New Medical Marijuana Rules Posted by ADHS
Rim Country Gazette: “The Arizona Department of Health Services published a new set of draft rules for the Medical Marijuana Program on its website”
What is the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association?
Something called the “Arizona Medical Marijuana Association” (AzMMA) has gotten a lot of publicity in the Phoenix area ostensibly as an Arizona medical marijuana support group, but it is not clear what the AzMMA is or if it even exists. In December a lot of people, including me, attended a four hour talk presented by the AzMMA on Arizona’s Proposition 203 and the new medical marijuana law. The AzMMA charged me an admission fee of $300.
I checked the Arizona Corporation Commission’s database today and found that there is no entity formed in Arizona called the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association. On October 10, 2010, a firm called Suzette M. Brown, PC, PO Box 11528, Glendale, Arizona 85308, apparently filed Articles of Organization for a limited liability company to be called the “Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, LLC.” However, this company has not yet been approved and does not currently exist. The Arizona Corporation Commission says that there is a potential conflict with an entity name reservation for the “Arizona Medical Marijuana Corporation” obtained by Curtis A. Shelton on October 19, 2010.
A bigger problem, however, for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, LLC, is that Arizona Revised Statutes Section 29-602 prohibits an Arizona limited liability company from having the word “association” in its name. If the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association wants to be an Arizona entity, it must form a corporation. Curtis Shelton currently has first dibs to the name until his name reservation expires on February 17, 2011.
What I cannot tell from the record is if either of the above Arizona Corporation Commission filings were for our beloved, but non-existent Arizona Medical Marijuana Association manned by Andrew Myers and Joe Yuhas. Is their AzMMA the third group that wants what apparently is a very popular name?
There is a website at www.azmma.org that apparently is a website for the “Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, but there is no there there. This site lacks meaningful content and consists of a single page with a small amount of text. The homepage states:
“During its formative stage, the AzMMA invites you to participate in our organizational efforts.”
This statement is apparently total BS. On December 27, 2010, and every day for the next three days I called Joe Yuhas who the newspapers say is the AzMMA man. I wanted to discuss a very disturbing statement that one of my clients attributed to Mr. Y about the proposed Arizona Department of Health Services rules. Despite leaving daily messages for four days asking Joe to call me, he blew me off and to this date has not returned my call. In practicing law in Arizona for 31 years, I don’t ever remember calling somebody that many times and not getting the courtesy of a call back.
Why do Myers and Yuhas continue to say they are involved with a non-existent entity? Who are the members of this non-existent entity? Are there any members besides Myers and Yuhas? Where are its offices? The January 7, 2011, cover letter Andrew Myers sent to Will Humble with the AzMMA’s comments to the first draft of the rules does not have an address or phone number for Myers or the AzMMA. Does anybody care? Myers letter refers to the leadership of AzMMA, but who are its leaders and why is their identity not made public?
If the leadership of this want-a-be organization cannot form an Arizona entity for their group and if the group does make its address and phone number and leadership public, why do Myers and Yuhas have what appears to be a very close relationship with Will Humble and the Arizona Department of Health Services and why does the media give Myers and the AzMMA so much press and credibility? Just yesterday Will Humble and Andrew Myers were interviewed simultaneously on Phoenix’ National Public Radio affiliate. What a co-inky-dink! Read about and listen to the February 4, 2011, radio interview at “Will Humble & Andrew Myers on KJZZ Radio.”
P.S. Alan Sobol and his Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals also are not happy with the AzMMA. See “Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals Declares War on Arizona Department of Health Services, Marijuana Policy Project & the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association.” Beware of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Corporation and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, LLC and a semi-secret club that really likes those names!
Sad Message from a Pharmacist Who No Longer Seeks a Dispensary License
I received an email message from a pharmacist who had intended to seek a license to operate an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary. This person is a very experienced Arizona pharmacist who believes in the need for medical marijuana and who has experience operating a successful pharmacy business. Here’s the text of the message:
“For all your reasons listed from the division of areas to random selection, we have decided to leave the field. As professionals, as a pharmacist, I felt the only way to give medical marijuana professionalism was to have a pharmacist dispensing the medication or at least on staff or as a medical director, some significant role. However, pharmacists were completed excluded from any rules or regulations. The random nature of selection when you are a highly qualified candidate, just was too much to continue on with the process and all the changes and unforeseeable laws that will evolve.”
This message confirms my belief that the Arizona Department of Health Services’ lottery (aka random selection process) will drive many good people away from this new industry and increase the number of gamblers who are willing to bet $5,000 for a shot at a big jackpot that has much better odds than Arizona’s legal lottery.
East Valley likely to get 14 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
East Valley Tribune: “The East Valley could become home to about 14 medical marijuana dispensaries by late summer under rules proposed by state regulators. . . . The health department’s proposal would limit Tempe to two dispensaries, one north of Southern Avenue and one south of there. Mesa would have five dispensaries. The agency also calls for dividing Chandler and Gilbert into two parts, with one dispensary per area. The communities of Apache Junction, Queen Creek and Ahwatukee Foothills would each be allowed one.”
Why DHS’ Lottery to Pick 125 Dispensary Winners is a Mistake
I believe that the proposed AZDHS rule whereby the Department will allocate Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to applicants by lottery is a big mistake, for the following reasons:
- The rules require an applicant to submit a number of items with their application. Included are a business plan, an inventory plan, a security plan and other items. The Department might receive an application from one applicant including a business plan that is thorough and persuasive concerning the likely success of the applicant’s proposed operation of a dispensary. Another applicant might submit a sheet that says “Business Plan” at the top, but which contains little that is helpful or persuasive concerning the applicant’s likelihood of success. Since the Department’s rules contain nothing to help evaluate or rate or differentiate between the 2 submissions, each will be entitled to be submitted with an equal chance to be chosen from the lottery. (assuming some form of the other required items have been included with each application.)
- The fact that, per the proposed rule, the business plan and other required submissions will not be read, evaluated or scored renders the required submission of those documents meaningless.
