Court Opinion

ID: 7820031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:50:45.869424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:42.971824
License: Public Domain

J. Fred Jones, Justice, dissenting. I do not agree with the majority opinion in this case. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1971 (Act 590 of 1971) separated the controlled drugs and substances into five general classifications referred to as “schedules” according to their nature and potency. The Act included marijuana, along with 16 other named substances among the “hallucinogenic substances” classified under Schedule I. The Act then provided a penalty for possession with intent to deliver non-narcotic controlled substances under Schedules I, II or III as imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $15,000, or both. The Act then provided that mere possession of such substance would constitute a misdemeanor except that a third or subsequent offense would constitute a felony. Act 186 of 1973 amended the 1971 Act and as recited in the enacting clause was for the purpose, among other things, “to Create a New Schedule to be Designated ‘Schedule VI’ to Include Marihuana and to Provide a Penalty for the Possession Thereof; and for Other Purposes.” I cannot accept the apparent reasoning of the majority that possession of marijuana was legalized by Act 186 of 1973 for lack of definition. By passing Act 186 of 1973 the Legislature simply concluded that marijuana, classified as the tenth numbered substance among the 17 hallucinogenic substances in Schedule I under Section 4 (a) of Act 590, was simply in the wrong schedule penalty-wise and was entitled to a separate numbered schedule. Consequently, by Act 186 of 1973, the Legislature provided in Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act as follows: SECTION 13. There is hereby established a Schedule VI for the classification of those substances which are determined to be inappropriately classified by placing them in Schedules I through V. Schedule VI includes controlled substances listed or to be listed by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name or trade name designated. SECTION 14. The Coordinator shall place a substance in Schedule VI if he finds that: (a) the substance is not currently accepted for medical use in treatment in the United States; (b) that there is lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance even under direct medical supervision; (c) that the substance has relatively high psychological and/or physiological dependence liability; and, (d) That use of the substance presents a definite risk to public health. SECTION 15. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, whether produced directly or indirectly from substances of vegetable origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, which contains any quantity of the following substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation are included in Schedule VI: 1. Marihuana. 2. Tetrahydrocannabinol. Act 186 then provided, as did the previous Act 590, felony penalty for violation in connection with controlled substances under Schedules I and II when the substance is a narcotic drug, and raised the penalty from imprisonment for not more than 15 years or fine not more than $25,000, or both, to “imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not less than five (5) years nor more than thirty (30) years or fined not more than $25,000, or both.” Article IV, Section 1 (a) (1) (ii) of original Act 590 pertaining to possession with intent to deliver recited as follows: Any person who violates this subsection with respect to: . . . any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, or III, is guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined not more than $15,000 or both. This subsection was amended by Act 186 to read as follows: Any person who violates this subsection with respect to any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, III, or VI is guilty of a felony and upon conviction may be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for not less than three (3) years nor more than ten (10) years, fined not more than $15,000, or both. Section 3 (c) of Act 186 simply re-enacted the misdemeanor provision for mere possession under Act 590 (subsection [c] of Section 1 of Article IV of Act 590) with the additional proviso: “Provided however, any person who unlawfully possesses a controlled substance listed under Schedule I of this Act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary for not less than two (2) years nor more than five (5) years.” The appellant was simply charged with the possession of controlled substance, to-wit: Marijuana, with the intent to deliver said substance to other persons. Under Section 1 of Act 590 of 1971 many words and terms “as used in this Act” were defined. These words included “Administer,” “Agent,” “Bureau,” “Controlled substance,” “Deliver,” “Dispense,” “Dispenser,” etc. The Act then provided administrative authority for the Commissioner to add to or delete from the various Schedules drugs and substances. Then Section 4 of the Act named 42 opiates as being included in Schedule I and also named 22 opium derivatives as being included in Schedule Í and then, as already stated, named 17 hallucinogenic substances as included in Schedule I. Act 590 was approved on April 17, 1971, and Act 186 of 1973 was approved on March 2, 1973, and the appellant White was accused of having possessed marijuana on November 22, 1974. He now says that there could be no violation of law as charged because the amendatory Act 186 removed marijuana from Schedule I under Act 590; and, consequently, since Act 590 defined “controlled substance” as a substance mentioned in Schedule I through V of Article 2 of that Act and since Act 186 of 1973 did not amend the definition of “controlled substance” to include substances in Schedule VI, there was no violation of the law by possession of marijuana since the re-enactment of Act 186 of 1973. Under Act 590 of 1971 the Legislature set up five classifications for the drugs and substances being controlled. The drugs and substances were not controlled because they fell into one of the five classified schedules, they fell into one of the five schedules because they were being controlled, and their nature and derivation were important to their classification in providing the penalties in connection with violations pertaining to them. The Legislature concluded that under Act 590 marijuana was erroneously included under Schedule I, and if the Legislature did amend marijuana out of the definition of a controlled substance by Act 186, it certainly did not leave the mere possession of marijuana, or the possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, without penalty. In other words, by Act 186 the Legislature did not legalize the possession of marijuana by lack of definition and if Act 186 did take marijuana out' of the definition of a controlled substance in Act 590, it placed marijuana back within the definition of a controlled substance when the Legislature in Section 13 of Act 186 said: There is hereby established a Schedule VI for the classification of those substances which are determined to be inappropriately classified by placing them in Scheduh 5 I through V. Schedule VI includes controlled substances listed. . . . Section 14 of the Act then provided foir the Coordinator to add substances to or subtract them from Schedule VI. Section 15, supra, of Act 186, defined what substances were to be included in Schedule VI and specifically mentioned marijuana. Then Act 186, under Section 3 (c) just simply reenacted the penalty clause contained in Act 590 for mere possession with the exception that since marijuana was given a designated schedule, possession of the other substances listed in Schedule I of the Act was made a felony. I would affirm on the point here involved.