his suffering by the use of a therapeutic drug while others are granted the privilege of ending their suffering with access to far more harmful and addictive drugs, such as morphine, cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates and opium. Additionally, patients who need THC and may absorb it effectively through their gastro-intestinal tract have the privilege of the relief of their suffering, while the plaintiff, whose GI tract is not functioning when he needs THC, is denied the privilege. Other citizens are granted immunity from arrest for possession of therapeutic but potentially harmful drugs by virtue of prescriptions, while the plaintiff is denied that immunity. Whatever "level of scrutiny" the Court deems appropriate, the plaintiff's right to be free of discrimination by his own government is being violated, in that the plaintiff is being made to suffer physically for reasons which serve no legitimate government purpose. THE DISCRIMINATION INVOLVES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND IS ENTITLED TO STRICT SCRUTINY. As set forth in State v. Smith, supra, if government discrimination or classification involves a "fundamental right," the courts must apply "strict scrutiny," and uphold the classification only if it is "necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest." Id. The Washington Supreme Court has found that a physician has a fundamental right to freely practice medicine. Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212, 721 P.2d 918 (1986). Clearly, it is no stretch to state the corollary -- that a patient has a fundamental right to the aid of his physician to relieve suffering. In any event, the court in Bering held that the state has a "substantial interest in ensuring its citizens unimpeded access to necessary medical care." Id. at 225. That decision dealt with access to abortions; it is difficult for the plaintiff to see how that might be more "necessary" than ending the suffering of chemotherapy-induced, uncontrolled nausea and diarrhea. If the court finds that a fundamental right is involved and applies strict scrutiny, the state must justify maintaining marijuana in Schedule I as "necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest." Frankly, the plaintiff is at a loss to anticipate what sort of argument the state might put forward, if the attorneys involved intend to keep straight faces while addressing the Court. What is the "compelling state interest" in having the plaintiff lying on the floor retching and defecating on himself when he could be sleeping peacefully? What "compelling state interest" justifies forcing the plaintiff to endure 14-hour "highs" in an attempt to relieve his suffering with synthetics? What is the "compelling state interest" to force the plaintiff to pay $5 per THC tablet, many of which disappear down the toilet undissolved? Or is the "compelling state interest" the larger one of controlling marijuana as a recreational drug? If so, why is it not "necessary" to place cocaine, opium, morphine, barbiturates, and amphetamines also in Schedule I? Note that the penalty for manufacture or possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I or II drug is exactly the same. RCW 69.50.401. Clearly, the legislature attaches no symbolic or exemplary difference between the two crimes. Thus, any contention by the Attorney General that placing marijuana in Schedule II and permitting its prescriptive, medicinal use will "send a signal" that recreational use of the drug is condoned should be given the merit it deserves -- none. In short, the classification of marijuana in Schedule I violates a fundamental right of the plaintiff, and the state cannot show a necessary reason for the classification that accomplishes a compelling state interest. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief should be granted. IF THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT HAS BEEN VIOLATED, THE LAW SHOULD STILL BE STRUCK DOWN UNDER "INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY." "Heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny should apply even if "strict scrutiny" does not, because the classification involves an "important right," and because the plaintiff is in a class for which he cannot be held accountable -- he did not choose to be a cancer patient, or to have his physician place him on chemotherapy in an attempt to save his life. State v. Smith, supra. The test is that the law must be seen as "furthering a substantial interest of the state." As analyzed above, no state interest, substantial or otherwise, is not equally well served by placing marijuana in Schedule II. EVEN UNDER MINIMAL SCRUTINY, THE PLAINTIFF MUST PREVAIL, BECAUSE THE CLASSIFICATION IS PURELY ARBITRARY. Absent strict or heightened scrutiny, the test is whether a "rational relationship" exists between the challenged classification and a legitimate state interest. What is the "legitimate" state interest in denying an end to the plaintiff's physical suffering? The classification must be "purely arbitrary" to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. State v. Smith, supra at 279. In fact, the classification is purely arbitrary. As stated by Judge Young after taking hundreds of hours of testimony, reviewing thousands of pages of