[I.M. Boggled]

December 17, 2010
By - Associated Press

Stringent medical marijuana rules proposed in AZ

Preliminary rules for would-be users and prescribers of medical marijuana in Arizona are so stringent that no more than 20,000 people likely will qualify for the drug - a sharp decrease from earlier estimate of 100,000 in the first year alone, a regulator said Friday.

The revised estimate was made after Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble looked at rules and numbers of users in 14 other states that allow medical marijuana.

"We figured hey, if we put some true checks and balances in this system, we can actually make this a medical marijuana program and not a recreational marijuana program," Humble said at a news conference.

He noted that patients in California can get pot recommendations from a doctor for a headache, while hundreds of dispensaries in Colorado opened without any state regulations.

Arizona's medical marijuana measure passed in November by just 4,341 votes after 1.67 million ballots were counted, making the state the 15th in the nation to approve a medical marijuana law.

Arizona's ballot measure will allow patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C and any other chronic or debilitating disease that meet guidelines to buy 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks or grow a limited number of plants themselves if they live 25 miles from a dispensary.

The preliminary rules posted on the health services department website said a patient must get a marijuana recommendation from an Arizona doctor who has been treating the person for a year, or has taken primary responsibility for their care after compiling a medical history, conducting a comprehensive exam and reviewing medical records.

Patients also must provide a copy of a valid identification card, proof of U.S. citizenship or naturalization and detailed doctor information. They must pay an application fee of $150, and a yearly renewal fee of the same amount.

Doctors, meanwhile, must initial statements saying they reviewed all the medication being taken by the patient for potential interactions with marijuana.

In addition, physicians must initial a statement saying he or she will continually assess the patient and their need for medical marijuana, and that their patient is likely to benefit from using the drug.

Humble believes the rules won't stop those who truly need medical marijuana from getting it.
A newly diagnosed cancer patient, for example, could go to their oncologist and get a recommendation immediately, he said.

"For that guy in his 30s without any qualifying medical condition who is going to expect to be able to walk into a physician and get a quick recommendation by saying his shoulder's been sore - those are people that we expect to have a bigger challenge in actually getting a qualified patient card," Humble said.

Regarding pot shops, the preliminary rules say applicants must pay an application fee of $5,000.

Dispensary board members can't be police officers or a doctor making pot recommendations and can't have unpaid taxes or child support or be in default of a government-issued student loan.

The principal officer or board member of a dispensary must be an Arizona resident of at least two years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
Medical Marijuana Draft Rules
https://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/ariz...raft-rules.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
I'm sensing an attitude being conveyed from the "State Officials" of
"Y'all don't look that sick to me"...so...
Let them smoke schwag.
People are very concerned that some "weed" may actually be diverted to the "street" and of course their are other big (fantasy) problems like how can we keep the kids from buying it with their fake ID's from out the dispensary and reselling it at school.

"We figured hey, if we put some true checks and balances in this system, we can actually make this a medical marijuana program and not a recreational marijuana program,"

The murderous Mexican cartels supplying the vast majority of "POT" to Arizona would like to thank the Department of Health Services very much, their profit projections for 2011 in Arizona remain intact.

Humble believes the rules won't stop those who truly need medical marijuana from getting it.

I believe Mr Humble is mistaken, the rules seem over-zealously to be all about keeping recreational smokers out of the program by enforcing stringent requirements.
The uninsured poor generally don't see Doctors unless it's an emergency and relative to being poor the 150 dollar D.H.S. yearly card fee along with 4 doctor visits (600?) in a year to qualify is not feasible for the people I know who live on way, way under a thousand dollars a month.
They won't be going to dispensaries anyways, no can affordee, so...
Plant them seeds, don't smell, don't tell and proceed do what ya gotta do folks to make it happen.
(Joke 'em if they can't take a F**k)

Their will be many new growers doing foolish things that that will be drawing much of the states (rouge die hard) law enforcement officers attention to themselves and away from those who can manage to remain discrete in their pursuit of medical relief.

Even if they were so inclined in Arizona, I firmly believe that they just don't have the time, manpower, nor budget to attempt to "track down" the more discrete, low plant number mom and pop grows, i.e., the actual small private medical grows I predict will be allowed to just go "off the radar"...
Someday... nobody will be left to give a flying hoot about whether sick people are ingesting marijuana to feel better... dare to dream


IMB

[I.M. Boggled]

The state health department released its first draft of medical-marijuana rules late Thursday, providing a glimpse at how the program may work in Arizona.

The rules spell out who may qualify for medical marijuana, establish operating criteria for dispensaries and provide strict guidelines for doctors who may recommend marijuana.

Let the debate begin.

The draft rules place additional restrictions on the law in terms of what defines a doctor-patient relationship, suggesting that a patient must have had a relationship with a doctor for at least a year and been seen at least four times for a condition in order to qualify.

The rules allow you to seek a recommendation for a different doctor, however, who must take "primary responsibility" for treatment of the condition.

That would seem to limit someone's ability to be seen by their regular doc for, say, chronic and severe back pain, after they obtain a pot recommendation for the same condition from a different (and pro-pot) doc.

The DHS lacks the jurisdiction to enact these regulations.
The Medical Marijuana Act section entitled 'rulemaking' makes no mention of the physician patient relationship or physician certifications.
The physician standard of care has already been defined elsewhere in the administrative code, and by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Also, the MMA allows the department to add qualifying conditions, not to take any away.

These proposed regulations are longer than the act, and clearly not informed by legal analysis nor is it in the spirit of the law.
Shame on the Arizona Department of Health Services and it's Director.
These officials apparently think that they're the adults that were brought in to clean up the mess that the kids have made.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

IMB

[I.M. Boggled]

State looks for input on medical marijuana:
PHOENIX, AZ -
Arizona's Department of Health Services is promising it won't make the same mistakes California and Colorado have made when it comes to the dispensing of medical marijuana.

"Many of these other states were unsuccessful because they didn't have these checks and balances in place," said Director Will Humble.

Humble says right now rules being drafted would require a licensed medical director on site, medical cards for those who have been recommended the drug, and numerous doctor visits.

"The patients also have to start off with an existing relationship that you have with a doctor, you can't just go in to any doctor," Humble said.

Allan Sobol who runs Marijuana Marketing Strategies says the more rules the better.

"These regulations are gong to be very complicated and very readily regulated," he said. "Some people laugh at me and say they're not going to be that bad."

But he says the rules will be tough.

Marilyn Gleckler hopes to be one of the 120 chosen to run a dispensary here in the Arizona and likes what she's seeing so far in the rules.

"I think a lot of rules and regulations are good to keep it as legitimate and professional as possible," she said.
"I like that you have to have a Medical Director, and that you have to have a lot of security."

Applications won't be available until April and the state promises heavy scrutiny on those wanting to open a dispensary, but in the meantime they are asking for public input.

"Give us credible alternatives, things, ideas we can work with to make the rules work as best as they can for those who need medical marijuana and keep it out of the hands for those who don't need it," said Cara Christ, Medical Director and Bureau Chief for Epidemiology and Disease Control.

To get your voice heard, AZ. residents go to www.azdhs.gov/prop203 and fill out the electronic comment form.

[mofeta]

DHS has really gone overboard with this set of rules. Power loving bureaucrats gone wild. The rules are longer than the law!

Good thing this is just a draft. Serious pushback is called for.

Besides all the obvious over-reach on the requirements to get a Qualifying Patient card, I noticed these "Big Brother" bits:

A dispensary shall provide the Department with authorized remote access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system.

The capability of providing authorized remote viewing of live and recorded video with:
(1) Internet connectivity of at least 384 kbps upstream; and
(2) A static IP address to allow for remote connection...

A video camera at each point of sale location allowing for the identification of any qualifying patient or designated caregiver purchasing medical marijuana;
A video camera in each grow room capable of identifying any activity occurring within the grow room in low light conditions

About the only thing they got right is the 2 yr. residency requirement for dispensary owners. This will keep the out of state interests out, and this is a good thing.

