Court Opinion

ID: 9688599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:57:46.871571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:40.515651
License: Public Domain

TYSON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the learned discussion of the most recent developments of the law with reference the subject “marijuana,” or “marihuana,” as set forth in the opinion of our distinguished Presiding Judge in this cause.
Because human knowledge is ever increasing, and the statutory regulation of this subject a changing one, I wish to call to the attention of the Bench and Bar of this State an article prepared by the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Jtistice published in the summer of 1974. This article bears the title, “LEGAL CORNER,” THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA: A RESPONSE TO ATTACK.
From this article:

“Legislative History

“A good summary of the legislative history on which the courts rely is contained in the Rothburg case, E.D.N.Y., 351 F.Supp. 1115. The legislative history of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act indicates an intent by Congress to continue the same types of definitions that existed under prior legislation by stating in regard to Section 202 that:
“ ‘Subsection (c) sets out the various narcotics, marihuana, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and immediate precursors controlled under present law. . . . ’ 1970 U.S.C.Cong.Admin.News, P. 4605. (Emphasis added)

“Response to an Attack

“If the definition of marihuana is attacked in a criminal prosecution, the *722Government must be prepared to respond that:
“1. The federal district courts and reviewing courts have consistently held that the intent of Congress was to control all types of marihuana falling under the historical purview of ‘Cannabis sativa L.’ This is a question of law, not a question for the jury. This decision is independent of whether cannabis is now considered polytypic.
“2. If a technical defense is successfully raised, the Government must be prepared to call a taxonomist of equal qualifications to the defense expert. The Government should stress the classification which was intended in the statute, with an emphasis on historical classifications.
“3. The problem concerning the definition of marihuana can be avoided by charging the substance as one or more of the ‘Tetrahy-hydrocannabinols’ which are separately listed as Schedule 1 controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 812.
“4. In the future a legislative change may be necessary. At the present time, however, the existing definition has been uniformly interpreted by every federal district court and reviewing court to cover all types of marihuana included within the historical understanding of the term ‘Cannabis sativa L.’ ”