MMJ Comments

What parts of the draft rules do you believe are effective?
Open-Ended Response
Hello and thankyou for your time reading my input. I am impressed with the DHS's desire to create one
of the most legitimate MMJ states in the country however there is much I disagree with. Please read
my comments in the following sections and delete the language simply that is incongruent with DHS's
desire to help the sick and in many cases the dying! If the language below is maintained in the final
rules the DHS will be responsible for the suffering and lesser quality of life for many of Arizona's dying.
If that is something that is ok on your conscience go ahead and make them law. I have Hepatitus C
and do not have insurance. I simply cannot go see my doctor as required by your regulations if they
are kept in place to get my medical card. I wish to begin treatment for my HEP C this spring and was
hoping that I could get some relief with Medical Marijuana, however, seeing now that I have to wait an
additional year or go see my Dr. who already have an established relationship with 4 times is not only
unreasonable it is truly SICK! Are we living in Germany ?Is this 1944?
The rules and regulations negate in many ways the entire intent of the law. It is not up to ADHS to
recriminalize medical marijuana .
The part about making it difficult to acquire medical cannabis. You guys made it pretty affective for
yourselves. Thanks A lot. (Sarcasm)
R9-17-313 – These rules are a fair and economical way to ensure that inventory is controlled and
distributed only to qualifying patients. All else is good or acceptable with exception to the comments
below. Thank you Health Department for your timely and professional handling of these measures.
The requirement for each Dispensary to employ or contract with a Medical Director (R9-17-302(B)1(g))
is definitely a positive element of the Rules. This should be effective in helping to ensure that all
patients receive a high-quality of care, are fully aware and educated of their treatment options, and are
employing the best possible strategy to alleviate/treat their medical conditions. Also a dispensary’s
Medical Director can also serve as an additional watch dog against illegitimate patients. In other
words, if a patient somehow managed to obtain a card without a legitimate medical condition, a
Medical Director would be more likely to identify and report this situation. This acts as a check against
not only illegitimate cardholders but also against those Doctors who may write illegitimate
recommendations. Finally, requiring a Medical Director will help ensure that only legitimate
dispensaries are licensed in Arizona. Doctors are less likely to risk their reputation and ability to
practice medicine by associating with a disreputable dispensary and as such this requirement should
serve as a deterrent against potential dispensaries.
The parts pertaining to the physician-patient "ongoing" relationship.
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act causes me great concern. Please, please use language that will
preclude recreational use of the drug.
The parts pertaining to the physician-patient "ongoing" relationship.

Residency requirements.
I think that you have done a great job in keeping out non-professionals. You have made it hard for out
of state people to get envolved directly with ownership, thank you. I also like that you have to grow
70% of your own product and have a medical director. I also like that people need to operate under
GAAP. Keep up the great work.
I just want to say how disappointed I am with the passing of the Medical Marijuana initiative in AZ. I
know this is just another way of legalizing marijuana here in AZ as well as other states. I have also
been made aware of the fact that in CA, 98% of the use of the medical marijuana is recreational and
not for medical use. Above all, I am concerned with the reality of this marijuana falling into the hands
of our teenagers in AZ. We must do all that we can to prevent the illegal use of marijuana by our
youth! Below are some of my comments for change.
R9-17-313 – These rules are a fair and economical way to ensure that inventory is controlled and
below. Thank you Health Department for your timely and professional handling of these measures.
Most parts look to be effective.
the title
the title
This section would be more effectively and appropriately handled by local building standards than in
these rules R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate Part B.8 A site plan drawn
to scale of the dispensary location showing streets, property lines, buildings, parking areas, outdoor
areas if applicable, fences, security features, fire hydrants if applicable, and access to water mains
I believe the law is absurd.
While it may be effective to discourage diversion to recreational use, The following section may drive
up the price of marijuana and cause shortages. R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration
Certificate Part B.5 This section requires “a copy of the certificate of occupancy or other
documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing occupancy of the building as
a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site” as part of the application.
I think the Department is on the right track in designing rules that make it harder for the recreational
user to get involved. This law was passed by the vote of the people so I hope the Department
understands that. I realize the ongoing controversy so it is my hope the Department doesn't let any
personal opinions creep into the writing of the laws to intentionally make things more difficult. Doing so
would put the Department at odds with the will of the people.
1. Cultivation, sale, transportation, possession and use of marijuana are criminal offenses in the state
of Arizona. Medical marijuana is a narrow exception to that policy.
Dispensery rules for starting and operation.
The parts I like are: 1) The medical professional issuing the certification should be given the authority
to revoke a patient’s certification at any time. In addition, the medical professional should be required
to revoke if they haven’t seen the patient within 6 months. 2)The legislature should impose criminal
penalties for smoking marijuana in the presence of children. Rationale: Children exposed to marijuana
use are desensitized to the hazards of marijuana use, and are more likely to use marijuana illegally in
the future. Children exposed to marijuana smoke will suffer the same health hazards as exposure to
tobacco smoke. Smoking marijuana in the presence of children should be made a serious criminal
act..... 3) The legislature should set enhanced penalties for cardholders, caregivers, and dispensary
agents that produce, transport, sell, or possess marijuana outside of the terms of their authority
granted by the initiative. ( I do have a note on this one, it should be considered criminal trafficking)
The following would be effective only in delaying the registration by a qualifying patient and
acquisition of marijuana and would result in increased harm and suffering to patients R9-17-202.
Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a Designated Caregiver G.13.e.i
(1) and (2)
Security is a must and each dispensary should have a security door man with camera outside main
entrance, security in actual packaging and retail room for customer. Security at cultivation site 24/7
and security accompaning delivery of product to and from cultivation site and retail dispensary.
THE INTENT OF ADHS TO KEEP THE DISPENSARIES OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS IS
HONORABLE, HOWEVER, IN THEIR CURRENT FORM ONLY THE WEALTHY, AND OTHERS WITH
CRIMINAL BACKING WILL BE ABLE TO OPEN ONE. THE FACT THAT ONLY AZ. RESIDENTS ARE
ELIGIBLE IS GOOD BUT IT SHOULD ALSO STATE THAT THEY MUST BE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY
WHERE THE DISPENSARY IS LOCATED.
There is nothing about this law that will be effective in curtailing crime and illegal substance abuse.
The following would be effective only in delaying the registration by a qualifying patient and
acquisition of marijuana and would result in increased harm and suffering to patients R9-17-202.
Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a Designated Caregiver F.5.e.i
and ii. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship
with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed
the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the
course of the professional relationship; or Has assumed primary responsibility for providing
management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a
comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient's
medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the patient's reaction and
response to conventional medical therapies;
All marijuana smoking should be subject to the non-smoking in public places and punishable by strict
penalties. Also the prohibition of operating machinery and motor vehicles whild under the influence
of marijuana is good
Clear indications for recommending medical marijuana. Strict oversight of dispensary operations,
including inventory and financial reporting, physical and video security. Separation of dispensary and
recommending personnel – e.g., a medical director cannot recommend marijuana to patients. Zoning
requirements.
I do not find any parts that are ineffective.
I am more concerned with how they are NOT effective. See below
I think you have done a wonderful job especially in the timeframe you had to work in. Keep up the
good work.
R9-17-101.17. "Physician-patient relationship and R9-18-101.16. "Ongoing" are effective in delaying a
Qualifying Patient’s acquiring of marijuana as medicine and would result in harm prolonged suffering.
See Improved
I've reviewed the draft rules as a citizen working with the MATForce drug abuse working group in
Yavapai County. I'm pleased with the level of thought and detail DHS has provided in the draft. The
MATForce working group, with input from the Yavapai County Attorney, has provided suggestions to
the draft that are being submitted to DHS in a separate document. I am submitting five suggestions
below that may or may not be articulated in the MATForce document, but I feel are of particular
importance and significance. It may be appropriate that some suggestions be adopted for
consideration as new legislation, rather than as DHS rules. Respectfully,
Not R9-17-101. Definitions. 15. "Medical director" will be effective in driving up costs to the dipensaries’
operations and consequently the price of medicine to patients
Most of the Draft Rules are effective. The sections detailing necessary inventory control measures,
quality analysis, product labeling, and sanitary conditions were particularly well written. However a
few restrictions are problematic. Specifically, limits on the percentages of marijuana produced that can
be transferred to other dispensaries for sale to end users, and the restriction on the percentage of
inventory sold that is produced by other registered cultivators. These stipulations as stated in §R9-17-
307(C) are not conducive a reputable industry that is easy to regulate and provides a consistently high
quality product.
Good overall R9-17-306. Inspections D. The Department shall not accept allegations of a
dispensary's noncompliance with A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 or this Chapter from an anonymous
source. (This is a great clause as it makes for accountability. Not using the system for vindictive or
competitive reasons.) R9-17-307. Administration (This whole section is great. It lays out guidelines
for establishing professionalism and good working practices and helps establish the industry correctly
from the onset. It helps operators understand what will be expected of them on an ongoing basis prior
to application so a decision of weather to be a part of this industry is of interest knowing the
responsibilities. Other states have had operators before rules which have made it very chaotic for
everyone involved. C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; 2. Shall only provide medical
marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying
patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this Chapter to
acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in
Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of the medical
marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from another
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide more
than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. These are all
great definitions. There should be some type of measure or time frame such as “1. Shall cultivate at
least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated
caregivers in any rolling calendar year.” The rolling calendar year helps smooth out sales vs. supply.
Example when a store first opens it may only be selling 2 pounds per month. As that store gains
business over the course of a year it may go as high as 40 or 50 lbs per month and may go up or down
based on completion or other market forces. Since it takes roughly 110-120 days from seed to ready
the cultivation needs time to adjust for volume fluctuations. It would also be helpful to allow for some
inventory helping to smooth supply and demand also. The live database to track that the system is
not abused is awesome. R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis 5. A list of all chemical additives,
including nonorganic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production of the
medical marijuana; and this is great for everyone. R9-17-317. Cleaning and Sanitation A. A
dispensary shall ensure that any building or equipment used by a dispensary for the cultivation,
harvest, preparation, packaging, storage, infusion, or sale, of medical marijuana is maintained in a
clean and sanitary condition. (Great Section!)
The section on what is required from a dispensary. Locations, sizes, policies and procedures.
The application process outlines seem to be average and well organized, but filled with so much legal
jargon for the common citizen to interpret.
- I like the Arizona residency restrictions for dispensary board members and owners.
The part about that each dispensaries having to grow 70% of there own product is not a good idea. I
feel that the dispensaries should be able to buy from any grower. If you do the 70% thing it will drive
up the cost of the medical marijuana . thank you
The public comment period allows time for them to be changed and made congruent with the law.
Much of it is effective IN being being cruel and unreasonable to medical marijuana patients.
I actually agree with requiring regular follow-up visits with the patient's medical marijuana consulting
physician. Seeing patients consistently for continuity of care is recommended for any specialist
participating in a patient's care. Consult letters should be sent, with patient consent, to the patient's
PCP and their other providers summarizing indications for recommending medical marijuana as an
ADJUNCT to their current care plan and inviting open communication between physicians. Requiring a
patient to have a full year in the care of the recommending physician consultant would unnecessarily
postpone treatment for a qualifying patient. Requiring regularly scheduled office visits and following
the current standards of care should apply to Cannibis Consultants, as with any other specialist,
involved in the care of the patient. Communication between all physicians caring for the patient would
help maintain the physician-patient and physician-physician relationships necessary for the practice of
good medicine.
Remains to be seen. There are always unintednded consequences.
The 12/17/10 draft is much more narrow than the first draft.
The mandate that the dispensaries have standard operating procedures is very effective. This will
hopefully insure that dispensaries are all operating with the same standards in place. I also feel that
the mandate that patients are given information relating to marijuana and potential side effects and
drug interactions is appropriate. There are many opportunities for dispensaries to be more than just a
place to pick up some "weed" but to be a place where they may learn about the medication and their
overall health issues. I just don't feel that a medical director (MD or DO) is the only way to achieve
that. The verification process is also very effective.
Most of it is fairly well written. I would like to be sure that the medical requirements remain as strict
as they are written. Do not start adding anxiety or we will be in the same boat as California where the
law is a joke.
Generally, I agree on the numbers and spacing of dispensarys and on the requirements placed on the
growers/producers. I also agree on the restrictions placed on where medical marijauna may be
consumed.and, of course, with the prohibitions regarding the operation of a motor vehicle while under
the influence.
The timeline established is very nicely put together.
In general I agree that there needs to be rules around medical marijuana. So in general they are all
effective unless they restrict the purpose of the medicine.
On the whole, the regulations have been very well drafted.
I applaud ADHS for making the move to legalize medical marijuana. I believe it is an effective drug
that can help many ailing people and it's prohibition is unnecessary. Having said that, I believe the
regulations should be created to support the patients who benefit from the use of medical marijuana
by making it an acceptable means to treating their symptoms, rather than approaching it as a illegal
substance that should be highly regulated. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments.
Only one visit to the doctor should be required, with medical records that support state medical
requirements.
The regulations are exaggerated. Some of the future dispensary owners are putting out between
100,000-200,000 dollars hoping to get the license. I think it would be more realistic and not a conflict
of interest to have a registered nurse rather than doctor working at the dispensary. To obtain a license
you must see a doctor. The doctor working at the dispensary creates the conflict of interests towards
your primary doctor.
The (A Not For Profit Organization Opening Spring 2011)

January 03, 2011 Arizona Department of Health Services Mr. Will Humble (ADHS
Director) 150 N. 18th Ave Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-1025 Re: Comments, Questions and
Concerns; the 12/17/2010 DRAFT Title 9. Health Services; Chapter 17. Department of Health Services
– Medical Marijuana Program Dear Mr. Humble Thank you for the opportunity to submit
comments, questions, and concerns regarding: The 12/17/2010 DRAFT Title 9. Health Services;
Chapter 17. Department of Health Services – Medical Marijuana Program. You and your staff have done
an excellent job, taking on the exhausting and daunting task of implementing Medical Marijuana for the
State of Arizona. Taking lessons from Colorado and California implementation of Medical Marijuana
Initiatives, the State of Arizona and your office have perfected a safe, compassionate, and very
detailed Medical Marijuana Program draft, attempting to explain and discuss every aspect of what will
be a very polished final set of Regulations. Enclosed is a List of our Comments and Suggestions. Please
Review: R9-17-101. Definitions 8. "Dispensary" means the same as "nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensary" as defined in A.R.S. § 36-2801. 13. "Generally accepted accounting principles" means the
set of financial reporting standards administered by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or other specialized bodies dealing with accounting and
auditing matters.[Comment] - Very Well Written. 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine
who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its
successor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice
osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been
designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the dispensary. [Comment] - SHOULD
ALSO AND/OR INCLUDE: the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians. [Comment]
Furthermore- According to the , Medical Marijuana Position Statement: “Until
federal legislation changes the classification, marijuana is a Class-I controlled substance. It is illegal
and a violation of federal law to possess.” Further, “ strongly recommends that pharmacists do not
get involved in the dispensing of the medical marijuana to avoid a felony conviction that could put their
license at risk.” (enclosed). It is our belief that this same problem and position regarding conflicting
DEA, State and Federal Law will occur with a Designated Medical Director Physician (and/or
Pharmacist) – State and Federal Medical License Violations.
Monitoring heavily with qualified top notch security and the locations from residential and schools. That
a card holder can have access when needed w medical advisory team.
R9-17-107. Time-frames Seems to be effective.
The restrictions on public use will be effective in the control of non medical, unauthorized use. The
scope of Debilitating Medical Conditions will be effective in the control of non medical, unauthorized
use.
R9-17-107. Time-frames The Time-frame part is generally effective, but would be more so i if the
Department were to list any and ALL deficiencies required to be corrected in a deficient application.
R9-17-104. Changing Information on a Registry Identification Card The tracking of a qualifying
patient’s name and corresponding 20 digit ID number is effective enough. You don’t need to change
the card and the data base for every change of address.
I like most of the rules but dont make it to hard to get a recomendation. I have had over 30 doctors
for pain mgt and refuse narcotics at every one.
R9-17-103. Electronic Submission Electronic Submission may be an effective use od AHDS’s resources
but not all qualifying patients will have access to a computer without hardship. Many will find an
electronic format complex and frustrating. Also, many will not be able to afford to pay for such
services.
I feel that as a whole the draft is horribly infective and biased against against medical marijuana
patients and places an undue burden on medical marijuana dispensaries. I do not believe it is effective.
R9-17-102. Fees, is generally effective except that 36-2803.5(e) THE DEPARTMENT MAY ESTABLISH A
SLIDING SCALE OF PATIENT APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEES BASED UPON A QUALIFYING
PATIENT'S HOUSEHOLD INCOME and this has not been included in the preliminary rules.
Apologies, but so far I have not seen an effective portion of this draft, disputes are all I have noticed.
Specific statements that hold expectations of a medical aspect. Dispensary is held accountable for
maintenance and legal disposition of unused marijuana.
The definition of “public place” is effective in many ways but is overly broad in specific parts such as
private offices meeting room, etc. The provision to limit in public places only smoking of marijuana
and not other forms of intake of marijuana as medicine is an effective expression of Title 36. R9-17-
101 Definitions 18. "Public place:" a. Means any location, facility, or venue that is not intended for the
regular exclusive use of an individual or a specific group of individuals; b. Includes airports; banks;
bars; child care facilities; child care group homes during hours of operation; common areas of
apartment buildings, condominiums, or other multifamily housing facilities; educational facilities;
entertainment facilities or venues; hotel and motel common areas; laundromats; libraries; office
buildings; parks; parking lots; public transportation facilities; reception areas; restaurants; retail food
production or marketing establishments; retail service establishments; retail stores; shopping malls;
sidewalks; sports facilities; theaters; warehouses; and waiting rooms; and c. Does not include: i.
Nursing care institutions, as defined in A.R.S. § 36-401; ii. Hospices, as defined in A.R.S. § 36-401;
iii. Assisted living centers, as defined in A.R.S. § 36-401; iv. Assisted living homes, as defined in
A.R.S. § 36-401; v. Adult day health care facilities, as defined in A.R.S. § 36-401; vi. Adult foster
care homes, as defined in A.R.S. § 36-401; or Private residences.
I believe most of the DHS rules to be effective. They seem to be intelligently designed to ensure the
legitimate operation of marijuana dispensaries for medical purposes, while ensuring security and
quality. However there is one glaring exception that if not removed from the rules will negate their
overarching theme. §R9-17-307(C) places limits on the amount of medical marijuana a licensed
dispensary operator may obtain from or provide to other licensed dispensaries. It will have the effect of
burdening DHS, Law Enforcement Agencies, and the dispensary operator, while at the same time
keeping the most effective therapies out of the hands of the patients that need them.
1.he bureacrats' attempts to make patients jump through hoops to get state approval to possess pot.
He points out that a doctor in Arizona can prescribe Adderall to a kindergartener after one visit, but the
proposed rules would require four doctor visits prior to obtaining a marijuana recommendation.
Patients would suffer during the four-visit system 2.The department does not have the authority to
deny the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians 3.numerous studies demonstrating
the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense
addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's
pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission
of video surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. 4.Nowhere else in the practice of medicine
does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation
of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the
department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the
stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the
department to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS,
multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis
specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The department's regulations are
a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients' rights of choice,
including their rights to choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even
to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all 5.Though many qualifying
patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the
sections make little or no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or
internet access. 6.The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause
suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of daily living.
For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other
conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of
daily living. 7. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more
than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-
202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose other providers or
sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii,
R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a caregiver
already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be
submitted. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should
not be revoked for trivial or unknowing errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the
applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. 8.These sections violate the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to establish residency requirements,
control the occupation of the principal officers or board members, require surety bonds, require a
medical director, require security measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic
marijuana that exceed security measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and
dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials beyond what
the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance,
or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to
another dispensary or caregivers. 9.The department has no authority to place an undue burden on
recordkeeping for cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in
cultivation of medicine. 10. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The
department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of
weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. 11. department has no
authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk. 12. n unreasonable or
undue burden by requiring security practices to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not
required for toxic, even lethal, products. 13. 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has
no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
THAT PATIENTS GET MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND A I HOPE A FAIR AMOUNT. AND IT SHOULD BE
NON PROFIT ! ! !
1) The residency requirement of board members of at least 2 years is a good idea. 2) Fingerprinting
requirements are a good idea. 3) Individual restrictions such as individuals who owe back taxes, child
support etc are good restrictions.
The applauds the effort and dedication of the

Arizona Department of Health Services to create a regulatory system that will allow for a responsible
Medical Marijuana Program. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and participate in, the rules
making process.
In the early stages of drafting the rules are hard but other states like Colo. Mich. can be helpful. 1.
My concerns are some of your requirements, that having a physican sign your form whom you've been
with for the past two years, some of us come here and I personally am a property owner paying taxes
go to Las vegas, Nev. for my V.A. medical dr. and various related services, being closer than
Prescott,and Phoenix. Not having a Dr. in Arizona at this point in the draft and having only V.A. Dr's
that can't sign a form for mediacl Cannibas. The V.A. has been told by the federal Gov. not to limit our
medications or penalize us for using cannibas for symptoms which they recognize helpful in PTSD,
Cancer, and ghost pain for related operations, which suffer from, and other related problems. Cannabis
has helped me reduce my use of Morphine and Fentinol for pain and have a better nites rest due to
PTSD, and a right neck and shoulder modified masectomy. V.A. Dr's can't recommend Cannabis but
they do say it's helpful in many cases, to the patient. 2. Snow birds coming from other states that
have medical marijuana cards aren't mentioned and many are seniors that have been through Cancer
or bebiliating Arthritis, etc. and come here for the Sun and heat, this should be addressed since they
bring dollars and buy houses in this current economy, when they have the option to go to any
surrounding state for the winter and many stay more than six months. Now that I'm near the end this
should have probably been put in draft rules improved.
Google <a href="http://google.com">google</a>
i do believe that we need rules on this topic but the people like me that need this meds for real will
have a hard time getting this because the pain pills we are taking are killing us and this med will not do
that it works better then the pain pills that are killing our liver and kiddnys i have spinal issues such as
formital spinalsanosis, degenitive disk deases, bulging disk ,and a huriated L5 had my C5 disk removed
and fuzed and iam in pain every day to the point i can not function and have been fighting for my ssd
for three years now can not affored 150. dollars for a applacation fee and rules we can not grow our
own
Definition 17. “"Physician-patient relationship" means interaction between a physician and an individual
in which the physician has ongoing responsibility for the assessment, care, and treatment of the
patient's debilitating medical condition.” appears to UNREASONABLY imply that a physician would be
RESPONSIBLE for the patient’s use of marijuana.
I have family associated the Montana State legislature as well as a connection to one of the major
dispensaries in Montana. One key piece of the draft rules which was absent in Montana that they have
told me should have been required were the zoning requirements. In Montana, there was public
outrage over dispensaries being located near schools so having it present in the Arizona rules is
essential. One very effective part of the draft rules is the audit trail. I share the same concern about
dispensary cultivated marijuana making it's way on to the black market. To prevent that, there should
be a strict audit trail as you have detailed especially around the video surveillance. An excellent
example is the 24 hour surveillance of a given sqft area of plants which should be available for the DHS
to review at any time via the web as you have listed. Additionally, these videos should be archived
indefinitely rather than just for 30 days so that the DHS could review who had access to the plants and
what was done with them. I would also be in favor of electronic submission of these archived videos
to the DHS via the Internet so that the dispensary wouldn't lose their audit trail due to a catastrophic
event such as a fire.
Basically, I like the draft... the guidelines for a dispensary, requirements for a patient to get a MM ID
card and the requirements for a licensed physician to follow the patient and write prescriptions. I
believe very strongly that medicinal marijuana should be an option for people in chronic pain, who
have seizures, have AIDS or are HIV positive, have Alzheimers or any of the other conditions you have
listed in the draft rules. This is NOT about getting high... it's about getting relief! There are ways to
take marijuana that DON'T get the person high! There are sublingual tincture drops and a
concentrated oil. These have a higher CBD level and lower THC level than the 'recreational drug' that
people think about. Most of us in pain, have gone through the pharmaceutical route with all of the
awful side effects and that's not what we want. I don't want that 'high' feeling, I just want to go back
to a normal, functional life. I want to contribute.
I think the requirements to become a dispensary are very good. Particulary the non-refundable $5000
application fee and the requirement that an principles be an Arizona resident for at least 2 years. I
believe that will filter out a lot of glorified smoke shops and investors from other states. In addition, I
appreciate the detail that has been put into the regulations. With a new industry, there will always be
gray areas but it seems that Arizona is covering a lot of what has been missed in other states.
The definition “ongoing has unintended consequences. “16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a
physician-patient relationship means: a. The physician-patient relationship has existed for at least one
year and the physician has seen or assessed the patient on at least four visits for the patient's
debilitating medical condition during the course of the physician-patient relationship; or The physician
assumes primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating
medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination,
including a personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians that
may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies.” as used in the
context these rules is not completely fair to the regulated community.
I like the licensing of the dispensaries... I like the process through which a patient can get an ID card
and I believe the requirements for the prescribing physician are reasonable.
ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health
Services rulemaking be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensaries...." If you pay special attention to Section 36-2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the
AzMMA does NOT give authority to the Arizona Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the
patient-physician relationship and does NOT give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g.,
adding "ongoing" to "patient-physician relationship." The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically
DENIES authority for such usurpations
Rule R9-17-311 “Dispensing Medical Marijuana” is effective, but could be stronger. This rule is
necessary to ensure that medical marijuana (“MM”) does not end up in the wrong hands. It is
important that dispensaries verify the identity of card holders before providing them with MM.
Subsection 1 requires identity verification of registered patients and caregivers by the dispensary
agent, but does not say anything about what method must be used. A quick, effective, and secure
method such as a fingerprint scan should be required by DHS to ensure that MM does not end up in
the wrong hands.
While I see some value in the concept of the Medical Director in following definition, "Medical
director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine
pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds
a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or
its successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the
dispensary this definition is too narrow and would drive up the cost of medicine to glaucoma
patients to impractical levels
On the surface, this seems like a legitimate attempt to enact effective rules for medicinal use and
cultivation/dispensing of cannabis products. Kudos to Arizonans for their foresight.
Rule R9-17-311 “Dispensing Medical Marijuana” is effective, but could be stronger. This rule is
necessary to ensure that medical marijuana (“MM”) does not end up in the wrong hands. It is
the wrong hands.
The time-frame rules seem to be reasonable and effective.
WHAT PARTS OF THE DRAFT RULES DO YOU BELIEVE ARE EFFECTIVE? I believe most of the DHS
rules to be effective. They seem to be intelligently designed to ensure the legitimate operation of
marijuana dispensaries for medical purposes, while ensuring security and quality. However there is
one glaring exception that if not removed from the rules will negate their overarching theme. §R9-
17-307(C) places limits on the amount of medical marijuana a licensed dispensary operator may obtain
from or provide to other licensed dispensaries. It will have the effect of burdening DHS, Law
Enforcement Agencies, and the dispensary operator, while at the same time keeping the most effective
therapies out of the hands of the patients that need them.
I believe that the process of verification for patients and dispensaries is adequate.
I thought you did a great job on the first draft with the limited amount of time you had to put it
together.
QUESTION: On page 17 of the inititive, is it correct that Corporations do NOT have to comply with the
ARS Title 10 of Non-Profit Corporations? I don't think there should be exceptions to a Medical
Marijuana Dispensary as to the Laws of this state. QUESTION: Must each board member have a
surety bond, or just the Medical Director? Can the Surety Bond be issued to the Corporation? Page 28
of your Draft QUESTION: Are you going to require Manufactures of Medical Marijuana Products to
have a Back ground check and an Agent Fee for it's employees?
It appears that the Draft Rules were thoughtfully drafted with the goal of ensuring that the use of
marijuana is limited to those with a medical need for drug. The Rules will ensure that the industry
does not do anything to degrade its reputation, as they contain many safeguards to prevent illegal or
otherwise undesirable behavior in combination with medical marijuana. Despite the numerous
positives, some of the language in the rules is so restrictive that it will likely have negative
consequences on the safety of the marijuana industry and the overall quality of the product that ends
up with patients.
R9-17-101 and R9-17-103 thru 108
I believe most of the DHS rules to be effective. They seem to be intelligently designed to ensure the
legitimate operation of marijuana dispensaries for medical purposes, while ensuring security and
quality. However there is one glaring exception that if not removed from the rules will negate their
overarching theme. §R9-17-307(C) places limits on the amount of medical marijuana a licensed
dispensary operator may obtain from or provide to other licensed dispensaries. It will have the effect of
burdening DHS, Law Enforcement Agencies, and the dispensary operator, while at the same time
keeping the most effective therapies out of the hands of the patients that need them.
The portions involving patient records, security, and facility are effective.
Arizona residency requirement Security and product tracking requirements
Restricting cultivation and distribution to Non-Profit entities only. Provision for having a medical
director for a dispensary Provision for oversight and monitoring of cultivation sites
Many of the definitions are helpful. Parts of this this one are not appropriate. 10. "Enclosed" means:
a. A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet; or b. An area surrounded by four
solid 12-foot walls constructed of metal, concrete, or stone with a one-inch thick metal gate and a
barrier covering the top of the area that is: i. Welded or woven metal wire mesh, with minimum wire
thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 1 inch; ii. Welded metal wire grid, with
minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 3 inches; DRAFT 12/17/10
4 12/17/10 iii. Metal chain-link weave, with gauge no less than 9 and no more than 11.5; iv. A panel
of metal vertical bars, with minimum bar thickness of 0.5 inches and maximum gap between bars of 4
inches; or v. Constructed of iron or other metallic material and similar to the examples in subsections
(10)(b)(i) through (10)(b)(iv), if approved by the Department.
Thank you for taking the time to closely follow the proposed legislation presented in Proposition 203.
ADHS did an excellent job incorporating the regulations of the proposition in the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act!
Many of the definitions are effective, but this one is not. "Calendar day" means each day, not
including the day of the act, event, or default from which a designated period of time begins to run,
but including the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, statewide furlough day, or legal
holiday, in which case the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,
statewide furlough day, or legal holiday.
I have read the rules & regulations.But my brain works differently, so I will say this in my way.
January 5, 2011- There is no way I can entrust my mental needs
from the past 20 yrs to a new Dr so I can get MedMJ.(Medical Marijuana). I will continue to medicate
unlawfully. And to have to wait a year is foolish. I would most likely die in that time. I have been
diagnosed with neurological disorders that keep me confined to home. I have no friends. I stay at
home always. My personality dissociation disorder keeps me home bound, very difficult going to get
groceries. I have been diagnosed medication resistant. I have had Electro Convulsion Therapy. Side
effects stopped treatments. The only relief in life I get is MedMJ. I refuse to drink myself to death.
If I am about to have an emotional 'episode' of fear or migraines from past E.C.T's, I medicate. I have
no side effects. It is the only drug that gives me some relief. Before, I would take pain & sleeping pills.
I hate pills. I am able to have a basic adult life, able to now function on my own independently. I will
always be permanently disabled for life. I have to accept this. But I can't accept the pain, panic,
anxiety, severe chronic depression etc. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS. I started to think
of suicide... MedMJ saved my life. MedMJ allows me to refocus. I no longer have those thoughts. And
for the first time in 8-9 years I am copping with my life.
That we have finally Voted for and have passed a law where AZ residents can seek other releif besides
NARCOTICS. I have been in Pain Managment since 1994, I HAVE NEVER seen Oxycontin and Morphine
and other dangerous addictive drugs passed out like candy by AZ Dr's. I'm happy to see an alternitive
to the VERY deadly and VERY addictive Pain pills they push on us!!!!!!
Section R9-17-202, I really like the idea of fingerprint ID for all caregivers. I was a healthcare
professional in Washington state and I originally supported Initiative 692, Washington's medical
marijuana law. We will have to see how enforcement woirks out since Washington's medical marijuana
law was widely abused and rife with theft and fraud.
Making marijuana available for those of us that are chronically ill is a huge step in the right direction.
Allowing the amount of marijuana is acceptable as outlined. Allowing the growing of marijuana is
acceptable as outlined.
Thank you! We appreciate you attention and diligent work towards making this program best for all.
Residency requirements are a great idea, but concrete proof will strengthen the intent. Try 5 years of
lease or mortgage statements or 5 years of AZ tax returns. Firm residency requirements will keep the
negative influences from California and Colorado out of Arizona. I do not wish my state to end up like
downtown LA. It is a bad model to follow. Now that this 203 has passed we are stuck with it, but we
can control what happens to Arizona. We can create a model for CA and CO to follow if we do this
properly.
I assume that the surety bond is for one of two purposes. 1) To demonstrate financial capability OR 2)
To insure that taxes will be paid if they have not been paid in the past. Either way is OK, but this
shoudl be clarified.
It is a good idea to make the accounting records of a dispensary available for inspection.
The draft regulations are deeply flawed and criminally tainted in every respect. The evidence of
criminal collusion between the Arizona Department of Health Services and the elitist super-wealthy of
the (see, for example, the 1/4/2011 letter of
) has damaged the current process beyond all repair. The unstated but
evident fundamental assumptions are immoral, pathological, and demogogic, utterly incompatible the
moral imperatives of a free nation. These repugnant assumptions are: 1) the lives of Arizona's citizens
belong to the State; the State, not the patient, will decide when and what care patients will receive 2)
the Arizona Department of Health Services (hereinafter, "the department") is, as its spokesperson has
stated, above the law and may disregard the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act 3) the department
may conspire with the wealthy and elite to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the suffering,
dying, and citizens at large. If the department does not rescind the draft regulations immediately, it
will be necessary for the good people of Arizona to obtain injunctive relief, to begin the process anew,
to promulgate draft regulations that are moral, legal, and to the advantage of Arizona's suffering,
dying, and citizens at large in an open, honest, and legal process.
The basic parts of the draft which set up basic rules for clinics and the dipensing of medical marijuana
are all that was necessary from day one. Your mission as a health department is to simply help patients
get the medical marijuana and accommodarte the wishes of voters of Arizona----and not to become a
whole new department of police action.
I voted for Proposition 203. The general tone of the draft regulations, as exemplified in the provisions
listed below, make it clear that the Health Department is attempting to use the regulatory process to
subvert the will of the voters. The law requires the Health Department's rules be enacted in a way
that doesn't impose "an undue burden" on the dispensaries. The provisions listed in the "How can the
draft rules be improved?" section of this survey do just that. I will certainly support any lawsuit that
ensues should your agency's regulations exceed your authority under the law.
What the voters voted for.

Overall, I feel that AZDHS has done a fair, effective job with the rules, and I appreciate Will Humble for
his obvious effort (and his blog!) during this exciting time. Thanks for caring what we think. The
building provisions for dispensaries and grow sites are reasonable, and I'm glad to see the required
bank-type security measures. I *love* the 2-year AZ resident rule for dispensary officers/board
members. I like that patients can opt-in to receive clinical study notification; more studies = more data
= more informed. I think the rules to add a debilitating medical condition are effective. I think it's
good that allegations of a dispensary's noncompliance cannot be anonymous; this protects dispensaries
from unreasonable search and seizure. I think it's wise to prohibit medical directors from writing
recommendations. I love that all medical marijuana will be labeled by strain, date, and source, but
more important, all chemical additives used in cultivation and production - thank you.
You have to be a Lawyer to understand all the rules! I have read them several times and I still do not
understand them. I believe you are too harsh on the dispensary owners, with all the rules and
regulations. Pharmacy's can provide morphine, oxycontin, vicodin and you simply sign the form. I
have been going to my Dr. for over 6 years now, but I can see where there could be problems for
people who have to wait a year for approval. From the first day after my accident I would have been
better off if I had access to marijauna then all the other junk that I was given to take, and all the
meds I have had to take since then. Just remember when you do the final draft that you really
consider the patients and make this as painless a process as possible. Since I don't use Marijuana yet I
am hoping it won't be so difficult to obtain and try it. I don't even know if it will work for me but if I
have to go through to get it, I may just have to live with the pain because some people are so
afraid to do the right thing.
not much.
not much.
not much.
not much.
If you pay special attention to Section 36-2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the AzMMA does NOT
give authority to the Arizona Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the patient-physician
relationship and does NOT give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding "ongoing" to
"patient-physician relationship." The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically DENIES authority for such
usurpations.
The procurement of cards for patients, caregivers and dispensaries seem to be well thought out and
thorough. The requirement for obtaining the medical certification of need letter are excessive and will
not serve the patient well. A high percentage of patients will be unable to obtain this letter of
certificate of need based upon the current administrative code draft.
The zoning laws will be effective in keeping medical marijuana away from school grounds. This is a
good aspect of the draft. Its good that you have to be a patient before you can become a caregiver,
very sensible. Its important for the physician to discuss pros and cons of medical marijuana. Its good
that you only have to be 18 to get a mmj card.
The electronic system that will be placed to help keep track of when, where and how much cannabis a
patient is using. Also, although I do not fully agree on how it is done but the fact that you are allowing
other conditions to be taken into consideration and possibly added to the list of conditions that apply
for patients to receive medical cannabis. I also just want to say that even though I do not agree with
a lot of the rules being set in this informal draft, I do appreciate the hard work the AzDHS is doing and
allowing the public to comment on them to help make these rules functional and beneficial for the
people.
It seems blatantly clear that you want only the very rich or maybe the already rich & picked people to
be able to get a dispensary. It seems so exaggerated, so far reaching. It seems hard to believe that
this could happen in this day & age. It is so set up to be a monopoly that it stinks. Most of the
regulations are good but then you go to the extreme & beyond. I'm sorry that middle class people,
even the upper middle class have no chance to get a dispensary. As long as you expect someone to
put out $100,000. or more on the chance that they might get a license is ludicrous. This is marijuana
not the stuff they sell at pharmacies.
Most of it is fine.
I think all parts of the draft are effective except the fee values, adding a debilitating medical condition,
remote access to a dispensary's electronic monitoring system, cultivating a min. of 70% of the medical
marijuana a dispensary provides at the dispensary itself, and only three dispensaries per medical
director.
The department has maded repeated statements to try and change the bill that was passeed by the
Arizona voters. I call to attention Director Humbles own words. Humble has stated numerous times his
oppositon to the law the citizens of Arizona passed. He said he would "try and salvage the act." Arizona
citizens did not vote for anyting that needs to be "salvaged." This attempt had not having an open
comment section is another way the department is tring to limit discussion. he only way people tha
need medication is to get on a computer and comment? The department makes misleading satements
to the press and to the citizens of Arizona. The lady with behaviorial services when asked at a press
conference how many people had died from Marijuana overdoses, babbled about how she would have
to "check that out," she then went on to ramble about car accidents. The department claims it is short
on funds, yet it is willing to open itself up to lawsuits by not properly enacting the law. In short, the
department tasked with health services for the people of arizona, is defying the voters and is defying
the law.
i have commented before,,, if there is any search of patients in numbers that would allow increases in
estimations the dhs needs to look at all lymphadema patients. i don't understand the complications or
needs of "medical approval" i can assert the following is correct; What are the sources of this physical
pain from lymphedema? 1. Compression of and to nerves from the swelling 2. Increased pressure
and compression of nerves from fibrosis 3. Chronic inflammations that are all to often with
lymphedema 4. Cellulitis, lymphangitis and other infections 5. Over exertion of areas of the body as it
attempts to cope with the excess strain and weight over an oversized limb 6. Wounds and those
weeping sores we all get from time to time
Background check, discription of dispensary, licensed physician approval on use, revocation of ones
license if they are not following the law for use of medical marijuana, techniques, and on site help with
using marijuana as a possible alternative for perscription pain medication. Nice you had the
rulemaking proposal avaliable for public viewing, and downloading on the internet. Posting times for
public meetings and where they will be held was helpful. Keeping all those interested in this new law
well informed is vital for all of us to work together and stay within the laws.
Sincerely,
The draft seems to be very careful to make sure that cannabis is provided only to qualifying patients.
The best part of the application process proposed in the draft is the "Nonrefundable application fees".
This is crucial to limiting the number of applicants, especially on the dispensary side, to ensure the best
supply of viable applicants comes forth. It puts restraint on someone turning in 50 applications hoping
to get one. This reduces your departments work load to ensure the best applicants are awarded
licenses. Make sure it is defined more clearly that if an application is turned in that there is no instance
a person can receive their application back. The current verbiage in R9-17-102 is clear but does not
state equivocally there is no way to receive your application fees back for any reason.
most everything I see is O.K.
Over all the draft looks fairly complete and looks like a good start to have proper controls of this new
Medical Marijuana Act.
I think the restrictions are very important but do not go far enough. I didn't see anything that
addressed the issue of carcinogens in marijuana smoke and keeping it out of public places, including
parks...
Taken in totality, it appears that AZDHS is working in collusion with to make this application
process as difficult as possible, beyond what is fair and reasonable. What was alleged to be “fair and
transparent”, has now become biased and opaque, demanding a comprehensive review and
explanation. If any of this is even REMOTELY TRUE I as a Citizen of the USA, Resident Voter of the
State of Arizona demand an explanation!
AzDHS does NOT have the authority to enact the cruel and unreasonable package of regulations they
propose. You seem to want the State of Arizona to FAIL.........before it has even started. This New
LAW would allow so many new buisness to thrive and the economy to take off again. Also providing
the State with much needed tax revenue.
None. The rules seem designed to override the wishes of the voters and meddle far too much in the
doctor-patient relationship. Who has the right to tell me what doctor I must see? True enough, a
doctor cannot prescribe illegal drugs for my care, but since pot is no longer illegal (for medicinal
purposes), the state does/should not have the right to prescribe my medication. There are
extremely addictive and deadly drugs available for my doctor to prescribe for my health care. Yet the
state apparently doesn't feel it needs to enter the doctor-patient relationship in those cases.
Limited areas where marijuana can be grown and dispensed
It's effective in being cruel and unreasonable
Establishment of a Physician-Patient relationship for a minimum period of time
The Caretaker System as well as providing the dispensaries with the ability to cultivate/grow off
property with proper security and set up. The ability to deliver is also a benefit for facilities such as
assisted living environments where they are not mobile. Just as important is emphasizing the
educational programs which will be crucial for the success of this program.
The dispensing of medical marijuana for those who are in need for additional help in managing pain
and chronic or acute health conditions.
The dispensing of medical marijuana for those who are in need for additional help in managing pain
and chronic or acute health conditions.
The rules that explain residency and Medical Director.
2-year residency is good. Overall the health department has done a phenomenal job with the draft
rules.
The draft rules in general are effective in frustrating the will of the voters who voted in favor of Prop
203 and to some extent an attempt to ignore Arizona Constitution Article 4 Section 1 that prohibit
amendments to language in initiatives that become law. However I think the draft rules under Article 3
are very effective in controlling and regulating dispensaries and are consistent with the Departments
rulemaking authority but the Department does not have the authority to regulate physician-patient
relationships to the extent to redefine its common meaning. The draft definitions under Article 1 R9-17-
101 (16), (17) arbitrarily defines and incorporate meaning to a physician patient relationship that would
make it difficult, if not impossible, for a qualifying patient to obtain physician certification. A patient has
a First Amendment right to seek and obtain medical advice from a physician of his choice. [Conant v.
Walters (9th Cir 2002) ] Under the current draft rules a patient diagnosed with terminal cancer would
have to wait a year before they could obtain a certification from their doctor and furthermore denies
them a right to seek medical marijuana consultative care from a physician who would not otherwise be
there primary care provider. These definition rules would only be effective to intentionally thwart the
will of the Voters and circumvent the Voters Protection Act (1998). Additionally, draft R9-17-202
(F)(5)(e,f,g,h,) attempts to amend ARS 36-2801(18) "Written Certification" with a more restrictive
requirement for physicians to include additional language when certifying a qualified patient. The
language of the law is clear and the Department has no authority to alter, change, or amend the law.
That you have to have a relationship with your doctor for a certain amount of time.
prohibiting out of state people from coming in and opening 2 or 3 dispensaries and locking out the
average person in ARizona from getting a dispensary,
The draft rules clearly delineate which patients are eligible for a recommendation of medical marijuana.
The definitions page is very helpful. Very comprehensive.
All are effective except the timelines for Physician/Patient relationship and the 25 mile cultivation
provisions.
This is very comprehensive and common sense based. The only issue I see is the one year timeline
requirement for treatment by the same physician. In the current insurance/medical care arena it is
quite common to change primary care providers frequently. For instance, I have been treated by 4
different primary care providers within the last calendar year through no fault of my own. If the
patient's medical records have complete information, the physician can make a determination in one
visit. Please reconsider the timeline requirements and allow medical personnel to make the
determinations at their discretion.
I believe the dispensary application process is fair.

I feel the draft rules are pretty comprehensive. I appreciate the fact that there is a way to petition for
other qualifying medical conditions.
In navajo county, the medical marijuanna dispensary should be centrally located in holbrook like the
court offices and the sheriff headquarters are. This location would be most convient and fair for anyone
in the county to access as a medical marijuana patient. At least, that's my opinion.
dispensaries...." ARS 28.1 Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the
department to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of
medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic
drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices are
not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video surveillance, residency
requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed
by the department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link
fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is
unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter
Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the involvement of naturopathic
and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-
202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-
17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary,
unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection
Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or
redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a relationship among patient,
physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a
specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of
medicine does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or
recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not
lethal, but the department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far
beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for
the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS,
to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent
to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-
17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department.
ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for
changes of location or amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i),
and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients,
qualifying patients' parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections
make little or no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet
access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for
addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to
accomplish their activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still
allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the
addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every
year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one
caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel,
arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose other providers or sources of information
R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-
308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid
caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be submitted. R9-17-
205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for
trivial or unknowing errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly
provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-
302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-
302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-
308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied to the
department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not
have the authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal officers
or board members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security measures that are
an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed security measures required
for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician
offices), require educational materials beyond what the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist,
require constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance, or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated,
legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers. R9-17-310 is
arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These sections violate the
1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a medical director,
much less to define or restrict a physician's professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary,
unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for
cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of
medicine. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place
an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or
other bite or swallow of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the
absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a
product may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied
to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no
authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security practices to monitor a safe
product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. R9-17-317.A.2 is
arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic
R9-17-202 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional
relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has
seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical
condition during the course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility
for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after
conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of
the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the patient's
reaction and response to conventional medical therapies;
1) Thank you for creating the online Public comments form in a "user friendly" format. 2) Arizona
residents appreciate the position of the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to keep this
new endeavor a "uniquely Arizona" industry. Requiring the Medical Marijuana Director and board to be
Arizona residents creates an opportunity to promote a standard for other states in the development of
future regulations.
I like the fact the ADHS is trying to comply with the law and make marijuana available to those who
might really benefit from it without compromising public safety and discouraging recreational use.
i think the residency requirement is a good idea, as are the security requirements for the most part
refuse.
It is unclear if a surety bond is required and if so how much. It is also unclear if an individual can open
a dispinsary or must you have a board including a pharmacist. Lots of employee requirements but
wasn't wanting employees just a small buisness. If I am self employed and have been for 15 years
why do I need a paystub I work for myself now. I am a small time entrepreneur and would like to stay
that way I don't mind most of the security requirements but the demands you have issued are a little
much for us non-coorperations. Lets give the little guy a chance to be the first and have an opportunity
to make a living; while helping people and being able to have a good work schedule.
1. having to see an "established" doctor for over a year. 2. FOUR visits before this "established"
doctor can write a prescription 3. Dispensary qualifications of walls being built, fences erected etc -
when other prescriptions such as narcotics and other addictive drugs are inside any pharmacy without
these types of security
Basic framework of Registration & Regulation.
- Resident of AZ for two years - Background checks and fingerprints, no felony offenses - Limiting size
of Dispensary - Dr. having a professional relationship with patient - Proving authorities with access to
security and video - Inventory control.
I think this draft is OK for just a rough draft with no input and I am sure it was difficult to put together.
However there are several areas that need to be addressed and completely rewritten in order to be in
line with the voter initiative and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection act. In general this draft is
unreasonable and not in line with the will of the people and the law that was voted in.
I do not want to change my Doctor.
In my practice of medicine, I see patients about 2 times per year for ongoing psychiatric care. Seeing
patients 4 times per year is not needed in my practice. The Doctor patient relationship is established
with one visit, establishing a medical record, and/or writing a prescription. I am a specialist in
Biological Psychiatry which is not "routine" care. As a specialist in Biological Psychiatry, it would make
sense that medical marijuana be prescribed for medical purposes according to the rules designated
by the AZ Medical Marijuana Act. Draft rules could be improved by taking the above into
consideration.
The rules appear to be very patient friendly, and the online system seems like it will be easy to use for
those who are applying for a patient license.
Minimum residency requirement for officers/board members of dispensaries. Requirement for
dispensaries to produce 70% of the product they sell.
The fact the law passed. It will hinder ill people from trying to get Medical Marijuana...because they
can not afford the high cost of just getting to the pharmacy! This is ridiculous! You are PRICING sick
people out of LEGAL marijuana! In total, it will cost everyone who qualifies for the medication, MORE
than just going to the local drug dealer just to receive an inferior medication, $150 for a I.D. card?,
and $200 for a Caretaker??? That is $350 "I" can't afford and I know others that can not afford the
money because they don't have it. I am on Social Security Disability and I am not able to afford the
prices of just getting to the dispensary to PURCHASE my medication.
I like the idea that patients will be giving information at dispensaries, but not sure I like the way it will
be given out.
i really like the rule for dispensary owners to be Arizona Residence and board members to be Arizona
Residence for 2 years i was hoping more like 4 year Residency rule for dispensary owners..
The vast majority of the draft rules, although rather aggressive in reducing the number of potential
patients who will be able to benefit from Medical Marijuana, look to be sound and effective.
Much of the rules are clear and concise. A lot of work must have been done to make this happen.
I think the tough restrictions are great. I think having a medical director is good. I think having a top
of the line security is great. That the marijuana has to be tested and labeled is great. I liked pretty
much all of it except having to actually lease a place before you know you have a license. Also, I would
wish these companies were for profit instead of non profit. ( for taxes generated.)
Most parts are well written. I strongly support keeping the availability of medical marijuana restricted
to legitimate patients, and not allowing it to become a free-for-all such as recreational users might like.
It would be more effective if the rules were not so long winded,
The high number of "hoops" required to jump through in order for a patient to obtain a card should
keep the number of people that do not truly have a medicinal need for marijuana to a minimum.
I really like most of it so far and I'm never happy with these sorts of items. So, bravo I believe you're
working hard to do this well.
Most of it is well-written and makes sense.
Medical director seems to me like a very helpful and effective idea. Makes the dispensory a much more
profesional and educative environment.
not many
I am medical director of a hospice inpatient unit in Tucson. We contract with a pharmacy for delivery of
medications needed by our patients. Most of these medications are strong opioids. We anticipate that
many of our patients with nausea and chronic pain will benefit from medical marijuana. It would be
difficult for these patients to be individually registered with a dispensary. Would it be possible for
facilities such as our to register with a particular dispensary that could deliver medical marijuana to our
unit (just as the pharmacy delivers medications we prescribe). Orders would be submitted by phone,
followed by a signed fax prescription by one of our physicians for medical marijuana for specific
patients, rather than each patient who enters are facility being required to register when they are
admitted. Most of our patients are close to dying or are admitted with a short life expectancy once
symptoms are managed.
What parts are there of the drafted rules? If you don't give people an address to where to read the
rules, how do you know the rules.
non ADHS are doing too much by way of interference, than using sensible control measures to
implement prop 203. prop 203 was a well written law. taking into account whats going on in california
and colorado. but mr humble feels he knows best and in my opinon it will render this law and it's
intended purpose ineffective. with little if any economic benefit to the state.
In general the draft rules are clear and detailed with regards to qualifying patients, designated
caregivers, fees, electronic database maintenance and submissions, dispensary security, dispensary
facility requirements, inventory control, growth facility requirements, etc.
Good that this happened, alot of people need pain management.
The requirements of growing and distributing would seem to be quite straight forward and not require
endless bureaucracy. Be very cautious, just like in any market, if you make it expensive for the end
user the end user will find another and less expensive way to fill their demand. Then you have a less
manageable situation in AZ.
I don't believe the state should have any legal control about the meaning of the doctor/patient
relationship at all when it comes to the recommendation of medical marijuana. A person or patient
that goes to a doctor to ask for a means to medicate his or her pain or discomfort-in any way that is
important to that patient-should be allowable under the law. This means that if a person/patient goes
to the doctor on day ONE of their illness-regardless of that illness, he should be able to acquire a
recommendation for that illness. A person/patient together with a doctor should be the one to decide
the nature of his/her illness and need for the drug, and no law in prop.203 calls for the state to
determine what that recommendation should be or how it is made. A patient should be able to get the
drug if he/she believes he needs it. Period.
The requirement that there must be a documented preexisting relationship between the doctor and
patient is effective, along with the signed affidavit. Also, the restrictions on marijuana use, labeling,
and growing is very appropriate. The residency restrictions for dispensary owners will definitely help
control the economic gain in the state of Arizona.
How wonderful to include a pharmacist. I know of no other medical professional so versed in the
proper, accurate and safe dispensing of any medication.
I believe that R9-17-101 Definitions are Concise and thorough. I believe that R9-17-103 Electronic
Submission is the best choice and could be very cost effective. R9-17-107 C(2) I believe that 60
calendar days is sufficient for handling and deficiencies, in fact I think that is very lenient. R9-17-108
Are again very concise and thorough. R9-17-314 These rules are very thorough and I do not see
where there should be any changes. R9-17-315 (A)(B)Are common sense measures. R9-17-316 Are
very practical and concise. R9-17-317 This is an excellent measure and will protect the patient as well
as the dispensary.
All the parts that have to do with registration and more
Waive or reduce fees associated with obtaining a Medicinal Mar. Prop 203, medical card, when the
applicant is on SSDI, or living below the poverty level, Personally We live on $894. a month. Oregon
has an example, Have heard.
Not Many
Over all, I think that the rules, (the parts that internest me, cultivating) are very strict. Alas they need
to be.
Notice that the AzMMA does not give authority to the ADHS to define or redefine the patient-physician
relationship and does not give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding “ongoing” to
“patient-physician relationship.” The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically denies authority for such
usurpations.
I believe that the rules for persons who need Medical Marijuana are effective and clear.
the safety aspect of it i like.

many
I apologize this is long but i promise I get tothe point.I have seen the same physicial since 2006 when
I came to Arizona. I recently was diagnosed by my phychritrist with PTSD. I don't know much about
the disease. I thought it was something that Veterans get. Since I have had death threats and my
sister's life, had this man come at me with a butcher knife and is now a felon he has black mailed and
my doc says he is responsible, On top of this I was diagnosed in California in 1997 with SMI (severe
mental illness. I also have bi-polar, multiple personality disorder and I am a cutter.)(I was sexually
tortured and surgically operated while awake)...at Marijuana is the only thing that keeps me from going
to the extreme of cutting myself and worse having suicide thoughta like last year when I tried to kill
myself.. My physician that I go to for my physical problems is now doing rotations in the hospital. She
is not no longer taking patients.I have lost 5 dress sizes since last month and now wear children's
clothes. My Phychritrist at my HMO will not put me in the hospital until I can rule out cancer or
something else. I have started to waste away. I have no appetite since thanksgiving. Your draft says I
have to have seen a doctor at least 4 times. The
says they my medical records from 2006 have been destroyed.What do I do now? My doctor wants to
put me on all kinds of drugs with side effects. I have to have marijuana and want to eventually be a
holistic gluten - free MJj baker and pay taxes back to the community.
lots of it
I am a project manager currently so I can appreciate all of the work that has been put into the draft
rules and hope the comments and recommendations below will be helpful to you. I am thrilled with
the section R9-17-302 stating that the principal officer must be an Arizona resident for 2 years. The
Draft rules are detailed and specific along with well written. I am very glad you are requiring a medical
director for all dispensaries. Thank you for all the hard work and time you have spent on assisting
the medical marijuana patients of Arizona. I pray I am never one of them. Phoenix
AZ
very effective but i beleive over time parts will prove to be counter productive
i think you did a good job in reguating. but somethings are too restictive and cumbersome
Mr Humble, I would like to congratulate you and your team on a great first draft of the Az
Medical Marijuana Act. The rules set forth thus far are comprehensive and are designed to ensure the
utmost in professionalism and quality, regulated medical care to the patients who truly need this
medicine. Job well done.
Read this comment while you can because Will Humble and his toadys are censoring any comments in
regards to their mishandling of AMMA (Arizona Medical Marijuana Act). All Humble cares about is
protecting Big Pharma’s interest and making life miserable for the seriously ill patients that want access
to safe medicine. Keep posting written comments about the Draft Rules and here are the 4 points to
comment on that must be eliminated. 1. Surveillance cameras in the dispensaries. Obviously Will
Humble fell in love with the Colorado Model of running dispensaries. What he fails to realize is Colorado
did not vote in dispensaries but are being licensed by the state to run FOR PROFIT (meaning a
business) medical marijuana dispensaries. The good citizens of Arizona voted in a system to have non-
profit medical marijuana dispensaries with MIMIMUM regulations including security so the cameras
have to go. This will end up in an expensive court battle if Humble persists in his mission to take away
our civil liberties. 2. The four visits and one year relationship with your doctor stipulation. Hmmm
why does it bother Humble so much that doctors who are licensed to practice medicine can give a
recommendation for medical marijuana? This is medicine Mr. Humble not a recreational drug. Just
because you blew some weed in college does not make you an expert on why people are using
marijuana today. Get off your high horse and do some research into the thousands of medical studies
done that show marijuana offers relief to suffering patients. The AMA will have quite a bit to say about
this rule and if Humble doesn’t remove it I think calls for his firing are in order. 3. The exhorbitant
fees of $150.00 for the patient (to be paid every year). What do the other states charge to the patients
for a card? I looked it up and the fees run from Free (Oregon) to the top end of $100.00 so Arizona will
have the highest rates in the country imposed on our sick and chronically ill citizens. Nice compassion
there Will Humble and again your heartlessness towards our citizens is duly noted. 4. Finally asking
for 41 Medical Directors to be on call or on staff to educate the patients about medical marijuana. First
of all I doubt there are 41 doctors in Arizona that are knowledgeable about medical marijuana to even
do this position. Also once they become the medical director they will no longer be able to recommend
the medicine. Nice Catch-22 pull out of the pool all the knowledgeable doctors and leave the patients
stuck trying to get a recommendation. Very poor rule and again shows that Humble is a lackey and tool
for Big Pharma. Who is giving this guy input anyways? Pull the curtain aside and you’ll see
and their hands all over these rules because they are shilling for a super
mega dispensary in Colorado (for profit mind you) that want to come to Arizona and make even more
money off our sick patients. Shame on you Humble and resign your position because you are doing a
disservice to our State. You were appointed to your position so you have no accountability to the
people. You are just a petty little bureucrat running wild and all you want is people to compliment you
on what a wonderful job you are doing. NOT!
The effective parts of the rules are the sanitation parts. I dont believe a lot of the red tape being put
around this medicine is truly effective because it seems a lot harsher, almost like a punishment, for
being marijuana than it would be if it was another prescription drug like an antibiotic. I believe the
rules need to consider this point: How would an "antibiotic dispensary" be treated? (and treat
marijuana the same) How would we regulate doctors on prescribing antibiotics? (and treat
marijuana the same) The clear and obvious attempt to be tougher on marijuana because it's
marijuana is not right, it is discriminatory against one medicine over another. Thank you.
Scottsdale, AZ
The effective parts of the draft cover who qualifies to handle the medical marijuana for any reason.
The rules on security sound effective except the allowing them to grow with only a metal screening for
a roof. This is not very secure. It would only take minutes to cut through the roof and steal the
marijuana. You would need 24/7 guards to secure a site like this.
I believe article 1, with the definitions are effective. They are pretty "clear cut" and straight forward.
The fact that it is a strong law that will include cities being held accountable for themselves for helping
those in need. Plus the fact that this law is gaining attention that it could become the most balanced
law in a long time.
I believe this is a great step forward. I also think that tracking the medicine is a great idea.
I like that the dispensaries will be so closely regulated.
I believe the intentions of the Department are good with regards to responsible oversight to avoid
many potential abuses of the Act. It appears that the 'boiler plate' is working with regards to
timetables and details, as there is more volume resulting from such language than REAL content, but
hopefully that's because the Panel is leaving much room, as they apparently SHOULD, for, hopefully,
EXPERT FEEDBACK, from the Industry as well as would-be entrepreneurs-- So, 'effective' is hopefully
the SPACE which will be filled by sound business practice and better perspective on the nature of this
HERB and not by the ill-prepared, financially insolvent Department who is treating the substance of
interest like its C1 counterpart, heroine, and over-regulating beyond what gun shops, pharmacies,
smoke shops, liquor stores, and bars must adhere to. The premise that this will be a MODEL
PROGRAM will be more of a JOKE when decriminalization occurs (and, by the People, it will) and this
rigid protocol which only alludes, presumes, and TOUTS ITSELF, as being 'protective and responsible' is
seen more accurately as the out-of-touch, ill-informed, reluctant, inadequately funded, unprepared,
caught with pants down bureaucracy that is waking from slumber, rearing its head, when this
Proposition had all the indicators of passing several times over. Keep trying, though, just know that
many of us won't swallow assumptions and weak premise by a patched-together, behind-the-curve
Department that threatens to SUFFOCATE a legitimate industry (in several ways) and handicap its
potential to benefit patients and the economy. In fact if a significant portion of this 1st ATTEMPT does
squeak by, you will ensure a healthy black market by unduly restricting would-be proprietors and
DETERRING legitimate business pursuits!
It seems very well constructed and isn't vague in regards to any of the regiments associated with the
processes of prop 203.
I like the fact that ADHS will require applicants to be AZ residents for 2 years before applying. That
was a concern of mine that non-az residents would be jumping on the bandwagon from Colorado and
California and possibly damaging AZ's reputation for running a legit medical dispensary. However, this
does not prevent those people from being "agents" and using AZ residents as front people. You may
want to consider all agents to be required to have a 1 year AZ residency.
Security checks of the personnel of dispensaries by the State is a good Idea that seems to be
sufficient.
Some. You are dealing with a legal MEDICINE, not, an illegal medicine! Stop making the rules so hard
for patients to just be 'able' to have the 'right', let alone purchase, their medicine. Funny, I thought the
vote made that apparent... Would you want to have to PAY $350.00 just to be able to go to the
"PHARMACY"??? I really don't think you would. I do not either! Use plain old common sense PLEASE!
I have to say that I completely agree with the draft rules that are set in place to insure that only those
who really need medical marijuana may aquire it. I agree with inspections of dispenceries and
cultivation sites because that insures that everything is up to code and safe for those who will be
consuming the medicine. I agree with maybe a more personal relationship with your doctor so that
everyone isn't just getting a quickie refferal.
Please make the comments and feedback on these draft rules public as a blog, so that the rest of us
can read each others comments and suggestions.
This letter constitutes some of my comments on the draft proposal by Arizona Dept. of Health Services
regarding its implementation of a Medical Marijuana Program. First and foremost, the name of the
plant in question is Cannabis sp., usually either Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, or a hybrid thereof.
There is no such plant called “marijuana” except in colloquial slang; “marijuana” being a name
created by law enforcement authorities after the failure of alcohol prohibition in the 1930’s, to
demonize a new substance by racial associations. So, let’s start with the attitude that we are going to
pursue this with a science based objectivity, and not the racist, subjective and obstructionist fear
mongering that has been characteristic of governments attitude in the past. I have two specific
comments, and then some general ones. I also have some suggestions. Under Article 1, R9=17-106,
“Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition”, subsection A-7; “Articles published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals, reporting the results of research on the effects of marijuana on the medical condition… This
would be fine if in fact the federal government had ever sanctioned any objective research, other than
simply pursuing a policy of obstruction and denial. For example, it is my belief that Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder is a debilitating condition that should be on this list already, and surely should be one
of the first new ones to be added. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder affects large numbers of combat
veterans, and also numbers of abuse, rape, and incest survivors. In the case of the combat veterans,
the largest medical care provider for this group is the Veterans Association. Until very recently, it was
the policy of the Veterans Administration to routine deny access to medical treatment to veterans who
acknowledged use of Cannabis to relieve the symptoms of PTSD. While the VA has recently “revised”
its stance by not actively and routinely denying treatment, they will still not allow it on Federal Property
on the grounds that Cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. At the Arizona state level, we have
the Access program that provides medical services to low income individuals, and many chronically ill
poor people fall under their jurisdiction. Many medications are routinely denied to folks on Access
unless they sign an agreement to not use “street drugs” including Cannabis. Anecdotal evidence
suggests persons using Cannabis to alleviate the affects of PTSD, can benefit from its use ; however
to require “scientific peer reviews” on research that has not been allowed in the first place is simply
continuing the obstructionist behavior that has been preventing it all along. By all means, create some
scientific research and clinical trials into the therapeutic and palliative affects of Cannabis on PTSD
sufferers. But don’t require it as a condition when it really doesn’t exist, Under section R9-17-202,
Section B, it states that “A qualifying patient may only have one designated caregiver at any given
time”. The problem with this, is that low income people in rural areas thereby have no choice in
designated caregivers, because the process for replacing a designated caregiver is time consuming and
expensive. A qualifying patient in a rural area should be able to obtain Cannabis from any designated
caregiver; and designated caregivers in rural areas should not be tied to a specific patient. I suggest
that you allow registration of “designated caregivers” in areas greater than twenty five miles from a
dispensary to cultivate up to twelve plants for each of 5 qualifying patients, for a total of 60 plants. If
the qualifying patients did not use the full amount grown by the caregiver, the balance of materials
could be donated to clinical research programs designated by AHS. It is critical, that AHS not rely
solely on indoor production at designated dispensaries, but be also willing to compare the therapeutic
effects of locally grown and produced Cannabis from seed. Further on , on page 14, subsection e, It
requires “A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship
with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year, and the physician has seen or
assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patients debilitating medical condition… I
can tell you right now, that some medical providers are going to refuse to participate in providing
evaluations for medical Cannabis; a case in point is , which
currently has signs in their lobby stating that their policy precludes them from doing evaluations. This
means qualifying patients are going to have to establish relationships with new doctors and wait as
much as a year before they will be able to qualify under this stipulation. This is patently unfair,
considering that many folks have been waiting for the State of Arizona to get its act together since
1996. This is supposed to be about relieving chronic illness, not devising new administrative and
bureaucratic hurdles to obstruct access. We understand the desirability of having adequate medical
supervision, and we applaud the record keeping requirements as a way to document the results; but
don’t throw any new hurdles in front of persons who are already facing challenges. We have had
enough red tape, let’s not “gift wrap” these new rules in it. How many other medical treatments
require “fingerprinting and background checks by the FBI”? You are suggesting treating sick people
like registered sex offenders. We have an opportunity before us, if we are up to the task. Cannabis
has been used by the common folk as a therapeutic agent for centuries. It was a common ingredient
in medicines prior to 1935. The only context in which the name Marijuana is acceptable is when you
consider “Mary and John” to be the average person. Cannabis is medicine for the people. The average
citizen has been largely shut out of a medical system that operates on a for profit basis. We applaud
the idea of a Not for Profit method of providing Cannabis to the chronically ill; but beware of making
rules that are so convoluted that many who should benefit cannot comply .
Much too many rules counterproductive to patients in need NOW and in the future. I have chronic
depression, glaucoma, constant muscle spasms, pain, osteoarthritis, degenerative spine, disk, joint,
disease, spinal-stenosis, neuropathy and RLS and I am on a low income as I am disabled. This appears
to be another money maker as is the status quo to arrest patients that choose marijuana due to
necessity as opposed to narcotics. Either comply with the "rules" or pound sand. That is the message I
see in Mohave County Arizona. I am disgusted with government not following the will of the people
and lobbying by elected public officials against said law. Keep it simple. This current micromanagement
is cruel. The people have spoken! Stop the complicated insanity!
The regulations appear well thought out.
I am satisfied with the the qualifications for physician, caregiver and dispensary administration.
For Heaven's sake make it a legitimate physician/patient relationship and mandate follow up symptom
monitoring. -
Dispensary descriptions, inspections (although should allow reporters of noncompliance a method of

remaining unnamed to the dispensary - i.e. require a reason for remaining unnamed (safety, threats,
retaliation) and / or require a judicial hearing to determine the need to expose the name.) Very
clearly written and straight forward for a government / legal document.
I think you are effectively making it hard for some patients to get into the program.
all of the draft rules are acceptable,
I feel that the fees associated with getting med marijuana cards, dispensaries, and caregivers. These
are fair and hopefully the state will get help with the budget.
All the rule are effective except the one about the eligibliity of an veteran.
The draft on a whole seems to be effective except my opinions below.
1) (R9-‐17-‐316) Establishing accountability to maintain the safety and quality of edible food products
is a good idea, as is all parties following local food preparation law and regulations.
I am a nobody, I voted in favor of Medical Marijuana. Marijuana has been demonized by culture just
about 100 years ago. Please don't make this process so restrictive that the people can't use it. I have
had three back surgeries and suffer from pain every day. Many people that may benefit from marijuana
can not afford multiple visits to acquire doctors approval. A visit, a history equals control.
I like the protection of patients related to how edibles are prepared and handled. It will be good to
know what herbicides and other additives are in the products including non-edibles. I think the
safeguards for security in the facilities are commonsense and necessary. Generally, the rules seem
well thought out. There was so much detailed information, I am sure I need to go over it again.
I feel AZDHS has done a clear, concise job of setting the foundation for an effective law that will
benefit not only the patient, but society here in Arizona. As a Clinical Social Worker and active in LD 11
GOP, I feel you have done well to respresent not politics, but compassion. Prop 203/SB 1222 to those
who voted Yes is about the Patient, their Rights as Americans; a Plant that has come from the
Sovereign and Almighty God, and acknowledging a safer approach to pain management than
manufactured Opiates.
That people will be able to add a qualifying condition if the need is there. And have a safe way to get
the help they need.
The parts which allow use of marijuana for medicinal use. It appears to be the job of the ADHS to
restrict the use of personal discretion to choose an Arizona doctor or a dispensary and to inflict as
much cost and future costs as legally allowable as well as limit agricultural growth and even determine
statewide growth areas. Does anyone remember we are in Arizona - the arid land? Perhaps it is the
job of the Health Department to facilitate medicinal marijuana use as approved by the People of
Arizona and this request for public comment is the most effective start to achieve that end and ultimate
growth of new industry in agriculture, medicine, health and welfare of this State.
I think the security is excellent.
the dispensary parts.
For the most part, the majority of language in the draft rules appears reasonable. However, I have
listed some concerns that I believe may be shared by others. I encourage you to consider the items
listed below, (How can draft rules be improved?), and take these issues in to consideration when
editing for the final draft.
For the most part, you seen to have everything covered
I am very much in favor of the overall thoroughness of the draft rules and the level of professionalism,
security and oversight that they demand.
first i would like to say great job on being profesional in the way that you all have handled this matter.
Rules regarding id, sanitation, and requirements are excellent...
The rules regarding the operation of dispensaries for the most part will ensure safety and security in
the operations. The rules appear strict in making sure only qualified patients will receive medical
marijuana.
Your inventory and accounting regulations seem good> I have a background in designing inventory
systems for retailer. I know the importance of inventory (money) control. I am continuing the
application process and will continue with my comments and suggestions. This is my second response.
Congratulations!! It seems that plenty of thought went into the proposed rulemaking. I believe that
the proposed rules were well thought out and will be a model for other states,
Honestly, it looks like Arizona is well on it's way to getting this right. I like the controls on dispensaries
however, I do not think that having only physicians as medical directors is broad enough. The health
department has done a great job at thinking about the rural areas and allowing for personal growth. I
thisnk the health department is truly open to working with the citizens to make this happen in a way
that will protect others from harm. It's time that people realized that Marijuana does have very positive
medical benefits.
Prop 203 is important and medical marijuana can help many chronically/gravely ill patients who often
suffer terribly from the side-effects of conventional treatment therapies.
all the rules regarding the certification of the personnel involved seem right on.
allowing people to use the herb is very affective, thank you
I think the rules you are talking about will make it extremely difficult for needy people to get the
assistance they need. I have used marijuana for back pain and my son has a bad eye problem that is
helped by it. My question is not regarding a dispensary tho. I am 70 years old and want to know if i
can just grow and sell to dispensaries and how i go about getting a permit for that.
Strict rules are effective for those who wish to invest in medical marijuana. The state needs to monitor
those who invest to keep drug gangs and criminals away from the dispensaries. This is critical
I think the draft rules will be very effective in preventing people from getting medical marijuana. Most
of the people who need it will continue to buy it from the illegal drug dealers due to the cost and the
beurocratic hoop jumping that these draft rules require. The people of Arizona have voted three times
to legalize medical marijuana and each time the government has kept the peoples will from being
enacted. It will be easier to get oxycontin, a very dangerous and addictive drug, that it will be to get
the relatively harmless and non addictive marijuana.
I believe that most of the draft rules set forth are good. I have reviewed the draft in its entirety, and
only find fault in two minor areas.
The problem is NOT the wording of the Act. The problem remains: it is illegal and unconstitutional.
The DEA has clearly demarcated marijuana as a controlled substance--not available to any health care
practitioner EXCEPT for research purposes. Whenever there is a conflict between State and Federal
law, Federal law will trump. To allow for "medical marijuana" we must approach, first, the federal
regulatory statutes. The list of controlled substances must be amended--and that list must include a
full regulatory authority given to the DEA and FDA. Offering another "medication" to the plethora of
narcotics, hallucinogens, to the already-liability-strapped physician is not the correct answer. If
AMERICA wants "medical" usage for marijuana then, simply, AMERICA must change the federal
statutes first. The inability of the States to enforce current Federal Statutes, and the inability of the
Federal Government to enforce Federal Statutes is not an excuse to allow for sloppy, poorly worded
law-making.
I am a veteran with service conected injuries and draw a small pension + medical for injuries sustained
in 1976. I have been un-employable since 1993 and am considered by the VA as 100% medicaly
disabled only 40% is considered service conected. I have no other income and am not permitted to
work Period. I survive right at poverty level and receive hi dose pain medication containing large doses
of Tylenol that upset my stomach. I have used marijuana the last thirty-five years of my life to help
control the pain i suffer and will continue to do so for the rest of my life, as for the pain pills i stil have
to take them but not nearly the dose subscribed. My VA doctor is well aware of the fact i smoke
marijuana but being under Federal Guideline would probably not be willing to make the recomendation.
I personaly feel there should be a way to make it more available to veterans that have disabilities as
well . The annual fees should also be based on a sliding scale so anyone who qualified would be able
to afford it, without creating any hardships on those who's finances are barely sufficient to survive on
already.
I believe most of the draft is in line with the law as it was voted for with the exception of the items
listed in the improvement section.
I think the Department has done a fine job of constructing the beginnings of a well-thought and
intelligent program for providing medicine to patients in the State. While there are a few changes I see
as necessary, there have been some great considerations made that seem to be intentioned to achieve
what the main goal of any medical marijuana program should be- get patients medicine safely and
conveniently. I commend you on your sincere efforts to accomplish that. One of the things I truly like
about the proposed rules is the foresight that is embedded in certain aspects of the document, such as
allowing people to petition for additional conditions to be added and a thorough application process
that includes children being able to use medicine where necessary. The rules also can be very effective
because they take into account the entire process of production, handling, and dispensing of the
medicine. The law is well written and it seems like the AZ Department of Health is taking the process
seriously and setting clear regulations and processes in place. This is a breath of fresh air, as many
other State agencies have allowed this often hot-button topic to result in the neglect of their programs,
leaving patients with little choice or access as a result. Arizona seems to be interested in finding a
program that can be a positive force in the community and seems to be very organized. One of the
more effective tools will be the allowance of dispensaries to acquire medicine from outside sources,
including other caregivers and dispensaries. This is positive, as marijuana is a farmed crop even when
done in a controlled environment and can be subject to loss if contaminated or if there are
environmental problems. The rules seem to take into consideration the need to get the medicine to
patients and that is the most important part.
I think that there absolutely needs to be some kind of cost reduction for the card. Most people can't
afford a to pay for their medications and I am one of them. I'm 24 yrs old work for the city at a public
works office and marijuana is my savior. I have 2 herniated discs, degenerative disc disease, a pinched
nerve, pancolitis with terminal wall thickening, cysts on my ovaries, kidneys, and thyroid gland,
hyperactive thyroid, and the ventricle in the right side of my brain is enlarged. I am the only one out
of my 4 person household working. Does it seem to you that I couuld ever possibly afford $150 for the
card. I have been on endless ammounts of avrious prescriptions and mybody just can't take it no
more. I have found that a little marijuana and a few somas a day and I can actually function.
Something needs to be done to help out people like me.
They seem to cover all of the important details needed to provide effective oversight of medical
marijuana distribution and use.
The draft is very comprehensive and is a good start.
Most of the draft is reasonable but there are some parts that really need to be examined and changed
which I will mention below.
Overall, I feel it is a fair and balance.
none
I believe the proposed rules in regards to the patients ability to grow their own medicine if they live 25
miles or further away from a dispensary, is very effective in helping these rural residents! I also feel
that the rules govering the dispensary's are adaquate, provided that the dispensarys are up & running
within the same time frame cards are to begin being issued, & they are issuing QUALITY medcine from
proven reliable sources. I also agree with having the open public discusions that are being held soon;
In Phoenix on Feb 15 & 17 & another in Tucson on Feb 16th. I understand that these are two large
population centers, BUT I also feel that more effort should be made to get input from the rural
residents, including those in the Northern 2/3rds portion of this State!! Which should include; Flagstaff,
Show Low, Payson, Prescott, Page, Kingman, Yuma & Lake Havasu City.. This isnt a political fight
anylonger, its a medical fight for peoples lives & all Arizona's residents should be included & heard
throuout the process!!
I think overall it's pretty solid...wIth the exceptions to the things I've listed below.
The regulations for patient use are very important. The cost and fees should be affordable to all. I
agree with proper business zonings for dispensery locations and that the number should be limited.
I am a graduating may with a degree in political philosophy, have focused on policy writing to an
extent and have worked on two different political campaigns so am speaking about this policy from a
qualified view point. [Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for
at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits
for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship]
This provision is unfair to people like me. I bicycle everywhere for fitness and financial reasons. I've
been hit on my bike multiple times and have been in a few car accidents, all within the last few years. I
sought medical help to make sure I had no serious injuries, but chronic medium level pain has
persisted. I refused to take pain medications because I've seen them tear apart too many lives and my
step mother died from a pain pill overdoes; she was a teacher, not some gutter tramp. Because of this,
I haven't gone for follow up care regarding this issue and instead have smoked marijuana. So now,
even though I campaigned this past election season for and really pushed Prop 203 in
my own life the entire election season, I will not be able to benefit from this new law because I have
been otherwise healthy and thus to treat my pain I will have to engage in criminal activity for another
year to satisfy the law, or take prescription pain killers which are both addictive and possible lethal
while marijuana is neither. I also have not had a primary care provider for the last four years because
I'm a college aged male and other than constant back and knee pain from the car accidents, I've been
healthy so the only times I've seen a Dr have been for emergency situations at an ER or at an Urgent
Care Clinic.
I think the parts about a recieving and who is eligible are good and how to become eligible are good
Requiring a License Fee
ARTICLE 2. QUALIFYING PATIENTS AND DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS. “A statement, initialed by the

physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has
existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least
four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional
relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of
the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and
physical examination, including a personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other
treating physicians, that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical
therapies”
I BELIEVE PATIENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED BUY A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DOCTOR, BUT NOT HAVE
TO SEE THE DOCTOR 4 TIME'S IN A YEAR TO TO RECIEVE A PRESCRIPTION, AND THE PRICE IS TO
HIGH OFR THE APPLICATION.
the fact that medical marijuana is being made available at all.
YOUR RULES WILL EFFECTIVELY ENSURE THAT: Patients will continue to be forced to obtain
marijuana illegally The smuggled supply of low quality Mexican marijuana will increase in Arizona
Juveniles will continue to have access to inexpensive Mexican Marijuana Disrespect for our corrupt
and inefficient institutions and their unconstitutional rules will grow Patients and friends will be
infuriated when they can not get herbal remedies as the law specifies The price of domestic
marijuana will remain high with increased smuggling The courts will remain clogged with criminal
marijuana cases Well funded Corporate Lawyer types will sue the ADHS for the 124 outlets that
struggle to survive Arguments in court will demonstrate the ADHS rules are unconstitutional and/or
are in conflict with the Arizona Statutes, the Uniform Building Code and your own policies and will be
struck down. Clinics and patients will play cat and mouse with the ADHS cameras for the next two
years resulting in the development of new technologies and methods to thwart taxing agents.
Americans who get relief from pot will continue to suffer Arizona ADHS will attempt their first State
Run Industry just like in the communist countries Citizens will discover the Heath Department is
really a Death Department as highlighted by a Rule that demands you pay $750.00 and then wait one
year to receive your medicine while being force fed by print and word the success of government
approved conventional treatments. As the economy continues to collapse the politicians will cut
ADHS funding by 50%. Good riddance to you! The other business entities that are regulated by the
ADHS will actively support the departments downsizing.
The fees for dispensaries are acceptable.
Overall I like them
I like most of it. My main concern is with what I view as problem areas.
Well, I'm glad we've finally gotten out of the dark ages and legalized a plant that is a gift from God to
help us feel better. :)
I believe the rules about having an on going professional relationship with your physician is an effective
rule in keeping sure only qualified patients will receive medication, although it is flawed.
A doctor who knows thier patient. The problem here in Montana is that they want to blame the
dopers on the surge of possibly not legitimate persons having a card. The problem is the doctors who
ok these people, they need to recognize that fact and seems you have done so.
We use located in Oakland, CA for our testing of our raw products and
edibles, they have assisted us in our growing, giving us ideals that will supply our clients with a better
product. We have been given input on bettering our techniques being used for production and
guidelines on improving our kitchen usage and supplying us with the GMP's needed to produce a great
clean product. Also helping us develop a food label that will better assist the public on what the
ingredients are and the precise amount of THC, etc that are being used. , I believe will
set in motion the guidelines and standards that the business so desperately needs, by helping the
states to better assist their citizens and themselves when using a rock solid company that knows what
they are doing and their main goal is the industry. Making it a great industry by contributing their own
knowledge and experiences in the use of medical Marijuana. This is a great industry and can only get
better with the knowledge and determination of great research. This is what will supply
to your company and that's what we want in this industry, great companies that care about what they
put out there for their clients to use. "Knowledge is power"
The overall way that the draft is set up seems to be very strong in the ability to maintain the true
reason for the proposition for the use of medical marijuana to truly assist those who really need it. I
do see some gray areas in the qualifying that can make it difficult for some people who should be on it
but it is not covered under the standard for diseases or conditions.
The description of qualifying diagnosis for Medical MJ script. The 2 part description of a qualifying
prescribing physician.
The standards that are set up for the facilities on incoming product, documentation and the record
keeping of inventory are so important on tracing the product used from different growers are a huge
safety for the clients. Medical marijuana is and will be in the future the saver of a lot of patients with
debilitating medical conditions. I work in a setting that does testing on edibles, raw product (
marijuana) I know that items I have tested and submitted results on are good and are what they
report to be. I believe this will better suit the business's and the client's. It will better serve the public
and assist them in receiving the best quality of product which will increase it's safety. I use the same
standard's that are required by the AOAC, our product preparation is the same as for food production
companies. Our laboratories are set up with the same equipment that is used in a food analytical lab.
It seems that the qualificatin process for patients, caregivers and dispenosors is quite good! I believe
that this system is strong enough to deter folks who may not really qualify from trying to beat the
system. The broadness of qualifying ailments seems appropriate, being that each and every
dibilitating disease shouldn't be on the list..but an explanation of effects of the disease. Very good.
I find it hard to understand the rules on growing plants, for a couple reasons. 1)I am partially
paralyzed, and do not drive a car.2)I follow the Taoist belief, and do not put any unnatural things in
my body. This may be a problem with growing it and pesticies. I am in Mesa as a winter visitor. I am
considering buying a home in Scottsdale or Gilbert. The only thing that is preventing me from doing so,
is uncertainty in getting my medication. I know I have a very unique situation. All I need is someone to
relate with or understand. Maybe a list of possible locations, so I can buy a house near by. Thank you
for reading my issues, and I know that everything will be okay!
way to long and processes you like a criminal. don't like the way it is written. i will not sign up for it
although i do qualify.
For the most part, it does look good, a lot of lawyer talk that the lay-man might have trouble with, but
besides that, it actually looks good. I do have a few questions:
most of it is fine - until it comes to the part where patients have to pay......we are being taxed before
we even get anything dispensed.....
The rules seem well thought out and true to the law that was passed. Congratulations.
I think the rules are effective.
I find much of the AZHS draft rules to be effective. It is well written. The department of health has
obviously spent a lot of thought and time in creating these draft rules. Unfortunately, the rules appear
to have been written with the same theme thorough out the draft. It appears designed to lower the
number of patients who will be able to qualify for an ID card. Making strict rules about doctors
recommendations and charging high fees for patients effectively lower the number of patients who
can afford the high costs of this medicine. If being as anti-medical marijuana as possible by keeping
patients out of the program is the goal of Will Humble and AZHS, then they are very effective.
A good start.
allowing patients with chronic medical issues to get the relief they finally deserve
What about the Veterans Administration and the citizens who fight and die and are disabled for LIFE?
You are making this IMPOSSIBLE for them. Their doctors can NOT RECOMMEND medical cannabis.
How are they supposed to fit into this system of unreasonable restrictions you are demanding?
DHS has proposed a rule that patients must have a one year relationship with the doctor
recommending marijuana and must have seen the doctor 4 times. This is a very good rule to prevent
doctors from handing out recommendations for a living, which has been a huge problem in other
states. So I totally support this regulation and any other regulation that will keep doctors from setting
up marijuana practices.
I only comment on the issue that is important to me. The restrictive requirement to obtain a patient
marijuana card. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional
relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen
or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient’s debilitating medical condition
during the course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the patient’s debilitating medical condition after conducting
a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient’s
medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the patient’s reaction and
response to conventional medical therapies” I believe this requirement is unnecessary and
unprofessional. A qualifying patient should have access to a participating doctor without unnecessary
restrictions just like with any other pain management physicians. Have you ever heard that you need
an ongoing relationship for at least a year with your physician in order to have access to any other pain
management medication? The answer is no! Then, why should it be different with medical marijuana!
If you're worry about recreational marijuana users from accessing marijuana through the Act’s
provisions, you can be vigilante through other means and not by taking qualifying patients hostage
with unnecessary limitations. Medical marijuana is legal in Arizona and qualifying patients should
have access to its therapeutic properties without unnecessary and unprofessional restrictions. The
language on section 36-2801. 18 (a) (b) clearly stipulate “THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN’S PROFESSIONAL
OPINION THE PATIENT IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE
MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL
CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE
PHYSICIAN MUST: (a) SPECIFY THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN
THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION. (b) SIGN AND DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE
COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AFTER THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A FULL
ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S MEDICAL HISTORY”. If the physician can do his/her
professional duty as require by section 36-2801. 18 (a) (b) in less than a year, why do we need the
one year period? It’s just waste of time.
I think having rules is very good.
I like the proposed rule that patients must have seen the recommending doctor at least 4 times and
known him for at least one year. However, I did not see anyplace that this is enforced. If you need
further information on these suggestions, please contact me
Too many of the parts are too effective. The requirement for a dispensary to produce seventy percent
of its product may drive the price to patients to unreasonably high levels. If conventional medications
do not completely control intraocular pressure, (let me assure you that they do not always work)
treatment with marijuana as authorized by the new law would require very high doses of marijuana. If
you drive the price up too high,it will consequently glaucoma treatment too expensive.
DHS has proposed requiring 4 prior visits to a doctor the patient has seen for one year, and this is a
very good rule, but the rules should also require ongoing care once the medical marijuana
recommendation has been made. This would not be a hardship for the seriously ill, who are usually
seeing their doctors regularly anyway. If you need any information or documentation of this
suggested change, please contact me at
In the one section I'm commenting on here, I notice that Alzheimer’s disease is not listed, and I agree
with this deletion. The possibility of marijuana preventing Alzheimer’s disease is only hypothetical.
There is no data showing that it actually helps with memory or that it is preventative. Also, patients
with a personal history of substance abuse need to be protected from relapsing to addictive drugs as
dementia progresses. If DHS does decide to include Alzheimer’s disease, then marijuana should only be
allowed after one other memory-enhancing drug has been tried and failed, and only in patients who do
not have a substance abuse history.
I beleive Pro 203 will do some good for sick paintent's in Airzona... I hope this dose not become profit
for the state. The State is against this law from happening, so they will try to limit access to medicine
for MMP's. They have already start by out pricing access to medicine cards.
I"m a physician who will be making several suggestions. The section on how to add a new medical
condition is good, but I have two additions to suggest.
Identifying caregivers and patients. Other than that it is a bureaucratic nightmare.
As a marijuana patient I think it's great that you're developing a system to add new medical conditions
to the list. Because marijuana is still (mistakenly) on the schedule 1 it is hard and slow for researchers
to study marijuana but slowly they do and they are discovering new uses for this very complex plant.
It's time to start listening to the scientists instead of advocates and politicians.
I beleive the Pro 203 is a good Rule.... This should not an opportunity for the government to make
money...
Dear Reader, Two points are too strict: 1. The application fee is beyond my price. I've lived on
disability for 4 1/2 years, and I can't afford $150 or $250. 2. On disability I can't afford a physician. I
haven't seen one in > 2 years, so how can I get the card since I haven't had care with a physician for a
year?
With the feeding frenzy of rejected California and Colorado dispensary owners, we feel that the 2 year
requirement for board members is an excellent start. We feel that it could even be lengthened to 3
years. Also, there may be some straw members of boards that will be replaced and wording should be
added when a board member is added or replaced. We also appreciate the stringent requirements
for board members that essentially ensure that they are "good citizens". This will remove many of the
drug dealers just wanting to legitimize their current operations.
I think the security measures will be very effective.
Is there any way to view the comments that have been received so far?
Caregiver section is good. Rules for users under the age of 18 are good. Section on manufacture and
testing of edible MM products is very good.
These comments are submitted by but they are

my "own" comments and are not being submitted on behalf of any client. I believe the role of the
medical director, and the requirement of a substantial doctor/patient relationship, are essential to
ensuring that this remains a "medical" marijuana program.
A residency requirement is a great idea to reduce the flood of opportunists who have zero interest in
the long term health of the state of Arizona. It may help us to increase the residency requirements for
dispensary principals to five or maybe even ten years. I trust that those who have lived here longer will
be more responsible since they care about the impact this will have on the entire state.
I believe that the draft rules are created with good intent to protect the public, however, I feel that
some of the rules are arbitrary and need closer examination regarding their effectiveness. I'll address
these below:
The part that explains the fees.
The part that explains the fees.

I like the 70% self supplied rule, as it keeps out folks who will not be able to handle cultivation
effectively and that is a big part of making this successful. The only way to make it better would be to
use a numner from 50%-60% so that dispensaries could supply each other with special strains.
Most of it looks OK, but there are key provisions that need modification.
The basic registration of all patients using a State issued card and state-wide computer system for
checking their eligibility.
most
The rules are a good starting point for discussion but put a stigma on the doctor or patient who might
benefit from medicinal marijuana. Medicinal marijuana should be treated as any approved medication
requiring a doctors recommendation. Doctors always refer pain management to specialist without a
state required waiting period to treat the patient. Medical marijuana should be available to medical
professionals at their discretion as is any other health benefiting medication. Medicinal marijuana has
numerous approved uses and should be available from a physician without stigma, undue regulation or
oversight (not already in place for other medications).
Dispensary rules and regulations are very explicit by narrowing down the types of facilities and location
to a professional atmosphere.
Why combine "Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers" under one article ? There seems to be
three levels, i.e., Patients, caregivers and dispensaries (plus pharmacies of dispensaries). This would
seem to dictate that there be four aritcles. Proposed: Article 1. General
Article 2. Patient Rules Article 3. Care Giver Rules
Article 4. Dispensary Rules Under the current draft it is confusing to the general reader. The
majority will be patients and care givers who read these regulations.
Effective for what? Exclusion? Then yes, it's very effective.
I believe the dispensary system and number of plants patients can grow for themselves is very
effective and reasonable.
I live in Montana and have a backround in pharmacy. Putting the responsibility on the physicians to
determine if a patient should be recommended MMJ is the right thing to do. They are the ones in the
position to decide what their patient can benefit from. It is unlawful to intefere with patient/physician
relationships when it involves recommendations (prescribing). A compliance specialist is needed to
inspect facilities producing marijuana and a strict accounting is necessary, like in a pharmacy.
Backround checks are necessary to insure a grower can show responsibility.
I commend ADHS for drafting what is arguably the most comprehensive set of regulations governing
medical cannabis. Having been intimately involved in the process in California, I know how much work
went into this. The regulations ADHS has drafted will raise the bar and bring a high level of
professionalism to the industry. The one missing component in the regulations is the lack of a
comprehensive product safety component (see comments below).
In general, the rules to protect public health by requiring strict sanitation and processes consistent with
food industry standards are appropriate. Efforts to provide for product tracking are reasonable and
effective. Efforts to ensure a secure location are effective.
Stay strict on the rules for dispensaries, they seem well written.
In general the entire draft looks logical,enforcable.
The ADHS has done an excellent job so far in the creation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program.
The draft looks well thought out and written.
Hello, I am currently a third year pharmacy student (in an accelerated 3 year

Pharm D. program) at . I was ecstatic to find out that Prop 203 passed as it adds
another tool for medical professionals to use to provided the best possible therapy for there patients
while decreasing adverse drug events and optimizing therapeutic efficacy. It troubles me that politics
limit the ability of medical professionals to provide the most effective therapy. As such drugs were
made illegal through the observations of the abuse of them. Is that how you understand the true value
of something by view those that abuse it? Similar to a knife which value is based on the skill of the
user, as such a surgeon will use the knife to save a life while a murder may do the opposite. Does the
societal value of the knife get defined by the improper use or do we apply value based off the use by a
skilled educated individual. Similar to drugs the societal value of the drug should not be based on the
uneducated and immature abuse. With that said I noticed a few inconstancies with the goals of the
draft and how you wish to accomplish them. The medical director is an M.D. or D.O. however it
does not include the medical professional whom is best suited for the roles stated in R9-17-310. I feel
offended by the oversight of pharmacist in the areas stated in the legislation. Patients seen at the
dispensaries must already have been diagnosis and received a recommendation. This will put the
patient and pharmacist in a similar relationship as at a general pharmacy. They then can perform
standard monitoring on the and even possible Medication Therapy Management (MTM) as done in
some retail setting to overall improve the patients therapy. At this point a pharmacist is best suited to
educate the patient on the medication, route of administration, side effects, and deterring abuse as all
of these responsibilities already fall on the pharmacist. The addition of a Pharm D. to the list of medical
director's would provide a more effective group to better achieve the goals stated in the draft. I
sent this via e-mail as opposed to the comment section on survey monkey to identify myself incase of
the want of additional dialogue. Thank You,
the locations a patient is able to use marijuana
Allowing a patient to have access to the medicine.
The safety parts and regulations
I do believe the part where two physicians must be involved for patients under 18. While both of my
girls have my same condition I would hesitate to let them have anything that hasn't been studied much
better in children. I also appreciate the need for security and inventory control.
As future dispensary operators, we at are happy to see that you're giving attention to
the educational needs of medical marijuana users. Most people simply do not know much about
marijuana's use as medicine although it's been in use for over 5,000 years and no ones ever died from
an overdose. We support education and clear rules that help the sick benefit from this wonder drug,
medical marijuana. We believe effective rules should include strong security rules, low cost ID cards
for patients, rules for education of those with ID cards and also education for dispensary agents.
Around the Schools..and being able to grow it yourself if U don't have a dispensary in your area..I think
you should be able to save money and grow it your self anyway..a few plants anyway
mostly all
Keep in mind it is the job of the department to regulate the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act not re-write
it. With that being said there are effective procedures that address the way the Act was written.
Such as: 1) Applicable Fees 2) Time frame for approval of application 3)Administrative record
keeping 4)Qualifying Patient Record keeping 5)Dispensary Inventory Control 6)Product Labeling and
Analysis 7)Cleaning and Sanitation These draft rules seem to comply with the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act.
I believe your inventory management recommendations are excellent as a start. This information will
be helpful to create a good ROI. Your personal regulations are helpful, however may be hard to find
qualified growers in AZ. The really qualified people will come from CA or CO. I would like to see people
who have cards from other states be qualified for employment so that we could create success more
easily without guessing as much. I understand the importance of local employment. How do we
advertise for employment for a dispensary? We would have a run on the place with people who are not
necessarily people we want, especially if we want experience. Tricky one.
The rules for applying seem fair
The simple fact that Arizona passed Medical Marijuana legislation is a huge first step in revitalizing a
broken system of prosecuting thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. I am thrilled that terminally
ill patients now will be able to use marijuana in conjunction with other prescribed treatment as deemed
necessary by their respective doctors. Marijuana does improve and indeed saves lives, especially those
who are dying of starvation due to appetite loss/wasting syndrome.
If a Dispensary License is not issued the 5000.00 dollar fee should be returned
Documentation of a condition that can be improved by this "medication"
NONE if you ask me. prop 203 is a well written law, that should have met the needs of patients and the
concerns of the ADHS and legislators it goes to show that you can't satisfy hardened opponents
anyway. Mr humble wants to shed first blood for price increase out the gate. $150 per MMJ-card? $200
for patient-caregivers? the governor was right when she said"compassion will soon turn to capitalism"
right, and can thank Mr Humble for that. look most patients this law represents are on fixed incomes
Mr Humble, find some compassion man. the idea of trying to control the doctor patient relationship by
a your system of rules, please quit. if anyone out there is listening, please send letters and e-mails the
ACLU lets knock on their door and have them attend our meetings. this guy can't be allowed to dictate
such unreasonable and prejudicial rules. it's obvious he doesn't understand the medical marijuana
industry nor does he care to learn. inspite of whats going on in california and colorado, this arizona. a
totally different time and place, thats needs to allowed to operate on it's own merits. this 70/30 rule,
junk rule he obivously learned from his friends in colorado. stupid rule and we shouldn't let him get
away with it. anyway its time to make some noise.
i think so far so good. We here in beaver dam and littlefield hope that we are not forgoten and a
dispenseiry is allowed to operate out here. thank you for your time.
Most of the controls set in the draft for dispensaries are well written & sound reasonable.
The first part of 2801.10 "Enclosed" means: a. A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor
room or closet; or This seems practicable. Leave design and construction of cultivation facilities
should be left to professional engineers and architects.
All of the parts of the rule, if any, that are designed to protect the right of qualified patients to receive
high quality, usable marijuana IN A TIMELY MANNER. Someone whose physician is simply against
marijuana should not be frustrated by a rule requirement for a physician-patient relationship lasting "at
least one year" when seeking treatment. Definition 16 seems to preclude finding a new physician and
getting medical marijuana within a reasonable time frame. What if patients learns that cancer will
take their life or gluacoma will impair their sight in just a few months?
what ever can be enforced will be effective.
All of the parts of the rule, if any, that are designed to protect the right of qualified patients to receive
high quality, usable marijuana.
residency requirement
I do appreciate the work ADHS is doing to regulate the dispensaries. I don't have any problems with
the rules affecting dispensaries. I want this law to work for those who really need it.
Very few parts are effective these rules are over (way over) done so the only effectiveness they will
have is to be diefunctional and cost the state unbelievable amounts of money, in these economic times
we need reasonable rules that are governand and a minimal cost to the people.
I like that the rules are so heavily regulated that only thr rich , will have any chance of opening a store.
The debilitating medical conditions listed in the draft are reasonable. The allowance and process to add
other conditions is also reasonable and fair. The entire draft and the process of implementation are
largely sound with the exception of the points listed below.
The doctor patient relationship in some form is a very good idea. I have chronic pain and take
narcotics, I see a doctor at least every three months. I don't know anyone (who has insurance) and
one of the qualifying conditions, who doesn't see a doctor on a regular basis. Also, shouldn't the fact
that someone is on permanent disability for chronic pain be enough diagnosis? For some patients only
opioids work, but they have side effects that cause serious problems, and not the one's you think. If
you want to write a rule, write one that says doctors have to test male patients on opioids for
testosterone. It not only causes loss of sex drive, but depression, muscle loss, and many others. The
worst thing is that you don't think about making love to your wife, and ask any woman, if you're not
making love to them, you either don't love them, or you're sleeping with someone else. It's
devastating to relationships, and most pain doctors either don't have a clue, or don't care when you tell
them.... Sorry I got off subject..
NOT THIS ONE: 16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship means:
a. The physician-patient relationship has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or
assessed the patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the
course of the physician-patient relationship; or b. The physician assumes primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting
a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient's
medical record maintained by other treating physicians that may include the patient's reaction and
response to conventional medical therapies.
THIS ONE IS NOT! 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing
license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of
osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant
to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide
medical oversight at the dispensary THIS IS ONEROUS AND UNREASONABLE.
Overall you are doing a great job in a difficult situation.
It is good overall. We will set the standard to other states with this I think!
-The $5000 non-refundable application fee for dispensary licenses is effective - I believe it may
discourage less than qualified individuals from receiving a license. -I like the residency requirements.
The list of effective sections is far too long to list. I really believe Arizona drafted, passed, & is in the
process of implementing a model medical marijuana law & body of rules & regulations. Hats off to
ADHS for such a thorough job in such a short time.
All
All but what is mentioned below
Zoning and all regulations regarding dispensaries and care takers appear proper.
The application process for the dispensary and for patients trying to "qualify" for medical mar seem
well thought out.
LEGALIZE IT!
The rigor with which the State requires physicians to have a relationship >1 year with a patient is
good, and will reduce abuse of the program.
everything
Registry identification cards along with written certification by a physician. Certification outlining the
debilitating medical condition. The ability to check 24 hours a day the certification written by a
physician. The oversight of the amount being perscribed.
Price and tax the out of it and get our state back in the black.
I like your timeline and the ability to input comments on the proposed rules. You are being very
transparent and open with the process and that's to be commended.
I believe that the strict regulation that you are going to implement will definitely be effective.
Marijuana could spread out of control, if you don't carefully watch who has access to it.
I am not an Az citizen anymore, but it makes me glad to see the open minded views of people
accepting a new change. I am a registered MMJ patient in California, and have been for 2 years, I am a
Veteran of the Iraq War, and have utilized Cannabis to completely rid myself of recurring Ganglionic
Cysts, and have healed many other ailments.I started this because I believe it was my duty to heal
myself and not rely upon the VA and take unecessary money from other Vets who could use it! I
cultivate my own Cannabis, and am more than willing to provide folks with education about usage and
dosage. Edibles are where the Physical Ailments get healed, Pain Relief, Immunity Boosts, Anti-Oxidant
Properties. Inhaled Cannabis focuses more upon Mental Ailments. I will proved you with some
information that can help your state with finding information in the safe practice of Cannabis
Treatment. Here in California a problem that I see is the testing of Cannabis for contaminants! I have
not seen any of this mentioned in your states draft resolution. I am concerned because of the many
Neurotoxic Pesticides that are used in the Cannabis Industry!Another problem as well is Powder Mold
that occurs during improper curing. It can make a patient very sick. A State or Private Testing Facility is
what I urge you to adopt as well for the safety of Cannabis Patients. There are only currently 2 testing
Facilities in the US that tests Cannabis for its THC and CBD content! One of these facilities is
in San Francisco Ca. Here are some links that can provide you with further educational material as far
as cannabinoid treatment.These websites are the more trustworthy sources.
Just doing my part as a responsible Cannabis Patient to help other

Cannabis Patients and their Communities by providing as much as info as possible!
most of the rules are workable
All the physician involvement.

Of the draft rules that I have read, the best seem to be the control on the dispensaries, with the limit
to operations such as patient verification, security, hours of operation and zoning.
It appears that ADHS has done the best possible in drafting these measures. The concern I have is the
more far reaching implications and effects of this measure into controlled substance abuse by
individuals not authorized to use medical marijuana. The practice of family members using prescription
drugs is common and this may be another case where not much can be done to insure this does not
happen with medical marijuana.
R9-17-302 Section B #1 subsection f, iv through vii are NOT LEGAL!!!!!!! Those requirements are NOT
permissible(as this is personal info that in no way relates or effects this type of business and also is a
FEDERAL not STATE issue)) or even pertinant. Perhaps we should also put other arbitrary
requirements in like being only born in certain months or only those who have never divorced.
It seems like a good start, regulation and enforcement of course is a priority but putting these
dispensary business’s with the most qualify knowledgeable and responsible operators seems to have
been left out?
I live in California and was thinking of moving to Arizona dose that mean I would have to wait A hole
year to become eligible? It seems that a hole year might not be worth the move or would you honor
my California card?
These are a broad and balanced set of rules . The separation between medical directors and the
reviewing physicians are particularly effective in stoppng direction of patients to use medical
marijuana for the profit of the clinic.
I like the requirement for Residency term of 2 years for dispensary directors, agents and principle
owners.
-Already sent
Most seem well written
It would appear as though the proposed regulations offered by the State of Arizona will be more than
adequate in regulating medical marijuana.
All
I think the rules should be less restrictive. This should be easy for those in need to obtain and
significant restrictions only impair the ability for those in need to find relief. Helping those in need
obtain pain relief should outweigh the desire from some to ensure that recreational users do not abuse
the system.
Hardly any of them seem effective to the end of providing Medical Marijuana to a large portion of the
people who need the relief the Program is allegedly providing.
QUESTION: Once you have granted the 120 or 124 Licenses as stated in the inititive (10 pharmacy
ratio to 1 dispensary)---will you be making it known to the public who got them? How many licenses
will you allow a group to obtain?
I think that most of the items addressed in the informal rules can be effectively enforced. there are,
however, several small items yet to be addressed.
The police need to get out of the medical marijuana business and spend their resources on fighting the
cartels operating on this side of the border. Their should also be an age requirement of at least 25
years old.
I believe the zoning restrictions are fair as well as some of the security measures. Specifically keeping
a certain distances from schools. I also like some pieces of inspecting premises but others i disagree
with wholeheartedly as i will explain below.
The most effective rule is the two year residency requirement to procure a license. Thank you for that.
What about prior experience working with patients and helping them get off dangerous, addictive
prescribed drugs as a point or two in consideration. Doctors have been recommending cannabis to
patients for years in Arizona but they have had to hide from people like you, Mr. Humble. So sad. I
believe the Proposition 203 requires REASONABLE rules from the Department of Health. A Medical
Director on the premises of a dispensary is not necessary nor suggested. The patient already saw the
doctor to get their card. Redundant and unnecessary. We already know more than most doctors in
this state about the benefits of cannabis and what strains work for what conditions. A $150 patient
card fee is unreasonable and not necessary. 24/7 surveillance cameras are unreasonable and not
necessary.
Applying for Registry Identification Cards. Requiring dispensaries to have a Medical Director. This
requirement professionalizes the service. Dispensary policy and procedures requirements, and
business requirements. These should ensure that only credible organizations operate a dispensary.
Unannounced inspections of dispensaries (or cultivation site), if complaints are submitted. This is a
good requirement Electronic verification system.
Most of them. I don't feel that the government should be involved in how often I see a doctor. Is
that even legal?
The rules preventing illegal transfer and potentially deleterious accusation of illegal transfer are very
adequate. Rules regarding inspection are also fair.
The fact patients can now get the medicine. The amount a patient can posses. Dispensary security
requirements
i think the effort to limit medical marijuana to those in need is on the right track. i also like the
residency requirement for dispensary owners...
Hello, I am a certified executive chef. I would like to produce healthy food incorporating THC for those
who wish not to ingest smoke yet would like to experience the medical benefits of marijuana. Q. How
do I become licensed to produce edibles using licensed marijuana? Do I need to have a dispensary
"license" to produce for the dispensaries or would this fall in to a different category(s). Best!
Prospective dispensary operators must be Arizona residents for two years prior to submitting a
dispensary application.
I know you folks are working hard to get these rules in place. I want to say thank you. i hope you read
and take my suggestion serious. My email is
Thank you
rules making sure that the dispensaries are run by arizona residents
I am sorry, but there is way to much restriction. The writters of 203 and the your agency are
gaurnteeing that only the wealthy will be able to open a dispencery. This means the patient will suffer,
because the industry will be driven by greed rather than compassion.I have been working to open a
dispencery, but it is becomming impossible to do because of all the restriction.
I liked the part where there was going to be feedback as to the effectiveness of the medicine.
Wonderful, that there is a residency requirement
Who will be able to open a dispensary? Only an individual who has been a resident of Arizona for at
least two consecutive years before the date of application would be allowed to submit an application
for a dispensary license (informal draft rules R9-17-302(A)). In addition, each principal officer and
board member would also need to meet this two-year residency requirement. Why is it Arizona
residents only that can apply for a dispensary license? Why can't someone with a caregiver or patient
MM license in another state apply?
I like the rules regarding proof of Arizona residency for two years. Does this apply to ALL MEMBERS of
Limited Liability Corporations?
The relationship and requirements for patient and doctor.
Article 1. General R9-17-101 16. A The physician-patient relationship has exists for at least one
year and the physician has seen or assessed the patient on tat least fo0ur visits for the patient's
debilitating medical condition during the course of the physician patient relationship I am a 30-year
Disabled Veteran currently rated at 20%. My disability history is documented with chronic pain of my
right shoulder and I have received treatment, over the years, for that pain. I understand that the VA
will not recommend medical marijuana.
Overall, I am impressed with this draft.
I appreciate how well the rules are written and the obvious effort that was invested in writing them. I
have comments on a number of the rules and will submit them separately. I
Overall the draft rules are effective.

