nor does the fact that the prosecutor exercised discretion in seeking the maximum penalty give rise to a constitutional infringement. Simpson v. State, 310 Ark. 493, 837 S.W.2d 475 (1992). The Arkansas Supreme Court has twice upheld the constitutionality of § 5-64-403'(c) against void-for-vagueness challenges, but on different grounds from those asserted by appellant here. See Crail v. State, 309 Ark. 120, 827 S.W.2d 157 (1992) (rejecting the defendant’s void-for-vagueness claim where he asserted that he knew that the penalty for possession of a small quantity of marijuana was minor (a misdemeanor) but did not know the penalty for possession of the pipe used to smoke the marijuana under § 5-64-403 was more serious (a felony)); Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296, 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to these authorities, it cannot be
holding flag contempt statute unconstitutionally vague holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding that the statute defining drug paraphernalia and  564403cl were not unconstitutionally vague for want of certainty and definiteness because they give a person of ordinary intelligence notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding that a statute is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly