Title: Borras v. State
Citation: 229 So. 2d 244
Docket Number: 38426
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 1969

229 So. 2d 244 (1969)
Anthony B. BORRAS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 38426.

Supreme Court of Florida.
December 3, 1969.
*245 John D. Buchanan, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, and Joseph S. Oteri, of Crane, Inker &amp; Oteri, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on appeal from the Circuit Court of Leon County, wherein appellant was tried and convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to eight (8) months at hard labor. The trial court, in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the information, upheld the validity of Chapter 398, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Narcotic Drug Act giving this Court jurisdiction under Section 4 of Article V, Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Appellant raises the following points on appeal:
The first six of the points set out above were considered and found without merit in Raines v. State.[1] In Raines, we affirmed a conviction for sale of marijuana and upheld the Narcotic Drug Act. A similar result was reached in a recent Massachusetts case.[2] The instant case involves a conviction for possession of narcotics and two additional *246 questions for determination. Points VII and VIII, supra.
Appellant contends that the State may not interfere with the possession and use of marijuana by an individual in the privacy of his own home. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia[3] is cited in support of this contention. In Stanley a Georgia statute prohibiting the possession of obscene material was held unconstitutional insofar as it punished mere private possession of obscene matter. The United States Supreme Court stated, however:[4]
Reprehensible as the possession of obscene material may be, the possession and use of marijuana poses a much greater potential threat to society.
Appellant states that the primary purpose of smoking marijuana is the "psychological reaction" it produces in the user and that by smoking marijuana he was "merely asserting the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home." This Court is aware that commission of other types of crime, particularly violent crimes, has an emotional effect on the perpetrator. This, however, does not give a constitutional right to commit the crime.
Marijuana does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. Its use does not constitute "private consumption of ideas or information." Neither are Fourteenth Amendment rights abridged nor the right of privacy violated. Marijuana is a harmful, mind-altering drug. An individual might restrict his possession of marijuana to the privacy of his home, but the effects of the drug are not so restricted. The interest of the state in preventing harm to the individual and to the public at large amply justifies the outlawing of marijuana, in private and elsewhere.
Recently, in State v. Eitel,[5] we upheld the statute requiring motorcyclists to wear protective helmets and goggles recognizing that "it is to the interest of the state to have strong, robust, healthy citizens, capable of self-support, of bearing arms, and of adding to the resources of the country." Since marijuana, in addition to harming the individual, is a threat to society as a whole, we have no difficulty in upholding its prohibition by the state.
Appellant also contends that the evidence seized as a result of the search of his apartment should have been suppressed because the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued was defective. The defect alleged is the failure to state the date or dates when marijuana was sold to the confidential informer and possessed by appellant. The affidavit in question uses the present tense alleging a violation which was continuing right up to the time the warrant issued. Under the circumstances the failure to specify a date does not render the affidavit defective.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C.J., and DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
[1]  225 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1969).
[2]  Commonwealth v. Leis, 243 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. 1969).
[3]  394 U.S. 557, 89 S. Ct. 1243, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1969).
[4]  Id. at 568, 89 S. Ct. 1249, 1250, footnote 11.
[5]  227 So. 2d 489, Fla., Opinion Filed October 15, 1969.