Law Arizona

[Baron23]

the crux of Brnovich’s argument is his position that the voters who okay’d Arizona’s 2010 Medical Marijuana Act were authorizing the use of “usable marijuana,” which he defines as “the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof.” Extending this definition to include extracts is an “unreasonable” interpretation of the law, he says.​

Who care what he defines...its what the law, and any subsequent court cases, define it to be.

In 2013, Arizona’s Board of Appeals sentenced Rodney James to 2.5 years in prison for possessing of .05 ounces of hashish.

That's just a bit over a gram of hash...and he got 2 1/2 years. I can't say what I want and not run afoul the rules on the board, but this is truly a travesty and someone, somewhere, needs to call these "people" out on their actions.

Arizona Attorney General seeks to prohibit hashish for medical marijuana patients

Arizona’s attorney general want to make flower the only form of cannabis available for medical consumption. In a move that’s thrown patients and dispensary owners into confusion, Arizona’s attorney general Mark Brnovich posited in court filings that only dried marijuana should be available for medical consumption. The filings suggest that possession of hashish be deemed a crime—an idea that, if enforced, could have dire consequences for those who use oils, extracts, or any food product made with the plant.

At the crux of Brnovich’s argument is his position that the voters who okay’d Arizona’s 2010 Medical Marijuana Act were authorizing the use of “usable marijuana,” which he defines as “the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof.” Extending this definition to include extracts is an “unreasonable” interpretation of the law, he says.

Of course, not everyone is on board with this interpretation of the eight-year-old law. “It started with the marijuana flower and ended up with hashish,” Will Humble, former state health director, told Capitol Media Services.

Humble headed the team that wrote Arizona’s medical marijuana regulations and says he doesn’t share Brnovich’s vision that cannabis products should illegal for the state’s patients. Furthermore, he noted that his previous department continues to regulate the sale of edible cannabis products.

In a sworn Supreme Court affidavit, Humble stated: “I believe that it’s unreasonable to conclude that the [Arizona Medical Marijuana Act] does not provide for mixtures and preparations of marijuana such as extracts, resins and edibles made with extracts.”

The state’s controversy over hashish is not without certain precedent. In 2013, Arizona’s Board of Appeals sentenced Rodney James to 2.5 years in prison for possessing of .05 ounces of hashish. Judge Kenton Jones expressed his difference in opinion writing that “the resin extracted from the marijuana plant—cannabis—is part of the plant… just as sap is part of a tree.”

Jones is far from the only Arizona official who believes the raw plant is the only acceptable form of medical cannabis. “Such an interpretation reduces, if not eliminates, medical marijuana as a treatment option for those who cannot take it in plant form, or could receive a greater benefit from an alternative form,” wrote Katherine Cooper, a Maricopa Country Superior Court Judge, in a 2014 ruling.

In that decision, Judge Cooper ruled that restricting the forms in which medical marijuana patients could access the drug “reduces, if not eliminates, medical marijuana as a treatment option for those who cannot take it in plant form.” For its part, the state’s health department has put out a statement that it would “comply with any decision of the Arizona Supreme Court.” Arizona’s 180,000-plus medical marijuana patients will surely be eager to see the matter resolved.

 

[Baron23]

And then....somebody told somebody to shut the fuck up....and I bet it was for a reason such as this....ya thunk? sigh

Brnovich is running for reelection on Nov 6 against January Contreras, which may have something to do him stopping his (unnecessary) crusade against Arizona’s medical marijuana industry.​

Arizona AG Ends Crusade to Ban Marijuana Extracts (For Now)

On Oct 22, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich withdrew his argument asking the Arizona Supreme Court to deem hashish illegal. His reasoning, as he stated, was fear that it would have unintended consequences for children and other patients in need of the concentrated form of marijuana. He asked the justices of the Supreme Court to ignore his previous filing.

This move comes as a surprise to many as the original filing asked the court to refuse the arguments of Rodney Jones, Tucson.com reports. Jones was convicted of a felony for possession of 0.05 oz. of hashish. Brnovich may, however, be more concerned with the language used by his office when filing the argument.

Brnovich’s spokesperson, Ryan Anderson, said, “The last thing the attorney general wants is to deny medicine to legitimate patients that may be ingesting their marijuana in an extract or a tincture-type of a form.”

Many children, elderly and severely ill patients in Arizona are unable to smoke marijuana flower, so they must have access to their medicine in an alternative form, such as tinctures or edibles.

While the Attorney General’s office does have a responsibility to back up the convictions obtained by county attorneys, the office is unsure which direction it will go in moving forward on the issue. All filings through the AG’s office have the name of the AG on them, whether the AG gave instruction or approval for the filings.

Anderson noted that the law may, in fact, include extracts and other forms of medical marijuana – regardless of other court rulings.

Anderson said, “The attorney general has a responsibility to uphold the will of Arizona voters.”

It was reported by Capitol Media Services that Brnovich’s office has requested that a narrower version of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is adopted. Mixtures and preparations of marijuana are included in the 2010 voter-approved law’s language.

Yanavpai County attorney Sheila Polk argued that hashish is not part of the law and was able to get a Yavapai County judge to agree with her.

Anderson hinted that Brnovich may take a more neutral position regarding the forms of medical marijuana that dispensaries can sell and what patients can possess. It may come down to a final decision by the Arizona Supreme Court to determine what products can be made and sold to patients.

Clarification of the law could also be worked out through the Legislature.

For now, Brnovich has retracted his argument, but it remains unknown what will happen regarding the status of marijuana extracts and products falling into the hashish category.

Brnovich is running for reelection on Nov 6 against January Contreras, which may have something to do him stopping his (unnecessary) crusade against Arizona’s medical marijuana industry.

 

[Baron23]

I had two thought on reading this article...one, I hope the AZ Supreme Court shoves is up Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk ass and breaks it off. This is SUCH a ridiculous position to take...its not a synthesis, its an extract. That means that EVERY fucking molecule of the end product was present in the flower form. This is asinine.

The other thought is wow....I'd love to have that hashish in the picture.


Court to determine whether hashish legal for medical marijuana patients

The Arizona Supreme Court will decide whether the extracts of marijuana used to make edible products now sold to patients at state-licensed dispensaries are legal.

In a brief order Tuesday the justices said they want to hear arguments by attorneys for Rodney Jones about why his 2013 conviction for possession of illegal drugs and 2 1/2-year prison term is contrary to state law.

Robert Mandel, one of Jones’ lawyers, pointed out that his client is a medical marijuana patient, entitled by the 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. Jones had a jar containing 0.05 ounces of hashish, a resin made from the plant.

In a divided ruling last year, the state Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The majority said that law that legalized marijuana for medical purposes allows patients to possess only forms of the plant itself — flowers, leaves and seeds — and not the resin, or anything made from that.

But Mandel, in asking the high court to review the conviction, said this is about more than his client.

He pointed out that the state Department of Health Services has for years allowed — and even regulated — the sale of alternate forms of marijuana through state-regulated dispensaries. These range from candy and gummy bears to oils that can be administered to children who have been recommended medical marijuana by a doctor for issues like seizures.

In fact Will Humble, who was state health director when voters approved the law, even filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court saying that the rules he crafted, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, always considered that the statute allowed for alternate forms of the drug. And he dismissed the contention by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, whose office prosecuted Jones, that hashish is legally different than other marijuana extracts now used to make edibles.

In both cases, he said, it’s a preparation.

“It started with the marijuana flower and ended up with hashish,” Humble said.

The issue of the state having given its blessing to the sale of edibles prepared from extracts eventually resulted in Attorney General Mark Brnovich, whose office normally would handle the appeal to the Supreme Court, backing out of trying to get the Supreme Court to uphold Jones’ conviction. Instead he has taken the position that the justices should review the issue to provide some guidance.

That left defending the conviction to Polk who wants the justices to uphold both the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Polk did not immediately return a call to her office for comment.

But Brnovich aide Ryan Anderson said his boss is happy the justices have agreed to take up the case and decide whether her prosecution of Jones was correct.