R9-17-302.B.3.b The "input" MMPP provided didn't fool you for a second! You saw right through their
intentions to create another Cali-rado fiasco here. Steering control of this industry directly into the
hands of their out of state consortium that ultimately desire legalization. That would only have caused
Arizona to be another out of control medical marijuana state, and sent most of the profits from this
new industry directly out of our state and in my opinion mostly into offshore accounts. These
unscrupulous profiteers would have barely existed within the state law and totally disregarded Federal
regulations that are presently on hold via the 10-19-09 D.O.J. Memo. R9-17-307.C.1 R9-17-307.C.4
R9-17-307.C.5 The same individuals that I mentioned above had plans to set up vast growing
operations by subletting small areas to dispensaries. These would be unnecessarily large and obvious
public safety hazards and security problems due to the monetary value of marijuana located at one
industrial location. You have wisely created a system to allow a Dispensary to deal with a crop failure,
an unforeseen and rapid rise in demand, and the possible need to add strains suitable for their patients
requirements with these sections. I believe these guidelines are for the best and will help keep the
system balanced and in a word honest. I like about 80% of what you have put together as it sits,
truly a phenomenal achievement in a short amount of time! With a few exceptions it seems like you
are really understanding what needs to be done to keep this as responsible and regulated as possible. I
truly anticipate the system you folks put in place here being the National model of how this can best be
done! For what it is worth there are groups that truly have the best intentions to help you from the
other side of the fence. Being directly involved with a Government agency and to some extent
Corporate America again is enough to keep me up at night, but I am genuinely impressed by what the
AZDHS is putting in place and it brings me some ease to envision working specifically with your
Department.
.I think ADHS under Humble's direction has done a fantastic job so far. Your commitment to public
disclosure and input stands as testament to your professionalism and good intentions. I very much like
the fact that there must be an "established relationship" between patient and Doctor prior to
recommendation. I think some very strict penalties should be given to Dr.'s who attempt to circumvent
this rule.
All areas surrounding security appear sound Generally the Draft
Of course this is just a plant and it could be benefical to some patients. As a cancer patient since
2005, Thank God, I would encourage simple guidelines!
Mr Humble why are you making it so hard for people to get access to meds? why why why? my father
died of hep c in February( it is a horrible death to watch). the doctors gave him 2 years to live in 98 he
went to California got his mmj card and lived till earlier this year. only because of his access to mmj. if
you make it that hard here people wont be able to get the card. Even tho my father had a terminal
illness he hated going to the DR's office. And so do a lot of sick patients they don't like being reminded
that they are dying. I myself have had constant migraines and A.D.H.D. I self medicate with mmj. and
will continue to do so till the day i die regardless if i get access to a card or not. so in essence the rules
and regulations you are creating will NEVER STOP PEOPLE FROM GETTING WHAT THEY NEED. I
implore you to lighten up on the regulations the state budget would be in the black if you just figured
out how to get 10 percent of the proceeds. and let people get access if they apply for a card give it to
them. all that you are doing by requiring this patient DR relationship is making people shell out more
money for DR's visits. and patients need to be able to grow their own. it can be grown for as little as
30 $ a oz but the shops will charge hundreds. and i was arrested for cultivation in 98 so i know a lot
about this subject. alot more then most. my case was dropped due my cooperation. as a former
grower i know what you don't.. if you have any questions or comments i think i can give you some
insider info as i have been there and done that . you can reach me at sincerely
The parts that I think are the most effective are the required not for profit structure, the required
medical director, and the documantation requirements. All these are measures that encourages that
the industry be operated by professionals seeking to provide a service for those in need.
It is very good that you are putting a restriction on residency
Medical marijuana should at minimum, meet the same standards as meat and alcohol. Commercial
producers of meat and alcohol are inspected by the health department, OSHA, etc… Their products
are regulated and taxed. Commercial marijuana growers should meet the same FDA regulations as
with any other product. If meat is contaminated, the product can be traced to stores, etc… Retailers
also have records of all shipments. The medical marijuana dispensaries should at least have the same
regulations as any other product. Your FAQ sheet indicates you are on the right track.
I think the section on dispensary operation is well thought out and effective. Also the application
rules seem like they are thorough. Kind of steep priced for patients and caregivers though.
What is the $150.00 registration fee for? Here I am. Unemployed, a right above the knee amputee for
7 years now, and having to take narcotics to help control the pain for the rest of my life; finding out
that marijuana was able to help with the pain much better and was not habit forming or as damaging
as narcotics from long term use. Now I have to pay $150.00 to have a card? I have no income, no
disability, no social security,.. nothing! And now I have to come up with an additional $150.00 to obtain
a card. A CARD! Not the actual marijuana, which only God knows what that will cost! You that are
in charge of writing these proposals, please keep in mind for whom this bill was made legal for! Not
another dept to collects fees to be used for who knows what, and I'm sure you don't know either. The
people REALLY needing this medication are probably like me and strapped to the bone with existing
medical bills that are delenquent, not to mention having to house, and feed themselves being a
struggle in itself. It is ridiculous that correspondance has to be done "electronically". How about the
people in NEED that have NO access to a computer? Do we let them fall by the weigh-side? It
should be no more in cost than that of an AZ Drivers Licence or AZ Identification card. Otherwise this is
blatant exclusion of those entitled to this medication, just because they are unable to afford a card or
even apply for one via a computer! This has to be addressed firstly!
school location details are absent
The more restrictions, the better! Strict penalities for those abusing the rights. Medical need verified.
Clearly enumerated process for obtaining a prescription, filling it and the rules governing the
dispensaries.
i like the parts on the restrictions and rules for dispensaries. the id program etc but im not to happy
with the fees! i know it has to pay for itself but $150 is a bit to steep for patients like myself who is on
social security disability. i cant go out and find more work im stuck on a limited income so i would like
to see some kind of price reduction for patients who are on social security retirement or disability.
i like the parts on the restrictions and rules for dispensaries. the id program etc but im not to happy
with the fees! i know it has to pay for itself but $150 is a bit to steep for patients like myself who is on
social security disability. i cant go out and find more work im stuck on a limited income so i would like
to see some kind of price reduction for patients who are on social security retirement or disability.
As a a chronic pain patient for 25 years. Have been been on SSDI for 14 years or so. On Morphine the
whole time, and I want to reduce amount of pills I take a day, about 60 different pills a day! Rumor
has it that if you live within 30 miles of an outlet, I would not be able to have my own victory garden.
Living on $894. a month. Does not leave me any money to buy the medicine. This is a big concern, as
I have a wife a kid and I to buy food and utilities. Will I be able too have a garden.-
i dont think there should be any rules its 2011 for gods sake if people want to smoke pot they should
be able to without fear of jail
I think the qualifications are stringent but reasonable. I like that the doctor’s opinion is given priority. I
also like that an ongoing relationship with the patient is required. This will prevent an unscrupulous
doctor from taking advantage or promoting an agenda.
I agree with most of the dispensary rules. Just like a pharmacy, there needs to be regulations on
where each dispensary is located and how it is operated.
That you must have a Arizona board certified doctor give the recommendation to get card. That there
is a limit to the amount of marijuana per month that can be purchased each month.
Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a Designated Caregiver. A
statement in a Department-provided format signed by the designated caregiver: i. Agreeing to assist
the qualifying patient with the medical use of marijuana; and ii. Pledging not to divert marijuana to
any individual or person who is not allowed to possess marijuana pursuant to A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter
28.1; d. An identification of one or more of the debilitating medical conditions in R9-17-201 as the
qualifying patient's specific debilitating medical condition; e. For the physician listed in subsection
(G)(10): i. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: (1) Has a professional
or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition
during the course of the professional relationship; or (2) Has assumed primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition after
the qualifying patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians that may include the
qualifying patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies; ii. A statement, initialed
by the physician, that the physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the use of the
medical marijuana to the qualifying patient's custodial parent or legal guardian responsible for the
health care decisions for the qualifying patient; and iii. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the
physician plans to continue to assess the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's use of medical
marijuana during the course of the physician-patient relationship; f. For the physician listed in
subsection (G)(11), a statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician conducted a
comprehensive review of the qualifying patient's medical records from other treating physicians; g. A
statement that, in the physician's professional opinion, the qualifying patient is likely to receive
therapeutic or palliative benefit from the qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana to treat or
alleviate the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition; h. An attestation that the information
provided in the written certification is true and correct; and i. The physician's signature and date the
physician signed; and 14. The applicable fees in R9-17-102 for applying for a: a. Qualifying patient
registry identification card, and b. Designated caregiver registry identification card. 3. A statement in a
Department-provided format signed by the qualifying patient pledging not to divert marijuana to any
individual or person who is not allowed to possess marijuana pursuant to A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1;
4. Separate written certifications from the physicians in subsections (B)(1)(j) and (B)(1)(k) on a
Department-provided format dated within 90 calendar days before the submission of the qualifying
patient's application that include: a. The physician's: i. Name, ii. License number including an
identification of the physician license type, iii. Office address on file with the physician's licensing
board, iv. Telephone number on file with the physician's licensing board, and v. E-mail address; b.
Identification of the physician license type; c. The qualifying patient's name and date of birth; d. A
statement that the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition as defined in A.R.S. § 36-
2801; e. An identification of one or more of the debilitating medical conditions in R9-17-201 as the
qualifying patient's specific debilitating medical condition; f. For the physician listed in subsection
(B)(1)(j): i. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: (1) Has a professional
during the course of the professional relationship; or (2) Has assumed primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition after
the qualifying patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians that may include the
qualifying patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies; ii. A statement, initialed
by the physician, that the physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the use of the
medical marijuana to the qualifying patient's custodial parent or legal guardian responsible for the
health care decisions for the qualifying patient; and iii. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the
physician plans to continue to assess the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's use of medical
marijuana during the course of the physician-patient relationship; g. For the physician listed in
subsection (B)(1)(k), a statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician conducted a review of
the qualifying patient's medical records from other treating physicians
I am especially impressed with the residency requirements in the draft. I would actually prefer they be
more restrictive, requiring 5 years residency. My concern is that our state will get overrun with out of
staters, specifically Colorado and California, whose primary interest may not lie in upholding a model
medical marijuana system. I believe that Arizona needs to protect the system as its own, as a
legitimate new economy in this state we should ensure that Arizonans are the ones benefiting.
We are , the Arizona non-profit with the website that provides information on
research being done around the world with Medical Cannabis. We support research and believe there is
much to be learned about Medical Marijuana still. We plan to open high tech C.G.E. (closed growing
environment) grow rooms and a full service dispensary in southern Arizona. We are grateful for your
work in crafting rules early before card and dispensary permits are issued. We welcome rules and
regulations as we seek legitimacy in this emerging Medical Marijuana industry. Thank you for not
allowing us to become another California or Colorado with confusing rules that lead to problems. Your
security rules are very good and very effective sounding. We support them and will even suggest some
additional ones. Record keeping rules will be very effective in properly running the MM program. We
think your draft rules can and will be effective. They need a little fine tuning and we commend you for
this process allowing you to hear from everyone. May the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program be the
best in the nation. Our motto at is that patients come first. As patients are the
community, lets do the best we can for the community.
i feel that everything that is currently in prop 203 will be effective.
Not much I hope people voice there opion, cargivers need background checks fingerprints, seems like a
prison...bee freee
Multiple doctor visits, education material.
All of it. It looks very thorough. I believe that you did a lot of research in order to draft the rules.
It all apears to be effective.
i feel that the rules for stores and format of the rules looks good. i feel that the zoning rules , the
sanatairy rules for cooking and id labels were very good ideas.
12 month doctor-patient relationship
A. WITHIN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER, THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH A SECURE, PASSWORD-PROTECTED, WEB-BASED VERIFICATION
SYSTEM FOR USE ON A TWENTY-FOUR HOUR BASIS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND
NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AGENTS TO VERIFY REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION
CARDS. This is a good idea in my opinion. In California, the patient registration process with the
State is voluntary. California has to verify the Physician’s recommendation directly with the physician,
which is creates delays. The State responsible for the verification and we just check their database
The definitions portion.
None.
1 Where you need to be an Arizona resident for 2 year I like that my attorney told me that he as a
couple of clients from out of state forming 30 corporations trying to increase there odds where they
will be picked
PROP 203 WAS ABOUT COMPASSION FOR THE SICK AND TERMANNELY ILL. THE WAY THAT THIS IS
SET UP WILL CAUSE THEM TO PAY EVEN MORE FOR WHAT THEY NEED. THEY DON`T HAVE MUCH
INCOME AS MOST ARE TOO BAD OFF TO WORK. THE IDEA OF PAYING $150 A YEAR TO BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE YOUR MEDICINE, DOES NOT EXIST FOR ANY OTHER MEDICINE THAT I KNOW OF. KUDOS
TO YOU AND YOURS ON THIS BRILLIANT PLAN . IF I WERE AN ECONOMIC PSYCHOPATH, SELF
CENTERED, EVIL SON OF A BITCH WITH NO CARE OTHER THAN MY OWN PERSONAL WEALTH, I
WOULD CALL WHAT YOU PLAN, A STROKE OF GENIUS. YOU GUYS KNOW HOW TO TWIST THE CRUEL
KNIFE OF FATE ON PEOPLE WHO`S BODY HAS TURNED AGAINST THEM. SO, What parts of the
draft rules do you believe are effective? THE PLAN WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN KEEPING THE ILL AWAY
FROM WHAT THEY NEED. IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN SHOWING TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN THAT THE
STATE LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE SIMPLY UNABLE TO GET IT RIGHT.
Most of the rules are fine.
40 plus pages!? You people are ridiculous! We need to reform our system of law!
I am wearing two hats during this process- 1 as a hopeful, prospective dispensary owner, and 2 as a
21 year sufferer of Crohn’s Disease. While I applaud the overall regulations that came out, I hope there
can be some meaningful discussion around a few areas. Please remember the #1 goal should be easy
and secure access for legitimate, qualified patients. I understand we need to keep this from becoming
a "free for all" but please keep from over-regulating this to the point where patients have trouble
procuring their meds. Thanks!
R9-17-305 I have a hard time understanding why a medical director is needed to monitor patients or
help patients when they have their own personal physician that has recommended marijuana for them.
Their personal physician, who understands their personal medical history, is the one who should help
them through the different choices of marijuana they may need. This will cause unnessary cost to the
patient becuase of having to pay for two doctors.
None Im interested in opening a Lab that test for the pureities of medical Marijuana. What type of
licenses will i need to apply for and what will the costs be?? In Colorado the labs there applied for a
caregivers licenses in order to become a testing facilities. I am a resident of 15 years here in the state
and am very interested in this potential business opportunity. Please contact me at :
I asked my Doctor if he was signing up to treat marijuana patents and he said he could not risk his
medical license by getting into this controversial law. I have been with this doctor for 18 years and I
suffer from Hepatitis C and Glaucoma and other medical problems. No way will I be able to find a
doctor that could be as experienced with my medical condition as he is. How will I be able to find this
doctor they say I need to have? What if I do find a doctor and they are not in my insurance plan?
Three visits and one year then I have to pay it all out of my pocket? That can not happen.
Treating marijuana as the medication it is for these purposes.
My first reading of the rules they seem okay.

I believe for the most part that this has been a comprhensive effort on your Department to ensure that
the MM is managed responsibly.
I only have one doctor......
The amount of detail regarding who can be registered, what documentation has to be provided to be
registered for various functions or roles regarding medical MJ.
First and foremost what i have found here in MI. the problem begins with the Dr. having a bonafide
relationship , so we here @ re quire the certified patint 2 return every 3-mo's 2 c
how effective the medical marijuana has been 4 the patient. this is a must 2 keep the recreational
user's from gaining access 2 medicine that is certified for patients with debilitaing illnesses.We have
turned down many individuals who have border line symptoms, ther r alot of pot Dr;s here because
there are no set punishment for the Dr's that don't follow the MMMA. this will solve alot of problems. I
own here and plan on opening a few Family Practices there in AZ. I also
have a draft regarding our Non-Profit Dispencery that we operate. we also have property in AZ. and
would love 2 offer a insight into some other issues we have incounterd here in MI. My whole goal
revolves around the patients who really can't afford the certification as well as the medicine.I also have
a talk show every Sunday Eveing from 9pm till 10pm the internet site is click on
listen and enjoy it is our way of informing the people acroos MI and the country on the laws and 2
answer ?'s regarding this new medicine, we also gather testimonials from our patints so our local
authorities can review and talk 2 these patients as long as the patient waive's her Hippa rights. iF YOU
WOULD LIKE 2 CONTACT ME PERSONALLY PLEASE CALL THAT'S MY DIRECT LINE OR
U CAN VIST OUR OUR ACT HERE IS THE SAME AS YOURS WITH SAME # OF
PLANTS AS WELL AS 2.5 OZS PER PATIENT. This is helpful 2 your community healh deptment as well
as ours. Thank you for your time.
I do appreciate the concept of having a Medical Director involved with dispensaries who can help
educate the public and serve as the "expert" on medical cannabis. Think of the role the U.S. Surgeon
General plays in making policy and health decisions. This is a very good idea but how you want to
apply it is very flawed. You are stating in your rules that every dispensary must have a Medical
Director (who is a physician and presumably an expert on medical cannabis). However this Medical
Director (and expert on cannabis) can only work for 3 dispensaries and cannot dispense medical
marijuana. If there are going to be approximately 124 dispensaries then you'll need 41 Medical
Directors all basically doing the same thing. For one thing there are not 41 physicians in our state that
have the expertise in medical cannabis because it has not been implemented yet for doctors to even
recommend to patients to have access to medical cannabis. I strongly recommend you have only 1
Medical Director who serves directly under your authority at the Arizona Department of Health. This
Medical Director will be the liasion between ADHS and the medical marijuana doctors that are out in
the communities who will be recommending the medicine. I can see someone like
serving as the first Medical Director under
AMMA. In addition to the liasion between the other doctors, the Medical Director could serve on the
board for responding to the January/July petitions to add on new medical conditions and oversee the
Clinical Trials provision of the AMMA to make sure notification to patients is following correct protocals.
The money to fund the department level position for 1 Medical Director should come from the
dispensary application fees. The burden of paying for 43 medical directors would be an added burden
on the dispenaries which would pass the costs on to the patients in the price of the medicine which
insurance will not pay for, so the patient ultimately will pay even more. Please rethink this flawed
strategy of having 43 different doctors all doing the same thing that one Medical Director could
accomplish. Back to the example of the Surgeon General. Every state could have a Surgeon General
but it is more cost effective and efficient to have 1 Surgeon General not 51.
Most.
Its great to see the rule about dispensary owners required to be Arizona residents for 2 years. Its very
wise to keep our own residents running the dispensaries.
I think the dispensary topics are fine . allthough the non refundable fee of 5000 is highway robbery
I feel that standards of labeling producuts , fee charges amd time frames seemed fair
the security for the grow facility as well as dispensary is a good idea , and will hopefully reduce the
temptation of attempting to rob them .stopping non residents from applying for dispensary license. is
also a good idea .
regulation and security and all else seems good.

I believe most parts of this proposition to be effective.
Prop 203 sounds like it would be very effective in helping patients with chronic and otherwise
untreatable ailments (at least without horrendous side effects and the use of narcotics) .I also find that
it is very clear that doctors need to take responsibility for their patients which even without using
marijuana as a recommended treatment some doctors tend to fail at.
The $5000 fee is a good thing. It will keep wanna be producers out. the security measures you
propose are good.
I think licensing and regulating is appropriate, rather than willy-nilly storefronts popping up
everywhere. I think the single best feature of this law is that it falls under your purview, rather than
the Corrections dept. Many of us believe they have a vested interest in continuing to demonize
cannabis. I think to the extent it has been implemented, that a "hands-off" approach is best.
Everything seems to be spelled out pretty well. It's good that we have rules but it seems the fees
might get in the way of helping people in need.
Keeping the Recreational users away from this program, and only people with Cancer or Aids will be
able to use this program.
My name is and I am a resident of Prescott. I commend the decision to require a

minimum state residency of two years. This will help to ensure that jobs are provided to state residents
rather than out of state owners and workers who hope to capitalize on this industry. I also appreciate
the manner in which you have allowed for additional conditions to be potentially added to the current
list of allowable conditions.
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL R9-17-101. Definitions In addition to the definitions in A.R.S. § 36-2801, the
following definitions apply in this Chapter unless otherwise stated: Comment: ARS 36-2801 is in
effect; Any differences must be resolved by strict definition of 36-2801, so lets compare the two:
Here are the 18 definitions and only these 18 definitions within the law: 1. Allowable amount of
Marijuana 2. Cardholder means “qualifying patient” 3. Debilitating Medical Condition outline which
conditions 4. Department means Ariz. Dept. of Health or it's successor 5. Designated Caregiver 6.
Enclosed locked facility 7. Excluded felony offenses 8. Marijuana includes the definition of what it is.
9. Medical use means the acquisition, cultivation, possession, manufacture, use, administration,
delivery, transfer, or paraphernalia 10. Non-profit Agent 11. Non-profit Medical Marijuana Dispensary.
12. Physician but does not say anything about which state. 13. Qualifying patient means anyone with
a debilitating conditon. 14. Registry Identification Card which simply means a card issued by DHS 15.
Usable Marijuana means just that. 16. Verification system means a computer system by the DHS 17.
Visiting Qualifying Patient means someone from out of state. 18. Written Verification is nothing more
than a professional opinion it may help. There are no other definitions under the law. We can write
some in, but they are strictly opinions and not carrying the full weight and force of law. 1. "Acquire"
means to obtain through any type of transaction and from any source. Comment: There is no specific
definition under the law as to acquire. Under #9 of the actual law, it states that acquisition, cultivation,
possession etc under Medical use. 2. "Activities of daily living" means ambulating, bathing, dressing,
grooming, eating, toileting, and getting in and out of bed. Comment: Again, no where does it say
ADL's and that usually relates to the elderly. 3. "Amend" means adding or deleting information on an
individual's registry identification card that affects the individual's ability to perform or delegate a
specific act or function. Comment: Again, nothing in the law states “amend” although the Voters
Protection Act, a 1998 Proposition 105 prevents tampering with public law by lawmakers, the Governor
or the Governers agent in the form of appointee's. 4. "Calendar day" means each day, not including
the day of the act, event, or default from which a designated period of time begins to run, but
including the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, statewide furlough day, or legal
holiday, in which case the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday,
statewide furlough day, or legal holiday. Comment: Again, the law is pretty specific, you have a 120
days from enactment to get it together. 5. "Change" means adding or deleting information on an
individual's registry identification card that does not substantively affect the individual's ability to
perform or delegate a specific act or function. 6. Comment: Again, the law doesn't give the authority
to change anything without ¾ Vote of the legislature. 6. "Cultivation site" means the one additional
location where marijuana will be cultivated by and for a dispensary. 7. Comment: The law says
nothing about one additional site, it only says Enclosed Locked Facility. 7. "Current photograph" means
an image of an individual, in a Department-approved electronic format, taken no more than 60 days
before the submission of the individual's application that: a. Is capable of producing an image with a
resolution of at least 600 x 600 pixels but not more than 1200 x 1200 pixels, Comment: The law
does not give a specific requirement for a photograph. b. Is two by two inches in size, c. Is in natural
color, d. Is a front view of the individual's full face without a hat or headgear that obscures the hair or
hairline with a plain white or off-white background, and e. Has between 1 and 1 3/8 inches from the
bottom of the chin to the top of the head. 8. "Dispensary" means the same as "nonprofit medical
marijuana dispensary" as defined in A.R.S. § 36-2801. 9. Comment: Definition under the law is very
specific as to what a Dispensary means; 9. "Dispensary agent" means the same as "nonprofit medical
marijuana dispensary agent" as defined in A.R.S. § 36-2801 10. Comment: Again, the law is very
specific as to what constitutes a Dispensary Agent.. 10. "Enclosed" means: a. A building with four
walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet; or b. An area surrounded by four solid 12-foot walls
constructed of metal, concrete, or stone with a one-inch thick metal gate and a barrier covering the top
of the area that is: i. Welded or woven metal wire mesh, with minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches
and maximum gap between wires of 1 inch; ii. Welded metal wire grid, with minimum wire thickness
of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 3 inches; iii. Metal chain-link weave, with gauge no
less than 9 and no more than 11.5; iv. A panel of metal vertical bars, with minimum bar thickness of
0.5 inches and maximum gap between bars of 4 inches; or v. Constructed of iron or other metallic
material and similar to the examples in subsections (10)(b)(i) through (10)(b)(iv), if approved by the
Department. Comment: Under 6, the definition under the law, it is not so specific as DHS would like
to impliment. Again, under the Voter Protection Act, the State can not make changes to make it more
restrictive or difficult to obtain. 11. "Edible food product" means a substance, beverage, or ingredient
used or intended for use or for sale for whole or in part for human consumption. Comment: Noting in
the Law's definitions does it define “Edible” other than to include it as to useable marijuana. 12.
"Entity" means a person as defined in A.R.S. § 1-215. Comment: Again, the law does not expand
existing law to include adoped rules as in 41-1001 or adult. 13. "Generally accepted accounting
principles" means the set of financial reporting standards administered by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or other specialized bodies dealing
with accounting and auditing matters. Comment, Again, no where in the law does it refer to
Accounting standards. This is expanded. 14. "Legal guardian" means an adult who is responsible for
a minor: Comment: Repetitive, it states it in the law itself. So it's not needed nor it's defintion. a.
Through acceptance of guardianship of the child through a testamentary appointment or an
appointment by a court pursuant to A.R.S. Title 14, Chapter 5, Article 2, or b. As a "custodian" as
defined in A.R.S. § 8-201. 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and
existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor
of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine
pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been designated by a dispensary
to provide medical oversight at the dispensary. Comment: No where in the law does it state that the
Doctor must be licensed to practice within the Sate of Arizona or anywhere else for that matter. Once
again, the State is trying to expand the existing law to improve its position and limiting the scope and
breath of a Medical Doctor. A Medical Doctor is a Medical Doctor and includes not only the MD but also
a Osteopathic Doctor as well as Naturopathic as well as a homeopathic Doctor. Again, the State
trying to limit it scope of its Doctors. 16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-
patient relationship means: a. The physician-patient relationship has existed for at least one year and
the physician has seen or assessed the patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating
medical condition during the course of the physician-patient relationship; or b. The physician assumes
primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical
condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a
personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians that may
include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies. Comment: Again, the
State trying expand it's powers of limiting the law to prevent Cancer patients and debilitating existing
condition patients from receiving “second opinion” from other qualified Doctors as to what may or may
not be the best course of treatment of patients. No where in the law does it say that you must have
seen the patient for a year or at least four visits in order to get a second opinion or to see if the
treatment you are currently being given is the only one. Do you limit all “second opinions to only those
Doctors that have seen the patients for a year and at least four times? Of course not, why would you
wish to expand the power of the State to prevent medical access and opinions of other doctors to
having seen the patient for a year? The voter protection act was passed exactly for this reason, a
bureaucratic agency gone a muck. 17. "Physician-patient relationship" means interaction between a
physician and an individual in which the physician has ongoing responsibility for the assessment, care,
and treatment of the patient's debilitating medical condition. Comment: There is no law that states a
person does not have the right to a second opinion on treatment and requires an ongoing responsibility
for that patient. An opinion by a Doctor is protected under the First Amendment rights of all citizens
and to limit that opinion by stating arbitrary rules that serve only the agenda of a publicly appointed
bureaucrat is ludicrous. Why not expand your rules to include that only female doctors can
recommend medical marijuana for their patients? Just as nutty. Any expansion of trying to limit the
breath and scope of the law will certainly meet challenges and litigation. This for one would seem top
of the list to attack. 18. "Public place:" a. Means any location, facility, or venue that is not
intended for the regular exclusive use of an individual or a specific group of individuals; b. Includes
airports; banks; bars; child care facilities; child care group homes during hours of operation; common
areas of apartment buildings, condominiums, or other multifamily housing facilities; educational
facilities; entertainment facilities or venues; hotel and motel common areas; laundromats; libraries;
office buildings; parks; parking lots; public transportation facilities; reception areas; restaurants; retail
food production or marketing establishments; retail service establishments; retail stores; shopping
malls; sidewalks; sports facilities; theaters; warehouses; and waiting rooms; and Comment: I can
just see a law trying to be passed that would limit where a patient can take his medicine. If you have
a heart attack, are you limited to where you can take an aspirin until you can get to a hospital? If you
have a toothache, are you limiting where you can take a pain pill? Or is it that you just don't like
marijuana and wish to put restrictions on those who are in need of it medically? The rules are to act as
a guideline for Medical use. The law was not enacted to regulate the recreational use. We already
have criminal penalties in place for recreational use, why not use them? Why create burdens on those
who are in need simply for additional punishment for those dumb enough to smoke this stuff for
recreation. We have laws and criminal sanctions already. c. Does not include:
I really like the use of food processing facilities for the production of eddibles.
I don't like the having to see that same doctor for up to a year part. I have changed my doctors in the
past a lot. It makes since, but what If I changed my doctor recently so that means I have to see him
for at least a year before I can be prescribed medical marijuana. I feel that having medical records of
your disease and or pain for up to a year would be good enough. I know that I will in fact be changing
my insurance thus making me see different doctors in a few months. So I'm going to have to wait a
year for the help of medical marijuana? I really think this has to go into more thought.
For the most part the draft rules are fair. I do believe medical patients will be happy with the rules.
The draft seems to be reasonable for the most part. There is one point of contention that I would like
to address....
I think having ADHS in the position of overseer to the program has excellent potential, however this
departments authority should have control over its entire domain. With laws put in place that will not
allow any entity of the state or federal government to step in and remove ADHS from its
authority.Absolutely not to be changed unless it is voted on by the people of our state. All revenues
generated from doctors fees and yearly renewal fees should have a setaside for research and
development.for future studies.
You must be under a doctors care
The security plans are essential and I like that the AZDHS has virtual access to these dispensaries. I
am all for more transparency.
I believe that most forms of the draft are awesome.
As a physician I believe there needs to be an active role for a doctor involed with the dispensaries.
Most doctors that will be a director will need to get an education on marijuana and the different strains
and there benefits. The Halo will be of use for towns wanting dispensaries without having the grow
neccessarily in thier town for 25 miles
The registration and control of cards and etc seems to be very effective.
this is all unbelievable! no one has to jump thru this many hoops to get pain pills or buy ans smoke
cigarettes or cigars in public. marijuana is a medicine not plutonium!
i like the security and health issues in dispensaries and id card process.
the amount a patient can get
Registered Patients & Dispensary rules seem clear.
Over all you are doing a very good job
All the rules pertaining to dispensaries, I believe they are strict as well they should be. Thanks.
The part about a doctor can recommend but also not be involved with a dispensary. They have to
choose a side to be on, but not both.
Requirement for Dispensary Medical Directors.
reading thru the draft, it seems that rules are clear and understandable .
Requiring people to change doctors to manage their qualifying condition is absurd. Most people have
many years invested in there relationship with their doctor (these doctors are specialists not just a
Marijuana doctors). I know I am not willing to give that relationship up. No other state requires that
the relationship with the recommending physician to be a year in length, and Arizona should strike that
from the proposed rules. Anything short of that diminishes benefit of this law. Your supposed to be
helping people get relief for what ever the qualifying medical condition they may have, not making
their lives more difficult.
For one I am glad it has been implemented. Big concern is the state will require all counties will be
requied to haveto adhere to implement policy on the official start date. Draft rules and regulations
issued by the state. Be diligent in setting locations of dispenseries in areas wher they are safe for
citzens and operators alike to conduct safe business. Require law enforcement to treat this busines
fairly and respectfully as they would any other business. I would like to see city, county and states to
make licensing with forms that a person with average knowledge to apply. Vendors would have to have
no criminal backgrounds. Noexceptions on that guideline. Fees, taxes for licenses would be reasonable.
And if new establishmestablishments that would try to open around the al ready established dispensary
would have to choose another location. Common sense approach, repricussions to anti accepting
people will be prosecuted. Thinkers and non bias people be involved in the process. Thank younger
Basic questions about the Act are covered.
i have filled out one before but thought of an addition i would would like to add to my first comment.
the area for caregivers and patients to grow is written correctly
The list of qualifing conditions to get a medical marijuana card.
The structuring seems fine for everybody but the patients. The procedures, fees and limits (weather I
believe they are high, low, unjust or an exquisite display of ignorance) that are in place along with
various other guidelines seem effective in that they are there.
I can't comment on the effectiveness of rules that have not been tested, but in theory, the proposed
rules seem to capture most of the intent of the voters in passing Prop 203. Some of the rules appear to
be contrary to the intent of the voters, however (see below), so I urge DHS to be vigilant in insuring
the intent of the voters is not quashed, again. Please keep in mind the following essential elements:
Tens of thousands of Arizona’s residents are periodically exposing themselves to criminal sanctions in
acquiring marijuana for legitimate medical purposes. Perhaps billions of dollars from medical
marijuana users in Arizona are going to drug traffickers in Mexico. Arizona’s medical marijuana users
do not want to divert money that should be going to the State coffers to criminals, nor do they want to
be classified as criminals themselves. Medical marijuana users are also exposed to risks due to toxic
contamination of illicit marijuana, inconsistent quality and efficacy, etc. If DHS makes it more
expensive and too onerous to acquire marijuana legitimately, where will medical marijuana patients get
it? Rest assured, we will get it.
Each principal officer or board member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident and has been an Arizona
resident for the two years immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a dispensary
certificate application. VERY HAPPY WITH THIS, DISPENSARYS CAN ONLY BE OPENED BY ARIZONA
RESIDENTS!!
I had a chance to re-read through the actual law, and the proposed rules. Mr. Humble and staff have
taken a huge liberty in increasing, and decreasing the law. It almost seems that stuff they didn’t like or
agree with that they added more restrictions, or just added/invented items. I think they forgot we the
people voted on Prop 203 the way it was written. Not to have it so restricted that some, or most
people wont be able to benefit from the law, which goes against the whole intent of the law. I thought
the first thing about required allotted days was interesting, that they had turned the time limits for
them to approve applications, and certifications into working days from just days. I’m sorry but the
statue says days, and not working, or business days. I’m sorry, but the ADHS does not get to rewrite,
and nit pick something that they may not agree with. You must take the law the way it’s written. Days
and not working/business days! The main issue I have with their proposed rules is the restricting
access to the law by trying to define what a patient- doctor relationship is. This part conflicts with Prop
203, as far as any doctor who is licensed to practice medicine MD, DO has the right to recommend
MMJ. And the law doesn’t say anything about having a relationship with your doctor for at least a year,
and have had 4 visits. That same requirement doesn’t apply to any other health standard in the
country. Or any that I could find by looking up requirements for prescriptions/recommendations. Again,
Mr. Humble and staff are taking a huge liberty in defining what they think should apply to Prop 203,
especially when it doesn’t apply to all other aspects of health care. Also, the part that the MMJ doctor
has to become the primary care doctor for the qualifying condition. Most people’s doctors won’t be so
willing to put their names, and required by rules their license number on a patients application. And
who not agree with the new law. So your telling me that I can’t get relief from something that could
help for at least a year? Talk about pain and suffering. The ADHS motto is: Leadership for a Healthy
Arizona. Again not all doctors are qualified specialists who have completed some required fellowship
training to take on ALL aspects of healthcare. As required by law in Chapter 17 Tile 32-1800 Sec 21. I
did find the section on the video cameras amusing, and the location of the hand washing stations. I
was thinking… isn’t that planning and zoning and who ever deals with building permits. And one issue I
couldn’t understand was the part that says if you’re applying for a caregiver card, dispensary agent,
and on behalf a child who is under 18 that they have to signed statement that says they do not
currently hold a valid registry identification card, so these people can’t be patients as well??? This is
just a way for the ADHS to take a more intrusive step into our states MMJ law. I’ve also seen a few
statements from some people, and organizations saying that the ADHS did a good job. And that really
completely blows my mind. Did they really read all 47 pages of the ADHS proposed rules? They have
taken a law that was just over 30 pages and turned a set of proposed rules into 47 pages of things
they want. In a state that has a billion dollar deficit, does the health department really think they
should help waste more taxpayer money the state doesn’t have? I can already see claims being filed
against the ADHS on all aspects of departments proposed rules
None of them. You are allowing the use of a drug that has been shown to be a gateway drug and is
causation of crimes to include DUI. You also appear to be allowing the use of a drug that is illegal
under the Federal Laws of this country.
I believe that rules and regulations must be in play for the benifit of the program, it needs regulation
like all pain medications and guidelines should follow what any physician would recommend for pain
management.
The requirements for patients and caregivers seem like they would be effective. I also agree with
the 2 year Arizona residency requirement for dispensary owners.
I think that all the rules set in place are very organized and detailed unlike California's laws.
Dispensary and edibles rules are effective. Edibles need to be regulated just as any establishment
would that sells food.
R9-17-307. Administration C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana
the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; 2. Shall only provide medical
acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in Arizona,
a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from another dispensary in
Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide more than 30% of
the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries.
R9-17-301. Individuals to Act for a Dispensary Regarding Requirements --- All the language included
under R9-17-301 ---
Allowing patients to grow their own is a good thing. Also, allowing them to supply to dispenseries is
good. The effective parts are the ones that put a stop to wasting public money persecuting marijuana
smokers.
The regulations prescribing security and record keeping for growers and dispensaries are generally
well-considered and appropriate
I think its affective if it didnt seem like the bureaucrats that who are against the medical marijuana
program it is clear there throwing a temper tantrum . It passed again quit looking for reasons to make
it more difficult for someone who needs it gets it.
The dispensary rules are great. The level of detail are very well thought through and reminescent of
rules by colorado.
Multiple visits to your doctor to validate the patients needs is a very good idea, but maybe a visit every
2 months for 6 months should be good enough. keeping the dispensaries out of the neighborhoods is
a good idea. put them in a commercial area that is away from schools and neighborhoods.
i think you guys are trying to make it hard and so expensive the sick who need to be on it and on fixed
incomes like social security cant get it. only people who have money will be able to buy it themselves.
I like the fact that there is a list that a doctor has to refer to and comply with so that the Rx is not
indiscriminately given out.
Effective- Being able to sell to dispensaries medical marijuana from the personal growth usage. But I
do have a question that may need to be entered or not; how much can a personal patient sell legally to
the dispensaries? I am assuming it is based on the twelve plant limit vs quanity, Also I want to know
how many seedlings (baby plants) can be sold back to dispensaries? I also want to know if the
dispensaries have to pick up the product they are purchasing from quailifying patients or if the patients
can diliver legally to dispensaries? Thank you
that you must receive a board certified doctors recommendation to qualify for medical marijuana. a
limit of 5 ounces per month can be purchased.
I DO NOT WANT THIS THING EVEN IMPLEMENTED. I WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESCRIBED THIS
DOPE TO NOT HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR BE ALLOWED TO OWN ANY MOTORIZED VEHICLE.
THEY SHOULD BE IN THE LAST STAGE OF LIFE AND CONFINED TO A HOSPICE OR HOME WITH 24-
HOURS OF PROFESSIONAL CARE. MAKE DOCTORS TAKE THE PERSON'S DRIVER'S LICENSEAND
SEND IT TO DPS WHEN THE PRESCRIPTION IS WRIITTEN. I DO NOT WANT TO BE A VICTIM OF
THIS STUPID LAW!!! THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ARE TOO DANGEROUS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
none
Overall I think the draft is pretty well written.
The clear language about the conditions that qualify patients to receive medicinal marijuana cards.
I was reading before that patient and caregivers are allowed to grow the plant in their homes. I think
that it is safe to have a dispensary act like a pharmacy. Allowed to give the medical marijuana only to
people that have a medical history and have already established a record from a doctor in need of use
of the marijuana. This way there will be more control over it. Patients can smoke it at home once they
pick it up from the dispensary.
Having a medical director for each dispensary is a great idea.
Two years is fair and reasonable to AZ entrepreneur's invested in this cause. --- R9-17-302. Applying
for a Dispensary Registration Certificate A. Each principal officer or board member of a dispensary is
an Arizona resident and has been an Arizona resident for the two years immediately preceding the date
the dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. ---
The Patient and Caregiver Registration process is very clear. All that is needed is the State supplied
form or website.
The draft rules are well written and easy to understand. I have assisted my own profession with the
drafting of rules for our licensure. And often ordinary people believe they need to write in lawyer
speak. I'm so glad your office wrote the draft so the people of AZ can understand the rules. I
appreciate the very descriptive expectations the state will have of dispensary owners. This
demonstrates the seriousness of this type of business.This will assist owners that are new to owning a
business and with their own dispensary safety. 2 year residency, You could even make it a longer
time period. Proud AZ
I believe most o the rules providing for strict regulation of products are good, having access to security
cameras is also a good measure to have taken. Requiring that at least 70% of all product is to be
produced by the company is also a good idea. Requiring 2 year residency is the best rool ever made!
The rules seem rather strict, but reasonably under the current circumstances to discourage non-legit
"patients"--which should help avoid the creeping de-facto legalization issues experienced in other
states. Like the law itself, the proposed ADHS regulations seem comprehensive and designed to
accomplish stated goals while avoiding unintended consequences. My comments below will help further
mitigate the threat of the latter.
Arizona residency, security, documentation, reporting.
An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following nonrefundable
fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $5,000; Like 2. To renew the registration of a dispensary,
$1,000; Like 3. To change the location of a dispensary, $2,500; Like 4. To change the location of a
dispensary's cultivation site, $2,500; Like 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying
patient; $150; Do not like b. Designated caregiver, $200; and Like c. Dispensary agent, $200; Like
6. For renewing a registry identification card for a a.An applicant submitting an application to the
Department shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary,
$5,000; Like 2. To renew the registration of a dispensary, $1,000; Like 3. To change the location of a
dispensary, $2,500; Like 4. To change the location of a dispensary's cultivation site, $2,500; Like 5.
For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $150; Do not like b. Designated
caregiver, $200; and Like c. Dispensary agent, $200; Like 6. For renewing a registry identification
card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; Do not like b. Designated caregiver, $200; and c. Dispensary
agent, $200; like 7. For amending or changing a registry identification card, $10; and 8. For
requesting a replacement registry identification card, $10. Like b. Designated caregiver, $200; and c.
Dispensary agent, $200; like 7. For amending or changing a registry identification card, $10; and 8.
For requesting a replacement registry identification card, $10. Like
Generally well crafted - helpfull detail. I run a and

found many instructive features - especially as related to health, hygiene,and security. HOWEVER
GIVEN FEDERAL LAW AND POSSIBLE PREEMPTION ALL STATE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
REQUIRING INFORMATION PUT INDIVDUALS AT RISK OF FORFEITING THEIR 5TH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS!!
i believe over all you have done a good job.but what i dont see is any talk about the seed bank.this is
very important we should have control over the seeds used to grow in arizona.for various reasons
including quality keeping the economics of it in arizona taxing local grown developing new strains etc.
I like the way that Dr.'s are able to recommend MMJ for for use for patients. I think it will eliminate a
lot of people that want to use it, that do not really need it.
We would like to commend Director Humble and his staff for addressing the "doc in a box" clinics that
appeared almost overnight in California and Colorado. Requiring proof of an existing and ongoing
patient-physician relationship is a great way to focus on those patients that are truly going to benefit
from medical marijuana. It will also help lend credibility to the measure with the medical community.
Language regarding practice of dispensing to patients and the distribution of certificates and
registration cards is clear, succint, and attainable.
I like that dispensaries will be monitored so well. I think the fees are reasonable. I think overall it is
reasonable & pretty well written. I like that it seems to try & keep the cost down for card holders. The
whole point should be ways to get people good quality medicine they need @ a reasonable price,
safely.
i think not being able to smoke in public is a good idea. i also like the idea of "enclosed growing".
I like the dispensarys location and the fact the amount of them make it easier to keep tabs on.
too complicated to even read the draft. please make it simplier. rules about dr certification is ok, but
too complicated and requires too much work for dr's. rules about pt id are ok should be combined with
caregivers, their id's are ok also as a patient, I don't care how much ID is required about me, but
make it easier on dr's if they deal with patients. good to have an ongoing relationship with dr. The
cost for patients is too high and unfair for many patients can't afford that price in addition to all the
medicines they already take, why punish the patient??? when they are looking for relief.
I think you've done a great job so far both in your communication and the drafting of the rules.
Over all most are not going to be effective and are open to abuse with strict enforcement which will be
way beyond enforce resources.
Effective? How about prohibitive? 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a
valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor
or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic
medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been designated by a
dispensary to provide medical oversight at the dispensary. 16. "Ongoing" when used in connection
with a physician-patient relationship means: a. The physician-patient relationship has existed for at
least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the patient on at least four visits for the
patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the physician-patient relationship; or b.
The physician assumes primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the
patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical
examination, including a personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating
physicians that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies.
I like the parts of 1 year being seen by a physician. I also like that the plant needs to be from Arizona.
The fee is reasonable. Valid of copy of state ID and citizenship is great.
I like that dispensaries have to be 500 feet away from schools
No many
You people need to take a breath and relax... cannabis has been used medicinally for hundreds of
years. It can't be any worse than a lot of prescription meds out there. No one is going to stop using
it because you say so
I never heard of people requiring fingerprints to get Oxy or having to pay for a $150 license for Oxy.
Last I checked, pharmacies didn't have to put in an additional $5000 license just to carry a specific
medication, patients didn't have to be fingerprinted, and patients didn't have to pay a $150 fee
themselves to get prescription pain killers.
I am very disappointed in the burdensome rules proposed. (1) Many clinics, such as
, are restricting their doctors from recommending medical marijuana. So a patient in need will
have to wait a year, and see a new doctor 4 times at maybe $100 - $150 a visit to get a
recommendation, plus they'll have to pay the state $150 for their license. So much for the poor being
able to get a medical marijuana card
I was afraid that ADHS would make the rules so onerous that obtaining medical marijuana will be
nearly impossible. I have been proven correct. From the $150 patient fee, to the fingerprinting of
caregivers, to the current photo ID requirement, to the real-time video cameras, to the extreme liability
faced by prescribing physicians, these rules are designed for one purpose only; to inhibit anyone from
legally obtaining medical marijuana. No doubt there are also some Arizona sheriff's who will harass and
intimidate the lucky few who leap the preliminary hurdles and actually enter a dispensary. The morality
police deeply rooted within Arizona government have made a sham of Propostion 203 and of the voters
who approved the measure. Screw the voters once again
Well boys and girls here we have it, more government involvement in what should be a no brainer. Are
they expecting to balance the budget off the sick and dieing? What are the costs to start a Pharmacy?
What restrictions do they have for the Physician in prescribing any other medication? Do you have to
spend $150 to get a card that allows you to get Oxyconen? Just more ways to put their thumb down
on people and the way that they want to decide how to reduce their pain. This should be a carbon
copy of other working systems in any of the other states that allow medical Marijuana. This draconian
restriction will just drive people to illegal sources and ot going out of state to get the medication they
want. Have you been to Canada or Mexico for meds yet??
This is another unreasonable rule. Newly-diagnosed patients have to wait a year to get MM? That's just
plain ridiculous and unnecessary. The rule here should be no different than it currently is for prescribed
narcotics.
So what exactly is the point of this law that we voted for? Did Walgreens and CVS have to jump thru
this many hoops to dispense Oxy and Xanaxs? Do you need to get a card for $150 dollars in order
for the pharmacies to dispense OXY and Xanax? I know two people that are going thru chemo right
now, that I've already heard say "that they will not got thru the hassle and will continue getting it from
whomever they're getting it from now" What is it we voted for again? You can walk into any
URGENT CARE with a bad back and walk out with a script for pain pills (very addicting pills) and then
go to CVS and have the pills to alleviate your pain, all with in a couple of hours. Yet to get this
medication you "Have to have a RELATIONSHIP with your doctor for at least a year and he has to want
to prescribe it to you" WHAT A JOKE!!!! What other medication has all these hurdles in front of it?
Hello, I just herd on 13 news Tucson that I one must be treated by what sounds like the ordering
Doctor for a full year before reciveing Medical Marijuana. I hope that there is more to this , I have
been treated by V.A. for the last four years and have all Doctors reports,MRI,X-rays, and these reports
are going back to 2001 and before. I have a very clear picture of my need for such a drug. It will be
bad enough for me to pay for the secound Doctor as it is, plus the cost of the drug at full price. I am
on S.S.N. Dissiblity , Please advise me that this is not the case. This is with out dought unfair to all
Veterans, do to we are unable to get this drug from tht V.A. system. and have no choice but turn to an
out side sorce for the relif of this drug. If you were in great pain and had to wait another year. paying
a secound Doctor to put in your time. This system is not right, if it is as said on TV news.
Not many, just a lot of red tape and government bureaucracy. Whether you people like it or not,
marijuana is here to stay, get over your self righteous I know what's best for everyone attitude.
Biggest waste of paper of use clouding the issues, making it as confusing as possible. Typical
Government involvement.
~The "2 Year Rule" will help keep out of state interests from flooding the application process. ~The
requirement for a Medical Director that is NOT a part of the referral chain. ~The requirement that
recommending physicians are actual caregivers not "robo-signers".
Definitely the residency requirements of registering a dispensary. It is obvious that California's methods
did not work as planned, so having California money come over would easily bring their issues. They
did boycott us as well.
I think sales should be restricted to pharmacies.
about the doctor patient relationship now there wont be as many abusers of the rules
I really like the patient protection clauses in housing, employment, and family court issues. I also like
the restricted amount of dispensaries allowed. The guidelines for forming and maintaining a dispensary
are very fair.
ALL
R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate A. Each principal officer or board
member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident and has been an Arizona resident for the two years
immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. R9-17-
306. Inspections D. The Department shall not accept allegations of a dispensary's noncompliance with
A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 or this Chapter from an anonymous source.
I like the fact that Arizona residents need clear involvement in the a dispensary.
None of it will be effective except to further the problems for those in need of Medical Marijuana. What
is the major problem with you people? Are you so afraid to help people that you sit around in your tax
payed office with nothing else to do with your time but to write 47 pages of absolute nonsense. You
should hang your head in shame every payday because you do not deserve the position you are in. If
you were a person in need of Medical Marijuana you would be the first one in line trying to sign up for
it. Shame on you, now go home and look at yourself in a mirror and tell yourself how ignorant and
idiotic you really are.
I believe your regulations regarding the dispensaries are pretty well set and some of the rules
regarding issuance to patients as well, but I'll discuss those in the next section.
I believe that all parts will be affective.
None of it will be effective except to further the problems for those in need of Medical Marijuana. What
is the major problem with you people? Are you so afraid to help people that you sit around in your tax
payed office with nothing else to do with your time but to write 47 pages of absolute nonsense. You
should hang your head in shame every payday because you do not deserve the position you are in. If
you were a person in need of Medical Marijuana you would be the first one in line trying to sign up for
it. Shame on you, now go home and look at yourself in a mirror and tell yourself how ignorant and
idiotic you really are.
On first pass, although extremely regulated (as perhaps is necessary), the rules appear to be in the
best interest of the industry.
90% is effective. It is a must that only Arizona residents are able to obtain dsipensary licenses. I hear
that out of state people are trying to come into Az to acquire as many licneses as possible which would
hurt the AZ residents. Since it is still illegal to sell medical marijuana why is the the Department
requiring applicants to already have a site, lease in place etc. Is it practical to incur those expenses
when you have not been approved yet?
I would like to start by saying ADHS is doing a great job staying on schedule and judging by the first
draft you are all working hard and doing a great job. I read the first draft with an open mind trying to
find areas improvement that would benefit all parties involved. I am a Pharmacist in the valley and
much of what I will write draws from my experience dealing with maintaining an accurate inventory of
medications and trying to prevent the abuse of the system by fellow employees, patients and
physicians. 1: The inclusion of a medical director is a great idea. People cannot forget that,
although natural, marijuana is a drug. It comes with side effects and the possibility to interact with
other medications a patient may be taking. Again, great idea. 2: The ability for a physician to
revoke a patients dispensary registration card is another winner. I was hoping for something like this.
With a traditional prescription, it will expire and requires authorization from the prescriber to refill.
Physicians do not give patients a script that will last the full year. They want to follow up with the
patient and observe the benefits/problems associated with the drug. 3: I like the idea of having
inspections of dispensaries and cultivation sites. This will assure inventory and compliance rules are
being followed. 4. I like that ADHS is trying to prevent "pot docs" from prescribing to half of the
valley. A one year relationship or the requirement for the physician to know the background of the
patient and to maintain a relationship with him/her is a good idea. This is a good idea, but I do not
believe it will stop the inappropriate recommendations. A "pot doc" will simply require a patient to
follow up with them x amount of times throughout the year. For instance; Patient goes to a physician
knowing he/she will make the recommendation, get the recommendation and will then have to set up
a few more visits throughout the year. I do commend you guys for attempting to slow the work of
these unethical practices, however; I could see this as making the practice more beneficial to these
types of prescribers. Under this law they would not only get paid to write these unwarrented
recommendations, but they will also get paid each time the patient returns. The return visits will be
done just to stay legal. They will still make the recommendation on the first visit without any real
disease present.
I believe you are going to have bocu problems and all those people who voted for it are mostly non
medical people who want to gain traction in getting pot illegalized.
none, we did not vote for this, we voted for a proposition which clearly and succiently states the need
for and qualifications for medical marijuana. This "draft" as it is called put forth by an overweight,
obese, unshaven, bureaucrat who has nothing to do but add 50 more pages of administrative B.S. to
the law we the people passed in November for the fourth time. In addition this individual and
obviously a lobbying bunch of cronies decides then to tax the product and the individual and the
physicialn all across the board making those for whom the act is created with severe chronic health
issues pay for this bureaucracy. This is not freedom for which we fought but Socialism and extreme
controll and added government who we the suffering people of our sate will have to pay. Since when
did we vote for the handicapped to be taxed higher than the wealthy so a governent health program
can benefit? This is not freedom, this is sad...Vote the bum out.
Testing and Security.
The sections dealing with registration of caregivers and dispensaries are very thorough.
I would like to compliment your staff on creating such a thorough draft in a very limited time frame. I
think that the information provided and rules suggested are very well thought out and well written. I
am especially pleased to see that you are requiring all cardholders and dispensary operators to be 2
year ARIZONA residents. I was especially concerned that we would have an influx of colorado, for
profit owners, coming down here with the wrong intentions. I feel that you have done a great job in
eliminating the monetary incentive in this business, and encouraged an environment that reflects the
intent of the initiative.
I believe that charging for a marijuana card is a good idea.. This will weed out only a small portion of
those who intend to abuse the system and the drug.. I suppose the rational thinking behind such a
costly charge is that only the seriously ill will attempt to get a card..
The allocation of dispensaries.
Holy smoke... do you think you could have made this even more complicated and wordy than it is? On
first read this is too much and too complicated.
the patient and "certifier" must have an established relationship. the number of dispensaries are
limited. dispensaries must have a medical director to dispense information and monitor care
Everything good except what I said below.

It's completely unreasonable. This is so onerous that you've veritably stopped any medical marijuana
in this state. Well done saying no to drugs. No sane doctor or patient would try to comply.
Licensed pharmacists are required to dispense medications in order to protect the helath of the public.
I am an engineer and it seems only logical to me that since Mary Jane is a drug it should be treated
the same as a medication, that is by a licensed pharmacist and pharmacy ONLY. Not just
anybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That someone has to be a resident of AZ for 2 years to try and get a dispensary.
Most of them.
None, other than some procedural rules.
I believe the 500 ft from a school for a cultivation/retail is a good distance. Remember, that the
location of these establishments will not be in plain sight, they will be identified easily only by those
who are looking for them, so 500 ft is an appropriate distance. I am also impressed with the health
concerns and general cleanliness of this draft in regards to cultivation sites.
I think the rules are very comprehensive and to the point relating to the requirements for registration
and dispensary licensing.
I think the rules that are implied are to help keep the use of Medical Marijuana for medical use and not
recreational use. Keeping the criminal element out of the mix will help the cause. Also, the full
tracking from seed to patient is great and the requirement of medical oversight.
None
Dudes... this thing it totally on target. Don't change anything, man.

I believe the draft rules look pretty standard. They seem fair on the initial quick read.
There is no way to put a cap on the amount of money that the marijuana should sell for? What about
people like me who are on SSI and can hardly even survive now. I still need my medicine. I have MS
and if I dont have pot to smoke then I cant walk without falling most of the time. My legs tighten up
so bad.
You should ask what parts are ineffective or discriminatory. Stating that you may diqualify an
application for a dispensary if: a board member is in default for a government-issed student loan. This
implies that the State of AZ is in compliance with Federal guidlines. The Federal Government does not
recognise use of marijuana for medical pourposes, nor does it recognize medical marijuana as a
defence from federal procecution. You might as well state that a bad credit score is reason for denial
after the $5000.00 aplication fee is accepted. I assume as is usual that fees are non-refundable.
The cardholder process outlined will be very effective. I also like the two year residency requirement
for dispensary businesses. We are seeing a large influx of cross-state businesses attempting to stake
their claims in Arizona.
I believe that the law should be strict enough to keep the drugs to a minimum. And for those who
really need this medication. The recreational user will always find a way to obtain the drug illegally. I
see that other states have sucessfully implemented their marijuana programs and it appears that the
revenues from the tax and other means has been good for the states budgets.
a very important rule should be doctor verification by telephone of the patients need for it also to
include a forceable ID check to verify the patient and record the id check used
I like the requirement for the medical director on site. I like the requirement for dispensaries to be
non-profit organizations.
I think it is a good basis to start with.
The registration process and fee schedule.

I appreciate the thoroughness in putting these rules together: salient points are well stated and easy to
understand. The establishment of the program follows clear guidelines.
I feel that all draft rules so far, are fair and effective except for the Registry ID card for Qualifying
patient fee of $150. Many of us are on Medicare and or Medicade (AHCCCS) and have no other means
of income. We are barely able to provide food for ourselves let alone pay such a steep fee. Even if the
fee were to be cut in half, it would be somewhat more affordable but still costly.
The majority of the draft rules seems effective. Especially the restrictions on where cultivation can
occur.
I think ADHS has done an outstanding job of drafting comprehensive and effective rules. I am sure
you will get many comments about how these rules are too restrictive and the requirement of having
an established relationship with a physician is unfair however the law is intended to help those with
severe and debilitating illness so anyone in that catagory should have an established relationship.
Personally I suffer from severe chronic pain. I see my doctor every month and have done so for years.
Everyone I know with legitimate severe chronic pain does the same so please hold firm on that
standard.
?
The residency requirement is great but possibly too permissive.
The fact that TCH products will be made available.
Hello, Good Job! Overall... Unclear on... Does the facility need to be in place prior to getting the
certification?
Formal medical recommedation holding the issuing doctor responsible for his/her requiring the drug.
Over all Great Read it just once quick. My concern Say I can place My Dr . On my Board. He is
practicing and will prescribe Medical Marijuana to his needing Patients. I see the rule as stating this
Dr. cannot presctibe Medical Marijauna and also be on the board. Am I right. love it
I have not read the rules of other states for comparison purposes and I just skimmed these rules for
certain parts. The idea of a patient-doctor relationship is key in helping AZ become a true medical
marijuana state versus what is happening in California and Colorado and probably other states. In
other words anyone with $150 and 10 minutes can get some quack to give them a letter while it
appears AZ is trying to make it stricter, truer, and harder for anyone to get a letter. Since 1996 and
again 0n 1998 when nearly 2/3rds of the AZ voters approved a similar law like California's I have
waited for this day. Not only to treat my Hep C and pain management but to validate the democracy
of majority votes count. Ironically it was so close as compared to the 90's BUT I am glad to see AZ
trying to be "The Model" for any future medical marijuana states proving it can be manged and
regulated to be something other than a disguise for getting good pot for anyone with a story and lining
greedy doctors pockets..
Hi, I liked what i read, if people can stay with the Rules, The State puts out. i believe everthing well
work out, I was in Colorado this summer my Home state My Cousin has a Id card, took me into the
dispensary, I seen a Guy buy some Weed, He look Very Health 2 me, So i ask him outside, What
type of illness he had, He told me, He had a real bad Tooth Ache, That just Blow me away that
is what U have 2 look out 4
I FEEL IT SHOULD BE SUGGESTED BY "ADHS", ALL PEOPLE COMMENTING EITHER PRO OR CON
SHOULD READ IN DEPTH PROP 203, WHICH CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING ON THE CENTER OF THE
FIRST LINE UNDER Call for Public Comment, UNDERLINED THE Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, ALSO
THIS SHOULD GO FOR THE THE SAME SHOULD GO FOR THE "Informal Draft Rules." HOPEFULLY
THID WILL LIMIT THE INCORRECT QUESTIONS, WHICH CAN BE FOUND THERE. (AN EXAMPLE SEEN
NO MORE THAN 50 TIMES: "YOU ARE PASSING A LAW WHICH WILL LET PEOPLE DRIVE UNDER THE
INFLUNCE OF POT") OBIVIOSLY THEY HAVE NOT READ "PROP 203". OR THE "Informal Draft Rules".
GET SMART PEOPLE, OUR PEACE OFFICERS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE IS SOMEONE IS
DRIVING IMPARED LONG BEFORE THE ""BREATH ANALIZER" GIVE THEM MORE CREDIT, THEY KNOW
HOW TO DO THEIR JOB.
For the most part, I think the rules are written very well. However, I do think some issues need
clarification.
I feel you guys did a pretty good job.

Compared to other states, I believe that the idea to limit the number of dispensaries could be
both/either effective, and/or destructive. It all comes down to who gets approved and why. I think
having a medical director on site or at least available to each dispensary during business hours is
effective. I would like to see this taken further in order to conduct much needed medical research and
also to "weed out" the applicants just in it for the money who will end up with stores looking, feeling,
and acting like "legal drug dealers," as we've seen in CA and CO. I think making dispensaries
operate as non-profit organizations is effective and could have great potential to humanity. I believe AZ
has the potential with this rule to decipher between the entrepreneurs who want their piece of the
"green rush" and the entrepreneurs who have their hearts in this industry and strive to further
mankind's knowledge of the medical potentials and risks through exhaustive research and donations.
I like the part that says people with chronic pain should be an acceptable problem for medicinal
marijuana use.
Seems to be very well written overall. Clearly written so people know how to stay within the law. I
like that dispensaries cannot be owned by people from other states. I like the standards & measures
for dispensaries listed so that good medicine is sold @ fair prices & ran like a good business should be.
It looks like the most restrictive which in my opinion means the most expensive. The rules given to
dispensaries a so cost restrictive they won't be worth opening.
The definition of "enclosed" does not meet the guidelines of prop 203. The "Draft Rules" make it
virtually impossible to grow marijuana by natural sunlight. you would be requiring dispensaries to grow
under lights which will indeed create a problem with the energy consumption. Considering 6.5 million
ounces are projected which equates to over 400K pounds. Each plant grown under lights only produces
about 9 -10 ounces per year. This amount would require 650,000 plants to be grown basically
indoors!!!! The energy required to produce that quantity under lights and cooling would translate to
about 6.5 million SF of space. Considering each SF requires 50 Watts (on avg) year round the amount
of energy consumed just by the lights would be 325 million watts per hour!!!! This is 325, 000Kw per
hour each and every day, plus you can double that amount for the
cooling!!!.......................................The average home in Phoenix uses about 65 Kw per day!!!! I
suspect, if the rule stays the same and the public is impacted by this ridiculous requirement, you can
expect an abundence of lawsuits,,,
overall seems fine except for a few things in my opinion.
the basic guidelines are reasonable but cumbersome. 2 years state residency before owning a
dispensary
I want to see all the people involved in the growing process to actually know what they are doing in
the growing process. How is the state going to make sure that the quality of the medicine will be
good? Is the state going to do as California and have a school to learn the proper way of growing and
if so I really feel that all dispensary growers should have to pass a state certified class to produce a
quality product. Arizona already requires a food handler card for those working with food or the child
care classes to become certified by the state why should this job be any different in this situation.We
need quality for the patients or we will be no better than any other state. If I get a card I want to
know that my medicine no matter what dispensary I buy from the quality will be the same. I say if you
want to grow and be part of the Arizona changes than make Arizona have harsher laws to keep our
state from becoming like any other.
This is an excellent start in such a short time frame. Overall the draft looks very good and very fair to
all involed parties.
Most parts sound effective and closely modeled on CO existing laws and regulations.
i agree to the doctors over looking all pts receiving recommendation to all dispensaries.
Placement of clinics.
The draft rules seem to effective although there seems to be a lot of expensive requirement that need
to be met before a dispensary application is approved. If an applicant is approved then the floor plans,
etc., should be submitted in a reasonable timeframe before begging operations.
I think most of the rules are perfect.
all parts can be effective if the state stops persecuting individuals with medical conditions.
A resident of Az for at least 2 years a really effective way to help keep other states out of it...
I do believe the security restrictions for dispensary operations as well as inventory control are proper. I
also believe the part about chronic pain as it needs to be a result of a debilitating condition/disease is
also correct and this should deter individuals who don't necessarily need the treatment for just a
common ailment that can't be unproven.
I love that all board members are required to be state residents. I also enjoyed the statement that this
should be a medical marijuana law as opposed to a recreational marijuana law. Forcing the
recommending physician to be accountable for the patient is also brilliant. Requiring a physician to be
a part of the dispensary will also set us apart from other so called marijuana states. I would like to see
the same requirements for all recommending as well as prescribing, regardless of drug.
My initial impression is positive: clearly significant thought and effort has gone into producing these
draft rules. A couple of things may need more clarification and control...
The general language is well stated and terms well defined. The oversight is very comprehensive
regarding requirements and base measures in policies and procedures. The requirement for a medical
director is to be applauded, especially the common sense ethic that such director not be a
"recommending" physician.
I think you are off to a great start. It may be easier to follow the lead of the other states that have
already put this in place
It is important that the dispensing sites be placed throughtout the state and especially in Tucson and
Phoenix where they can be easy to get to. Walmart may be a ideal source
I believe that the disperies should be tightly regulate and the people who run them.
overall very effective and very thorough
I believe you are on the right track and that the somewhat better safe than sorry approach is well
meaning, I think there is a lot of information out there to suggest that you are putting to great a
burden on the patient and the delivery system in particular the financial burden of obtaining a medical
card. You would never find the "obstacles" for obtaining medical marijuana with one's ability to walk
into a medical office and receive a pain killing narcotic. MMJ should be treated like any other medicine.
You do not require pharmacies to operate as non profit, you do not require 4 visits to a doctor prior to
receiving medical attention for other similar medications so the question is why is this burden extended
solely to marijauana? There is no clinical reason for this. Please do your best to treat mmj just as you
would any other controlled substance and let the medical professionals be accountable for assesment
and recommendation as you would any other controlled substance in a similar situation.
I think having a medical director on site at all dispensaries is a good idea to prevent abuse, especially
since they will not be able to prescribe and potentailly have a conflict of interest.
I think all of the rules are effective. It looks to be a well balanced approach to the use of medical
marijuana in Arizona.
I am very impressed with the efforts made thus far regarding this proposed draft.
Theses "stores" should not be allowed to sell paraphernalia in them. Secondly, theses "stores" should
have to buy the marijuana from a pharnecutical company. There is a public safety concern when
growers are not licensed. In addition to this, private citizens should not be allowed to grow their own
plants until their residence is inspected. Homeopthatic doctors should not be allowed to dispense or
prescribe marijuana.
The ADHS needs to make Medical Marijuana the same as all other drugs. How in the world do you
thing the American people are going to let the government monitor there medical condition. Medical
records are between a Doctor and his or her patients.
Registration rules seem effective, but an excessive and tedious process for registrant and registrar.
Keeping recreation drug users from gaining access, but not restricing it so much that ordinary people
cant get the help they need.
Your timeline is very excellent and I appreciate the clarity in this. Other than that you have
overstepped your bounds with your requirements that a patient see a doctor 4 times to prove an
ongoing relationship. Unless the AMA has defined what an "ongoing" relationship is you can not simply
take what New Jersey is trying to do and overlay it on our patients. You are going to be sued on
behalf of the patients and won't your boss the governor of Arizona be happy when expensive lawsuits
are launched which will cost our cash-strapped state millions to defend (i.e. SB 1070 all over again).
You need to re-adjust your attitude towards Medical Marijuana and treat it like a medicine not a
criminal enterprise. Educate yourself and not spend every waking moment of your time and your
staff's time to over regulate this emerging green industry for the sake of keeping out a few people that
may abuse the system when applying for a card. You don't use a sledgehammer to kill a fly, so please
think this through and retract your draconian rules before it's too late.
registration seems to be ok....medical rules (conditions for doctor to prescribe) is not !
There is considerable focus on security, registration, administration, and access.
Thank you for making it so that only Arizona Residents can apply for Dispensary Licenses.
the rules seem to be pretty effective overall, but there is a a overlooked issue. Coming up with the
money needed to rent build-out and operate is a little more than most people have the ability to throw
away on the chance that they will get a certificate. I think their should be a contingency plan similar to
how a nursing home gets it certification and preliminary certification and then be given at least 30 days
to comply and be ready for inspection at which time the applicant is either ready with all their ducks in
a row so to say or they loose their certificate.
Im not sure
The majority of the draft is well written.
This is what you have been working so hard on? It is ridiculous from start to finish your draconian
rules for having a doctor recommend a substance that is safe and effective and no deaths attributed to
ingestion of marijuana. Really Mr. Humble where do you get off putting out this ridiculously restrictive
set of rules that no other state or country on the planet uses? We are talking about a state law that
was passed that requires minimum oversight and regulation of the patients. Who in the world can
afford to see a doctor 4 times to get a regular prescription. Does someone go through these hoops to
get their Oxycontin. You need to lighten up and not treat marijuana like it's crack cocaine and get
real. Read up on the subject before you put out 47 pages of draconian rules or else you will be sued
for noncompliance of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. You are a civil servant not the drug czar. You
work for the people on the taxpayer's dime not the DEA. Shame on you for putting out this piece of
dreck! Also $150 for a patient to get their card and even on renewal another $150. No other medical
marijuana charges such high fees and why does a patient with a debilitating medical condition even
have to pay for the right to use their medicine? You need to rework these rules and take in
consideration this is a law and you were tasked to make it work not put pages and pages of
requirements on top of the patients and caregivers.
medical conditions for prescribing medicinal marijuana
The overall approach to regulation appears reasonable and effective.
I think that the patient having to have been under the care of a physician for at least 1 year before
obtaining a medical card is a great way to keep it more ethical. I also believe that the owner of the
dispensaries having to have been residents of AZ for 2 years is a great way to make this new
opportunity effect the local economies; which is fantastic. It is all about localism!
I think a $5000 application fee is great 2yrs residency is fair I think you guys did a fantastic job on
this rough draft. We have been following it very close.
This is test content and can be deleted.

What parts of the draft rules do you believe are effective?
Open-Ended Response
This draft has been well thought out and constructed effectivley. Clearly it has been created by
educated individuals, and groups, that considered the legal challenges that will be initiated. GREAT
WORK.
I believe this is a pretty decent draft with a little help with be functionable
there are alot that are effective thanks for your timely draft
How can you even answer this since until the rules are put into effect you don't know how they will
work. You were given a blueprint for putting together the paperwork and database to run a medical
marijuana program. Until you accept that medical marijuana is medicine your draft rules will not be
effective because you are making the rules too restrictive to screen out 80% of the eligible patients
(per your own words). What kind of world do we live in that try to implement a program to stop the
small percentage of people that abuse the system. If we followed your logic there would not be
public libraries because a small percentage of the users (around 5%) abuse the system by stealing
materials (particularly CDs and DVDs), check books out and never return them, damage books, write
graffiti in the books and even tear pages out. So your biggest fear is somebody will go to the doctor
and fake pain to get some relief? That's what you are worried about? Please Mr. Humble why would
someone go to these lengths when they can buy the same product on the streets as what the
dispensaries will offer only cheaper. Street dealers don't ask for cards and they have high quality
product because even in California the #1 cash crop is cannabis and you think everyone in California is
running amok with the medical marijuana cards. Stop watching and read the book
.
How can the draft rules be improved?
Open-Ended Response
We could improve on some rule by just plain removing them. They are going to cause more harm than
good. I believe that rules R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-
202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-
204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the
department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines
an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department
authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple
assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to
promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice
of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's
care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple
visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly
outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and
unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is
dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care of
cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other potentially terminal qualifying
conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The
department's regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of
patients' rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers, other sources of care
or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all
(whether prior or subsequent to application). • Any Arizona physician may in a single visit prescribe
"speed," e.g., Adderall, to a kindergartner-without 4 visits spread out over 1 year any Arizona physician
may prescribe to a kindergartner a drug that can kill that child by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other
"side effects." • Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C, and ALS patients often do not have 1 year to live. • The
patients that do live are cruelly being told to change doctors or suffer for 1 year. • Deadly and addictive
drugs such as the opiates are prescribed in a single visit by Arizona physicians and, despite the best
efforts of physicians, some of those deadly and addictive drugs are illegally diverted, but that does not
cause the AzDHS to demand 4 visits, 1 year of visits, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of
the patient. • Marijuana is 100% safe, gives patients good relief, and cures some conditions-Marijuana
is not deadly and is not addictive. • The alternative offered by the AzDHS to avoid 1 year of suffering,
the cannabis specialist takes over the primary care of the pt's qualifying condition, is done nowhere else
in medicine-Nowhere else in medicine does a specialist take over a patient's primary care. • The AzDHS
does not have the authority to define or re-define the patient-physician relationship or the number of
doctors visits, or the length of time for those visits-that infringes on the patient's choice • The draft
regulations are cruel and unreasonable. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department
has no authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician's professional
practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This
section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an
undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or
aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine.
The provisions calling for ADHS to decide what are future covered illnesses are ludicrous. It should be
solely the responsibility of the doctor recommending marijuana to make that call. It will cost millions in
lawsuits,administrative costs and manpower and serves no purpose to create another branch of ADHS to
provide oversight here when the doctors carry malpractice insurance and are going to be well paid for
their recommendations..Also unless docotrs the administrators at ADHS have absolutely no business
making this call. It is also an invitation to lawsuits to require any more of a patient or doctor regarding
a marijuana recommendation then for any other prescription. Most of the poor and uninsured have not
bee to a doctor four times in the last year for anything,much less a coninued chronic condition. This
provision will make medical marijuana only available to those who can afford a family doctor and are
well insured. Your own statistics should have shown this.
There is no legitimate reason a patient cannot grow their own Medical Cannabis in the security and
comfort of their own home, regardless of the 25 mile rule. The reason, is because you wouldn't be able
to control the people and we all know the government is about control.
R9-17-101: 16 – “Ongoing” – I have glaucoma and would qualify as a patient. My doctor objects to
Medical Marijuana and has told me in the past he will never prescribe it. I believe I would have to
change doctors in order to change medicines if I decide that this medicine may be cheaper/better
suited/more natural etc and that will take time under the ongoing rules. I think it should be able to be
prescribed immediately by a qualified physician once a condition has been properly documented without
changing health care providers. permanently. A doctor can adequately assess a patient’s need for
medical marijuana in a single visit. 16(b) provides for the important ongoing monitoring of the patient’s
progress, and is good for monitoring after the fact instead of a year before the fact when the patient
needs medicine. R9-17-307 – C(1) – The 70/30 rule will create shortages for patients in rural areas and
increase prices across the state because facilities better suited to cultivation will not be able to
adequately supply those better suited to dispensing. Please reject this rule in favor of a open
relationship that does not impose supply restrictions. R9-17-310 – Other health professionals are
capable of serving in the role of medical director. As written this is too restrictive because of the
continued illegality of medical marijuana on the federal level and many doctors’ hesitance to embrace
“new” medicines soon after they are made available. R9-17-311,12 – Maintaining dispensary records for
five years is excessive, and records should be kept by patient and caregiver ID, not name.
How do you plan to ensure that outside sources, like cartels and undesirable financial sources, from
other states are not funding any of the registered dispensaries. In other states any share holder with
greater than 5% share must have a back ground check as well, because otherwise what is to keep a
cartel from fully funding a dispensary, just put under another Arizona residents name? • R9-17-
302.B.15.d asks, “Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much.” will you be
looking into these surety bonds to help determine the source, to see if this is the case?
The definition of “Medical Director” must be expanded to include Naturopathic Physicians. As the
definition is written now in the draft rules, “Medical Director” means “a doctor of medicine who holds a
valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or
a doctor of osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has
been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at a dispensary.” This definition has
wrongly omitted a licensed Naturopathic Physician. Naturopathic Physicians are certainly no less
capable of performing the duties of a Medical Director, and in fact may be in a better position to guide
the alternative care required for medical marijuana patients. According to the Association of Accredited
Naturopathic Medical Colleges “naturopathy is a traditional approach to health that is holistic, meaning
that it encompasses the whole being. It is based on natural and preventative care. Naturopathic
medicine combines many methodologies, such as acupuncture, massage, chiropractic adjustment,
homeopathy and herbal cures, along with sensible concepts such as good nutrition, exercise and
relaxation techniques. The exclusion of Naturopathic Physicians is not only illogical but is also
unfounded based on the language of existing statutes and the language of Prop 203. For example the
education and licensure requirements for Naturopaths are no less stringent than those for M.D. and both
are afforded nearly identical authority to treat patients (See A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14). Further,
Naturopaths have specialized education in botany and herbal therapies, making them uniquely qualified
to serve as Medical Directors for a dispensary. Excluding them from serving as Medical Directors does a
severe disservice to patients. Finally Naturopaths qualify as a “Physician” as defined in Proposition 203
§36-2801(12). Thus, Naturopathic Doctors will be permitted to recommend MM to patients under State
Law. How then can they be excluded from serving as Medical Directors? This seems contrary to the
intent of the law at best and discriminatory and potentially illegal at worst. Naturopathy is a
legitimate and widely accepted field that focuses on natural and primarily non-invasive therapies to treat
disease, stimulate healing, and promote overall health. Naturopaths are trained to understand the way
herbs and homeopathic remedies affect the body. Since, licensed Naturopathic Physicians can and likely
will legally recommend the use of MM to patients according to State Law, it seems axiomatic that the
same credentials should entitle a person to work as a Medical Director at a MM Dispensary. Further,
Naturopathic doctors above other professionals included in the definition of “Physician” set out in
Proposition 203 §36-2801(12), are uniquely qualified to understand and oversee the use of MM by
registered users, because they understand how natural remedies effect the body.
- The recommending physician should not be compensated (directly or indirectly) from any dispensary.
-Registry ID Cards should only be issued first to the terminally ill then six month later to those
diagnosed with a qualifying disease and finally after 1year to those with severe nausea and/or chronic
pain. (This would be done so that those that truly need the medical marijuana can get it without waiting
on those just want to get high.) - Patients "suffering" from severe nausea and/or chronic pain must
show proof that they have attempted to treat said affliction for at least one year with conventional
medical therapies prior to applying for medical marijuana. (If they cannot show this proof than they are
not truly suffering.) - The diagnosis of severe nausea and/or chronic pain can only be made by a
doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine and not an osteopathic
doctor. Since the osteopath is lacking the training to separate a true condition from fraud. - In an
effort to stop the "headshop" circus that is happening in California, dispensaries should only be able to
sell/dispense the medical marijuana not any other paraphernalia such as syringes, pipes etc. - One
problem with the time lines in the draft rules is that if it only takes 30 days to get a registry id card but
90+ days to get a dispensary then every person that gets an id card within the first 90 days will have a
license to grow their own marijuana for one year since there is no way that there is a dispensary within
their area. - In the section about the ongoing physician/patient relationship it should be "...on at least
four visits over at least four months". (This should be done to stop the four visits from being conducted
in one setting.)
- The recommending physician should not be compensated (directly or indirectly) from any dispensory.
-Registry ID Cards should only be issued first to the termnily ill then six monthe later to those diagnosed
with a qualifying disease and finally after 1year to those with severe nausea and/or chronic pain. (This
would be done so that those that truely need the medical marijuana can get it without waiting on those
just want to get high.) - Patients "suffering" from severe nausea and/or chronic pain must show proof
that they have attempted to treat said affliction for at least one year with conventional medical therapies
prior to applying for medical marijuana. (If they cannot show this proof than they are not truely
suffering.) - The diagnosis of severe nausea and/or chronic pain can only be made by a doctor of
medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine and not an osteopathic doctor.
Since the osteopath is lacking the training to sepparate a true condition from fraud. - In an effort to
stop the "headshop" circus that is happening in California, dispensaries should only be able to
sell/dispense the medical marijuana not any other paraphernalia such as syringes, pipes etc. - One
problem with the time lines in the draft rules is that if it only takes 30 days to get a registry id card but
90+ days to get a dispensary then every person that gets an id card within the first 90 days will have a
license to grow their own marijuana for one year since there is no way that there is a dispensary within
their area. - In the section about the ongoing physician/patient relationship it should be "...on at
least four visits over at least four months". (This should be done to stop the four visits from being
conducted in one setting.)
1. From your FAQ: "Will there be medical oversight at a dispensary? Yes, a dispensary would be
required to employ or contract with a medical doctor or osteopath to be the medical director for the
dispensary (informal draft rules R9-17-307(A)(3)) and to carry out the functions described in the
informal draft rules (R9-17-310(C)). The term "medical director" is defined in the informal draft rules
(R9-17-101(15). A medical director could not provide a written recommendation for medical marijuana
to a qualifying patient (informal draft rules A.A.C. R9-17-310(D))." This directly violates the law! You
can't do anything to an Arizona Doctor that limits them from writing recommendations! There will also
not be many Doctors that will agree to add this position to their current responsibilities. The few who do
would need to be available to 15-20 dispensaries (not 3) to make this remotely viable for both parties.
This also conflicts with the patients relationship with their own Doctor, the Doctor who has already
recommended marijuana and advised them of the potential benefits and dangers of its use. This also
creates an undue burden in the form of an expense and as such violates the law: ARS 36-2803.4 . This
is completely unnecessary as a Doctor is already advising each and every medical marijuana patient. We
want every patient to be very aware of the dangers of using and misusing marijuana, but you need to
find a legal way to help us do this. The Medical Director Position is a great idea that just doesn't work in
the real world! 2. Surety Bond for a dispensary, R9-17-302, 15-D. You have not released the amount
that you would require and due to the nature of this business a bond might be not even be available, or
unreasonably expensive. Either way this directly violates the law! Again ARS 36-2803.4 . We do
understand your intentions, but this is also a slippery slope heavily in favor of only the abundantly
wealthy. 3. Requiring a dispensary applicant to build an operating dispensary and grow operation
before a license application would be approved, R9-17-302, B-5. This violates the law! Yet again, ARS
36-2803.4 . If you don't change this, we will be one of thousands of organizations that will sue you.
That is not a threat, that is a solemn oath! We agree with the recommended two stage application
process. That will meet all your needs and give people a fair chance to not lose their home in order for
you to exclude them from competing for a license in a fair contest. Having the people who desire to help
the patients that will truly benefit from this, and will do it the right way to the letter of the law is what is
best for all of Arizona! Only reasonable financial ability is what is mandated here! 4. The prices for
patient licenses. These need to be half of what you have proposed! For some comparison, drivers
licenses directly allow people to put other members of society at risk and cost $12 for 25 years! You are
pricing these to try and keep people from being able to afford them and those people are our sick and
dying. I understand you don't want to give a drug abuser a card for free, but you can't penalize our
genuinely suffering because a few people will slip through the cracks. Drop them down to fair and
reasonable fees, or it will end up costing much more than what the outrageous amounts bring in to
defend them in court and ultimately end up lowering them anyway. This is only the initial draft of the
rules and your agencies response appears to be a knee-jerk one to try and kick this law back out of the
state! That's simply futile; it's time to except this for all the pros and cons, not just the fears. I'm very
glad this is the law here now, and that being said I do not want this to become like Amsterdam, L.A., or
Denver! This is about patients, not about potheads. Please do what you can to keep abuse minimal; but
don't abuse the patients in the process, that's the line. There also seems to be some blatantly obvious
intentions within these rules to support only the filthy rich and exclude all others. I have pointed out
numerous examples of this, to prove differently you'll simply have to change your position on some of
these issues.
The Rules don't address in Article 2, R9-17-201. "Is a convicted felon" eligible as a qualifing patient or
designated caregivers. This should be addressed. In R9-17-205, What is "an excluded felony offense"?
1) Each location where marijuana is produced, infused or sold must have a separate dispensary
certification. 2) Caregivers must undergo training (at least 8 hours) on, and pass a test on, the effect
and hazards of marijuana, the terms of the initiative, DHS rules governing medical marijuana and
applicable laws. 3) Caregivers, Cardholders and Dispensary Agents must be residents of Arizona and
must possess an Arizona driver’s license or identification card. 4) Private marijuana use “clubs” should
be prohibited. 5) Medical professionals that wish to issue medical marijuana certificates must be
registered with DHS in order to issue certifications and a reasonable fee should be charged. 6) The
medical professional issuing the certification should be given the authority to revoke a patient’s
certification at any time. In addition, the medical professional should be required to revoke if they
haven’t seen the patient within 6 months. 7) The legislature should impose criminal penalties for
smoking marijuana in public. 8) The legislature should impose criminal penalties for smoking
marijuana in the presence of children.
R9-17-101: 16 – “Ongoing” – The definition for ongoing is facially discriminatory in that it discriminates
against low-income patients, veterans, and uninsured potential medical marijuana patients. The
definition does not follow the purpose of the proposition as voted on by the citizens of Arizona because
it serves to deny medical marijuana to those patients who discover shortly before death that they have a
qualifying condition. These are some of the people that most need access to medical marijuana, and
denying them based on lack of a one-year doctor patient relationship will only serve to frustrate the
purpose of the statute. A doctor can adequately assess a patient’s need for medical marijuana in a
single visit. 16(b) provides for the important ongoing monitoring of the patient’s progress, and is good
for monitoring after the fact instead of a year before the fact when the patient needs medicine. R9-17-
307 – C(1) – The 70/30 rule will create shortages for patients in rural areas and increase prices across
the state because facilities better suited to cultivation will not be able to adequately supply those better
suited to dispensing. Please reject this rule in favor of a open relationship that does not impose supply
restrictions. R9-17-310 – Other health professionals are capable of serving in the role of medical
director. As written this is too restrictive because of the continued illegality of medical marijuana on the
federal level and many doctors’ hesitance to embrace “new” medicines soon after they are made
available. R9-17-311,12 – Maintaining dispensary records for five years is excessive, and records should
be kept by patient and caregiver ID, not name.
One discrepancy I found was that although Naturopathic Physicians are included in the law as referring
physicians, we are not defined in the rules to serve as Medical Directors of the dispensaries. I believe
this is an oversight. Naturopathic Physicians, are licensed primary care physicians and also have DEA
numbers, so that they can prescribe pharmaceutical drugs as well, when needed. They are covered by
some insurances as both in-network & out-of-network providers.
You should be able to grow and dispense in the same building . It would be way more efficient to have
them in one building . The money saved from using one building oppose to two would help keep the
price of the medicine down . The state would also save having only one building to regulate rather than
two . A Dispensary should be able to Grow 100% of it's medicine or Buy 100% of it's medicine from
other dispensary's-patients or care givers . Not all dispensary's should have to grow . A Medical director
at the dispensary is not needed . Again that's an expense that the patient (already over burdened) does
not need . Any medical questions the patient's have should be answered by their own Doctor . The
dispensary can answer any questions about marijuana if needed . But the dispensary is just there to
dispense . Only the state and patient need to know where the dispensary's are . The state should supply
a list of dispensary's to the patient . No advertising needed . The patient first goes to the doctor to get a
recommendation . Then the patient goes to state to get a permit and locations of dispensary's . Then
the patient goes to the dispensary and buy's the medicine . Then the patient goes home to medicate .
The end . We have to have Regulation . But over Regulation should be controlled . Over regulating adds
to the cost and time for the patient and the state .
Re: Draft Rule R9-17-101 (16) The physician-patient relationship and the term described as "ongoing"
with "one year" existing relationship and "at least four visits" is my largest concern. Veterans who
receive care at the VA Medical Facility have the largest problem establishing a "ongoing" relationship
with any physician, due to the high turnover rate of their doctors. In twenty years as a patient at the
Phoenix VA, I have never had the same primary care physician for more than 1 year. In addition, since
it is a Federal Facility, the doctors are unable to prescribe Medical Marijuana under Federal Law. This
means that only Disabled Veterans, must now go to a third party doctor, pay for more than four visits
and wait for over a year to receive any medicine to relive their pain and nausea. As there are currently
525,000 veterans in Arizona and the VA estimates 13%- 20% have a Service Connected Disability, this
could represent between 68,250 - 105,000 Arizona patients. Is it really fair to force only the Veterans of
our State to endure a more expensive, time consuming and prohibitive process than the rest of the
patients. In my case I have had the same severe nausea and wasting syndrome, known as Gulf War
Syndrome, since 1991 and have piles of Medical Records to prove it. Yet now I must pay another
outside doctor for four visits and remain sick for a whole year, due to this language in the draft. Most
disabled veterans are on a fixed income and this addition to the law is an unreasonable and extremely
costly process for one segment of the population only. In the case of cancer patients, why must they
wait for a year, if one doctor does not want to prescribe the medication that the patient believes will
work for them. With other medications, one doctor may choose to use a particular drug while another
doctor chooses an entirely different course of treatment. Pharmaceutical Representatives visit doctors
offices every month to convince the doctor that their medication is better for his patients than the
competition. It seems your rules are unfairly targeting Medical Marijuana and are attempting to
influence the doctor-patient relationship only in the case of prescribed Medical Marijuana. Why isn't the
process the same as it is with other controlled substances, which rely on the doctor to ensure only the
right patients get their hands on those drugs? These same doctors are trusted with much stronger
medications like cocaine, oxycontin, morphine and others but your draft rules are taking the position
that they can't be trusted. It seems your concern over the few who might attempt to get Medical
Marijuana, is ensuring that those who actually need it most will not get it.
Although I am not an attorney and have not had time to read through the rules completely, I would
suggest the following: 1) Review the suggestions made by MATForce and implement them. They are
designed to prevent illicit use and sale of marijuana. Because the colation is headed by the Yavapai
County Attorney and the former Chief of Police of Cottonwood, AZ, they are aware of the issues and
problems. 2) Review the current medical marijuana laws in states where they exist Reserach the
problems those states have had because the rules and laws were not clear. Drug users and dealers
will go to great lengths to preserve and enhance the status quo. It's up to you to think outside the box,
think like a dealer and a user and outwit them.
Eliminate from the Debilitating Medical Conditions list the following items: 11, and 13. These open the
door to abuse. It is far better to begin very stringently, and loosen up at a later date if it is prudent,
than to go the other way. The last half of this lise includes repeated use of the term "chronic
debilitating disease or medical condition...". "Chronic" and "debilitating" MUST be clearly defined. The
definition should include a clearly identifiable pathology, that has been detected by blood or body fluid
tests, or by X-rays or other standard medical imaging techniques, Such disease or medical condition
must have been treated by a physician, surgeon, or psychiatrist for a minimum of 90 days without
remission or significant relief. Chiropractors, and P.A.'s should not be included as eligible caregivers.
2. In your list of Debilitating Medical Conditions you should also define specifically what constitutes
"severe nausea" (#10). There must be some more or less objective criteria. It cannot be left totally up
to the patient. That will lead to all sorts of lying and abuse. Here again, the nausea needs to stem from
a well-accepted medical condition that has been historically associated with severe nausea. 3. In item
#9 you MUST define what "severe chronic pain" is. This should be pain that does not remit even with
medically supervised treatment with the strongest known tolerable narcotic analgesic, and has persisted
for over 60 days.
Doctor patient relationship I my opinion your requiring that I either have a one year four visit in that
year doctor/patient relationship or that if I go to a “ pot doctor” your words not mine that this cannabis
specialist has to take over that portion of my primary care is flat out ridiculous! Not all of us get free
health care from the taxpayers Mr. Humble…I pay every time out of pocket to my primary physician for
me and my family. Because my wife and myself make too much for us to be one of the government
programs like you and your staff and we have to little to pay for our own insurance. In no other case in
Arizona do you the “health department” require that a sick or dying person go to a specialist for that
primary care. That is why we call them specialist not primary doctors so you are telling me one of the
citizens of this great state of Arizona who this law was voted in for… that I need to leave my primary
doctor who I have going to for twenty years and doesn’t want to deal with the tracking issue that you
will impose. That I now have to go through the yellow pages to find a new primary doctor who not only
lets me pay in payments but has an office near by and will want to deal with that 24 hour a day tracking
that you and the police department will require….come on this law states reasonable regulations not
some arbitrary idea that the current health director decided is a good way to protect society from this
hideous and dangerous plant that has never killed anyone! My patient/doctor relationship should be
decided by my physician and me not you Mr. Humble.
This paragraph should be removed and Department should let the local building permit approvals handle
it.
The rules need to be made much more strict. These lax rules make it way too easy for people to abuse
it!
More strict application
The draft rules should eliminate this requirement because certificates of occupancy are issued after a
building is constructed or modified for its intended use, thereby requiring substantial commitment of
dispensary resources even when there is no guarantee that a registration would be granted.
I think there are two area that could be improved. First is I believe the security requirements are a bit
harsh. My father was a pharmacist for years and he regularly dispensed narcotics. His pharmacy had
glass windows seperating the drugs from the avarage person. The Department seems to be treating
Marijuana like it's a nuclear bomb that needs to be protected like Fort Knox. I think normal precautions
such as the same ones for narcotics in a normal pharmacy would be sufficient. Second, the rules don't
define what a "school" is. Is a nail salon that trains students a "school"? Is a private school for the
disabled or severly handicapped considered a "school"? Is a karate training facility considered a "school?
We need to define what constitutes a "school" or define the intent so legislators can use common sense
to guage the danger to society or kids.
More definitions of terms, particularly thise that limit locations, e.g. what is a "school"?
II. DISPENSARIES 1. DHS must require geographic dispersion of dispensaries. 2. Each location where
marijuana is produced, infused or sold must have a separate dispensary certification. (a) Modify R9-17-
302(B)(5) by striking “and, if applicable, as the dispensary’s cultivation site.” (b) Modify R9-17-304 to
strike all references to a Dispensary’s Cultivation Site. (c) Modify R9-17-306 to strike all references to a
dispensary’s cultivation site. (d) Modify R9-17-307 to clarify that cultivation sites require separate
dispensary certification. (e) Modify R9-17-313(B)(5) and (6) to clarify that food infusion sites require
separate dispensary certification. (f) Modify R9-17-315 to clarify that cultivation and infusion sites
require separate dispensary certification. (g) Modify R9-17-316 to clarify that infusion sites require
separate dispensary certification. (h) Strike R9-17-101(6) 3. DHS may delegate inspection of
dispensaries to local authorities. 4. Reasonable notice of routine inspections should be 24 hours, and
occur within posted business hours. 5. Dispensaries must dispense marijuana and marijuana infused
products in DHS approved and supplied containers. 6. Dispensaries may not dispense a smokeable form
of marijuana unless the qualifying patient is approved by DHS to receive it. 7. Dispensaries should be
required to file public reports providing information on the number of customers, marijuana sales
volume, and financial status of the dispensary. III. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS
1. Caregivers must pay a separate fee for each patient they care for. 2. Caregivers must undergo
training (at least 8 hours) on, and pass a test on, the effect and hazards of marijuana, the terms of the
initiative, DHS rules governing medical marijuana and applicable laws. 3. Caregivers, Cardholders and
Dispensary Agents must be residents of Arizona and must possess an Arizona driver’s license or
identification card. 4. Caregivers and patients allowed to cultivate marijuana must be subject to the
same security, inspection and reporting requirements as dispensaries. 5. Patients, or caregivers acting
on behalf of patients, may not possess smokeable marijuana unless specifically authorized by DHS. 6.
Private marijuana use “clubs” should be prohibited. IV. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS 1. Policy Statement
Three different types of medical professionals are authorized to provide certification for medical
marijuana use under the initiative. All are governed by a different licensing board, and none of the
licensing boards actively govern their respective charges with regard to medical marijuana. Unless DHS
monitors the activities of these medical professionals, there is no central authority to monitor and
govern the actions of medical professionals authorized to certify medical marijuana use under the
initiative. Under the initiative, DHS is charged with regulating possession and use of medical marijuana.
DHS thus has the authority to qualify medical professionals designated under the act as appropriate to
issue certification for medical marijuana use. Such a system would ensure a centralized authority to
monitor medical professionals for abusive or illicit issuance of certifications, preventing fraud and abuse.
2. Medical professionals that wish to issue medical marijuana certificates must be registered with DHS in
order to issue certifications and a reasonable fee should be charged. Implementation: Create Article 4
for the Medical Marijuana Program in DHS Rules that governs medical professionals wishing to issue
medical marijuana certifications in Arizona. Medical professionals must meet the following
requirements: (a) DHS must create and administer a medical professional certification registry. (b)
Qualified medical professionals that wish to issue certificates under the initiative must register annually
with DHS and pay a reasonable annual fee to offset the cost of registry administration. (a) Medical
professionals must be Arizona licensed in and primarily practice in Arizona. (b) No more than 30 active
patient registry cards may be issued based on the certification of an individual medical professional at
any one time. (c) Medical professionals must see their certified patient at least once every 6 months,
face to face, and document they have done so in annual certifications. (d) Medical professionals may
not issue certificates to themselves or immediate family. (e) Medical professionals undergoing discipline
or substance abuse problems (f) Medical professionals recommending the patient be dispensed a
smokeable form of marijuana, must provide a statement detailing at least 3 efforts of the medical
professional and patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts were
unsuccessful, and a declaration from the medical professional why only smokeable marijuana will
alleviate the patient’s condition. must not be authorized to issue certifications. 3. The medical
professional issuing the certification should be given the authority to revoke a patient’s certification at
any time. In addition, the medical professional should be required to revoke if they haven’t seen the
patient within 6 months. V. LEGISLATIVE ACTION 1. The legislature should set a presumptive THC
metabolite level for impairment (similar to presumptive blood alcohol level) effective in situations of
driving, machinery operation and employment 2. The legislature should set enhanced penalties for
cardholders, caregivers, and dispensary agents that produce, transport, sell, or possess marijuana
outside of the terms of their authority granted by the initiative. 3. The legislature should impose
criminal penalties for smoking marijuana in public. 4. The legislature should impose criminal penalties
for smoking marijuana in the presence of children.
they are way to restrictive. I can get a prescription for hydrocodone and get it refilled twice for a sore
tooth. Why is this so tight? Loosen up he ability to get a prescription without causing the doctor so
much grief. We have voted for this law three seperate times. Please.
You are relying on Doctors that have no previous experience prescribing Marijuana to do so, and they
will not do it. Why would they? 1. It is illegal at the Federal level 2. No doctor has a license to prescribe
schedule 1 narcotics. 3. They don't need to prescribe it, they are already practicing medicine and have
an established practice of doing so. 4. Prescribing Marijuana unnecessarily complicates their lives (fees,
forms, licensing). 5. Prescribing Marijuana could jeopardize their careers, be it short term or long term
(see reason #1, #2). 6. Doctors risk a social stigma of being "one of those doctors" among peers. 7.
Etc, etc, etc. I talked to my Doctor, he will not prescribe Marijuana to anyone, and why would he?
No Doctor will prescribe it unless they are involved, aware and sympathetic to Marijuana's medicinal
properties in relation to their patients. There is a reason that specific doctors in other states have had
to prescribe this, these reasons are stated above. You have effectively neutered the state of Arizona's
medical marijuana program by making the medicine unavailable because no doctor will prescribe it.
Very, very few patients will have access to this medicine. And when the people that oversee this are
scratching their heads as to why the number of patients getting their medical marijuana cards and the
number of doctors prescribing it are a small fraction of the predicted numbers, it will be because of
reasons stated above. You need to take steps and do the the research necessary to insure that this
medicine will actually be prescribed, rather than assume that it will. Because it won't. And the people
like me, that need an effective medicine, will have to move to a state where it is actually legally
available. And I will.
I believe the proposal to require each dispensary to have a Medical Director that is a medical doctor
(either an M.D. or a D.O.) will effectively put control of the entire industry in the hands of a few. While I
see the need for Medical Directors, I believe Registered Pharmacists should also be allowed to act as
Medical Directors for dispensaries. This will open up the pool of candidates that could potentially act as
Medical Directors for dispensaries, thereby eliminating the potential monopoly doctors could have over
the industry. Forcing dispensaries to keep a Doctor on staff would create an inflated expense for the
business operations of the dispensary and may effect their ability to compete. It may also create a
situation where Doctors are the only one's able to afford to run a dispensary because they would not
have to pay themselves (and incur the business expense). If Doctors become entrenched as Medical
Directors, they could control what they charge dispensaries for their services and have unfair control
over business cost structure. Pharmacists are regulated, licensed professionals in the field of healthcare
and have expertise in counseling patients on how to use medication. Let them be part of the solution,
help keep costs under control, and prevent a monopolization of the industry. Furthermore, under the
draft gudielines, the onsite Medical Directors would not be allowed to "recommend" medical marijuana
anyway. The patient would have to obtain their recommendations prior to coming to a dispensary, so
doctors will still be a part of the process, just not with a stranglehold on the cost structure of the
dispensary operations. This is being submitted by . I have been a
. I can be
reached for further comment. I appreciate your time taken to review the many
submissions you must be receiving.
1) The legislature should set a presumptive THC metabolite level for impairment (similar to presumptive
blood alcohol level) effective in situations of driving, machinery operation and employment This should
include people who are work with for children or minors specificly. 2) Dispensaries should be required
to file public reports providing information on the number of customers, marijuana sales volume, and
financial status of the dispensary We will need to create an auditing process for this to ensure accuracy
of this. 1. Dispensaries may not dispense a smokeable form of marijuana unless the qualifying patient
is approved by DHS to receive it. I am an advocate, but I do not see any reason for using smoke able
marijuana as it exposes others to the effects. If we are truly doing this for medicinal purposes there
should be no second hand exposure to a controlled substance.
These preliminary rules word be burdensome and delay a qualifying patient’s registration as well as legal
acquisition of marijuana and should be eliminated. The provision for a physician to take on primary
responsibility for a patient’s use of marijuana may cause a conflict for doctors because it’s use is still
illegal under federal law and may be problematic for doctors’ licensing.
I am concerned that there is nothing in the rules about driving and operating heavy machinery. I don't
like the thought of somebody who is under the influence of marijuana driving on the same street as me
with my baby in the backseat, yet it seems as though it will be perfectly legal. The same can be said
with patients who need to operate heavy machinery at work--it seems that it would put their co-workers
at great risk if they were high while doing so. Employers should also have a right to not have their
employees unable to work because of medical marijuana. Should there not be guidelines for these
areas set up?
I have suffered from severe, debilitating headache for over 5 years. I've literally been to over 20
different MD's and DO's. Most of them prescribed me medications that helped very little and caused
severe side effects. I've been prescribed Demerol, oxycontin, morphine and other highly addictive drugs
within 1 or 2 visits - not the 4 visits it would take for a far safer marijuana recommendation.
However, I've seen two Naturopathic doctors and both of them spent over an hour taking my history,
compared to 5-15 minutes with their MD/DO counterparts. They took a much more thorough history and
preformed a more detailed physical exam. One of them made proper referral for imaging which
ultimately determined the cause of my headaches. All completely missed by the 20+ other doctors! It's
simply my personal experience that Naturopaths are very fine doctors who understand conventional
medical diagnosis and treatment as well as MD's and DO's and who utilize pharmaceutical medications
conservatively. It would be unfair and harmful to the public to exclude Naturopaths and especially
since many citizens choose them exclusively as they primary care physicians. Further, it's simply my
experience that not including Naturopaths as dispensary medical directors would harm the public by
excluding perhaps the most diligent and well trained physicians from making these dispensaries the best
they can be.
As a high school teacher, I am extremely concerned that our schools are not protected in this draft.
Please, Please, Please consider adding regulations to keep our schools and teachers safe. Schools
need to remain Drug-Free School Zones
Need to define other products or by products, including Hash, Keef and oils. Need to define dispensary
offering patients that cannot leave home on how delivery would work.
SURETY BOND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET. I HAVE HAD ONE FOR 20 YEARS AND ASKED AROUND. NO
ONE WILL WRITE ONE FOR A DISPENSARY/GROW FACILITY. NO NEED FOR MED DIR,
RECOMMENDING DR. IS FAMILIAR WITH PATIENTS CONDITION. YUMA COUNTY NEEDS MORE THAN
2 OR 3 DISPENSARIES. IT HAS 200,000 PEOPLE,IS OVER 5,000 SQUARE MILES WITH 3 CITIES, 1
TOWN, AND 4 COMMUNITIES. IT IS ABOUT 100 MILES FROM WELTON TO SAN LUIS AZ. WHEN
WINTER VISITORS ARRIVE THERE WILL BE THOUSANDS MORE PATIENTS WITH QUALIFYING
CONDITIONS. TWO OR THREE CAN'T HANDLE THE LOAD. ALLOW CARD HOLDERS FROM OTHER
STATES TO USE AND PURCHASE MEDICALMARIJUANA STOP TREATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES LIKE A CRIMINAL ENDEAVOR. WALMART SELLS ALCOHOL, DANGEROUS DRUGS LIKE
OXYCODONE, VALIUM, ETC. AND GUNS AND AMMO UNDER ONE ROOF YET CHILDREN RUN RAMPANT
THROUGH THE STORE. IT HAS BEEN VOTED IN BY THE PEOPLE. MAKE IT MORE ACCEPTABLE,
REMOVE THE STIGMA, AND STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A DISPENSARY LIC. MANY
PATIENTS NEED THIS. INSTRUCT THE COUNTIES TO BE REASONABLE. YUMA COUNTY IS
CONSIDERING REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IF ALL GOES WELL, WILL ADD AT LEAST 4
MONTHS TO THE PROCESS. DISPENSARY OWNERS SHOULD BE COUNTY RESIDENTS.
Please make strict penalties for recreational users who WILL abuse the system. Please make strict
penalties for the "medical professionals" who knowingly prescribe or recommend marijuana to patients
who do not, or should not qualify. Please allow cities and towns to opt-out altogether if there are
facilities in neighboring cities. Small towns don't need to have dispensaries if there are already some
nearby. As this is not a constitutionally protected land-use, municipalities should be allowed to list the
uses as prohibited if it is the local desire.
Patients should not be subject to arbitrary requirements, such as those relating to length of time under
a specific physician's care. Firstly, many patients may not have a year to live. Additionally, many patients
are not in a financial position to afford the multiple doctor visits required in the first draft. Many
patients, having established a relationship with a physician, may be loathe to bring up the subject of
medical marijuana due to the understandable fear said physician may have of reprisals from Federal
authorities. Therefore patients must have the alternative of seeking out medical care from someone
other than an individual whose prescribing privileges and medical practice could be at risk if he or she
were to come under scrutiny by the Federal government. Reasonable comparisons with other
substances commonly prescribed must be made. It is unreasonable to require the kinds of security
measures for medical marijuana growers and distributors proposed, when these rules are not in place
for traditional medical pharmacies carrying chemicals which have been shown to possess many potential
harms, such as addiction, overdose and even death, e,g, narcotics, amphetamines and
chemotherapeutic drugs.
The preliminary rules at R9-17-202. Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or
a Designated Caregiver F.5.e.i and ii. should be eliminated
The proposed patient and caregiver fees must be significantly reduced so that it doesn't look like they
were heavily influenced by the KEEP ARIZONA DRUG FREE people with the intent of minimizing the
legitimate use of medical marijuana in Arizona, or by the illegal drug cartels who want this law to put
the smallest possible dent in their business.
We need to protect our schools. 1. Bars are not allowed within so many feed of a school. Dispensaries
should be the same. 2. There should be ways for schools to penalize or discharge marijuana users who
drive school busses, supervise children, or come on a school campus while under the influence. 3. Law
states that parents cannot even bring cigarettes on a school campus. It should be the same for
marijuana There are laws about open alcohol containers. Since marijuana containers are to be sealed
etc. it schold be against the law to transport open containers.
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter
Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require “ongoing” care,
or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a relationship among patient,
specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient’s care. Nowhere else in the practice of
lethal, but the department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond
the stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the
specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The department’s regulations are a
cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients’ rights of choice,
including their rights to choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even to
choose not (or cannot afford) to seek other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to
application). R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for
accomplish their activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow
patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical
conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year.
Require each physician who recommends medical marijuana to be certified by his/her board of
examiners. This certification would include a specified number of hours of continuing medical education
directed but not limited to the pharmacology and pharmacognosy of the various strains of cannabis,
contraindications and drug-herb interactions, ethical and legal issues. Limit the number of patients to
whom a physician can recommend medical marijuana. This would prevent certain physicians from
becoming seen as cannabis practitioners. Not sure about the limit, although I think 100 would be an
appropriate number (similar to the limit for buprenorphine prescriptions). These requirements could
be based on the DEA's requirements regarding the prescription of Buprenorphine. Naturopathic
physicians should be added to the definition of Medical Director. The scope of practice of NDs as defined
in statute meets the responsibilities of a dispensary medical director. NDs receive training in
pharmacology and pharmacognosy, and understand the indications, contraindications, and interactions
of botanical medicines in patient care.
1) The fee schedule for Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers seems onerous. I do not
have a problem with the charges for the first time charges for Qualifying Patients and Designated
Caregivers. The Health Department has the start up expenses of administering this new act including
personnel, training, office equipment, software and the like. So even though the fees are high, they can
be justified for startup. But the renewal fees for Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers are
way out of line. Renewing the registration paperwork for Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers
is not significantly different than renewing a driver's license. The fee for renewing should be
approximately the same. (In my case, $10.00). 2) Many, perhaps most of the Qualifying Patients and
Designated Caregivers are dealing with chronic conditions. Those with chronic conditions should be
registered for an appropriate period of time, providing the physician evaluates and continues the
recommendation for the use of medical marijuana. I suggest that the registration renewal for these
Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers be 5 years.
I strongly disagree that a one must be a US citizen and resident of Arizona to benefit from this program.
I believe allowance should be made for foreign tourists who are visiting Arizona residents. I believe that
a foreigner who otherwise meets all the requirements for obtaining medical marijuana, such as a
debilitating medical condition (multiple sclerosis) and a doctor's prescription, should be allowed to obtain
medical marijuana for the duration of his or her visit to Arizona. The rules should allow the prescribing
doctor (the one who is currently caring for the foreigner) of above individuals to be a foreigner,
otherwise it would take forever for a person to be able to get the needed medical marijuana. I have
such a friend who is agony while she visits me. If the rules can not accommodate this, then the rules
should make allowances for the host of the foreigner to become the temporary caregiver, thereby
allowing the host (an Arizona resident and US citizen) to obtain the medical marijuana for the visitor.
I'm a 5th generation farmer. The idea that each dispensary has to grow 70% of what it sells strikes me
as difficult and hard to enforce. Would you rather regulate 125 culitivation sites or 5 cultivation sites
designed and operated by people who know what they are doing and have the money to build a state of
the art facility. I farm 2000 acres. We own and operate a large produce compnay in Vegas. We
grown millions of heads of lettuce, millions of pounds of tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, parsley, basil,
green beans, and potatoes. If we didn't have a central location, the business modeal would not work
because you could not influence the quality. I watched and listened to many people who want to
own and operate a dispensary. 99% must think you can sprinkle pixie dust on the floor and marijuana
will magically begin the grow. It doesn't work that way, especially indoors. We do lettuce and tomatoes
indoors. Tomatoes have the same life cycle, the same diseases, the same pests, and use the same
fertilizers. It is very difficult and extremely expensive to set up an operation that will consistently
produce quality agreicultural products. If marijuana is perhaps the most diffiucult to grow of all herbs.
You will have a difficult time controlling these culitivation sites.
These concepts must be eliminated or streamlined. The alternative to a long, ongoing relationship is
presumed by ADHS to be R9-17-101.16.b where, “The physician assumes primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition...” This is NOT a
viable alternative because few physicians will be willing to take on RESPONSIBILITY for management of
routine care, THAT IS, THE USE OF MARIJUANA. The Department would place physicians in a
vulnerable professional position because conspiring to provide marijuana would be a federal crime and
leave the doctors’ licenses at risk.
Services will make rules “without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensaries….” ARS 28.1 Section 2 “Findings” of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the
by the department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing,
open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and
usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The
department does not have the authority to deny the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic
physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-
202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-
204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp
authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS
36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does
not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department
authority to require multiple assessments, require “ongoing” care, or redefine the patient-physician in
any way, much less to promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found
nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary
responsibility for a patient’s care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-
year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including
therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department usurps authority
to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that
are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist
assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other potentially
terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the requisite training or
experience to do so. The department’s regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of
authority and denial of patients’ rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers,
other sources of care or information, or even to choose not (or cannot afford) to seek other medical
care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-
17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11
usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for
application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103,
R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients’ parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and
medical hardship, the sections make little or no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without
internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(4) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation
does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of
suffering patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable
suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel,
arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests
for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of
every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than
one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h)
cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to choose other providers or sources of
information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-
308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a caregiver already
has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be submitted.
R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked
for trivial or unknowing errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant
knowingly provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-301.2 is arbitrary and unreasonable. The
Corporation Commission requires only 1 person to incorporate any Arizona corporation. There must be
1 incorporator and 1 director. The director and the incorporator are often the same person. The
requirement for two officers of the corporation exceeds the Arizona Corporation Commission
requirements by double. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-
302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-
302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-
319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied to the department.
These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the
authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal officers or board
members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security measures that are an undue
burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed security measures required for toxic
potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician offices),
require educational materials beyond what the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require
constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance, or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally
acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers. R9-17-310 is arbitrary,
unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a medical director, much less to define
or restrict a physician’s professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps
authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The
department has no authority to place an undue burden on record keeping for cultivation or to require
the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-313.B.6 is
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on
recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of
infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed
evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health
risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section
violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an
unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security practices to monitor a safe product, medical
marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable
and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection
Act. The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
Eliminate the "ongoing" requirement of the definition of a "Physician-patient relationship" in paragraph

