unambiguous language if construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all the words of the statute.”). Respectfully, the majority makes policy choices regarding which of the provisions of HRS § 329-122(e)(2) to enforce. Again, HRS § 329-121 allows the “acquisition, possession, cultivation, use, distribution, or transportation of marijuana ... to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition.” The majority would allow “transportation” and “possession” of medical marijuana in public places, but would appear to preclude the “acquisition, [ ] cultivation, use, [or] distribution” of marijuana in “[o]ther placets] open to the public[,]” even though those are also “medical use[s].” See Majority Opinion at 619 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the majority finds an absurdity
holding that defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if defendant raises it at a pragmatically sufficient time such as summary judgment and the defendants failure raise the affirmative defense in its answer did not cause the plaintiff prejudice holding in part that the information did not charge actual possession where it alleged that the defendant carried displayed used threatened or attempted to use any weapon or firearm holding that a defendant proves his or her affirmative defense of medical use if inter alia the marijuana was not being used ingested or carried in open view at the time it was discovered holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding that a defendant proves his or her affirmative defense of medical use if inter alia the marijuana was found in an other place open to the public where transportation for medical use might legitimately occur emphasis added