"I couldn't survive a great attorney unless I prefaced this article with a few disclaimers:
1) Marijuana remains to be a controlled schedule I substance and is illegal inside eyes in the Federal Government with the United States;
2) This article is to not be construed as legal counsel, nor should take the place with the advice associated with an attorney, and you should seek advice from legal counsel when considering actions in furtherance of the material 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 the State of Arizona. However, it's going to still take a moment before medicinal marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for the drafting from the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important routines that ought to be paid close care about:
December 17, 2010: The first draft with the medical marijuana rules must be released making it readily available for comment on this date.
January 7, 2011: This will probably be the deadline for public touch upon the very first draft of rules mentioned previously.
January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules will be released about this date. Once again, it will be available for informal comment as in the draft described above.
February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held regarding the proposed rules at the moment, after which it the final rules will likely be listed in the Secretary of State making public for the Office of Administrative Rules website.
April 2011: The medicinal marijuana rules go into effect and become published within the Arizona Administrative Register.
It is important that all the time through the entire consultation process, your clients submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests contrary to that relating to medical marijuana advocates are often making presentations, and could convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to get into it if there is no voice to advocate and only patients' rights.
Some blueprint about Proposition 203's effects
-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana for patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in ways limited to normal physicians. 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 permitted recommend marijuana for their patients.
-In order to be prescribed medical marijuana, an individual should be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is understood to be somebody who has been diagnosed by way of a ""physician"" (as defined above) as using a ""debilitating problem.""
-Debilitating medical ailments include:
* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or the treatment of these conditions.
* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment who makes a number of from the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those manifestation of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those sign of multiple sclerosis.
* Any other problem or its treatment added from the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.
This last qualifying condition is underlined which is quite crucial in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to incorporate conditions under this, bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to get to improve any law. The initial discretionary rules for extra treatments may be exercised in the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this is not certain.
It is therefore critical that, in the event that adding medical ailments is known as in the consultations, any stakeholder who wishes for a medical problem unpublished within the first 2 bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for that Department to incorporate any additional medical problem for the set of debilitating medical ailments. In order to raise the prestige from a presentations made to justify adding health conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it might be helpful to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical professionals that can testify on paper possibly at the general public hearings about why the proposed condition must be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both inside United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment for that proposed condition could possibly be helpful, as would medical journals around the subject.
It needs to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos regarding the medical marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition to the passing of Proposition 203. He managed it around the grounds that this FDA doesn't test the drug, and even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be relied on just as one authority for unbiased medical marijuana research. There is no reason to believe that Director Humble is going to be any less inclined to obstruct using medical marijuana throughout the rulemaking stage, and many types of proponents of medical marijuana must be sure to make their voices heard on the consultations to prevent the obstruction from the intent of Proposition 203.
Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations
There is also provisions in Proposition 203 which will probably be discussed throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they'll oftimes be the attention of the consultations. The consultations can provide rules:
* Governing the way when the Department of Health Services encourage the petitions from the general public earlier mentioned, regarding digging in medical ailments to the list of the already enshrined debilitating health conditions.
* Establishing the proper execution and content of registration and renewal applications submitted beneath the medical cannabis law.
* Governing the manner the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical marijuana ID cards.
* Governing the many aspects across the newly legalized nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, as well as other requirements.
* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical cannabis dispensary applications.
The vital part from the consultation period will be regarding the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical cannabis dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to make the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it'll have the effects of reducing the option of medical marijuana to patients and driving up the tariff of medicinal marijuana due towards the lack of supply. It could simply become expensive to abide by all of the regulations.
During this stage, it is vital that stakeholders-particularly medical cannabis dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists which has a little bit of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules could have a negative effect about the patients this Proposition really should help. The proposed rules have not appear yet, however when they do, they ought to 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 within the rulemaking must cbd products newtown do using the fees. The Department will probably be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries in the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides how the fees may not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with some lobbying during the public consultation, it will be possible that this actual fees is going to be a smaller amount website traffic are simply just the absolute maximum that the Department may charge.
Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users
Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical cannabis users will likely be prohibited in certain situations. Based on our analysis, someone might not:
* As a school or landlord, will not enroll someone or else penalize them solely for his or her status as a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not the process would result inside lack 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 to them because they are a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result inside loss in a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can always terminate employees if your employee is in possession of or impaired by marijuana about the premises in the where you work or in the hours of employment.
* As a medical treatment provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana should be treated every other medication prescribed with a physician.
* Be prevented, like a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time having a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger to the safety with the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""
Although there are certain prohibitions on discrimination, there are also provisions which allow discrimination against medical marijuana cardholders:
* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers are not forced to reimburse an individual for their medicinal marijuana use.
* Nobody who possesses property, including companies, is forced to allow medicinal marijuana on the premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, although they cannot refuse tenants based on their like a cardholder, are permitted to stop cardholders from bringing marijuana onto the landlord's property).
* Employers usually are not needed to allow cardholders to get beneath the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although presence of marijuana inside the body which is just not of a sufficient concentration to cause impairment will not establish being within the influence of it.
Rules Related for the Establishment of Dispensaries
Although the ultimate rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries will not be established until April 2011, a number of requirements that are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead of the time that the final rules appear. These minimal requirements may not be as restrictive as the last requirements that are published in April 2011.
* Medical marijuana dispensaries should be nonprofit. They must have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they need not be considered tax-exempt by the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.
* The operating documents of the dispensaries must include provisions for that oversight with the dispensary as well as accurate recordkeeping.
* The dispensary must have a single secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and stop the theft of marijuana and unauthorized use of areas containing marijuana.
* A dispensary must not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for almost any purpose aside from providing it straight to a cardholder or to a registered caregiver for that cardholder.
* All cultivation of marijuana need to take place only with a locked, enclosed facility at a physical address provided on the Department of Health Services throughout the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered using the Department.
* A dispensary can get marijuana from your patient with their caregiver, but only when the patient or caregiver receives no compensation for this.
* No use of marijuana is permitted for the property from the dispensary.
* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection from the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice with the inspection for the dispensary.
Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law
The Arizona law is by no means the same because the law in California. There are certainly some differences involving the two, though in some respects they're comparable. This is a comparative analysis from the two laws.
Similarities:
* Both laws, as being a practical matter, enable broad discretion about the part of the physician to prescribe marijuana to patients that are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" is the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits living with the patient to conduct several major life activities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm on the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.
* Both laws have a number of illnesses which can be automatically considered qualifying illnesses for your 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 use associated with an identification card by those that have been prescribed medicinal marijuana, as soon as the cardholders have undergone an initial application process in which the use with the drug has been recommended by the physician.
* Both states do not factor within the unusable portion with the marijuana plant in determining the maximum weight of marijuana that is certainly permissible for possession by way of a cardholder.
Differences:
* Though the rules have never been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it'll be regulated about the state level and so uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly for the municipal level, and so the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly derived from one of municipality for the next.
* The Arizona law provides a broader spectrum of people which are thought a ""physician"" for the purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only medical doctors and osteopaths are viewed to become physicians. In Arizona, in addition to medical professionals and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will also be permitted to prescribe medical cannabis.
* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in place of by using a medical cannabis dispensary. In Arizona, patients may only grow marijuana or designate somebody else to do so in lieu of going to a dispensary for the condition there's no dispensary operating within 25 miles from 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.
"