Woody Harrelson Legal Issues 1997

01/14/1997 4:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — Actor Woody Harrelson vowed Tuesday to fight “to the end” two trespassing offenses during an anti-logging protest on the Golden Gate Bridge that shut traffic for several hours. Keifer Sutherland was arrested several times in his life from 1989 to 2007 for driving under the influence of alcohol. In the latest incident, he was arrested after turning around illegally. He served 48 days in jail. Harrelson is an enthusiast and advocate for the legalization of marijuana and hemp. [66] [67] He was a guest on Ziggy Marley`s “Wild and Free,” a song that promotes cannabis cultivation. Harrelson has been a member of NORML`s Advisory Board since 2003. [68] The test for the constitutionality of a statute is whether it is inappropriate or arbitrary.  Moore v. Ward, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 881 (1964).

  A law is constitutional if it has a reasonable and legitimate public purpose.   The rational basic argument can be paraphrased as follows: “Is there a good reason to pass a law?”   The answer is a surprisingly simple “yes.” The legislature has a wide margin of appreciation in determining what is detrimental to public health and welfare.   See Walters v. Bindner, Ky., 435 S.W.2d 464 (1968).   As mentioned in Buford v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 942 pp.2d 909 (1997), a concise analysis of the problems associated with illicit drug cultivation can be found in People v. Shephard, 169 Cal.App.2d 283, 337 P.2d 214 (1959), who stated: The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the appeal to the District Court was based on a non-final decision.   Article 54.01 of the CR states, among other things, that “a final or appealable judgment is a final decision ruling on all the rights of all parties in any action or proceeding.” As in Commonwealth v. Taylor, Ky., 945 S.W.2d 420 (1997): “The basic rule is that for an order to be final and contestable, it must decide all claims of the parties at the time of its appointment.”   The main issue is to question the constitutionality of the law.   The case has been fully decided and is subject to appeal. First, we should note that the verdict here was related to a motion to dismiss and not a trial by a judge or jury.   The defense did not name any witnesses who could be considered law enforcement officers.

  The prosecutor`s police witness testified about the problems hemp would create for law enforcement.   Defence witnesses Harrelson and Dr. Pierce both admitted that the officer would be better qualified to determine whether law enforcement would be impeded in the enforcement of marijuana law if hemp were legalized.   The other defense witness never answered who would be the best qualified, but admitted that he was only involved in a few criminal investigations.   Notwithstanding the officer`s testimony, the District Court concluded, and the District Court confirmed, that no rational basis had been established for the legislature to include hemp in the definition of marijuana.   We disagree. In 1891, under the new Kentucky Constitution, an elaborate and detailed Local Options Act was passed by the legislature to determine the wishes of the local population regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages.   Instead of 20 legal electors, as required by the 1873 Act, the number of lawful electors who could call an election depended on at least 25% of the votes cast in each district at the last general election.   A majority vote would decide the outcome of the election.

The District Court`s reservation of certain legal questions as to whether any of the seeds planted by Harrelson contained THC was never raised by the parties, and the District Court`s action to repeal the Act in this manner exceeded its jurisdiction.  Estes v. Commonwealth, Ky., 952 S.W.2d 701 (1997), held that the law must be reviewed “on the basis of what is said and not on the basis of what might have been said.” Another defense witness was a biology professor who testified about the economic use of hemp in modern times and the differences in the appearance of hemp and marijuana to the naked eye.   He explained that if legalized, it would significantly reduce tree felling and be a huge asset to Kentucky`s agricultural base. He admitted on cross-examination that he had no training in agricultural economics.