OPINION

The validity of Alaska laws prohibiting possession and sale of cocaine are ques*3tioned in these appeals, and we are presented with difficult questions involving the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States1 and Alaska2 Constitutions and the right to privacy.3 Specifically, we must look to the entire statutory scheme for regulation of drug use and determine the following issues:4

1. Is the classification of cocaine users with users of narcotics over-inclusive and violative of equal protection because cocaine is not a narcotic drug?

2. Is the classification of cocaine with narcotics arbitrary and irrational so as to violate due process?

3. Is the statutory scheme for regulation of cocaine violative of due process or equal protection because it permits prosecutorial discretion to charge cocaine offenses under either AS 17.10 or AS 17.12?

4.Is criminalization of the personal use and possession of cocaine in the home an invalid infringement on the right to privacy?

Each of the seven defendants in these consolidated appeals was indicted under AS 17.10.0105 which prohibits the possession, sale and distribution of narcotic drugs6 as defined in AS 17.10.230,7 and moved to dismiss the indictments8 on a variety of constitutional grounds.

After a lengthy evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a carefully detailed memorandum decision which dismissed the indictments and stated that the defendants could possibly have been charged with violations of AS 17.12.010.9 Summarizing the testimony of the two witnesses and eight affidavits of experts presented by the defendants and the testimony of the three *4witnesses called by the state,10 the court found that:

[I]t is beyond dispute that cocaine is unlike the opiates and compares with amphetamines. All of the scientific expert witnesses called by the petitioners and the State of Alaska agree on the fact that cocaine is not a narcotic for pharmacological purposes. The experts disagree on the dangerousness of cocaine use both to the user and to society.

It concluded that the classification of cocaine as a narcotic violated equal protection and due process guarantees of the Alaska Constitution.

While we find the case a close one and are convinced from the record and other reliable scientific sources that cocaine, as principally used today, is less deleterious than popularly believed, we have concluded that the legislation is valid; and, accordingly, we reverse.

SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW

Because our decision must necessarily rest to a large extent on scientific evidence concerning the nature and the effects of cocaine, we must at the outset assess the wisdom and propriety of considering on appeal materials which were not presented to the trial court.

In this case, the state has introduced numerous materials for the first time on appeal; and the defendants argue that our consideration should be limited to the evidence presented to the trial court. Reasons of judicial economy and fairness to the trial judge and litigants would compel us to agree with the defendants in most cases. Where, however, the validity of legislation having major social consequences is at stake, we conclude that an appellate court may be compelled to accept sources from outside the record.

Traditionally, a court’s review of materials not contained in the trial record was justified through the use of judicial notice. The original concept of judicial notice comprised cases where the court took notice of facts which were “universally known and recognized”11 or “within the knowledge of most men.”12 As the common knowledge requirement became fictionally expanded to include refreshing of judicial recollection, the scope of judicial notice was extended to encompass facts capable of certain verification.13 The common thread between these two positions was the fact that, under either requirement, the information taken by notice was irrefutable. This has been and remains the standard with respect to the adjudicative facts in a case. Adjudicative facts, in the terminology of Professor K. C. Davis,14 are those facts which explain who did what, when, where, how and with what motive and intent. In these appeals, we are *5not confronted with any conflict as to the adjudicative facts. Questions as to what various defendants did are not in issue.

Adjudicative facts are distinguished from what Professor Davis, followed by Professor McCormick,15 call legislative facts. Legislative facts come into play when the court is faced with the task of deciding the constitutionality of a statute, statutory interpretation or the extension or restriction of a common law rule upon grounds of policy. These policy decisions, as in the case at hand, often hinge on social,16 political,17 economic,18 or scientific facts,19 most of which no longer fall within the classification of irrefutable. Cases involving such decisions20 cannot be decided adequately without some view by the court of the policy considerations and background upon which the validity of a particular statute or rule is grounded.21

McCormick on Evidence, § 334 (2d ed. 1972), alludes to the proposition that the topic of judicial notice, particularly as to legislative facts, does not conveniently fit within the structured confines of the law of evidence, but rather is more appropriately categorized in the more general area of judicial reasoning.22 A distinction must be made between evidence of the particular facts of a case, which can be accepted only through prescribed methods calculated to assure credibility, and those facts which are of greater policy significance in that they describe aspects of our larger environment and form the basis upon which adjudicative facts are evaluated. It is a slippery distinction at best; but it is one that has been drawn by Davis,23 incorporated into the federal rules,24 and at least implicitly recognized in nearly every situation where a court has been called upon to address a *6question of policy in evaluating the rationality or reason behind a statute or rule.25

Here we are concerned with the attributes and effects of the drug cocaine. Our decision is therefore not based on the particular facts in this case but on matters of general scientific knowledge. We recognize that evaluation of scientific information at the appellate level is without the advantage of cross-examination of witnesses and the resulting increase in the reliability of the “facts” ascertained. In cases such as this, however, there are literally hundreds of scientific articles and numerous experts. An effort to present any substantial number of those experts in a courtroom would be prohibitively expensive and unduly time-consuming. Moreover, in the final analysis, it is questionable whether such an expanded hearing would reveal more reliable or higher quality information than is available by referring to authorities submitted in briefs by both sides, and, in appropriate cases, by additional research at the appellate level.

