PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 159 N.J. Super. 304 (1978).
PASHMAN, J., concurring.
I concur fully in this Court's affirmance of the Appellate Division majority. I write separately merely to emphasize what I consider to be the crucial factors in the case. N.J.S.A. 24:21-24(a) was enacted to alter the penalties imposed for engaging in drug conspiracies. By virtue of the statute, punishment for participating in such a conspiracy has been changed from that prescribed for the commission of a high misdemeanor to the maximum penalty allowed for the particular offense which was the object of the conspiracy. There is no evidence that this provision was meant to create a new statutory offense or to modify the definition of the crime of conspiracy as stated in N.J.S.A. 2A:98-1 and 2.
In light of our well-established policy against repeals by implication, see, e.g., Clifton v. Passaic Cty. Bd. of Taxation, 28 N.J. 411 , 421 (1958), the proper approach is to harmonize the two apparently conflicting statutes. This can appropriately be done by reading N.J.S.A. 24:21-24(a) as altering the penalties which may be imposed upon narcotics conspirators while continuing to refer to the general substantive requirements found in N.J.S.A. 2A:98-1 and 2. Among these is the allegation and proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. N.J.S.A. 2A:98-2.
Further support for this conclusion can be gleaned from the very placement of the section. The immediately preceding provision, N.J.S.A. 24:21-23, is entitled "general penalty." The sections immediately following 24:21-24 also deal with penalties. Thus, the positioning of 24:21-24(a) amidst these other sections indicates that N.J.S.A. 24:21-24(a) must have been intended to deal solely with penalties. I cannot believe that the Legislature, had it intended to create a new offense, would have chosen such an odd place to make that pronouncement.
I therefore conclude that an overt act must still be alleged and proven in order to establish the crime of conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws. Thus, I agree with the Court that the trial judge properly dismissed the conspiracy charge.
For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES and Justices MOUNTAIN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER and HANDLER — 6.
For reversal — None.