Judge rules in favor of Prop 203

[azmmjadvocates]

http://www.ktar.com/?nid=22&sid=1592869

``This court will not rule that Arizona, having sided with the ever-growing minority of states and having limited it to medical use, has violated public policy,'' Judge Michael Gordon of Maricopa County Superior Court wrote.

Let's not get to happy yet, I for one don't want to lose my legal ability to cultivate. Glendale dispensary asked for an extension. http://www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/index.htm

"The Dispensary in Glendale asked for an extension before it opens its doors for business.
Until that happens, ADHS will continue to issue cards that authorize patients and caregivers to grow. Once a dispensary begins operating, ADHS will check the patient address to make sure they don't live within 25 miles of the dispensary before allowing them to cultivate marijuana."

I've been making a rucus about what happened to the affirmative defense provision of the law that just disappeared at the legislature we site. And there is an interesting read now on the Q&A:

 

[azmmjadvocates]

http://www.ktar.com/?nid=22&sid=1592869

``This court will not rule that Arizona, having sided with the ever-growing minority of states and having limited it to medical use, has violated public policy,'' Judge Michael Gordon of Maricopa County Superior Court wrote.

Let's not get to happy yet, I for one don't want to lose my legal ability to cultivate. Glendale dispensary asked for an extension. http://www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/index.htm

"The Dispensary in Glendale asked for an extension before it opens its doors for business.
Until that happens, ADHS will continue to issue cards that authorize patients and caregivers to grow. Once a dispensary begins operating, ADHS will check the patient address to make sure they don't live within 25 miles of the dispensary before allowing them to cultivate marijuana."

I've been making a rucus about what happened to the affirmative defense provision of the law that just disappeared at the legislature web site. And there is an interesting read now on the Q&A: Man they are moving shit around like crazy there now lol,, cant find it. It basically said that if a dispensary is operational within 25 miles from your home and you apply for a card and request to cultivate. That if you decide to request to cultivate that you MAY be denied and lose your application fee. to claim an affirmative defense in court I'd imajine you would have to do just that and have them deny you.. But who knows perhaps they will let you because they know the feds are coming. the feds are coming.. lol I don't want to be standing in any dispensarry when they do.

So for those of you authorized to cultivate, carry on,,, well at least until your card expires or you move, and that is if the feds dont take em down from being invited by our politicians.

 

[reeldrag]

This 25 mile rule sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thoth]

Agreed.

 

[azmmjadvocates]

Here's my suggestion, pester everyone from the legislature to the news, ask them what happened to affirmative defense, how was it removed from the legislature, is it still in effect even though the citing has been removed? I'll post the entire citing at the bottom and talk about my line of thinking from excerpts.

For me a patient grower who has an extremely efficient, low cost and high yeald grow I cant afford to have a uninterrupted supply of medication buying it from a dispensary, it's simply a matter of affordability. I also do not wish to be in a dispensarry when the feds come as they have warned, at the same time they have stated to me in memos that I am not a target for them. I should be able to use Affirmative defense as the law states,if I so choose to cultivate after my cultivation card expires. Not saying I will, I'm just saying we need to clarify this.

"A QUALIFYING PATIENT AND A QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, MAY ASSERT THE MEDICAL PURPOSE FOR USING MARIJUANA AS A DEFENSE TO ANY PROSECUTION OF AN OFFENSE INVOLVING MARIJUANA INTENDED FOR A QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL USE, "

" THE QUALIFYING PATIENT AND THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, WERE COLLECTIVELY IN POSSESSION OF A QUANTITY OF MARIJUANA THAT WAS NOT MORE THAN WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE UNINTERRUPTED AVAILABILITY OF MARIJUANA"

"THE QUALIFYING PATIENT AND THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, WERE ENGAGED IN THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, USE OR TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA, PARAPHERNALIA OR BOTH, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF MARIJUANA SOLELY TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS"

" A PERSON MAY ASSERT THE MEDICAL PURPOSE FOR USING MARIJUANA IN A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE CHARGES SHALL BE DISMISSED FOLLOWING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE THE PERSON SHOWS THE ELEMENTS LISTED IN SUBSECTION (A)."

