Byron White

“ The Court has not merely tidied up California's law by removing some irritating vestige of an outmoded approach to the control of narcotics. At the very least, it has effectively removed California's power to deal effectively with the recurring case under the statute where there is ample evidence of use but no evidence of the precise location of use. Beyond this it has cast serious doubt upon the power of any State to forbid the use of narcotics under threat of criminal punishment. ”

“ I do not consider appellant's conviction to be a punishment for having an illness or for simply being in some status or condition, but rather a conviction for the regular, repeated or habitual use of narcotics immediately prior to his arrest and in violation of the California law. As defined by the trial court, [2] addiction is the regular use of narcotics and can be proved only by evidence of such use. To find addiction in this case the jury had to believe that appellant had frequently used narcotics in the recent past. ”

“ In order to inquire as to whether a person is addicted to the use of narcotics is in effect an inquiry as to his habit in that regard. * * * To use them often or daily is, according to the ordinary acceptance of those words, to use them habitually.'↑ This is not a case where a defendant is convicted 'even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the State or been guilty of any irregular behavior there.' The evidence was that appellant lived and worked in Los Angeles. ”