17 of Article 1, R9-17-101. There was nothing in Prop. 203 that required a person with a new
physician to wait for a year before becoming eligible to register with DHS as a qualifying patient. In fact
some otherwise eligible qualifying patients are currently under the care of physicians who are prevented
by policy from prescribing marijuana; i.e., V.A. doctors. These patients will necessarily need to seek a
different physician and have that physician review their respective medical records to assess their
suitability for a prescription.
Suggestions below
The requirement for a Dispensary Medical Director should be eliminated
Delete §R9-17-307(C) from the rules completely. This section has many implications, none of which are
good for the industry, DHS, patients, or the State as a whole. Requiring every dispensary to have
its own cultivation operation is a security risk. Essentially this rule necessitates more variables in an
equation that already has inherent dangers. The more cultivation facilities, the more difficult they will
be to monitor and keep secure. Additionally, by requiring each dispensary to grow its own
marijuana you create a quality control issue. How can a patient rely on the consistency of the product
when it is grown by different operations under varying conditions? How will DHS manage to analyze that
multitude of plants? Logistically it would be much easier to ensure a high quality product reaches the
end user by permitting the market to establish fewer high production cultivation operations that supply
multiple dispensaries. Unfortunately, as written now, §R9-17-307(C) does not allow for this.
Realistically, §R9-17-307(C) closes the door on the possibility for central grow operations can establish
themselves. This creates a heavy burden on DHS and other authorities not just for security and quality
reasons, but also in terms of monitoring and tracking inventory. If a dispensary needs to grow 70% of
what it sells, can only import 30% of what it sells, and may not export more than 30% of what it grows
to other dispensaries, there will be a book keeping nightmare. Not only will the rules will be greatly
simplified by deleting §R9-17-307(C), but it is in the State’s best interest to do so. It will reduce the
burden on an already underfunded government to monitor and secure over one hundred and twenty
cultivation operations, and ensure that pure and safe medicine reaches those who are in need of it.
Improved: R9-17-107. Time-frames B. A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until
the applicant provides the Good overall R9-17-306. Inspections D. The Department shall not accept
allegations of a dispensary's noncompliance with A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 or this Chapter from an
anonymous source. (This is a great clause as it makes for accountability. Not using the system for
vindictive or competitive reasons.) R9-17-307. Administration (This whole section is great. It lays out
guidelines for establishing professionalism and good working practices and helps establish the industry
correctly from the onset. It helps operators understand what will be expected of them on an ongoing
basis prior to application so a decision of weather to be a part of this industry is of interest knowing the
marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient,
or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in Arizona, a
qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from another dispensary in Arizona,
a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical
marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. These are all great definitions. There
should be some type of measure or time frame such as “1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical
marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers in any rolling calendar
year.” The rolling calendar year helps smooth out sales vs. supply. Example when a store first opens
it may only be selling 2 pounds per month. As that store gains business over the course of a year it
may go as high as 40 or 50 lbs per month and may go up or down based on completion or other market
forces. Since it takes roughly 110-120 days from seed to ready the cultivation needs time to adjust for
volume fluctuations. It would also be helpful to allow for some inventory helping to smooth supply and
demand also. The live database to track that the system is not abused is awesome. R9-17-314.
Product Labeling and Analysis 5. A list of all chemical additives, including nonorganic pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana; and this is
great for everyone. R9-17-317. Cleaning and Sanitation A. A dispensary shall ensure that any
building or equipment used by a dispensary for the cultivation, harvest, preparation, packaging, storage,
infusion, or sale, of medical marijuana is maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. (Great Section!)
Good overall R9-17-306. Inspections D. The Department shall not accept allegations of a
dispensary's noncompliance with A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 or this Chapter from an anonymous
source. (This is a great clause as it makes for accountability. Not using the system for vindictive or
competitive reasons.) R9-17-307. Administration (This whole section is great. It lays out guidelines
for establishing professionalism and good working practices and helps establish the industry correctly
from the onset. It helps operators understand what will be expected of them on an ongoing basis prior
to application so a decision of weather to be a part of this industry is of interest knowing the
marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient,
or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in Arizona, a
qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from another dispensary in Arizona,
a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical
marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. These are all great definitions. There
should be some type of measure or time frame such as “1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical
marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers in any rolling calendar
year.” The rolling calendar year helps smooth out sales vs. supply. Example when a store first opens it
may only be selling 2 pounds per month. As that store gains business over the course of a year it may
go as high as 40 or 50 lbs per month and may go up or down based on completion or other market
forces. Since it takes roughly 110-120 days from seed to ready the cultivation needs time to adjust for
volume fluctuations. It would also be helpful to allow for some inventory helping to smooth supply and
demand also. The live database to track that the system is not abused is awesome. R9-17-314.
Product Labeling and Analysis 5. A list of all chemical additives, including nonorganic pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana; and this is
great for everyone. R9-17-317. Cleaning and Sanitation A. A dispensary shall ensure that any
building or equipment used by a dispensary for the cultivation, harvest, preparation, packaging, storage,
infusion, or sale, of medical marijuana is maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. (Great Section!)
Department with written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department.
(Possible clarification depending on intent. It is likely that a location will not be ready for an inspection
until a license has been granted and dispensary has been constructed or built out. The license must
come prior to any inspections. This section is confusing.) R9-17-302 Section 1 j. Whether the
dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site are ready for an inspection by the
Department; k. If the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site are not ready for
an inspection by the Department, the date the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation
site will be ready for an inspection by the Department; (Same logic as above it seems unreasonable to
expect that anything would be ready prior to a license. Unless it’s just a site visit prior to construction.
Once approved for a dispensary it would be reasonable to except dispensary completion within 120
days. Getting permits, constructing and beginning operations of the cultivation site could take 6-9
Months depending on jurisdiction and how fast they can approve location/plans for permit.) 5. A copy
of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant
authorizing occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation
site; The logical progression for a dispensary would be application, application approval by city and
state, construction permitting within a reasonable time frame, construction completion within reasonable
time frame, and final review by building department/ fire/ health or applicable agencies. Issuance of CO
by City. Submittal of CO to state. R9-17-303. Changes to a Dispensary Registration Certificate A. A
dispensary may not transfer or assign the dispensary registration and certificate. (This seems
unreasonable as so many variables change with time. The establishment of this type of business
requires a significant amount of time and equal if not more investment of capital. To define terms that
allow an exit or recoupment of these efforts through a business sale acquisition or transfer would be
beneficial to all parties involved) R9-17-306. Inspections B. A dispensary shall provide the
Department with authorized remote access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system. (While
completely understood that this allows for more efficient use of available funds to regulate and inspect it
also seems that it has some significant legal issues regarding privacy if at all applicable to this type of
business.) C. R9-17-307. Administration 3. Employ or contract with a medical director; (While
completely understood that this allows for more efficient use of available funds to regulate and inspect it
also seems that it has some significant legal issues regarding privacy if at all applicable to this type of
business.) R9-17-308. Submitting an Application for a Dispensary Agent Registry Identification Card
I would be extremely helpful to allow for a dispensary agent registry identification for out of state
consultants or employees to help these businesses. There are significant resources and lessons that
have been learned in other states that would be beneficial for Arizona locations. This would be most
useful in cultivation operations as licensed commercial growing has only existed for a very short time
and there are significant barriers to entry for those who have not yet had to make all the mistakes.
Consultants can help save resources capital and frustration for everyone involved from the building
departments to state regulatory agencies. For example having someone who has already perfected a
great inventory chain of custody which comes by way of trial and error in another state could help
everyone in the industry. There are at least a hundred reasons why opening the industry to some type
of out of state help would benefit all parties. C. A dispensary shall provide to the Department upon
request a sample of the dispensary's medical marijuana inventory of sufficient quantity to enable the
Department to conduct an analysis of the medical marijuana. This also great. There should maybe
be more teeth in this maybe add. It is a violation of the statute If the product that is tested is found to
have chemical substances not listed. There are many chemicals used in cultivation that can be harmful
to people’s health, especially those already in weakened state or with compromised immune systems.
It’s crucial to keep hazardous chemicals out of the medicine! R9-17-315. Security D. To prevent
unauthorized access to medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's
cultivation site, the dispensary shall have the following: (Possibly consider adding more protection.
The more obvious this is and the better the prevention the less likely crime. A series of double one way
doors in and out with buzzers to operate “mantrap”. Steel security doors at dispensary and location
with some specified security rating or higher. A home depot wood door isn’t very secure.) Bulletproof
window at entrance to allow verification of card and id prior to entry to medicine holding area. R9-
17-319 B. The Department may deny an application for a dispensary registration certificate if a principal
officer or board member of the dispensary: 1. Has not provided a surety bond (could you clarify all the
talk of what the surety bond means?) C. The Department shall revoke a dispensary's registration
certificate if: 1. The dispensary: c. Acquires usable marijuana or mature marijuana plants from any
person other than another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; or
(possibly define mature plants?) The initial stock must come from somewhere, seed, clone where is it
allowed to come from? Can seeds be purchased from seed distributors either in the US or outside the
US?
It seems to me that the state is putting up unnecessary burdens to the program. The doctor patient
relationship seems that it adds extra burden to obtaining medical marijuana. The voters have spoken, let
the determination of a doctor, not the state definition of a "doctor-patient relationship" be the one to
decide on who may receive it. The state seems worried that this program will lead to abuse. I feel there
are far more abuses in other "prescription" drugs, which the state would never question. The fees also
seem to be high for both dispensary and patient. The fee's should be reduced to a "reasonable"
administration charge and not looked at like an income generator.
See next section.
- Better language on how dispensaries will be selected. - Clarification on whether homegrowers will be
allowed to purchase from dispensaries. - Clarification on how much marijuana can be stored by users,
including maximum amounts (concerns about stockpiling) - Require certification from local jurisdictions
stating that the building to be utilized meets local zoning requirements rather than relying on a sworn
statement from the applicant. - Clarification on transportation criteria from cultivation facilities, and
from patients to dispensaries. i.e. amounts, and identification required. Also concerned with allowing
dispensaries to deliver to patients, believe that the authorized caregiver should be only one allowed to
make deliveries from dispensaries to patients. - Clarification on how much marijuana a dispensary can
grow on-site, particularly in light of building codes and requirement for a single secure entrance.
- Please clarify and provide more information on the surety bond that may or may not be required for a
dispensary. Also, how much the surety bond is to be for. The rules are very vague on the surety bond
a dispensary may or may not need and for how much. - Please provide more information on the
Medical Director needed for each dispensary. Is the medical director not allowed to write medical
marijuana recommendations to any of their patients? If so, how can a doctor become a dispensary's
medical director and not recommend medical marijuana to any of his or her patients, ever. Is the
doctor supposed to then refer his or her patients to another doctor for medical marijuana? Is it the
intent of the rules for the medical director to be employed full time by each dispensary? - Please clarify
"Dispensary by-laws containing provisions for the disposition of revenues and receipts". - Please clarify
the inspection process step by step for each dispensary. Are the dispensaries to be fully operational
with grow and dispensary setups prior to state approval for a dispensary license? - Is the dispensary to
name the dispensary agent in charge of inventory control on the initial dispensary application?
With the presumption that AZDHS WILL NOT GIVE/ALLOW any preferential consideration to any formed
organization such as (Marijuana Policy Project “MPP”, Arizona Medical Marijuana Association “AMMA”,
Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals “AZADP” and must be totally independent and fair in
qualifying acceptable applicants… only one (1) FAIR solution would be above reproach and accusation of
unfairness. Assuming 1000 applicants could meet all qualifications an open Public Lottery of these
1000 applicants for the 125 Licenses is the only solution to Fairness and Transparency! Thus any
suggestion of collusion or corruption on the part of the AZDHS or its representatives COULD NOT be
accused. This system would also alleviate and or dismiss any form of Appeals by non-successful
applicants and give BOTH the Middle and Upper classes a fair, equal and balanced chance of
successfully obtaining a License.
They will be improved if they offer less opportunity for only wealthy marijuana mill types of business to
apply. Reducing the unrealstic and excessive requirements regarding the procurment of a physical
location is a start. This should be an opportunity for small Arizona businesses to be cultivated. If, not-
for-profit is the requirement some language regarding how the business will contribute to the
community might be added. Instead there are fees and other bureaucratic disentitlements that may
preclude maximizing this chance to contribute to our economy. The law states that non-profits would
be the applicants, but the rules show everything from individuals to LLC's as eligible to apply for a
license - very confusing. The rules would be improved by being congruent with the law. A medical
director that hands out info is not really a compliance measure but an added financial burden to the
operation. Perhaps the dispensarys could have rules more similar to pharmacies instead of methadone
clinics.
Services will making be “without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11
knowingly provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-
17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-
have the authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal officers or
board members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security measures that are an
undue burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed security measures required for
toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician
arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a medical director, much less
to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and
usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act.
The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to
require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-313.B.6
is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998
infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed
evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health
risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section
marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable
Act. The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
STOP BEING CRUEL AND UNREASONABLE WITH THE RULES.
I am concerned for patient welfare in regard to the Cannabis consulting physician assuming primary
care and monitoring of the patient's qualifying condition. There is not a physician training program that
can teach a provider to take the place of a Gastroenterologist (Crohn's, persistent nausea, Hep C,
cachexia), a Neurologist (Alzheimer's, severe muscle spasms,seizures, ALS), an Oncologist (cancers of
all types), an Infectious Disease Specialist (HIV/AIDS, Hep C), Ophthalmologist (glaucoma),
Anesthesiologist (chronic pain), or a Pain Management Specialist. Standards of care would expect each
of the qualifying serious and debilitating conditions are being managed by the patient's primary care
physician who incorporates specialist recommendations into the patient's full care plan. Anything less
than this would be putting patients at undo risk, exactly what we physicians took an oath to prevent.
Medical marijuana is intended to be an adjunct to the patient's current care plan, and not, in any way,
supposed to be a replacement for the diagnostic and treatment clinical standards already in place and
shaped by evidence based clinical research.
Scrap most of them and dispense Mrijuana through established drug outlets under doctor's
perscriptions.
Reduce the renewal fees charged to patients and caregivers to $25 and $50. The rules reduced the
renewal fees for dispensary to $1000, 1/5 the cost of intial registration. Reduce the require doctor's
visit to 2 per year. Create two overlapping but seperate rules, one for patients, caregivers and doctors
and one for dispensary's.
There should be an effort to maintain the term "evaluation". Some legislators are trying to push for full
physical exams in the first cannabis evaluation. They also want to force evaluating physicians to take
responsibility for those patients. Those seeking medical cannabis should be maintained by their PCP.
In other states, a greater segment of society has been served by evaluating patients by telemedicine.
Telemedicine is legal in Arizona. Free training is offered to AZ residents. The patient goes to an
evaluation center where a medical assistant or nurse takes vitals, history. The records are faxed to the
evaluating physician from different centers around the state. Our position should be to maintain the
status of "evaluating physicians." Patients' PCP and/or other specialists are not going to want to turn
their patients over to the evaluating physician if it means losing a patients.
In the Az Republic there is an article where the DHS went over some of the policy concerns... stating
some couldnt be changed because they were part of the original law and couldnt be changed...if thats
the case then you must cease in trying to define a doctor patient relationship, and come up with a
preliminary approval plan for dispensaries, also please consider the 70/30 aspect. some dispensaries
may not be able to afford to grow that much medical marijuana by enforcing some 70/30 standard ,
you are interfering with the free market, and placing restrictions that could do irreparable harm to those
who want to open a dispensary. you are re-writing the law...which is illegal, not saying most of the
requirements and restrictions arent needed, but you are stepping over bounds a bit with some
burdeness language. What this does is create a venue for attorneys and lawsuits by people who really
dont care about patients but more about revenue, which only hurts us legitimate and qualified Non
Profit Groups who would like to move forward and open a licensed caregiving dispensary and care
center. And stop using the words, recreational use...... this is not what this law is about, so we all must
get past it, people who use recreationally, always will, ( i personally do not) but, your restrictive policy
writing is not going to have any bearing on whether someone can purchase marijuana illegally. It will
always be there. Always. Goerge Washington had acres of it as a cash crop, and traded the smoking
portion of the plant to the Indians where it was used for medicine, the rest was used in Hemp
Production. It was around in the 70's and 80's when i was young, and its around now. No Prohibitive
Law will stop its use. Sad to Say, but true. I am in full support of having regulations and understand the
premise behind them, But this small letter i am writing is coming from the Heart. So by worrying about
recreational use, you are making it hard for dispensaries to due proper free market business. Its not
about the quantity of marijuana we sell and revenue, its about compassion and helping everyone in
need. Some dispensaries are going to be open just for revenue, but the good ones who will end up
making it and staying, are in it for the compassion of patients, and please remember, as the DHS you
should know this, there is a larger problem with kids and adults and Perscription opiates in this country
and State, with farther reaching consequences than any Medical Marijuana use could ever have. please
remember that, i am going to be applying for a dispensary license, we have a concept unlike any others,
Acupuncture, massage therapy, Traditional Chinese Medicine as well as medical Marijuana. we are here
for the patient, in a small day spa like setting. I just cant envision spending $250,000 dollars on 2
Commercial buildouts and TI work for a retail and an indoor grow facility when there is no
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PROCESS. I know it will take time but you must do things in a cognitive
way..... look through each dispensaries application, look at business model, biz plan, the background of
the non profit foundation, abililities, etc. and make an educated decision on who is going to be
preliminarily approved, then i would be happy to spend my hard earned money to complete the process.
being in the building and construction sector, these things take time, as do all good things. but from
pre approval to buildout completion and operational readiness is about 3 to 6 months. Remember that
as well. With DHS inspections, Building Inspections, and all that goes with a significant TI and buildout,
you are looking at a realistic timeframe of 4 to 8 months to be up and operational and have inventory
available to patients that need it. So please dont focus on the negative aspects of this, I am really quite
pleased with some of the things i have seen in the draft rules, i have had 4 family Members go through
Cancer, my Brother sits on Advisory Council Board and is probably the
most sought after Cancer Patient Consultant in The US for Pharmacutical Companies and Marketing
Firms. He is On our Board of Consultants as well for Our Groups Dispensary license Business Model and
soon to be application in The State of Arizona. So some of us are really concerned about the patient and
not just the revenue. There are good people and good experienced groups willing to try to open here
(with a significant monetary Investment in a restrictive market, so please dont make it so restrictive that
we cannot help the patient. Please take a hard look at our application when the time arrives, we are
planning on separating ourselves from the crowd. The Name will be GreenLeaf Compassion and
Wellness Centers. Thanks so much for your time Allweask.org (all we ask.org) A
cancer and AIDS non profit Foundation and The Hopefully New..... GreenLeaf Compassion and Wellness
Center
Regarding R9-17-302, B. 1b. I don’t think requiring the applicants to have secured a location for a
dispensary before their application is approved makes much sense. To have a physical address would
mean to have leased a space before being approved. This is to me like putting the cart before the horse.
When an applicant is approved and has paid their initial application fee, it is up to them to secure a
location which will satisfy the rules and regulations set forth from the Department of Health Services. If
they do not pass inspection within the approved timelines, they may have to forfeit their application fee.
Regarding R9 -17-302 B. 1. g: and R9- 17-310 Medical Director: The role of Medical Director should
not be limited to MD or DO degrees. All of the responsibilities mentioned in this section falls directly
under the role of a pharmacist. Pharmacists are trained and currently fulfill all of these requirements in
all sorts of pharmacy settings now. Pharmacies do not have medical directors, and pharmacists are
responsible for providing all of the drug information listed in this section. I agree that if a dispensary is
being operated by a “lay” person, there should be a health care professional available to them. I just
don’t believe that only medical doctors should be included. Patients are already under the care of a
physician. Regarding R9-17-307 Administration C. The dispensary should not be required to
cultivate. There are so many reasons for this. 1. The dispensaries should be focused on providing
access and information to registered users and their families not horticulture. 2. There will be wide
variability if dispensaries not trained in proper cultivating provide their own product for patients to
consume. 3. The model should be suppliers to dispensaries to patients. This may improve oversight
since there would be 2 distinct areas for the Department to handle: cultivation sites and dispensaries.
4. It should be up to the individual dispensaries if they wish to get into the cultivation business. That is
the rationale for the 2 Registration Certificates: Dispensary and Cultivation Site.
I would like to see an area dedicated to the requirements of a physician no longer being willing to write
the Rx. I did not see anywhere in there on who can check up in the case of patient/caregiver if we
suspect the caregiver is using the MM.
After reading the article in today"s (1-6-2011) Az. Rep. (Pot Rule Comments Weighed), I again would
ask that you adapt or remove entirely the restrictions placed on the doctor/patient relationship.
According to this article, Mr. Salow, identified as an acting administrative counsel and rules @ ADHS,
states that the requirement that the recommending doctor have seen the patient four times within one
year for the qualifying condition or assume primary responsibility addresses this issue. I disagree and
continue to feel that this requirement is overly burdensome and will cause unneccessary pain and
suffering to many Arizonans. If the concern is that too many doctors will make these referrals without
proper examination then I feel that these problems should be addressed by the monitoring of the
doctors providing these referrals. I believe this is how narcotics prescriptions are currently tracked and I
feel that the recommendation by a doctor for medical marijuana should be no more cumbersome or
restrictive than those currently in place for (what most people would agree) are much more dangerous
and addictive substances. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.
Oh where do I start. You obviously are not interested in following AMMA which was signed into state
law by your boss Jan Brewer. What don't you understand about the initiative that clearly set up the
rules for how to implement medical marijuana in this state. You are more interested in ripping off the
patients and caregivers with your exhorbitant fees (renewal the same cost as new applications... get
real). You are skating on thin ice with our civil liberties and no way will surveillance cameras on staff
and the patients/caregivers coming into the dispensaries will fly. You are bringing down lawsuits by this
unconstitional invasion of our privacy. You just don't get it Humble, we are not Colorado and your
insistence on treating marijuana like heroin or even Oxycontin is wrong. Do some research and even
check out NORML's website which contains information on the medical benefits of cannabis. Also stop
referring to medical supplies (vaporizers and such) as paraphernalia. The Medical Marijuana Act allows
patients to use these supplies and nowhere is the word paraphernalia used. I am most disturbed by
the charges leveled against your department by who is a dispensary education specialist in
the Phoenix area. Since you are not putting up any of the written comments submitted I have to
wonder why? This is all part of the public record and I have made copies of my comments so when the
lawsuits start (and believe me you will be sued) I'm going to see what you did with the written
comments you do not like. So how much has
influenced your rulemaking? Why is it these three gentlemen have all been telling people before
you even posted the rules what the rules were going to be? Is it perhaps you worked these out in a
backroom deal and now the chickens are coming home to roost? You are a government paid bureaucrat
and not the paid toadie of MPP and paper trails exist.
AZDHS and MPP Acting in Collusion to limit access to Dispensary Applicants.... There is evidence that
this is true. Unfair!
The best suggestion I've heard so far is to award dispensary contracts geographically so that every
square inch of Arizona lies within 25 miles of a dispensary. This way there would be no home grow
houses, which pose risks to families, neighborhoods and are set-ups for crime. This is entirely in keeping
with the law; home grows are only to be used if the dispensary system does not provide. What I really
like in this suggestion is the requirement that anyone who gets a dispensary contract in a metropolitan
area is also required to run a rural dispensary.
1. It is improbable that anyone can obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a dispensary prior to at least a
temporary license. Most communities will allow you time to get your business going. As a developer I
would recommend giving temporary licenses for nine months to a year with no definitive location to
allow the establishment to get all local approvals and to do the required buildout during that window. In
fact you could have checkpoints where the location had to be defined within 3 months, have a C of O in
six months and be AZ approved in 12 months. That is much more logical. 2. I am working with
assisted living operators and as it stand the rules make it difficult for these patients to get medicine
without having multiple caregivers per location. So the issue is 1) can't it be one per facility and 2) can
there be some flexibility around transporation to invalid patients. If you can't deliver it to a medical
facility, waht good is it? 3. Finally the Medical Director seems to conflict with the arms length
relationship that is appropriate between prescriber and dispensary. I do not believe that adds any
value.
It is impractical that R9-17-107(B) requires each dispensary applicant to be prepared for an inspection
at the time the application is submitted in order to be deemed “complete.” Inasmuch as not all
applicants will be issued registration certificates, it appears impractical to require each applicant to build
out and equip (with security systems, etc.) its premises. I would suggest as an alternative that if an
applicant is tentatively approved by the Department, the issuance of its registration certificate should be
contingent upon the inspection and compliance with the statutory and regulatory physical requirements.
A.R.S. §36-2801(11) provides that a medical marijuana dispensary is a not-for-profit entity. Other than
limited purpose corporations and associations not for profit provided for in Chapter 19 of Title 10, the
only nonprofit entities expressly provided for under Arizona law are nonprofit corporations, provided for
in Chapter 24 of Title 10. However, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the proposed rules expressly
state that individuals and entities other than nonprofit corporations may be medical marijuana
dispensaries. This is inconsistent with other Arizona statutes that provide that such other entities are for
profit, including A.R.S. §10-140(14) (which defines a "corporation" or "domestic corporation" to mean “a
corporation for profit …”) and A.R.S. §29-1012(A) (which contemplates that partnerships are formed to
conduct for profit businesses). It provides as follows: “Except as otherwise provided in subsections B
and C, the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit forms a
partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership.”). In addition, Arizona statutes
provide that the profits and losses of entities other than nonprofit corporations shall be allocated among
their shareholders, partners or members in the course of the entities’ operations as well as upon
liquidation (A.R.S. §§29-329, 29-347 with respect to limited partnerships; A.R.S. §§29-703, 29-708 and
29-709 with respect to limited liability companies; A.R.S. §29-1077 with respect to general partnerships;
A.R.S. §§10-640 and 10-1405 with respect to corporations). In R9-17-105(3), the following language
is unduly restrictive: “that the cardholder submitted when the cardholder obtained the registry
identification card.” For example, if the qualifying patient lost his driver’s license, neither the newly-
reissued driver’s license nor his passport photograph page would meet the requirement, as presently
drafted. In addition, in connection with obtaining a replacement registry identification card, submission
of an Arizona driver’s license or identification card issued before October 1, 1996 and one of the
supplemental documents should be permitted, as it is permissible in R9-17-107(F)(1)(d) and R9-17-
202(F)(2). R9-17-107(C)(2) refers to 60 working days. However R9-17-107(C)(3) refers to 60
calendar days. Those timeframes should coincide. It appears that the “notice of deficiencies”
referenced in R9-17-107(A)(3), with respect to which a 60 working-day response period applies, relates
to an incomplete application and that the “comprehensive request” referenced in R9-17-107(D)(3), with
respect to which a 10 working-day response period applies, relates to additional information beyond that
which is required to submit a complete application. This section might be clarified to state that or to
state an alternate distinction. The Department may be precluded from issuing a registration certificate
because the number of dispensaries would exceed the number authorized by A.R.S. §36-2804. R9-17-
107(F) should be revised to include a denial notice stating that the Department is not authorized to issue
a registration certificate because the number of dispensaries would exceed the authorized number. In
R9-17-107(F)(1)(d), the word “of” should be inserted after the word “copy.”
The patient fee of $150.00 is excessive. Many patients seeking medical marijuana suffer debilitating
illnesses and are living on a limited income. The high price may be prohibitive to those who need it
most. I think a fee of $50.00 would be much more appropriate. Requiring a patient to have a lengthy
relationship with their doctor is also prohibitive. Many patients do not have medical insurance and may
not be able to have a consistent relationship with a single doctor. A good alternative would be to
require a two visit minimum and follow-up appointments. Having a for-profit dispensary program that
can pay local and state taxes will contribute to the poor local and state economies. Healthy competition
will keep prices down and many dispensaries in other states offer care packages for lower income
patients. The state of Colorado recently used $9 million from the sales of Medical Marijuana to balance
their state budget. I think it could be a boon for the state economy! Prescription drug companies are
allowed to make a profit and are really no different from medical marijuana. In fact, more people abuse
and die from abuse of prescription drugs. Shy should medical marijuana be required to have separate
rules? I question the requirement to grow the product at the site of the dispensary. This increases
security issues and limits the dispensaries from doing what they would do best: distribution. Having
separate licensed growing operations can help to increase product quality and provide a competitive
market. It would allow more businesses to focus on a single operation, whether it's growing or
distributing. It would also increase the ability of dispensaries to provide a wide variety of strains and
other medicinal products. Limiting a dispensary to 30% of product from other suppliers only hurts the
patients. One dispensary may focus on growing a limited amount of strains and can trade with
dispensaries that grow other strains, if growth is required on site. This provides the patients with a
wider variety of options to best suit their medicinal needs. Also, medicinal edibles, or "medibles," baked
goods, medicated drinks, tinctures, etc. could be offered for patients who prefer not to smoke their
medical marijuana. Creating a limit of product from other manufacturer's limits patients options.
Meeting the multiple needs of patients should be the focus of the program.
1. Allow private cultivation, regardless of proximity to dispensaries. 2. Reduce patient fees.
leave out of it!
I am a Child, Adolescent, and Adult Psychiatrist. No one under 21 should be able to get MJ
(marijuana) for any reason. This opens up too much easy abuse and scam behavior by the youth and
or parent etc. No medical condition should be allowed except as per IOM report (below) AND severe
wasting condition that has been proven to have been treated with multiple real medical treatments for
reasonable time periods and failed, including Marinol. MJ should not be smoked. eg simply HIV+ or
AIDs os MS or glaucoma or Crohn's or pain or nausea etc is inadequate. Their condition must also be
devastating and thoroughly treated. Otherwise this and the ability to add conditions with "may" clause
makes this all as nonsense as CA and CO etc. AND the doctor must have been seeing the "patient" a
year with monthly visits (no real sick patient is seen only 4 times in a year !). AND the doctor must have
ongoing treating follow up of patient re the condition, re new and other treatment options, and re the
MJ effects and side effects, dosing, and evaluating cont'd need justification etc (monthly while on MJ).
Yearly re-evals for MJ certifcation should happen. No legit Dr ever gives a med or therapy without
follow-up. Below are 3 relevant excerpts from my article on this topic: 1) The Institute of Medicine
(IOM) http://www.iom.edu/ is an objective, medically scientific, broadly respected medical organization
which studies and puts out reports addressing a wide range of nationally and internationally important
health related topics intended to provide policy guidance to the public, governments, and other medical
scientific bodies. An IOM blue ribbon panel reviewed all available research and related information on
the pros and cons of medical usage of available forms of marijuana (cannabis). In 1999 the IOM
published its almost 300 page report. The 2003 Executive Summary is available for free at:
http://iom.edu/Reports/2003/Marijuana-and-Medicine-Assessing-the-Science-Base.aspx I will excerpt
selected highlights of their findings here. Sections in red are quoted directly from the IOM report
summary. Efficacy = effectiveness, does it help? “Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value
of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite
stimulation; smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful
substances.” Dependence and Withdrawal? “… a concern associated with chronic marijuana use is
dependence on the psychoactive effects of THC. Although few marijuana users develop dependence,
some do. Risk factors for marijuana dependence are similar to those for other forms of substance abuse.
… A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and short lived. The
syndrome includes restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbance, nausea, and
cramping.” Marijuana as a “Gateway drug” “In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather
than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage
smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is
rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use.” IOM’s overall Recommendation “Short-term use of
smoked marijuana (less than six months) for patients with debilitating symptoms (such as intractable
pain or vomiting) must meet the following conditions: 1) failure of all approved medications to provide
relief has been documented, 2) the symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid-onset
cannabinoid drugs, 3) such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows
for assessment of treatment effectiveness, and 4) involves an oversight strategy comparable to an
institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a
physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use.” Past and current scientific data
and research from good quality studies such as reviewed by the IOM show potential medical marijuana
benefit, as well as pros outweighing cons, ONLY for appetite enhancement of the physical wasting and
malnutrition of some patients with late stage AIDS, the severe nausea and vomiting of chemotherapy in
some cancer patients, and some severe pain caused by some diagnosable severe conditions not
responding to standard therapies. Use for the myriad other conditions claimed and listed in various Med
MJ propositions are based on opinions, anecdotes, testimonials, case reports, and pseudoscience rather
than double blind placebo controlled studies. Marijuana is not advised for chronic use, should not be
smoked longer than 6 months due to respiratory concerns including potential heightened risk of cancer,
other more appropriate treatments should be tried first and failed, and MJ should not be just
“recommended” by a physician but should be prescribed, dosed, and monitored for positive and
negative effects including abuse, dependence, and diversion (sell, give away, to others, etc.) just like
any other medically useful controlled substance. 2) Did you know physicians can already legally
prescribe synthetic oral (pill) THC (the primary active ingredient in marijuana) called Marinol
(dronabinol) for our patients who need it? By the way, if smoking was the only effective means to
deliver marijuana why are so many non smoke forms of MJ products available in Med MJ dispensaries
and clubs? Check this link: http://www.marijuanagrowing.com/blog/archives/109 Logically, and
clinically, if marijuana is a legitimate medicine for even a few people with a few health conditions why
don’t we just treat it like other medicines? Some blame the FDA (even though the FDA approved
Marinol years ago) or pharmaceutical companies and mainstream medicine as conspirators, or the
antidrug “War on Drugs” lobby. Alternatively, others see the supplement and herbal or generic and
brand pharmaceutical industries or organized crime all lobbying for a place in a new legal MJ (and more)
marketplace. Can you think of any other “medicine” made available by the public voting in elections for
it? And without any clinician or doctor of any type having any role besides writing a “recommendation”
for its essentially unbridled use? Do you think at least some of the sponsors could have another
agenda? Medical historians and anthropologists have interesting input about this and the last several
thousand years human years human use of psychoactive plants and chemicals. The Arizona Medical
Use of Marijuana proposition election is 11/2/10 and is typical in allowing 2.5 oz every 2 weeks and/or
12 plants home grown (if more than 25 miles from any of the maximum 120 dispensaries in the state)
for registered users for cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, ALS, Alzheimer’s dementia agitation,
pain, or other chronic debilitating diseases bought from “nonprofit” "dispensaries" if the “patient” has a
“written certification” by a physician. One can’t drive high or use (just not smoke?) in public nor can a
certified user be fired for a positive MJ drug test or have their use held against them in custody and
visitation cases. Striking to me is that the “patient” may be any age, even a young child if their
registered “caregiver” and 2 doctors approve. Just think about the many problems with that (e.g. pro
MJ parent signing up his or her kids so the parent(s) can use or giving into demanding teens, or selling
it, etc) versus the very small number of legitimate youth cases? If opiate and benzodiazepine abusers
can find doctors to write those prescriptions excessively, one can find doctors to certify illegitimate Med
MJ as we see in all other states. Supporters of this proposition state it is more restrictive than
California’s version. 3) Below are the most common problems I see with MJ: 1) Perceptual distortions
– this is, of course one of the main points of smoking MJ. Time slows, colors, music, touch, sensations,
smells, lights, etc are all altered; reaction time is delayed. This is the major MJ cause of impaired
driving, DUIs, accidents, injuries. 2) Short term memory is damaged while “high” and during the up to
30 days MJ stays in your brain cells after use. The more you use and more often you use, the more
“Swiss cheese memory” (holes in your memory) you cause and the longer it lasts. Brain processing
speed is slowed. These effects, of course, impact school, work, and more. ADHD meds don’t help
“potheads” whether they have ADHD or not. 3) Amotivational Syndrome = apathy, don’t care, do little,
the ultimate slacker; work and school decline, the person “ain’t goin’ nowhere” and doesn’t care and
doesn’t see that as a problem. Just hanging out at home with the music on, TV on, laying on the couch,
munching, chillin’, playing the same video game for hours, etc. Sound familiar? 4) Alexithymia –
unaware of his or her feelings, out of touch with feelings, doesn’t know his or her feelings, denial of sad,
down depressed, angry, etc. Again, this is often the point with substance abuse – to ALTER feelings, not
feel unpleasant or unwanted feelings, not deal with or even be conscious of the sadness or anxiety
related to losses, stress, or progressing through or failing at the developmental tasks of one’s age and
life stage. This is common and deleterious. The active substance abuser (and yes MJ is a major
substance of abuse) almost always denies this until the process of recovery is far along. Some patients
tout MJ as an aid for their depression, anxiety, sleep, or anger via “self medication”. Others later admit
their denial, report MJ worsened or caused their depression or anxiety, or eventually see their life was
held back by their use. 5) Relationships with peers, parents, or romantic partners frequently suffer as
the user drifts more to other users and away from those who don’t use or don’t approve. “Paranoia” and
social anxiety with oversensitivity is often worsened by MJ amplifying the tendency to withdraw, stay
home, and not mix with others. 6) While uncommon there is clear evidence that some persons’
psychotic symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, irrational thinking, severe paranoia) are exacerbated or
caused by marijuana. MJ abuse is a common problem worsening the difficulties folks with serious
mental illness face.
R9-17-02, In reference to numbers 5 and 6. Fees are unreasonably high, especially if they are non
refundable. I would suggest developing a fee schedule based on patients yearly income or ADHS should
provide assistance to low income patients. Patients and caregivers should be treated as two separate
entities. Patient and caregiver registration requirements should be developed with an emphasis on
health and medical. Registrations requirements should benefit the patient. The department should
always consider patient income and circumstances vary. Dispensary agent and dispensary registration
requirements should be treated with the same restrictions as most businesses, henc higher fees, strict
monitoring and strict inventory requirements. Dispensary agents and dispensary registration
requirements should developed through a business/legal aspect. But should stay away from making the
health facility look like a liquor store . The department should consider the fact that both the dispensary
and the dispensary agent do work for a facility that provides medical assistant to qualified patients.
R9-17-103, I would suggest including other options for submitting to the department: initial/renewal
registration, amendment/change or replace ID cards for patients and caregivers.
R9-17-101 #15 - Medical Director should meet the definition of Physician as defined in the law (i.e.
include naturopaths and homeopaths). The position of Medical Director was never included in the law
passed by the voters and is not required for other pharmacies in the state. If you are going to require
this position by the rule, it should at least be consistent with the definition of Physician in the original
law. R9-17-102 #6 - The $150 fee for a qualifying patients is excessive. These are people with long-
term, debilitating illness and possibly in hospice! At the very least, provide a sliding fee scale. R9-17-
302 A - As currently written, one could argue that only a single person in a corporation need nominally
be an Arizona resident. This does not appear to prevent large out-of-state "marijuana mills" from
creating a company with an Arizona figurehead. All officers and board members of a corporation should
be Arizona residents. Furthermore, I suggest increasing the length of residency to 5 years! R9-17-302
B 5 (and elsewhere) - A small business may have tenative lease agreements in place for a dispensary
and cultivation site; however, it is unreasonable to expect any small business to have signed a lease,
obtained a certificate of occupancy, prepared space improvements for security, secured bonds, etcetera
prior to obtaining a license. These represent substantial investments of money that cannot be made
without a business loan, and loans cannot be obtained without a license. These requirements will make
it so that only the "marijuana mills" can prepare a 'complete' application. Please relax the language to
allow for the application to include tenative lease agreements and the requirement for obtaining the
other items prior to operation.
R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following
nonrefundable fees: [Comment] – if denied, Application Fee should be refundable at early stage of
License Approval, should be considered nonrefundable AFTER DHS has issued written notice of
preliminary approval of the dispensary registration certificate that contains the dispensary’s registry
identification number, as in R9-17-107 (F) As there continues to be a lot of additional stages after this
preliminary approval point to be completed by both Dispensary and DHS before Full Approval of a
License. 1. For registration of a dispensary, $5,000; 2. To renew the registration of a dispensary,
$1,000; [Comment] – RENEWAL should be increased to $2,500 and considered a cost of doing
business. Yearly Fixed Expense Not for Profit Organizations. ARTICLE 3. DISPENSARIES [Comment] -
All Good Points. A Each principal officer or board member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident and has
been an Arizona resident for the two years immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a
dispensary certificate application. [Comment]-GREAT POINT! Will Discourage and Eliminate out-of-
state Franchises, out-of-state Investors, and absentee Dispensary Owners attempting to possibly take
advantage of Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Program. B. (g) The name and license number of the
dispensary's medical director [Comment]-Again, a possible Problem with a Designated Medical
Director Physician (and/or Pharmacist) –conflicting DEA, State and Federal Medical Licensing Law. 15
Whether: a. A registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during regular business hours;
[Comment]-Again, a possible Problem with a Designated Medical Director Physician (and/or Pharmacist)
–conflicting DEA, State and Federal Medical Licensing Law. R9-17-307. Administration C A dispensary:
1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or
designated caregivers [Comment] – 50% - 50% Split between Grown and Acquired; 2. Shall only
provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a
qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this Chapter
to acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver [Comment] – 50% - 50% Split
between Grown and Acquired; and 5. Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical marijuana
cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. [Comment] – 50% - 50% Split between Grown and
Acquired
Need to change the over the top pre-application requirements for lease hold improvements (security,
etc) For these to be physically in place before one even knows if they will get a dispensary is unrealistic.
It would be appropriate to have the plans, estimates, written confirmation of what will be put in place if
selected. Inspections will be taking place anyway to assure the dispensary complies with completing the
work per the estimates.
The draft rules could be improved by more closely aligning with the law. The rules are so restrictive
that it appears that medical marijuana is still illegal, rather than regulated. It appears that the law
(Act) and the rules were developed without cross-reference. Improvements could be made by starting
with each line of the law and working from there to produce an appropriate method for implementation
with a rule. An example would be: Medical Directors as added under the rule should correlate to the
types of physicians defined by the law. As the rule is written, only Osteopaths and PCP's are eligible to
be Medical Directors yet the law defines Physician to include Naturopaths and Homeopaths as well. They
are all legitimately licensed in Arizona so why would the rule be incongruent with the law here? I would
think that with the shortage of doctors in Arizona, and nationally, we would want to accommodate
including all the specialists listed and defined in the law. Another challenge appears in the costs that
accumulate in the way the rules are written. As these are costs ($5000. application fee; $2500 Change
of Address fee; not to mention the Tax Priviledge that is proposed to be $20. per ounce sold - unheard
of!) that will be passed on to the patients ultimately. These are sick people (if the right protocols are
followed) and they should not be unable to obtain the medical marijuana due to exhorbitant prices
dispensarys have to charge to recoup fees and fund compliance methods. By the time tax is paid,
Medical Directors are paid, staff are paid, rentals, build outs and product growing/labeling is paid, etc. -
there are few dollars to return to the community to be reinvested as non-profits often do. The bond is
an issue as well. I don't think that can be done as it may not be legal to require.
R9-17-202 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional
relationship with the qualifying patient and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient for
the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship.
Be strict with established reputable companies/individuals that can conduct such dispensaries and
growing locations. Quality people. Good standing w bbb, etc
R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition. C. An individual submitting a request for the
addition of a medical condition to the list of the debilitating medical condition shall submit the request in
January or in July of each calendar year. The draft rule should read C. An individual submitting a
request for the addition of a medical condition to the list of the debilitating medical condition shall
submit the request anytime during the calendar year.
authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in
responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-
experience to do so. The department's regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of
authority and denial of patients' rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers,
other sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other
medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the
department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards.
R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their caregivers suffer
financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or no provision for patients, parents, and
caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but
do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. For example,
conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions
may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-
17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona
to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions
during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients
may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii
, R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose other providers
or sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-
302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a
caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need
to be submitted. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card
should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless
the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-
302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-
302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3,
R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp
authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The
department does not have the authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of
the principal officers or board members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require
security measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed
security measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from Arizona
pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials beyond what the law requires, require
an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance, or regulate the portion of
medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers.
R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These sections
violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a medical
director, much less to define or restrict a physician's professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary,
cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine.
R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section
violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue
burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or
swallow of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of
peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a product may
represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no
refuse.
Regarding, Ongoing physician-patient relationship and Issues of Fair Access: Arizona has a large
Native American and Military Veteran population utilizing federal medical facilities exclusively for their
health care. The federal position on medical marijuana being illegal will prevent federal health care
providers from recommending it’s use. Therefore, those utilizing Indian Health Services and Veterans
Affairs medical facilities will be denied fair access to Proposition 203. In many cases those groups
utilizing federal health services have no access to private health care based on financial and/or
geographic issues. These individuals as well as low income Arizonians in general are unable to comply
with the doctor-patient relationship requirements as outlined in the draft. The requirement of an
ongoing relationship and four doctor visits in a year prior to recommended medical marijuana not only
restricts but denies access to many Arizonians. In regard to Native American
and Military Veterans an exemption to the ongoing doctor-patient relationship requirement should be
established. The presentation of satisfactory evidence of enrollment in a federal health care programs
should grant exemption. In regard to low income, working poor Arizonians having no access to
regular health care! I have no solution other than disregarding the doctor-patient relationship
requirement all together.
Require the Department to notify an applicant of ALL deficiencies within the specified time-frame.
If you have a year's documented medical history of any one of the specified illnesses...there should be
no requirements other than a yearly visit to any medical marijuana doctor.
Delete the requirement to notify the Department for each change of address
Relax the dr rules. One year is not right. We voted for it so let us have it. I dont want us to look like
california either but limiting dispensories will do that just fine you dont need to put strain on the dr's.
What if I dont want to see a Dr once a month? Relax the recomendation rules
The rules should provide for a paper form, mail-in and/or hand-in application and provide a receipt.
The draft rules can be improved by allowing patients easier access to medical marijuana. This draft is
severely limiting to patients. I do not feel it is reasonable for a patient to be required to see a doctor for
a year to receive the treatment they are seeking. I think the alternative option of a physician taking on
the primary responsibility for managing a patients ailment is absurd and clearly shows prejudice on the
part of The Division of Public Health Services. A patient should not be stifled by the views of one
physician, and likewise physicians should not be limited in providing the treatment that they see fit. This
draft is putting more restrictions on medical marijuana, which has no harmful side effects, than are
placed on other medications that can easily be abused and many of which have serious, harmful side
effects. I feel this is extreme and absolutely unacceptable bias on the part of the Arizona Department of
Health Services. This legislation is clearly exceeding what has been approved by voters. When I voted
yes for Prop 203, I voted to give patients access to medication that is beneficial to them. I did not vote
for medical marijuana patients to be put through undue, biased harassment to seek the medication they
need. Patients should not be made to feel like criminals to obtain a medication that is far safer than
many easily obtained, harmful prescriptions that are available to the public. I am very dissatisfied with
this draft. I feel that the Department of Health Services has not only seriously overstepped their
authority, but has also showed a disgustingly uneducated and prejudiced stance on the issue.
I think that people that are from other states should be able to be part owners of a dispensary as long
as there are more Native Arizonans than others on the board, or owners. There are people from other
Medical Marijuana states that could really help get things started & growing here. make the fencing
requirements for all besides dispensaries much more reasonable. Lower the standards of the needed
fencing & covering. Also allow greenhouses as is stated in the law.
The rules should propose sliding scales as described at 36-2803.5.e

Allow for consideration of a true doctor patient relationship which begins with a single visit, exam and
/or assessment. These regulations should allow for chiropractors or Naturopathic doctors to be
directors of dispensaries. Why doies it HAVE to be an MD--it's natural medicine and an alternative
treatment that should be able to be recommended by these professional providers. I am an RN and
make holistic recomendsations to my patients often. Why can I not be a director for a dispensary. I
feel quite comfortable that i would be able to recommend Medical marijuana to a patient based on his
symptoms or diagnoses. I already have to patients with Neuropathy, PTSD and muscle spasms.
Adding additional diseases and symptoms is dreadfully long and very inconsiderate to those suffering
that may get relief from this medicine. We should definitely change this draft to Make it easier to add
additional diseases and symptoms. PTSD, depression, Anxiety needs consideration NOW.
Add that personnel in the dispensary have licensure and legal papers readily available for
view/examination. Area within 75' of building doors be clear of use, disposition or activity related to
the marijuana. Require "hockers" or those holding signs such as "the doctor is in" be regulated.
Certain parts of the definition of public place should be deleted or otherwise refined. Only in the public
areas of the locations facilities, and venues listed in R-9-18.b should patients be prohibited from
smoking. Private areas such as non-public offices should not be included.
A fee of $5,000 to register a dispensary seems insignificant in comparison to what kind of profit will be
realized over time. I believe the cost should be at least $10,000.
I was just reading about some of your other funding needs on your website, and wanted to point out
that the State of Colorado made 21 million dollars this year in fees from its medical marijauna program.
We support the fee schedule as proposed, and hope that the revenue will go to ADHS and to the Public
School system, and not the General Fund of those clowns in Phoenix who claim to be our "elected"
officials.
The rules will be improved by deleting §R9-17-307(C). This section ensures that the maximum number
of cultivation facilities will operate in the state, and allows registered patients who grow without being
monitored by the State to supply to dispensaries. This has many unintended consequences: §
Creates more potential targets for crime § Increases the amount of DHS resources needed to
effectively oversee the operation of these facilities § Makes quality control for purposes of drug
consistency and safety logistically impossible · Makes it more difficult to obtain the specific type of
medicine needed from across the state Deleting §R9-17-307(C) will have the following benefits: §
The oversight of fewer cultivation facilities by DHS reducing the burden on already limited resources §
There will likely be fewer potential targets for criminals looking to get their hands on marijuana across
the state § Quality control will be drastically easier thus the medicine will be safer § Multiple
dispensaries can carry the same product originating from single source, giving patients better continuity
§ Reduce the chances of medical marijuana ending up in the wrong hands by eliminating the need
for cultivators to dispose of product they cannot sell to patients
I think that with the low amount of dispenseries there is a chance for a monopoly to be created. But
opefully after a year of revenue comes in they will add to the number. It also seems like there is some
red tape that is being put up like the $5,000 to become liscensed.
1. Medical Director Definition: Should change to include any Doctor who is permitted under Title 36 to
recommend Medical Marijuana. 2. Ongoing Definition: this is merely an attempt on the part of AZDHS
to create an artificial bottle neck, choking off a potential revenue stream for struggling new dispensary
owners. This is an unfair, abuse of authority on the part of AZDHS, intending to further the agenda of
MPP. This rule is intended to dissuade marginal (“Trivia”l) applicants from submitting applications.
AZDHS should rely on the recommendation of a Arizona licensed Physician, regardless of the
relationship period, so long as the recommending physician complies with the provisions of Title 36, or
until such time as there is evidence of fraud. 3. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rule making be implemented “without imposing
an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries….” 4. ARS 28.1 Section 2 “Findings” of
the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies
demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician
offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet
Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site
transmission of video surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel,
arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. 5. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue
and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for
outdoor cultivation. 6. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny
the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. 7. R 9-
17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-
202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-
204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department. Those
sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment,
singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments,
require “ongoing” care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a
relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine.
Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient’s care.
Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits
for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly
department’s regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of
patients’ rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers, other sources of care
or information, or even to choose not (or cannot afford) to seek other medical care at all (whether prior
or subsequent to application). 8. R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 ,
R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to
the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees,
not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards. 9. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-
202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying
patients, qualifying patients’ parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the
internet access. 10. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not
allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering
patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet
still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. 11. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
year. 12. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than
one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. 13. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-
202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to choose other providers or
sources of information 14. R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-
to be submitted. 15. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card
the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. 16. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-
17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-
17. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These
sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a
medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice. 18. R9-17-313.B.3
cultivation of medicine. 19. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to
the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no
authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each
cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. 20. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary,
Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no
authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk. 21. R9-17-315 is
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue
burden by requiring security practices to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not required
for toxic, even lethal, products. 22. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department
has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
1. no undue burden on patients 2. liberal distribution to patients with prescriptions for whatever
condition the doctor deems necessary..including marijuana 3. Over many years, marijuana researchers
have NEVER found anything linking it to cancer, lung disease or any other harmful effects. Medical
marijuana should be a decision made between patients and doctors, not politicians 4. Medical
dispensaries should have the same type of requirments as a drug store does now. Drug stores dispense
far more dangerous drugs than marijuana 5. It is proven to be good for so many ailments and should
be dispensed with as much ease as buying aspirin or tylenol. 6. Marijuana has been used for thousands
of years...it is time to admit that the drug is safe, effective and helpful in easing the pain and suffering
of so many people 7. The revenue generated from marijuana could recoup so much money that can be
used to make AZ even better than it is now....reduce or eliminate the deficit while helping people at the
same time.. 8. It's a no brainer....if we don't legalize marijuana, then we must at least make it
accessable to all people who need it to improve their lives.
LET PATIENTS SEE THEIR PRIMARY DR. OR CANER DR. AND LET THEM PRESCRIBE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA, AND OUR INS. SHOULD PAY FOR IT, AND OUR INS. SHOULD COVER THE
PRESCRIPTIONS. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR AND SEE A STRANGE DR. FOR 4 APPT'S.
THAT IS WRONG, WE SEE ONE DR. ONE TIME, ONCE A YEAR, AND WE DO NOT PAY ANY MORE FOR
OUR PRESCRIPTIONS THAN MEW MEXICO $142.00 TO $148.00 AN OZ. THE PATIENTS AND THEIR
DR'S SHOULD MAKE THE RULE'S, NO BODY ELSE ! ! !
1) I have concerns about the physician relationship of at least 1 year. It seems that some conditions
could be more aggressively debilitating versus others and this may lead to unintended restrictions to
treatment of patients who truly would benefit from this therapy. 2) R9-17-302, B, 15, a: I have major
concerns about the statement of "whether a registered pharmacist will be on-site or on-call during
regular business hours". Prop 203 is in direct violation of the Arizona Statute: Pharmacy Act, Title 32,
Chapter 18. Having said this, I also have concerns if pharmacists aren't included in reviewing other drug
therapy and regimens for drug-drug interactions. Overall, this new law needs to be consistent with
Arizona State laws regulating pharmacists in addition to federal laws. 3) I feel the inventory control
section should be more specific and stricter. 4) Consider more emphasis on fingerprinting, maybe
requiring individuals running dispensaries or working at the dispensary to obtain a fingerprint clearance.
At this time AzNMA has three requests for changes to the rules as the process moves forward. The
requests are as follows: 1. The Naturopathic, Allopathic and Osteopathic Boards of Examiners should
require physicians who recommend medical marijuana to complete no less than eight hours of training
(through classroom situations, seminars at professional society meetings, electronic communications, or
otherwise) that covers the clinical, pharmacological, ethical and legal aspects of using medical marijuana
in patient care. 2. Naturopathic Physicians should be included in the definition of “medical director” as
they are included in the definition of “physician” in the voter approved Medical Marijuana Act and
authorized to recommend medical marijuana to qualifying patients. In this instance naturopathic
physicians have the same qualifications as allopathic and osteopathic doctors to successfully serve as
medical directors. 3. Patients with a terminal illness should be exempt from the rule requiring a
patient to have a professional relationship with a physician for at least one year and assessed for their
medical condition on at least four visits prior to being eligible for a medical marijuana recommendation.
Remember the veterans that don't have insurance for private doctors. Think about out of staters
coming here with medical marijuana cards, that don't go to Arizona doctors, and many get their
prescriptions filled in Mexico, and have Mexican doctors. In this down turn in the economy left many
people are out of work and the state cut backs leave many Arizonians out of money for health care and
jobs for meds, especialy in the past 3 to 4 years. The dispensaries need to sell organic marijuana, with
out pesticides or fertilizers which further making their problems worse Read the studies from Europe
and Scandanavian countries that have an unbias scientific study of the Three hundred different varieties
of this plant, not just the U.S. studies subdized by the federal governmant and has had a war on drugs.
I watched the congressional hearings on this legislation and it was lop sided from the beginning. We
have the penal system full of pot users and violent offenders walking the street because of over
crowding, and the cost is enormous to Arizona.
1. Limit number of patients for authorized doctors/prescribers 2. Require in-person medical evaluations
of patients 3. Track sales between growers, caregivers, dispensaries and cardholders 4. Guidelines are
needed for proper and secure disposal of unused marijuana 5. Require city/county permits for all
residential or commercial cultivation; clean-up costs are responsibility of the dispensary owner and
alterations to the property require a permit and must be inspected; no cultivation of marijuana in a
residence or property occupied by minor children 6. Require “warning” language on marijuana
packaging that addresses the addictive nature of the drug and its impact on motor skills (e.g. do no
operate a vehicle or machinery while using); also require dispensary representative to verbally discuss
the side effects of the drug and impact on others.
decrease cost, if caregiver is my husband, can't he use my card since he would be shopping for me???
why would a card for him be more expensive since he is family and caregiver??? So I would have to
purchase a licence (id card) ?? for me as well as my caregiver husband???? why not just say what you
mean, not drag it out. think of the patient, that is why this measure passed in the first place, not to
make it more difficult and expensive for the patient. get your money from the dispensaries. that would
be part of their expenses.
reduce fees for low income people make it easyer for pain issues who dont have insurance to get it
The concept of physician responsibility should be changed.
Two areas of the draft rules concerned me. One was the requirement to have a Medical Director as part
of the staff. This medical director would have no association with patients as far as prescribing but
would be there purely in an advisory role. This may be a challenge for otherwise qualified dispensaries
because finding a doctor willing to give their license number without a significant financial incentive
would put smaller operations at a disadvantage. For example, you may end up with doctors demanding
ownership in up to 3 dispensaries purely for the financial gain but with very little actual involvement.
This will cause the industry to be associated with profit driven doctors opposed to doctors actually
concerned about patient health. I think it would be good as an optional benefit to a dispensary like a
pharmacist but a strict requirement is problematic given the types of doctors I have seen attracted to
dispensaries in other states.
I can't change doctors because of insurance reasons. I'm disabled and poor. My doctor can't prescribe
marijuana because he says the administrators say he can't. Let me see my doctor and maybe yearly
see a doctor my marijuana. I have terrible spasms and can't walk.
Tell us what the selection process will be for choosing who gets a dispensary license and who does not.
Is it first-come, first-served, do they go to whoever pays the most money, etc. etc. As it stands, after
spending $1000's to set up a dispensary, there is no guarantee on getting a license.
For dispensaries, it seems that there is an issue with the whole chicken before the egg conundrum. The
regulations are currently requiring that an entire business be in existence and be ready to operate
before an applicant can even apply for the certification. It seems to be a huge and somewhat unfair
risk. Even with approval and certification and inspection, a dispensary will still be 90 days out (seed to
harvest) before the medication will be ready for patients. Unless you have very deep pockets, it's a huge
financial risk. It seems that with these type of start-up requirements, it is inevitable that "marijuana
investors" from California and other states will have their dollars tied to Arizona's profits.
While may be intended to prevent non-medical use of marijuana, it will have an impact of delaying the
acquisition of marijuana by qualifying patients and may induce increases in the price of adequate
quantities necessary to treat glaucoma and other conditions.
Right now, it looks like the only way to get a certificate/license for a dispensary, is to lease property,
build it out and set it up as a dispensary and be ready for business by April 1st, when we can apply for a
license... After putting $150,000 into a business and getting set up, isn't there some way we can get an
initial 'okay' on our project? I am the
with about 185 members, ALL of which are interested in the medicinal marijuana
option for relief from our pain and to help us sleep better. I have an investor from Denver CO who
wants to build a place in Mesa, but (understandably) he is hesitant when there's no guarantee of getting
a license after we get ready. Is there someone I can talk to about this?
director, much less to define or restrict a physician's professional practice ARS 28.1 Section 2
"Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous
studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and
physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially
deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant
on-site transmission of video surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other
cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the department R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-
101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-
204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel,
arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the 1998
Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter
Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care,
specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The department's regulations are a
cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients' rights of choice,
choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to
application).
Draft Rule R9-17-311 should be expanded to include a requirement that when verifying the qualifying
patient’s identity, dispensaries must employ a biometric identity verification system, such as a thumb
print scan. DHS is mandated by the Initiative to ensure that dispensaries are only releasing medical
marijuana to qualifying patients who hold a validly issued registration card. If DHS required biometric
verification in the rules, it would ensure that counterfeiting, identity theft, or other forgeries resulting in
medical marijuana falling into the wrong hands would be prevented. This requirement will have the best
chance of preventing the type of abuse we see, for example, with underage persons purchasing alcohol
using fake identification. By requiring biometric identity verification, it would be nearly impossible for a
dispensary employee to dispense marijuana illegally. While it is certainly expected that dispensaries will
self-police their agents, under the current Rules it would be very easy for a disreputable agent to collude
with a non-patient to dispense MM under somebody else’s registry number. In this scenario it would be
extremely difficult for a dispensary owner to discover illegal transactions as the record would appear
legitimate. However if that transaction must be accompanied by a cardholder’s thumbprint illegal
transactions would be impossible. The proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verify information
from the State’s medical marijuana electronic verification system and enter additional information into
the system relating to the transaction. The technology is available to allow this process to be automated
so that the dispensary computer directly communicates with the medical marijuana electronic
verification system without a human user being required to enter the information. This automatic
communication from computer-to-computer would reduce the chances of human error while reviewing
or inputting information, and thus better prevent fraud and improper dispensing of medical marijuana. It
would also mean that human users could not alter or enter fraudulent information, again reducing the
chances for fraud or abuse of the medical marijuana system. The rules should explicitly allow such
electronic transactions by making the existing R9-17-311 part A and adding as part B: B. A dispensary
may use an automated electronic system of hardware and software to verify the information required in
Section A before dispensing medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or designated caregiver and to
submit the required information to the medical marijuana electronic verification system.
Last week, I was one of 30 attendants at a medical marijuana college. An over whelming majority
(approximately 90%) of the students were between the ages 45 to 55 years of age. All of whom are
hopeful of becoming caregivers to medical marijuana patients. Limiting patients to a dispensary within
25 mile of residency is unfair to the patients and caregivers. They are the ones voted to pass the act.
Patients should be free to choose their best interest. What happens if a dispensary opens within said
guidline after the patient has chosen a caregiver? On behave of the majority of all independent
caregivers and their patients, I beg you to consider, eliminating the unfair 25 miles restriction.
This definition should be broadened to reduce the costs of operating dispensaries and consequently the
price of marijuana needed to treat glaucoma and other conditions
1. Registration fees for patients seem quite excessive. Since most insurance companies do not
reimburse such expenses, it seems that this puts an undue burden on patients. 2. Listing residence
address could jeopardize a patient's safety. I strongly urge either the acceptance of a mailing address
for the files, or governmental agencies MUST exercise the best Internet security possible so that this
information cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons. 3. While I did not find restrictions on
dispensary locations, if properly regulated, and without consumption of marijuana on its premises, a
dispensary should be able to be located most anywhere, without concern about proximity to schools,
etc. Due to foot and automobile traffic, dispensaries should be located in commercial or industrial areas.
4. Restrictions on ongoing relationships between physicians and patients seems excessively restrictive.
Some physicians either cannot write prescriptions for cannabis or lack experience with it and will not
prescribe it. As currently written, this could force a patient with a satisfactory relationship with a
physician to have to CHANGE physicians for the ongoing treatment. This section should be either
stricken or the rules relaxed to allow a patient with a cannabis-inexperienced physician to be seen by a
different physician, ad hoc, for the purpose of a cannabis evaluation and possible prescription, without
altering the ongoing relationship a patient has with another physician.
Draft Rule R9-17-311 should be expanded to include a requirement that when verifying the qualifying
patient’s identity, dispensaries must employ a biometric identity verification system, such as a thumb
print scan. DHS is mandated by the Initiative to ensure that dispensaries are only releasing medical
marijuana to qualifying patients who hold a validly issued registration card. If DHS required biometric
verification in the rules, it would ensure that counterfeiting, identity theft, or other forgeries resulting in
medical marijuana falling into the wrong hands would be prevented. This requirement will have the best
chance of preventing the type of abuse we see, for example, with underage persons purchasing alcohol
using fake identification. By requiring biometric identity verification, it would be nearly impossible for a
dispensary employee to dispense marijuana illegally. While it is certainly expected that dispensaries will
self-police their agents, under the current Rules it would be very easy for a disreputable agent to collude
with a non-patient to dispense MM under somebody else’s registry number. In this scenario it would be
extremely difficult for a dispensary owner to discover illegal transactions as the record would appear
legitimate. However if that transaction must be accompanied by a cardholder’s thumbprint illegal
transactions would be impossible.
These rules should not impose restrictions on prescribing medical marjiuana that are more restrictive
than those for prescribing any other prescription medication. For example, the requirement that a
person have a debilitating condition for more than a year and a specific Dr./patient relationship for more
than a year before they are eligible to be prescribed medical marjiuana has no reasonable medical basis
and is not required for any other prescription medication. Therefore, it is arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable.
R9-17-101, #15: Definition of a Medical Director: anyone would has the legal authority to prescribe
should also be allowed to be a medical director. R9-17-102- Fees for applications: The fee structure
should encourage locally owned, small businesses. By making the application fee non-refundable, you
are encouraging these huge corporations while placing undo burden on "the little guy". Also, the $2500
to change locations of the store front or the cultivation site is too hight. Again, only big corporations are
able to absorb that kind of expense, thereby removing the small business owners ability to participate.
The fee for the user's card is too high; people who have cancer and MS really can't afford the $150.00
fee. Recreational user CAN afford it, but you could double it and the recreational users are still going to
pay it, while the sick people can't afford it. R9-17-103- Electronic submission of the application- people
should have a non-electronic application option. A lot of the targeted patients are elderly and may not
be comfortable with computer technology. Also, 40% of home do not have a computer. R9-17-202, #5,
a-k: Requirements for the Physician- a physician can prescribe morphine or oxycontin with the stroke of
a pen, but has to jump through hoops to recommend marijuana. This section creates undo burden on
the physician. R9-17-302- Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate- (A)residency requirements
should be for 5 years instead of 2, and should include every person associated with the dispensary. This
would help to reduce the number of licenses given to out of state companies posing as local residents. It
would be infinitely better for the dispensaries to be operated by people living in the communities they
serve. (B) 1, (b) (h)- it is not realistic for someone to have a signed lease, or purchased property for a
store front and cultivation site prior to receiving a license to operate the business. This eliminates the
small businesses and panders to large corporations.
HOW CAN THE DRAFT RULES BE IMPROVED? The rules will be improved by deleting §R9-17-307(C).
This section ensures that the maximum number of cultivation facilities will operate in the state, and
allows registered patients who grow without being monitored by the State to supply to dispensaries.
This has many unintended consequences: § Creates more potential targets for crime §
Increases the amount of DHS resources needed to effectively oversee the operation of these facilities §
Makes quality control for purposes of drug consistency and safety logistically impossible · Makes it
more difficult to obtain the specific type of medicine needed from across the state Deleting §R9-17-
307(C) will have the following benefits: § The oversight of fewer cultivation facilities by DHS
reducing the burden on already limited resources § There will likely be fewer potential targets for
criminals looking to get their hands on marijuana across the state § Quality control will be
drastically easier thus the medicine will be safer § Multiple dispensaries can carry the same
product originating from single source, giving patients better continuity § Reduce the chances of
medical marijuana ending up in the wrong hands by eliminating the need for cultivators to dispose of
product they cannot sell to patients
I believe there needs to be an ammendment to the fees. Many of the patients are on limited income.
The fees seem to be excessive to begin with compared to other states regulations. I believe there needs
to be a financial aid or waiver for those who cannot afford the registration/renewal. I am concerned
about the safety of my personal information. The dispensaries have to be held completely accountable
for the privacy and protection of medical status etc for patients.
My city will not have their rules regarding dispensaries ready until sometime in April. It makes no sense
for us to sign a lease & begin to equip a building without first being granted a license from AZDHS &
seeing what our city is going to require.
The people of Arizona deserve for the MM industry in our State be regulated in such a manner so as to
provide only consistently therapeutic medicinal marijuana to patients. The Department of Health
Services has already contemplated requirements for clean and safe conditions as well as inventory
control and product testing. Yet §R9-17-307(C) seems to act contrary to these well thought out and
necessary provisions. Draft Rules §R9-17-307(C) requires a dispensary to cultivate at least of 70% of
the marijuana it provides to qualified patients and designated caregivers. It also limits the amount it
may receive from other licensed growers to 30% of their output, and limits the percentage of their total
crop that they may provide to other dispensaries to 30%. This makes little sense when related back to
the State’s interest in delivering a consistently high quality product to sick patients. It also may create a
security risk in the sense that the more cultivation facilities the more difficult it will be for the State to
make sure the operations are in compliance on every level. We feel that the language of that rule
should be deleted, permitting holders of Dispensary Registration Certificates to be able to grow and
supply to other Certificate holders who may not have the facility or the know how to adequately
cultivate a quality medicinal plant. This would make the State’s regulatory task easier and less costly
and make marijuana production more secure.
I think improvements on patient Records safety and confidentiality is Very much needed here. Also I
think that the way and the tools (map quest, Google maps, Bing etc. ) that you use in determining if a
patients lives 25 miles to a Dispensary and has the permission to grow his or her own medicine needs to
be lined out here. The last and finale thing I believe that needs to be addressed is the $150 fee. I do
think that there needs to be something in it to waive it for low income people and people on Social
Security because this is what the law was made for, "the Sick". Many of the sick are Under employed or
UN employed making it a burden and unreasonable to charge a sick person to have the right to buy
there medicine.
The rules will be improved by deleting §R9-17-307(C). This section ensures that the maximum number
of cultivation facilities will operate in the state, and allows registered patients who grow without being
monitored by the State to supply to dispensaries. This has many unintended consequences: §
Creates more potential targets for crime § Increases the amount of DHS resources needed to
effectively oversee the operation of these facilities § Makes quality control for purposes of drug
consistency and safety logistically impossible · Makes it more difficult to obtain the specific type of
medicine needed from across the state Deleting §R9-17-307(C) will have the following benefits: §
The oversight of fewer cultivation facilities by DHS reducing the burden on already limited resources §
There will likely be fewer potential targets for criminals looking to get their hands on marijuana across
the state § Quality control will be drastically easier thus the medicine will be safer § Multiple
dispensaries can carry the same product originating from single source, giving patients better continuity
§ Reduce the chances of medical marijuana ending up in the wrong hands by eliminating the need
for cultivators to dispose of product they cannot sell to patients
The dispensary cultivation rules need to provide for additional production sources. Licensed growers
and facilities could specialize in production whereas a dispensary is a business, not a farm.
1. There should be specifics about the selection process - You have put a HUGE financial risk out there,
by not specifying the selection process, yet requiring a huge blind upfront expense. This seems like
overstepping your bounds. 2. The rules for a patient card are WAY too stringent. I understand the
fear of abuse, but DEA tells us that the most abused drugs in this country are Pharmaceuticals! Until all
patients of all doctors are required to go through these extraordinary hoops to get truly dangerous
(read: deadly) prescriptions the double standard seems illegal at best and contrary to the peoples will in
passing 203 at the very least. 3.The twice a year window for petitioning new conditions is
unreasonable. 4.The concept of a medical director is a reasonable one, but the stringent requirement
is unreasonable. It assumes a medical emergency or urgency that can an never will happen in the real
world. Do this for all pharmacies, where the truly dangerous drugs pose a real risk! As many as
150,000 people a year die from prescription meds. ZERO - none- die from marijuana.
Section R9-17-308: Re: Obtaining a Dispensary Agent Identification Card. (Also under Section R-0-17-
107 sub-section F) • Which government issued identification documents will be required for
qualification? o Is it mandatory for an applicant to also submit an Arizona Identification Card if the
applicant has an Arizona Drivers License? o Please list all required identification documents that must
be supplied by each Agent. • What documentation is needed to confirm applicant’s Arizona residency?
o Will state or federal tax returns suffice for demonstrating two years of Arizona residency? o Will
evidence of mortgage, rental/lease agreements, property ownership or utility bills suffice for
demonstrating two years of Arizona residency? • We suggest that non-naturalized, documented
permanent residents of the United States qualify to apply for a Dispensary Agent Identification Card. •
We suggest that a qualified person be allowed to serve on the management board of the Dispensary
without having a Dispensary Agent Identification card. Perhaps modify the rule to say that only persons
with valid Dispensary Agent Identification Cards can handle the Marijuana, but persons can serve on the
board. Example, a dispensary may want to have a person on the board for their expertise in business,
but not have that person be involved in the cultivation/handling/sales of Medical Marijuana. (Also
mentioned in R9-17-307 sub-section4) • We suggest that non-naturalized, documented permanent
residents also be permitted to provide expert advice concerning cultivation. Section R9-17-102 • We
suggest that 90% of the $5,000 Dispensary application fee be refundable if the application is rejected by
the Department. The remaining $500 will be kept by the department to cover the actual expense of
researching applications, etc. Section R-9-17-301 • If prop 203 specifies that Dispensaries can only be
non-profit entities, why are individuals eligible? Section R-9-17-302 • Section A: Why does every
principal officer or board member need to submit a separate Dispensary Certificate Application?
Shouldn’t it be one Dispensary Certificate Application with information of all principal officers and board
members included in it? • Section B-1 o We suggest that an applicant should not be disqualified for
having one late child support payment, per year or disqualified for payments that have been delayed
due to clerical error, holidays or other causes beyond the control of the payer. o Is having a Medical
Director mandatory or optional? o Do the Cultivation Site and Dispensary Location have to be separate?
• Section B-5&6: RE: Zoning: What happens to the validity of the Dispensary Registration Certificate, if
at the time of application or after the Certificate is issued, the city changes its regulations limiting or
forbidding the cultivation and sale of medical marijuana? • Section B-15: Is having a registered
pharmacist on-site, on-call or available, a requirement or optional? Section R9-17-303 • Can a
dispensary have more than one location/branch? o If yes, can each location be registered under the
same Dispensary Registration Certificate? o We suggest that up to five branches be allowed under the
main Dispensary Registration Certificate, provided each location meets the general qualifications for
certification. MISC: • Is it required to have a signed lease already in place before applying for a
Dispensary Registration Certificate, or would a conditional lease suffice? o We suggest, that given the
complexities of the application process, applicants should be allowed to submit a conditional lease that
would specify that the building will be leased if the Dispensary Registration Certificate is granted. • Can
a Dispensary sub-lease part of the Dispensary to a company that sells related products? We suggest that
this be allowed. • We suggest that there should be a provision in the rules that mandates that all
Medical Marijuana sold in Arizona, must be grown in Arizona.
This definition id not practicable for cultivation facilities and is inappropriate for dispensaries or even
their product storage areas. Only the storage rooms need strong enclosures such as a safe. A
dispensary should have security, but this draft rule goes way too far. Differentiating the the levels
strength of the building materials according to the individual uses instead of lumping all needs for
“enclosed” into one form would be more effective and less costly.
Re R9-17-302: I am a commercial Real Estate Broker and I dont agree or understand how an applicant
for a Dispensary can provide an address showing ownership or a fully executed Lease unless they are
approved for the Dispensary. Landlords/Owners want a 3-5 year commitment from a Tenant that could
cost $4-$5000 per month the Tenant would legally and financially for responsible for a building he would
not have any use for unless he were approved. Some clarity as to the business ownership rules.
1. A patient must pay $150 each year for an identification card, and a designated caregiver, $200. There
does not appear to be a sliding scale or lower cost card available for low-income patients, as most other
states have. I would suggest reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, Medicaid, or other
federal/state benefits. 2. A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other
registered dispensaries and may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered
dispensaries. This is very problematic and not in the best interests of patients, as it will likely create
acute shortages in rural areas and drive costs up. Those patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary
unable to meet demand will have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Please create
an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona,
easy access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations
trying to meet demand. 3. A patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient
for the debilitating medical condition for at least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have
taken primary responsibility for the care of the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical
history, conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than
in most of the medical marijuana states, but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient
with a demonstrable debilitating medical condition from getting a written certification. It may make it
impossible for some veterans to qualify, because Veterans Administration Hospital doctors do not issue
recommendations. Please consider modifying this restriction to make it easier for such parties to gain
access to their preferred form of medication.
R9-17-101 item 15 & 16 This clause seems to be intended to make the acquisition of medical cannabis
a difficult, costly and timely proposition. This would seem to be a clever method by which to counteract
the will of the voting population. R9-17-102 Prop 203 requires a fee $5000 for the license fee and
NOT for a NON REFUNDABLE registration FEE. Is this even legal? Does it not amount to a very
expensive pay to play lottery. · The Draft does not clearly define the Registration and licensing
process. Is this a first come first serve basis? The proposed registration process clearly places an
enormous financial burden on the applicant without the slightest assurance of a clear, fair, honest and
straightforward process. One suggestion might be some type of Conditional Registration subject to final
registration prior to licensing. Item 5.a. The registration fee for qualifying patients is financially
prohibitive for many potential patients and again this clause seems to be intended to make the
acquisition of medical cannabis a difficult, costly and timely proposition. This would seem to be a clever
method by which to counteract the will of the voting population. Item 6.a. The registration fee for
renewing qualifying patients ID cards are financially prohibitive for many potential patients R9-17-302
Item 1. g. Medical dispensary’s should not be required to place on payroll and employee a medical
director. The patient is already under the care and supervision of a physician. Where does the authority
originate that mandates this requirement? Item 15. Making a determination as to the ability of the
facility to adequately supply medical cannabis to the community should not be based on a decided factor
of any of the listed a,b,c or d criteria. Item 16. A registration fee is not appropriate. R9-17-310 A,
B, C & D The requirement of a Medical Director is over restrictive and only adds to an over regulated
burden to ownership. Where does the authority originate that mandates this requirement? R9-17-313
Item 3.a. The inclusion of a documented watering schedule is ultimately over burdensome subjection
the site management to unrealistic oversite. R9-17-107 Time Frame · Under this heading letter B
states that the registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the applicant provides the
Department with written notice that the dispensary is ready for inspection by the department. This
creates a huge problem for the initial applications. Since there are a limited number of registrations to
be distributed, it is evident that not all qualified applicants will be granted a registration. Therefore it is
unduly cumbersome and expensive to have a completed facility ready for inspection when there is no
guarantee that even if all rules are complied with a registration will be granted. A registration packet
should be deemed completed subject to the inspection, therefore the entity will Have the necessary time
to complete the plans submitted to the department knowing that if they comply with the rules they will
be granted the registration. · There is no defined method as to how registrations for dispensaries
will be granted. This needs to be clearly defined, and again the application process should be subject to
final inspection of premises, instead of demanding that the facility be ready for inspection hoping they
will be one of the few registrations granted. Additional Questions: · Who is responsible for the
development of software for validation of user sales reporting? If facility operators are to be made
responsible for development when will operators be made aware of the types of county systems
necessary for interface? · Are sales subject to a use tax or sales tax? · Can grow facilities be located in
a separate county from the dispensary primary location?
Title 36 id not say “business days” and that is what the draft rule implies. Calendar day should have
the same meaning as it does in most other Arizona regulatory programs. A day is a day.
---I can't medically wait a year with out it. ---I can't entrust my pre-existing 'disabled' mental health to
a Dr who specializes in MedMJ treatment. ---On disability, there is NO way for me to afford $150 every
year for a card. ---Because I don't know/trust anyone...how do I find a deliverer if I can't pick up? ---If
I live more than 25 mls from dispensary, how do I get my medicine? It's against policy rules to grow a
regular grass lawn in the retirement community I live in. Plus I can't even grow a tomato plant
successfully. If Arizona can't compromise on needs of the people, why have the law? If Arizona
becomes to tough on people needing MedMJ for medication, we will all continue to do it unlawfully.
That's really all there is to it. I propose a MedMJ leaf on my general "Health Insurance Card." or
Medicare Card. That way my Dr medically approved the care I need through health insurance.
3. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health
Services rule making be implemented “without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical
marijuana dispensaries….” 4. ARS 28.1 Section 2 “Findings” of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and
effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive,
dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and
physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video
surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable
regulations proposed by the department. 5. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9
foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. 6. R
9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the 1998
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the involvement of
naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. 7. R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-
Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require “ongoing” care,
specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The department’s regulations are a
cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients’ rights of choice,
choose not (or cannot afford) to seek other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to
application). 8. R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-
ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes
of location or amending or replacing cards. 9. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and
R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying
patients’ parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or
no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. 10. R9-17-
106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical
conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their
activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety,
Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish
their activities of daily living. 11. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation
only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the
list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. 12. R9-17-202.B is cruel,
arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an
uninterrupted supply of medicine. 13. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary,
unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to choose other providers or sources of information 14. R9-
17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-
caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be submitted. 15. R9-
17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for
provided substantive misinformation. 16. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-
legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers. 17. R9-17-310 is
to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice. 18. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable
Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to
require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. 19. R9-17-
313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on
infused food. 20. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
represent a health risk. 21. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. 22. R9-17-317.A.2 is
refuse. ADDITIONAL RECOMMEDATIONS: 23. SURETY BOND: Clarify the purpose, the type,
the amount and the third party beneficiary, of the surety bond, or eliminate its reference from the rules.
24. NON-PROFIT ENTITY: Clarify the need to establish a non-profit entity. Title 36 only requires an
applicant to operate the dispensary under a non-profit “basis”. Can an applicant establish a LLC or other
entity so long as his/her bylaws comply with Title 36? 25. 70% COOPERATIVE GROW: Clarify if a
group of dispensaries can form a cooperative to grow their medical marijuana under one roof, so long as
the facility is in compliance with Title 36 and the AZDHS rules. 26. SEEDS: Please clarify where a
dispensary owner can purchase his initial seeds. 27. LANDLORD RIGHTS: Please clarify landlord
rights with respect to entry and inspection of a dispensary/ cultivation facility. (Assuming the landlord is
not a registered agent of the Dispensary). Additionally, please clarify access by a repair service to enter
upon the restricted areas of a dispensary/cultivation to make necessary repairs. 28. TWO STAGE
APPLICATION PROCESS: R9-17-302 Applying for Dispensary Registration Certification; we believe the
proposed rules regarding the application process are inherently unfair and favor the wealthy. The
average person who may otherwise qualify would be reluctant to invest hundreds of thousands of
dollars in a dispensary application without knowing if they will get a license. In order to equalize the
application process we believe AZDHS should adopt a two stage application process as follows: 1.
Review the principals and legal entity first. Perform whatever background checks AZDHS desires,
including FBI and all the other requirements as set forth in the proposed rules relevant to the principals
and legal entities. 2.Issue a conditional License to the 125 most qualified individuals subject to
approval of the facilities. ( dispensary and cultivation sites) 3.The conditional license would require that
the applicant to complete the build-out and/or construction of the facilities within 90-120 days.
4.Thereafter, the conditionally approved applicant would submit the second half of his application (
Facilities) for inspection and approval. 5.The second half of the application must meet all the
requirements of the proposed rules relevant to the facilities. 6.Provided the applicant meets all the
facility requirements he/she would then be issued a Dispensary Registration Certificate 7.This system
allows for fairness across all demographic and financial groups. It would not preclude individuals simply
because they are not millionaires, and would allow those that are chosen to obtain the financing they
need to complete the project. Fairness and transparency requires AZDHS to adopt this application
process or similar one.
medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application).
Section R9-17-201has too many vague references as to what constitutes a medical necessity! This was
one of our biggest problems in Washington State. As a former nursing professional, one of the most
widely abused sections of our medical marijuana law was the "Chronic Pain" category. There is no
scientific evidence to prove that medical use of marijuana helps with pain management other that the
intoxicating effects makew you forget you are in pain! Because the "pain" Category had so many
applicants, it became apparent that unauthorised use and access to medical marijuana was running
rampant.
Four visits and one year to be able to get a recommendation is too long. And having to use that doctor
for my management of my illness is not possible. I need to go to multiple doctors to treat my condition
and would rather see one doctor for my arthritis and one doctor for treatment of the chronic pain. I
also think that $250 is too expensive. I also believe that Rheumatoid arthritis should be added to the
list of treatable conditions. Although I do have severe chronic pain, it will be more difficult to get my
recommendation as most rheumatologists do not believe in this line of treatment.
I made a comment a few days ago about having card holders (patients) whatever..... to have the right
to grow their own plants if they are in the 25 mile zone for dispensaries... only two plants; one in
vegetative and one in bloom.... so that someone with knowledge of cultivation can take care of
themselves and save massive amounts of money on their medicine in a horrid economy. I've been
thinking of my proposal further and know that trafficking is a concern (for good reason; I don't care for
criminals either) so how about if you would like to cultivate in the 25 mile zone you give up your rights
for going to the dispensary to purchase prepared cannabis? This way no one person ends up with far
too much. A patient having only one plant in bloom at any given time would eliminate the selling off of
extra due to the fact that it would be difficult to produce more than one would consume. I have seen in
other states where card holders are allowed to have 12, 18 plus plants and even I feel this is absurd for
a single consumer and I'm 100% behind cannabis reform. Some people may make the argument that
you have so many plants due to the fact that only the female plants produce cannabis buds; well one
can purchase feminized seeds which only produce female plants and that fact eliminates the argument. I
would even be comfortable with language in the "rules" that clearly state that if you are found with
more than you are allowed then you lose all privileges and the full weight of the law lands on the head
of the rule breaker. The people whom I've spoken to like this option and would never jeopardize the
privilege of what we are being given and have been hoping to happen for so long. Thank you for your
consideration.
The interests of individual citizens who own firearms are of utmost concern. Therefore, the qualifying
patient registry identification card must be eliminated as a requirement. RATIONALE: It will remain
illegal for an individual to possess and use marijuana under federal law (21 USC §811). In Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government has the
constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John
Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local
cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Any individual who purchases a
firearm from a federally licensed firearms (FFL) dealer must complete a BATFE Form 4473. Question
11e, which is a YES or NO question, reads as follows: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to,
marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” This puts
the potential purchaser of a firearm in a quandary. The individual purchaser can neither answer YES nor
NO to BATFE Form 4473, question 11e because, 1) Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished
by up to five years in prison in addition to fines and 2) Answering YES will result in a denial of purchase
order from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This will effectively deny the
individual right to keep and bear arms for anyone who submits an application for a Patient Registry
Identification Card. Furthermore, filing an application for the Patient Registry Identification Card will
abridge those rights conferred in the United States Constitution, Articles in Amendment, Amendment 5,
especially self-incrimination, among others. Additionally, in order to prevent an occurrence in Arizona
like what happened in Oregon, rules must be written and implemented that prohibit the declination of
an Arizona Concealed Carry Weapons permit based solely on ones application and/or issuance of a
Patient Registry Identification card and/or the purchase of medical marijuana from a dispensary.
A funds verification from a bank will also prove financial ability if it is supported by a cash flow
projection.
A full audit is very expensive and time consuming. This will increase patient costs in the long run. A
review or compilation would accomlish the same without increasing costs to patients all that much.
The draft rules must be discarded in their entirety and, in an open and honest process, new regulations
should be drafted to the advantage of the suffering, dying, and good citizens of Arizona. Among the
serious problems of the current proposals are the following: ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be “without imposing
an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries….” ARS 28.1 Section 2 “Findings” of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies
arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and
unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for
outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It
violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the
involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-
101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-
or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all
(whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8,
R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp
authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for
information. R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-
knowingly provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g),
R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-
17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-
17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied to the
to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice. Arizona's pharmacies dispense drugs that are
very toxic, yet are not required to have medical directors on-site or on-call. R9-17-313.B.3 is
cultivation of medicine. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable
Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a
statement that a product may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps
department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security practices
to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. R9-
17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section
violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require the daily
removal of non-toxic refuse.
Be mindful of the economics here. If you spend more money on enforcing what you take on as your
mission to keep marijuana from marginally qualified users---rather than setting up a supply system for
100% qualified patients---you will defeat the purpose of the initiative and drive our state even more into
debt. Let the alloted number of clinics open. Then take complaints about possible problems. Reconsider
how you will implement the micromanagement called for: 24/7 video monitoring, soil types, watering
schedules, weights of items offered for sale, etc.
why are nurse practitioners excluded from recommending/prescribing medical marijuana or any
healthcare provider that currently can write for medication. all rx's have to be aprpovedby AZDHS so
why limit those who can prescribe?
az state gverment has onc e again ignored the will of the people and ried to implement there own
agenda with prop 203 , all career poloticians and appointed officials should remember that prop 203
brought more votrs out than the govoner or senate seats that where being votd on the same ballot , the
regulations that hve ben proposed for dispensaries and grow facilities are so redicoulos and over the top
that it would cost some one potentially 50,000 or more just to apply for the lisc. and than to b relistic
anoth 75000$ tooperate for the first 3 months you are once again trying to ignore the wishes of az
voteres much like the state did in 1996 and 1998 either someone at azdhs is takeing a bribe from the
few wealthy and elites that have popped up tryng to control this industry "azmma" or your trying to
regulate this out of exisistance .it is outlandish to think that a non profit would spend this kind of money
to get up and running and even more ridiculous to think that anyone individual or corpraton would
spend this kind of money unless they had figured out a way to profit from it on a level equal to there
investment , worse yet and even more suspicius is the fact tha azhds has not released any criteria for
witch they will judge potential owners . For an orginzation that is supposed to represent responsible
medicine in this state as well as patient care and protection the regulations you have put forth tread all
over the normal standard of doctor patient reationship , and again seem to be focused on stopping
doctors from prescribeing and patients from recieveing medical canabis, for all the bluster about patient
protection there is not one line in azdhs regulations that deal with quality or saftey of the product being
grown and distributed to patients that in many cases would be immuno suppressed , when just the
nature of growing any agricultural product lends itself to exposure too pesticides , fungus , bacteria,and
mold . the product being produced is not a tomatoe it can not be washed off after harvest ! The most
rediules part of all this is that azdhs has not come up with a system that is self sufficient the amount of
money generated from lisc. applications , renewals ,and medical cards does not add up it is not enough
revenue to police and montor 125 potential disp. ,and grow facilites as well as a potential 50 to 150,000
patients ,
Eliminate the requirement for a physician-patient relationship to mean there has been contact for at
least a year, with at least four visits dealing with the condition for which the patient is seeking
marijuana. Eliminate the requirement whereby a patient can get a recommendation from a doctor
without any prior visits if that physician conducts a comprehensive medical history and physical exam
and agrees to take on the primary responsibility of managing the person's ailment. Eliminate the
requirement for dispensaries to provide detailed information on cultivation, including the type of soil
used and the watering schedule; Eliminate the requirement for dispensaries to have 24/7 video
monitoring by the health department; Eliminate the need to spell out the weight of cookies and other
products into which marijuana was infused; Broaden the limits on who can be a medical director of a
dispensary.
Have initial dispensary fees lowered to help entry into the field and small ma and pa operations to get
started. The fee then can be raised to continue, hopefully the second year so people can have the
opportunity to earn enough to pay the fees. Or possibly some type of fee exemption on dispensaries.
Something to help the disadvantaged people to open and operate a dispensary.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse. Attorneys are already preparing legal action against these cruel and unreasonable draft
regulations. If you are happy with such an outcome, do nothing. If you want to reduce your suffering
and your costs, you must speak out now and also at the public meetings I have listed below. The
good news: As best I can tell, the AzDHS does NOT have the authority to enact the cruel and
unreasonable package of regulations they propose. Obviously, I am not an attorney, so we are soliciting
the input of qualified attorneys. Because I am a physician, I am restricting my comments here to the
matter of patient-physician relationship. Others with expertise in dispensary and caregiver matters will
share similar analysis and commentary concerning the draft regulations for dispensaries and caregivers.
I have attached the AzDHS Timeline. Please familiarize yourself with the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Act (AzMMA): http://stoparrestingpatients.org/home/initiative If you pay special attention to Section
36-2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the AzMMA does NOT give authority to the Arizona
Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the patient-physician relationship and does NOT
give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding "ongoing" to "patient-physician
relationship." The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically DENIES authority for such usurpations.
Please note that even the Director of AzDHS questioned his own authority to do what he proposes:
http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=810 See also:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/11/prop_203_legal_weed_will_be_av.php Next
please familiarize yourself with the draft regulations:
http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/documents/Medical-Marijuana-Draft-Rules.pdf Then please
participate in the public comments online and in person: http://azdhs.gov/news/2010-
Alll/101217_ADHS-Med-Marijuana-Release-and-FAQ.pdf Please plan to testify. Please also mobilize
other suffering patients to comment online, in writing, and to testify at the Public Meetings: Phoenix,
February 15, 2011, 1PM, 250 N. 17th Avenue Tucson, February 16, 2011, 1PM, 400 W. Congress, Room
222 Phoenix, February 17, 2011, 1PM, 250 N. 17th Avenue Some specifics. The AzMMA requires
this: 18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN,
STATING THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THE PATIENT IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE
THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR
ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE PHYSICIAN MUST: (a) SPECIFY THE QUALIFYING
PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION. (b) SIGN AND
DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
AFTER THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT [NOTE: "assessment," singular, not
plural; 1, not 4] OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL HISTORY. So, one full assessment,
specify the qualifying condition, sign, and date-done! Without the authority to do so, Az DHS
proposes: R9-17-202 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a
professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the
physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating
medical condition during the course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary
responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition
after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review
of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the patient's
reaction and response to conventional medical therapies; Key points: • Any Arizona physician
may in a single visit prescribe "speed," e.g., Adderall, to a kindergartener-without 4 visits spread out
over 1 year any Arizona physician may prescribe to a kindergartener a drug that can kill that child by
heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other "side effects." • Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C, and ALS patients often
do not have 1 year to live. • The patients that do live are cruelly being told to change doctors or suffer
for 1 year. • Deadly and addictive drugs such as the opiates are prescribed in a single visit by Arizona
physicians and, despite the best efforts of physicians, some of those deadly and addictive drugs are
illegally diverted, but that does not cause the AzDHS to demand 4 visits, 1 year of visits, or that the pain
specialist assume primary care of the patient. • Marijuana is 100% safe, gives patients good relief, and
cures some conditions-Marijuana is not deadly and is not addictive. • The alternative offered by the
AzDHS to avoid 1 year of suffering, the cannabis specialist takes over the primary care of the pt's
qualifying condition, is done nowhere else in medicine-Nowhere else in medicine does a specialist take
over a patient's primary care. • The AzDHS does not have the authority to define or re-define the
patient-physician relationship or the number of doctors visits, or the length of time for those visits-that
infringes on the patient's choice • The draft regulations are cruel and unreasonable. We still believe
that an evaluation and a signed physician recommendation stating the patient's qualifying condition
currently gives an "affirmative defense" in the event of a legal encounter at least until the final
regulations, not merely the draft regulations, are announced by the AzDHS. Once the final regulations
are promulgated, we will, of course, abide by them. Until then, we are still making recommendations to
qualified patients. If the AzDHS succeeds in forcing 1 year and multiple visits upon patients, it is to the
advantage of qualifying patients to start the process as soon as possible.
Allow all patients to be able to grow their own since the dispensaries will not be able to provide enough
of the medicine to it's patients...no to finger printing..have discreet signs on dispensaries to discourage
arrogance. No access of medical marijuana to people under 18 years. Allow out of state patients from
legal states to purchase in Arizona. Allow delivery to patients. And please don't be paranoid about med.
Marijuana. Everything will be alright.
1. The Definition of Calendar Day: The exclusion of weekends and holidays makes the 14-day period
nearly 3 weeks, which is not fair for patients. The pharmacy doesn't exclude weekends and legal
holidays on a 30-day prescription. 14 days should be 14 days. Extending the 14 days to 3 weeks by
excluding weekends and holidays only encourages smoking. While smoking it is good for immediate
effects (especially for chemotherapy patients), those with chronic conditions can often better manage
their issues through cooking their medical marijuana, which has the added benefit of eliminating any
concerns due to smoking, but it takes more product. 2.5 ounces every 3 weeks is insufficient for a
patient with a chronic condition who prefers to cook with marijuana instead of smoke it. 2. The
physician-patient relationship: Requiring a one-year patient relationship at first seems fairly reasonable.
After all, most of these patients are dealing with chronic conditions that have affected them for a
number of years, and I understand that this may be a measure to limit the number of doctors who plan
to make their living off writing hasty recommendations. However, this rule in inequitable to a large
population of patients. For one, this excludes cancer patients altogether. Cancer patients meet their
oncologist/radiologist after they've been diagnosed, and waiting a one-year period with a new doctor
could mean the difference between life and death. At the very least, it almost guarantees that these
patients will not have access to marijuana for nausea and pain during treatments. A large second group
of patients are veterans of our armed forces. The VA is the primary care facility for many veterans, but
VA doctors are not yet allowed to recommend marijuana, and so some of our most honorable patients in
need would be denied effective medicine, at least for the first year of developing a new patient-doctor
relationship, not to mention the increased costs of doing so when these veterans are used to having
their healthcare paid for as a result of their service. Furthermore, the rules require the recommending
doctor to sign a statement that s/he "has assumed primary responsibility for providing management and
routine care of qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition." So again, most veterans who rely on
the VA are out of luck if they need to find a doctor to assume primary responsibility for the patient's
condition. Also, to be honest, many doctors are not willing to write recommendations. As a qualifying
patient, I have discussed this issue with my doctors on several occasions during the past year, and they
are scared of either increased malpractice insurance rates or harassment by the government or medical
governing boards. Medical marijuana is a good option for many, but it is still against federal law and
(mistakenly) classified as a Schedule I drug; doctors are fearful of repercussions. Please, please, please
do some outreach to legimate, practicing doctors to let them know that AZDHS supports patients' real
doctors in their right to recommend marijuana to patients who could benefit. 3. Public Place: This
definition should be slightly altered. For one, it includes all public places, including bars, entertainment
venues, common areas of living complexes, parks, parking lots, etc. For one, medical marijuana use
should only be excluded in certain places when it is smoked. As long as an individual does not get
behind the wheel, as with alcohol, consuming marijuana in a form other than smoke has no effect on
anyone else and should not be limited to a person's private residence. Further, where tobacco (a far
more harmful substance) smoking is allowed (parks, outside smoking sections for bars and
entertainment venues, etc), marijuana smoking should be allowed for those with proper ID cards. 4.
Fees: 1) $5000 for registration of a dispensary does not seem unreasonable, but how is the application
process going to work? Do you expect 1000 applications for 125 licenses, and what happens to the
extra registration fees? Do they get refunded to applicants who are not accepted, or will you use those
extra fees to pay for comprehensive reviews of the applications so that the most qualified applicants are
chosen? Or do you stop accepting applications at 125 and take a first-come, first-served approach,
which could result in unscrupulous business practices or inexperienced businesspeople? 2) I think the
initial fees for obtaining registry identification cards for patients, caregivers, and agents are fine, but the
annual renewal fees are excessive. The annual renewal fees should be nominal, at least for the
patients, as many are on fixed income. 5. Applying for a dispensary registration certificate: The
application must include a physical address. That is a big investment--nobody should have to sign a
lease agreement to secure a location before applying. I understand that the address will be relevant
before the registration is issued, but this rule excludes most people from having a chance to apply for a
dispensary. This rule demonstrates why a business plan pre-application screening would be useful so
that only the people who are going to be given registrations would have to secure a facility, and not all
applicants. I am not necessarily opposed to the $5000 application fee even for those who are not
chosen because I hope the overages will go back into medical marijuana research and education, but
requiring applicants to also have a place secured goes too far. Plus, nobody is going to lease a place
out to somebody (who tells the truth about why they want the business) who has a 1 in 10 chance of
getting the dispensary registration certificate. 6. A dispensary shall cultivate at least 70% of the
marijuana it provides to patients/caregivers: This rule will make it more difficult for patients to get the
strains that work more effectively for them. I guess it would be hard for dispensaries too if they had a
bad crop and couldn't get product from anyone else for several months, but I think of it more as a
patient issue. Patients should not have to drive all over town just to find the strains that work best for
them. The best (patient-friendly) medical marijuana dispensaries have a wide selection of product and a
knowledgeable staff. I definitely think it's a great idea to keep all marijuana cultivation and production
in Arizona, but patients need options.
I would like to see more about how the patient and/or caregivers are protected by the law. Are they
protected from having their homes, cars, bank accounts taken away? Will we be subjected to house
checks or arrest even if we are in compliance? You could simplify the draft without so many sub-
catagories and repitition, and a better idea of where we are to obtain cards, photos, and registry ID
cards as well as the Dr. recomendation forms.
pricing,card pricing,smoking areas and growing. theres no protection for the patients when it comes to
pricing. it needs to be a simple system a flat monthly fee. a few of us believe a $100-200no more a
month should cover 5oz of medical marijuana. then you wont see so many people appling for dispensary
licenses. there should be cost in the system but a $150 a yr for a card is outragous! im on medicare and
believe patients who really need this are like myself on fixed incomes and need the medicine should get
price breaks on application fees. $50-75 would be reasonable and thats still to high.smoking areas need
to be opened just a little bit. outdoors like camping , fishing , hiking basically anything outdoors and
hotels. the patient should be discreet. remember its medicine. and finaly growing. if the patients choose
to grow they should be able to even if they live within 25miles of a dispensary. it could be theraputic for
patients and give some of them something to do.
I feel that the Patient ID Card fee of $150 is too steep. These are patients with serious illnesses and
limited income and need to have affordable fees in order to participate. These regulations require
patient to have a lengthy relationship with the physician who recommends medical marijuana. Some of
us will not be able to get recommendations from our primary care physicians. We must not create a
burden to sick patients receiving a medical marijuana recommendation. I urge the ADHS to adopt no
visit minimum for a medical marijuana recommendation. Requiring dispensaries to grow 70% of their
medicine restricts dispensaries from diversifying their sources and providing patients with a wide variety
of strains and organic medicine.
usurpations. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department
of Health Services rulemaking be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse.
AZDHS and MPP Acting in Collusion to limit access to Dispensary Applicants. Monopolization abuses
outlined in letter to Arizona Heath Department. This is the formal response from the
Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals , (AZADP), to the Arizona Department of Health
Services, ( AZDHS) concerning the implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The AZADP
is an organization comprised of over 4600 members. AZADP membership includes concerned
dispensary candidates, individuals who believe they are qualifying patients, Physicians and other
individuals and entities involved in the Marijuana industry. While we want to believe Mr. Humble when
he states that, ( EXHIBIT A), “Fairness and Transparency are the keys to effectively implementing the
AZ Medical marijuana Act”, the evidence contained herein suggest otherwise. We believe that the
AZDHS has been influenced by and is conspiring with other organizations, namely the Marijuana Policy
Project, (MPP) and their recently established association, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association,
(AzMMA), to create an elitist and monopolistic program where only the wealthy influential, informed
sponsors of MPP will qualify for one of the 125 licenses. We believe that the following evidence will show
that the AZDHS in collusion with MPP are intentionally developing program rules that are so
complicated and costly so as to preclude otherwise qualified applicants merely on the basis of wealth
and influence. We believe it is the intention of MPP to control the marketplace. Accordingly, we
submit the following: Citations: Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, hereinafter referred to as
“TITLE 36” Arizona Department of Health Services, hereinafter referred to as “AZDHS” Marijuana
Policy Project hereinafter referred to as “MPP”, a national political action committee who sponsored
Proposition 203 in Arizona. MPP has a local chapter in Arizona. Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
hereinafter referred to as “AMMA”. An association recently established by MPP. Arizona Association of
Dispensary Professionals hereinafter referred to as “AZADP”. An independent association comprised of
concerned citizens. Arizona Voter’s protection Act hereinafter referred to as “AVPC”. A 1998 voter
approved initiative petition amending the Arizona Constitution, to revoke the government’s power to
amend an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, unless the amending
legislation furthers the purposes of such measure. (AZ Cons. Article 4 Section 1(6)(c). Regulatory Bill of
Rights, (A.R.S 41-1001.01) hereinafter referred to as “TITLE 41”. An Arizona law to ensure fair and
open regulation by state agencies, limiting a state agencies rule making ability to subject matter listed in
the specific statute and provides for citizens right to file a complaint with the States Administrative Rules
Oversight Committee. Affirmative Defense, (A.R.S. 36-2802), hereinafter referred to as “ARS36-2802”.
Qualifying Patients and Caregivers mat assert medical purpose as a defense to any prosecution of an
offense involving marijuana. Sherman Antitrust Act: To establish a violation of The Sherman Act,
Monopoly Power may be defined as the power to fix prices to exclude competitors, or to control the
market in the relevant geographical area in question. Prefatory Statement:
AZADP was established as a direct concern of so many individuals who are alarmed at the direction the
AZDHS is taking in their rule making progress. Prior to the election some of our members where
involved with MPP and provided us with internal documents generated in the course of MPP’s campaign
operations. These documents will be produced herein and used as evidence to support our arguments.
In September, 2010 MPP established an advisory committee. According to the local Campaign Manager
for MPP, , this Advisory Committee was established at the request of AZDHS. Presumably,
AZDHS was concerned that should the voters approve Prop 203, their understaffing and budget cuts
would curtain their ability to complete the rule making process in the time allowed under the law. ( 120
days). According to , AZDHS asked MPP if they could assist AZDHS by preparing some proposed
rules for consideration by AZDHS. “A blueprint to help AZDHS start the process”. MPP agreed to assist
AZDHS and established the Advisory Committee, also known as the “Roundtable”. MPP invited 12-14 of
its members to join the Roundtable and create proposed rules for consideration by AZDHS. Presumably
most of the members on the Roundtable were either dispensary candidates or have other business
interest in the medical marijuana industry. The members of the roundtable were divided into “task
forces” each given a specific assignment. (EX: Cultivation rules, testing /quality control, security,
applications, qualifications, etc). The roundtable participants also worked together to develop and
establish the MMP Association, “AzMMA”. It is no coincidence that the acronym for MPP’s Association
and Title 36 are identical; “AzMMA”. MPP took ownership of Title 36, and intended to impose its own
agenda on the people of Arizona. MPP’s stated agenda was to limit the competition and to assure that
as many of their own members as possible received dispensary licenses. During the weeks leading up
to the election, the Round table became fractured. Some of the members realized the true agenda of
MPP and resigned from the group. Let us first understand that MPP is funded and
sponsored by very wealthy individuals and organizations. The following evidence will show that MPP
invested over half a million dollars of its money to secure an elitist program designed to solely promote
the interest of their sponsors. The agenda of MPP is to make the dispensary application process as
difficult and expensive as possible to preclude all applicants except the well informed wealthy members
of MPP. As evidenced by the attached internal memorandum ( EXHIBIT “B”), MPP, in the process of
establishing it’s Association , recommended that, “ AZDHS implement dispensary applications and
licensing standards that are rigorous enough to deter trivial applications, but that do not unduly impair
the ability of serious applicants to operate successfully”. It would be a serious conflict of interest to
allow a Association comprised of wealthy future dispensary owners to determine what a “trivial
application” is, but that is exactly what they moved on to do. Contained within the same documents
MPP makes the following recommendations to AZDHS; Would require applicants to provide proof that
they have obtained dispensary and /or cultivation facilities that meet the requirements of the ACT and
local zoning. Requiring that the applicant provide a business plan demonstrating that the licensee will
be operational within a specific time frame. Requiring the applicant provide proof of financial
competency through a BOND or other means. Requiring that the applicant demonstrate medical
expertise by having physicians or pharmacists on staff or engaged as consultants. Contrary to the
assertions of Mr. Humble, (EXHIBIT A), clearly these MPP proposals have had significant influence on
AZDHS, since all of them are incorporated into the AZDHS proposed rules. Additionally, these proposed
rules, should they be adopted, will further the agenda of MPP by adding momentous increases to the
cost of obtaining a dispensary license for the following reasons: Section 36-2804, of Title 36,
among other requirements, necessitates an applicant to provide AZDHS with a “Physical address of both
the Dispensary and Cultivation center, and a sworn statement that the applicant is in compliance with
local zoning requirements. This in and of itself creates a significant expense to an applicant, since they
will have to secure a physical location without ever knowing if they will qualify for the license. However
AZDHS has added a significant additional expense to the cost of the applicant by requiring a Certificate
of Occupancy. This adversely changes the intent of Title 36. Under proposed rule R9-17-302, B-5
AZDHS is requiring an applicant, as part of the initial application process, to produce a Certificate of
Occupancy This would require a applicant to not only secure a location for his/her dispensary and
Cultivation center, but build-it-out as well at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, all at risk, since
all is done without any assurances that they will obtain a license. This rule alone will serve to eliminate
all but the wealthiest of applicants. At the request of MPP, (See EXHIBIT C ), AZDHS’s proposed rules
regarding business operations are outrageously over-regulated. We recognize the need to maintain
strict business operations, but the proposed rules are simply overkill, intended to play into the hands of
MPP’s agenda. (More on this below). There are no provisions in Title 36 that requires an applicant to
produce a Bond. According to statements made by MPP all applicants with less than a million dollars of
cash liquidity are considered “Trivial” and should be required to post a two hundred thousand dollar
bond.( See Exhibit D ). While there is no clarity or designation as to the purpose, type , amount or
third party beneficiary of said bond, AZDHS has nevertheless, under proposed rule R9-17-302,15-D,
and as part of the initial application , asks the question, “Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and
, if so, how much?” While we have sought clarification from AZDHS on this point, none has been
provided. Attention must also be given to the availability of said bond. Because of the unique nature of
the medical marijuana business model, obtaining such a bond might be impossible or extremely costly.
Under federal law Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are considered a criminal enterprise; consequently,
most if not all insurance companies would consider a request for a bond a very high risk. Therefore,
potential applicants may be denied a license merely because he/she is not a millionaire. The prompting
by MMP to have a medical director on the staff of each dispensary is not necessarily a bad idea.
Unfortunately, AZDHS, at the urging of MPP has taken the Medical Directors position to place where no
Doctor will go thereby making it impossible to comply with this rule, unless you are wealthy enough to
afford a full time Doctor on your staff. A medical director retained to provide assistance in developing
the medical aspects of the program for a Dispensary is a welcomed idea; however, to have the Medical
Director interact with patients or develop any materials for use by patients could be considered
interference in a patient-physician relationship. All qualified patients of a dispensary must have a
recommending, primary doctor to obtain their registration card. Any log books, rating scales, or
guidelines for patient’s self-assessment, as set forth in AZDHS proposed rule R9-17-310-2, may create a
conflict of interest for the medical Director. This again plays into the main scheme of MPP. We are
deeply concerned about the AZDHS’s plans concerning the selection process. As you will note AZDHS’s
proposed rules are silent on this matter. On October 29th 2010, Director Humble wrote on his blog,
(Copy Attached EXHIBIT E), that he had three choices before him, He asserted that method 3, (
Evaluate the complete application using some kind of objective criteria), is probably the best because
we’d be able to select the best qualified applicants. Humble went on to say, “ An Interesting twist on
method 3 would be to send the completed (And blindfolded) applications to a 3rd party (e.g. a
consulting law firm) and ask them to score the applications for us. It is perhaps more than coincidence
that just prior to that Blog entry, MPP sent AZDHS a proposal to use their new Association (AMMA) as an
Application Review Board. (SEE EXHIBIT F ). This is the most outrageous conflict of interest we have
ever heard of. A group of weathly potential dispensary owners, reviewing their own applications! We
demand that AZDHS immediately disclose their selection process. We further suggest, in fairness,
and in compliance with AZDHS proposed rule R9-17-319, a, 2, g, that any member of the MPP
roundtable be excluded from consideration of a dispensary license. We would further ask
that Director Humble make a full public disclosure as to whether or not any member of AZDHS has had
any contact with MPP, AMMA or any representative or agent of said organizations. As most people
know, MPP staff actually wrote Prop 203, now the Arizona Medical marijuana Act. Title 36. What most
were not aware of is the fact that under section 6 of Title 36, AZDHS compliance under A.R.S 41-1001
is waived. Title 41, The Regulatory Bill of Rights, is an Arizona law to ensure fair and open regulation
by state agencies, limiting a state agencies rule making ability to subject matter listed in the specific
statute and provides for citizens right to file a complaint with the States Administrative Rules Oversight
Committee. Any reasonable person would have to cast a sinister eye on MPPS reasoning in exempting
AZDHS from compliance with these provisions. This exemption eliminates the public’s ability to object to
the abusive behavior of the AZDHS. Point by Point Objection to AZDHS Proposed Rules:
until such time as there is evidence of fraud. 3. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rule making be
implemented “without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries….” 4.
ARS 28.1 Section 2 “Findings” of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take
notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana.
Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike
marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices are not required to
have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video surveillance, residency requirements for
principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the
department. 5. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing,
open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. 6. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable
and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The
physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. 7. R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-
17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-
17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp
care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). 8. R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7,
R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
9. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients’ parents, and their caregivers suffer
caregivers without internet skills or internet access. 10. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and
may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living.
11. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of
Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical
conditions during two months of every year. 12. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine.
13. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to
choose other providers or sources of information 14. R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-
204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and
unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no
additional fingerprints need to be submitted. 15. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and
unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing errors. Revocation of a card
should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. 16. R9-17-
302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c),
R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-
307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary,
unreasonable and usurp authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona
or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another
dispensary or caregivers. 17. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no
authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice.
18. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This
aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. 19. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps
department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of
weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. 20. R9-17-314.B.2 is
Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has
no authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk. 21. R9-17-315 is
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue
burden by requiring security practices to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not required
for toxic, even lethal, products. 22. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse. ADDITIONAL
RECOMMEDATIONS: 23. SURETY BOND: Clarify the purpose, the type, the amount and the third
party beneficiary, of the surety bond, or eliminate its reference from the rules. 24. NON-PROFIT
ENTITY: Clarify the need to establish a non-profit entity. Title 36 only requires an applicant to operate
the dispensary under a non-profit “basis”. Can an applicant establish a LLC or other entity so long as
his/her bylaws comply with Title 36? 25. 70% COOPERATIVE GROW: Clarify if a group of
dispensaries can form a cooperative to grow their medical marijuana under one roof, so long as the
facility is in compliance with Title 36 and the AZDHS rules. 26. SEEDS: Please clarify where a
dispensary owner can purchase his initial seeds. 27. LANDLORD RIGHTS: Please clarify landlord
rights with respect to entry and inspection of a dispensary/ cultivation facility. (Assuming the landlord is
not a registered agent of the Dispensary). Additionally, please clarify access by a repair service to enter
upon the restricted areas of a dispensary/cultivation to make necessary repairs. 28. TWO STAGE
APPLICATION PROCESS: R9-17-302 Applying for Dispensary Registration Certification; we believe the
proposed rules regarding the application process are inherently unfair and favor the wealthy. The
average person who may otherwise qualify would be reluctant to invest hundreds of thousands of
dollars in a dispensary application without knowing if they will get a license. In order to equalize the
application process we believe AZDHS should adopt a two stage application process as follows:
Review the principals and legal entity first. Perform whatever background checks AZDHS desires,
including FBI and all the other requirements as set forth in the proposed rules relevant to the principals
and legal entities. Issue a conditional License to the 125 most qualified individuals subject to approval
of the facilities. ( dispensary and cultivation sites) The conditional license would require that the
applicant to complete the build-out and/or construction of the facilities within 90-120 days.
Thereafter, the conditionally approved applicant would submit the second half of his application (
Facilities) for inspection and approval. The second half of the application must meet all the
requirements of the proposed rules relevant to the facilities. Provided the applicant meets all the
facility requirements he/she would then be issued a Dispensary Registration Certificate This system
allows for fairness across all demographic and financial groups. It would not preclude individuals simply
because they are not millionaires, and would allow those that are chosen to obtain the financing they
need to complete the project. Fairness and transparency requires AZDHS to adopt this application
process or similar one. IN CONCLUSION: Taken in totality, it appears
that AZDHS is working in collusion with MMP to make this application process as difficult as possible,
beyond what is fair and reasonable. What was alleged to be “fair and transparent”, has now become
biased and opaque, demanding a comprehensive review and explanation. The sole agenda
of AZADPs is to assure the success of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. To bring the dispensaries out
of the dark corner of society into the main stream of America. We understand that to accomplish that
we need to change the image, we need to exceed the highest standards, and we need to conduct
ourselves and our businesses with the utmost professionalism, always in full compliance with the law.
While you allege that “nobody outside the department is involved in the development of your informal
draft rules”, it appears that is not correct. The fact remains you may not know if MPP is communicating
with your underlings. The answer to your problem is to embrace ALL these organizations rather than
create the illusion that you are NOT being influenced by some. You may want to establish a round
table of your own, invite all the organizations, associations and industry leaders in Arizona including
MPP, to offer and exchange ideas. That way nobody feels left out, and you perhaps may even learn a
few things. We would welcome the opportunity to assist you in organizing a round
table of industry, leaders. In the alternative we hope you will make a full disclosure of your involvement
with MPP. Sincerely, once again, i have
to agree with what has been addressed here. your intentions were good, but the consequences were
not well thought out. if these members of your committee who helped you draft the rules are given
licences, there's a definate conflict of interest, if not collusion. i think he's making the point that the
collusion would be in the actual rules, gearing this to exclude wealthy or experienced to be included for
considersation is not fair. this should be considered as an open market, not tailored to more affluent or
experienced contenders. if a dispensary fails, it's not the state's problem. in light of how your
expertise has been obtained, you're now treading on thin ice. why didn't you seek advice from other
states agencies for help with drafting rules and the problems they've encountered? Why is there only a
two year residency requirement? two years is obviously convenient for outside markets making a
presence here when the petitions first started, two years ago. make it at least three years, i'd love to
see a five year residency requirement, so citizens know we're not going to accomodate some of the
members of your counsel and outsiders, and promote arizona citizens to create business. remember,
these states are boycotting our state over sb 1070, and their residents and businesses do not deserve
this opportunity. keep it local. please rethink some of the conditions of this draft to avoid problems.
make it fair. the little guy should be fair game if willing to play by the rules. Everyone should have a
fair chance, and the violators get closed down. all these rules mean nothing without the regulators.
this is not the smartest business for people to get into to begin with. never mind the social non
exceptance, but the IRS allows no tax deductions for an illegal product business and, are going to be
subject to IRS audits if successful. all doctors should be able to write prescriptions. the language now
makes it seem that only doctors would be opening dispensaries in a sense. and you're hurting the
patient by having to switch drs. this is wrong. why not have a public hearing with all interested before
the final draft is completed?
Page 4, number 16: definition of "ongoing" physician-patient relationship is excessively restrictive, to the
point of being crippling for a high percentage of patients. Under subsection 16.a, only the patient's
primary care provider (PCP) will qualify to meet the 1 year, minimum 4 prior visits for the debilitating
condition. If a patient's PCP does not believe or want to recommend medical marijuana, the patient is
out of luck and will have to forgo a potentially beneficial treatment, or purchase the marijuana off the
street from a drug pusher. Under subsection 16.b, only the patient's specialist will be able to
recommend medical marijuana. Cancer is the domain of oncologists, glaucoma of ophthalmologist, HIV
and AIDS of infectious disease specialists, Crohn's disease and Hep C of gastroenterologists, MS, ALS
and seizure disorders of neurologist. This may result in non-specialist taking over the care that should
be reserved for specialists, resulting in a lower quality of care. Personally, as both a cancer and hep C
patient whose onclolgy and hepatology doctors are not willing to recommend medical marijuana, should
I ever find it necessary, I would be out of luck and would have to go find new doctors who are willing to
make a medical recommendation for medical marijuana. This is not only unfair, it will disrupt ongoing
patient-physician relationships and possibly exclude the majority of patients who otherwise would qualify
for medical marijuana. Any patient who receives their care from the Veteran's Administration would
have no access other than to purchase pot illegally under the current rule.
I don't understand why you have to see a doctor in Arizona for an "ongoing" medical condition. The
requirements seem a bit rash. Not every doctor is going to agree to recommend cannabis to their
patients, even if there patients have legitimate claim. About less than half of doctors in Arizona will be
willing to put their license on the line for their patients/agree with medical marijuana. maybe less than
that, because thats about the ratio of doctors that agree with it in California. Usually "pot docs" are
specialists, that leave their field/or use their prior field of expertise to evaluate medical marijuana
patients. How does any patient know their doctor will prescribe them cannabis unless the physician has
advertised himself as a pot doc? This is why I think the law about having a medical condition with the
same doctor, and four visits is rash. There needs to be verification of a chronic condition through a
M.D., but some people will be left in the cracks for a year if you write the draft this way. Also, how are
the cultivation sites supposed to be up and running if pot isn't technically legal in Arizona, yet? Doesn't
this requirement give an advantage to criminals who are already running illegal grow operations. How is
the cannabis supposed to be available for the dispensaries to open? I'm unclear of how this is supposed
to work after reading the draft. I live in California, and am a medical marijuana patient. I also attended
Oaksterdam University, cannabis college, so I know a lot about the laws about dispensaries in California.
Most pot docs in California suggest growing your own medicine, so you know whats going in to it. So, I
don't think there should be a limitation for small personal grow operations for medical marijuana
patients. California supreme court ruled that SB 420 (put limits on cannabis amounts) was
unconsitutional, since the law can't tell you how much medicine you can have. That should be up to you
and your doctors discrection and advise. 99 plants and 3 pounds should be the limit. Thats the
Humboldt County limit, and general limit for California patients. However, without a 420 SB expemption
from your doctor you can only grow 6 plants and have a half pound. Why do you have to have driver's
license issued before 1996? That means you can't get a card if you are younger than 30
approximately?An Arizona Driver's License should be sufficient, or an ID card from the State.
ARS 28.1 Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take
department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open
above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and
may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-
during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying
patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-
202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose
other providers or sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii ,
R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and
additional fingerprints need to be submitted. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and
should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-
dispensary or caregivers. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician's professional
practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This
aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of
each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary,
authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary,
Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by
requiring security practices to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic,
even lethal, products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse. A patient must pay $150 each year for an
identification card, and a designated caregiver, $200. There does not appear to be a sliding scale or
lower cost card available for low-income patients, as most other states have. We suggest reducing the
fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid benefits. A dispensary may provide only 30% of its
cultivated marijuana to other registered dispensaries and may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana
supply from other registered dispensaries. This is very problematic and not in the best interests of
patients, as it will likely create acute shortages in rural areas and drive costs up. Those patients within
25 miles of a rural dispensary unable to meet demand will have no secondary option for safe access to
their medicine. Please submit comments asking DHS to create an open wholesale relationship between
dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients,
and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to meet demand. A patient’s
Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient for the debilitating medical condition for
at least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for the care of
the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history, conducting a comprehensive exam,
and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than in most of the medical marijuana states,
but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a demonstrable debilitating medical
condition from getting a written certification. It may make it impossible for some veterans to qualify,
because Veterans Administration Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations
1. To eliminate unscrupulous doctors abandoning legitimate practices, in lieu of specializing in providing

marijuana cards or becoming full-time out-of-control “Pot Docs” as experienced in other medical
marijuana states; The following language should be stricken from the rules: " OR -Has assumed
primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient's debilitating
medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including
a personal review of the qualifying patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians that
may include the qualifying patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies: R9-17-
101 (16) (b) R9-17-202 (G)(13)(e)(i)(2) . R9-17-204(A)(e)(ii) R9-17-204(B)(4)(f)(2)
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse.
Two suggestions are: 1. Marijuana dispensaries should only be allowed to dispense marijuana in
foods. Raw marijuana and marijuana to smoke is loaded with carcinogenic chemicals and toxic metals.
This should not be allowed. 2. Doctors who dispense marijuana should be limited to about 50 patients
only. The reason is that in other states, a handful of doctors make all their money dispensing
prescriptions for marijuana. This amounts to abuse and should not be permitted. Thank you.
I think the draft rules can be improved by removing the fees for changing the location of a dispensary
and a dispensary's cultivation site. Changing the fee for a qualifying patients registry identification card
and renewing a qualifying patients registry identification card from $150 to $50 or less. Allowing a
doctor to determine from patient/doctor relations what is and is not a debilitating condition for the
patient disregarding any other necessary proof of such or a required time establishment of a
doctor/patient relationship, however, documented to prove patients improvement in condition.
Removing all possibility of public comment on a patients particular request in regards to adding a
debilitating medical condition. Removing the requirement for such an extensive electronic monitoring
system and the granting of remote access to a dispensary's electronic monitoring system. The
minimum amount a dispensary must cultivate reduced from 70% to 30% with an allowable 70% to
come from a dispensary's cultivation site. Allowing a medical director or medical directors to
determine for themselves how many dispensaries they are able to effectively cover.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
regulations. If you are happy with such an outcome, do nothing. If you want to reduce your
suffering and your costs, you must speak out now and also at the public meetings I have listed below.
The good news: As best I can tell, the AzDHS does NOT have the authority to enact the cruel and
unreasonable package of regulations they propose. Obviously, I am not an attorney, so we are soliciting
the input of qualified attorneys. Because I am a physician, I am restricting my comments here to the
matter of patient-physician relationship. Others with expertise in dispensary and caregiver matters will
share similar analysis and commentary concerning the draft regulations for dispensaries and caregivers.
I have attached the AzDHS Timeline
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse.
I AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING: ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the
Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit
medical marijuana dispensaries...." ARS 28.1 Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and
physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video
surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable
regulations proposed by the department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot
high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-
101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the involvement of
naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-
application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-
203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS
36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of
location or amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-
204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients'
parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or no
provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2)
is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions
that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of
daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety,
their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only
allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list
of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply
of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients'
rights to choose other providers or sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-
17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary
and unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no
additional fingerprints need to be submitted. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and
authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician's professional practice.
burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or
aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary,
authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary,
even lethal, products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
and compression of nerves from fibrosis 3. Chronic inflammations that are all to often with lymphedema
4. Cellulitis, lymphangitis and other infections 5. Over exertion of areas of the body as it attempts to
cope with the excess strain and weight over an oversized limb 6. Wounds and those weeping sores we
all get from time to time
Define the plant better. Example seedlings are not a mature product, would not be of any use as
medicine. I like to view it as an apple tree, only the fruit when it is mature is of value to human
consumption. With the marijuana plant the bud is the usable medical fruit, must be mature and have
THC crystals for medical potency. Let those with medical cards, and valid reasons grow their own
medical plants. Some of us can not obtain our medicine through a dispensary. I have seen patients with
Oregon medical marijuana cards that could not get out of bed they were so sick. Terminal cancer,
wasting syndrome, blindness, ect... Each patient should be able to smoke, eat, or ingest the marijuana
through the managment of their own physician. How can a dispensary worker perscribe what is the right
treatment for a cardholder without totally knowing the persons medical condition? That should be up to
the physician! Also know that most growers do not start with seeds, they use clone's, these are cutting
from mature female plants. This method insures that you are using the same strain, the plants will be
female, and your chance of succesful grow results are better.
Stop making asinine rules to please the "NO" voters. They lost... Don't interfere with the doctor
patient relationship. Specialists can't be required to be each patients primary doctor. Don't require
more security than a standard doctor's office is required to have, that stocks opiate pain medication.
Cannabis is safe and impossible to overdose on, opiates can be deadly. Criminals like to steal opiates
just as much as Cannabis. AZDHS is opening up the state to countless, very expensive lawsuits with
these horribly restrictive rules. I think the fine state of Arizona can find better things to spend it's tax
dollars on.
I read news today that ADHS has an arrangement with one of the rich prospective dispensary
companies. If this is true I am deeply disappointed. My hope is that marijuana will be able to be grown
by dispensaries at a low cost where there is fair competition among all potential dispensary owners.
Marijuana prices need to be low for the handicapped. An 8 foot fence is unnecessary. A Dr. on call for a
dispensary is absurd. These will drive up the costs for the disabled consumer. Please keep costs down.
Please have lower fees for the patient. Please make it so a patient can see any doctor for the yearly
medical marijuana recommendation. If the doctor is writing bogus recommendations, fine the doctor but
don't make it hard for the patient. You can go undercover if you believe a doctor is writing bad
recommendations.
Modifying the 70%/30% growing terminology. It seems counter-productive to have 124 dispensaries
having to grow most of their own product. There already exists a number of qualified growers who
would/could produce reproducible, high quality product. They could be required to associate & supply
100% to a given dispensary, but be able to sell excess to other dispensaries.
A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered dispensaries and may
acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered dispensaries. This is very
problematic and not in the best interests of patients, as it will likely create acute shortages in rural areas
and drive costs up. Those patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary unable to meet demand will
have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. I would like DHS to create an open
wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy
access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to
meet demand. Additionally, we are looking into offering a Dispensary only facility and purchasing all
medicine from other growers/ Dispensaries. This model works very well for Harborside Health Center in
Oakland CA. From what we understand, it is one of the premier facilities in the United States. A
patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient for the debilitating medical
condition for at least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for
the care of the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history, conducting a
comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than in most of the
medical marijuana states, but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a
demonstrable debilitating medical condition from getting a written certification. It may make it
recommendations. Will a Dispensary be required to have a lease on a proposed location prior to
receiving certification, or will a LOI with a Landlord suffice? Also, is there a square footage requirement
of the maximum allowable size of a Dispensary, or is this up to each Licensee?
Overall, the draft seems overly concerned on imposing restrictions. This limits the ability of qualifying
patients to acquire effective medication. Also, it appears that the rules do not respect the professional
opinion of doctors who would choose to recommend cannabis to their qualified patients. Specifically,
this can be improved by eliminating the requirement that a patient be in the primary care of the
recommending physician for one year. This needs to be eliminated because patients are sometimes in
the care of multiple physicians. While it is the patient's responsibility to discuss any medications they
are taking with each of their physicians (in order to prevent prescribing drugs that may cause harmful
drug-drug interactions), each physician should be respected under the law to make a recommendation if
they feel it is necessary. Additionally, the one year requirement ensures that qualified patients will have
to endure otherwise avoidable suffering in order to fulfill a bureaucratic requirement. Again, though a
physician may feel that a recommendation for cannabis would benefit their patient, they would be
hamstrung by an arbitrary rule. In short, if a physician is to be allowed to recommend cannabis to
his/her patient, that recommendation should be able to be made solely at the discretion of the
recommending physician and not subject to arbitrary rules that are inconsistent with a doctors ability to
prescribe other medications that often are addictive, toxic, or both. Finally, the requirement that a
patient see their recommending physician at least four times during the course of the one year
requirement will impose an unfair burden on low-income patients. Strike all references to the one
year, four visit requirement from the rules in order to improve this draft. I suspect that failure to do so
will precipitate legal action from interested parties against DHS in order to solve this matter through the
courts.
More explanation needs to be given to what a NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES is

exactly. The word non-profit is not explained enough.
Section 6 - the AZDHS waives title 41. This appears to have only sinister motivation. This is not a
reasonable clause. I urge title 41 to be complied with
The application selection process is unclear. The hope is that the department provides licences to the
most viable submissions. The best applications not just first come first serve or lottery. This opens the
door to applicants that should not be involved for whatever reason. I hope the department clarifies this
based again on best applicants not only on complete applicant applications. Lets get this right to
begin with!
R9-17-202 e.i. A one year relationship is a loop hole to push back the time it takes to get medical
marijuna to over a year starting from april/2011 so by april of 2012 a person would then qualify. by then
it is time to vote again.. This is not a good rule unless your against the M.M. law
One year relatitionship with your Doctor is not right. You can not change Doctors and qualify, If a
Doctor leaves the area you then do not qualify, I have had a diagnoasis for 3+ years. I have not had the
same Doctor for a year. They either leave, or I feel they are not doing there job.so I change Doctors, as
allowed by ahcccs.I feel a Doctor should know weather a person needs it or not.Period..He has all the
records about the patent. I feel this needs to be changed to any licenced Doctor in Arizona,other wise
you do not trust the Arizona Doctors.
has made two excellent recommendations, which I support: "1.

