A dissent from the dissent

(Note the first letters of footnote 2)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,


NORMAN ARNO et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Crim. No. 33155.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Mar. 7, 1979.

FN2 We feel compelled by the nature of the attack in the dissenting opinion to spell out a response:

1. Some answer is required to the dissent's charge.
2. Certainly we do not endorse "victimless crime."
3. How that question is involved escapes us.
4. Moreover, the constitutional issue is significant.
5. Ultimately it must be addressed in light of precedent.
6. Certainly the course of precedent is clear.
7. Knowing that, our result is compelled. (See Funk & Wagnall's The New Cassell's German Dict., p. 408, in conjunction with fn. 6 of dis. opn. of Douglas, J., in Ginsberg v. New York (1967) 390 U.S. 629, 655-656 [20 L.Ed.2d 195, 212-213, 88 S.Ct. 1274].)


The judgments of the municipal court are reversed.