"I wouldn't be an excellent attorney unless I prefaced this article with some disclaimers:
1) Marijuana remains to be a controlled schedule I substance and is also illegal inside eyes in the Federal Government with the United States;
2) This article is to not be construed as legal services, nor is intended to take the place from the advice associated with an attorney, and you ought to seek advice from a legal professional before taking any actions in furtherance in the subject theme of this information. 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 State of Arizona. However, it is going to still take a moment before medical marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for your drafting with the rules around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, these are the basic important periods of time that you should paid close awareness of:
December 17, 2010: The first draft with the medical cannabis rules needs to be released and made intended for comment on this date.
January 7, 2011: This will probably be the deadline for public touch upon the first draft of rules stated earlier.
January 31, 2011: The second draft from the rules will likely be released with this date. Once again, it will be designed for informal comment as inside draft known as above.
February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will probably be held concerning the proposed rules at this time, then the last rules is going to be published to the Secretary of State and made public on the Office of Administrative Rules website.
April 2011: The medicinal marijuana rules will go into effect and become published in the Arizona Administrative Register.
It is very important that always during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests as opposed to those of medical cannabis advocates are often making presentations, and may convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to access it if there is no voice to advocate for patients' rights.
Some tips about Proposition 203's effects
-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana for their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" just isn't defined in a way limited to normal medical 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 his or her patients.
-In order to be prescribed medical cannabis, somebody must be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is described as an agent who has been diagnosed by the ""physician"" (as defined above) as creating 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 even the treatments for these conditions.
* A chronic or debilitating disease or problem or its treatment who makes several from the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those sign of multiple sclerosis.
* Any other medical condition or its treatment added by the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.
This last qualifying condition is underlined since it is very important during the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows to the public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to incorporate conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously nearly impossible to find to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for further treatments might be exercised during the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this is just not certain.
It is therefore important that, within the event that incorporating medical conditions is recognized as in the consultations, any stakeholder wishing for the problem unlisted inside the initial two bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods to the Department to include the excess medical condition to 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 can be helpful to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical professionals who is able to testify in writing possibly at the public hearings about why the proposed condition should be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana like a treatment to the proposed condition could be helpful, as would medical journals for the subject.
It needs to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos regarding the medicinal marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition to the passing of Proposition 203. He did so around the grounds that this FDA won't test the drug, and even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should stop trusted as a possible authority for unbiased medicinal marijuana research. There is no reason to imagine that Director Humble is going to be any less inclined to obstruct using medicinal marijuana throughout the rulemaking stage, and many types of proponents of medicinal marijuana should be certain to make their voices heard in the consultations to avoid the obstruction in the intent of Proposition 203.
Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations
There is also provisions in Proposition 203 which will be discussed during the initial rulemaking process, and they will apt to be the main objective of the consultations. The consultations can establish rules:
* Governing the way in which where the Department of Health Services need the petitions from people earlier mentioned, regarding the addition of health conditions on the list in the already enshrined debilitating health conditions.
* Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted within the medical cannabis law.
* Governing the way in which the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical cannabis ID cards.
* Governing various aspects across the newly legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements.
* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical marijuana dispensary applications.
The main part of the consultation period will probably be regarding the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to produce the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the consequence of decreasing the accessibility to medicinal marijuana to patients and driving the tariff of medicinal marijuana due on the not enough supply. It could simply become too costly to adhere to all from the regulations.
During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medical marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists with a little bit of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules will have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition should really help. The proposed rules have not emerge yet, however, if they are doing, they should be closely scrutinized to the possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries probably have on patients.
The other major factor in the rulemaking should do with all the fees. The Department will be setting fees for medicinal marijuana dispensaries during the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that the fees might not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, by incorporating lobbying through the public consultation, it's possible the actual fees will likely be a smaller amount since these are merely the most how the Department may charge.
Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users
Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical cannabis users will probably be prohibited in specific situations. Based on our analysis, an individual might not:
* As a school or landlord, will not enroll someone or otherwise not penalize them solely because of their status as being a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result within the loss 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 as they are a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing this would result in the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers may still terminate employees if your employee is within having or impaired by marijuana for the premises from the job or in the hours of employment.
* As a medical treatment provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana have to be treated as any other medication prescribed by a physician.
* Be prevented, as being a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time with a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger for the safety from the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""
Although there are specific prohibitions on discrimination, in addition there are provisions which allow discrimination against medicinal marijuana cardholders:
* Government medical assistance programs and health insurers usually are not required to reimburse someone for their medical marijuana use.
* Nobody who possesses property, including companies, is required to allow medicinal marijuana on his or her premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on their as a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana on top of the landlord's property).
* Employers aren't required to allow cardholders to be within the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, the presence of marijuana inside the body which is not of a sufficient concentration to cause impairment won't establish being underneath the influence of it.
Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries
Although the final rules around security, recordkeeping, as well as other requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries will never be established until April 2011, there are certain requirements that are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead in the time that a final rules emerge. These minimal requirements may not be as restrictive as a final requirements which can be published in April 2011.
* Medical marijuana dispensaries must be nonprofit. They have to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they desire not be considered tax-exempt by the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.
* The operating documents of the dispensaries must include provisions for the oversight from the dispensary and then for accurate recordkeeping.
* The dispensary will need to have one particular secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and stop the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entry to areas containing marijuana.
* A dispensary must not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for almost any purpose apart from providing it straight to a cardholder or a registered caregiver for that cardholder.
* All cultivation of marijuana must take place only at the locked, enclosed facility at a physical address provided to the Department of Health Services in the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered with all the Department.
* A dispensary can buy marijuana from the patient of these caregiver, but only in the event the patient or caregiver receives no compensation because of it.
* No consumption of marijuana is permitted on the property with the dispensary.
* A dispensary is at the mercy of reasonable inspection by the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice in the inspection on cbd products newtown the dispensary.
Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law
The Arizona law is by no means the same since the law in California. There are certainly some differences between the two, though in most respects they may be comparable. This is a comparative analysis in the two laws.
Similarities:
* Both laws, as a practical matter, permit broad discretion on the part of a physician to prescribe marijuana to patients that are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" will be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits the life span in the patient to conduct several major life activities as defined from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or that when not alleviated, will cause serious harm on the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.
* Both laws have numerous illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses for that prescription of medicinal marijuana. These include, but usually are not limited by, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.
* Both laws require the use of an identification card by those that have been prescribed medical marijuana, following the cardholders have undergone a primary application process where the use from the drug continues to be recommended by way of a physician.
* Both states tend not to factor in the unusable portion with the marijuana plant in determining the utmost weight of marijuana that is certainly permissible for possession with a cardholder.
Differences:
* Though the rules never have been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it's going to be regulated about the state level and therefore uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly on the municipal level, and thus the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly in one municipality on the next.
* The Arizona law supplies a broader spectrum of people who are considered a ""physician"" for your purpose of prescribing medical cannabis. In California, only medical doctors and osteopaths are believed to be physicians. In Arizona, along with medical professionals and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths can also be permitted to prescribe medical cannabis.
* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants instead of utilizing a medical marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may only grow marijuana or designate another person to do so in place of going to a dispensary about 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 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.
"