Marijuana dispensaries may only dispense marijuana in food, in capsules or as suppositories, but never
in its raw form or in any other form that can be smoked. Marijuana smoke contains dozens of
carcinogens and research links pot-smoking to several types of cancer and respiratory problems. An
extensive description of the research can be found at my website, http://edgogek.com. 2. Doctors
who recommend medical marijuana can have no more than 30 active medical marijuana patients at a
time. This is the same as the rule for buprenorphine. The reason for this rule is that, in other states,
almost all the marijuana is recommended by a handful of doctors who set up marijuana practices and
earn their living handing our recommendations to anyone who pays their fee. A 30-patient limit will stop
these pot doctors. "
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse.
R-17-101.16, R9-17-101.17, R 9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii, R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I,R9-17-

202.G.13(e)iii,R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are
cruel, Arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the Dept. Those sections violate the 1998
AZ voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801.18(b) defines an ascessment, singular, as sufficient. The AMM
Act does not give the dept authority and the 1998 AVP Act denies the dept the dept authority to require
multiple assessments, require "on going care", or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less
promulgate a relationship among patient, phsician and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of
medicne. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patients
care. Nowhere else else in the practice of medicine does AZ require a one-year relationship or multiple
visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly
outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the dept usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable
stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and
arbitrary for the dept to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care cancer, HIV/AIDS,ALS,
MS, Hepatitis C and other potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannable specialist mat not
have the requiste training or experience to do so. The dept regulations are cruel, unreasonable, and
arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients rights of choice, including their rights to choose
other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even choose not to seek (or cannot
afford yo seek) other medical care at all. (whether prior or subsequent to application).
The state proposes to charge patients $150 for a medical marijuana card, and caregivers $200,
annually. For a patient who cannot travel and whose spouse is the caregiver, this amounts to $350 a
year. Add to this the substantial cost of the medicine itself and you end up with a law that fails to serve
the public as it was intended. The public interest demands that these charges be significantly reduced
especially for stage IV cancer patients as they are in critical need. Otherwise many cancer
patient/caregiver couples will be forced to choose between eating or having a medicine that has been
shown to actually fight cancer along with improving the lives of cancer patients.
Trash them and start over again. Treat this exactly like you would any other new drug that comes on
the market for patient use as prescribed by a doctor.
The fees for changing locations is way too high. This is likely to happen frequently for many reasons at
first. These fees should cover paperwork costs only. There needs to be a method of appeal for any
and all refusals and non-conformance. A complaint system needs to be designed and implemented
90 days time-frame for applying and changing locations for dispensaries seems excessive - how about
45 days overall, 15 days for administrative completeness and 30 days for review (or vice-versa).
Chronic and debilitating anxiety or depression needs to be included in the debilitating disease section.
There needs to be provisions for temporary substitute caregivers. There are many reasons why a
caregiver may need to be absent for a short period of time (up to 30 days) R9-17-302 B-1-f-ii through
vii Information about these issues of an applicant is irrelevant and an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
R9-17-302 B-1-g A dispensary does not need a medical director. There are 2 kinds of information that
a patient needs. 1. They need to know if MM can help them and ease the suffering and pain and if so,
what are the side effects of the various methods of ingestion. This kind of educational information
should be explained by the prescribing physician. 2. The patient needs to know the relative effects of
the specific strain of MM that is available at the dispensary. This is the only information that a
dispensary should have the authority to convey. R9-17-302 B-3-c-i Social Security cards should
not be used for identification purposes Video cameras should not be mandatory - you are going to
scare away patients and they do not provide any real security. Panic buttons should not be mandatory
Provide the locations of natural and artificial lighting???? this is going way too far. You are being
excessively intrusive The dispensary's by-laws containing provisions for the disposition of revenues
and receipts. Again - useless and invasive information that will probably be incorrect after the first week
of real world operations. Why are you increasing your workload and decreasing efficiency? A business
plan demonstrating the on-going viability of the dispensary as a non-profit organization;. See the above
paragraph. With the current restrictions on facility sizes, the requirement to grow 70% of the MM sold
is not reasonable. A patient being required to buy all the MM they use if they live within 25 miles of a
dispensary is not reasonable. MM is not covered by any insurance. Dispensaries do not carry all strains
and types of MM. There are many patients who must consume 4+ ounces a week. Even at the
cheapest rates, this comes out to $5000 per month or more. 25 miles can be a long long distance when
you can't drive and MM is not allowed on public transportation. Patients should have the choice of
buying and/or growing. The 5 ounce per month limit is ridiculously low for many patients. Patients
who must consume their medicine internally must consume many times the amount that a smoker
needs, up to the equivalent of 2 ounces per day in edibles or oils. There needs to be provisions for
easily attainable exceptions as recommended by the physician. R9-17-306 Inspections B. A
dispensary shall provide the Department with authorized remote access to the dispensary's electronic
monitoring system. - A warrant-less intrusion and an invasion of the privacy of patients and staff. Do
you have access to the electronic monitoring systems of pharmacies and doctors offices? No - you do
not and you should not have access to these systems either. R9-17-307.A.1 b. Business records,
including manual or computerized records of assets and liabilities, monetary transactions, journals,
ledgers, and supporting documents, including agreements, checks, invoices, and vouchers; - Again, a
warrant-less intrusion and an impediment to business. The Department of health has no use for this
information and keeping the information private and secure is a risk to the business and to the
Department of Health - an invitation to law suits. R9-17-307.A.1.e - this section is needlessly
complicated and open to any interpretation of anyone who reads it. Pharmacies are not required to
track patients at this level and dispensaries should not be so required. R9-17-307.A.3 - This single
requirement will keep more dispensaries from opening than any other regulation described here.
Doctors are VERY expensive and a doctor, under the rules laid out here, can only be a medical director
for 3 dispensaries. No doctor in his right mind is going to deliberately open himself up to the kinds of
malpractice suits that this requirement will generate. Requiring this section will also open the
Department of Health to the sue happy lawyers that are going to jump all over this. As a taxpayer, I do
not want to have to pay for the resulting court battles. A dispensary does not need a medical director.
There are 2 kinds of information that a patient needs. 1. They need to know if MM can help them and
ease the suffering and pain and if so, what are the side effects of the various methods of ingestion.
This kind of educational information should only be explained by the prescribing physician. 2. The
patient needs to know the relative effects of the specific strain of MM that is available at the dispensary.
This is the only information that a dispensary should have the authority to convey. R9-17-307.C -
With the cities trying to regulate dispensaries out of existence and restricting growing space to
ridiculously small spaces, the 70% rule is not reasonable. No dispensary with more than a few dozen
patients can possibly grow enough medicine to properly support the patient's needs. R9-17-310. -
This single requirement will keep more dispensaries from opening than any other regulation described
here. Doctors are VERY expensive and a doctor, under the rules laid out here, can only be a medical
director for 3 dispensaries. No doctor in his right mind is going to deliberately open himself up to the
kinds of malpractice suits that this requirement will generate. Requiring this section will also open the
Department of Health to the sue happy lawyers that are going to jump all over this. As a taxpayer, I do
not want to have to pay for the resulting court battles. A dispensary does not need a medical director.
There are 2 kinds of information that a patient needs. 1. They need to know if MM can help them and
ease the suffering and pain and if so, what are the side effects of the various methods of ingestion.
This kind of educational information should only be explained by the prescribing physician. 2. The
patient needs to know the relative effects of the specific strain of MM that is available at the dispensary.
This is the only information that a dispensary should have the authority to convey. R9-17-312. - If I
were a patient, this section would strike me as Big Brother raised to the highest level of deliberate
interference and over-control. I can't think of a single reason for gathering the enormous amount of
information you are asking for, except maybe to compile a list of people to arrest at some later date.
The only piece of information that makes any sense is the verification of a person's identity and
registration card. R9-17-315.C - This is ludicrously invasive and obtrusive. It is deeply offensive.
None of this section should be mandatory. Business people will protect their business as necessary -
you do not need nor should you have the authority to over-control a legitimate business. R9-17-
319.B - Over controlling again. These requirements have nothing to do with the proper administration
of a business. As a general comment on the many documents and items of private and sensitive
information that the Department of Health is requiring from law-abiding citizens. How and where is this
information stockpiled. What security methods are being used to prevent un-authorized access and
what methods are being used to insure that this information is not abused. What guarantees are you
issuing to ensure patient confidentiality and the safety of the dispensary workers and to the businesses
involved. I don't know why you still think of these dispensaries as drug pushers and patients as
illegal drug addicts but it is glaringly obvious that you do consider them as such. These patients are
people who are in great amounts of pain and discomfort. They need relief from these symptoms, not
deliberate hindrance, red tape, intrusive behavior and the attitude that this stuff is something that you
should be sneaking out behind the garage to do. Taken as individual requirements, the draft rules, for
the most part can be logically be posited to be applicable. Taken as a whole however, they provide an
excuse to deny pain relief and surcease of suffering to thousands of good people. Dispensaries are
legitimate businesses and should be treated as such. These establishments are very close to
pharmacies and should be run and regulated similarly. The over-regulation that is put forth by these
draft rules will guarantee that the only entities that are capable of running a dispensary are the big
corporations and drug lords from south of the border. It also invites corruption and bribery. The costs
and obtrusive regulations required by this draft is such that good business people of high morals and
good will are excluded from involvement in this endeavor to help relieve the suffering of many, many
persons. The only entities able to comply and who also have the monetary resources are big corporate
and drug lords. These are the last people we want in charge of any of this. As you know, Over-
regulation is an open invitation to corruption, both in the private sectors and for the government
overseers. I wonder why you are deliberately constructing such a scenario.
Marijauna smoking should be limited to places where cigarette smoking is allowed. Marijuana smoke
has the same cancer causing tars as cigarettes. Public employees should not be allowed to smoke
marijuana as it may impair their judgement and there is no way to measure that. Physicians should be
limited to the number of patients for whom they are recommending marijuana so it doesn't appear a
physician is making a practice of being a prescriber.
The draft rules can be improved by simply following the law as stated in prop 203 ARS 36-2803.4 of
the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking
be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries...." As written
the rules are placing undue burden on the dispensaries and on the patients themselves.
Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C, and ALS patients often do not have 1 year to live. The patients that do live
are cruelly being told to change doctors or suffer for 1 year. How can the draft rules be improved?
REMOVE THIS CRUEL 1 YEAR, 4 VISIT RULE
See below section of what has been left out
ARS 36-2803.4 of the AMM Act requires that the ADHS rule making be "without imposing an undue
burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries". ARS 28.1 Section 2 "findings" of the AMM Act
requires the Dept to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of
medical marijunana. AZ pharmacies and phsician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs
that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet AZ pharmacies and physician offices are not required
to have 12 foot walls, constant on site transmission of video surveillance, residency requirements for
principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the dept. R
9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden, 9 foot high chain link fencing, open above,
constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17 101.15 is unreasonable and usurps
authority denied to the dept, It violates the 1998 AZ Voter Protection Act. The dept does not have the
authority to deny the involvement of naturopathic and homopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-
2806.12.
Selection of Doctors who will Prescribe Medical Marijuana. I can tell you as a two time breast cancer
survivor my doctors would never prescribe it even though they know it works because they are afraid of
the DEA contracts they have signed. They would lose their license to practice. Therefore, we should
have doctors who SPECIALIZE in Medical Marijuana and fully understand the dosages, edible versus
smoke, etc. They would be protected by the State to ensure their licenses would NOT be in jeapardy. I
am not in favor of requriing these potential dispensaries to secure leases, buildings, and be set up ready
FOR INSPECTION BEFORE the application is approved. Please explain why this is? Isn't a legitimate
corporation licensed with the State of Arizona and a business plan provide sufficient documentation (as
well as required documentation on principal officers, etc.) versus forcing me as a potential dispensary
owner to commit to a lease, hire employees, perform build-out or tenant improvements, all before
knowing if we are approved?
The law is discriminatory regarding the rules and regulations related to prescribing and dispensing of
medical marijuana. This law as is, is cruel and unusual and contradicts even the states regulations in the
prescribing narcotics and other controlled substances. The individual needing medical marijuana will be
jumping through "hoops" creating an atmosphere of frustration and discrimination in regards to this
population. It is the intent of this law to alleviate symptoms that are difficult to control and manage. The
law now creates a new set of problems and difficulties in obtaining the ability to receive medical
marijuaa. These problems may lead those who want and need the medicine to pursue a prescription
by the same means as before this law was inacted. We do not need illegal providers coming to the
rescue of those patients who are denied a prescription unfairly or those who are unable to navigate the
stringent and discriminatory system that is difficult for the average Arizonans capacity to understand the
rules or figure out the particulars. Primary care physician rules are ludicrous and need to be changed as
to accomodate those seeing specialists etc. The rule of seeing a physician at least 3 or 4 times a year is
discriminatory and is not necessary since there are not other medications that have the same rules. One
can obtain a drug from a licenced doctor in one visit when deemed appropriate. The provisions of the
act are discriminating against patients such as military personnel suffering grief, PTSD and other
disorders both mental and physical that effect the quality of one's life. Must one attempt suicide rather
than be precribed a medication which may enhance or improve quality of life? This most definately
defeats the intent of this law. Again, these abusive and unfair regulations will lead to illegal activity that
is prevalent in our state. One can buy liquor at anytime and almost anywhere and go out and drive
drunk and kill people or themselves. Although this does not actually pertain to the law at hand but it
highlights the upsurdity in most of the language in this law.
The law is discriminatory regarding the rules and regulations related to prescribing and dispensing of
medical marijuana. This law as is, is cruel and unusual and contradicts even the states regulations in the
prescribing narcotics and other controlled substances. The individual needing medical marijuana will be
jumping through "hoops" creating an atmosphere of frustration and discrimination in regards to this
population. It is the intent of this law to alleviate symptoms that are difficult to control and manage. The
law now creates a new set of problems and difficulties in obtaining the ability to receive medical
marijuaa. These problems may lead those who want and need the medicine to pursue a prescription
by the same means as before this law was inacted. We do not need illegal providers coming to the
rescue of those patients who are denied a prescription unfairly or those who are unable to navigate the
stringent and discriminatory system that is difficult for the average Arizonans capacity to understand the
rules or figure out the particulars. Primary care physician rules are ludicrous and need to be changed as
to accomodate those seeing specialists etc. The rule of seeing a physician at least 3 or 4 times a year is
discriminatory and is not necessary since there are not other medications that have the same rules. One
can obtain a drug from a licenced doctor in one visit when deemed appropriate. The provisions of the
act are discriminating against patients such as military personnel suffering grief, PTSD and other
disorders both mental and physical that effect the quality of one's life. Must one attempt suicide rather
than be precribed a medication which may enhance or improve quality of life? This most definately
defeats the intent of this law. Again, these abusive and unfair regulations will lead to illegal activity that
is prevalent in our state. One can buy liquor at anytime and almost anywhere and go out and drive
drunk and kill people or themselves. Although this does not actually pertain to the law at hand but it
highlights the upsurdity in most of the language in this law.
There is No mention of the Limit of Dispensaries that will be issued to one particular group and/or
individual. Californians are expecting to monopolize Arizona since they have big bucks.
The response just filed by the Arizona Association of Dispenary Professionals says it all. This process
has been designed to obstruct all but the most wealthy applicant. It appears to be rife with collusion
between the AZDHS and the MPP and their agents. There is no transparency to the process. Fees
are outrageous and non refundable
1.Restrict the number of applications for dispensaries to one applicant per person or persons, that way
big monies, i.e. corporations cannot apply for multiple applications in multiple cities. Also restrict
applicant's for dispensaries to be limited to the city they reside in. 2. (Draft Rules R9-17 –102 – Prop
203 –36-2803) The dispensary registration fee of $5,000 is way too much not to be refundable:
remember this is non-profit. Why don't you have an application fee of $1,000.00 upon approval an
additional $4,000.00 will be required and if denied the $1,000.00 is non-refundable; that sounds more
reasonable? 3. (Regarding A Dispensary Administration- Draft rules - Page 34 –Paragraph C 1 thru 5-
R9-17-307) The draft rules states a dispensary must cultivate at least 70% of its Medical Marijuana. The
other 30% may be acquired from another dispensary. This is great however its going to take at least
four to seven months to even have any medical marijuana ready for medical distribution due to growing
time and depending on medical strains such Sativa and Indica whether growing indoors or out.
Regarding the 12 plant limit as stated in the rules; you will need 12 plants in the flowering stage, 12
plants in the vegetation stage in order to keep up with the medical demand and 12 plants in the
cloning stage to assure the same quality strain can be duplicated. So the rules should read 36 plants
total with the 3 stages implemented i.e. (12 plants in flowering stage for harvest, 12 plants in vegetation
stage for growing, 12 plant in clone stage from the mother plant to insure same quality) with a total
number being 36 plants in the stages listed above. 4.In Proposition 203- Page 83 – Analysis By
Legislative Council (which is what we voted for) it states under qualifying patient is defined as a person
who has been diagnosed by a physician (a doctor of medicine, osteopathy, naturopathic medicine or
homeopathy. In the draft rules you only list, a doctor of medicine or its successor or a doctor of
osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice. What happened to naturopathic
or homeopathy doctors it seems they were left out of the draft rules? 5. Draft Rules – Definitions R9-
17 –101 item 15 – Medical Director Paragraph A Should be deleted completely as it’s discriminatory
toward patients, we do see the or at the end of paragraph stating or physician assumes primary
responsibility. However Insurance will not allow patient to change providers or MD may not be allowed
to prescribe under their current contract or beliefs. Terminal patients may not have the time to establish
the relationship necessary etc.
Allow for post traumatic stress disorder
The draft rules can be improved by removing certain sections of the draft that appear to be arbitrary
and capricious in its attempt to restrict the freedoms of patients and physicians rights: The following
sections should be removed: R9-17-101(16) , R9-17-101(17), R9-17-202(F)(e,f,g,h).
Our veterans should be eligible for medication, but are not currently issued recommendations by their
physicans. It should be rewritten to allow veterans the ability to qualify. Dispensaries should have
free trade among locations if necessary. This will discourage shortages and price gouging in rural areas
and across the board.
if you are trying to provide and track quality of the medicine, why are you requiring each dispensary to
grow their own and limit what they can sell, this is going to result in 120 mom and pop growers which
will be a lot harder to track than a few well qualified, growers .
The language and format of the draft rules document are a bit cumbersome and could be simplified. It
would be helpful to have a separate page defining all of the Arizona Revised Statutes that are
referenced in the document. Expanding the definitions included, such as adding "divert", "department
provided format". Please clarify whether the 'physician statement' regarding a patient's
recommendation will be a AZDHS provided or a free hand written statement with the required
information. Address the rules and regulations investors or lenders may or may not be subject to.
Remove the timelines for Physician relationships and remove the 25 mile restriction on patient
cultivation. The timelines are unrealistic in the current medical/financial conditions. Most people,
including Physicians, move frequently for various reasons. These moves and other changes interrupt
the relationship timelines through no fault of the patient. The 25 mile cultivation restriction forces
patients to purchase and transport expensive medication from dispensaries that could otherwise be
safely and securely cultivated in a controlled environment. Patients should have the choice to cultivate
their own medication regardless of their location as long as they follow all security regulations. There
are no mileage restrictions on any other medication so there should be none on this medication.
There are zoning requirements being enacted by municipalities, such as the City of Phoenix, that
separate the locations of the mmj cultivation and the mmj dispensary. Perhaps there should be two
different licenses - one for specifically cultivating and harvesting mmj and one for actually dispensing it
to patients.
Please consider allowing a Nurse Practitioner to fulfill the same roles granted to M.D. or D.O. with regard
to medicinal cannabis.
Remove the Patient/Physician timeline requirements.
There are a few ways. The process by which patients get to know their doctor is too difficult. I have
one of those serious conditions, if my primary care physician will not recommend marijuana then I will
have to look to a medical marijuana physician, two visits, not 4 are a reasonable relationship. The fee
for the patient's card - $150 - Is too extreme. Most of these patients are on a limited income. Third,
the 24 hour cameras in the dispensaries violate privacy of the patients. How will this video and these
records be stored and secured. I fear you are regulating this program beyond what is allowedby prop
203. ADHS will cause patients not to particpate in the program and the dispensaries will fail without
sensible regulation. Don't forget, dispensaries, patients, and caregivers already have to deal with local
zoning, ADHS should facilitate this program and use minimal regulations as required by Prop 203.
Leave the definition of ENCLOSED, LOCKED FACILITY" MEANS A CLOSET, ROOM, GREENHOUSE OR
OTHER ENCLOSED AREA EQUIPPED WITH LOCKS OR OTHER SECURITY DEVICES THAT PERMIT
ACCESS ONLY BY A CARDHOLDER alone Allow people to build their own grow area, don't worry,
they'll be secure, until you remove the profit from medical marijuana, it's just worth too much not to.
The draft rules mention that the fee for a qualifying patient is $150. And this registry ID card expires at
some point. I didn't see where it mentions how long the card is good for until it expires. Also, it costs
$150 to renew once it expires. A more clear explanation of this would be helpful. Many of these
individuals will be on SSDI and therefore probably not have an extra $150 lying around. Have you
thought of offering a sliding scale fee based on income levels? Or allowing paying $50 a month for 3
months?
How can you change definitions the people voted on? Like ENCLOSED, LOCKED FACILITY" MEANS A
CLOSET, ROOM, GREENHOUSE OR OTHER ENCLOSED AREA EQUIPPED WITH LOCKS OR OTHER
SECURITY DEVICES THAT PERMIT ACCESS ONLY BY A CARDHOLDER.
Why do you want to require 12' walls, 1" metal gates, and 1/2" metal bars around medical marijuana
grown outdoors, if people can grow in a glass greenhouse? Don't make bad guys break into people
homes and kill them in a home invasion robbery. Remember, marijuana has never killed anyone, you're
requiring more security on marijuana than spray paint, that kills young people all the time.
1) a process for waiver of fees for a qualified patient or caregiver with low or no income. (the
Department makes a provision for no address for the homeless, but makes no provision for fee waiver
for this type of applicant) 2) Although draft rules require licensed dispensaries in Arizona will be to grow
70% of the marijuana sold, there seems to be no rules on where it is cultivated or who exactly does the
cultivation.
Why require a two year AZ residency? Wouldn't one year be sufficient to keep out people who will want
to move to AZ just for this? In addition, what's with the 70% growing rule for dispensaries? This is
going to discourage many from trying as it significantly ups the start up and maintenance costs from a
dispensary alone to a dispensary/grow center. Why not allow dispensaries to contract with AZ growers
for the product?
I am VERY CONCERNED/ OPPOSED TO live-time surveilance piped directly to the Department; this is a
GROSS VIOLATION of basic rights to privacy for proprietors/employees. THIS WON'T FLY!! Who's to
say some PERVE in the Department isn't getting his/her jollies via a candid shot of someone doing
his/her job; NOT APPROPRIATE, IN FACT, IT'S INDECENT!! Where are Big Brother's cameras in nudey
joints, smoke shops, liquor stores, pharmacies? Why must you DEMONIZE this natural remedy/ herb
when this whole program is intended to serve ligitimate patients? SET UP ADEQUATE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR PATIENTS AND LET THE WELL-INTENDING, INDUSTRIOUS PROPRIETORS
SERVE THEM AND MANAGE THEIR OWN ENTERPRISES!!! The restrictions and requirements on the
facilities and business operations are INVASIVE and OFFENSIVE. Here's the deal: I, a prospective
proprietor, wouldn't sell a crumpled leaf out the back door because I intend to run a COMPLIANT,
SUCCESSFUL business. All we are sayin' is "give compliance a chance!" Why shouldn't qualified
caregivers be allowed to grow for patients, NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE?? For that matter, WHY
SHOULD QUALIFIED PATIENTS BE ALLOWED TO GROW, NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE?? Doesn't it
weaken the premise that the patient is actually qualified when you take away his right to grow his own
medicine? DON'T FIND YOURSELVES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE; DON'T PUT QUALIFIED
PERSONS IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY, scrutenizing their ligitimacy, then prohibiting their liberties. SO MUCH
OF THIS IS LUDICROUS! TAKE A BIG STEP BACK, AND RESOLVE THAT LESS IS MORE; DON'T SHOOT
YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT!! FYI, the 10 or 12 foot walls around a pot patch will telegraph it as a
grow op; it only informs assailants that they need a rotohammer &/or a metal blade in a grinder or recip
saw or a torch (plasma cutter?) and a generator to fire-up in the bed of the truck when they knock-off a
grow op. Do you really think prescribing construction is going to help? It will certainly postpone any
crops or local supply. BTW, where will initial inventory come from if the AGENTS are bogged down not
only with managing to heads of the monster (retail and grow op), but also subcontracting construction
in two locations, one of which has to be complete before the first seed can be planted, BOTH OF WHICH
HAVE TO BE LEASED BEFORE THE APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED!!! GET THE F**K REAL,
PEOPLE!!! The Valley has MANY, MANY VIABLE VENUES FOR BOTH RETAIL AND GROW-UP FACILITIES-
- YOU JUST HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO HAPPEN; GET OUT OF YOUR OWN WAY! The weak/seedy ones
will fall by the wayside and you'll have your black sheep to make examples of, and the GOOD
PROPRIETORS WILL RISE TO THE TOP, MAKING YOU PROUD OF YOUR PROGRAM AND SHARING IN A
HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM. What about this 'no compensation' thing for caregivers? Are we
leaving this role to SAINTS? What is wrong with anyone profiting from what you are establishing as a
ligitimate patient condition? Are we ensuring the Pharmaceutical companies aren't profiting too much?
What if your kid triples his money on a lemonade stand? Would the Department be heartbroken to find
a fiscal surplus? DON'T SQUASH FREE ENTERPRISE; DON'T PUNISH THIS INDUSTRY BEFORE IT CAN
EVEN PROVE ITSELF. If you've learned from CA & CO, etc., learn also what has worked, not that I'm a
fan of those models; see their grow ops: they are specialized, skilled cultivation entities with little to do
with retail, just like the cotton farmers who know nothing of what fashions are comin' out of Fashion
Square Mall, GET IT?? Why must Dispensary and Grow Op be remote? How remote? Why fragment
security measures/staff and create transportation issues? Hey, if you're going to make them conjoined,
how about letting them take prudent measures to separate the space responsibly and thereby ENHANCE
SECURITY BY LOCALIZING RESOURCES!!! Heck, the Department could inspect both at the same time,
everytime! ...that's all I have for now, but tomorrow's another day; I hope this is constructive, albeit
reactive-- I just think some of this is SO OBVIOUS! Please don't get too far ahead of yourselves; pride
yourselves with early recognition of gross oversights and awareness of well-intended, but erroneous
presuppositions, and GO MAKE SOME MAJOR CHANGES. WE WILL ALL APPRECIATE IT WHEN WE
ARRIVE AT A WORKABLE PROGRAM!!! MANY THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals 10640 N 28th Ave Suite C-205-2 Phoenix, AZ 85029
This is the formal response from the Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals , (AZADP), to the
Arizona Department of Health Services, ( AZDHS) concerning the implementation of the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act. The AZADP is an organization comprised of over 4600 members. AZADP membership
includes concerned dispensary candidates, individuals who believe they are qualifying patients,
Physicians and other individuals and entities involved in the Marijuana industry. While we want to
believe Mr. Humble when he states that, ( EXHIBIT A), “Fairness and Transparency are the keys to
effectively implementing the AZ Medical marijuana Act”, the evidence contained herein suggest
otherwise. We believe that the AZDHS has been influenced by and is conspiring with other
organizations, namely the Marijuana Policy Project, (MPP) and their recently established association, the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, (AzMMA), to create an elitist and monopolistic program where
only the wealthy influential, informed sponsors of MPP will qualify for one of the 125 licenses. We
believe that the following evidence will show that the AZDHS in collusion with MPP are intentionally
developing program rules that are so complicated and costly so as to preclude otherwise qualified
applicants merely on the basis of wealth and influence. We believe it is the intention of MPP to control
the marketplace. Accordingly, we submit the following: Citations: 1. Arizona Medical Marijuana
Act, hereinafter referred to as “TITLE 36” 2. Arizona Department of Health Services, hereinafter
referred to as “AZDHS” 3. Marijuana Policy Project hereinafter referred to as “MPP”, a national political
action committee who sponsored Proposition 203 in Arizona. MPP has a local chapter in Arizona. 4.
Arizona Medical Marijuana Association hereinafter referred to as “AMMA”. An association recently
established by MPP. 5. Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals hereinafter referred to as
“AZADP”. An independent association comprised of concerned citizens. 6. Arizona Voter’s protection Act
hereinafter referred to as “AVPC”. A 1998 voter approved initiative petition amending the Arizona
Constitution, to revoke the government’s power to amend an initiative measure approved by a majority
of the votes cast thereon, unless the amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure. (AZ
Cons. Article 4 Section 1(6)(c). 7. Regulatory Bill of Rights, (A.R.S 41-1001.01) hereinafter referred to
as “TITLE 41”. An Arizona law to ensure fair and open regulation by state agencies, limiting a state
agencies rule making ability to subject matter listed in the specific statute and provides for citizens right
to file a complaint with the States Administrative Rules Oversight Committee. 8. Affirmative Defense,
(A.R.S. 36-2802), hereinafter referred to as “ARS36-2802”. Qualifying Patients and Caregivers mat
assert medical purpose as a defense to any prosecution of an offense involving marijuana. 9. Sherman
Antitrust Act: To establish a violation of The Sherman Act, Monopoly Power may be defined as the
power to fix prices to exclude competitors, or to control the market in the relevant geographical area in
question. Prefatory Statement: AZADP was established as a direct concern of so many individuals
who are alarmed at the direction the AZDHS is taking in their rule making progress. Prior to the election
some of our members where involved with MPP and provided us with internal documents generated in
the course of MPP’s campaign operations. These documents will be produced herein and used as
evidence to support our arguments. In September, 2010 MPP established an advisory committee.
According to the local Campaign Manager for MPP, , this Advisory Committee was
established at the request of AZDHS. Presumably, AZDHS was concerned that should the voters approve
Prop 203, their understaffing and budget cuts would curtain their ability to complete the rule making
process in the time allowed under the law. ( 120 days). According to , AZDHS asked MPP if they
could assist AZDHS by preparing some proposed rules for consideration by AZDHS. “A blueprint to help
AZDHS start the process”. MPP agreed to assist AZDHS and established the Advisory Committee, also
known as the “Roundtable”. MPP invited 12-14 of its members to join the Roundtable and create
proposed rules for consideration by AZDHS. Presumably most of the members on the Roundtable were
either dispensary candidates or have other business interest in the medical marijuana industry. The
members of the roundtable were divided into “task forces” each given a specific assignment. (EX:
Cultivation rules, testing /quality control, security, applications, qualifications, etc) The roundtable
participants also worked together to develop and establish the MMP Association, “AzMMA”. It is no
coincidence that the acronym for MPP’s Association and Title 36 are the identical; “AzMMA”. MPP took
ownership of Title 36, and intended to impose its own agenda on the people of Arizona. MPP’s stated
agenda was to limit the competition and to assure that as many of their own members as possible
received dispensary licenses. During the weeks leading up to the election, the Round table became
fractured. Some of the members realized the true agenda of MPP and resigned from the group. Let
us first understand that MPP is funded and sponsored by very wealthy individuals and organizations. The
following evidence will show that MPP invested over half a million dollars of its money to secure an elitist
program designed to solely promote the interest of their sponsors. The agenda of MPP is to make the
dispensary application process as difficult and expensive as possible to preclude all applicants except the
well informed wealthy members of MPP. As evidenced by the attached internal memorandum (
EXHIBIT “B”), MPP, in the process of establishing it’s Association , recommended that, “AZDHS
implement dispensary applications and licensing standards that are rigorous enough to deter trivial
applications, but that do not unduly impair the ability of serious applicants to operate successfully”. It
would be a serious conflict of interest to allow a Association comprised of wealthy future dispensary
owners to determine what a “trivial application” is, but that is exactly what they moved on to do.
Contained within the same documents MPP makes the following recommendations to AZDHS; A. Would
require applicants to provide proof that they have obtained dispensary and /or cultivation facilities that
meet the requirements of the ACT and local zoning. B. Requiring that the applicant provide a business
plan demonstrating that the licensee will be operational within a specific time frame. C. Requiring the
applicant provide proof of financial competency through a BOND or other means. D. Requiring that the
applicant demonstrate medical expertise by having physicians or pharmacists on staff or engaged as
consultants. Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Humble, (EXHIBIT A), clearly these MPP proposals have
had significant influence on AZDHS, since all of them are incorporated into the AZDHS proposed rules.
Additionally, these proposed rules, should they be adopted, will further the agenda of MPP by adding
momentous increases to the cost of obtaining a dispensary license for the following reasons: A.
Section 36-2804, of Title 36, among other requirements, necessitates an applicant to provide AZDHS
with a “Physical address of both the Dispensary and Cultivation center, and a sworn statement that the
applicant is in compliance with local zoning requirements. This in and of itself creates a significant
expense to an applicant, since they will have to secure a physical location without ever knowing if they
will qualify for the license. However AZDHS has added a significant additional expense to the cost of the
applicant by requiring a Certificate of Occupancy. This adversely changes the intent of Title 36. Under
proposed rule R9-17-302, B-5 AZDHS is requiring an applicant, as part of the initial application process,
to produce a Certificate of Occupancy. This would require a applicant to not only secure a location for
his/her dispensary and Cultivation center, but build-it-out as well at a cost of hundreds of thousands of
dollars, all at risk, since all is done without any assurances that they will obtain a license. This rule
alone will serve to eliminate all but the wealthiest of applicants. B. At the request of MPP, (See
EXHIBIT C ), AZDHS’s proposed rules regarding business operations are outrageously over-regulated.
We recognize the need to maintain strict business operations, but the proposed rules are simply overkill,
intended to play into the hands of MPP’s agenda. (More on this below). C. There are no provisions in
Title 36 that requires an applicant to produce a Bond. According to statements made by MPP all
applicants with less than a million dollars of cash liquidity are considered “Trivial” and should be required
to post a two hundred thousand dollar bond.( See Exhibit D ). While there is no clarity or designation
as to the purpose, type , amount or third party beneficiary of said bond, AZDHS has nevertheless,
under proposed rule R9-17-302,15-D, and as part of the initial application , asks the question,
“Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and , if so, how much?”. While we have sought clarification
from AZDHS on this point, none has been provided. Attention must also be given to the availability of
said bond. Because of the unique nature of the medical marijuana business model, obtaining such a
bond might be impossible or extremely costly. Under federal law Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are
considered a criminal enterprise; consequently, most if not all insurance companies would consider a
request for a bond a very high risk. Therefore, potential applicants may be denied a license merely
because he/she is not a millionaire. D. The prompting by MMP to have a medical director on the staff of
each dispensary is not necessarily a bad idea. Unfortunately, AZDHS, at the urging of MPP has taken the
Medical Directors position to place where no Doctor will go thereby making it impossible to comply with
this rule, unless you are wealthy enough to afford a full time Doctor on your staff. A medical director
retained to provide assistance in developing the medical aspects of the program for a Dispensary is a
welcomed idea; however, to have the Medical Director interact with patients or develop any materials
for use by patients could be considered interference in a patient-physician relationship. All qualified
patients of a dispensary must have a recommending, primary doctor to obtain their registration card.
Any log books, rating scales, or guidelines for patient’s self-assessment, as set forth in AZDHS proposed
rule R9-17-310-2, may create a conflict of interest for the medical Director. This again plays into the
main scheme of MPP. E. We are deeply concerned about the AZDHS’s plans concerning the selection
process. As you will note AZDHS’s proposed rules are silent on this matter. On October 29th 2010,
Director Humble wrote on his blog, (Copy Attached EXHIBIT E), that he had three choices before him,
He asserted that method 3, ( Evaluate the complete application using some kind of objective criteria), is
probably the best because we’d be able to select the best qualified applicants. Humble went on to say, “
An Interesting twist on method 3 would be to send the completed (And blindfolded) applications to a
3rd party (e.g. a consulting law firm) and ask them to score the applications for us. It is perhaps more
than coincidence that just prior to that Blog entry, MPP sent AZDHS a proposal to use their new
Association (AMMA) as an Application Review Board. (SEE EXHIBIT F ). This is the most outrageous
conflict of interest we have ever heard of. A group of weathly potential dispensary owners, reviewing
their own applications! We demand that AZDHS immediately disclose their selection process. We
further suggest, in fairness, and in compliance with AZDHS proposed rule R9-17-319, a, 2, g, that any
member of the MPP roundtable be excluded from consideration of a dispensary license. We would
further ask that Director Humble make a full public disclosure as to whether or not any member of
AZDHS has had any contact with MPP, AMMA or any representative or agent of said organizations. As
most people know, MPP staff actually wrote Prop 203, now the Arizona Medical marijuana Act. Title 36.
What most were not aware of is the fact that under section 6 of Title 36, AZDHS compliance under
A.R.S 41-1001 is waived. Title 41, The Regulatory Bill of Rights, is an Arizona law to ensure fair and
open regulation by state agencies, limiting a state agencies rule making ability to subject matter listed in
the specific statute and provides for citizens right to file a complaint with the States Administrative Rules
Oversight Committee. Any reasonable person would have to cast a sinister eye on MPPS reasoning in
exempting AZDHS from compliance with these provisions. This exemption eliminates the public’s ability
to object to the abusive behavior of the AZDHS. Point by Point Objection to AZDHS Proposed Rules:
until such time as there is evidence of fraud. 3. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rule making be implemented “without imposing
an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries….” 4. ARS 28.1 Section 2 “Findings” of
arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. 5. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and
outdoor cultivation. 6. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It
violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the
involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. 7. R 9-17-
or information, or even to choose not (or cannot afford) to seek other medical care at all (whether prior
or subsequent to application). 8. R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 ,
R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to
the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees,
not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards. 9. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-
patients, qualifying patients’ parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the
internet access. 10. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not
allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering
Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet
still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. 11. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
year. 12. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than
one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. 13. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-
202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to choose other providers or
sources of information 14. R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-
to be submitted. 15. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card
the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. 16. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-
17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-
17. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. These
sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require a
medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice. 18. R9-17-313.B.3
cultivation of medicine. 19. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to
cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food. 20. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable
Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a
statement that a product may represent a health risk. 21. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and
The department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security
practices to monitor a safe product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal,
products. 22. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require
the daily removal of non-toxic refuse. ADDITIONAL RECOMMEDATIONS: 23. SURETY BOND: Clarify
the purpose, the type, the amount and the third party beneficiary, of the surety bond, or eliminate its
reference from the rules. 24. NON-PROFIT ENTITY: Clarify the need to establish a non-profit entity.
Title 36 only requires an applicant to operate the dispensary under a non-profit “basis”. Can an
applicant establish a LLC or other entity so long as his/her bylaws comply with Title 36? 25. 70%
COOPERATIVE GROW: Clarify if a group of dispensaries can form a cooperative to grow their medical
marijuana under one roof, so long as the facility is in compliance with Title 36 and the AZDHS rules.
26. SEEDS: Please clarify where a dispensary owner can purchase his initial seeds. 27. LANDLORD
RIGHTS: Please clarify landlord rights with respect to entry and inspection of a dispensary/ cultivation
facility. (Assuming the landlord is not a registered agent of the Dispensary). Additionally, please clarify
access by a repair service to enter upon the restricted areas of a dispensary/cultivation to make
necessary repairs. 28. TWO STAGE APPLICATION PROCESS: R9-17-302 Applying for Dispensary
Registration Certification; we believe the proposed rules regarding the application process are inherently
unfair and favor the wealthy. The average person who may otherwise qualify would be reluctant to
invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a dispensary application without knowing if they will get a
license. In order to equalize the application process we believe AZDHS should adopt a two stage
application process as follows: 1. Review the principals and legal entity first. Perform whatever
background checks AZDHS desires, including FBI and all the other requirements as set forth in the
proposed rules relevant to the principals and legal entities. 2. Issue a conditional License to the 125
most qualified individuals subject to approval of the facilities. ( dispensary and cultivation sites) 3. The
conditional license would require that the applicant to complete the build-out and/or construction of
the facilities within 90-120 days. 4. Thereafter, the conditionally approved applicant would submit the
second half of his application ( Facilities) for inspection and approval. 5. The second half of the
application must meet all the requirements of the proposed rules relevant to the facilities. 6. Provided
the applicant meets all the facility requirements he/she would then be issued a Dispensary Registration
Certificate 7. This system allows for fairness across all demographic and financial groups. It would not
preclude individuals simply because they are not millionaires, and would allow those that are chosen to
obtain the financing they need to complete the project. Fairness and transparency requires AZDHS to
adopt this application process or similar one. IN CONCLUSION: Taken in totality, it appears that
AZDHS is working in collusion with MMP to make this application process as difficult as possible, beyond
what is fair and reasonable. What was alleged to be “fair and transparent”, has now become biased and
opaque, demanding a comprehensive review and explanation. The sole agenda of AZADPs is
to assure the success of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. To bring the dispensaries out of the dark
corner of society into the main stream of America. We understand that to accomplish that we need to
change the image, we need to exceed the highest standards, and we need to conduct ourselves and our
businesses with the utmost professionalism, always in full compliance with the law. While you allege
that “nobody outside the department is involved in the development of your informal draft rules”, it
appears that is not correct. The fact remains you may not know if MPP is communicating with your
underlings. The answer to your problem is to embrace ALL these organizations rather than create the
illusion that you are NOT being influenced by some. You may want to establish a round table of your
own, invite all the organizations, associations and industry leaders in Arizona including MPP, to offer and
exchange ideas. That way nobody feels left out, and you perhaps may even learn a few things. We
would welcome the opportunity to assist you in organizing a round table of industry, leaders. In the
alternative we hope you will make a full disclosure of your involvement with MPP.
I do not like the rule in the draft that deals with patient doctor relationship being one yar long before
being able to issue recommendation for medical marijuana.
THE PROPOSED DRAFT PROPOSED "RULES" SO EVEN YOU KNOW THAT THERES MORE THAN ONE
RULE ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of
Health Services rulemaking be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
Would be Referring Doctor Not happy with First Draft December 31, 2010 By admin
The Green Leaf recently asked Dr. Ed Suter, a board certified physician and medical marijuana activist,
to share his thoughts on the first draft of medical marijuana regulations released on Dec. 17 by the
Arizona Department of Health Services. Here’s his reaction: “The good news: As best I can tell, the
Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) does not have the authority to enact the cruel and
unreasonable package of regulations they proposed on December 17, 2010. Obviously, I am not an
attorney, so I do solicit the input of interested attorneys. Because I am a physician, I am restricting my
comments here to the matter of patient-physician relationships. I invite others with expertise in
dispensary and caregiver matters to share your similar analysis and commentary concerning the draft
regulations for dispensaries and caregivers. Please familiarize yourself with the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act (AzMMA): Notice that the AzMMA does not give authority to the ADHS to define or
redefine the patient-physician relationship and does not give the authority to amend the AzMMA
language, e.g., adding “ongoing” to “patient-physician relationship.” The Arizona Voter Protection Act
specifically denies authority for such usurpations. Please note that even the Director of ADHS
questioned his own authority to do what he proposes. Next please familiarize yourself with the draft
regulations. Then please participate in the public comments online and in person. Please plan to
testify. Please also mobilize suffering patients to comment online, in writing, and to testify at the Public
Meetings: Phoenix, February 15, 2011, 1PM, 250 N. 17th Avenue Tucson, February 16, 2011, 1PM,
400 W. Congress, Room 222 Phoenix, February 17, 2011, 1PM, 250 N. 17th Avenue Some specifics.
The AzMMA requires this: 18. “WRITTEN CERTIFICATION” MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND SIGNED
BY A PHYSICIAN, STATING THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN’S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THE PATIENT IS
LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA
TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE PHYSICIAN MUST: (a) SPECIFY
THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION.
(b) SIGN AND DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
RELATIONSHIP AFTER THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT [NOTE: "assessment,"
singular, not plural; i.e. one, not four] OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S MEDICAL HISTORY. So, one
full assessment, specify the qualifying condition, sign and date – done! Without the authority to do so,
ADHS proposes: R9-17-202 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a
physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient’s debilitating
responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient’s debilitating medical condition
after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review
of the patient’s medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the patient’s
reaction and response to conventional medical therapies; Talking points: • Any Arizona physician
may, in a single visit, prescribe “speed” (e.g., Adderall) to a kindergartener. Without four visits spread
out over one year, any Arizona physician may prescribe to a kindergartener a drug that can kill that child
by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other “side effects.” • Cancer, HIV, and ALS patients often do not
have one year to live. • The patients that do live are cruelly being told to change doctors or suffer for
one year. • Deadly and addictive drugs, such as opiates, are prescribed in a single visit by Arizona
physicians and, despite the best efforts of physicians, some of those deadly and addictive drugs are
illegally diverted, but that does not cause the ADHS to demand four visits, a year-long patient-physician
relationship, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of the patient. • Marijuana is 100 percent
safe, gives patients good relief, and cures some conditions. Marijuana is neither deadly nor addictive.
• The alternative offered by the ADHS to avoid one year of suffering – the cannabis specialist takes over
the primary care of the patient’s qualifying condition – is unprecedented. Nowhere else in medicine does
a specialist take over a patient’s primary care. • The ADHS does not have the authority to define or
redefine the patient-physician relationship or the number of doctor visits, or the length of time for those
visits. That infringes on the patient’s choice. • The draft regulations are cruel and unreasonable.” -
Dr. Ed Suter note: though i don't agree with this dr. suter, whoever he is, about addiction, thc is
highly addictive and your prudence to educate and have the caregiver and owner be aware of patient
problems should be commended. that said, i agree with everything else he mentions. terminally ill
patients and near terminally ill should not have to switch drs. to receive treatment.
1) The proposal by the department that each dispensary have an educational component is valid,
however, the requirement to have that function supervised by a Medical Director (M.D. or D.O.) is
redundant. The department has ameliorated medical liability by requiring that a Patient have an existing
relationship with his or her doctor. A Physician who recommends Medical cannabis to his or her patient
will be required to discuss other options, review possible side effects and potential reactions with other
drugs just as they would when recommending any other form of treatment. It would be practical for the
ADHS to develop a standardized pamphlet discussing any potential hazards of this new treatment. The
pamphlets could include a website and/or hotline to call with questions. 2) The dispensary application
process is in direct opposition to the mission of the Governor’s Council on Small Business (GCSB); the
entity assigned to “provide effective outreach of programs and services targeted for small, minority and
women-owned businesses.” Costs associated with security, specialized computer based record keeping,
staffing a Medical director, signing a lease prior to start up, and set up of a commercial growing facility
for production of 70% of product, will have the effect of eliminating small business and minority or
women - owned business participation in this industry. 3) Requiring dispensaries to grow seventy
percent (70%) of their own product will limit opportunities for small business development in our state
and may delay the implementation deadlines as set forth by ADHS. Delays can result in a mandamus
action in the Arizona Superior Court to compel ADHS to perform the actions mandated by the Act. If the
crop is reduced due to unforeseen circumstance (i.e. mold, mites, equipment failure, etc.) will a
dispensary be able to supplement the product, above 30%, from another source? 4) The rules, as
written in R9-17-107 and R9-17-302, are unclear and out of sequence. We suggest clarification
regarding the acquisition of a "preliminary approval" versus the complete application packet. Placing the
time frames after each article rather than in a separate section would be helpful.
Here's a detailed list of suggestions to the rules as written so far. Medical Marijuana Program
12/17/10 Draft Rule Comments 1.3.11 R9-17-101. Definitions 16. Ongoing… a. The physician-
patient relationship has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the
patient (add--IN PERSON) on at least four visits… 18. Public Places b. Includes airports, …
Should include adult and child care facilities as well as adult & child foster care homes licensed by the
state. c. Does not include: vii. Private Residences. – Needs to address prohibition of marijuana in
federally funded housing & other federal programs where marijuana is prohibited. Multi-unit housing
provider (owner, manager, etc.) should have right to prohibit smoking of marijuana inside units or on
property to protect tenants and property. R9-17-108. Notifications & Void Registry Identification
Cards Add: Patient’s doctor should be required to report to ADHS if they believe the patient no longer
needs medical marijuana or believes that medical marijuana is detrimental to patient’s health or public
safety. R9-17-202. Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a
Designated Caregiver. F. 3. All current photos required should meet size standards of AZ driver’s
licenses including date and facial dimensions (i.e., not a distance photo). 5. g. Information explaining
potential risks & benefits needs to be in written form approved or provided by ADHS and provided to
patient. R9-17-202. continued F. continued 5. h. Physician needs to indicate how many
future visits are required for continual follow-up. Visits should be in person. Follow-up visits should be
required or risk medical marijuana card revocation. Doctor should be required to report to ADHS if
patient not meeting requirements for follow-up visits. G. 13. a. Add Physician should be licensed to
practice in Arizona and not have any financial or other affiliation with any medical marijuana dispensary
(cannot be an employee, subcontractor, patient card holder providing medical marijuana, etc.). Would
also help if doctor were limited to 30 medical marijuana patients. R9-17-204. Renewing a Qualifying
Patient’s or Designated Caregiver’s Registry Identification Card A. 4. g. need in writing given
to patient by doctor. h. patient should be assessed in person by doctor B. 4. a. physician should be
licensed to practice in Arizona R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B. g.
Medical Director should be licensed in Arizona with no financial or other affiliation to any medical
marijuana dispensary (not an employee, subcontractor, patient card holder providing medical marijuana,
etc.). R9-17-306. Inspection Date & time do not have to be specific. Original Initiative language
states in 36-2806, H that “registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries are subject o reasonable
inspection by the Department. The Department shall give reasonable notice of an inspection under this
notice.” It does not say that dispensaries have to be forewarned with the exact date and time. Could be
within 30, 60, 90 days etc. with no exact time specified to protect the integrity of the inspection. R9-
17-306. Inspection continued. C. Department should allow allegations from anonymous sources for
dispensaries non-compliance to protect the safety of the source. R9-17-307. Administration A. 1.
e. Patient education approved or provided by ADHS needed in written form provided to the patient. 5.
d. Food or other establishments providing marijuana infused baked or other goods to dispensaries
should be regulated and licensed as dispensaries to avoid proliferation of marijuana industries with no
regulations. Medical marijuana food & other marijuana infused goods manufacturing should be located
within licensed dispensaries. R9-17-310. Medical Director Should be licensed to practice medicine in
the state of Arizona. C. 1. All educational materials should be approved or provided by ADHS and
given in written form. All marijuana products should have warning labels and side effects listed. b.
Include long term effects of marijuana use. R9-17-311. Dispensing Medical Marijuana 2. Provide
(not offer) information approved or provided by AHDS to patients. R9-17-313. Inventory Control
System B. 3. c. Disposal of medical marijuana needs more definition and regulation to avoid potential
abuse. 5. ALL medical marijuana infused food or non-food products should be manufactured within a
licensed dispensary. R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis A. 3. Dispensing needs to label
medical marijuana with tracking ID to identify source of marijuana (dispensary, patient or caregiver’s
tracking ID). R9-17-315. Security B. 4. Food establishments and other facilities that infused
medical marijuana into other products should be licensed and regulated as dispensaries. C. 1. c. vi.
should be at least 90 days vii. should be at least 2 hours with back up batteries R9-17-316. Edible
Food Products Edible food and other marijuana-infused products should be manufactured and
dispensed at a licensed dispensary only. R9-17-320. Denial or Revocation of a Dispensary Agent’s
Registry Identification Card A. (Add) The Department may deny a dispensary agent’s application if 4.
If a dispensary agent is a physician who recommends medical marijuana to patients. B. 4. If a
dispensary agent is a physician who recommends medical marijuana to patients. Other Concerns:
How are marijuana seeds regulated? How are dispensaries, caregivers and patients who grow getting
the seeds? Can marijuana only be dispensed in a form that does not contain carcinogenic smoke by-
products? Can doctors be limited in number of medical marijuana patients? How will these rules affect
the development of an M-cigarette similar to the E-cigarette? If they are developed, they should only be
available in the dispensaries.
how can DHS regulate the doctor/patient relationship? that is just wrong and seems to be illegal! as a
patient you can not tell me what doctor can and cannot manage my chronic illness!
why is there no monitoring of the quality of the medicinal marijuana? if people grow crap it will make
sick people sicker
Omit the parts that allow law enforcement to have access to the database. Isn't this a violation of
HIPPA or privacy laws? Does law enforcement have access to who is on Vicodin? Or Ocycotin (sp)? Or
any other med? Doesn't it open the door for abuse?
*dispencery registration fee is outragous.It should be more like 60$ a year *medical cards should not
be 150$ more like$10-20$ *There needs to be a bigger range of patenits who can qualify for medical
marijiana.Marijuana helps many many illnesses such as depression,ansomnia,Asthma *Qualified
pateints need access to medicine in public places such as parks,businesses *A qualified patient should
be allowed to grow within 25 miles of a dispencery,not everyone can afford to purchase medicene from
a dispencery,or medical marijuana should be offered at $20-$60 an ounce at dspencerys
As someone who could actually benefit, I believe someone may have missed the point: These 'rules'
treat cannabis as a threat and a danger - not a medication. Why should cannabis be subjected to stricter
regulation than 'legal' drugs which are far more dangerous to individuals and society. You can improve
these rules very simply and I think you know that. Make it affordable at all levels: Production,
distribution and consumption. Three hundred and fifty dollars a year just for the equivalent of an ID
card is... well, it's outrageous. I don't pay that much for supplemental health insurance. I realize this
is a bitter pill for those on the right to swallow but we must take the politics out of this . It is the law.
Just as it is legal to carry a concealed weapon into a bar; it is now legal for a severely ill person to
consume a harmless medicinal herb in the privacy of their own home. Wait... that doesn't sound quite
equal does it? Please don't be the agency charged with killing this initiative through the back door with
Creative Accounting Practices (CRAP) and legalese. My wife and I will soon be 71 yrs. young (at heart)
and we need your help. My wife suffers from chronic pain as a result of spinal cord and shoulder
injuries. She has epileptic seizures and severe head pain as the result of brain surgery. Thanks for your
time and your service.
Services rulemaking be “without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act
denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require “ongoing” care, or redefine the
patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and
specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required
to assume primary responsibility for a patient’s care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does
Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any
therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the
department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency
imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest
that a cannabis specialist assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C,
and other potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the
requisite training or experience to do so. The department’s regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and
arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients’ rights of choice, including their rights to choose
other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot
afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3,
R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-
17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives
authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or amending or
replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel,
arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients’ parents, and their
caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or no provision for patients,
parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary,
and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering,
but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. For
example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other
conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily
living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients
of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical
conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to
choose other providers or sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-
authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice.
its cruel and unusual punishment to say what doctor you need to see to recieve a recomendation
It appears that the ADHS is attempting to put a stranglehold on this industry. Unfortunataly for the
taxpayers, there will be many years of litigation over these so called "Rules". I hope your department
has plenty of money set aside to support them.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse.
Marijuana should be dispensed like any other prescription by any doctor before any visits
I am a Registered Dietitian and work in Tucson. I would make the following recommendations: 1)
Marijuana dispensaries may only dispense marijuana in food, in capsules or as suppositories, but never
in its raw form or in any other form that can be smoked. 2) Doctors who recommend medical marijuan
can have no more than 30 active medical marijuana patients at a time.
Below is information that echoes my sentiment exactly. The proposed rules that DHS is proposing are
unjust and cruel beyond measure. Suffering patients should not be denied treatment that their physician
would recommend because an arm of the local government sees fit to impose such strict rules regarding
a substance far safer than those in most pharmacies that require far less supervision than Medical
Marijuana is proposed to have. I hope that DHS will reconsider redefining what a Dr/ patient relationship
is, as well as the many other items listed below. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be "without imposing an undue
burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries...." ARS 28.1 Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating
the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense
addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's
pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of
video surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable
burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor
cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the
involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-101.16,
R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-
17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel,
application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-
203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS
36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of
location or amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-
204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients'
provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2)
is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions
that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of
daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety,
their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only
allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list
of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply
of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients'
rights to choose other providers or sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-
17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary
and unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no
I'm disabled and my doc's clinic says no to medical marijuana.
1) The Public Comments Form should also have a public viewing area to see what ideas others are
providing, in order to encourage the best ideas to be developed from that synergy, not to mention
freedom of information. 2) Abide by the time-line set forth in the proposition. 3) Abide by HIPPA act.
4) Remove 1 year professional relationship restriction with physician. - many will not live that long. 5)
Remove the 4 visit minimum with physician - this is arbitrary. 6) Remove requirement that caregiver
must be a non-card holder. 7) Reduce card-holder fee to $100.00 per year. 8) Require testing to verify
THC strength, and that it and chemicals,fertilizers and pesticides used in it's creation are displayed on
product labeling and packaging. 9) Remove requirement that each dispensary has/employs a Medial
Director. 10) Remove 25 mile grow your own limit. Any individual that qualifies for a patient card should
be allowed to grow their own, within the 2.5 oz limits, as is provided to anyone living outside of the 25
mile limit. - This is burdensome, and discriminatory.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
regulations. the AzDHS does NOT have the authority to enact the cruel and unreasonable package
of regulations they propose. Obviously, I am not an attorney, so we are soliciting the input of qualified
attorneys. Because I am a physician, I am restricting my comments here to the matter of patient-
physician relationship. Others with expertise in dispensary and caregiver matters will share similar
analysis and commentary concerning the draft regulations for dispensaries and caregivers. I have
attached the AzDHS Timeline. Please familiarize yourself with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
(AzMMA): http://stoparrestingpatients.org/home/initiative If you pay special attention to Section 36-
2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the AzMMA does NOT give authority to the Arizona Department
of Health Services to define-or redefine-the patient-physician relationship and does NOT give the
authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding "ongoing" to "patient-physician relationship." The
Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically DENIES authority for such usurpations.
- Dr's are able to prescribe other medicines outside of a set number of scheduled visits. What is
accomplished in four visits that can't be completed in less?
Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act
denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the
specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required
to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does
Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any
therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the
department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency
imposed upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest
that a cannabis specialist assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C,
and other potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the
requisite training or experience to do so. The department's regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and
arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients' rights of choice, including their rights to choose
other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot
afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3,
R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-
17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives
authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or amending or
replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) are cruel,
arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their
parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary,
and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering,
conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily
living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients
of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical
conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to
i think you need to change the 25 mile rule for growing your personal marijuana to 0' not all people can
afford to buy at the price the pharmacy will have to charge, being able to grow is very important for
those who can not afford the costs, essentially you would be denying them a right to their medicine and
creating an act of punishment for living to close
You should remove the restriction on the ability for dispensaries to source medical marijuana outside the
state. The other states that have implemented this have become experts in the cultivation and
manufacture of said items. You should allow caregivers and dispensaries to acquire the product from
other registered clinic in the surrounding states. The idea is that this will improve the quality and the
array of products available and lower the prices for the patients. As it sits, this provision will prove to
increase the price due to lack of availability. The time it takes to get product to market is restrictive in
the current model. Realistically it will take at least six months from certificate issue for the first patients
to begin getting relief. If supply could be acquired from the surrounding states patients could begin
getting relieve immediately. In a free market the prices become lower due to widespread availability. We
need a regulated supply but if the supply is tracked from seed to patient, no matter the source, we will
have a sound system. I hope this can again be looked at and changed.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products.
All employees on site should be fingerprinted and backgrounds checked.
First of all I believe if Doctors like can get by with prescribing 1,562 narcotic
drugs to one patient who ended up and shot herself in the mouth as reported in the Arizona Republic in
2000 August edition. Patients in the 90s who died as a direct result of conduct of
overprescribing and requesting sexual favors in return. I am an ex patient of his who he assaulted and
withheld seizure medicine from and he propositioned me for sex, and I sued him. I believe these acts
are very serious as I am sure you do as well. Other patients were turned into drug addicts by him. I
would keep my eye on him if I was The ADHS for sure. He will love prop 203. The reason i am
writing is I am an acute patient in need of help that prop 203 will give. Closed Head Injury, TBI,
nausea migraines, Seizures, (uncontrollable). I am currently allergic to all medications and am at the
end of a long battle. How will I know if my current Doctors who I have will even go for prop 203? I
am reluctant to change providers due to previous statement of trust with an Arizona M.D. before prop
203 came into being, Doctors literally get by with murder, simply cause they are rich and Doctors as the
Attorney Generals Office said in the criminal investigation years ago. (PUBLIC RECORD). Will
I have to change to some smut bag Doctor to have prop 203 be beneficial for me? Thanks
The draft must take into account the tremendous need that cancer patients, who are terminally ill, and
in a hospital, nursing home, hospice or bedfast in their own home. Compassionate care for these
individuals demands consideration for their needs -- and legal right -- to receive medical marijuana.
These indivduals cannot go to a dispensary themselves to become members. Nor are they able to go to
a site to purchase medical marijuana. Physican prescribed pharmaceutical medications are delivered to
hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospice and homes; included in the guidelines must
be a provision for delivery to institutions and their patients who have received physician
recommendations for medical mairjuana. There must be some manner devised in which a dispensary
can provide this important and much needed service. Lastly, it seems that to not provide this service to
such individuals could be construed as discriminatory.
All forms must include date of the form or request with an expiration date all requests etc must expire
and require recertification annually
1) The rules do not comply with Arizona law. Arizona law does not recognize "non-profit" LLC's or
partnerships. Either the rules need to be revised in this regard, or clarification needs to be made as to
how a non-profit company can be established under this statute. 2) Requiring that each dispensary
grow 70% of its own product does not make sense, and puts an a higher burden on regulators. It
seems more appropriate that there should be fewer growing facilities, so that oversight is easier. Many
of those who are applying for licenses either want a retail store or to be a growing facility-not both. In
reality, there should have been special license issued for each area like the following: 1) patient license;
2) medical director license; 3) caregiver; 4) agent; 5) growing facility 6) retail; and 7) edibles. It seems
as if each of these areas have different challanges, and different needs. For example, it is likely that a
license holder who also wishes to sell edibles will need to have a commercial kitchen license. I don't
think the State has thought this process through entirely.
Like to see impartial physician who does not have primary care responsibility for the patient to examine
parent at patient's expense to confirm the presence of a debilitating medical condition.
Need to expand definitions "designated care giver" Physician should only be one licensed to prescribe
schedule 1 medications under usual regulations associated with the prescription of such medications
Medical marijuana may be prescribed only by physicians trained in it's use and licensed to prescribe
schedule 1 medications . Medical marijuana may not be used in a setting where it may adversely affect
the health of others such as schools, shopping centers, work places, hospitals Prescribing habits of
physicians and indications will be monitored by the DEA and the board of pharmacy as with all other
schedule 1 medications The Arizona Medical Association will be asked directly to render an opinion on
the indications for use of medical marijuana? The right of the public to breathe smoke free air and
avoid real disease will take priority over the need for the use of medical marijuana to relieve symptoms
The legislation must recognize the status of medical marijuana as a schedule 1 medication with no affect
on any disease and of questionable use for control of symptoms.
Services rulemaking be “without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17- 202.G.13(e)I , R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-
Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require “ongoing” care, or
specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The department’s regulations are
a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients’ rights of choice,
application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17- 105.4, R9-
ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes
of location or amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-
17-204.B.1(m) are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying
patients’ parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or
no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-
activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to
accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The
regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical
conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is
cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an
uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary,
unreasonable, and usurps patients’ rights to choose other providers or sources of information R9-17-
202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c) ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-
302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d) i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-
302.B.15(b), R9- 17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-
17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied to
the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not
to define or restrict a physician’s professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and
The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to
require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-
313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on
recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow
of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
refuse.
13. A business plan demonstrating the on-going viability of the dispensary as a non-profit organization;
Does the Department of Health Services require a business plan for all non profit corporations in the
health care field ?
R9-17-302-13 13. A business plan demonstrating the on-going viability of the dispensary as a non-profit
organization; If the AZDept. of Health Services approves the business plan and the dispensary fails is
the azDHS libel in any way?
* The 25-mile "halo" is going to be legally challenged, as it effectively sets up monopolies. Dispensaries
typically sell medical marijuana for $300-450 per ounce even though production costs for one ounce of
marijuana are on the order of $20-30. The "halo" forces patients to buy at incredibly inflated prices. *
The fact that the AZDHS is trying to define the patient-doctor relationship is also going to cost the State
a lot of money to fight legal challenges. * Tracking individual plants from seed to harvest is an
impossible feat. I have extensive experience in this regard and cannot imagine how you came up with
this idea or came to believe it could be effectively implemented. * The type of medium used (soil,
soilless, hydroponics... DWC, etc.) need to be tracked. * The watering schedule does not; this piece
makes little sense and can be taken as an indication that AZDHS has done very little homework with
regard to researching cultivation. * A 12' high wall is not necessary for keeping a private medical
marijuana garden secure and will be challenged in court, as most residential areas prohibit walls above
6-8' tall.
Take into effect some folks can't afford the high cost of the RED TAPE, extremely high fees.
These rules need to be broken down in laymen terms so the average person can understand them.
The inventory control does not take into consideration weight shrinkage do to moisture loss. Please
remember that this is a plant product that is comprised mostly of water, even dried marijuana has some
moisture content. As this material is exposed to air some weight loss will occur due to loss of water
over time. But the inventory control rules are on point to avoid abuse, but please be advised that small
variations in weight will occur due to environmental conditions. The medical director seems to be an
odd request for dispensaries since the state has defined the patient/doctor relationship to the strictest
levels. The state is requiring a one year relationship with a doctor before access to medicine can be
gained. What if the patient has just been informed of severe cancer, you expect them to wait for a
year. The state is so fearful of abuse that the state will inflict undue suffering on its citizens. If the
state is concerned with the information that the patients receive from the dispensaries, which I think is a
great idea, the state should provide standardized information to dispensaries through a state run
Medical Director's Office for Medical Marijuana, which in turn would be bound to a more rigid standard
and oversight, than a piece meal approach of numerous Medical Directors whom may not have the
patients best interests at heart. The state should at least provide an elective state run Medical Director
service that dispensaries could purchase through the department, which I think could provide patients
with all information via the internet and printed handouts to address all patients needs and concerns. I
feel that this system would provide the patients of Arizona with the best information and care.
My Mother has ALS and is confined to her bed, using a ventilator, catheter, and feeding tube to survive.
She has no muscle/motor control, I am her primary caregiver. Her current prescription medications
alone cost, us as a family, over $1000 per month out-of-pocket. Add to that the costs of medical
supplies, equipment, and supplemental in-home care and we find it difficult to afford the basic costs of
living. My Mother is excited to try Medical Marijuana once she is able to qualify for a license to do so,
we believe it will help reduce her use of Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Lorazepam, Methadone and Ambien.
However, we believe the portion of the rules which state she will not be able to cultivate a small amount
of Medical Marijuana once a dispensary is operating within 25-miles of our residence to be detrimental
to both her healthcare and that of a great many other patients. If Medical Marijuana pricing trends in
the other states with Medical Marijuana laws in-effect are an indicator, a weekly supply of Medical
Marijuana, purchased from a dispensary, will likely cost well in excess of $150, or $200. This becomes
so cost prohibitive, that we must evaluate whether or not we can even afford the medicine. Not allowing
patients to continue cultivating according to all other laws, regardless of proximity to a dispensary
benefits dispensary owners and their profitability at the cost of patient care, who should be the focus of
this initiative. Please, reconsider the restrictions on patient cultivation to remove the 25-mile
dispensary clause and help patients who need affordable medicine obtain it by growing it, the profiteers
who own dispensaries don't need the help, my Mom does.
We believe that Nurse Practitioners have been overlooked. Our group has a nurse practitioner with over
30 years of experience with patients, specializing in pain management, and we feel very strongly that
she should be able to fulfill the position of medical director of our dispensary, should we have the
opportunity to open one. She brings an incredible background of compassionate care and under current
Arizona Revised Statutes can prescribe powerful narcotics which are much more dangerous than
medicinal cannabis.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
refuse.
I need medical MJ. I can't afford the $150. I can barely travel. I'm pretty much stuck in my home. My
caregiver can't afford the $250. My caregiver is kind of afraid of being a caregiver as well as being able
to secure MJ for me. I need to be able to have a dispensary deliver MJ to me. There is only 1 doctor
where I live. My doctor says he can't recommend MJ for me because of his clinic's rules. I have AHCCCS
and I'm locked into my doctor. I don't have a lot of options.
We have a letter we would like to submit to you but can't figure out how to cut and paste into this
format. Can you please send me an email address we can direct these to- thanks
I dont understand why you would want the dispensaries to be non-profit. One main reason I voted for
it was so that Arizona could receive huge tax dollars. I thought the cities, & state could really use the
monies generated. I have heard that thousands of people are expected to apply for a license and that
the license will cost $5000.00 plus they will have to actually lease buildings. The high amount of the
app fee-$5000.00 is ok but to have say 5000 people go out and rent buildings seems a little crazy to
me. You dont want people staking everything on this license and then not get it. I would think to have a
place in mind, have business plan, give a financial, have scale model of the place your thinking of would
be good. People could have the plans for place in mind, security co lined up, background checks done.
But actually leasing some place before knowing you have a license is kind of mean. There will be some
people who cannot afford to do this but will beg & borrow to try. It would be sad that people hurting
and just trying to better their lives would be let down again and now with even less money & probably
owing.
I believe that the wording that drs must have consecutive visits with the patient is totally unjust to the
vets. My husband is 100% DAV w/ severe chronic pain under VA care and therefore all his dr visits are
to the VA and well documented. He will qualify to use but be unable to get if the VA doesn't
recommend. This places him at great risk for not being able to use the Medical Marijuana. Following that
- it places ALL veterans at risk for not being able to use it. There has to be some sort of coverage
written to include the veterans and any others that Federally may fall through the cracks in being
allowed to be legal users. The cost is unjust to the disabled , the seniors, and the vets. There must
be some sort of discount or this again denies use to those on welfare, SSI, VA becoming cost
prohibitive This must be written in a way to allow those who need it most to be free to get it or the
law will still be useless since the legal system still plans to prosecute anyone using without legal
recommendation. If it can only be bought from a legal dispensary and it is too expensive - then what
good is the law? There should be no difference in cost for patient or caregiver to pick up the
marijuana. If it is recommended for the patient it should fall under his recommend to get it. The
caregiver is nothing but a vessel to carry it to him or her. If the person is incompacitated to go get it
there should not be a penalty for that.
One suggestion: Inspections, R19-17-306, C and E: Unannounced inspections should be permitted

without an identified source of complaint of non-compliance. Reason: This keeps the dispensary on its
toes. It also allows unannounced inspections based on receipt of a credible anonymous tip. Regular
certification inspections should be retained with 5 days' notice.
Make it easier to understand. the way it is now written, makes one believe you don't want anything to
do with this new bill
I was not sure what "transaction" meant when referencing a grow supplying another grow with up to
30% of that dispensaries medicine. Is it OK to sell the product on a wholesale level...or is it a donation
(ie no money exchanges hands) from one dispensary to another. The wording needs to be clearer.
I just found out I have testicular cancer and could be undergoing chemotherapy this year. Under this
proposal I would not qualify because I have a PPO and chose to just go right to the urologist and have
not seen my primary doctor in over a year. WHY SHOULDN'T I QUALIFY if it will help me get through
chemo?!? I don't think this was the intent of the proposal. And who goes to their doctor 4 times a year
when you are in your 30's before you develop a reason to? All newly diagnosed patients are at risk of
not qualifying for something that will help them under these rules. Are there rules for doctors like these
when prescribing medicaions.
To who it concerns: As far as section G. 13e. I believe AZ voted that doctors can prescribe marijuana
for the stated conditions. They voted that doctors can determine who qualifies. They did not vote that
there government stipulations as to a one year relationship and 4 visits in a year before they qualify.
What if i just moved to Arizona, qualify for medical marijuana and have only visited him once so far?
There are NO other regulations in all of medicine regarding prescribing of medications such as these
proposed rules. To suggest and enforce these rules is a form of practicing medicine and I do not want
my government acting like they know better than my doctor. This was not the intent of the proposal.
An Arizona Physician
I may have missed this in the read, but why not allow caregivers or patients who live outside the 25
mile zone for growing the ability to sell the excess product to the dispensaries or just allow someone to
be a cultivator for the industry and sell directly to the dispensaries. I understand maybe not this year,
but keep it in mind. Also, how about if a patient lives within 25 miles of a dispensary they can get a
provisional license to cultivate only two plants; one in vegetation and one in bloom for personal use
only. The savings to the patient is tremendous and in times like these I believe it's the proper thing to
do. The people who would appreciate a provision such as this would never jeopardize the right to
cultivate in a scenario like this by selling for profit or growing more than allowed and some people find
comfort and relaxation in cultivation and care of plants. It's all good.
The 70% homegrown requirement for dispensaries dramatically increases the capital needed to run a
dispensary. Since funding cannot be secured by banks due to the federal illegality of marijuana, it
leaves funding up to private investors. We are thinking of running a pharmacy style dispensary in our
town and would rather have someone else in Arizona grow it for us. We don't need millions of dollars to
do this. But if we have to grow our own as well, then it puts the ante too high. The kind of people
who have those deep pockets in this economy are not the ones who are traditional nonprofit souls.
They are corporation folks. If you want nonprofit people to run it, the 70% requirement needs to be
eliminated and replaced with something else that gets at the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish.
The 70% needlessly eliminates the possibility of scaling.
R9-17-202 Under section F-5-e --- "(i)Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that
has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at
least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional
relationship" This section seems to miss the point. If a patient is having problems with severe pain
then it does not make sense that the patient would have to come in four or more times. That means the
patient could be going through major pain for possibly months before being eligible for proper
treatment. Same could be said for sever nausea, if it is a current problem then the patient would need
effective medication as soon as possible. Seems to me like this section is creating headaches for
pottential users. (Not something a cancer patient needs)
Medical director for a dispensary is unnecessary. In addition, it will make the process of using medical
marijuana more complicated if the medical director for a dispensary is providing information that is
different from what the primary physician of a patient is stating. The duties of the medical director
could partially be put on the dispensary itself. The dispensary should provide accurate and complete
information about marijuana.
for one thing have some public meetings in some other counties and cities besides Phoenix and Tucson,
they are not the ruling cities of the State! There are voters in all the Counties and all the Cities in
Arizona, not just Phoenix and Tucson, we feel excluded like our opinions and votes don't count, you
know that is not Democracy... Arizona is NOT the State of Phoenix and Tucson!! You must participate in
all 15 Counties to show fairness...
To provide for the above.
Legalize it.
Cannabis cultivation restrictions based on distance to a dispensary is unenforceable, and cannot be

easily determined given the wording… Do both care giver and patient need to be with in the same 25
miles of the same dispensary, any dispensary? The wording assumes that the care giver live within the
same locality of the patient.
medical directors in each dispensary? bad idea. medical doctors are better served doing what they do.
helping people get better. but in a dispensary conducting education, passing out information about
addiction and the side effects of cannabis? look get real mr humble, a dispensary can do this just fine.
they may have more information about the effects of marijuana that the average doctor. i'm willing to
bet large sums of money on it. so if you call this a control measure ask yourself a control measure for
what? this is OVERKILL meddeling and unnecessary burden on the industry in general. sit back and
watch how concern dispensary owners can be in addressing the needs of their members. they know
how to care for people to. but your going to have to let them do what they do. sell medicine. give us the
control measure, which is clearly written into prop 203. the dr must do an assesment period before
writting a recommendation period. don't get involved with this idea of how many times a patient has to
have visited a doctor before the doctor can write the recommendation. i can walk into any doctors
office be assesed for my chronic pain and walkout an hour later with a script for pain killers, that are
allot more toxic and dangerous than pot and thats a fact. just let it be and stop meddeling.and being an
unreasonable burden to the dispensary. look it up its in prop 203. ADHS cannot make rules that are a
burden to the dispensary operation period. stop with all your concerns with what? what the FED thinks.
we all know how they feel about marijuana. one minute you don't want the FED meddeling in states
affairs unless it suits your disinterest by calling attention to how the FED frowns on medical marijuana.
it's a ploy by the ADHS, cities, politicians who want prop 203 rendered ineffective to do what it was
intended to do. ADHS needs to help increase commerce for this state and control aspect of this law in
making sure that no one diverts marijuana period.
mr to humble should be less apprehensive and really read to understand the quality of prop 203, when
compared to prop 215 and SB420 and amendment 20 of colorado. you will see there are already built-in
control measure within prop 203. it really doesn't need much outside tweaking from the ADHS.
The part of the rule that states that the patient must have seen the physician for at least one year
seems unfair. Perhaps their are patients who are currently using medical marijuana without a physicians
supervision because it is currently illegal. Should those patients be forced to wait an additional year
before they are protected by this law? AZDHS is overstepping it's authority by adding that the "severe
or chronic pain" be caused by a debilitating disease. The proposition that the public passed did not
restrict use to people with certain diseases, and for AZDHS to try to add that after the fact is a fear
abuse of your power to develop these rules. There are many medical conditions that cause severe or
chronic pain that are not necessarily "diseases". Please respect the fact that the citizens of Arizona
passed a law allowing those wi severe or chronic pain to use marijuana under the direction of a
physician regardless of the cause of their pain.
The current draft is extremely confusing in terms of how a dispensary gets licensed. Under R9-17-
107 B. "A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the applicant provides the
Department with written notice that the dispensary is ready for inspection by the Department." Then
R9-17-107 F. "If the Department determines that an initial application for a dispensary registration is in
compliance...." and in subsection 1. After the applicant receives written notice of preliminary approval,
the applicant shall submit to the Department..." The language is extremely unclear as to the
application process and does not define what an initial application consists of and how to fulfill those
requirements. The way it is currently written it reads as if a person seeking to open a dispensary has to
invest large quantities of money to build a building prior to receiving a license. Also there is a
complete failure to clarify how dispensary licenses will be awarded by the Department of Health. On
what basis are the 124, which is an incredibly limited number, to be awarded? What rights do the public
have to scrutinize this process? How is this process going to be transparent? Is the business plan
that is required as part of the application an electronic form? Who determines what needs to be
included in the business plan? Explicit language as to the meaning of business plan needs to be
included. There are a number of individuals from Colorado and other states that are currently offering
medical marijuana franchises, i.e. turnkey operations in Arizona. What is being done to regulate these
people and keep them from fleecing individuals for thousands of dollars? Sales Tax on edible food
products and medical marijuana - maybe I missed it but can't tell if its included in the bill.
When a patient has a qualifying medical history, when a physician can't recommend medical marijuana
because of administrative rules, a qualifying patient can annually see a medical marijuana doctor as a
secondary physician to get a medical marijuana recommendation.
Pain management should be easily available to patients in pain, there should be lesser guidelines on the
pain that is being accepted. Dispensary's should be open longer and be fully stocked during open hours.
The having to see a doctor for a year before being able to apply for an ID card is cruel to those who do
not have regular doctors. If I get sick and go to the doctor who tells me I have cancer and I should start
chemo. Am I supposed to wait a year before starting the chemo? so I''ll be able to stop throwing up and
be able to eat. Sickness does not give us a years warning, it happens when it happens. REMOVE THE
DOCTOR REQUIREMENTS YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO LOWER THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH ID
CARDS. THINK ABOUT THE PATIENTS BE COMPASSIONATE. CANNABIS DOES WORK, IT DOES HELP
PATIENTS GIVE US ACCESS TO THE MEDICINE WE NEED
How about treating 21 year olds through the end of life US citizens who think there may be value to
medical marijuana like adults. This 47 page draft is 30 pages of the government treating adults like 16
year old juvenile delinquents. Are there not rules in place already for pharmacies? Why do I not need
to buy an additional license when a get a prescription for 1 of the 20 or so pharmaceutical narcotics?
Are people on pharmaceutical drugs much more responsible? Is the AZ Dept. of Health Services
position to punish Arizona for passing the proposition and protect the pharmaceutical industry? The
heavy handed bureaucracy you have in this draft is insulting to physicians and patients. 1) You need
to remove the requirement of the “additional doctor” at the dispensaries. That is an insult to every
physician recommending medical marijuana and every adult with a valid concern. 2) I can see where
you would need to charge to obtain a registry card but $130! You should apply the fees related to
driver licenses. 3) You need to respect the doctor-patient relationship. If a recommendation is written
then the state should respect that. Not make that the beginning of an obstacle course. I’m not up on
the legality of the state requiring citizens to tell them what their medical conditions are but it would
seem to be in violation of all kinds of privacy laws. Thus setting you up for law suits. The state should
respect the privacy of the doctor patient relationship, be extremely considerate of every American
citizen’s privacy rights and use the guidelines set already set up for other government monitored areas
(e.g. existing pharmacies and drivers licensing). Following these two guidelines will reduce the time to
implement and the cost to the taxpayers of AZ.
What will be the policy for low income/low population countys that have been slated 2 permits (per our
Health Dept). If an IN COUNTY person is wanting to apply for that permit but does NOT on the exact
day that permit registration opens will the slot for that dispensary be kept open? Or will it be given to a
permit applicant that agrees to go "anywhere"? I strongly feel that dispensarys should be allowed to
contract with "growers" as many dispensary owners are not capable of growing the correct kind of
product. Those of us in Southern Az will have a very difficult time due to our extreme heat. I am a
professional with a medical background, but no clue as to the growing of medical marijuana. Keeping
the "professional" and the "medical" in the dispensarys is very important. I believe AZ can be a leader
with this. But, GROWERS are another group and are very proud of what they do and how well they so it.
Please consider this.
Prop 203 can be rewritten , so it does not directly benifit the rich only. Second your dept can level out
the playing field by making it fair and accesable to all.
lower the cost of the identification cards and ease up on dispensaries. doctors also must be given less
strict "rules" about what they can and cannot do to help their patients, if a doctor thinks that their
patient needs medical marijuana to make their (the patient) lives easier and more pain free etc then
that should be enough. the government has no right to tell people what they can take if it makes their
lives more live-able, a doctor knows the pros and cons of marijuana and that makes it easier for them to
make informed, intelligent, researched, and helpful decisions on how to help their patients; not the
government. so why is the government controlling something that causes little to no damage to a
persons body while helping them? that's more then oxycotin etc can say yet they are fine with them. i
say make everything more tangible to all, not just those who can afford it because it does more good
than harm. If the government only taxed it and controlled it so that it didn't become a problem then
everything would be fine, but the government is greedy so they want more. i understand the controlling
the amount, but they also need to think about those on SSI and our veterans and those who need it but
cannot afford it. just because politicians and government officials are rich doesn't mean that they, and
their families, will never suffer from the grip of arthritis or cancer or injury etc. the low men on the
totem poll are just as equal as the men at the top of it.
Regarding section G, number 13, the regulations as to how a physician can prescribe medical marijuana,
the rules are a bit ambiguous and unfair. For a physician to be required to have had a one year
"relationship" with the patient is medically very arbitrary. Is there some better knowledge regarding a
patient obtained at day 365 that was not there at day 364. Similarly, four physician visits in that year
time seems just as arbitrary. Why not 3? I understand wanting to have some sort of regulations to
make sure that only patients that need marijuana, receive it but these rules are unacceptable for several
reasons. As an emergency physician, I regularly must prescribe narcotic pain medicine and many other
medicines to people after only a 5 minute or less interaction. There is no way for me to tell if the
patient is lying about their pain or need. Why should marijuana be any different? Secondly, this
discriminates against those who do not have medical insurance and cannot afford to go to a doctor 4
times in a year. They may still have a chronic disease that qualifies. Thirdly, what about patients who
have just moved to Arizona? Can a physician not make a medical recommendation about the care of
their patients because they have not lived in Arizona long enough. Fourthly, what about patients who
change their doctor because of insurance issues, a physician retiring or moving, personal preference or
any other reason. They now do not qualify for a year? And what about the healthy patient who has
insurance but chooses to not go to a physician every year, then notices (i.e.) a lump in her breast, and
before she knows it, finds herself undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. This doesn't wait a year.
These time frames really have no place in the approval of using marijuana as a medicine as they also
have no place in the practice of medicine. As for the physician assuming "primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition...".
What does this really mean? Would I have to be the primary doctor treating a patient's cancer? This is
not really how the profession of medicine is practiced. Any disease can be treated by a group of
different primary doctors, specialists and sub-specialists. Who has "primary responsibility" is often
vague. This language apparently excludes the development of marijuana specialists. As medicine
develops, there are more and more specialties. Many physicians may not be able to adequately discuss
marijuana with a patient. There are pain specialty clinics prescribing methadone and other huge
amounts of narcotic pain medications that do not have similar regulations for physicians as described in
the draft. It would seem Arizona is concerned about not being in control of some aspect of physicians
prescribing medical marijuana. I understand. However, there are not regulations such as this in any
other part of medicine. I may have to prove my training, licensure, board certification. But then I can
prescribe anything I feel will help my patients without other similar regulations as you are suggesting in
the draft. Marijuana is either a helpful medicine or it is not. A patient either qualifies to use the
medicine or they do not. A physician should be entrusted to prescribe or not prescribe without extra
regulations. It is what we are trained to do. Thank you for your consideration,
Arizona licensed physician
each patient must have access to their medication and should have the right to grow their own
medication regardless of distance to a dispensary, there are too many strains of Medical Cannabis to
expect any certain dispensary to have them all. For this reason dispensaries should be allowed open
trade to keep stock and patients and care givers should be able to grow ( at a much lessor cost to the
patient) the strain that works best for them, regardless of geographic location to a dispensary! Any
Medication that can be grown for free is better than having to buy beyond ones means. All Arizonans
should have the right to access not just those who can afford the exorbitant $150 fee. what about those
on SSI, SSDI, state aid or Medicaid. And what about those who go to the V.A. and not an outside doctor
who will make the required recommendation? And what about those who haven't been bugging their
doctors for drugs they can't take and haven't been there twice in the last year because they didn't help
anyways. These people don't qualify because they won't do Opiates? What about those who use
chiropractic's to help relieve chronic joint related skeletal pain? All of these people will benefit if you
show compassion. Isn't this supposed to be a Compassion Law? Please show some
In the section regarding the rules regarding the doctor/patient relationship in order to acquire the
medication should be taken out. This will allow anyone who believes they have a medical need for the
medication to acquire it without rules regarding the doctor/patient relationship.
I beleive we need to include methods/procedures to ensure the same grading and testing are
maintained throughout the state. In paragraph R9-17-314 - Product Labeling and Analysis the strain is
required to be tracked and also subparagraph 5 directs that chemical additives must be annotated. I
don't beleive indiviudal providers should be or can be trusted with this capabiltiy. The areas that
should be controlled are: Potency Analysis - Microbiological contaminants (molds and bacteria)
Harmful pesticides
The definition of "certain conditions" will need to be defined or left of to the physicians discretion. I
favor leaving the required health conditions to be assessed by the specialist. Also, the dispensary license
requirements and renewal time frame will need to be defined.
Article 3 Dispensaries (R9-17-107 B.) A definition for "ready for inspection" regarding the dispensary.
Specific criteria required in order to “pass” inspection? Clarification between R9-17-107 B. Which
states “A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the applicant provides the
Department with written notice that the dispensary is ready for inspection by the Department.” And R9-
17-302 B. 1. j.-k. which states, “Whether the dispensary and if applicable, the dispensary’s cultivation
site are ready for an inspection by the department;” If are not ready for an inspection by the
department, the date they will be ready. One requirement seems to imply the locations must be ready
for inspection at the time the application is submitted while the other leads one to believe a reasonable
date would suffice. Will preliminary certificates be issued to dispensaries that are not ready for
"physical inspection" but provide all the required information such as, physical address, site plans and
otherwise meet or exceed all other criteria? I think it is unjust to expect a dispensary to be fully
operational (minus the medical marijuana) in order to submit an application. Allowing for submission
with the physical address and plans to make such address a fully functional dispensary, then issuing
preliminary approval with final approval based on completion and final inspection is more reasonable.
Given the requirement that, the medical marijuana is grown in Arizona and 70% be grown by the
licensed dispensary. There will be lag time between licensing and dispensing. This time will allow for a
dispensary given preliminary approval to prepare their site for the Departments final inspection and
approval prior to any dispensing. If greater than 125 applicants meet all requirements for licensing,
how will the final 125 applications for dispensaries be selected? Medical Director Is a medical director
really appropriate? If a patient is under the direct supervision of the physician who made the
recommendation, any concerns should be addressed with that physician (just as done with prescription
concerns in pharmacies). A director will not be familiar with a patient’s condition or history and should
not be expected to make medical decisions regarding their care without it. In case of any emergency or
concerns a patient should contact their PCP or go to the ER. Medication oversight should be provided
by a governing authority such as, a state board of pharmacy, the FDA or in this case the Health
Department. As the educational materials, log book, rating scale, and self-assessment may vary widely
from one dispensary to another. Especially, given the lack of knowledge about the use of medical
marijuana due to its unique use in medicine. Thus, creating possible confusion among patients. The
information a patient receives should be standardized no matter which dispensary is utilized. R9-17-
302 B. f. iii. Has not provided a surety bond or filed any tax return with taxing agency; this statement is
unclear. What is the reasoning for a surety bond?
By eliminating the one year doctor-patient relationship requirement. There are dozens of reasons why
that would block access by deserving patients -- the VA doesn't play this game, e.g., or your doctor died
six months ago, or wouldn't participate for religious or other reasons and you had to find a new
provider, etc., etc .You broke your back three months ago.
I believe that R9-17-102, 5-(a)(b) 6-(a)(b) – Fees, should address a sliding scale or lower fees, for
qualifying patient, and designated caregiver, as this may make it impossible for qualifying individuals to
obtain their ADHS identification card. Maybe follow other states identifying SSI, SSDI, and Medicaid will
fall under the low-income individuals. R9-17-104, does not state how a change on a registry
Identification card shall be submitted, will this be electronic as well? R9-17-105, does not state how
requesting a replacement registry identification card shall be submitted, will this be electronic as well?
R9-17-106, 90 calendar days after receiving the request, notify the requester is much too long, I feel 45
working days should be significant to inform the requestor that they meet or do not meet the
requirements. Also, 150 calendar days to hold a public hearing is too long, I feel that 30 days should be
sufficient. R9-17-202, F, 1(h) Should read “The qualifying patient’s e-mail address if applicable” R9-17-
202, F, 1(l) Should read “ The signature of the qualifying patient and date the qualifying patient signed,
or if the patient can’t sign and date, signed and dated by the Patients Health Care Power of Attorney”
R9-17-202 F5(e)(i), while it is important that a patient/physician have a professional relationship, there
are many physicians cannot or will not provide their patient with a recommendation, this will force their
patients to seek a NEW physician. This will disqualify legitimate individuals as well as veterans from
qualifying. This must be eliminated or changed to protect this type of patient. R9-17-204 (A) I think
that 30 calendar days before the expiration date is very lenient, but will that give the State enough time,
I would consider 60 calendar days. R9-17-302 (A) While I believe, that Dispensaries should only be
licensed to an individual/agent that is a Arizona Resident, I do not believe that a board member of a
dispensary must be a Arizona Resident; this prevents the potential dispensary from benefiting from the
expertise of persons with experience running successful, law-abiding dispensaries in other states.
By being more clear as to how a caregiver, patient or other dispensary can supply a dispensary with up
to 30% of their inventory and receive no compensation for the marijuana. Will they gift the dispensary
their stock and then the dispensary will donate the worth of the mmj to the caregiver or patient or other
dispensary?
Remove the 4 visits requirement. One should be enough. You don't need more than 1 visit to
receive Opiates! !50 dollars to be able to have a card? One doesn't need a special card to pick up
legal opiate medications from a drug store! May preclude the indigent from getting a card. No doubt
on purpose by the proposed rules.
I have no interest in selling medical marijuana to the general public. I think that dispensaries should be
required to buy 100% of their product from outside sources. Dispensaries and the Farmers should be
separated. The way this is written, a dispensary is like a bar that sells it's own beer 70% of the time and
is required to sell outsourced beer 30% of the time. What I am interested in is growing medical
marijuana legally and selling only to dispensaries. I would be open to inspections and help to stay with
in the laws.
Don't add things that you have no right adding as restrictions.
I can't afford the $150 fee. I can't afford to go to another doctor regularly in addition to my medical
doctor. My medical doctor can't prescribe MJ because some kind of rules that the hospital made. I hope
you won't make it too hard on me. I want to get off the pain pills and use MJ.
Well I have a dilema. I have been seeing the same doctor for chronic pain on my back for the past 6
years. Our work insurance is changing and my doctor is not in the network. I have spoken with him
about this as I have had 1 surgery and they want to do another. He also believes that I could benefit
from Medical Marijuana. But if I read this right when it goes into effect I have to see my doctor for 1
year. So does that mean I have to wait another year? Could you send me a reply. Thanks
the cost of the cards,patients being able to grow their own,smoking areas and pricing at the
dispensarys. if a authorized patient is on social security the card should be discounted. if a patient is on
social security then i think a monthly flat fee of a $100 should supply a months worth(5oz) of medicine
from a dispensary. patients should also be able to grow themselves or have a caretaker grow for them if
they choose to even if they live within a 25mile radius from a dispensary. smoking areas need to be
improved a lot! camping,fishing,hotels,parks,etc need to be added to the smoking areas list.
Who can recommend medical marijuana to a qualifying patient? Include Nurse Practitioners.
the rules are wrtiiten in such a way that the state is overregulating many aspects. for example you ask
for a business plan. i think all businesses should have a business plan. but to require one to be
submitted is over regulation and really is no business of the state. you do not require one of other
businesses.
The draft rules require residency for 2 years from the date of application. I do not feel these
requirements should be met. I believe any resident whom was a resident at the time of the election
should qualify. I personally have voted in this election. My vote was to disallow the law. However since
the law has been passed I believe with my business and management background, along with my desire
to keep this industry a non-red light district type of business, and have them blend into our community,
I would be an ideal candidate for a dispensary. I do not believe the state should regulate legitimate
candidates out of this opportunity. Simply put if a resident was allowed to vote in the election they
should have the right to apply for a dispensary, just as they would be allowed to apply for a card for use
of medical marijuana.
Exceptions for those of us that have no medical care and haven't been able to afford a doctor in years. I
am already losing all my benefits in January. Possibly an unbiased medical clinic that maybe patients
make a co-op payment so the Prop 203 budget isn't affected. I need this type of service. There are still
a lot of doctors that do not believe Marijuana helps people like me. I think that you should try the draft
out and then re-evaluate it in 3--6 months to see what needs to be tweaked. A suggestion box from
clients or patients would give you feed back as well as a survey sheet when you sign in to gage how the
clinics and shops are doing. I have been seeing doctors since 2006 at Magellin/ southwest Network but I
have no idea if they can write a MJ script.
you are trying to raise revenue for this program to pay for itself and to create revenue for Arizona. but
in the rules you define a consultant and that person has to be a regstered agent. what if you found an
expert outsde the state of arizona and you want to get their expertise. the rules are written as such
that that person has to be a resident for two years prior to the application of a license. how will you be
able to find this expert inside the state of Arizona? for example a grow expert. what if you want to
hire an bookkeeper that is not part of the company? do all the staff at the bookkeeper company have to
be a designated agent? I would rather pay a tax on sales than be restricted from getting the help i
would need to run the business effectively.
R9-17-101 - 4. Calendar Day - the verbiage is confusing. Are you stating just Monday - Friday except
for holiday's? Can a dispensary be open on Saturdays? R9-17-101 - 14. As long as you have a legal
guardian and have obtained a doctor recommendation, is this portion stating there is no age limit? I am
not aware of the youngest medical marijuana patients however I would think this may be something to
further consider as the THC levels may need to be lowered for a child. R9-17-101 - 15. Medical
Director. I recommend adding NMD's as a doctor able to provide medical oversight at a dispensary. My
medical doctor is currently an NMD and the knowledge they have regarding herbs and herbal treatments
along with the effects of all vitamins and natural care I feel is best suited for directing a marijuana
dispensary. My prior MD was not familiar with herbal remedies or associated treatments which would
concern me if I were a medical marijuana patient. R9-17-107 - B. If you are unaware if your
registration packet has been accepted and approved, how would you have anything set up for an
inspection by the Department? Are you saying that if your application is pre-approved, and after the
department has completed their inspection, your application will be complete? Does this go along with
F? R9-17-310 C. 2. If a patient does not want to maintain a log book, is this required? Is it just
required for the physician to provide them one? R9-17-313 B. 2. In reference to the amount of 30%
being grown by others, is there a certain amount that will be designated as 30% and 70%? It would be
helpful to be more specific as to the amount of yield along with if there is a maximum amount of
patients you can have as a dispensary? If a dispensary has to grow 70% of their own product, is this
monthly, quarterly, weekly? It is allowed to have 2.5 oz every 14 days for each patient so can you
grow, buy or sell depending on how many patients you have? It would be difficult to determine the
amount of yield per plant and if you have more patients through the month, how do you regulate this?
R9-17-314 B.1. Will the total weight or estimated amount of marijuana in the edibles be tracked to be
included in the 2.5 oz per 14 days per patient? Can you be more specific in this area?
you do not have someone that can answer specific questions. when you call to ask a question, you get
a vague answer. you should have an email so that people can submit questions and get real answers.
in terms of investing alot of money and time up front, this has to be done before a license is granted. it
is unfair if you cant get questions answered with specific answers and maybe this prevents you from
getting a license.
i understand the residency requirement but you have left no room for when things evolve and change.
for example in R9-17-319. you say that principal offiicer or board member has to be a resident for two
years preceeding the application. but later down the road things change with the board and there is a
new board memer coming on. this person will have to meet the residency requirement but you have it
written that the residncy requirement in such a way that they have to be a resident two years prior.to
the application. what if in five yers there is a board member change. you have it written that the person
would have to effectively be a resident of arizona 7 years. 2 years prior to the application plus five years
of time that has gone by. this is too restictive. this languge is prevelant through out. this leave no
room for
In the section titled "R9-17-101 Definitions" Line item 15 in reference to "Medical Director" outlined in
"R9-17-310 Medical Director", I would suggest that a Naturopathic Medical Doctor otherwise designated
as Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine be added to the list of possible medical directors for dispensaries. A
doctor of naturopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to
A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide
medical oversight at the dispensary. As primary care physicians in Arizona, Naturopathic Physicians
are the only physicians specifically trained in Botanical Medicine required to take 120 hours focusing on
the scientific research, actions, interactions, and safety of thousands of plant medicines and their
chemical constituents. Along with Botanical Medicine, Naturopathic Physicians take 96 hours of
Pharmacology and are required to pass rigorous board exams to obtain licensure and must comply with
state requirements for continuing medical education specifically related to Pharmacology. Because of
the education, Naturopathic Physicians are uniquely positioned to provide safe direction of medical
marijuana dispensaries paying particular attention to possible medication and herbal interactions and
offering the best possible medicine to patients specific to their condition keeping in mind actions of
specific chemical compounds found in different strains of Cannabis. Also, Naturopathic physicians are
ideal candidates as medical directors for medical marijuana dispensaries as they have extensive
education and an ability to offer alternative treatments to the patients including diet and lifestyle
modification, nutrient supplementation, and have an extensive knowledge of conventional and
alternative treatments designed to offer comprehensive integrated medical care to address each patient
individually. Please consider adding Naturopathic Medical Doctors to the list of possible medical
directors. Thank you for your time.
The rules must consider marijuana just like _any other_ prescription medicine. Taking as an example
another prescription medicine, say any antibiotic, then consider this point: . How would an
"antibiotic dispensary" be treated? (and treat marijuana the same) How would we regulate doctors
on prescribing antibiotics? (and treat marijuana the same) . Any different treatment to this medicine
would be over the top, overreaching, and acting on fear and ignorance after decades of negative
propaganda over a simple and utilitarian plant used to make army uniforms in World War II. Therefore,
I beg the board to act with wisdom and discretion instead: treat marijuana like any other prescription
medicine. Thank you.
I think the "one year doctor/patient relationship" is unrealistic. People who are very sick visit many
doctors trying to get relief from their conditon. What if a patient who is very sick and in pain just started
seeing a doctor for his/her symptoms? Would they have to wait a whole year to be able to benefit from
medical marijuana? It's not right. There has to be a way to change that so that anyone who is sick
(regardless of when they got sick) doesn't have to wait a year to get help from this medicine. Not
everyone can handle prescription pain killers. The pills make some people even more sick then they
already are. I am asking you to please change this so that people who need it can benefit from it. Make
the people who want it provide documentation (xrays, mri, lab results, medical records) proof of their
illness. I think this should be sufficient enough. Don't make people jump through hoops. If you are sick,
you will have some kind of documentation of it.
I don’t see any area for improvement.
The need for a full-time director is questionable. Appropriate safety and other materials on virtually
every aspect of medical marijuana can be printed and provided to patients without the need for an on-
site physician. The statute may have been developed to ensure proper labeling and education, but it
makes more sense to set specific standards, guidelines and education requirements through the AZDHS.
Another solution would be to allow physicians who want to specialize in this area help all dispensaries
without limit.
Section R9-17-203 2/ i a-e can be improved by adding "permanent residents" of at least 10-20 years to
your definitions. I've been a permanent resident for over 20 years and have paid my federal, state, and
local taxes. I've also paid my fair share of Medicare and Social Security. so it kind of seems "unfair" to
not include "permanent law abiding residents" who qualify as "patients" or "designated caregivers." I
have a qualifying debilitating condition that I've been getting treatment for years, through conventional
methods of pills and therapy.
There should be more than one dispensary per 10 pharmacies!!
To include more permanent diseases such as Autisum and Bipolar. Because that is something that could
help kids who struggle with thier emotions and logic day by day. Also maybe the language if people on
ACHES or Teros who recieve fully paid benefits for such diseases will be approved, or might be on the
verge of being approved.
The 25 mile rule is so unfair to patients, I simply cannot believe the state would put something like that
into law. No other state has any law like this, and anyone can tell this law was started, and written by
folks who are getting ready to become multi millionaires opening dispenarys. A oz of medicine should
never cost more than 50 dollars, if being sold at "non-profit" prices, but as seen in every other state, a
oz of medicine is being sold at 500 and more. Please please please get rid of this 25 mile rule for
patients and care givers. Don't force suck paitents like myself to pay thosands per month. Only you can
help us at this point. Don't let them take advantage of us!!!!!
the V.A holds a lot of medical records that adhere to all the rules but they work for the fed goverment
and can not leglly write recommendation, most of us vet can only see them and the time frame for doc
and pat in the out side world is to long and costly for us that live on a disibility check. vets with disibilty
that are with in your rules should be given only a one time charge with no renewable fee. the card
should be at least 5 yr good.
I have a problem with the 1 year relationship with the physician rule. I, for instance, have just lost my
primary care physician. I do have my medical records from her and have been to specialists. My doctor
quit practice. It was my primary physician that knew me for 5 years and prescribed my medications for
pain and muscle spasms. I am currently looking for another Dr. What would someone in my situation
do? Would there be an acception to the rule for someone like me?
QUIT TREATING AN HERB WITH MORE CONTEMPT AND SUSPICION THAN THOSE SYNTHETIC
PHARMACEUTICALS EVERYONE 'SWALLOWS' SO READILY!!! THE CRIMINALITY IS SOURCED ONLY IN
PROHIBITION, NOT THE SUBSTANCE-AT-HAND; I AM NOT A FREQUENT USER, BTW, AND I KNOW
YOU CAN'T O.D. ON CANNABIS, AT LEAST NOT NEARLY AS EASILY AS ALCOHOL, PHARMACEUTICALS,
OR PROBABLY TOBACCO OR TOMATOES WHEN THE CARCINOGENIC HERBICIDES/PESTICIDES ARE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. WHY CAN I GROW MY OWN VEGETABLES FOR MY HEALTH (superior to
choices in the market) but not my own medicine? Can I grow basil, St. John's Wort, ginseng? Is the
T-shirt vendor required to spin the fabric his shirts are made from? Is he required to grow the cotton
and own a cotton farm? THIS IS RIDICULOUS!! YOU, THE DEPARTMENT ARE FORCING A MARRIAGE
OF RETAIL AND HORTICULTURE IN REMOTE LOCATIONS!! GET A FREAKIN' CLUE-- THESE ARE
DIFFERENT ANIMALS; THE VILLAGE REQUIRES A BUTCHER, BAKER, AND A CANDLESTICK MAKER!
This is already a VERY challenging climate and business model to operate, by nature; you have the
proprietor not only concerning himself with overly vigilant regulators, security, personnel, clientele,
protocol, quality control, inventory control, education requirements, medical directors, zoning
ordinances, et.al, but you want to square the equation by HANDCUFFING THE DISPENSARY TO THE
GROW OP!!! IT IS LUDICROUS THAT A SUCCESSFUL STOREFRONT CORRELATES TO A SUCCESSFUL
GROW OP, in intention, skill, nature, knowledge, etc. HOW COULD YOU BE SO DAFT?? You are
showing your ignorance (ass) in a huge way and are asking for RIDICULE! GET OVER YOURSELVES and
your SELF-IMPORTANCE and ASSIST with implementing a REASONABLE, WORKABLE, BENEVOLENT,
BENEFICIAL PROGRAM and QUIT DEMONIZING THIS INDUSTRY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU INTEND TO HAVE
IT BAIL-OUT YOUR BROKE DEPARTMENT AND THIS "STATE OF SAD AFFAIRS." This entire valley is
laid-out for STRIP-MALLS: HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THESE BUSINESSES FIND LOCATIONS?? Will you
force patients, young, and old, crippled, in pain, to travel to the industrial areas of towns to procure
their treatments? How about those operating hours?? Oh sure, your hundreds of thousands (more?) of
daytime workers could hire a runner, or employ a caregiver, even if they don’t need one, to retrieve
their medicine while they work, but why should they have to? They can go get bombed in a bar and put
more citizens at risk (even if they DON'T drive) or load up on synthetic concoctions from the
PHARMACIES, but don't let 'em buy MEDICAL MARIJUANA at 7 a.m. or 6:30 p.m. before or after work,
respectively! ARE YOU FOR REAL???!!! YOU ARE PRESCRIBING THE PHYSICAL BUILD-OUTS OF THESE
FACILITIES; HOW ABOUT LEAVING THAT TO THOSE WHO WISH TO PROTECT THEIR BUSINESSES,
INVESTMENTS, EMPLOYEES, ETC.? There are SOOO MANY VACANCIES IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
AT PRESENT; MANY FACILITIES COULD MEET AND EXCEED REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY, BUT LEAVE THAT TO THOSE OF US WHO WISH TO
DO THE BEST BUSINESS! Cream rises to the top; your model dispensaries and grow ops will be there
without your naive, meddling, impositions. Patrons will support the up-and-ups, and REASONABLE
REGULATIONS will flush-out the shady ops. LET FREE ENTERPRISE HAVE A SHOT! Will the
DEPARTMENT start paying attention to the safety and quality (or toxicity) of the produce we
purchase/consume? Wait that is the FDA, who turns a blind eye and flat denies the effects of poisons,
hormones, antibiotics, and such IN OUR FOOD!!! PULL YOUR HEADS OUT AND LOOK IN THE MIRROR;
WHO DO YOU WISH TO BE IN THIS?? WHO ARE YOU REALLY?? REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE PART OF
A HUMAN FAMILY FIRST, THEN, SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE, A DEPARTMENT AGENT. THIS IS
ABOUT PATIENT CARE, HUMAN RIGHTS, FREE ENTERPRISE, AND GOODWILL AMONG MEN, NOT
CRIMINALIZING NATURAL MEDICINE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN TAKEN FROM PEOPLE IN
THE FIRST PLACE!!! PURGE AND CLEANSE; TRY AGAIN!
1) "A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered dispensaries and
may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered dispensaries." I'm not sure
what the reasoning behind this is. I think the system will evolve better if we just let free market and
standard supply and demand principles run their course. 2) "A patient’s Arizona physician must either
1) have been treating that patient for the debilitating medical condition for at least a year that included
at least four visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for the care of the debilitating medical
condition after compiling a medical history, conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical
records." I have been diagnosed with Fibromylagia and Central Sensitivity Syndrome. There are
numerous symptoms that I am being treated for and I have chosen to remain under the care of
SEVERAL doctors including a neurologist, rheumatologist, chiropractor, naturopath, and my family
physician. People that suffer from chronic pain, among other illnesses, often seek medical care from
several physicians and there isn't any reason why a particular doctor, simply because he or she
recommends the use of marijuana, should have to assume the primary responsibility for the care of the
debilitating medical condition for a given patient. It's important to note that physicians do not always
agree with one another regarding treatment plans. My primary physician has a great philosophy in that
he believes that maintaining wellness is 20% doctor and 80% patient. I do a lot of research on my own
and then consult with my doctors for their opinions and recommendations. Marijuana is simply one
more treatment option for many people. Whether or not the doctor recommending marijuana is the
patient's primary care doctor or not seems irrelevant.
The person in at a dispensary called a "Medical Director" It seems that a pharmacist would be qualified
to provide interactions and safe practices as well. That detail should be specified whether or not a
pharmacist is capable of providing the same necessary insight as the previously mentioned qualifications
of a "Medical Director"
The issues of location vs. approval. Are we expected to find a (2) locations now, outfit both the
dispensary and grow facility w/ equipment and sign a lease for 8 months to a year while we wait for
approval?.....then hope adhs has not already approved another dispensary 1000 feet away? This could
be a $100,000+ investment "gamble" and is really going to scare away legit dispensary owners who
cannot afford to spend this kind of money on the hopes of being approved. I really believe that
applicants should be applying for certain cities or areas then approved based on their application and
qualifications, not the willingness to risk $100k on the small chance of being approved. Once approved
for a specific city or area, I would have no issues w/ finding, leasing and outfitting this facility. As a
nurse, I have money to spend but cannot be leasing 2 facilities for a year while I wait on approval. This
is going to deter reputable qualified applicants to dispense this medicine and allow applicants w/ deep
pockets and possible corrupt connections to fund these facilities.
The intent of this law is to medicate those who need the product not to over-regulate the process. I
think that restricting the free flow of the product would make hardships and restrict free enterprise.
R9-17-307 C-1 through 5 limits acquisition to 30% and burdens dispensaries with mandatory production
of 70%. The limitations imposed by any percentages will likely cause shortages and /or price increases.
This would be an attempt at price-fixing. Prices should be regulated by free enterprise.
Using some actual COMMON SENSE when the subject comes to sick, in pain, mentally unsettled
PATIENTS! STOP NIT-PICKING AND MAKING STUPID, "HARD" RULES! A lot of people can not afford to
"PURCHASE" the "RIGHT", which I thought the State of Arizona voted into LAW. Why force an ill patient
to PAY $350 total to just access their pharmacy???
The thing that I am haveing the biggest conflict with is this. If your NOT demanding that liquor stores,
convienent stores, bars & distilleries give 24 hour remote video access options, why would you force
that on dispenceries and cultivation sites? I'm not even applying for either liscense but I can say this,
EVERYONE i've ever met who smokes marijuana is 1000% more responsible than ANYONE consuming,
making, or selling the deadly "DRUG" known as alcohol. Yet we still don't make these people agree to
remote surveillance by authorities? I think this is prejudice, no offense intended. Come in, do your
inspections, pass the place or don't, but don't treat us like criminals when there are plenty of other laws
passed allowing WAY more deadly things to be accessible to the general public wich are NOT under
remote surveillance. The only other thing I can say I disagree with is this states aparent
discrimination against people with felonies in their past who may wan't to obtain a liscense to open a
dispencery or cultivation site. These people have done their time and payed their debts to society, and
it's just plane cruel to allow them to kill themselves working a heavy labor job day in and out to go out
as a consumer, but things, pay taxes like EVERYONE else to support this economy, and then be told
"Yes, your allowed to keep our economy afloat by killing yourself, but NO we can't allow you to open a
buisness in your name because of a history that has had it's debt paid in full.
The rules stress the importance of having a long term relationship with he client. And then the rules say
the dispensary with have a Medical Doc on hand to handle clients. That seems contradictory. from my
experience a Medical Doctors (spinal-thoracic) either operate or send a client of to one of their Medical
Pain Doctors who inject a variety of chemical to numb the pain, the symptom. This works for days, or
weeks,months but don't really know. Again they are just treating symtoms. D.O.'s and NMD's treat the
problem either looking for a cure, or pain relief. In the medical model and when the pain is numbed, I
can't feel what the problem is or where it is. In the holistic model I have been able to treat the problem
so I have come from a place of probably not being able to move or walk, to a place where I am almost
completely mobile. So with the use of moderate pain relievers I have been able to identify where and
what the problem is. With the medical models I have been offered I would probably still be bedridden
convinced That was my only choice. I feel this Medical Marijuana measure will serve people in a way
that the medical model hasn't, and probably won't. My personal team of providers includes MD's, D.O.'s,
2 NMD's, plus a variety of physical therapist. I resist any form of narcotic since I believe they impair
recovery.
A qualifying patient should be able to obtain Cannabis from any designated caregiver to insure that the
sick are not held hostage to the dispensary system and their high prices. A qualifying patient should be
able to obtain a recommendation from any physician willing to review their medical history, without the
unnecessary obstacle of having to wait a year. Designated caregivers should be licensed separately
from individual qualifying patients outside the 25 mile dispensary buffer, and a licensed "designated
caregiver" should be allowed to cultivate for up to 5 qualifying patients for a total of sixty plants.
Cannabis produced for but not used by a qualifying patient could be donated to the purpose of creating
REAL clinical trails. This puts Cannabis production in isolated areas of the countryside, and outside the
city limits. It also promotes diversity and quality. A proposal to conduct real clinical trials should
absolutely be a part of this process. This is particularly true of the Chronic Pain category. Should also
be done in the process of adding PTSD as a qualifying condition
Make it easy and inexpensive for the ill.
Fees should be lowered by a factor of 10: Patients card - $15 Caregiver's card - $20 Dispensary
application fee - $500 Remember, the goal is to make marijuana legally available to those who need it,
even it it means erring on the side of being too easy. The rules shouldn't make it so difficult or
expensive to obtain marijuana legally that people continue to support the illegal drug trade and Mexican
cartels who use the money to kill our citizens. Requiring a 1" thick metal gate at the cultivation area is
excessive, so are 12 foot high concrete walls. The only areas that will meet those requirements are
prisons.
Relocations fees should not be incurred until sites are up and running. until then relocation should be
subject to approval. The reason being is that there are too many unknowns with each city having
different zoning and codes, it might be difficult to get all necessary approvals at time of application. I
think it would be appropriate that all hospice patients automatically qualify as a patient, no matter what
their diagnosis, no matter what their symptoms. As former hospice nurse, I believe they might benefit
from marijuana as much as any other patient. Of course every patient is different, but for many it might
allow for decreased dosage of the common symptom management pharmaceuticals which all have side
effects. Additional medications are often necessary just to control side effects. If nothing else, marijuana
might simply reduce the anxiety of knowing one's life is coming to an end. There are not many valid
studies or objective data evaluating medical marijuana. I would like to see Arizona become proactive on
this front by instituting requirements that would assist in compiling objective data which would then
serve to validate (or if the case may be, invalidate) the efficacy of marijuana use in each of the different
diseases, or more accurately symptoms, that people are seeking relief from. Among the various states
with existing medical marijuana laws there is sufficient population for objective evaluation, yet I don’t
see it being done. I think that Arizona should somehow make it mandatory that patients participate in a
study to evaluate the effect of marijuana on their symptoms. Patients should be interviewed at the time
of the first dispensing. This interview should address the symptom or symptoms which they are seeking
relief from, how long they have had these symptoms, what they have tried in the past which has helped
or didn’t help, how severe the symptom is on a scale of 1-10, what level they would find acceptable,
what medications they are currently taking or any other therapies to relieve the symptom. In addition
some simple vital signs such as BP, heart rate and weight would be appropriate. Patients should be
required to fill out a re-evaluation and get their vital signs checked once a month. AZ DOHS should
collect and analyze this data.
The section allowing a person experiencing "severe nausea" to apply for medical marijuana use is
uncomfortably vague. Specific diseases which create chronic nausea would be better, if listed.
Otherwise, such events as episodes of binge drinking of alcoholic beverages could be passed off as
"severe nausea", as could episodes of food poisoning or abuse of barbiturates.
Allow a patient to keep their regular doctor and still see another doctor if their regular doctor can't
recommend medical marijuana.
see above
R9-17-108 should include if the physician is no longer licensed by the state osteopathic or medical
board. R9-17-201 - Cancer - should not include any cancer in remission and should require that the
specific cancer have the same required evidence as new medical indications or leave cancer out, as the
indications for use of MJ in cancer is during treatment, which is covered in items 8-10. Glaucoma - only
if current medical therapies are failing. Hepatitis C - meaning active disease process, not just positive
for hepatitis C virus/antibodies. Caregiver permits should be voided if they test positive for marijuana.
Patient permits should be voided if it is shown that their supply has been made available to others
(patient's should have appropriate storage, similar to requirements for physicians and narcotic storage -
double locked secured container with log book. Patients convicted of felony offense should be excluded,
similar to custodial parents and caregivers. Custodians, caregivers, and physicians should not also be
patients. Physicians testing positive for marijuana should not be allowed to sign off on treatment.
Treating physicians should not be associated with (owner, board member, potential financial gain - i.e.
related) or be permitted as a dispensary. The dispensary's medical director should not also be a treating
physician for patient's purchasing from other dispensaries. The physicians who will be signing off,
should also have a separate registration (similar to the dispensing of prescription medications in office).
Physician's license type should be identified and not include license types such as chiropractic,
homeopathic, optometry, etc.
Hello - I am recievieng SSDI and am on Medicare. I do not think my Dr. will give me a recommendation.
I have extentsive back problems, 3 bulging dics pressing directly on nerves. And also have crushed right
leg giving me serious pain. Because of my situation a Medicare Dr. will not go for it.
I have had one of the conditions on the approved list for over 20 years. My doctor privately
recommends marijuana to me and other patients of his, but he will not write on paper a
recommendation. So now you say I have to find a new doctor and wait a year to apply for a card. So,
you leave me with the choice to take prescription drugs with horrible side effects to stop my seizures
and muscle spasms or for a year I should buy the one medicine that works without bad side effects
from criminals? Why would you do that?
please provide a section on how the approval process will work for dispensary certificates. will it be 1st
come 1st serve?, lottery?, or the most logical way, which is to look at business plan and model, and
make an informed decision. the 70/30 grow rate for each dispensary seems a bit lopsided. some
dispensaries that qualify may not have the capacity to grow 70% and would need to purchase wholesale
from other dispensaries who have the capacity.
The rules reguarding the relationship between Dr. and patient are way too strict. Specifically the one
year rule isnt always practical. I live in a rural type community and the two Dr.'s I have had for three
years and two years, respectively; both recently moved away. Now the next specialist is scheduled to
come here in Feb. 2 more months before I can even start the one year relationship. I feel that any Dr.
should be able to write the recomendation, they are professionals in their field and this is what the
people voted for. Why dont we use another states successful policy as a guideline. Montana has been
successful, and that state offers as much diversity as our own and this might save time and money.
* A patient must pay $150 each year for an identification card, and a designated caregiver, $200. There
states have. We suggest reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid benefits. * A
dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered dispensaries and may
have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Please create an open wholesale
relationship between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all
qualifying patients, and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to meet
demand. * A patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient for the
debilitating medical condition for at least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken
primary responsibility for the care of the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history,
conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than in most
of the medical marijuana states, but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a
recommendations.
It can improved for most veterans that suffer from illnesses that cannot be cured no matter the type of
pills percribed to an patient. these conditions are considered debilitating medical condition and the
mixture of prescibed pills from a provider can bring serious problems due to the mixing of the pills that
are given to cure multiple problems such as PTSD, depession and axiety. these medical conditions
should be considered a debilitating medical condition and should be considered as a factor for medical
marijuana
I personally feel that section R9-17-201 Line 10 regarding medical conditions causing nausea is way to
general and have no way to be validated and can easily be exploited. If nausea is truly an on going
condition then a doctor needs to find the underlying cause of nausea and base the qualification on that
diagnosis. I can see a high school kid walking into a doctor and claim he is nausea to get a id card. It
is what happens in California and I would rather not have medical marijuana which i need really bad just
to protect the youth in the state.
i feel the amount that you have stated to be charged is too much for sick patients , and 4 appointments
for a referal is unneeded burden on already suffereing patients and 5000 non refundable charge for
the pharmacys is crazy, this proposition was passed to help people so do that please
1) (R9-‐17-‐102) There does not appear to be a sliding scale or lower cost card available for low income
patients, as most other states have done, which should be remedied. 2) (R9-‐17-‐202(F)(5)) While it
is reasonable and important to ensure that a physician has a bonafide relationship with a patient, this
language may be overly restrictive and may prevent veterans from qualifying for the program. 3) (R9-
‐17-‐307) This restriction is unnecessary and not in the best interests of patients. Please reject this rule
in favor of an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries that does not limit how much of a
dispensary’s supply must be self-produced and how much may be acquired from other registered
dispensaries. 4) (R9-‐17-‐101(15), 310) allowing nurse-practitioners/advance practice nurses, public
health PhDs, and Arizona doctors and osteopaths with nonactive (but not invalid) licenses to serve in
that capacity as well.
This section of the Draft needs to be adjusted as the part i of this section is biased and totally
irresponsible on the part of the AZDHS to require: “A statement, initialed by the physician, that the
physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one
year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's
debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed
personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may
include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies”
Many people that may benefit from medical marijuana can not afford multiple visits to acquire doctors
approval. A visit, a history equals control.
I am afraid that people who are low-income will find the costs prohibitive. I would like to see a sliding
scale for those on SSI, or other forms of fixed income or low-income. Through information provided to
me about other states, I think it would be overly restrictive to disallow dispensaries freely provide
wholesale products to each other. Hopefully, then, rural areas will always have enough product
available for patients. If good records are kept, there should be no problems. Also, I wonder about
veterans who receive care from VA docs who are not allowed to recommend-what recourse do they
have? Some of the rules about owners of dispensaries are too restrictive. We need experienced owners
from other states to be able to mentor and help those from AZ.
I think it would be beneficial to be a more clear with regards to the rules involved in becoming a
caregiver. To be more specific, does the Qualifying patient HAVE to live 25 miles from a dispensary or
can any Patient apply to grow? If a Qualifying Patient designates a Caregiver, does this possible
distance requirement then go off of the Caregivers address?
R-9-17-202 is extremely misleading as how to it is interpreted by AZDHS as to how to get a qualified

