Note
Industrial hemp remediation and biofuel crop research program (repealed July 1, 2016). L 2014, c 56.
Cross References
Drug demand reduction assessments; special fund, see §706-650.
Intermediate sanctions for selected offenders and defendants, see §§353-10.5, 353-63.5, and 706-605.1.
Money laundering, see chapter 708A.
Cross References
Overdose prevention; limited immunity, see §329-43.6.
Law Journals and Reviews
Marijuana Prohibition in Hawaii. 13 HBJ, no. 3, at 9 (1977).
Case Notes
When a statute proscribes a substance as harmful, presumption of constitutionality applies although scientific views on harm are conflicting. This rule applies to marijuana cases. 56 H. 271, 535 P.2d 1394 (1975).
Defendants with prior felony convictions of drug offenses are disqualified from sentencing pursuant to §706-622.5, even if the convictions occurred in other jurisdictions and therefore not "under part IV of chapter 712", so long as the offenses would implicate this part if committed in Hawaii. 104 H. 71, 85 P.3d 178 (2004).
§712-1240.1 Defense to promoting. (1) It is a defense to prosecution for any offense defined in this part that the person who possessed or distributed the dangerous, harmful, or detrimental drug did so under authority of law as a practitioner, as an ultimate user of the drug pursuant to a lawful prescription, or as a person otherwise authorized by law.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for any marijuana-related offense defined in this part that the person who possessed or distributed the marijuana was authorized to possess or distribute the marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to part IX of chapter 329. [L 1977, c 137, §1; am L 2000, c 228, §4]
COMMENTARY ON §712-1240.1
Act 137, Session Laws 1977, added this section to provide a defense for the lawful possession or distribution of drugs by authorized persons. In enacting the section, the legislature found that the law as then worded made any possession or distribution of drugs criminal. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 1127, House Standing Committee Report No. 683.
Act 228, Session Laws 2000, in permitting the medical use of marijuana by persons with certain medical conditions, amended this section to include an affirmative defense for the medical use of marijuana. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 2760.
Case Notes
Legislature intended section as a defense rather than element of an offense. 64 H. 568, 645 P.2d 308 (1982).
As California statute did not authorize defendant to possess or cultivate fifty or more marijuana plants in violation of §712-1249.5, trial court did not err in concluding that this section was inapplicable to the case and the documents submitted in support of defendant's motion to dismiss were not clearly exculpatory; thus, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss. 108 H. 169, 118 P.3d 652 (2005).
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 part IX of chapter 329 for purposes of an affirmative defense under subsection (2). 129 H. 397, 301 P.3d 607 (2013).
Section: Previous 712-1226 712-1227 712-1228 712-1229 712-1230 712-1231 712-1240 712-1240.1 712-1240.5 712-1240.6 712-1240.7 712-1240.8 712-1240.9 712-1241 712-1242 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016