Note
Medical marijuana; tenant use; eviction, see §521-39.
Law Journals and Reviews
Gonzales v. Raich: How the Medical Marijuana Debate Invoked Commerce Clause Confusion. 28 UH L. Rev. 261.
Case Notes
District court erred in re-determining the fact of medical use in contrast to the parties' stipulation that petitioner possessed and transported medical marijuana under a valid Medical Marijuana Registry Patient Identification Certificate, thus preempting consideration of petitioner's affirmative defense; given that the State presented no evidence showing that the marijuana was for any other use other than a medical use, petitioner proved that petitioner was authorized to possess marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to this part for purposes of an affirmative defense under §712-1240.1(2). 129 H. 397, 301 P.3d 607 (2013).
§329-122 Medical use of marijuana; conditions of use. (a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient shall be permitted only if:
(1) The qualifying patient has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;
(2) The qualifying patient's physician has certified in writing that, in the physician's professional opinion, the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the particular qualifying patient; and
(3) The amount of marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient does not exceed an adequate supply.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a qualifying patient under the age of eighteen years, unless:
(1) The qualifying patient's physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana to the qualifying patient and to a parent, guardian, or person having legal custody of the qualifying patient; and
(2) A parent, guardian, or person having legal custody consents in writing to:
(A) Allow the qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana;
(B) Serve as the qualifying patient's primary caregiver; and
(C) Control the acquisition of the marijuana, the dosage, and the frequency of the medical use of marijuana by the qualifying patient.
(c) The authorization for the medical use of marijuana in this section shall not apply to:
(1) The medical use of marijuana that endangers the health or well-being of another person;
(2) The medical use of marijuana:
(A) In a school bus, public bus, or any moving vehicle;
(B) In the workplace of one's employment;
(C) On any school grounds;
(D) At any public park, public beach, public recreation center, recreation or youth center; or
(E) At any other place open to the public; provided that a qualifying patient, primary caregiver, or an owner or employee of a medical marijuana dispensary licensed under chapter 329D shall not be prohibited from transporting marijuana or any manufactured marijuana product, as that term is defined in section 329D-1, in any public place; provided further that the marijuana or manufactured marijuana product shall be transported in a sealed container, not be visible to the public, and shall not be removed from its sealed container or consumed or used in any way while it is in the public place; and
(3) The use of marijuana by a qualifying patient, parent, or primary caregiver for purposes other than medical use permitted by this part.
(d) For the purposes of this section, "transport" means the transportation of marijuana, usable marijuana, or any manufactured marijuana product between:
(1) A qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's primary caregiver; or
(2) The production centers and the retail dispensing locations under a dispensary licensee's license;
provided that "transport" does not include the interisland transportation of marijuana, usable marijuana, or any manufactured marijuana product. [L 2000, c 228, pt of §2; am L 2001, c 55, §15; am L 2013, c 178, §3; am L 2015, c 241, §7]
Law Journals and Reviews
Gonzales v. Raich: How the Medical Marijuana Debate Invoked Commerce Clause Confusion. 28 UH L. Rev. 261.
Case Notes
Rule of lenity required the construction, under the specific facts of the case, of §§329-121 and 329-125 and this section against the government, as there was an irreconcilable inconsistency between the authorized transportation of medical marijuana under §329-121, and the prohibition on transport of medical marijuana through "any ... place open to the public" under subsection [(c)(2)(E)]; thus, under §701-115(2)(b), petitioner was entitled to an acquittal because petitioner's evidence, when considered in light of any contrary prosecution evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence the specified fact or facts with negatived penal liability. 129 H. 397, 301 P.3d 607 (2013).
Section: Previous 329-75 329-81-to-91 329-101 329-102 329-103 329-104 329-121 329-122 329-123 329-124 329-125 329-125.5 329-125.6 329-126 329-127 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016