N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 30 / Article 31
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-31-5 (2026)

Schedules; criteria.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
There are established five schedules of controlled substances to be known as
Schedules I, II, III, IV and V.

   A. The board shall place a substance in Schedule I if it finds that the substance:

      (1)    has a high potential for abuse; and
      (2)    has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks
accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.

   B. The board shall place a substance in Schedule II if it finds that:

      (1)    the substance has a high potential for abuse;

      (2)    the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions; and

     (3)    the abuse of the substance may lead to severe psychic or physical
dependence.

   C. The board shall place a substance in Schedule III if it finds that:

     (1)     the substance has a potential for abuse less than the substances listed in
Schedules I and II;

      (2)    the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States; and

       (3)   abuse of the substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence
or high psychological dependence.

   D. The board shall place a substance in Schedule IV if it finds that:

     (1)      the substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the substances in
Schedule III;

      (2)    the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States; and

      (3)    abuse of the substance may lead to limited physical dependence or
psychological dependence relative to the substance in Schedule III.

   E. The board shall place a substance in Schedule V if it finds that:

      (1)    the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the
United States; and

      (2)    abuse of the substance may lead to limited physical dependence or
psychological dependence relative to the substances in Schedule IV.

History: 1953 Comp., § 54-11-5, enacted by Laws 1972, ch. 84, § 5.

                                    ANNOTATIONS
Board's scheduling of drugs not unconstitutional delegation of authority. — To
allow the board of pharmacy to schedule drugs, resulting in the attachment of differing
criminal penalties for the possession of scheduled drugs, is not an unconstitutional
delegation of authority under N.M. Const., art. III, § 1. Montoya v. O'Toole, 1980-NMSC-
045, 94 N.M. 303, 610 P.2d 190.

Cocaine may be classified as narcotic. — The legislature can rationally classify
cocaine, a nonnarcotic central nervous system stimulant, as a narcotic for penalty and
regulatory purposes because of the similarity between cocaine and narcotic drugs in
terms of cocaine's potential for societal harm. Chouinard v. State, 1980-NMCA-168, 96
N.M. 783, 635 P.2d 986, rev'd on other grounds, 1981-NMSC-096, 96 N.M. 658, 634
P.2d 680, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 930, 102 S. Ct. 1980, 72 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1982).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc., 2017 NMCA 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc., 2017 NMCA 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “12 (b)(1); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-5(B) (1972); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-7(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)(p) (2007); 16.”
State v. Reams, 648 P.2d 1185 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 10× “To deal with drugs comprehensively, the Controlled Substances Act, in § 30-31-5, N.M.S.A. 1978 (1980 Repl.Pamph.”
Montoya v. O'TOOLE, 610 P.2d 190 (N.M. 1980). · cites it 2× “) After evaluating a substance under this provision, the Board of Pharmacy must then determine if it falls within the mandatory provisions of Section 30-31-5, N.M.S. A.1978, which states in part: A.”
State v. Arias, 427 P.3d 129 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “65(E)(35) NMAC. As a limiting principle to this last point, we note that the Legislature has provided that "[t]he [B]oard shall place a substance in Schedule I if it finds that the substance: (1) has a high potential for abuse; and (2) has no accepted medical use in treatment in…”
Chouinard v. State, 635 P.2d 986 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “Section 30-31-5(B), N.M.S.A.1978, sets the criteria for controlled substance in Schedule II: (1) the substance has a high potential for abuse; (2) the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or currently accepted medical use with severe…”
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “12 (b)(1); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-5(B) (1972); NMSA 1978, 13 § 30-31-7(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)(p) (2007); 16.”
State v. Chavez (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See § 30-31-6(B)(10); § 12 30-31-7(A)(3)(c); NMSA 1978 § 30-31-5(A)-(B) (1972) (discussing the criteria for 13 Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances).”
State v. Urquidez (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See NMSA, §§ 30-31-5 (1972), -6 (2017, amended 2019), -7 (2007), -8 (2005), -9 (2005), -10 (2006).”
State v. Enriquez (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 30-31-5 (1972), -6 (2017, amended 2019), -7 (2007), - 8 (2005), -9 (2005), -10 (2006).”
— N.M. Stat. § 30-31-5(A) — 2 cases
State v. Arias, 427 P.3d 129 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “65(E)(35) NMAC. As a limiting principle to this last point, we note that the Legislature has provided that "[t]he [B]oard shall place a substance in Schedule I if it finds that the substance: (1) has a high potential for abuse; and (2) has no accepted medical use in treatment in…”
State v. Chavez (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “See § 30-31-6(B)(10); § 12 30-31-7(A)(3)(c); NMSA 1978 § 30-31-5(A)-(B) (1972) (discussing the criteria for 13 Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances).”
— N.M. Stat. § 30-31-5(B) — 5 cases
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc., 2017 NMCA 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “12 (b)(1); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-5(B) (1972); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-7(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)(p) (2007); 16.”
State v. Reams, 648 P.2d 1185 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). “To deal with drugs comprehensively, the Controlled Substances Act, in § 30-31-5, N.M.S.A. 1978 (1980 Repl.Pamph.”
State v. Arias, 427 P.3d 129 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “65(E)(35) NMAC. As a limiting principle to this last point, we note that the Legislature has provided that "[t]he [B]oard shall place a substance in Schedule I if it finds that the substance: (1) has a high potential for abuse; and (2) has no accepted medical use in treatment in…”
Chouinard v. State, 635 P.2d 986 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 30-31-5(B), N.M.S.A.1978, sets the criteria for controlled substance in Schedule II: (1) the substance has a high potential for abuse; (2) the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or currently accepted medical use with severe…”
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “12 (b)(1); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-5(B) (1972); NMSA 1978, 13 § 30-31-7(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)(p) (2007); 16.”
— N.M. Stat. § 30-31-5(D) — 2 cases
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc., 2017 NMCA 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “12 (b)(1); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-5(B) (1972); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-7(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)(p) (2007); 16.”
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “12 (b)(1); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-5(B) (1972); NMSA 1978, 13 § 30-31-7(A)(1)(a), (A)(2)(p) (2007); 16.”
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.