United States v. Hemani · ¶93

The mismatch between the Government's historical analogues and the theory on which the Government defends the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) as applied to respondent is clear. All that we know about respondent's marijuana use is that he used the drug about every other day. We do not know how much he used, the strength of the marijuana he used, how many times he used it on the days in question, the time of day when he used it, where he used it, or the degree to which this use affected his ability to exercise judgment and perform daily tasks responsibly. As a result, the Government has failed to show that a marijuana user like respondent is incapacitated in a way analogous to the habitual drunkards that the Government's analogues regulated.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.