Court Opinion

ID: 9859853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:48:57.602572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:42.639646
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
GlVAN, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case, although the majority opinion correctly points out that the Court of Appeals’ decision appears to rest upon a Federal statute which had been repealed. As is pointed out in the majority opinion, this was not the only section to which reference might be made to determine a correct definition of “a dangerous drug.”
The majority opinion takes the position that it is impossible to determine what in fact is a dangerous drug by reference to the Federal statutes. This is a difficulty which has not been experienced by the Federal authorities nor by many states which have used statutes very similar to the Indiana statute. It is difficult to believe that a person of good faith would be at a total loss to know what constituted a dangerous drug by Federal definition.
The Indiana statute makes adequate reference to all of the Federal statutes and regulations pertinent to such issue.
I agree with the result of the opinion of the Court of Appeals and for that reason would deny transfer in this case.
Arterburn, C.J., concurs.
Note.—Reported at 311 N.E.2d 803.