Marijuana Conflict

"I couldn't survive a fantastic attorney unless I prefaced this information by incorporating disclaimers:

1) Marijuana remains to be a controlled schedule I substance and is also illegal within the eyes with the Federal Government in the United States;

2) This article is never to be construed as legal advice, nor should take the place of the advice associated with an attorney, and you will check with legal counsel when considering actions in furtherance with the subject material of this informative article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which could exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside the State of Arizona. However, it is going to still take some time before medical marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for your drafting from the rules surrounding the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, necessities such as important time periods that needs to be paid close focus on:

December 17, 2010: The first draft from the medicinal marijuana rules needs to be released making it readily available for discuss this date.

January 7, 2011: This is going to be the deadline for public comment on the initial draft of rules mentioned previously.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules is going to be released about this date. Once again, it'll be intended for informal comment as inside the draft referred to above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held about the proposed rules at this time, then the ultimate rules will be submitted to the Secretary of State making it public about the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules go into effect and be published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is important that constantly during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests as opposed to the ones from medical cannabis advocates are often making presentations, and could convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or people that may qualify to gain access to it if there is no voice to advocate for patients' rights.

Some blueprint about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana for patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" just isn't defined you might say tied to normal health professionals. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be qualified for recommend marijuana for patients.

-In order to get prescribed medicinal marijuana, someone must be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is understood to be somebody who has been diagnosed by the ""physician"" (as defined above) as developing a ""debilitating condition.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or the management of these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment who makes more than one from the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those sign of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those sign of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other condition or its treatment added through the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined which is very important through the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for your public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to include conditions under this, bureaucracy is notoriously rare to find to alter any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments could be exercised during the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this is not certain.

It is therefore essential that, inside the event that incorporating health conditions is known as in the consultations, any stakeholder who wants to get a problem unlisted in the first 2 bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for your Department to include any additional medical condition towards the list of debilitating medical ailments. In order to boost the prestige of the presentations created to justify adding medical ailments under Section 36-2801.01, it could be necessary to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical professionals that can testify in some recoverable format at people hearings about why the proposed condition needs to be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as being a treatment to the proposed condition could be helpful, as would medical journals on the subject.

It should be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos in regards to the medical cannabis rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition towards the passing of Proposition 203. He managed it around the grounds the FDA does not test the drug, and although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should stop used as an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to believe that Director Humble will probably be any less inclined to obstruct the application of medicinal marijuana in the rulemaking stage, and proponents of medical cannabis must be likely to make their voices heard on the consultations to avoid the obstruction of the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also another provisions in Proposition 203 which is going to be discussed in the initial rulemaking process, and they'll likely to end up the main focus with the consultations. The consultations can establish rules:

* Governing the way in which in which the Department of Health Services need the petitions from the general public previously mentioned, regarding adding medical conditions for the list with the already enshrined debilitating health concerns.

* Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted beneath the medical cannabis law.

* Governing the way in which where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical cannabis ID cards.

* Governing various aspects throughout the newly legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical cannabis dispensary applications.

The most crucial part from the consultation period will likely be concerning the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to make the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it'll have the consequence of reducing the use of medical marijuana to patients and driving in the price of medical marijuana due to the insufficient supply. It could simply become very costly to adhere to all with the regulations.

During this stage, it is important that stakeholders-particularly medical marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists using a little economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules may have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition should certainly help. The proposed rules have never turn out yet, however, if they certainly, they must be closely scrutinized to the possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries could have on patients.

The other major factor inside rulemaking must do with the fees. The Department will probably be setting fees for medical marijuana dispensaries in the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that the fees may not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, by incorporating lobbying throughout the public consultation, it will be possible the actual fees will likely be much less website traffic are merely the most how the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical marijuana users will likely be prohibited in specific situations. Based on our analysis, an individual might not:

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone or otherwise penalize them solely for their status like a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not the process would result inside the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions in it because they're a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not doing this would result within the lack of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can still terminate employees if the employee is possessing or impaired by marijuana around the premises of the place of employment or in the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana have to be treated just like any other medication prescribed by a physician.

* Be prevented, as a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time which has a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger towards the safety with the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are certain prohibitions on discrimination, additionally, there are provisions which permit discrimination against medical marijuana cardholders:

* Government medical assistance programs and health insurers are not needed to reimburse someone for their medical cannabis use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including companies, is required to allow medical cannabis on the premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on the being a cardholder, are permitted in order to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana to the landlord's property).

* Employers aren't forced to allow cardholders being underneath the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although the presence of marijuana inside body which isn't of the sufficient concentration to cause impairment will not establish being underneath the influence of it.

Rules Related on the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the last rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries will never be established until April 2011, a number of requirements which are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and can be known ahead of the time that the final rules come out. These minimal requirements may not be as restrictive as the ultimate requirements which are published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries must be nonprofit. They will need to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they desire stop considered tax-exempt from the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents in the dispensaries must include provisions for your oversight of the dispensary and for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary have to have a single secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized access to areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary should not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for virtually any purpose apart from providing it straight away to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver to the cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana must take place only in a locked, enclosed facility at a physical address provided towards the Department of Health Services throughout the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered with all the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from the patient of their caregiver, but only in the event the patient or caregiver receives no compensation for this.

* No use of marijuana is permitted about the property from the dispensary.

* A dispensary is subject to reasonable inspection from the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice of the inspection for the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is actually no means the same since the law in California. There are certainly some differences relating to the two, though in most respects they may be comparable. This is a comparative analysis from the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as being a practical matter, permit broad discretion about the part of a physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who suffer from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits the life from the patient to conduct one or more major life activities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, will result in serious harm towards the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have many illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses to the prescription of medical marijuana. These include, but are not tied to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require the use of your identification card by those that have been prescribed medicinal marijuana, following your cardholders already went through a an initial application process where the use from the drug has become recommended with a physician.

* Both states don't cbd products newtown factor inside the unusable portion with the marijuana plant in determining the most weight of marijuana that's permissible for possession by a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have never been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it'll be regulated on the state level and for that reason uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly about the municipal level, and therefore the rules around dispensaries can vary greatly in one municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law provides a broader spectrum of people that are believed a ""physician"" for the purpose of prescribing medical cannabis. In California, only physicians and osteopaths are viewed to get physicians. In Arizona, along with health professionals and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will also be allowed to prescribe medical marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants instead of by using a medicinal marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients might grow marijuana or designate another person for this in place of going to a dispensary around the condition that there are no dispensary operating within 25 miles of the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

"