Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Chapman v. United States — Dissenting Opinion

Undoubtedly, Congress intended to punish drug traffickers severely, and in particular, Congress intended to punish those who sell large quantities of drugs more severely than those who sell small quantities. [14] But it did not express any intention to treat those who sell LSD differently from those who sell other dangerous drugs. [15] The majority's construction of the statute fails to embody these legitimate goals of Congress.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Chapman v. United States — Dissenting Opinion

Sentencing disparities that have been described as "crazy," ibid., and "loony," id., at 1332, could well be avoided if the majority did not insist upon stretching the definition of "mixture" to include the carrier along with the LSD. It does not make sense to include a carrier in calculating the weight of the LSD because LSD, unlike drugs such as cocaine or marijuana, is sold by dosage rather than by weight.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Chapman v. United States — Dissenting Opinion

A person who sells LSD on blotter paper is not a worse criminal than one who sells the same number of doses on gelatin cubes, but he is subject to a heavier punishment. A person who sells five doses of LSD on sugar cubes is not a worse person than a manufacturer of LSD who is caught with 19,999 doses in pure form, but the former is subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum no-parole sentence while the latter is not even subject to the five-year minimum.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature