[wolfhoundaddy]

Judge Cooper last friday has ruled that oil made from cannabis is allowed to be used in treatment for medical purposes. Case was brought to her over treatment of a youngster (Zander) who suffers from multiple seizures every day. The boys parents have used the oil to effectively reduce the number of seizures. The state contends that the oil is a narcotic. Thanks Judge Cooper!

Dr. Sue Sisley U of A., wants to use some of the 6 millon dollars in the state med fund to launch research into using marijuana to treat ptsd. Senator Kimberly Yee and Yavapai county attorney S. Polk have vowed to deny her that funding. Instead they want to use the fund to bankroll their own platform banning marijuana from their Arizona constituents.

[armedoldhippy]

Originally Posted by wolfhoundaddy

Judge Cooper last friday has ruled that oil made from cannabis is allowed to be used in treatment for medical purposes. Case was brought to her over treatment of a youngster (Zander) who suffers from multiple seizures every day. The boys parents have used the oil to effectively reduce the number of seizures. The state contends that the oil is a narcotic. Thanks Judge Cooper!

Dr. Sue Sisley U of A., wants to use some of the 6 millon dollars in the state med fund to launch research into using marijuana to treat ptsd. Senator Kimberly Yee and Yavapai county attorney S. Polk have vowed to deny her that funding. Instead they want to use the fund to bankroll their own platform banning marijuana from their Arizona constituents.

Ms. Sisely was fired from her job as an assistant professor at U of A. can't have unbiased research, people might start thinking that we were being lied to all of these years...

[paper thorn]

We've had several victories in Arizona that should have folks feeling pretty good. Remember just a few years ago the Feds we're going after dispensaries in CA and Montana. Even here in AZ, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and our governor seemed to be having success at keeping dispensaries from opening and we're going after the compassion clubs. Billy Hayes had lost all of his attempts to get the 25 mile clause of the law removed.

Of course the so called '25 mile rule' is in fact a clause in the law, the AMMA, that we voted for. We aren't allowed to have personal grows if we live within 25 miles of a dispensary. We still have won a small victory though. Earlier this year the AzDHS altered the rules to count the 25 miles by road, instead of as the crow flies.

In March of 2014 Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper handed Bill Montgomery a loss by ruling that concentrates were the same as marijuana and legal. Cops had been hassling the MMJ community over hash, oils and edibles. Not any more.
story here

Then in April the state Supreme Court ruled that cops could not violate the AMMA by arresting and testing motorists who they found out were MMJ cardholders. They know we'll test positive, 'high' or not, and this is specifically forbidden by the law. Cops love to break laws they don't agree with, and this ruling pisses some of them off. So anyway, the cops can not test MMJ cardholders anymore because they know it will be thrown out of court unless they can prove 'impairment.'
story here

Then again on July 2nd Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard Fields ruled that the AMMA allows patients and caregivers to sell their excess meds to other caregivers and patients. This one rocks, though it has been appealed. I think the Appeals Court will uphold Judge Fields' decision. It was right there in the Law all along just worded a little vague. Looks like the MPP put one over on LEO. They thought they had us 'drug dealing' so called 'patients' screwed.
story here

So a pretty good year for MMJ in AZ.

[wolfhoundaddy]

They ruled to allow mj for ptsd treatment, but only for pallitive care. So.. after they milked ya for all you got...you can take a drag with your final breath...leagally

A GREAT RULING IN A TUCSON CASE

By Brad Poole




I've been a writer for more than two decades, but I've never been much of a grammar Nazi.

You know the type—they harass you on Facebook every time you slip up and use bad grammar or spelling or punctuation. Niggling over "your" and "you're" and commas usually seems to me like a failed exercise in supposed superiority, but earlier this month, Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard Fields ruled on some absent punctuation, dismissing felony charges against a Tucson medical marijuana patient and sparking huge implications for medical marijuana patients.

