norml22 - Page 6

Page 6 Previous , Next , Original Image
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

Previous , Next , Return to Index