Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 372A - TAX ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 372A.060

Applicability; no immunity from criminal prosecution

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 372A.060  Applicability; no immunity from criminal prosecution.

      1.  The provisions of NRS 372A.060 to 372A.130, inclusive, do not apply to:

      (a) Any person who is registered or exempt from registration pursuant to NRS 453.226 or any other person who is lawfully in possession of a controlled substance; or

      (b) Any person who acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, transports, supplies, sells or dispenses cannabis for the medical use of cannabis as authorized pursuant to chapter 678C of NRS.

      2.  Compliance with the provisions of NRS 372A.060 to 372A.130, inclusive, does not immunize a person from criminal prosecution for the violation of any other provision of law.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1737; A 2013, 3727; 2015, 2261; 2019, 3870)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–2000 · leading case: Desimone v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Desimone v. State (1995) nev · cites it 4× “" NRS 372A.060. Those exempt from the provisions of the statute include the ultimate user in possession of a controlled substance pursuant to a lawful order of a physician, in addition to manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of those controlled substances.”
Desimone v. State (2000) nev “or example, the preamble to the CSA describes the provision as: AN ACT relating to controlled substances; requiring illegal dealers in controlled substances to register with the department of taxation; imposing a tax on illegally sold controlled substances; providing for the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 372A.060(1) — 2 cases
Desimone v. State (1995) nev “" NRS 372A.060. Those exempt from the provisions of the statute include the ultimate user in possession of a controlled substance pursuant to a lawful order of a physician, in addition to manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of those controlled substances.”
Desimone v. State (2000) nev “or example, the preamble to the CSA describes the provision as: AN ACT relating to controlled substances; requiring illegal dealers in controlled substances to register with the department of taxation; imposing a tax on illegally sold controlled substances; providing for the…”
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.