U.S. v. Solow, No. 77-5796
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before RONEY, GEE and FAY; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 574 F.2d 1318 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Ira SOLOW, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Docket Number | No. 77-5796 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1978 |
Page 1318
v.
Steven Ira SOLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
Summary Calendar. *
Fifth Circuit.
Page 1319
Gerald H. Goldstein, San Antonio, Tex., Mark A. Cohen, Austin, Tex., Maury Maverick, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Jamie C. Boyd, U. S. Atty., LeRoy M. Jahn, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this case we uphold the constitutionality of the classification of cocaine as a narcotic drug controlled by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-966.
Defendant was indicted for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. A hearing was held on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. At that time, both parties stipulated to facts concerning the merits of the conspiracy charge. The district judge found the facts justified conviction if the Act under which defendant was indicted is constitutional. From the court's decision that the inclusion of cocaine in Schedule II as a controlled narcotic is constitutional, defendant appeals on the ground that such classification of cocaine does not have a "rational basis."
At the hearing, defendant introduced expert testimony of a psychologist and a pharmacist. The substance of their testimony was that cocaine is not a narcotic drug in the pharmacological sense, is not physically addicting, and in their opinions, is less dangerous than nicotine or alcohol. The witnesses did admit that cocaine can cause psychological dependence and degeneration of the nasal passage, is subject to overuse, and can possibly be lethal.
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-966, established five schedules of controlled substances. A controlled substance is categorized in a particular schedule according to its potential for abuse, its medical usefulness, and the consequences of its use. 21 U.S.C.A. § 812. Cocaine is a Schedule II substance because (1) it has a high potential for abuse, (2) it has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, possibly with severe restrictions, and (3) abuse of the drug may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. 21 U.S.C.A. § 812(b)(2). Schedules I and II...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolkind v. Selph, Civ. A. No. 79-0311-R.
...of cocaine is not a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1, 12 (Alaska 1978). See also United States v. Solow, 574 F.2d 1318, 1319-20 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Marshall, 532 F.2d 1279, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, Virginia's statutory framework esta......
-
People v. Davis, Cr. 17453
...basis of the federal classifications that the state has conformed its narcotics classifications. (United States v. Solow (5th Cir. 1978) 574 F.2d 1318, 1319-1320; United States v. Wheaton (1st Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 275; United States v. Lustig (9th Cir. 1977) 555 F.2d 737, cert. den. (1978) 4......
-
People v. McCarty, No. 54745
...Vila (2d Cir. 1979), 599 F.2d 21, cert. denied (1979), 444 U.S. 837, 100 S.Ct. 73, 62 L.Ed.2d 48; United States v. Solow (5th Cir. 1978), 574 F.2d 1318; United States v. Lane (10th Cir. 1978), 574 F.2d 1019; United States v. Wheaton (1st Cir. 1977), 557 F.2d 275; United States v. McCormick ......
-
People v. Kirchoff, Docket No. 58014
...United States v. Vila, 599 F.2d 21 (CA 2, 1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 837, 100 S.Ct. 73, 62 L.Ed.2d 48 (1979); United States v. Solow, 574 F.2d 1318 (CA 5, 1978); United States v. Lane, 574 F.2d 1019 (CA 10, 1978); United States v. Wheaton, 557 F.2d 275 (CA 1, 1977); United States v. McCormi......
-
Wolkind v. Selph, Civ. A. No. 79-0311-R.
...of cocaine is not a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1, 12 (Alaska 1978). See also United States v. Solow, 574 F.2d 1318, 1319-20 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Marshall, 532 F.2d 1279, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, Virginia's statutory framework esta......
-
People v. Davis, Cr. 17453
...basis of the federal classifications that the state has conformed its narcotics classifications. (United States v. Solow (5th Cir. 1978) 574 F.2d 1318, 1319-1320; United States v. Wheaton (1st Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 275; United States v. Lustig (9th Cir. 1977) 555 F.2d 737, cert. den. (1978) 4......
-
People v. McCarty, No. 54745
...Vila (2d Cir. 1979), 599 F.2d 21, cert. denied (1979), 444 U.S. 837, 100 S.Ct. 73, 62 L.Ed.2d 48; United States v. Solow (5th Cir. 1978), 574 F.2d 1318; United States v. Lane (10th Cir. 1978), 574 F.2d 1019; United States v. Wheaton (1st Cir. 1977), 557 F.2d 275; United States v. McCormick ......
-
People v. Kirchoff, Docket No. 58014
...United States v. Vila, 599 F.2d 21 (CA 2, 1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 837, 100 S.Ct. 73, 62 L.Ed.2d 48 (1979); United States v. Solow, 574 F.2d 1318 (CA 5, 1978); United States v. Lane, 574 F.2d 1019 (CA 10, 1978); United States v. Wheaton, 557 F.2d 275 (CA 1, 1977); United States v. McCormi......