Arizona Medical Marijuana Law Doesn’t Ask State Workers to do Anything Illegal, Lawyers Say; “Bad Faith” Prosecution by Feds Deemed Unlikely

Phoenix New Times:  “The Arizona U.S. Attorney isn’t likely to launch a ‘bad faith’ prosecution against state workers administering the new medical pot law, says a group opposing Governor Jan Brewer’s federal lawsuit on the issue.  Besides, say lawyers for the group of defendants, those state workers wouldn’t be violating federal law, anyway.”

The defendants reply in support of its motion to dismiss in Arizona vs. United States is below.

Pot Lawsuit Reply Defs

By |2011-09-01T07:21:58-07:00August 29th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona Medical Marijuana Law Doesn’t Ask State Workers to do Anything Illegal, Lawyers Say; “Bad Faith” Prosecution by Feds Deemed Unlikely

The Six Arizona Medical Marijuana Lawsuits

The following is a list of the six lawsuits now pending in Arizona courts that involve Arizona’s medical marijuana laws enacted as a result of Proposition 203.

1.  Arizona vs. United States – U.S. Federal District Court

Plaintiffs:  STATE OF ARIZONA; JANICE K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity; WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity; ROBERT C. HALLIDAY, Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, in his Official Capacity

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys:  THOMAS C. HORNE, Attorney General, Firm Bar No. 14000; Kevin D. Ray, No. 007485; Lori S. Davis, No. 027875; Aubrey Joy Corcoran, No. 025423; Assistant Attorneys General; 1275 West Washington Street; Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926; Telephone: (602) 542-8309; Facsimile: (602) 542-8308; Email: EducationHealth@azag.gov

Defendants: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States of America, in his Official Capacity; DENNIS K. BURKE, United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, in his Official Capacity; ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF DISPENSARY PROFESSIONALS, INC., an Arizona corporation; JOSHUA LEVINE; PAULA PENNYPACKER; DR. NICHOLAS FLORES; JANE CHRISTENSEN; PAULA POLLOCK; SERENITY ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; HOLISTIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; JEFF SILVA; ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION

2.  Arizona vs. The 2811 Club, LLC – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  STATE OF ARIZONA and WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys:  THOMAS C. HORNE, Attorney General, Firm Bar No. 14000, Michael Tryon (#003109); Evan Hiller (#028214); Assistant Attorneys General Office of Senior Litigation Counsel; Kevin D. Ray (#007485); Lori S. Davis (#027875); Aubrey Joy Corcoran (#025423); Assistant Attorneys General; Education and Health Section; 1275 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926; Telephone: (602) 542-8328; Facsimile: (602) 364-0700; Email: EducationHealth@azag.gov

Defendants:  THE 2811 CLUB, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; THE ARIZONA COMPASSION ASSOCIATION, INC., a pending Arizona non-profit corporation; MICHAEL R. MILLER, Director of the Arizona Compassion Association, Inc.; YOKI, INC. d/b/a YOKI A MA CLUB, an Arizona non-profit corporation; ARIZONA COMPASSION CLUB, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company

3.  Sobol vs. Arizona – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiff:  Alan Sobol

Plaintiff’s attorney:  none

Defendants:  State of Arizona; Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona; Will Humble, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services in his official capacity.

4.  Elements Therapeutic Dispensary vs. Humble – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  ELEMENTS THERAPEUTIC DISPENSARY, an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; ARIZONA DISPENSARY SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; ARIZONA ALTERNATIVE RELIEF CENTERS, INC., an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation dba MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; PROTECT ARIZONA PATIENTS, INC., an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; CULTIVATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; HEATHER TORGERSON, a married woman; STEPHEN JOHNSON, a single man; ROBERT LILES, a married man; GREGORY DELUCA; a single man, HEIGHTENED HEALING, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; ALAN J. CITRIN, M.D., P.C.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney:  David W. Dow; Law Office of David Dow; 3104 E. Camelback Rd., #281; Phoenix, AZ 85016-0001; (602) 550-2951; AZ State Bar#: 007377; ddowhiw I @gmail.com

Defendants:  WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity; THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona

5.  Serenity Arizona, Inc. vs. Arizona Department of Health Services – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  SERENITY ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; and MEDZONA GROUP, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; JANE CHRISTENSEN, a married woman.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney:  Ken Frakes, #021776; Ryan Hurley, #02460; ROSE LAW GROUP PC, 6613 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 200, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250, (480) 5o5-3931; (480) 951-6993; Fax: kfrakes@roselawgroup.com; rhurley@roselawgroup.com.

Defendants:  THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, an agency of the State of Arizona; WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity

6.  Compassion First, LLC vs. Arizona – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  COMPASSION FIRST, L.L.C., dba Compassion First, an Arizona limited liability company; SCOTT TIDEMANN, a single man; KIMBERLY REARDON, a single woman, MARK BROOKMAN, a married man; KEITH LOWELL RABIN, a single man and DANIEL MEDINA, a single man.

Plaintiffs’ attorney:  AIKEN SCHENK, HAWKINS & RICCIARDI P.C., 4742 North 24 Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4859; Telephone: (602) 248-8203; Facsimile: (602) 248-8840; E-Mail: docket@ashrlaw.com; E-Mail: tt@ashrlaw.com; E-Mail: awr@ashrlaw.com; E-Mail: jc@ashrlaw .com; J. Tyrrel Taber; Alfred W. Ricciardi; James M. Cool; THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY J. HERNANDEZ 7047 East Greenway Parkway, Suite 140, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254; Telephone: (480) 624-2765; Facsimile: (480) 607-2215; jjhernandez@az-law .net.

Defendants:  STATE OF ARIZONA a governmental entity; JANET K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official capacity; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (ADHS), an Arizona administrative agency; and WILLIAM HUMBLE, Director of ADHS, in his official capacity.