patient card. It clearly states in the Draft that the Doctor has control of the diagnostic aspect, and
does not require four visits over the course of a year. It clearly states that a recommendation for
medicinal marijuana can in fact come from a Dr. that has reviewed other physicans' diagnosis of a
patient. For example, a Nerologist can diagnose someone with a type of trauma from an
injury/disease. Then they eventually get care from their PCP, who is primarily responsible. Why should
the patient have to then wait a year and see a Dr. 4 times when they have already been diagnosed?
This may also prove benficial to patients who have moved here from another State and are in pain
(which is the whole purpose of the law).
First of all the ADHS should define marijuana and their honest intentions for medical marijuana. And the
ADHS should issue some statements acknowledging the history, medical benefits, safety and potential
for safe access and affordability of marijuana for the poorest citizens.
Qualifying Patient Records This is the most dangerous aspect of the rules. Arizona would have all of the
states patients self incriminate by recording every single element of a federal crime be required in
exquisite detail with the exact amount of schedule 1 drug signed for and documented as dispenced by a
state licensed facility DEA will will will raid one of these dispensaries one day. The DEA has been
active in the medical marijuana industry in all 14 prior states to allow medical marijuana. The state of
Arizona would be putting the DEA in an akward position at time of such raids. Never befor has the DEA
raided a dispensary that had been required to keep such detailed records of federal drug violations.
What should the DEA do when suddenly provided with the names addresses and exact details of each
and every illigal drug transaction. The DEA will not be able to politically refuse arresting patients who
may have purchased dozons of ounces. The DEA has only one word for this in any state or teritory,
(Distribution) ie dealer At a minimum the DEA will end up breaking into homes of regestered patients
who may have been the latest to visit the dispencary knowing that they have a home with drugs in it.
People on social security should not have to pay for the card or have a sliding scale to help lower
income people have access.
Fees: It looks as though we are pricing this medicine out of reach for most patients. I am a SSI
recipient and I am recognized as a service connected 100% disabled Army Vet. I am 42 years old and
even though my medical condition will most likely shorten my life substantially I will require aggressive
therapy both physical and medicinal for the rest of my life. I was a registered patient in Michigan’s
program, and was able under the supervision of my Dr to manage my medical condition for around $90-
$110 a month and that would have come down once my equipment was paid off. Even if I did decide to
purchase at a dispensary in MI as I did a few times in-between growing plant cycles .The cost was kept
down because patients had a choice to grow. The extreme requirements of such large sums of money
be involved for registry cards, Doctors needing to be on call or present, and all of the regulation
involved along with the fact that Az. will also be forcing prices up artificially because of the bottleneck
created by the size limitation on dispensaries yet mandating that they grow 70% of what they sell. I see
$600 and up an ounce here in Arizona. $600 an ounce I believe is on the low side and that would
equate to $39,000. a year of medical marijuana. Much more then my tiny SSI. I use Marijuana to
replace two other meds that I would need to continue living Just one of them Lyrica (not covered by VA)
is over $300 a month add my morphine to that and you can see why I chose marijuana. Just to apply
it will cost me $350 in application fees for myself and my wife who would need to pick up and help
administer the meds. Add to that thousands of dollars a month, the decision will not be weather to apply
for a registry card or not. Instead the only decision I will have is weather to break the law and use Black
Market or home grown marijuana, or shift back to a perpetual Morphine sleepless zombie.
The draft states that the dispensary must be completely built out for approval. The draft also states
that no two dispensaries can be within one mile of each other. With the way the draft is written
currently applicants can spend 100's of thousands of dollars meeting the regulatory requirements and
may impede within the one mile rule of another applicant. This is an unfair rule as it currently stands
unless a two part approval was enacted. First phase to qualify the applicant on personal qualifications
and location and second part on build out and facility requirements.
Medical Directors for dispensaries: This requirement will make the AZ. medical marijuana program a
fiscal and legal disaster. The increased cost of employing a Dr. would keep this medicine under ground
and fule the black market in Marijuana. Lets not do everything possible to make this medicine as
expensive as we can with hobbling cost additives simply to discourage those who would not meet the
requirements of the program anyway. Legal nightmear as well, with the requirement that a Medical
Director not establich a Dr. Patient relationship, along with the lengthy detailed Patient records you
would have him in charge of spells forced testimony and no Patient privelege as well. Under AZ. law
there would be no way possible to protection against any federal inquery or audit
I would suggest that the ADHC avoid any involvement in any patients' records or history requirement
which incidentally, automatically restricts legal access for any VA patients. Though the VA has approved
acceptance of medical marijuana patients as of July 2010, they have currently restricted themselves
from prescribing. Further restriction of medicinal marijuana patients in medical diagnosis would have
resulted in no one coming to any Arizona VA Hospital for treatment under fear they would be turned in
to law enforcement though having acquired another State's approved medicinal card. I believe any
requirement based on a patient's personal medical records and history would constitute discrimination
against Veterans and ultimately low income patients and those concurrently in rehab facilities, and
discriminate against all the people who voted for 203. There arises questions such as, if determination
of a debilitating medical condition is required to obtain an Arizona State card, will that affect "disability"
benefits and/or requirements? I would suggest you trust in the referral of any licensed doctor,
naturopath, chiroprator, dentist, etc. I believe that's why licenses are required. I am compelled to
remind you all that marijuana is a weed, an herb, intended for mankinds' benefit. I also believe other
State's cards must be accepted and honored at any dispensary and recognized by law enforcement.
I speak as a 63 year old woman who has resided in Arizona for 40 years. We want free access to our
own discretion to choose a doctor, what kind of doctor, and how many times we want to see that doctor
in order to incur the varied expense thereof, with or without benefit of insurance. May I mention those
of us who have spent our lives avoiding doctors now to find ourselves ordered to see a doctor several
times in order to obtain permission to use a weed. We want an open wholesale relationship between
dispensaries to assure consistent and healthy supply and easy access thereto to qualifying patients, and
would result in lower costs due to increased quality competition as well as stimulate urban farming
growth throughout the State. Some may be stimulated to grow a few vegetables as well for healthy
living. I read a statement that Director Humble believes the draft rules will reduce the estimated
qualifying patients from 100,000 to 20,000 people. Is that the primary intention of the ADHC? How
does that promote the health, welfare, and individual freedom of the 80,000 potential qualifiers and the
well being of this State's population? I only see these draft rules benefiting the law enforcement,
doctors, lawyers and outdated juris prudence of Arizona, not the people or "patients". Perhaps the
ADHC must take a tax and revenue approach to their regulations. A dollars and cents approach would
benefit from NOT restricting growth or designated growth areas on any privately owned land designated
and taxed as agricultural.
Defining a patient-doctor relationship: Under AZ. rules, US Military vets under the care of the VA would
be excluded. I am a 100% disabled veteran receiving all of my medical care from the VA. Under your
rules I would have to refuse treatment at my current VA health facility and hire a private physican at my
own expense for a year before even thinking about applying for a registry card. VA Doctors are now
able to treat patients that are using medical marijuana in states that allow it however those same VA
Doctors are not authorized to fill out a recommendation. Arizona already has a legal understanding of
what a Doctor Patient relationship is, it is tried and tested in tort laws and case study. I suggest we
simply use what we have known all along. A common sense approach would be to use the medical
industry standard as to what a Dr. Patient relationship is instead of redefining it for only one medication.
Fact: Not one drug in this nation requires you to enter into any kind of exclusive contract with a Doctor
for a predetermined period of time.
The ADHS does not have the authority to define or redefine the patient-physician relationship or the
number of doctor visits, or the length of time for those visits. That infringes on the patient’s choice.
I qualify medically. But, unless you allow me to see my primary doctor who isn't allowed to make a
medical marijuana recommendation....and make it easy for me to see a second doctor for a
recommendation...and if the yearly fees aren't ridiculous....I'll continue buying it illegally on the streets.
We must improve the doctor to patient relationship. I feel that we do in deed need to set some grown
rules, but to see the same doctor for up to a year I feel is a bad idea. I feel that with the way people are
getting laid off from jobs they are losing their insurance thus having to see a different doctor. Put your
self in that situation. You need medical marijuana for HIV or chronic pain, but just before the act goes
into play you change your doctor so this means you must find a need doctor and wait for a year before
you can get a medical card to help your medical needs? I feel that a year is to long. Maybe if the patient
have medical records of having the issue(s) for up to a year would sound a lot better.
I believe Mr. Humble is purposely developing Dr. / Patient rules and fees to exclude a large population
of patients because he was against Prop 203. Mr. Humble just does not realize the medical benefit of
marijuana; his focus is on making the Act fail.
have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Why not create an open wholesale
demand.
a sliding scale or lowercost for SSDI patients, I can't afford $150 for my card.
have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Please submit comments asking DHS to
create an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural
Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs due to increased competition of
organizations trying to meet demand. * A patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been
treating that patient for the debilitating medical condition for at least a year that included at least four
visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for the care of the debilitating medical condition after
compiling a medical history, conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records. This
provision is stricter than in most of the medical marijuana states, but does not appear designed to
prevent a seriously ill patient with a demonstrable debilitating medical condition from getting a written
certification. It may make it impossible for some veterans to qualify, because Veterans Administration
Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations, likely due to Federal laws and regulations under which
the VA must comply.
The idea of having a medical director will cause more problems than they will solve.They will be
challenged and more than likely will be ruled it is an evasion of the Client /Doctor relationship. Who is
going to pay for them? You already have the right to inspections and have 24/7 monitoring, don't
understand reasoning, need for them.
The only hope we have to keep Mexican cartels and other criminals out of the medical marijuana
business in Arizona, is to use the not-for-profit parts of Prop 203 to remove the profit, and there for the
incentive for cartels to be involved. Remember, the cartels grow in Mexico, pay people to transport,
and smuggle marijuana into the US, the also literately loose tons at the border. Still they make enough
money to challenge the Mexican Government.
It seems to me that Article 3. "Dispensaries" requires that an applicant for a Dispensary Registration
Certificate undertake all of the very significant organizational work and expense of getting a dispensary
all ready to open its doors before being granted a Certificate. This could easily require an investment of
a quarter million dollars; signing real estate leases and making significant property improvements as well
as contractual commitments that may not be easily unwound in the event that a Certificate is not
granted to that entity. This substantial risk will likely discourage many responsible business entities
from making application, thus reducing the pool of qualified and financially stable applicants for the DHS
to review and choose from. I would suggest that the DHS consider the implementation of Dispensary
guidelines that list such things as minimum standards for facilities, distances from public or private
schools, zoning requirements, on-site education facilities, required security, etc. Perhaps then an
applicant for a Dispensary Registration Certificate could make application for a "conditional" approval,
that would then allow time for that applicant to then proceed with purchasing or leasing and outfitting a
suitable space, and fulfilling all of the DHS rules, requirements and inspections before being granted the
final approval. I understand the substantial responsibility and hugely increased work load that
proposition 203 has dumped on the DHS. I hope this input will assist the Department in coming up with
the best possible program for all citizens of Arizona.
the one rule that i see needs the most improvement is the rule that a patient must have seen a dr. for
at least a year about there issue and at least 4 times in the last year. the problem with this rule is that
you are leaving out about 50% of peaple in this state who have no medical insurance. People who live
below the poverty line are more likley not to have insurance and tend not to follow up on expensive
treatments. so this rule total discluded them as potential canidates for a card. these people will continue
to self medicate putting them selves in danger on many levels. the second rule that i think can be
improved on is the rule of where a dispencery can get there medican from needs to be changed. by
limiting where the product can come from you put the state in situation where there can be a shortage.
if that happens prices would go threw the roof. once again living the people with less out in the cold and
forced to deal with street dealers. the dispenceries WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ENOUGH MEDS!
The law has passed. the people have spoken. please keep it profesional and under control but open up.
the people want it, the fed has turned there back to it and the state of AZ needs the tax dollars and the
jobs. AZ has a chance to be and industry leader in a billion dollar buisness and you will control this
industry. don't miss out and let california make all the money! be easy be open for growth. every one
stands to benefit>
A patient must pay $150 each year for an identification card, and a designated caregiver, $200. There
states have. I suggest, compassionately, reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid
benefits. A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered
dispensaries and may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered dispensaries.
This is very problematic and not in the best interests of patients, as it will likely create acute shortages
in rural areas and drive costs up. Those patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary unable to meet
demand will have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine.I recommend, to keep costs
down, to the creation of an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This will assure
consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs due to
increased competition of organizations trying to meet demand.
The $150 annual fee for patients is excessive and will discriminate against qualified patients with low
incomes. The 30% rule between dispensaries should be changed to create an open wholesale
relationship between dispensaries to ensure a consistent supply. The restrictions regarding the Arizona
physician's relationship with the patient are too restrictive because many qualified physicians may be
predisposed against the use of medical marijuana or afraid to issue recommendations to their patients.
This is a new field in medicine that is controversial and subject to political discourse, which may
influence doctors views. Patients should be allowed to change doctors and not have to wait a year to
qualify. As a patient who takes compounded medicines I am all too aware of the big drug manufactures
influence on doctors and how that affects patients abilities to obtain alternative medicine such as
compounded prescriptions.
Would like to see under R9-17-102 5B, a place for a spouse or significant other as a designated
caregiver for only the one patient to have fees of $100.00. Being on disability, money can get a little
tight. I would need help from my spouse on occasion to pick up my meds or help take care of plants if I
were unable to. I want to be in compliance, but the extra $100.00 dollars a year could cause a burden.
Limiting those who can write for a certificate of use to M.D. sorts only is too restrictive. I am a PhD
Psychologist and many of my patients suffer from Chronic Pain Symdrome, Others from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder, still others from Acute Anxiety, Panic Attacks, Depressive Disorders, Etc. I highly
recommed that Psychologists at the PhD level with State or national certification be allowed to write a
certificate of use for the many patients we see who would benefit from medical marijuana. There is no
need for them to have to see me and a Doctor for this type of treatment.
NDs (Naturopathic Physicians) should be included with DOs and MDs to be medical directors of
dispensaries. This makes sense because Naturopathic Physicians learn about the efficacy and
responsible use of all herbs and herbal supplements as part of their medical education.
i don't see much correlation to the prroposed TA2010017 rules proposed by Maricopa County P & Z.
how do they mesh? are they supposed to?
by allowing more people access to the herb, thank you
I think the rules should follow closer to what Ca. and Oregon have.
Dispensaries should be the only place where marijuana is allowed to be grown and sold, if others
outside the dispensaries are allowed to grow then the State will not have oversight of those individuals.
This is critical.Dispensaries should be required to report quarterly revenues to the State.
No Medical director, or referring Physician, or Physician providing prescription for Medical Marijuana shall
have a finanical interest in dispensary directly or indirectly. No Medical Director shall be paid based on
sales revenue or any other compensation where increased volume of sales of Medical Marijuana would
provided incentive for increase of sales. All dipensaries shall be of a non-profit entity. If the true
nature of the law is to provided Medical Marijuana to individual with medical need no profit should be
needed. The same benefactor the the call for this law should be willing to set up non-profit dispensaries.
Drop the fee requirement to the same level as that of any other drug prescribed by a doctor. That level
is zero in case you were not aware. Drop the number of doctor visits to the same level as any other
drug prescribed by a doctor. That would also be zero in case you are not aware.
I believe that the cost of a patients card should not be set at $150. After all, if patients had to pay this
fee to register to use other legalized drugs like Codeine and Percocet, I believe many patients that
actually needed these drugs would not be receiving them. I say this as an unemployed Veteran of this
country, who also suffers from Post traumatic stress syndrome. This brings me to my next point. I
believe that PTSD is the the most obviously left out debilitating medical condition in the draft, and hope
that it is included in section 36-2801.01. I am sure you have received thousands of these requests, so I
will not go into any further detail.
Please consider a reduction in fees or provide a sliding scale for the identification card and designated
caregiver based on low-income/SSI/SSDI/Medicare recipients.
The 25-mile rule should to be removed or modified. This rule was included to insure the success of
dispensary’s and not for the benefit of the patient. Please review this link and listen to the statement
made. http://stash.norml.org/mpps-andrew-myers-discusses-medical-marijuana-in-arizona The rules
intentions fall under the definition of extortion. The cost in a dispensary is $200. To $400. an ounce. The
cost for a patient to grow is a few dollars an ounce. Growing is a needed option for many patients. A
growing marijuana plant is not dangerous or toxic to any plant, animal or human. If this rule cannot be
removed I would expect many conditions be added to it. Example: A patient may grow if they prove a
financial hardship to afford dispensary prices. A patient may grow if desired strain is unavailable. Let’s
remember the mission is to the patient.
I beieve you are too harsh on the draft rules for seeing a doctor 4 times in one year to get medication.
That is not what the voters spoke for, thank you . Tom Jones
As a glaucoma specialist in Tucson, I would strongly recommend that "glaucoma" be removed as an

indication for medical marijuana on the draft rules. All other conditions on the list are characterized by
chronic pain, nausea, weight loss etc - all fairly well accepted reasons for the palliative use of marijuana.
Glaucoma is completely different. It is not typically painful, does not produce weight loss or nausea. It
is well treated by proven and safe topical medications. There has been no study to date that has
shown a role for marijuana in the chronic treatment of glaucoma. It has been shown to produce a very
transient reduction in the intraocular pressure, which immediately elevates once again after cessation of
smoking. It is thought by many experts that a patient would have to smoke marijuana for 24 hours a
day to produce a sustained response similar to even the weakest of available topical medications. This
would obviously be deleterious to the health of the patient and impractical as a treatment option.
Again, glaucoma is completely different from all other proposed conditions on the list. It is the only
disease listed that marijuana is being proposed as a therapeutic, rather than palliative option. There is
no science that shows that this is a viable option at this time - in fact all science today shows the
opposite - that marijuana only produces a transient beneficial effect. Should such data surface in the
future, the rules can always be amended at that point to include glaucoma. I have no issue
prescribing any treatment to my patients that has a proven beneficial effect. I would certaintly have no
problem prescribing marijuana for chronic pain, cancer, and wasting conditions. However, I strongly
urge the committee to rethink the glaucoma indication, as this is (in my opinion) an incorrect indication
for therapeutic considerations. The inclusion of glaucoma on the list will only complicate and confuse
patients and physicians alike in the treatment of this blinding disease.
http://www.aao.org/eyecare/treatment/alternative-therapies/marijuana-glaucoma.cfm
http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/medical_marijua.php I challenge the committee to produce a single
glaucoma specialist in california or arizona that thinks marijuana is a viable option for glaucoma given
the current state of knowledge! Please feel free to contact me at any point,
i think that $150 fee each year will make it harder for people with low income to get the medicine they
need, perhaps a reduced fee for those people. There needs to be an open wholesale relationship
between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying
patients,and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to meet demand. A
patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient for the debilitating medical
condition for at least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for
the care of the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history, conducting a
comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than in most of the
medical marijuana states, but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a
recommendations
The following appears to be a violation of the HIPPA privacy rules. A statement by the doctor that the
patient qualifies for medical cannabis should be sufficient as it is with a prescribed medication. This
would also apply to any renewal. d. An identification of one or more of the debilitating medical
conditions in R9-17- 201 as the qualifying patient's specific debilitating medical condition The
following should be changed as it creates an impossible situation for people who may visit hospital ER's,
clinics, VA's or medical centers for healthcare. Establishing a doctor patient relationship can be made
with one visit. Some people see different doctors at every visit or move within the state or have other
conditions that apply. If this is a specialist they cannot and should not assume primary responsibility.
This should read that the licensed physician has examined the patient and their condition and medical
records and has made the recommendation. There are no other conditions or medications that have
this stipulation and this particular rule may prevent qualifying patients from receiving relief for their
condition. Renewing the application can be made by the recommending doctor or any licensed
physician within the state. e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a
responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition
after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal
review of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the
This particular rule forces a patient to create a log and a state record that self incriminates them on
possible federal charges which would be a violation of the patients 5th amendment rights. 6. Enter the
following information into the medical marijuana electronic verification system for the qualifying patient
or designated caregiver: a. The amount of medical marijuana dispensed, b. Whether the medical
marijuana was dispensed to the qualifying patient or to the qualifying patient's designated caregiver,
c. The date and time the medical marijuana was dispensed, d. The dispensary agent's registry
identification number
I have read over the document and am overall impressed with its thorough and real approach to making
access to safe and effective cannabis-based medicines. The following are a list of suggestions on minor
changes I would make to help the program work better: • The program needs to more clearly define
the application process it would seem. It is imperative that the process be based on the best provider
for the job, meaning a competitive application process would be the most desirable. A first come-first
serve process, or a lottery process can leave the operation of a limited number of facilities to chance.
Patients deserve to have competent and compassionate operator, therefore it may be best to assign
districts to the different areas of the State and allow for a certain amount of dispensaries in each
district. Then operators could apply for specific districts with facilities in those districts. This would help
ensure the largest numbers of geographic areas are reached with patient access. This could also be
based on the pharmacy population for the area to remain consistent. • In section R9-17-101 under
Definitions I see a couple of potential issues. o Number 6: “Cultivation site” says “…marijuana will be
cultivated…” Does the phrase “will be” mean that cultivation must be done at a different location?
Should it be “can be?” o Under 10(b) is there a reason wood is not included in the approved building
materials? o Number 15: “Medical director” is defined as a doctor of medicine. Just wondering if this
includes a Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD)? There is a reference later in the document asking if a
pharmacist would be on duty or on call, but it is unclear if that is the same as the “Medical director” or if
a Doctor of Pharmacy is allowed for that position. • R9-17-102- Fees: The patient fees seem very high.
A patient who has a caregiver will pay $350 a year just for the privilege to be able to possess and use a
safe and effective medicine. Cannabis can be expensive, and while some patients may have no problem
paying these fees, many will. When a person is choosing between their medicine and the fees to be able
to use that medicine, this will encourage them to continue using the black market and in turn having a
less safe and more illicit experience. To put it in perspective- a patient with a caregiver is paying 7% of
what a dispensary is paying for their license. I think the fees are about twice as large as they should be
and that having a caregiver should not cost more, but about half of what it costs to be a patient, if
anything at all. It is unclear why a person who needs a caregiver should be so heavily penalized beyond
the actual cost of a card and minor processing to accompany the patient process. ALSO- Is there a place
for low income exception programs? People on fixed incomes will most likely need assistance with these
fees. Being poor should not inhibit your ability to be well. • R9-17-106: Adding a Debilitating Condition
o Under number 5 is unnecessary. Because there may or may not be conventional therapies on the
market has no relevance of the effectiveness of cannabis therapies as a safe and effective alternative. o
It is unclear who does the decision making n the adding process. Is there a decided constituency within
the Department that makes this decision? a panel of people? One person? An appointed committee?
Further definition may be needed. • R9-17-202: Applying for a Registry Identification card…. o It is
unclear why a separate statement for each patient from the physician stating the same thing for every
patient and caregiver is necessary, as it would seem more effective to require the physician meet all of
the requirements listed for each patients they write a recommendation for. It would seem that a lot of
unnecessary paperwork required to ensure the doctor realizes his liabilities and responsibilities to the
patient. Is there a more effective way to accomplish this? o For patients under 18-years-old that need
their parents to be their caregiver to access these therapies, is it necessary to be concerned with the
parent’s being convicted of a felony. While I see the overall spirit for this requirement, it would seem
that this could limit a needy child patient’s right to their medicine because of their parents past bad
behaviors. Is there another way to accomplish this without penalizing the child, such as working with
child services to ensure no abuse is taking place? • The renewal process is the same as simply applying
from scratch. It would seem that making the renewal simpler would encourage people to not allow it to
lapse because it is just as easy to apply again when it is more convenient. • The Department should
devise a voluntary email registry that notifies a patient when their renewal is 60 days out if you require
it be renewed at least 30 days before expiration. A simple notification calendar will help patients stay
legal and help the department see the revenues on time. • R9-17-302: Applying for a Dispensary
Registration Certificate o Does being a resident for two years coincide with the State requirement for
residency, and if not why are medical cannabis providers being treated differently from other citizens? o
In Section (B.) number (1.) subsection (j.) and (k.) should be combined and changed to read “When the
dispensary, and if applicable the dispensary’s cultivation site will be ready for inspection.” By separating
the two points it seems to make having the dispensary ready immediately is somehow preferable. If a
person has it ready immediately they would just say so. o Number (3.) subsection (d.)- How do the
proof of residency requirements establish the required two-year term if the most recent incarnations of
these documents are required for the most part? o Number (4.) While staffing is mentioned in policy
requirements after the application and quality control is briefly alluded to in the inventory section, it
would seem these would be important parts of the puzzle for the application process. Also, Cultivation
Standards and Methods are important things to help decide if an applicant if prepared. Including
“Staffing, Quality Control, and Cultivation” to Inventory Control, …Record Keeping, Security, and Patient
Education…will produce more well-rounded and informed applicants. o Number (5.) Clarify what forms
of certificate of occupancy are acceptable: Lease, lease option/letter of intent, or ownership docs. • R9-
17-304 (2) Location Change- Do “local jurisdictions” have to allow for dispensaries in any given zones or
does this give them the power to ban or de facto ban dispensaries in certain areas? • R9-17-306
Inspections: Subsection (E.) should be clarified to avoid abuse from disgruntled people, people who
oppose marijuana in general, or even competitors who would file false “allegations” against a dispensary
without warrant. Is there a way to ensure the allegations are credible or does anytime a person
complains trigger an inspection? • R9-17-307 Administration: o Section (C.) requires a dispensary
cultivate 70% of its own medicine and not distribute more than 30% of their inventory. It would seem a
60-40% split would be more appropriate and ensure patients have access to medicine. It is unclear what
this is meant to accomplish. It would seem the spirit is to avoid a dispensary growing a lot of marijuana
and then distributing it. As I mentioned previously, some organizations will produce better cannabis and
patients should have access to a good supply, so just because their local group may not produce great
medicine, getting medicine from other sources will enable them to hopefully have a high quality product
regardless. This ratio policy may cause confusion. Organizations naturally will want to cultivate their own
product, but some will need to find better resources for a larger percentage due to ineffectiveness or
higher demand than space allowance in populated areas. • R9-17-311- Dispensing Medical Marijuana:
Number (5.) requires control of the 2.5 ounce limit in a 14-day period. While this s adequate for 99% of
the community, does a patient with a verifiable greater need have a method of filing for an exemption to
this limit. For example, a patient that solely eats their medicine may use up to 3-tmes the amount of
one that does not. If a doctor verifies a greater need due to various valid reasons, can a patent apply to
have their limit adjusted? • R9-17-313- Inventory Control System: o Number (3.) For cultivation:
Would it serve the Department to define more clearly what the usable and unusable parts of the
required measurements are? Does the person need to weigh all stems and root balls of the plant, as
well? Does unusable include that or is it meant to mean flowers and leaf materials that are unusable for
one reason or another because of quality. Are the weights done wet or dry? o Number (6.) subsection
(a.): “The amount of marijuana received” should specify an increment and subsection (b.): the amount
of marijuana used is not as important as the quality of marijuana used to make the product. It may be
wise to establish a qualification of high, medium, and low grade to accompany the amount and give the
patient greater perspective. • R9-17-314: Product Labeling and Analysis o Would encourage requiring
lot numbers to track medicine. o Section (A.) number (5.): Listing all chemicals, fertilizers, etc. is not
great for labeling aesthetics. Much like fast food restaurants do for caloric and nutritional facts, having
them “available for the patient upon request” is a better idea. o Section (B) number (2.): Requiring the
product say it was made with “no regulatory oversight” is inaccurate, as the entire system is oversight
and providers should also have regulatory practice in place. Maybe the term “limited oversight” is more
accurate. • R9-17-316- Edible Food Products: Section (1.) mentions the “local health department.” Are
local health departments required to participate in the program? Could the refuse and therefore these
types of medicines be limited or banned as a result? • R9-17-319- Denial and Revocation of Dispensary
Registration Certificate: o Section (A.) number (1.): Is there any variance allocations for a location that
may have an adequate barrier bit does not meet the sensitive use proximity standards? o Section (C):
number (1.) subsection (b.): How rigid is the standard for the implementation of the application/plans
for the organization. Is there a common sense factor regarding some things that may have to be
adjusted due to unseen circumstance?
Section R9-17-102 FEES - I would suggest increasing the fee for changing or replacing an ID card to
provide incentive for people to protect these cards and provide accurate information and not change
them frivolously. I would suggest a fee of $25 to $50 - consider at least $25 for changing a card and
$50 for replacing a lost card. Section R9-17-104 - In changing a card I would also require that they
submit their current registry ID card when they submit a request for change and fee.
Providing guidelines and language for patients who live in rural areas where dispensaries may not exist
to grow their own medical marijana.
I am a caregiver for a severely disabled elderly woman who wants to get medical marijuana. I probably
don't mind the fingerprints, but the fees are outrageous. Plus I have to worry that I'll be arrested even
though I will only be delivering it to my patient. If I don't get the card she'll have to have it delivered by
some dispensary. Also her doctor is also staff of one of those clinics that has outlawed
recommendations by their doctors. So I see a lot of problems with what you've drafted. Allow my
patient to keep her doctor and allow her to see a marijuana doctor maybe annually for a
recommendation.
The number one rule of the draft that needs to be changed is the cost of the ID card for a patient. I am
a disabled person with chronic pain in my side, legs, feet and arms; I have tried marijuana and it does
help with tolerating my pain. However, there is no way I could afford to purchase the ID card at that
price being on SSD; since most of my money goes towards rent, utilities, food and medical and
prescription co-pays. I think there should be a decrease in the ID costs for low income persons as well
as the cost of the prescription. DHS needs to create an open wholesale agreement between
dispensaries; the way it is now there will always be a shortage of marijuana especially to the rural areas
where patients need it. By having an open wholesale agreement with dispensaries would assure that
shortages would not occur as often. I am sure even with the wholesale agreement shortages will occur
but the way it is now most definitely a lot of them. The cost the dispensaries pay seems a little high
and wonder if there would be enough of them that would pay that amount to keep up with the demand.
I think that the wording that Medical Director be a M.D. or D.O. is limiting. Nurse Practitoner practices
medicine under their own license and due to their consulting training and patient education culture
maybe a better fit as medical director of a dispensary that either a M.D. or D.O.
first a sliding scale needs to be implemented.2nd has any body calculated the cost of gas within the next
2 years? they're talking about five a gallon, if I have to pay that rediculous amount for gas I won't have
any money to go see a doctor. then there are those of us that cannot go see a doctor due to making 1$
to much to get acchs, like me. there are those of us in society that just don't go to doctors for any
number of reasons, now I have to wait a year to get meds? and spend money I don't have, oh wait a
second I'll take the food money and use it for this, sorry kids it's just bread and water tonight.
The Az Medical Marijuana Act requires this: 18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT
DATED AND SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN, STATING THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION
THE PATIENT IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE
OF MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR
SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE PHYSICIAN MUST: (a)
SPECIFY THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN THE WRITTEN
CERTIFICATION. (b) SIGN AND DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AFTER THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT
[NOTE: "assessment," singular, not plural; 1, not 4] OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL
HISTORY. So, it should be sufficient that one full assessment & medical history review, specifying the
qualifying condition, sign, and date a ecommendation & the Patient is done! Remember folks are living
in pain & dying, they may not have another year to wait, or live to see another 4 appoinments. The
need is now & is Urgent!! Without any authority to do so, Az DHS proposed: R9-17-202 5e. A
statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the
qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the
qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course
of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for providing management
and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical
history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient's medical record maintained
by other treating physicians, that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional
medical therapies; Key points: • Any Arizona physician may in a single visit prescribe "speed," e.g.,
Adderall, to a kindergartener-without 4 visits spread out over 1 year any Arizona physician may
prescribe to a kindergartener a drug that can kill that child by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other
"side effects." • Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C, and ALS patients often do not have 1 year to live. • The
patients that do live are cruelly being told to change doctors or suffer for 1 year. • Deadly and addictive
drugs such as the opiates are prescribed in a single visit by Arizona physicians and, despite the best
efforts of physicians, some of those deadly and addictive drugs are illegally diverted, but that does not
cause the AzDHS to demand 4 visits, 1 year of visits, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of
the patient. • Marijuana is 100% safe, gives patients good relief, and cures some conditions-Marijuana
is not deadly and is not addictive. • The alternative offered by the AzDHS to avoid 1 year of suffering,
the cannabis specialist takes over the primary care of the pt's qualifying condition, is done nowhere else
in medicine-Nowhere else in medicine does a specialist take over a patient's primary care. • The AzDHS
does not have the authority to define or re-define the patient-physician relationship or the number of
doctors visits, or the length of time for those visits-that infringes on the patient's choice • The draft
regulations are cruel and unreasonable. If you pay special attention to Section 36-2803 "rulemaking,"
you will notice that the AzMMA does NOT give authority to the Arizona Department of Health Services to
define-or redefine-the patient-physician relationship and does NOT give the authority to amend the
AzMMA language, e.g., adding "ongoing" to "patient-physician relationship." The Arizona Voter
Protection Act specifically DENIES authority for such usurpations. Please note that even the Director of
AzDHS questioned his own authority to do what he proposes:
http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=810 See also:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/11/prop_203_legal_weed_will_be_av.php
There have been times when I've gone to the MVD and they've failed to return the old ID or DL. What
about those people who don't have an ID or DL from before: "f. If the qualifying patient is designated
an individual not previously designated as the qualifying patient's caregiver the identification number on
and a copy of the designated caregiver's: i. Arizona driver's license issued after October 1, 1996; ii.
Arizona identification card issued after October 1, 1996; iii. Arizona registry identification card; iv.
Photograph page in the designated caregiver's U. S. passport; or v. An Arizona driver's license or
identification card issued before October 1, 1996 and one of the following:" - - - It mentions
"before October 1, 1996 several times throughout the draft. Is this accurate?...I couldn't find the
importance of the date October 1, 1996.
The dispensery's should be able to buy and sell product between one another to insure that product is
available in all areas of the state. The 30 % rule would severly limit this. Rather have large growers who
can sell to all dispensery's from a secure and controlled location. Having 124 growing areas would also
encourage more crime from robberies or theft and would make it more difficult to controll amounts
produced and dispensed. Their should be exemptions or low cost fees for people who are low income,
on SSI, SSD or just can't afford the medications. I have not heard or seen any cost figures for buying
medical marijuana only that it is a not for profit enterprise. A cost guideline would be helpful.
This question seems like it will be better answered by the next question, so I'll put my focus there, but
in general our country was founded on principals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the
sense that the founders fled overbearing countries in Europe to start a new one in the states where the
government would meddle with the citizen's affairs as little as possible. I'd remove the 1yr clause and
replace it with a good faith clause.
I did not see how you are going to figure out who and where dispenseries are going to be implemented.
For instance I know there is going to be 120 disp. But is this going to be a random pick and not by
county and how many to a particular county. I think you need to explain this. Also if that is going to be
the case in the application do you request a specific County. The start up of a dispensery nobody in AZ
has Medical Marijuana it takes time to grow and where do you get seeds to start this in AZ. I think a lot
more verbage on dispenseries needs to go into thought and explaination. Also the initial yes or no to an
applicant for a dispensery they have to form a non-profit and spend a lot of money before they yes or
no on the application I think because this is new you need to have applicants submit an intial business
plan with general locations and rents and fees and if approved then move forward with the rest.
DEA and other federal agencies have threatened doctors who write Rx for Medicinal Marijuana. I am not
sure how this will affect physician’s willingness to prescribe despite patient’s best interest. The
scheduled fee is agreeable but there should be a sliding fee for patients who are low income. If they
have qualified for AHCCCS, SSI, Medicare, there should be a reduced fee. Patients in rural areas may
face discriminatory sales due to lack of access. Establishing an open market for dispensaries to
sell/transfer inventory should be established.
I believe Medical Marijuana is a last resort. Other therapies should be used first to manage pain. Other
medications should be tried first. Good job. I LOVE THIS PART. Chronic pain doesn't pop up
overnight. The above section makes sure the doctor knows about and has been trearting that pain and
documenting it.
PUT THE PATIENT FIRST, NOT MONEY ! ! ! PATIENTS SHOULD SEE A DOCTOR ONE TIME, AND
THEN ONCE A YEAR AFTER THAT. WHAT IF A PATIENT HAS BEEN SEEING A DOCTOR FOR 10 YEAR'S,
ARE YOU GOING TO SAAY THAT DOCTOR DOESN'T KNOW HIS PATIENT ? THE APPLICATION
SHOULD ONLY BE $10.00, A LOT OF US ARE ON DISABILITY, PLEASE KEEP THE PRICE LOW,THIS IS A
PRESCRIPTION AND CAN SAVE LIVE'S ! ! !
No or sliding costs for any ID cards..that's an unnecessary expense that could be prohibitive in case of
low income patients. An open wholesale relationship between the dispensaries; permitting them to
share the marijuana as they see need. The ability for Vets to obtain medical marijuana via the V.A.
docs..(don't know if this is even possible but it should be being tested especially with all the horrendous
incidences of PTSD and comorbid suicide that is showing up in returning vets). Less stringent
requirements to qualify. People use marijuana for less than death-related reasons, much like they drink
alcohol or smoke cigarettes. This is treating people in an unequal fashion. The worst thing about this
bill is it doesn't go far enough.
I,would prefer to see dispensaries located at least 5 mi, away from schools and church locations.I did
vote for 203 and I,hope matters will be handled in a responsible mater.I would like there to be a sliding
scale patents,lowincome,disabled ssi .
ADHS employees should read the Constitution of the United States, the Arizona Revised Statutes, the
Arizona Constitution, the Uniform Building Code, some metal fabrication manuals, how to farm
instructions, your own web-site rules and then re-educate yourselves on the principals of the free
market. The ADHS and all government has demonstrated their hatred of marijuana users with almost
100 years of prosecution and imprisonment. The Rules as presented must be scrapped and a new rule
making process started in an environment devoid of anti marijuana zealots and progressive/communists.
Your current work will be tossed aside at the next election and never be implemented.
In Article 2. Qualifying Patients and Designated Caregivers, a newly released draft proposes to include
the following; “A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional
during the course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a
response to conventional medical therapies” This language imposing such an onerous restriction does
not appear in the proposition voted on and passed by the people of Arizona. The propostion language
reads as follows; The language on section 36-2801. 18 (a) (b) clearly stipulate “THAT IN THE
PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THE PATIENT IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR
PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE
PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE PHYSICIAN MUST: (a) SPECIFY THE QUALIFYING
DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
AFTER THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S
MEDICAL HISTORY”. This decision is to be made between the patient and his or her physician
whatout any interference whatsoever by the state. What if a patient developes cancer, should a the one
year restriction apply before treatment is rendered, of course not, that would be foolish, as it is in this
case as well. I strongly urge that this language be removed from the final draft. It is simply another case
of government overstepping its authority and would not stand up in court anyway.
The fees for patients and caregivers should be lowered for lower income people; like other states that
have implemented MMJ laws. We should reduce the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid
benefits. The regulation about the relationship a patient must have with their doctor is overly
restrictive; much more so than ANY other states with MMJ laws, and may make it impossible for some
veterans to qualify, because Veterans Administration Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations.
The regulation requiring anyone on the board of a dispensary to have been an Arizona resident for two
years is also anti-business. Persons from other states with current MMJ laws SHOULD be allowed to
open dispensaries here so that Arizonans can benefit from their expertise. This regulation is also
problematic: A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered
dispensaries and may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered dispensaries.
This is very problematic and not in the best interests of patients, as it will likely create acute shortages
in rural areas and drive costs up. Those patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary unable to meet
demand will have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Please create an open
wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy
access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to
meet demand. Also, the regulations concerning dispensary medical directors are overly restrictive,
nurse-practioners and other similarly educated persons should be eligible for these positions. In
addition, five years of record keeping seems overly burdensome, and if it included names and
addresses, would likely violate the rules of patient confidentiality legistlated in HIPAA.
Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations.
states have. I suggest reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid benefits.
I have a few suggestions. There should be unlimited wholesale between dispensaries as to not cause a
shortage in rural areas and as a result driving prices up. Also, I think the dr requirements might be
just a little bit to strict. I see my dr about twice a year regarding my condition. There is no cure for my
condition its something that I have to live to deal with and I have actually been living with it for 16 yrs,
with periods of 5 yrs without any doctor care. It cant be cured, it cant be controlled, why should I waste
my money on doctor visits? I do go twice a year, physical and 1 follow up per year on my condition. I
cant take meds long term beause its an antibiotic which would eventually break my stomach down.
Surgery removes the problem but has redevelped in 100% of cases! Last I wouldnt be a candidate for
this but I feel like low income clients shouldnt have to pay the $200. There should be a prorated fee.
states have. We suggest reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid benefits. A
have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Need to create an open wholesale
demand. A patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient for the
debilitating medical condition for at least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken
primary responsibility for the care of the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history,
conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than in most
of the medical marijuana states, but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a
recommendations.This should be changed!
The rule that 70% of all dispensory product has to be grown by the dispensory is good except that for
the first year while the dispensory begins the growing of the medical marijauna it will not be able to
supply enough marijauna for all of its patients. A first year rule needs to let the dispensories obtain
marijuana from other sources to be able to supply as needed until in house production can keep up with
demand. After that first year the 70/30 rule will not be a problem unless a dispensory looses a crop due
to unforseen events. Some flexability needs to be built in to let the department adjust to the unknown
events that may plague dispensories due to lack of experience in this system of medical marijuana
dispensing. The voters want medical marijuana to be available to properly approved patients and this
system of rules needs to be flexable enough to address the needs of all properly approved patients.
- It will be VERY hard, if not impossible, for Veterans to get approved, because VA hospitals won't give
them the record. The treatment requirement (a year or more, etc.) is prohibitive, especially for those
who have put their lives on the line serving our country - The cost of the card is VERY prohibitive for
those who are, let's face it, poor. I think that those on Medicaid or Medicare, and those with limited
income, should be able to get a discount on the card at the very least if they can't have one for free.
Look, I'm a student. I can't even afford $80 for a new pair of glasses, let alone a $150 card to get a
prescription for glaucoma (which I thankfully don't have, but if I did, I'd be screwed). I'm not using my
own example to be self-serving, I'm just trying to make a point that $150 is more than most people
even get for their weekly unemployment benefit, and we still have a lot of folks unemployed.
Basically, I think it needs to be easier for the poor and, especially, for Veterans to get the card.
I am a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who suffers greatly from PTSD along with other
physical disabilities. As a veteran I am under the healthcare of the VA, unfortunately for me and
thousands of other veterans our doctors cannot legally recommend marijuana for any of our medical
problems. I have discussed with my doctor numerous times about how much more effective marijuana
is, compared to the multiple medications they've put me on. They understand this and support my
decision to smoke in order to live some sort of normal life. The doctors who work for the VA are some of
the best medical staff I have ever dealt with, but I know they have their hands tied with this law. Please
find some kind of exception to the law for veterans...PLEASE!! Or at least help myself and fellow
veterans in our fight to allow VA doctors to recommend/prescribe medical marijuana. Thank you for your
time and consideration. God Bless America!
I,M A VIETNAM VETERAN, AND I USE THE VA FOR MY MEDICAL, THEY WILL NOT GIVE ME A
PRESCRIPTION, FOR MEDICAL MARIAJUNA, SO WHAT DO I DO
I am unemployed and even with my Social Security payments I can't pay 150 dollars for a permit.
Please look and make a cost around what it costs you to maintain the system. This will be costly initially
but should fix itself over time. If you are trying to make this out as a drug for those who need it,then
treat it so, don't put expensive costs on the user who may only be getting part of their medicinal needs
taken care of and Medical Marijuana is not even available with the costs you intend to put on them and
I'm sure the costs of the medication. Also, please don't tax Medical Marijuana, unless you tax regular
medication, don't furthur push Medical Marijuana as an outcast drug. I would think the state would
have the sheriffs and police who confiscate large quantities at great cost to taxpayers should turn this
over to caregivers, not burn it as a terrible drug. This throws away a great amount of useful
medicine.Note these is no know deaths associated with the use of Marijuana, less than that of aspirin
and completely out of line with Alcohol and tobacco.
There does not appear to be a sliding scale or lower cost card available for low-income patients, as most
other states have. We suggest reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid benefits.
Those patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary unable to meet demand will have no secondary
option for safe access to their medicine. Please create an open wholesale relationship between
dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients,
and lower costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to meet demand. Any physicians
recommendation should suffice. It may make it impossible for some veterans to qualify, because
Veterans Administration Hospital doctors do not issue
Imposing guidelines for all growers, making them care about the safety of their products. Filing of
documents that prove they are using good guidelines in anything they produce. Showing a history of
their business and how they are protecting the industry from bad feedback. Using labs like CW
Analytical is the best and only safe way to better your business's.
The main area that really needs attention to is one; the area where it defines who is eligable for the
prescription, there should be more situations and illnesses in there. Two; the time frame the patient
doctor relationship which is in there seems a bit harsh when already many pain clinic doctors are already
putting signs up stating they will not be prescribing for it, which is their choice, but then that leaves
patients that feel that medical marijuana would be more benifitial to them and their health to have to try
to find a new doctor that not only writes the prescriptions but that their insurance covers the doctors.
Not to mention the patient then trying to get established with the new doctor under the time frame.
Three; the time frame for patients to get thier approval and registration card should not be more then
two weeks not up to 45 day. That really makes it hard for a lot of patients especially when they have
exausted all other means of medical relief.
Why is there an annual fee of $150.00 to issue approval to fill a prescription? This is not required for
any other script. Are we not encouraging a large portion of the qualifying patients who can't afford this
Taxation to look elsewhere? This seems counter to our goal of eliminating the criminal element in the
process.
Tighter regulations on growers, setting conditions that will create a cleaner more healthy grown product.
Making all growers aware that production of a clean product is what the American business person is
held accountable for in the food industry and so should it be imposed on them.
I think that 90 days can be a long time if a disponsory had any urgent reason to relocate. This would
cause suffering patients an inconvenience that they sometimes can't afford, healthwise. In addition, the
dispensories are generating no revenue and are unable to replenish their stock or maintain their crops.
Anyone with a medical marijuana card can grow 2 plants, anywhere.

1 ask for identification to many times. drivers license should be enough! way too long! 2 no finger
prints. we are not criminals. 3 doctors should only state patent meets critera establish. should not
comment as to benifit to condition. it will be hard enought to find a doctor willing to jepordise their
position by recognmendation. 4 home growt should be the responsibility of patent a should be no more
requlated then growing tomatoes, corn, ect. should not have to provide a lab condition for home
growth! 5 sales at offices a commercial growth shall be reglated to quanites and purity. no insane
relations to hold prices up. one of the best ideas for use is getting away from extragent costs of pain
pills like oxycontin. 6 physcians should not be able to refuse treatment becuase they are against
ligallization! should only determine wheather patent is a canadate.
R9-17-310 Medical Director. I do not feel that dispensaries need a so call "Medical Director" to oversee
patients. The patients in question have a doctor and have the doctors approval to use M.M. The patient
should see his doctor regularly and inform him of his condition and effects of the M.M. If the ADHS feels
the need to distribute educational materials at every dispensary, that is fine, I do not think a "Medical
Director" is needed for that. The Manager and agents should know the effects of M.M. and the different
ways to use the product. I do not even know if there are qualified "Medical Directors" that know that
much about M.M. and the different ways to use it. It looks to me like this is just another avenue
someone thought up to "Pay" a so called "Medical Director" This is a waste of potential hard earned
money. Again, the patient already should have a doctor...
the cost of the card and yearly fee, would cripple the effect for people on ssi and low income,i have
been disabled for 9 years and recieve ssi ,to get away from the meds i take now and the damage it does
to the human body,the mpp program would have great healthy results for me,but the cost alone would
not allow me to be involved,low income living people r there not by choice, thanks for reading my
statement
I cant afford the fees as I am disabled with MS but have no job.....its a lot of money to me - a whole
weeks groceries and I cant afford that. All that will happen is the black market will grow among the
poor! Also I don't have any medical insurance so I cannot see this doctor you want times a year (and
wait now another year until the dispensary is allowed to supply me) - neither do I have the funds to
attend a doctor and have a $500 medical exam!.....welcome back to the black market hooray! So far I
could have bought several months supply with the money I will save - incentive to address this problem
properly?....or is the State of Arizona just in it for the money? A large amount of "foot-shooting"
appears to be on the menu for AZ....... hmmmmmm......
Fees for ID card are too high. Please consider a sliding scale for low-income patients. Allow
dispensaries to obtain marijuana from other dispensaries as needed to meet demand, thus keeping
prices low. Rules for medical qualification are too strict, for example Veterans cannot obtain
recommendations for ongoing medical conditions from the VA. Either shorten the waiting period or
eliminate it.
The price for the card should be on a sliding scale of some sort. Most people with conditions severe
enough to need medical marijuana usually are unable to work full time, or at all. This provision is
clearly in favor of those patients that have money and those who are poor are left to rot (as is usual in
our country). This needs to be fixed so that those who are suffering are able to afford their medicine.
Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations.
Further Elaboration on on going treatment that may qualify one to participate in the program.
Lower fees the patients Totally remove the weird rules about doctors and patients relationships.
Trying to keep as many patients away from their medicine will no doubt end up as court a court case.
Some patient group will be suing the AZHS. for denying patients their medicine.
My doctor also says he can't recommend medical marijuana due to his clinic's policies. I can't afford to
change doctors due to transportaion costs, due to losing my medical coverage, due to my doctor's
expertise. Don't make me see another doctor as my primary physician.
1. Are the fingerprinting cards issued by the Department of Health going to be unique, or will standard
FBI fingerprint cards be sufficient? 2. How many copies of the application will need ro be submitted
initially? 3. What is the criteria for the issuing of dispensary licences?
I find many aspects of these rules interesting and I’ll provide a few thoughts. 1. I just find it interesting
that we are speaking of MEDICAL marijuana to treat/alleviate medical symptoms yet we are setting up a
whole new way of dispensing these agents. There is already a whole system with associated rules/
regulations / safeguards / licensing etc. for dispensing drugs – but for some reason these will not
suffice. Rather we are setting up an alternate method for only this “medication”. This alternate method
requires an owner / employee of a dispensary to pay $5,000, attest to not being a felon, not owe back
taxes or be delinquent to government loans etc. – but no educational requirements, degrees, medical
degree of any sort etc. I just find that very interesting. 2. As well when a prescription for a drug is
dispensed there are laws that mandate what information is required on the label. As well under these
proposed rules there are requirements but the requirements differ greatly from what other drugs must
have on a label. They should consider at least having the patient NAME (plus registry number), and
some directions as how it is to be smoked, consumed etc.
Having the board actually understand what medical marijuana is & does. It is very clear by their
comments they do not understand the benefits and misstate the negatives. It is practically IMPOSSIBLE
to overdose on marijuana. You technically CAN do it, but it takes MANY POUNDS to do so. They also
need to let law enforcement handle any DWI incidents. Just as with many prescriptions, you should not
drive while you take them and will be punished if you do. There are dozens of prescription pain
medications that are FAR worse for you than medical marijuana will be.
When new people move to Arizona, they cannot wait a YEAR to get medicine. What are you thinking?
The out door growing thing baffles me, you can grow in a closet with a padlock, or a shed with tin walls
and a roof using a light, but need a 12’ wall and 1” metal gate to grow with the sun. I guess we should
ask the AG's office to see how many employees at the department of health have stock in APS.
As a doctor, I firmly believe that marijuana for medical use should never be dispensed in a form that can
be smoked. Marijuana can be made into capsules or suppositories or cooked into food, but marijuana
smoke contains dozens of carcinogens. Preliminary research shows that smoking marijuana can increase
the risk for respiratory problems and several types of cancer–lung, head and neck, testicular and
bladder. This post reviews some of the research. The medical profession and others in public health
have made a huge effort for several decades to eliminate the smoking of tobacco because it’s such a
serious health hazard, and doctors should not recommend any substance to be smoked. Following the
adage, “First, do no harm,” doctors should always prescribe medications by the least harmful route of
administration. And, in fact, we always try to give medications orally. For people whose illness makes it
hard to take a pill or to keep one down, we have skin patches and suppositories. The last resort is
injecting medicine. But there is no precedent for a medication that is smoked. To my knowledge, there
is no medicine prescribed today that is smoked, and for good reason. Smoking any plant material causes
cancer and lung damage. And there is no need for a medication that is smoked; there is nothing that
smoking accomplishes from a medical point of view that can’t be accomplished by safer routes of
administration. Arizona should forbid the dispensing of medical marijuana in any form that can be easily
smoked. Here’s some of the research on problems caused by smoking: Research has shown that
marijuana smokers have several respiratory tract changes including lesions that are considered pre-
cancerous. So far there is no evidence of emphysema, but smoking marijuana does cause problems with
airflow obstruction. There are a small number of studies of cancer in marijuana smokers, some
positive, some negative. Negative studies are quite common in research, and all they mean is this
particular study did not find this particular result. Negative studies are not proof unless it happens
repeatedly and there are no positive studies. However, many pro-marijuana websites and media outlets
have taken a single negative study and claimed marijuana does not cause cancer. There are also articles
designed to look scientific that make this claim. This is an incorrect reading of the research. Two
studies did show no increase in cancer in marijuana users, but both studies have been criticized for bias.
One large study (Tashkin 2006) of 1200 people with head, neck and lung cancer showed no increase in
cancer in marijuana smokers. Tashkin was the same researcher who had previously found that
marijuana caused pre-cancerous changes in the respiratory tract, so he was surprised to find no
increased cancer risk. That large study has been criticized for selection bias—marijuana users in the
control group were more likely to also smoke cigarette than the marijuana users in the group with
cancer. The authors admitted selection bias possibly explained their negative findings. One other
study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1997 (Sidney et al) that found marijuana
smokers had no increase in cancer has been criticized for using subjects who were too young, so
cancers would not have had time to develop. There are several research studies showing increased
cancer rates in marijuana smokers. A New Zealand study published in the European Respiratory Journal
in 2008 looked at 79 patients with lung cancer and found the risk of lung cancer increased by 8 percent
for every joint-year (averaging one joint daily for one year) and 7 percent for every pack-year
(averaging one pack of cigarettes daily for one year), leading them to conclude that smoking marijuana
posed the same lung cancer risk as smoking cigarettes. Three North African case studies showed a
very strong link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer, but none of these studies controlled for
tobacco use, so these results are questionable. A 2009 study done at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center in Seattle and published in the journal Cancer found that men who smoked marijuana
once a week had twice the risk of testicular cancer when compared to men who never used marijuana,
and marijuana was most strongly linked to nonseminoma, the most aggressive form of testicular cancer.
Research published in the journal Urology in 2006 showed increased rates of bladder cancer in
marijuana smokers. They also found that marijuana-smoking patients were younger at the time of
diagnosis than most patients with bladder cancer. Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor for bladder
cancer, but the researchers concluded that smoking marijuana may be as bad or worse than cigarette
smoking as a risk factor for bladder cancer. In 1999, a study published in the journal Cancer
Epidemiology found that squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck increased with marijuana use
and there was a strong dose-response curve, the heavier marijuana users had higher rates of cancer.
However, in 2004, another study published in Cancer Research found no association between marijuana
use and squamous cell carcinoma. This is not a complete list of studies, and there aren’t many. So it is
not enough to draw definitive conclusions on marijuana and cancer. However, the evidence that
smoking marijuana is linked to cancer is far more substantial than the research supporting marijuana as
treatment for many of the disorders listed in Arizona’s new medical marijuana law. Also, remember, it
took decades of heavy tobacco use by large swaths of the population before we had a definitive link
between tobacco smoking and cancer. On several pro-marijuana websites I found the claim that there
is no direct evidence linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer in humans. That is exactly what the
tobacco industry said for decades after the first studies came out linking cigarette smoking with lung
cancer. What they said was technically true; until recently we did not know for certain the exact
mechanism by which smoking caused cancer. However, the statistical evidence was overwhelming, so
the tobacco industry was being completely disingenuous and so are the pro-marijuana groups who say
marijuana doesn’t cause cancer. Anyone who claims that marijuana does not cause cancer is ignoring
the research. Also, in November 2010 an article printed in the European Journal of Immunology
described a possible mechanism by which smoking marijuana causes cancer and the research supporting
this possible mechanism. If further studies support these findings, then we will have direct evidence
linking marijuana smoking to cancer in humans. Anyone who goes on the internet will find the pro-
marijuana groups misrepresenting research. What they almost always do is take one study or one bit of
information and run with it as if that were the whole story. That’s how Arizona ended up with a law that
says marijuana is good for glaucoma even though the Glaucoma Foundation warns patients not to use
marijuana because it could make their symptoms worse. The American Cancer Society points out on
its website that it’s hard to study marijuana and cancer because so many marijuana users also smoke
cigarettes and because it’s hard to study illegal drugs. British cancer researchers noted the same
problem. However, one part of the research is very clear. We know for certain that marijuana smoke
contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, produces more tar than tobacco, and that
the way people smoke marijuana (down to the roach, unfiltered, inhaling deeply, holding it in) delivers
more tar to the lungs than the way people smoke tobacco. California’s Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment ruled in 2009 that marijuana smoke is carcinogenic. They are not calling the
marijuana plant a carcinogen, just the smoke. That seems right; the research shows a link between
smoking marijuana and several types of cancer also commonly caused by smoking tobacco. There is no
evidence that ingesting marijuana by other methods causes cancer. Smoking marijuana is also linked
to respiratory problems. Research shows that marijuana smokers have decreased respiratory function,
increased airflow obstruction, and fewer of the anti-oxidants that protect against cancer and heart
disease. In summary, smoking marijuana has been implicated in several health problems including
cancer. Not definitively, but enough evidence to make it likely. So no doctor should be recommending
marijuana in a form that can be smoked. And states with medical marijuana laws, including Arizona,
should not allow such a potentially dangerous route of administration. Marijuana can be mixed into
food, formed into a suppository, or cooked in vegetable oil or butter and put into a capsule. Dispensaries
should only be allowed to dispense marijuana in these forms, and they should not be allowed to sell
marijuana in a form that can be smoked. Marijuana users have responded to the harm of smoking by
developing vaporizers so they can continue to inhale cannabinoids without the dangers of smoking.
However, the reason for vaporizing marijuana is still to get a quick high, just like smoking it. It still
offers no medical advantage over taking cannabis orally or rectally, and it allows marijuana to be
dispensed in the same form that can be smoked, allowing diversion. Besides, the vaporized product has
not, to my knowledge, been tested for carcinogens. I also suggest a rule against transporting
marijuana in its raw form. This will help to distinguish recreational from medicinal use. It will also help
law enforcement because, in other states with medical marijuana laws, it is a common practice for drug
dealers to get marijuana cards so they can claim the marijuana they are carrying around is for medical
use. Most of all, though, I ask DHS please do not put doctors in the position where they are
recommending a likely carcinogen, a smoked drug, if they decide to recommend marijuana to their
patients. The marijuana users who sponsored this law in the hope of surreptitiously legalizing
recreational marijuana will come up with all sorts of reasons that marijuana should be dispensed in its
raw, easily-smoked form. I know how convincing the stories of some of my substance abusing patients
can be, but please do not believe them. And if you do find yourselves believing them, then at least let’s
try for one year with a rule that marijuana cannot be dispensed in it’s raw form or any form that can be
easily smoked. And after a year we can assess the situation and see if anyone with genuine medical
need was really harmed by such a regulation. I quote a lot of research in my discussion here. You
can find links to all the research at my website,
However, there should be an exception when an oncologist recommends marijuana for a patient
receiving cancer chemotherapy who has already tried at least two anti-nausea or appetite stimulating
drugs with no success. The 4 visit rule should still apply to oncologists, since there are several
conventional anti-nausea drugs that should be tried first, but the one year rule might be too long for a
patient referred to an oncologist when the cancer is already advanced. But that is the only exception I'd
suggest. And the oncologist should be required to document that he or she is an oncologist, that the
patient has laboratory- or radiolgically-proven cancer, that the patient is receiving chemotherapy, and
that two conventional medications for the symptoms were tried and failed.
Section 36.2801.01 you need to include a amendment that includes othropedic injuries. I was a Navy
Seal many years ago and have two herniated disks in my back L-4 & L-5 from parachute jumps. Also I
recently had a motorcycle accident on March 14th, 2010. So conciquently I have lots of titianium in my
left shoulder with a multiple fracture of my left humerous and right radial neck. I will have chronic pain
for the rest of my llife, just will have to deal with it. I can get all the vicodin and percocet I want, but
don't want to go that route, would rather just take a couple of hits when my pain acts up and call it a
day. I don't like taking pharmacuticals and the state could make some money instead of giving it to the
pharmacutical compainies? My Fiance' also has Lumbar issues with documented MRI studies and would
benefit from Medicinal Marajuana instead of doing pain killers, less destructive on your liver. I'm in the
medical field my whole life and would like to see the draft ammended to included severe othropedic
injuries, which I see MS is included?
No comment.
What do have against medical marijuana patients? These parts of the draft rules are all wrong. You
don't want them on the board of directors of dispensaries. These are the very people who should be on
the board. In New Mexico dispensaries must have on their boards a patient and a medical professional
You don't want them to be principle officers of dispensaries. Why not? They're the ones affected by how
a dispensary is run. You charge them an outrageous $150 just to be able to go buy their medicine.
Why don't you just charge $150 for people to go to Walgreens? You insist patients have to see the
same doctor for a year. And what if he's not educated enough about medical marijuana to be able to
recommend it. What if he says you should see a specialist who knows about marijuana. I know my
primary doctor says he doesn't know enough about it one way or the other so he won't be
recommending it any time soon.
Remove the 25 mile distance from a dispensary and allow true patients that can't afford the high
dispensary price the right to grow their own and lower the distance to 10 miles.
The aim of Proposition 203 is to provide marijuana for the medical treatment of debilitating medical
conditions. However, in other states with similar laws, most of the marijuana has been recommended
and given to people who did not have a genuine medical need, but were pretending to have serious
illness in order to obtain legal marijuana for recreational use. This is a well-known problem with other
drugs of abuse that also have both medical and recreational uses. So the purpose of my suggested
regulations is to provide marijuana to people with a genuine medical need while screening out people
who are only interested in using marijuana recreationally. I also want to make sure the regulations are
not too burdensome for patients with genuine medical need or for their physicians. In other states,
the two biggest loopholes that divert medical marijuana to recreational use are doctors who go into the
business of recommending marijuana to anyone who wants it, and diagnoses that are easy to fake,
particularly severe and chronic pain. I like the proposed rule that patients must have seen the
recommending doctor at least 4 times and known him for at least one year. However, I did not see
anyplace that this is enforced. There is another rule DHS could adopt that would eliminate the
possibility of doctors setting up practices of just writing marijuana cards. Doctors who are permitted to
prescribe buprenorphine to opiate addicts are limited to having 30 active buprenorphine patients at a
time. Buprenorphine is a potent opiate similar to methadone, used in the same ways. A 30-patient
limit will prevent doctors from earning a living by handing out marijuana recommendations, but should
not be a problem for legitimate doctors. I notice that in all of the proposed rules, there is no section
or article about what the recommending doctors must do, except the documentation they provide to the
patient. As a doctor, I like that; it’s a law that does not give us extra paperwork or administrative
responsibilities. However, certain ones are necessary to make sure doctors cannot abuse their authority
to write medical marijuana recommendations. I am writing to suggest several changes, but the most
important one is the limit of 30 active marijuana patients for each doctor. Limiting the number of active
marijuana patients will go a long way to preventing drug abuse and abuse of the law by unscrupulous
physicians. This should not be a problem for legitimate doctors who are only recommending marijuana
to patients who need it. Marijuana is not a first line medication for any problem, so legitimate doctors
will not recommend it often. There should also be some system for registering doctors who will
recommend medical marijuana. It should be very simple so it won’t be a problem for the doctor who
only recommends it once a year or less. This would be just like the requirement that doctors get a DEA
certificate before prescribing scheduled medications like benzodiazepines, narcotics and stimulants. It’s
no problem to get a DEA certificate, but doctors have to do it to write prescriptions for scheduled drugs.
Also, if doctors abuse their prescription privileges, revoking the DEA certificate gives the DEA some
control over the doctor. There should also be a way for DHS to revoke a physician’s medical marijuana
registration if it is abused. Here are my rationales for each of the number language recommendations
made below. 1. This should be a simple process, otherwise it discourages doctors who might only
recommend the drug a few times. Doctors should be able to call a number at DHS and then receive a
letter or fax saying they are registered. DHS should require the doctor’s name, degree, office address,
phone and fax numbers, and any specialties or subspecialties, even if they are not board-certified in the
specialty. When a doctor receives a registry with DHS as a recommending physician, it should be
accompanied by a description of what is required of the doctor, so they know the law. 2. The record
requirements are similar to the requirements for buprenorphine. DHS should look at what is required for
buprenorphine and devise a simple form for doctors to use and keep as part of their office record. This
is not an onerous requirement as all the information is in the patient’s chart anyway, and so they just
have to keep a list of patients currently using marijuana medically. 3. I previously made suggestions
to be included in R9-17-205 as to when a doctor can have a card revoked, so I also included them here.
This section is similar to the rule with stimulants which are Schedule II drugs. Prescriptions for
stimulants, used for ADHD, are only good for 60 days, so usually the patient must be seen every two
months. Some doctors simply write prescriptions every two months and just let the patients pick them
up, but ADHD is not a debilitating medical condition. Anyone with a genuinely debilitating medical
condition will be seeing their doctor that often anyway, and it will not pose a hardship to have to see the
doctor every 3 months. 4. This is identical to the rule the DEA has for buprenorphine. Thirty should
be plenty for all legitimate doctors. The only people this rule will pose a hardship for are doctors who
want to earn a living handing out marijuana recommendations, and those are the people we want to
stop. This is the most important recommendation in this list. 5. Second opinions are used in medicine
to prevent inappropriate prescriptions. They are most commonly used when surgery is prescribed, and
the use of second opinions has prevented a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate surgery. However, the
state of New Mexico uses second opinions as part of its medical marijuana law for certain diagnoses.
Second opinions are useful in medical marijuana laws when the disorder has only subjective symptoms
and is easily faked, like pain. It’s a good way to make sure the patient really has the diagnosis and really
needs medical marijuana. And what they found in the surgical field is that doctors started being much
more careful about how and when they suggested surgery because they knew there might be a second
opinion. So the second opinions don’t actually get used that much and the seconding doctor rarely says
no, but the first doctors are more appropriate in their recommendations just knowing there might be a
second opinion. If DHS adopts second opinions, you could have a managed care company administer
this part of the program. Pain specialists are not usually specialists in the underlying illness. For
example, if someone has a musculoskeletal pain, for a second opinion they should see an orthopedist or
specialist in osteopathic manipulation, not a pain specialist. 6. Section e will not be necessary if the
much stronger requirement already proposed by DHS that patients must be treated by the doctor for
one year with at least 4 visits stands.
The requirement for a dispensary to produce seventy percent of its product should be deleted to avoid
driving the price to patients too high.
The doctor who writes a medical marijuana recommendation should be able to revoke a patient’s card
for a number of reasons. This is the case with all other prescriptions and should be the case with
medical marijuana as well. Especially with addictive drugs and drugs of abuse, doctors often find it
necessary to cancel a prescription, cancel refills or stop giving a patient a medicine they had previously
prescribed. Could you imagine if the only way to prescribe Oxycontin or Xanax were to allow someone to
use the maximum dose for a year? Doctors should have the same control over medical marijuana
recommendations that they have over all other prescriptions. Prescriptions for Schedule II stimulants
such as Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Adderall (amphetamine salts) can only be given for 60 days.
Patients must get a new prescription every 2 months, and that usually means seeing the doctor every 2
months. We should have a similar rule with medical marijuana. Although it is legal to write a
benzodiazepine prescription with a year’s worth of refills, no one I know does it. In New York,
benzodiazepines can’t be refilled without getting another prescription, so the patient must see the doctor
often. Many states have had similar laws with narcotic pain medications, requiring frequent visits to the
doctor. It’s important for doctors to be able to control drugs that are addictive or frequently abused, and
we should have similar rules with medical marijuana.
The aim of Proposition 203 is to provide marijuana for the medical treatment of debilitating medical
conditions, and DHS should work to fulfill that aim. However, in other states with similar laws, most of
the marijuana has been recommended and given to people who did not have a genuine medical need,
but were pretending to have serious illness in order to obtain legal marijuana for recreational use. This
is a well-known problem with other drugs of abuse that also have both medical and recreational uses.
So the purpose of my suggested regulations is to provide marijuana to people with a genuine medical
need while screening out people who are only interested in using marijuana recreationally. I also want
to make sure the regulations are not too burdensome for patients with genuine medical need or for their
physicians. In other states, the two biggest loopholes that divert medical marijuana to recreational
use are doctors who go into the business of recommending marijuana to anyone who wants it, and
diagnoses that are easy to fake, particularly severe and chronic pain. The regulations I suggest are
already in use with other medications and can easily be applied to medical marijuana. These are
regulations used to control scheduled medications that are commonly abused and to make sure
standard or conventional treatments are used before controversial or experimental ones. Three such
regulations used for other medicines are: 1) Prescriptions for Schedule II stimulants such as Ritalin
(methylphenidate) and Adderall (amphetamine salts) can only be given for 60 days. Patients must get a
new prescription every 2 months, and that usually means seeing the doctor every 2 months. This should
not be a hardship for the seriously ill, who are usually seeing their doctors regularly anyway. New York
state has imposed a similar rule for benzodiazepines, and some states have had similar rules for the
more powerful narcotic pain medicines. 2) Managed care companies often require that standard
medications be tried for a particular illness or symptom first, and medications that are not standard
treatment can only be used if the doctor documents that the standard medications did not work. Often
the aim is to make patients try less expensive generics first, but some companies are now using this
type of regulation to make sure standard treatments are tried first. This includes Cenpatico, a managed
care firm that has contracts with the state of Arizona. DHS might want to consider contracting with a
managed care firm to administer parts of the medical marijuana program. 3) Second opinions are
used in medicine to prevent inappropriate prescriptions. They are most commonly used when surgery is
prescribed, and the use of second opinions has prevented a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate
surgery. However, the state of New Mexico uses second opinions as part of its medical marijuana law for
certain diagnoses. Second opinions are useful in medical marijuana laws when the disorder has only
subjective symptoms and is easily faked, like pain. I suggest that Article 2, R9-17-201 be rewritten
to include further restrictions. There should be restrictions on when marijuana may be recommended for
each medical condition. Marijuana should be prescribed for a specific reason, not just because the
person has an allowed illness. Also, marijuana should never be a first line drug, and should only be
used when standard medicines have failed. The problem is that medication failures are often simply
reported to the physician by the patient. I will often fill out a prior authorization form saying the patient
has tried and failed on medicines he received from other doctors. I simply take the patient’s word. That
will not work with a drug of abuse because patients who want the drug for recreational use have a
strong motivation to misinform the doctor. For example, doctors are very suspicious of patients who
claim that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs don’t work and that they must have narcotics. That is
why I include that documentation of medication failures must always be written by the doctor
prescribing the failed treatment. The American Glaucoma Society recommends against marijuana for
glaucoma as it can make the condition worse, so it should only be used under extreme circumstances.
This should only be done by a qualified ophthalmologist. Doctors should be careful about
recommending marijuana to HIV positive patients as it is known to suppress the immune system and
there is some evidence that marijuana can hasten the development of Kaposi’s sarcoma. It should not
be a first line drug. Regarding Hepatits C, marijuana has been shown to increase liver fibrosis and
decrease immune function, making it a risky drug for patients with liver disease. Also, hepatitis C is
commonly associated with substance abuse, and substance abusers will be more likely to ask for
marijuana because they are drug abusers and not because they have symptoms. Additionally, substance
abusers are more likely to use marijuana heavily, and heavy marijuana use is associated with higher
rates of liver fibrosis and faster progression of the illness. So marijuana poses definite risks to patients
with liver disease. Marijuana can help with nausea and vomiting, which are side effects of anti-viral
treatment with interferon. However, since the only evidence for marijuana helping patients with
Hepatitis C is for the side effects of interferon treatment, it should only be used while the patient is
receiving interferon. Regarding Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, very preliminary evidence suggests that
marijuana might help with several symptoms and possibly even delay the progression of the disease.
However, the diagnosis should be clear before marijuana is recommended. The sort of requirements I
am suggesting for each diagnosis are the type of checks often run by managed care firms. A managed
care firm would be able to administer this, and if you institute these requirements I suggest using a
managed care firm. I have made several suggestions based on research I have looked at. If you need
more information, please contact me at .
The first thing you can do.... Is lower the prices you plan to start charge the MMP's for access to this
services. How you going to charge someone to purchase medicine. The only thing you will need is thier
current state issued ID, after a paintent Register. This could save 3 billion dollar over the life (10 years)
of this program. One data base with muiltples access points to access the database, that will save 3
million dollars in start-up cost. I will be glad to demostrate any and all cost cutting measures to
implement this program to the Director. This is what the price should be for this program; R9-17-
102. Fees An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following
nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $2,000; 2. To renew the registration of a
dispensary, $375; 3. To change the location of a dispensary, $50; 4. To change the location of a
dispensary's cultivation site, $50; 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $25;
b. Designated caregiver, $25; and c. Dispensary agent, $50; 6. For renewing a registry identification
card for a a. Qualifying patient, $50; b. Designated caregiver, $50; and c. Dispensary agent, $50; 7.
For amending or changing a registry identification card, $5; and 8. For requesting a replacement
registry identification card, $5. These are the price we want to see changed for the best!!! We are the
paintents and caregiver until the people can move on. We can help them, by trying to care for them as
paintents.
Any patient should be able to cultivate marijauna for medical use no matter how far the distance from a
despensary. Despensarys are ok for patients who are able to pay for the medcine but some patients
may go with out it because of the cost.
When holding hearings on suggested new conditions, I hope you make it possible for anyone to also
submit testimony in writing without attending the hearing. I also notice that the law provides no way
to rescind a medical condition. This is necessary in case it is found that patients with one of the
approved diagnoses are significantly harmed by marijuana. For example, for many years medical
marijuana advocates have been claiming that glaucoma patients can be helped by marijuana. However,
the Glaucoma Foundation, the American Glaucoma Society and the American Academy of
Ophthalmology have recently recommended that patients with glaucoma not use marijuana as it can
make their condition worse. It is very possible that as evidence mounts, ophthalmologists will ask that
this indication be removed from the medical marijuana law as it is inappropriate to have harmful
practices enshrined in state law as if they were good medicine. Also, it is possible that some day the
whole process will be abused and a really bad use will be approved, and we would need a way to
rescind that.
Simplify the process. We're not selling nuclear weapons we're selling pain relief to patients. The 13
point medical ailments you list as qualified conditions acceptable for medical marijuana is grossly
understated. Everyday a new efficacy is being found for this herbal remedy and its lack of toxicity has
been demonstrated over and over ad infinitum. Your draft rules ignore the positive advances in a
myriad of new medical conditions and make it onerous to ask for a new condition be approved. Further,
the cost to the patients for a state card is exorbitant and borderlines profiteering by your State.
Having a physician see a patient for at least a year at least 4 times and having that the only doctor who
can recommend marijuana is unfair in so many scenarios. 1.Someone who hasn't seen a doctor in
along time, gets cancer, starts chemo but can't use marijuana because he hasn't seen the doctor for
a full year yet? 2.Someones primary doctor, who they've gone to for years, refuses to recommend
marijuana because he voted against it. Don't understand it, don't want to understand it. 3. Someone,
LIKE ME, goes to the same doctor for years and this doctor agrees with and understands medical
marijuana. He believes it helps me, says he's seen the difference. He even voted for it but he doesn't
understand the laws. He hears its against Federal law but within Arizona law. He says he won't
recommend it, because he's afraid it will somehow get him in trouble. So, he says to me, "Here's your
medical records, go find another doctor to recommend it and let me know who that doctor is so I can
suggest him to my other patients" These strict restrictions concerning 4 doctor visits over a year will
make it hard and even impossible for some patients to get their medical marijuana. We as patients want
safe, affordable access to our medicine. Is that to much to ask for? William Humble spoke out against
Medical Marijuana during the election. Is he now trying to make this system so complicated as to punish
as many marijuana patients as possible?
They need to address, if not reward, sustainability in the cultivation, production, processing and
distribution of the plants.
We beleive cost should be be lower for this Pro 203. Cost should start at half of the listed cost in this
draft. Some paintents will have to travel long distances to get their medicins, and this will add to cost for
the paintents. The government should not be making money, after they have refused to provide these
services to AZ paintents. It should not cost more that $25.00 for paintents to register. It should not cost
more than $2,000 for a despensry. This should be a help for paintent, and not a piggy bank for the
government. Kepp the cost down for people to afford their medicine. R9-17-102. Fees An applicant
submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: 1. For
registration of a dispensary, $2,000; 2. To renew the registration of a dispensary, $5000; 3. To
change the location of a dispensary, $1,000; 4. To change the location of a dispensary's cultivation site,
$500; 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $25; b. Designated caregiver,
$50; and c. Dispensary agent, $200; 6. For renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying
patient, $25; b. Designated caregiver, $25; and c. Dispensary agent, $25; 7. For amending or
changing a registry identification card, $5; and 8. For requesting a replacement registry identification
card, $5. These fee are more inline with paintents traking to get their medicine... We would like to see
these changes in the draft and finial plan of the Pro 203... This is what the people want today!!!!
Change what I said above
We understand and the patients we represent are under the impression that it will take a full year for a
patient to receive a recommendation. We have also read the alternative and find that it could be
problematic. If the physician assumes primary responsibility for the debilitating medical condition, it is
our position that a recommendation will be easier to obtain for a chronic pain condition then it is for a
cancer or an ALS condition. In assumption, a physician would be willing to assume the responsibility
for chronic pain and not for the more serious conditions such as cancer or ALS. This will put the
extremely sick and the "time is of the essence" patients without an outlet for medical marijuana and
possibly force them into the black market which this voter approved law was meant to avoid. In fact,
many issues that you have proposed will increase the costs of the medicine which will force patients
back into the black market and increasing cartel activity. In regards to possible violation of the law
and the intended proposition, we are of the belief that surveillance of all dispensaries will violate the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules in regards to specifically what
information is protected. The law states the following information about what information is protected.
* Information your doctors, nurses, and other health care providers put in your medical record *
Conversations your doctor has about your care or treatment with nurses and others * Information
about you in your health insurer’s computer system * Billing information about you at your clinic
* Most other health information about you held by those who must follow these laws I would like to
hear you expand on why surveillance in your proposal does not violate these laws. Essentially you would
have to redact the video of any patient that enters a dispensary since a medical director is necessary.
Furthermore proposition 203 states the following. H. REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ARE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE INSPECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL GIVE REASONABLE NOTICE OF AN INSPECTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION.
Your accessibility to a live feed of the dispensaries day to day operations would be considered an
inspection of the dispensary and the timeliness would hardly be considered reasonable. In regards to
the 70% rule. We feel that the proposition has provided for multiple channels of inventory such as
cultivation, patients, and caregivers. Putting a percentage requirement on the inventory circumvents the
propositions intent and would require a three quarters majority of the legislature to enact. The
organization we represent has had multiple discussions and cannot even fathom a reason why this was
put into the draft. Requiring a retail dispensary to cultivate the majority of the medicine helps no one.
The only possibility is that it is a political football aimed to torpedo the industry. The industry is designed
to help the patient provide safe access to medicine. Forcing a dispensary to sell its products when other
dispensaries, patients, and caregivers have superior products will never help the patients receive better
and more advanced medicine. Please do some research on the main medicine in marijuana, cannabidiol
(CBD). We took this directly from the Wikipedia article on cannabidiol. Medically, Cannabidiol has been
shown to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea, as well as inhibit cancer cell growth.
Recent studies have shown cannabidiol to be as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating
schizophrenia. Studies have also shown that it may relieve symptoms of dystonia. Without the ability
to get to that substance which inhibits cancer cell growth, this medicine will never make it through
federal approval. We know that Marinol, the synthetic marijuana has does not contain the proper CBD
compounds and thus is not viable alternative. Sativex, which is the only pharmaceutical product that is a
true derivative of marijuana has been approved in 5 countries. The knowledge gained by cultivation,
plant genetics and sales operation will be vital to the research needed to further the medicinal usages of
this drug. Please remove any cultivation requirements and allow free trade so that high CBD strains will
be readily accessible to patients.
I'm confused by the following in regards to a dispensary agent's application. The draft say one of the
following is required: A copy of the dispensary agent's: a Arizona driver's license issued after October
1, 1996; b. Arizona identification card issued after October 1, 1996; c. Arizona registry identification
card; d. Photograph page in the dispensary agent's U.S. passport; or Does this mean an agent needs
to be a resident of Arizona or a citizen of the U.S.? What if the applicant is a permanent resident alien
with a Green Card who is a resident of another state. Could the Green Card with a picture also be used
for identification purposes or would the person in this example be rejected?
Currently, the draft states that all Dispensary Agent's must be residents of Arizona. Because all
dispensaries starting up in Arizona will be new businesses it would make sense to bring in experienced
help from other states who already have established businesses. Growing quality medicinal marijuana
takes skill and practice. I like that dispensaries must be owned by established residents of Arizona, but
I believe the owner's should be able to hire experienced medical marijuana horticulturists to manage the
growing operation and you can only find experienced growers out of state.
Charge patients less for MM card $150/year is too high. Dispensaries should have to provide some % of
what they sell but 70% is way to high. Would a contract with people strickly invovled in growing count
as a dispensaries own supply? Cameras in the growing areas is very invasive and for 6 of the 9 week
growing cycle there will only be 12 of light per day, would that mean we would have to provide infared
cameras which seems unnessesary and expnsive. I'm all for security cameras in the dispensary for
security but don't see any practical use for them at grow sites which will have thier own security
systems.
I would like to see that only ONE GROUP of Dispensary Requestors be granted on One License.
Clarify the selection process for dispensary licenses asap. Chicken or egg question: isn't it better to
acquire a license & then get a location versus securing a location in the hope of receiving a license? The
work & expense required to secure a location is significant, especially if no license is subsequently
granted.
1. Reg 303 should be revised to clarify whether the certificate can be conveyed when the dispensary
itself is sold. It says that the dispensary cannot assign its own certificate. That's fine, but what if the
dispensary operator wants to transfer his whole operation (lease, inventory, employees, equipment, and
the certificate)? The very hard distinction you need to draw is between "mere changes in directors or
other principals" (as when one partner drops out of a six-partner dispensary) and when a change in
control equals "assignment or transfer" (as when six of six, or five of six, partners change). The "sale"
of a whole dispensary should hit the Department's radar screen before the annual renewal application
comes in, specifying a whole new slate of officers/directors. Perhaps there should be a mandatory
informational filing upon any change in control. More generally, the regs should specify what happens
when a dispensary chooses to go out of business for some voluntary reason. Is it processed as a
"renewal"--merely with different principals, or can the dispensary be overtly transferred, or does the
certificate go back into the hopper to be issued anew to some qualified applicant? Any ambiguity left
open by the regs will be exploited, I guarantee. 2. The renewal application in reg 305 does not
require a certifcation of continued compliance with local zoning. This could become an issue because
some cities (Phoenix) are requiring annual use permits for dispensaries. Thus, a dispensary that
complies with zoning upon initial certification could nonetheless stop complying with local zoning later
on. That lack of compliance with local zoning should, at a minimum, be a reason for non renewal. 3.
A huge legal issue is going to be the degree to which a certiciate holder has some sort of "vested right"
in renewal, so long as the dispenary is free of violations. The statute (36-2804.06C) says that renewals
"shall" be issued unless the certificate has been revoked or is suspended. The regs would prevent
lawsuits and confusion if they clarified more exactly where things will stand when someone is up for
renewal. In particular, why do the regs not use the term "suspension" as the statute envisions? I
imagine something like a provisional/probationary license--a certificate holder could be placed on
"suspension" status if it's in any degree of trouble, and the regs could clarify that is such cases there is
to be no right or expectation of renewal. More technically, do the reasons for "denials" in Reg 319 also
govern with respect to renewal applications? 4. I believe the Medical Director is a good idea. But
his duties in Reg 310 strike me as one-time, up-front duties with very little ongoing role. What will
happen is that the protocols for dissemination of educational materials will become an "off the shelf"
item that can be borrowed from one dispensary to another. The MD will charge to set that up, and
thereafter monitor it to add or delete materials from time to time. But after the set up the duties are
pretty minimal. The regs require the MD to "be available" after that, but to do what? The regs refer
to pagers and telephones, but if you really want the MD to personally return phone calls immediately,
the regs need to say that. Otherwise you will get a designated email address that the physician's staff
monitors, with messagesr returned whenever. 5. A certificate of occupancy comes very late in the
business/real estate development cycle--after maybe 95% of the money and time has already been
expended. By requiring a C of O with the application, Reg 302 requires something that is extremely
different than the way most businessess operate. They will say that you cannot spend 95% of what it
takes to open your doors, as a precondition to finding out if you will be allowed to open. As written,
this requirement will tilt the applicant pool in favor of the most risk-tolerate, well-funded players. You
might think about that. If the requirement went one step back in the business process, it would require
the applicant to produce a building permit (which will have required the payment of fees and
preparation of plans, but not the actual completion of work). 6. A dispenary officer or board
member should not be able to prove Arizona residency with a utility bill or a lease. Accepting such
evidence is fine for AHCCCS or food stamp eligibility, but not in this context. Right now, an out-of-
state resident could go rent a cheap apartment someplace and therefore set himself up, when he files
his upcomign application, both a local lease and several months of bills from APS (or whatever). Any
principal of any potential dispensary has the resources to do this, and by listing this stuff as acceptable
"proof" of residency the reg only invites gamesmanship. 7. A textual ambiguity with the word
"dispensary" lurks through many of the regs. The statute and Reg 101 define "dispensary" as the
intantible business entity itself. But then many regs implicitly use the word "dispensary" to mean "the
dispensary's primary business location." For example, sometimes the regs refer to "the dispensary" and
"the dispensary's cultivation site" when in fact, both of these mean something different than the
intangible business entity. The regs could either use someting like "dispensary business location" when
a location is meant, or at least clarify in the definitions that the word must be considered in each
context.
Regarding Dispensaries: I read that the dispensaries can "grow" up to 70% of the product grown and
30% MUST come from patients, caregivers, or other dispensaries. This seems impracticable because
each dispensary will not know initially what the demand for the product is. So what is 100% of product?
How does a dispensary determine what 70% of an unknown demand? Secondly, how does 30% come
from a patient? Does that mean that "patients" who live 25 miles or greater from a dispensary can
become sellers to a particular dispensary? Same for caregivers. The informal draft rules require
dispensaries to have an efficient inventory control program that tracks where all marijuana sold was
grown and to whom it was sold. How can a dispensary determine with any sense of accuracy how and
where marijuana was grown from a "patient, or caregiver?" To solve these problems and improve the
rules I would suggest the following: 1. Dispensaries are just that - a retail outlet where medical
marijuana, edibles, paraphernalia, and merchandise can be sold to those who possess a legal medical
marijuana card. 2. Dispensaries DO NOT grow on-site. Medical marijuana is grown OFF-SITE at a
secure location unknown to anyone but the County and the ADHS. Having product grown at a
dispensary will absolutely invite crime and vandalism. Dispensaries should only be required to have a
safe where product is stored, but not grown. 3. A person who is applying for a license must be
approved for a retail site AND an off-site secure GROW operation where there can be strict inventory
and quality controls put in place. This operation can then supply the dispensaries based on a particular
demand. If you allow dispensaries to grow, you will not be able to control quality or inventory and then
product may get in the wrong hands. OFF SITE GROW areas will be required to have SOP's, record
keeping, and inventory. It will have 24 hour video surveillance and tight security and it's location is NOT
disclosed to the public, only relevant government agencies will know the exact location. The location
should be in an "industrial" location away from retail outlets. 4. In order to produce reliable product
that is safe for use as a medicinal, Arizona must allow for initial seeds and/or clones to be obtained from
neighboring states such as Colorado or New Mexico where quality control measures have been in place
for some time. 5. There should be no minimum square footage required for a Dispensary since a
dispensary is a retail facility only. In Pima County, there is an informal requirement to make a
dispensary between 2500 and 3000 sq.ft. That's a BIG space for retail. However, they specify that
25% is used for retail (roughly 500 sq. ft) and 2000 used for grow. Again, I believe STRONGLY that a
dispensary should not be allowed to grow on site. You're only inviting trouble by allowing this to
happen! 6. As far as a patient-doctor relationship, I believe that the requirement to have a patient
have been seen by a doctor 4 times minimum in a year is not practical. I understand it's intent to be
good to prevent abuse, however, let's consider a patient who was just diagnosed with terminal cancer.
My mother went to see a doctor because of severe back pain. She thought she had pulled a muscle. It
turned out she had bone cancer of the spine. She was given 3 months to live. She immediately
underwent chemotherapy. Most cancer patients don't die from the cancer itself, but from starvation and
malnutrition because the effects of chemo interfere with their appetite. She couldn't even choke down a
scoop of ice cream without feeling nausea. In this case, medical marijuana would have been very
helpful. Many patients won't live long enough to qualify for the proposed "doctor-patient" relationship
rules. I think if a licensed doctor recommends a patient need medical marijuana that should suffice unto
itself in these kinds of severe cases. Therefore, the language should make an exception for severe
cases such as cancer or other very serious condition. I agree that mild conditions require a longer
evaluation period to determine need. That's it for now. I appreciate all the hard work and
consideration your team is doing. Please consider my recommendations for improvement. Most
importantly the concept that dispensaries and grow operations should be separate facilities. This
improves quality control, inventory control, public safety, and security.
Since the Care Giver is not allowed to be compensated, it might explain better the role of a caregiver
other than the role of a parent/guardian and child relationship. What advantage is there to being a
Caregiver? If you cannot receive compensation, is this a volunteer position?
Since the Care Giver is not allowed to be compensated, it might explain better the role of a caregiver
other than the role of a parent/guardian and child relationship. What advantage is there to being a
Caregiver? If you cannot receive compensation, is this a volunteer position?
Outdoor cultivation sites would not be any more secure with a fence over the top. To really make it
secure what is needed is a superior electronic security system, razor wire atop the walls and a 24/7 live
guard. The fence on the top would appear to make it secure but offers no real security.
It will be helpful to provide a graduated dispensary approval process so that all applicants will not sign
leases that they will only have a need for if approved. If all applicants are required to have a lease
signed at the time they apply and then they back out of the lease due to a refused application, the
owners and managers of comerical space will look upon the DHS rules as being responsible for a lot of
problems that could have been avoided.
This nonsense of having to see a doctor 4 times before being able to get a prescription for Medical
Marijuana is foolish and nonsense. You can go to Urgent Care and get a broken arm looked at and set
and the physician does not know a thing about you and your have never seen them before! Also,
in most medical plans you see the doctor who is on call that day and there is NO continuity between the
physicians only a written record. This provision put an undo and expensive burden on the backs of
people needing this medication.......... Change it......
Eliminate the requirement that dispensaries grow most of their MJ themselves. They should be treated
the same as a local drug store and just have the job of distributing the MJ. Keep the growing
operations separate.
R9-17-202 5e, states that you must have a relationship w/ a doctor for at least one year can not work. I
myself have had 6-7 doctors in 2 years. two left the area, one will not see medicare anymore,etc,etc,.
doctors come and go. so now you are setting things up so it will take another year(if I'm lucky to find
a doctor for a year) this does not sound right to me. Myself I have been diagnoised with qualifing
patent problem for more than 3 years.but like i said i now have a new doctor beyond my control. I
believe this needs to be changed to"if you can prove you have the condition you should quailify.,"
Immeaditly.
R9-17-101 Definitions: #16: Definition of "ongoing" is to rigid and puts undue stress on the patient-
doctor relationship and requires by state definition an unnecessary time limit on the waiting period
required before a new physician can prescribe medical marijuana to a new patient. This time period
adds A) expense for the patient because of the office visits required to establish the suggested 1 year
"patient-doctor relationship". B) Takes the decision making process away from the qualified physician
and puts a unjustified "standard" waiting period on all patients no matter what the recommendations of
the physician might be. C) Adds undue stress and pain to the patient who could be benefited by the
medical marijuana. D) Physicians will want to refer established patents to pain specialist (which is
current practice) for extended use of pain medication (Marijuana included). The referred physician
should not have to wait 1 year before recommending marijuana as a viable treatment.
The wording of F 16 (pg 13/47 is unclear and confusing. R 9-17-205 (pg27/47) as determined by
what? R 9-17-312 (pg 40/47): include a copy of the log book or rating scale referenced in R 9-17-310.
There is no second level review of the application for an identification card, aand no system to validate
the diagnoses provided by a physician. This leaves the process vulnerable to the type of misuse of the
system seen in California. I would recommend that the dispensorys' medical directors be responsible for
providing second level reveiws of a designated percentage of applications (including past medical record
reviews) to ensure the diagnoses provided are accurate and confirmend by documentation. I would also
add to section R 9-17-31`2 (pg 40/47) that the dispensory shall provide qualifying patient records to the
Depatrtment for review upon request, including the medical records provided to the dispensory's
medical records for second level review. This will afford the Department another level of
oversight/validation to the process essential to ensuring legitimacy to the referal process.
Creating some security measures for food establishments making edibles.
Dispensaries, by definition, are very structured and will be contained in urban environments. If a CVS or
a Wal-Mart Pharmacy were to apply for a Dispensary License, they would almost be perfect for the
License. These facilities are now faced with creating a grow site. Could the Bill be rewritten to allow
these Dispensaries to have a common grower for a supplier? If this grower was located in a rural area,
zoned as agricultural , it would be easier to regulate one site than several hundred spread around the
state.
I'm immobile and I spoke with my caretaker about having her get me medical marijuana once available.
She refuses because she is afraid of federal law. She also says the fees are too high, there is too much
invasive paperwork, and it is too hard. What am I to do? Please make sure easy delivery with proper
ID will be available. Please make sure marijuana couriers are not restricted or that city zoning won't
prohibit me from getting access to medical marijuana. Please make rules easier for true caregivers.
Please be aware that many patients already have caregivers, unrelated to this marijuana law. Also
allow me to continue seeing my primary physician. He is against recommending medical marijuana to
any patient. allow me to get a yearly recommendation from a second doctor.
Please make medical marijuana affordable for patents on limited incomes. I have nerve pan in my legs
and feet. I don't know how to explain it other than someone putting 110 volts into my feet all the time.
I've tried narcotics and even anti-seizure medications with no luck. Sometimes it's almost too much to
deal with. Marijuana works, but at current black market prices, I can only afford a few days worth each
month. It costs nothing to grow marijuana outside, why do you want to force people to grow indoors
increasing energy consumption, and the expense to patients.
see below . . .
Include guidelines for caregivers to cultivate for registered patients autonomous of the regulation on
patients cultivating within 25 miles of a dispensary. This will help patients acquire medicine cheaper and
decentralize this economy. It will keep the Dispensary Owners from over-exploiting the market from a
business perspective, resulting in a decline of quality and integrity in their product.
See above
The draft rules may be improved by some sensitivity to the issue. It is difficult for those who have a
strict materialist view of the world to appreciate that the most important component of the growing
environment is compassion. The care that is transmitted to the plant is in turn transmitted to the
patient. Patients will most benefit from a policy that allows their medicine to be grown by those who
care the most for them. The cost of the license may be lucrative for the State of Arizona, it is
disasterous for the patient. This is akin to a patient saying "I want my grandmother's cake recipe" and
the state replying "you asked for cake, here's Little Debbie". Plants are living creatures and have
properties that science is reluctant to acknowledge. Reference "The Secret Life of Plants" - the magazine
Popular Electronics included a schematic (in the 1960's) for an audio rate oscillator which responded to
the "mood" of the plant detected with an electrode attached to the leaf. This machine was mass-
produced by Jeremy Lord synthesizers in London as the BM-5 and Bio Activity Translator. These devices
prove that plants register a discrete reaction to the thoughts of those around them. Industry is not
anxious to admit that what they recognize as commodity has sentiment. American commerce would be
drastically impacted by widespread knowledge of plant sentience, so this information has been
supressed. Still, this is the most crucial point in the use of marijuana to treat illness. Unfortunately, a
$5000 application fee is generally beyond the means of those who prioritize love over capital gain, and
this policy will continue to alienate and make criminals of those who could most benefit from it, those
people the policy draft claims to bear the interests of. It ensures that that which the state recognizes as
a drug will still primarily be controlled by people who have no interest in seeing it as anything but a
source of income and control, which is the cause of what many patients are suffering from in the first
place.
By changing how ridiculously difficult it is to obtain a medical marijuana recommendation. Four visits
and a one year relationship with the physician is completely outrageous and unacceptable. People like
myself, who are suffering with chronic pain do not have time for all of these unnecessary measures. We
need relief now! No other medication requires four seperate visits to obtain, so why should this rule be
applied to cannabis (a substance that has caused 0 deaths in the history of time)? There is no point of
four seperate visits. It simply wastes patients money and time. There is nothing a physician could gain
from seeing a patient 3 more times on top of the original visit. If someone needs medicine, they need
medicine. Time is not going to change that.
Here is an overview of a working business with 17 patient cards. I am an independent grower, am not
involved in any way with other growers. I can legally grow 102 plants. (17pts.x 6plants) At present, I
have 35 plants growing..I won't grow what won't be purchased. I monitor the amount purchased by a
patient, from their income and a reasonable amount of product used, I don't have the problem of my
patients diverting product. Some of my patients require an ounce per month, others will purchase a
quarter of an ounce every other month. -Some don't purchase any at all for months. Each case is
different. I am registered as a business in MT, will pay taxes on this business like any other business. I
am glad to see Arizona joining this movement. Working in a pharmacy brought home how many people
misuse and abuse prescription drugs. That is the REAL epidemic.
How will dispensaries get the marijuana they sell? According to the informal, draft rules all licensed
dispensaries in Arizona will be required to grow 70% of the marijuana sold. The rest must come from
either qualified patients, caregivers or other licensed dispensaries. The informal, draft rules require
dispensaries to have an efficient inventory control program that ensures where all marijuana sold was
grown and to whom it was sold.. Mr. Humble, it is not a good idea to have the dispensaries Do the
Cultivation in the same place. There should be 2 or 3 Pounds in the dispensaries & eatables. The
nursery should be in a different location. Making the dispensaries grow 70% of the product.. That
would just be asking for trouble. way to much money in one place.. at $400.00 an Oz.=$6400.00 a
pound, with about 70 plants or 70 pounds that would equal=$448,000.00. Sir that is a lot of money. To
Tempting even for an honest thief. The nursery needs to be in a high security location.. Different
from the dispensaries, which will be in a out of the way location. Thank You
The rules should include mandatory testing of all medical cannabis products distributed to patients.
Testing should include quantification of cannabinoids (i.e., potency), verification of the absence of
harmful chemical residues such as pesticides and fungicides, and verification of the absence of
microbiological contamination by harmful yeast, mold, and bacteria. For the past two years I have
operated an analytical laboratory in California that screens a wide range of medical cannabis products
for safety concerns. While the vast majority of our samples are considered safe, we have identified
samples with harmful bacteria and pesticides. Products with these residues must not be distributed to
patients. We also accurately identify the total amount of active cannabinoids in flowers, extracts, and
edibles. In doing so, patients know exactly how much of each product to consume in order to treat their
symptoms. Moreover, doctors are now one step closer to being able to identify appropriate dosages.
This is a critical step towards cannabis achieving true medical status. This is certainly most important
for edible products. Patients never know how much of a given cookie or brownie to consume. By
testing these products for potency, edible manufacturers can ensure that every single cookie or brownie
they produce is of a known potency. Patients and doctors can regulate consumption based on these
standard potencies. And the effects of a given cookie will be consistent from batch to batch.
R9-17-101 Definitions: 7. current photo - simplify this by using the passport standard for photos. There
are widespread facilities to obtain these photos and the standards are clear 10. Enclosed - a one inch
thick metal gate is unreasonable and unobtainable. please change to "a garage entry fire door - same
standards as in home construction" R9-17-102 Fees first line - change to - An applicant GRANTED a
license for a dispensary shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: it is entirely unreasonable to
submit a $5000 fee for an application - when the criteria for acceptance of the application are not clear
and the number of applicants is expected to greatly exceed the limited number of granted licenses. A
reasonable nonrefundable initial application fee to cover administrative costs - such as $250-500 is
acceptable R9-17-201 Debilitating Medical Conditions 9. define severe pain - i suggest that pain is
entirely subjective and using a subjective pain scale score is appropriate. post operative pain needs
treatment if the subjective score is greater than or equal to 5 on a scale of 10. define chronic - i
suggest that chronic refers to a condition that recovery from or cure from is not an option or achievable.
R9-17-202 13 e (ii) A standard statement needs to be drafted and used by ALL physicians to avoid any
variations in the information received by patients and eliminate liability directed toward the prescribing
physician. The statement needs to address the experimental nature of this medication. That it's use is
not currently approved by the FDA and patient is assuming all responsibility for accepting this
medication based on compassionate care usage. 13 e (iii) please define how the physician is expected
to "continue to assess the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's use of medical marijuana during
the course of the physician-patient relationship" This current language is ambiguous and could lead to
reprisals from the AZ BOMEX. I suggest that the patient is responsible to keep the physician informed
of current address and contact information. To notify the physician in the event of any legal violations
relevant to the use of medical marijuana. The patient is responsible for scheduling a yearly physical
exam and review of therapy. The patient is responsible for notifying the physician of any change in their
medical condition. R9-17-302 Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B. 1. b. The physical
address of the dispensary h. The physical address of the cultivation site and sections
5,6,7,8,910,and 11 - it is not feasible to lease or purchase property prior to receiving a preliminary
dispensary certificate based on the large number of applicants and the limited number of certificates to
be issued. Preliminary Certificates need to be issued and finalized contingent on meeting applicable
zoning requirements and compliance with the sections cited above. R9-17-310 Medical director C 1,2
and 3 need to be standardized and issued by the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners to avoid any
conflicts. All physicians need to be able to clearly understand what is expected of them and the
programs that they over see. D. It is unreasonable limit the practice of a consulting physician. This
must be changed to - "A medical director can not self refer a qualified patient to a dispensary that he is
associated with." R9-17-312 Qualifying Patient Records please add a new paragraph E. this needs to
assure compliance with HIPAA act. It should read - Patient records will not be shared with any other
agencies, medical or non medical agencies or other physicians or entities without specific written
consent of the patient. The Department of Health services has access to patient medical records to
verify compliance with record keeping guidelines only and will not share any information regarding
specific patients with any law enforcement agency or representative of such agencies. If illegal activity is
suspected, law enforcement will need to proceed with their investigation through court order and
subpoena of only the information relevant to their investigation. R9-17-319 Denial and Revocation A. 2.
e. It is unreasonable to restrict the practice of a physician. it is reasonable to ban self referral of
qualified patients
I'm in the same predicament as many others. Well, my doctor belongs to a major clinic with many
branch locations. She tells me that clinic rules prohibit her from recommending medical marijuana. I
have a 3 year case history resulting from a terrible accident and I'm in constant pain. I can't afford the
costs of seeing another doctor. I don't think my insurance would allow me to see anyone else. Please,
please allow me to stay with my current doctor for most of my care andallow me to see another doctor
annually for a medical marijuana recommendation. Thank you very much.
1.Allow caregivers that live within the 25 mile zone of a dispensary to grow for people that live outside
the zone. The medicine from caregivers should be way cheaper for card holders than dispensaries.
2.Allow everyone that qualifies for a card to grow initially until dispensaries are up and running. 3.
Make growing outside reasonable for all card holders & caregivers that live outside the 25 mile zone.
Make the fencing requirements reasonable unlike the current draft rules.
Anyone with a valid medical marijuana card should be able to cultivate there own marijuana for medical
purposes it isent practacal for someone to drive 24 miles to get the medicine they need there should
also be unlimited dispensery's how are people going to make money on this if you only allow 124
dispensery's also they should be able to locate there dispensery where ever they want just because it's
located within 500 feet of a school dosent mean the kids are in danger we should be educating them
about medical marijuana and add anxiety depression epilepse and migrains you could also allow people
to purchase up to 7 ounces of marijuana and also dispenserys should be able to cultivate marijuana at
as many locations as the want also make marijuana edibal rules less strict THANKS
The fees particulalry for an infant industry seem high. Consider lowewr inital dispensary fees then a
renewal after 3 years. Patient fees look high. Consider lower initial fees then a renwal at 5 years.
language about discrimination due to local zoning rules,local permit fees and inspection fees should be
incorporated.
I dont believe that the Arizona voters wanted medical marijuana to be treated any different than any
other prescription drug. There seems to be some "special" rules for medical marijuana presciptions.
Regulations to control medical marijuana are important so that people without a presciption for the drug
do not have access to it. But, the ADHS drafted rules seems to want to make it extremely hard for
patients to get access to medical marijuana. Definitely much harder than any other prescription. Why is
this? There are oviously many other prescriptions prescribed by doctors that are alot more dangerous
so why is this being treated so harsh. By harsh why the extra rules to get medical marijuana for
someone with a qualifying condition? If a Doctor prescibes medical marijuana and a person benefits
from it's use, Isn't that the intent of the voters? Why would a medical marijuana prescription have
"special" rules? I'm talking specifically about the 1 year and 4 visit rule.
would it be possible to have a pharmacist or a person with a pharmacology/toxicology background be

