duke6072534455766748790n

"I wouldn't be a great attorney unless I prefaced this short article by disclaimers:

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

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

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which may exempt certain people from controlled substances laws in 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 the drafting of the rules surrounding the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, these are the basic important routines that ought to be paid close focus on:

December 17, 2010: The first draft in the medical cannabis rules should be released generating readily available for comment on this date.

January 7, 2011: This will be the deadline for public touch upon the very first draft of rules stated earlier.

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

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held in regards to the proposed rules at the moment, then a final rules will likely be listed in the Secretary of State generating public for the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medicinal marijuana rules go into effect and turn into published inside the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is important that always during the entire consultation process, your customers submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests despite those of medical cannabis advocates can be making presentations, and might convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or people who may qualify gain access to it if there is no voice to advocate in support of patients' rights.

Some outline about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medical cannabis for patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in a way restricted 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 become prescribed medical marijuana, someone have to be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is defined as anyone who has been diagnosed by a ""physician"" (as defined above) as using a ""debilitating condition.""

-Debilitating medical conditions include:

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

* A chronic marijuana wendover or debilitating disease or condition or its treatment that produces a number of 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 manifestation 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 since it 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 incorporate conditions under it, bureaucracy is notoriously rare to find to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for more treatments might be exercised through the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this is not certain.

It is therefore critical that, within the event that incorporating medical ailments is regarded as through the consultations, any stakeholder who wants for a condition not listed inside the initial two bulleted items above to lobby throughout the public consultation periods to the Department to add the excess medical condition on the set of debilitating medical ailments. In order to increase the prestige associated with a presentations made to justify adding medical conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it could be necessary to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed physicians who can testify on paper and at the population hearings about why the proposed condition ought to be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as being a treatment for the proposed condition might be helpful, as would medical journals about the subject.

It needs to 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 for the passing of Proposition 203. He accomplished it for the grounds that the FDA will not test the drug, and although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be used just as one authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to imagine that Director Humble will likely be any less inclined to obstruct the usage of medical marijuana during the rulemaking stage, and all proponents of medical marijuana needs to be sure to make their voices heard at the consultations to avoid the obstruction in the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also another provisions in Proposition 203 which will probably be discussed throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they will apt to be the target in the consultations. The consultations can establish rules:

* Governing the manner when the Department of Health Services will accept the petitions from the population mentioned earlier on, regarding adding medical ailments to the list from the already enshrined debilitating medical ailments.

* Establishing the proper execution and content of registration and renewal applications submitted within the medicinal marijuana law.

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

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

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

The most crucial part from the consultation period is going to be concerning the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical cannabis dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to produce the recordkeeping, security, oversight, along with other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the result of lowering the use of medical cannabis to patients and driving up the expense of medical marijuana due for the not enough supply. It could simply become very costly to abide by all with the regulations.

During this stage, it is important that stakeholders-particularly medical marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, and possibly pharmacists using a little bit of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules could have a negative effect about the patients this Proposition should really help. The proposed rules haven't emerge yet, when they certainly, they should be closely scrutinized for your possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries might have on patients.

The other major factor in the rulemaking should do with all the fees. The Department will likely be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries throughout the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that the fees might not exactly exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying in the public consultation, you'll be able that the actual fees will probably be significantly less as these are simply the maximum that the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

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

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone or otherwise not penalize them solely because of their status as being a medical 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 with them because they're a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result inside loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can always terminate employees in the event the employee is within possessing or impaired by marijuana on the premises with the office or through the hours of employment.

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

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

Although there are specific prohibitions on discrimination, there are also provisions which permit discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers are certainly not necessary to reimburse somebody for their medical marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including businesses, is forced to allow medical cannabis on their premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, whilst they cannot refuse tenants based on their own being a cardholder, are permitted to stop cardholders from bringing marijuana to the landlord's property).

* Employers usually are not required to allow cardholders being underneath the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, though the presence of marijuana within the body which isn't of an sufficient concentration to cause impairment doesn't establish being under the influence of it.

Rules Related for the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the last rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries will not be established until April 2011, there are specific requirements that happen to be enshrined in Proposition 203 itself which enable it to be known ahead from the time that the final rules appear. These minimal requirements may not be as restrictive as a final requirements which are published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries should be nonprofit. They must have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they want 't be considered tax-exempt with the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents in the dispensaries must include provisions for your oversight from the dispensary as well as for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary must have a single secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized usage of 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 away to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for the cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana have to take place only in a locked, enclosed facility with a home address provided on the Department of Health Services through the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered with all the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from your patient of these caregiver, but only in the event the patient or caregiver receives no compensation because of it.

* No usage of marijuana is permitted around the property from the dispensary.

* A dispensary is be subject to reasonable inspection by the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice with the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is actually no means the same because the law in California. There are certainly some differences between your 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, accommodate broad discretion about the part of an physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who 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 the life in the patient to conduct one or more major life activities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or that when not alleviated, can cause serious harm for the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

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

* Both laws need the use of the identification card by people who have been prescribed medical cannabis, after the cardholders have gone through a primary application process when the use of the drug has been recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states don't factor within the unusable portion of the marijuana plant in determining the absolute maximum weight of marijuana that is permissible for possession by way of a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have never been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it's going to be regulated around the state level and for that reason uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly around the municipal level, and thus the rules around dispensaries may differ greatly from one municipality on the next.

* The Arizona law supplies a broader spectrum of people that are considered a ""physician"" to the purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only medical doctors and osteopaths are thought to become physicians. In Arizona, as well as health professionals and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths may also be permitted prescribe medicinal marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in place of employing a medical cannabis dispensary. In Arizona, patients may only grow marijuana or designate another individual to do this in place of going to a dispensary about the condition that there are no dispensary operating within 25 miles with the patient's home.

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

"