Court Opinion

ID: 9688600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:57:46.875806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:39.944967
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
CATES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant contends that we have said that, as to marihuana, the Controlled Substances Act is ambiguous. This, if true, would lead to its being void for vagueness.
We do not agree. The writer’s opinion may have indulged in convolutions. However, the Act is, if anything, overexplicit in this area.
In other words, it prohibits possession of both “marihuana” and THC. The indictment was for possessing “marijuana.”
Application overruled.
All the Judges concur.