- The Department is charging a fee of $5,000 to file an application. Only $1,000 would be refunded to an applicant who submitted a complete application and whose application was therefore submitted to the lottery. People have speculated that 2,000 or more applications could be filed. If 2,000 applications were submitted at $5,000 each, the gross would be $10,000,000. If every one of the applications were complete (unlikely), 1,875 refunds of $1,000 each ($1,875,000) would need to be made. The net would be a minimum of $8,125,000. Since some of the applications would likely be incomplete and the applicant would not receive a refund, the net would probably be even more. With this large amount of funds, certainly the Department should have the resources to read, evaluate and score the applications received.
- If AZDHS awards the right to obtain a license to an obviously unqualified applicant because AZDHS has been unwilling to read, evaluate and score the applications received, even though it has received millions of dollars in application fees from applicants, it will subject itself to legal action by qualified applicants who were denied the right to obtain a license or even the opportunity to have their applications and evidence of qualifications evaluated.
- The lottery proposal encourages gaming of the system or even fraud. I have heard of groups who intend to submit 20 or more applications. A group of investors could file applications by each of the individuals in the group with an agreement that if any of them were successful, the unsuccessful individuals would be brought into partnership with the successful applicant. There could even be straw applicants submitting applications on behalf of undisclosed principals. All of this would be incentivized by the unwillingness of the Department to read, evaluate and score the applications received.
- The people who drafted the ballot measure made a great effort to make the Arizona Medical Marijuana system subject to comprehensive and sensible regulations in order to avoid some of the “free for all” problems occurring in some of the other States that have previously allowed Medical Marijuana. Providing a system where applications and the attached submissions are read, evaluated and scored will result in the most qualified applicants being chosen for the limited number of licenses. Refusing to evaluate the applications will promote the opposite, leading to instability in the industry and problems for law enforcement the public and the Agency.
- If unqualified applicants are chosen by lottery for the right to submit the additional items necessary to receive permission to operate, and are unable to perform because they lack the resources or are incompetent, the dispensary permit could sit idle for a year until the next opportunity for the Department to receive applications. This would deny the public access to a dispensary in that area and would allow patients with cards to grow their own medical marijuana if they were more than 25 miles from the closest other dispensary.
- Awarding licenses to unqualified applicants will likely cause problems with patient services as well as unpaid bills and other problems related to failure of dispensary businesses due to lack of qualifications of the applicants.
- If the Department is unwilling to evaluate the suitability and qualifications of the applicants, it should at least require a bond or a posting of a cash deposit, to guarantee performance by a successful applicant. This should be required as a condition of submitting the initial application.
- The nature of the business as well as the regulations imposed by the Statute and the Agency rules guarantee that it will be expensive to open and operate a dispensary. If a prospective applicant does not have the financial resources to be able to successfully open and operate a dispensary, he or she should get the backing of someone who does. This is no different from any other business opportunity. While those without resources might complain that it is unfair to deny them the chance to receive a license, it is just as unfair to choose someone without the qualifications, competence and resources necessary to be successful, on the basis of a “game of chance” over someone who has the qualifications, competence and resources required to be successful. It is also unfair to the public who will be using the services of dispensaries to impose upon them, based on a “game of chance”, prospective dispensary operators who are not likely to be competent and/or successful in providing good service to the patients.
- If the State of Arizona wanted to have a low regulation industry and let the market choose the winners and losers, it could do that. Arizona has not made that choice, though. Arizona has chosen a highly regulated system involving very limited access to licenses. The regulations imposed by the State increase the resources and competence required to operate successfully. With this type of system, the State Agency has the responsibility to do what is necessary to increase the odds that the very limited number of business opportunities will be given to those who are likely to be able to perform.
Surprise Officials Zone Medical Marijuana in Industrial Areas
East Valley Tribune: “Sun Citians’ interest in where Surprise decides to locate its four medical marijuana dispensaries is a clear one: safety. Thursday night, Surprise planning commissioners discussed ground rules for locating the dispensaries and public safety concerns for both those frequenting the establishments and others who live near the facilities.”
Beware of Seminars about Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law If the Speakers are Chosen Because They Pay the Sponsor a Fee Rather Than Because of their Knowledge
A representative of an organization that is sponsoring a public meeting ostensibly to educate people about Arizona’s new medical marijuana laws invited me to be a speaker at the event, but only if I paid a fee for the privilege. I declined. I am happy to speak for free to large groups about topics on which I am knowledgeable, but I don’t want to be associated with events whose priority is to make money rather than educate. Speakers should be chosen based on their knowledge, not on whether they pay the sponsor a fee. The reason speakers pay a fee to speak is because their primary purpose in speaking is to sell themselves and/or their products or services. I submit that the audience wants speakers whose primary purpose is to educate, not generate business. Before going to an educational event, ask the sponsor if the speakers are speaking for free or if they are speaking because they paid the sponsor a fee.
My Articles of Incorporation Contain Tax Exempt Language: Is that a Problem?
Question: My attorney put language in the Articles of Incorporation for my Arizona medical marijuana nonprofit corporation that say it will be operated as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and that no part of the earnings of the corporation can go to insiders. Is that a problem?
Answer: Yes. Big time! If you want to operate a pure charity then the language is appropriate. Here is some common language I have seen in Articles of Incorporation of Arizona nonprofit corporations:
“This corporation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes such as religious, educational, literary and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code (the “Code”).
“The Corporation is not organized and shall not be operated for pecuniary gain or profits. No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of or be distributable to its directors, officers, members, or any other private person; provided that the Corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth herein.”
You definitely do not want the above language in the Articles of Incorporation for a corporation that intends to own and operate an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary. The first problem with the above language is that it is used in Articles of Incorporation of nonprofit corporation. You should not be using a nonprofit corporation to own your dispensary because Arizona nonprofit corporations do not have owners/shareholders. See “Is It a Mistake to Form an Arizona Nonprofit Corporation to Operate an Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary?“
The second problem is the above language is appropriate in the Articles of Incorporation of an Arizona nonprofit corporation only if the corporation intended to become a tax-exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code. If you intend for your nonprofit corporation that will own a medical marijuana dispensary to file an IRS Form 1023 or 1024 and apply for tax-exempt organization status with the IRS you should know that:
- Arizona Revised Statutes Section 36-2806.A states: “A registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary need not be recognized as tax-exempt by the internal revenue service”
- The IRS will not grant an organization an exemption from federal income taxes if the activities of the organization involve the violation of federal criminal law.