Suddenly, I'm a grammar Nazi.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act has, up to now, been interpreted by police and courts to allow patient-to-patient transfer of meds, as long as nothing of value is exchanged. You can give cannabis to any other patient, any time you want, but you can't sell it to him ... her ... them ...whatever.

Here's how the AMMA reads:

"A registered qualifying patient or registered designated caregiver is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau:

[...]

For offering or providing marijuana to a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver for the registered qualifying patient's medical use or to a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary if nothing of value is transferred in return and the person giving the marijuana does not knowingly cause the recipient to possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana."

Since judges are paid grammar Nazis, among other things, Fields ruled that this wording could be interpreted at least four ways. Prosecutors claim the "nothing of value" phrase applies to dispensaries and other patients. Jeremy Matlock, who is charged with a fistful of felonies for growing and selling cannabis, claims it applies only to dispensaries.

In dismissing the charges, Fields noted that under the state's own interpretation, a patient would have to both sell cannabis and cause the patient to go over his possession allotment to violate the AMMA. Matlock didn't sell enough cannabis to do that, so the state's own argument makes him not guilty.

So Fields dismissed all charges against Matlock.

Pima County Attorney Barbara Lawall's office, which has up to now taken a hard line against legal cannabis, is sure to send this case to appeal, but it seems to me the Arizona Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court will have a hard time ruling any other way. It's not like the law is slightly difficult to interpret. It's kind of a mess, and when that happens under Arizona law, the defendant wins.

The implications are huge for patients, because if patients could suddenly sell to each other, a lot of us would bypass dispensaries and potentially save a bunch of money. As of June, there were roughly 2,500 patients authorized to grow. That's a lot of cannabis to offer or provide to a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver for the registered qualifying patient's medical use.

Patient-growers would be able to bypass a lot of the hassle of commercial growing. They aren't regulated or inspected or licensed the way dispensaries are. I'm certain the state Department of Health Services and police will be all up in arms about this ruling, but I think it's exactly what we need.

I'd usually rather get my cannabis from a friend than a dispensary, and I'd rather have the state as minimally involved as possible. The system we have in Arizona has virtually eliminated the little guy from the cannabis sales equation. Only moneyed people opened dispensaries, and only moneyed people will ever be able to. This ruling, if it stands, gives the little guys a chance to get into the cannabis business.

And I'm a fan of that.

[paper thorn]

And because of a law in AZ called the Lenity(sp) Law, if a law can be interprted in more than one way, cops, courts, etc must go by the most lenient interpretation.

I think this one be upheld by the appeals court.

[HighDesertAz]

Yup, a more recent ruling now allows patient-to-patient sales due to poor grammar. Now the dispensaries don't have a B.S. monopoly to gouge people. Hopefully the appeal will go the same way.

There was a recent court in Maricopa county on the issue of obtaining prescribed medication. There was a proposition that the state or insurance company could not tell where a patient had to obtain their medication. Dispensaries are just that the case is on appeal I will look for it. The court ruled that saying you had to go to a dispensary didn't prove a hardship for obtaining medication. I will look for it and post

[paper thorn]

rbt- that one was trying to get rid of the 25 mile grow exclusion. that one did not go our way.
problem is that one is in the law itself, not a 'rule' by Humble and dhs gotta get some dude out in BFE and get him his patient card with you as caregiver. then can grow and sell a little 'excess meds' and be ok.

[HighDesertAz]

If I had the capital, I would build an apartment complex outside the 25-mile zone, as well as a "common area" building inside city limits. That way people could grow their own, but still have a place inside the 25-mile zone to use as a homebase / crashpad for work, school, errands etc.

There would be shuttle services 2-3 times a day to save on gas overall, and the "common area" would also be like a waiting room for the shuttle.

Would be financially viable if the patient-to-patient sales hold up, the complex could take 2-3 plant spots that the tenants could grow (so they could only grow 9-10 plants instead of 12). Those 2-3 for the complex would like a "common area fee" in condos.

It is not hard at all to produce quality bud and still make a profit at $100 an ounce. Most dispensary operators don't have the passion (or compassion) to take such a hit on profits.