passes muster under the more rigorous de novo review.” Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 364 n. 2. 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. § 1983, it is clear that her arrest for possession of marijuana did not deprive her of a constitutional right. 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>); United States v. Middleton, 690 F.2d 820,
holding that jurys failure to find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana could not be reconciled with a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to purchase holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding that shortterm and sporadic interference with free exercise rights does not violate the first amendment holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment holding that a defendants conviction for two possession of marijuana counts could not be supported by his possession of two marijuana cigarettes dropped from his hand and again for his possession of several packets of marijuana found in a nearby jacket during the same search