azfamily.com: “One of the many people keeping a close eye on what the Arizona Department of Health Services will do in developing medical marijuana’s rules is Eric Franks. Franks, 27, was diagnosed at birth with cerebral palsy and has been battling muscle spasms his whole life.”
azfamily.com: “Cannabis, weed, reefer, marijuana, however you refer to it, it is now legal medicine in Arizona. By a 5,000-vote margin, Arizona voters said yes to medical marijuana, but the battle over legalization doesn’t end there. As the state starts to write the rules, everyone seems to have an opinion. From law enforcement, to those who are ill, to the people writing the rules and those who support it, every side has a hand in how Arizona will implement the medical marijuana law.”
In the video, Will Humble says:
Arizona Republic: “Arpaio already building special unit to target those who abuse statute. The plants that will ultimately produce medical marijuana in Arizona are not legally in the ground, but police agencies are already planning how their officers will try to enforce state pot laws while respecting a sick resident’s right to possess the herb.”
See “Arpaio on lookout for abusers of Arizona medical marijuana law” and “MCSO Sheriff creates Special Enforcement Unit to combat medical marijuana fraud.”
Arizona Republic: “Pinal County supervisors are expected to vote later this month on a medical marijuana ordinance that would allow dispensaries to operate in strip malls. A draft plan discussed Wednesday by county supervisors would put medicinal pot outlets in the same zoning category as general business, amusement or recreational enterprises.”
The Arizona Department of Health Services’ January 31, 2011, second draft of the rules require that every Arizona medical marijuana dispensary have a medical director on the premises or on call. Proposition 203 contains no such requirement. Why DHS put the medical director requirement in the rules is beyond me. I do not understand the purpose of the medical director unless it is to increase the cost of the products sold by the dispensary. Most doctors are not willing to act as a medical director for a pot clinic and of those that are, not many are willing to do so for free.
I wonder if any doctor will actually take the position as medical director of an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary. The big unknown at this time is whether a doctor who is the medical director of a dispensary can purchase malpractice insurance and products liability insurance. I’m guessing that medical malpractice insurance would not cover the doctor because the doctor’s activities as a medical director do not involve the practice of medicine. The medical director does not see patients. The rules state,”A medical director shall not establish a physician-patient relationship with . . . a qualifying patient.” If the medical director cannot purchase appropriate insurance, why would any doctor be the medical director of an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary?
We all know that litigators love to sue anybody within 100 miles of an incident. Consider what might happen if a patient were to buy a THC laced brownie that caused permanent bodily harm or that killed the patient. Who do you think will be sued? I submit that the defendants in the lawsuit will be the dispensary, the medical director, the infusion company that made the brownie, the cook who actually cooked the brownie and possibly the officers and directors who failed to adopt an product inspection system that would have detected the harmful brownie. The plaintiff may sue the medical director for medical malpractice and for products liability. Can the medical director purchase malpractice insurance and products liability insurance?
I am not a litigator. I don’t sue people. Maybe I am completely off base. If I am wrong, please let me know. I’d love to publish an article from somebody in the know that can explain the potential liability of the medical director and what types of insurance the medical director will need and if it is possible for the medical director and/or the dispensary to purchase the insurance.
Suggestion to Arizona Department of Health Services: You have a medical director. If you think dispensaries should have a medical director why not require your medical director to be the medical director of all dispensaries and charge each dispensary $500 a month? Your medical director can then prepare the literature and patient brochures the medical director thinks is appropriate and DHS can sell them to the dispensaries for distribution to patients.
See Will Humble’s unconvincing and nonsensical blog post on why a medical director is necessary and my comments about his reasoning.
An Arizona Physician’s Comments to the Above Article
I was intrigued by your recent post. I am not a attorney, but as a physician with my own medical-legal consulting firm, I do not see much risk of a dispensary’s medical director being sued for medical malpractice. The primary reason for this is that there is no physician-patient relationship – not even contact – between a dispensary customer and the medical director, so by definition, there can be no medical malpractice. (more…)
Developing your business plan in anticipation of filing an application with Arizona Department of Health Services ? If so, you’re likely scrambling to find the perfect location(s) for your new Arizona medical marijuana business. Whether you’re seeking a storefront or a warehouse, there are three things about insuring building(s) for dispensaries, grows or other medical marijuana business uses you should know going in:
Let’s keep these few facts in mind as we discuss the best way to protect yourself and your future business through the uncertainties of the current pre-DHS application period.
Getting Into the Building
Many landlords require proof of property and liability insurance before giving their new tenants access to the building. This is prudent, and generally required under the terms of the building owner’s “lessor’s risk” policy.
Your future landlord needs to know that claims against that policy resulting from MEDICAL MARIJUANA business activities aren’t likely to pay out, however, as suggested in the first bullet point. While it’s their responsibility to discuss any tenant changes with their agent, I always advise my clients to bring the topic up so that everyone is on the same page, helping all parties to avoid any nasty surprises later.
Insuring Appropriately Now While Planning for Later
While waiting to find out if you’ll receive a dispensary license from DHS, you need only insure yourself against liability, any damage to your newly leased property and loss or damage to property you may have in the building. Simply put, basic coverage is sufficient for this stage.
