§712-1249 Promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree.

491 words·~2 min read·/hi/chapter-712/712-1249

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(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; provided that possession of three grams or less of marijuana is a violation, punishable by a fine of $130. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1975, c 163, §6(k); gen ch 1993; am L 2019, c 273, §3; am L 2019, c 273, §3]

Note

Pilot project to expunge certain arrest records relating to the offense under this section; reports to 2025-2026 legislature. L 2024, c 62; L 2025, c 5, §2.

Law Journals and Reviews

The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai`i's Constitution. 14 UH L. Rev. 311 (1992).

Privacy Outside of the Penumbra: A Discussion of Hawai`i's Right to Privacy After State v. Mallan. 21 UH L. Rev. 273 (1999).

Case Notes

Not unconstitutional. 56 H. 271, 535 P.2d 1394 (1975); 61 H. 71, 595 P.2d 287 (1979).

Defense of medical necessity. 61 H. 71, 595 P.2d 287 (1979).

Identification of seeds as marijuana seeds required expert testimony. 61 H. 505, 606 P.2d 913 (1980).

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 (1998).

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.

Hawaii county ordinance that established cannabis offenses as the lowest law enforcement priority in the county conflicted with, and was therefore preempted by, this section and other state laws governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of cannabis. 135 H. 411, 353 P.3d 953 (2015).

Section did not burden defendant's free exercise of religion. 5 H. App. 411, 695 P.2d 336 (1985).

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 (1999).

Where a Hawaii county ordinance made the enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest enforcement priority in the county, the ordinance was preempted by state laws governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of cannabis. 132 H. 511 (App.), 323 P.3d 155 (2014).