Printable Format79-5201. Taxation of marijuana and controlled substances; definitions. As used in this act:
(a) "Marijuana" means any marijuana, whether real or counterfeit, as defined by K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 21-5701, and amendments thereto, which is held, possessed, transported, transferred, sold or offered to be sold in violation of the laws of Kansas;
(b) "controlled substance" means any drug or substance, whether real or counterfeit, as defined by K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 21-5701, and amendments thereto, which is held, possessed, transported, transferred, sold or offered to be sold in violation of the laws of Kansas. Such term shall not include marijuana;
(c) "dealer" means any person who, in violation of Kansas law, manufactures, produces, ships, transports or imports into Kansas or in any manner acquires or possesses more than 28 grams of marijuana, or more than one gram of any controlled substance, or 10 or more dosage units of any controlled substance which is not sold by weight;
(d) "domestic marijuana plant" means any cannabis plant at any level of growth which is harvested or tended, manicured, irrigated, fertilized or where there is other evidence that it has been treated in any other way in an effort to enhance growth.
History: L. 1987, ch. 366, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 359, § 1; L. 2009, ch. 32, § 63; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Kansas Denies Religion-Based Defense to Rastafarians on Marijuana Charges [State v. McBride, 955 P.2d 133 (Kan.Ct.App.1998)]," Brendon C. Taylor, 38 W.L.J. 307 (1998).
"When Good Property Goes Bad," Colin D. Wood, 70 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 24 (2001).
"Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases," 49 K.L.R. 937 (2001).
"Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases," 50 K.L.R. 901 (2002).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Controlled substances; dealer defined; forfeiture of conveyance. 88-29.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Information obtained hereunder usable only for enforcement of act; act does not violate privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Durrant, 244 Kan. 522, 523, 535, 769 P.2d 1174 (1989).
2. Exclusion of evidence on grounds of remoteness that substantially impairs state's case examined. State v. Griffin, 246 Kan. 320, 787 P.2d 701 (1990).
3. Materials directly or indirectly obtained as "Fruit of Poisonous Tree" excluded from evidence. State v. Daly, 14 Kan. App. 2d 310, 313, 789 P.2d 1203 (1990).
4. Imposition of tax on marijuana and controlled substances does not violate due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Matson, 14 Kan. App. 2d 632, 640, 798 P.2d 488 (1990).
5. Kansas drug tax act does not violate due process provisions of U.S. Constitution. State v. Berberich, 248 Kan. 854, 862, 868, 811 P.2d 1192 (1991).
6. Whether Kansas department of revenue is bound by state's plea bargain regarding drug stamp tax owed examined. Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 848, 852, 855, 863 P.2d 364 (1993).
7. Whether use of information of prior criminal conduct obtained under immunity at defendant's sentencing violated immunity examined. Cabral v. State, 19 Kan. App. 2d 456, 462, 871 P.2d 1285 (1994).
8. Kansas drug tax act does not impose a criminal penalty for double jeopardy purposes. State v. Jensen, 259 Kan. 781, 782, 915 P.2d 109 (1996).
9. Taxpayer must have possession of controlled substance for sufficient time to affix stamp to incur tax liability under KDTA (79-5201 et seq.). In re Burrell, 22 Kan. App. 2d 109, 110, 912 P.2d 187 (1996).
10. Act does not impose criminal penalty for double jeopardy purposes under U.S. or Kansas constitutions. State v. Yeoman, 24 Kan. App. 2d 639, 951, P.2d 964 (1997).
11. Trial court ruling that prohibited defendants from asserting free exercise argument in marijuana cultivation case upheld. State v. McBride, 24 Kan. App. 2d 909, 913, 955 P.2d 133 (1998).
12. Prosecution failure to prove defendant qualified as drug dealer constituted reversible error in drug tax stamp charge. State v. Hutcherson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 501, 503, 968 P.2d 1109 (1998).
13. Drug tax stamp conviction reversed based on insufficient evidence that defendant possessed enough drugs to trigger statute. State v. Beal, 26 Kan. App. 2d 837, 843, 994 P.2d 669 (2000).
14. Habeas corpus relief denied where state supreme court ruled charges did not constitute double jeopardy. Jensen v. Bouker, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1172 (2000).
15. Drug tax on marijuana is not an unconstitutional ad valorem tax as it is based on weight, not value; mere possession is sufficient for conviction. State v. Engles, 270 Kan. 530, 17 P.3d 355 (2001).
16. Search of vehicle upheld; case law on vehicle searches discussed and applied. State v. Davison, 41 Kan. App. 2d 140, 202 P.3d 44 (2009).
17. Conviction hereunder upheld; traffic stop and smell of marijuana provided probable cause for search. State v. Preston, 41 Kan. App. 2d 981, 207 P.3d 1081 (2009).