Accordingly, the judge held that the statute was fatally vague as to those counts. The other three counts arose from arrests for possession of a weapon with no concurrent possession of marijuana. For the same reasons that concurrent possession was insufficient to determine a time frame for usage, the statute was held to be unconstitutionally vague as to these counts. The doctrine of vagueness arises from principles of due process. It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.
Vague laws offend several important values.
First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Notwithstanding the important values protected by the vagueness doctrine, as the district judge correctly recognized the doctrine's application is limited when invoked in a context such as this which does not implicate First Amendment values.