able to fill the possition of medical director?
the extreme resrtictions and requirements for the dispenserys will make it difficult to obtain legal
marijuana. there will not be enough dispenserys to supply patients with legal marijuana. they will be
forced to obtain it illegally. which will make their perscriptions worthless. they'll still be breaking the law.
relax the requirements for the dispensarys AND make them 1 mile, rather than 500 feet, from schools.
It seems in order to prevent corruption or loose interpretation of the law, that instead of each individual
dispensary contracting with a physician to be on call, a pool of physicians selected by AZDHS should be
set up to use as on-call medical support.
The rules are NOT easy to follow and or be implemented. First of all the rules are TOO strict. They are
made up to profit the rich. A normal citizen does not have the start up fees and or monies to be involved
with attempting to supply a dispensary and put up a business. The rules MUST be made to allow EASY
access to the medicine in question. If there is no easy access then people will grow it their own way if it
costs too much. I would propose the following: 1. Allow a patient to grow up to 10 plants in his/her
home. Responsibly of course. In a room locked away from kids etc. (Responsible) 2. Drop the fees
associated with a medicine (marijuana). They are not applied in other medicines. Remember the
constitution "taxation without representation". The people wanted this. They voted.(Ethical) 3. Do NOT
implement a patient identification process. This is singling out patients and discriminating them
unnecessarily based on a medicine they use. (Think lawsuits on the way). We do NOT do that with
percocet, oxycotin etc. The court systems are already bogged down beyond repair.(Unbiased) 4. This
vote was "for the people" and should be implemented on the needs and wants "of the people." Suffering
needlessly without money for certain medicine is wrong. (Moral) 5. keep the laws and rules simple.
This draft (as written) is not what the voters wanted and or intended. It is a politicians nightmare and a
lawyers dream. (Sensible) 6. Keep medicine available instead of making doctors afraid to write a script
and patients scared to be a patient. The people WILL grow their own with or without governmental
consent. The draft you have proposed is too strict and will have grave consequences on our legal
system. The people and system of law enforcement does not have the time and or resources to deal
with this. I know firsthand (retired police officer).(Understandable) ABOVE ALL, Do the right thing. Do
not criminalize what the people want. Just use common sense in the wording of the laws. If it is not
easily accessible, sensible and without all the nonsense to interpret, we will lose our rights to intolerant
people who interpret and set up our laws using their own moral and ethical set of standards. Make the
laws 1.Responsible, 2.Ethical, 3. Unbiased, 4.Moral, 5. Sensible, 6. Understandable
It needs to open up the smoking areas. Outdoors camping,fishing,bbq,etc. Pricing is another issue. Cost
of the license and product is way to high! $150 just to register that should be reduced if patient is on
any state or federal health plan.
Definitions 6. "Cultivation site" means the one additional location where marijuana will be cultivated
by and for a dispensary. Should be 6. "Cultivation site" means the one additional location where
marijuana will be cultivated by or for a dispensary. (This is because not all dispensaries will be able to
grow correctly all strains that help a variety of conditions. Growers would need to be licensed with all
security measures for a full dispensary, growers individually licensed, and individual license fee schedule.
Said growers can provide up to 30% to more than one dispensary and help provide a better strain
quality and variety at times.)
Is there a way to run the dispensing through existing medical pharmacies?
The rules have been drafted to only include the elite and I think that is a big problem. It is not fair and
equitable to everyone. The fact that you have to have a dispensary and/or grow facility built and have a
CO before applying is not acceptable. Only the elite can afford to invest $150,000-200,000 and then
gamble on whether their license will be approved. If they build the facility and don't get approved, what
then? They just blew a ton of money on a pipe dream. This also insinuates that someone would need
to have insider knowledge of how a dispensary/grow facility should be built to guarantee passing the
inspection. Otherwise, why would they risk that much money. I think the rules should be written so
everyone has a chance to participate. Require people to invest a small amount to apply ($5,000) but as
part of the application process the applicant(s) must prove financial stability and prove they have access
to the necessary funds to build the dispensary and/or grow facility. This could be in the form of a
business plan or prospectus and should include the proposed floor plans et al as the draft rules indicate.
Once approved, the applicant could be given a certain amount of time (3-6 months) to secure the
funding, secure a location, and have the dispensary/grow facility built under DHS supervision...or risk
losing their license.
At first the idea of a "medical director" sounded good but on closer examination we see several
problems with that idea. It we were to have a director it would make more sense to us if there was only
one director for the entire state, not a director for every few dispensaries. We're talking about a drug
that in 5,000 yrs no one has died from a overdose. Used improperly it can cause upset stomachs and
uneasy feelings. Patients do need to be warned about what to avoid but do not need a licensed doctor
to tell them how to best use this drug. Most patients need very little consultation in the use of
marijuana. Because it has been illegal for most of our lifetimes, it is not studied in medical school.
Simply saying we need to hire a doctor to be available would most of the time end up being just an
unnecessary cost that patients would have to pay although most will never hear that doctors advice.
There are medical marijuana experts out here. Many of the future dispensary operators, the marijuana
advocates, those of us that have written books, or worked in other states with medical marijuana. We
have studied this subject for years. We propose the creation of a board of marijuana experts, cannabis
advocates, AZHDS representatives, doctors, caregivers and patients who will create a study course
including which medical marijuana books must be read and a exact test of knowledge on the subject of
medical marijuana which would have to passed by any one becoming a "director". Possibly a simpler
solution is having no director at all but every dispensary having a "compliance officer" who must pass
such a test and always be available for the dispensary that they work at. We have the same issue with
licensed pharmacists, they have no training in medical marijuana.
The 4 times to one Doctor thing has got to go..thats not right..Make it easy not hard for sick people..
i am a 47 year old disabled chiropractic physician, licensed in new york and florida, since 1987, and
1994, respectfully....... i have been a chiropractor since matriculation ended in 1987, when i was just
turning 24, and since have built extensive experience with chiropractic and medical diagnostic
businesses, from a founder/managerial perspective............... i recently moved to arizona for medicinal
reasons--- the dry weather!...... having marijuana legalized for some of the condiitons i suffer from,
will help with pain and anxiety levels, but more importantly, keep me off of opiates and benzo's and
away from medical personel!....... please incorporate chiropractic physicians as primary doctors to
"recommend" this very crucial medication! two reasons really---- number one is to help as many
patients as humanly possible (even the patients that avoid medical doctors for reasons of holistic belief--
-- and just pure fear). i used to tell my patients, that if you really are serious about staying healthy,
stay far away from medical doctors; with the obvious exception of emergenicies...... so this would
increase carded patients- more tax money, and as you'l soon see below, reducing governmental
spending substantially and number two is that the chiropractic community, i believe, would embrace
this campaign and will improve their patient base. it would further elevate their standing as equals with
the medical community, as someone who can inform their patients about going down the medical
marijuana avenue, while recommending a totally natural substance, staying within the chiropractic
dogma. .. chiropractic has been a tough sell with patients so inundated with medical advertisements for
dropping pills instead. this is acceptable for some strange reason?... it is estimated that merely 5% of
the population are treated by chiropractors. if this number could even approach 10%, a realistic move,
more patients would benefit from the maintenance of their good health while the chiropractors would
benefit fiscally, ultimately reducing the governments obligatory net tab, when these people would go the
normal medical route.............recommendations also add to the the tax base substantially. so the
government saves a bundlet of money by by-passing the medical community, while the patients benefit
immensely, decreasing the state and federal deficits.... again, i am totally familiar with all the
intricacies of this subject from a business and personal point of view, and there would certainly be no
losers if chiropractic physicians were enabled with this tool, as to keep the unsuspecting public informed,
and away from extremely dangerous narcotics. how many accidental, or not, overdoses are seen in our
morgues on a daily basis?....the egregious use of prescription pads by many unscrupulous doctors, who
clandestinely keep their unsuspecting patients physically addicted to them; and a massive amount of
opiates, in order to maintain fiscal solvency. they are looking for people (especially those with medical
insurance that they know pays well) , to come in for office visits as often as possible, usually once a
month for scripts, even though the medical doctors can write for narcotics in 90 day increments. are
they just monitoring the situation more closely?.... i would like to think so, and am sure it is true in a
very small minority of physicians, but the truth is, their concerns are about themselves and having you
come back---- often! and the numbers back this up! prescription pills are the most abused
drug--- period....... otherwise, if you just went there when you were sick, you'd probably see them
once a year..... maybe!.........not good for their pocketbooks... in conclusion, you can plainly see that
allowing chiropractic physicians into the pool of doctors that can legally recommend marijuana, benefits
the tax base, benefits the chiropractic physicians, but most importantly, benefits patients in need. i
urgently suggest this rule be amended in this all important draft, allowing no ambiguity as to the
chiropractic physicians option to make these recommendations. thank you for your time----
Keep in mind it is the job of the department to regulate the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act not re-write
it. There are a few issues in the preliminary draft that are rules being proposed that are not written in
the act. Such as: 1)Dispensary must cultivate 70% of the medical marijuana it dispenses. 2)May
only acquire up to 30% of the medical marijuana dispensed 3)May not provide more than 30% of the
medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. 4)In respect to a patient having
to provide pre-existing medical conditions to receive a medical marijuana card. 5) Security storage of
the surveillance 30 days. The department should consider changes to these restrictions. Some
suggestions would be: 1)Dispensary should cultivate 0 – 30% of the medical marijuana it dispenses
2)May acquire 70-100% of the medical marijuana dispensed 3)Should be able to provide 100% of the
medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries 4)May obtain a medical marijuana
card with the recommendation of a physician 5)Security storage of the surveillance 0-14 days
I am applying for a dispensary license. I also have a vertebrae that was crushed in a car accident. The
Medical Doctors told me I would be unable to walk or move much. I have used all kinds of holistic
treatment which has in fact allowed me to move around. My point here is that without holistic help I
would still be laying in bed. I think it is imperative to have Naturopathic Doctors on the list of Medical
Physicians (NMD) I believe other holistic practitioners should be on the list if they have techniques that
relieve pain. Restricting this to Medical Doctors will seriously restrict the possibility of someone like me
and many thousands of others from receiving relief from pain based in Insurance and Pharmaceutical
company preferences. This should be about the patients needs, not just big business.
Change the requirement of the doctor relationship, I thought doctors were trained, and could diagnose
most chronic ailments, and if a person wants a second opinion they should be able to try what they feel
is best for them, not DHS deciding what is best for a person, that should be left up to the patient.
It’s very important that patients be allowed to grow in a fenced area. The fence needs to be reasonable.
No one could afford to build the 12’ wall or 1" thick metal door proposed, they couldn't move a 1" thick
metal door. It is far better that someone breaks into a fenced area, rather than do a home invasion
where people lose their life over marijuana. If you make people grow in their homes rather than
outdoors in a fenced area, you will be responsible for the lives lost.
It would be wise to lift the 25 mile ban on growing marijuana and let the cities and counties implement
their own ordinances regarding safe distances from schools and other establishments. It really does not
matter where growing operations are conducted if they are to remain under lock and key at all times.
The $5000 non-refundable application fee for dispensary licenses strikes me as highway robbery when
the state will only allocate 124 such permits for the entire state. Thousands of people are going to lose
their life savings "investing" in this fashion and will have no hope to recoup when they are denied
licenses. The taxes reaped from the sale of marijuana alone will pay for expenses of the ADHS, no
question.
Need enforced regular periodic reaffermation that an appropriate condition still exists.
It should be added or explained how caregivers & card holders can also grow within a greenhouse like
the law stated. Greenhouses will only help in high altiltude areas but would be great for them. Also
allow & explain how they can grow outdoors in a locked area other than what you described. I think
making them grow in a 12' fence made out of the materials you listed & having to be covered is way
over board. If you did it would limit those able to get high quality, natural medicine if the cost was way
to set up was to high. The cost for indoor growing will be sunstamcial already, give them a better option
for outdoors. Make it as easy & lowest cost possible for card holders & caregivers to grow medicine,
indoors & out. Allow caregivers that live within 25 miles of a dispensary grow for patients that live
outside the 25 mile area. It seems to have been written that way.
The second and third subparts of "enclosed" are not reasonable 10. "Enclosed" means: "b. An area
surrounded by four solid 12-foot walls constructed of metal, concrete, or stone with a one-inch thick
metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area that is: " Twelve-foot tall SOLID METAL,
CONCRETE, OR STONE is not reasonable. "i. Welded or woven metal wire mesh, with minimum wire
thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 1 inch; " sounds EXCESSIVE and does not
allow natural light necessary for plant growth to penetrate. Even ii. Welded metal wire grid, with
minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 3 inches; would allow less
than 85 percent light transmittance and would be very expensive. None of this reflects any useful
construction engineering standards. It sounds like you have prison guards designing a greenhouse.
Change 2801.16. the definition of ONGOING to eliminate protracted physician-patient relationships that
predicate a qualifying patient's getting marijuana.
in definitions, (101), I find no definition, or common understanding for your term "caregiver". I looked
in "c" and in "d", but found no def.?? please define.
Add language to the definition of "usable marijuana" that requires the minimum concentration of an
indicator of quality such as THC content.
Make Medical Marijuana easily available to patients who have a medical history. Let the patient keep
their regular doctor, if the doctor for some reason can not recommend medical marijuana. For example,
the health adminstrator for a clinic prohibits the doctors from recommending medical marijuana. The
patient who has a medical history can see another doctor for a recommendation and still be a patient
with the first doctor. Maybe make it mandatory that the patient see the second doctor at least once
every year to renew.
include registered pharmacist as part of medical director description or if there is a registered

pharmacist on staff then requirement for medical director can be waived.
Comment on R9-17-107, Section E I think the timeframes here are too limiting for getting the
information back to ADHS. Specifically the terms "from the date of the written comprehensive request"
and " within 10 working days after the date of the comprehensive written request" in section E. It
seems that ten workings days is not near long enough for a patient and/or physician to get the
requested information back to ADHS. Scenario: ADHS writes a letter requesting additional information.
The letter is dated 5/9/11. But ADHS doesn't get the letter in the mail until 5/10/11 (1 day down).
Then it takes 2 days for the letter to reach the recipient via USPS (now 3 days down). Once the
additional information request has been completed it takes another 2 days for the letter to reach ADHS
(5 days down) and maybe another day for ADHS to open the letter (6 days down). That leaves only 4
days for the patient or physician to gather the information needed for the request and put together a
letter. All this assumes that a) ADHS is 100% efficient in getting the letter created and mailed off in 1
day and is 100% efficient in opening their mail once the request has been sent back (and can anyone
really guarantee that?), b) the USPS is 100% efficient in delivering the mail (really?) and that there are
absolutely no weather conditions (like the 54 inches that Northern Arizona received in one week in
January 2010) that would (and did back then) slow the delivery of mail especially to remote areas of the
state - (believe me I know this for a fact), c) the patient is physically able to work on getting the
information within 4 days (these people have a debilitating medical condition which by it nature means
they're not working at full speed) and/or d) the physician (with their workload) can get the information
gathered in time (what if the physician is out of town or otherwise unreachable for part of the time).
ADHS also needs to take into consideration that many, many Arizonans live in remote parts of the state
where even getting their mail can be a challenge. It seems unfair that ADHS has 30 calendar days to
review a request after receiving it but a patient with a debilitating medical condition has only 10
workings days from the date of the comprehensive written request to respond. Arizona residents are
given much more time to just renew their vehicle registrations. If ADHS is giving itself 30 calendar days
to review a request then that's exactly what it should give to the patients. Comment on R9-17-202, 5,
F. e., i. and ii. The comments I'm making on this section are based on my very recent experience as a
patient being treated for cancer. While I can't speak for other debilitating medical conditions I do think
I can speak adequately in the area of cancer treatment. I think the requirements in these two sections (i
and ii) are extremely limiting to really benefit cancer patients going through chemotherapy where
medical marijuana is extremely beneficial in combating the sometimes debilitating nausea caused by
chemo drugs and the debilitating pain that a lot of patients suffer from the neulasta shots. The
requirement in Section i would be impossible to meet for many, many patients for two reasons: 1)
because of the insurance industry and 2) because the diagnosis and treatment of cancer can and
usually does occur within a very shot time period. For example this year I had to change my primary
physician because the doctor moved to a clinic that did not accept my insurance. Many people have to
change their primary physician either on a yearly or bi-yearly basis either because their employer has
switched insurance companies in order to save money (and your current physician does not accept your
new insurance company) or because the physician makes changes in which insurance companies they
will accept for payment. The State of Arizona employees have long enjoyed the luxury of having only to
deal with Blue Cross Blue Shield for employee insurance coverage. And most physicians accept BCBS.
But it's not that way for many other people and especially those of us in remote areas of the state.
Many of us in remote areas have to travel far or switch physicians often in order to find someone who
accepts our insurance. So to require that the patient be seen by the physician for a least a year and
have had 4 visits to that physician is extremely unrealistic. A patient with a debilitating medical
condition should not be denied medical marijuana because they had to switch physicians due to
insurance. And the requirement to have 4 visits can be prohibitively costly for low income patients living
in remote areas that have to travel a long ways to visit the doctor. In addition, medical conditions such
as cancer can and usually do occur very quickly. By the time a patient could see their physician 4 times
they most likely would have already started receiving chemotherapy and as such be suffering from the
effects that could be helped or alleviated by the use of medical marijuana. So what's the point then?
For example I was diagnosed with breast cancer on January 20, 2010. I had my surgeries in February
and then met with the oncologist for the first time in early March 2010. I started Chemotherapy on
March 25, 2010. I had 8 treatments every 2 weeks thereafter. Up until my first visit with the medical
oncologist I had never met him before. Under section i I would have had to have 4 visits with him
before my first treatment on March 25th in order to qualify. And I couldn't go to my primary physician
because a) I would see him for the treatment of breast cancer and b) I haven't seen him for a year
because I had to switch physicians due to insurance coverage. And if I had waited to accumulate my 4
visits I would have been through the worst part of the chemotherapy where medical marijuana would
have provided me the most benefit. Section ii also makes a lot of wide and vague assumptions that
in many cases will be impossible to meet. I am again speaking as a patient who underwent
chemotherapy treatment. I understand ADHS has to make certain that recommendations for medical
marijuana aren't written by some physician running a prescription mill, but to expect a doctor such as a
medical oncologist to accept all responsibility for the patients care of the debilitating medical condition is
a bit unrealistic. Case in point - many times patients who have certain reactions to the chemotherapy
drugs end up going to their primary physician for anti-biotics because frankly the oncologist may not
know what to prescribe. But the primary physician isn't always a part of the overall cancer treatment
plan and doesn't need to be. I wouldn't go to my primary physician for treatment of my breast cancer.
And will all oncologists be willing to assume this responsibility? It seems to me that ADHS could accept
medical documents such as Ops reports, doctors notes, pathology reports, etc. that documents and
verifies a patient's condition. These reports usually come from a variety of medical sources and
preclude one physician from writing a false recommendation but could be funneled through one
physician for verification. This already happens in the treatment of cancer. While I understand that
ADHS has to do it's best to make certain that medical marijuana isn't abused by the wrong people (and I
am in total support of that), it is the goal of ADHS is to implement the medical marijuana law. And as
part of that ADHS has to make certain that the patients whom this law is targeted to should be able to
obtain medical marijuana when they need it and not make it so hard as to make it impossible for the
patient. Otherwise what good is the law. In addition to thinking like a governing body, ADHS also
needs to think like the patient. Think about these requirements from a patient's perspective.
Leave being a doctor to doctors, not to the state. Remove the 4 visit rule most people do not get to see
the same Doctor over and over this will only accomadate rich people.
You can lift the 25 mile growing rule, so sick people like myself that are on disabilty can grow for
themselves. I cant afford marijuana at street prices let alone the dispencery prices. I once lived in cali
and they dont donate much marijuana.
With regard to medical oversight at a dispensary, Naturopathic physicians should be included.

Naturopaths are state licensed primary care physicians with prescriptive rights including controlled
substances like morphine, vicodin and testosterone. They are qualified and free to act as medical
directors in all other clinics and facilities. Their training in both botanical medicine and pharmaceutical
medicine makes them both appropriate and qualified to be medical directors of a medical marijuana
dispensary. It just seems illogical not to include them. On a similar note, there is no mention of
Naturopathic physicians in the draft rules any where. They are included in answers on the FAQ and in
the "Definitions" section on the web site, but they are not mentioned in the "Definitions" section of the
draft rules or any where else in the draft rules. Nor is title 32, chapter 14 mentioned any where in the
draft rules.
With regard to the doctor patient relationship for qualifying patients, the rules are lacking in clarity in
the second part of R9-17-202 (5)(e). This issue will likely harm those patients with the greatest need for
and benefit from medical marijuana. R9-17-202 (5)(e)(i) clearly states that the physician “Has a
medical condition during the course of the professional relationship; or” The problem is that if the
above stood alone, the patients in greatest need would be harmed. For example, consider a patient with
advanced cancer who is suffering greatly. Other medications don’t work, but the patient has discovered
– on their own – that marijuana provides significant relief from their debilitating condition. As such,
the time frame for a doctor-patient relationship of at least 1-year and 4-visits addressing the debilitating
condition does not make sense. In the above example, perhaps a majority of patients with advanced
cancer may not survive a year’s time. Thus, it’s unacceptable and unethical to require the time frame
laid out in R9-17-202 (5)(e)(i). Does R9-17-202 (5)(e)(ii) help to protect such patients or preserve the
physician's medical judgment? It’s hard to say because the language is so unclear. R9-17-202
(5)(e)(ii) states, or.. that the physician “Has assumed primary responsibility for providing management
and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical
by other treating physicians, that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional
medical therapies; The above section states the physician must have conducted “a comprehensive
medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient's medical record
maintained by other treating physicians...” This must always be a requirement. But it’s in the section
that refers to a second option from R9-17-202 (5)(e)(i). In other words, that language can't be an "or"
option, it always must be a requirement. The (ii) section should contain specifics that protect patients
with medical cases that do not fall into the minimal 1-year and 4-visit time frame described. The (ii)
section should also preserve physician's ability to make a clinical judgment. It would make practical
sense for the physician who recommends medical marijuana to include the patient’s complete medical
history in order to establish the legitimacy of their qualification. This should include not only visits with
other doctors, but also licensed health care providers who have treated the debilitating condition. If
other licensed health care providers are not included in the language of the law then patients may be
unfairly discriminated against simply because they chose to treat their debilitating condition by other
means such as acupuncture, chiropractic, physical therapy, bio-feed back etc. Or they might be
punished because in spite of their suffering they refuse to take dangerous and highly addictive drugs.
Thus, the complete medical history, rather than a single doctor-patient history, should be allowed to
satisfy the 1-year and 4-visit minimum for establishing the legitimacy of a debilitating medical condition.
That should be clearly stated in the law. There must also be language that allows the physician to
recommend medical marijuana for patients with an acute onset of a debilitating medical condition which
would make it unreasonable – such as someone not expected to survive a year – or unethical for a
patient to suffer for 1-year in order to establish a doctor patient relationship.
Yes,
As a veteran under care at the VAMC in Phoenix, my primary care physician is a US government
employee, and is forbidden to reccomend medical marijuana. He would if he could, but he can't! This
could make it difficult for me to find an MD who could reccomend marijuana medication under the
proposed rules regarding a doctor knowing me as a patient,with a long term relationship. I will have
to find a new doctor, who must evaluate me from a VA cassette disc, in regards to my surgeries, lab
tests, x rays, MRI's, CATSCANS, medications, etc. Will the rules require me to build a new relationship
with a new doctor. Do I have to wait a year, and have four or five visits. WILL A NEW DOCTOR BE ABLE
TO LEGALLY DO THIS? I live on social security, I can not afford to pay for new testing, new lab tests,
new MRI's, CATSCANS, etc. I understand the need to vet patients, to eliminate the recreational patient,
but please don't penalize me. Thank You.
R9-17-102 Registry and Renewal Fees- These all need to be increased. 1. Renew the Reg. of a
dispensary- proposed $1000, increase to $2500. Renewal should be reqired on an annual basis. 5. I.D.
Cards- fees A. Qualifying patient- proposed $150, increase to $250. Required annualy. B. Designated
caregiver- proposed $200, increase to $500. Required annualy. C. Dispensary agent- propased $200,
increase to $500. Required annualy. 6. Renewing registry I.D. cards- same fees- required annualy. 7.
Amending and changing cards- proposed $10, increase to $25. 8. Replacemant cards- proposed $10,
increase to $25.
GET RID OF THIS ONEROUS AND UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT
DELETE; 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to
practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of osteopathic
medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title
32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical
oversight at the dispensary
The requirement regarding the Medical Director needs refinement. The description for a medical
director sounds more like a description of a pharmacist. We all want the marijuana dispensaries to be
professional and medical, more like a pharmacy than a store selling a commodity. The limitation on
the number of dispensaries is based relative tho the number of pharmacies. The connection to the
pharmacist is natural and should be followed through by expanding the definition of medical director to
include pharmacists. One could argue that a pharmacist is far better to serve as the medical director
than any physician who would agree to be one. Having a pharmacist on the board of directors of the
dispensary would be even better.
Preventive measures for recreational users should not be the emphasis. Those who choose to use
recreationally will find a way to access the drug. Those who are applying for medical usage cards and
are prescribed marijuana should not be force to jump through complicated technicalities when they are
trying to be compliant and obey the law (and pay necessary fees) If it becomes too difficult medical
users will revert back to illegal methods of procuring the drug which will make the whole law pointless.
Please make it more affordable & reasonable for patients & caregivers to grow outside. To keep the cost
down this would be a good step so patients get the medicine they need @ low prices. I think a good
chain link that is 8' tall, with maybe barbed wire on top & a good gate/lock would be appropriate for
most besides dispensaries that would need more security. If the wording in the draft was only meant for
dispensaries, then maybe clarify it. Not for profit or not, dispensaires prices will still be very high for
most truly medical users that are not used to medicine costing that much. people that illegally use it are
already used to those prices. Allow patients to grow their own medicine until the dispensaries are up
and running. So maybe for the first year of the program even if a dispensary would eventually be open
within 25 miles of them?
-Make it less burdensome to be a medical marijuana patient in the first place. It will be important to
maintain oversight as the system comes into being, however, it should not cost a critically and
chronically ill patient the proverbial arm and a leg to get their medicine. The costs are quite excessive,
$150 a year to the state, multiple doctors fees (a required 4 visits a year to the same doc, what if it
costs $100+ per visit?); I understand that the point is to avoid an abusive program such as those that
have popped up in other states, but, again, oversight!
R9-17-201. Debilitating Medical Conditions There are quite a few more medical conditions that should
be considered. Any type of medical condition that causes you not to live a normal life should be
considered.
It would be a boon to patients if dispensary agents could deliver to them & maybe use 3g or 4g phones
for verification & documentation. One concern I have is for smaller dispensaries, I don't plan to run
one at this point but I do plan on having them as clients to whom my organization provides medical
marijuana for resale. The location change fees could put the smaller operations in small, rural areas at
risk. I don't question the need for it at all, but can we work on thinking of a different way to cover this
expense than a flat fee that would put a disproportionate burden on the little guys? Maybe put the fee
on a sliding scale proportionate to the size & revenue of the operation?
My doctor surprised me yesterday and said the administrator of his clinic won't allow him to write a
recommendation for med marijuana for me. Please allow sick patients to keep their established doctor
and get a med marijuana recommendation. I'm afraid for my health to lose my doctor, but I need med
marijuana. If I can't legally get med marijuana easily I will have to continue buying it illegally. My spine
was broken in several places and I'm in constant pain. I'm tired of taking pain killers that are making my
health worse. Help me and others like me that can prove through xrays, etc. that we are sick. Help
those who have proof that they have health problems. Allow me to keep my doctor and allow me to get
a med marijuana recommendation from another casual doctor, one which I can see yearly, one I can
show my med records to, one who can examine me yearly and make a legal recommendation. Thank
you.
Re: R-9-17-301 Need Clarification as to what qualifies as a Dispensary? Prop 203..36-2801...11.

(States) "NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY" MEANS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTITY
under R-9-17-301 it appears that an Individual, a Partnership, LLC , Joint Venture or Coop can be a Not
for Profit enity? ---------------------------------------------------- Not-for-profit organization Definition An
incorporated organization....... which exists for educational or charitable reasons, and from which its
shareholders or trustees do not benefit financially. also called non-profit organization. Read more:
http://www.investorwords.com/3353/not_for_profit_organization.html#ixzz197Tw5UsK
Changing the medical director from a physician to allow a on call pharmacist or registered nurse instead.
Mainly for the cost to the patient would be lowered and also because a pharmacist/nurse is more
appropriate to answer questions and teach patients regarding medicine. Remember the person will be
doing a job that they will have to research and learn about. As no school teachs about the strains of
marijuana or the certain effects of 1 versus another.
The patient physician relationship should be shortened and the stringency of the rules eased up to
facilitate the meds reaching patients faster. An honor system of the medical field and their hippocratic
oath should be reasonable
500 feet from schools still seems too close. The major concern I have is what rules govern the
patients on how they use the drug- In other words, will I be at the park with my kids or out in my back
yard and be forced to smell someone's second hand Marijuana smoke? That really concerns me, not
just smell wise, but health wise for my family. A solution to this problem would be to only sell it in
forms that can be ingested instead of smoked. What rights do I have if something like this happens?
Who is responsible to enforce how this affects neighbors? The police don't have time for that.
LEGALIZE IT!
1) There is excessive reliance upon the social security number- an identification number that is not
intended for such tracking purposes. This identification should not be used for anything other than
"administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law
within its jurisdiction" (See 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i)). 2) Section R9-17-313 (B)(3)(a) requires
onerous record-keeping of questionable utility. It is difficult to assert that knowing the type of substrate
used for growth, the watering schedule, etc. improves the safety or security of the product in culture.
Superfluous record-keeping serves no purpose. 3) R9-17-314 (A)(5) addresses "inorganic" pesticides
without an appreciation of the risks associated with organic pesticides, such as nicotine sulfate,
rotenone, natural pyrethroids, and neem. (The toxicological effects of tetranortriterpenoid liminoids such
as azadirachtin that are derived from neem are not good; while it is not a mutagen or carcinogen, its
reproductive effects- including considerable reduction in fertility in rats- merit further investigation,
particularly for use on products that are commonly consumed by inhalation.) Similarly, "nonorganic
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers" as well as "chemical additives" are not defined in the draft rule.
Moreover, a listing of all "chemical additives"- ranging from the hormones used to root cuttings to the
silver nitrate employed in ethylene-sparing treatments to induce the production of "feminized" seeds- is
onerous. The multitude of fertilizers alone makes this a difficult proposition; will the dispensary have to
label each individual component used in each individual product throughout the lifetime of the producing
plant, or will they have to list the individual commercial products- leaving it to the recipient to figure out
what the individual (and often proprietary and hard-to-find, even with the MSDS information)
commercial products contain? 4) In the draft regulations, no viral indexing is required to demonstrate
crops are free of tobacco mosaic virus TbMV or TMV), nor is there any proposed regulation of
consumption of tobacco at cultivation sites, or handwashing, or sanitation to preclude the possibility of
transmitting TMV from smoked or oral tobacco to plants under cultivation. 5) The rulemaking seems to
be fixated upon seed production of crops, which is a rarity in commercial grow operations. Tracking of
plants grown from cuttings (clonal propagation) is not addressed at all, which will lead to confusion
when the number of plants does not reach parity with the number of seeds sown. Similarly, there is no
rulemaking concerning the tracking of breeding efforts, documenting the production of new hybrids from
existing stock.
let whoever wants marijuana get it
Any Arizona physician may in a single visit prescribe "speed," e.g., Adderall, to a kindergartener without
4 visits spread out over 1 year. Arizona physicians may prescribe to a kindergartener a drug that can kill
that child by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other "side effects. Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C, and ALS
patients often do not have 1 year to live. The cannabis specialist takes over the primary care of the
patients qualifying condition, is done nowhere else in medicine. Nowhere else in medicine does a
specialist take over a patient's primary care. Deadly and addictive drugs such as the opiates are
prescribed in a single visit by Arizona physicians and despite the best efforts of physicians, some of
those deadly and addictive drugs are illegally diverted, but that does not cause or demand 4 visits, 1
year of visits, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of the patient.
Don't make so many rules. Treat it like booze, but make it easy to spend money in AZ. We need the tax
revenue.
I am very concerned that these rules are in violation of HIPAA Laws and patient privacy. If there is a
relationship between a licensed Doctor and a patient, then HIPAA laws will have to apply. There are no
exceptions........ Patients, and perhaps even doctors, will surely sue the state if these laws are
disregared. Please respect patient and doctors rights and re-write your rules to be in line with the HIPAA
Laws.... thank you.
Firstly, many doctors are being told they can not recommend marijuana by their bosses. Don't force
patients to drop their primary doctors just to get a marijuana script. Allow a patient to continue seeing
their regular doctor and once a year see a marijuana doctor. The key is medical HISTORY. If a patient
has a documented medical history that corresponds with the law, than that patient is eligible...end of
story. Also you are opening a can of worms for lawsuits especially since may people are locked into their
doctors because of insurance requirements. Don't punish the patient, punish the doctor if he or she is
writing bad scripts.
Where do I begin? You obviously fell in love with the Colorado model of regulating dispensaries but you
missed your mark because the people of Colorado did not vote on an initiative that set up dispensaries
in their state. The state of Colorado decided to expand their medical marijuana program and then
imposed the rules to follow. In Arizona we had a People's Initiative (Prop 203) where over 250,000
signatures were gathered and the voted on and passed. Everything you propose in rulemaking must
follow the guidelines of the now state law -- the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The rules you are
trying to implement are in quite a few cases in direct violation and spirit of AMMA. What don't you
understand about the word -- minimum requirements? Having video surveillance cameras installed in all
the dispensaries is a direct violation of AMMA and your insistence of putting those in the rules is very
disturbing. Either you follow the law (which you as a government official are tasked to do) or you don't
and the lawsuits will follow. I will personally do everything in my power to involve the ACLU into this
process and move this to an expensive and protracted court battle which will cost the state of Arizona
millions of dollars and years of delay. Is that what you want for our state? The Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act put the structure together to have dispensaries and it's very restrictive and in your zeal to
make it nearly impossible for the little guy to open a dispensary you have created a complete mess in
your rules. That's nice to say that only Arizona residents of at least two years can fill out the dispensary
application paperwork but currently all the big time dispensaries around the country (Harborside, Canna
Mart, Today's Health Care) are putting together packages that they will be the stalking horses for the
Arizona residents to shoot in their applications. You need to put in the application process what out-of-
state entities are financing or helping with the process since it is not fundamentally fair to everyone to
have a few well-heeled dispenaries come in and game the system. If you don't think this is happening
you are totally out of touch since I just got back from Denver where I attended a convention Kush Con
where the big boys were there and trying to recruit everyone from Arizona to be part of this "scheme" to
game the system. This is wrong and you can't now say you are ignorant of this because you are being
told. Don't believe me then give a call since you are speaking terms with him and ask
him what out of state dispensary he'll be aligning with for his dispensary?
By creating strict rules and regulations you are serving the interest of those who profit from an illegal
enterprise. Why not regulate the use with a more liberal objective and allow state surplus with respect
to funding rather than those who profit illegally. Bounding the ability for someone who can benefit
makes no sense to me.
I think that the draft could be improved, if the guidelines were more clear. The layout made it easy for
me to miss the parts that I wanted to learn about.
I don't like the idea that a person who lives within 25 miles of a dispensary would not be able to grow
their own medical marijuana if in fact they have a medical marijuana card. If everyone with a card were
allowed the option to grow their own, then the number of dispensaries may be less. Also, by being
forced to buy from a dispensary rather than growing ones own does not seem right, it in fact adds profit
to the dispensaries pockets and weakens the consumers/patients choice to a quality grade medicine.
Mandatory Testing of all Harvested Cannabis
The ballot measure, 36-2801.01 says: "The public may petition the department to add debilitating
medical conditions or treatments...." The draft rule, R9-17-106, says: "An individual may request the
addition of a medical condition..." Putting the cost and burden of petitioning for addition of a medical
condition on an individual, as proposed by the draft rules, is clearly not justified by the ballot measure
which says the public may do so. The rule should be changed to provide that either an individual or
any member or group of the public may petition.
Charging $5000.00 to apply will lead to lawsuits, $5000.00 for the permit is fine but keeping the $5000.
from those you dont award a permit is wrong Forming the dispensary prior to awarding the permit will
also lead to lawsuits for detrimental reliance. How is someone sappose to invest 25 to 50 thousand in a
project to maybe get a permit. Doctors on staff, pharmacist on staff, not needed nor workable, the
patient needs the meds at reasonable prices
The rule requiring each dispensary to retain a medical director to be on-site or on-call during all hours of
operation should be eliminated. The reasons it should be eliminated include: 1. 36-2803 of the
ballot measure deals with rule-making. It specifically lists the subjects that should be dealt with in rule-
making. Nothing listed states or suggests that the Department is justified in requiring dispensaries to
retain medical directors. Something of this significance would have been included in the ballot measure
or the ballot measure's list of subjects for rule-making if it had been intended by the drafters of the
ballot measure. 2. The ballot measure, generally, and the rule making charge in the ballot measure,
specifically promote the goal of allowing patients to obtain medical marijuana with as little unnecessary
interference as possible. 3. The most significant duty given the medical director by the rules is to
see that educational and self evaluation materials are provided to patients by dispensaries and that
dispensaries have guidelines for refusing to provide marijuana to a patient. These goals could easily be
accomplished without the necessity of retaining a medical director. Even if it were desirable to have a
medical director involved in preparing these materials, there is no justification for the requirement that
the medical director be on-site or on-call during all hour of operation. The ballot measure specifically
provides that medical marijuana may not be consumed at a dispensary. This would obviate any need
for a medical director to deal with any potential medical marijuana related emergencies. 4. Any
benefits that could result from the requirement of a medical director are clearly outweighed by the
expense burden that will be imposed on dispensaries and necessarily passed on to patients by the
requirement. The clear intent of the ballot measure is for patients to be able to receive the benefit of
medical marijuana without unnecessary burdens. This rule is an unnecessary burden. It could be
particularly burdensome to dispensaries serving low population counties where the demand for medical
marijuana might be lower than in higher population urban areas. This rule could easily make the
difference between a dispensary being financially viable or not. It could lead to the unintended
consequence of driving many dispensaries out of business and allowing the business to be concentrated
into a relatively smaller number of large volume dispensaries that could more easily afford the financial
burden imposed by the rule. 5. If the rule is retained it could be made less burdensome by allowing
medical directors to serve more than 3 dispensaries and eliminating the requirement that the medical
director be on-site or on-call during hours of operation. The duties of the medical director listed in the
draft rules primarily relate to developing patient education and patient self-monitoring materials for
distribution by the dispensary to patients and guidelines for refusing to provide medical marijuana to
impaired patients. If these materials are needed, they could be developed by the medical director
without any necessity that the medical director be available on-site or on-call. It is difficult to see how
there is any relationship between benefit to the patient and the requirement that the medical director be
on-site or on-call during hours of operation. The educational and self-monitoring materials developed
for one dispensary could easily be used for another dispensary. If there is some benefit that justifies
the need for a medical director, there is no reason that a medical director would not be able to serve 10
or even 20 dispensaries. This would significantly reduce the financial burden to each dispensary. 6.
The ballot measure specifically authorizes naturopathic and homeopathic physicians to evaluate and
recommend patients for certification by the Department for eligibility to obtain medical marijuana.
There is no justification for allowing only medical and osteopathic physicians to serve as medical
directors. This limitation will likely increase the financial burden to dispensaries and patients.
The draft rules should allow the addition of ailments that are supported by medical research as treatable
with medical marijuana, such as: 1. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, also referred to ADD or
ADHD, a biological, brain based condition that is characterized by poor attention and distractibility
and/or hyperactive and impulsive behaviors. 2. Hypertension, the medical term used to describe high
blood pressure.
Instead of making patients wait until a Dispensary grows it's first crop, why not supply dispensaries with
Marijuana that was confiscated by law enforcement while it was being smuggled into the US? Just until
crops are ready for harvest.
Of the draft rules, some infringe on a patient and doctor relationship. I have only seen my doctor 1 in
the past 3 years. I have arthritis, bone chips and the labrum is shredded, documented by an MRI. I am
in constant pain but refuse to take prescription pills due to the inability to function normally while on the
medication. I believe that my doctor and I have the right to explore alternate forms of relief of the pain,
and the way the draft rules are set, I would have to see him 4 times before I would be able to try this
remedy. DHS seems to think that they personally have the right to tell me what is good for me and
what is not, DHS seems t be over stepping the rights of patients and doctors with this view. If these are
the requirements for any prescription medication, then fine, but the rules you are proposing are not the
same. Requiring a doctor to be on-site or on-call to answer questions seems to be interfering with the
patient and doctor relationship. Providing education and information material to the patients as to the
effects, effects of combining with other drugs or alcohol, and ways for help if the patient is needing
assistance is what should be required of the dispensaries. As for the amount of marijuana each
dispensary may grow and sell, the 70/30 split seems a bit excessive, and a 50/50 or 60/40 split. I would
encourage more cooperation between dispensaries, increase communication that would encourage good
relations with the public and DHS. I say this because the rules as written seem overly restrictive,
interfering, and harmful to the patient.
The question that continues to bother me is the development of independent medical marijuana
dispensaries in lieu of using existing pharmacies or designated pharmacies for the purpose of fill orders.
I just learned today my doctor will not prescribe me medical marijuana because the hospital to which he
belongs is telling him that he can't. I'm not changing physicians. Does that mean I can't get medical
marijuana? Allow a patient to have a primary doctor and at the same time be able to see yearly a
medical marijuana doctor. But with the caveat, that the patient has a true history where it is needed.
Please, Please keep the preditors and marketers like the PI/Cop out of this. They are in this
for the Money only selling dispensaries for 150,000 dollars, stating their group already have a 20,000 sq.
ft. grow operation in progress in Phoenix and if you want a chance for a dispensary license you need to
come up with 10,000 dollars for his business plan! The worst part of this is that this group of
opportunities seem to have had all the first draft issues covered in their classes in late November, 20
days before it became public? HOW CAN THIS BE? These are very shady people HOW COULD THEY
HAVE HAD THIS MUCH INFORMATION?
The little guy especially folks that suffer from the allowable card qualifications should be highly
considered as dispensary operators. So in my and others that I’ve discussed this with feel that
independent legal firms should review and make suggestions of qualified licensee’s.
Make it easier for other states with similar legislation not be penalized and judged as Arizonans. Making
it easier for people with Debilitating Medical Condition or chronic pain too move to the dryer climate and
still get help.
Hopefully, there will be a standardized presciption formon the DHS website for the necessity of
medical marijuana using the outline existing criteria. Also, there needs to be a more liberal criteria
than a 1 year relationship and 4 visits between the patient and the doctor.In a state such as ours,there
are many out of state patients who come to be care for by family members and may have a terminal
or chronic condition that would be excluded from care by the above criteria.Would an oncologist,
neurologist or physiatrist review and out of state doumentationof the condition also provide sufficient
justification if the original criteria could not be met ? Lastly,will there be a centralized seed
dispensary? How will the potency of the leaf be assesed and by whom ?. Will the dispensary be
responsible for analysis and which agency will do the oversight of the potency? When the marijuana is
incorporated into food, is the amount in the food counted against the 21/2 oz Q 2 weeks or is above
and beyond the amount dispensed ? Will ther be standardized pricing or will the dispensaries be in
competion of each other ?
Require that tenants inform landlords/property management companies of medical marijuana use.
Provide landlord with copy of state documents.
Please require only one visit. Even If I had insurance and Im uninsured for the first time in 51 yrs!
Insurance would probably not pay for the one let alone the 4 DR visits the State may require.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Patients will have to pay $150 for a medical marijuana card and see the same
doctor four times in one year to qualify. From just an initial glance at the proposed rules, it is easy to
see how these rules could prevent the desired effect of creating a "good medical marijuana program":
Also please at least let people know how much THC is in the medicine. I think it need to be also
checked for mites.
The application and renewal fees for patients should be no more than a simular identification card
required by the State. Remember these are patients. If cards can be renewed via a secure web based
system total administrative cost can be reduced. this should be encouraged for all patients caregivers
agents and directors and all others. Arizona companies small and large should have the same
chances to aquire a dispensary license.
I have already sent an extensive form earlier, but just thought of something new. I have seen and
heard a lot of agitation about the 1 year doctor rule or having to return for future visits etc. Requiring
the patient to follow up with the physician in the future will only benefit the doctors out to prescribe
Marijuana to anyone who wants it. All follow up visits would be as unproductive, medically, as the first.
They would be done only to meet state regulations. The patient still gets the recommendation after the
first visit and the physician benefits from increased money for the extra appointments. My plan would
be to remove the 1 year rule and the required follow ups. Lets make the referring physician include lab
results for a cholesterol, blood pressure and a blood glucose test. They do not have to preform the
tests, but must have a patiet's results obtained not more than one year from the referral date. The
results must be obtained from a medical professional. This would ensure that the physician has at least
looked at the pt's medical history. They could not set up a mobile or temporary office and have patients
line up and cycle through. Many people will go see a physician for the first time in years simply to
get a marijuana reference. This presents a great opportunity to screen all card applicants for diabetes,
hypertension and high cholesterol. This curbs the argument about ADHS telling physicians how to
practice. They simply require the physician obtain or review a patients medical history before referring
medical marijuana. This slows unethical practice and presents an opportunity to identify people at risk
for diabetes and heart disease.
There should be a provision in the rules that allows for any entity regardless of corporate form to
provide a safe, private, and secure grow vault for any medical marijuana patient. These private grow
vaults would allow a patient to rent the facilities from a landlord and grow there own. By doing this it
will provide medical marijuana to all income levels. A 25 mile restriction should be abolished because
of the cost associated in purchasing MM. An individual should be allowed to grow there own or rent a
private grow facility regardless of a dispensary being within 25 miles. By having a 25 mile restriction this
will prevent valid cardholders from and bar them from getting MM because of costs and expense issues.
Zoning restrictions for a cultivation facility should NOT be prohibited on a residentially zoned property. If
a card holder or care giver are allowed to grow medical marijuana in a residential property up to 60
plants by a care giver with 5 patients then a properly set up cultivation facility regardless of its
residential zoning should be allowed to cultivate by following the rest of the rules set fourth by the
department of health. Rural residential zoning currently allows the cultivation and operation of a green
house with wholesale distribution only.
Making the fares lower
The rules should be no more restrictive than the law. In fact, I believe they should be less restrictive.
The draft rules place additional restrictions on the law in terms of what defines a doctor-patient
relationship,which might limit someone's ability to be obtain a pot recommendation for the same
condition from a pro-pot doctor.
Coverage on Rural Area's outside of Maricopa County pertaining to Dispensary's and grow site's.
An annual $150 fee for applying for a registry identification card is outrageous and is de facto a denial of
said card, status and aid to the many poor people in the State of Arizona. The rules as they stand will
merely serve to drive that person to purchase their marijuana from an illegal source, which is what the
State is supposedly trying to eliminate. This fee works against the purpose of the Medical Marijuana
law. In addition, the fees paid to a physician also severely limit or prohibit many people from
complying with the statutes and rules governing the Medical Marijuana Act. There does not appear to
be any provisions for people who are otherwise qualified to have the fees reduced in order to avail
themselves of the relief the Medical Marijuana Act alleges to provide. Overall, it appears that the State
of Arizona does not wish the People's Initiative to succeed. It further appears that the State of Arizona
is making the statutes and rules so prohibitive that the majority of the people needing and already using
marijuana illegally will continue to do so.
if dispensaries are to be non-profit, clarify what type of non-profit, 501 c3 or what? It only mentions
"non-profit in one place, page 31, #13, and nowhere else. VERY confusing.
Shouldn't have to see a Dr 3-4 times if you have a condition already listed....and is sick already. Get the
medicine to the people when they need it. Less red tape, the better.
There should be a clearer definition of severe and chronic pain that would qualify. Like conditions such
as Rheumatoid arthritis or Migraine headaches. What kind of doctors are going to be qualified to
prescribe medical Marajuana.
How are people who need it going to afford to paying $300 to $400 an oz. Patients should be allowed to
grow their own and do away with the double standard. People will still buy the cheaper Mexican and
keep the cartels financed. No to finger printing of the patients to avoid the cowboy sheriffs and deputies
from harassing patients.w
R9-17-316 - The rule is not clear about the location used to infuse marijuana into an edible food
product. If the marijuana can only be infused into a food product at a licensed dispensary, it should be
clearly identified in the rule. If marijuana is to be allowed to be infused at a food establishment
licensed by a local health jurisdiction there will are multiple issues that aren't addressed in R9-17 or the
State Food Code R9-8. The issues include security for marijuana a "controlled" substance; security of
marijuana at a remote location (food commissary) and does marijuana meet the definition of a Food
additive' as stated in A.R.S. § 36-901(7).";or a food as defined in the 1999 FDA food code?
I believe the draft can be improved on several fronts. Here are a few suggestions: 1) The whole 70%
cultivation by the dispensary itself is completely off base. Innate in this particular rule is that it assumes
a manufacturer of a product should also be the marketer and end seller of the same product. As a
"traditional" pharmacy is concerned, they are allowed to solicit and carry several brands of products
without a stipulation on what to produce in house. This allows them to carry the best products they feel
their end customers would benefit from. This should also be the methodology for a dispensary. A
dispensary owner may be well versed in WHAT products would benefit their patients, but may not know
step one in the actual cultivation of that product. In the end the patient will suffer. I feel that this draft
is treating the new law as half criminal and half legal in its approach. If the intent is to help the patient,
this needs to be looked at fully in the same light as a traditional pharmacy. Half way doing anything will
not benefit anybody. Cultivating and Dispensing should be two completely separate businesses unless a
dispensary so happens to be versed in cultivating. This separation will also benefit the state of Arizona in
the sense it creates more jobs. Land and/or buildings will have to be purchased/rented and people
employed to take care of the cultivation to really get a good product to the patient. 100% of the
dispensaries product should be allowed to come from a cultivating caregiver registered with the
department. 2) Another point that really stuck out to me involves the inspections. In R9-17-306 letter
B, it states that the Department should have remote access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring
system. This really worries me. There are already plenty of checks and balances written into the law as
far as security is concerned to where the Department can review tapes upon request. I believe this last
part goes beyond what should be allowed and creates an intrusion into the day to day business function
of the dispensary. Once again, this draft treats the Dispensary as half pharmacy and half criminal. These
businesses will be privately owned, tax paying entities with enough oversight as it stands. Allowing the
department remote access into a private business seems to be a direct violation of the business owner
right to run his business effective and efficiently. 3) The last part of the Draft that i saw as counter
intuitive was the requirements for Edible Food Products. Borrowing from my explanation of why
cultivation and dispensing should be separated, the way the draft reads is that a dispensary must bring
product to a food establishment and have them prepare their edibles. This is completely obtuse on
several fronts. Once again this draft assumes that any eatery will be versed on what it takes to prepare
a proper edible that not only has a taste element, but the proper amount of medicine to really benefit
the patient. There are people who are well versed in making edibles and they do not necessary work in
restaurant establishments. If the dispensary is to contract out a chef to create a viable product, the
limitation of having it be a food establishment should be expanded. For instance, stay at home mothers
or fathers could actually sustain a business of creating edibles. Once again job creation. Same inspection
rules would apply as far as the Department making sure the place where the creation taking place is
clean and sanitary and so forth. It will generate revenue for the state again as well because, the
independent chef would have to apply for a certificate and pay a fee in order to do business. Job
creation and patient quality can all be improved with these few suggestions without sacrificing oversight.
This is a new industry Arizona has passed a law to create and should be regulated as such, but i think
there is a fine line between regulation and treating the industry as a criminal enterprise. Thank you.
The draft rules can be improved by not putting unnecessary and unreasonable rules into your language.
The draft rules can be improved by allowing everyone to see and participate in a REAL BLOG.
Oversight of allowable home grown marijuana and limits. ADHS should include provisions of how this
will be enforced especially given the many, many remote places in Arizona. Specifically address
requirements for emancipated minors to access medical marijuana. Prohibit medical marijuana from
being smoked in or near a dispensary. It is likely that family (including minors) and friends will
accompany authorized users into a dispensary. It is a risk to expose these persons (especially minors) to
marijuana and second hand smoke. In addition, there is no proven, available air cleaning device that can
remove the effects of second hand smoke. ADHS must not accept any claims that dispensaries will
install smoke-cleaning equipment. The equipment does not exist.
Your working days to approve everything is way too long. That weighing harvests part is bad too, it
will be all wet and mostly water weight. You should just weigh finished product. Weighing the waste is
rather idiotic too. Don't ask what type of soil, many growers use homemade soils. Don't ask what the
water schedule is, that has no bearing on anything.
Prop 203 provides that qualified patients can grow their own medical marijuana if they live more than 25
miles from the closest dispensary. The law does not specify how the 25 miles is calculated. I've
reviewed the draft rules and I don't see anything in them on this subject. I suggest you add a rule
specifying that the 25 mile radius circle exclusion zone distance will be calculated "as the crow flies"
from the center of each dispensary. I also suggest that you specify that the 25 mile radius exclusion
zone can cross county lines. If these details are not specified, it will be more difficult for law
enforcement to deal with the exclusion zone. Whether a patient was inside of or outside of the 25 mile
limit would have to be handled on a case by case basis and might depend on odometer readings etc.
There could also be an argument about what route should be used to calculate the boundary of the
limit. Specifying it "as the crow flies" will make it cut and dried. The boundary of the 25 mile radius
circle could be set by GPS from each dispensary. Including the language specifying that the 25 mile
radius exclusion zone will apply regardless of county lines will prevent a patient who has violated the law
from using this defense.
A non refundable asking price of 150 dollars just to be applicable to receive a prescription medicine is a
lot to ask of some patients, especially those who rely on disability income.
It creates a monopoly by limiting competition with limited dispensaries and the fact a patient would be
required to drive up to 10 miles to get medication. Competition will provide cost and quality control and
keep the market competetive. Patients need to be able to grow to keep costs down. Opening the
market will provide more jobs as well as more revenue for the state. Dispensaries should not be
required to cultivate 70% or greater of their product. This is again a monopoly for them and limits
dispensary agents from competing.
a few things... 1- the requirement to have the storefront build out an possess a certificate of occupancy
is not right. This is a blatant capitulation to big money as they are the only ones who can risk this kind
of money on an effort before they know if they will even be rewarded with a license. This needs to go
away. 2- the patient/doctor relationship is a huge disservice to the patients in need- the actual ones
this law was written to help. you are asking them to change their doctor if they do not believe in
medical marijuana. this is a big mistake...for example there are a lot of doctors- primary care and
specialists who will not prescribe pain meds. So that doctor remains the primary doc or specialist but
the patient goes to a pain clinic to address those symptoms. the docs stay in contact and manage the
overall care of the ptient. There is no requirement for a patient to leave their current doc who will not
presecribe pain meds if needed. This regulation as is is quite onerous. 3- the medical director
requirement will do NOTHING but drive up costs for the patients...A doc could charge $5,000-$6,000 a
month x the 3 dispensaries they are allowed to concult for and make $180,000 to $200,000 a year for
doing nothing. I think that DHS should create the educational materials needed (paid for by the
dispensaries) and require them to be available at all times in each dispensary. Makes a lot more sense
than requiring a doc to be on call for $200,000 a year.
If you want to prevent law suits, please have your legal department review this. In Leary v. United
States, (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled upon the constitutionality of the Marijuana Tax Act. Dr.
Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the
Marijuana Tax Act. Dr. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination,
which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John
Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marijuana Tax Act unconstitutional: “Compliance with the transfer
tax provisions would have required petitioner unmistakably to identify himself as a member of
[a]…’selective’ and ’suspect’ group, we can only decide that when read according to their terms these
provisions created a ‘real and appreciable’ hazard of incrimination.” Most legal medical marijuana
patients want to comply with the law, but if any law or local ordinance requires disclosures of any kind,
it is not constitutional and will not be tolerated. Although California offers a photo ID to patients, those
cards have only a photo and a code number which allows law enforcement to determine if the card is
valid. No personal information is allowed. The consequences for anyone who is viewed by law
enforcement as a member of a “selective” and “suspect” group associated with cannabis can be as
severe, and incriminating.
I am on AHCCCS. I live in a very small town serviced by North Country Clinic. My doctor says a
marijuana recommendation would be beneficial for me. My doctor says the clinic won't allow him to
make a medical marijuana prescription for me. I like my doctor. I don't want to switch doctors. I can't
switch doctors until the next enrollment period. I'm in a great deal of pain. I have terrible muscle
spasms. My bowells do not work right. I have terrible nausea. I can't eat most of the time. I have been
illegally buying marijuana so I may be able to eat. I do not smoke it. I ingest it. I am poor so all my
money goes for my healthcare. I depend on others to help meet my needs. I can't travel well. There is
only one doctor here. Please make clinics and hospitals not interfere with their doctors. Say that they
can not prevent their doctors from recommending marijuana to their patients. If you can't do that, than
allow patients to keep their primary doctors and be able to get a marijuana doctor. Allow me to visit the
doctor once a year to get my card. The marijuana doctor can have access to all my files to make or not
make his recommendation. Do not make me spend many $ by forcing me to see my marijuana doctor
many times. Keep my yearly fees down. $150 is a lot of money to apply for a card. Keep dispensary
costs down so my marijuana won't be expensive. Don't require a doctor for a dispensary. that only
raises my costs. Thank you.
I'm a 41 yr. old unemployed construction worker without any health insurance so couldn't afford to see
a personal Dr. since 2007. All I have is proof of 3 emergency visits to the local Hospital in the last 2 yrs
cause of nausea and stomach cramps from what was diagnosed as acid reflux disease, was so severe I
had to go to emergency room eventhough I knew I couldn't afford to pay. The pain only happens when
cannabis was unavailable to me. I moved to Az. from Ca. in 2007 where I used marijuana for my
depression. Since moving out here to Az. I've relapse and gained over 70lbs cause of it. Please add acid
reflux disease so I can control my nausea and not have to go to the expensive emergncy room that
can't afford to pay any way. It's unfair for those who don't have health insurance nor personal physician
cause they can't afford it not be able to grow their own. It would save the state lots of money from
emergency visits.
Requiring a physician-patient relationship to have been existing for at least a year with four visits is
asking too much. This cuts out any person who just became sick, people who couldn't afford four visits
to the doctor, or people who changed doctors after one, two or three visits. There must be a better way
to determine who is really eligible for medical marijuana and who is faking it. I believe one examination
from a doctor is all it should require to obtain the right to medical marijuana, but we have seen how this
method has been exploited. So, what about two visits, between a certain amount of time, maybe a
month. A year is far too long for a person to suffer without a potential cure to their sickness. (That is
why I think one visit is enough... Because a person should get help as soon as possible). Why not only
allow doctors who meet a certain requirement to be able to recommend medical marijuana? If they are
a doctor in the first place, they should have good enough judgment to tell whether or not a person
needs medicine. I still think one visit to a well-qualified, honest doctor is all it should take. Also... In
my opinion, it is not necessary for dispensaries to have a 'medical director' on-site, or on-call at all
times. Patients already have doctors who should provide them with enough information on the type of
medicine they need. This rule is requiring people who are applying to open a dispensary to hire a
physician to basically look over the daily operations of the dispensary. All general questions will be able
to be answered by anyone knowledgeable enough to run a dispensary. I can see how it could make
handling questions easier, having the knowledge of a 'medical director', but requiring him/her to be on-
site or on-call at all times is certainly unnecessary. Although I can't think of one, but, If any emergency
would arise, the patient and dispensary should refer to the patient's doctor who recommended the
medicine. I would suggest completely abolishing this rule, or have city medical directors that patients
and dispensaries can refer to.
There is only 124 licences being handed out. How can the dept of health expect people to go out and
buy, or rent land not knowing what licences will be available and in what countys they will be availble.
5,000 dollars plus property rental is too much to gamble and lose. Why not make the application
process two parts. 1 applicants pass all the legal requirements, the dept of health does all the checks
and makes sure the applicant passes. 2 next you tell the applicant what area is still open to set up a
dispencery, give the applicant 90 days to get set up in the physcial location. after 90 days you can
inspect them, if they are not serious, take the limited licence back, and try another applicant. if they are
almost set up, work with them I am a person who is very passoniate about medical marijuana, but i am
not a millionaire, and dont have 20,000 to just throw away. the direction you are going in now insures
only the extremely wealthy will be able to do business, and drug dealers, who have money and a front
man.
including language that allows a certificate to be issued while exact location is solidified, pending
approval by DHS. Limit the number of dispensary certificates any person, company, entity, etc, can
have (1, one)
I think it is unfair that you have to have the physcial location of the dispencery before you apply for the
application. you are excluding the folks who are not wealthy, but may be very passionate about the
cause. All of the resrtiction garuntee,s that only the wealthy will be able to open the dispencery's and
the patient will suffer, because their marijuana providers will only really care about profit. How can the
average person afford to pay the money to buy or rent a location with out being gaurnteed a licence.
Second if a patient has a relationship with a doctor who is anti marijuana, or one that is scarred of
losing pain med business to marijuana, they will not want to write the recondmendation. The patien will
have to switch doctors, find two pro marijuana doctors and then visit them 5 times in the next year, just
to get a marijuana card. The way 203 was written excludes the average person and, the average patient
will not be able to afford the expensive medicine. It will still be cheaper on the street.
Having qualified in another state for a medical recommendation. I'm looking at this from a patients
perspective. If I qualify as a patient I should be able to go to the doctor to get a recommendation and
then go to the pharmacy the same day to pick up my medicine. Don't tell me it's going to take a year to
form a relationship. How an arthritic or bed ridden patient is going to get to the dispensary. deliveries?
I don't see how a dispensary or caregivers will be able to grow enough to supply patient needs.
150.00 registration fee is too much for lots of poor and retired people. Should be like a drivers license
and just like a drivers license there should not be an annual renewal fee and if necessary a very low fee.
I have chronic pain and the doc has told me to use home care measures. I follow his advice and I do
not see him on any type of steady basis because of cost and no insurance. How then would I qualify ???
1) medical director requirement, 2) selection process for dispensaries 3) allow growers to grow and
dispensaries to dispense 4) not make patient sever relationship with primary doc if needs to solicit
outside recommendation for marijuana
The use of a Medical Doctor is not clear. The draft implies that a Medical Doctor will not be able to
practice medicine if he/she becomes involved in a Medical Marijuana dispensary. Your draft also asks if
a Pharmacist will be on site. Is that a requirement? Page 34 G: 5 working days. How is that to be
handled by the mail. I think there should be consistency and make it 10 days to address issues. Page
41 -- Does a Food Establishment (manufacturer of brownies, etc.) have to comply with the same rules
as a dispensary requiring finger printing of it's employees? Page 34 - Alegations. Does that mean that
the Dept of Health will only investigate allegations where the person gives their name? How will those
tips be used? Will they be handed over to Law Enforcement?
My problem is that I am being treated by the VA in San Diego because it is closer to Yuma and the care
at Tuscan is terrible. The doctors there can't write scripts for medical marijuana since they are federal. I
can't get a California card because I am not a resident. I can't afford to establish a doctor on the outside
of the VA for a year prior to recieving a permit card. I have a good relationship with my doctors and
have to see them once a month now. I now take morphine and percocet now and would like to be able
to receive a permit card without having to jump through too many hoops.
do you have to get a patient and caregiver if the caeregiver would be obtaining the marijuana for the
patient? the cost is way to high if that is the case. the patient should be able to designate who could
get it for them. why is the cost so high for the patient, renewal for dispensaries less, why not the same
for the patient. What if the caregiver is an immediate family member, shouldn't that include the
patients card?? replacement cards should be more. If you apply online how do you get the pictures???
Article 1. General R9-17-101 16. A The physician-patient relationship has exists for at least one
year and the physician has seen or assessed the patient on tat least fo0ur visits for the patient's
debilitating medical condition during the course of the physician patient relationship I am a 30-year
Disabled Veteran currently rated at 20%. My disability history is documented with chronic pain of my
right shoulder and I have received treatment, over the years, for that pain. I understand that the VA
will not recommend medical marijuana. Improvement: There are no rules related to Veterans The
exception for the rule can state if the applicant is a Veteran with Honorable Discharge, has a disability
rating with a history, and can show medical documentation then the doctor patient physician
relationship is waived.
I do have a concern about the $150 fee for patients to register and to renew with no option for a
waiver. When you read the list of qualifying conditions, many are likely to leave a person disabled which
generally means very limited financial resources. They will, no doubt, have to pay for the marijuana out
of pocket and to add that high a fee seems prohibitive.
Re R9-17-202 I believe that the rule, as written, is far too restrictive and is not within the letter and
spirit of the law that was passed by the voters. It is perfectly legitimate for the Department to write
reasonable rules in such a way so that they can prevent young, healthy stoners from getting
recommendations for a card. The rules should be written in such a way that they will not unreasonably
impact the ability of deserving patients to be able to get a card. The clear intent of the ballot measure
passed by the voters was to allow deserving patients to get medical marijuana cards without being
burdened by unreasonable regulations and resulting expense. It is a balancing act and the 1st draft of
the rules significantly tilts against the rights of legitimate patients. The effect of the rule will be to
significantly reduce the number of doctors who will be willing to be involved in evaluating patients under
the law. It will also increase significantly the fees charged by the few who are willing to participate.
Requiring a doctor who does not have a 1 year/4 visit relationship with the patient to assume
responsibility for medical management of the patient is completely unworkable. The choice of physician
should be freely made by the patient. If a patient is forced to choose between sticking with his or her
current physician and not getting a card versus getting a card but having to change doctors or get an
additional doctor, they will likely forgo the card. It is not reasonable to force them to choose. There
are numerous reasons why a patient would not be able to allow a recommending doctor to assume
responsibility for their care. The most obvious is insurance coverage. If the recommending physician is
not covered by the patient's insurance, he/she will not likely be able to afford to change or add the
recommending physician. Here's another situation. Let's say a patient has received a diagnosis 3
months ago of an aggressive breast cancer. The treating doctor doesn't know anything about medical
marijuana and doesn't want to get involved. (this will be the situation with most doctors) For this
reason, the patient goes to a doctor who has educated him/herself concerning medical marijuana and is
willing to evaluate the patient. The doctor reviews the medical records and does the comprehensive
evaluation and offers all of the information to the patient as required by the rules. However, the
recommending doctor is a family practice specialist and is not qualified in any way to undertake the
ongoing care of the patient. Consequently he/she cannot certify that he/she "has assumed primary
responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical
condition..." Consequently, the patient who is entitled in every way to receive the medical marijuana
card doesn't get it because the rules have been radically skewed in such a way as to prevent a few
undeserving people from receiving recommendations. My suggestion for revising the language of the
rules is below
Will Humble-- I know you are a busy man with many responsibilities. I know your department has put
much thought into these regulations to prevent recreational smokers. I am a "Travelling Nurse" and I
see the poorest of poor patients. It is better to err on the side of the patient, instead of trying to be so
restrictive that no one benefits from this law. I see paraplegics, quads, patients with every type of
illness where their nausea is so bad that they can not eat. For many of them MJ helps the patient
function so that they are able to eat. Many of the doctors I have spoken to are willing to recommend
Medical MJ but the hospital or clinic to which they belong prohibits them from doing so. Some doctors
are afraid they will be prosecuted or they might jeopardize losing their medical license. You must
understand that there are many cases where the patient needs to stay with their existing doctor even if
that doctor cannot or will not recommend Medical MJ. I have patients who are locked into their
current doctor due to insurance requirements. If they go to another doctor they lose their coverage. I
have patients who live in rural communities where there may only be one doctor. I have patients who
are unable to travel or can not travel long distances. I have patients who have established long term
relationships with their doctors. Their doctor may believe Medical MJ will help their patient, but many
doctors do not want to write a recommendation for a myriad of reasons. Do not put any restrictions
on a patient seeing any doctor for a Medical MJ prescription, except making sure the patient has a
documented history that would warrant Medical MJ. Make it easy, not difficult, for those who are
suffering. If a Doctor chooses to be "liberal" with his or her prescriptions give the doctor a "hefty"
fine, take away the doctor's license or send the doctor to jail, but allow the poorest of the poor to see
their regular doctor and concurrently see a doctor for their Medical MJ recommendation. Also keep
costs down for the poor. $150 each year for a Medcal MJ card is a lot of money for someone who has no
income, or who draws a $600-$700 check for social security disability. Having a doctor on call for the
dispensary will only drive up costs for Medical MJ for the patient. A pharmacist is all that is needed.
Make dispensaries safe, but do not add extra rules that will raise the price for the patient who already is
struggling to survive. Thank you Will and staff for your hard work, but remember the poor patient
should always be on your mind when you are setting up these rules.
It is not clear what the medical grade percentage is. I have been told 15 to 18%. The rules do not
specify who measures the potency.
change the smoking areas.its medicine not toxic fumes. outdoors should be ok as long as not near
schools churches. some people like outdoors and would need to use it. hotels etc need to be put in also.
It's ok to make rules so only those who truly need medical can get it, but make sure those who truly
need it can afford it. Please let legitimate patients grow in a reasonable fenced are so they can afford to
grow their own. No one on disability that I know could afford a 12' wall, or even open a 1" thick metal
gate.
smoking areas and pricing are my 2 biggest complaints.id cards should not cost $150. that is expensive.
R9-17-302.B.1.j. Who besides someone that has more money than brains would spend $50,000 or more
setting up a fully operational dispensary and grow facility without at least being granted a preliminary
approval period pending inspection and compliance?(60-90 day period) The language is already present
to obtain the detailed floor plan and location of the dispensary based on commercial structure/s that
could be secured with a contingency lease for a fraction of the expense of building everything out
without a legitimate reason. Requiring a full build out for the consideration of a license excludes even
the upper middle class from being able to participate in this program. These are the people here in
Arizona, especially in this economy that truly need to see the benefits from this new industry the most. I
do understand wanting to keep under funded, low budget operations from attempting to get into this
and cut corners which would cause public and patient safety concerns. Anything beyond that however
seems an obvious attempt to unethically steer these licenses only to the very wealthy, and in total
honesty if you stay this course the AZDHS should expect to see a class action lawsuit in order to remedy
this disservice. Having access to the necessary funds to participate in this and to do it right should be all
that is required, as opposed to the exclusivity of having access to these large amounts of funds that are
simply disposable. Steering dispensary licenses only to the very wealthy would not to be in the best
interests of our communities and the legitimate patients this industry needs to serve. Someone with the
passion and dedication to put their life savings and home equity on the line to make sure their
organization is compliant to the letter of the law and dependent on their clients satisfaction, should in
my humble opinion be what you're looking for as an ideal candidate for a dispensary license! R9-17-
302.B.5. Should be obtained during the preliminary approval period. R9-17-302.B.15.d. For blatantly
obvious reasons the amount should be declared and then should then be obtained during the
preliminary approval period. R9-17-302.B.16. The fee should submitted and kept if a preliminary
license is granted(if they receive a preliminary license and then fail to comply the full $5,000 could be
forfeited), only a responsible and ethical $1000 fee for processing the application should be kept if no
license is granted. 120 granted applications is $600,000 then add the apx. 1000 applications that will not
accepted at $1000 each, and that's an additional Million give or take. To distribute the dispensary
licenses as fairly as possible and attempt to avoid litigation in the process, I would simply suggest
setting up one or more (due to the time constraints) unbiased panel/s of 3 or 5 judges and scoring
dispensaries on a variety of relevant issues. Maine's Department of Health and Human Services just did
this to meet the needs of having a similar MMJ law pass, and they also had to distribute dispensaries in
an very similar situation where demand outweighed the available supply. Maine consulted with New
Mexico to put their program in place and that's one of the strictest medical marijuana states in the
Nation. R9-17-107.B. The License fine, but there absolutely needs to be a process for distribution of
preliminary licenses pending approval. R9-17-307.C You might wish to address multiple dispensaries
sharing a growing facility via subletting. Within strict boundaries there might be some benefits to this on
a small scale, but the line will be thin! Unless all municipalities place responsible zoning ordinances on
the overall sizes of these operations, they will likely become violent crime targets. R9-17-310. The
Medical Director Should also be allowed to be a retired Doctor, Family Nurse Practitioner, or possibly a
physicians assistant ? These positions would seem to suit the needs of medical experience necessary to
advise in this capacity without being able to personally recommend Medical Marijuana. There seems to
be an obvious conflict of interest by having someone capable of approving recommendations serving a
dispensary in this capacity. The superfluous expense of requiring a dispensary to an employ any of these
individuals when a patient should already be under the supervision of a licensed Doctor might cause an
undue hardship to the dispensary and could possibly open the door to litigation against the AZDHS? Not
something I would participate in, just a potential unintended consequence that seems like a possibility
to me. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. I know everyone is upset about the restrictions you have
designed for patients. Please do your best to minimize unintended consequences that will ultimately
cause time spent suffering and a financial hardship on those in legitimate need of this. No human being
that has seen what I have and gone through losing a loved one could deny the medicinal properties of
marijuana. Please try to toe the line of keeping recreational drug users out of the system without
punishing valid patients in the process. THC is only one of the active cannibinoids and If we can create a
strain that provides medicinal benefits without intoxication, we will.
It seems to me that a patient car only use his/her medical marijuana at a private residence. Now this on
the surface seems reasonable, however, it is not. Take for instance a patient that has a wasting
disease, who must use marijuana to stimulate appetite. This person who has been stuck at home unable
to travel due to the fact that the only medicine that helps ha been illegal. Now that person wants to see
the great State of AZ, and reads the rules and finds out that unless they are going from one private
residence to another, they may as well stay home cause they can't use their medical marijuana in ANY
public place, inside or outside! They can't stay in a hotel, cause they can't use marijuana, they can't
even go in their own car and use it. Tell me, is this not an effort to improve the quality of life for these
people? I think it is reasonable for a person who may need to use their marijuana outside of a residence
to have certain places designated "smoking" or "treatment" areas if you will, where they can medicate
themselves without harassment of any kind. For goodness sakes people, some of these patients are
homeless, where do they go?
R9-17-102. Fees 5a.Qualifying patient, $50 I feel that the $150 fee is way to high and will force many
potential patients to stay in the illegal market. The goal is to help people and with this tough economic
times we are in, we should avoid burdening the patients with high fees.
As a representative of an employer in Arizona, it would be very helpful to have guidance in the final
rules, through definitions or otherwise, of how it can be objectively determined that an employee is
either "impaired by marijuana" or "under the influence of marijuana" as those terms are used in the Act.
Good job on program implementation thus far. However, one major cause for concern is the fact that
the regulations listed below would appear to force an applicant for a dispensary registration certificate to
commit financial resources to a building lease or purchase before the application would be approved. As
R9-17-107 (B) and R-9-17-302 B(5) is written, one would have to have a building space before the
application would be considered “complete”. R9-17-107. Time-frames B. “A registration packet for a
dispensary is not complete until the applicant provides the Department with written notice that the
dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department.” R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary
Registration Certificate B(5) “A copy of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by
the local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if
applicable, as the dispensary’s cultivation site; For example: This inspection would obviously cover the
building’s security system. Is it fair to force dispensary applicants to invest in installing a suitable
security system before knowing that their application would be approved? I think an approach that
would work would be to give a preliminary approval, based upon review of the application, building and
security plans. The applicant could then proceed with confidence to secure the space and implement
requirements to finalize the application. Also, I noticed that there is no provision for the application
fees to be refunded in the event an application is not approved. Does the department plan keeping
these fees? Your thoughts. Thank you.
In regards to whom can recommend Medical Marijuana.. Not all Doctors agree/ disagree with medical
marijuana due to our countries long history of classifying it as illegal. This presents a problem (in
some cases) for the patients who want to use their family practice Doctor but aren’t able to due to the
prejudice behavior from said Physician. If a Patient is truly medically qualified and is willing to trade
the Prescription narcotics for cannabis that patients SHOULD Have an opportunity to do so. If not…
patient should have the option to see another physician and follow up with that new physician once
approved. I'm personally a cancer survivor (in remission) and "suffer" with painful Osteoarthritis
(classified as Sevier) in my Knees, hips and back. Every minuet of every day Is a living nightmare! For
people like me this is a God sent as narcotics me very sick - Please consider the big picture here.. That
is those of us With TRUE and SEVIER (chronic) issues shouldn't need to jump through hoops to get a
little relief.
allow users to use in other places than just thier homes or ,( as in my case ),i would not be able to go
camping or fishing,or participate in other family outdoor activities.
The rules on prohibition against a qualified patient or caregiver from cultivating if they are within 25
miles of a dispensary is discriminatory. The statute is effectively allowing dispensaries to have a
monopoly on cultivation and charge whatever prices they want- essentially discriminating against lower
income patients. If caregivers and qualified patients are required to be licensed and registered with the
same rigor as dispensaries, then why not allow them to cultivate their own medicine more cost-
effectively than a dispensary? The language of the statute is very ambiguous and has room for loose
interpretation: "A designation as to who will be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifying
patient's medical use if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not operating within
twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient's home." Operating when? 24-7? It does not explicitly
prohibit qualified patients from cultivating within 25 miles of a dispensary - it is only implied. Nor is there
language anywhere else in the statutes that has an explicit prohibition against personal cultivation if
within 25 miles.
change the 25 mile rule so people can get access to cheap meds . cost to grow 30 a zone cost to
purchase from dispensary 250-500 a oz . cant say that is a non profit organization making profit like
that
The draft can be improved by including a section that allows for a compliance audit to be conducted by
the Department and non-compliance or failure to report revenues and remit taxes will result in
revokation of license. Also, compensation expectations should be outlined to prevent not for profit
revenues from turning into excessive owner salaries.
the part that says the patient must have at leat one year with the doctor and four visits for the same
problem is ridiculous!! my diagnosis was made in a single visit. why should i have to go back 4 times??
this is only going to cost everyone more money and make insurance go up. Besides after a diagnosis is
made why would the doctor even agree to see you 4 more times? what is the point? who would even
think that this is necessary. this must be changed! this is what the people wanted, you can't try to
regulate this law out of existence!!!!
with reference to the growing for the dispensaries I feel that if you have land zoned for growing and do
not get a dispensaries lic. The license person could sub contract for a grower. Also the big question is
HOW DO WE GROW WITH OUT SOME STEELING THE PRODUCT? I feel it can be grown out doors and
securing the property with a 10 ft chain link fence and using green houses. This is a lot better way than
growing inside where you have to use lights.
For R9-17-201, there are 13 conditions that would allow a doctor to "recommend" medical marijuana.
The ADHS has no business interfering with doctors' professional judgment of the best medical treatment
for their patients, regardless of their condition. The state should not interfere in the doctor-patient
relationship by limiting the categories in which medical marijuana can be administered. A
recommendation by a licensed and practicing doctor that the medicine is likely to be beneficial for the
patient, in the doctor's best judgment, should be sufficient. R9-17-201 should be changed accordingly.
We need to have stronger language in the rules barring the state (or any state agency) from
surrendering the registry list to the federal government (i.e., Department of Justice). This could
potentially be used by federal agencies to prosecute or discriminate against lawful medical marijuana
users.
I work for the state of az in family assistance, i administer ahcccs, seeing as many ill people as i do i
believe that $150. yrly for the card is going to be very hard for many people on fixed income to afford
and they seem to be some of the people who will benefit most & need this most. maybe there should
be special considerations or income limit guidelines, for disabled persons on social security. but i do not
belive that ahcccs should pay for the card or the medical marijuana. Thank you
In California, the "L.A. Weekly" has pictures of strippers dressed as nurses advertising Medical Marijuana
Cards for $35.00. Since medical marijuana is a drug, shouldn't it fall under the rules and regluations of
drug advertising? Requiring the dispensaries to grow their own marijuana is a sketchy trend.
Collecting taxes in a "cash only" industry is difficult. Fry's, Safeway, etc... don't grow their own food.
AZ should break supply and distribution into two components. Once marijuana is certified organic,
origin is known, meets all AZ State quality criteria, it should be commercially packaged and get a stamp
just like a pack of cigarettes. Arizona could charge per stamp, just like cigarettes. This type of
arrangement would make Arizona grown marijuana a hot interstate export/smuggle item. Why buy
potentially toxic cartel marijuana when you can purchase safe and effective AZ certified marijuana?
Loose marijuana lends itself to fraud. How can you protect the consumer if every batch is different?
Pre-packaged marijuana would be easier to regulate and tax. We know that other States will soon
follow with their own medical marijuana votes. Arizona farmers could capitalize on this trend by
becoming a highly regulated and transparent grower of this product. The State of Arizona will hear the
cash register ring with every export. Separate production and distribution.
Forcing patients to wait a year to receive the help they need seems reckless. I understand that you are
trying to limit fraud, but by doing so you are hurting the lives of desperate people in pain. For example,
I've just been diagnosed with Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome. Some mornings, for inexplicable reasons, I
wake up extremely nauseous. In a recent bout, I vomited for a total of eleven hours, with at least four
episodes per hour and as many as seven. The pain is entirely unbearable, but unluckily for me, under
the current provisions, I will probably be unable to receive medical marijuana because I haven't had a
doctor in Arizona. I'm originally from New Jersey and I attend a University in Arizona. This is a new
condition that I've developed in the last nine months. No medications do anything because there isn't a
cure for what I have. The only relief I have been able to find is Cannabis. When I wake with the
extreme feelings of nausea, one "hit" of cannabis is sufficient to assuage me from suffering for the next
ten hours. CVS makes me unable to work, or study, or live a normal life, unless I have Cannabis. But
under the proposed rules, I would most likely be condemned to suffering, instead of treatment. Please
consider putting in a provision that would allow someone like me to get treated properly.
ARTICLE 3. DISPENSARIES R9-17-301. Individuals to Act for a Dispensary Regarding Requirements

When a dispensary is required by this Article to provide information on or sign documents or ensure
actions are taken, the following shall comply with the requirement on behalf of the dispensary: 1. If the
dispensary is an individual, the individual; 2. If the dispensary is a corporation, two officers of the
corporation; 3. If the dispensary is a partnership, two of the partners; 4. If the dispensary is a limited
liability company, a manager or, if the limited liability company does not have a manager, a member of
the limited liability company; 5. If the dispensary is an association or cooperative, two members of the
governing board of the association or cooperative; 6. If the dispensary is a joint venture, two of the
individuals who signed the joint venture agreement; and 7. If the dispensary is a business organization
type other than those described in subsections (2) through (6), two individuals who are members of the
business organization. ============================== I thought dispensaries
had to be non profit corporations???
How will caregivers and patients be able to supply 30% of the medical marijuana to a dispensary since
almost all patients will be within 25 miles of a dispensary and therefore not allowed to grow? Will
dispensaries be able to 'contract out' to caregivers to supply that 30% even thought he caregiver lives
within the 25 mile zone? I mean within the 60 plants for 5 patients limit of course. A little help for
those who don't want to go to the big dispensary or want the caregiver's MMJ would be nice. And who
in their right mind would 'give' their hard work to a dispensary? How is that supposed to work? -
=============- Won't the 25 mile halo cause some dispensary grows to be huge, while forcing
patients with little money to have to buy from them instead of being supplied by himself or his
caregiver? -=============- Is there any clarification about caregivers getting a fair price for
their work in growing and supplying a patient with MMJ? They have expenses and time invested in
growing quality MMJ and should be compensated for the product they provide. I know some people
think it's easy, but I've researched it enough to know that there is a lot of work in such a grow. The law
says no fee or comensation for caregiver services. Does this mean that you would charge the going rate
for the MMJ, but could not charge for the assistance in helping the patient obtain and use his MMJ? -
=============-
You that are in charge of writing these proposals, please keep in mind for whom this bill was made legal
for! Not another dept to collects fees to be used for who knows what, and I'm sure you don't know
either. The people REALLY needing this medication are probably like me and strapped to the bone with
existing medical bills that are delenquent, not to mention having to house, and feed themselves being a
Think like a criminal! Ask a couple of criminals how they would get around this law.
You mentioned that you wanted this to be 100% electronic, but nowhere in the draft does it state if the
AZDHS applicaton for Registration card will be in paper form or electronic? Also, how will AZDHS receive
patients recommendations that they receive from their physicians? Do they send it to the AZDHS or does
AZDHS require Online Verification of Doctors Recommendations. There seems to be a blurring of the
lines of what you (Will Humble) want the new rules to require and how you will accomplish this. Also,
does all of the requirements needed for a patient to be registered have to be on the Doctor's
recommendation i.e. Date of Birth, Doctor's e-mail address, etc. or will this be on the AZDHA
application? Your wanting to "make this a better program" than existing states is making this a very
confusing process, to say the least. Leave your politics and personal opinions out of it Will Humble. If
you can't complete this process without confusing the public, then we need another administrator who
can. Please address, Will Humble. Thank you.
The Medical Director can only provide Medical direction for 3 dispensaries. There is no mention about
the cultivation site and if a cultivation site away from the dispensary can cultivate for how many--(3, 4,
5, 6???) dispensaries. I have been talking to quite a few people regarding this and it seems that the
people that have headed up this inititive give the impression that they are going to help their orgainizers
cultivate for many dispensaries. I think there should be a limit to how many dispensaries a site away
from the dispensary is permitted. If that doesn't happen, I don't know how you can prevent diversion.
I also get the impression that out of staters think that because they have the experience, they can hire
someone here. Because the plants have to be bought in Arizona, how will those plants be provided?
Include a process for how a patient can ask for increase in the monthly alotted dosage.
I would think that it would be better if dispensories did not have to grow their own marijuana and could
simply purchase all of it from licensed growers and food processors.
i think the smoking areas rules need to be improved. what about patients who like to spend time
outdoors? its not gonna hurt anyone out in the forest,lakes,campgrounds,etc they have open pit fires
that burn wood. as long as not taking part of a motorized vehucle or poses a firearm it should be
permitted. even public parks should be permitted as long as your so many feet from other people or not
near children.
i think the smoking areas rules need to be improved. what about patients who like to spend time
outdoors? its not gonna hurt anyone out in the forest,lakes,campgrounds,etc they have open pit fires
that burn wood. as long as not taking part of a motorized vehucle or poses a firearm it should be
permitted. even public parks should be permitted as long as your so many feet from other people or not
near children.
I live in rural Apache County. I went to my doctor today (the only doctor within 30 miles of my
community). He told me that he wishes he could recommend medical marijuana, but that his bosses
have set policy that no one in any of the clinics to which he belongs may recommend medical
marijuana. It will be a hardship for me to have to go to another doctor as I don't have a car. I don't
have a job as unemployment is very high and there are no jobs here. I don't know if I'm allowed to
change physicians as the open enrollment period has ended. If I go to another doctor and make the
new doctory my primary physician, I will lose my health care coverage. There needs to be a way to
protect me and others like me. I would like to stay with my current doctor. Either Health Care Providers
need to be prohibited from not allowing their physicians to prescribe medical marijuana or patients
should be allowed to see other doctors for their medical marijuana and still be able to keep their primary
physician. The rules of your doctor/patient relationship and primary physician need to be changed.
Cannot find rule provisions addressing 36-2804.02(f), specifically the 25 mile radius, when a qualified
patient is permitted to grow their own plant and then later a dispensary opens within that radius. Will
the patient be required to cease growing at their home or will they be "grandfathered" in and permitted
to continue growing? Can this be addressed through the renewal process?
eliminate all of them and make it legal would like to know if my pain management dr can write my
reccomendation for me
As we are dealing with medicine that is also a plant, it would seem reasonable to allow cultivation as an
option to purchasing from a dispensary. From what I have seen in TV news and documentaries, buying
high quality marijuana is expensive and it is doubtful that insurance will help with the cost. Cultivation
could be a real cost saving to people who, because of their debilitation, may have limited financial
resources. As with growing vegetables, growing one’s own medicine, gives user control over quality and
offers some cost saving. Psychologically, however, the process of cultivation gives a sense of value and
purpose to a life that may not have that much else going on. I recommend that the dispensaries sell
seeds of specific strains, just as they will with the cured flowers. I would think that there will be controls
in place to track each sale, and an agency in place to investigate potential abuses. The sale of seeds
could be monitored in a similar way. Perhaps a nominal fee and a special registration could be required
to grow a limited number of plants.
I disagree with such a high fee for each registration card. Many people who are seriously ill, cancer
patients and people with chronic debilitating pain, are unable to work and have been denied or are not
elligible for SSD. I have chronic debilitating pain and have not been able to work in more than a year
because if my symptoms. Although I am personally unsure about using medical marijuana I know that
it would be very difficult for me to find an extra $150 to purchase a a registration card. I also do not
know the costs of the medical marijuana itself, but after paying for $300 in perscriptions a month
additional high fees would keep me from being able to afford an alternative treatment that is not
covered under insurance. This is actually the same reason I have been unable to look into other
alternative therapies. I also highly disagree with the doctor/patient relationship rules. While I
understand the reason behind wanting to make sure this system is not abused, many doctors are
refusing to prescribe medical marijuana because they are afraid it will harm their professional image and
reputation. I have a dear friend who has been fighting cancer for 5 years. He has gone through several
bouts of chemo, and he just came out of remission again and was told he may have to go through
another round of chemo. He spoke with his oncologist and the doctor stated that although marijuana
has been proven to help cancer patients and that it is a treatment that could help my friend, that he will
absolutely not prescribe medical marijuana to any patient because of the fear of stigma associated with
marijuana. I believe there must be some other way of controlling prescriptions and still keeping this
treatment available to patients who can truly benefit from it. Requiring a doctor to perform a thourough
medical history, including reviewing medical records from other providors for a minimum of the last year
up to the last 5 years could be a beginning alternative.
The voters have approved the use of medical marijuana but the limitation placed that the doctor has to
have seen you for 1 year and or take over your treatment for your chronic medical condition is going to
make it impossible to obtain a card. My doctors have stated that they see the positive effects of medical
marijuana and feel that I would benefit from the use but are afraid to give a recommendation because
of the fact that the federal law still sees it as against the law even though the President has stated that
the DEA should not restrict doctors from giving a recommendation for its use when a state has passed
a law for its. I take over 40 pills a day and 2 injections a month. I suffer so much pain from my nerve
damage that I take 285 ml of morphine a day. I am on social security disability for this issue and also
suffer from sever muscle cramps and nausea that causes me to throw up my medications. I currently
can only hold down cream of wheat and a small amount of peanut butter a day which has caused a
large loss of weight. Even the recommendation I have received from a Arizona state board certified MD
for the use of medical marijuana appears to be no good now due to the current draft of ASR 36-2801 i.
and ii. I cried when proposition 203 passed to see help so close. Now my wife cried when I told her of
the current draft. I understand that there can be abuse by people who are not ill but this part of the
draft appears to ignore that those of us who are ill cannot afford to change doctors because of other
doctors fears or buy any or tolerate any more pills. How strange that I can get over 100,000 ml of
morphine a year (thank God!!!!) to control my pain but not one ounce of marijuana to help hold them
down even with all my records and the recommendation of a Arizona state board certified doctor. I beg
you to rewrite the section that will let someone with my documentation get the medical marijuana they
so badly need.
I am on social security disability due to rhuematoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. First of all the pain
medicines I take are ms contin, vicodin, lyrica, soma, trazadone and others. I am tired of taking so
many pills the long term effects of the damage is unknown. I will tell you that I have tried marijuana
and it helped tremendously. I could eleminate most of these pills by smoking or eating the marijuana, I
would improve my quality of life. Being on social security I have to watch my pennies and $150.00 for
my card is hard for me because I have to pay rent, buy food etc.. I would suggest a little help for those
on social security. Thank you
The fees for qualifying patients seem quite excessive, $150 a year for them to get their medicine?! I
understand that this state system does not pay for itself, but perhaps you could be more lenient on the
patients by increasing caregiver and dispensary agent fees.
Our motto is "patients first". As a dispensary we will be offering compassionate discounts to the poor as
we know of many patients who will benefit from the use of Medical Marijuana but can not afford what
ends up being the final retail price of this medicine. It's not a cheap medicine, not after the costs of
producing it indoors in safe, secure environments. We do want this to be just a "rich mans" medicine. It
should be more easily accessible to the poor. The very poor should pay very little. We need to have
compassion for those who need the relief that marijuana brings but are to sick to work. The $150 fee
for a patient to obtain a card is way to high of a price. It should be $35 We, as dispensaries could pay
an additional $115 on our permit fees to help cover lost revenue from fees. I'm sure you'll find all of us
willing to do that. Or do what we at Green Leaf Relief plan to do and charge $150 for patient fees
except allow those who can prove hardship a big discount.
i think that the dispensaries need to be REQUIRED to be set up as non-profit corporations...not LLC's
etc...you're asking for trouble with people with profit as their main motivation
All members shouldnt have to be residents for 2 years, maybee the president of a non profit or the llc,
but whay all members, other states that have been doing this for years and we need there expertise.
It requires that a person with a debilitating condition require to see a doctor for 1 year prior to
recommendation. My sister has Lupus and moved here from Los Angeles just months ago and is still
looking for a new doctor. This would leave her out of the program! along with many others... Also,
Anxiety as an ailment should be added. I personally have panic disorder. The episodes cause nausea,
but for relieving the attack, it's necessary.
Get rid of the fee for the card. People already have to pay for the 4 doctor visits and for the med
marijuana (including taxes,) out of pocket because insurance isn't going to cover something that is
illegal on a federal level. Also someone in that much pain will probably not make that much money.
I think Cancer and other terminally ill patients should be exempt from the 4 doctor visit rule. My
grandmother just died of cancer and she went from diagnosed to dead in a matter of months. A key
legitimate use of medical marijuana is to help patients on chemo. Patients do not wait to start chemo
they do it as soon as practically possible. Also terminal and cancer patients should be able to apply for
a card on a sliding scale as $150 can be prohibitive with all the other cancer related cost. There should
be an option to expedite processing for those with cancer and for the terminally ill. A Caregivers if
they are a licensed medical professional should be able to maintain a card agnostic of their patients.
Register patients to a caregiver NOT caregivers to patients, Requiring a caregiver to pay 200 for every
patient or patient change is a terrible ideal. Put rules in place to prevent abuse.
I possibly overlooked it, but I want a provision to collect sales tax, city and state, for the sale of all
marijuana, and dispensaries should pay the "usual" taxes and fees associated with any other small
business in Arizona, in addition to the licenses that you have included in the draft rules. My experience
in Colorado was that the entire medical marijuana industry was very profitable financially for all who
were involved. These businesses need to pay the state of Arizona every applicable fee, license, tax,
excise tax, property tax, luxury tax, and any "piece of the pie".
--The $150 cost per patient cards is too high. I think $50 would be more appropriate --Asking the
dispensary to grow 70% of what they sell is very demanding. I think the growing requirement should
be eliminated. The dispensary should be allowed to purchase from any registered grower. --Cameras
in growing areas is a little bit of overkill --Your patient-doctor requirements are too strict. You are
making it too difficult for legitimate patients to get a prescription. I realize that you are trying to
create a safe and friendly environment for patients and providers, but please don't make the process
overly difficult for the parties involved.
Requiring a Doctor patient relationship of one year needs to be removed. Many Doctors in the Kingman
area are not willing to reccomend Marijuana to any patient due to Federal Marijuana laws. This results
in many patients delayed for another full year of suffering. How is this beneficial or fair to those living in
pain? Providing a Medical history through records from the patients personal doctor to a new doctor for
a recomendation is fair and sensible. This maintains the integrity of the past relationship as well as
providing the Recommeding Physician all relevant information to make an informed decision based on
actual history included in the patients records. The 25 mile parameter allowing patients to grow at
home needs to be removed. This is very discriminatory. The Patient base is largely comprised of fix
income individuals. The dispensary pricing is far above the patients ability to afford. Allowing a patient
25 miles and one foot away to grow at home. While the nieghbor may be forced to pay outragous prices
or going without all together is blatantly unfair. This law is intended to Help patients have an avenue to
access Marijuana. How can a patient have access when forced to pay prices that cannot be afforded by
the patient? Growing at home for all card holders is the simple fair solution.
If this is truly for medical marijuana there should be NO dispensaries. The "medicine" should be
distributed by a pharmacy along with all the other prescription drugs. I am originally from California and
dispensaries are notorious for selling pot to anyone that walks through the door. This WILL happen in
AZ. Secondly, no "patient" should be permitted to grow any marijuana plants. By letting them do this,
they have an opportunity for a secondary income. There is no way that the state can regulate how much
these individuals grow and what they do with their product. If marijuana is the only answer for these
individuals then they will find family, friends or an associate that will drive them to the nearest
pharmacy to get their medicine. Finally, there needs to be stringent reviews when applications are
submitted to approve new treatable conditions. There should be evidence to support such approvals or
we will become like California where doctors are giving out medical marijuana cards to any Joe walking
in the door. My sister and her friends all have cards. They are in their early 20's and they got them for
complaints as simple as menstrual cramps.
Wondering if it would be possible to have a private cultivation facility with out having a public
despensory that mainly supplyed public despensory's, agents, caregivers and delivered directly to
qualifying patient residents.
by not having 2 doctors , and having to wait a over a year for medicine with four visits. this is down
right wrong to put people that need a better quality of life to wait that long. some doctors won't get
involved with this, leading people to find new docotors. what if you just moved here? what if you dont
have a year to live ? what if your docotor fired you cause he now wants a retainer fee? what if you are
a visiting patinet? normal prescribtions are filled the same day to easy peoples suffering , for the state
to force people to wait over a year is again very wrong. prop 203 was voted on and passed by the
people the way it was written, why are you changing it so much?
See below
Comments from a provider licensined in Minnesota and practicing at a federal facility where I will NEVER
have to Rx Pot. What were the voters thinking? ... sorry I am concerned that the language outlining
the relationship between provider and patient is burried in the section about how to qualify as a patient
(R-17-202 section F.5.e. i-ii.). I think the language should be more prominant so providers know they
must be the patient's primary provider or treating specialist. Also I think there should be language in
the rules about what specific purpose the Pot is fulfilling like to promote weight gain, stimulate appetite,
etc. Finally the language about the physician checking for interactions with other drugs and
supplements is problematic... where does this information exist? And the Risks and benefits? Does
the state plan on publishing an official Risk and Benefit statement for
F. A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY MAY ACQUIRE USABLE MARIJUANA

