A. No person shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-250 or § 18.2-250.1 for the possession of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol when that possession occurs pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.
B. No medical doctor shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-248 or § 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol for medical purposes when such action occurs in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.
C. No pharmacist shall be prosecuted under §§ 18.2-248 to 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol to any person who holds a valid prescription of a medical doctor for such substance issued in the course of such doctor's professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.
1979, c. 435; 2026, Sp. Sess. I, c.
1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case:
Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 546 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 546 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “2d at 302 (citing Code § 18.2-251.1). Murphy asserted a necessity defense, claiming he possessed and used the marijuana found in his possession to alleviate debilitating migraine headaches.”
Robert Chianelli, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 770 S.E.2d 778 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 14× “3 (Virginia’s prohibition on the sale of drug paraphernalia) and Code § 18.2-251.1 (Virginia’s medical marijuana statute) conflict and consequently prevent the average citizen from knowing what conduct is prohibited.”
Murphy v. Commonwealth, 521 S.E.2d 301 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “Code § 18.2-251.1 allows the possession of marijuana only “pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice” and only “for the treatment of cancer or glaucoma.”
Smallwood v. Commonwealth (Va. 2022).
· cites it 4× “2 The Plea Agreement actually cites Code § 18.2-251.1. This appears to be a scrivener’s error, as Code § 18.”
Gomez v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. Cir. 276 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “The Petitioner, Peter Zabdiel Gomez was arrested on December 23, 2006, and charged with Attempted Malicious Wounding of a Police Officer (Va. Code § 18.2-251.1). At trial on July 19, 2007, a jury found Gomez not guilty and the court ordered the charge dismissed.”
John Luke Vogt v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “On February 22, 2010, the circuit court found the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of possession of methamphetamine and entered an order accepting the proffered plea agreement, consistent with Code § 18.2-251.1 The circuit court deferred judgment on the methamphetamine…”
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.