(dissenting).
The majority opinion correctly states the principles which this court has adopted in deciding attorney discipline cases, but ignores the fact that the purpose of discipline is not to punish. Matter of Pier, 472 N.W.2d 916 (S.D.1991).
This is not the maiden voyage by this court involving substance abuse by a practicing attorney. Matter of Reinstatement of Husby, 426 N.W.2d 27 (S.D.1988) (the written opinion on reinstatement), involved the discipline of an attorney who, while employed as a public defender, provided controlled substances to a client charged with a major crime. The attorney in that case was suspended from the practice of law for three years.
A battery of discipline cases involving usage and possession of controlled substances by licensed attorneys came before this court in 1985, with the following results:
(1) Matter of Discipline of Willis, 371 N.W.2d 794 (S.D.1985), where attorney admitted to using cocaine on several occasions and was given a 180-day suspension from the practice of law with 90 days held in abeyance under certain conditions.
(2) Matter of Strange, 366 N.W.2d 495 (S.D.1985), where attorney admitted to using and possessing cocaine on numerous occasions during the 1979 to 1982 time period and was given a 90-day suspension from the practice of law .. In this decision, the special concurrence stated that the discipline of the court “is stern and not lenient, it is not indulgent but is exacting to the degree that it forewarns young lawyers ... of the dangers of usage of a drug such as cocaine.” Id. at 497-98. (Emphasis added.)
(3) Matter of Kessler, 366 N.W.2d 499 (S.D.1985), where attorney admitted to possession and use of cocaine ten or twelve times during 1982 and was given same discipline as handed down in Strange, supra.
(4) Matter of Brende, 366 N.W.2d 500 (S.D.1985), where counsel was found to have possessed and used cocaine *688about ten times during 1981 and again the same discipline as meted out in Strange and Kessler was received in this case.
There is no question that discipline in a case has to be tailored to the facts involved. In determining what discipline is appropriate in a given case, this court should give consideration to our earlier decisions involving similar facts and circumstances. Committee on Professional Ethics v. Klein, 394 N.W.2d 358 (Ia.1986). The majority has not given our prior decisions the appropriate deference. I can state without hesitancy that these prior cases were given thorough scrutiny by the disciplinary board, the referee, and this court, since I was a member of Board at that time.
The main distinction between the Johnson case and the above-mentioned cases is the fact that Johnson was a public employee, to-wit: deputy state’s attorney. There is no question that an individual who is sworn to enforce and uphold the law such as a public sector attorney should be well aware of what conduct is criminal and what conduct does not violate the laws which the attorney is sworn to enforce. This record clearly discloses that Johnson worked in the civil section of the state’s' attorney’s office and infrequently became involved in any aspect of criminal prosecutions. His appearances in criminal cases were minimal and mostly to assist or fill in for other members of the office. This individual was not prosecuting drug cases during his tenure with the Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office.
Johnson has admitted that his brainless conduct was insane and inappropriate. On the other hand, the record reflects that this is not a case where Johnson’s proclivity to indulge in smoking pot and snorting coke led to his misappropriating client’s funds, failure to perform legal duties with due diligence, or performing services while under the influence of the substances. Quite to the contrary, the record reflects that individuals he worked with, attorneys he practiced against and with, his supervisor the Pennington County State’s Attorney, and a circuit court judge all confirmed that he handled his work and appearances in a professional and competent fashion. It seems quite obvious to this writer that this is not a case where the public is crying out for protection from a scurrilous, incompetent, or thievish attorney.
The legal profession in this state has acknowledged the problem presented by alcoholism and substance abuse addiction by the recognition of the Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers adjunct organization. Attorneys who cannot control addiction to alcohol or drugs are sometimes classified as being impaired due to their inability to refrain from using such substances. The bar, through this committee, is trying to reach out and assist fellow members of the bench and bar afflicted by such an infirmity in rehabilitating themselves. This court should not close its eyes or minds to rehabilitation when viewing a case where no injury has been inflicted on the public, but quite to the contrary, the real injury is to the attorney himself. Johnson, when confronted by the authorities in regards to the drug investigation, was conciliatory and admitted his misdeeds. There is no question in this Justice’s mind that this individual rues the day when he broke the law which he was sworn to uphold.
With these considerations in mind, I feel the following discipline is more appropriately warranted in this particular case:
That Johnson be suspended from the practice of law for one hundred twenty days, the suspension to begin thirty days after the entry of the order of suspension. SDCL 16-19-77. Further, Johnson comply with the following conditions:
1. Refrain from illegal use of drugs— which should go without saying.
2. Be evaluated by a certified drug counselor for a determination of whether or not he is a candidate for any type of treatment for chemical dependency and to undertake and successfully complete any recommended course for treatment. This evaluation result shall be filed with this court and the State Bar. In the event treatment is prescribed, proof of successful com*689pletion of such treatment shall be filed with this court and the State Bar prior to reinstatement.
3. Be available to share and discuss his experiences in this proceeding with young lawyers and law students to assist this court in relaying this message.
4. Reimburse all costs incurred in this proceeding.*
In conclusion, I perceive the discipline meted out by the majority opinion to equate to punishment, punishment, punishment, punishment, and punishment, which is the net result of tossing Johnson out of the practice of law for five years. Johnson’s budding legal career has been pulled out by the roots and cast aside into the proverbial landfill.
The special writing of Chief Justice Miller portrays this Justice’s recommended discipline as permissive, uncompromising and “set in stone.” I must respond, because this discipline is an alternative provided for in SDCL 16-19-35. Further, this recommended discipline follows the previous precedents established for this type of case by this court. If these prior decisions were so permissive as to subject the legal profession to public ridicule, I have certainly never been made aware of such criticism being heaped upon the profession since 1985. It also is apparent that the disciplinary board did not perceive these prior decisions as lenient or unsound. I dare say that, had there been a public outcry that these prior decisions were another example of professional courtesy, the board would have been more aware of that sentiment than this court in view of their day-to-day contact with the public and other members of the bar. We should not lose sight of the fact that the suspension from practice for a sole practitioner for even a day is harsh. I firmly believe that my recommended discipline is appropriate under the facts of this case, is based on established precedent, and conveys a message to the public that these types of transgressions on the part of a member of the honorable legal profession will not be "swept under the rug.”