(a)
This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)
(1)
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A)
To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B)
To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C)
To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d)
Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e)
For the purposes of this section, “primary caregiver” means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nelson, 2008 MT 359 (Mont. 2008).
State v. Nelson, 2008 MT 359 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 4× “In Bianco , a California Court of Appeals held that a trial court acted within its discretion when it imposed a sentencing condition preventing a defendant from using medical marijuana while on probation under California's version of the MMA, the Compassionate Use Act of…”
Urgent Care Med. Servs. v. City of Pasadena, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, to provide, make available, or distribute medical marijuana to a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person with an identifications [ sic ] card issued in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.”
People v. Konow, 88 P.3d 36 (Cal. 2004).
· cites it 2× “) Subdivision (d) of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 (Health and Safety Code section 11362.”
People v. Neidinger, 146 P.3d 502 (Cal. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, Health and Safety Code section 11362.5, subdivision (d), provides: “Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses…”
People v. Frazier, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“1 Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated.”
People Ex Rel. Feuer v. FXS Mgmt., Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“) The Supreme Court noted that “the planning division of Riverside’s Community Development Department notified [a party in the case] by letter that the definition of ‘medical marijuana dispensary’ in Riverside’s zoning ordinances ‘is an all-encompassing definition, referring to…”
People v. Harris, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11734 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
“) 5 Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 states in relevant part: “Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or…”
Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Hill, 192 Cal. App. 4th 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“196, former subdivision A stated: “This section is established to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in a manner that is safe, that mitigates potential impacts dispensaries may have on surrounding properties and persons, and that is in conformance with the provisions of…”
People v. Hughes, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1473 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
“Analysis The probation condition at issue here relates to otherwise legal conduct because the medical use of marijuana has been legal in California since 1996 when the electorate passed Proposition 215, the CUA, codified as *1480 Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. 7 Under…”
United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
“Defendants argue that this section places the burden on the federal government to prove that state law, Health and Safety Code § 11362.5, is in positive conflict with federal law, 21 U.”
People v. Clark, 230 Cal. App. 4th 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“The motion was based on the newly asserted ground that there was no probable cause to support the search warrant because defendant’s cultivation of marijuana was legal under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996—Health and Safety Code section 11362.5—and there were no facts…”
— Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11362.5(a)(B) — 1 case
State v. Nelson, 2008 MT 359 (Mont. 2008).
“In Bianco , a California Court of Appeals held that a trial court acted within its discretion when it imposed a sentencing condition preventing a defendant from using medical marijuana while on probation under California's version of the MMA, the Compassionate Use Act of…”
— Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11362.5(d) — 1 case
People v. Konow, 88 P.3d 36 (Cal. 2004).
“) Subdivision (d) of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 (Health and Safety Code section 11362.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.