GENE RAINES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gene Raines challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Narcotic Drug Act (Chapter 398, F.S.) after being charged with selling marijuana. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute, rejecting arguments that marijuana is not dangerous and that the law violates constitutional protections.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the Narcotic Drug Act is constitutional. Marijuana is a harmful, mind-altering drug that endangers user health and is detrimental to public welfare, falling within substances the Legislature may regulate under its police power without violating fundamental individual rights.
“Marijuana is a harmful, mind-altering drug. It endangers the health of the user and is highly detrimental to the public welfare.”
The court's factual finding regarding marijuana's dangers, which supported upholding the statute as a valid exercise of police power.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaines was charged with two counts of selling marijuana under Chapter 398, Florida Statutes. He moved to dismiss the charges based on constitutional g…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of Leon County upholding the validity of Chapter 398, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., on motion to dismiss and sentencing defendant, appellant herein, to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ probation for violation thereof. Because the trial court passed directly on the validity of a state statute, this Court has jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Appellant was informed against on two counts of the sale of marijuana. He moved to dismiss the information on the grounds that Chapter 398, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Narcotic Drug Act, violates the Federal and State Constitutions. The parties stipulated that all transcribed evidence used in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Leis1 would be admitted into evidence in connection with the appellant’s motion to dismiss. In denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court specifically adopted by reference the thirty-one page order of Honorable G. Joseph Tauro, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, in the Leis case, which order upheld the comparable Massachusetts Statutes.2
On appeal to this Court, appellant seeks to challenge the Constitutionality of the entire narcotic drug law on the grounds that marijuana is not dangerous, a point on which he says this Court must make an independent factual determination. He contends that the narcotic drug law is irrational and unreasonable; goes beyond the proper exercise of the police power; violates equal protection of the law guarantees; and provides for penalties which are cruel and excessive punishment.
After argument and upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and study of the record, we have determined that appellant’s contentions are wholly without merit. Marijuana is a harmful, mind-altering drug. It endangers the health of the user and is highly detrimental to the public welfare. This drug is within the category of injurious substances which the Legislature may regulate and prohibit in the exercise of its police power. No fundamental rights of the individual are violated thereby.
*331The trial court was correct in denying the motion to dismiss and its decision is accordingly,
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, DREW and ADKINS, JJ-, concur.
ERVIN, C. J., concurs in judgment of affirmance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamilton v. State, 366 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)…le I. . We agree with the rationale of the Missouri court and find it equally applicable to the cause before us. Defendant has failed to prove that the present classification of cannabis does not rest upon any reasonable basis. Cf. Raines v. State, 225 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1969); Borras v. State, 229 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1969). As long as there is any reasonable doubt as to the effects of cannabis which affect its classification, these doubts will be resolved in favor of the validity of the legislative classification.…
-
Borras v. State, 229 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1969)…the time the warrant issued. Under the circumstances the failure to specify a date does not render the affidavit defective. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed. It is so ordered. ERVIN, C. J„ and DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur. . 225 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1969). . Commonwealth v. Leis, 243 N.E. 2d 898 (Mass.1969). . 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969). . Id. at 568, 89 S.Ct. 1249, 1250, footnote 11. . 227 So. 2d 489, Fla., Opinion Filed October 15, 1969.…
-
Rush v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 448 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ense dangerous drugs. The importation of marijuana, a drug that the Florida Supreme Court has described as “a harmful mind-altering drug which endangers the health of the user and which is highly detrimental to the public welfare,” Raines v. State, 225 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1969), presents a danger to the public health and does not correspond to that level of professional conduct expected of one licensed to practice podiatry in this state. By confining the convictions upon which disciplinary action may be based to…