"THE QUALIFYING PATIENT AND THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING FOR THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA:
1. DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY A COURT OR OCCUPATIONAL OR PROFESSIONAL LICENSING BOARD OR BUREAU.
2. FORFEITURE OF ANY INTEREST IN OR RIGHT TO NON-MARIJUANA, LICIT PROPERTY."




36-2812. Affirmative defense
A. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 36-2802 (posted at bottom of this page), A QUALIFYING PATIENT AND A QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, MAY ASSERT THE MEDICAL PURPOSE FOR USING MARIJUANA AS A DEFENSE TO ANY PROSECUTION OF AN OFFENSE INVOLVING MARIJUANA INTENDED FOR A QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL USE, AND THIS DEFENSE SHALL BE PRESUMED VALID WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT:
1. A PHYSICIAN STATES THAT, IN THE PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AFTER HAVING COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL HISTORY AND CURRENT MEDICAL CONDITION MADE IN THE COURSE OF A BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP, THE QUALIFYING PATIENT IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.
2. THE QUALIFYING PATIENT AND THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, WERE COLLECTIVELY IN POSSESSION OF A QUANTITY OF MARIJUANA THAT WAS NOT MORE THAN WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE UNINTERRUPTED AVAILABILITY OF MARIJUANA FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING OR ALLEVIATING THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.
3. ALL MARIJUANA PLANTS WERE CONTAINED IN AN ENCLOSED LOCKED FACILITY.
4. THE QUALIFYING PATIENT AND THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, WERE ENGAGED IN THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, USE OR TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA, PARAPHERNALIA OR BOTH, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF MARIJUANA SOLELY TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.
B. A PERSON MAY ASSERT THE MEDICAL PURPOSE FOR USING MARIJUANA IN A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE CHARGES SHALL BE DISMISSED FOLLOWING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE THE PERSON SHOWS THE ELEMENTS LISTED IN SUBSECTION (A).
C. IF A QUALIFYING PATIENT OR A QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER DEMONSTRATE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL PURPOSE FOR USING MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, THE QUALIFYING PATIENT AND THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING FOR THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA:
1. DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY A COURT OR OCCUPATIONAL OR PROFESSIONAL LICENSING BOARD OR BUREAU.
2. FORFEITURE OF ANY INTEREST IN OR RIGHT TO NON-MARIJUANA, LICIT PROPERTY.

36-2802. Arizona Medical Marijuana Act; limitations
THIS CHAPTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO ENGAGE IN, AND DOES NOT PREVENT THE IMPOSITION OF ANY CIVIL, CRIMINAL OR OTHER PENALTIES FOR ENGAGING IN, THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT:
A. UNDERTAKING ANY TASK UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE OR PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE.
B. POSSESSING OR ENGAGING IN THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA:
1. ON A SCHOOL BUS.
2. ON THE GROUNDS OF ANY PRESCHOOL OR PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL.
3. IN ANY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
C. SMOKING MARIJUANA:
1. ON ANY FORM OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
2. IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE.
D. OPERATING, NAVIGATING OR BEING IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE, AIRCRAFT OR MOTORBOAT WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA, EXCEPT THAT A REGISTERED QUALIFYING 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.
E. USING MARIJUANA EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

 

[azmmjadvocates]

Also If there are shortages of meds at a dispensary, I would assume you could request to cultivate with that excuse. I was recently asked to headup a disp grow which was surprising because of my stance on them. LOl the non profit that contacted me hired out a management firm to run it that Deangelo from harborside is affiliated with. Now if they arent' doing any hands on growing, that tells me something. I couldn't run it for them if I wanted to because I don't have experience with a large grow and I didn't have all the equipment, which is another red flag.. Why doesn't that management firm have it or hire it?

It's a big hot potato here.

The biggest red flag was the question how much they were going to cultivate. When I was setting in the meeting at the Cardinals stadium at the beginning of all this the conversation amung the disp hopefuls was the federal minimum for growing 100 plants.

So the question is, how are the dispensaries going to have consistent meds with only growing 100 plants.. I'ts going to be interesting for sure. If patients refuse to give them meds, they run out.. If we boycott one disp then hit them hard in one day to where they have shortages we get our cultivation rights back for a year.

Problem is, we aren't united.