finding that marijuana use “creates a euphoric state of intoxication which impedes learning, incentive, efficiency, and, importantly, motor coordination”
How later courts described this case
- finding that marijuana use “creates a euphoric state of intoxication which impedes learning, incentive, efficiency, and, importantly, motor coordination”
- holding that a possible 5-year sentence for felonious possession of marijuana does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment
- decided prior to Plyler v. Doe, supra ; noting confusion and rejecting enhanced scrutiny in favor of rational relationship test
- “if the affidavit or testimony reveals nothing more than a declaration of suspicion and belief, it is legally insufficient”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*354 Utter, C.J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) — I concur with the majority in affirming Anderson's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.401(a). Anderson's constitutional challenge to the conviction is limited to a claim of privacy in the performance of the unlawful conduct. Whatever may be the privacy claim of individuals in possession of marijuana for personal use, this claim does not protect those who would manufacture or deliver the substance.
I do agree with Justice Dolliver that the convictions of Smith and the Redwines for possession of marijuana under the terms of RCW 69.50.401(c) (now RCW 69.50.401(d)) violate federal and state prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments.
I do not reach the equal protection and privacy claims of those convicted for possession of marijuana, nor the alternative constitutional claims regarding delivery which are not before us.