Volume 188 — Colorado Reports

1. <bold>PROHIBITION</bold> — <italic>Relief — Court — Proceeding — Excess of Jurisdiction.</italic> Relief in the nature of prohibition is available where the district court is proceeding without or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2. <italic>Preventive Remedy.</italic> Prohibition is generally preventive remedy and usually issues only to prevent the commission of a future act, rather than undo an act already performed. 3. <bold>APPEAL AND ERROR</bold> — <italic>Function — Correction of Error.</italic> Correction of error is the function of appeal, a trial court having jurisdiction to render a wrong as well as a right decision. 4. <bold>PROHIBITION</bold> — <italic>Default Judgment — Review — Order — Set Aside — Denying —</italic><italic>Granting — Appeal — Rules.</italic> Under C.A.R. 21, the only proper procedure to secure review of an order either granting or denying an application to set aside a default judgment is by appeal after final judgment; and contention of petitioner — seeking relief in nature of prohibition — that there was an absence of other relief available was without merit.

1. <bold>DRUGS AND DRUGGISTS</bold> — <italic>Cannabis — Reasonable Classification — Statute —</italic><italic>Constitutional — People v. Summit.</italic> <cross_reference>183 Colo. 421</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>517 P.2d 850</cross_reference>, the legislative classification of cannabis as a narcotic was deemed a reasonable classification and the statute, C.R.S. 1963, 48-5-2, was constitutionally upheld; Supreme Court now adheres to its holding in that case. 2. <italic>Cannabis — Conviction — Challenge — Statute — Defining — Narcotic</italic><italic>Drug — Lack of Standing.</italic> Where defendant was convicted of possessing "cannabis" and not another "substance," defendant did not have standing to challenge statute defining a narcotic drug as including "coca leaves, opium, cannabis . . . and every other substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from them." 3. <italic>Cannabis — Definition — Precise — "Vagueness" — Negative.</italic> Specific definition of cannabis contained in C.R.S. 1963, 48-5-1, although complex, is nevertheless precise and therefore not subject to the constitutional proscription against "vagueness."