The third big problem arises from the language in the second paragraph quoted above. The language is used in the Articles of Incorporation of nonprofit corporations that want to become tax-exempt organizations because it is required by the IRS. Tax-exempt organizations are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from paying excess benefits to insiders such as officers, directors and members. Violations of the excess benefit rules are taxed at the rate of 100% of the excess amount for every year the excess is not repaid to the organization.
If the insiders of an Arizona nonprofit corporation that intends to own an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary want to be able to be paid more than reasonable compensation and most do, then the corporation’s basic governing document, its Articles of Incorporation, should not limit the insiders compensation to reasonable amounts. Consider the insider who provides no services, but receives $5,000 a month from the corporation. The payment is a violation of the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation and makes the directors and officers who are responsible for the payment liable to the corporation for exceeding their authority.
Bottom line: Neither Proposition 203 nor the Arizona Department of Health Services rules require dispensaries to be nonprofit corporations. The rules say that the entity must be operated on a not-for-profit basis, but do not require any specific type of entity. Dispensaries may be a for profit corporation (I don’t recommend this type of entity), a nonprofit corporation (ditto), a general partnership (the worst type of entity to form), a limited partnership (ok, but now obsolete in Arizona), a sole proprietorship (bad choice) or a limited liability company (yes – this is the one!). See “Must an Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary be a Nonprofit Corporation?” If you formed any type of entity other than an Arizona limited liability company to own an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary, you need to dump it and switch to an Arizona limited liability company.
Is It a Mistake to Form an Arizona Nonprofit Corporation to Operate an Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary?
Question: My attorney formed an Arizona nonprofit corporation for me to own and operate an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary. Was that a mistake?
Answer: Yes because Arizona nonprofit corporations do not have owners/shareholders. Why would you invest a lot of money in an entity that you cannot own and cannot leave to your heirs if you were to die? For the reasons mentioned below, you should ask your attorney to refund the money if he or she formed your nonprofit corporation after December 17, 2010. See “Must an Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary be a Nonprofit Corporation?”
For profit Arizona corporations are owned by their shareholders. Arizona limited liability companies are owned by their members. Arizona partnerships are owned by their partners. Arizona nonprofit corporations do not have shareholders. If authorized in the Articles of Incorporation, an Arizona nonprofit corporation can have members and the criteria and characteristics of members can be set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or in the corporation’s bylaws. However, members are not shareholders/owners and are not treated as such by Arizona’s nonprofit corporate statutes.
Admission: Before the Arizona Department of Health Services issued its first draft of the rules on December 17, 2010, it was my opinion that Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries had to be Arizona nonprofit corporations. I formed a number of Arizona nonprofit corporations for my clients before DHS issued the first draft of the rules because the only type of nonprofit entity recognized by Arizona statutes is the nonprofit corporation.
Proposition 203 stated that a dispensary had to be a nonprofit “organization,” which I thought was a strange choice of words. Last December I asked the lawyer for the Marijuana Policy who is in charge of the model medical marijuana code on which Proposition 203 was based why Proposition 203 used the word organization instead of corporation, limited liability company and/or partnership. She said she did not know. I could tell she did not understand the significance of the fact Arizona nonprofit corporations do not have shareholders/owners.
Before December 17, 2010, I recommended to clients that they form an Arizona nonprofit corporation to own the dispensary because Proposition 203 was uncertain and because the nonprofit corporation is the only type of nonprofit entity authorized under Arizona law. I told my clients in writing of this issue.
When the first draft of the rules was issued on December 17, 2010, it clarified that a dispensary could be owned by any type of entity recognized by Arizona law. Since that date, I recommend to everybody that they form an Arizona limited liability company to own a dispensary and that the LLC be operated on a not-for-profit basis.
If you formed a nonprofit corporation to own your dispensary, it is not too late to replace it with an Arizona LLC. If your nonprofit corporation has already entered into one or more leases, get approval from your landlord to allow the tenant’s rights to be assigned by the corporation to the new LLC.
P.S. If you find a lawyer today who advises you to form a nonprofit corporation to operate your dispensary, run away as fast as you can.
Is DHS’ Lottery for a Medical Marijuana Dispensary License Gambling in Violation of Arizona Law?
Under the second draft of Arizona’s medical marijuana rules issued by Arizona Department of Health Services on January 31, 2011, DHS proposes to select dispensary registration certificates (aka dispensary licenses) by a lottery. The rules divides Arizona into 126 zones called Community Health Analysis Areas (CHAAs). DHS will allow one dispensary in each CHAA. Currently there will be 125 possible dispensaries so one CHAA may not have a dispensary.
DHS will begin accepting applications for dispensary registration certificates for thirty days on May 1, 2011. On June 30, 2011, DHS will award dispensary registration certificates as follows:
- If a CHAA has only one qualified application for a dispensary registration certificate, that applicant will be awarded the certificate.
- If a CHAA has more than one qualified application for a dispensary registration certificate, DHS will conduct a lottery and the winner will be awarded the certificate.
DHS has created a new Arizona lottery. Here is how the new lottery works. Pay $5,000 and take a chance your chit will be pulled out of a hat. If your number is picked, you will win a really big valuable prize, i.e., a state authorized monopoly to make money.
How can DHS unilaterally create a new Arizona lottery. I thought legalized gambling in Arizona had to be authorized by a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Apparently I am wrong.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-3301.1 states:
“Gambling” or “gamble” means one act of risking or giving something of value [$5,000] for the opportunity to obtain a benefit [a dispensary registration certificate] from a game or contest of chance [the lottery conducted by DHS for a dispensary registration certificate] or skill or a future contingent event but does not include bona fide business transactions which are valid under the law of contracts including contracts for the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guarantee and life, health or accident insurance.”
I submit that DHS process does not involve a contract. There will not be any contract between the applicants and DHS so the contract exception will not apply.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-3303 states:
A. Except for amusement, regulated or social gambling, a person commits promotion of gambling if he knowingly does either of the following for a benefit [a dispensary registration certificate] . . . Conducts, organizes, manages, directs, supervises or finances gambling.
B. Promotion of gambling is a class 5 felony.
Is the DHS lottery exempt from Section 13-3303 and therefore not illegal under Arizona law because it is amusement, regulated or social gambling as defined in Section 13-3301? It is clear to me that the DHS lottery is not amusement or social gambling. DHS would probably claim its lottery is regulated gambling, which is defined in Section 13-3301 as:
“Regulated gambling” means either:(a) Gambling conducted in accordance with a tribal-state gaming compact or otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the Indian gaming regulatory act of 1988 (P.L. 100-497; 102 Stat. 2467; 25 United States Code sections 2701 through 2721 and 18 United States Code sections 1166 through 1168); or
(b) Gambling to which all of the following apply:
(i) It is operated and controlled in accordance with a statute, rule or order of this state or of the United States.
(ii) All federal, state or local taxes, fees and charges in lieu of taxes have been paid by the authorized person or entity on any activity arising out of or in connection with the gambling.
(iii) If conducted by an organization which is exempt from taxation of income under section 43-1201, the organization’s records are open to public inspection.
(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age.
Conclusion: The DHS rules that create a lottery to select dispensary registration certificates is legalized gambling because it appears to be regulated gambling, which is exempt from the criminal prohibition on gambling set forth in Section 13-3303. Given the public interest in the lottery and the high value of the prizes to be awarded to the sweepstakes winners, DHS should make public the lottery procedures and televise every drawing to avoid the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety.
CHAA on This!
I am part of a group that plans to apply for one of the medical marijuana dispensary licenses to be awarded by the Arizona Department of Health Services. I believe the method the AZDHS has chosen to distribute the licenses throughout the State is flawed. Here are some of the reasons.
Prop. 203, as it was passed by the voters, expressly based the number of dispensary licenses to be awarded on the number of retail pharmacies in the State. Recently, the total for the State was 1,249, which, if rounded up would result in 125 dispensaries.
Prop. 203 does not expressly state how the dispensaries are to be distributed throughout the State of Arizona. There are two obvious methods that could be used. One would be to distribute them among Arizona’s 15 Counties according to the number of pharmacies in each county. After all, Prop. 203 based the total for the state on the number of pharmacies statewide. The other method would be to distribute the dispensaries throughout the 15 counties according to the per-capita population of each county compared to the total for the state.
Using either the pharmacy method or the population per county method would have similar results. Although urban areas have more pharmacies per capita than rural areas, the differences are not so great as to make the distribution result significantly different based on the method chosen.
In general, using numbers of pharmacies per county slightly increases the number of dispensaries in large urban areas and using population per county slightly decreases the share of the large urban areas and transfers a few of the dispensaries to smaller population counties.
In the 2d set of Agency rules distributed by AZDHS on January 31, 2011, they have come up with a different method of distributing the dispensaries. They have used AZDHS’s Community Health Analysis Areas (CHAA) and have decided to locate one dispensary in each one of them. There are 126 of these CHAA zones. 19 of them are located throughout the State on Indian Reservations Although I have not seen it in print, I have heard that possibly all of the 19 tribes may allow the State to refrain from locating a dispensary in their lands. I believe that AZDHS is counting on this. The reason I believe this is that in his January 28 posting to his blog, Director Humble stated that individual CHAA districts in Arizona include as few as 5,000 residents and as many as 190,000 residents. If you take into account Indian Reservation CHAA districts, there are 6 districts with fewer than 1,000 residents and 11 with fewer than 5,000 residents. On this basis, I am assuming that AZDHS does not plan to distribute dispensaries to the 19 Indian Reservation CHAA districts. AZDHS has not said whether it intends to distribute 19 additional dispensaries among the non-Indian Reservation CHAA zones in order to bring the total back up to 126. They will likely be required to do something to make up the difference between 107 and at least 125, since Prop 203. specifies that at least 1 dispensary license will be distributed for each 10 pharmacies. Since there are 1,249 pharmacies, AZDHS should be required to distribute at least 125 licenses.
To view the CHAAs go to the Medical Marijuana Dispensary CHAA Map. You can zoom in and out or enter an address to determine the CHAA in which the address is located. If you click on a CHAA, the map will display the name of the CHAA, its ID number, 2000 population and 2010 population.
Using the CHAA districts as the basis for distribution of the dispensaries throughout the State will result in a radical redistribution of dispensaries from urban areas to rural areas. I have learned, from the AZDHS website, the 2010 population totals for each of the 107 non Indian Reservation CHAA zones. The smallest is Ajo, in far West Pima County which had 4,290 residents. The largest is Maryvale in Phoenix which had 224,678 residents.
I divided the CHAAs into two groups. The first is the 54 CHAAs with the smallest 2010 population totals. The second group is the 53 CHAAs with the largest 2010 population totals. Here is some information comparing those two groups.
- The 54 smallest CHAAs have a total of 1,165,676 residents. They average 21,587 residents per CHAA. Their total population represents 18% of Arizona’s total non-Indian Reservation population of 6,535,445.
- The 53 largest CHAAs have a total of 5,335,808 residents. They average 100,808 residents per CHAA. Their total population represents 82% of Arizona’s total non-Indian Reservation population.
- Under the AZDHS proposal group 1, representing 18% of Arizona’s population will receive 54 dispensaries. Group 2, representing 82% of Arizona’s population will receive 53 dispensaries.
I have also looked at how dispensaries would be distributed among Arizona’s 15 counties based on number of pharmacies per county, per capita population per county and distribution by CHAA. As mentioned above, by pharmacy total Maricopa County would receive 80 dispensaries. By per capita population it would receive 75. Since there are 41 CHAAs in Maricopa County, per the AZDHS proposal, Maricopa County would receive 41 dispensaries. Although Maricopa County has 64 % of the State’s pharmacies and 60 percent of the population, it would only receive 38% of the 107 non-Indian Reservation dispensaries.
Pima County receives a similar percentage of the number of dispensaries whether they are distributed by number of pharmacies, per capita population or by CHAA.
The difference between the 80 dispensaries out of 125 that Maricopa County would receive by pharmacy total and the 41 of 107 it would receive according to CHAAs would be distributed to the smaller and more rural Counties. Here are some facts concerning the population totals that would be served by Maricopa County’s 41 dispensaries and those of smaller rural Counties.
