Making it a “crime”  is an “intrusive regulation [and] the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate.” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977).

The courts declare marijuana laws are a legislative issue.

“The validity of regulatory “measures are challenged on the ground that they transgress the Constitution, and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, in the light of the facts in the case, to determine whether the regulation is reasonable and valid or essentially unreasonable, arbitrary and void.” Norfolk & W.R. Co. v Public Service Commission of West Virginia 265 U.S. 70, 74 (1924).

"Criminal statutes [must] be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny,” ….and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967)

 “analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. The Fourth Amendment's provides specific protection for ‘houses, papers, and effects.’ ” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70(1992).

The Court “must evaluate the search or seizure under traditional standards of reasonableness by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999).

“It is necessary first to focus upon the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen.” Terry v. Ohio,(1968) 392 U.S. 1, 21.

“The question in each case is whether the legislature has adopted the statute in exercise of a reasonable discretion, or whether its action be a mere excuse for an unjust discrimination, or the oppression or spoliation of a particular class.” Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 398 (1898) 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383.

“[T] he central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment … the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).