Court Opinion

ID: 9721445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:59:31.003042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:25.942005
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I have signed my Brother Adams’ opinion for I agree with his reasoning and his conclusion that the mandatory 20-year minimum sentence is invalid as cruel and unusual punishment. I would go farther and set aside defendant’s conviction, and order his discharge, however, for I believe the statute under which he was convicted is constitutionally defective.
In People v Sinclair, 387 Mich 91 (1972) released today, I stated the conviction’ that the government has no constitutional authority to proscribe possession and private use of marijuana. The right to possess and use something, however, has little meaning unless one also has the right to acquire it, and hence proscription of sale cannot be reconciled with a right to possess and use.
It may be that some legitimate public interest may be served by the regulation of traffic in marijuana, but a statute which absolutely forbids the sale of marijuana is as offensive to the right of privacy and the pursuit of happiness as a statute which forbids its possession and use.