“There’s enough uncertainty as to whether or not extracts are covered by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,” he said. “Hopefully the Supreme Court can provide some clarity, not only for patients but for law enforcement moving forward.”

No date has been set for a hearing.

Hanging in the balance is what will be allowable going forward under the 2010 law that allows those with a doctor’s recommendation to purchase marijuana from state-regulated dispensaries. At last count there were nearly 184,000 Arizonans who qualify.

In upholding the conviction, appellate Judge Jon Thompson, writing for the majority, said the law allows patients to possess “all parts” of the cannabis plant, whether growing or not, and the seeds of the plant. That verbiage, he said, also immunizes medical use of any “mixture or preparation” of marijuana.

What the law does not include, Thompson wrote, is hashish.

But Judge Kenton Jones, in his dissent, said his colleagues were drawing distinctions where he said none were intended by those who crafted the law. And he said limiting the forms of marijuana that can be used for medical purposes undermines the whole purpose of the law: to help patients.

“Different forms or delivery methods of marijuana may be more or less appropriate, depending upon the patient’s age, condition, abilities, and desired dosage,” Jones wrote. “When considered in the context of medicinal use, there is no logical reason to limit how the therapeutic compounds found in marijuana are introduced into the body.”

 

[Vitolo]

I had two thought on reading this article...one, I hope the AZ Supreme Court shoves is up Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk ass and breaks it off. This is SUCH a ridiculous position to take...its not a synthesis, its an extract. That means that EVERY fucking molecule of the end product was present in the flower form. This is asinine.

The other thought is wow....I'd love to have that hashish in the picture.


Court to determine whether hashish legal for medical marijuana patients

The Arizona Supreme Court will decide whether the extracts of marijuana used to make edible products now sold to patients at state-licensed dispensaries are legal.

In a brief order Tuesday the justices said they want to hear arguments by attorneys for Rodney Jones about why his 2013 conviction for possession of illegal drugs and 2 1/2-year prison term is contrary to state law.

Robert Mandel, one of Jones’ lawyers, pointed out that his client is a medical marijuana patient, entitled by the 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. Jones had a jar containing 0.05 ounces of hashish, a resin made from the plant.

In a divided ruling last year, the state Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The majority said that law that legalized marijuana for medical purposes allows patients to possess only forms of the plant itself — flowers, leaves and seeds — and not the resin, or anything made from that.

But Mandel, in asking the high court to review the conviction, said this is about more than his client.

He pointed out that the state Department of Health Services has for years allowed — and even regulated — the sale of alternate forms of marijuana through state-regulated dispensaries. These range from candy and gummy bears to oils that can be administered to children who have been recommended medical marijuana by a doctor for issues like seizures.

In fact Will Humble, who was state health director when voters approved the law, even filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court saying that the rules he crafted, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, always considered that the statute allowed for alternate forms of the drug. And he dismissed the contention by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, whose office prosecuted Jones, that hashish is legally different than other marijuana extracts now used to make edibles.

In both cases, he said, it’s a preparation.

“It started with the marijuana flower and ended up with hashish,” Humble said.

The issue of the state having given its blessing to the sale of edibles prepared from extracts eventually resulted in Attorney General Mark Brnovich, whose office normally would handle the appeal to the Supreme Court, backing out of trying to get the Supreme Court to uphold Jones’ conviction. Instead he has taken the position that the justices should review the issue to provide some guidance.

That left defending the conviction to Polk who wants the justices to uphold both the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Polk did not immediately return a call to her office for comment.

But Brnovich aide Ryan Anderson said his boss is happy the justices have agreed to take up the case and decide whether her prosecution of Jones was correct.

“There’s enough uncertainty as to whether or not extracts are covered by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,” he said. “Hopefully the Supreme Court can provide some clarity, not only for patients but for law enforcement moving forward.”

No date has been set for a hearing.

Hanging in the balance is what will be allowable going forward under the 2010 law that allows those with a doctor’s recommendation to purchase marijuana from state-regulated dispensaries. At last count there were nearly 184,000 Arizonans who qualify.

In upholding the conviction, appellate Judge Jon Thompson, writing for the majority, said the law allows patients to possess “all parts” of the cannabis plant, whether growing or not, and the seeds of the plant. That verbiage, he said, also immunizes medical use of any “mixture or preparation” of marijuana.

What the law does not include, Thompson wrote, is hashish.

But Judge Kenton Jones, in his dissent, said his colleagues were drawing distinctions where he said none were intended by those who crafted the law. And he said limiting the forms of marijuana that can be used for medical purposes undermines the whole purpose of the law: to help patients.

“Different forms or delivery methods of marijuana may be more or less appropriate, depending upon the patient’s age, condition, abilities, and desired dosage,” Jones wrote. “When considered in the context of medicinal use, there is no logical reason to limit how the therapeutic compounds found in marijuana are introduced into the body.”

Damn, that was well spoken!

 

[Baron23]

Arizona lawmaker wants to cut expenses for medical-marijuana cardholders

A Republican lawmaker wants to reduce the financial burden on medical- marijuana patients.
A proposal by Sen. Sonny Borrelli of Lake Havasu would extend the state’s current one-year certifications for medical-marijuana cards to two years. For patients, that would eliminate both the expense of a required second-year trip to the doctor and of paying the second-year annual fee to the state.

The first card would be for two years; renewals after that would remain annual. But Borrelli’s proposal would also cut that annual renewal fee by two-thirds, to $50.

The move comes as records show the state has nearly $55 million in an account from fees paid by cardholders and dispensary owners. The account is growing by more than $14 million a year, as the money collected can be spent only on issues related to medical marijuana.
Borelli’s Senate Bill 1138 would accomplish what some patients have been unable to do by suing the state: Reduce the fees.

He said he sees his measure as streamlining government.

Sen. Sonny Borrelli -Capitol Media Services / 2016

“It would relieve the burden on the Department of Health,” he said. “They have such a short time in getting these cards in and out. So, for processing, why not have the card go for two years?”

A two-year card means fewer trips to the doctor because each renewal application requires a physician’s recommendation that the person has a condition for which medical marijuana can legally be used. These range from glaucoma and AIDS to post-traumatic stress disorder and cancer, though the most frequent condition cited is severe and chronic pain.

His legislation leaves it to the state health department to determine the initial fee, currently $150. But it spells out that beginning with renewals in the third year the agency could charge just $50.

Several medical-marijuana users filed suit in 2016, charging that the Arizona Department of Health was acting illegally in continuing to collect far more in fees than needed to administer the 2010 voter-approved law. That law allows those with certain medical conditions to obtain a state card to purchase up to 2ƒ ounces of marijuana every two weeks.
Attorneys unsuccessfully sought an order to have the fees reduced to the cost of operating the program.
Borrelli has another bill that also could reduce the amount of money accumulating at the health department.

Senate Bill 1137 would give the state Department of Agriculture $2 million from the fees to begin testing the marijuana sold at state-licensed dispensaries. That agency would be responsible for determining that only pesticides considered to be so low risk that they are exempt from federal regulation can be used on the plants being grown for medical use.

Borrelli attempted to push through a more comprehensive testing scheme last year, including requirements for disclosure of all chemicals to buyers, but that never became law.

 

[Baron23]

As I said above....this is the height of stupidity and ignorance. The legal basis for this conviction is Byzantine at best. I'm surprised that the judge didn't wrench his back from all of the body english needed to come up with this lunacy.

I will note yet again: 'trates are not a synthesis, its an extract. That means that EVERY fucking molecule of the end product was present in the flower form which is legal....every fucking molecule of it. This is asinine.

Arizona Supreme Court to clarify where concentrates stand in medical marijuana law

The Arizona Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 19 in the case of Rodney Jones, a registered medical marijuana patient who was convicted of possession of hashish. The court in Jones’ original trial found that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), passed by voters in 2010, does not protect cannabis concentrates including hash or hash oil. Jones was convicted and sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a 2-1 decision in June of last year.

In the majority opinion, Judge Jon W. Thompson ruled that since hashish is illegal under criminal law and the AMMA does not specifically legalize cannabis extracts, Jones’ conviction should stand.