In the case before us, because counsel for both sides cited exhaustive sources, it is unnecessary for us to refer to additional materials. We thus are not presented with the question of whether the requirements of Civil Rule 43(a)(6)[d],26 affording parties opportunity to respond, must be met. We do not believe, however, that the rule necessarily applies to “legislative” facts.

Appellate courts often consider evidence outside the record in reaching their decisions. While some courts do it more formally than others, the great weight of authority supports judicial discretion in this matter.27 The United States Supreme Court has relied on material not presented to the trial court on numerous occasions.28

In this case, the trial court heard four days of testimony. Dr. Andrew T. Weil and Dr. Sanford J. Feinglass testified for the defendants. The state presented three expert witnesses — Mr. John T. Maher, Dr. John Griffith and Dr. Floyd E. Anderson. In addition, the state presented evidence regarding street prices of cocaine in *7Anchorage and the profitability of cocaine trafficking. Finally, the trial court also had before it the affidavits of eight scientists who have studied the pharmacological nature and scientific use of cocaine: Dr. Norman Zinberg, Dr. Lance Simpson, Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. James Thorpe, Dr. Paul Lowinger, Dr. Robert Byck, Dr. Robert G. Newman and Dr. Richard Kunnes. Although we consider this evidence in evaluating the constitutional issues before us and defer to the trial court’s experience in evaluating the credibility of witnesses,29 we conclude that in cases involving scientific information the court cannot be limited to the evidence presented to the trial court. Where “legislative facts” are concerned, it must be free to avail itself of other scientific sources. Therefore, our decision will rest on all relevant and current information concerning cocaine. Where the authors of such works have not been subjected to cross-examination, we will weigh their data and conclusions with this fact in mind.

NATURE AND EFFECTS OF COCAINE

Cocaine is a naturally occurring stimulant drug produced from the leaves of the coca bush, primarily from Erythroxyion coca, a species of flowering plant indigenous to the western hemisphere. The coca plant’s natural environment is the hot, humid eastern slope of the Andes Mountains. It grows principally in Bolivia and Peru, although it may be found as far south as Chile and as far north as Colombia and Venezuela. Cocaine is an alkaloid which must be extracted from coca. While cocaine’s history covers little more than a hundred years, the use of coca can be traced to at least the 6th Century A.D. It had religious significance to the Incas.30 Early use in South America was confined to chewing the leaves in a mixture of lime substance, and it is still widely used in this manner by Bolivian and Peruvian Indians. Allegedly, it has enabled the Indians to work under arduous conditions at high altitudes with inadequate diets. Coca leaves contain one-half to one percent cocaine, and oral ingestion results in a slower release of its effects than when the drug is taken by other means.31

Cocaine was successfully isolated and extracted in the 1880’s. Initially, the new drug was greeted with great enthusiasm in Europe and in the United States. It was used as a local anesthetic particularly in eye, nose and throat surgery because it constricted blood vessels limiting bleeding in surgery. Also, cocaine became an ingredient in several patent medicine cure-alls, as well as in the original formula for Coca-Cola.

As with most recent “wonder drugs,” initial widespread acceptance was increasingly tempered by the recognition that cocaine had undesirable side effects and could pose a severe health hazard.32 Concern over the excesses of use of patent medicines utilizing cocaine became manifest with the emergence of higher standards for the practice of medicine. While many of its medical uses have been abandoned, cocaine continues to have some use as a local anesthetic.

It is undisputed that cocaine is not a narcotic under the pharmacological definition of the term. The term “narcotic” derives from the Greek word for numbness or stupor.33 Narcotics are central nervous system depressants which create a physical dependence liability in the user. Opiates are a class of narcotics which tend to reduce and relieve pain. Narcotic use is characterized by tolerance, the need for increasing doses over time to maintain the same pharmacological effects, and by withdrawal — a pattern of symptoms appearing when an habitually-taken drug is discontinued sud*8denly and relieved when the drug is reinstated. Narcotics are not self-limiting. Given an unlimited supply, the user can take the drug continuously. Narcotics, such as the opiates, act on an opiate receptor site in the brain. There is also a cross tolerance effect to opiates, meaning that any opiate can relieve abstinence syndrome created by dependence on another opiate.

The general motivations for opiate use are escape and an attempt to close out the rest of the world. Depressants are generally used by those who are seeking to disconnect themselves from their environment. Opiates are usually taken intravenously by needle.

The chemical structure of cocaine is unlike that- of opiates, and it is not associated with tolerance or withdrawal syndrome. In contrast to opiates, cocaine is a stimulant. It produces an euphoria, a sense of intense stimulation and of psychic and physical well-being, accompanied by a reduced fatigue. There is scientific evidence that, when taken in moderate doses, it increases heart rate and blood pressure. It is not physically addictive and is generally considered less harmful than heroin or alcohol.

The non-medical use of cocaine occurs primarily by inhaling or “snorting” through the nose. A less common method of use is intravenous injection into the blood stream. The effects of the drug are rapid but of short duration. If injected, its major effects are generally dissipated after ten minutes; and, if taken nasally, after a half hour.