documents, and issuing a 68-page report: It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance [marijuana] in light of the evidence in this record. Judge Young's report, supra at 68 (emphasis added). Thus, even under the "minimal scrutiny" test, the state can show no rational relationship between the classification and a legitimate state interest, and this court should find that the classification is purely arbitrary, and grant the declaratory relief requested. C. THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE I § 32, THE "FREQUENT RECURRENCE TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES" CLAUSE OF THE WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION. 1. Gunwall factors analyzed. The "Gunwall factors" have come to be, in Gunwall's progeny, required analysis and briefing at the superior court level in order for the Supreme Court to consider whether personal liberties are protected to a greater extent by the state's constitution, compared to the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Wethered, 110 Wn.2d 466, 472, 755 P.2d 787 (1988); In re Mota, 114 Wn.2d 465, 472, 788 P.2d 538 (1990). The plaintiff adopted Justice Utter's analysis concerning the Privileges and Immunities clause, above, and here provides the Gunwall analysis of the "Frequent Recurrence to Fundamental Principles" clause: 1. The textual language of the state constitution. The text of the state constitution may provide cogent grounds for a decision different from that which would be arrived at under the federal constitution. It may be more explicit or it may have no precise federal counterpart at all. Gunwall at 61. Article 1 § 32 of the Constitution of the State of Washington reads in total: A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government. Since no "precise federal counterpart" exists, the Court may find greater protection under this factor, and the plaintiff argues strenuously that it should. 2. Significant differences in the texts of parallel provisions of the federal and state constitutions. Such differences may also warrant reliance on the state constitution. Even where parallel provision of the two constitutions do not have meaningful differences, other relevant provisions of the state constitution may require that the state constitution be interpreted differently. Id. Since no parallel provision may be found in the federal constitution, this factor does not seem to apply to either find or not find greater protection under the state constitution. 3. State constitutional and common law history. This may reflect an intention to confer greater protection from state government than the federal constitution affords from the federal government. The history of the adoption of a particular state constitutional provision may reveal an intention that will support reading the provision independently of federal law. Id. The constitutional history of Section 32 remains somewhat of a mystery. The constitutions of Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Illinois contained clauses referencing fundamental principles, but the connection to individual rights was unique to Washington. Brian Snure, "A Frequent Recurrence to Fundamental Principles: Individual Rights, Free Government, and the Washington State Constitution," 67 Wash. L. Rev. 669 (1992) at 676. The original proposed constitution by W. Liard Hill contained only 31 sections to Article 1. Section 32 was proposed by George Turner, whose later speeches as a U.S. Senator lead to the conclusion that Turner, like others of his day, believed that constitutional interpretation often required a return to natural law principles beyond the four corners of the constitution. Snure, Id. at 674, citing 32 Cong. Rec. 783, 785, 789 (1899)(statement of Sen. Turner against United States imperialism in the Philippines). The signers of Washington's constitution had witnessed a hundred years of what happens when power is concentrated in either government (federal) or private (corporate) bodies, and they clearly didn't like what they saw. Thus, we have a clause in our "freedom to bear arms" clause stating that "nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." Wash. Const. art. 1 § 24; and the mention of "corporations, except municipal" in the Privileges and Immunities clause, discussed above. In the decade before the Washington Constitutional Convention, the territory had grown from a virtual wilderness of 75,000 settlers cut off from the nation's capital by a month's travel time, to a state of 350,000 citizens who could reach the east coast by a three- day train ride. Snure, supra, citing Dorothy Johnson, "Empire of the Columbia," (2d ed., 1967). Most of the influx of settlers had experienced legislative abuse elsewhere, and in Washington as well. Snure, Id. at 671. For example, during the 1862-63 territorial legislative session, the legislature passed no general laws, but enacted more than 150 pieces of general legislation for the benefit of "private interests against the general welfare." Id. Nor did the delegates trust the other branches of government. Governors abused their patronage powers, and judges were appointed from afar and often absent. Id., citing, inter alia, Charles H. Sheldon, "A Century of Judging: A Political History of the Washington