“AMMA is silent as to hashish,” Thompson wrote. “Prior understanding of the pertinent words strongly indicates that AMMA in no way immunizes the possession or use of hashish. That AMMA immunizes medical use of a mixture or preparation of the marijuana plant does not immunize hashish.”

Jones has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union in his appeal, which argues that the intent and language of AMMA allow for marijuana in multiple forms. Jared Keenan, an attorney with the ACLU, noted that cannabis concentrates are sold openly in Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries.

“When you go into a store licensed by the state, you have no notice that it’s illegal,” said Keenan. “In fact, you have every notice that it’s perfectly legal.”

Keenan also said that some medical marijuana patients do not have an alternative to cannabis concentrates, “specifically young children who suffer from awful seizure disorders who can only get relief from CBD oils and THC oils.”

Second MMJ Patient Awaiting Sentencing
Jones’ appeal is being watched closely by Adam Wanko, who is awaiting sentencing for a conviction of possession of the cannabis concentrate wax. While battling cancer in 2017, Wanko’s oncologist suggested he try cannabis to stem the serious weight loss he was experiencing. Wanko obtained a medical marijuana card and used it to legally purchase wax at a dispensary. When the wax was discovered during a traffic stop, he was arrested and ultimately convicted of possession of an illegal drug.

“If anyone could tell me how I could do things differently, from the time my oncologist told me to explore marijuana, to the time I got arrested, I’m all ears,” Wanko said.

Both Jones and Wanko were arrested in Yavapai County and prosecuted by county attorney Sheila Polk, who believes that AMMA only applies to marijuana in plant form. But no other county in the state has brought similar charges and Attorney General Mark Brnovich has refused to defend Jones’ conviction on appeal. Instead, it will be up to Polk alone to convince the Supreme Court to uphold his conviction. But a decision in the case could come after Wanko is sent to prison.

“I’m being prosecuted right now for something that I wasn’t even aware that I was breaking the law, and actually I don’t think I was breaking the law,” Wanko said. “I think it’s a misinterpreted law right now.”

A legislative solution to the question of the legality of cannabis concentrates is being sought by Republican state Rep. Tony Rivero, whose House Bill 2149 would amend the criminal code to protect registered medical marijuana patients from prosecution on charges of possession of cannabis in any form.

 

[Baron23]

"Arizona U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg said last week that Walmart was not justified in firing the worker based on the company's idea that marijuana metabolites in her urine meant she must have been impaired at work."​

This is big and the right move, IMO.



Judge Rebukes Arizona Walmart for Firing Employee With Medical-Marijuana Card
Joseph Flaherty | February 13, 2019 | 7:00am

An Arizona Walmart location terminated an employee in 2016 who held a valid medical-marijuana card after a drug test came back positive.

But now a federal judge has ruled that because Walmart could not prove the employee was impaired at work, the company violated the nondiscrimination provision in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

In a significant decision that recognized a private right of action for employment discrimination under the AMMA, Arizona U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg said last week that Walmart was not justified in firing the worker based on the company's idea that marijuana metabolites in her urine meant she must have been impaired at work.

Whitmire's attorney Joshua Carden, who runs a Scottsdale-based law firm, said Teilborg's decision is "the first of its kind in Arizona."

"No court has officially decided whether a private right-of-action exists under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, so that was a big part of the decision," Carden told Phoenix New Times on Tuesday.

Before she was fired, Carol Whitmire had worked at Walmart stores in Show Low and Taylor for about eight years.

On May 21, 2016, while working as a customer service supervisor at the Taylor Walmart, a bag of ice fell on Whitmire's wrist while she was leveling the bags, according to the lawsuit. The injury led to an urgent care visit and a drug test, pursuant to Walmart policy. Whitmire’s urine tested positive for marijuana metabolites.

A medical-marijuana cardholder for approximately the last five years, Whitmire smokes marijuana before bed to treat her shoulder pain and arthritis, and as a sleep aid, according to court records. She says she never brought marijuana to work or reported to the job impaired.

After the wrist injury, Whitmire informed the Walmart human resources department and the urgent care clinic that she holds a medical-marijuana card.

She continued working until July 4, when she was suspended as a result of the urine sample. Her manager fired Whitmire on July 22 because of the positive result of the drug test, the complaint says.

In March 2017, Whitmire filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the civil rights division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Three months later, she sued Walmart in federal court in Phoenix, alleging wrongful termination and discrimination in violation of the AMMA, the Arizona Civil Rights Act, and Arizona worker's compensation law.

In his decision last week, first reported by Law360, Teilborg granted partial summary judgment to Whitmire for her claim of discrimination under the AMMA. The judge, however, denied Whitmire’s claims alleging discrimination under the Arizona Civil Rights Act and retaliatory termination under Arizona employment protection and worker’s compensation laws.

The court will make a decision regarding damages or Whitmire's potential reinstatement in May, her attorney said.

Under the AMMA, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate in hiring or firing based on a patient's "positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment."

In court, Walmart denied wrongfully terminating or discriminating against Whitmire, and said the company's drug testing policy is lawful and protected under Arizona's Drug Testing of Employees Act (DTEA).

But Teilborg wrote that in the absence of expert testimony establishing that Whitmire's drug test shows she was impaired at work because of marijuana she smoked the night before, Walmart "is unable to prove that Plaintiff’s drug screen gave it a ‘good faith basis’ to believe Plaintiff was impaired at work."

Walmart could not meet the burden of proving that the urine sample after the accident “sufficiently establishes the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana in a scientifically sufficient concentration to cause impairment,” the judge wrote.

An amicus curie brief submitted by the AG's office did not side with either party in the case, but argued that there is no conflict between the AMMA and the DTEA.

Provisions in the AMMA and the DTEA should be read together, the AG's office wrote. An employer cannot be sued if they believe an employee was impaired while working when that belief “is based on a drug test showing that ‘metabolites or components of marijuana’ are present in scientifically sufficient concentration to cause impairment.”

Likewise, under the AMMA, an employee who is a medical-marijuana patient “shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment," the attorney general's office wrote.

If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
In a statement to New Times, Walmart said, “We work every day to create and maintain a safe environment for our associates and customers. We are pleased the Court dismissed several of the claims; and we will continue to prepare our case.”

Carden described Whitmire as "a delightful lady" in her 50s, and said she is very excited about the decision. She initially began smoking medical marijuana at night to manage her pain because she disliked the way prescribed pharmaceuticals made her feel, he said.

He characterized the judge's order as a rejection of Walmart's argument.

“The drug test is mentioned in the statute," Carden said. "You can’t fire somebody just because they test positive for metabolites.

 

[Baron23]

@Vitolo - wtf is the matter with this woman? She spend too much time out in the AZ summer sun without a hat on?

And yes, her metaphor is fatally flawed and shows a lack of logical thinking. There is NO molecules of explosives in fertilizer. If you want to make high explosives out of it... you need to add something...like fuel oil.

Contrary wise, every frakin' molecule of concentrate is present in the completely legal whole plant.

This woman is seriously deranged and, IMO, should be removed from office. How much is her tilting at imaginary MJ concentrate windmills costing her county? Fire her now, citizens of Yavapai County

Prosecutor in Arizona compares marijuana to explosives


An Arizona prosecutor has made one of the most ridiculous comparisons imaginable in a legal brief about keeping certain marijuana products illegal, writes Joseph Misulonas.

The Arizona Supreme Court is currently considering a case that will determine whether or not marijuana extracts are legal under the state's medical marijuana laws. Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk wrote a legal filing in the case arguing to keep extracts illegal. In her filing, she said that just because a substance comes from a plant that is legal doesn't mean that substance is illegal. She then said allowing legal products made from marijuana extracts would be like allowing legal explosives made from fertilizer.

“The AMMA defines ‘marijuana’ as ‘all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.’ … That non-specific definition does not mean that every conceivable chemical compound extracted from the plant is protected by the AMMA. Such chemicals are not ‘parts’ of the plant, but entirely different substances. A finding that the AMMA protects the narcotic drug cannabis would be akin to a finding that explosives produced from fertilizer are protected by laws allowing the sale of farm products," Polk wrote.

Clearly this is a ridiculous argument. Marijuana extracts are not explosives. Also the analogy doesn't really make sense, because marijuana extracts in this metaphor would be the fertilizer since fertilizer is extracted from other products. And fertilizer is also legal. The attorney who is challenging Arizona's ban on marijuana extracts says a more apt comparison would be like comparing marijuana extracts to orange juice. Both marijuana and oranges are legal, so the products made from extracting parts of them should be legal as well.

But seriously, if you're comparing the dangers of marijuana to bombs, you really should look for a different argument.

 

[Baron23]

I believe that this is the AZ legislature telling Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk to shove her head even further up her ass than it already is. Good for them.

"Polk said the change in the law is “about profit, not medicine.”​

No, its about reasonable and logical government and freedom from arbitrary and tyrannical prosecution and individual bias being substituted for the rule of lawlaw....things which Ms Polk does NOT seem to understand.

@Vitolo - WTF is Yavapai County and is this woman an elected official....i mean, who elected this person as she seems to have serious intellectual disabilities.

House panel OKs bill to legalize extracts under medical marijuana law

A House committee voted Wednesday to ensure that edible forms of marijuana remain available for sale in Arizona, no matter what the Arizona Supreme Court eventually decides.

HB 2149 would spell out that the 2010 voter-approved law that allows marijuana to be used for medical purposes also legalized anything made from the resins. That can include something as simple as a tincture that a parent can give a sick child or more complex and commercial products like gummy bears and chocolate bars containing tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive elements of marijuana.

The 5-2 vote by the House Committee on Public Safety came over the objections of Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

Although she did not appear at the hearing, Polk submitted comments calling the proposal by Rep. Tony Rivero, R-Peoria, “very irresponsible.”

“The potency level in THC extracts have reached unprecedented levels causing psychosis and harm, ” she wrote. Polk said the change in the law is “about profit, not medicine.”

It is Polk’s agency that successfully prosecuted a medical marijuana user for having 0.05 of an ounce of hashish, a drug made from resin of the cannabis plant. And it is Polk who is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to uphold that conviction and uphold the ban on extracts.

Rivero said the bill codifies what he believes was the intent of voters in 2010 when they agreed to allow patients with certain medical conditions to use marijuana.

“Without this clarification some of Arizona’s most vulnerable patients such as children will no longer have access to alternative forms of medical marijuana needed to treat their debilitating conditions,” Rivero said. “We do not want patients to be forced to smoke marijuana or be subject to criminal penalties.”

Jessica Crozier said that’s the choice she will face if the law isn’t clarified.

Crozier said her 15-year-old daughter has suffered from seizures for years, at one point running four to seven a day. Her neurologist suggested brain surgery.

“That wasn’t a path I was ready to take,” she told lawmakers.

More than five years ago she began providing a tincture — a concentrated liquid extract — of marijuana to her daughter, both to prevent seizures and help her recover after an incident.

The result, said Crozier, is that her seizures are much fewer, with none in the last six months.

 

[Vitolo]

@Vitolo - WTF is Yavapai County and is this woman an elected official....i mean, who elected this person as she seems to have serious intellectual disabilities.

@Baron23 ... I am guilty of not watching News on TV....
Or reading newspapers.
I find government issues to be confusing and disheartening.
Yavapai county is far from us.. in Prescott Arizona.
Sheila Polk is apparently well known.
Sheila Polk. County Attorney. Elected 2000
That is the extent of my knowledge of the woman.
I learn all about Arizona and MMJ from your posts, and I look no farther, because you always sum it up well.
YOU are the only news that I read!
I can not stomach being in the same room when political issues are aired.
I did read a drop about Sheila Polk this morning, and she is obviously not well thought of by most Arizona residents.
Thank you for your posts.
I hope you will keep it up!

 

[Baron23]

YOU are the only news that I read!

I am actually deeply flattered and very glad that my efforts to post here on MMJ political and legalization issues is of benefit to someone at least!! :-)

I do read the Washington Post every day but Weds. On Wed, I take my paper to my hospice patient on our regular visits...I tell him its is dose of daily depression! LOL

I'm about to drop the subscription as I can hardly stand the back and forth bickering and would like to slap them all across the fanny and tell them to grow up and do the electorate's work that we pay them for.

With regard to Polk.....she is frightening in her fanaticism?

Cheers

 

[Baron23]

"“The AMMA defines ‘marijuana’ as ‘all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.’ … That non-specific definition does not mean that every conceivable chemical compound extracted from the plant is protected by the AMMA. Such chemicals are not ‘parts’ of the plant, but entirely different substances. A finding that the AMMA protects the narcotic drug cannabis would be akin to a finding that explosives produced from fertilizer are protected by laws allowing the sale of farm products.”

"makes the scientifically illiterate claim that “chemicals” in plants aren’t really part of plants, they’re “entirely different substances.”​

This is truly Darwin Award material right here. Thi sis a complete and total abandonment of any sort of logic in pursuit of her tyranical desires to impose her passions on other people.

Now these guys also seem to be bucking for some sort of Fascist of the Year award, themselves:

"In June, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that patient Rodney Jones did indeed deserve prison time for possession of a tiny amount of hashish, because concentrates aren’t covered under the voter-approved 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act."
​

Sheila Polk’s Big Bang Theory: Prosecutor Likens Medical Marijuana to 'Explosives'

Sheila Polk sure put the “mad” in Reefer Madness with her recent filing in the highly important cannabis concentrates case now under review by the state Supreme Court.

The pot-hating prohibitionist prosecutor, now serving her fifth term of office as Yavapai County Attorney, actually compares products containing cannabis extracts to “explosives.”

Her February 1 filing in the all-important Rodney Jones v. State of Arizona case also makes the scientifically illiterate claim that “chemicals” in plants aren’t really part of plants, they’re “entirely different substances.”

If it was a college research paper attempting to make a persuasive argument, the filing would likely rate an “F.” Possibly, it would get Polk kicked out of class for poor ethics.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s review of the Jones case, as you may know, has the potential to change the medical-marijuana landscape in the state. In June, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that patient Rodney Jones did indeed deserve prison time for possession of a tiny amount of hashish, because concentrates aren’t covered under the voter-approved 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

If the seven justices of the state’s highest court don’t reverse that decision and rule that concentrates like hashish are protected under the AMMA, dispensaries will have to remove some of their most popular products from their shelves, like vape-pen cartridges, shatter, and THC-infused food and drinks.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 19.

Polk, in her February 1 filing, wants the justices to believe the nonsense she believes about marijuana’s alleged danger:

“The AMMA defines ‘marijuana’ as ‘all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.’ … That non-specific definition does not mean that every conceivable chemical compound extracted from the plant is protected by the AMMA. Such chemicals are not ‘parts’ of the plant, but entirely different substances. A finding that the AMMA protects the narcotic drug cannabis would be akin to a finding that explosives produced from fertilizer are protected by laws allowing the sale of farm products.”

She could have argued that it would be similarly absurd to find that heroin dealing is protected by the same laws allowing the sale of poppy seed bagels, if she wanted to go with a less sensational argument. But either way, it’s a poor analogy and poor argument.

Voters approved AMMA to allow people to use medical marijuana, and the resin that inhabits and coats pot buds is the active ingredient in that medicine. Extracting the resin, Polk either knows or won’t acknowledge, can mean squeezing it from a bud, simmering buds with butter, or using a chemical extraction process. Nor will she acknowledge that extracting the resin means marijuana can be consumed in many different forms. Clearly, voters didn’t expect people with cancer and kids with epilepsy to be forced to smoke marijuana to get relief.

As Jones’ lawyer, Robert Mandel, argues in his own brief to the Supreme Court: “The extracted resin … is no less ‘part’ of the cannabis plant than the juice of an orange is part of the tree.”

Asked specifically about Polk’s bombastic “explosives” analogy, Mandel told Phoenix New Times, “By resorting to hyperbole like that, Yavapai [County] reveals that it has little faith in its legal arguments or in Arizona’s voters, who declared that patients may use any part of the cannabis plant as well as mixtures or preparations of marijuana to benefit from its medicinal resin.”