Users generally believe that it is safe and relatively free of undesirable side effects. Cocaine use does have adverse effects, however, even in small doses. When “snorted,” it may cause inflammation of the nasal membranes. Intravenous injection is more dangerous, primarily because of the risks attendant with use of needles. Larger doses and heavier use by any method pose more significant risks. Dr. Petersen, in his article, “Cocaine: An Overview,” states:

Its reputation for safety may be overstated since it is based on low doses taken relatively infrequently. Under conditions of heavier, more frequent use, adverse consequences may be considerably more common than generally believed.34

There is, apparently, wide individual variation in the psychological and physiological effects. With heavier use, a cocaine psychosis similar to paranoid schizophrenia has been described in scientific literature; and Dr. Andrew Weil indicated that cocaine can cause a toxic psychosis. Tactile hallucinations, involving a sensation of insects under the skin, is a common aspect of such cases. Paranoid delusions have been described, including fear of imaginary authority figures or a belief that one is being watched.35

Dr. Weil, in testifying about an adverse change in attitude toward cocaine that occurred in the latter part of the 19th Century, stated that, in a period of indiscriminate use, some individuals had very bad reactions to cocaine and became very anxious or excited or paranoid. “Some people went crazy briefly upon the administration of high doses of cocaine.” He indicated that this occurred only in a small minority of those using cocaine but that it was a spectacular adverse effect. Indeed, it has been noted that:

Apart from clinical description and case reports, however, there have still been no systematic controlled studies to determine the level and frequency of cocaine use which leads to serious, adverse psychic effects such as those described. It is not known how common such paranoid symptoms are at various levels of use, the degree to which individual personality differences contribute to their development or whether they are a consequence of use if large enough quantities are used over a sufficiently extended period. Because present American use patterns are characterized by relatively in-frequent use of small quantities of the drug, serious adverse effects of use may be quite *9rare. In one recent study of recreational users 85 regular users (1 gram per month or more) recruited by means of newspaper ads were studied. None of these subjects were compulsive users in the sense described in the earlier literature. Although their self-reported experiences were generally positive (e. g., all reported euphoria in connection with use), negative effects were also indicated, such as restlessness, anxiety, hyper-irratability, and . . . paranoia. In this study, positive effects were reported on all occasions of use, with negative consequences experienced in 3-5 percent of them.36

Unlike marijuana, cocaine can cause death as a direct effect of its pharmacological action. Researchers in 1976 and 1977 collected data about cocaine-related deaths at twenty-seven study sites in the United States and Canada according to an article in the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Monograph on cocaine.37 In that study of 62.9 million people, there were 111 fatalities in which cocaine apparently played a part; however, only twenty-six of the fatalities were attributable solely to cocaine.38 The number of fatalities per year has increased markedly, however, probably as a result of increased usage.39 Dr. Weil testified that, although the risk of death from central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine is a tiny fraction of the risk created by central nervous system depressants, such a result can occur under unusual circumstances.40

Dr. Sanford J. Feinglass, who testified for the defendants, indicated that the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, for which he served as consultant, considered that alcohol is the drug with the greatest potential for abuse, followed by opiates and barbituates. The Commission rated cocaine as having a slightly higher potential for abuse than amphetamines, followed by marijuana, LSD and mescaline in descending propensity for abuse. Tobacco was not included in the scope of the Commission’s work.

He believed that it was possible for a user of cocaine to develop a toxic psychosis but that the incidence would be extremely low. He stated that it was possible to have a lethal dose of cocaine. He testified as to reports of destruction or apparent destruction of the nasal mucosa with some associated bleeding and scabbing.

While cocaine has been anecdotally related to aggressive or criminal conduct, adequate evidence to assess its possible impact in these areas is absent.41 Aside from the criminality involved in violation of drug laws, we have found no reliable scientific evidence linking cocaine usage to criminal conduct, although there is some indication that its stimulant effect may create a potential for crime and violence42

Oddly enough, no tests seem to have been made as to the effects of cocaine on driving — one area in which it has been clearly shown that marijuana has adverse effects.43 Dr. Weil was of the opinion that one who had experience with the effects of cocaine would drive normally but that one inexperienced with its use might have his driving ability impaired.

*10There is a dispute in the evidence pertaining to whether cocaine is psychologically addictive.44 Dr. Weil testified:

There is no question that people can be dependent on cocaine. I think that those people45 were dependent on cocaine in the sense that a large proportion of their working energy went towards getting and using cocaine.

An appraisal of the effects of cocaine use is made difficult by the differing views expressed, ranging from those of ardent advocates to those of persons condemning it as one of the most demonic of drugs. The attitudes pertaining to the drug have seen dramatic shifts during different periods of time, as well as sharp reversals of opinion by individuals. For example, the Spaniards, upon discovering the use of coca leaves by the Incas, initially condemned it but later strongly advocated its use by the subjugated Indians because of its apparent effect in aiding arduous work.46 Dr. Sigmund Freud, who had earlier used cocaine himself and considered it a wonder drug, became concerned after seeing a friend develop a cocaine psychosis. The friend, Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow, had an earlier morphine dependency which he tried to overcome with cocaine.47 Many modern scientists have substantially changed their views pertaining to the drug, now believing it to be less harmful than previously conceived.48

