Defense to promoting

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).