- Maricopa County’s 41 dispensaries would each serve, on average, 98,130 residents.
- La Paz County is the 2d smallest population County in Arizona. Its population is 21,616. It was one of the Counties that, per Prop… 203 was guaranteed at least one dispensary even though it would not receive one if it were determined by number of pharmacies or by population. Since La Paz County has 2 CHAAs, it would now receive 2 dispensaries which would each serve 10,808 residents.
- Cochise County has a population of 140,623. If dispensaries were distributed by number of pharmacies (23), it would receive 2. If they were distributed by population, they would receive 3. Cochise County has 6 CHAAs and will receive 6 dispensaries per the AZDHS proposal. These dispensaries, would, on the average, serve 23,377 residents, compared to the Maricopa County average of 98,130 residents.
- By virtue of distribution by CHAA, Santa Cruz County, Gila County, Navajo County and Coconino Counties would each gain dispensaries compared to the distribution by number of pharmacies or population. In each of these Counties, less than 30,000 residents, on average, would be served by the dispensaries the County would receive according to CHAAs.
AZDHS could make up the difference between the 107 non-Indian Reservation CHAAs and the 125 dispensaries required by Prop. 203 by distributing 18 or so additional dispensary licenses. The most logical way to do this would be to assign an additional license to each of the 18 highest population CHAAs, so that each of the 18 largest CHAAs would have 2 dispensaries instead of 1. 16 of these additional dispensaries would go to Maricopa County and 2 would go to Pima County. This would reduce to some extent the radical disparity between the treatment of urban and rural areas. The disparity would still be large. If Maricopa County received 57 dispensaries out of 125 as opposed to 41 out of 107, its share of dispensaries would increase to 46% from 38%. This compares to Maricopa County’s 60% share of Arizona’s population.
This would not alleviate the problems AZDHS will be creating by insisting that every tiny population CHAA receive a dispensary license. These problems are discussed in detail below.
According to AZDHS figures, Arizona has 6,535,445 non-Indian Reservation residents. Dividing this total by the 125 dispensaries mandated by Prop. 203 would result in an average of approximately 52,000 residents per dispensary. Close to this average would result whether the dispensaries were distributed by numbers of pharmacies or by per-capita population per County. Distributing the dispensaries by the AZDHS CHAA proposal radically revises the distribution so that dispensaries in rural areas will serve far fewer residents than those in urban areas.
In my opinion the AZDHS proposal is a clear and blatant violation of the Arizona Voter Protection Act and the provisions of Prop… 203. The fact that Prop. 203 provided that the total dispensaries in the State would be determined by a 1 to 10 ratio clearly implies that distribution of dispensaries throughout the State should be done by the same method. As mentioned above, distribution by per-capita population would yield similar results, with just a few dispensaries being transferred from Maricopa and Pima Counties to several smaller rural Counties.
Prop. 203 implied that distribution should be based on number of pharmacies. Moreover, it dealt specifically with the situation where a small population County might not be entitled to a dispensary because it has few pharmacies. It provided that each County, no matter how small, would be entitled to no less than one dispensary if there were a qualified applicant. Prop.. 203 provided that the State total of dispensaries could be increased above the number specified in the law, if necessary to provide at least one to each County. Distributing dispensaries by CHAA flies in the face of the clear language of Prop… 203. If litigation were filed, the CHAA distribution would probably be struck down by a Court, since it flies in the face of the language of Prop… 203 and its effects are so clearly unjust.
It is obvious that the reason AZDHS decided to distribute dispensaries per CHAA is that it will spread the dispensaries out throughout the entire State and increase the percentage of Arizona’s land that will be covered by “grow your own exclusion zones” of 25 mile radius which will exist around each dispensary. I can understand how many could consider this to be a worthy goal. Even if the goal is worthy, it does not justify such a radical perversion of the intent of Prop. 203.
I can see several specific negative consequences of distribution of dispensaries by CHAA.
- Since the urban areas will have dispensaries serving very large populations, those dispensaries will become very large operations. This could be difficult in light of the fact that many if not most Cities and Counties are putting square footage limitations on dispensaries.
- Of the 20 smallest CHAAs, 13 have 2010 populations of less than 10,000. All of the smallest 20 CHAAs have 2010 populations less than 15,000. Some have only the smallest of towns or settlements and may not have commercial suitable space available for a dispensary. Many of these CHAAs are very large geographically with their population densities being extremely low.
- In many cases, because of the very small populations and very low population densities, these low population CHAAs may not be able to support the operation of a dispensary. Many of these dispensaries could fail and go out of business. As they were in the process of going out of business, numerous problems involving patient services, defaulting on financial obligations and others could arise. Having dispensaries go out of business would decrease the stability of the industry and create additional problems for AZDHS to have to deal with.
- Presumably if a small population CHAA went out of business, the “grow your own exclusion zone” would go away and the original motive of those proposing distribution by CHAA would be frustrated.
The CHAA proposal is not necessary. There are better ways to distribute dispensaries in a way that would not create such radical distortions. Gila County is a good example. It would receive only one dispensary whether they are distributed by number of pharmacies or by population. Gila County’s population is divided, more or less evenly, between Payson in the North and Globe in the South. The road between the 2 towns is over 80 miles. They have a legitimate desire to have a “grow your own exclusion zone” surrounding both towns.
Here is a way to solve the problem without creating all of the problems involved with the CHAA rule. AZDHS could write a rule that would allow a County, such as Gila County, to request, based on its particular circumstances, that it have its one dispensary operate out of 2 locations, one in Payson and the other in Globe. It could qualify as one dispensary rather than 2 by operating out of the 2 locations on alternate days and never being both open at the same time. AZDHS would impose a “25 mile radius grow your own exclusion zone” around each location of the one dispensary.
Although the dispensary would have increased costs maintaining 2 operating locations, it would be able to share other costs like wages between the 2 locations. A single dispensary operating out of 2 separate limited hours locations would be more likely to survive financially than 2 separately owned dispensaries with larger operating costs.
