30 Facts About Arizona’s New Medical Marijuana Law | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform
The full text of the measure can be found at 30 Facts About Arizona’s New Medical Marijuana Law | The NORML Stash Blog
Printable View
30 Facts About Arizona’s New Medical Marijuana Law | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform
The full text of the measure can be found at 30 Facts About Arizona’s New Medical Marijuana Law | The NORML Stash Blog
Number 9. Patients and caregivers must submit fingerprints to law enforcement and sign a statement that they will not divert marijuana to non-patients.
You have got to be kidding. I'd object to this most strongly. You are not guilty of a crime, you aren't applying for security clearances, etc. Bullshitski! :D
I agree the fingerprint thing feels very wrong and discriminating.
We don't need to supply prints when we buy our Morphine derivatives or any other medicine.
MMJ should be treated like all other meds.
The AZ program is new and will be changed and amended many times.
4,300 votes decided this! wow. who says your vote doesn't count.
interesting, thanks for posting.
12. A patient who lives within 25 miles of a dispensary may not cultivate their own medical marijuana.
^ thats a new one, I think. and this too is interesting.
20. There can be no more than one dispensary for every ten pharmacies, except that there can be at least one dispensary in every county. pre-emptive strike against the L.A. effect?? :rastasmoke:
25. There shall be a secure, web-based confirmation system accessible by law enforcement and dispensaries, that reveals patientsâ?? and caregiversâ?? names but not addresses and how much marijuana the patient received from all dispensaries in the past sixty days. :eek: grow your own. :twocents:
6.Caregivers may receive reimbursement for actual expenses â?? not labor â?? from their own patients only.
I am currently a paid caregiver because the family member patient is paralyzed. I get paid to caregive, i.e, clean, cook, etc. Does this mean if I am the weed caregiver I cannot be paid anymore for the household chores? If so, I'll have someone ellse be her weed caregiver.
...it sounds like the health dept. is making up it's own rules...without any regards to anyone's rights. Fingerprints of the caregiver might make sense, if they are paid and an employee of a caregiving company. But fingerprints of the patient...or fingerprints of a nonpiaid caregiver is absurd!
NORML should check out the driving studies done in Australia. They showed that drivers under the influence of cannabis, are safer than sober drivers, because they over-compensate by driving slower.
They still have to do the rulemaking process on the law. That will start early december and go untill early april.
wow, arizona's mmj laws are even stupider than colorado's mmj laws.
In some ways yes. Then again Arizona accepts California recommendations on visitors from California and California residents employed in Arizona also fall under the employee medical cannabis patient's protections afforded by prop 203 like regular Arizonan medical marijuana patients. You have to admit thatâ??s pretty cool!Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnLionCO
.:thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevall
the two are separate, however you can not charge the patient any labor related to the cultivation process, only for the materials, ie. nutrients, equip. etc. and power bill increase, dont forget that ;)
actually, Will humble is working as openly and closely with the public and potential dispensary owners as possible. As our communications broaden and the first draft is released more changes will be implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdevall
Most will agree with you about the finger prints and I can see that eventually being phased out or removed do to cost of the program and available AZDHS resources.
December 17, 2010: ADHS posts an initial informal draft of the Rules.
December 17, 2010 â?? January 7, 2011: ADHS receives informal (electronic) public comment on the initial informal draft Rules.
January 31, 2011: ADHS posts official draft Rules for public comment.
January 31, 2011 â?? February 18, 2011: ADHS receive public comment on a revised draft of the Rules.
February 15 â?? 17, 2011: ADHS holds 3 public meetings about the draft Rules
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 â?? 1 pm, 250 N 17th Ave., Phoenix
Wednesday, February, 16, 2011 â?? 1 pm, 400 W. Congress, Room 222, Tucson
Thursday, February 17, 2011 â?? 1 pm, 250 N 17th Ave., Phoenix
March 28, 2011: ADHS publishes the final Rules that will be used to implement the Act.
April 2011: ADHS begins to accept applications for registry identification cards and for dispensary certificates.
Will Humble is a bit of a shithead and he fought tooth and nail against Prop 203. I don't think he can be a neutral participant in the implementation of prop 203 at this point and needs to be replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZCSceo
I have been a vendor for 9 years in AZ. Biz owner for 20 .Each year I must get fingerprint and a backround check.So this is not a new thing to getting a license to vend.I have a few buds that can not get a vendor license because of bad backround.It cost about 8 bucks .17street and ? close to Grant.I would like in on the Green.I have been working with the Health dep. for 9 years .I have a 6000 sq foot building to growQuote:
Originally Posted by jdevall
:thumbsup:email me at jwhit63---at aol....con
Dude, lol, you pay eight bucks to vend what?Quote:
Originally Posted by azvendor
He is doing his best. This program has NO funding what so ever until they start accepting applications for dispensaries and patient cards. This program puts a tremendous strain on his department. It would be like some one walking into your work and tripling your work load for no extra on your pay check.:mad:.Quote:
Originally Posted by leadmagnet
AZCS is doing everything it can to "help" AZDHS with the new program and we will do our best to keep you updated.
