norml23 - Page 7

 of Criminam Appeals agreed. Citing State v. Carus, supra, and
 People v. McCabe, supra, the court concluded that "marihuana is
 not a narcotic drug.., and the triat court's instructions to
 that effect are error." _d., at 297.
 The California Court of AppeaRs, in People v. Ruiz, 49
 CoA. 2d 730 (1975), herod that a provision of the Health and Safety
 Code precluding parole consideration for five years for a person
 convicted of possession of marijuana, who had previously been
 convicted twice of narcotics vioJations, violated the ban against
 cruel and unusual punishments.
 Finally, the Supreme Court of Alaska held, in Ravin v.
 State, 537 P.2d 494 (1975), that the right of privacy protects
 the personal use of marijuana in the home. After reviewing the
 testimony of expert witnesses present at the hearing at the trial
 court and numerous studies and scientific reports; on the effects
 of marijuana, the court: concluded:
 It appears that the use of marijuana as it is
 presentmy used in the United States today,
 does not constitute a public health problem
 of any significant dimensions° Jt is, for
 instance, far more innocuous in terms of
 physiological and social damage than a_cohoJ
 or tobacco, o
 It appears that effects of marijuana on the
 individual are not sedous enough to justify
 widespread concern at least as compared with
 the far more dangerous effects of a_cohoL
 barbiturates and amphetamines. Moreover, the
 current patterns of use in the United States
 are not such as wou_d warrant concern that in
 the future consumption patterns are JJkely to
 change...
 Thus we concJude that no adequate
 .justification for the state's intrusion into
 the citizen's right to privacy by its
 prohibition of possession of marijuana by an
 adult for personal consumption in the home
 has been shown. The privacy of the