§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).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.