The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) has made a call for public comment o

[Scottsdale480]

HEY ARIZONA :thumbsup:

We only have 3 weeks to comment on the proposed rules !!!
Please make your comments on the click-able LINK that goes to the Health Department who is making our RULES.
I do not like the part where you have to see a DOCTOR 4 times before you get
your medical Marijuana !!!!


Hello,
Please see if you can get this out to the public.
IF YOU WANT SOME OF THE PURPOSED RULES CHANGED HEARS UR CHANCE!
I don't like the provision about seeing a Doctor four times before they can prescribe cannabis.
This Article has a click-able link to make comments to the state!!

Thanks,

Jeff Himel




Arizona's Prop 203 becomes law, rules released, three-week comment period begins

* December 18th, 2010 7:20 am PT

Do you like this story?

Arizona's Prop 203 won in the November election by only 4341 votes out of over 1.67 million total votes cast, according to CBS News, making it the 15th state to allow medical marijuana legally. On Friday, the state health department issued the first set of draft rules, opening up the comment period for the next three weeks.

From CBS News:

"Now begins the very hard work of implementing this program in the way it was envisioned, with very high standards," said Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project. "We really believe that we have an opportunity to set an example to the rest of the country on what a good medical marijuana program looks like."

The proposed rules indicate that Arizona will likely not be the poster-child for "what a good medical marijuana program looks like" however. Current concerns already voiced over the new draft rules include:

* Non-refundable license application fee of $5000 for those applying for a limited number of dispensaries. "Thousands of business owners are expected to compete for the state's 124 dispensary licenses" according to Steve Nuñez of KGON 9, an ABC affiliate.
* Pharmacies are given "first dibs" of the licenses, but pharmacists risk losing their DEA license to prescribe medications since marijuana is still illegal by federal law.
* Patients will have to pay $150 for a medical marijuana card and see the same doctor four times in one year to qualify.

From just an initial glance at the proposed rules, it is easy to see how these rules could prevent the desired effect of creating a "good medical marijuana program":

It is likely to result in FEWER pharmacies carrying medical marijuana than intended, even though pharmacies tend to be the most desirable since they are already in the business of distributing medicine. Pharmacies would be taking a huge risk to lose their DEA permits, and the law requires that dispensaries grow their own marijuana (meaning pharmacies would have to take on a new "gardening" role in addition to distributing more typically prescribed medications) and require that they pay $5000 for permission to take that risk. If the goal was intended to encourage pharmacies to distribute the medical marijuana, it does not appear that this will be the result. Pharamcies could have been exempted from the high license fee and/or given a reduced application fee and more rational consideration could have been given to the requirement for pharmacies to be required to grow their own marijuana, should they decide to play a part in medical marijuana distribution. With such high costs and risks, however, it is likely that few pharmacies will actually apply.

Due to the high (non-refundable) cost of licensure, many quality applicants will not apply (it is probably desirable that applications be limited given the small number of licenses available). However, one should consider the people with $5000 readily available for such an endeavor - corporations, investment firms and others with profit-motivation and criminal enterprises looking to "legitimize" their business; the average-joe without the investment money could still find work in the cannabis industry (for instance, selling grow equipment and nutrients for the new dispensaries, opening up referal clinics to assist patients whose doctors may not be willing to prescribe medical marijuana, etc). While these may be the people most capable of absorbing the costs of opening a dispensary, this almost certainly ensures that medical cannabis is viewed with profit as the main motivator, and not the potential benefits to patients. While there is a lot of money to be made in cannabis business, it is evident that the patients will be the ones paying the cost of all the new regulations, business expenses, doctor's visits, etc. The law and the proposed rules intentionally make this an expensive business. This may result in some economic benefit to the community, but, as Mary MacKenzie of AZ4NORML points out:

"Patients shouldn't be the one's to carry the brunt," said MacKenzie. "If you're trying to raise money then you need to legalize it, tax it and regulate it that's the only way you're going to make money to save the state."

Finally, the burden placed on patients to qualify is highly restrictive and will either result in "shady" medical practices by doctors trying to help out those incapable of meeting the costly requirements of doctor's visits and the application fee, OR doctors exploiting this requirement in some instances for their own financial gain. Further, since many patients suffering high medical costs can barely afford their current medical expenses, it is likely that many otherwise qualifying patients will not even attempt to apply (potentially resorting to the black market, instead of the legitimate medical dispensaries). I am under the impression that the doctor seen four times in the same year is ALSO the doctor who is writing the recommendation for medical marijuana; however, if a clinic doctor can review a patient's existing chart that includes four visits in a single year by another doctor - then this may not prove to be as large of an obstacle for those already seeing a doctor with frequency. The problem arises when a patient's doctor will not sign for medical marijuana, and a patient must seek out additional care in order to pursue the option of medical marijuana. In that case, a patient would have to add an additional four visits onto their medical expenses - making the cost of becoming a medical marijuana patient as much as $550-750 for even the low end of what it typically costs to see a doctor ($100-150 per visit).

While some of these issues are likely founded in the law itself, and therefore cannot be changed by the rules - many are subject to change with appropriate public comment. The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) has made a call for public comment on the proposed draft rules:

One of our top priorities as we implement the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act over the coming months is to ensure that we develop good Rules (called Administrative Code) so we can regulate medical marijuana effectively. Rules that are clear, objective, well-researched, and that balance competing interests are absolutely critical in order to effectively implement a responsible medical marijuana program. Our goal is to develop rules that will ensure qualified patients have access to marijuana for their medical condition while preventing (to the extent possible) recreational marijuana users from accessing marijuana through the Actâ??s provisions. In addition, we would like to develop Rules that ensure that marijuana dispensaries act responsibly and have adequate security and inventory controls.

They have also given some good commentary on "tips for providing input." The public can comment on the rules through the feedback form online through January 7, 2011. According to KGON:

ADHS plans to hold several public forums, between now and February, to get additional input on its proposed rules.

The state then plans to finalize the rules by March 28th. Patients can begin applying for medical marijuana cards in April.

Oregon attempted to pass their own dispensary measure in November, but it failed to pass. Oregonians are encouraged to follow Arizona as they implement their medical marijuana law, and to weigh the pros and cons for future legislative efforts here in Oregon to implement dispensaries and/or legalize marijuana for all adults.
Click here to find out more!

* Arizona Prop 203
* medical marijuana
* dispensaries
* administrative rules
* Department of Health Services
* public comment period

Scottsdale480 Reviewed by Scottsdale480 on 12-24-2010. The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) has made a call for public comment o HEY ARIZONA :thumbsup: We only have 3 weeks to comment on the proposed rules !!! Please make your comments on the click-able LINK that goes to the Health Department who is making our RULES. I do not like the part where you have to see a DOCTOR 4 times before you get your medical Marijuana !!!! :(:(:(:(:(:( Hello, Please see if you can get this out to the public. Rating: 5

[stickydankAZ]

There are lots of Attorneys against ADHS about the way the are illegally making up their own rules for a law that is very clear. The law that, we the Voters passed says nothing about seeing a doctor four times or any other new rule about a Dr. and his pateint thats not written in the prop 203.
They do get too setup rules for the dispensaries, but thats it. under the law
ADHS cant make up or add too PROP 203 !:wtf:

[leadmagnet]

You're about to watch Will Humble, the Director of Arizona Dept. of Health Services, as he tries to break it off in your keisters. He has been a major prohib in Arizona from long before prop 203. He can NOT objectively perform his job at this point.