Many carriers will write a policy for empty office or warehouse space, but offer only a one year term – and given that it will be just a few months before you receive your dispensary license (or not) this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially as they will charge you a short-rate penalty for cancelling before the end of the term.
A better approach is to obtain your basic policy now from a carrier that won’t penalize you later, when you’re ready to begin insuring your new MEDICAL MARIJUANA operation with industry-specific coverage. You can either get a basic six-month policy that can be “flipped” to another carrier (under the same parent company) to one that specifically includes coverage for MEDICAL MARIJUANA businesses, or get a pared down policy from a company specializing in MEDICAL MARIJUANA policies and simply add additional coverage as needed. Either approach will help you to avoid unnecessary penalties or fees while ensuring that your new venture is appropriately covered.
Such flexibility in coverage costs a bit more, but provides several significant benefits – no risk of denied claims due to undeclared MEDICAL MARIJUANA operations, eliminating the danger of coverage gaps or lapses, and simplying the whole insurance process – all far outweigh the small additional costs.
The majority of carriers serve the majority of the market. If your business is out of the ordinary, however, your insurance needs likely are as well. Specialty brokers meet those needs.
Doug Banfelder is a Commercial Insurance Specialist. Reach him to insure your Arizona medical marijuana dispensary at 480-315-9051 or www.PremierDispensaryInsurance.com
Funkmaster Flex: “The first and only state-approved medical marijuana institution for higher education is coming to Arizona. Gus Escamilla, CEO and founder of Greenway University, has already established a campus in Denver and plans to open a second one in Phoenix.”
Arizona Republic: “What started out as a routine traffic stop Sunday night led patrol officers to seize 332 potted marijuana plants worth up to $1 million, making it the largest marijuana grow operation bust in Chandler history“
Ray Stern, Phoenix New Times: “A plan to oversee medical marijuana cultivation centers in Oakland drew fire from the feds last week — yet the plan is similar to that being developed in Arizona. The way we read it, the February 1 letter from Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for California’s Northern District, (see below), to the city of Oakland could signal possible problems for Arizona’s medical pot program,”
Medical Marijuana Growers Association: “Director Will Humble stated that he looks to use the CHAA map as a guideline for dispensary placement, but in doing so he is limiting caregivers and patients from cultivating medical marijuana for themselves, which, in turn, will limit the amount of medication that can be donated to a dispensary.”
KSAZ Fox 10: “Now that medical marijuana is legal in the state of Arizona, cities are trying to figure out the rules about where marijuana dispensaries can be located. One city [Surprise] has plans to restrict them to industrial areas, but some say that’s unfair to the patients who need it.”
City Councilman Wants Pot Dispensaries Out of Industrial Areas: MyFoxPHOENIX.com
Listen to the audio of Steve Goldstein’s February 4, 2011, interview of Will Humble and Andrew Myers on NPR, KJZZ (91.5 FM) radio. Here is my summary of the interview. Will Humble said:
1. Disperse dispensaries so areas with fewer people will have better access to a dispensary
2. Spread dispensaries throughout the state so as to minimize the ability of people to grow because they do not live within 25 miles of a dispensary
3. Prevent the clustering of dispensaries in the urban core
Here’s my take on what Will Humble’s want-a-be-aid Andrew Myers said in the joint interview:
At this point Will Humble added that the lottery selection method is his pragmatic choice. ADHS’ budget was cut 43% over the last three years. He doesn’t want ADHS to be in a dispute resolution phase with people who think their application is better than another applicant that won a license. ADHS doesn’t have the resources to examine every application and issue licenses based on quality of the applicant.
The interviewer asked the two men he was interviewing if there is any truth to allegations that Andrew Myers and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association are in cahoots with Will Humble and ADHS. Will said he learned that if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say it. Andrew then said the allegation is ridiculous. For more on this topic see “Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals Declares War on Arizona Department of Health Services, Marijuana Policy Project & the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association.”
To learn more about the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, read “What is the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association?“
Arizona Republic: “A loophole in the state’s new medical-marijuana law could open thousands of neighborhood parks, playgrounds, greenbelts and artificial lakes to resident joint smokers, legal experts [the reporter quotes non-lawyer Alan Sobol] say. The law approved by Arizona voters in November prohibits marijuana smoking “in any public place,” but properties controlled by homeowners associations are considered private property.”
My opinion is this story is much ado about nothing written by a reporter who does not understand the difference between a “public place” and “private property.” Yes, homeowners associations’ common areas are on private property, but that does not mean that the common areas are not public places. Certainly the common areas are used by a restricted segment of the population, but nevertheless, the common areas are public places as to the members of the association and their invitees. An Arizona court could rule in the future that common areas of an HOA are not public places for the purposes of Arizona’s medical marijuana law, but I doubt a court would come to that conclusion.
See “Medical Marijuana in Community Associations – A Smoking Hot Issue.”
Rim Country Gazette: “The Arizona Department of Health Services published a new set of draft rules for the Medical Marijuana Program on its website”
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!
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 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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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!“
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”
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.”
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:”
MedCare Cooperative Association: “Preliminary rules on medical marijuana released Monday indicate that Lake Havasu City should get at least one dispensary.”
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.
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
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.
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.
People are asking me questions about Phoenix zoning that I cannot answer such as:
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:
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.”