Supreme Court," (1988). Mining companies amassed armed guards to thwart unions activities, and railroads charged excessive rates to farmers. Id., citing Gordon B. Ridgeway, "Populism in Washington," 39 Pac. N.W. Hist. Q. 284-91 (1948). All of these infringements on personal liberties came about despite the guarantees of liberty and democratic government found in the U.S. Constitution. It is noteworthy that Washington's Declaration of Rights is not couched in terms of the federal Bill of Rights, which contains the repeated phrase "Congress shall make no law. . ." Rather, rights are stated affirmatively: "The right of petition. . .shall never be abridged," Art. 1 § 4; "Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects. . ." Art. 1 § 5. It is also noteworthy that Washington's constitution contains checks and balances on power missing from the federal constitution. The federal government now comprises four branches, the fourth being federal agencies created by Congress but accountable to nobody. This has been especially true since the U.S. Supreme Court decided INS V. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1982), which eliminated the "legislative veto." Prior to that, Congress could set up agencies to administer programs, then oversee progress by way of committee or single-house vote. In what constitutional scholar and University of Seattle Law School Prof. David Skover calls "the second most inane decision ever handed down," the U.S. Supreme Court virtually guaranteed the sort of petty tyranny that has resulted in this lawsuit. (The Chadha decision did away with the "legislative veto," on the theory that not only must the enabling legislation withstand bicameral majority vote and presentment for veto, but each subsequent "fine-tuning" of the agency must be done the same way -- clearly an administratively impossible task.) Washington's constitutional delegates may not have had Chadha as an example, but they had seen where government power was headed. In Washington, the fourth branch of government is the people: agency heads such as the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Commissioner of Public Lands are elected, not appointed. Judges, likewise, are elected. The framers had also seen the concept of "natural law" twisted until it faced the direction opposite any original concept; originally a guarantee of personal liberty (for example, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable rights"), under the influence of the robber barons of the 19th century "natural law" was the justification for imposition of laessez-faire economics, i.e., natural law prohibited the courts from interfering with the right of a laborer to contract for his labor, and never mind that the laborer starves while the company owner thrives. Thus, the mention of "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles" being linked (uniquely at the time) to individual liberty, and the lack of any reference to "natural law" along with the absence of a separation-of-powers clause in Washington's constitution has led at least one scholar to argue persuasively that the phrase amounts to retaining the notion that natural law should be considered when protecting individual rights, but not when invoking natural law to prevent adherence with social or safety legislation. Section 32 designates extra-constitutional fundamental principles as essential to the security of individual right. Snure, supra, note 30, page 687. Again, it is no stretch to extend the right to be free from unjust action when it originates from a federal agency as opposed to originating from a corporation or other state entity. 4. Preexisting state law. Previously established bodies of state law, including statutory law, may also bear on the granting of distinctive state constitutional rights. State law may be responsive to concerns of its citizens long before they are addressed by analogous constitutional claims. Preexisting law can thus help to define the scope of a constitutional right later established. Gunwall, supra, 106 Wn.2d at 61, 62. Much of the preexisting law leading to the "fundamental principles" clause is discussed above. As for laws preexisting the state constitution regarding the use of marijuana, medically or otherwise, there were none. Inhaling opium and operating a house where inhaling opium took place were made illegal by the territorial laws of 1881, seven years before the signing of the Washington constitution. The earliest reference the plaintiff could find to marijuana ("cannabis") was in the Laws of 1951. As discussed in Section II B 1 above, marijuana was widely and legally used in the last century and the early decades of this century, prohibited by neither state nor federal law. 5. Differences in structure between the federal and state constitutions. The former is a grant of enumerated powers to the federal government, and the latter serves to limit the sovereign power which inheres directly in the people and indirectly in their elected representatives. Hence the explicit affirmation of fundamental rights in our state constitution may be seen as a guaranty (sic) of those rights rather than as a restriction on them. Gunwall, id. The plaintiff simply asks the Court to take these words at their face value, and look to fundamental principles, as required by Article I § 32, to do justice. 