SELLING CANNABIS FOR MEDICAL PURPOSE: MUHAMMAD LUKMAN MOHAMAD v PP [2021] 7 CLJ 524

-

1. INTRODUCTION

During the administration of Pakatan Harapan, there were proposals and reforms to the status and authorisation of cannabis by the Government. However, there was no clear decision on those matters. On 18 February 2021, the ex-Prime Minister for Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin stated that the Government would maintain the current status on cannabis as enforced by the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. 


Despite the status of cannabis in current law being unchanged, can we sell the cannabis with the good intention to cure patients of various ailments? Muhammad Lukman Mohamad v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 524 answers this question.


 


2. WHAT HAPPENED?

The Appellant, in this case, was an online seller of medical cannabis. On 7 December 2015, a house in Banting, Selangor, was raided by a police team where it was found apparatus for smoking drugs, bottles filled with cannabis oil and drugs in different areas of the house. The Appellant claimed that he did not know that drugs were in his house but admitted that he knew the oil was cannabis. He asserted that the oil was used for medical purposes and to be sold online on the website “Health-Care.” 


3.WHAT WAS THE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT?

The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant was selling medical online to help cure various illnesses. Further, it was argued that the Appellant’s conduct should be differentiated from other drug dealers that exploit the vulnerability of drug addicts. 


4.HOW DID THE COURT DECIDE?

The Federal Court (per Mohd Zawawi Saleh FCJ) upheld the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the Appellant’s conduct is still within the ambit of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 as there is no amendment to remove cannabis which is a controlled drug from First Schedule of Dangerous Drug Act 1952. 


Further, the Appellant did not obtain any authorisation from the Minister of Health to possess, manufacture, handle, process, or sell the impugned cannabis for medical purposes. 


5. CONCLUSION

There is no distinction between “hemp” and “marijuana” in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Both terms are different names for cannabis which contains different chemicals. As there is no amendment on DDA, only registered medical practitioners under the Medical Act 1971 and registered pharmacists who have Type A licenses can sell and supply cannabis for medical treatment. 


Reference:

  1. MUHAMMAD LUKMAN MOHAMAD v PP [2021] 7 CLJ 524
  2. https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2021/11/09/health-ministry-permits-marijuana-for-medical-treatment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

APA ITU 'KAWAD CAM' ?

-
Image
  1. Apa itu 'kawad cam'? Pengecaman yang dijalankan untuk menguji samada saksi mata dapat mengenal pasti tertuduh.  2. Apakah peruntukan undang-undang yang membenarkan ujian kawad cam ? Ujian kawad cam diterima sebagai bukti di bawah seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 .  3. Apakah prosedur untuk menjalankan ujian kawad cam ? Tiada undang-undang bertulis yang menerangkan prosedur untuk menjalankan kawad cam. Walaubagaimanapun, Hakim Vernon Ong dalam kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Joachim Selvanathan [2009] MLJU 748 telah merumuskan prosedur untuk menjalankan kawad cam seperti berikut:- Semua orang yang berada di kawad cam hendaklah terdiri daripada kumpulan etnik yang sama & kategori kehidupan yang sama dengan suspek; Jurang umur antara mereka tidak sepatutnya terlalu berbeza; Mereka yang berada di barisan kawad cam tidak semestinya mempunyai ciri-ciri yang sama; Kawad cam hendaklah dijalankan secepat mungkin; Kawad cam yang berasingan hendaklah dijalankan sekiranya melibatkan 2 ...
Read more

CASE SUMMARY: TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2021]

-
Image
  Material Facts The appellant was a Minister in the Federal Cabinet and the secretary-general of UMNO. He was also the controlling shareholder of Tadmansori Holding Sdn Bhd.  In 2013, project "Perumahan Mampu Milik Wilayah Persekutuan" was launched and the appellant requested Tan Sri Chai Kim Kong (SP19), director of Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd to participate in the project. During the course of the project, the appellant had requested a political donation from SP19 around RM 5 Million to RM 6 Million to be used for 2 upcoming elections. However, SP19 had contributed the political donation to Tadmansori around RM 2 Million, instead of UMNO upon request by the appellant.  Tengku Adnan was then charged under section 165 of the Penal Code  The High Court Decision Tengku Adnan was sentenced to 12 months' jail and fined RM 2 Million after he was found guilty. The High Court held that all 4 elements under section 165 of the Penal Code have been proved by prosecution beyond reaso...
Read more

Selamat Datang

-
 Assalamualaikum dan selamat datang. Saya Amer Haiqal, pelajar tahun akhir LLB UniSZA. Tujuan utama saya wujudkan blog ini adalah untuk berkongsi ilmu dan pendapat saya mengenai isu semasa dan pengetahuan yang saya perolehi. Ilham untuk mewujudkan blog ini datang daripada Tuan guru saya, Tuan Ariff Azami atau lebih dikenali sebagai Loyar Berjurus. Saya menyahut cadangannya untuk mula menulis. Segala ilmu dan pendapat yang saya kongsikan adalah dalam dwibahasa dan saya akan menggunakan bahasa yang mudah untuk difahami oleh pembaca. Terima kasih dan doakan saya sentiasa istiqamah untuk menulis. Jumpa lagi dalam perkongsian saya yang pertama.
Read more