State Supreme Court Agrees to Define Legal, Illegal Cocaine

The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to define cocaine--or at least what constitutes legal and illegal forms of the drug.

The case stems from a Court of Appeal ruling last December that prosecutors must distinguish between organic cocaine, which everyone agrees is illegal, and a synthetic form of cocaine.

Reversing the Siskiyou County conviction of John G. Aston, the lower court concluded that manufactured cocaine is not illegal. However, that does not mean that there will be a rush to buy the drug. The appellate court also concluded that based on scientific studies, it has no effect on users.

The San Francisco-based court of appeal concluded that without proof that the drug is organic, and thus illicit, a defendant could not be convicted for possession.

The ruling concerned law enforcement, because the appellate court ruled that prosecutors must prove that any cocaine confiscated and used as evidence in criminal cases is not synthetic.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Patricia C. Esgro said that would require a costly test on machines that are too expensive for most counties.

She also said such proof is unnecessary, noting, “We don’t have to prove that it is not flour either.”

Four justices--the minimum needed on the seven-member court to review a case--agreed to resolve the question. The four were Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Stanley Mosk, Otto Kaus and Malcolm Lucas.