Our review of sources concerning the drug indicate that there is still much to be learned. Many of the texts are singularly anecdotal and unscientific. Obtaining a true scientific evaluation is made tremendously difficult by the variations in methods of use, the relative purity of the drug, the manner in which it is combined with other substances, and the physical and psychological attributes of the user. A more intensive scientific analysis appears to be evolving at the present time; and a number of works have been published in the past year, indicating a more realistic appraisal.49 The recently-issued Monograph, prepared by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, is an excellent consideration of the more advanced and scientific evaluations.50

EQUAL PROTECTION

The defendants have mounted a weighty attack on cocaine’s inclusion as a “narcotic drug” in AS 17.10.51 It is argued that the classification is overinclusive because, from a pharmacological standpoint, cocaine is not a narcotic and should be classified under AS 17.1252 with amphetamines, which produce similar physiological effects. Since penal*11ties for the use and possession of narcotic drugs are, in many instances, more severe than those for amphetamines,53 defendants contend that cocaine users are denied equal protection.

AS 17.10.01054 prohibits the use or sale of “narcotic drugs.” The term “narcotic drugs” is defined in the act so that there is no question that possession and sale of cocaine is proscribed. AS 17.10.230(13) states that “narcotic drugs” shall mean “coca leaves, opium, isonipecaine, amidone, isoam-idone, ketobemidone, and every other substance having similar physiological effects.” “Coca leaves” is further defined as including cocaine,55 and opium is defined as including “morphine, codeine and heroin.”56 With the exception of cocaine and coca leaves, all drugs classified as narcotics under AS 17.10 are natural or synthetic opiates.

We have previously discussed the tests to be used in determining questions of equal protection in Alaska.57 In those cases, we expressed increasing dissatisfaction with the traditional two-tiered test for equal protection cases, which applies either the rational basis or the compelling interest standard. Finally, in Isakson v. Rickey,58 the traditional model was altered. Isakson modified the test at the lower, non-fundamental right level by requiring a more exacting scrutiny. It implied, however, that the compelling state interest test would still be used when appropriate.

'Under the rational basis test, in order for a classification to survive judicial scrutiny, the classification “must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some difference having a fair and substantial relationship to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” (citation omitted; emphasis added)

It is this more flexible and more demanding standard which will be applied in future cases if the compelling state interest test is found inappropriate.59

Recently, we have reaffirmed application of this standard.60

In cases involving federal constitutional questions, where fundamental rights and suspect categories are at issue, we are bound by the “compelling state interest” standard unless that test is altered by the United States Supreme Court. In applying *12the Alaska Constitution, however, there is no reason why we cannot use a single test. Such a test will be flexible and dependent upon the importance of the rights involved. Based on the nature of the right, a greater or lesser burden will be placed on the state to show that the classification has a fair and substantial relation to a legitimate governmental objective. Where fundamental rights or suspect categories are involved, the results of this test will be essentially the same as requiring a “compelling state interest”; but, by avoiding outright categorization of fundamental and non-fundamental rights, a more flexible, less result-oriented analysis may be made.61

Before proceeding, we must thus determine whether the rights of the defendants to possess, use and sell cocaine are of such a nature as to require application of the federal compelling state interest test. Applying the analysis we used in assessing claims that marijuana laws were invalid in Ravin v. State,62 we hold that the defendants’ particular rights to privacy and autonomy involved cannot be read so as to make the ingestion, sale or possession of cocaine a fundamental right. Moreover, the inclusion of cocaine users with opiate users does not involve a question of suspect classification such as race.63

Since this federal standard is inapplicable here, we turn to the methodology outlined earlier in this opinion and in Isak-son for assessing equal protection claims under the Alaska Constitution. Initially, we must look to the purpose of the statute, viewing the legislation as a whole, and the circumstances surrounding it.64 It must be determined that this purpose is legitimate, that it falls within the police power of the state.65 Examining the means used to accomplish the legislative objectives and the reasons advanced therefore,66 the court must then determine whether the means chosen substantially further the goals of the enactment. Finally, the state interest in the chosen means must be balanced against the nature of the constitutional right involved.

We thus shall first determine the purpose of AS 17.10 and, secondly, ascertain whether the inclusion of cocaine with opiates bears a sufficient relationship to that purpose. The answer to the first question will to a substantial extent dispose of the second.

A. The Purpose of the Statute:

Mounting their argument on the historical derivation of AS 17.10, the defendants contend that the Alaska legislature has regarded cocaine as a true narcotic in the pharmacological sense and that the concept of its dangerousness was linked to the false assumption that, like opiates, cocaine is habit-forming. They further point out that the state legislation is based on federal narcotics legislation and suggest that this history indicates that the purpose of the statute was to prohibit the use of depressant, physically addictive substances.

*13As is often the case in Alaska, ascertaining the purpose of the statute is difficult. In this case, as in others, committee reports, records of floor debate in the legislature or a statement of legislative purpose are lacking. Nevertheless, on the basis of the available materials,67 we conclude that the legislature specifically intended to regulate the use and possession of cocaine, regardless of its particular pharmacological status, and that the purpose of the statute is to regulate drugs that have a potential for harm to health and welfare.

There is evidence suggesting that, at least until 1930, cocaine was regarded as the most serious drug threat.68 From the earliest acts, it had been designated by name, and its restrictions and criminalization pre-dated its being defined as a narcotic.