[I.M. Boggled]

Proposed Rules on Medical Marijuana Tougher Than Voter-Approved Law;
Estimate of Potential Patients Lowered

Before the release of draft rules on Proposition 203, Will Humble, the director of the state Department of Health Services, estimated 100,000 people a year might qualify for medical marijuana.

Now, under the proposed regulations, only 10,000 to 20,000 people a year would qualify, he said in a news conference today (Friday, Dec. 17 2010.)

The health department wants to lock out recreational users of marijuana from the coming state system, Humble explained.
... the new rules define what constitutes a doctor-patient relationship more strictly than the law itself.

The proposed rules also aim for "strong inventory controls," forcing dispensaries to grow 70 percent of their product themselves, while just 30 percent can come from legal growing operations run by other dispensaries.

Officials made it clear these proposals were a starting point for discussion, not the final word on regulations.
Public hearings and the writing of another draft document will occur before rules are solidified by early April.

Our prediction:
Many of these proposed rules won't stand because they restrict the newly approved voter initiative in a way that should be protected by the 1998 Voter Protection Act.
It seems to us that the only way the state should be able to tweak the law this severely is by having the State Legislature find the 3/4 majority vote to do so, as the Act requires.

Still, the law did give the DHS the ability to write reasonable regulations.
It's too early to tell what will happen -- and that's where you come in.
The state wants to hear from you, so be sure to let your voice be heard during the rule-making process whether you want less -- or more -- restrictions on the program.

Humble showed clearly how the process was in flux when one reporter asked if the state would restrict someone from setting up a private business in which qualified patients could legally smoke marijuana.

"Tom," he said to the DHS' rules division manager, Tom Salow, "make sure that doesn't happen."

Humble and other speakers at today's news conference said they didn't obtain any input from would-be dispensary owners, marijuana activists, private doctors or anyone else.

That's a problem, because these people come off like a gaggle of Church Ladies.

At one point in the news conference, Humble took a detour to mention the dangers of prescription drugs, saying that more than 1,000 people died last year in Arizona from overdoses.
He was responding to a question about why the state was making it tougher to obtain a recommendation for marijuana from their doctor than it is to obtain a prescription for pain pills.

When we asked Humble to remind the audience how many people died from overdosing on marijuana, he hemmed and hawed.
Laura Nelson, chief medical officer for DHS, said she'd "have to do the research on that," and that "marijuana is not as lethal" as some prescription drugs.
She also claims that pot is dangerous due to "car accidents."

This is just more Reefer Madness-type propaganda.
Marijuana overdose deaths simply don't happen.
And state crash data shows that alcohol-impairment-related crashes occur at a rate 10 times that of crashes in which the driver was impaired by all other illegal drugs combined.
The state Department of Transportation can't break down that category of "all other illegal drugs" further, but it's obvious that marijuana-impairment cases are just a fraction of that one-tenth figure.

The voters approved Proposition 203, and now the state wants to smother the new law with over-bearing rules.
No question -- there'll be some push-back on these proposed rules.
https://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...dical_mari.php

Much of what is in the proposed rules involves how the marijuana dispensaries can operate, in addition to rules included in each community's zoning regulations covering locations, hours and other conditions.

For example, dispensaries that want to sell brownies or other forms of edible marijuana would have to obtain the necessary permits and equipment to operate like a restaurant, and monitor the entire process if the baking is contracted out.

There also are security requirements - including one to require each dispensary to have cameras hooked up live to the Internet to allow state health officials, armed with a password, to see what is going on at any site at any time.

IMB

[I.M. Boggled]

PHOENIX -
The City of Phoenix has set their guidelines for medical marijuana, which determine where pot dispensaries can set up shop next year.

Many rules and guidelines still need to be worked out before an estimated 120 marijuana dispensaries can set up shop in the state.
It will be up to all the cities in Arizona to come up with zoning rules, and Wednesday, Phoenix decided on some key issues.

