In People v. Shepard, 50 NY2d 640 (1980), the defendant was charged with possession of nine marihuana plants in his home. He argued that marihuana is a "harmless substance and, therefore, the State of New York had no legitimate interest in prohibiting its private use or possession." Id. at 643. Notably, the defendant argued that marihuana posed "no significant harm nor health danger to the user" and that "use of marihuana was less harmful than many other drugs and commonly used substances." Id. Citing a "disagreement regarding the effects of marihuana," the court explained that the marihuana prohibition "represents the current and considered judgment of an elected Legislature acting on behalf of the people of this State." Id. at 645. The court explained that even if it disagreed with the legislature about the safety of marihuana, it "lacked the right to substitute its own sense of what is a dangerous substance for the considered judgment of the legislature." Id. at 645-46.