OR MARIJUANA PLANTS FROM A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT OR A REGISTERED DESIGNATED
CAREGIVER ONLY IF THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT OR REGISTERED DESIGNATED
CAREGIVER RECEIVES NO COMPENSATION FOR THE MARIJUANA. How is a dispensary supposed
to get medicine if it cannot reimburse growers for their costs? Given that a “caregiver” can only serve up
to 5 patients, with each allowed 12 plants, even if a dispensary is considered a caregiver, which I’m not
sure if the Act does, that doesn’t allow for much production. It may be in the text somewhere, but I
don’t see how a dispensary is going to get its medicine given these criteria.
Write the rules to reflect the spirit of the referendum? It seems to me that you are intentionally making
it difficult to qualify by requiring that a patient have an ongoing relationship with a doctor for longer
than neccessary. At present, Drs. can prescribe various narcotic drugs for pain without the lengthy (one
year) Dr./patient relationship you are proposing for recommending medical marijuana. This seems
unjust and suggests an attempt by the state to alter the will of the people.
Slightly less repetition.
Start over. This draft of legislation is not designed for sick people. The fees and administration
associated with the whole procedure is impossible and places an undue burden on these sick people.
The law should not be given the right to rule on or over what a patient and doctor decide are
appropriate measures for their specific ailments. Additionally: Article 1; Definitions: "public place"
includes condominiums and other multifamily dwellings. -Restricts a patients rights to administer medical
marijuana in their own home unless they have land around it. The dispensary and cultivation
businesses must be separated and be allowed to compete. Patients should be allowed to choose which
dispensary and dispensaries should be able to choose which clutivator they buy from and how much.
Get rid of the ridicules $5000 application fee, it needs to be refundable!! because how do I know that
you just rubber stamp NO to everyone to make 5k off each applications sound like a scam and abuse of
powers, with only 124
WHERE CAN I START? OH, HOW ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT TO LIVE 25 MILES AWAY FROM A
DISPENSARY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GROW YOUR OWN. THE SICK AND AND TERMANNELY ILL
CAN`T LIVE THAT FAR FOR THE MEDICAL FACILITIES THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A FORT KNOX TYPE ENCLOSURE
TO DO SO. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE HAS ALL KINDS OF RESOURCES TO DO SOMETHING
LIKE THIS. BUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT. OH, WAIT A MINUTE. NO, THEY STATE DOESN`T
HAVE THE RESOURCES EITHER. THE STATE IS BROKE AND RUNNING IN THE RED. BUT THEY HAVE
SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS AND FORGOT THAT FACT. I AND THE REST OF ARIZONANS THAT DON`T
WORK FOR THE STATE, KNOW THAT WE DON`T HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIVE BEYOND OUR MEANS.
BUT I DIGRESS. THIS WILL LEGALLY LOCK THE ILL INTO THE DISPENSARY CASH COWS, RATHER
THAN PROVIDE A WAY FOR THE ILL TO PROVIDE FOR THEM SELFS. AGAIN, KUDOS TO YOU AND
YOURS ON THIS BRILLIANT PART OF THE PLAN. WHAT IS THE FEAR HERE ? THAT A LARGE
COMMERCIAL MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION GROW SITE MIGHT BE ATTACKED BY CRIMINAL
ELEMENTS? CHRIST PEOPLE, WE DON`T HAVE THIS TYPE OF SET UP FOR PLACES THAT COULD BE
USED FOR IMPROVISED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL GROW SHOULD
NOT BE SUBJECT TO THIS LUNACY. AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GROW
THEIR OWN, 25 MILES OR NOT. PEOPLE HAVE STORES OF HOME BREWED BEER AND WINE. AND
PLENTY OF STORE BOUGHT LIQUOR SETTING AROUND. NOBODY SUGGEST LOCKING THEM UP.
PHARMACIES DON`T HAVE TO HAVE SUCH A STRUCTURE MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS.
Relax patient physician relationship length.
So that the industry is not flooded by persons with limited or shallow community roots, it would help to
have a residency requirement of 5 years. The longer a person stays in one city the greater the likelihood
that they have an interest in insuring the well being of that city and state. Like most industries, this
one will eventually reveal what professionals show an ability for retail/sales/marketing and who is better
at cultivation. A rule requiring that 70% of all medicine sold come from one's own culivation site will
encourage hiring from the existing black market. An nice example is that each cultivation site will
employ at least three folks. 3 x 124 = 372. It is safe to assume that there are not 372 persons in our
state that can operate a commercial cultivation site AND not be currently involved in the black market.
The existing lanuage will draw those willing to break the law into the industry.
I am writing this as a patient…I feel the 1 year patient/doctor relationship is not fair, nor is it in the best
interest of individuals who truly need medicinal cannabis. A lot of people have doctors with whom they
have had longstanding relationships, and while patients and doctors do not always agree 100% over
care, patients value these relationships with the doctors and do not want to leave them. A lot of doctors
will not write recommendations for a number of reasons- from philosophical to logistical to prudence.
The regulations the way they are written either require the 1 year relationship or require these patients
to leave these doctors who know their conditons, history and in a lot of cases husbands, wives, children
etc., and move onto another doctor who will take over the primary care of this condition in order to
receive a recommendation. I do not understand how the state can require an alternate doctor to take
over the primary care of a condition for someone who is quite happy with their present doctor/patient
relationship…Going to another doctor for medicinal cannabis is akin to going to a separate doctor to
manage pain because a lot of doctors refuse to prescribe pain meds. I think an MD who cares about
their license and ability to continue practicing medicine in AZ would be quite able to decide the benefits
of medicinal cannabis for a patient through an examination of the individual and possibly a review of
their medical records etc. Doctors have had to screen people for years who have attempted to “fake”
conditions to receive pain meds etc. without needing a year and 4 visits to do so. Possibly speak with
some doctors at Pain Clinics to determine their processes/procedures for accepting new patients and
prescribing opiates etc…This scenario makes a lot more sense to me than requiring a patient to transfer
the primary care of whatever horrible condition they may be dealing with in order to secure a
recommendation. I hope this is one area in which you reconsider the present regulations the way they
are drafted. Thanks for your consideration.
electronic monitoring that allows authorized 24/7 virtual access by the Department. Seems like this
would be an invasion of privacy considering these are legitimate medical patients. What kind of
guarantees can the department provide as far as unauthorized access. Will video logs be stored how
will they be recorded? If they are being recorded and saved doesnt one need permission from the
person being recorded? On-going means the physician has seen the patient at least 4 times in one
year or is beginning a course of treatment and will continue to treat the patient. A person with a
debilitating disease may be seeing a doctor who refuses to write a reccomendation. Therefore the
patient will have to find a new physician and they have to be seen 4 times by that new physician in
order to be approved for medical marijuana. This a serious issue and would delay a person with medical
necessity from getting their medication. In turn putting the patient through more pain or whatever their
issues they are dealing with. We need to come up with a better idea to not delay
Medical Director. It seems that the definition is exactly what a pharmacist is trained to do. A
pharmacist on the board of the dispensary should not only satisfy that requirement, but should be
instead of needing a doctor at all. A doctor is already involved when writing the prescription
make it $10,000 non refundable keep the rif raf out of Arizona (californians, and colorado) 5 to 10
years required Az. residency
1, Besides treatment for pain, please include this as treatment for anorexia related to AIDS therapy and
disease effects, as some patients describe this therapy has greatly improving appetite. 2. If patients
can only grow some plants when a qualified distributor is more than 25 miles away, it creates a financial
burdet for payment, as many patients are low income and in patricular, patients with AIDS. Patients can
grow their own plants and reduce use of prescriptions meds.
#1. Do you charge people fees for opids of drinking alcohol? No. So do not charge patients $150 to get
medication. That is what the marijuana is now, medication. #2. Nurse practitioners licensed to
prescribe medications, including class I-IV will also be allowed to prescribe Marijuana. it is a controled
substance and we have been prescribing it, I have prescribed it for my patients. Why did you just
include MD's and Osteopathic physicians?
Think of the patients that need the help. Don't make it so hard for them just because you are worried
about recreational use. People can buy marijuana in Arizona any time they want. Help the people that
really need the help!
The department lacks the jurisdiction to enact these regulations. The MMA section entitled 'rulemaking'
makes no mention of the physician patient relationship or physician certifications. The physician
standard of care has already been defined elsewhere in the administrative code, and by the Arizona
Supreme Court. Also, the MMA allows the department to add qualifying conditions, not to take any
away. These regs are longer than the act, and clearly not informed by legal analysis. It also might be
wise for DHS to brush up on HIPAA Laws before Arizona starts getting sued left and right for patient
privacy laws.
I must see my doctor 4 times a year? And pay $250 each time? Are you joking? I have Chron's disease.
Somedays I don't even leave my house and you want me to go see a doctor 4 times a year just so I can
get my medicine. What a joke. Once a year is enough!
Specify if a dispensary / cultivation location must be built prior to submitting an application.
This would be a good web page to read http://www.cannabismd.net/contaminants/

when considering allowing visitor cards to use dispensarys
The requirement that a doctor who has been treating a patient for a long period of time is not fair to the
patient. My pain doctor has been treating me for well over a year. I have peripheral neurapathy from
cancer treatment and my spine is collapsing (two discs are almost non-existent). I have almost constant
pain. He has no problem prescribing hundreds of oxycontin and vicodan, but he is not sure about
prescribing marijuana. I am not able to function on the narcotics he prescribed. I have tried marijuana
and it makes the daily pain management easier and I can function. The reason he is unsure about
marijuana has to do with his DEA license and his insurance. Why should I be penalized for this?
If dispensary has food and beverage for sale, clarification is needed regarding a food establishment
license and who is responsible for issuig the license. Physical Plant set backs should also include parks
and religious structures.
The intent of the draft rules seems to be to deny care to as many patients as possible. The rules are
clearly overly difficult to meet. Sections requiring a medical doctor in a dispensary are obviously
intended to do nothing but subvert the intent and the letter of the proposition passed by Arizona's
voters. The requirements for a 1-year relationship and 4 visits with a doctor in order to be prescribed
this medicine is more stringent than any other medicine - even dangerous drugs, like oxy-contin,
morphine, etc. This is, again, clearly to attempt to deny the people of Arizona medicines which they
have decided is beneficial and not as dangerous as many, many others. It would be best to treat
medical marijuana as your department would any other phramaceutical - no more ambitiosly, no less.
R9-17-316 completely breaks the chain of custody of the medicinal marijuana. The food processing
facility should be licensed and regulated just like the dispensary if the product is given into their sole
control at any point in the infusion process. Revise or remove this allowance.
Since there is no cost to purchase any other prescribed drug in AZ besides the cost of purchasing the
drug; the "fee" for the card should only be the cost of delivering the card to the patient. It should be no
more than a driver's liscence or an auto plate at the most. Make sure you don't make it prohibitive to
grow your own medicine for those who live outside the area of distribution. I shouldn't be penalized for
living in Page.
R9-17-307, Subparagraph C Initially all dispencaries will be in violation of these guidelines because no
medical marijuana dispencary will be allowed to bring medical marijuana plants into Arizona for
cultivation. Please add a sub-line that allows medical marijuana plants to be brought into Arizona from
out of state cultivation cooperatives and collectives. Secondly, R9-17-307 restricts how much an
Arizona dispensary may purchase from another Arizona dispensary. No where in proposition 203 does it
permit a limit on quantity to be sold between dispensaries.
Take out the 70% cultivation requiredment for dispensaries and licenese growers and let the market
bring prices down.
I only have one doctor......
I am confused on the process for dispensary's. It looks like there is an initial application then a second
one. When is the fee to be paid? It seems to me the only dispensary's that will be able to open are ones
that are financially backed by drug dealers. I would like to open one, but the expense of getting a retail
location, the cultivation site, rent, utilities, the application fees, etc....It takes about 90 days for the
application, then it takes about 4-5 months to grow marijuana. How could a "normal" person fund this
for almost a year without any money coming in? I am sure it will be near impossible to get a
business loan since it is still illegal at the federal level. This just seems like another way the illegal drug
dealers get richer. I would love to open a dispensary, but how? These guys probably already have every
thing in place. I hope there are heavy background checks into where the money is coming from to fund
these dispensary's. I read in ARS 36-2801 "A nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary may receive
payment for all expenses incurred in its operation." If I start a dispensary, will I be able to receive
money to cover my initial startup costs until money starts coming in? If so when does it come in,
monthly, quarterly, yearly, etc and how is it obtained?
Although the state law says that MJ cannot be smoked on site at either a dispensary or cultivation site, it
seems a bit unclear as to the relationship between the dispensary and the 'food establishment'. The
rules make it sound as if a food establishment...a restaurant...could be supplied by a dispensary with MJ
tea or MJ brownies, to be distributed through their restaurant. OR, is it trying to suggest that a bakery
could be provided with MJ by the dispensary in order for the bakery to make the brownies to sell at the
dispensary? It was a bit unclear to me.
The origenal initive says that it does recongize visitor cards but makes no provision for acquiring
medication from a dispensary. Visitors if they have the paper work to back it up should be aloud to pay
the fee for a dispensary card. I know that the state of Arizona does not want to cause denial of
medication to anyone, or cause them to deal with the black market. It would be a good thing if their
were provisions made for visiting card holders to get their medication. Thank you from
The information required under R9-17-302 B. 9 & 10 should be accessible to Police agencies, but
otherwise should be made confidential and remain inaccessible to the public via Public Records
Requests. This detailed information could be used to compromise the security arrangements of facilities.
Cost to replace lost identification/registration cards should be higher.
I'm a service connected disabled veteran with degenerative disc disease. I have severe muscle spasms
due to this condition. I'm very discouraged to see the health department is going to require me to see a
doctor willing to subscribe marijuana to me for a year before I am eligible. I currently am being seen by
a VA doctor for my condition and although the VA recognizes the use of medical marijuana my doctor is
restricted from prescribing or recommending it even if he wanted to. There are many other veterans in
the same situation and I plead with the health department to ammend this part of the rules completely
or at least make veterans under VA doctors care exempt to the one year waiting period. Please!
The AzMMA requires this 18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND
SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN, STATING THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THE PATIENT
IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF
MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR
SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE PHYSICIAN MUST:
(a) SPECIFY THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN THE WRITTEN
HISTORY. So, one full assessment, specify the qualifying condition, sign, and date-done! Without
the authority to do so, Az DHS proposes: R9-17-202 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician,
that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has
existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least
four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional
relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for providing management and routine care
of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and
physical examination, including a personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other
treating physicians, that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical
therapies;
usurpations "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship means: a. The
physician-patient relationship has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed
the patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the
physician-patient relationship; or b. The physician assumes primary responsibility for providing
response to conventional medical therapies.
There is mulitple problems with the patient-doctor relationship. I have a few issues My docotor will not
reccomened and I now have to find another docotor willing to help my quaility of living. Now I must find
a docotor willing to and wait for a year for medicine. This is very unfair . If you want to go see a doctor
today for pain , they give you vicodin. You then get your medicine filled that same day, for the state to
delay the treatment of the quality of a patients life seems wrong. If you just moved here and needed a
new docotor you would have to wait a year , this is also wrong. so many people move here to get
treated for problems. How dare the state try and delay medicine to people in pain. The law was voted
on , and now the state is trying to alter the law past what people apporved. No where in 203 does it
state a delay in medince. per 36-2801-13 , a qualifiying patient is one that is diagnosed by a physician
a having a debiltating medical condition.. the law was approved by the voters that section 36-2801-3-b
states in treatmentof chronic pain. i have pre existing medical condition that causes serve back spasms
, it is documented in my medical file threw mulitlple doctors , showing physical treatments and mulitlple
prescribtions , which in term raised my life insurance policy. so again for the state to try and say they
will make me wait a year after seinng a doctor is just morally wrong. the part about having to have
second docotor sign off was not in prop 203 , that was from a law that was not signed into effect in
1996. so this is also a delay in medicine for a patient to force some one to see the same docotor for
four visits is also wrong, in a time where people dont have extra funds . i propose 2 visits to the
same docotor over a month period and only one docotor to reccomend. but even this was not voted
on , doest seem right to have so many drastic changes proposed. please reconsider or rewrite the
regualtions proposed to be patient friendy.
It seems a little impractical to force potential dispensary. and growers to have a location selected and
secured with a lease for the application process . that means a potential owner would have to spend a
great deal of time and money securing a location and lease before you have been approved or denied
by the state for a license it would make more sense to give a potential owner an approval based on
application but with the condition that any potential location meet the standards set forth by azdhs
before operating , as well as a final inspection before approval of operation , The guide lines for a
dispensary. to have a physician onstaff or to be available for consultation during all business. hours also
seems a little impractical , the first time Arizona approved a medical marijuana law in 1996 one of the
basic issue s was the fact that a doctor would have to wright a prescription for the marijuana because a
doctors right to prescribe medicine is controlled on a federal level this would have endangered that
doctors ability to practice medicine , in other words isn't it putting a doctors credentials in jeapordy to
ask him to be that closely associated with this type of buissness.. The rules regulating how long a
patient would have to be under the care of a physician also seems verry restrictive in many cases a
cancer patient particularly a terminal patient may not have a year of life left, ,I think it would make
more sense to trust the doctors to make a recommendation the same way we trust them to prescribe
any medication , also many of the regulations that you have in this out line seem to jeopardize doctor
patient confidentiality? To the laymen it would seem much easier just to police it by carefully
watching the numbers it is easier and less expensive just to police the dispensary / grow facility threw
careful auditing of the product . the other issue is that the policies outlined in this initial draft are
going to make the cost of operating a dispensary / grow facility so expensive that it will drive the cost of
the product up verry high , even potentially driveing the price up over medical prices in other states like
California or colorado , "that would definitely be bad for the patients that could bennefit from this
product . an onstaff doctor could potentially add an additional 100k a year or more to operating costs
the policy of haveing to rent or lease 2 facilities instead of operating a grow facility and dispensary at a
common location also adds cost by making it necessary to pay for two separate facilities as well as
splitting employee and security cost . this doesn't seem to have any bennefit to the state , the potential
buissness owners or the patients , it will make it more expensive for the state to police these facilities, it
will make it more expensive for potential owners by increasing the operating costs and that increase will
translate to higher prices to potential clients
Qualified patients and caregivers may grow marijuana when they live more than 25 miles from a
dispensary. This section is nothing but an opportunity for the big money dispensories to control the
flow of medicine. All qualified patients should be allowed to grow thier own medicine. This section will
increase prices for those already strapped with medical bills. The only place that a person can grow is 25
miles from a dispensory is stupid. How is a person to afford the estimated $400.00 per ounce that is
$2000.00 per month. Foolish languange.
1. allow home delivery 2. lower fees for those whose only income is social security or less 3.
prevent boards and clinics from not allowing doctors to write marijuana recommendations 4. keep
costs down at dispensaries 5. no doctor required for dispensaries 6. make infusion easy as it is the
safest for patients 7 make doctors accountable for writing good recommendations without penalizing
patients 8. make it easier for caretakers to help take care of their patients with fewer hurdles and less
costs.
The 25 mile rule is nothing but a scam by Dispenarys to force them to buy only from them. How is this
legal????? Every patient should have a right to grow for themselves or assign a caregiver no matter
where they live, so they are not forced to pay the insane prices that the dispencary is going to charge
(monopoly prices). I know these places are "non-Profit", but lets be realistic. There would not be so
many people jumping up to start one out of the kindness of thier hearts. insurance will not cover the
cost of medicine, so we should at least be responsible and not let these companys that wrote and
passed the law profit like this. It should be a option, but not forced.
the smoking places needs to be improvised! people like to camp fish hike etc. patients should also be
able to smoke in designated smoking areas. pricing needs to be a key issue. this medicine is for the
terminally ill and sick which usually means fixed incomes and wont be able to spend thousands on
medicine that these non profit dispensaries will be charging. owners are not gonna work or do all this
for non profit theres gonna be high fees and charges involved and hows this any better. patients who
qualify for medical marijuana and are on social security should pay discounted fees for everything!
I dont believe that it should take a year to get to know your patient unless they are a new patient to the
system.i think if somebody has years of info from a previous town or state confirming from other
doctors that the current doctor can contact and has access to it shouldnt take over 3 months.Also its
clear on the fact that you can grow up to 12 plants if you live 25 miles away from a dispensory but
what if you live closer to a dispensory and need to grow 1 plant either do to not being able to drive
cause of seizures or anxiety disorders such as social anxiety? Also if this goes into effect will medicaid
help pay a portion of the prescribed treatment?
You are making it impossible for non- profit organizations from bordering states to become foreign non-
profits operating in Arizona. There are MM operations in New Mexico that are non-profits that should be
allowed to apply for a license in Arizona. Yet, everyone involved in your program has to be an Arizona
resident. If a non-profit organization operating in New Mexico has been granted a license to operate a
MM dispensary, they have experience and have been through the rigorous processes put in place by the
New Mexico Department of Health. I understand not wanting other states to overwhelm your program,
however, dispensaries will create jobs and revenue for the Arizona Department of Heath Services. Why
wouldn’t you want viable non-profits from other states contributing to the good of Arizona? Please
reconsider allowing foreign non-profits to apply.
The draft seems ok, but will all the required information be available on one form to be filled out by an
applicant and doctor? Also agree with the $150 fee, but is that paid only before issuance of a card or
at the beginning of the application process? If paid at the beginning, if an applicant is denied, is the
$150 refunded?
My opinion is that your bars are too high. To get an ailment approved and added to the "List from God"
of the illnesses covered would be like moving mountains. Besides, each state is different. Mr. Humble
said the Colorado experience would be looked at closely in preparing Arizona's guidelines. Yet Colorado
rightly includes Parkinson's on the accepted default illness list, but Arizona does not. Although a majority
may not feel constant pain, there are those smaller numbers will. The bar for adding acceptable
conditions is too high. This fails to account for the human element and is contrary to the spirit of 203
since it errs on the side of denial, rather than acceptance. The argument that medical marijuana may fall
into the hands of youth is a non-starter. It's easier for a kid to get weed than beer nowadays. To get a
new disease approved, what does "...peer reviewed support that cannabis is effective..." mean? Just
because it hasn't been thoroughly peer reviewed doesn't mean it doesn't provide relief from other, more
obscure disorders. Neuropathy and other neurological syndromes, some yet to be identified, let alone
studied, cause constant pain that severely limits what one can do.
Medical Marijuana is a proven safe and effective treatment for many thing not just major problems. I
think the rules are limiting the use to much. If you do research of the history of Marijuana you will find
that no one has ever died from using it and it's much safe than tobacco and alcohol. It's a good
treatment for PMS cramps, upset stomach, depression, trouble sleeping, anxiety, pain, headaches.
Just making sure Recreational users don,t have access to this program.
I believe it is inhumane to require patients to have a one year relationship with their physician. I am not
a doctor, but I have never heard of such a requirement for any other drug. This rule would require a
year of suffering for every patient who has a qualifying condition. Many cancer patients do not have a
year of life left. Persons who contract a chronic pain condition or injury need medication immediately. I
think this rule is fundamentally flawed and puts patients at risk. In reading through the seven pages of
patient requirements, I was left wondering if there is any other medication used that requires such a
complicated process. When a doctor writes a prescription for any drug, it is usually done with some
efficiency. The doctor knows which medication to prescribe and the pharmacist tracks and dispenses the
medication. The patient typically just has to go to the pharmacy with very little waiting even when the
prescriptions are for dangerous narcotics, opiates and amphetamines. Marijuana is a proven safe and
effective medication that, in my opinion, should be made readily available to patients who need it.
Finally, while I understand that it is important to implement strict guidelines regarding security, owner
and officer qualifications, systems and locations for dispensaries, I feel that the rule requiring facilities
and systems to be in place and ready for inspection when the application is submitted is setting our
already fragile economy up for turbulence. I think you can expect several hundred and possibly
thousands of applicants. This means that once the 124 dispensary licenses are awarded, there will be at
least hundreds of facilities that have been modified for specific use going unused and or leases
defaulting, millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours wasted. I believe the two year residency, the
not for profit status, the quality of business plan and owner/ officers qualification requirements, coupled
with the scrutiny of a state appointed board, is sufficient to choose qualified applicants without requiring
facilities to be in place. I think that if time tables were arranged in a way that would allow qualified
applicants to have ample time to develop facilities and systems, it would reduce loss among prospective
dispensary owners and the influx of unemployment that is sure to occur when hundreds of prospective
dispensary owners who have assemble their staff and facilities ahead of time are not granted licenses.
Use the language that is within the proposition. By going outside of the four corners of the actual law
itself, you open yourself up for massive lawsuits and clarification from the courts. For example. There is
no way that the courts are going to let stand having a continuing medical relationship with the doctors
and at least four visits. This eliminates any chance of getting a second opinion from a second doctor
who is not your primary doctor for treatment. It appears that all you want to do is punish those who
are sick with Cancer, MS or Crohn's and force them to wait another year because their personal doctors
who treat them have prejudice against marijuana or simply think it is more profitable to treat with say
Chemo therapy instead of alternative forms of treatment. I would think every single doctor in Arizona
who favors helping those who are in pain and suffering, from banding together and suing you. Don't
forget, they have the money and the State does not. It's broke. Since when do you have a group of
Nurse Practioners and beaurocrat's trying to regulate the Doctors? They have their own board called
the Board of Medical Examiners and they also have rules in place for disiplinary actions against their
own Doctors.
I think it should be optional to have Growing - infusion - and dispensing all at the same site . It's easier
to secure one building rather than three .
I think it should be optional to have Growing - infusion - and dispensing all at the same site . It's easier
to secure one building rather than three .
The definition of “public place” could be improved. The draft lists some child care sites as examples of
public places (i.e., child care centers and group homes), but not all public child care. Child care
homes certified by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) receive public funds, are
monitored to ensure that State rules and regulations are observed and have files documenting these
inspections which are available to the public.
if there is a medical licensed person on the staff, board of directors or who will be actively involved in
the dispensary, why the redundancy of a medical director... the patients have already been scrutinized
by the recommending physician, az dhs, and their usage tracked, why have a titular medical director?
why limit sales to other dispensaries to 30%, what if sales are not up to par and there is extra growth, is
the dispensary supposed to know exactly how much they need each month?
I do not like the two year residency rule. There are a number of qualified candidates for dispensary
officers and corporate directors who have a lot of experience in other states like Colorado.
past a lot. It makes since, but what If I changed my doctor recently so that means I have to see him for
at least a year before I can be prescribed medical marijuana. I feel that having medical records of your
disease and or pain for up to a year would be good enough. I know that I will in fact be changing my
insurance thus making me see different doctors in a few months. So I'm going to have to wait a year
for the help of medical marijuana? I really think this has to go into more thought.
I personally think the cost for a medical card could be brought way down. Maybe to $50? Cancer
patients are already spending most of their money on treatment and what not. Medicine should be easy
and affordable for them to access. Also I believe, ANYONE in pain should be able to get a prescription.
Medical Marijuana relieves pain, and pain is the same for everyone. No matter what sickness. The
physician should NOT be held accountable as well.
$150 per year for a patient registry card is pretty steep for people who may already be unemployed due
to an illness. Especially considering the medical marijuana itself will have to be paid for by the individual
(no insurance or state aid will pay for it). Will there be exceptions or price reduction for people who are
on ACCESS or ALTCS? Also, please don't make it so hard on the people who need MM to get a card,
by making them and their doctors jump through so many hoop, simply because there may be a few
people who might "abuse" the system. There are thousands of people who will benefit greatly from the
use of MM. Let's focus on making access easy for those who are in the greatest need. Like my friend
who is in the later stages of Multiple Sclerosis, already taking Marinol and Lyrica - neither working well.
He wants to stop taking them for nerve pain and spasticty, because Lyrica can cause liver damage.
Marinol gives him a bit of relief, but makes him stoned and doesn't provide the anti-inflammatory
benefits of the natural cannabidiols found in MM. He is anxiously waiting for the day that he can use MM
to help make his life easier and slow the progression of the Multiple Sclerosis. The card cannot come
too soon. Let's hope he can afford it!
AzMMA does NOT give authority to the Arizona Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the
patient-physician relationship. Right now any patient can choose any physician for whatever reason the
patient chooses to and if the physician deems fit they can prescribe medication of any kind for any
reason necessary in that doctors medical opinion. This is legal after ONE VISIT where the patients
medical history and present condition are assessed. Medical Marijuana cannot be treated any differently
or it will be considered discrimination as such and AZDHS will be charged accordingly for any violations
in such event. You cannot legally deem a four visit one year relationship with a doctor, the only grounds
as a qualifying "relationship". There are many patients whose "primary care" physicians are bound by
federal guidelines, such as Veterans whose care is through the Veterans Administration, that explicitly
forbid them from giving any patients a recommendation for Medical Marijuana. As you can see this is a
massive conflict of interest.
As we all know that this will generate revenues that state Officials should not be allowed To
touch,transfer,or use in any state emergency. This revenue has to be earmarked back into research
and development only. Build a facility in each county for this R&D.Have processionals maintain and
survey what types or brand of medical Marijuana works best for each individual medical issues. And
lastly let's have braintanks and thinktanks set up in each county.to partake in a. Question and answer
meetings. Locally then have a mastermind meetins twice a year to generate new ideas on
prodocol,rating systems. To keep the Dispensories in check 24/7 on video to a moan hub or central
hgts.
The high cost to patients and patient caregivers is unacceptable. Cannabis used for legitimate medical
purposes is no different than any other medication, patients should not be expected to bear undue cost
to register to use the drug. The lack of recognition for the use of cannabis for the treatment of
psychiatric disorders is shocking, cannabis has been helpful in the treatment of Autism, severe anxiety,
and attention deficit disorders, just to name a few. The definition of activities of daily living should be
expanded to include work and school and travel to and from those locations. Life is more than sitting at
home in bed, the law fails to address quality of life improvements.
Must be under a doctors care for one year? You guys must be kidding !! I have been seeing the same
Doctor for more than 4 years. now I must change to a new doctor how does not know my case because
my old doctor does not believe in medical use of cannabis. My pain doctor will not recommend me
because I would stop taking the opiates that he has me hooked on. Can you really tell me that opiates
,that I have to take even if I am not in pain at the time, are better than pot that I only have to use
when needed.
You should not require a dispensary's principal officer or board member to have been an AZ resident for
two consecutive years prior to the application. The only requirement should be that they are a current
AZ resident. Many young adults may stay in AZ after school to pursue a career in this field, but they
may have not been residents because they were from other states. Others are moving down to AZ for
other reasons, but may decide shortly after being in AZ that they want to pursue a career in this field
also. The two year requirement is not reasonable.
The draft rules could be improved to allow for individuals who have had a patient-physician relationship
to seek a doctor to recommend medical marijuana in the event that their physician takes a stance
against marijuana. I have Rheumatoid Arthritis, severe chronic pain, and history of chronic muscle
spasms, and finding a doctor to prescribe narcotic pain killers was very hard. There are many doctors
who refuse to prescribe because they "just don't," and others who feel it's a liability concern. I am more
than sure there will be many doctors who will take the same stance when it comes to medical
marijuana, and as an individual who could possibly be effected by this "patient-physician relationship"
clause, feel there should be an alternative measure implemented to cover those patients.
I am a current resident of Arizona, but I have not been living here for the last 2 years. I don't think that
this should disqualify me as a candidate. I have extensive knowledge in eastern medicine and years of
schooling in horticulture. Include producer contracts with dispensary owners. All medication should be
accounted for. Receipts of transactions and where the produce originated from.
I think the fees are a bit to much.
As you must know or will soon find out, their are a lot of physicians treating patients including oncologist
that will not prescribe marijuana as a medicine do to the feds or they just dont feel comfortable writing
for it. Many of their patients have less than one year to live. They will never qualify for the meds since
the draft says they need to be with a doctor for 1 year. For the patients with any of the diagnosis that is
qualifying for marijuana, criteria will need to be set for them to visit a doctor who understands the
referral process and be willing to prescribe after proof of their illness is obtained.Medical marijuana is a
benefit for the patients and they should not have to jump through hoops to obtain it. As far as the 70
percent grow by dispensaries it will never work. Most dispensary owners will have no clue on how to
grow the different strains of marijuana let alone produce anywhere enough.Dispensary owners should
have the right to outsource to a grow facility that brings in the expertese to quantify and qualify the
grows. For some states dispensaries are closing do to lack of medicine. The public should be able to put
requests in for new diagnosis quaterly instead of biannually. The dispensary cant be a LLC. since it is a
nonprofit which places it as a corp.
In general, any language that creates additional "hidden" requirements should be struck and rewritten
so as to minimize the burdens placed on patients, especially since many patients will be afraid and
confused about the legality and popularity of seeking treatment to improve their lives and receive relief
from pain. Extra care should be taken in language so as not to create any "loopholes" or other
opportunity for patients, caregivers, or physicians to be harassed or victimized. Specifically the rules
concerning physician responsibilities should NOT include any language making a physician responsible
for any one else's failure to comply with the rules, since that would create an opening for harassment
and victimization of physicians without any relationship to reality. Physicians are not responsible for, and
are physically incapable of, and legally not allowed to, monitor what their patients do after they leave
the doctors office (even patients that currently receive controlled-substance prescriptions legally such as
methodone) . That just isn't realistic or possible, and could only be included as an attempt to victimize
and harass physicians and patients. Don't put in anything that could be construed as a precedent for
invading privacy. We need responsible medicine not socialist medicine. Remove the language that puts
responsibility for implementing the rules on physicians. They are private citizens not government
employees, unless they will be compensated by the government for this work. They should not and
legally cannot be forced to work in government employ without compensation. Instead hire some people
to do that job. The requirement for physicians to have had one year relationship and have had four
visits OR say they take over primary care responsibility is spurious and obstructive. A patient has to
make changes to their entire health care support structure and change primary care givers? What
problems does that create for patients as far as insurance, record keeping, health care data collection
and etc that is not really necessary? A doctor is a doctor. Patents that receive methodone are not
required to wait a year to take advantage of a pain-relief medicine. There should be no spurious
requirement such as that. Unless a precedent is being set to have more requirements for other
controlled substance prescriptions? Are heroin addicts going to have to follow the same rules before
being prescribed methodone for drug addiction symptoms? Sounds a little bit like an attempt to harass
physicians and patients out of spite by someone who disapproves and wants to obstruct proper, rational
implementation of this proposition but don't have guts enough to say it openly. Take out those spurious
requirements. Doctors are not paid to do the government's job or to be "psuedo-secret-police" or
something. They are just doctors. Let them do their job and don't allow rules to place obstacles in the
way of patients receiving treatment. Doctors don't work for you they are private citizens.
the smoking areas and public places need to be improved! i like to camp and fish and says i cant take
my medicine while doing so why not? i or any other patient should be able to smoke in the same
designated smoking sections as cancer causing smokers do. if i dont have control or have a designated
driver there should be no reason i cant smoke my meds in a designated smoking area.
just somethings need to be changed like where to smoke. i like to camp and fish and it says only in
private residence that needs to be changed. its medicine not uranium patients who choose to smoke
marijuana should also be able to smoke in the same desinated smoking sections as cigaretes!
I think the requirement to have a the docor relationship for 1 year and the 4 visits is outrageous. You
dont need to have a relationship for 1 year to get other care from doctors so the only reason that is in
there is to limit or cause others to wait a year before getting the help they need because YOU dont want
to help people at all! All you want to do is make this totally outrageously restrictive and unreasonable.
The RULES are unreasonable PERIOD.
the doctors you nthink that have beeen around and paracticed western medicine will not approve any
reccomendations . for onew it take s away from that patient needing to see his xdr every month isa
where dr make there money , if i getr MM i wont need to take 5 piulls im taking now every month and if
i have MM why would i have to go back to my dr to get pills that i dont need because theMM takes care
of my ailments. Why would a Doctor recomend MM to his established patient if he gets nothing out of it
and he loses a customer or patient what evever you want to call it. ASnd why would Doctors with
established practices our PCP now recomend MM when he know nothing about it it he is educated in
western medicine pills which im now addictred to becuasew i have hernuiatesd disk yet he already said
he will not be reccomending to any patient, i have cancer and my oncologist says the same thing he
wont reccomend it to any patients so because established dr who have no expierance with alternitive
medicice why would he even consider recommending it to any patient he doesnt know the laws yet and
why take a chance on a law suit on something that will benefit him none all he does is lose a patient so
the rule has to be changed that you may see any doctor that believes in alternative medicine and most
of them doctors are just opening up here face it no regular Dr will take the chance and why would he
because he loses me coming in for a refill every 30 days so he loses money and he takes the chance of
law suit because he know nothing about their western medicine Dr they give pills out which im addicted
to know because of it but with my MM i can quit taking all the addictive narcotics. So if you have legit
ailments like me cancer and herniated disk with significant nerve damage with all my records within last
year from same dr who admits im in need oif heavy narcotics for chronic pain and i have cancer and
getting chemo now there has to be a rule that a patient with overwhelming medical conditions should be
able to go to a doctor who believes in MM and doesn't stand to lose money like the PCP do if they
recommend MM to their patients it obvious don't make it so difficult to obtain if you have proper medical
records that are current. And there should be some fast track program for cancer patients dying and in
pain and also has herniated disk with nerve damage which i have all my medical records that would
support any doctors decision to approve MM and all records are within year what more do you want itys
like getting a second opinion. Youi can see a new dr tomorrow and walk out with percocet firts visit so
why would a non a addictive plant and safer then narcotic addictive pain pills be any differnt all the
sudden we have to see a dr for a year. No doctors are supporting this prop thats what Mr humble was
counting on so there would be a small amount of card holders which bmakes your black market bigger
quit throwing a tempure tantrum because the prop won and you were against it may you get rectal
cancer like me and get sick and go through and lets see how fast you try MM then unless you have
been their you dont know it so obvious watching Mr humble he looks like a kid that got beat in a
game and he is changing rules so the winner has a hard team winning again its called a cheater it
passed 3 times get over it and give the MM to people who need it and yes some will sleep through trhe
cracks but that should be on you holding your doctors responsible with fines and taken away thier
license, If a patient has medical records from the past year he should be able to go to any doctor and
have them make a professional opinion based on medical history. like me i know im getting my card im
dying of cancer and in constant chronic pain so i hope you change that dr patient one year rule or
modify ofr i will fight you all the way. Quit making people do dolphin tricks to get theMM it passed get
over it and i can only hope you get cancer and you need theMM just cause you healthy doesnt mean the
rest of us our the law passed e3 times just do you job and make it available without making patients do
somethging you know wont work and thats get a reccomendation from your current doctor, only doctors
who belive in it will be able to perscribe it so you need to change tha rule now i get second opions all
the time and i askd my dr to reccomend it he said know and said all dr he knows wont touch it so you
are handcvuffing patients and you new that the dr would support it so your ego can claim some small
victory i promise advaCATES wont let you get away with it, Medicalk records doint lie and as long as its
only a year old you ashould be alowwed to see a doctor who supports MM and will clearly see someone
dying should be recomended for MM what do you want me to do establish a relatiuoship witha doctor
for a year when i might die way beforee a year think let people with legit ailments die in peace and get
ioff your bureaucratic soapboxMR Humble you look foolish trying to fight who gets it you were so proud
to estimate 10-20 thousand patients will receive it compared to the 100,000 perdicted well hope your
proud you just cause 80,000 people to go to black market and do illigal drug dealing your lost and you
wont measure quality i wish my pharmacist jsut gave me my pdercocet without knowing the dose you
say you dont want to make the same mistakes but your changes are going to hurt the program not help
it and the one that you went overboard on is having to know your dr a year and see him at least 4
rtimes ya i have that dr but he is agaisnt it so i suffer because he is against it open your eyes Mr
Humble quit pouting it passed now deal with it
More definition is needed for what constitues a "Designated Caregiver". More definition is required for
defining exactly what Non Profit is. More deniftion is required for off-site cultivation. Does a
Commerical building qualify? How large is the space allowed to be. How many Dispensaries care the
Off-Site cultivation center serve? Where are the Use or Sales Taxes defined - We want the State of
Arizona to have a revenue stream from the sale of Medical Marijuana. More definition is required for
tracking the "seed to dry" process - Seed Lot #'s, a statewide "Inventory numbering system" for each
strain and published retail pricing. Can Dispensary Kiosks be used within the Dispensary? Is a "Medical
Director" required to be an M.D., a D.O., a pharmacist or some other designation?
Squeeky cleam owners, not even a DUI
Keep them out of typical strip malls. Put them in comercial industrial areas
The draft rules can be improved by adding more information regarding the requirements of the
cultivation facility. How can the draft state that you need a physical address of the dispensary and
cultivation including a certificate of occupancy before a permit is issued? Shouldn't the address and c of
o be done after the permit is granted? The hours of operation for the cultivation should not be
mandated. The hours should be left to the discretion of the permit holder. What role will a physician
play at the dispensary. Will the physician be required to be at the location physically or just available for
consultation via phone? Will the physician be required to carry mal practice insurance?
The part where a patient has to have a relationship for 1 year with their doctor, I think is frankly
ridiculous. I have suffered from leg spams and cramps for almost 9 months now, I've been to the E.R.
for the constant cramping, they gave me an liquids and sent me on my way. I barely got insurance
about a month ago and have barely been diagnosed with neuropathy from type 2 diabetes, I am
confident I would qualify for a Medical Marijuana card, but I have not had a relationship with my doctor
for more than a month even... And the part: “The physician assumes primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care of the patient’s debilitating medical condition after conducting a
comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient’s
medical record maintained by other treating physicians that may include the patient’s reaction and
response to conventional medical therapies.” What if my doctor does not assume primary
responsibility for fear of federal law? Would it not be much easier if the primary care physician gave a
recommendation alone? And doesn't this simply allow other doctors to set up shop as "Marijuana
Friendly Doctors" that are willing to "assume primary responsibility" and will end up making a killing on
patients since the patient is going to have to visit said "Marijuana Friendly Doctor" regularly? This is
what you were trying to avoid in the first place isn't it? Also, I don't know if the Department has the
power to change the rule that if you want to grow your own plants you have to live 25 miles away from
a dispensary. Medical Marijuana is very expensive when purchased at dispensary's, please don't forget
allot patients including those suffering from HIV/AIDS, Cancer and other debilitating diseases aren't able
to work and are usually on some kind of benefits or assistance. I would rather pay APS an extra $8.00
or $10.00 dollars a month to grow my plants, instead of paying $250.00 an ounce, that's $750.00 for 2
1/2 ounces! That is abuse. Allot of people don't make that every 2 weeks even. The patients should
benefit, not the dispensary's. In my opinion $100.00 an ounce is still too high. Think about it. An ounce
is not much. Perhaps you could add an exception to the rule, if the patient is a low income patient
they should have the choice whether or not to grow indoors at home after approval from DHS?
You need to state how the dispensary licenses will be initially allocated and in the future how a waiting
list will be established to use licenses that become available. I think the ability for a licensed
pharmacists to the medical director should be considered. The requirements for the Dispensary Medical
Director are similar to what a pharmacist does every day. The cost for a dispensary to hire a
pharmacists vs hiring or retaining a doctor should be considered to the end cost to the patient.
The law states that a naturopathic or homeopathic physician can recommend marijuana. They should
also be allowed to be a medical director. They are more qualified than an MD or DO as they base there
practice on natural herbs. An MD is less qualified as to the risks or benefits of marijuana than a
naturopath, so it makes no sense that it is MD's or DO's only. I think it is good that the medical
community is involved but the medical director should be expanded.... The type of medicine
recommended is completely up to the physician. How can you quantify the number of visits or doctor
patient relationship as to marijuana versus any other drug? As a doctor, they have 6-8 years of
schooling to make the determination as to what they recommend or prescribe. The pharmaceutical
companies are allowed to advertise on TV so patients go in and ask for something specific. If they don't
get what they think they want, they go to another physician anyway, or take what is recommended. At
the end of the day, the physician is suppose to know what is best. That can happen in one visit, 6 visits,
over 5 years or who knows what else. A marijuana recommendation , regardless of times visited or
patient history is really about what the physician thinks is best. No additional rules should be required,
that is why they have a license....
Physician must have either an MD or DO degree to be licensed under 3 separate health professional
boards in Arizona: allopathic (title 32, chapter 13), osteopathic (chapter 17), and homeopathic (chapter
29). Prop 203 authorizes allopathic, osteopathic, and homeopathic physicians to recommend medical
marijuana, and also includes naturopathic licensees (who unlike the other 3 medical professions, do not
require an MD or DO degree as a prerequisite for licensure). ADHS draft rules specify holders of MD
or DO degrees as qualified to serve as dispensary Medical Directors, but only names licensees under
chapters 13 and 17, while leaving out equally qualified MD's and DO's licensed under chapter 29. The
discrepancy between physicians given authority to directly authorize dispensing, versus those indirectly
tasked with monitoring such functions, is peculiar and without foundational basis. This discriminatory
interjection is unexplained and inviting of legal challenge. If ADHS intent is to give special status to
MD and DO graduates on the basis of educational background, it is a matter of due process to include
MD and DO graduates duly licensed under the Arizona MD (H) license (title 32, chapter 29). The AZ
Homeopathic Medical Board has successfully completed a two-year, legislatively-supervised process to
make its credentialing and oversight processes the most modern of any AZ medical board, and received
a maximum 10 year renewal.
change the doctor patient relationship, I am a 54 year old veteran, fighting colon cancer, i have had 2
surgeries in two and a half years to remove more than half of my colon. I do not use Medical
Marijuana but there is current research from the University of Texas that concludes when cannabinoid
compouds are intoduced to cancer cells in the colon tumors shrink. If my cancer returns a third time
the best that can happen to me is the full removal of my colon and a colostamy bag for the rest of my
like, the alternative is eventual death within a year. Here is the problem: my Federal Government
Veteran Hospitol Doctors are not allowed to write a recommendation for Medical Marijuana. I also know
numerious Veteran AIDS patients who are not expectected to live more than a year, they should not be
sedated with morphine and made vegatbles when Medical Marijuana can inprove thier quality of life in
their last months we owe to our veterans and all humanity to do what is right.Your Draft makes me
have to form a longer than needed relationship with a doctor and involves too much red tape, why don't
you cut all the bureaucracy and apply the rules or regulations to help those of us truly in need of an
alternative to dangerous FDA drugs. The people have spoken, please do not play God with our lives.
How will dispensaries get the marijuana they sell? According to the informal draft rules all licensed
dispensaries in Arizona will be required to grow 70% of the marijuana sold. The rest must come from
either qualified patients, caregivers or other licensed dispensaries. I THINK THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES HAVE TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE GROWING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES OF
COURSE FOR SAFETY AND FOR KEEP MORE TRACK OF THE PRODUCTIONS AND WHAT'S SOLD (SO
YOU CAN KEEP TRACK ON TWO BOOK INSTEAD OF ONE). AND I BELIEVE THE GROWING IS GONA BE
MORE SAFE AND APPART FROM ANY KIND ARGUMENT AND PROBLEM WITH NEIGHBORHOOD IN A
BUILDING IN A RURAL AREA.
How about multi level qualifications and dispensed amounts? I think it would be the rare person who
would need 2.5 ounces per 2 weeks, I also believe that it should be easier to get lesser, there for less
abusable, quanities. A Physician might easily hand out a prescription for 12 pain pills but would use a
much more stricter set of guidelines for 2 and a half big bottles every two weeks. Many medications
have differing effects depending on the dosage and not just the amount of the effect, a different effect.
Other drugs have what is called a narrow theraputic index. It takes just the right amount to work, any
less and there is no effect, too much and strong side effects occur. Theo-dur is one, it, in the
appropriate dose can dramaticaly ease shortness of breath, a bit too much and the patient goes wacko.
Titration of any treatment is important. Consider the patient who would be helped by a puff or two, say
every few nights or once a month. why give them 2.5 ounces every two weeks, when much less would
be appropriate. Please consider different qualifications for different amounts, keep it being used for the
right reasons.
what is the purpose of limiting the 30% sale to outside dispensaries, it is setting itself up for 124
amateur growers in the state vs getting better quality and consistency by allowing growers to sell their
extra .
Please strike the required 1 year Doctor - Patient relationship from the rules. It doesn't make any
sense.
People who have knowledge and process of the product.
As in California, the price of the issued state card has become a hindrance for patients to comply with
the law. Arizona's rules concerning medical marijuana are following the same path. California expected
to issue upwards of 100,000 cards but only a little over 12k have been issued while the estimate of
medical marijuana patients is 350k,.. Most respondents say that the price of $66 - $103 is the
deterrent. MMC issuing counties have seen a decline in re-issuance for the card drop from 20%-60%.
This is not to say that patients are not continuing to treat with medicinal marijuana but they are
foregoing obtaining the state issued card due to price. The initial issuing price to obtain a Medical
Marijuana card in California was $13.00. After raising the price to "$66-$103", this is beyond the means
of the majority of patients. Take into account the price of the medical marijuana, this is NOT covered
by any health insurance, so the patient is forced to pay the prices at the dispensaries leaving little to pay
for what amounts to another tax from the state, which is a reoccurring annual fee. Arizonan's passed
the Medical Marijuana bill to help patients NOT TO fill the coffers of the State of Arizona by those who
can least afford to fill it. It is apparent that the State of Arizona see's this issue as a boon to their
budget woe's when it is SUPPOSED to be for PATIENTS! Make the card affordable, $15 dollars a year
for each patient and keep it at that price. THEN unlike California you will get a much higher compliance.
Stop trying to make it so expensive, complicated and difficult to comply with the law and ALLOW THE
PATIENTS TO BE TREATED!!!!!!
Why are you discriminating against the poor? If a person makes less than $10000, their fee should be
waived or at least reduced. Why are you requiring a doctor be available at a dispensary when no doctor
is required at a pharmacy? This will increase costs of producing medical marijuana, which will make
medical marijuana cheaper to buy illegally than legally. Don't impose unnecessary rules on dispensaries
to drive up costs.
I am from Colorado and have been seen for years about my back by different physicians and surgeons. I
have had a laser surgery and cortisone shots at Mayo, but i have not needed to see an Az. doctor but
once at Mayo because I already have a new MRI and short of more surgery, there is nothing they can
do other than prescribe painkillers. My problem is straight forward and does not require multiple visits at
this point. I have a medical MJ license in Colorado. I would like to see a rule that qualifies someone like
me who has an MRI and a list of doctors I have seen and their prognosis, to qualify me for a license
here without four visits because they already know the problem.
The fee for the card is overly expensive, and the setup for the dispensaries insures that overhead will be
high. Marijuana will be expensive. There should be no fee for the card. The marijuana should be free
for qualified patients.
to keep it local and in state,,, undisturbed,,, a price cap explorative tool that heavily favors the patient
could be put in place for the first three years before shaping a more permanent structure in pricing and
dispensing in advocacy that further develops patient access rights that will control the market and price
here in arizona. what i suggested under the limits they are considering would allow a top gross of a little
over two hundred grand a year per dispensary. never work. set yealy production rates at two thousand
pounds per year both patient and provider will do fine ,,, price caps and all
If your implement the rule for doctor patient relationship;"Has a professional relationship with the
qualifying patient on at least four visits for the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition during
the course of the professional relationship" You will be keeping Veterans who desperately need this
medicicne from aquiring it. VA doctors are held to federal law, whichs keeps them from recommending
Cannabis. So for Veterans we have find another outside doctor to recommend our medicicne that could
take over a year. That is devestating to loads of Vets. The fact that PTSD is not listed as a qualifing
condition is non-compassionate towards veterans. We need PTSD added to the law.
add anxiety and depression to the list of qualifying conditions, also people should not half to live more
than 25 miles away from a dispensery to cultivate there own marijuana anyone with a valid medical
marijuana card should be able to cultivate up to 12 marijuana plants for medical purposes.
I think the rules could be improved by the same exacting measures seems to be the structural base of
the draft’s construction however separate the patients in a way that is also more exacting. By this I
mean to incorporate the use of medical codes. Mine is ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 759.89 as of this year.
Very serious congenital condition which Mayo published a paper listing the nine most common areas of
pain. There must be a distinction between those with incurable pain causing maladies and those that
may find a better approach to wellness without the use of medication that doesn’t destroy their bodies.
Folks like me will not be able to afford prices that will be in place at the dispensaries. We will need to
grow our own for economic hardships. Make growing available to any patients with incurable pain
causing symptoms. Some considerations made for patients with economic hardships,,, weather self grow
or let a pooled resource evolve somehow. If what I understand the rules of 250 pounds per year per
dispensary is correct this greatly under estimates the number of patients whose quality of life can be
improved. The DHS could make home grows and the immediate availability based on IDC-9-CM
diagnostic codes. An applicant home grow process could be put in place for those with conditions that
are not incurable.
The requirements for qualification for a Medical Marijuana card proposed under R9-17-202.F.5. seem
contrary to the intent of the measure in excluding a large population of chronic (pain) sufferers of which
I am a representative member: those persons who have suffered debilitating pain for decades and long
ago abandoned traditional medicine and therapies as ineffective. The language used in the Draft
appears to require such patients to return to traditional therapies for at least one year (unless they have
decades-old records on file and can convince a MD/DO to assume responsibility for past treatments)
before marijuana may be legally used. Patients of this type are acquiring and using marijuana now,
and will continue to do so regardless of DHS’ rules, but the INTENT of the voters was to decimalize
these activities and this onerous requirement defeats this intent. On a personal level, after decades of
resistance to the idea, I have been seeing a chiropractor weekly ($100 per week) for several years,
where I receive an hour of therapeutic massage followed by spinal manipulation. Chiropractors,
however, are not included in the measure as medical professionals. (My MD grandfather would
wholeheartedly agree with this exclusion, but then he’d have preferred to run all the chiropractors out of
town on a rail… As a scientist, I have to say I’d have excluded homeopaths and naturopaths BEFORE
chiropractors, but I did not draft the measure.) My use of marijuana is minimal in that the weekly
therapies I receive generally reduce pain and inflammation sufficiently for me to function. From time to
time, however, my discomfort peaks to a level where I can’t eat or sleep without using a small amount
of marijuana. This use totals approximately 1 ounce per year, yet I am exposed to criminal and
substantial civil penalties in acquiring and using the medicine, as well as suffering the guilt for financially
supporting drug cartels. I have considered growing a plant to eliminate exposure to, and support of, the
criminal enterprise, but the legal liabilities are potentially WORSE if discovered and I have two young
children (9 and 11) in my home whom I do not wish to expose to marijuana (a plant is much harder to
secure than a baggie). I understand DHS’ desire to minimize the issuance of cards for trivial and non-
existent conditions (nonsense cards), and I support such efforts, intellectually. The harsh realities of
chronic and debilitating pain such as mine preclude any definitive mechanism for excluding nonsense
cards AND DHS’ proposed onerous rules will be far from 100% effective as well, but these same rules
WILL be effective in excluding real patients (for at least one-year). I recently retired and, as such, live
on a fixed income while raising two children who hope to get advanced degrees like their Dad. I made a
respectable living as an inventor/manufacturer in Arizona for many years (resident since 1968) and I
have taken myriad steps to minimize my cost of living in retirement (smaller and well insulated home
equipped with solar panels), secure some reliable fixed income (annuities that mature beginning in
2019), and have taken advantage of Arizona’s 529(k) plans. I do not, however, have medical insurance
for myself due to pre-existing conditions (although I am trying to get it under Obama care). I was
hoping to be able to REDUCE my substantial medical care costs, in retirement, by reducing the
frequency of physical therapy and increasing the use of marijuana, preferably provided by LEGAL home
cultivation… Explain what criteria will be used to select the 124 dispensaries. Will the selection
process be such that dispensaries are as evenly distributed as possible to minimize home cultivation?
Will they be distributed on a basis of population density instead? Will there be a selection process that
considers the quality of the service proposed, for product purity and consistency? It appears that
security and divergence prevention are paramount in the draft rules and, while these issues are clearly
important, safety and efficacy of the product receive short-shrift. Transportation from cultivation
sites to dispensaries also appears to be a hole in the otherwise high security system proposed. While
requiring armored cars is probably overkill, loading and unloading within a secure area should be
required and, to reduce in-transit diversion, weight in and weight out should be recorded, preferably by
USB-linked, calibrated scales (although diversion in trimming remains an issue). Requiring a MD/DO
medical director appears to go beyond the intent of the voters.
When starting chemotherapy or going to any specialists for treatment of pain, anorexia, AIDS, glacoma
we the patients do not have a two year history with the Doctor. I think you are being too strict on this
A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the applicant provides the Department with
written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department. MOST OF US HAVE A
CONTIGENCY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORDS BASED ON GETTING A LICENSE BECAUSE
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE PAYING RENT ON A SPACE WE ARE NOT GOING TO USE IF NOT SELECTED.
ALSO IT TAKES 8-12 WEEKS TO SET UP A GROW ROOM, MAKE SECURITY AJUSTMENTS, AND BUILD
OUT OUR SITES WITH PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, ETC.ITSHOULD BE BASED ON THE BUSINESS PLAN
AND DOCUMENTATION, NOT THE ACTUAL SITE. If the dispensary is a corporation, two officers of the
corporation PROP 203 STATES THAT WE FILE AS A NON PROFIT CORPORATION, HOWEVER YOU ARE
ASKING FOR TWO OFFICERS. THIS SEEMS PREJUDICIAL AS SOME DISPENSARY OWNERS ARE SINGLE
WOMEN AND DO NOT HAVE SOMEONE THEY WANT TO PARTNER WITH BUT YET WANT TO FILE AS A
NON PROFIT CORPORATION. THE CORPORATE COMMISSION ONLY REQUIRES ONE DIRECTOR. A
registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during regular business hours; b. The dispensary will
provide information about the importance of physical activity and nutrition onsite A REGISTERED
PHARMACIST ON PREMISE OR ON CALL? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR HAVING TO PAY FOR THIS
SERVICE OR TO ADD THIS? MOST PHARMACISTS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS DRUG OTHER THAN
WHAT THEY MAY OR MAYNOT HAVE READ. A dispensary shall provide the Department with authorized
remote access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system THIS IS TOO VAGUE. PLEASE EXPLAIN
THE PURPOSE OF WHY YOU NEED REMOTE ACCESS TO THE "MONITORING SYSTEM' OR IS THIS
REFERING TO THE LINKED AUTHORIZED VERIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE DEPARTMENT? Employ or
contract with a medical director; Medical Director A. A medical director may only serve as a medical
director for three dispensaries at any time. B. During hours of operation, a medical director is: 1. On-
site, or 2. Able to be contacted by any means possible, such as by telephone or pager. AGAIN WITH
THE ADDED EXPENSE. WHILE MANY OF US HAVE ASKED DOCTORS TO BE ON OUR BOARDS, WE DO
NOT NEED THEM TO WORK FOR US AS EMPLOYEES. THIS IS AGAINST THE ARTICLES OF BEING A
NON PROFIT. BOARD MEMBERS CANNOT RECIEVE FUNDS FROM THE CORPORATION EXCEPT FOR
EXPENSES INCURED. I DO NOT RECALL ANYWHERE IN PROP 203 WHERE IT STATES THAT A DOCTOR
BE ON SITE OR ON CALL. DOCTORS WILL BE RECOMMENDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND WORKING
ON THE SITE? Denial and Revocation of a Dispensary Registration Certificate A principal officer or
board member CANNOT BE Is a physician currently making qualifying patient recommendations THIS
IS A CONTRIDICTION OF THE STATEMENT ABOVE. IF WE EMPLOY A MEDICAL DIRECTOR, HE CANNOT
MAKE RECOMENDATIONS? Has not provided a surety bond or filed any tax return with a taxing agency;
WHY WOULD WE BE FILING TAX REURNS ON A BUSINESS THAT HAS NOT EVEN STARTED? AND IF
MARIJUANA (MEDICAL OR NOT) IS ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WHY
ARE THEY ABLE TO TAX IT? (JUST CURIOUS) The Department shall revoke a dispensary's registration
certificate if: 1. The dispensary: Acquires usable marijuana or mature marijuana plants from any
person other than another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; SINCE
NONE OF THE DISPENSARIES HAVE YET TO BE IN OPERATION AND WE HAVE NO CAREGIVERS AS
YET, WHERE WILL THE SEEDS OR PLANTS COME FROM?
I actually voted against this, but I am concerned that something the majority of Arizonans voted for is
not being implemented in a fair way. Example 1: The Dispensary has to keep track of the
"Watering Scehedule" of the plants. Why? Example 2: Board members must not be delinquent on
child support, taxes, or student loans. Although I don't agree with people who are delinquent on these
obligations, I am curious as to what other State issued licenses or permits have the same requirements.
If it applies to all State permits or licenses then it is ok, but if it is only related to Medical Marijuana
permits, then it is completely wrong. Example 3: Perhaps the most illogical one of all. According
to the Dr. patient relationship you have outlined, If I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would be
ineligible because I would have to be under the prescribing Dr.'s care for 1 year, and 4 visits. One way
to accomplish Dr.'s from abusing the system by arbitrarily writing recommendations for a fee, is to not
allow them to advertise a specialty of Medical Marijuana Recommendations. Tobacco companies are not
allowed to advertise, so precedence is set already. This would allow legitimate patients easier access
and make it harder for people trying to cheat the system by just having to answer an ad to get a card.
As long as Arizona Government is involved, nothing will ever be regulated effectively >>One of the
top priorities during the implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act in the coming months is to
ensure good rules are developed (called Administrative Code) so medical marijuana can be regulated
effectively.
The patient and caregiver fees are unreasonable. In the case of a patient that is unable to travel whose
spouse is the only caregiver, the combined fee will be $350 per year, every year. Combined with the
cost of the medicine itself, this will force many patients to choose between buying medicine or buying
food. Special consideration should be given at least to stage IV cancer patients. There is no cure for
these patients. Fees for these unfortunate patients and their spouses should be significantly reduced or
eliminated. The proposed fees give reason to think that only the rich will benefit from medical
marijuana. The proposed fees give the perception that the state intends to balance its budget on the
backs of cancer patients.
people voted on Prop 203 the way it was written. Not to have it so restricted that some, or most people
wont be able to benefit from the law, which goes against the whole intent of the law. I thought the first
thing about required allotted days was interesting, that they had turned the time limits for them to
approve applications, and certifications into working days from just days. I’m sorry but the statue says
days, and not working, or business days. I’m sorry, but the ADHS does not get to rewrite, and nit pick
something that they may not agree with. You must take the law the way it’s written. Days and not
working/business days! The main issue I have with their proposed rules is the restricting access to the
law by trying to define what a patient- doctor relationship is. This part conflicts with Prop 203, as far as
any doctor who is licensed to practice medicine MD, DO has the right to recommend MMJ. And the law
doesn’t say anything about having a relationship with your doctor for at least a year, and have had 4
visits. That same requirement doesn’t apply to any other health standard in the country. Or any that I
could find by looking up requirements for prescriptions/recommendations. Again, Mr. Humble and staff
are taking a huge liberty in defining what they think should apply to Prop 203, especially when it doesn’t
apply to all other aspects of health care. Also, the part that the MMJ doctor has to become the primary
care doctor for the qualifying condition. Most people’s doctors won’t be so willing to put their names,
and required by rules their license number on a patients application. And who not agree with the new
law. So your telling me that I can’t get relief from something that could help for at least a year? Talk
about pain and suffering. The ADHS motto is: Leadership for a Healthy Arizona. Again not all doctors are
qualified specialists who have completed some required fellowship training to take on ALL aspects of
healthcare. As required by law in Chapter 17 Tile 32-1800 Sec 21. I did find the section on the video
cameras amusing, and the location of the hand washing stations. I was thinking… isn’t that planning and
zoning and who ever deals with building permits. And one issue I couldn’t understand was the part that
says if you’re applying for a caregiver card, dispensary agent, and on behalf a child who is under 18 that
they have to signed statement that says they do not currently hold a valid registry identification card, so
these people can’t be patients as well??? This is just a way for the ADHS to take a more intrusive step
into our states MMJ law. I’ve also seen a few statements from some people, and organizations saying
that the ADHS did a good job. And that really completely blows my mind. Did they really read all 47
pages of the ADHS proposed rules? They have taken a law that was just over 30 pages and turned a set
of proposed rules into 47 pages of things they want. In a state that has a billion dollar deficit, does the
health department really think they should help waste more taxpayer money the state doesn’t have? I
can already see claims being filed against the ADHS on all aspects of departments proposed rules
This 25 mile rule to obtain registered qualifying patient cultivation authorization that was obscurely
incorporated into the Prop 203 language has not been specifically addressed. Aside from the fact that
this legislation is discriminatory against us city dwellers, e.g. I live in Tucson and have to pay out of
pocket for my medical marijuana, yet Billy Bob who lives in Klondyke will be allowed to grow his own at
minimal costs, people are currently misinformed and were so before the election. The common believe
is that registered qualified users will be allowed to cultivate up to twelve plants (sex undefined) for
personal use. People will ultimately be arrested because of the lack of clarity (25 mile qualifying rule)
when a simple, straight-forward statement could be incorporated into the rules thereby potentially
avoiding arrest arising from obscure language. The best approach would be to eliminate this
discrimination which I feel confident will be changed after being brought before the judiciary. But for the
present, I suppose we are stuck with the intentional foolery. Let's not promulgate this misconception but
make the legislation perfectly clear to all in the rules.
Not allowing the growing of any marijuana by individuals just because they live 25 miles from a
dispensary. Not allowing the growing of marijuana within residential zones either by individuals or by
companies or dispensing authorities. Change the time frame for inspections and investigations to
immediate access while open or the dipensary is occupied by an employee or employees. Inspections
to be done when the authority desires and no 5 day warning to be given. Violations of any of the rules
or laws would require immediate closure of the site dispensing and the suspension of any licenses used
by either individual or corporation. Means of appeal would be through the legal system in a criminal
court. Force the corporationa and its owners or employees to either stand criminal trial or revoke the
license forever. Not allowing federal, state or local tax money to pay for the marijuana, unless it is the
medical marijuana derivative , THC, that the federal government allows prescribed now. Include a
statute that states if at anytime the federal government refuses to fund any program paid for by federal
taxes, grants or benefits, the law will be stricken from the books. Ensure no ACCHS or other state
funded taxes are used to pay for the purchase of any marijuana. Not allow the individual growing or
dispensing to do so in a residential zone.
I have a chronic disease, hepititus c. I do not have a primary, or any doctor I see on a regular basis
because I can not afford the office visits nor treatment. So I self medicate with marijuana and it
enables me to continue to function with the pain and other effects of my disease. I do not think that a
requirement for medical marijuana should be an "established, year long relationship with a doctor" is a
good rule. Simply because of the cost of health services. People need this type of pain managment
now! Not a year latter after costly doctor visits! Again, people like me can not afford regular doctor
visits, tests, etc. No matter how many regulations are drafted any program for pain management will
have a degree of abuse associated with it, furthermore to try and tottaly contain abuse is impossible.
The DHS would have to re-regulate pharmacutical prescriptions and include the same regulations for
pain management. Again, the people need the drug now, not a year down the road and $1000.00
dollars latter just to say a doctor has been seeing a patient. After all this program is state law and was
designed for the people that voted it in and lets not forget the introduction of this new industry is a
money maker for the state. So in conclusion, either re-regulate "all" pain management programs that
are available, or make obtaining a medical marijuana prescription more doable for the sake of those
seeking it! I do not know of any doctor that requires a year long x number of office visits before he will
prescribe pain medication. This conception of regulation is absurd. sincerly, Joe Bradford
I think the patient Dr. Relationship is going to make it difficult to provide Medical Marijuana to many
people that may need it. I spoke with an administrator in health care recently, and they said that In AZ
approximately 70% of people who have a primary car physician don't know who that physician is. The
way that health care is structured now makes it nearly impossible to have a personal relationship with
your physician anyway. If you see a Dr. For more than 10 minutes when you go in, that is a long
appointment. So many people are turning to urgent cares as a way to get seen quickly since it can be
many months for some to get in to see their Dr. Since the relationship is so distant, often a quick
prescription with side effects worse than the disease is given with little or no follow up. I saw someone
quit taking methotrexate and enbral because they felt worse with those than they did with the
rheumatoid arthritis they were treating. Medical marijuana has been shown in some studies to reduce
inflammation in R.A. Also, by enforcing the patient Dr. Relationship, you will eliminate access to Medical
Marijuana to people who may not have needed it last week when they were healthy and had just been
going in to the Dr. for a once a year checkup, but was just diagnosed with cancer and given less than a
year to live. There are many people out there, myself included,, that know the benefits of Medical
Marijuana first hand, have seen it help with many health problems but will be denied access because we
avoid going to the Dr. Because we don't want chemical prescriptions and their side effects, we don't
want to wait for 3-6 months for an appointment, we don't want to spend the money on overpriced
healthcare, and for some, have not found a Dr. That we like enough to make our way back for another
appointment...My last 3 Drs have lost their practice due to financial difficulty from malpractice insurance,
office expenses, and foreclosures. It's hard to maintain a relationship with them when they no longer
practice in my area. I could go see another Dr, and have them look over my medical records, although
I doubt those exist since the drs I have seen are no longer around. I asked my most recent dr about it,
and he said many don't keep records for very long anyway. A side note. I spend a fair amount of time
in many parts of CA, and I have yet to see a dispensary, or any evidence that there is a problem with
the program here. I have read a lot about the problems, but have not seen them first hand. I don't
think that AZ is going to have any problems adapting a solid program that is beneficial to all of the
parties involved. Thank you for your work on this.
I think these rules need to be simplified , these rules are not in the spirit of prop 203 . a person can
walk into a dentist and get prescriptions for extremely powerful and addictive opiates , for things as
simple as a tooth abstraction .but it would take a verry long and elabrate process for a cancer patient
going threw chemo to get the medicine they need and that medicine is proven to be substantially less
addictive and dangerous then the opiates they will be prescribed other wise ? i understand that people
are going to try to abuse this drug for recreational use but that happens with most prescription and non
prescription drugs, I think ths recomendation process should be simplified for the patient and the
doctor these regulations seem to be disigned to intimidate both ,treating seriusly ill patience and the
doctors treating tem as criminals . The rules around the dispensarys would require much more
security then is currently required for a fully functional pharmacy. this is medicine all i would suggest is
treat it similiarly I understand why you would want all the security around a dispensary and grow
facility but isnt it going to make them tempting targets regardless of the security by isolateing them so
far from major traffic flows ?
The one year doctor patient relationship, with 4 visits before the doctor is allowed to recommend
medical Cannabis is putting too great of a burden on doctors that specialize in treating medical
conditions with Cannabis. It is a specialty medical field, since the majority of doctors are not willing to
risk their career/reputation to help patients that can benefit from Medical Cannabis. Doctors that
specialize in recommending Cannabis, won't take on patients as the primary doctor. This will let
people like me, that have already quit taking narcotic pain pills, and switched to eating Cannabis,
continue to risk felony arrest, even though the voters of Arizona have made it clear that the local
government needs to stop arresting patients that use Cannabis to treat genuine, serious medical
problems. The definition of a "secure enclosure" is going way too far. I can understand needing a
fence, and lock. or even an alarm... But 12 foot tall walls? 1 inch thick steel door? 1/4 inch thick wire
across the top? I call that steel rod, not wire. Can you imagine an individual that wants to try growing a
couple of outdoor plants in a 4 foot, by 8 foot plot, putting a 12 foot tall wall around it?
I THINK INSTEAD OF A MEDICAL DIRECTOR AT EACH LOCATION, FIRST I THINK THAT NOT ONLY A
PICTURE OF THE PERSON BUT HIS OR HER RIGHT INDEX FINGER PRINT SHOULD BE ON THE MMIC,
(MEDICAL MARIJUANA IDENTIFICATION CARD) AND EACH DISPENSARY SHOULD BE EQUIPPED WITH
A FINGERPRINT SCANNER ($100-$2000) AND A WEB CAM ($25-500) SO WHEN JOHN Q. PUBLIC BUYS
HIS OR HER MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM THE DISPENSARY, THE SALES PERSON CAN BE 100% SURE
THAT THIS PERSON IS WHO IS ISSUED THE MMIC (MEDICAL MARIJUANA IDENTIFICATION CARD)
AND AZDHS WOULD HAVE A SOLID RECORD OF THE SALES AND THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT THIS
PERSON COULDN'T GO ACROSS TOWN AND GET MORE FROM ANOTHER DISPENSARY. BECAUSE WE
ALL KNOW THAT IDENTIFICATION CAN BE FORGED, BUT FOR THIS TO WORK THE DISPENSARY'S WE
HAVE TO BE TIED INTO A CENTRAL DATABASE (SERVER) AT THE AZDHS. AZDHS WOULD HAVE ON
RECORD ALREADY A PICTURE AND A RIGHT INDEX FINGERPRINT OF THE PERSON HOLDING THAT
CARD, AND A RECORD OF SALES SO IF A CARD HOLDER TRIED TO DOUBLE DIP, WE OR THEY COULD
SAY SORRY BUT YOU HAVE 3DAYS UNTILL YOU CAN REFILL YOUR PRESCRIPTION, MAYBE YOU
BETTER CUT BACK A LITTLE MR. JOHN Q. PUBLIC. THAT IS WHAT WE PLAN ON DOING ANYHOW IF
WE ARE GRANTED TO OPEN A DISPENSARY UP. ALSO ANOTHER IDEA I HAD WAS TO HAVE A
SECURITY CAMERA THAT COULD ZOOM IN ON THE PLATE OF THE VEHICLE THAT WAS USED TO
TRANSFER THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA. THE PROCESS SOUNDS LIKE A LOT BUT ITS A WAY TO COVER
OUR LIABILITY AND THE AZDHS! THE PROCESS ONCE A PERSON DONE IT A COUPLE OF TIMES IT
WOULD TAKE 3-5 MINS EVEN QUICKER! IF A CARD HOLDER NEEDS QUESTIONS ASKED THEY CAN
CALL A PHARMACISTS OR THEIR DR. LETS FACE IT MARIJUANA WHEN SMOKED YOU KNOW WHEN
YOU HAD ENOUGH INSTANTLY! YES I'VE SMOKED IT BEFORE I'M NOT GOING TO LIE, I HATE IT NOW
WHEN I WAS YOUNGER IT WAS OK. I SMOKED IT WITH MY MOTHER THAT DIED FROM CANCER WE
WOULD SIT ON THE BACK PORCH AND LIGHT UP AND IT INSTANTLY MADE HER FEEL 1000% BETTER!
SHE NEVER USED ANY KIND OF DRUG BEFORE THAT! THE HYDRO WEED WAS A LITTLE STRONG FOR
HER SO JUST A COUPLE OF PUFFS AND SHE WAS GOOD, NOW MY SISTER BROUGHT OVER SOME
MEXICAN WEED AND IT TOOK MORE OF THAT! WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE NEXT IDEA I HAD
SOMEONE FROM AZDHS SHOULD TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND SEE IF IT WOULD BE
POSSIBLE FOR THEM THROUGH AZDHS TO SELL THE CONFISCATED MARIJUANA (AFTER THE COURT
PROCESS WAS OVER OF COARSE) TO THE DISPENSARY LETS FACE IT IT WOULD BE FOOD FOR THE
POLICE,AZDHS,THE DISPENSARY, AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL JOHN Q. PUBLIC! AZDHS COULD
HAVE THE MARIJUANA TESTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS OK. BECAUSE LIKE MY MOM THE HYDRO
WEED IS GOING TO BE TOO STRONG FOR SOME! THAT"S WHY THE MAKE DIFFERENT MILLIGRAM
PILLS RIGHT? I SEE YOUR POINT A LITTLE WITH THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR BUT LETS FACE HOW
LONG WILL IT TAKE FOR SOME TO OFFER THEM A LITTLE MORE MONEY TO TURN THEIR BACK ONCE
IN A WHILE. MY SYSTEM WOULD BE ROCK SOLID ON WHAT IS BEING SOLD OUT THE FRONT DOOR,
AND AS FAR AS WHATS COMING IN THE BACK DOOR WE WOULD NEED A PERSON SUCH AS MYSELF
TO GO AROUND TO THE GROWING FACILITY AND FIGURE THE CROPS TOTAL END WEIGHT! (DRIED)
NOW REMEMBER THAT THE BUD WILL BE SOLD AS BUD RIGHT BUT ALL THE SWEET LEAF STEMS
ECT. CAN BE COOKED DOWN TO PRODUCTS LIKE HONEY OIL (HASH OIL) OR HASH! I'M GOING TO
READ THE RULES AGAIN AND E.MAIL YOU AGAIN. I KNOW YOU PEOPLE HAVE A TUFF JOB WITH THIS
NEW LAW, AND THANK YOU! IF YOU NEED ANY CONSULTANTS OR A PERSON THAT COULD OVERSEE
THE DISPENSARY'S LET ME KNOW! ONE THING I'LL LET YOU KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THESE PEOPLE
ARE LIKE NO OTHERS YOU'VE EVER DELT WITH THEY WILL MANIPULATE, LIE AND A FEW OTHER
THINGS. LETS HOPE NOT SINCERELY PS. YOU GUYS
COULD PUT A SPELL CHECK ON THIS!
I think that they're should be a difference in the amount of cannabis a patient can have depending on
how serious their medical condition is. More serious diseases such as AIDS and cancer should be able to
posses up to 2.5 ounces while less serious conditions should only be able to posses 1 ounce because
patients should medicate accordingly to their condition.
The regulations regarding outdoor cultivation prevent single patients from maintaining a small outdoor
grow of their allowable crop. Most patients can not afford expensive indoor lighting and growing
operations. The requirement of 12 feet of stone/block fencing is burdensome and prohibits any
'backyard' grows in locked chainlink enclosures. The Department should allow grows of a maximum of
12 plants with special conditions (single patient or single caregiver) to allow them to be cultivated in an
enclosed chain link "box." Simply eliminating the 12 ft stone wall requirement for these people allows
them to cultivate outside with an affordable chainlink enclosure that prevents theft effectively. Any
grows over 12 plants can still require the large stone fence.
This is an almost impossible task givin the 99 plant rule. We need to find either a better percentage
reates or more plants that are going to be able to be cultivated.
nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $5,000; --- I don't believe that Prop 203
should be used as a money making opportunity to discourage and/or discriminate any eligible 'LEGAL
ENTITY' formed by an individual and/or group of one or more persons to submit a business
plan/application to the Department to request approval to operate a AZ Non-Profit Medical Marijuana
Dispensary. The language of 'nonrefundable fees' is extreme in this category and takes advantage of
Prop 203 in my personal opinion. --- R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an application to the
Department shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: 5. For a registry identification card for a:
a. Qualifying patient; $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200; and --- Again, the language of
'nonrefundable fees' is extreme and takes advantage of Prop 203 in my opinion. As a Qualifying Patient
myself with a desire to also be a Designated Caregiver living on SSD and tight budget. I believe these
Fees to be extremely high for most individuals already dealing with health and financial issues, let alone
the high cost of accessing Medical Marijuana once approved. Please keep these issues in mind in your
final draft. A Qualifying Patient or Designated Caregiver shouldn't have to incur these costs if for some
reason being turned down. Prop 203 should reflect affordable access to all of us individuals who choose
Medical Marijuana for a personal preference healthcare alternative. --- R9-17-102. Fees An applicant
renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200;
and --- The same applies to the costs of renewing a registry ID cards. ---
Making it easier for those of who truly do suffer from chronic pain to obtain the marijuana.
As a general principle, I would like to propose that no regulation affecting medical cannabis should be
more burdensome to the prescribing physician, dispensary, or patient or than those currently affecting
prescription of narcotic drugs. The fact is that cannabis is, at the very worst, no more addicting than
opioid narcotics, has no greater potential for abuse, and is certainly less dangerous in terms of acute
adverse affects (to my knowledge, no one has ever died from an overdose of cannabis). Therefore, any
regulation of medical prescribing and dispensing of cannabis that is more restrictive or burdensome than
those for narcotic analgesics must be construed as needlessly obstructive of optimal medical care. Once
the state has accepted that cannabis and its derivatives have a legitimate role in management of
medical conditions, there can be no reasonable justification for regulations above and beyond those
currently in force for narcotic analgesics. By my reading, numerous proposed regulations in the 12/17
draft go well beyond accepted, prudent regulation of narcotic drugs, suggesting that they are based on
irrational prejudice against what is, after all, just another medication with potential for both benefit and
harm. I therefore strongly recommend that the state dispassionately re-evaluate and streamline the
proposed regulations, guided by the above-stated concept.
The first thing and the biggest and only problem is how can you expect current physicians to just
approve you for medical marijuana. first off most all the MD's wont risk their license on new drug that
they know nothing about medically. And if you find a doctor you have had for more then a year just
asking him he declines and now he has a different opinion of you and your family. And why would a
doctor prescribe you a medication that will take the place of my sleeping pills, my pain pills, my anxiety
pills and migraine pills, and my nausea for cancer treatment which i have stage 3 cancer. Why would
any current established Dr even prescribe MM if it will keep you out of their office once a month because
the MM has cured all my ailments. Then that Dr just lost a patient that usually sees him once a month
for refills and now doesn't need the pills anymore just the MM. So why would you think theses current
MD's will take a chance with a medicine they don't know about and why would they give you a
recommendation so they lose you as a patient . They cant charge your ins companies if you don't need
all them pills which i would if i had pot. And my oncologist already said he is not recommending MM to
his patients and 90% of all doctors will do the same thing that's whats not fair. I have cancer and i get
90% relief when smoking so this you have to know your doctor a year before he can recommend has to
change. The doctors that are coming in az opening up offices will be the only ones that will prescribe it.
I think you should be able to go to one of the new offices and see a Dr and you have to bring medical
records that prove you have been with at least one Dr a year and he did treat you for the condition your
seeking MM for. Humble did say if you didn't get a recommendation from your Dr (most wont) if you
have cancer and going through chemo then you should be able to go to any Dr that believes in MM and
he can examine and look at medical history and be able to recommend you for MM regardless of what
Dr you have been with. No doctors in Az that are established will recommend MM to their patients why
would they put their practice on the line to basically lose a CUSTOMER from their practice. Just make
sure the Dr that will approve you have to be held to standards of reviewing medical history and that
history will prove that the patient can benefit from MM. This rule has to change if you have a medical
history of chronic pain herniated disk and a long time addiction to pain pills because of it and now you
get cancer, a patient should be able to go to any doctor that supports it and if you have a medical
history that would prove you would get medical benefits then the law should be you can see any doctor
but if its a new doctor not your pcp then you must have medical history and perscrption history to show
the new doctor your medical history will support the MM use. If they come in with no records and no
cancer or chronic pain that you have had say an MRI on in last year and were treated for chronic pain
by a doctor then you should be able to go to another DR who will approve recommendation based on
medical history. If its a new patient and no history with MRI or haven not been treated by a doctor for
condition in last year then that patient should not even be examined and the Dr should be able to prove
each patient with medical records with out a doubt would benefit from MM then it should be ok for
anyone to go to a new Dr but they need to have a minimum amount of medical records that are serious
conditions then the patient should not have to worry about what dr he goes to to get a
recommendation. Just hold the Doctors responsible for collecting records and making a professional
opinion, we get second opinions all the time what would be the difference in this going to a new
Dr.Meanwhile anybody can go see a new Dr tomorrow and get percocet a class 2 narcotic in 30 min with
no previous medical history and they are physically addictive and Marijuana is not. I understand we
don't want it to be like Cali but hold the Dr responsible for their recommendation don't make a patient in
need go beg their physician all they should have to do is have their medical records sent to new Dr and
based on them records any Dr can make a recommendation based on the medical history it happens
everyday or put a sub section in the rules that if a patient with cancer is currently under treatment of
chemo or radiation should be able to go to any Dr with medical records of course but should be fast
tracked to get their cards first . something, but you have to change the patient doctor relationship they
even have telemeds where u see a Dr on a tv and he can prescribe you a schedule 2 drug and narcotics
just by seeing you then mailing the RX to you. So why should someone just to get a plant that causes
no overdoses you want them to see a dr for a year . most dont even keep the same Dr as it is because
they dont medicate them right so they leave to another so how can you expect a current Dr to approve
MM for you when they are western medicine doctors not Homeopathic or alternative medication Dr so
why ask a patient in need to ask a western medicine Dr that will oppose the MM .This is alternative
medication its not FDA regulated Doctors wont even approve 2000 applications if you have to count on
PCP of the people have that have a year relationships with their Dr. It has to be changed to see any
doctor but serious medical history needs to be available to new Dr and the Dr should be held
responsible for approving any form it will ruin it for someone with cancer like me. and after my chemo in
April you still have up to 2 years of side affects with radiation and chemo. And herniated disk should also
be at top of the list with cancer chronic back pain an MRI report doesn't lie as long as you have MRI
report saying you have nerve damage and 2 herniated disk and you have gotten addicted to pain MEDS
because of the pain this should be plenty of medical history after 3 years of back problems this
applications should be able to be stamped by any doctor as long as the new Dr sees all medical records
and reports and does own exam on patient make it hard on Dr to make sure he approves only patients
with overwhelming medical evidence it should be up to that Dr make them accountable rather then
making patients beg their current Dr who is against it that would not be fair to patients its not patients
fault dying of cancer me that my oncologist wont recommend MM why it helps me so you mean im
screwed i cant get a second opinion , you can with everything else. Look at this part of draft it wont be
fare to patients and the state should no that current doctors are not in favor of changing anything in
their practice so if you keep current rule you may get 5 applications. Let us see any dr we want to and
hold them accountable for approving or not don't put on the patient to fail because your afraid a few
might get a card that dont deserve it. The black market will still exist so should losen up the
requirement a little bit on doctor patient relationship most of us haven't met the dr who will recommend
our MM yet trust me, maybe in a few years other dr will start to do it but theres nothing in it for them
except to them a law suit. Current Az doctors will not recommend MM
The amount the state is requesting as a fee is alot. Also i did not see anything about the amount of
taxes that would need to be paid to the state and the schedule. Is the Arizona Department of Revenue
going to colaborate with you on this?
The rules on a ongoing relationship with a doctor is a bit to strict. I have been going to a neurologist
for chronic pain for over 11 years now, so this would not be a problem unless my doctor will not
recommend medical marijuana. If my doctor will not recommend marijuana, I will have to hunt down
another doctor who will. I don't know if medical marijuana will help my pain, but I am willing to try it. I
have been on many different pain medications for my leg pain and nothing has helped. I am on
methadone and have been on it for over 10 years now, I would love to be off it, so marijuana as I have
heard will help my pain. I probably would have tried it long ago if it was available. So in closing please
do not make me wait an extra year to get relief from my excruciating pain! I can not walk around a
grocery store without being in so much pain, that I would have to go back home and lye in bed for the
rest of the day, take all of my medication and still be in so much pain. I am 50 now, and my quality of
life would be like someone in their mid 90s I don't want to live this way, so I am praying that the
medical marijuana will help me. So as I stated earlier PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME WAIT ANY LONGER!!!
Thank you.
There needs to be better clarification of the food establishment requirements. It states that a licensed
facility may be contracted with to produce the Infused Food Product but no additional information as to
the handling of the Medical Marijuana at the licensed food establishment. Assuming that it is a
restaurant, commercial kitchen etc; 1) Can it continue to serve / make / manufacture non Medical
Marijuana food product? 2) If a restaurant produces this will it preclude any but a Licensed Dispensary
Agent from entering the buidling? 3) What security must be in place if a licensed kitchen receives
Medical Marijuana for the production of an Infused Food Product? I see no propsed amendments are
clarifications to Title 9, Chapter 8, Article 1 to accommodate this activity?
Seems that the folks who make these rules just don't get the message about people who really need
this product. Many people who need this medical marijuana are on medicare, retiree, and on a FIXED
INCOME and really cannot afford the $150 annual fee for relief of their chronic pain. It is actually
cheaper to just stay illegal and buy the product on the street than jump through all the hoops that "legal
medical marijuana" laws impose on limited income folks. People are going to use it at home anyway, so
risk of being arrested are negligible. What heartless police officer would drag a 65 year old man in a
wheelchair off to jail for possession of a joint? Can't the powers that be come up with a reasonable
fee and reasonable renewel fee? Thanks!
$150 for a card is very high. should offer some kind of lower prices for vets,disabled patients and
seniors all on fixed incomes.maybe $75 for people on social security. i wish it was half this hard to get
pain pills! the county is not doing anything that i read about patients who cant afford the high prices
non profit dispensaries will charge. the county should not let private owners own them and keep all
state ran then itll truely be non profit.
Electronic data base and back up needs to be controlled, Does the dispensary have to be HIPPA
compliant, if so how is that maintained? Who at the Department of Health has access to the records of
the Dispensary? Is this shared with the DEA? Assurance must be given that there are no infants or
children on site where the drug will be used. There should be a HEPA filter system at the site of use if
children will be visiting the site. Second hand smoke and residual should be controlled. Does this carry
into real estate disclosure if a house is sold does one have to disclose that there is contamination in the
building, walls, carpet etc? It should be stated that ONLY licensed physicians in this State can Rx the
med, not doctors in other States, or nurses, or physician assistants. I am surprised that this isn't
dispensed through a licensed pharmacy which already has controls in place. Why not eliminate the
dispensary and use only a pharmacy?? I think there should be mandated malpractice insurance carried
by the dispensary to protect the quality given to patients, in light of recent Ecoli and salmonella
outbreaks. If this is a medication it should be handled like one and not like the produce department of
the store.. Dispensary personnel should have a DEA background check, and maybe even have drug
testing....
Improvement- the cost of card holder fees, they are extremely high especially for people like me who
suffers from extreme dibilating pain, from various diseases and disorders. Especially on limited incomes.
Also the fee levels for basic caregivers. I have approached several caregivers but when the fee is
brought up they decline the help do to the amount of fees.
if the rules require that a person must have more than 6 months and or 4 visits to qualify as a
relationship with the recommending doctor this would make it almost impossible for persons on social
security/disability to be able to afford this even if their current doctors have no problem with the use of
medical marijuana but do not want to be the doctor to give the recommendation. this will in many
circumstances make it impossible for them to afford yet another doctors costs possible and or delay the
benefit of medical marijuana. with proof of disability and or treatment for at least 6 to 12 months from
your current doctor or doctors and or a medical exam from the recommending doctor that should be
more than enough. I am currently under the treatment of my PCP for many conditions, a pain doctor for
pain medication and a clinical and health psychologist to be able to deal with my conditions and the
effects of my medications. I take at least 40 pills daily and 2 injections per month. this includes 285 mg
of morphine daily. I can hardly pay for my doctors fees and medications as it is. If they do not have
issues with the use of medical marijuana but do not for their own reasons want to be the doctor to give
the recommendation I will never be able to afford the medical marijuana for constant muscle spasms,
nausea that has caused continued weight loss and not being able to sleep for more than 3 to 4 hours a
day with the use of medications over the counter and RX.
A Dr. on call for a dispensary is absurd. This will only result in higher end use costs in obtaining medical
marijuana for the patient. I believe this will result in patients securing marijuana through the black
market as they currently do as it will be cheaper to secure illegally. please make it inexpensive for the
patients who are typically poor because of the costs resulting in their illnesses.
SEE ABOVE
do not charge any money for the medical marijuana card, or have an exemption of payment for people
with a disability, on a fixed income, people 55, or older, do not require said people to see thier doctor 4
times a year, because we cannot afford this, and do not charge nonprofit dispenceries any money to set
up shop. etc.
I believe the fee portion of the rules is too high. I understand the purpose of the fees are to cover the
administrative overhead to manage the program. Based on other states and the number of patients, it
seems like a realistic estimate to say there will be 200,000-250,000 patients at least in the state. Just
for the patient registrations that will be a sum of $30 - $37.5 million. That isn't including any designated
caregivers. And since the registrations are valid for a year, that is how much the state will take in
annually. I would like to see those fees be a much more reasonable level. A drivers license in this state
costs at MOST $25. And it doesn't have to be renewed every year. I think a fee of $25 would be much
more appropriate and a renewal of $10, since less work will have to be done by the state for a renewal.
The fees as they are in the draft will be a burdon to ill people in this state. A lot of them already do not
work or work on a limited basis. Fees being that high can really cause a financial strain on them.
seeing a dr 4x in a year is to easy , should be 2 years with the same dr 8x , and see a goverment hired
dr to check you out with their own tests and compare notes with original dr , ( when you tried to get
disability they make you see a specialist besides your own dr ) you will have to try other treatments
before going on pot not smoke in public not smoke then drive since it will effect your driving not
smoke while at work since it will effect your judgement not smoke in front of others , which will give
them a contact high not smoke in front or near childeren which will give them the wrong message OR
REJECT THIS STUPID LAW THAT WAS PASSED BY POT HEADS LIBS , IF THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT
SAYS POT IS A SEQUENCE 1 DRUG THEN THATS IT , UNTIL THERE IS MORE TESTS TO SHOW THAT IT
HELPS THEN OK , BUT SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB IE. ILLIGAL
IMMAGRATION, AND POT HEADS IN CALIFORNIA , AND NOW HERE , OUR COUNTRY IS SURELY GOING
TO POT
Certified Nurse Practitioners in Arizona can function independently. In fact, many of us have our own
medical clinics. As independent medical providers, we need to be able to certify our qualified patients
for medicinal marijuana cards. Even if we were to have the patient seen/evaluated by a physician, there
still wouldn't be the 1 year "physician-patient" relationship as required in the draft rules. The
relationship with our patients is "provider-patient', not "physician-patient". We have seen our patients
many times and know them well.
I am taking classes towards Social Worker degree and it is important for me to try to get into the
business of opening a dispensary and also try to offer rehabilitation to the patients that are not
terminally ill and help them at the same time. I dont know if that is a good idea. What do you think?
"Enclosed" means: a. A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet; or b. An area
metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area that is: I can understand the security issues in
the city. Although A one inch thick metal gate ( are you talking solid steel)? I myself do not believe you
need to build fort knox with twelve foot solid walls for a rural, private property land area. A secure
electric chain-link fence with a top, cameras and alarm system With siding so nothing would be visable
would be sufficent.
Consider allowing a Doctor of Pharmacy to be a medical director also. A Doctor of pharmacy has more
pharmacological background, and is very proficient at counseling and monitoring a patient's drug use.
As an AZ entrepreneur medically qualified to obtain a doctor recommendation + patient cardholder +

caregiver registry ID cards + dispensary registration certificates. I can't find a reasonable answer to pre-
invest into the location of a dispensary + cultivation site without the knowledge and/or guarantee that
this investment is sound business management. The costs for me to secure these locations are
substantial and makes no sense that I gamble the risk of securing these necessary investments without
the knowledge of being able to proceed in directing a successful AZ Non-Profit Medical Marijuana
Dispensary. --- Refer to text in (BOLD): R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate
B. To register and obtain a certificate for a dispensary, a person shall submit to the Department the
following: 1. An application in a Department-provided format that includes: --- b. The physical address
of the dispensary; (BOLD) --- Please disregard if the section below already addresses this concern, if
so, the language above is very vague: --- R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration
Certificate k. If the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site are not ready for an
inspection by the Department, the date the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site
will be ready for an inspection by the Department; --- I believe the language similar to my comments
below are necessary to be fair and reasonable:
There is no mention of the selection process for Dispensary Licenses. This should be spelled out very
accurately and adhered to striclty in order to prevent ongoing lawsuits about preferential treatment and
insider trading.
I think it is verty unreasonable that a patient needs an extensive history with a physician to get a patient
card. A Dr. is plenty qualified to determine if a person will benefit whether they have been a patient for
years or not. They manage to prescribe oxycontin and the likes, so what gives? Also people with sleep
problems could highly benefit from medical marijauna also.It should be on the list of medical conditions.
Not everyone wants to take lab created medicines with aweful side effects to sleep. Not to mention the
adictive characteristics. Come on guys, if you trying this hard to keep out of recreational users hands,
than do the same for the hidious man made drugs that are prescribed by thousands every day. It's
easier these days to score pills on the street than pot!
There is an expectation that dispensary owners will have to provide 70% of their own Medical MJ.
That places an unfair burden on persons who may not be able to cultivate SAFE medical grade
marijuana. It may also create partnerships between dispensary owners and cultivators, which could
lead to business problems, which in turn could create more work for your office. R9-17-302. 1. h. If
applicable, the physical address of the dispensary's cultivation site; If you are requiring people to
provide 70% of the own MJ for their dispensary’s, it will always be applicable. Cities are not allowing
dispensary’s and cultivation sites to be in the same zoning areas of a city. The ability to apply for a
cultivation license would create more small business opportunities for the state of AZ, which as we know
is in desparate need of more tax income. A small business which can focus on what they do best, grow
safe medicinal grade marijuana.
Naturopathic physicians need to be included in the draft as medical directors of dispensaries.

Naturopathic physicians are licensed in the state of Arizona and should be included in this law as
medical directors for medical marijuana dispensaries.
I do not believe that a person should have to wait up to one year with their current Primary Care
Physician to be eligible for a MMJ recomendation. I do believe that there should be tougher
requirements than in California where they have Dr's that only work at giving recommendations, but, I
do not believe it to be in the interest of the State or Governement to tell Doctors and Patients what
qualifies as a patient doctor relationship. I agree with the language that the qualifying patient should be
seeing that Dr periodically to assess the efficacy of MMJ to that individual patient. The reason I I do
not agree with the stipulations posted here are that if someone moves here from another state and is in
a horrible accident or gets a horrible disease such as cancer that, that person should have to wait up to
a year before they are eligible for this treatment seems cruel and unusuall punishment. There is a big
difference between making sure that patients that really need this medicine get it and keeping it
unaccessable for a lot of people. Some people do not like to go to the Doctor all the time, and no
Government agency should be able to tell a Doctor how long they have to see a patient before they can
recommend certain treatmend protocols. I believe that keeping these provisions in the rules wil only
lead to a lot of pain for a lot of people who could really benefit from MMJ treatment. I am an US
Army Vetran. ASU alumni, and am married to a High School teacher. I hope you re-consider these
provisons, and edit them to be realistically implemented, and find a middle ground bewtween being
unaccessable and going to a in house Doctor and getting a recommendation on demand as in California.
I believe that these requirments are unrealistic and will discourage a large percantage of people who
need relief of their conditions and want to do it legally.
first off i just started reading the rules and will respond to more as i go, but the term "Enclosed" this
rule is ludicrous. lets be real here it is a know fact the Marijuana has never killed anyone but Liquor has
why would you have a fortress to secure the Grow. How many Grocery Stores or Liquor Stores have to
secure the liquor to this degree? the answer NONE. are you just trying to make the cost of a grow
beyond normal sense? this rule needs to be changed. the Act states Enclosed Locked Facility, means a
closet, room, greenhouse or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices. i own a
restaurant with a full bar we have a Liquor room with a door lock , a walk-in cooler with a door lock. the
whole restaurant at the end of the day is secured with a door lock just like all business. we have a
camera system and a monitoring service to secure the restaurant. this rule is complete over kill and
unreasonable.
(R9-17-302 subsection B. 15. a.) In the draft it speaks to having an on site or on call pharmacist. This is
an area that needs better interpritation at the least. It is my understanding that a pharmacist is licensed
to fill perscriptions submitted by doctors, since there are no "perscriptions" only "recomendations" what
if anything is the roll of a pharmacist. It would seem to me that the medical director roll covers the
education and use aspect of the operation so I am having a hard time understanding what possible roll
a pharmacist could have. There is no other mention of a pharmacist in the rules other than in the initial
application of a dispensary section. I feel this definately should be romved. I am all for regulation and
close monitoring but I am not for adding an un-needed financial burdon on the dispensaries. The
medical director should suffice. (R9-17-313 subsection 3 a) about cultivation, the dispensary is
required to document the date a seed is planted and a watering schedule, in most cases the dispensary
will be using clones which have been clipped from a mother plant in a vegitative state to ensure a
feminised product. there are no seeds involved. Also, what is the point of knowing the watering shedule.
it seems like busy work rather than a viable meens of measuring anything.
help keep costs down...these people are poor
Allow Home delivery
I am encouraging all fellow doctors and the wider medical community to oppose your new rules. I am
concerned with your definition of "physician patient relationship", forcing a patient to change their
primary care doctor if their current doctor does not want to participate in the program. And also then to
wait a year to receive treatment....... This redefining of PPR would set a very troubling precedent for all
doctor patient relationships in the medical community. I believe that your are far exceeding your
authority in this rewrite of PPR, and that these changes are in opposition to HIPPA laws and patient's
rights. Patients must have the freedom to choose their doctors as they see fit..... Please drop this
language altogether. You will be spending countless taxpayers' dollars to defend in court these
indefensible intrusions on the Physician Patient Relationship.
At first glance, it looks like clinic medical directors must be MDs or DOs. While chiropractors and
homeopaths should likely stay out of the mix, Naturopathic Physicians have an educational background,
experience and professional mission well-suited to such service. While the regs seem to allow for
"non-public" consumption at care facilities and private clubs, it might be helpful to further define "public
area" in 18c as not including designated areas of dedicated, established 55+ communities. It would be
helpful to address whether using a non-combusting vaporizer is considered smoking in public, as the
initiative differentiates between "possessing and engaging in the medical use of" marijuana (e.g.-banned
on school buses) and actually smoking it (banned in most places not a personal residence or care
facility). A worthwhile distinction, since use of vaporizers allowed the quasi-legal "coffeeshops" in
Vancouver and Amsterdam to continue to permit indoor cannabis consumption despite the recent
enactment of otherwise strict No-Smoking rules. So, defining "smoking" is as important as defining
"public" since the current wording would presumably allow a card-holding patient to use a battery-
powered vaporizer in the park, at a bar or cafe, or while waiting for the bus (unless it was a school bus).
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but remains unaddressed in the ADHS guidelines and could lead to
unnecessary confusion and/or arrest. It might also be helpful to clarify whether hotel/motel rooms
and/or university dorm rooms qualify as private residences, and whether therapeutic cannabis users are
restricted by blanket no-smoking rules which apply to indoor personal living spaces like those in a
residence hall or hotel. For instance, if a hotel has only non-smoking rooms available, under what
circumstance would management be allowed or compelled to provide alternative, "non-public" space for
a guest who arrives with only the non-edible form of cannabis product. Addressing the use of vaporizers
in this context (and other circumstances which might reflect the spirit of federal ADA guidelines) might
again avoid later confusion. Generally, logic suggests that the use of vaporizers (like eating infused
food products) should be less restricted than actual smoking, because it is not. However, routine use of
vaporizers in very public places might violate the intentions of Prop 203, geared to protect the public
from "in your face" consumption. Lastly, due to the overly-strict requirements for outdoor growing
(the far more sustainable alternative to indoors under heavy lights and climate control, often using
chemical fertilizers), the guidelines should make clear that a properly locked greenhouse qualifies as four
walls and a roof.
Include medical marijuana as a part of the prescription rights of other health practitioners such as nurse
practitioners and physician assistants.
More definitions on the Dispensary Medical Director requirements. Specifically whether a Naturopathic
Physician qualifies for this position. The draft rules reference ARS 32-13 only as qualifying and
Naturopaths are licensed in the state under ARS 32-14. They are allowed to be designated physicians to
recommend marijuana to a patient, shouldn't they be able to approve them and oversee a dispensary?
**Location of dispensary~Question~La Paz County is a small population of 20,000 with about 40% FT.
It is part time and resort driven. Town is surrounded by Indian Reservation and town is only 1 sq mile.
Our dispensary location is 1 full block (390') away from a Learning Center owned by Arizona Western
College. It is a satillite college of AWC. Is this considered a school? Due to our very small foorprint of
town property available will there be any room for any type of variences on a case by case if local
County Heath and/or Community Development approve? This Plaza is home to other medical facilities
and would be appropriate in all other areas. **Grow areas~Does the DH "want" the grow area
attached physically to the dispensaries? If not, will there be an additional location fee? Will all
requirements such as security be double (for each site)? **LaPaz County is a very poor county but very
much in need of the services. We have the largest senior population in Arizona. Question~What if no
application for a dispensary is requested for in this County? Also who will set the price for the medicine?
If one Dispensary accepts donations of $X per oz and the next dispensary in a more affluent County
asks for a donation of $XX, how will that be defined? **How many plants can be grown by one grow
facility? **How will the seeds, plants, etc. ONLY be from AZ if it is not yet designated?
There are some people who have been under their Doctor's care for months even years regarding health
related problems, the requirement that a person needs to see their 4 times in one year before that
Doctor can prescribe the marijuana seems a bit rediculous, if their Doctor feels or wants to try the
person on marijuana, that should be totally up to the Doctor. I can understand if it a "new health" issue,
than yes, I agree with the 4 times in 1 year before prescribing.
RD-17-303A ISSUE: In the event an applicant had built a successful dispensary over a period of years
and either became incapacitated or died, his/her family would lose the dispensary's license as the rules
are proposed and be forced to close. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: In very limited circumstances - death
or permanent disability of the applicant (or under whatever circumstances the department deemed
appropriate) - the business should be able to be transferred to another qualified applicant (upon
payment of another fee). There could even be a restriction that the transferee would have to be a family
member, however this would preclude anyone from ever being able to sell their business to another
qualified applicant.
Patient Doctor Relationship. It seems unreasonable to require a one year relationship with a doctor and
four visits for the medical condition. If a patient has cancer and is advised to take chemotherapy
treatments then that patient would have to wait for a year and four doctor visits before being approved
to receive medical marijuana to offset the effects of chemotherapy. In suggested time frame for
approval, most chemotherapy treatments would have expired and the need no longer would justify the
use of medical marijuana. As such, the drafted rule concerning doctor patient relationship is redundant
in some cases. Espeicially those that need more immediate treatment. Don't make a patient that has a
legitimate need wait a year. In addition, any doctor that has merit in their profession will not need four
visits from a patient to determine if the medical marijuana would be beneficial to their patient. As such,
I would suggest that a doctor patient time frame be variable based on the type of medical condition that
is in question. In addition, patients that have been through a prior application process such as Social
Security Disability and that disability falls withing the guidelines for medical marijuana use should not
have to meet new additional doctor patient timelines as proposed in the draft. Many patients that are on
Social Security Disability have already gone through a long process for approval with some decisions
taking as long as five years.
I like most of your recommendations except the 150 dollars for a qualifying patients and renewing
patients because I like many others are on AHCCCS as well as other Federal programs like food stamps,
unemployment, SSI/Disability and many other programs to help us and we have a hard time making
ends meet as it is. There are no other programs intended to help the chronically ill and the dying that
make you pay such high fees please reconsider this cost…and make it more reasonable like $50 dollars
which still will be a hardship for many of us. Thank you Marusa Natal
1. There exists a great need for independent government regulated testing of cannabis. 70% of
incoming product we do a simple visual test on in MI has contamination. According to Ca. and Co. test
labs 65 to 70% of cannabis inspected has pesticides, mold, and other toxic issues. A new gas
chromaticity, mass spectrometry machine can be purchased for $60,000 including operator training. A
fully equiped test lab with the right personnel would run another $140,000.Mobile test labs are an
option. If not mobile probably 5 sites would be needed Yuma, Flagstaff, Tucson, and 2 in Phoenix 2.
Most cannabis is grown to optimize THC and getting high. Growers need to be motivated to optimize
CBD,CBC CONTENT TO IMPROVE MEDICAL EFFICACY. 3.The suggested Doctor patient established one
year relationship is a deal breaker - suggest requiring one year going foward relationship rather than a
retroactive relationship to maintain medical patient qualification.
Requirement to have seen your doctor 4 times the PREVIOUS year.. I'm on Social Security Disability,
my need is legitimate however I believe this rule is to be a stumbling stone, as well as the amount of
money i'll be FORCED to pay to my doctors, and the State it has a chilling effect on my ability to seek
relief and obtain medicine. I will take this to court if necessary it creates an undue burden limiting my
ability to change doctors as I have recently had to due from a move from Maracopa to El-mirage. As
this currently reads I automatically now will NOT qualify under the draft because with only a few days
this year cannot possibly see my new doctor 4 times. So now I have to wait until 2012 to obtain a card?
You can guarantee this language will go to court.
Make it legal to start non profit co-ops, or collectives that allows for people to pool resources to make
medicine better, & less expensive. Also allow & outline how co-ops or collectives can produce infused
edibles in non-commercial facilities so people can consume without having to smoke.
Our only concern about the draft is that it doesn't allow Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to
write recommendations for their patients. Living in a rural community we rely heavily on both FNP's and
PA's for our primary care. My husband, a trigeminal neuralgia patient, and someone who could benefit
from the use of medical marijuana, sees a wonderful FNP here in Flagstaff. In fact, our entire family
goes to this Nurse Practitioner for all our primary care needs. During the last few years, Flagstaff has
lost numerous Primary Care Physicians for a variety of reasons. Many PCP's, our Nurse Practitioner
included, are so busy they are not able to accept any new patients. Flagstaff and other rural
communities could not exist without the dedicated and compassionate care of these health care
professionals. Excluding FNP's and PA's from writing recommendations will negatively impact the quality
of care for many patients. Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Requirements of a medical director (MD, DO) to participate in the licensure and operation of a
dispensary does not appear to be necessary, the majority of which duplicates the scope and intent of a
Pharmacist's practice. This rule/definition appears to require a physician be paid to be on-call to provide
information capable of being delivered by a Pharmacist, while at the same time is unable to create or
maintain a relationship with patients to directly benefit either the dispensary, physician, or the patient.
Additionally, rules appear to be unclear whether a dispensary may cultivate on site, or whether
cultivation must occur away from a dispensary location. Are cultivation/dispensary sites requireing two
registrations, or may be they be incorporated as under one registration?
Specify if the same "enclosed location" for growing, applies to card holders, caregivers & dispensaries. I
do not see how most card holders & caregivers would have the resources to have that type of enclosed
area outside. The cost would be very high & make it out of reach for most. I think the draft rules should
apply to dispensaries since they will have more resources & have such bigger grows. When I read prop
203 I never imagined card holders & caregivers would have to go to such legnths to grow outside. I
think a good tall fence with barbed wire or simliar on top & a good gate with lock would be enough.
Make the fee less for caregivers that serve multiple card holders. Maybe charge $200 for the first
application & $100 for the others, up to the 5 total. That way the cost can be very low for card holders
that need caregivers which should translate into getting medicine @ a lower overall cost.
i pesronally know of several people who could maybe benifit from the medical use of marijuana. i work
with vets ( not in a medical capacity) a few days a week, and most are on a fixed income. it seems to
me, at an estimated cost of 20$ per gram for medical marijuana, many will not be able to see if there is
a use for them. in addition to that, many have no ability to drive 25 or so miles to buy marijuana. i
think a medical marijuana card holder should be able to cultivate a limited number of plants for thier
own use, and maybe surplus being sold or donated to dispenseries. this makes it much more affordable
for fixed income people. thank you,
This is my second comment session. After reading carefully, I now recognize that I will not likely be able
to participate in the program because of your unreasonable physician-patient relationship. Although I
have a qualifying and untreatable debilitating condition, a lifetime disability, my only source of health
care is the Veteran's Administration. For you or me to demand that a VA physician see me four times a
year is not realistic, and those who have not been involved with the veterans' programs may not
understand. You see, I cannot ask to see the doctor four times a year. The doctor on the team at the
time decides when I will next be seen, and then they send me a letter telling you when to schedule.
They are trying to move me out to 8 month intervals. Looking forward to Obama-care? Please, sir, do
not discriminate against veterans. We do not have the luxury of complying with your rules relative to
physician relationship during the years to come. I ask you to reconsider on behalf of those permanently
disabled veterans (seniors) who would prefer something other than government-purchased opiates! I
can get narcotics easily, but I am only 63 and I don't want a life of addiction. I qualified for medical
marijuana in California, where I was a health care executive. But my ailments forced early exit from the
workforce and I moved here in 2006. I really want to participate in your program, but the first draft set
of rules discriminates me right out. Please, help me. I want pot, not Percocet.
I feel that the amount of plants per patient should not be twelve like in Washington but six like in
Montana.If a caregiver is outside of the twentyfive miles of a dispensary and is growing for six people
seventy two plants will be a sizable grow operation.The dispensary will only serve as a cover for the
caregiver to profit off of his cardholders when selling his extra medicine. The same controls that are
implemented for cultivation faucilitys should apply to everyone who grows for more than one patient.My
experience in the past has been that most illegal grows always kept the plant total under 100 to avoid
prosecution from the feds.The new law gives a green light to unsupervised grows oout of the 25 mile
dispensary limit.
make it simplier, way to complicated to even read, I got lost in all the repetition. the cost is too high for
the patients, many won't be able to afford the additional cost to their current medications. don't make it
so much for paperwork for drs, they have enough to do and this would discourage dr's from prescribing.
describing approval for under 18 should be lower in the process.
Pertaining to R9-17-302(B)(1)(b) It would be a burdensome expense were you to require someone

