Appellant Richard Rochefort was tried before the trial court on an accusation charging him with possession of more than 300 tablets of ephedrine, possession of methamphetamine and shoplifting. At the close of the State’s evidence, he moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, in which motion he included a challenge to the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-13-30.3 b 1. The trial court denied the motion, and found Appellant guilty on all counts. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on its findings of his guilt. 1. OCGA § 16-13-30.3 b 1 provides, in relevant part, that it is “unlawful for any person . . . to knowingly possess any product that contains ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine in an amount which exceeds 300 pills, tablets, gelcaps, capsules, or other individual units . . . .” Appellant contends that this provision is unconstitutionally arbitrary and vague. “Combating the illicit drug problem is a legitimate purpose . . . .” Lavelle v. State , 250 Ga. 224 1 297 SE2d 234 1982. To that end, “the legislature can rationally employ different means to respond to the problems created by different drugs.” Hardin v. State , 277 Ga. 242, 243 2 587 SE2d 634 2003. Insofar as the substances listed in OCGA § 16-13-30.3 b 1 are concerned, the General Assembly has determined that possession of 300 and fewer individual units serves a legitimate health concern, whereas the possession of a greater number does not. See OCGA § 16-13-30.3 a 2 which defines “personal use” as possession “for a legitimate medical use” in a quantity “at or below” 300 tablets. ” ‘If the classification has some “ reasonable basis,” it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification “is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.” Cits.’ Cit. Rather, ‘this inquiry employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinction is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary. Cits. Such action by a legislature is presumed to be valid.’ Cits.” Cits. Hanson v. State , 275 Ga. 470, 472 3 569 SE2d 513 2002.
It is unnecessary for this Court to determine . . . whether the legislative classification scheme is the best one available. Cit. It is enough to recognize that the legislature can rationally employ different means to respond to the problems created by different drugs. Hardin v. State , supra. Accordingly, we find no basis for second guessing the General Assembly’s determination that the line between legal and illegal possession of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine should be drawn at 300 individual units.