By |2011-10-13T00:29:20-07:00August 26th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on The Six Arizona Medical Marijuana Lawsuits

Lawsuit Targets Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Dispensary Rules

Arizona Republic:  “As if medical marijuana wasn’t being litigated enough in Arizona, yet another lawsuit takes aim at the rules governing dispensaries.  The special action, among six suits involving the state’s fledgling program, claims the rules give unfair advantage to local businesses in violation of federal law and the state and federal constitutions.”

The new lawsuit was filed by Compassion First, LLC, dba Compassion First AZ.  Gerald Gaines is the manager of the company.

We’ve predicted that somebody would sue because DHS’s dispenary rules violate the U.S. constitution.

By |2019-06-14T08:25:41-07:00August 25th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Lawsuit Targets Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Dispensary Rules

Arizona Republic Editorial: DHS Weeding out Shady Doctors

Arizona Republic:  “Those who want Arizona’s medical-marijuana law to serve only people who have a genuine medical need should regard Will Humble as a hero. . . . The medical-marijuana law becomes a sham if a patient can get certified for pot just by saying: ‘Doc, I got this terrible pain and nothing else works.’ That’s why regulations require doctors to look at medical history and find out what medication has been tried.”

By |2011-08-24T07:37:17-07:00August 24th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona Republic Editorial: DHS Weeding out Shady Doctors

Arizona Department of Health Services Investigates 8 Doctors Who Have Written Almost Half of 10,000 Medical Marijuana Recommendations

Yuma Sun:  “The state’s top health official wants an investigation of eight Arizona doctors who together have written nearly half the nearly 10,000 recommendations for medical marijuana since the program started. . . . Humble said his staff extracted the names of any doctor who had written at least 200 recommendations in the 100 days since the law took effect. . . . One of those doctors alone had more than 1,300 recommendations in just 100 days.”

Arizona Republic:  “State health officials have filed complaints against eight physicians who have recommended nearly half of the 10,000 Arizonans certified to use medical marijuana, saying they failed to check patients’ prescription-drug histories, as required. . . . In one case, a naturopathic physician issued recommendations to about 1,000 people but checked the state Board of Pharmacy’s controlled-substances database just 56 times”

Phoenix New Times:  “Eight doctors who have written nearly half of the state’s 10,000 or so medical marijuana recommendations didn’t check in with a DEA-monitored database as required, state officials allege. . . . [ADHS Director Will Humble] asked employees to pull the names of all physicians who’d written more than 200 certifications since the program began in April.  The list proved 10 doctors long — and eight of the ten ‘had discrepancies between what they said they’d been doing’ and the DEA-database search log, Humble says.”

By |2015-04-06T18:52:31-07:00August 20th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona Department of Health Services Investigates 8 Doctors Who Have Written Almost Half of 10,000 Medical Marijuana Recommendations

AZ Physicians Referred to Licensing Boards due to Questionable Medical Marijuana Certifications

The following is the text of an August 19, 2011, post Arizona Department of Heatlh Services Director Will Humble made on his blog:

“One of the criteria on our official medical marijuana Physician Certification Form includes an attestation by a physician that they’ve reviewed their patient’s profile on the Arizona Board of Pharmacy’s Controlled Substances Prescription Monitoring Program database before signing the certification.  We included this requirement to ensure that physicians are acting in their patient’s best interest- and making sure that they’re using best practices and checking to see whether their patient has been prescribed other controlled substances before signing the marijuana certification.  Another requirement that we included asks physicians to attest that they’ve reviewed the patient’s medical history including examining the last 12 months of the patient’s medical records before signing.  We also think these requirements are important because other states that have medical marijuana programs have found that some physicians are more focused on getting revenue from signing certifications than on their patient’s health.

As a routine quality check in our certification system, we’ve been asking the Board of Pharmacy to verify whether or not certifying physicians are actually accessing the system (as they have attested).  We’ve identified 3 MDs and 5 Naturopaths that appear to have been routinely attesting that they’ve checked the Controlled Substances Prescription Monitoring Program when they appear to have not.  Dr. Nelson and I sent letters to their licensing boards recently notifying them that it looks like these 8 physicians may be falsely attesting that they’re checking the Prescription Monitoring Program database.  In each case, they appear to have written more than 100 certifications (some several hundred) that included attestations that cannot be verified by the Board of Pharmacy.

Our larger concern is that if these physicians aren’t completing this simple requirement (and making false attestations)- it’s likely that they’re taking other short-cuts that may be jeopardizing their patient’s health- such as not reviewing the patient’s medical history before writing medical marijuana certifications (also required in the series of attestations).  Since these 8 physicians have signed nearly half of the 10,000 medical marijuana medical certifications, we think it’s important that the boards know about this so they can decide if the physician is acting in the patient’s best interest.  The referrals may also have a side effect of discouraging physicians from writing recreational certifications.”

By |2011-08-21T06:43:14-07:00August 20th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on AZ Physicians Referred to Licensing Boards due to Questionable Medical Marijuana Certifications

Obama Stumped by Question on Marijuana Legalization

Huffington Post:  “It’s become pretty clear that the president is going to be asked about marijuana legalization absolutely any time he takes questions from the public, so it kind of amazes me that he is actually getting worse at talking about it. This latest exchange is just embarrassing:

“If you can’t legalize marijuana, why can’t you just legalize medical marijuana?” a woman asked the president.  “A lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana,” Obama explained. “As a controlled substance, the issue is then that is it being prescribed by a doctor as opposed to… you know, well, I’ll leave it at that.”

By |2011-08-18T20:03:58-07:00August 18th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Obama Stumped by Question on Marijuana Legalization

Holbrook Schools To Be Proactive If Medical Marijuana Remains Legal

Arizona Journal:  “With a medical marijuana debate brewing between state and federal officials, it’s become difficult for municipalities to determine what outcome to expect. In addition, school districts face the uncertainty of how medical marijuana use should be handled in schools as students are taught to stay away from drugs, especially since prescription-drug abuse is most common among young people.

By |2019-06-14T08:25:40-07:00August 18th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Holbrook Schools To Be Proactive If Medical Marijuana Remains Legal

Alan Sobol’s August 15, 2011, Motion in His Cannabis Club Lawsuit

The following is the text of a motion filed by Alan Sobol in his lawsuit against Arizona to establish the legality of his cannabis club.

1.  Plaintiff Allan Sobol, pro/per files this brief memorandum as his Motion for Immediate Summary decision or in the alternative  Expedited Hearing on his Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. This motion is filed because of the extreme controversy that is effecting the community at large and which demands immediate Court  resolution.

2.  Summary decision is appropriate because the facts are clear and undisputed that the Plaintiffs  2811 Club business model is not in violation or conflict with any Arizona Laws.

3.  Moreover, summary decision is appropriate because of the significant amount of  Arizona citizens that are being adversely effected by the on going controversy.

4.  On November 2, 2010, Arizona voters were asked to consider whether the State should decriminalize medical marijuana. Proposition 203, an initiative measure identified as the “Arizona Medical Marijuana Act” (“The Act” or “AMMA”), envisioned decriminalizing medical marijuana for use by people with certain chronic and debilitating medical conditions. Qualifying patients would be able to receive up to 2 ½ ounces of marijuana every two weeks from medical marijuana dispensaries or to cultivate their own plants under certain conditions. Proposition 203 provided that its purpose “is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such  patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.”

5.  Arizona voters passed Proposition 203 in November 2010; the Governor signed it into law on December 14, 2010.

6.  The defendants in this Action have been very vocal in their opposition to Prop 203, and apparently are displaying sour grapes over the voters choice.

7.  Defendant  Brewer, as Governor,  is vested with the supreme executive power of Arizona and regardless of her personal beliefs, she  is responsible for the faithful execution of all laws,  including the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,

8.  Furthermore, The Act requires the Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”) to be responsible for implementing and overseeing the Act.

9.  Specifically, the Act provides for the registration and certification by the, ADHS of “nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries,” “nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary agents,” “qualifying patients,” and “designated caregivers.”\

10.  On April 14, 2011, the ADHS began accepting applications from persons who sought to be certified as Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers. As of August 15, 2011, there were over 8000 Qualifying Patients certified by the ADHS including the plaintiff herein.

11.  However, on or about June 1, 2011, in an attempt to thwart the will of the voters and impose her own personal beliefs on the citizens of Arizona, defendant Brewer suspended the dispensary portion of the ACT. This represents a bad faith abuse on the part of  the Governors  authority.

12.  Defendants suspension of the dispensary program effectively denied most qualified patients the ability and right to obtain the medical marijuana authorized under the ACT.

13.  The very purpose of the Act was to provide for a qualifying patient, who has a “debilitating medical condition” to obtain an “allowable amount of marijuana” from a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary” and to possess and use the marijuana to treat or alleviate the   serious debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition

14.  Denial of relief to these seriously ill patients equates to cruel and unusual punishment , a violation of the Voter Protection Act and a  clear abuse of the Governors authority.

15.  The majority of qualified patients are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Many are confined to wheel chairs with disfigurements, missing limbs or simply weak and frail resulting from their debilitating conditions. These individuals suffer daily from chronic pain and other ailments that this Act was intended to alleviate.    Absent a safe and legal way to acquire their medication these qualified patients are forced into the very risky black market to acquire the medication they so desperately desire. This exposes many qualified patients to the criminal elements including con artist and robbers.

16.  Absent a viable dispensary program where a qualified patient could purchase affordable small quantities of medical marijuana as needed, denies these patients the right under the Act to possess and use medical marijuana.

17.  The only recourse available to these disfranchised qualified patients is to seek and acquire free quantities of medical marijuana from other qualified patients who are willing to donate their excess marijuana as it may be available.

18.  Under the ACT,  (36-2811 B-3),   “patient to patient” transfers of medical marijuana is specifically permitted provided nothing of value is exchanged.

19.  The inherent problem is the fact that under the ACT all qualified patient records maintained by AHDS are confidential. In fact, the ACT makes it a crime for any AHDS employee to release patient information to a third party.  Consequently, there is no way, other than high risk internet   Craigslist type classified advertising, for a patient looking to acquire free marijuana to locate another donating patient with excess marijuana.

20.  In an effort to assist qualified patients, plaintiff  Sobol developed a business  model concept intended to provide qualified patients with a venue to network. A place they could come to meet other qualified patients.  The 2811 Club, LLC, (Named after the provisions of the Act which allow patient to patient transfers ), The 2811 Club, hereinafter referred to as the” CLUB”, is  a is a professionally operated, membership only entity.

21.  For marketing purposes the business is called a club,  However, the Club’s primary function is that of a Educational and Resource center for qualified patients. Through the Club’s affiliation with Plaintiff Sobol’s other business, the Arizona Cannabis University, ( previously known as the Arizona Dispensary University) , the Club offers extensive educational services to qualified patients.  The Arizona Cannabis University has been offering classes to the general public since September 2010, and has built a credible reputation for providing  one of the most extensive marijuana related curriculums in the country. The University has been repeatedly featured on all local TV and print media  and  some national news organizations.   The University has from time to time offered classes across the state utilizing hotel conference rooms as needed. Additionally, like most Universities, the Arizona Cannabis University comes complete with a private campus. The physical, permanent classroom and  campus is located at 17233 N. Holmes Blvd Suite 1615, Phoenix AZ 85053 and features, extensive  on-line research services, free wi-fi, an extensive marijuana related book and video library, daily entertainment, a school discount  store, pain management demonstrations, political advocacy programs, even spiritual sermons but most importantly, a lounge area for qualified patients to interact and network together. This is a closed campus where only qualified patients who possess a AZDHS medical marijuana card are permitted to enter.  The University and Club interact together in a clean, professional  and safe environment to provide much needed services to qualified patients.  This unique  one-of-kind  facility provides  professional armed security and  a  state of art  surveillance system together with  patient verification and tracking to assure full compliance with the ACT.

22.  The Facility charges a yearly membership fee of $25.00 to qualified patients. Thereafter, the Club/University charges a usage fee of $75.00 per day which entitles the patient/member to full access of the facility and all it’s services. The Club maintains a policy of fee waivers for individuals with limited income. This fee pays for the overhead, (cost of operations), of the facility including the rent, electric, security, insurance, payrolls, educational services, etc.

23.  The  word “Club” is merely the vessel that brings qualified patients together. The Club facility is simply a  venue for qualified patients to interact with other  qualified patients. Contrary to the allegations of the Defendant, the Club does not sell, produce, transport, transfer or distribute Marijuana in any form. The defendants have produced no evidence that suggest otherwise.  The Club does allow qualified patient/members, pursuant  to ARS 36-2811 B-3, to exchange their  own marijuana with  other patients. Everyone in the club facility is a qualified patient. These are direct “ patient to patient” transfers that are in no way associated with the Club management or the usage fees charged. The Club has strict written rules that limit marijuana transfers to no more than 2.5 ounces and there can be no exchange of  any value. Violation of these rules mean immediate and permanent expulsion from the Club.

24.  Additionally, the Club donates space to a private not-for-profit Association; The Arizona Compassion Association, Inc.  This association is not a collective.  The association is comprised of approximately 50 qualified patients who each, individually,  grow their own medical marijuana. This association  was formed to advance their mutual beliefs to share knowledge and otherwise network together for the betterment of the industry. This association is protected under the First and Fourteen amendment of the US Constitution.

25.  The qualified patients of the association, who are all members of the club, bring  very limited amounts of their excess marijuana into the club and transfer  it “FREE OF CHARGE/VALUE”  to any Club member that request it.  These are also direct “patient to patient” transfers as permitted under the ACT and are in no way connected to the operation of the Club, or the fees that are charged.  Again, the Defendants have produced no evidence to suggest otherwise. These transfers are not conditioned upon payment of entry to the club. If two qualified patients  are enrolled in ASU, or perhaps a local community college, and conducted a patient to patient transfer  in the lounge of that school, would the Attorney General  threaten to  criminally prosecute  and close down the School? .  In fact,  the Act does not limit where such patient to patient transfers can take place. Qualified patients could meet on a street corner, a movie theater, or even a Mcdonalds.  These transfers can take place outside of the Clubs facilities, however, our patient/members voluntarily elect to conduct the transfer in the Club while  enjoying the Clubs facilities, services and security.

26.  The club owners, and the plaintiff have no legal affiliation with the association, other than a simple agreement that provides some donated space and the requirement that the association conduct themselves in a professional business-like manner, in full compliance with Arizona Law. Any perceived benefit the association may receive from the donated space  is being realized by the legal entity ( The Association) and not by any individual patient/member. There simply is nothing of value being exchanged directly from the Club to any individual qualified patient.

27.  For these reasons the Club is operating within  full compliance of the law.

28.  Having effectively stopped the Dispensary portion of the law, the defendants are  now unjustly taking aim at the only remaining option  qualified patients have to obtain their medication.

29.  While the  defendants have not produced one scintilla of evidence  demonstrating any illegal activity at the 2811 Club, the defendants have nevertheless threathen the club owners with criminal  arrest and prosecution.   This Club/university is being singled out for prosecution because of its marijuana curriculum.   The defendants  have relied on  marketing materials, news reports, hearsay, and  speculation. But have not presented this Court with any substantive evidence to support their allegations. In fact, the marketing materials produced by the Defendants supports the argument of the Plaintiff.

30.  Moreover,  the plaintiff has been completely transparent and forthright  in the development and operation of the Club.  The Plaintiff has made numerous good faith efforts  to explain and demonstrate the operation of the Club to the Defendants.  Sobol has invited the defendants to visit the club on at least three separate occasions for a first-hand  on-site inspection, the defendants  have  ignored all such requests. The plaintiff has repeatedly conveyed the following proposition to the defendants; that if defendant can produce a specific Arizona Statute showing that the Club is in violation of the law, Sobol will agree to withdraw his license and  close the Club.  The defendants have failed to respond to this request The defendants have failed to present any specific Arizona Statute whereby they can support their allegations that the Club has violated any State law. (Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum). The fact is, the Club is a legally registered, fully compliant, and legitimate business operation

31.  The defendants have clearly voiced their personal opposition to The Medical Marijuana Act. The defendants, acting in concert with each other,  are conspiring to use the power of their office to further their personal beliefs and agenda regarding marijuana, all  in dereliction of  their official duties.  As Governor  Brewer is vested with the supreme executive power of Arizona and is responsible for the faithful execution of all laws, including the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Instead, the Governor and Mr. Humble are abusing their authority  by threatening  and intimating legitimate business owners out of existence  in an effort to thwart the will of the Arizona voters.

32.  The Club operation is fully compliant with Arizona State Law and the Defendants have produced no evidence to suggest otherwise.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sobol respectfully requests declaratory relief as follows:

A.  Grant  Summary Decision in this matter or, in the alternative, Grant an Expedited hearing in this matter.

B.  Deny all the Defendant requests.

C.  Find in favor of Plaintiff,  that Sobol’s specific 2811 club business model is not in violation of any Arizona State Laws.

D.  That the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems appropriate and proper.

Dated this 15th day of August, 2011.

