¶1 On June 25, 1973, the United States Supreme Court vacated our earlier judgment in People v Bloss, 388 Mich 409; 201 NW2d 806 (1972). The Court remanded Bloss to us for further consideration in light of several new opinions that it issued on the subject of obscenity. 1
¶2*81 We are persuaded that defendant’s conviction cannot stand for the reason that at the time he did the act complained of this Court had not construed the obscenity statute 2 (as permitted in Miller) to proscribe such conduct.
¶3 We are unanimously of the opinion that the Michigan statutes regulating the dissemination of "obscene” material as applied to juveniles and unconsenting adults are valid and enforceable.
¶4 We are divided as to whether such statutes can properly be construed by us without further legislative expression as proscribing the dissemination of "obscene” material to consenting adults. See Const 1963, art 1, § 5.
¶5 The conviction is reversed and the defendant is discharged.
¶6 Miller v California, 413 US 15; 93 S Ct 2607; 37 L Ed 2d 419 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v Slaton, 413 US 49; 93 S Ct 2628; 37 L Ed 2d 446 (1973); Kaplan v California, 413 US 115; 93 S Ct 2680; 37 L Ed 2d 492 (1973); United States v 12 200-ft Reels of Super 8mm Film, 413 US 123; 92 S Ct 2665; 37 L Ed 2d 500 (1973); United States v Orito, 413 US 139; 93 S Ct 2674; 37 L Ed 2d 513 (1973); Heller v New York, 413 US 483; 93 S Ct 2789; 37 L Ed 2d 745 (1973); Roaden v Kentucky, 413 US 496; 93 S Ct 2796; 37 L Ed 2d 757 (1973); Alexander v Virginia, 413 US 836; 93 S Ct 2803; 37 L Ed 2d 993 (1973).