2007 ORS 475.565¹
Civil penalty for violation of ORS 475.525

(1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law:

(a) A person who violates ORS 475.525 (Sale of drug paraphernalia prohibited) shall incur a civil penalty in an amount of at least $2,000 and not more than $10,000; and

(b) The court may order other equitable remedies including but not limited to injunctive relief.

(2) Any fines collected under this section shall be forwarded to the State Treasurer for deposit in the General Fund to the credit of the Department of Human Services. The moneys shall be used for the development and implementation of drug abuse prevention activities and adolescent treatment. [1989 c.1077 §4; 2003 c.14 §307]

Notes of Decisions

Civil penalty assessed on commercial ac­tivity may greatly exceed amount that would be punitive against individual without making pro­ceed­ing crim­i­nal in nature. Jackson County v. Roark, 124 Or App 505, 863 P2d 491 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

475.840 (Prohibited acts generally) (formerly 475.992)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

State must prove defendant had actual knowledge of nature of drugs defendant is charged with pos­ses­sing. State v. Neel, 8 Or App 142, 493 P2d 740 (1972)

To prove constructive pos­ses­sion of dangerous drug or narcotic, state must show defendant knowingly exercised control of or right to control unlawful substance. State v. Moore, 14 Or App 268, 511 P2d 880 (1973); State v. Krohn, 15 Or App 63, 514 P2d 1359 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

State cannot carve up amount of drugs in per­son's pos­ses­sion for purpose of prosecuting separate viola­tions. State v. Anderson, 15 Or App 650, 517 P2d 321 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Only one sen­tence should have been imposed for the simultaneous pos­ses­sion of three drugs. State v. Gill, 24 Or App 863, 547 P2d 166 (1976)

Amount of drug possessed need not be usable amount. State v. Forrester, 29 Or App 409, 564 P2d 289 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where controlled substance was injected into defendant's body, defendant was not able to exercise dominion and control over substance and therefore did not possess drug. State v. Downes, 31 Or App 1183, 572 P2d 1328 (1977)

In General

Although generally accepted scientific view is that marijuana is properly classified as Cannibis family Cannabaceae, legislative defini­tion of marijuana as Cannibis family Moraceae is not sufficient to render statute ineffective. State v. Bailey, 41 Or App 375, 597 P2d 1312 (1979)

Fact that experts may disagree as to what is "stalk" or "stem" of marijuana plant after plant has been cut up, or whether seeds are sterile and whether ma­te­ri­al is dry when weighed does not render this sec­tion void for vagueness. State v. Mellinger, 52 Or App 21, 627 P2d 897 (1981)

Simultaneous pos­ses­sion of different forms of same controlled substance constituted single act or transac­tion so con­vic­­tions on three different counts for pos­ses­sion of marijuana, hashish and hashish oil should have been merged for sen­ten­cing purposes. State v. Ness, 54 Or App 530, 635 P2d 1025 (1981), aff'd on other grounds, 294 Or 8, 653 P2d 548 (1982)

Where defendant committed burglary and in course of burglary stole marijuana from premises, it was proper to convict for burglary (ORS 164.225 (Burglary in the first degree)) and pos­ses­sion of controlled substance. State v. Shaw, 56 Or App 473, 642 P2d 335 (1982)

Examina­tion of original legisla­tion and history shows that codified version of ORS 689.995 (Criminal penalties) was incorrect in its inclusion of this sec­tion as misdemeanor. State v. Rothman, 69 Or App 614, 687 P2d 798 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Viola­tion of gratuitous delivery of marijuana is necessarily included in statutory defini­tion of felony of delivery of marijuana for considera­tion. State v. Graves, 73 Or App 172, 697 P2d 1384 (1985)

As matter of law, pos­ses­sion of less than one ounce of marijuana cannot by itself create probable cause to search for more. State v. Tallman, 76 Or App 715, 712 P2d 116 (1985)

Under Oregon's Controlled Substances Act, which is substantial adop­tion of Uniform Controlled Substances Act, but which did not adopt crime of pos­ses­sion of controlled substance with intent to transfer, at­tempted transfer is punishable as completed transfer. State v. Boyd, 92 Or App 51, 756 P2d 1276 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Charge of con­spir­a­cy to deliver cannot apply to recipient of transfer. State v. Frederickson, 92 Or App 223, 757 P2d 1366 (1988); State v. Deptuch, 95 Or App 54, 767 P2d 471 (1989), modified 96 Or App 228, 772 P2d 442 (1989); State v. Moore, 139 Or App 27, 910 P2d 1163 (1996)

Frequenting place where controlled substances are used is not lesser included of­fense of unlawful pos­ses­sion of controlled substance. State v. Martz, 103 Or App 105, 795 P2d 616 (1990)

On remand from United States Supreme Court, state may, consistent with Free Exercise Clause of United States Constitu­tion, deny unemploy­ment compensa­tion to former employees dismissed for use of peyote for religious purposes in Native American Church, where inges­tion of peyote is prohibited by state law. Smith v. Employ­ment Division, 310 Or 376, 799 P2d 148 (1990)

Where defendant when arrested was in pos­ses­sion of six individually wrapped bundles of cocaine, a razor blade and a substantial amount of cash in small bills and gave conflicting testimony re­gard­ing such items and drug usage, evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of delivery. State v. Fulmer, 105 Or App 334, 804 P2d 515 (1991)

Possession of controlled substance is not lesser included of­fense to delivery of controlled substance. State v. Sargent, 110 Or App 194, 822 P2d 726 (1991); State v. Guzman, 140 Or App 347, 914 P2d 1120 (1996)

