MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                       l803

May 28, 1969.

Honorable Thomas Hunter Lowe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 820 and am returning it to
you.

This Bill, as originally introduced, amended Section 122B(g) of
Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland to provide a greater
penalty for second offenders convicted of any of the four offenses
associated with the drug known as LSD and set forth in subsections
(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 122B of Article 27. These separate
offenses, as set out in the following four subsections, are: (b) un-
authorized sale of the drug; (c) unauthorized possession of the drug;
(d) unauthorized manufacture of the drug; and (e) administration
of the drug to oneself.

As introduced, the Bill represented clear and fully desirable
legislation. However, the Bill was amended in the course of the legis-
lative process by adding a new sentence to subsection (c) which pre-
viously had related solely to the offense of possession. Under the
amendment, subsection (c) would read:

"(c) It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession,
unless for purposes of scientific research, the drug or compound
known generally as LSD. Any person who has such unlawful
possession for purposes of administering to himself or taking
internally said drug or compound not under the direction of a
licensed physician shall be punishable by the penalty provided
for violations of subsection (e) of this Section."

However, subsection (e), relating to the offense of administering
LSD to oneself was not changed. Moreover, the parts of subsection
(g) providing separate and different penalties for violations of sub-
section (c) and subsection (e) were not changed.

The Attorney General's office has advised me that the Bill in its
present form is entirely unclear and may represent a lowering of the
penalty for first offenders of the prohibition against possessing LSD.

One thing which is not completely clear under the amended Bill
is whether possession of the drug on the one hand and self-adminis-
tration of the drug on the other, are any longer entirely separate
offenses subject to different and possibly cumulative penalties.

Another problem with the amended version of the Bill concerns
the penalty for possession of the drug for purposes of self-adminis-
tration. This is made unlawful by subsection (c) and, under sub-
section (g), violations of subsection (c) are subject to a maximum
penalty of a $500 fine or one year imprisonment. But, subsection (c)
itself provides that possession for purposes of self-administration is
subject to the penalty provided for violations of subsection (e), and
subsection (g) provides a maximum penalty of a $100 fine for vio-
lations of subsection (e).