Opinion ID: 303588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Refusal to Commit the Appellant under Title I of

Text: NARA 12 Appellant argues that by denying addicts, like himself, who sell narcotics to feed their habits, pre-conviction treatment under Title I, 11 Congress has arrived at a classification which plainly violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. 12 In view of the availability of Title II 13 post-trial commitment for addicts, however, we are inclined to accept the view of the Government that the two titles represent a balancing between the policies of discouraging the sale of narcotics and facilitating the treatment of addicts. 14 Congress has decided to allow the less blameworthy non-trafficking addict an additional opportunity for treatment not available to the trafficking addict; it is not for us to make the policy judgment that the legitimate goal of deterrence is not thus properly served. 13 Given this express deterrent policy, and the recorded need for an accommodation between the views of those in Congress who felt that all addicts should be treated civilly, and those who felt that all traffickers should be punished criminally, 15 we must recognize that equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, and that here we have a distinction with some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made. Baxstrom v. Herold. 16 14