of a statute is justified when such construction would produce an absurd result and ... is clearly inconsistent with the pur poses and policies of the act[.]” (citation omitted)). However, determining that a qualifying patient can freely travel and possess marijuana in “[ojther placets] open to the public” is contrary to the express statutory mandate, and is not necessary to avoid the frustration of the legislature’s purpose. See id. (“[T]his court may not reject the prohibition against the transportation of marijuana in “[o]ther placets] open to the public[,]” but would appear to uphold the prohibition against the “medical use” of marijuana in other locations prohibited by HRS § 329-122(e)(2), such as school buses, youth centers, and moving vehicles. Majority Opinion at 619 (<HOLDING>). This interpretation of the statute yields
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 recognizing congresss power to place burden of proving affirmative defense on defendant as long as state proves all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding inter alia that appellant must use local cpiu where available 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