Banning cannabis concentrates from Arizona dispensaries based on Polk’s ill-conceived legal brief?

Now that would be creating explosives from fertilizer.

Clarification: This article has been updated to note that oral arguments in the case of Rodney Jones v. State of Arizona are scheduled for March 19.

 

[Baron23]

"The result was 52 percent for, and 41 against, with 7 percent undecided"

Somebody in AZ should take a copy of that poll and shove it into one of Yavapai County Attorney, Sheila Polks, orifices, IMO



Arizona Voters Favor Marijuana Legalization? Maybe, If It's the Right Plan

A few ideas have been floated for 2020, but no serious stakeholders — a.k.a., people with money or experience winning campaigns — have released any proposed text. However, the high level of voter support for some kind of legalization plan, combined with the potential of lucrative, new business opportunities, mean a proposal is inevitable. The Arizona Dispensary Association, which has taken the lead in discussions for such a plan, may be ready to introduce something as soon as this month.

The survey of 600 likely voters by OH Predictive Insights asked whether "marijuana should be legalized for adult use in the State of Arizona." The result was 52 percent for, and 41 against, with 7 percent undecided.

Yet that was the only question on the subject in the expansive poll, which also covered various 2020 political races.

Voters, whether pro or con on cannabis freedom, will want to know:

• Would legalization include personal, home-cultivation rights? And how many plants would be allowed per household?

• How much marijuana could someone possess before risking potential prosecution? Would edibles and concentrates have different legal thresholds?

• Would a legalization bill call for the erasure of past convictions for marijuana offenses?

And so on.

Perhaps the most crucial question is: What will well-established Arizona medical-marijuana companies allow on the ballot?

Many proponents thought the 2016 legalization effort, Prop 205, wasn't as good as they had hoped, said Mike Noble, OH's chief pollster and managing partner.

"I would say it's critically important what the ballot language says," Noble said. "If they do a much better job [for 2020], that will make a difference."

In the 2016 election, Prop 205 failed 51.3 percent to 48.7. The reasons are still being debated. That election year was considered groundbreaking for legal weed, with voters saying "yes" to adult use in Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and the all-important state of California. Arizona, where voters preferred Trump for president, was the outlier.

Political observers and pot advocates will recall that Prop 205 formed from chaos. Key stakeholders including the Marijuana Policy Project, which put Arizona's successful 2010 medical-marijuana law on the ballot, and local dispensary owners engaged in a dispute over the number of retail licenses that would be available, and whether personal cultivation would be included. In 2015, Rob Kampia, co-founder of the MPP, wrote an angry letter to Gina Berman, a dispensary owner who split from talks over the legalization bill, threatening to pay people to disrupt her business.

Out of the dust came the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Arizona, led by dispensary owner J.P. Holyoak, and its proposal, Prop 205. The measure largely limited new retail licenses to existing medical-marijuana businesses. Local PR player and former reporter Barrett Marson, who usually represents conservative causes, was one of Prop 205's spokesmen.

Surprisingly, for some, Prop 205 had other features that were rejected by many grassroots legalization advocates and groups including Safer Arizona and Arizonans for Mindful Regulation (AZFMR).

The measure would have given adults 21 and older the freedom to possess up to an ounce of marijuana flower and up to five grams of concentrates, and to grow up to six live plants, with a maximum of 12 per household. Hardcore cannabis activists said Prop 205 didn't go nearly far enough. They launched their own measure, which didn't make the ballot, and they openly — often viciously — attacked Prop 205 and anyone perceived to be supporting it.

Jim Hesterman/Courtesy of Mikel Weisser
“I’m very confident I can destroy the MPP’s initiative,” bragged Jason Medar, then the leader of AZFMR.

Will the situation in 2020 be different? Mikel Weisser, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, (NORML), is "nervous."

"I'm not wanting to go down the path of anything like 2016 again," he said.

Weisser has heard rumors that a "working draft" of an ADA ballot proposal exists, but he hasn't seen it yet, and ADA representatives tell him they're still working on it.

Problems have already risen at the ADA over the issue. Longtime legislative lobbyists Kevin DeMenna and his family resigned as executive director from the ADA in January following disputes over issues related to a ballot initiative.

"The trade group that we helped establish now faces governance and organizational challenges that directly threaten the industry's ability to prepare for the 2020 legalization effort and fight off legislative intervention," wrote the DeMennas in their resignation letter, which they shared with Phoenix New Times. "The Board, as presently constituted, also presents a significant challenge in launching and running a successful legalization initiative in 2020. While DeMenna Public Affairs chooses not to be involved at this stage, we believe the firms we originally partnered with for the 2020 legalization effort are a solid choice, even without our direct engagement."

Indeed, the latter point may be more than wishful thinking.

Dispensary leaders are preparing some kind of reveal of a plan at the March 20 meeting of the Marijuana Industry Trade Association, MITA founder Demetri Downing tells New Times. The details are still under wraps, in part because they're not fully formed, he explained.

"March 20 will be more about the campaign and the strategy and the team and the fundraising and the plan," Downing said in a text on Thursday. "I am sure we will get into some details, but the language is not yet finalized (I am told.)"

Steve White, CEO of Harvest and president of the ADA, told New Times last week that a proposal is still being hashed out.

Steve White, Harvest CEO - Courtesy of Harvest of Arizona
"At this point, we are working with general concepts, and starting the dialogue with a variety of stakeholders," White said. "We are also polling different provisions [of a possible measure.]

"Those who have committed funding want to discuss home grows and addressing past crimes, but keeping people out of jail for simple marijuana crimes is a very high priority. On the dispensary issue, this likely going to be driven by polling. ... We need to be deliberate and thoughtful about what is included in the initiative to ensure success. If things happen like the Jones case continue to happen, we will have failed."

White was referring to the ongoing appeal at the Arizona Supreme Court of medical-marijuana patient Rodney Jones, who served prison time after being prosecuted in Yavapai County for possessing a tiny amount of hashish. If the Supreme Court upholds Jones' prosecution — oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 19 — then patients and businesses would face felony prosecution for possession and sales of hashish and other marijuana resin concentrates, which are among the most popular and medicinally oriented products sold in dispensaries. The sticking point is over wording in the 2010 Medical Marijuana Act.

The opposition will be yet another significant factor in the success or failure of a 2020 measure, and the actual ballot language will matter there, too. Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, led by pot prohibitionist Sheila Polk, the Yavapai County Attorney, waged a shrewd fundraising campaign that took money anywhere it could find it and was aided by Governor Doug Ducey. They took in about $6 million in donations, including from controversial sources like the alcohol industry and Insys Therapeutics of Chandler, the fentanyl maker whose executives later faced prosecution as corporate drug pushers.

Any 2020 measure will be attacked, and the wording will be used against it. The anti-campaign may focus its propaganda on specific proposals concerning potency, home cultivation rights, limits on driving stoned, or businesses' ability to fire impaired employees. Asked about this, the ARDP, through a spokesperson, said New Times' analysis is "well taken" and the group had nothing further to add.

Leafly.com didn't offer Arizona much hope in a recent article on predictions for 2019:

"Razing Arizona: Arizona legalization advocates will fight over two separate ballot measures. Neither will make the ballot."

The hundreds of thousands of Arizona cannabis consumers who aren't medical-marijuana patients better hope that's wrong. As Weisser pointed out, at least 29,000 people have been busted in the state for marijuana possession since Prop 205 failed.

 

[Baron23]

"his office has been “prosecuting or threatening to prosecute" licensed medical marijuana patients "for possessing cannabis products sold at state-licensed dispensaries.”
​

Alright, so this person, Montgomery, and that other person Sheila Polks, both think being elected as a county prosecutor is a license to impose their own views over that of the electorate and are using corner cases as a justification to continue to ruin people's lives over MMJ.

Now, @momofthegoons and I have had a number of conversations regarding my characterization of such people and, insofar as Mom and I are friendly and I have immense respect for her, I will keep my characterizations to myself.

But be assured that if I was free to name these people for the despicable character they display, it would curl your ears.