Other rural Counties with large distances separating their population centers could benefit by such a rule. This would satisfy the goal of reducing the area where self cultivation is allowed while avoiding the instability involved with trying to force people to operate dispensaries in locations that are not viable. There will inevitably remain some locations that will not have dispensary locations even with the suggested rule. Even the CHAA rule does not completely eliminate areas where card holders could grow their own. These areas have very low population density and the number of card holders living in them would likely be quite small. It seems unlikely that many cardholders would move to one of these unprotected locations just so they could grow their own medical marijuana.
People who are interested in Prop. 203 should take the opportunity to submit their concerns and suggestions to AZDHS in the next several weeks. They should also consider attending the public meetings where they can voice their concerns and suggestions.
___________________________
Arizona Department of Health Services asks people to submit comments to the second draft of the rules not later than the end of the day on February 18, 2011.
Arizona’s Medical-Marijuana Pioneers Don’t Know the Final Rules of the Game Yet — But They Are Certain of the Prize
Ray Stern’s article in the Phoenix New Times is a must read for everybody who is interested in Arizona’s budding medical marijuana industry:
“What’s obvious to outsiders is that competition in the potential billion-dollar-industry already has become ember-hot. With only 124 dispensaries possible, the game has turned into something like Monopoly. In this variation, players must go around the board once, spending money yet buying nothing, before the final rules are known.”
“Dispensaries must be nonprofit. But pot shops in California are nonprofit, too, and this hasn’t stopped people from making small fortunes selling legal weed. Could the nonprofit business owners and their employees simply be paying themselves high salaries? ‘Bingo,’ says Jamie Reyes, manager of the Inglewood Wellness Center in California.”
“Ramona Sanchez, spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Phoenix, refuses to say whether the DEA plans to bust people who buy, sell, or trade seeds that could be used to kick off Arizona’s medical pot program. No part of the marijuana law, or any of the rules proposed so far, give direct guidance to entrepreneurs on how to create an initial product to sell to patients.”
Marijuana Dispensary Plan Defies Business Logic; Politics Replaces Economics 101
Ray Stern of the Phoenix New Times wrote a blog post on February 2, 2011, that discusses the folly of Arizona Department of Health Services’ new plan to disperse medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Arizona without any regard to reality. Ray says:
“this plan is — we’ve gotta say it — half-baked. To keep Arizonans who qualify for medical marijuana from growing their own pot, the DHS plan makes a mockery of normal business sense.”
See “CHAA on This!“
Marijuana Decriminalization Bill Introduced by GOP State Rep John Fillmore
Phoenix New Times: “The voter-approved medical marijuana system doesn’t go far enough for one Republican lawmaker. Under a bill introduced by Representative John Fillmore of Apache Junction, possession of two ounces or less of marijuana — by anyone — would become a petty offense and carry a fine of only $100.”
New Rules Released on Medical Marijuana
Kingman Daily Miner: “The latest draft of the proposed state rules governing the use and sale of medical marijuana was released Monday. . . . The biggest change in the draft rules is the idea that the Arizona Department of Health Services will section the state off into 126 different dispensary districts based on population. Each district would have at least one dispensary”
Arizona State Health Director Lowers Standard to Acquire Medical Marijuana
Verde Independent: “Patients who want marijuana won’t have to have visited their doctor four times during the past year to get the necessary recommendation. State Health Director Will Humble said Monday he scrapped that requirement from the rules he first proposed in December for Arizona’s medical marijuana laws approved by voters.”
Marijuana-dispensary Rules Listed
Arizona Republic: “The state health department on Monday released its second draft of medical-marijuana rules, which propose a process for selecting and distributing dispensaries and reduce up-front costs for dispensary applicants. . . . Changes to medical-marijuana rules would:”
Doctors Recommending Medical Marijuana to be Scrutinized by State and Medical Boards
Phoenix New Times: “Docs who write high numbers of recommendations [for medical marijuana] will be singled out for review, and if any of the recommendations “look at all suspicious, those (doctors) can count on getting a friendly call from me or someone else at the agency,” said Dr. Laura Nelson, DHS chief medical officer. . . . If officials determine that a physician is over-writing recommendations, they’ll complain to the appropriate governing board.”
610 Visitors 1/31/11 & 10,432 Visitors January 2011, Our First Month
Thanks for your support. Yesterday this site had a new record number of visitors – 610. For the month of January 2011, we had 10,432 visitors to this brand new website.
Medical Marijuana Rules Altered: Lake Havasu City Officials Hope for Further Changes
MedCare Cooperative Association: “Preliminary rules on medical marijuana released Monday indicate that Lake Havasu City should get at least one dispensary.”
DHS Divides Arizona into 126 Community Health Analysis Areas (CHAAs) for Dispensary Locations
The second draft of the Arizona Department of Health Services medical marijuana rules apparently divided Arizona into 126 areas where dispensaries can be located. These areas are called “Community Health Analysis Areas (CHAAs).” See the map of the CHAAs. Read DHS Director Will Humble’s January 28, 2011, explaination of CHAAs in which he states:
“Several years ago, our public health statistics team divided the State into 126 Community Health Analysis Areas to help us analyze data for various disease monitoring programs. The initial trigger to develop the CHAAs was a 1988 law that directed the ADHS to use the data in the cancer registry to identify areas and populations that need investigation.”
Proposal Suggests 126 Areas for Arizona Pot Dispensaries
Arizona Republic: “The new proposal suggests distributing one dispensary to each Community Health Analysis Area, which divides the state based on geography and population. There are 126 of these areas in the state, close to the number of dispensaries allowed.”
Arizona Department of Health Services Issues 1/31/11 Draft of Its Medical Marijuana Rules
Today, January 31, 2011, Arizona Department of Health Services posted its second draft of its proposed Arizona medical marijuana rules. Check back. I will review the second draft of the rule as soon as possible and put up a new article. Here are my first impressions of changes made to the first draft of the rules:
- New: “CHAA” means a Community Health Analysis Area, a geographic area based on population, established by the Department for use by public health programs.
- New: The walls of the cultivation site must prevent anybody from seeing the plants from outside the walls of the facility.
