The decision of the district court denying habeas corpus relief is affirmed.

Petitioner asserts that the California statutes proscribing possession of marihuana (for which he is incarcerated) violates due process substantively because there is no basis for a finding that a harm to society exists. The decisions are against petitioner. See People v. Irvin, 264 Cal.App.2d 747, 70 Cal.Rptr. 892, and Bettis v. United States, 9 Cir., 408 F.2d 563.