Statutes that limit eligibility for the California Rehabilitation Center to narcotics addicts without making similar provisions for alcohol addicts do not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The court here first declined to read into the statute an intent to include those defendants who are addicted to alcohol, holding that the plain language of the statute required no such interpretation. The court then held that the distinction did not invoke equal protection issues, because it is rational for the state to make a distinction between the use of alcohol, which is legal, and the use of narcotics, which is not legal, and to devote resources toward lowering the cost of imprisoning those addicted to narcotics by providing those addicts with alternate treatment.