The Republic of Selegania Boxed Set: Volumes One through Four

by Daniel Lawlis

  “Thus, centuries have gone by since Article 8 was enacted without anything other than a few states restricting access to lethal substances. The legislative history itself is clear that Article 8 used the term ‘poisonous’ in the most common meaning of the word—lethal. The nature of Smokeless Green is that, like alcohol, it is taken to increase the pleasure of the user, not to kill him. And the ensuing time that has passed without any legislature passing a law banning the use or sale of any substance, except partial bans on lethal substances, is further evidence that this is the correct interpretation of Article 8: Only lethal substances can be ‘poisonous’ and therefore banned.”

  “Yes, but no society before just recently has confronted a substance like Smokeless Green.”

  It was Justice Haufensehn. Megders now knew beyond any doubt the man would be a bitter adversary.

  Justice Haufensehn continued: “No sooner did this substance arrive in our society than our duly elected senators decided to partially ban it. Does not the short time gap between its arrival in our society and its prohibition nullify your argument or at least show that Smokeless Green is such a powerful substance that it cannot be rightly compared with other intoxicating substances?”

  “It is a far more powerful substance than alcohol, Your Honor. Of that, there can be no dispute. But it still does not belong in the class of what can properly be called a poison. It is not lethal. I personally have witnessed many gentlemen lawfully ingest this substance on a regular basis, and yet they remain alive and breathing amongst us. No one has produced any evidence of a single fatality from Smokeless Green, and since the nature of Article 8 is that no substance besides poisonous ones can be banned, the burden is on the Republic to show that Smokeless Green is poisonous and therefore compatible with Article 8.”

  “But are not laws to be presumed constitutional until proven otherwise?”

  “Helthers v. Selegania, a Supreme Court case that has not been overruled, held that, when the constitutionality of a statute hinges upon a portion of the Constitution that creates a general prohibition against certain types of legislation and only permits a narrow exception, the burden of proving constitutionality will shift to the Republic once the opposing party demonstrates beyond a preponderance of the evidence that such a constitutional portion is at issue.

  “In this case it is clear, not just beyond a preponderance of the evidence but beyond any reasonable doubt, that the constitutional portion at issue is Article 8 and that it indeed creates a general prohibition against laws such as SISA and only provides a narrow exemption for them. With that burden of proof having been met, the burden now shifts to the Republic to prove that the exemption has been satisfied.”

  “I agree with his interpretation of Helthers and that Counselor Megders has proven Article 8 is at issue and generally would prohibit laws such as SISA and that therefore the burden of proving the exemption—i.e., the poisonous nature of Smokeless Green—has shifted to the Republic,” Chief Justice Revdel said.

  “But the fact you have not seen anyone die from this substance does not mean it cannot happen or has not already happened,” Justice Haufensehn said abruptly.

  “I agree,” seconded Justice Beckle.

  Other than a brief look of possible camaraderie at his fellow justice, Haufensehn did not miss a beat but continued: “The infamous marketplace incident in which Smokeless Green addicts bathed in their own filth went around looting our capital’s shopping district in the search for Smokeless Green is compelling evidence in my mind that this substance is poisonous. Their behavior truly evinced a severely deteriorated mind. Regardless of burden shifting as dictated by Helthers, I believe the senate ought to be granted deference in their determination that Smokeless Green is a poison, at least when consumed improperly. Furthermore, the transcripts from the depositions leading up to today’s oral argument reveal that the Republic has sworn testimony from many addicts of the powerful effect the drug has on their minds and that they would do anything for their next dose. This seems consistent with a poison to me. It may be that gentlemen, due to their different breeding, are better able to restrain themselves and remain the master of this substance rather than vice versa. Is that not possible, Counselor?”

  “I believe not, Your Honor. From what I have witnessed, most gentlemen consume ever-increasing amounts of this drug as their tolerance increases. They may not resort to such desperate acts as the hooligans in the market place, but that is simply due to their greater financial resources. Also, we do not know what the true mental health was of these market hooligans, since none were ever arrested. Perhaps it was some kind of publicity stunt done in order to convince the public SISA was necessary. After all, Smokeless Green was cheap enough at that time for the basest of our countrymen to afford it.”

  “That is a rather brazen accusation, Counselor! Furthermore, while Smokeless Green was much cheaper then, that does not mean everyone could afford it. If these were idle men, unaccustomed to honest work, it is quite feasible that they did not have the money with which to purchase this drug.”

  “It is a flimsy basis for an outright prohibition of a substance!” Megders shot back with a tad more zeal than he had intended, but at this point he was hoping to elicit some assistance from the chief justice, who seemed far more sympathetic to his side.

  “Furthermore,” Megders continued, “crime rates have been steadily rising ever since SISA was passed. So, even if legalization of Smokeless Green would not remove all instances in which malefactors commit crimes to obtain it, if anything the experiment called SISA has demonstrated that by criminalizing Smokeless Green its value has skyrocketed to previously unfathomable heights, and the desperation with which fiends now seek their next dose far eclipses what was seen before!”