The first federal drug regulation69 affecting cocaine was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which restricted importation of drugs “otherwise dangerous to the health of the people of the United States.”70 It is notable that this legislation did not refer to “narcotics” but indicated a general concern about dangerous drugs. The penalties of the act were light and did not involve imprisonment for first offenders.

In 1914, Congress passed two acts pertaining to the regulation of cocaine: the Harrison Act and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act. The Harrison Act required those who produced, sold, distributed or gave away opium or coca leaves or their derivatives to register with the Internal Revenue Service and to pay a special tax. This Act was amended in 1919 to impose tighter controls. The Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act prohibited export of cocaine to any country that did not regulate its own drug imports. In 1922, this act was amended to prohibit importing coca leaves except for medical uses; and it imposed substantially increased penalties.71 For the first time, the 1922 Act defined the term “narcotic” as including cocaine. “Cocaine thus became a narcotic drug in the eyes of the law, whereas pharmacologically, it remained a non-narcotic drug.”72 There were no further changes until amendments of 1951 and 1956, which further increased penalties by imposing severe mandatory minimum sentences.73

*14In the meantime, most state laws were based on a Uniform Narcotic Drug Act promulgated by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1932. The Uniform Act followed the federal precedent and included cocaine within the definition of narcotic drugs.74

The most recent chapter in federal regulation is the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,75 which categorizes drugs according to their accepted uses and potential for abuse.76 The term “narcotic drug” in the federal act is defined as including “ . . . Opium, coca leaves, and opiates.”77 Significantly, “opiate,” as well as any of its derivatives, is separately defined as “ . . . any drug or other substance having an addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine . . . ”78

The fact that no such definition applies to coca leaves indicates that Congress was aware of the fact that cocaine is not similarly addictive. Yet, Congress still included coca and its derivatives under the definition of “narcotic drug.” It thus would appear that Congress was aware of the physically addictive properties of certain drugs, but it elected not to use the pharmacological definition of narcotic drugs as being limited to drugs having such characteristics.

The Commission on Uniform State Laws has drafted a new model statute based on the federal law, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Cocaine is placed in Schedule II as a drug with an acceptable medical use but with a high potential for abuse.79

Looking to the Alaskan legislative history, we find that cocaine was first criminalized in Alaska in 1921.80 At that time, cocaine was specifically named in a section which also proscribed various opiates. The Act was entitled: “To regulate the use, sale and possession of narcotic drugs.”81 In 1923, the legislature again listed the drugs individually.82 The phrase “narcotic drugs” specifically included cocaine.83 Although the statutory framework has changed somewhat, this listing of cocaine as a “narcotic drug” remains essentially the same.84

There is little legislative history indicating why cocaine has been listed as a narcotic. The 1923 and 1933 legislation referred to cocaine and other “habit-forming drugs . detrimental and dangerous to the individual and to public safety, health and morals.”85 The 1943 Act stated that “ ‘narcotic drugs’ means coca leaves, opium . and every substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from them.”86 When the legislature adopted the Uniform *15Narcotic Drug Act87 in 1943,88 it heard the remarks of a Treasury Enforcement representative in support of the law. There is no indication why the legislature continued to classify cocaine as a narcotic or whether they ever considered the issue.89

In 1968, the legislature removed marijuana from its then existing classification with cocaine and opiates and created the current prohibition against possession and sale of certain hallucinogenic, depressant and stimulant drugs.90 Cocaine, however, remained classified as a narcotic, just as it had been for nearly fifty years.91

From this summary of Alaska legislation, it appears that from 1921, cocaine and opiates were regulated by name. The later definition of narcotics includes cocaine, but it gives no clear indication of what the legislature intended to mean by use of the term “narcotics.” A legislature is free to define terms for purpose of legislation, even though it does not follow a pharmacological or dictionary definition.92 In fact, one of the prime purposes of legislative definitions in criminal acts is to indicate specifically what the legislature intends to prohibit.

We believe that Chief Justice Richardson’s comments in State v. Kanter, 53 Haw. 327, 493 P.2d 306, 308 (1972), pertaining to a similar definitional problem are pertinent:

The legislature has a broad power to define terms for a particular legislative purpose, and the courts, as a general rule of construction, are bound to follow legislative definitions of terms rather than commonly accepted dictionary, judicial or scientific definitions. . . .We think the requirements of due process place some limitation on the manner in which a legislature may use words. If we believe that the use of the word narcotic to include marihuana were so misleading as to confuse legislators in their law-making activities or to confuse persons of common understanding in their effort to determine whether the possession of marihuana constitutes a crime, it would clearly be our duty to declare the unconstitutionality of the statute, (citations omitted; footnote omitted)

The opinion stated that the word “narcotic” in popular usage included marijuana. We believe that the word “narcotic” in common usage includes cocaine. The defendants have the severe burden of overcoming the fact that cocaine is specifically mentioned from the earliest enactments of the Alaska and federal statutes. Despite this fact, defendants would have us conjecture that the legislature never would have proscribed its use had it known that its allegedly harmful effects were not the same as those of opiates. It seems more logical to us that, from the outset, the legislature intended to outlaw drugs that were considered to be harmful to the health and *16welfare of society and that it considered cocaine to be one of such drugs.