Feel free to toot his horn all you want. Try hard enough and long enough and Will Humble might even award your organization the dispensary you seek. I think you're making a mistake hitchin your wagon to his mule team. Will Humble was and remains a vocal opponent of medical cannabis in the State of Arizona. It is unfortunate that medical marijuana patients in your state have to rely upon HIM to get their program rolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZCSceo
I will be attending in person to the Q&A sessions....and sending plenty of feedback...
As for AZDOH's director, it is not reasonable to track a plant from seed to production...what about male plants? I'd destroy them...or infected with a fungus...would be destroyed immediately for fear of spreading to the whole crop....
But - that doesn't piss me off...this does...
SB1222 - 492R - Senate Fact Sheet
' Excludes medical marijuana dispensed from a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary from the Transaction Privilege Tax (TPT) and use tax exemption for drugs and medical oxygen, regardless of whether the medical marijuana is dispensed through the written certification of a physician. Imposes a luxury tax of $20 on each ounce of medical marijuana dispensed from a registered nonprofit marijuana dispensary.'
a freakin luxury tax? On medicine ?!? So it is a luxury for someone with a debilitating condition to have medicine? Tell someone suffering from "SEVERE AND CHRONIC PAIN" that releif is a luxury is insane !
And as for DOH funding, while these civil servants have to stop web surfing the internet long enough to write these rules, that is what they are paid a normal salary to do...and beyond that, the 'verification system' while costly, will be paid for. When I went to school, I learned that 124 x $5,000 = $620,000 (just dispensary app fees...that doesn't count caregivers, agents and patients!)
It will certainly be very interesting to see how this develops...
'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...':jointsmile:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZCSceo
The informal draft rules have been posted here:
http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/documen...raft-Rules.pdf
And there's an electronic comment form here:
Survey
EVERYONE ACT NOW OR SHUT THE F UP AND BEND OVER FOR WILL AND CREW!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig
AHHHHHHHH crap
Sorry about the harsh feelings Im just very passionate about our freedom to useQuote:
Originally Posted by stickydankAZ
Medical Marijuana IN the THE best state Arizona
what did you put for improvmentss?
I WROTE THE MY TOO CENTS WORTH THIS WAY Hope it chokes themQuote:
Originally Posted by MimbresValley
I'm a patient of a doctor.And have affremitive defence
as stated in 36-2812
You cant add too it by calling it an "Improvement" or new rule or Rules
I agree with The Statements below AND MY NAME ______________________
ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries...."
ARS 28.1 Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the department.
R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation.
R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12.
R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The department's regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients' rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application).
R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards.
R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access.
R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living.
R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year.
R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine.
R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose other providers or sources of information
R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be submitted.
R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation.
R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal officers or board members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed security measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials beyond what the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance, or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers.
R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician's professional practice.
R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine.
R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food.
R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk.
R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security practices to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products.
R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
It's starting to look like Az will have the strictest Medical Marijuana laws and regulations. :mad: Humble keeps saying these regulations are only a preliminary draft and he will take all comments into consideration before he makes revisions, if any. I highly doubt he or anyone in the department will, just like the only comments that get approved are "pro-azdhs" comments on Will Humble's personal blog (found here).
Try it..
Will is supposed to write these rules without imposing an undue burden on dispensaries, as the law says, yet prospective dispensary owners must have a specific location, a certificate of occupancy and they must be bonded before even being considered to be given one of the 125 licenses. I wonder how much insurance companies are going to charge to bond a business that is still federally illegal. Will & Co. don't even have the authority to require that a business be bonded. He is exceeding his authority, he has however said he doesn't want to end up in court over whether or not the department has exceeded their authority. :wtf4:
Other bullshit rules include but not limited to;
Requiring dispensaries to provide detailed information on cultivation, including the type of soil used and the watering schedule.
Requiring dispensaries have 24/7 video monitoring by the health department
Requiring dispensaries to spell out the weight of cookies and other products into which marijuana was infused.
etc... etc... etc... etc... :wtf:
The only good news so far is if these regulations remain unchanged there will be an immediate lawsuit filed against the department of health.
No, he isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZCSceo
Then they can simply gtfo and let someone else do the job properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZCSceo
How are you even certain you are going to receive a dispensary license?
Remember he's as anti Medical Marijuana as they come.
I personally couldn't give less of a shit if no one gets a license to operate a dispensary, that just means patients will be able to legally grow at home.