ALLAN SOBOL pro per
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

/s Allan Sobol___________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 15th day of August 2011. I electronically transmitted a PDF version of this document to the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court, Maricopa County, using Turbo Court ECF System, with a copy also mailed to :

Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Att: Lori Davis
1275 W Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

  1. Sobol’s Medical Marijuana card issued by AZDHS
  2. Arizona Cannabis University  media publicity
  3. 2811 Club Marketing Materials
  4. Memorandum of Agreement  between 2811 Club and Arizona Compassion Association, Inc.
  5. Communications  from 2811 Club to Law Enforcement
  6. Letter to Attorney General offering to close 2811 Club
  7. Defendants opposition to Prop 203 and medical marijuana.
By |2011-08-16T07:54:55-07:00August 16th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Alan Sobol’s August 15, 2011, Motion in His Cannabis Club Lawsuit

Hippie Town Chafes under Colorado’s Medical Pot Rules

Sacramento Bee:  “The Green Rush has gone bust in [Nederland, CO] the town Rolling Stone dubbed ‘Stonerville, USA.’  Kathleen Chippi, who runs the One Brown Mouse boutique but recently shut down her medical marijuana dispensary and smoking room, cursed as she blamed the government. . . . Colorado now has the most heavily regulated marijuana industry in America.”

By |2019-06-14T08:25:40-07:00August 15th, 2011|Colorado News, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Hippie Town Chafes under Colorado’s Medical Pot Rules

Confusion Surrounds California’s Medical Marijuana Laws

Digital Journal:  “The former owner of a Los Angeles County marijuana dispensary will learn of his sentence in the coming month in a case (LACBA368181-01, Los Angeles County Superior Court) that brings to light the confusion still surrounding California’s medical marijuana laws . . . . Under California state law, marijuana dispensaries must be operated on a non-profit basis. In many cases, however, authorities have raided dispensaries and charged them with operating on a “for profit” basis.  According to the Culver City Patch, prosecutors alleged that the Organica Collective dispensary near the Culver City-Los Angeles border had earned an average of $400,000 per month.”

By |2011-08-15T21:54:12-07:00August 15th, 2011|California News, Marijuana Crimes, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Confusion Surrounds California’s Medical Marijuana Laws

Politicians Stonewalling Medical-pot Provisions

Arizona Republic:  “White-collar crime has been eradicated in Arizona.  There are zero violations of civil rights. Not a single consumer in the entire state is being ripped off. There is no public corruption. No environmental laws are being broken. . . . Otherwise, Attorney General Tom Horne (and Gov. Jan Brewer) couldn’t spend so much time and energy trying to delay, disrupt and demolish Arizona’s medical-marijuana law.”

By |2011-08-13T07:29:49-07:00August 13th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Politicians Stonewalling Medical-pot Provisions

Arizona AG Wants To Shutter Pot Clubs

AZ Journal:  “Attorney General Tom Horne is taking aim at cannabis clubs with his civil filing this week asking the courts to shut down four clubs and one individual claiming to be operating under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).  In July, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) asked Horne to review the legality of cannabis clubs, which provide venues for medical marijuana patients to share private supplies of marijuana.”

By |2019-06-14T08:24:59-07:00August 13th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona AG Wants To Shutter Pot Clubs

The Truth About Medical Marijuana

The Arizona Republic has apparently decided not to print this rebuttal to “addiction psychiatrist” and marijuana prohibitionist Ed Gogek’s “My Turn” editorial that appeared in the paper on 8/4/11.

In an effort to sow the seeds of public confusion, marijuana prohibitionist Edward Gogek employs tired rhetoric about “drug abusers” and “recreational use” (My Turn, August 4) while conveniently ignoring the truth about medical marijuana and the patients who benefit from it.

First, he complains that most medical marijuana (“MMJ”) patients cite pain as their reason for seeking a state card. Yes, pain is the predominant ailment cited, but what does this prove? Many experience the “aches and pains” of advancing age – and almost 40% of MMJ patients are over fifty.

Might it be that people suffering from daily pain simply prefer a natural herbal remedy to those manufactured in a lab? If one can choose between a drug with pleasant side affects verses those with adverse consequences, which is the more logical choice?

Mr. Gogek also makes much of the fact that most MMJ patients are men, while women generally claim pain more often to their doctors. To strengthen his thesis he adds the assertion that substance abuse is primarily a male disorder, and concludes that since more men than woman are currently Arizona MMJ patients, they must be using marijuana for purely recreational reasons.

Consider, however, the political and legal status of Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act: confusion reigns, thanks in part to the Governor and Attorney General’s federal lawsuit (to which federal lawyers have recently responded by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of legal merit) and generally negative local media coverage.

Is it really any surprise that qualifying women patients have not come forward in their true number, when seeking a patient card more resembles an act of defiance than the exercise of a perfectly legal right?

Prohibitionists such as Mr. Gogek want Arizona to go back to criminalizing these citizens and restricting their pain relief choices to expensive, addictive, synthetic medications. This is the conditioned response of someone under the influence of seventy years of anti-marijuana propaganda.

The failed, expensive and hypocritical “War on Drugs” incarcerates peaceful citizens at heavy social cost. Breaking up families and causing productive wage earners to lose their jobs simply for seeking relief from pain or other ailments is neither fair nor wise public policy.

The general public clearly understands this. Currently, twenty-five percent of Americans live in a state with medical marijuana programs, with more and more states considering such legislation.

Those who doubt that marijuana has medicinal value should speak with a patient; the range of conditions marijuana helps patients manage is truly astonishing, and must be why the pharmaceutical industry now has over fifty researchers attempting to isolate the plants’ active ingredients.

Attorney General Tom Horne has estimated that Arizona’s medical marijuana industry could generate $40 million annually in taxes; others say that it could be significantly more. The public supports adding a reasonable sales tax to medical marijuana. Arizona could certainly use the funds, and should allow patients their choice of medicine as provided by passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

Mr. Gogek could then return his focus to treating abusers of hard drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, oxycontin, hydrocodone and percocet. Medical Marijuana is a safe alternative to many over-prescribed pain relievers; as such, it should be welcomed by those professing an interest in saving people from the ravages of drug abuse.

The Protect Arizona Patients Coalition urges the Arizona Republic to report objectively on the issue of medical marijuana. To do so requires only that its reporters talk with MMJ patients and their doctors. Many of our members would welcome that opportunity.