  “Yes, but could that not be due in part to the fact the district judge’s decision invalidating SISA emboldened these criminal scum, who think that they will never be charged for their crimes?!”

  “It may be true that unlawful peddlers of this substance hold hope that if they are ever caught in the act they can eventually escape prosecution by the invalidation of SISA, but surely they do this with a double mind. For if SISA is invalidated by Your Honors and the Republic does not appeal, or if the case goes to the Supreme Court and those justices also invalidate SISA as unconstitutional, then Smokeless Green will be back on the shelves of every grocery store, and the price will quickly work its way back down to earth from the artificial mountaintops upon which it currently rests.

  “This would mean a lot of lost money to the drug peddlers, so I can’t be sure they really want SISA invalidated at all.”

  “A most interesting observation,” Chief Justice Revdel said. He added nothing more because he was really talking to his fellow justices, as Megders’ cogent reasoning caused him to further doubt the claims of that three-bit newspaper story saying that the drug peddlers were threatening the justices that they better invalidate SISA.

  Megders saw that Justice Haufensehn was visibly perturbed by the chief justice’s comment, and Megders felt this to be an opportune moment to seek his seat, which none of the justices opposed.

  Hollenbough then rose and gave an uninterrupted closing statement, which essentially repeated his opening statement.

  Megders then rose and approached the lectern.

  “Your Honors, we are not here to decide whether it is in my best judgment, or in the Republic’s best judgment, or even in Your Honors’ best judgment to permit the sale, use, and possession of Smokeless Green, a very potent, highly addictive, arguably even dangerous substance.

  “The question is narrower than that. It is whether Article 8 permits the ban of a substance whose purpose and effect is to put the user into an altered state of mind. The answer is clearly a resounding ‘no’! It is worth noting that while Smokeless Green is often used for the purposes of pleasure that is because it is best known for being used in conjunction with alcohol, as the former provides immense, long-lasting energy, which permits th
e user to thereby experience the pleasures of alcohol without any of its soporific effects.

  “Nonetheless, there are many working class people who use a highly weakened form of Smokeless Green to work longer hours or even multiple jobs so that they can provide more for their family. Based upon the interviews I have done with those who have used this substance in the absence of alcohol or other drugs, Smokeless Green at its heart is a performance enhancer. It quickens the mind, sharpens the senses, reduces pain, and decreases the need for sleep.

  “With the proper amount of restraint, this is a substance that could have profound military applications or, as for many working-class people already, work-enhancing applications. Hardly the attributes of a poison! Yet, it is true, that few people can use moderation with this drug, due to its highly addictive properties. Thus, if the senate were to pass a law limiting the amount one could lawfully purchase per month, I believe that would satisfy Article 8.

  “I do believe such a law would be doomed to fail because ultimately this would simply open up a slightly more benign black market than the one that is underway now. Non-users would simply buy the maximum amount and then turn around and sell it to addicts who consume more than the amount permitted by law. It would be a waste of the police and courts’ time. At the end of the day, we must accept the lesson that our forefathers learned the hard way and passed down to us via Article 8, which is that, both to society at large and to the law enforcement institutions thereof, whatever good is achieved by attempting to ban a substance used for mental recreation will be dwarfed by the innumerable evils that arise from its criminalization.

  “Smokeless Green. Addictive? Yes. Potent? Yes. Dangerous? Perhaps. Poisonous? Absolutely not. Your Honors, I therefore request that you uphold the district judge’s decision invalidating SISA.”

  Chapter 24

  “Well, gentlemen—where do we all stand?” Chief Justice Revdel asked of his two esteemed colleagues in their private meeting room.

  “Counselor Megders made some creative arguments, but SISA’s got to stay,” Justice Haufensehn stated flatly. “The people are tired of these drug peddlers riding around brazenly in their fancy suits and little by little buying off policemen. It’s all because the drug peddlers are emboldened, thinking they won’t be prosecuted. We’ve got to show them they’re wrong, or pretty soon the people are going to get out the tar and feathers for us. They are going to see us as subverting the will of the people.”

  “You sound like a politician—not a judge, not even a lawyer,” Revdel said. “This isn’t about practicalities. This is about the law!”

  “I’m with Haufensehn,” Justice Beckle said meekly, looking down immediately after he said so.

  Revdel, a rather large man, turned to his right. “You too? Why? Or dare I ask?”

  “Precisely because of the reasons Justice Haufensehn gave. Chief Justice, we’ve got to recognize that the people are fed up. They want to see drug peddlers in chains, not tap-dancing in front of polite society in fancy costumes.”

  “Well, I’ll be. It seems you two are both incredibly more informed about what ‘the people’ want than I am. Would either of you care to state the means by which you have arrived at such certain knowledge with regards to such matters?” Revdel asked, with a tone that contained nearly an equal amount of sarcasm and genuine curiosity.