We doubt that members of the legislature were concerned with whether or not it was a stimulant or depressant, or even whether it was psychologically habituating rather than physically addictive. This construction is bolstered by the presumption of validity to which a duly-enacted law is entitled.93

While it is clear that cocaine is not a narcotic pharmacologically, it seems equally clear that the legislature intended to proscribe that drug and to impose similar penalties for its use as for opiates. We conclude that the legislature intended to regulate drugs that adversely affect the health and welfare of society. Only if cocaine is not harmful to health and welfare of society to any substantial degree, could we hold this purpose to be invalid.

We shall therefore attempt to ascertain whether the inclusion of cocaine with opiates bears a fair and substantial relationship to what we have determined to be the legislative purpose.

B. Effects of Cocaine:

The testimony introduced at the trial generally painted the picture of cocaine as a relatively benign drug. Yet, giving due deference to the trial judge’s appraisal of the witnesses, we find sufficient evidence of potential for harm to justify inclusion of cocaine with opiates.

Dr. Andrew Weil indicated in his testimony that, with indiscriminate use, some individuals had very bad reactions to cocaine, including anxiety and paranoia; that people can be dependent on cocaine; that cocaine can cause toxic psychosis and death under unusual circumstances; that there is cause for concern over the recent increase in use of cocaine;94 and that the potential for abuse between cocaine and amphetamines is similar.

In fairness, we hasten to point out that those adverse comments pertaining to the drug have been culled from Dr. Weil’s entire testimony which over-all gives the impression of a drug involving minor adverse problems, less than those resulting from the use of either alcohol or tobacco.95

Dr. Sanford J. Feinglass, also a defense witness, gave similar testimony regarding cocaine’s potential for harm and rated it as having a slightly higher potential for abuse than amphetamines.

Looking to sources other than the testimony at trial, the following indications of harmfulness are summarized from the National Institute of Drug Abuse’s Monograph: 96

1. Although cocaine as typically used in the United States at present poses only a limited hazard, it can be physically danger*17ous in ways that marijuana cannot.97 Unlike marijuana, cocaine can cause death as a direct effect of the pharmacological action of the drug.98

2. In studies of animals, when aggression has been elicited by environmental events, cocaine may increase or decrease the aggression.99 A reasonable conclusion from animal research that is applicable to humans is the fact that severe cocaine intoxication is self-induced when the intravenous route of administration is used and access to the drug is unlimited.100

3. Most researchers agree that the pleasurable effects diminish with continued use of cocaine and are replaced by an increasing number of adverse effects which can only be alleviated through its cessation.101

4. One of the most consistent findings is that prolonged and excessive use is associated with tactile hallucinations of animals, bugs or insects moving under the skin.102

5. Chronic users can experience negative effects, such as nervousness and irritability, perceptual disturbances, nasal problems, situational sexual impotency and fatigue or lassitude when the effects abate. These effects were experienced in approximately five percent of the intoxications.103

6. The toxicity of cocaine approximately parallels that of amphetamines and is manifested by depressions, psychological dependence upon cocaine,104 acute anxiety reactions to cocaine and cocaine psychosis.105 The drug is viewed as one of moderately high abuse similar to that of amphetamines.

However, if the drug were more readily available at a substantially lower cost, or if certain socio-cultural rituals endorsed and supported the higher dose patterns, more destructive patterns of abuse could develop.106

Cocaine is not a benign drug, a fact which is clearly supported by its known pharmacology.107

CONCLUSIONS AS TO EQUAL PROTECTION

In our review of the evidence and sources referred to us, we have selected from the testimony in this case, from the National Institute on Drug Research Monograph and from other sources, portions indicating harmful attributes of cocaine. We have not attempted to give an over-all evaluation of the drug.

In Ravin v. State, we stated that “[i]t is not the function of this court to reassess the scientific evidence in the manner of a legislature” and that “a holding that a legislative enactment is invalid cannot rest on a debatable medical issue.”108

Attacks on legislative classification of cocaine as a narcotic have uniformly been rejected by the federal courts,109 and no *18reported state cases invalidating laws because of such classification have been called to our attention.110

We conclude that there is ample, respectable scientific evidence of harm or potential harm from the use of cocaine to sustain the legislature’s inclusion of cocaine in its classification of narcotics under the provisions of AS 17.10. Thus, the legislative goal is legitimate, and the classification at issue is substantially related to that goal.

DUE PROCESS

What we have said with reference to equal protection largely disposes of the due process argument. This argument is based on the conclusion that the classification of cocaine as a narcotic is incorrect, rendering the legislation irrational and without an objective basis in fact. The argument depends upon the use of the pharmacological definition of narcotics. As we have set forth above, we do not believe that the legislature is so restricted in defining the term. When viewed from the over-all legislative purpose of preventing the use of a drug harmful to the health and welfare of society, we cannot say that the classification is so irrational or arbitrary as to violate due process.111

PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION

It is contended that the statutory scheme for regulation of cocaine is violative of due process and equal protection because it permits prosecutorial discretion to charge cocaine offenses under either AS 17.10 or AS 17.12, which authorize different degrees of punishment. Because we construe AS 17.12 as not including cocaine, it is unnecessary to determine the constitutional implications of the prosecutorial discretion issue.112

*19As indicated previously, AS 17.10.010113 criminalizes the possession and sale of narcotics, and AS 17.10.230(13) defines cocaine as a narcotic drug. AS 17.12.010114 prohibits the possession and sale of depressant, hallucinogenic and stimulant drugs. AS 17.12.150(3) defines “depressant, hallucinogenic or stimulant drug” to mean:

(A) cannabis, psilocybin, dimethyltrypta-mine, lysergic acid diethylamide, and every other substance having similar physiological effects;

[[Image here]]

(C) a drug which contains amphetamine or any of its optical isomers; or a substance which has been designated by the commissioner as habit forming or dangerous because of its stimulant effect on the central nervous system; or

(D) a drug which contains any quantity of a substance which the commissioner, after investigation, has found to have, and by regulation designates as having, a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect .

Pursuant to this statutory authority and that granted by AS 17.12.040,115 the Commissioner of Health and Social Services has listed numerous drugs by name.116 Cocaine is not among the drugs listed by the Commissioner, nor does it appear specifically in AS 17.12.150(3). The regulations do contain the following language, however:

Any combination of depressant, stimulant, or hallucinogenic drugs, not listed by name or trade name in this chapter, that is of a composition substantially similar to any of the drugs or substances listed in this chapter is also subject to AS 17.12. . . . 117

It is argued that AS 17.12 would permit cocaine prosecution under the general language relating to “similarity” found in AS 17.12.150(3) and 7 AAC 32.010(b).

This court has twice commented on the language of and relationship between AS 17.10 and AS 17.12. In Casey v. State,118 defendant was charged with possession of numorphan under AS 17.10 on the theory that it was a drug having “similar physiological effects” to those identified specifically as narcotics by the statute.119 Because the state had presented inadequate evidence of the physiological effects of the enumerated drugs, the conviction was reversed. We therefore were not required to address the constitutionality of the statutory language. Nevertheless, citing Harris v. State,120 and Marks v. City of Anchorage,121 we stated:

[I]f we were to reach the issue of whether the phrase “having similar physiological effects” is unconstitutionally vague, *20we would have grave doubts as to its constitutionality.122

In a series of cases, this court has set forth three relevant considerations for determining whether a statute is void for vagueness.123 Most recently in Larson v. State,124 we stated:

The first [consideration] is whether [the statute] is so broad that it may restrict the exercise of first amendment rights. The second consideration is whether the statute gives adequate notice of the conduct that is prohibited.125 The third consideration is whether the statute is drawn so imprecisely that it creates a danger of arbitrary enforcement, (citations and original footnotes omitted)

While Casey v. State126 speaks to the second vagueness consideration (ambiguous language), Speas v. State127 addresses the problem of arbitrary or capricious enforcement. Noting the “considerable overlap” between AS 17.10 and AS 17.12,128 which would give the district attorney the option of charging possession or use of certain drugs under either chapter, we recognized that defendants engaging in the same conduct might be subject to inequitable and capricious treatment. We did not, however, find it necessary to decide the equal protection and due process issues. Speas was convicted of illegal use of morphine which, like cocaine, is specifically prohibited under AS 17.10 but is not designated by the Commissioner for inclusion under AS 17.12. We concluded that, unless morphine were so designated, an indictment under AS 17.12 would be impermissible.129

Similarly, cocaine is specifically regulated by name in AS 17.10, and we believe that an indictment for its possession or sale under AS 17.12 would be impermissible unless cocaine were designated by name under the regulations authorized by that statute. We do not believe that the phrase “of composition substantially similar” in 7 AAC 32.-010(b) can include cocaine. Indeed, this language is even broader than that noted in Casey v. State130 (“similar physiological effects”); since, as the testimony of the experts suggests, the composition of a particular drug can apparently be viewed on several different levels.131

Moreover, the phrase used in the regulation is at variance with the statutory provision authorizing the regulation, AS 17.12.-040(b). That section refers to drugs which are “habit-forming” or “dangerous” or have a “depressant or stimulant ... or hallucinogenic effect.”132 The list is to be based on the effects of the drugs, not on *21their “composition.” Like a court, most people are not familiar with scientific terminology and molecular chemistry. Users of cocaine may be aware of its physiological effects and of its stimulant properties similar to those of amphetamines, but most will not be aware of its composition. We thus have grave doubts as to the authority of the Commissioner to proscribe drugs based on their similarity of composition to named drugs.

In any event, since cocaine is specifically designated in AS 17.10, we do not believe that the legislature, in the absence of naming it in AS 17.12, intended it to come under the terms of the latter statute. This conclusion is bolstered by our duty to construe a statute so as to avoid dangers of unconstitutionality.133 As we have indicated previously, if cocaine were to be punishable under both statutes, there would be a strong argument against the validity of the statutes based on the prosecutorial discretion available. We conclude that cocaine does not come within the provisions of AS 17.12.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

In Ravin v. State,134 this court held that the state could not bar the personal use and possession of marijuana in the home. In view of the relative harmlessness of the drug, the individual’s right to privacy under the Alaska Constitution was found to outweigh the state interest in regulation. Defendants contend that the reasoning of Ravin also applies to the non-commercial use and possession of cocaine and additionally argue that the constitutional right to privacy guarantees some reasonable access to the drug for personal and social use. The right to privacy argument is urged as an alternative ground for upholding the dismissal of the indictments.

