cocaine all of them are physically violent acts which create great bodily harm this hour we believe this case is much closer to the case of the case which was decided by the illinois supreme court what was different about the harm which marijuana created and the harm that was created by the other dangerous drugs and they determined that the classification  forget what year for even the late seventy's or brigades the difference in the effects of marijuana on the party in the facts of cocaine heroin and i think they also went to l s d when they determined they had the scientific unconstitutional is the evidence in this case was yes there was five thousand workers twenty seven pounds of marijuana which were sought to be sold the challenge which was brought  was five or five thousand grams with intent to sell if you possessed five thousand grams and they don't charged with intent to sell for over five thousand grams it's a class one felony now clearly people any information that he sells to anybody else or even permits friends he use it for free or but by distributing but it's for him and he happens to have a apartment and on the way down before he was charged with the possession he was brought to the claim county by an individual who got arrested because he was taking marijuana back from m the charges one of the facts could have been the next strip distribution and he still would have been eligible it would have been a one so there again it makes no sense when someone under the it you know it took from nineteen eighty six to two thousand and seven or now the state supreme court court in kim grow to review cocaine had this terrible implications attached to it and motions were filed just like this day in day out in federal courts around the country and they were all unfortunately you know just asking they add the marijuana be legalized in any way shape or form but what we are saying is they have the penalty has to be yes the crime so to speak and one of the things to say life in the last ten years so he had a misdemeanor conviction on which was a supervision which was terminated unsuccessfully was there was a felony i forget if it was a conditional discharge or probation for a guidelines of proportionate penalty this in the same classification which should be should be a constitutional issue if this is prosecutors a class  yet the sentencing period sure here was this was not a situation where it's crime for crime you know were the other marijuana offenders who were charged under class x get the same class acceptance and therefore it's a constitutional because it's not a classification issue we believe that it is a classification issue and it's not is a limiting to be a classification issue is not as limiting as just marijuana seller marijuana seller the classification and the reason he's being discriminated against and why it becomes unconstitutional is he as i said he the fact that he is  but to he's a nonviolent offender with a crime there is indicated no great bodily harm and no potential for great bodily harm and yet he is being sentenced in the same class as criminals who have been harmless and he asked the score today to come and to consider only researching opinions of grow cannabis advocates and to discredit all research and all legislative findings to the contrary as outdated but the supreme court has been very clear that that is exactly what this court should not do respectfully this court is not to legislate social policy this court is not charged with resolving trying to pick questions even when there is an honest conflict that harmful and shouldn't be with other class taxes but i'm going to narrow it down to what the law requires he show in order for this to be found unconstitutional or a proportion of penalties violation you must show that he hamilton is either cruel or degrading or that the penalty in this case is harsher than for an offense with identical elements under the cruel and degrading portion you have to show that this sentence was so wholly disproportionate to the crime that it shocks the moral sense of the community pantie highlights in his brief and today also mentioned the portions of dr fisher's testimony that really support his position but i was accused in the reply brief of having a problem with my peripheral vision so i'm going to kind of highlight the other portions  richards testimony where he actually conceded that cannabis is harmful dr fisher said that certainly twenty three pounds of marijuana distributed into a community causes harm he acknowledged deaths have likely occurred from driving under the influence of marijuana but the most striking part of dr fitness testimony to me anyway is when he discussed diagnosing a substance abuse this order under the d s m he acknowledged that under the d s  m a doctor can't find a substance abuse disorder based soley on the use of cannabis and he even conceded that he personally had made such diagnosis even though this was contradicting opinions that there is no harm and in making that diagnosis he also conceded that he had to find that the use of marijuana harm the user to the point that they were not able to function socially or occupationally the defendant's own expert undermined his entire argument that cannabis is really not harmful not harmful he also argues that there are a minority of the general population that believes cannabis is harmless and dr fish testified that he has spoken to people people with no medical degrees and those people have told him that they believe marijuana is less harmful than alcohol he has spoken to alcoholics who have said they have cured their alcohol addiction by switching to marijuana that's not what needs to be proven proportion of his violation the very fact that he recognizes it's only the minority of the population that whole  a stablish is obviously that the majority finds cannabis is harmless and the majority police fear penalties are required the majority also is consistent with the fact that we have legislation criminal possession with intent to deliver twenty three pounds of cannabis and the us supreme court has said it isn't the opinion of the minority of people that is sure evidence of the objective standards society believes and where they stand on the legalization of marijuana the best of jeff give evidence of today's present moral compass is found in the legislation the legislation says it's a classic felony and in the end of april early may illinois have the opportunity with house bill thirty to allow for people who suffered from i believe it was eighteen specified elements to have medical marijuana and it was defeated and independence free if you mention proposition nineteen in california which would have allowed residents of california to have a small amount of recreational cannabis and since the time the brief is been written that was also the fee so it seems that again the legislation currently if we keep him in for twelve it's going to cost you and i used to pay attention to this i don't know how much it costs anymore somebody twenty four thousand dollars a year to keep him in for an additional four to five years is it worth that when he was stopped another thirteen found in his home as part of the agreement he wasn't charged with thirty six so i think when you present i'm not going to use thirty six and so you plead guilty to the run through but when you present the twenty three again my pain this is not a shocking sentence the second part of a proportionate thesis that he has to show that this was a harsher sentence than another offense with identical elements i've said it out my brief and i'll basically say here he has not identified and other offense with the same elements his entire attempt under that prong is to compare it to other class axis which do or don't have an element of bodily injury to the law is clear it has to be a comparison to his claim that he is similarly situated to offenders who have created who have committed other acts and those acts are not class acts and those acts do involve awful injury but again that's not what he is required to find and the proportionate under the equal protection equal protection requires that all people charged under a statute are treated the same that is my argument because that's the law equal protection does not require that people who have acted out in a this similar way are treated are penalize equal that i'll say it in a better way equal equal protection does not require quality or proportion in a penalty or dissimilar contact conduct comparing his offense to a variety of other class us offenses or other class one offense is is not what is required under the law and you can see that if you just look at the definitions of those various offenses whatever offense he wants to bring up look at the elements there look at our elements they're not identical it doesn't apply that's not the analysis to be made as for a rational relationship is it recently designed to remedy the evil that the legislature has targeted it is the legislature has determined that the sale the possession and intent of the liver cannabis is evil they have made a graduated scale where the most severe penalties are reserved for those selling or intending to deliver eleven pounds or more again here we had twenty three pounds defendants response to this is it's harmless  myth that this causes harm it's questionable that a damage is the community well i know in his argument though with this is a defendant does not argue that the statute is not rationally related to the evil legislature identified what defendant is arguing is that the large scale possession and delivery of cannabis is not evil those are two different arguments that's not the argument that should be made here if you want to establish a constitution elation as for due process it is very similar to the rational relation test i again in my brief addressed to you didn't identify with that or even worse the trial court struggled and said they could not discern with the  process argument was so i stand on my brief and again argue it has been forfeited defendant says he is not asking you to legislate from the bench but yes he has not establish he's asking for a presidential finding from you that cannabis is harmless and therefore to sentence his client to up to thirty years even though he got twelve is unconstitutional this is not the field of battle that is what the court in we have taylor's king stated the people of the right to expect that members of the courts will possess the courage and integrity necessary to clear  any legislation which contravenes the rights of the people set forth in the process and equal protection clause of both state and federal constitution the court should invoke these constitutional guarantees to protect the rights of those w don't think that i don't think that the constitution or these courts should look at things that narrowly i believe that we have never i believe they