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).
Last week our team finished the revisions to the regulations by making adjustments to comply with the judge’s decision and to set a process for identifying a new timeline for accepting dispensary applications. We’ve shipped the revised rules to the Attorney General’s Office for final review. Once their review is complete, the AG’s office will file the final package with the Secretary of State- and the revised rules will become immediately effective.
I’ve heard that there’s a buzz in the community that we’re completely revamping the rules for dispensaries. This is not the case. We’ve simply made revisions to comply with the recent Superior Court Ruling. 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.
P.S. There have been a couple of new lawsuits filed against the Department in the last couple of weeks. One challenges our authority to require a medical director at dispensaries and one challenges other aspects of the rules and the initiative language itself. It’s unclear whether these cases will impede our progress in getting the dispensaries licensed- but I’m going to do everything I can administratively and otherwise to make sure the dispensary licensing goes forward as planned.
Legalizing medical marijuana is really not such a big deal any more, I mean we are in the 21st century after all. Plus medically controlled marijuana consumption is actually helping sick people. Why create so many obstacles to it then?
I would understand if we were to legalize the trade of alcohol in schools or something, but this is for the good of some ill people…
Will, I am astounded by your lack of vision. Recent comments like “wanting to move this forward only so you can get on with the rest of you dhs duties.” Clearly you underestimate the significance of the AMMA. While you certainly have plenty to do as director, AMMA is historic. Administering this program with a little more flair could make you a bit of a celebrity in many circles. In fact, a stepping stone to Drug Czar perhaps. Don’t you realize that the country is moving rapidly towards repeal of Cannabis Prohibition. You are the first major state Health Administrator to have a program within his domain. You might pay a little more attention to what is happening nationwide and in states with lesser or more flawed MMJ rules. Our law is unique in many ways that may have the feds watching us as a model. Shouldn’t you be taking a little more hands on approach. The news media will want to get a better look at the man in charge of the MMJ program that is the one that works, if it can be made to work well. You could be a minor star in political circles and carry the leadership to Washington as the first to oversee the nation’s MMJ program and transition to legalization. When the DEA finally reclassifies Cannabis, it will open the door for massive medical research that you could administer. Are you listening? You need career advice, my friend. Thinking a little bigger and out of the box could make a rather boring state administration post into a full blown federal superstar taking the country away from the lies of the last 75 years. Leadership is needed. Time to show up, Will.
Will, One way you could take the bull by the horns is to lead us out of the 25-mile rule debacle. Clearly you have given little thought to the utterly impossible enforcement mess it will create. The inherent inequality in such a rule and resulting interpretations can only undermine your best attempts at implementing this program smoothly and to everyone’s liking. Ignoring such poorly written rules and leaving it to time to sort out can only reflect badly on your leadership. You brush off the lawsuit as challenging some aspect of the initiative language without regarding it’s substantially reasonable complaint. We all know you had no role in writing the law but you can take real action and make it most equitable for those who desire to have ultimate control over their medication and provide it for themselves, regardless of where they have chosen to live. Administering and regulating Medical Cannabis should be in the hands of the states Health Administrations and not law enforcement. Maintaining the 25-mile rule will only perpetuate the mess law enforcement has made surrounding Cannabis. You are missing a golden opportunity to elevate state government to a more compassionate entity and relieve law enforcement from the banality of responding to cannabis infractions. WHen people voted for prop203 thay were not voting for the 25-mile rule, they were voting for access to medical cannabis. When an initiative is on the ballot it is not possible to vote for only a part of it. The essence of the law is cannabis access and the 25 mile rule is a stupid clause that was wriiten by people at the (name removed by editor) that were simply experimenting with language forwarded by a substantial dispensary coalition seeking favorable conditions for their endeavors. Unfortunately it places patients and caregivers again in jeopardy when the law was intended to end that legal jeopardy. Remember that your constituents are primary and dispensaries are to be at their service.
Keef Treez,
Thanks for the food for thought, I hadn’t considered how important our work is should mm be moved to a schedule 2.
Thanks,
Will
Ditto what keef treez so eloquently said. The 25 mile rule has no place here, it is a ridiculous rider, we voted for this proposition because it’s all we had. We had to take the bad with the good. And now it’s time to get rid of the bad.
Marijuana will eventually be reclassified, the laws concerning marijuana are rooted in the ignorance of the masses. People were fed lies, and it was easy to keep the truth hidden.
We are now the information generation, truth and lies come to the surface much easier. People are finally realizing that marijuana is safer than Tylenol, people are finally accepting it due to the facts as opposed to rejecting it because of the lies.
Director Humble,
KeefTreez is correct on one point – marijuana is very likely to be moved to a Class 2 (or lower) schedule. Please look into Sativex, a product of GW Pharmaceuticals. Sativex is currently approved in the UK and Canada. It is in Phase III FDA trials in the US right now. Sativex is a whole plant extract that will require moving marijuana off of the CSA Schedule 1 substance list.
