Opinion ID: 1860900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The multiple species question.

Text: The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to identify the contraband as a controlled substance initially requires a determination of the breadth of the statutory definition: `Marijuana' means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., including all agronomical varieties   . Minn.St. 152.01, subd. 9. At trial, defendant contended that the definition was technical, unambiguous, and to be strictly construed. Introducing considerable botanical evidence that the plant genus Cannabis was polytypic, the defendant argued that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance is Cannabis sativa L., rather than, e. g., Cannabis ruderalis or Cannabis indica. The trial judge accepted defendant's position: The Minnesota Statute still uses the term Cannabis sativa L. rather than simply Cannabis; therefore, I conclude that the Minnesota Statute seems to make illegal the possession of the one form of Cannabis and probably not make illegal possession of the other two species: Cannabis ruderalis and Cannabis indica. We disagree. It is not necessary to review all the taxonomic literature on the monotypic/polytypic Cannabis debate. [3] See, United States v. Rothberg, 351 F.Supp. 1115 (E.D.N.Y.1972), affirmed, 480 F.2d 534 (2 Cir. 1973), certiorari denied, 414 U.S. 856, 94 S.Ct. 159, 38 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). The interpretation of a statute is a matter of law, not science; the proscription of marijuana, after all, is directed to the public at large and not to botanists alone. While we subscribe strongly to the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed against the government, Ferch v. Victoria Elevator Co., 79 Minn. 416, 418, 82 N.W. 678 (1900), narrow application of the definition in issue would create serious anomalies and constitutional problems. While there has been some recent evidence that not all Cannabis plants contain measurable amounts of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), [4] the active euphoric agent or intoxicant associated with marijuana, there is no scientific evidence that any of the species of the genus Cannabis lack THC. See, D. Bernheim, Defense of Narcotics Cases, § 4.04A at 4-36 (1975). THC is itself separately and specifically included as a Schedule I controlled substance. Minn.St. 152.02, subd. 2(3). Thus, if the definition of marijuana were held to exclude species other than Cannabis sativa L., those species would not be left in a statutory limbo but would still be proscribed, as    material    which contains    tetrahydrocannabinols. [5] Minn.St. 152.02, subd. 2(3). Moreover, excluded species would not qualify for the lesser penalties given marijuana offenders. Minn.St. 152.15, subd. 1(5); subd. 2(2), (5); subd. 2a; subd. 4. The result is an enforcement scheme which provides major differences in penalties for abuse of different species of the genus Cannabis, species which are almost impossible to distinguish visually or even miscroscopically once fragmented and/or dried. [6] See, Fullerton & Kurzman, the Identification and Misidentification of Marijuana, 3 Contemp. Drug Prob. Q. 291. Such a scheme presents obvious equal protection and due process (fair notice) problems. See, People v. Van Alstyne, 46 Cal. App.3d 900, 913, 121 Cal.Rptr. 363, 371 (1975), certiorari denied, 423 U.S. 1060, 96 S.Ct. 798, 46 L.Ed.2d 652 (1976); see, also, United States v. Walton, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 306, 514 F.2d 201, 202 (1975). The unreasonable consequences of narrow application of the definition requires closer examination of legislative intent. State v. Carroll, 225 Minn. 384, 386, 31 N.W.2d 44, 45 (1948). In 1953, the legislature added Cannabis to the definition of narcotic drugs, and stated that the term includes all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L. Laws 1953, c. 431, §§ 1, 2. It is apparent from this language that the legislation reflected the general consensus among botanists that Cannabis was monotypic. See, United States v. Moore, 330 F.Supp. 684, 686 (E.D.Pa.1970), affirmed, 446 F.2d 448 (3 Cir. 1971), certiorari denied 406 U.S. 909, 92 S.Ct. 1617, 31 L.Ed.2d 820 (1971); United States v. Rothberg, 351 F.Supp. 1115, 1118 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). In 1970, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs drafted legislation approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws as the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Minnesota adopted much of the new uniform act, including the definition of marijuana in issue in this appeal. L.1971 c. 937, § 4. Although there had been scientific studies questioning the monotypic categorization, [7] it was generally assumed by the lay and legal community that there was but one species of marijuana subject to agronomical variation, i. e., differences attributable to climatic conditions. [8] The definition reflects a general legislative intent to regulate all species of the genus Cannabis, and we so hold. [9] Thus, contrary to the assumption of the trial court, the state must only establish beyond a reasonable doubt the generic identity of the plant substance in issue; identification of the particular species is not relevant. We are satisfied that our interpretation of Minn.St. 152.01, subd. 9, accurately reflects legislative intent since the major concern of the legislature, the morphological effects of use, are indistinguishable among the various species of Cannabis. Moreover, we are satisfied that our interpretation does not raise problems of adequate public notice. Identification of the species of Cannabis is irrelevant to the user and practically impossible in its common commercial forms. We think that members of the general public of common intelligence understand that the clandestine sale of marijuana, whatever the species, constitutes a crime. See People v. Van Alstyne, 46 Cal.App.3d 900, 917, 121 Cal.Rptr. 363, 374 (1975), certiorari denied, 423 U.S. 1060, 96 S.Ct. 798, 46 L.Ed.2d 652 (1976); United States v. Honneus, 508 F.2d 566, 575 (1 Cir. 1974) certiorari denied, 421 U.S. 948, 95 S.Ct. 1677, 44 L.Ed.2d 101 (1975). Nevertheless, in the interest of clarity, the legislature might wish to consider the example set by the several states who have recently revised their definition of marijuana to include all species of the genus Cannabis. [10]