Ok, enough said. :-)

And then there is the disgusting financial aspect mentioned below....wow, I'm really proud that I haven't called this person the names he, IMO, deserves.

Of course, I love this one:

"he linked the recreational use of marijuana with prostitution and the “litany of things that fall under the banner of a misguided notion of freedom.”
​

"Misguided notions of freedom?" What is that....anybody who disagrees with what Bill fucking Montgomery thinks you should do?

Wow...just wow.


ACLU: Bill Montgomery’s Office Is Still Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Patients

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, led by ardent weed opponent Bill Montgomery, is still prosecuting medical marijuana patients for extracts whose legality is under review by the Arizona Supreme Court, according to the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter to Montgomery sent Thursday, the ACLU of Arizona said it had learned that his office has been “prosecuting or threatening to prosecute" licensed medical marijuana patients "for possessing cannabis products sold at state-licensed dispensaries.”

The civil rights organization demanded that Montgomery’s office immediately stop those prosecutions and threats.

Related Stories

• Arizona Supreme Court Justices Appear to Favor Medical-Marijuana Extracts
• Arizona Supreme Court Agrees to Review Legality of Medical-Marijuana Extracts
• New Times Investigation: How Yavapai County Targets Cannabis Patients, CBD Oil

Jared Keenan, the ACLU of Arizona’s criminal justice attorney who signed the letter, said that the civil rights group had confirmed two cases of medical marijuana patients in Maricopa County who were either being prosecuted or were threatened with prosecution.

One of the confirmed cases involved a woman who was offered a pre-indictment plea deal to enter the TASC Drug Diversion Program, Keenan said. Under that controversial program, which is run by a private contractor, defendants have to pay hefty program fees and successfully finish the program in order to avoid felony convictions.

TASC, meanwhile, reimburses the county attorney’s office for those clients, on a per-person basis that has added up to more than $1 million annually. Last August, a civil rights group sued Montgomery’s office for perpetrating a revenue-raising scheme through TASC that disproportionately penalized poor marijuana users.

The other confirmed case, Keenan said, involved a veteran who faced decades in prison for a vape pen.

These revelations come during a key moment for medical marijuana in Arizona, as the state awaits a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court on the legality of medical-marijuana extracts.

On March 19, justices heard oral arguments in the case State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones, which centers on whether the 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act covers marijuana extracts and protects patients that use products containing them, such as edibles, from arrest and prosecution.

In that hearing, which hashed over the finer points of marijuana use, an attorney for Yavapai County argued that the medical marijuana law did not extend to extracts of the plant. He cited varying definitions of marijuana products under state criminal code.

Jones is a medical marijuana cardholder who served more than two years in prison after being arrested in Yavapai County, which has earned notoriety for its crackdown on extracts including CBD oil, for possessing hashish that he had bought legally at a state dispensary. His attorney argued primarily that it would be illogical for the medical marijuana law not to cover extracts.

The Supreme Court typically issues decisions two to three months after oral arguments. In the intervening months, there’s no formal protocol for prosecutors to interpret the law in question one way or another.

THC vape pens and other extracts have been targeted by a state Court of Appeals ruling.
Pexels
Given the current legal uncertainty, Keenan suggested it made little sense for prosecutors to treat all marijuana extracts as illegal. “I think that the prudent path would be to not go after these people,” he said, calling it "striking" that some patients were currently being prosecuted.

Yet that’s exactly what Montgomery’s office is doing, even with the legality of those extracts up in the air.

Mikel Weisser, the state director for marijuana-advocacy group NORML, runs the organization’s hotline for Arizona. He regularly receives calls from people who’ve been arrested for marijuana possession, he said. Many of them are patients, and more than a handful have been in Maricopa County.

So far, out of 40 calls received, Weisser said he had identified seven patients arrested for marijuana extracts in Maricopa County. Five of those he said he had verified, and there were another 10 potential patients in the county he had not yet verified.

Weisser refers people to lawyers, including to Keenan and the ACLU of Arizona, so they can get legal advice.

This latest round of prosecutions and threats caps a decade of staunch opposition by Montgomery to marijuana, for any use.

In 2010, he fought unsuccessfully against the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, prior to voters' approving it. During a debate in March 2015, he linked the recreational use of marijuana with prostitution and the “litany of things that fall under the banner of a misguided notion of freedom.” And in 2016, he vocally opposed Proposition 205, a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana.

Montgomery has been put on notice before for targeting medical marijuana patients. In 2014, the Maricopa County Superior Court issued an order that challenged his policy of going after patients. It declined to issue an injunction, however, because it declared that the medical marijuana law did not prohibit the use of extracts.

A spokesperson for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office did not respond to a voicemail and an email seeking comment.

 

[Baron23]

"Yavapai County Attorney Shelia Polk spoke out against the court's decision Tuesday. Jones was convicted in Yavapai County. ​

"Sadly, the Supreme Court rejected the Arizona Appeals Court's common-sense reasoning and its sound conclusion that hashish is a form of cannabis, which state law defines as distinct from the dried marijuana leaves," she said in a statement. "
​

The AZ Supreme Court's view is the ONLY "common-sense reasoning" in this issue at all. Polk's position is not supported by fact; legal, botanical, chemical facts....none support her position. Polk's position is supported ONLY by her bias and personal views....which apparently the voters and Supreme Court of AZ found to be specious.

From the written court opinion:

"AMMA defines marijuana as including“all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not.” A.R.S. §36-2801(8). Consistent with this language, we hold that AMMA’sdefinition of marijuana includesboth its dried-leaf/flowerform andextracted resin, including hashish."

"AMMA defines “marijuana”as“all parts of [the] plant.” §36-2801(8). The word “all,” one of the most comprehensive words in the English language, means exactly that. See Flood Control Dist. of Maricopa Cty. v. Gaines, 202 Ariz. 248, 252 ¶ 9 (App. 2002). “Part” means “an essential portion or integral element,”or, asrelevant here,“one of the constituentelementsof a plant or animal body.”Part,Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/part(last visited May20, 2019).Taken together, “all parts” refers to allconstituentelements of the STATEV.JONESOpinion of the Court5marijuana plant, and the fact the resin must first be extracted from the plant reflectsthat it is part of the plant."
​

Suck on this, Polk, with your "common sense" position. Even an 5th grader can understand that her position is NOT supported by the law in AZ. Not even close.

"The State nevertheless argues AMMA does not apply to resin or its extracts. Again, we disagree. Section 36-2811(B)(1)immunizes the patient’s“medical use” of marijuana, definedto mean “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture,use, administration, delivery, transfer or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marijuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition.”
​

There is no way that this should even have gotten to the state's highest court and this court opinion should be viewed as a clear rebuke to the trial and appeals courts that apparently are illiterate and cannot read and understand English.

"It is implausible that voters intended to allowpatients with these conditions to usemarijuana only if they couldconsume it in dried-leaf/flowerform.Such an interpretationwould precludetheuse ofmarijuana as an option for those for whom smoking or consuming those parts of the marijuana plantswould be ineffective or impossible.Consistent with voter intent, our interpretation enables patients to use medical marijuana to treat their debilitating medical conditions, in whatever form best suits them, so long as they do not possess more than the allowable amount."
​

This is beautiful. Indeed, Polk's position is entirely implausible and citizens in her county should, IMO, be very leery of her commitment to the letter of the law rather than her own personal and biased opinions.

And the money shot:

"We hold that the definition of marijuana in § 36-2801(8) includes resin, and by extensionhashish,and that § 36-2811(B)(1) immunizestheuse of such marijuanaconsistent with AMMA. We reversethe trial court’s ruling denying Jones’s motion to dismiss, vacate the court of appeals’ opinion,and vacate Jones’s convictions and sentences."​

Arizona Supreme Court: Medical marijuana extracts are legal

The long debate over whether medical marijuana extracts are legal in Arizona is over, after a ruling by the state Supreme Court. Extracts fall under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, the court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling comes after a 2016 conviction and sentencing of Rodney Jones, a registered medical marijuana patient who was found in possession of a jar containing 0.005 ounces of hashish in 2013.

