O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 43-34-125 (2019)

Receipt of marijuana by board; distribution; responsibility for costs of obtaining and testing marijuana

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The board shall apply to contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse for receipt of marijuana pursuant to this article and pursuant to regulations promulgated by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.

(b) The board shall cause marijuana approved for use in the program to be transferred to a certified pharmacy, licensed by the state, for distribution to the certified patient by a licensed pharmacist upon a written order for research medication of the certified physician, pursuant to this article. Any reasonable costs incurred by the board in obtaining or testing marijuana shall be charged to participating physicians who may seek reimbursement from their research subjects utilizing the marijuana.

PHYSICIANS, ASSISTANTS, & OTHERS

History

Code 1933, § 84-906A, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 82, § 1; Ga. L.

2009, p. 859, § 1/HB 509; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 43/HB 323.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in May v. State, 179 Ga. App. 736, 348 S.E.2d 61 (1986). RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 28 C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics, §§ 71, 72.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1986–1986 · leading case: May v. State, 348 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

May v. State, 348 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 43-34-125. Appellant raised this issue in an amendment to his motion for new trial.”

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.