Court Opinion

ID: 9747559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:20:55.665112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:24.606845
License: Public Domain

Bogdanski, J.
(concurring in the result.) On the evidence before it the trial court found that marihuana was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and significantly less harmful than amphetamines and barbiturates, and those findings were fully supported by the evidence.1 Those findings would fully support the court’s conclusion of unconstitu*610tionality had the statute before it been one concerned with mere possession of marihuana and not one concerned with its distribution.
Possession of marihuana, its private use, and what is done with it in the confines of the home is one thing: distribution and marketing of marihuana, however, is another matter. If the statute under scrutiny dealt with possession alone, the principal question would be whether the harmful effects of marihuana are so much less than those associated with the other enumerated drugs so as to make their classification together irrational. The legislature’s decision to limit the marketing and distribution of marihuana, however, involves considerations beyond the question of whether the substance is harmful to the individual user. The avoidance of large scale sales to the public for a profit, the avoidance of sales to children, and a desire to limit the widespread use of marihuana are among the reasons which could rationally support the legislature’s classification.
With all due deference to the evidence and the finding of the trial court, it is that basic distinction between the possession and distribution of marihuana which compels my concurrence with the result of the majority.

 Despite several requests by the court to do so, the state failed to put in any evidence.