Marijuana is being kept on the Shedule 1 list primarily for political reasons rather than anything based in science.
You do indeed have a real opportunity here.
Henry
As far as the 25 mile rule is concerned, I can’t change that because it was voter approved. There are two ways to revise the rule;
1. A voter initiative to strike the 25 mile rule;
2. A law that would need to be passed by both houses of the Legislature by a 3/4 vote- and the revision would need to “further the intent” of the Initiative.
Alternatively- the courts could strike the 25 mile rule provision-
Being the one that filed the lawsuit I have a lot to say about the 25 Mile Rule and the potential for damage it creates as well as the lack of benefit it offers to the State and AZDHS in the actual implementation of the dispensary program here in Arizona.
I want to go on record, as I did in the motion itself, as saying my intention is not to halt or hinder the dispensary implementation process in any way.
Everyone involved has a lot to learn here, and AZDHS and Mr Humble have done an excellent job considering. The 25 Mile Rule was written into the law as he stated and he personally can do nothing to change that nor can AZDHS. However, I can and I am looking to do just that. As Mr Humble said, “As far as the 25 mile rule is concerned, I can’t change that because it was voter approved. There are two ways to revise the rule;
1. A voter initiative to strike the 25 mile rule;
2. A law that would need to be passed by both houses of the Legislature by a 3/4 vote- and the revision would need to “further the intent” of the Initiative.
Alternatively- the courts could strike the 25 mile rule provision-”
Honorable Judge (name removed by editor) will be deciding whether or not the 25 Mile Rule will stay or go now that the lawsuit has been filed.
Regarding the No 25 Mile Rule lawsuit, it was filed for a multitude of reasons, most of which will be discussed later I would assume during the oral argument I requested.
The financial impact it will have runs very deep. From grow stores to the patients themselves everyone will be affected by this provision. Also, one would be wise to look at other states with dispensaries and how they supply their vast number of patients. They don’t do it without help from patients or caregivers, or at least not for very long they don’t. Economically it makes sense that patients should be allowed to supplement what they get from a dispensary with their own medication or vice versa.
In most states dispensaries rely on patient and caregiver cultivators for their existence due to the high amount of volume these locations receive from patients. The dispensaries would have to have gigantic cultivation facilities to supply the demand. An ever growing demand might I add.
Do the math. I did it in (name removed by editor) at the P & Z meeting and it’s scary folks. If the dispensaries alone have to cultivate for every patient in Arizona, predicted to reach 100,000 + by 2014, the sheer size of the cultivation facility would be a red flag for federal investigators from any of the alphabet soup organizations that wanted to come looking. The current federal stance on cultivation is horrific regarding penalties for cannabis cultivation of that magnitude.
As a potential dispensary operator I would much rather assist less patients, with less medication that required less cultivation and posed less risk under federal penalties for cannabis cultivation for everyone involved. Just my two cents.
What does the State have to lose if the 25 Mile Rule is removed? Not much.
What will it gain? A lot. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the city of (name removed by editor) already hiring more people for the Code Enforcement Division? Thanks to home cultivation of cannabis by legal patients? I have been approached by numerous patients from (name removed by editor) that have documentation proving the city is attempting to enforce dispensary restrictions against them. Obviously NOT in the spirit of the AMMA to say the least but a whole separate discussion indeed. Where it is relevant to this discussion is boundaries and those that unknowingly or unintentionally cross them. The AMMA sets specific boundaries for what can and cannot be done, and by whom. I would imagine any attempt to act outside the boundaries established by the AMMA will be met with litigation. Expect to see it in (name removed by editor) and any other city that has enacted zoning to limit patients and cultivators as the law did not allow for such actions to take place.
A voter initiative would have taken to long, as would an additional law passed by a 3/4 vote on both sides, we, the patients, needed something done and something done prior to the release of the rules, triggering the opening of dispensaries and the launch of the 25 Mile shut down on patient and caregiver cultivation.
Let’s look at the provision, how does AZDHS intend to enforce it? Obviously (name removed by editor) will be involved as well, hence (name removed by editor) is named in the complaint as well as you Mr Humble. How will AZDHS and (name removed by editor) determine who is and who is not authorized to cultivate based on the 25 Mile Rule? Almost every GPS system that is commercially available is inaccurate up to 100 feet or more based on the number of satellites being used to configure the coordinates. I don’t see AZDHS paying for a surveyor to go from door to door of every patient to determine their legal location in reference to a dispensary.
Like I said, and several above me, there is much to consider still with the AMMA and the Rules package.
(Sentence removed by editor)
Follow this case on Facebook and Twitter for updates as they happen.
thank you Will Humble and everyone at DHS for your efforts thus far. Your persistence will persevere and our program will be recognized nationwide as the pinnacle of medical cannabis programs.