By |2012-01-14T16:53:13-07:00August 11th, 2011|Miscellaneous|Comments Off on The Truth About Medical Marijuana

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne Denied Extra-Long Court Filing in Federal Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

Phoenix New Times:  “Give me the short version, a federal judge told Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne today in a ruling on the state’s lawsuit against medical marijuana.  Yesterday, Horne had asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton if he could exceed the 17-page limit for his arguments on why the lawsuit shouldn’t be dismissed. He even included the proposed response in a separate, 23-page filing. (See below) . . . . Skimming through Horne’s proposed response, though, we noticed a couple of things that should actually be added.  For instance, in giving the run-down on how Arizona officials ended up suing their own state instead of defending a voter-approve state law, there’s no mention of the January meeting between Horne and the law’s most vocal opponent, Carolyn Short of Keep AZ Drug Free.  We also think Horne’s proposed motion should have mentioned that Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reminded the public, through a reporter, that his May 2 letter to the state about the new law didn’t threaten state workers with prosecution.”

Here is Arizona’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Pot Response by Horne

By |2011-08-10T07:33:03-07:00August 10th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne Denied Extra-Long Court Filing in Federal Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

When Voters have their Say – Sort of

The Daily Courier:  “Sometimes voters can really screw things up for ideological politicians. But elected officials get the last laugh. They can – and do – derail the voters by throwing passed legislation into gridlock.”

By |2017-02-12T07:38:02-07:00August 10th, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on When Voters have their Say – Sort of

Arizona vs. The 2811 Club – the Lawsuit to Shut Down Arizona Cannabis Clubs

The text of Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s August 8, 2011, press release states:

“PHOENIX (Monday, August 8, 2011) — Attorney General Tom Horne today filed a civil action against four Phoenix-area cannabis clubs and one individual that falsely claim to be operating lawfully under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). The action is for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief and is filed on behalf of the State and the Arizona Department of Health Services.

“The law permits one card holder to give marijuana to another card holder. But is does not permit the activities of these Defendants, who charge fees to members. These private entities and individuals are in no way permitted to legally transfer marijuana to anybody,” Horne said. “The operators of these clubs claim that they are protected under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act when they are not registered as non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries as required under that law. These people are marketing themselves as being able to lawfully transfer marijuana, and that type of deception and blatantly illegal activity must be stopped.”

The filing in Maricopa County Superior Court claims that The 2811 Club, The Arizona Compassion Association, Yoki A Ma’ Club, the Arizona Compassion Club and Michael R. Miller are all private cannabis clubs or owners/operators of clubs that have claimed they are able to lawfully participate in the possession, production, transportation, sale, or transfer of marijuana in accordance with A.R. S. § 36-2801 et. seq., the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. However the Act does not offer legal protection to cannabis clubs, cooperatives or any other person, association or entities that are not registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries. Nor does the act decriminalize the possession, production, transportation, sale, or transfer of marijuana by or through those entities.

This action asks the court to issue a declaratory judgment that each of the Defendants is violating the AMMA and prohibit them from engaging in activities that involve selling, producing, transporting, transferring or possession of marijuana.”

Arizona vs. The 2811 Club Complaint

The Attorney General’s complaint in the matter of  State of Arizona vs. The 2811 Club, The Arizona Compassion Association, Yoki A Ma’ Club, the Arizona Compassion Club and Michael R. Miller follows:
Pot Complaint 1

Arizona vs. The 2811 Cannabis Club Motion to Show Cause & Application for Injunction

Pot Complaint 2

By |2011-10-13T00:30:03-07:00August 9th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Cannabis Clubs, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona vs. The 2811 Club – the Lawsuit to Shut Down Arizona Cannabis Clubs

2811 Club & Alan Sobol Respond to Arizona Attorney General’s Lawsuit

On August 9, 2011, Alan Sobol sent the following message to the public.

The 2811 Club Welcomes the Court Challenge

Phoenix  August 8, 2011.  Arizona Attorney General Tom Horn issued a  news release yesterday announcing that he filed  a complaint for Declaratory Judgement asking the Courts to rule on the legitimacy of Cannabis clubs.  What Mr. Horn did not say was that Mr. Sobol, the marketing agent who developed the Cannabis Club business model in question,  filed for a Declaratory Judgment weeks ago, also asking the Court to render a decision on whether or not the 2811 Club business model was legal under Arizona State law . Sobol’s Action is still awaiting a response from the Attorney General’s office.  The 2811 Club welcomes this Court intervention.

 The 2811 Club, LLC opened it’s doors for business on July 4th 2011. This Club was Arizona’s first Cannabis Club.  The 2811 Club is an Educational and Resource facility with a campus  intended as a venue for qualified patients to learn, share knowledge, exchange  medication and network together.  “This is a membership only club, you must be a qualified patient and possess a Arizona medical marijuana card issued by the AZDHS to enter” says Sobol.

 Once inside, the club provides a safe, clean, well managed facility which includes an array of services designed to meet the needs of Patients including, extensive educational classes, a comprehensive marijuana Library, and  on-line research services, pain management services and demonstrations, daily entertainment, specialized discounts on various  marijuana related products and services, marijuana  testing  services,  strain consulting,   and perhaps most importantly the unique ability to safely network with other qualified patients.

 Patient to patient transfers are permitted under the law so long as nothing of value is exchanged.  In  fact the Club is named after the provision of the law that specifically allows such exchanges: A.R.S 36-2811.   Both Horn and Sobol agree, that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does permit qualified patients the right to  freely exchange their medication.   However, the law does not specify where such exchanges must take place. For example, the law does not require such exchanges to take place in a Dispensary.  The 2811 club does not  sell or distribute marijuana whatsoever.  The club simply provides a safe venue for qualified patients to freely  exchange marijuana among themselves, so long as it is done in full compliance with the law.  Any membership fees charges are for use of the facility and its extensive services, and not for the  sale of marijuana as alleged by Horn.

