2014 Hawaii Revised Statutes
TITLE 19. HEALTH
329. Uniform Controlled Substances Act
329-125 Protections afforded to a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.

Note

Medical marijuana; tenant use; eviction, see §521-39.

Medical use of marijuana program: transfer of rights, powers, duties, etc. of department of public safety to department of health (no later than January 1, 2015); transfer of funds; reports, including a plan and timeline for the transfer, to 2014-2015 legislature. L 2013, c 177, §§4 to 11.

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 Protections afforded to a qualifying patient or primary caregiver. (a) A qualifying patient or the primary caregiver may assert the medical use of marijuana as an affirmative defense to any prosecution involving marijuana under this [part] or chapter 712; provided that the qualifying patient or the primary caregiver strictly complied with the requirements of this part.

(b) Any qualifying patient or primary caregiver not complying with the permitted scope of the medical use of marijuana shall not be afforded the protections against searches and seizures pertaining to the misapplication of the medical use of marijuana.

(c) No person shall be subject to arrest or prosecution for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana as permitted under this part. [L 2000, c 228, pt of §2]

Case Notes

Rule of lenity required the construction, under the specific facts of the case, of §§329-121 and 329-122 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 [§329-122(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).