As you know from earlier blog posts a judge ruled in a state case that had challenged our dispensary applicant selection criteria. The judge’s decision basically struck down several of the selection criteria we had been planning to use to for competitive areas of the state (areas where there will be more than 1 applicant per Community Health Analysis Area.
Our teams are busy dotting the Is and crossing the Ts right now on an express rule package that would remove the dispensary selection criteria struck down (AZ residency, child support, previous bankruptcies etc.) and to set new dates to accept dispensary applications. Our rule changes will focus solely on making adjustments to comply with the judge’s decision and to set a new timeline for accepting dispensary applications.
Our team is making good progress on the Rule package, and we expect to be finished this month (February). I’ll keep you posted here, and I’ll let you know when the rule package is filed- including a link to the final set of rules. We’re still on track to be able to accept dispensary applications in April. We’d then have about 45 days to review and award dispensary certificates- so we could potentially award up to 125 dispensary certificates by mid- to late-June. If someone is pretty much ready to go at that point, we could see medical marijuana dispensaries operating in July or August.
I would hope to see a comprehensive yet competitive rules package that is fair to all parties of interest.
The start up capitol confusion, should also be settled. While I appreciated tour response Mr Humble it left me with more questions than answers. The $150,000 capitol is not a requirement to “apply” but “will” be used to determine eligibility for applicants as part of the AZDHS imposed criteria system. So one one hand it is not “required” yet on the other hand, it “will be used” to “determine” which applicant will receive the permit if more than one applies.
Perhaps show some more concern for the cultivation programs of these applicants rather than how deep their pockets are. I will be the first to say that the ability to provide medicinal cannabis should be the FIRST priority of any evaluation done by AZDHS regarding who does and does not get a permit or the allocation of the permit is insignificant in itself.
Simple google searches will lead you to extremely inexpensive means to acquire all the needed security and IT infrastructure hardware that is required by AZDHS. Any provision of the AMMA and corresponding rules package could be implemented for far less than the suggested $150,000.
You even said yourself Mr Humble, “if someone was ready to go” which most of those following these threads already know there are several groups that are “ready to go” meaning we are fully equipped, fully staffed, and in cases like (names removed by editor) and several others we are also currently cultivating. Simply put, we are waiting for the AZDHS registry system integration and the corresponding “applications” for dispensary agents to be released and we will be fully operational pending code inspections.
So the question looms, why the need for the $150,000 capitol if someone is “ready to go”?
The other point of interest that has been given is regarding the recent actions by the DEA in other states regarding their proximity to public parks and schools. Hundreds have been forced to close for this reason so why set Arizona up for failure by allowing it to occur here? Why not do the right thing, institute a 1120 foot ruling separating dispensaries for public parks and schools.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Will, what impact will the two new lawsuits have on the timeline projection?
I have had a patient card since April of last year. I decided to wait patiently as the dispute for dispensaries was taking place because I honestly got to a point where I felt that was my safest option. The caregivers I contacted were very uncomfortable to work with and I never received info from AZDHS as promised. Can the AZDHS please help me and those like who have not been really able to use their mmj card to receive reduced or waived renewal fees?
Everyones renewal fees should be waived this years because of your inability to provide the services for which you charge ($150-250-) BOTOMLINE~ or your just robbing the people for a few million.
There will never be any dispensaries in Arizona, So it past time for the State of Arizona to stop lying about the matter. Stop making up lies as the state has no intention of permitting dispensaries no matter What the People of Arizona Voted for. Lie, lie, and more lies…………………..
Stop Lying to the People of Arizona !!!!!!
I have tried to post this comment many times in the past, but have yet to see it ever posted. I realize this is a dispensary blog, but I wish you would address the question anyway.
The law passed by voters states patients can cultivate if a dispensary is more than 25 miles from their home. Now I voted for this law and I interpreted it to mean no patient would have to drive or walk more than 25 miles to obtain their meds.
Your rules have interpreted 25 miles to mean a- 25mile radius i.e. as the grow flies.
Well in the metropolitan area this would probably be quite ok—but in the rural areas of our state this is clearly not the case.
Where I live by road through the mountains it is a minimum of 35 miles to the nearest metropolitan area than probably some what more to a NPMMD
Depending on where it is located. Now in straight line distance , radius, or as the crow flies, it would be much less than that. Now considering I do not own a helicopter, nor can I sprout wings—will there be special considerations in the rule for people that fall in this category?
Just so you know, this is a public health blog and not a dispensary blog. But we answer all kinds of questions. The law actually reads, “registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not operating within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient’s home.” (ARS 36-2804.02) So it isn’t a matter of ADHS interpreting it, it was the wording passed by the voters.