2012 Hawaii Revised Statutes
TITLE 37. HAWAII PENAL CODE
712. Offenses Against Public Health and Morals
712-1249 Promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree.

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.

§712-1249 Promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree. (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree if the person knowingly possesses any marijuana or any Schedule V substance in any amount.

(2) Promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree is a petty misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1975, c 163, §6(k); gen ch 1993]

Law Journals and Reviews

The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai‘i's Constitution. 14 UH L. Rev. 311.

Privacy Outside of the Penumbra: A Discussion of Hawai‘i's Right to Privacy After State v. Mallan. 21 UH L. Rev. 273.

Case Notes

Not unconstitutional. 56 H. 271, 535 P.2d 1394; 61 H. 71, 595 P.2d 287.

Defense of medical necessity. 61 H. 71, 595 P.2d 287.

Identification of seeds as marijuana seeds required expert testimony. 61 H. 505, 606 P.2d 913.

Purported right to possess and use marijuana not a fundamental right; where defendant failed to prove section lacked any rational basis, section constitutional. 86 H. 440, 950 P.2d 178.

Under the circumstances of the case, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment was not a viable defense to prosecution under this section; this section is a neutral law of general applicability to the extent it purports to prohibit, without exception, the possession of marijuana and any other substance defined as a "Schedule V substance" by chapter 329, it does not interfere with other constitutional rights, and it does not create a mechanism for governmental assessment of individual applicants for exemptions. 115 H. 396, 168 P.3d 526.

Section did not burden defendant's free exercise of religion. 5 H. App. 411, 695 P.2d 336.

Where insufficient evidence in record that defendant had the necessary intent to exercise control and dominion over the marijuana, no violation of section by "constructive possession". 92 H. 472 (App.), 992 P.2d 741.