Last year, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in June that medical marijuana extracts do not fall under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Extracts are used in oils, or edibles, as well as in vaping.

The appeals court ruled Jones was not immune from prosecution. He was sentenced to serve 2½ years in jail for drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

In its decision, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated Jones's conviction and sentence.

The ruling
The court said it disagreed with the state's argument that the act does not apply to resin or extracts.

The court said the act anticipates dispensaries will produce marijuana in its edible form and patients will be able to consume it in other ways besides smoking.

The court said it was "unpersuaded" by the state's argument that the act limited marijuana use to dried flowers.

"A plain reading of the relevant provisions compels our conclusion that AMMA protects the use of 'marijuana,' including resin, so long as the patient does not exceed the allowable amount and otherwise complies with the statutory requirements," the court ruled.

In court documents for the case involving Jones, former Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble weighed in on his understanding of the state's medical marijuana act. He helped create the rules for the act, which voters passed in 2010.

“As we developed the rules, I always believed that extracts and preparations of marijuana (cannabis) were protected under Proposition 203,” he said in his court filing.

Yavapai County Attorney Shelia Polk spoke out against the court's decision Tuesday. Jones was convicted in Yavapai County.

"Sadly, the Supreme Court rejected the Arizona Appeals Court's common-sense reasoning and its sound conclusion that hashish is a form of cannabis, which state law defines as distinct from the dried marijuana leaves," she said in a statement.

Lower courts have ruled on the issue in the past.

In 2014, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that 5-year-old Zander Welton could be treated with extracts for seizures, according to a report by The Associated Press.

Judge Katherine Cooper said in her ruling that the state law allowed qualifying patients to use extracts, including CBD oil.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit regarding Welton because Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and other law enforcement officials believed the act did not allow the use of extracts, according to the organization.

The impact
Many groups concerned with the case submitted opinions to the court, including the ACLU and the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice was concerned that patients who legally receive a medical marijuana card and go into a state-licensed dispensary could possibly be charged with a crime, according to attorney Sarah Mayhew.

The ACLU sent an opinion with numerous stories of families needing to use extracts for their children. Many children who use medical marijuana for treatment need to use extracts instead of smoking the leafy substance.

One family uses CBD oil and THC oil to treat their 2-year-old daughter who has a form of epilepsy called Dravet Syndrome. Her condition cannot be treated with most anti-seizure medications. Extracts have decreased the frequency and length of the child’s seizures, according to the court document.

“She now smiles and plays and is developing normally,” the family said in court documents.

The actual written opinion of the court can be found here: https://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/State v. Jones Opinion.Final.pdf

 

[Baron23]

"Senate Bill 1494, would require the testing of cannabis products for pesticides, mold, and fungus by November 1, 2020, and mandates that the state Department of Health Services implement standards for the certification of cannabis analytical testing laboratories."
​

How is this even controversial or in question. The other thing that this bill does is extend the duration of an MMJ card for $150 to two years instead of current one year thus cutting in half at least this one cost to AZ patients. MD recently went to a three year card, up from one year, for $50....but if you lose it and need a replacement, $150 (f***ing money grubbers in government! haha).


Arizona Governor Has One More Day to Sign New Medical Marijuana Bill
Will Governor Ducey decide on a course of action?

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona has just one more day to sign a bill that would require lab testing of medical marijuana products and reduce the cost to patients who access the state’s medicinal cannabis program. The measure, Senate Bill 1494, would require the testing of cannabis products for pesticides, mold, and fungus by November 1, 2020, and mandates that the state Department of Health Services implement standards for the certification of cannabis analytical testing laboratories.

SB 1494 was passed unanimously by both houses of Arizona’s legislature on May 27, in the House of Representatives by a vote of 60 to 0 and in the state Senate by a margin of 28 to 0.

Republican Rep. Nancy Barto of Phoenix told her colleagues in the House before the vote that the government should ensure the quality and safety of medical marijuana products sold in the state.

“We had some serious testimony on it just pointing out the need to make sure the quality of what is being prescribed is there and not being contaminated and hurting those that are consuming this product,” Barto said.


Bill Reduces Patient Fees
Before the bill was approved by the legislature, Democratic Rep. Randy Freise of Tucson added an amendment to the measure that increases to two years the amount of time that medical marijuana identification cards issued by the state are valid. The identification cards, which are required for patients and cost $150, are currently good for only one year.

“A lot of work went into this with a lot of stakeholders,” Friese told his fellow representatives when he introduced the amendment.

Last year, a bill that would have reduced the annual fee for identification cards from $150 to $75 was rejected by Democrats because it did not go far enough, according to Republican Rep. Kevin Payne of Peoria.


“This year we said let’s double the amount of time the card is good for, that’s just as good,” said Payne.

Ensuring Cannabis is Safe
Payne added that Arizona‘s cannabis industry should prioritize the safety of medical marijuana for the state’s patients.

“Marijuana wants to be treated like medicine, it ought to be acting like medicine,” he said. “I want them to have testing. Even aspirin has a label on it.”


SB 1494 is supported by the Arizona Public Health Association and the Arizona Cannabis Laboratory Association. The Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Dispensaries Association, and two large cannabis producers, Copperstate Farms and Harvest Health and Recreation, have not taken a position on the measure.

Demitri Downing, the founder of the Marijuana Industry Trade Association, characterized SB 1494 as a “compromise bill that doesn’t contain everything that everyone wanted, but that’s what good legislation does.”

Ducey has until Saturday to sign or veto SB 1494. If he does nothing, the bill will still go into effect without his endorsement.

 

[Baron23]

WTF were they thinking to NOT require lab testing from jump street? Wow.

Arizona Governor signs Law mandating quality control testing for medical cannabis products

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has signed legislation into law amending the state’s medical cannabis access program.

Senate Bill 1494 requires that all medical marijuana products sold in licensed dispensaries be independently lab tested by November 1, 2020. Testing labs must be accredited and must have no financial relationship with any dispensaries. The measure also reduces application fees for medical cannabis card holders.

An estimated 200,000 Arizonans are registered with the state to access cannabis therapy.

 

[Baron23]

Well, of course they do....that way, they can do what they want and not what AZ citizens want, as they tried to do multiple times with their med program.

Brnovich prefers Legislature, not voters, to legalize recreational marijuana
Attorney General Mark Brnovich wants state lawmakers to debate and enact a recreational marijuana program rather than risk an industry-crafted measure from becoming the law of the land at the ballot box.


And even Gov. Doug Ducey, who said he needs to see any legalization proposal before commenting, said he is concerned about the unchangeable nature of passing laws at the ballot box. But the governor said he remains personally opposed to adult use.


Brnovich told Capitol Media Services on Monday that the issues are far too complex to be left to a take-it-or-leave-it ballot measure. And he said those issues deserve more discussion than 30-second TV ads pushed by proponents and foes.



Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

“Generally speaking, as a matter of public policy, the public policy makers, i.e., the Legislature, should step up and address issues so voters don’t have to do it via the initiative process,” he said.


But Brnovich said his key concern is that if marijuana for adults is legalized at the ballot it will be constitutionally protected against legislative fixes.


The idea is getting a skeptical response from the committee that is crafting what it hopes will be on the November 2020 ballot.


“I think this is more work than the Legislature has the capacity to tackle,” said Stacy Pearson, a consultant working with the group that is crafting the initiative. “This is complicated.”


More to the point, her organization does not intend to wait around until next year to see what state lawmakers craft, with petitions to get the necessary 237,645 valid signatures by July 2, 2020, likely on the streets as early as next month.


That potentially sets the stage for two competing measure on the 2020 ballot, one by initiative organizers and one adopted by lawmakers.


The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which helped defeat a recreational marijuana program in 2016, is open to the idea of having the issue tackled by the Legislature.


“In order to be able to fix errors or address unintended consequences, adopting new policies via the regular legislative process is almost always preferable to the ballot box,” said spokesman Garrick Taylor.


That’s also on the governor’s mind.


“I think in any law there are unintended consequences,” Ducey told Capitol Media Services.


“Voter protection doesn’t contemplate that” he said. “And, yes, that does concern me.”



