norml22 - Page 7



Page 7 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 
 opinion that incriminating evidence should have been excluded as
 evidence obtained as a result of illegal entrapment; two judges
 were of the opinion that incriminating evidence should have been
 excluded as evidence obtained as a result of illegal entrapment;
 and two judges were of the opinion that the minimum sentence of
 nine and one-half years constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
 The opinion of the courts written by Swainson, J.u declared:
 Comparison of the effects of marijuana use on
 both the individual and society with the
 effects of other drug use demonstrates not
 only that there is no rational basis for
 classifying marijuana with the _hard
 narcotics _' but6 alsog ____l_re  v
 __ r a t iQr_i____i S__ f_or___tr__, at//lq__ _ a
 an _r_u_g _rhea n a 19_o/L_i o
 194 N.W.2d at 881 (Emphasis added)
 The court concluded: '_We agree with the Illinois Supreme
 Court in _ v , _pra, that marijuana is improperly
 classified as a narcotic and hold that [the Michigan statute
 prohibiting possession of marijuana] in its classification of
 marijuana violates the equal protection clause of the U.S.
 Constitution... '* _d. at 887. Subsequent Michigan decisions
 indicated that the _G__abe holding, j_e., that marijuana cannot
 rationally be classified as a narcotic, has been adopted as a
 matter of law. ___ _9-Q3_/_ v_axma_ 41 Mich. Appo 277_ 199
 N.W.2d 884 (1972) _ r_v_Q3_ author_i_t_ Q____Q_i9 Vo S__ 338
 Mich. 774, 200 N.Wo2d 322 (1972). _ee al___, _9_QP_le v. Griffin,
 39 Mich. App. 464_ 198 N.W.2d 740 (1972).
 In __tate v_____ar_GuS, 18 N.J. Super, 159, 286 A.2d 740 (1972),
 C_ was convicted of violation of a motor vehicle statute
 6




Previous , Next , Return to Index