(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
While I concur in that part of this decision which reflects that the jury determined the guilt of the defendant, I respectfully dissent to the affirmance of the sentence which I believe is excessive;
Notwithstanding the fact that defense counsel did not object to the inflammatory and prejudicial statements in the prosecutor’s closing argument, I believe they were fundamentally unfair and unnecessary. Defendant is correct when he asserts that marihuana is not defined as a drug, but the prosecutor’s closing argument left that effect. While I do not find those comments referring to the “dope culture” so offensive, I do believe the prosecutor’s closing statement, “I ask you to please not turn this dope salesman loose . . . ” was plainly calculated to prejudice the jury.
Finally, it is most problematical that defendant will not possess $2,500, when he completes his penitentiary sentence; so, it appears unnecessary to- impose such a heavy fine in order to later imprison the defendant for failure to pay it.