norml22 - Page 6
Return to Index
considered. Its use does not singularly or
extraordinarily lead to opiate addiction or
to aggressive behavior or criminal
activity... We do not find a rational basis
for the classification ....
275 N.E.2d at 413.
In _9_Q_le v.__LQr__Dt_e_ls 387 Mich. 167:194 N.W.2d 827
(1972), the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the penalty of 20
years imprisonment prescribed by statute for selling a narcotic
drug, as it included sale of marijuanas violated constitutional
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment° After
comparing the statutory penalty with penalties for offenses
involving the sale of various substances_ offenses against
persons or property, and with provisions of the state Controlled
Substances Act of 1971p the court concluded that the term of
imprisonment was _'in excess of any that would be suitable to fit
the crime," offended "the evolving standards of decency that mark
the progress of maturing society," and would not serve the goal
of rehabilitation. _. at 821_ 832-33.
At the same time the Supreme Court of Michigan announced the
decision it reversed the defendant's conviction for
possession of marijuana in l v _
l__i_, 387 Micho 91, 194
N°W.2d 878 (1972)_ Two judges were of the opinion that the
statutory categorization of marijuana along with "hard drug"
narcotics for purposes of imposition of penalties denied the
defendant equal protection of the laws; one judge was of the
opinion that the statute denied the defendant the right to
liberty and the pursuit of happiness; two judges were of the
Return to Index