It was a full house at the Phoenix City Council meeting Wednesday as council members decided the terms of where medical marijuana dispensaries will go.

Larry Tom with the Phoenix Planning Department says they looked at 14 other states where medical marijuana is already legal.
Under the guidelines, dispensaries can't be within 250 feet of residential areas, 1,320 feet of schools, 500 feet from churches, and at least a mile apart.

"We felt that it was important to protect neighborhoods and to protect residential districts from this particular use because it's so new to us," says Tom.

The council voted unanimously to approve the distance guidelines for the dispensaries, which could be opening as early as April.

Andrew Myers, who campaigned for Prop 203, is happy with the ruling.

"This is a health business.
These facilities shouldn't be zoned into places where people have to feel unsafe going to get their medication," says Myers.

Myers says all of the medical marijuana given to people with a prescription will be grown in the state.

"And that's a very important provision of the law -- because it assures that the supply chain is closed -- that it's only legal sourcing from where it's grown and it's tracked from seed to patient."

The council also wants to limit the size of the dispensaries, so they wouldn't be able to have more than 2,000 square feet of space dedicated to medical marijuana.
https://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news...ies-12-15-2010

NIMBY=Not In My Back Yard:
The local communities around the state are all (?) busy passing their own regulations, as the NIMBY's are proceeding to swarm out the woodwork and are attempting raise some vocal local holy hell to make this all as restrictive as legally possible (as was to be expected.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
Stringent Medical Marijuana rules proposed in AZ
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread....56#post4089156

[I.M. Boggled]

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 Act’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.

...
https://www.examiner.com/medical-mari...-period-begins


IMB

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Originally Posted by mofeta

About the only thing they got right is the 2 yr. residency requirement for dispensary owners. This will keep the out of state interests out, and this is a good thing.

I disagree. I thought this was the UNITED states of america. why do i feel like a foreigner in my OWN country? are you so concerned with disallowing out of staters that your willing to pass over all the experience, knowledge and strain selection that they have acquired in over a decade in the medical marijuana field? should we not allow doctors to practice in our state because they are from out of state? what about paramedics, nurses, or fire fighters? what if we did not allow albert einstein to come to our country and he developed the atomic bomb for hitler? what happened to having the FREEDOM to find a more prosperous life for you and your family? what happend to the constitution? our fore fathers must be rolling over in their graves at all the injustices that our country continues to support.

[Jack784]

BiG H3rB Tr3E: I could not agree more. So what if somebody from out of state comes in and opens up a dispensary. All that means is that you have to do a better job then them. This is what the United States is supposed to be about. Not government limiting the number of businesses so that only a few can make millions. If you are in fact out there to help people instead of make money then you should find yourself in a favorable position. Preventing out of state knowledge and experience only hurts the patients and leads to more for profit bastardization of medical marijuana.

I do however agree with some of the increase in standards. Making edibles in restaurant make sense to me but a home kitchen should work just fine as long as it passes inspection (just like a home baker). It is a legitimate business and should be treated like one. That being said the camera monitor is outrageous. Can the government monitor all of the pharmacies any time they want. Why can't people just let us become a real business. Our industry is about the only thing holding the economy together in my neck of the woods.

[bluepeace]

Originally Posted by BiG H3rB Tr3E

I disagree. I thought this was the UNITED states of america. what happened to having the FREEDOM to find a more prosperous life for you and your family? what happend to the constitution? our fore fathers must be rolling over in their graves at all the injustices that our country continues to support.

It was it is now the United socialist collective of what was formerly America.

Freedom,that was a myth to keep the citizens pacified with there own enslavement.

The constitution has been put aside as an old relic of years gone buy no-longer applicable to our country or it's citizens.

And yes our fathers would have called for a re-revolution many decades ago.

look at the title of this thread, Stringent medical marijuana rules proposed in AZ


Whom works for who? What the fuck! They are asking for our input? Bullshit we should demand they do things the way We THE PEOPLE require!