- New: There is a two stage process. Stage 1: Dispensary applies for and received a dispensary registration certificate. Stage 2: apply for a approval to operate a dispensary. A dispensary that has a DRC may apply for a The Department shall accept dispensary registration certificate applications for 30 calendar days beginning May 1, 2011.
- Change: The two year residency requirement went from two years to three years.
- Change: A business plan demonstrating the on-going viability of the dispensary as on a non-profit organization not-for-profit basis. Very interesting!
- Change: The dispensary is not required to grow any of its marijuana.
- Change: Medical directors can serve an unlimited number of dispensaries rather than just three.
- Change: Eliminated the requirement for dispensary agents with respect to surety bonds and failure to file a tax return.
- New: Revoke a dispensary registration certificate if it operates before obtaining approval to operate a dispensary from the Department.
DHS asks the public to submit comments to the proposed rules.
Related story “CHAA on This!”
Update on Arizona Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct and Medical Marijuana
Question: Will the Arizona State Bar allow Arizona lawyers to represent businesses in the Arizona medical marijuana industry or will it push the industry toward LegalZoom?
Answer: The Arizona State Bar says to Arizona lawyers, “we’ll get back to you on that.” Today, January 31, 2011, I received the following email message from John F. Phelps, CEO/Executive Director of the Arizona State Bar:
The State Bar’s Committee on Rules of Professional Conduct has undertaken a review of Arizona’s new medical marijuana law and its impact on our ethical rules. The committee is composed of members of the State Bar from a wide variety of practice areas, all with significant experience and interest in lawyer ethics. The State Bar plans to provide guidance on this matter in advance of the law’s implementation, currently scheduled for late March of this year. In the interim, the State Bar will not take regulatory action against attorneys for counseling or assisting clients in the implementation of the medical marijuana law during this period.
Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble Discusses Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law
KSAZ Fox 10 TV interviews Arizona Department of Health Services Will Humble on Arizona’s new medical marijuana law.
Health Director Committed to Preventing Pot Misuse: MyFoxPHOENIX.com
Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals Threatens to Sue Phoenix Over Its Pre-registration Zoning Procedure
Alan Sobol and the Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals are claiming that the City of Phoenix zoning department has been up to no good. Here is the text of a January 31, 2011, email message I received from Alan Sobol and the Consiglieri Group:
We have uncovered a scheme to defraud Dispensary Applicants in the City of Phoenix. Phoenix recently implemented a Pre-registration scheme fraught with Cronyism, Nepotism, Favoritism and Abuse of Authority. To read the complaint click here: (seed2success.com/phxcomplaint.html). We have exposed the truth, now we need to wait and see what the mayor will do. If you were planning to file for zoning approval in the City of Phoenix I urge you to contact the city and let them know what you think about this. [email protected] If you have any questions or comments please contact me at [email protected]
Thanks,
Al Sobol
Read the Press Release found at the above link. AZADP alleges that Phoenix instituted its medical marijuana zoning pre-registration without legal authority because pre-registration is not provided for in the zoning ordinance G-5573 adopted by the Phoenix CIty Council. Quotes from the Press Release:
Notice of Intent to Commence Legal Action: City of Phoenix Initiates Illegal Pre-registration of Potential Marijuana Sites: Allegations of Fraud, Cronyism, Nepotism, Favoritism and Abuse of Authority
It appears from the evidence that the City’s “pre-registration” program was solely intended to provide certain influential entities preferential treatment with respect to the selection of their medical Marijuana Business locations.
Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals Files Bar Complaint Against Rose Law Group
Apparently the Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals filed a complaint with the Arizona State Bar that contains allegations about the Rose Law Group and its involvement in the medical marijuana industry.
Don’t Copy Original Content Found on This Site Without Prior Written Consent
Warning: Do Not Steal Our Content
I spend a considerable amount of time writing original content for this website and other websites I own. None of my original content may be copied or republished without my express prior written consent.
In the last week, I learned that two different websites each copied my original content more than once. I am not a happy camper when that happens. The U.S. copyright law provides that nobody can copy or republish a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder. Last week I asked one of the sites to take down my articles and that site complied immediately. Today I learned of the second site on which I found three articles that were copied entirely. I asked that site to take down those articles. Neither site had the courtesy to link to this site.
I am the copyright holder for all original content on this site, except for articles that are written by other people whose names appear at the beginning of the article. I do register the copyrights for all the original content on this site with the U.S. Copyright office. As the warning says on the right column – do not steal content from a copyright lawyer, which I am. If you steal my content, you risk having me file a lawsuit for copyright infringement in federal court and asking the court to impose statutory damages of $150,000 for each infringement. Take my advice, you don’t want to be a defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit when the plaintiff holds a registered copyright.
Warning to Infringers: If you think I will not discover that you stole my content, you would be making a mistake that could cost you a lot of money. There are websites that find and monitor copyright infringement on the internet. See for example Copyscape. Infringers should know that KEYTLaw attorney Richard Keyt is a copyright lawyer and his brother, Norman Keyt is the copyright infringement litigation attorney who will represent me in the federal court lawsuit. I could be wrong, but my copyright lawyer will probably cost me a lot less than yours plus your lawyer won’t be getting paid to represent you on a contingency fee basis.
If you want to learn more about U.S. copyright law and the large financial liability incurred by somebody that copies a work that was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, read the following articles on this topic that I wrote in while wearing my copyright lawyer hat:
- Internet Copyright Law: A Rat Pilfered My Web Site Cheese – What Do I Do? Remedies for Web Site Copyright Infringement
- Top 10 Urban Copyright Myths
- Benefits of Web Site Copyright Registration
Arizona Main Stream Media Silent on HB 2557 & the Proposed 300% Tax on Medical Marijuana
HB 2557 (aka the Grow Your Own Pot All Over Arizona Act or the Small Group of Elites Overrules the Majority of the Arizona Voters Act)
On January 26, 2011, a group of legislators who want to overturn the will of the majority of the Arizona people who voted for Arizona Proposition 203 (legalization of medical marijuana) and who know what is best for the masses introduced a proposed law that would kill Arizona’s medical marijuana industry before it begins and allow all 160,000 future medical marijuana patients to grow their own marijuana. House Bill 2557 will, if enacted unchanged, impose a sales tax of 300% on all medical marijuana. That means a $10 THC laden candy bar would cost the patient $40 and an ounce of marijuana that retails for $250 would cost the patient $1,000.