Additionally, In the good faith  and spirit of the law the Club provides free space to a Compassion Association comprised of qualified patients and caregivers who also distribute free samples ( approx 4 grams)  of their own individually grown, very high quality, medical grade marijuana.  This medication is independently tested ,professionally labeled and packaged.  Other then the space it donates, The 2811 Club has no affiliation with this private not-for-profit compassion club. Qualified, credible and highly skilled caregivers who are associated with the Compassion group, make themselves  available to qualified patients who wish to register them through the AZDHS program. There is simply no safer way for qualified patients to obtain the medication they voted for.

Moreover,  any qualified patient is welcome to visit the club and exchange their medication with other club members. Qualified patients do not have to utilize the 2811 Club to exchange their marijuana, however, they choose  to visit this facility because they know that all members of the Club are qualified patients, the facility offers extensive security,  provides numerous other services including  extensive education and marijuana testing, and it’s  simply a great place to meet other qualified patients.   In the absence of such a facility, qualified patients would be forced into the streets, or risky Craigslist advertising  to attract other patients.    Sobol says the club fill a niche, it  is the merely the vessel that brings qualified patients together and  is absolutely  legal.  Some patients join the club just to take advantage of the extensive educational services provided by the Arizona Cannabis University, which is included in the membership fees.  The club maintains strict membership rules to assure full compliance with the law. The 2811 Club is presently  the only  safe, dignified and legal way for qualified patients to comply with the law.

We believe Mr. Horn’s Compliant is in Violation of the  Arizona Voter Protection Act,  is an abuse of his authority, and moreover is further evidence of  the  bad faith efforts on the part of  Arizona government officials to thwart the will of the Arizona Voters. In an apparent attempt to justify a repeal of the Medical marijuana Act in 2013 some of our elected officials are apparently trying to create mayhem in this industry.  The Governors actions are merely a self filling prophecy.      Mr. Horn’s Civil Action alleges  that there is no provision in the law that allows for this type of Cannabis Club. The fact is, there is no provision in the law that specifically precludes  it either.  The fact is qualified patients can legally meet in practically any venue to exchange their medication. For example,   If  two qualified patients were to meet at a Movie theater to exchange their medication, would Mr. Horn move to close down all theaters?  We believe that government officials have a obligation to  uphold the laws of this state.  They should be exerting their energies on how to safely implement the Arizona Medical Marijuana law rather than conspiring to  to stop it.  Properly managed facilities like the 2811 Club can provide qualified patients statewide with an organized, professional and fully compliant network of patient and caregiver exchanges sufficient to meet the needs of this program.

It is outrageous for Mr. Horn to suggest that the 2811 club is some how deceptive. We have been totally transparent in the development and operation of our Club.  The 2811 Club has  repeatedly invited all law enforcement, including Mr. Horn, to visit our facility.  In fact, on August 1, 2011 we sent the Attorney General a request for a meeting to discuss the legal issues concerning Cannabis Clubs.  The e-mail stated in part;

“It has always been my intent to operate in full compliance with the law, therefore,  if there is some specific legal statute, or compelling and meritorious argument that would preclude such business operations in Arizona then, in that case, I would most definitely withdraw my proprietary licenses and  cease all marketing efforts. Absent such specific limitations or regulations, I believe it would be in our mutual interest to meet and review Cannabis Club operations.  I look forward to hearing from you.”

There was no response  from Mr. Horn!

We  adamantly believe that our 2811 club business model is in full compliance with State Laws and  we welcome the opportunity to expedite this matter in the Courts.

We again extend an invitation to all law enforcement  and government officials to come visit our facility.  We have nothing to hide.  We take great pride in the fully compliant facility we have developed, and the services it provides to our members.

We thank our members for their continued support, and encourage all those who suffer with the qualifying conditions to apply for a Medical Marijuana Card.  We have a Doctor on site who will review your records and, if qualified,  write you the required recommendation.  In a further effort to demonstrate our true desire to help we are again lowering our price for Doctor Evaluations to $65.00. (The Lowest evaluation price in the State).

Please feel free to contact us directly with any questions,  602-993-5600 or visit our website for more information:   the2811club.com.

Thank you

Allan Sobol, Marketing Director

The 2811 Club, LLC

By |2011-10-13T00:30:19-07:00August 9th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Cannabis Clubs, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on 2811 Club & Alan Sobol Respond to Arizona Attorney General’s Lawsuit

Arizona Attorney General Sues Cannabis Clubs to Stop Distribution of Marijuana

Attorney General Tom Horne agrees with me.  Read my article called “Are Arizona Cannabis Clubs Legal Under Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Laws?”  The following is the text of an August 8, 2011, blog post by Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble.

“A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post expressing serious concerns about the legality of so-called cannabis clubs that have been popping up recently.  It appeared to me that the clubs are distributing marijuana to customers in a way that’s inconsistent with the provisions of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act- and the persons involved could be conducting illegal marijuana transactions…  which is why we asked the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for review and analysis.

“The Arizona Attorney General has completed their analysis of “cannabis clubs” and have concluded that the clubs and the folks working in them aren’t allowed to legally transfer marijuana.  The Attorney General filed a civil action in Maricopa County Superior Court today against four Valley cannabis clubs.  Today’s action asks for a “declaratory judgment and injunctive relief” meaning that we’re asking the court to stop the cannabis clubs from operating and claiming that they’re able to operate under the protection of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

Phoenix New Times:  “Tom Horne, State Attorney General, Asks Court to Shut Down Cannabis Clubs; Says He’s Taking “Softer Approach” by Not Ordering Arrests” – Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne asked a court today to shut down cannabis clubs, claiming they’re ‘blatantly illegal’ under Arizona’s medical marijuana law.  The motion, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, names four clubs and an individual: ‘The 2811 Club, The Arizona Compassion Association, Yoki A Ma’ Club, the Arizona Compassion Club and Michael R. Miller.’ Horne wants a judge’s ruling that the clubs aren’t legal and an injunction to stop them from the ‘selling, producing, transporting, transferring or possession of marijuana’. . . . We asked Horne if he was just passing the buck on this decision. If he’s so sure the clubs are acting illegally, why not just have the clubs raided and their staffs arrested?

