I respectfully dissent.
I start with the established rule that imposition of a condition of probation not authorized by statute is an act outside of the court’s power. (People v. *1583Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 926 [275 Cal.Rptr. 298]; People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1279 [253 Cal.Rptr. 130].) I find no statutory authorization for defendant’s challenged condition of probation.
Penal Code section 1001.101 provides no authority for imposition of an AIDS education condition of probation in this case. That statute mandates participation in an AIDS education program for persons placed on probation or granted diversion as a result of violating various enumerated offenses, including possession of designated controlled substances, if the conviction involves intravenous use of a controlled substance. Significantly, the statute does not include individuals convicted of transporting or selling narcotics. I am consequently guided by the well-known maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; if the Legislature intended persons convicted of drug sales to be included with those who must attend an AIDS education program, it would have so stated.
Nor can my colleagues rely on section 1203.1 to authorize the condition. As they acknowledge, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is only valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to fixture criminality. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 [124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545]; People v. Dominguez (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 623, 627 [64 Cal.Rptr. 290].) Neither relationship exists in the case at bench.
Defendant pled guilty to the sale of rock cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.) Possession and/or use of the narcotic is not an element of this offense. Moreover, the majority goes outside the record, to other reported cases, to reach its conclusion that cocaine combined with heroin may be used intravenously and thus relates to AIDS education. It strains credence to assert the facts of other criminal cases relate to defendant’s offense.
The majority’s discussion of the relationship of AIDS education to possible future criminality is also sheer conjecture. They look to defendant’s past history of drug possession and sale, and one instance of possession of heroin, and anticipate that at some future time he “will be tempted to sell or consume an injectable drug, thereby putting himself or others at risk for HIV infection.” First, the sale of narcotics does not proximately put others at risk for HIV infection. Second, the possibility of defendant using drugs intravenously is mere speculation.
The majority rely on People v. Henson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 172 [282 Cal.Rptr. 222], for the proposition that the court has discretion to impose an *1584AIDS education program as a condition of probation in the absence of finding intravenous drug use. I find that case distinguishable. Henson was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, one of the enumerated felonies in section 1001.10. Moreover, unlike cocaine, methamphetamine is commonly intravenously injected.
While I agree AIDS education is of critical importance to the public in general, I am reluctant to impose it as a condition of probation for an offense not listed in section 1001.10. Therefore, I would strike the condition.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 23, 1992, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 25, 1992.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.