context: After reviewing the record, we find that Eggink's action lacks an arguable legal basis and is thus frivolous. With respect to Storm-Eggink's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. SS 1983, it is clear that her arrest for possession of marijuana did not deprive her of a constitutional right.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 892 F.2d 453, 454
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Kiffer, 477 F.2d 349, 352 (2d Cir.1973); see also United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903, 905 (4th Cir.1986) (“There is no fundamental right to produce or distribute marijuana commercially.”); United States v. Fogarty, 692 F.2d 542, 547 (8th Cir.1982) (“[Tjhere is no fundamental constitutional right to import, sell, or possess marijuana ----”); cf. United States v. Greene, 892 F.2d 453, 454 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment); United States v. Middleton, 690 F.2d 820, 825-26 (11th Cir.1982) (same).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 692 F.2d 542, 547
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Tjhere is no fundamental constitutional right to import, sell, or possess marijuana ----"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Kiffer, 477 F.2d 349, 352 (2d Cir.1973); see also United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903, 905 (4th Cir.1986) (“There is no fundamental right to produce or distribute marijuana commercially.”); United States v. Fogarty, 692 F.2d 542, 547 (8th Cir.1982) (“[Tjhere is no fundamental constitutional right to import, sell, or possess marijuana ----”); cf. United States v. Greene, 892 F.2d 453, 454 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment); United States v. Middleton, 690 F.2d 820, 825-26 (11th Cir.1982) (same).