Person may possess drug by having dominion or control over it and physical pos­ses­sion is not only means to possess it. State v. Anaya, 111 Or App 204, 826 P2d 27 (1992); State v. Garcia, 120 Or App 485, 852 P2d 946 (1993)

In pros­e­cu­­tion for delivery of controlled substance, instruc­tion to jury on lesser included of­fense of pos­ses­sion of less than one ounce of marijuana, which disclosed penalty for viola­tion as punishable by fine only without jail sen­tence, could have influenced jury's evalua­tion of testimony and was prejudicial error. State v. Hardt, 113 Or App 616, 833 P2d 1316 (1992)

Proof that quantity of methamphetamine possessed would have stimutant effect on per­son's central nervous system is not ele­ment of crime of pos­ses­sion of controlled substance. State v. Henry, 116 Or App 138, 840 P2d 1335 (1992)

Amount of controlled substance inconsistent with per­sonal use and pos­ses­sion of items used to traffic controlled substance was sufficient substantial step to es­tab­lish delivery. State v. Garcia, 120 Or App 485, 852 P2d 946 (1993)

Possession of controlled substance is not lesser included of­fense to manufacture of controlled substance. State v. Guzman, 140 Or App 347, 914 P2d 1120 (1996)

Reference to one ounce of "dried leaves, stems and flowers" does not apply to undried marijuana, regardless of amount. State v. Schwirse, 147 Or App 683, 938 P2d 227 (1997)

Absent proof of crim­i­nal con­spir­a­cy, where more than one per­son is present, mere proximity to controlled substance is insufficient to es­tab­lish constructive pos­ses­sion. State v. Sosa-Vasquez, 158 Or App 445, 974 P2d 701 (1999)

Indict­ment need not specify particular controlled substance possessed. State v. Hansz, 167 Or App 147, 5 P3d 1109 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Mere removal of individual por­tion from larger quantity of controlled substance does not constitute "packaging or repackaging" under ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.840 to 475.980), and thus is not "manufacture" of controlled substance. State v. Tellez, 170 Or App 745, 14 P3d 78 (2000)

Presence of controlled substance in bloodstream does not provide per­son with dominion or control over substance necessary to constitute pos­ses­sion. State v. Da­line, 175 Or App 625, 30 P3d 426 (2001)

Offer to sell controlled substance is substantial step constituting at­tempt to deliver substance. State v. Pollock, 189 Or App 38, 73 P3d 297 (2003), aff'd on other grounds, 337 Or 618, 102 P3d 684 (2004)

Felony con­vic­­tion under this sec­tion qualifies as predicate of­fense under federal career offender sen­ten­cing guide­line. U.S. v. Shumate, 329 F3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2003)

Ultimate user for whom medical use of marijuana is prescribed may not confer immunity on per­son other than designated primary caregiver to possess marijuana on behalf of ultimate user. State v. Fries, 212 Or App 220, 158 P3d 10 (2007)

Law Review Cita­tions

In General

26 WLR 462 (1990); 27 WLR 173, 327 (1991)

475.900 (Crime category classification) (formerly 475.996)

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant was indicted under unconstitu­tionally vague crime category statute, then reindicted under clarified statute, ex post facto clause did not prohibit con­vic­­tion. State v. Perez, 119 Or App 436, 851 P2d 617 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Use of term "substantial quantity" in both count for delivery and count for pos­ses­sion did not serve notice on defendant that quantity alleged in pos­ses­sion count exceeded enhanced category threshold for pos­ses­sion. State v. Griffen, 131 Or App 79, 883 P2d 1315 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

"Public lands" refers to land owned by any unit of govern­ment. State v. Holloway, 138 Or App 260, 908 P2d 324 (1995)

Viola­tion of multiple of­fense subcategories in com­mit­ting same act does not create multiple of­fenses. State v. Wright, 150 Or App 159, 945 P2d 1083 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Proof that delivery or manufacture of controlled substance "involves" substantial quantities of controlled substance is not es­tab­lished by merely showing that per­son involved in delivery or manufacture also possesses substantial quantities of controlled substance. State v. Paetehr, 169 Or App 157, 7 P3d 708 (2000)

Defendant took "security measures with potential of injuring per­sons" when defendant set up electronic surveillance system and utilized armed guard. State v. Moore, 172 Or App 371, 19 P3d 911 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

For purposes of sen­tence enhance­ment, threshold quantity of "mixture or substance" containing detectable amount of methamphetamine must be in marketable form. State v. Slovik, 188 Or App 263, 71 P3d 159 (2003)

475.904 (Unlawful manufacture or delivery of controlled substance within 1,000 feet of school) (formerly 475.999)

Notes of Decisions

Although lack of considera­tion is one ele­ment of reducing delivery to misdemeanor, existence of considera­tion is not ele­ment of manufacture or delivery charged as felony. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Flath, 158 Or App 249, 974 P2d 254 (1999)

Distance from school is part of charged act or attendant circumstance requiring proof of defendant's culpable mental state. State v. Rutley, 202 Or App 639, 123 P3d 334 (2005), Sup Ct review allowed

State is not re­quired to show that defendant intended drug ac­tivity to take place near school. State v. Rodriguez-Barrera, 213 Or App 56, 159 P3d 1201 (2007)

475.906 (Penalties for distribution to minors) (formerly 475.995)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

Absent evidence that defendant had knowledge that per­son to whom he supplied drugs was under 18 and at least three years younger than defendant, defendant could not be convicted of furnishing marijuana to mi­nor. State v. Blanton, 31 Or App 327, 570 P2d 411 (1977), aff'd 284 Or 591, 588 P2d 28 (1978)

Chapter 475

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 561 (1972); 69 OLR 171 (1990)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 475—Controlled Substances; Illegal Drug Cleanup; Paraphernalia; Precursors, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­475.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 475, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­475ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.