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).
[§329-125.6] Protections afforded to an owner or qualified employee of a licensed medical marijuana dispensary. (a) An owner or employee of a medical marijuana dispensary that is licensed under chapter 329D may assert the production or distribution of medical marijuana as an affirmative defense to any prosecution involving marijuana under this part, chapter 329D, or chapter 712; provided that the owner or employee strictly complied with the requirements of chapter 329D and any administrative rules adopted thereunder.
(b) An owner or employee of a licensed medical marijuana dispensary not strictly complying with the requirements of chapter 329D, and any administrative rules adopted thereunder, shall not be afforded the protections provided by subsection (a). [L 2015, c 241, pt of §5]
Section: Previous 329-104 329-121 329-122 329-123 329-124 329-125 329-125.5 329-125.6 329-126 329-127 329-128 329-129 329-130 329-131 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016