State v. Wind

In his first assignment of error, Wind claims the substance sold was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be marijuana within the meaning of sec. 161.275 (1), Stats. 1967. This argument is based on two propositions: (1) That the tests performed did not distinguish between Cannabis sativa L. and Cannabis indica, and (2) the tests were not sufficiently specific for marijuana.

The argument based on two alleged species of marijuana results from varying references to “Cannabis” under ch. 161, entitled “Narcotics,” and chapter 151, entitled “Pharmacy.” In 1967, sec. 161.01 (13), Stats., defined…