I’m taking a softer approach,’ Horne tells us.”

Phoenix New Times:  “Al Sobol, Pot Club Manager, “Happy” to Have Court Decide on Clubs’ Legality” – “Al Sobol, a prominent medical marijuana marketer, says he’s “happy” that state Attorney General Tom Horne seeks to have a court review the legality of cannabis clubs.  Sobol is the manager of the 2811 Club, LLC, one of the businesses named in the legal actions filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court today by state Attorney General Tom Horne.”

East Valley Tribune:  “Horne asks judge to shut down Arizona’s ‘marijuana clubs’” – “Calling them illegal drug dealers, Attorney General Tom Horne asked a judge on Monday to shut down the ‘marijuana clubs” that are opening up around the state.  In legal papers filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, Horne said the medical marijuana law that voters approved last November has no provision for the kind of clubs where members, after paying a fee, can get access to free drugs. More to the point, he said the exceptions in the law that club owners say permit what they do does not exist.”

By |2019-06-14T08:24:59-07:00August 9th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Cannabis Clubs, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Arizona Attorney General Sues Cannabis Clubs to Stop Distribution of Marijuana

Arizona Medical Marijuana Cardholders Wrongfully Arrested

KSAZ 10:  “More confusion over Arizona’s medical marijuana law — lawyers say patients who are legally allowed to use medical marijuana are being wrongfully arrested.  ‘Incidents between clashes with law enforcement and these patients are on the rise and patients need to be aware that they should aggressively assert their rights to legally use and obtain marijuana if they are a registered card holder’.”

Medical Marijuana Cardholders Wrongfully Arrested: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

By |2015-04-06T18:52:31-07:00August 8th, 2011|Stories & Articles, Video|Comments Off on Arizona Medical Marijuana Cardholders Wrongfully Arrested

Medical Marijuana; No Imminent Risk for Colorado Licensing Employees

Examiner.com:  “Despite Colorado’s precedent, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer wants to know if state employees may be exposed to prosecution for drug offenses by working to license medical marijuana.  Until she finds out, Arizona’s medical marijuana program is on hold. Meanwhile untaxed, unregulated collectives are being formed.  This has evoked a response from US Attorney Scott Risner who filed a motion asking the federal judge to dismiss the case saying,

“Their complaint presents no actual controversy, instead asking this Court for an advisory opinion as to a hypothetical dispute in which Plaintiffs [State of Arizona] themselves pick no side but rather resort to a purported disagreement among various fictional Defendants [State Employees].”

By |2012-08-25T08:06:49-07:00August 7th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Colorado News, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Medical Marijuana; No Imminent Risk for Colorado Licensing Employees

Department of Justice tells AZ Gov. Brewer: “Dismiss your lawsuit, you have no case!

Marijuana Policy Project:  “A funny thing happened on Monday. The Department of Justice filed a brief regarding state medical marijuana laws in Arizona . . . and it was a good thing, and was met with appreciation from the medical marijuana movement! Seriously. . . . Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. . . . Throughout its brief, the DoJ basically said that the state of Arizona has no case and that plaintiffs Gov. Brewer and AG Horne have invented a controversy where none exists. Further, the brief notes that a state is not allowed to bring a case asking two sides to fight it out, without taking a position on the law in question”

Here are some interesting statements made in the Department of Justice’s Motion to Dismiss:

“Plaintiffs identify no controversy between the parties on that issue. That is most clear from the fact that Plaintiffs’ complaint never identifies which side of the supposed dispute Plaintiffs are on. Indeed, even their prayer for relief does not identify whether they believe the AMMA is preempted by federal law. Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture disputes among theother parties. They name as defendants various individuals and organizations whom Plaintiffs contend support the implementation and enforcement of the AMMA”

“Plaintiffs even create twenty fictitious defendants – ten who contend that the AMMA “does violate federal law” and ten who contend that it does not – and then rely on the purported disagreement ‘among Defendants’.”

“there is no actual controversy herebecause Plaintiffs can point to no threat of enforcement against the State’s employees.”

“Plaintiffs lack standing to raise their claim. As discussed above, Plaintiffs rely on manufactured disputes between various defendants, even referring to one defendant’s ‘standing and legal position’ relative to other defendants.”

“Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government hassought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly showa genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case,”

Feds Motion to Dismiss Pot Case

By |2017-02-12T07:38:02-07:00August 5th, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Department of Justice tells AZ Gov. Brewer: “Dismiss your lawsuit, you have no case!

Feds: Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Lawsuit has no Merit

East Valley Tribune:  “Federal attorneys asked a judge on Monday to throw out a lawsuit filed by Gov. Jan Brewer seeking a ruling about the legality of the state’s medical marijuana law.  Deputy U.S. Attorney Scott Risner said there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. Risner told U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in legal papers filed in her court that, absent some actual threat of prosecution under federal drug laws by his office, the question is purely academic and therefore not a proper subject for litigation.”

By |2011-08-02T06:31:05-07:00August 2nd, 2011|AZ Marijuana Law Lawsuits, Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Feds: Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Lawsuit has no Merit

Brewer Regrets Letting Voters Approve Medical Marijuana, Settles for Frustrating Their Will

Reason.com:  “In my column on Wednesday, I noted that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer seems intent on undermining her state’s Medical Marijuana Act, which she opposed before voters approved it in November 2010. . . . ‘In lieu of a regulated industry,’ one activist told the Times, ‘we’re now creating an environment in which patients are growing their own with limited oversight, and these private clubs of questionable legality are popping up’.”

By |2011-08-02T06:32:11-07:00August 1st, 2011|Stories & Articles|Comments Off on Brewer Regrets Letting Voters Approve Medical Marijuana, Settles for Frustrating Their Will