6. Matters of particular state interest or local concern. Is the subject matter local in character, or does there appear to be a need for national uniformity? The former may be more appropriately addressed by resorting to the state constitution. The plaintiff's physician is licensed to practice by the state. The plaintiff has undergone his cancer treatment in a state-owned and -regulated facility. The state legislature has given the state Board of Pharmacy the power to place drugs in Schedules different from the federal government's determination, in RCW 69.50.201(e). And the state's constitution requires a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles," which the federal constitution does not. All of these and more make clear that the plaintiff's access to medicine is an issue of local significance; Washington's citizens should not be made to suffer by bureaucratic fiat from 2,000 miles away. 2. Fundamental principles in Washington case law. The state constitution requires a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles," which raises the question, "What principles are fundamental?" Run the phrase "fundamental principles" through Westlaw or Lexis, and a sampling looks like this: It is a fundamental principle that the imposition of business and occupation tax liability must be as equitable as possible. Fidelity Title Company v. State of Washington, Department of Revenue, 49 Wn. App 662, 745 P.2d 530 (1987). Reynolds Metal Company v. State, 65 Wn.2d 882, 400 P.2d 310. Appeal dismissed 382 US 1.60 (1965). A fundamental principle of contract damages: An insured should be put in only as good a position as he would have occupied had the contract not been breached. Greer v. Northwestern National Insurance Company, 109 Wn.2d 191, 743 P.2d 1244 (1987). Fundamental principles of community property law dictate that each spouse should upon his or her death have the right to dispose of his or her one-half interest in community property. Standard Insurance Company v. Schwalbe, 47 Wn. App 639, 737 P.2d 667 (1987). It is a fundamental principle that penal statutes will be strictly construed as a means of assuring fairness to persons subjected to the law by giving clear and unequivocal warning in language that people generally would understand concerning actions that would expose them to liability for penalties and what those penalties would be. State v. Enloe, 47 Wn. APp 165, 172, 734 P.2d 520 (1987). Law against discrimination (RCW 49.60) is not rooted in tort law, but grows out of the fundamental principle that every citizen deserves equal treatment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or handicap. Reese v. Sears Roebuck and Company, 107 Wn.2d, 563, 572, 731 P.2d 497 (1987). To admit irrelevant, prejudicial evidence which would invite speculation in a jury is contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness and due process upon which our criminal justice system is based. State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780, 725 P.2d 951 (1986). Fundamental principles applicable to a request for an injunction are 1) the proceeding is equitable and addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, 2) The trial court is vested with broad discretionary power to shape and fashion injunctive relief to fit the particular facts, circumstances, and equities of the case before it, and 3) One of the essential criteria for an injunctive relief is actual and substantial injury sustained by the person seeking the injunction. Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366, 372, 715 P.2d 514 (1986). General warrants and writs of assistance were "The worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book," and so far as they place "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." State v. Crandall, 39 Wn. APp 849, 855, 697 P.2d 250 (1985). Citing the works of John Adams 523-24(Chaz. F. Adams ed. Boston 1850; see also T. Taylor Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 41 (1969)). It is a fundamental principle regarding the attorney client relationship that a fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of law between an attorney and a client. Estate of Larson, 103 Wn.2d 517, 520, 694 P.2d 1051 (1985). There is a fundamental principle that every competent citizen is under an obligation to further the administration of justice as a matter of public policy when summoned by due process of law to give evidence. State v. Dibley, 38 Wn. APp 824, 828, 691 P.2d 201 (1984). The fundamental principle that "the required criminal conduct must have existed when the conduct at issue occurred" must apply to bar retroactive criminal prohibitions emanating from courts as well as legislators. State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 489, 681 P.2d 227 (1984). Fundamental principle of Washington Electoral Law is that in a partisan contest there should be only one nominee from each political party. Democratic Party of Washington v. Spellman, 101 Wn.2d 94, 97, 675 P.2d 1222 (1984). It is a fundamental principle that no state may impose a tax which discriminates against interstate commerce by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business. Department of Fisheries v. DeWatto Fish Company, 34 Wn. APp 135, 146, 660 P.2d 298 (1983). It is a fundamental principle that when the state condemns land for public use, no greater estate or interest should be taken than reasonably necessary for contemplated public necessity or use. State v. McDonald, 98 Wn.2d 521, 530, 656 P.2d 1043 (1983). Clearly, case law analysis shows that "fundamental principles" may be found outside and in addition to the clear statements contained in documents such as the Bill of Rights. 