I googled “HB 2557” and marijuana today and found only one story in the first 5 pages of Google results in Arizona’s main stream media about HB 2557. The Tucson Citizen published a story on January 26, 2011, entitled “Drug Cartel Empowerment Act: Arizona Legislature proposes 300% sales tax on medical marijuana,” which stated:
“All I can say is WTF are you thinking?“
On January 27, 2011, the Arizona Daily Star published “Medical marijuana sales taxable, Horne says” in which HB 2557 is discussed. Apparently the paper interviewed one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson (phone (602) 926-3022; email address: [email protected]), about HB 2557. Farley said the tax could bring in as much as $1.8 billion a year and solve Arizona’s deficit problem. He also claimed that patients would not have a problem paying a total of $160 to buy an ounce of medical marijuana for $40. This guy appears to be out of touch with reality. Taxing anything 300% does not generate more sales tax revenue it generates ZERO sales tax revenue. Is there any item in the U.S. that must be purchased for 4 times its actual value?
My clients who operate dispensaries in Colorado tell me that an ounce of medical marijuana in Colorado sells between $250 – $400 depending on the strain and quality. For the benefit of the we know what is best for the people of Arizona legislators who think a 300% sales tax will generate revenue, I will do the math and show my work.
Example: Patient goes to local dispensary to purchase 1 ounce of medical marijuana and decides to buy the cheapest ounce for $250. Clerk rings up the sale and says “that will be $1,000 please.” Let’s analyze this sale from the perspective of the Arizona legislators who live in a different world and the perspective of the average guy on the street who may not be as smart as our legislators.
How the legislators think: 160,000 patients will happily fork over $1,000 to buy one $250 ounce of medical marijuana as just a small part of the patient’s grand plan to purchase 5 ounces per month and 60 ounces a year. Total cost to patient to purchase 60 ounces a year = (60 ounces x $250) $15,000 plus 300% tax of $45,000 = $60,000. Total sales tax revenue collected annually on medical marijuana purchases by 160,000 patients = 160,000 x $45,000 = $7,200,000,000. Budget deficit solved with the additional bonus that Arizona will have so much new revenue it can cancel all other types of sales taxes.
How the patients and citizens think: Are you kidding? Nobody is going to pay $40 for a $10 candy bar or $1,000 for a $250 ounce of medical marijuana. All 160,000 patients will grow their own marijuana. Total sales tax revenue collected by Arizona = 160,000 patients x $0 plus $0 sales tax = $0. There will not be medical marijuana dispensaries in Arizona.
Some years ago the brains in Congress who also are unaware of the laws of economics passed a luxury tax on yachts. The idiots actually thought that the rich would be happy to pay the tax and the federal government would collect more revenue. What actually happened was the rich (who are not stupid) stopped buying luxury yachts, the luxury yacht manufacturing industry died and the federal government collected less money from yacht sales.
Main Stream Media Not Reporting for Duty
Why isn’t the main stream media reporting this story? Does the main stream media oppose Proposition 203 and want to suppress news of HB 2557 to minimize public opposition to the bill? Early on the morning of January 27, 2011, I called and emailed an Arizona Republic reporter who has written a lot of stories about Prop 203 and medical marijuana in Arizona. The reporter responded that he/she would check out my January 27, 2011, article called “Arizona Legislators Introduce HB 2557 to Overturn Voters Approval of Proposition 203.” No Republic story on the 27th, 28th or 29th, but it did have two “who cares” stories on the front page of the Saturday, January 29, 2011, online version of the paper called “Valley cities fight unwanted garage-sale signs” and “Economy has 3 Valley chefs down, not out.”
What gives? Why aren’t the big Arizona papers and TV channels covering this story?
Phoenix Medical Marijuana Zoning a Confusing Nightmare
People are asking me questions about Phoenix zoning that I cannot answer such as:
- What is pre-registration, what does it mean and how does it work?
- If I pre-register how does pre-registration relate to actual registration?
- The application requires the applicant to list the location of all existing and/or pending medical marijuana dispensaries, cultivation and infusion facilities within 5,280 feet (1 mile) of the applicant’s site. Are you kidding? How in the world would an applicant know the location of other sites that have not yet been approved by Phoenix zoning and that do not yet have DHS licenses?
- The application requires the applicant to submit its operations procedures. Excuse me! What are operations procedures? Arizona Department of Health Services doesn’t require operations procedures so why would Phoenix other than to create a pain in the nonprofit entity’s butt.
- The application requires the applicant to submit a plot plan or survey showing compliance with the separation requirements. Does this mean the applicant must hire a licensed surveyor to prepare a survey that shows the location is not too close to any thing? Probably. You will need a legal description of the site, which a surveyor can provide if it’s not easily obtainable. Without a survey how are you going to determine if your location is more than:
1. 5,280 feet from existing and/or pending medical marijuana dispensaries, cultivation and infusion facilities
2. 1,320 feet from all preschool, kindergarten, elementary, secondary or high school, public park or public community center
3. 500 feet from all places of worship
4. 250 feet from any residence (for a dispensary)
5. 1,000 feet from any residence (for cultivation and infusion sites). I thought the 1,000 foot setback was a typo because according to my calculations (which could be wrong because I’m a lawyer not a mathematician) the site would have to be at least 92 acres in size. A 1,000 foot setback requires a square parcel to have four sides each 2,000 feet long, which is 4,000,000 square feet. Are there any locations in Phoenix that have the necessary zoning and meet this setback requirement?
The application contains this confusing statement:
“Registrations that have expired are NON-RENEWABLE. A new registration for the proposed use shall not be accepted within thirty (30) days of the expiration date of the prior registration. A maximum one-time thirty (30) day extension may be granted to the applicant by the Zoning Administrator.”
Here are links to the actual Phoenix zoning documents:
- Adopted Ordinance
- Application
- Guidelines
- Zoning Map
For additional information, questions, or comments, please send an e-mail to [email protected].
I am not the only one who has a problem with Phoenix’ zoning ordinance and procedures. See “Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals Threatens to Sue Phoenix Over Its Pre-registration Zoning Procedure.”