2013 Hawaii Revised Statutes
TITLE 37. HAWAII PENAL CODE
712. Offenses Against Public Health and Morals
712-1240.1 Defense to promoting.

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.

Law Journals and Reviews

Marijuana Prohibition in Hawaii. 13 HBJ No. 3 Fall 1977, pg. 9.

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.

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 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.

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).