We just need to continue to work together to offer the patients and people a system that works for everyone involved, aka the State of Arizona.
Will, Thank you. Your response is infinitely encouraging. If there is anything I can do, like provide some historical material references to Cannabis, I am at your service. Untangling the entrenched lies spanning several generations is no easy task. Especially when so many political careers were built on those very lies. We are seeing light at the end of this tunnel but there are many still that would derail this train given a chance. Let’s make AZ the leader in Medical Cannabis research. Can you imagine the flow of funds to UA Med Center under such a scenario. Probably enough to build a new campus. The glut of empty industrial space can be transformed into research parks and cultivation facilities. There are jobs in medicine and industry just waiting to be launched by the individual with the political vision. Maybe your friend, (name removed by editor) could find some appeal in this kind of unusual twist to creating political capital. The country is so ready for restoring Cannabis to it’s rightful standing in pharmacology. You are the man and AZ can be the incubator. The bold and courageous are needed. We have your back.
Recently, the governors of Washington and Delaware formally petitioned the DEA for a reclassification of Cannabis. They are required to respond. The entirety of the Washington State legislature also backed them up. They are doing this because they have a mandate from their public to implement the law and they are tired of being caught in limbo by the federal government. AZ should also back this demand for reclassification and make this a force to be reckoned with. As a state legislature, they also have now found they are spending way too much time on mmj legislation when there are far more important things to do. So they say to the feds, reclassify already.
I applaud the governor and her now correct direction to fully implement the AMMA. I applaud (name removed by editor) and all the previous warriors for cannabis both recreational and medicinal.
As a serious patient myself, I also do not want dozens of dispensaries on Grand Avenue with flashing neon green pot leaves. The best way to keep the dreaded cannabis leaf from invading our family space is to allow a limited number of dispensaries, AND allow those such as myself to grow my own medicine. Nothing would keep a better lid on pot leaf proliferation than private citizens discretely growing our own at a fraction of what a dispensary can charge.
If we lead the way, we can do more to end the smuggling of Mexican illegals and “Blood Weed”, than our federal government has ever done successfully. If we lead, we can empty our prisons of non violent drug offenders and embrace this new pharmacological frontier (as previously mentioned).
Director Humble, you must meet with the legislature. You can ask for legislation that our Governor will sign that will actually help patients. 1. End the 25 Mile Rule 2. Get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers 3. Decriminalize cannabis use and posession.
The rub between states and our federal government exists because the local citizenry struggles for more freedom. Our federal government is simply on the wrong side of this and it is time we were as brave with cannabis reform as we were on immigration enforcement.
All I can say is that the 25 mile rule is unconstitutional by AZ statutes and pray we fill the courts with law suits. How dare you discriminate against the sick and poor.. That is the 25 mile rule in a nutshell. The truly disabled and sick cannot live in rural areas like Seligman and Ashfork. Living on SSDI of 680 a month I can barely afford a dump trailer in central Tijuana let alone to live in the boonies and pay for gas and car insurance to get to Drs and groceries. Yes, we are the ones who will be in jail because I cannot afford heat or air let alone to pay for my medications and if you think living on 26 prescribed pills was better for me think again. Last year my mid child took her life. I had spent four years in a virtual coma on 26 medications. I waited four years for my disability loosing everything I worked 33 yrs to own. I got 6 months back pay and invested in my own grow equipment since Brewer could not get out of her own way and there was no other alternative in my area but a bunch of over prices so called compassion clubs. Street dealers where cheaper. Now I have my medications, when i need them, and I can afford them. In addition, the gardening has been therapeutic in itself. The only ones benefiting from this 25 mile law are legalized drug lords. Let them open, let them be an option, but don’t force the poor and sick to go back to dangerous medications because we cannot afford to pay dispensaries. In addition, your laws allowed us to grow for almost two years by the time my new card will expire.. in any case that is grandfathered… I will sit in jail before I bow to the mega corrupt dispensaries. I hope this law breaks this state for its stupidness. Lawsuits abound is all I can pray for. I consider it discrimination and I think it will be seen as that once you see who is forced to continue to grow due to financial burden. How am I any more a criminal just because I am not fortunate enough to live 25 miles away from the monopolized dispensaries. YES you can help change this. You are in a position to appeal to the legislatures to end this. If you don’t the prisons will be filled with sick and poor. Shame on you. Do your job.
Tessa,
As far as the 25 mile rule is concerned, I can’t change that because it was voter approved. There are two ways to revise the rule;
1. A voter initiative to strike the 25 mile rule;
2. A law that would need to be passed by both houses of the Legislature by a 3/4 vote- and the revision would need to “further the intent” of the Initiative.
Alternatively- the courts could strike the 25 mile rule provision-