Chapter 30, Article 31 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Controlled Substances Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 54-11-1, enacted by Laws 1972, ch. 84, § 1; 2005, ch. 280, § 1.

The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, added the statutory reference to the act.

Civil and criminal penalties. — The Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Mexico constitution does not prohibit the legislature from assessing both civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Controlled Substances Act. However, if the state elects to seek both criminal conviction and forfeiture of assets, the penalties must be parsed in a single, bifurcated proceeding. State v. Esparza, 2003-NMCA-075, 133 N.M. 772, 70 P.3d 762, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 771, 70 P.3d 761.

Constitutionality. — The title of Laws 1972, Chapter 84 does not violate N.M. Const., art. IV, § 16 by embracing more than one subject, because although the act amends sections of the state Drug and Cosmetic Act, the amendments are all concerned with drugs. State v. Romero, 1974-NMCA-015, 86 N.M. 99, 519 P.2d 1180.

Uniform scheme for controlling registrants and nonregistrants. — The legislature did not establish a parallel scheme for punishing violations of the Controlled Substances Act. That is, there is not one system for controlling registrants authorized to conduct transactions in controlled substances and another for nonregistrants. The punishment for violating a provision of the act depends not on the offender's status but on the nature of the violation. State v. Carr, 1981-NMCA-029, 95 N.M. 755, 626 P.2d 292, cert. denied, 95 N.M. 669, 625 P.2d 1186, and cert. denied, 454 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 298, 70 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1981), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olguin, 1994-NMCA-050, 118 N.M. 91, 879 P.2d 92, aff'd in part, 1995-NMSC-077, 120 N.M. 740, 906 P.2d 731.

Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Procedure - Civil Forfeiture and Double Jeopardy: State v. Nunez," see 31 N.M.L. Rev. 401 (2001).

For note and comment, "Complying with Nunez: The Necessary Procedure for Obtaining Forfeiture of Property and Avoiding Double Jeopardy after State v. Esparza," see 34 N.M. L. Rev. 561 (2004).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 25 Am. Jur. 2d Drugs, Narcotics and Poisons §§ 17, 19, 33, 130, 141, 191, 206.

Prosecutions based upon alleged illegal possession of instruments to be used in violation of narcotics laws, 92 A.L.R.3d 47.

Competency of drug addict or user to identify suspect material as narcotic or controlled substance, 95 A.L.R.3d 978.

Liability for discharge of at-will employee for refusal to submit to drug testing, 79 A.L.R.4th 105.

Defense of necessity, duress, or coercion in prosecution for violation of state narcotics laws, 1 A.L.R.5th 938.

Validity, construction and application of state "drug kingpin" statutes, 30 A.L.R.5th 121.

Validity, construction and application of state or local law prohibiting maintenance of vehicle for purpose of keeping or selling controlled substances, 31 A.L.R.5th 760.

Validity, construction, and application of state statue criminalizing possession of contraband by individual in penal or correctional institution, 45 A.L.R.5th 767.

Availability of defense of duress or coercion in prosecution for violation of federal narcotics laws, 75 A.L.R. Fed. 722.

When may offender found guilty of multiple crimes under Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 USCS §§ 841-851) be punished for only one offense, 80 A.L.R. Fed. 794.

Validity under federal constitution of regulations, rules, or statutes requiring random or mass drug testing of public employees or persons whose employment is regulated by state, local, or federal government, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 420.

Supreme Court's views on mandatory testing for drugs or alcohol, 145 A.L.R. Fed. 335.

28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics § 8 et seq.