  “Sorry, Chief Justice Revdel, my mind’s made up on this one,” Haufensehn said.

  “Mine too,” was the immediate reply from Beckle.

  “Well, this does beat all! You know, I have half a mind—or maybe a full mind—to petition the Supreme Court itself to conduct a full-fledged ethics examination into you two! Reasonable men can disagree on this matter, sure. But I’ve been on the bench with each of you for over a decade, and never before have I seen such rapid certainty with regards to a constitutional matter. Let’s not forget that we’re not students in a philosophy class debate. At the end of the day, our decisions have consequences. The defendant who gave rise to this case is a shopkeeper without any prior criminal record who could be looking at decades in prison!

  “Do you realize a robber would receive less punishment?! And don’t kid yourselves into thinking that the Supreme Court will have to bear that moral responsibility alone. While they probably will hear an appeal to our decision if there is an appeal, there is no guarantee they will. Justice Haufensehn, would you be able to look David Stephenson in the eye and tell him he deserves decades in prison for selling a banned substance from his store? A substance so-called gentlemen use to party with, yet one that is nonetheless supposedly a poison?!”

  “He knew the risks, and he took them,” was Haufensehn’s cold reply. “And if you request an ethics inquiry, I’ll do the same . . . into you, Chief Justice, for attempting to intimidate your colleagues into siding with you. You overstep the bounds of your station. My reasons for agreeing with the Republic will be fully expatiated upon in the majority opinion,” Haufensehn said with a cold stare.

  “You mean . . . .”

  “Yes,” Beckle said. “Justice Haufensehn and I had a brief conversation before you came into the meeting room, and that is the decision we reached. It quickly became clear to me that he supports SISA for the same reasons I do.”

  Haufensehn looked like a prison guard who suddenly realizes he’s on the inside of a cell looking out at two former prisoners now dangling the keys in front of him. He barely restrained the impulse to shake his head vigorously like a wet dog in order to see if that cleared his confused mind.

  As the saying goes, there is power in numbers, and Revdel quickly folded on the ethics inquiry issue.

  “Very well, I look forward to reading your expatiation, and I will write a dissent that posterity will not soon forget!” Revdel fulminated and then left the room like a traveling storm.

  Chapter 25

  Justice Haufensehn finished drafting his opinion early that afternoon, which stated, in pertinent part:

  “The issue in this case is whether a pernicious, highly addictive substance of unknown origins called Smokeless Green (apparently due to the fact it is ingested via inhalation rather than by smoking it)—that fuels days’-long orgies of drunkenness and debauchery abhorrent to any civilized society and whose users have been known to raid public market places in broad daylight while covered in human filth and bereft of clothing in order to search for this substance—is poisonous. To ask the question is to answer it.

  “The appellee would have us conclude that only if a substance brings about immediate or prompt death can it be deemed a poison, but we must flatly reject this foolhardy, and dangerous, proposition. The evidence clearly shows that Smokeless Green poisons many users’ moral judgment, which in the aggregate will lead to—and has already begun to lead to—greatly increased crime rates throughout our society and the deaths of many at the hands of desperate fiends seeking their next dose. The society of our republic may be viewed as a single entity whose body will be greatly damaged and possibly even destroyed by this vile substance. For these reasons, we are left with no choice but to conclude that Smokeless Green is a poison and thus presents no Article 8 problems.

  “As for the ‘gentlemen exception,’ while this may be of great interest to the appellee, who apparently wishes to divert this court’s legal focus into the foray of analyzing hypocrisy, this is beyond the proper scope of this court. If the senate wishes to permit an exemption to a very special segment of our society that has extraordinary financial resources, education, and moral judgment with which to safely dabble in the recreational use of this substance, that is fully within the senate’s prerogative, and appellee’s counsel has offered no convincing evidence or argument as to how this exemption proves Smokeless Green is not a poison.

  “Article 8 does not require that all poisonous substances be wholly banned. It merely forbids the senate from banning a non-poisonous substance. For the reasons stated above, Smokeless Green clearly is a poisonous substance, which gives the senate the constitutional
right, but not the duty, to ban it. Thus, if it seeks to limit its ban, it is fully within its rights to do so. It may in time decide this substance is so pernicious that it will be banned even for gentlemen, but this is beyond the scope of the current matter.

  “For all these reasons, we reverse the district judge’s misguided, facile opinion finding SISA unconstitutional and order him to resume the trial with all judicious speed.

  “Reversed.

  “Haufensehn, J.; Beckle, J.”

  He showed it to Justice Beckle, who gave it a quick once-over and then signed his name below where Haufensehn had taken the liberty of printing it. Haufensehn stopped by Chief Justice Revdel’s office, grumpily expecting him to not have anything ready yet, but to his surprise he handed him his opinion before Haufensehn could even ask for it. His face gave some hint as to the venom contained therein.