Yavapai County Attorney Shiela Polk speaks at a debate on cannabis at Arizona State University in Phoenix on April 29, 2015. (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

But Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk said she will oppose any efforts to allow recreational use of the drug, whether at the ballot box or the Capitol.


“There is not a single successful model for legalization anywhere, whether by initiative or by legislative action,” she said.


“Once a state starts down the path of legalization, there is no turning back,” Polk said. “Good public policy should discourage, not encourage, drug use.”


Central to the debate is the Voter Protection Act.


In 1996 voters approved a law to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana and other drugs. The following year the Legislature effectively gutted the law to prevent it from taking effect.


So in 1998 the same group got voters to enact a constitutional measure which prohibits lawmakers from repealing or altering anything approved at the ballot box. It allows changes only with a three-fourths vote of both the House and Senate, and only when those changes “further the purpose” of the original measure.


“Recent history has shown that there are all sorts of unintended consequences when it comes to legislating via the initiative process,” Brnovich said.


For example, state lawmakers tried in 2012 to amend the 2010 medical marijuana law to keep students from possessing the drug on campus. But Brnovich was rebuffed by the Arizona Supreme Court when he sought to defend the law, with the justices saying that wasn’t what voters approved and the Legislature had no authority to change it.


The same, Brnovich said, will be true with whatever initiative organizers present to voters. He said there will be complex questions ranging from location, packaging and advertising to how the state deals with edible forms of the drug.


And then there’s the issue of people operating motor vehicles while under the influence of marijuana.


“What do you do about testing for THC,” the psychoactive ingredient in the drug, Brnovich asked, a question that includes not only how to test but what is considered impaired.


“I think that there are a lot of really serious questions that are a part of this conversation,” he said.


“It’s hard to do that sometimes when you are doing that via the initiative process and 30-second TV ads,” Brnovich said. “These are complicated issues that deserve intellectual debate.”



Doug Ducey

Ducey, who opposed the 2016 measure, said his views of recreational use haven’t changed.


“I don’t think any state ever got stronger by being stoned,” he said. “And we have existing laws that support medical marijuana.”


But the governor also said he fears what might be approved at the ballot box.


“I think in any law there are unintended consequences,” he said.


Anything approved by the Legislature can be fixed.


The governor was careful to say he was not trying to undermine the ability of people to craft their own laws.


“Of course I want to protect the will of the voters,” he said. “But I also think we have a legislative process for a reason, and that’s to adjust and improve policy when we can.”


Ducey said he wants to “know the specifics” before committing to a legislative solution.


One issue likely weighing on those who will decide whether to support a legislative solution is the chance that a 2020 initiative would pass.


The 2016 measure lost by a margin of just 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent. And that was with opposition from some supporters of medical marijuana who claimed that measure was designed largely to benefit existing dispensary owners.


Since then several states have legalized the adult use of marijuana, either through legislative or voter action. And a telephone survey in Arizona earlier this year showed 52 percent of those questioned in support of recreational use.


Pearson told Capitol Media Services the cash will be there to mount the campaign.


“The funders have committed the resources to win,” she said.

 

[Baron23]

I think this article should motivate AZ voters to consider just what level of stupidity and ignorance disqualifies someone from elected office. I think the below individual may all into that category, yeah? sigh

Sen. Leach shares fake anti-marijuana meme

A screenshot of the meme shared on Sen. Vince Leach’s Facebook page that was created by a parody group.

Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, shared a meme Monday afternoon from a parody group, but it appears the senator may not have been in on the joke.

Leach shared the photo along with a story by Politico on how legal marijuana is helping the black market, along with a stock photo of marijuana on some money.

The Facebook page where the photo came from is called “Marijuana MAKES You Violent” and hasn’t posted since late 2016.

The photo depicts a green cloud on a black background with two columns, one with the “benefits” and the other with the “risks” of smoking marijuana.

Under benefits, listed are several synonyms for “none” while the risks include deadly communicable diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria and leprosy.

The group from which the meme comes from says it strives to eradicate marijuana from the “entire planet” among other lofty goals.

In its last posting in Nov. 2016 explaining its absence from social media, the page thanked its followers for helping them eliminate all “marijuana from Earth back in April of this year, and so there is no longer any need for us to continue maintaining this page.”

The pages has never identified itself as a parody page. However, posts claiming “3 out of 5 pot-toking parents eat their children” or that the Flint, Mich., water crisis is caused by bong water show that it is clearly satire.

“It’s clearly a parody,” Mikel Weisser, executive director for the Arizona chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said of the photo. “If people were to look at this and believe it was true…..then they’d get this massive piece of misinformation.”

“It’s stuff like this is why they’re losing the public image battle, cause they can’t be taken seriously,” JP Holyoak, who campaigned for marijuana legalization in 2016, said of anti-marijuana advocates.

“Both sides need to stop,” Holyoak added, saying that he has seen similar postings by pro-marijuana groups that do a “disservice to the cannabis community.”

Weisser found the Facebook post entertaining, but also said Leach ”frequently puts out bills that target the marijuana community.”

In the past, Leach has sought to limit how marijuana is advertised and has attempted to regulate marijuana edibles. Leach has also proposed legislation that would have blocked parolees and probationers from receiving medical marijuana cards.

Leach did not respond to a request for comment.

 

[Baron23]

Legalization of marijuana in Arizona: These are the rules that could be on the 2020 ballot

For the second time in four years, there's a chance Arizonans might be casting a vote to legalize marijuana on their November ballot.
A group backing the legalization released details Friday on a ballot measure that is looking to legalize the "responsible adult use of marijuana" in Arizona.
The 16-page "Smart and Safe Act" would legalize the sale, possession and consumption of up to one ounce, no more than 5 grams of which can be marijuana concentrate, of the drug for adults 21 years and older. Every adult would also be allowed to have not more than six plants at their home or 12 in homes with multiple adults.
Under the initiative, those looking to purchase the drug would have to show proof of age as selling or providing marijuana to someone under 21 would be illegal.
The act states being impaired to the "slightest degree" by marijuana will be illegal while driving, flying or boating. It also states employers "retain their rights to maintain drug-and-alcohol-free places of employment."
The act, however, does not allow the smoking of marijuana in public places like parks and restaurants.
The new initiative would need nearly 240,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"Lessons learned"

Spokeswoman Stacy Pearson with Strategies 360 in Phoenix said in an email announcing the filing of the initiative that the new initiative "incorporates lessons learned from the 2016 campaign." It also takes into account lessons learned from states that have legalized the drug, Pearson said.
In 2016, a proposition that would allow people over 21 to possess and consume marijuana was narrowly defeated by Arizona voters. Proposition 205 was defeated 51.32% to 48.68%.
In 2010, voters in Arizona approved Proposition 203, which permitted medical marijuana. Arizona Department of Health Services was put in charge of regulating sales and use.
Under Arizona’s medical marijuana use rules, patients with certain conditions could buy marijuana from highly regulated dispensaries. Employers could not discriminate against qualifying medical marijuana patients.
The legalization of medical marijuana was voted down in Arizona in 2002.
In 1996, Proposition 200 was passed. Revised over the years, it now makes jail time a last resort for drug offenses other than those involving methamphetamine. It established a Parents Commission for drug education and prevention.

"It protects children"
In highlighting key points from the initiative in that same email, Pearson said it "protects children."
Selling or providing marijuana to someone under 21 would be illegal. The initiative would also require all packaging to be labeled and childproof.
Under the initiative, a marijuana establishment would not be allowed to sell any marijuana products that "resemble the form of a human, animal, insect, fruit, toy or cartoon."
According to Pearson, that would include anything resembling kids' candy like gummy bears or worms. Establishments would not be allowed to sell any marijuana products that "resemble or imitate food or drink brands marketed to children."

Where does the money go?
A 16% excise tax will be collected on all marijuana and marijuana products sold, according to details from the initiative.
That tax on marijuana products is estimated to bring $300 million in "new revenue" annually, according to Pearson. That money will mostly go toward funding "community colleges, public safety, public health programs, and infrastructure."