We pointed out in Ravin, however, that:

We do not mean by this that a person may do anything at anytime as long as the activity takes place within a person’s home. There are two important limitations on this facet of the right to privacy. First, we agree with the Supreme Court of the United States, which has strictly limited the Stanley [v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969),] guarantee to possession for purely private, non-commercial use in the home. And secondly, we think this right must yield when it interferes in a serious manner with the health, safety, rights and privileges of others or with the public welfare. No one has an absolute right to do things in the privacy of his own home which will affect himself or others adversely.135

The question presented to us is thus whether the effects of cocaine are sufficiently similar in lack of harmfulness to marijuana so as not to be a serious hazard to health and welfare. With reference to marijuana, we stated in Ravin :

It appears that the use of marijuana, as it is presently used in the United States today, does not constitute a public health problem of any significant dimensions. It is, for instance, far more innocuous in terms of physiological and social damage than alcohol or tobacco.136

We have found no authorities which state that the effects of cocaine are less harmful than marijuana, and it seems clear that cocaine is substantially more of a threat to health and -welfare.137 Unlike marijuana, cocaine can cause death as a direct effect of the pharmacological action of the drug.138

Grinspoon and Bakalar in their recently published work Cocaine: A Drug and Its *22Social Evolution, have a chapter on the “Abuse Potential of Coca and Cocaine: The Policy Debate.” They state:

Considering only its psyehopharmaco-logical effects, we can say that cocaine certainly has some potential for producing crime and violence.139

They indicate that cocaine can have similar effects to amphetamines, which they clearly relate to aggressive behavior,140 although cocaine is probably less dangerous than alcohol, barbiturates or amphetamines.141 The authors list seven potential types of harm resulting from the use of cocaine, namely: acute psychological effects, acute physical effects, chronic psychological effects, chronic physical effects, crime and violence, loss of psychomotor control and an economic and social burden on society.142 The summary indicates a substantial potential for harm, although that potential is significantly reduced in situations of occasional social use by inhalation.

We find that there is a sufficiently close and substantial relationship between the means chosen to regulate cocaine and the legislative purpose of preventing harm to health and welfare so as to justify the prohibition of use of cocaine,143 even in the home. Having so concluded, it follows that we reject counsel’s argument that the right of privacy permits reasonable access to the drug for personal and social use.144

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the classification of cocaine with narcotics is not violative of equal protection or due process; that cocaine of*23fenses are not included in the prohibitions of AS 17.12 so that questions of prosecutorial discretion need not be addressed; and that criminalization of the personal use and possession of cocaine in the home does not constitute an invalid infringement on the right of privacy.145

In deciding the issues in this case, we have carried out our traditional appellate functions with a keen appreciation of the limits that the doctrine of separation of powers places on the judicial branch. Nevertheless, we do recommend that the legislature review its treatment of cocaine in light of modern scientific evidence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

concurring.

I do not believe that the balancing test used by the Court is an appropriate method of analysis with respect to the constitutional right of privacy. I doubt that the Court’s balancing test is anything more than a requirement that all statutes be reasonable. Under the test, as used in the majority opinion, it must first be determined whether a questioned statute has a legitimate purpose. When that is done, the next question is whether the statute sufficiently furthers that purpose so that there is a rational1 connection between means and ends. Once that question is affirmatively answered, as I view the test as applied here, the inquiry is in fact over and the statute is held constitutional. No real balancing is apparent.

Although I would not refer to it as balancing, the Court’s method of analysis is an entirely appropriate one where the question is whether a given statute satisfies the requirements of due process of law. Due process does mandate that all legislation have a legitimate purpose and that there be a rational relationship between that purpose and the means used to further it. Our case of Kingery v. Chapple, 504 P.2d 831 (Alaska 1972) stands for that proposition. Since the due process command of reasonableness applies to all legislation regardless of whether individually enumerated constitutional rights are involved, it is illogical to impose no other test where express constitutional rights are present. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in expressing them.

The right to privacy is an express right under the Alaska Constitution.2 If it is to be given the life it deserves by virtue of that position it should be defined and interpreted in our decisions. As each of the many separate categories of the right are present we should attempt to state in context what the right is and whether it applies to the case at hand.3 We should not simply assume its existence, and then balance it away wherever it is confronted with a reasonable statute.

In my opinion the principle encompassed by the constitutional right of privacy which is germane to this case is “the general proposition that the authority of the state to exert control over the individual extends only to activities of the individual which affect others or the public at large as it relates to matters of public health or safety, or to provide for the general welfare.” Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 509 (Alaska 1975) (footnote omitted).

*24John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty eloquently expressed this view:

[T]here is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest: comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself, I mean directly and in the first instance; for whatever affects himself may affect others through himself; and the objection which may be grounded on this contingency will receive consideration in the sequel. This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. . [T]he principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits, of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow, without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. .

No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

Because, as explained in the opinion of the court, there is responsible authority which indicates thát cocaine does sometimes cause anti-social behavior affecting the safety of others, I would hold that its use does not come within the right to privacy. I would not hold as the majority opinion does that cocaine use is a constitutionally protected activity and that such protection must give way to a reasonable statute.

While the results reached through the majority’s balancing test and through the approach I suggest are the same in this case they will not be in all cases.4 Balancing implies that legislators may overturn choices made by the framers of our constitution, as long as they do so reasonably. I cannot agree to that proposition.