3. Fundamental principles and the plaintiff's case. Three cases citing Article I § 32 bear on the case at bar: The doctrine of stare decisis should not result in outmoded 19th century precedents being forced to resolve 20th century disputes -- automobiles should not be governed by horse and buggy laws. Foote v. Grant, 55 Wn.2d 797, 806-7, 350 P.2d 870 (1960). Likewise, in a case involving the "taking" of property by creating loud jet noise in the airspace over it, the Supreme Court of Washington held: The invention of the airplane and the development of modern air transportation . . . have occurred somewhat subsequently to the development of the legal concepts emphasized in formulating early common law theories of liability. An awareness of these changes makes it incumbent upon us to heed the advice of the framers of the Washington constitution when they said: "A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government." Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 407, 348 P.2d 664 (1960)(citation omitted). In both of the above cases, the correlation to the case at bar is clear: Times change, new information becomes known, and legal theories adequate in times past should be changed to do justice. As a direct parallel, it is a fundamental principle that a drug prohibited when it was believed to have no medicinal use should not remain prohibited after it is shown that it is beneficial, and indeed unique in its ability to relieve suffering. In a much more recent case, the Supreme Court held that while massive, intrusive searches of apartment buildings may in fact enhance public safety, it is often when government is most eagerly pursuing what it perceives to be the public interest that it is most likely to sidestep constitutional safeguards or to denigrate constitutional liberties. For precisely such reasons, our constitution wisely counsels us: A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government. . . We therefore cannot permit these warrants to be executed, regardless of Seattle's pressing (and undoubtedly laudable) desire to see its housing codes enforced. City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260, 281, 868 P.2d 134 (1994) (citation omitted). This is precisely the case now before the Court. The government "is most eagerly pursuing what it perceives to be the public interest" in retaining a valuable therapeutic drug in a prohibited category, and in doing so is violating the fundamental right of its citizens to be free of needless physical suffering. Other fundamental principles which the plaintiff asks the Court to consider, and recur to as the constitution requires, are these: It is a fundamental principle that irrational laws breed disrespect for the rule of law. It is irrational to prohibit physicians from prescribing marijuana while permitting them to prescribe opium and cocaine. It is irrational to force the plaintiff and others in his situation to choose between physical suffering and undertaking a criminal act. Citizens of Washington who have a medical need for marijuana are immune, under State v. Diana, supra, from prosecution. It is a fundamental principle that if a citizen foreseeably will not be prosecuted, he should not be arrested, jailed, and put to the expense, humiliation and vexation of dealing with criminal charges. This is especially true when, as is the case, the very conditions which render them immune from prosecution make them some of society's most helpless citizens, least able to deal with such legal intrusions in their lives with any grace or dignity. It is a fundamental principle that a physician should have access to proven therapeutic drugs to relieve the suffering of his or her patients. It is a fundamental principle that the government of Washington should not deny therapeutic drugs to its weakest and most afflicted citizens merely to "match statutes" with federal laws which are driven by political and irrational decisions, made by bureaucrats who corrupt the process set forth in the enabling statutes created by Congress. It is a fundamental principle that the federal government should not be permitted to withhold valuable medicine from Washington citizens by first claiming that no scientific evidence supports the therapeutic value of the medicine, then denying permission to gather the scientific evidence to prove (or perhaps disprove) the therapeutic value. IV. CONCLUSION This Court, sitting in equity, should exercise its statutory and constitutional power to declare that the placing of marijuana in Schedule I, RCW 69.50.204, is a violation of the plaintiff's rights and liberties secured by Article I §§ 12 and 32 of the Constitution of the State of Washington. SIGNED AND DATED this ___ day of ____________, 1995. By: __________________________ RALPH SEELEY, WSBA 22469 (pro se)