MAY 2025 | 19 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. continued, an OBNDD officer came to inspect John’s land. John informed the officer he had applied for a renewal of his license, but no one from OBNDD had replied. The officer reported John as an “unlicensed grower,” and a subsequent search warrant was issued for John’s property. John could face felony charges for trafficking controlled dangerous substances.20 Even though John was in the process of renewing his license, when the officer saw the hundreds of marijuana plants John was growing while trying to renew his license, the officer had probable cause to arrest John. The statute only requires the officer to identify 25 pounds or more of a “detectable amount” of marijuana for trafficking.21 John would be facing a fine ranging from $25,000 to $100,000 and up to 20 years in the Department of Corrections.22 IT’S TIME TO CLEAR THE CONFUSION The current statutory scheme is not set up for everyday life. The strict per se drug laws are not readily and easily understandable for the ordinary person.23 How can using a legally prescribed drug be okay in some cases and a crime in others? The current marijuana laws were not written to consider different scenarios, like the ones described, where innocent people believe they are doing the right thing, yet they are committing crimes. Oklahoma marijuana laws do not reflect the intention of State Question 788 voters, nor are they fair to the hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana-licensed Oklahomans. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sabah Khalaf is the owner and managing attorney of the Khalaf Law Firm in Tulsa. His practice is focused on high-stakes litigation and criminal matters. Mr. Khalaf practices in federal, state, tribal and municipal criminal courts from prefiling investigations to trial. Cade Russell, a native of Pryor, will graduate from the TU College of Law with highest honors in May 2025. He is a licensed legal intern who has worked at the Khalaf Law Firm for the majority of his law school career. He received the OBA Litigation Section’s Litigation Award in 2024. ENDNOTES 1. https://bit.ly/4crSk3u (last visited Dec. 26, 2024). 2. OMMA Annual Report: 2023 https://bit.ly/3Yks2tV (last visited Dec. 26, 2024). 3. 63 O.S. §2-401(A)(1). 4. Id. 5. Starks v. State, 1974 OK CR 114, ¶¶2-4 (holding “Distribute means to deliver other than by administering or dispensing a controlled substance.”) (Okla. 1974); 63 O.S. 2-101 (A)(15). 6. 63 O.S. §2-401 (B)(2) (OSCN 2024). 7. 47 O.S. §902 (A)(3) (OSCN 2024). 8. Id. 9. Compton, R., “Marijuana-Impaired Driving - A Report to Congress.” (DOT HS 812 440). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration at page 4 (July 2017). 10. Id. 11. Id. 12. National Institute of Justice, “Field Sobriety Tests and THC Levels Unreliable Indicators of Marijuana Intoxication,” April 5, 2021, nij.ojp.gov: https://bit.ly/44qsN8C (last visited Dec. 30, 2024). 13. National Library of Medicine, “Assessment of Cognitive and Psychomotor Impairment, Subjective Effects, and Blood THC Concentrations Following Acute Administration of Oral and Vaporized Cannabis,” 2021, https://bit.ly/4j3TJj2 (last visited Dec. 30, 2024). 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. 21 U.S.C. §812 (c)(c)(10). 17. Id.; 18 U.S.C. §922 (a)(6). 18. U.S. Const. Art. VI., §2; New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Assoc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assoc. 584 U.S. 453, 477, (holding “Preemption is based on the Supremacy Clause and that Clause is not an independent grant of legislative power to Congress. Instead, it simply provides ‘a rule of decision.’”) (U.S. 2018). 19. 18 U.S.C. §924 (a)(2). 20. 63 O.S. §2-415 (B) (OSCN 2024). 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. State ex rel. Coats v. Rakestraw, 1980 OK CR 24, ¶8, (holding a “statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”) (citing Connally v. General Constr. Co. 269 U.S. 385, 389) (Okla. 1980).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==