considering opening a dispensary to rent or buy a location until such time as they had reasonable
assurance that a license would indeed be issued. Perhaps DHS could allow an applicant to supply either
a physical address if they already had one, or a statement that the address will be, "an address that will
comply with the provisions of DHS R9-17-318," or words to that effect.
This can be improved by listing the medical conditions that qualify for a medical card. 12 of the other
states have a list of conditions that will qualify a person for a card. I was unaware of some of the
conditions until reading the lists. I have diabetic nueropathy which causes a constant pain in my legs
and arms due to the nerves being affected and irritated ALL the time. I have been seen by 2 doctors for
this condition for well over a year. My problem is that neither believes in prescibing marijauna, due to
person beliefs not medical. Both have indicated that marijauna could help me manage the pain but will
not prescibe it for so that I can get a card. There should be Doctors available to review medical records
of people who have been seeing a doctor, for an extended period of time, for a condtion that qualifies
and then the doctor can prescibe a medical card for them. Also the fee for a card is higher that 11
other of the states that prescribe marijauna. This can be a disqualifing amount for those, such as my
self, who are on SSDI and are on a very limited income and cannot afford that amount. Nowhere is the
price listed for the cost of the marijauna dispensed. For those of on limited incomes we need to plan and
adjust for purchases. Knowing the cost will be a great help. If the states of AZ is looking for revenue
for the sale of the cards and marijauna the person who is setting these rules is going about it from the
wrong end. Dr Humble should go out and talk to the patients that have disabling conditions to get a
better understanding of what true pain is. The state will make MORE revenue having more people,
WITH true medical conditions, utilizing this program. What I do not understand is that the people of AZ
passed this law to help those of us with conditions that could be benefited by the use of marijuana but
then people, politicians, get involved and try to make it so that NO ONE can benefit. I understand that
the state does not want just anyone using this program who does not qualify but why make it so hard
and expesensive for those who do qualify.
The section that specifies that a patient need to see the same doctor for a year before becoming eligible
for a medical marijuana prescription. We do not have the same requirement for individuals who are
prescribed oxycodone , so this would be a double standard and probably be defeated if challenged in
court. This seems unfair. This means that if a patient has a 5 year history of chronic pain or any other
qualifying condition with a doctor , but that particular doctor does not want to write a medical marijuana
prescription for whatever reason, then the patient would need to see a new doctor and wait a year. At
the very least this section should be amended so that any patient who can document their condition
through medical records for a period over a year, should be able to immediately get a prescription from
a new doctor. In addition any of the more severe conditions such as chemotherapy should be
completely exempt from this requirement.
Regarding caregivers. My wife died a few years ago from a long and chronic disease, during this time I
was her primary caregiver, but I had help from a number of other people over the years. It is difficult
for a single person to handle a load like this long term without help. The current draft limits the number
of caregivers to only one and that one cannot delegate. Additionally, for families like mine, it would
have been two fees, one for my wife and one for me with the subsequent renewals. Families like mine
are already strapped for money and these two additional fees would have been difficult to handle. If we
sought someone outside the immediate family they certainly would have passed these costs to us as
well. Please keep in mind that people with severe health problems don't have much money and the
caregiver's time is already taken by the care they have to give the loved one. My suggestion is to
allow several caregivers. Perhaps the husband, hospice nurse and daughter could handle such things.
Charging $150 for a patient ID seems to be excessive and discriminatory. There are no charges to
patients who use painkillers and other legal drugs for ID cards, so why are there charges for medical
marijuana patients. Also, if my primary physician chooses not to sign any affadavits that their patient
would benefit from medical marijuana because of their personal religious beliefs, professional pressure
from the hospital or group they are working for, or from their own beliefs about marijuana their patient
may be unable to use this legal medical option.
Rural homebound patients will suffer under these current suggested rules (1) Few doctors are available
(2) Clinics are prohibiting their doctors from making marijuana recommendations (3) Poor people risk
losing their medical care if they have AHCCS as they can't change their primary physician (4) Some
caregivers will not cooperate with their immobile patients, either because they fear federal law against
possessing MJ, or they don't want to go through all the paperwork hurdles (5) there are no home
delivery guidelines (6) proposed zoning by some communities will prohibit home deliveries (7) poor
people do not have resources to travel long distances to see other physicians, or their medical conditions
make it very difficult to travel
Remove the private growing option.
A medical director? Is this an effort to make it too expensive and or too difficult to open a Medical-
Marijuana dispensary? The patients doctor is already overseeing the need for medication. A physician-
patient relationship for at least one year, really? Is this some kind of joke or are you just trying to make
is so difficult to obtain Medical-Marijuana that no one can get the medication that they need in time, a
patient could be dead before they get their medication. Come on, cancer patients may die before they
achieve these outrageous goals. This waiting period should be lowered to three months or at the most
six months!
don't know of any.
Having to be a patient of a doctor for a whole year, with at least 4 visits during that time is overkill.
Some doctors will refuse to prescribe marijuana because of religious or other beliefs, regardless if it
would help their patients. This rule could actually keep marijuana away from the people who really need
it. Having the doctor sign an affidavit is also overkill. A general recommendation written on a
prescription pad should be good enough, as it is for other medications.
Not everybody can afford or has the desire to see a doctor. If a person suffers from a condition they're
too afraid to, embarrassed, or simply can not afford medical care, why would you turn them away from
getting relief? Like photo radar, is it necessary to watch those purchase or browse the dispensaries? No,
it isn't. Twenty five miles away from a dispensary is unreasonable. What will happen to those who are
unable to access a vehicle, can not drive, or even walk? If it's non-profit, why are forced to purchase
from a dispensary? Shorten the distance. Please not mental conditions as well as physical conditions will
benefit from medical marijuana.
16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship means: a. The physician-
patient relationship has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the patient
on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the physician-
patient relationship; or b. The physician assumes primary responsibility for providing management and
routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical
by other treating physicians that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional
medical therapies. 17. "Physician-patient relationship" means interaction between a physician and an
individual in which the physician has ongoing responsibility for the assessment, care, and treatment of
the patient's debilitating medical condition.
I think that felons and street hustlers should only be able to run this particuler business because then
they would not be in the streets commiting illegal crimes and I bet they already know the business of
marijuana.This would give them a second chance at being a law abiding citezen and do business that
suits their personality.The "square" life living citezens should not be able to be involved in running this
business because they are inexperienced with this business and they don't know what they're getting in
to! They will be attacked by robbers and wish they weren't involved.But people who have experience in
the street business already know how things are done with marijuana . Lets not put such innocent
people in harms way and let the felons get involved who are built and prepared for this business and
give them their second chance to become and stay legitamit! Let's stop rejecting them and let's start
rehabilitating them.They probably caught cases dealing the same product that we just made legal. Not
fair.Felons couldn't really get jobs way before recession,imagine their chances during recession! Let's
have a heart Arizona. Thx
What about state to state reciprocity ? If I'm sick in one state and have a prescription, it should be
good here as well if I travel here
Use it for lining the bird cage
I have stage 4 Cancer. I am on Social Security Disability. I get $1940.00 a month. After pay for my
Medicare Medigap and Part D insurance at $371.00 a month, I have less than $1,500 a month. I don't
think I can afford to buy a Card at $150 much less the marijuana.
I hope you see where I am coming from and that this wording should be with records for up to a year
but even then, If you had cancer you may not live that long.
With all the fees for annual registering and the inevitable tax I think I would prefer to continue getting
mine the old fashion way - illegally. Thanks, but no thanks for this implementation plan. I'd rather save
the money.
Video camera's in dispensaries ? How about Patients rights to privacy ? You would think being DHS,
you would know something about the laws of patient privacy. Obviously if you plan on taping either
with storing devices or live feeds, maybe you people need to stop smoking whatever it is your smoking
at DHS and educate yourself on the laws of HIPAA. Can't wait for the civil suits to start against the
state of AZ as a result of HIPAA laws being violated.
1. Fee's are ridiculous, nothing like taking advantage of the sick. 2. 6 months to add a new disease or
illness, so your going to make people suffer for 6 months of red tape and bureaucracy. 3. Time frames
for licensing to long. Is it your plan to once again, see #2, make people suffer as long as you can ? 4. 1
year previous history with a doctor. So I get diagnosed with cancer today, I have to wait a year while
continuing to see the same doctor before getting a license to us marijuana ?..NUTS ! You people sure
are playing god with peoples suffering. What is it you don't understand about VOTERS APPROVED ?
~Improvement on the sanitation rules. They should be no less stringent than food-handling.
~Requirements for "disposal" of unusable marijuana (and proof thereof) need more attention.
~Provide more direction on "cultivation facilities" and health/safety issues therein. ~Remove the
"anonymous tip" disqualification. Although tips should be viewed with suspicion, in a relatively small
labor-pool, a whistleblower will jeopardize their livelihood by reporting violations.
Drasticly reduce the fees of the patient registration card. The $150.00 fee seems unfair and
unreasonable. How many patients will be able to afford that type of fee each year? Or is that the hope
of those opposed to prop 203?
Removing the requirement of having a medical director required on dispensary staff. I would like to be
able to offer medicine at the lowest cost possible in these hard times and more staff is counter-
productive to that end. In qualifying as a patient they provide proof that they have a serious medical
condition, which is likely to be very costly itself in maintenance medication, doctor visits, etc. I believe
that having a physician make a formal recommendation with proper discussion would have the same
effect as intended and allow dispensaries to operate on smaller budgets, more the small operations I
think most voters envisioned than a high volume drug store. Perhaps replacing the medical director
requirement would be possible. Require dispensary agents to undergo dispensary-provided training on
patient discussion of marijuana usage, side-effects, progression of symptoms, and reporting concerns to
the physician whom recommended marijuana originally.
well i have bad form of trigeminal nuralga please make that one of the conditions that qualifies as it will
be with me for the rest of my life and i dont agree with opiats thank you
In regards to "Designated Caregiver" I believe that the law will benefit from a little more specificity as to
what a "Designated Caregiver" can or can not do. I would like to see designated caregivers have the
same cultivation rights as dispensaries with respect to the amount of "Qualifying Patients" a "Designated
Caregiver" is allowed to have; regardless of the presence of a local "Dispensary". It is the belief of most
low income "Qualifying Patients" that having the option of a designated caregiver who can cultivate for
their patients translates into more affordable medical marijuana. It is imperative that the state affords
enough options for patients to lower the chance of diversion. That is why having cultivating patients
'donate' their excess medical marijuana to a local dispensary without any compensation is wrong. It is
also wrong to expect compliant cultivating patients to stop cultivating just because someone can afford
to open a dispensary within the 25 mile radius. It amounts to, at best, a form of legal extortion with the
dispensaries extorting patients. I would either eliminate the 25 mile cultivating rule or introduce a
"Grandfather Clause" protecting patients who were afforded the privilege to cultivate their own medical
marijuana prior to a dispensary opening near them. I would also ask the dispensaries to compensate
any donations of medical marijuana, from patients, in 'usable marijuana' and not in any form of monies.
If we provide a state sanctioned market where cultivating patients can donate their excess marijuana
and receive some form of compensation; we will greatly reduce the chances of diversion or worst illicit
sale. The state has the precarious task of making a very profitable item appear to be non-profitable.
By keeping the medical marijuana market competitive you make it more affordable and thus effective.
Patients having a few well regulated choices will be more compliant. Designated Caregivers will help
promote and maintain the affordability of medical marijuana. The Dispensaries should be the face of the
whole medical marijuana market.
ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
there is nothing reguarding the limits. such as the limit of plants per house, per script? would like to
know how to count cultivating plants. such as 6 flowering/12veg. what would be the limits, there?
I lost both my parents (mid 60s) in 2009. My mother died of a horrible, debilitating, rare disease. Both
of my parents would have benifited from medical marijuana greatly. It would have increased the quality
of their lives, which I deeply believe would have extended my mother's life, even though terminal. My
father would still be alive. My parents were on a fixed income. They would not have been able to afford
$150 per year, per person to register as a legal user. I don't think it is fair to make anyone pay ANY fee
to legally receive a drug that increases the quality of life. That punishes those who chose that effective
and natural treatment. I'm not opposed to the registration, or yearly re-registration, but the fee is
outrageous and not keeping in mind the financial hardships that many of the people who have these
costly diseases. Please, rethink this. It simply is not right.
16b. This provision requires that the physician prescribing the marijuana assumes primary responsibility
for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition. Most of the
debilitating conditions would require primary treatment from their specialist - oncologist, reumatologist,
etc. -- not the physician who has prescribed marijuana for pain mangement. As written, it indicates
that the pain management physician would be primarily responsible for the patient's care. Typically,
these prescribing physicians are internists, not specialists.
R9-17-306. Inspections B. A dispensary shall provide the Department with authorized remote access to
the dispensary's electronic monitoring system. This is not necessary or practical and is a great
overstep of a government oversight. I recommend removing it.
It would help to have clarification on the fees for application. It makes sense that it is nonrefundable but
if all the of the qualifications by the applicant are met and there simply aren't more licenses available
will the applicant still lose their application fee?
Have someone that knows the pain and anguish that many, many people are going through, write up
the rules. That way they won't be obliged to kiss LaWall's backside in order to keep their job.
First; I was opposed to this move. but since it was passed, the lost card fee is too soft; it needs to be at
least a $100 fee, to replace, unless the patient can provide a valid police report of theft, WITH witnesses
to the theft. Otherwise it's too easy to sell a card for a fee and go get a new one. ANY request for a
replacement MUST include the number of the lost card, or be considered invalid, and privilege revoked,
again because it's too easy to sell and go for a replacement. ALL patients and care givers approved
MUST be fingerprinted as well as photographed and prints of at least 2 digits should be on each card as
well as photo, with prints on file in AFIS. IF privilege is once lost, it should NEVER be reinstated. If the
individual goes off voluntarily and later needs again, must go through entire process for validation again.
On qualifying conditions; this should NEVER be administered to any patient NOT terminal under any
circumstances; the damaging effects of marijuana on the body would result in other medical costs which
would additionally burden the state for their care eventually otherwise and that's inappropriate to
burden the taxpayers with. as long as the marijuana is smoked. It's far more damaging than regular
tobacco, but in the same ways. Once a person is determined to be terminal, he/she can qualify for the
use. But qualification should also be reevaluated at least every 90 days, and a minimum of 2 physicians
should initially certify the person has the terminal condition, then the following physician can re-certify
at the intervals. Any caregiver should also be re-certified every 90 days. Set a $5-10 fee for the re-
certification process. Additionally; as soon as any individual qualifies for use of this drug; his/her
driver's license and vehicle registration should be immediately revoked.. This is an hallucinogen, and
he/she is probably also taking other drugs that impair his/her ability to drive safely, and if he/she won't
give that up voluntarily for the safety of the general driving public, the state needs to do so. There are
more than enough "impaired" drivers on the roads and highways as it is. I realize this is an
inconvenience; but so is killing some innocent person an inconvenience to him/her and the family of that
person{-s}. This NEEDS to be STIFF to keep it from becoming abused, for the protection of the public
at large.
This seems to cover most everything assoiated with other states laws.
The Fee for the applicants that are liveing at or below the FPL are exorbidant, Liveing with HIV I already
have to spend 10% of my monthly Gross income on non covered medications. To have to try and come
up with an aditional 150 our of my monthly income without haveing to go without food or other
nescisities will create a hardship. Also it will leave me in a state where I am technically breaking the law
because I am poor.
Have someone that knows the pain and anguish that many, many people are going through write up the
rules. That way they won't be obliged to kiss Lawall's backside in order to keep their job.
R9-17-307 C1. The provision that mandates that 70% of the dispensary's cultivated marijuana must be
provided to qualifying patients or designated caregivers and that only 30% can be sold to other
dispensaries. This provision would mandate that EVERY dispensary must cultivate its own marijuana if
it can't acquire more than 30% of its sales from other licensed dispensaries that cultivate. Inconsistent
quality control, potential crime, unnecessary growers, limitations on location options (some areas are
conducive to retail, but not to a full-fledged growing operation), inspections, etc will be unwieldly if
there can be, in theory, 124 very small cultivators/dispensaries throughout the state. If a grower
wants to focus on growing, where quality can be controlled, crime could be mitigated and inspections
could be targeted, the grower should be permitted to do so.
See below
1: As mentioned above, I do like the idea of having a medical director. However; I would like to see
the qualifications required to be inclusive of a pharmacist. I did see later in the draft a question
regarding whether or not a registered pharmacist would be available on site. My reasons for this
suggestion are as follows: A. I believe ADHS should emulate our current medical system whenever
possible. In our system a physician is in charge of prescribing medications. It is the role of the
pharmacist to dispense the medication and to discuss the benefits and/or risks associated with the use
of a medication and the possible interactions with other drugs. This is exactly what we are looking for in
a medical director. Also, since pharmacists cannot write recommendations, there would not be a conflict
of interests in having a pharmacist as a medical director. B. Under the proposed law a medical
director would have to be an MD or DO and not be in the business of writing recommendations. This
presents a few problems. First, the MD/DO will be prevented from helping his/her patients with
marijuana recommendations. If he/she is a supporter of medical marijuana he/she would likely not
want to take marijuana out of his/her prescribing options. If he/she is against medical marijuana,
he/she would then not likely want to be a medical director of a dispensary. Considering the above, I
think a pharmacist would be the perfect fit as a medical director of a dispensary. 2. The draft says
that an unannounced inspection is possible if a non-annonamce complaint is made. I think all
inspections should be unannounced without the need for a complaint. In the pharmacy world our
inspections by the Stat Board of Pharmacy are all unannounced. This should be the norm of ADHS
inspections as well. A dispensary and/or cultivation site should always be in compliance with the ADHS
rules and regulations. It would be nice to have the owner present, but if proper records are maintained,
the ADHS should be able to conduct it's inspection without need for supervision from the owner. When
the State Board of Pharmacy does an inspection they go thru the records and inventory by themselves
while the Pharmacy continues to run. They only ask the Pharmacist for assistance with locating the files
needed to conduct inventory. All employees of a dispensary and/or cultivation site should be able to
provide the ADHS inspector with all the records they need. Surprise visits will ensure sites are
compliant at all times. Owners will not have the benefit of a weeks notice to get things in line and
possibly alter inventory records to be in compliance. 3. I would like to see a passport photo be
acceptable for the photo requirements. They are easy to obtain and this would provide uniformity for
applications and for cards issued. All registration cards would then be identical in format. 4.
Inventory should be kept of all usable marijuana harvested at a cultivation site. However, to weigh and
document the unusable portions might prove to be a burden and provide no benefit to inspectors.
Trying to weigh an entire plant would be difficult especially if the place harvests large quantities ie; over
100 plants. I do not see any benefit of weighing plant parts that will be trashed/discarded (according to
proper procedures of course). An inspector would have little use of a document that says "110 lbs" of
unusable plant were discarded with a certain harvest. What really matters is how much usable plant
was saved. Amount harvested minus amount sent to dispensaries, would always equal the amount of
usable marijuana that is on the grounds of a cultivation site. I would require dispensaries to keep
inventory of any plant waste they have on hand. For instance, if they trim off any leaves or stems from
a bud they receive from a cultivation site, they should weigh this unusable portion, document and save
in a waste area. When inspected a simple math equation could be used to determine exactly how much
inventory a dispensary should have on site. Amount brought in minus (amount sold + waste) = amount
on hand. 5. With regards to the application for a dispensary license, I would not include the
requirement of DOB and a picture. I would require these to be submitted if/when a license is granted.
I say this because this only opens the door for people to say they were discriminated against with
regards to age, race and/or appearance. I would have a box that needs to be checked acknowledging
the person applying is of legal age to run a dispensary . Again, this is a minor change that would
protect ADHS from possible complaints.
As the State has decided is O.K. to go outside the Federal Law and the normal distribution of drugs
through the medical channels , what now will be the State of Arizona's liability as to someone "legally"
getting high based on this law? For example, if I get high on drugs with a true prescription legitimately
issued by a doctor and issued to me through a regular pharmacy, besides personal responsibility for my
actions, there are many levels of responsibility and accountability by the doctor and pharmacy. Or for
that matter if I get drunk at a bar, besides personal responsibility for my behavior and actions, the bar
that served me can held partially responsible if I am involved in an accident. It appears to me that
from what has been published that the "dispensaries" will be LLCs that I believe by Arizona statute are
limited to liability of $100,000.00. If this is the case, it is only a matter of time until the State is held
partially accountable (i.e. financially) since they are now regulating a drug and apparently giving it
preferential l status/ treatment over other medications since it will have its own channel of distribution.
I am not really against the idea of marijuana for some medical uses, but creating a whole new level of
government/regulation for something that should be done through existing channels (where there are
proper safeguards in place) and setting up the State for additional liabilities and expenses just does not
make sense to me. Also, if this was handled by a regular Pharmacy there would likely be some type of
consistency or rating as to potency/dosage, from what I have seen so far there is NO oversight as to the
actual dosage. I thought the idea behind a “prescription” was a treatment plan from a doctor with a goal
and measurable standards. One last thought, is the State going to properly tax the dispensaries to
cover the additional expense for going outside the existing infrastructure? Just my thoughts as a
citizen. Thank You,
eliminate them.
Simplified. Too many requirements on the "patient" . We are talking about old chemo people are we
not? How are they going to do all this stuff?
I saw very little language to help caregivers who live in rural Arizona. I am over 40 miles from a Wal-
Mart, so if approved, I would want to raise my own on my far. If I am held to the same definitions as a
dispensary, I would have to renovate one of my outbuildings just to comply. Did I miss something?
I think that one improvement to the rules would be to further clarify the role of the cultivation facilities
as it relates to outside dispensaries. The requirement that a dispensary must cultivate 70% of their own
medicine seemed a bit odd, as it provides a difficult situation to regulate. How would the department
reliably verify what product came from that dispensaries cultivation facility, and what product came from
an outside source? This also creates the need for each dispensary to have it's own cultivation facility,
which means 124 dispensaries and 124 cultivation facilities. This seems like a lot of operations for the
dept of health to regulate. It would seem more appropriate to either allow dispensaries to receive
100% of their product from an outside cultivation center, or at least to use another dispensaries
cultivation center to grow their medicine.
I agree with most of the rules outlined and view them to be much more black and white then many
other states. However, I do not think that requiring applicants for a dispensary to have lived in Arizona
for two consecutive years is in the best interest of the patients. The reality is that marijuana as a
medicine is much more difficult to produce then simply growing marijuana. The products used and the
way it is processed is much more important then in commercial agriculture as the product is intended for
severely ill people. My fear is that patients will be unable to grow their own medicine and be forced to
purchase low quality overpriced medication from an under qualified dispensary. I am by no means
recommending that you focus on attracting out of state growers but allowing people who truly want to
help people the opportunity to make a new life in your state is a step in the right direction. I do believe
that applicants should be Arizona residents but do not view the residency time line requirements to be
beneficial. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Further ensuring that the price of medical marijuana is within reach of all qualified residents. I believe
the draft indicates that the herb should be priced at a non-profit level. I think greater regulation to
ensure this would be a good idea. I also think the rules regarding patients growing their own need to
be expanded and relaxed. Many people in the state who are qualified patients are not wealthy and
many in fact are on welfare. These citizens cannot be deprived of the benefits of marijuana.
In the sections which relate to the Physicians long term relationship with the patient and the
requirement for continued treatment thereafter. I am on full disability with both Social Security and the
Veterans Administration and the VA supplies all my medical treatment. I was advised by them that as
a Federal Agency they will not issue letters contrary to Federal Laws. The only way for me to
circumvent this is to provide their Medical Records to a physician for an independent evaluation as I
must continue to be treated by the VA as a matter of financial necessity.
I strongly disagree with the idea that a homeopath or a naturopath can certify a patient for medical
marijuana. They do not have a strong enough knowledge base of available medications to decide if the
patient is considered a treatment failure. Which brings me to my next point. Medical marijuana should
be used for treatment failures or intolerance only. So I actually believe that medical marijuana should
only be prescribed by a DO or MD in the area of expertise that the patient's condition requires. For
example: as treatment for Crohn's disease, only a gastroenterologist who has been seeing the patient
regularly should be able to prescribe marijuana. And for chronic pain: a pain specialist. Anxiety? a
psychiatrist.
I understand you don't want this for recreational use. But the thing is asl this new rules are going to
affect the patient. I'd you have to see your doctor for a year what happens to someone that doesn't go
to the doctor and they get cancer and need medical marijuana that can't get it because of the doctor
rule. It should be up to the doctors punish them if the misuse there authority. Not the patient. The
doctors should decide when is a good time for someone to use marijuana.
You've frustrated the intent of Prop 203 very well.
this many hoops to dispense Oxy and Xanaxs? Do you need to get a card for $150 dollars in order for
the pharmacies to dispense OXY and Xanax? I know two people that are going thru chemo right now,
that I've already heard say "that they will not got thru the hassle and will continue getting it from
URGENT CARE with a bad back and walk out with a script for pain pills (very addicting pills) and then go
to CVS and have the pills to alleviate your pain, all with in a couple of hours. Yet to get this medication
you "Have to have a RELATIONSHIP with your doctor for at least a year and he has to want to prescribe
it to you" WHAT A JOKE!!!! What other medication has all these hurdles in front of it?
Please, Please, Please Please for the sake of the children, only allow dispensing by pharmacies and
pharmacists for god's sake I am begging you.
The price of a card. Come on...no other state charges this much. You cannot make up the money our
state needs off of the sick and dying!!! Drop the price and the renewal price! All the cameras....how
rude! And how expensive! I love my doctor but he has already told me he will not be writing
recommendations....so now you want me to find a new doctor who will? How? And then, wait a year?
Not right to do this to patients. So you are forcing us to procure medical from other sources and
continue supporting drug cartels. And opening a door for lawsuits against the state! Already the
zoning rules are not complying with Prop 203...and now all this. All you are saying is that you don't
agree with the voters about this issue and you are going to make it as difficult as you can on patients.
A doctor on staff....are you crazy! What doctor wants that job? They can't make enough money doing
that. This part of your rules is as crazy as the price!!!!
Add draft regulations about home growing.
I believe there should be more prescription guidelines and rules; The patient should have tried the
accepted therapies for at least 3 months prior to trying medical marijuana. Their doctor should have to
submit a "prior authorization", if you will, for a medical marijuana prescription, submitting all records
and therapies, documentation of treatments. Who would oversee (ie; make sure they are doing this)
the rules outlined for the physician regarding wether they have treated the patient for 1 yr and seen
them 4 times or reviewed comprehensive records from another phycisian and completes a
comprehensive exam??? What about lack of documented evidence that marijuana helps the conditions
listed? Who will make a ruling regarding adding new "conditions" to be added to the list?
There need to be clear limitations for caregivers based on the doctor's opinion. If a Dr. realized that
he/she has a patient who requires a larger or smaller than normal amount of cannabis there should be
wording to outline these limitations in a care-giving license. Without these guidelines care-givers will be
unaware of plant #s and other limitations of the act of care-giving.
A physical address for the dispensary is an obvious qualifying factor in a full license approval. That
being said, to have everything in place with no guarantees for an initial license lottery scenario (only 124
to be issued) will cause some to cry out that these rules have set this up for only the privileged and
point to an elitist type qualification for which only the wealthy will be able to spend the type of money it
will take to commit to a lease, build the space to state specification, expense set up for cultivation based
on the 70% site rule all before even knowing if they will be lucky enough to receive a dispensary license
that is limited to 124 locations/dispensary licenses. Even if you have money to burn, I would question
why someone who be inclined to spend an estimated min. $400-500,000 on business set up with only
124 licenses being issued and hundreds if not thousands of potential application for dispensaries. Even
though if may add to the time line, I believe that given their is only 124 licenses to be distributed, there
needs to be some type of way for the department to provide an initial approval pending a future site/ or
proposed site qualifier that allows a pending license a timeline to build out a physical address after they
know they are in a pending status. Maybe something to the effect: Once the state deems a
company/person a qualified candidate (initial application, background check, certified financial statement
to make sure they have the capacity to set up a facility, etc..) for opening a dispensary, they a set
timeline to achieve the remaining physical address requirements prior to receiving a full approved
license. This is a more practical common sense approach that at least levels the playing field a little
more and can easily be implemented as it is from many other highly regulated licenses.
adding the one year with a doctor is not right. I have been extremely sick and have been turned down
just to see a doctor with no explaination. I have tried every option, Pills, etc,etc,. and all have been
documented. I can not find a doctor that i trust to be a primary care doctor. i think a doctor that
is approved by the stste of Arizona would be sufficent. period.....
Change the fee schedule. I think the fees are "too high" no pun intended. $150.00 per annum and
then another for renewal. This is an out of pocket expense for people, which many are on disability,
simply cant afford. The other issue I have is the 25 mile distance away requirement from a dispensary
for cultivation. If you do not have a means of transportation you must have a caregiver or "get a ride" to
get your medicine. This means more fee and more expenses again! People should be able to cultivate if
they live farther than walking distance from the dispensary not 25 miles, where did that number come
from? I think 1.5 miles one way is plenty for a person to walk for meds. 3 miles round trip in this heat
may in fact be a little extreme anyway. Dont make this a rich person's medicine. How far would you
walk in 90 degrees for prescriptions.
There are many people out there that want to help but I see the current rules require a substantial
amount of investment to start a dispensary. I see that cutting out the people who really want to help
while allowing those who have money to jump in it just for money. This is about giving a better quality
of life to those who need it and NOT about making money. I believe the rules would be better suited
by having a detailed list of all salaries and benefits to the board members and a preliminary plan for
funds to support local charities and communities be in place instead of the expense of building a
dispensary before an application is viewed. That could cost up to 200K or more or could cause people
to cut corners and have a subpar dispensary. Have a $1k non refundable application fee to include all
dispensary plans, general locations, all operation manuals, accounting plan with the application.
Review all the applications for completeness and fitting all the rules set forth. This would allow the
department of health to review a broader range of dispensary owner, proposed locations, and how they
plan to give back. Give a provisional license to those who qualify and upon full build out and passing
inspection with in a period of time they would be assured full license. Just like building permits you can
collect additional inspection costs as needed. This would allow for a more fair advantage for those who
don't have 200K to gamble with and provide a time frame to allow the department of health to collect
fee's and do full and complete inspections with out having to hire additional staff. There are some
Doctors out there that will utilize having to have medical staff on the board as a way to just collect
money. You should allow a Doctor to only be on 1 dispensary board instead of 3 as proposed. There
are some unscrupulous doctors out there and lets not allow them to take advantage of this system.
Criminize the use of pot/marijana/mary jane/weed or what ever other name it goes by.
Approving them as is right now.
I have specific questions because I 'm a veteran with multiple sclerosis who has a history of severe
nausea. My neurologist who knows my history, as it is also in my VA medical record, is a VA employee
and says that because he is a federal employee he can't write the prescription even though it is legal on
the state level. Will I have to pay a private doctor to look at my medical file and write the prescription
or, even worse, will I be unable to go to another doctor's recommendation because they're not my
normal doctor? Will I be penalized for a conflict of interest?
remove that stipulation
We need additional clarification on how the Department will measure the 500 foot separation
requirement for schools. I would suggest from parcel line to parcel line, as the most verifiable form of
measurement. Other ways are building wall to the lot line of a school, or building wall to building. These
I would not recommend because of inaccuracies in the distance measurements. How long after can
they set a date of when the dispensary site will be ready for inspection? This time period may fluctuate
as the tenant improvements are reviewed with the local city's building plans review and inspections for
certificate of occupancy. Under R9-17-302.B.5. Does "authorizing occupancy" mean clearance of all
city permits? For example, a city may identify that the dispensary is in compliance with the separation
requirements, but additional improvements to the site may be necessary before the business can
actually take occupancy of the site (i.e. upgrade lighting, complete all construction, issue building
permits, and have a city inspection performed to issue certificate of occupancy)
An exception needs to be made, when a patient's doctor is prevented from making a medical marijuana
recommendation by the hospital or the clinic the doctor is a member of. When this occurs, a patient
should be able to see a doctor as a secondary physician and still keep their primary physician (noy
having to abandon their primary physician).
Considering qualified patients can grow 12 plants, this seems the production would exceed the lawful
usage. 12 plants = 12 pounds. Roughly 8 pounds more than the legal usage. I think the excess should
be allowed to be sold to Dispensaries in an effort to curb illegal sale. After all, do you honestly believe
that any patient would sit on 8 pounds of marijuana, when they could sell it for 2-3K per pound on the
street???Who's kidding who????And lets face it, there is no way it would be donated to any Dispensary.
Just a thought. Good Luck.
I have a problem with the physician-patient relationships. Someone who is diagnoised with cancer see's
the oncologist (for the first time) soon after being diagnoised and starts chemo immediately. The rule
that you have to be seeing the Dr. for a year AND had at least four visits totally leaves out the cancer
patient. I have had breast cancer, my husband had non-hodgkins lymphoma, and our 24 year old was
diagnoised with testicular cancer in Oct. We know from first hand experience that marijuana is a life-
saver. I believe there needs to be a provision for cancer patients that are undergoing chemotherapy.
If patients like me can’t afford their medicine, this law means nothing. Most patients on disability receive
around $1000 a month; these patients need to be able to grow outdoors in a fenced area. The fencing
requirements need to be reasonable, 8’ with security wire on top edge, a secure gate, and 24hr
recorded security camera from home computer, and no cover wire. Why would you require a 12’ wall if
someone can grow in a glass green house, and the walled area would have to be huge, or the 12 little
plants would never get any sun. Indoor grow rooms were designed to hide from law enforcement,
not efficiently grow marijuana. The more you force growers indoors it increases the cost to grow by 10
times. Forcing growers indoors will increase our states energy use. As we try and get people to use 40
watt bulbs rather than 100 watt, you’re asking people to plug in two 1000 watt lights. Growing indoors
will cause damage to rental property from bad wiring and mold, homes were not designed to grow
crops, fields were. Marijuana works better on my nerve pain than the opioids I currently take. I’ve
started using marijuana on a regular basis now that Prop 203 has passed, and already reduced my
opioids by 1/4, but black-market prices are too high to afford to reduce them any more. You’re welcome
to look at my medical records, if you like. I’m tired of taking narcotics and can reduce from several
hundred pills a month to a few for breakthrough pain. I can't die from marijuana, I can from opioids.
Some clinics and some hospitals are requiring that their physicians can not recommend medical
marijuana to their patients. In many rural areas they are the only health care professionals available. In
effect they are a health care monopoly. Include a provision that clinics and hospitals can not restrict
doctors from making medical marijuana recommendations. Some of these patients can not travel far
distances to see another doctor.
Will the "fee" for the Dispensary applicant be due upon submitting the application or paid upon approval
of the application? If the "fee" is required up front will it be refunded if the application is not approved?
1. R9-17-202 (F) 1 e This reads: "The name, address and telephone number of the physician
recommending medical marijuana for the qualifying patient." The words "recommending medical
marijuana for the qualifying patient" should be deleted and substitute therefore: " providing the written
certification that in the physicians professional opinion, the qualifying patient may receive therapeutic or
palliative benefit from medical marijuana." The Act uses the "written certification" language not
"recommendation". Reason: Under the Model City Tax Code a drug prescribed or recommended by a
physician makes it exempt from sales tax. Using the written certification of an opinion may allow sales
tax to be applied to these sales. See, R9-17-304(A) in the same regard. 2. R9-17-302 (B) 6 This
subsection has the Applicant certifying that the Dispensary is in compliance with local zoning restrictions.
This is from the Medical Marijuana Act. We think that you should add "and as verified in writing by the
local jurisdiction." 3. R9-17-302 (B) 5 This subsection has as part of the initial Application process a
certificate of occupancy issued by the local jurisdiction authorizing occupancy for a medical marijuana
dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site. This doesn't happen that way. A
certificate of occupancy is the last stage in local building and zoning approval. It is usually issued when
everything is done, all the punch lists are fulfilled and the business is ready to open. Cities won't be
able to issue a C of O for a Dispensary unless and until all of the requirements, both state and local are
met. Cities can't issue a C of O for a Dispensary until all of your requirements are met and all of the
city's are met. Cities probably won't issue the C of O until ADHS approves it for a Dispensary or
cultivation site. I would suggest that you provide instead, somewhere, that prior to opening or growing,
a C of O from the local jurisdiction must be filed with ADHS. This way, the cart is not before the horse,
and local jurisdictions can help ADHS enforce it's requirements.
Protect caregivers. Include a provision that cities can not zone against medical marijuana delivery.
Some medical marijuana patients will not be able to travel to get their prescription. Do not let cities zone
to prevent deliveries. A patient's caregiver should not have to be put in the position of buying marijuana
for their patients since it is a crime in the eyes of the US Government. As a caregiver I do not want to
do an illegal activity. I don't want to get a marijuana card for myself.But, I don't want to deny my
patient marijuana. I want my patient to get a marijuana card and some delivery person or dispensary
operator deliver the medical marijuana to my patient.
The defining the security of the building. It does address the structural nature of the building, but really
not enough detail about panic systems and security cameras, and what resolution they should offer; we
would want 100% coverage. I just think it is too vague, and leaves many opportunities for discretionary
approval. There should be some consulting with security providers to ask them what is needed. I know
our facility system works well at night, it is in color and has tracking capabilities. It is not good enough
for us, we are also not distributing such a product. We can be certain the dispensaries are likely to be a
target of some criminal activity. The ability to only record 5 minutes worth of video is not a long time.
Instead of 2 year residency you should make it 5 years to make it harder for out of state guys trying to
get into Arizona and doing it.
Would it be within the scope of the rules to discuss enforcement?
Problem 1: Why is a dispensary required to grow 70% of dispensaries own medical marijuana? This is
really a bad idea. While we may understand the initial thinking behind this statute, which is to possibly
contain any growing to a few locations, the amount needed to be grown for one dispensary is
staggering. Most Dispensaries will dispense nearly 30 pounds of medical marijuana each month. This
means that on average a single dispensary will need to grow 320 plants at a time. That is a direct
conflict with the federal government and the 100-plant limit. There is a five-year mandatory minimum
prison sentence for cultivation of 100 plants or greater. Solution 1: The solution may be to allow
outside growers to obtain permission from qualified patients to grow their medical marijuana and sell it
to a dispensary where they could obtain their medication? This would create smaller more manageable
cultivation facilities, but still produce enough medical marijuana to supply all patients and dispensaries.
Problem 2: If a dispensary is only allowed to purchase marijuana from a licensed patient, caregiver or
other dispensary, how will a start-up dispensary get marijuana legally in the beginning? The way the
statute is written someone will need to purchase seeds or clones illegally the way we see it?
Solution2: Possible allow licensed dispensaries and cultivation facilities to obtain their starting medical
marijuana from legal sources in surrounding states such as California or Colorado. Problem 3: Why is
a full time medical director necessary? The way we read the statute they are only consulting on labeling
and educational material issues? Once the safety disclosures and educational material are written we
don't see a need? Then to make things worse the medical director can only work with 3 dispensaries?
Solution 3: If this statute was developed to ensure proper labeling and education then either eliminate
this rule and set specific standards, guidelines and education requirements through the AZDHS statutes
without a medical doctor requirement OR let a doctor that wishes to specialize in this area help ALL
dispensaries.
My doctor is with a large health care system. As it stands now, he cannot prescribe medical marijuana.
So am I to start Dr. shopping? Plus the one year rule is discriminates against people who do not have a
regular doctor. Too many restrictions. And why $150.00 to renew? If so then $150.00 to register your
automobile. I note something about a clinic having a supervising doctor. Does the WalMart pharmacy
have a supervising doctor?
The draft rules can be improved by providing a set of rules for patients/caregivers and a separate set of
rules for the dispensary. The draft as is stands is too lengthy.
Proposed Rule R9-17-202(G)(13)(e)(i)(1) States that the physician must have a relationship with the
patient that has existed for at least one year or the physician must assume responsibility for the patients
use. I have several clients diagnosed with pancreatic or other soft-tissue cancers that pass within 6
months of the first diagnoses. In fact my most recent client, passed with 4 months of the first
symptoms. There should be some sort of provisional recommend that would allow for access to
medical marijuana without this requirement in those scenarios where the patient has a need and making
them wait a year (or scour the state for a doctor who will assume the responsibility) is simply unfair. I
propose allowing clients who have certain conditions (undefined here) to apply and receive a provisional
recommend good for 90 days immediate use, executed in the same manner as the rules provide and
allow a one-time renewal and then force the patient to find a doctor to assume primary responsibility or
wait the year.
less restrictive for patient/doctor rules.
The section (5.e.i.) where it states: [the physician] Has a professional relationship with the qualifying
patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying
patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the
professional relationship; continuing to section 5.e.ii. & iii. (et al.) where the physician "has assumed
primary care" and will monitor the patients progress, assumes that there is such a thing as a 'primary'
physician for a patient. Unfortunately, since there will be no change in the Health Care system here in
Arizona, the ability to have a physician that one visits regularly lies neither with the physician, nor the
patient. Those decisions are made by insurance companies. How can a physician, or patient, be asked to
make such a claim? I myself have no insurance. Any physician I visit has no guarantee that I will ever
visit them again for various reasons: 1) I must shop around for cost effective visits 2) I may get
insurance and be forced to visit another physician 3) Insurance companies might, at any time, change
the physician that I am required to go to. This requirement would work well if there was universal
health care and all of us were able to regularly visit a physician and the physician actually knew who
their patients were...however that is not the world we live in. The one we live is one where we are
forced to be medical transients by the insurance companies that lord over the health of this great state
of Arizona. Please take that into account.
(There is no part of the comment form designated to raise concerns, so forgive me for doing so in this
space.) Do these rules create difficulty in acquiring medical marijuana disproportionate to the difficulty
of acquiring alternate therapies? The most useful standard seems to be that it should be, on average,
no more or less difficult for doctors and patients to arrange this legal treatment option than other legal
treatment options. If this standard was attained, then we could be confident the prescriptions were
based on real medical need rather than on addiction or on frustration with legal hurdles. The Arizona
Republic article makes it sound like there are significantly more obstacles to the use of legal medical
marijuana than to alternatives. If this is the case, I urge the rule writers to aim for a balance based on
benefit to the patients rather than on political struggles. If this is not the case, then I commend the rule
writers for their fairness.
Because I work with Middle School students in Flagstaff and because many times they tell me they know
someone who already smokes; I would like to see the distance increase from 500 feet to at least 1,000
from a school.
Marijuana prevents Alzheimer's. It should be available to anyone who wants it!

Most sick people can not afford $150 per year fee. Should have a low income program.
Make them more user friendly. Make getting and using a recommendation less burdensome. Not ALL in
need will be lawyers. The # of hoops to jump through is mind boggeling, for both patient and
dispensaries. Requireing a $5,000 non-refundable deposit is beyond stupid and arrogant. $10,000
refundable makes way more sense. Security requirements are overkill. Look at other states .
Requireing a physical location before approval is putting the cart before the horse. Approve the
applicants and then approve their eventual location. Growers and distributors should be separate fields
as they are COMPLETELY different skillsets.
They need to be less restrictive. I see the method for requesting that other conditions be included, but
annually is not often enough. Rather than listing conditions, it should simply read that it must be
recommended by your care giver. It does not list chronic pain, insomnia or depression. Ambian is a
popular insomnia medicine, that can be very dangerous. More and more we're learning about the myriad
of dangers from lack of sleep, not the least of which is heart problems and the many annual fatalities
from drowsy drivers. So if a doctor determines that it could help their patient, they should be able to
make that call and not be hampered by a list of only the most common uses.
they are putting an Unreasonable barrier in the way for someone with a disability to be able to afford
the FEE for the card. Most patients are dying to be able to quaify for the card in the 1st place so the fee
is way out of line. People on disability don't have a lot of money left after they pay their bills do how
are they supposed to have enough money to get regsitered. they should be giving people on Disability
a waiver of fees like in N.M. and Colorado.. As for Growing your own plants should be allowed for
people who have no transpration to the and as long as they have a registered for the card. if thisis
going to be the cost of the card people will still keep getting it off the streets because it is cheaper so
this has to be a compramize here. help the people that are dieing and give them an easier life for them
to live.. this cost is way out of reach and unreasonable, you just don't want this to work in this state.
Non-refundabe $5000 fee? I believe it should be large... but non-refundable?
Price &/or profit oversight. Using California as an example, the "legal" retail prices are so high they are
driving the consumer to revert to the illegal supplier. These retail prices are inflated in spite of the
substantially lower costs of the drugs, preuming these drugs are provided by "legal" sources. Can you
honestly define where the Arizona enforcement personnel for this new industry are coming from.
Currently AZ can't adequately oversee, much less enforce, traffic , the medical industry or the legal
industry just to name a few "regulated" activities.
Just continue to get public input and be fair and just for those who will benefit from the treatment.
Making it tough but not so bureaucratic and difficult to hinder efforts of those truly trying to run a legit
dispensary and cultivation center.
I know this is all new 4 AZ, U can Grow, Marijuana, 3 or 4 times a Year did takes, 3 to 4 months, 2
grow, Hydro, outdoors, greenhouse, But Hydro is the Fastest way, very safe, Hydrophonic, i
hope i spelled that Right But it means { water works} so please TELL ME, How is a Dispensary
when it first opens up, How can they have Product ?? when u want the dispensary, 2 grow 70 % of
the Product, they will have 2 get, some product from somebody, Most Dispensarys, in my Opinon,
should be close to a Hospital, thanks
I would like to see clarification on 2 points. 1) What makes a dispensary owner a qualified Arizona
resident for 2 years? Is an applicant a resident who has paid Arizona State Income tax for 2 years?
Does the applicant have to have a valid Arizona drivers license for 2 years? Resgistered to vote in
Arizona for 2 years? I would prefer for the qualifications to be that an individual has paid income tax in
Arizona for 2 years. 2) I am concerned about making a very large investment in my dispensary and
then not getting one of the 125 licenses that will be issued. There will definitely be more than 125
dispensary applications. In order to get a dispensary license, will I have to make my entire investment
in the operation before I even apply? This would be incredibly risky if I could not get my license based
on a lottery system. How will the AZ Department of Health determine who gets licenses for
dispensaries? On a competitive basis? If it is a competitive basis, what will the criteria be to obtain a
license?
There needs to be a clear distinction in care giver rules. Also there need to be rules for co-op grows. I
thought in the first draft on 203 that 25 miles from a dispensary is a double standard.
I believe the 8am-5pm hours could be improved by allowing them to stay open later. You will already
have lines in AZ because there will be so few dispensaries per patient (i.e., 1 dispensary for every 7 in
CO, with the same or more number of patients). I see the point, you don't want these stores turning
into late night hang out spots, but more than half of the patients will have full time jobs, right? You
don't want to limit patients' access to their medicine. A good example of this is dispensaries in CA and
CO that don't have handicap access to their stores. I feel this should be a requirement as well. The
requirement to see a physician four times is unreasonable in my opinion, unless you were to change
laws across the state for obtaining more dangerous drugs such as oxycodin, zanex, etc. --of course, this
is opinion but worth considering. Also, how are businesses in this industry to make enough cash flow to
get through their first year if their patients are just now starting their 1st of 4 visits in a yr requirement
to see a doctor? What about a current patient in CA or CO who is considering moving to AZ? Do you
make them wait a year to have access to their medicine again? Also, what about doctors who want to
move to your state for work? Do you not allow them the opportunity to have existing patients, but make
them start seeing potential patients from scratch? Seems like a hard way to start a successful practice.
The 2 yr residency requirement is understandable to "keep the mofia out," which is how it's been put in
CO. I think that there should be a way to determine through the dispensary applications who is "mafia"
and who has a good heart and is trying to serve patients and humanity. I think it is a mistake not to
take applications from people all over the country, or at the least, in one of the other 14 states that
allow medical marijuana, because you will end up with a much lower quality pool of applicants to choose
from.
There should not be a requirement for a debilitating disease causing chronic pain or problems. I am a
veteran who suffered many injuries in many areas in Iraq. I endured eight surgeries, most of which left
chronic pain, arthritic pain, and strong pain associated with activity. The worst injury I received was a
back injury, I received surgery for it but the pain has not subsided and is with me every day. That pain
prevents me from running, sitting too long, standing too long and just causes general grief. I also suffer
from a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, caused from the same HUMVEE rollover. Those illnesses and
problems are not addressed in the draft rules but could be. Another issue is that I will continue to be
unlikely to receive medicinal marijuana treatment because my medical care is issued through the VA
hospital system. I would have to acquire secondary insurance with a secondary provider for another
year under the draft rules as I've read them to be considered for medicinal marijuana treatment. This
poses a problem for me, I could use narcotics and aspirins to try to get the pain to subside or go
without treatment and endure the pain. I recently stopped using narcotics and use only aspirin for pain
relief but it is not enough and I have only one kidney so I'm prevented from using some of the more
effective types. I don't want to take narcotics because of their proven addictive tendencies and would
prefer medicinal marijuana. I've found that narcotics not only have addictive characteristics but also
hinder my ability to work effectively. They make me irritable and affect my judgment. I am aware of
similar effects in marijuana but consider it a safer, less damaging alternative to narcotics which provides
the same benefits. Under the existing draft rules, I would be denied a right to a medicinal product
that could enhance my quality of life. There are many soldiers with similar problems who may benefit
from medicinal marijuana. Please change the rules to allow them access, as they will receive none under
VA guidelines and will actually be further left out under the existing draft rules.
Clarify if the "enclosed" location for growing includes for card holders & caregivers, or only for
dispensaries. I do not think the same security as far as type of fence & having a covering etc. would be
needed for card holders or caregivers. I think it would only need to be in a locked/fenced area. If card
holders & care givers had to follow the same guidelines I think it would cost to much & be unrealistic for
most. Can a Card holder also be a designated caregiver? If so could he grow for himself & the card
holders he is a caregiver for? Give a place for questions to be answered via email once the final rules
come out. I think most want to fully abide by the laws set by you but would need some clarification.
Less restrictive rules on the dispensary. I understand the video cameras and inventory control but it
sounds like a draftsman and engineering group must put together the floorplan and design the store.
How about if they move into another business and use the plans previously provided by building
inpsection?
See above....
I believe that a dispensary should be able to aquire more than 30% of their medical marijauna from
caregivers or patients. I don't believe that they should have to cultivate 70% of their medicine. I believe
they should be able to aquire as much as they need from outside sources, as long as those sources are
following the rules. I think you should add some sleep problems to the list of qualifying medical
conditions, like slep apnea and just trouble sleeping or falling asleep and staying asleep through the
night. A lot of people hve sleep issues and would rather injest marijauna than taking prescription drugs
that can become highly addictive and have side effects. It definatly does work, and other states have
sleep issues in there list of conditions.
R9-17-310 Medical director A marijuana patient already has his own medical doctor who can be
contacted by telephone or pager for inquiry or emergency. In paragraph B-2, you are asking that a
medical director be "Able to be contacted by any means possible, such as by telephone or pager." I
fail to see the necessity of duplication of services in this matter. The physician may not at the exact
moment be able to return a call or page and it is difficult to know when he or she may return a call or
page. If it is an emergency the patient should be instructed to call 911. The patient's own doctor
should determine the medical use of the marijuana, because he has seen and evaluated the patient and
knows better the patient's medical condition. I believe that the medical director's oversight of the
dissemination of 1. Educational materials ...etc. is fine and should be maintained.
I have a qualifying condition, but my doctor does not believe in the use of Marijuana. Do I really have
to wait a year while being treated by another doctor before the doctor can make a recommendation? I
do not believe enough doctors will support the patient population, and thus many folks will either not
get the treatment they need, or they will go black market.. these regulations are cumbersome for
doctors. believe me, I have to struggle to get my doctors to do anything. I have to bug them multiple
time just to get my current scripts renewed. All this procedure for a marijuana script will make it hard
on patients and doctors will just become annoyed. If there are so many obstacles (which I believe) for
a patient to get a marijuana recommendation, then I believe the supply chain (dispensary) will not be
there to produce the medicine. It seems very risky to ask for such a large investment on behalf of the
dispensary applicant, without really knowing weather there will be a market for the product. You very
well know large drug companies do not have their patient population regulated like this. I've been
given Medications for pain over the years like its candy. Easy for my condition. The application process
for patients and fees are discriminatory against me. You have drafted rules that seem to protect
those not in favor of this law, rather than those patients that need the drug. Are you not opening
yourself up to legal challenges from patients...
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act recognizes out of state card holders (mine is from Oregon) but goes
on to say that visitor card holders can't use Arizona dispensaries. I for one do not want to deal with the
black market, I also do not want to transport marijuana across different states. When dealing with the
black market there is no way to tell what is in the medication or of medical quality. It would be great if
the department would allow visiting card holders to purchase a dispensary card.
I thought the idea was to offer safe access to medicine for needy patients? I know you need rules and
regulations, but it seems like you have set things up for big bussiness. I have a high level spinal cord
injury and money doents come easy. With these fees, it will force me to get meds off the streat still or
grow it myself...It sounds like these are rules made bye good people that dont know anything about the
cultivation and use of this medicine. Do you know how much time and space and money it takes to
produce this medicine? from your space and location restrictions, i thinks not.You couldnt possibly serve
these patients with these restrictions without the price going sky high.It sounds backwards, but a looser
framework will bring the patients out of the shadows and clean up the back alley, black market trade.
you always see in the news that these shops raise crime. that is ridiculous.thats just politicians talking
out the wroung end. ive lived in california and know that those shops have cleaned up the black market
trade done in the back allies.I know ruled and guidelines need to be set, but i think we need to figure
out what arizona is trying toget done.Are you trying to raise money for the state?Are you trying to stop
grime? or are you really trying to serve a community that doesnt want to feel guilty about managing
their medical needs? we are not bad people, if you really think this is a viable medicine, why do i have
to register and pay a large fee to get my meds? if you need any other medicine, you dont need to do
any of this. I want to be equal, not different!!! Please think about these points, im sure im not the only
one that has pointed these things out... thank you for your time
Limit the amount of involvement the recommending Doctor has in the application process for a
qualifying patient. Just the reading of what Doctors must provide in order to get his/her patient the
medication they need will make these Doctors skeptical on wanting to get involved and put their name
on such recommendations. Under R9-17-202 Part F Section 5 items e and h are too much and should be
removed. The Doctors should not be responsible for patients who just see them enough to get the
recommendation and then stop going to the doctor. As it is there are only to be a limited number of
Doctors willing to recommend marijuana at all, thus the majority will not be the primary doctors of these
patients. Its unfair to expect the Doctors to be so responsible for the patients and its unfair to make
these patients wait any longer in order to establish a year long relationship with a new Doctor that is
willing to recommend marijuana.
I believe the cost of Qualifiying patient, Caregiver and Dispensary Agent cards are a little high. Patient
cards should be no more than $50-$100 so as not to be a fiscal hardship on patients. Caregiver and
Agent cards also seem a bit high but I understsand you need to make this a self-sustaining program.
"Medical Directors" should be defined as: Physician, DO, Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant, or
Pharmacist. There is no reason these health care practitioners do not qualify for inclusion in this
business.
It is unfair and exclusionary, if not downright corrupt to enforce a residency requirement. What you are
effectively saying is the same as "No Blacks Allowed". It is downright riduculous to have these rules in
place when the Gap, Starbucks, or Wings Plus have no residency requirements to do business. Do
Doctors have to be 2 year residents to practice as well?? It smacks of corruption and I will post until
Im blue in the face to expose this type of liberal nepotism. It effectively excludes businesses that have
good plans and missions from competing with local drug dealers. It is after all the local drug dealers
that forced that rule in Denver and the same group is now forcing it on AZ. To ensure that their tainted
mass produced garbage marijuna is not threatened by a REAL company or business that is 100%
Medical oriented for the benefit of patients. This is not fair to cancer patients who are running to the
legal states to get involved in some way to help the others out there who need it. You preclude people
like my wife, who has the best business plan n the world for a MMJ Dispensary by and for Cancer
patients. I guess that will have to give way to Mom and Pops chemicalized weed shoppe. Because they
are residents but have no desire to run a business, their only desire is to mass produce chemically
tainted marijuana. Where is the section that imposes penalties on producers of tainted or unsafe
product?? Where is the rule saying black market growersCANNOT be vendors?? So far it smells of
nepotc corruption.
All the medical marijuana should also be over looked by professional staff like nurses and medical
assistants that have been screened and drug tested yearly for the medical part of it. Narcotic sheets or
log books and signatures after each day, similar to nursing homes and hospital regulations of all
narcotics. Charting and evaluating vital signs, ie, blood pressures, pain scale evaluations, 0-10 pain
scales, with every visit dispensary exchanges.
Has anyone in your office done the math on growing marijuana? You almost require growing indoors
where plants produce 2-4 ounces, rather than 1-2 pounds or more outdoors. With the federal 99 plant
limit, you're forcing dispensaries to violate federal law to produce enough to supply patients.
I am a 75 yo living on mostly social security. The Veterans Administration will not be issuing scrip for
medical marijuana. The proposal that I have to be under another doctors care for a year is
discriminatory and financially impossible. How will I be able to participate? (I am eligible, live in a small
northern AZ town)
The list of conditions needs to be expanded to include more autoimmune diseases such as polymyositis,
etc.
I see they can be improved by fixing the cultivation rule. You want every plant tracked from seed to
harvest. Many large scale growers don't use seeds. They use clones from mother plants. Many large
scale growers use hydroponics for growing instead of soil. What possible reason would you need a
water schedule for? Seems to be an unreasonable request for no apparent reason.
Ensure the innocence of medically determined conditions and use.
"Each principal officer or board member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident and has been an Arizona
resident for the two years immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a dispensary
certificate application." This is going to be a discrimination issue. Other companies are not required
to do this. Denver is currently re-writing their law after trying the same thing.
The more difficult and expensive you make the process, the more you force patients to the black
market. At $20 a pound, it's just herbal medicine, at $2000 a pound, it's the main source of income for
Mexican drug cartels. Want to bring the drug violence to Arizona, make a worthless weed worth it's
weight in gold.
The law should also include provisions for card carrying patients who are allowed to cultivate MJ living
outside the 24 mile area to also be able to purchase from a dispensary. The reason is because they may
not be able to grow enough, or have bad plants, or need the medicine before the plants are mature.
I think the " One year rule", with the physician/patient relationship is too much to ask. I understand
making restrictions to deter unworthy individuals easy access after one doctor's visit but in a situation
that your long time physician no longer practices or moves his/her practice away and you are than
prompted to see another physican in which you would have to have to wait atleast a year regardless of
what your medical history or prior doctor says. What about the individuals that don't have health
insurance and can no longer see their primary care doctor? You state that you want the doctors to be
responsible and the "gate keepers" of the program, yet you are requiring a year and atleast 4 visits
about your debilitating condition before you can even start talking about it. It just seems to me that you
are making a special concession to the crowd who opposed this initiative in the first place to flex your
muscles about how strict this is going to be for supposed "recreational users". I understand that stance
but this is going to deter "eligible patients" who might already obtain their marijuana illegally through
the black market and see these procedures as not worth it. So many other addicting narcotic pain meds
don't have these time restrictions and again it seems like you guys are making a special concession to
please the anti-MM crowd.
To much process. 99.8 percent of the AZ population should be able to have access to this medicine if
THEY think its benificial. Free country.
First part that could be problematic is the 70% rule. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical
marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; I foresee multiple
issues with this portion or the rules. A crop can go bad for multiple reasons essentially crippling the
dispensary. Mold, bugs, and deficiency can render a crop useless. If this happens to a crop, a dispensary
could be down as much as 3 months not allowing a patient to receive his medicine. With this rule, a
dispensary would be forced to sell its own product regardless if it is ready or usable and could damage
the patient. Leaving this portion in does not help the medical/recreational issue. It will just hinder a
patient and make us more like New Mexico which consistently has product shortages. Also, without
some sort of free trade between dispensaries and caregivers, we will never be able to produce "medical"
strains. It has taken California years to develop high CBD (Cannabidiol), low THC
(Tetrahydrocannabinol) strains which are truly medical. This free trade idea will allow more dispensaries
to have these strains available and further the legitimacy of Cannabidiol, the true medicine.
I think, perhaps, some clarity in regard to the surety bond referred to within the draft, perhaps in the
"definitions". Is posting a bond a requirement for all dispensaries? If so, what amount? If not, what
conditions and what amount? More information regarding the role of the Medical Director: routine
involvement in education and operational oversight vs. rubber stamping P&Ps and patient education
materials.
For adding a new condition, the time-line is entirely to long. 30 days just to let someone know azdhs has
received the application. We the people decided we need this. 7-10 days max to approve or decline.
See minor typo: R 9 -17-101 19. "Registry identification number" means the random 20-digit
alphanumeric identifier generated by the Department containing at least four number and four letters.
Should read "...containing at least four NUMBERS and four letters..."
eligibility. Many people suffer from debilitating migraines which are classified the same as being a
parapalegic. Many people suffer depression,bipolar, etc that are on deadlier pharmaceuticals that don't
work. Cannabis would be perfect for them or anyone on anti-depressants. If we truly want to improve
the way people feel, this should be included.
The patient fees should be reduced to a point where the poor can afford it.
When a patient is in pain and would benefit from Marijuana waiting one year and four Doctor visits is
punitive and shows deliberence indifference by the State. It appears policies are being set up to block
the public's vote and will. Mental health issues need to be added to the approved illness list. Please do
not discriminate agian them. They are protected by The 1964 Civial rights Act-Title VII.
I think that a pharmacist would be appropriate in place of an MD or DO for dispensaries to have on

staff. Their profession is centered around medication information. I think that a prescription for each
quantity dispensed would be appropriate. Refills would allow for the pharmacist to maintain regulation
and avoid abuse.
Your time periods and first to your doctor are way out of line.. I was diagnosed with glaucoma this last
summer and my eye doctor only see's me every six months. I already have alot of pain with my eyes
and extreme headaches. So according to your required medical visits in one year and way out of line. So
I would never qualify because I am not seeing my doctor often enough for you, even though I live in a
remote area and it takes months to get in to see him and I would be wasting his time and my money to
see him more often ( 4x a year) because all he can do is tell me how my disease is getting worse and
write my script for eyes drops. Not enough in regards to myselfm. My father in law's cancer was found
by a new doctor he was referred to and has started treatment very quickly. Excuse my bluntness
however he could pass away before he would qualify for your program that is suppose to help people.
making sure there isn't any loop holes for errors
You only mention profit 3 times in your draft. Removing the profit is the only way to keep criminals and
cartels out of the medical marijuana business, and preventing patients from turning to the black market.
I’m a former narcotics investigator, and you need to understand that the harder you make it to grow
medical marijuana, the more the price goes up. Unless we remove the profit from medical marijuana in
Arizona, we will have criminals and cartels involved, if not in sales, then through extortion. Indoor
grow rooms were designed to hide from law enforcement, not efficiently grow marijuana. The more you
force growers indoors it increases the cost to grow by 10 times, increases our states energy use, and
will cause damage to rental property. Homes were not designed to grow crops, fields were.
loosen the felony restrictions- a non-violent offense of 5 years prior is more than sufficient to prove non-
criminality. do not let growth for those under 18 years old
Fees will always be too high, please rethink this. There actually should be no fee at all. This is a medical
product used for the treatment of numerous ailments just like many other pharmacuetical products,
please treat it as such, or require anyone who is seeking medical care and medications to pay the same
fee. If you require dispensaries to be non profit, please extend this to all businesses engaged in
providing medications or re classify to at the very least NOT for profit. It is the marketplace that should
determine those businesses that are best suited for this industry, not a government agency and I would
argue that you will have more problems over seeing a non profit and even not for profit that you would
a for profit corporation and the ensuing taxes and fees they may generate. The 4 visit rule is
draconian at best. Imagine that you had cancer and were told you had to come back three more times
before they would treat you. The 1 year rule also precludes many who are under and non insured who
for financial or other reasons simply cannot get adequate and ongoing care, these persons should not
be precluded from the benefits of mmj for financial or other reasons. Either you trust the medical
industry or you do not. They should be able to assess and recommend mmj just as they would any other
medication for any other patient. You do not require doctors to have relationships with pharmacies
and I think having to establish a doctor/dispensary relationship is improper and problematic. The
dispensary is simply a conduit to provide a product and should not be relied on for medical advice.
The rules for a physician recommending mmj should mirror those for any other medical
recommendation. You unduly burden the physician and thereby unecessarily burden the patient by
expecting a higher level of accountability for mmj than any other medication of medical care. Rather
than go point by point, I think I am making the statement that the passage of the law was not a
mandate for the state to get in between a patient and a caregiver and I think that you should work very
hard toward treating mmj like any other medication or care dispensed by the medical profession. I
believe the citizens of Arizona would benefit most from a system similar to California. I think it ought to
be the goal of AZ dept of health to oversee the process at the lowest cost, quickest methods and least
invasive of personal privacy and the physician patient interaction. I commend you for the work you
have done, but look forward to a lot of improvement and very very happy to have you taking public
comment and being open to comments, criticism and finding a working model that we can all live with.
I am concerned about the plans for dispensaries requiring the location of the panic button. Wouldn't
that information then be available through a public information request which would then possibly
endanger the employees?
Add a contingent approval process where a dispensary application can be approved and recieve a
license contingent upon the final site inspection. This would lessen the financial burden/risk of the
proposed dispensary. The application can be approved as per the information submitted by the potential
dispensary. This would allow a potential dispensary to secure a location per zoning guidlines and plan
for the grow/dispensary location without actually spending the money to have the site ready to go only
to be denied a dispesary license. There is already a substantial burden placed on organizations trying to
setup a dispensary with the requirements to have a physical address for the property where the
dispensary and grow will take place along with the license fees. In the contingent plan would be the
business plan outlining the capital required to be "operational" within x amount of days upon a
"contingent" license being approved by the state. This would allow for organizations with "more to
risk/loose" to have a chance at owning and operating a dispensary per the state requirements. The way
it is written now requires a large initial investment that is unrealistic for some organizations to have a
chance to even apply.
At this point I think it is a good starting point for the process.
I believe the Fees for Registry Identification and Dispensary to be inappropriately low in nature.
Considering the cost of "marijuana" to the user, the fact that it is not covered by Insurance, and the
cost to society in the consequence of drug cartel violence, and Arizona Border Violence which is a direct
result of the drug trade and affects Arizona directly, the fees are woefully low. Insurance carriers and
drug programs pay for medical pain killers and medicine to alleviate debilitating conditions. Medical
"marijuana" is an option which the patient selects through his own desire to use an "Alternative"
medication. When a person elects to use Alternative medicine, it is well known that it is not covered by
insurance, and must be paid for out of pocket, and the availability is determined by the patients financial
wherewithal. Obviously, those who chose to use marijuana as an Alternative drug, are willing to pay the
exorbitant cost of same. Therefore, the cost of $200 for a Registry ID card is woefully low and should
be raised to a minimum of $500.00. The cost of the dispensary is too low at $5000.00, as well,
considering the cost to society of same, via affects upon the general population and school aged
children as well. It should be treated in a similar manner as a liquor store, or an adult pornography
outlet, and the fees for Registering the dispensary should be no less than $20,000.00, considering the
sizeable profit the outlet will sustain over a long period of time, as well as the consequences to society
and community by the presence of same. I believe that the State of Arizona and the Health
Department should have much more profit in the endeavor than that intended. This profit will help aid
some of the public health programs, as well as fight some of the drug cartels on our very own border.
Thank you for allowing input.
I really like the safeguards that are being put in to deter people from a 5 min meeting with a doctor and
handed a card. As a HIV patient myself one thing I did think about are people who are recently
diagnosed that have to be placed on HIV medication immediately. These medications are often very
strong and can cause severe nausea and dizziness. There is a absence of history developed or perhaps
the primary physician is not a specialist in the field of HIV treatment. This is important since the
treatment and understand is constantly evolving, perhaps some separation of the length background or
ongoing 4 visits/ 1 year for patients diagnosed with severe condition like mine that need specialist care.
As an assisted living operator, I think it is ludicrous to charge such a nominal fee, compared to licensing
an assisted living center, to open and operate a dispensary. At the price that has been suggested,
everyone "pot-smoker" who wants to make a living will be submitting for an application. Will there be
any special training required? Pharmacists must be licensed to dispense medication? Should there not be
licensing process that proves someone able to own and operate this type of business?
i did not see any definition of 'physician' --- what physicians will be able to certify? MD, DO, what
about NMD? ND ? DC? homeopaths? the first seven diagnosis labels are too broadbased without
up front qualification of need to be at debilitating state [which the certification by a physician qualifies]--
however, a public citizen may simply read it as diagnosis of 'cancer' and have had a simple superficial
skin cancer removed years ago >> now demand that it is debilitating.
any conviction of driving while under the influence of marijuana, shall result in the offender's license to
use marijuana to be revoked, and shall prevent that offender from ever obtaining a license to smoke
marijuana again.
Need to specify that home delivery is allowed by any dispensary with proper recordkeeping, proper
identification. Many medical marijuana patients are homebound either with or without a caregiver. They
are not able to travel and require home delivery. Also many caregivers will not want to get involved
getting medical marijuana for their patients since it is still a federal crime.
If this draft is appoved by ADHS the ACLU will file suit the next day. Do not waste the taxpayers
monie with this. Make Medial Marijuana the same as all other Drugs. Keep the goverment out of
peoples medical condition.
In Section R9-17-202. of the RULES it states :"Department-provided format". Will the AZDHS supply the
format for the physicians certification or as long as the physician covers all of the points necessary in
their own formatted certificate, will this be acceptable to the AZDHS?
More information about cultivation (locations, guidelines, amounts) and designated caregivers (where
they must live/grow and amounts, etc.)
Dedicating a section to "This is what you need before you can apply for a card," and then "This is what
you need to do when applying for a card." Because that whole part seemed a little confusing.
A Pharm.D. should be able to provide the services of medical director.
the cost of the card is high most people that needs marijuana is in a fixed income and 150.00 could be a
burden to some in ss or ssi should be some form of discount for people on s.s.or s.s.i.this is to inprove
life not take away for it
Include certified nurse practitioners as part of the medical community allowed to prescribe medical
marijuana.
You need to clarify the informaton on fingerprinting. A fingerprint card is issued for 6 years and at great
expense by the person applying for one (they run over $65.00). In your informal draft rules you do not
acknowledge that a person possessing a valid Fingerprint card does not have to go through the
fingerprint process again because that's the point of having a 6 year fingerprint card. Sort of like a
driver's license you require everyone to provide ID to show they possess one and not make them go
take the driver's license test again just because they are applying to be a caregiver or dispensary agent.
Also the "transporting" of marijuana is now the new word for delivery? Why don't you use the word
delivery which is mentioned 6 times in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Pima County and Tucson,
Marana and other municipalities have banned off-site delivery and you are giving them credence now
because of the word "transport". Clear this up please so cities can revisit their zoning on this. Finally
you are violating the whole Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and inviting a slew of lawsuits by the
demands for video cameras to be in the dispensaries. What don't you understand about the
confidentiality of patients rights to go pick up their medicine without having their face put on camera
and beamed directly to your offices. This is not part of the AMMA which clearly states "minimum security
requirements", you are putting in maximum and unreasonable security requirements and this has to go.
Allow more medical coditions then proposed....seems very limited to all conditions.
There is almost no mention of quality assurance or product safety. Other than basic sanitation and
restaurant like regulations, there are no guidelines to ensure that growing conditions, product
manufacturing practices, inventory control, storage, distribution, packaging, infusion activities, and
shipping meet even the most minimum of FDA standards and procedures. The legal and public safety
exposure is considerable and almost inevitable, given the lack of regulatory oversight. I suggest you
have a QA expert from the FDA suggest some basic guidelines on product safety.
1. This is a little confusing....Do we need to provide all or some? Same for Patient, Dispensary. A copy
the designated caregiver's: i Arizona driver's license issued after October 1, 1996; ii. Arizona
identification card issued after October 1, 1996; iii. Arizona registry identification card; iv. Photograph
page in the qualifying patient's U.S. passport; or v. An Arizona driver's license or identification card
issued before October 1, 1996 and one of the following: 2. Cultivation sites were not addressed. As I
read this we can ONLY recieve medical marijuana from another dispensary, caregiver or grow our own
in the dispensary? The Site Inspection part is alittle confusing because a. we don't have the seeds or
clones till we have been approved so nothing can be set up b. we have a contigency lease based on if
we recieve a dispensary license or not c. we have to already have a business up and running before
applying for a dispensary license?
"Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the
physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the qualifying patient's
debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional" This creates an unnecessary
burden on the patient. As an example, North Country Health Care clinic does not allow it's doctors to
make medical marijuana recommendations even if the doctor believes the patient needs medical
marijuana. For someone who is poor or homebound, they will have to see a new doctor with 4 vists
probably costing $400, transportatation probably costing $200 plus they'll have to get their license for
$150. A poor patient will have to pay close to $750 just to be considered. In addition the patient will
have to wait a year to get their medical marijuana
I think that anybody can say that they have neck pain or back pain or trouble sleeping etc... So
according to the rules all that a person has to do is walk into a doctors office and say they can not sleep
and then they are given a recommendation for medical marijuana. So this is going to be just like
California (which we were all led to believe that rules would be stricter) and everyone is going to be
running around smoking a controlled substance... I think that what I read in the "rules" is nothing like
what I voted for. I was led to believe that only terminally ill patients were going to be able to use the
medicine. There is a guy that lives 5 houses down from me who already has a recommendation for a
medical card and his illness is sighted as insomnia... This is NOT what I voted for! Now every drug
addict with $150 dollars can become a LEGAL drug addict. Another misleading bill believed by me and
hundreds of thousands of other misled voters.
Coming up with the money needed to rent build-out and operate is a little more than most people have
the ability to throw away on the chance that they will get a certificate. I think their should be a
contingency plan similar to how a nursing home gets it certification and preliminary certification and
then be given at least 30 days to comply and be ready for inspection at which time the applicant is
either ready with all their ducks in a row so to say or they loose their certificate.
How about some protection for home care nurses who enter the home of up to 10 patients a day. will
they have to spend 200.00 if a single patient is smoking or the nurse may become exposed from
entering a smoky home. They could enter a few homes or 1 home have a car accident and be tested
that would be rutine for a drug test. now is that nurse subject to license lost.
The rule mandating physician patient relationship should be revised to put the medicine in the patient's
hands as quickly yet appropiatley as possible.
Chuck it in the garbage and start over. This is the worst rules I've seen and shame on ADHS. What do
you think we are New Jersey with their worthless rules? Look at Michigan or Oregon and see how they
provide compassionate care at the government level for their citizens.
Many technical requirements (especially related to security and physical plant) appear to be
unnecessarily specific, and such specific requirements serve little useful purpose. In fact, it is
detrimental to require an essentially uniform approach to security and access control at these facilities -
any entity wishing to breach security knows exactly what measures are in place at any dispensary. It
almost appears that some requirements, such as the extremely specific technical requirements for video
recording and monitoring, may have been incorporated to benefit the few commercial providers of such
specific technical solutions.
I am hoping it has a clearly defined way to become a dispensary and what the laws for
advertising/marketing will be.
Dispensary agents will ALL be using Marijuana. I believe it should be absolutely illegal to do so.
Mandatory random drug testing should be required.

How can the draft rules be improved?
Open-Ended Response
If you pay special attention to Section 36-2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the AzMMA does
NOT give authority to the Arizona Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the patient-
physician relationship and does NOT give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding
"ongoing" to "patient-physician relationship." The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically DENIES
authority for such usurpations.
When a pharmacutical company introduces a drugs to a formulary it lists most of the illnesses or
conitions the the drug is indicated for. MOST of them. Sometimes a specific drug may be used for a
condition that is not listed on the original "indications for use" form. One example is the use of
antidepressants for pain relief. What provisions are in place so that should a patient require medical
marijuana for a use not originally listed or intended,-per the draft- that patient may aquire the
medicine for the prescribing doctor?
Delete the requirement that a patient have a 1 year relationship with the recommending doctor. The
requirement of a 1 year relationship is unrealistic. It discriminates against all veterans. Any V.A. cancer
patient or V.A. chronic pain patient would not be able to get a marijuana recommendation because
their doctor works for the federal government! Any V.A. patient would not have a civilian doctor that
had seen him for their diagnosis for a year, so they would not be able to get a recommendation. I
believe that we owe our U.S. War Heroes the right to pain relief, especially if they are dying from
cancer! Any civilian patient, newly diagnosed with a fast moving cancer (such as pancreatic or
lymphatic cancer) would not be able to gain pain and nausea relief in time, before the disease killed
them. The voters did not approve of this provision, and the reason it was not on the ballot this way is
because of the argument that I have just presented. It never would have been allowed to go to ballot
written that way, because Veterans organizations and cancer patient advocates would have
recognized the discrimination right away and had the language changed. Do not add fundamental
stuff that wasn't approved by the voters! You are the implementers of the peoples will, not the
writers of the law! By adding such things as the "1 year doctor-patient relationship" requirement, you
are inviting law suits that can not be won by the state. Law suits that would be expensive, and would
be lost anyway. Money would be spent defending the indefensible. Lets use that money as a state to
do something else such as give music, art, Shop class and extracurricular activities back to our schools!
Delete: R9-17-101(15) Medical Director, there are no need for medical marijuana dispensaries to have
a medical director we are not performing any medical treatments that need their supervision as in the
need for pre-hospital providers aka EMTâ€™s and paramedics. Also if any counseling is needed it need
to be done between the patient and their doctor before they are recommended medical marijuana.
Change: R9-17-101(16)(a) two visits instead of four if this is the primary care doctor it should take four
visits to determine if medical marijuana will be beneficial Change:R9-17-102 from non refundable to
refundable this isnâ€™t a chance for DHS to get rich and take advantage of people seriously if need be
add a processing fee $50 Change:R9-17-102(3) Change of location to $1000 if a dispensary feels it is
necessary to relocate due to a safer location for it patients which I feel this will be an issue due to the
unreasonable restriction the municipalities are looking to enforce Add:R9-17-102(3)(a)Fee for adding
a cultivation site $1000 so that expanding dispensaries can add a cultivation site if one wasnâ€™t in
place on the original application. Change:R9-17-102(4)Change to $1000 this is a reasonable fee
Change:R9-17-102(5)(a)Fee should be reasonable to patients similar to other states like Colorado
which is $90 so change to $90 Change:R9-17-102(5)(b)There are no fees in other states like Colorado
for a care giver and there shouldnâ€™t be one in Arizona if there is to be a fee it should be reasonable
like $50 no more than what a patient should pay which I feel should be $90 Change:R9-17-102(5)(c)
Change Dispensary agent fee to $100 there should be no fee at all as in other states but since the law
requires background check for violent felonies and drug felonies a reasonable fee for this would be
$100 anymore may be a burden on the dispensary Add: R9-17-102(5)(d)Fee for board members and
principal officers $100 Change:R9-17-102(6)(a)Fee should be reasonable to patients similar to other
states like Colorado which is $90 so change to $90 Change:R9-17-102(6)(b)There are no fees in other
states like Colorado for a care giver and there shouldnâ€™t be one in Arizona if there is to be a fee it
should be reasonable like $50 no more than what a patient should pay which I feel should be $90
Change:R9-17-102(6)(c) Change Dispensary agent fee to $100 there should be no fee at all as in other
states but since the law requires background check for violent felonies and drug felonies a reasonable
fee for this would be $100 anymore may be a burden on the dispensary Change:R9-17-105(4) Is this
an error should it be in reference to R9-17-102(8) Change:R9-17-106(A)(2)change to â€œif
applicableâ€ on telephone number Clearify:R9-17-106(B)(3)(a) What is the exact reference for (B)(2)
is it R9-17-106(B)(2)? Clearify:R9-17-106(B)(3)(b) What is the exact reference for (B)(2) is it R9-17-
106(B)(2)? Delete:R9-17-106(C) a terminal or debilitating condition should have to wait til Janruary or
July to be added it should be at anytime. Change:R9-17-107(E)(2) should have 30 calender days to
provide necessary paperwork Add:R9-17-107(F)(2)(c) should add a chance to correct paperwork if it is
just an issue with paperwork before it is just denied Change:R9-17-107(G)(2)(b) Change to 30
calendar day to provide additional paperwork Change: Table 1.1 Changing a dispensary or cultivation
location to reflect 30,30,10,20 if a dispensary is changing location it shouldnâ€™t take as long as a
new application and should be similar to a renewal Delete:R9-17-108 Delete medical director
Add:R9-17-108 Add employee into the list not just board members and principal officers Change:R9-
17-202(F)(1)(h) Change to if applicable Change:R9-17-202(F)(5)(e)(i) Change to two visits Change:R9-
17-202(F)(5)(k) Have it be required that the doctors document has to be notarized Change:R9-17-
202(G)(1)(i) change to if applicable for email address Change:R9-17-202(G)(3) Not sure if this is
possible due to how the law is written but it shouldnâ€™t matter if a care giver for a minor has a
felony or not a minor canâ€™t get their own medication so the legal guardian should be able to no
matter of a felony or not Change:R9-17-202(G)(9) Should have the felony restrictions removed as
stated in the argument stated above if the law allow for that Change:R9-17-202(G)(13)(e)(i)(1)
Change to two visits Change:R9-17-202(G)(13)(i) Doctors document should be notorized Change:R9-
17-204(A)(1)(i) Change to if applicable on email address Change:R9-17-204(A)(4)(e)(i)Change to two
visits Change:R9-17-204(A)(4)(k) Doctors paperwork should be notorized Change:R9-17-
204(B)(4)(f)(i)(1) Change to two visits Change:R9-17-302(A) Change to 5 year resident prior to
applying for a dispensary I think Arizona should take care of Arizona residents and not allow out of
state investors to try to make a profit off of us here in Arizona and take away opportunities for us to
employ Arizona resident that could use a job in these trying times Delete:R9-17-302(B)(1)(g) There is
no need for a medical director a pharmacy does not require one neither shall a dispensary
Change:R9-17-302(B)(3)(b)Change to five years immediately Delete:R9-17-302(B)(8) There is no
reason why a site plan should be a part of the required materials this has no bearing on security or
safety and is just another expense and unnecessary hurdle for a prospective dispensary owner
Delete:R9-17-302(B)(10) There is no reason why a site plan should be a part of the required materials
this has no bearing on security or safety and is just another expense and unnecessary hurdle for a
prospective dispensary owner Delete:R9-17-302(B)(13) It is not a concern on if or how a prospective
dispensary owner plans to make a viable not for profit dispensary just that it is a not for profit entity
and that is covered in the yearly financial report Change:R9-17-302(B)(14) There should be set hours
of operation on the dispensary side (not cultivation) that limits the hours to reasonable operating
time no earlier than 7am and no later than 10pm to limit criminal activity that may endanger patients
and dispensary agents working in a dispensary Delete:R9-17-302(B)(15) All of this section (a) thru (d)
has nothing to do with what a dispensary should be responsible for and should be deleted what
training does a pharmacist has in dealing with medical marijuana? Exactly none and the nutrition and
physical activity information is something apatients doctor shall be providing a pharmacy doesnâ€™t
provide any of this why should a dispensary again another unnecessary cost for a dispensary
Delete:R9-17-304(A)(5)(a) There is no reason why a site plan should be a part of the required
materials this has no bearing on security or safety and is just another expense and unnecessary hurdle
for a prospective dispensary owner Delete:R9-17-304(A)(6)(a) There is no reason why a site plan
should be a part of the required materials this has no bearing on security or safety and is just another
expense and unnecessary hurdle for a prospective dispensary owner Add:R9-17-304(E) the time
frame for a change in location should be 30 calendar days similar to a renewal with time frame
reflecting 30,30,10,20 and also change table 1.1 to reflect this as well Change:R9-17-305(1)(h) Change
to five years Delete:R9-17-305(1)(i) No need for medical director Clarify:R9-17-305(1)(j) What does
this pertain to Delete:R9-17-305(3) This is another added expense that is unnecessary this is not a
concern of the DHS office other than it holding up to a not for profit business the state and federal
entity in charge of taxes will know if there are any discrepancies Change:R9-17-306(C) change to 10
working days Change/Add:R9-17-306(E) the dispensary will be provided a copy of the complaint and
person reporting Change:R9-17-306(F)The department can only inspect for specified violations made
in complaint and not take it as a free for all to try and find another infraction during their investigation
Change:R9-17-306(G) Change to 10 working days Delete:R9-17-307(A)(3) No need for a medical
director Delete:R9-17-307(A)(4)(b) No need for a medical director Delete:R9-17-307(A)(5)(b) No need
for a medical director Add:R9-17-307(C)(5)Should consider adding that a dispensary can in their first
year be responsible for 50% of their own product but must receive the other 50% from patients,
caregivers and other dispensaries due to the newness of this business and to get use to supply and
demand and what to expect from their crops ie. Turn around on product and actual harvests size
Delete: R9-17-310 There is no need for a medical director all of this is items a pt and doctor should be
going over in the visits prior to the recommendation to use medical marijuana and on the ongoing
care of the pt Delete R9-17-310 (A) thru (D) Change/Add:R9-17-311(1) Add a list of approved
identifications for a dispensary agent to verify a patients identity Delete:R9-17-311(2)This is for a
doctor to provide his patient before recommending medical marijuana Delete:R9-17-312 There is no
need for a dispensary to maintain any pt records other than medicines dispensed and verifying that
they are not receiving more than 2.5 ounces in a fourteen day period all other logs and records are for
a doctor and patient to go over Delete R9-17-312 (A) thru (D) Change:R9-17-313(B)(3)(b)(ii) This
needs to be change due to the fact that marijuana losses up to 80% of its weight when it is dried and
cured so there needs to be a change to this Delete:R9-17-313(B)(6)(e) This is not something a
dispensary should be liable for once the medical marijuana has transferred custody to the food
establishment Change/Comment:R9-17-313(C) This needs to be change due to the fact that
marijuana losses up to 80% of its weight when it is dried and cured so there needs to be a change to
this Change:R9-17-313(D)(1) Change to two years not five there is no reason to keep records longer
than necessary Delete:R9-17-314(A)(3) Should be on record with the dispensary but not nessesary for
patient labeling requirements Delete:R9-17-314(A)(5) Should be on record with the dispensary but
not nessesary for patient labeling requirements Change:R9-17-314(C) Change to one gram of medical
marijuana Delete:R9-17-315(C) (1)(c)(i) not necessary Delete:R9-17-315(C) (1)(c)(ii) not necessary
Change:R9-17-315(C) (1)(c)(ix) delete the recorded video Change:R9-17-315(C)(1)(d) Define the
number of panic buttons and where they need to be located Delete:R9-17-316(B) Delete this is not
the dispensaries responsibility but rather the food company preparing this edible item Delete:R9-17-
317(B)(4)no medical director needed Delete:R9-17-317(B)(5)no medical director needed Change:R9-
17-319(A)(2)(a) Change to five years ADD:R9-17-319(F) A dispensary can re apply for certification
after a certain time frame as long as it is a serious offense for revoked
The draft rules could be improved by not being so restrictive in regards to how a patient may get
access to medical marijuana. A.R.S. Title 32 Chapter 14 licenses naturopathic doctors and A.R.S. Title
32 Chapter 29 licenses Homeopathic doctors in the state of Arizona. Proposition 203 never gives any
authority to the AZ DHS to determine which specific type of doctors may recommend marijuana.
Patients that want a choice in health care should not be forced to see a specific type of doctor. Is it
not discrimination to allow one time of doctor to recommend marijuana but not another?
Additionally, the requirement that a patient doctor relationship having to have existed for at least 4
visits and one year is overbearing. What if someone does not have health insurance and then is
forced to go to unnecessary doctor appointments? And what if someone looses their health
insurances or has to change their health insurance? The patient might have to see another doctor and
then loose their year long relationship and visit count. R9-17-101.16b would be the patient's only
alternative; however, circumstances related to this rule or the comfort of the physician may prevent a
patient from getting a recommendation in this manner. A patient should be allowed to combine their
visit time with different doctors to satisfy the one year and 4 visit rule.
"5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200;
and c. Dispensary agent, $200;" These fees are very high. While it is true that some states charge
more for their application fees, most charge significantly less. Oregon state law allows for a $20 fee
for Qualifying Patients who provide proof of either State Health Plan eligibility or receipt of
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) monthly benefits. California's initial application fee is $66 for
patients without state medical aid and $33 for those with state medical aid. Lowering this fee to $75
for patients without state medical aid is the recommendation here "6. For renewing a registry
identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200; and c. Dispensary
agent, $200;" These renewal fees are too high. The rules allow a dispensary to renew for 1/5 of the
original application fee. Qualifying Patients, Designated Caregivers, and Dispensary Agents should
have the same consideration. They will have already gone through the initial, rigorous application
process and will not be as difficult or time consuming to process as new applicants will be. The two
year residency requirement for dispensary owners is somewhat extreme. Many people have had to
move "back home" and need to start over. There are people with college degrees wanting to start
new businesses in Arizona but are shut out of this opportunity due to the two year residency
requirement. The recommendation here is to lower the requirement to 12 months.
Take the 47 pages and cut it down to the bare bones. The patients need 2 pages of forms, the
caregiver 1 page, the dispensaries need some rules about how to use the database, keep simple
inventory control and follow Pima County Health Department rules when it comes to hand washing.
You are still keeping it a state secret on how the dispensary licenses will be granted and you should
grant to every single dispensary that applies and spends $5,000 a provisional permit to be up and
running on conditional status. At the end of the year you'll have lots that have failed and many that
will succeed and the final licensing will be granted to the top 124 dispensaries in the state with the
ones that don't make it given the inside track to transition to a licensed kitchen facility affliate of a
now fully licensed dispensary. That way the program treats everyone fairly and gives small businesses
and our economy a huge jump start. Colorado is in a moratorium right now why they do this very
thing and if you look at their unemployment (especially Denver) you will see how Medical Marijuana
has saved their state from going down the tubes. Arizona is hurting financially and growing a natural
herb that has so many uses besides medical will help us get out of the ditch.
Drop the requirement that a patient be treated by a doctor for a year before the doctor can
recommend MMJ. That is not what the voters voted upon, it is an illegal and unconstitutional addition
by those that want to control something that they disagree with fundamentally. Drop the
requirement that a patient continue to see the physician that recommended MMJ for the patient.
That is not what the voters voted upon, it is an illegal unconstitutional addition by those that want to
control something that they disagree with fundamentally. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THE ABOVE
IS NOT FAIR TO PATIENTS: I am a perfect example. I have "Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia type 1" I
have thyroid cancer in my lungs. I have massive pain and take large doses of morphine (another
flower extract) to control the pain, and to keep coughing to a minimum. I have wasting syndrome and
no appetite. Also as a result of the thyroid cancer, I have no parathyroid glands. This causes massive
muscle cramps and uncontrollable spasms. MMJ is perfect for treating most of my conditions that no
other medication could do, at least until they kill me. There is only one problem; I am a former U.S.
Marine, injured in the line of duty by and explosion during the first Gulf War. I am a Veteran. My
primary, and my cancer doctors are all V.A. doctors. V.A. doctors are Federal Employees and cannot
recommend MMJ as a treatment. So how am I to get a doctor that has treated me for a year prior for
cancer to recommend MMJ? How can I have a doctor continue to treat me after the recomendation
when I have V.A. doctors as my primary and oncology doctors? By attempting to add to the bill
something that was not voted upon by the voters, I.E. the one year doctor clause; you are EXCLUDING
every Veteran that has given so much to our country. That is why your job is not to add anything to
the bill that the voters did not intend. Make rules that make sure the the patient has cancer, or
massive pain, give them an ID card, and leave them alone. The $150 fee for an ID card is exorbitant.
A person that has never had to deal with cancer may have a hard time understanding this. Cancer is
expensive. A person with cancer usually can't work. A person with cancer needs to pay for
medications, transportation to doctors hundreds of miles away, hotel bills and food for traveling to
the doctors, not to mention the doctor bills not covered by insurance! Why add unnecessary burdens
to the very people that this bill is designed to help? $150 per patient can be easily carried by the
dispensaries. The huge retail prices paid to the dispensaries for the Cannabis is bad enough, the extra
fees should be paid by those making the money, not those dying to get their product (literally!) $50 is
a more reasonable figure for a fee for patients. The amount of a patient's fee should also be adjusted
by their income, taking into account the money they spend on doctor bills, medicine, travel, and room
and board for treatment. An additional flaw in the proposed rules is the requirement that a
Dispensary agent not owe child support, have outstanding student loans, or be a police officer. First it
is not the business of the government weather any of these things exist, second, it is overly intrusive
by BIG BROTHER, and thirdly, do you want the child support and the Student Loan paid? Being a
dispensary agent, even with a non profit, can be very lucrative, and it is the perfect means for the
person to earn the money to pay the very thing back that you are trying to discriminate against them
with. If a person owes child support, why keep them from making money to pay it with? Likewise with
Student Loans! A police officer is the perfect person to be running a dispensary! Who else can we
trust better than a police officer to keep everything legal? Be logical and stop trying to be intrusive
and ORWELLIAN! Another unreasonable requirement of the proposed rules is the requirement of
the Dispensary to furnish scale drawings of each room of the dispensary, and the names of the rooms,
that is ridiculous and burdensome for a start-up business. Other than the obvious need for security
and the requirements involved to insure it, there should be no additional requirements placed upon a
dispensary business that would not be required of any other business licensed in that county. Any
additional requirements would be an obvious case of discrimination and would show a definite bias
on the part of the rule-makers to make it as difficult as possible for dispensaries to open. Stop thinking
like BIG BROTHER and start thinking about the people in pain that need help, after all, most of the
people that will be visiting these dispensaries are in the last years of their lives, like me.
Director Will Humble Arizona Department of Health Services 150 N. 18th Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix,
AZ 85007 Dear Director Humble, To begin, I thank you and and the Department of Health for your
hard work on the proposed draft rules to implement Proposition 203, the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Act. Though many of the draft rules are excellent, some provisions frustrate the Department's goal of
safeguarding the health of the people of Arizona. To aid in improving these rules, I offer the following
comments and suggestions, drawing upon my experience as a medical cannabis attorney whose law
firm represents over 150 collectives in states that currently allow medical marijuana. Physician
Requirements: Though the Department's goal of having a medical director be affiliated with licensed
dispensaries is laudable, many applicants will not be able to comply with this requirement. In states
that have allowed medical marijuana, many medical doctors and osteopathic physicians fear losing
they will be investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, other law enforcement agencies, or
the state medical board if they discuss medical cannabis with their patents, let alone issue a
recommendation or certification to their patients. Most likely, Arizona medical doctors and
osteopathic physicians will have similar fears, not only about recommending medical cannabis to
patients, but also about serving as the medical director of a collective. Consequently, many
dispensaries will be hard-pressed to find a medical doctor or osteopath to serve as their medical
director. Accordingly, the Department should not require that licensed dispensaries have a medical
director on staff. Because of the difficulty dispensaries will have in finding a physician to serve as
medical director, this requirement will only frustrate ensuring the health of medical cannabis patients.
To help promote good health among medical cannabis patients, the Department should consider
requiring dispensaries provide other services to promote good health, such as classes in nutrition,
cooking with medical cannabis, counseling services, or support groups. Alternatively, if the
Department continues to require that licensed dispensaries have a medical director, the Department
should consider allowing not only medical doctors and osteopathic physicians to serve as medical
directors, but also nurse practitioners, physician assistants, homeopathic physicians, naturopathic
physicians, and registered nurses to serve as medical directors. By allowing other medical
professionals to serve as medical directors, DHS will help achieve its laudable goal of ensuring that all
dispensaries offer services beyond providing medical cannabis to help promote the good health of
patients. Another obstacle to safeguarding the health of medical cannabis patients in the draft rules
is how the rules currently define an ongoing relationship with a physician. The current draft requires
that a patient have an ongoing relationship with a physician, defined as a relationship of at least one
year, during which the patient visited the physician at least four separate times for treatment of the
patient's debilitating condition. Alternatively, a patient can have an ongoing relationship with a
physician if the physician reviews a patient's medical history in depth and then agrees to assume
"primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating
medical condition." Presumably, by requiring that patients have a far more extensive relationship
with a physician to receive a written certification for the use of medical cannabis than DHS requires a
patient to have with a physician before receiving a recommendation or prescription for any other
drug, including Vicodin, Oxycontin, or Codeine, DHS intends to safeguard the health of medical
cannabis patients. However, this rule will only frustrate safeguarding the health of Arizonans who
would benefit from the use of medical cannabis. As discussed above, many physicians in Arizona will
refuse to issue a written certification for the use of medical cannabis -- regardless of whether the
physician believes that the patient would benefit from using medical cannabis -- because many
physicians will fear being investigated or losing their license to practice medicine. As a result, a small
number of physicians will be willing to issue written certifications. Patients may be forced to
choose between receiving a written certification for the use of medical cannabis and seeing the
physician of their choice to treat their debilitating medical condition, if DHS imposes the proposed
definition of an ongoing physician-patient relationship. For example, a patient with cancer may have
to choose between visiting the best oncologist possible -- who out of fear refuses to issue written
certifications for the use of medical cannabis to any patient, regardless of whether the patient would
benefit from medical cannabis -- or granting a less-qualified physician -- who believes that the patient
would benefit from the use of medical cannabis and will issue a written certification -- primary
responsibility for their medical care in order to benefit from using medical cannabis. DHS does not
impose this dilemma upon Arizonans who benefit from the use of any other legal medical treatment
or drug. DHS should not impose this burden on medical cannabis patients either, and may violate the
Equal Protection rights of medical cannabis patients, if it adopts the proposed definition of an angling
physician-patient relationship. Rather, DHS should impose the same requirements upon medical
cannabis patients as they do upon patients who receive any other legal medicine or treatment:
require that the patient visit the physician, that the physician assess the client's symptoms and
medical history, and that the physician issue a written certification for the use of medical cannabis
only to those patients whose debilitating medical condition or treattment thereof will benefit from
using medical cannabis. This approach treats medical cannabis patients and patents using other
medicines equally, and it helps ensure that patients can find a physician who is willing to issue written
certifications for the use of medical cannabis to evaluate them to determine whether they would
benefit from the use of medical cannabis. Also, by allowing medical cannabis patients to see a
physician regarding the use of medical cannabis, without requiring that the patient put the physician
in charge of the patient's care, DHS would ensure that patients can choose the best physician for each
aspect of their treatment. Very few people, particularly those who suffer from debilitating medical
conditions such as cancer, HIV or AIDS, ALS, or multiple schlerosis, have only one doctor, or even
designate one doctor to be in charge of their care. Rather, people receive treatment from a team of
doctors for serious conditions, thereby ensuring that they receive the best care for their condition and
the treatment thereof. Arizonans who suffer from debilitating medical conditions as defined in
Proposition 203 should be allowed to add a physician who can evaluate them for the use of medical
cannabis and monitor the effects of this medicine to their team of doctors, rather than having to risk
choosing between using medical cannabis or putting the best physician in charge of their care.
Another issue regarding the physician-patient relationship is the requirement that on the stathement
that the patient submits to the Department as part of the patient's application for a registry
identification card, the physician identify which debilitating medical condition from which the patient
suffers. R9-17-202(F)(5)(d) This disclosure may violate the patient's right to privacy and the patient's
right to physician-patient confidentiality. Dispensary Application Process: While the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act calls for careful regulation of licensed dispensaries, certain aspects of the
application process proposed in the draft rules impose too heavy of a burden upon potential
applicants and local jurisdictions. For example, by requiring that applicants for dispensary
certificates obtain a certificate of occupancy or other land use approval from the local government in
the jurisdiction where the applicant seeks to locate, the Department will make it very difficult for
many applicants to submit their application in a timely manner. Indeed, it may not be possible for
even the most organized applicant to go through the entire local land use approval process before the
beginning of April 2011. As for local governments, many of which are still determining the proper
land use requirements for licensed dispensaries, they will be forced to expend valuable time and
resources evaluating applications from many more possible dispensary applicants than is necessary.
To ensure that licensed dispensaries comply with local land use rules, while also imposing less of a
burden upon applicants and local governments, the Department should delay requiring potential
applicants to demonstrate compliance with local land use laws. Instead, the Department should
evaluate applications on other criterion in an initial stage. Then, those applicants with the best
applications should then have to prove that they can comply with local land use requirements.
Another aspect of the dispensary certificate application process that the Department should revise is
contained in R9-17-107, Section B: "A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the
applicant provides the Department with written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection
by the Department." Similar inspections are required in R9-17-302(B)(1)(j) and (k). While requiring an
inspection makes sense if applied to a dispensary that seeks a renewal of its certificate, it is unclear
how the Department intends to impose this requirement upon an applicant for a dispensary
certificate. Does the Department intend to inspect a proposed dispensing site and the additional
cultivation location? What would the Department look for, since the dispensary is not yet operating?
In short, what is the Department's criterion for evaluating applicants with such inspections? How can
applicants prepare for the inspection? R9-17-302(B)(15) also requires revision. This section requires
that the dispensary applicant state whether a registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during
the operating hours of the dispensary, and whether the dispensary applicant has a surety bond. Given
that neither the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act nor the draft rules require that a licensed dispensary
have a relationship with a pharmacist or maintain a surety bond, potential applicants cannot
understand why the Department asks them to provide this information in their application. In the
next version of the rules, the Department should remove this requirement, or explain why the
Department seeks this information. As for R9-17-302(A), which requires that potential board
members and officers of licensed dispensaries have resided in Arizona for two years, this requirement
may violate the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Arizonans. The Department has not
offered any rational basis for this two-year residency requirement. While the Department can justify
requiring that potential board members and officers be residents of Arizona, the Department cannot
justify excluding residents of Arizona who have moved to the state in the past two years from applying
for a dispensary certificate. Lastly, the Department must specify what criterion the Department will
use to determine which applicants will receive a dispensary certificate. Does the Department intend
to hold a lottery? Rank applicants according to as-yet unspecified standards? A combination of these
methods? The potential applicants needs to understand the criterion that the Department will apply,
so that they can decide whether they wish to apply, and best prepare their applications. Promoting
the Health and Safeguarding the Privacy of Qualifying Patients: Licensed dispensaries will be charged
with promoting the health and safeguarding the privacy of qualifying patients. While many aspects of
the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the draft rules serve these goals, the Department must revise
some sections to ensure that qualifying patients have access to a sufficient supply of affordable
medical cannabis. If the Department imposes the propsed restrictions on the cultivation of medical
cannabis by licensed dispensaries contained in R9-17-307, licensed dispensaries may not be able to
supply sufficient medical cannabis to the qualfying patients of Arizona, without running great risks of
prosecution under federal law. Under federal law, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance, and
possession or cultivation of marijuana, even for medical purposes, remains a crime. To minimize their
exposure under federal law, many medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives in states such as
California and Colorade cultivate a maximum of 99 plants. The reason for this is that under federal
law, a person convicted of possession 100 or more cannabis plants receives a five year minimum
mandatory sentence. By cultivating fewer than 100 plants at any time, the collectives and
cooperatives minimize the risk that if they are prosecuted under federal law, they will be sentenced to
a mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison. Licensed dispensaries in Arizona will also
want to cultivate fewer than 100 plants at any time to minimize the risk of federal prosecution.
However, by cultivating relatively few cannabis plants, licensed dispensaries will not be able to supply
the qualifying patients of Arizona with sufficient cannabis. To ensure that licensed dispensaries can
supply the qualfying patients of Arizona with sufficient medical cannabis, the Department should
license individuals or groups that are not affiliated with licensed dispensaries to cultivate medical
cannabis to sell to licensed dispensaries. The Department could regulate these cultivators with rules
similar to those ultimately imposed upon licensed dispensarires. By allowing both licensed
dispensaries and licensed cultivators to grow medical cannabis, the Department can regulate the
cultivation of medical cannabis, while still ensuring an adequate supply for qualifying patients and
allowing those who cultivate medical cannabis in compliance with Arizona state law to minimize the
risk of federal prosecution. By licensing cultivators and requiring that they not be affiliated with a
licensed dispensary, the Department will help ensure that licensed dispensaries can provide sufficient
cannabis. The Department must alter R9-17-312(D), which requires that dispensaries turn over
patient files when the Department requests. In its next draft rules, the Department must state the
circumstances under which the Department would seek access to a patient file. Further, the
Department should be required to obtain a court order before having access to a patient file. Unless
Arizonans feel confident that their patient files are truly private, some Arizonans who would benefit
from the use of medical cannabis will not use medical cannabis, because they will fear that using
medical cannabis will compromise their right to privacy. Another group of qualifying patients whom
the draft rules fail to protect are certain qualifying patents who are under eighteen years of age. R9-
17-107(G)(3) requires that the parent or legal guardian of a minor qualifying patient sign a statement
that the parent or guardian has not been convicted of an excluded felony offense. Subdivision (G)(5)
of this section strongly implies minor patient's primary caregiver must be their parent or legal
guardian. By requiring that a minor patient's parent or guardian serve as the patient's primary
caregiver, and that the parent or guardian not be convicted of an excluded felony offense, the
Department may discriminate against those minors who are patiients and both of whose parents
have been convicted of an excluded offense. These minors will not be able to benefit from medical
cannabis, because if the draft rules are imposed, no one will be eligible to serve as their primary
caregiver. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hestitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Director Will Humble Arizona Department of Health Services 150 N. 18th Avenue, Suite 500 Phoenix,
AZ 85007 Dear Director Humble, To begin, I thank you and and the Department of Health for your
hard work on the proposed draft rules to implement Proposition 203, the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Act. Though many of the draft rules are excellent, some provisions frustrate the Department's goal of
safeguarding the health of the people of Arizona. To aid in improving these rules, I offer the following
comments and suggestions, drawing upon my experience as a medical cannabis attorney whose law
firm represents over 150 collectives in states that currently allow medical marijuana. Physician
Requirements: Though the Department's goal of having a medical director be affiliated with licensed
dispensaries is laudable, many applicants will not be able to comply with this requirement. In states
that have allowed medical marijuana, many medical doctors and osteopathic physicians fear losing
they will be investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, other law enforcement agencies, or
the state medical board if they discuss medical cannabis with their patents, let alone issue a
recommendation or certification to their patients. Most likely, Arizona medical doctors and
osteopathic physicians will have similar fears, not only about recommending medical cannabis to
patients, but also about serving as the medical director of a collective. Consequently, many
dispensaries will be hard-pressed to find a medical doctor or osteopath to serve as their medical
director. Accordingly, the Department should not require that licensed dispensaries have a medical
director on staff. Because of the difficulty dispensaries will have in finding a physician to serve as
medical director, this requirement will only frustrate ensuring the health of medical cannabis patients.
To help promote good health among medical cannabis patients, the Department should consider
requiring dispensaries provide other services to promote good health, such as classes in nutrition,
cooking with medical cannabis, counseling services, or support groups. Alternatively, if the
Department continues to require that licensed dispensaries have a medical director, the Department
should consider allowing not only medical doctors and osteopathic physicians to serve as medical
directors, but also nurse practitioners, physician assistants, homeopathic physicians, naturopathic
physicians, and registered nurses to serve as medical directors. By allowing other medical
professionals to serve as medical directors, DHS will help achieve its laudable goal of ensuring that all
dispensaries offer services beyond providing medical cannabis to help promote the good health of
patients. Another obstacle to safeguarding the health of medical cannabis patients in the draft rules
is how the rules currently define an ongoing relationship with a physician. The current draft requires
that a patient have an ongoing relationship with a physician, defined as a relationship of at least one
year, during which the patient visited the physician at least four separate times for treatment of the
patient's debilitating condition. Alternatively, a patient can have an ongoing relationship with a
physician if the physician reviews a patient's medical history in depth and then agrees to assume
"primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating
medical condition." Presumably, by requiring that patients have a far more extensive relationship
with a physician to receive a written certification for the use of medical cannabis than DHS requires a
patient to have with a physician before receiving a recommendation or prescription for any other
drug, including Vicodin, Oxycontin, or Codeine, DHS intends to safeguard the health of medical
cannabis patients. However, this rule will only frustrate safeguarding the health of Arizonans who
would benefit from the use of medical cannabis. As discussed above, many physicians in Arizona will
refuse to issue a written certification for the use of medical cannabis -- regardless of whether the
physician believes that the patient would benefit from using medical cannabis -- because many
physicians will fear being investigated or losing their license to practice medicine. As a result, a small
number of physicians will be willing to issue written certifications. Patients may be forced to
choose between receiving a written certification for the use of medical cannabis and seeing the
physician of their choice to treat their debilitating medical condition, if DHS imposes the proposed
definition of an ongoing physician-patient relationship. For example, a patient with cancer may have
to choose between visiting the best oncologist possible -- who out of fear refuses to issue written
certifications for the use of medical cannabis to any patient, regardless of whether the patient would
benefit from medical cannabis -- or granting a less-qualified physician -- who believes that the patient
would benefit from the use of medical cannabis and will issue a written certification -- primary
responsibility for their medical care in order to benefit from using medical cannabis. DHS does not
impose this dilemma upon Arizonans who benefit from the use of any other legal medical treatment
or drug. DHS should not impose this burden on medical cannabis patients either, and may violate the
Equal Protection rights of medical cannabis patients, if it adopts the proposed definition of an angling
physician-patient relationship. Rather, DHS should impose the same requirements upon medical
cannabis patients as they do upon patients who receive any other legal medicine or treatment:
require that the patient visit the physician, that the physician assess the client's symptoms and
medical history, and that the physician issue a written certification for the use of medical cannabis
only to those patients whose debilitating medical condition or treattment thereof will benefit from
using medical cannabis. This approach treats medical cannabis patients and patents using other
medicines equally, and it helps ensure that patients can find a physician who is willing to issue written
certifications for the use of medical cannabis to evaluate them to determine whether they would
benefit from the use of medical cannabis. Also, by allowing medical cannabis patients to see a
physician regarding the use of medical cannabis, without requiring that the patient put the physician
in charge of the patient's care, DHS would ensure that patients can choose the best physician for each
aspect of their treatment. Very few people, particularly those who suffer from debilitating medical
conditions such as cancer, HIV or AIDS, ALS, or multiple schlerosis, have only one doctor, or even
designate one doctor to be in charge of their care. Rather, people receive treatment from a team of
doctors for serious conditions, thereby ensuring that they receive the best care for their condition and
the treatment thereof. Arizonans who suffer from debilitating medical conditions as defined in
Proposition 203 should be allowed to add a physician who can evaluate them for the use of medical
cannabis and monitor the effects of this medicine to their team of doctors, rather than having to risk
choosing between using medical cannabis or putting the best physician in charge of their care.
Another issue regarding the physician-patient relationship is the requirement that on the stathement
that the patient submits to the Department as part of the patient's application for a registry
identification card, the physician identify which debilitating medical condition from which the patient
suffers. R9-17-202(F)(5)(d) This disclosure may violate the patient's right to privacy and the patient's
right to physician-patient confidentiality. Dispensary Application Process: While the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act calls for careful regulation of licensed dispensaries, certain aspects of the
application process proposed in the draft rules impose too heavy of a burden upon potential
applicants and local jurisdictions. For example, by requiring that applicants for dispensary
certificates obtain a certificate of occupancy or other land use approval from the local government in
the jurisdiction where the applicant seeks to locate, the Department will make it very difficult for
many applicants to submit their application in a timely manner. Indeed, it may not be possible for
even the most organized applicant to go through the entire local land use approval process before the
beginning of April 2011. As for local governments, many of which are still determining the proper
land use requirements for licensed dispensaries, they will be forced to expend valuable time and
resources evaluating applications from many more possible dispensary applicants than is necessary.
To ensure that licensed dispensaries comply with local land use rules, while also imposing less of a
burden upon applicants and local governments, the Department should delay requiring potential
applicants to demonstrate compliance with local land use laws. Instead, the Department should
evaluate applications on other criterion in an initial stage. Then, those applicants with the best
applications should then have to prove that they can comply with local land use requirements.
Another aspect of the dispensary certificate application process that the Department should revise is
contained in R9-17-107, Section B: "A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the
applicant provides the Department with written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection
by the Department." Similar inspections are required in R9-17-302(B)(1)(j) and (k). While requiring an
inspection makes sense if applied to a dispensary that seeks a renewal of its certificate, it is unclear
how the Department intends to impose this requirement upon an applicant for a dispensary
certificate. Does the Department intend to inspect a proposed dispensing site and the additional
cultivation location? What would the Department look for, since the dispensary is not yet operating?
In short, what is the Department's criterion for evaluating applicants with such inspections? How can
applicants prepare for the inspection? R9-17-302(B)(15) also requires revision. This section requires
that the dispensary applicant state whether a registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during
the operating hours of the dispensary, and whether the dispensary applicant has a surety bond. Given
that neither the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act nor the draft rules require that a licensed dispensary
have a relationship with a pharmacist or maintain a surety bond, potential applicants cannot
understand why the Department asks them to provide this information in their application. In the
next version of the rules, the Department should remove this requirement, or explain why the
Department seeks this information. As for R9-17-302(A), which requires that potential board
members and officers of licensed dispensaries have resided in Arizona for two years, this requirement
may violate the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Arizonans. The Department has not
offered any rational basis for this two-year residency requirement. While the Department can justify
requiring that potential board members and officers be residents of Arizona, the Department cannot
justify excluding residents of Arizona who have moved to the state in the past two years from applying
for a dispensary certificate. Lastly, the Department must specify what criterion the Department will
use to determine which applicants will receive a dispensary certificate. Does the Department intend
to hold a lottery? Rank applicants according to as-yet unspecified standards? A combination of these
methods? The potential applicants needs to understand the criterion that the Department will apply,
so that they can decide whether they wish to apply, and best prepare their applications. Promoting
the Health and Safeguarding the Privacy of Qualifying Patients: Licensed dispensaries will be charged
with promoting the health and safeguarding the privacy of qualifying patients. While many aspects of
the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the draft rules serve these goals, the Department must revise
some sections to ensure that qualifying patients have access to a sufficient supply of affordable
medical cannabis. If the Department imposes the propsed restrictions on the cultivation of medical
cannabis by licensed dispensaries contained in R9-17-307, licensed dispensaries may not be able to
supply sufficient medical cannabis to the qualfying patients of Arizona, without running great risks of
prosecution under federal law. Under federal law, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance, and
possession or cultivation of marijuana, even for medical purposes, remains a crime. To minimize their
exposure under federal law, many medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives in states such as
California and Colorade cultivate a maximum of 99 plants. The reason for this is that under federal
law, a person convicted of possession 100 or more cannabis plants receives a five year minimum
mandatory sentence. By cultivating fewer than 100 plants at any time, the collectives and
cooperatives minimize the risk that if they are prosecuted under federal law, they will be sentenced to
a mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison. Licensed dispensaries in Arizona will also
want to cultivate fewer than 100 plants at any time to minimize the risk of federal prosecution.
However, by cultivating relatively few cannabis plants, licensed dispensaries will not be able to supply
the qualifying patients of Arizona with sufficient cannabis. To ensure that licensed dispensaries can
supply the qualfying patients of Arizona with sufficient medical cannabis, the Department should
license individuals or groups that are not affiliated with licensed dispensaries to cultivate medical
cannabis to sell to licensed dispensaries. The Department could regulate these cultivators with rules
similar to those ultimately imposed upon licensed dispensarires. By allowing both licensed
dispensaries and licensed cultivators to grow medical cannabis, the Department can regulate the
cultivation of medical cannabis, while still ensuring an adequate supply for qualifying patients and
allowing those who cultivate medical cannabis in compliance with Arizona state law to minimize the
risk of federal prosecution. By licensing cultivators and requiring that they not be affiliated with a
licensed dispensary, the Department will help ensure that licensed dispensaries can provide sufficient
cannabis. The Department must alter R9-17-312(D), which requires that dispensaries turn over
patient files when the Department requests. In its next draft rules, the Department must state the
circumstances under which the Department would seek access to a patient file. Further, the
Department should be required to obtain a court order before having access to a patient file. Unless
Arizonans feel confident that their patient files are truly private, some Arizonans who would benefit
from the use of medical cannabis will not use medical cannabis, because they will fear that using
medical cannabis will compromise their right to privacy. Another group of qualifying patients whom
the draft rules fail to protect are certain qualifying patents who are under eighteen years of age. R9-
17-107(G)(3) requires that the parent or legal guardian of a minor qualifying patient sign a statement
that the parent or guardian has not been convicted of an excluded felony offense. Subdivision (G)(5)
of this section strongly implies minor patient's primary caregiver must be their parent or legal
guardian. By requiring that a minor patient's parent or guardian serve as the patient's primary
caregiver, and that the parent or guardian not be convicted of an excluded felony offense, the
Department may discriminate against those minors who are patiients and both of whose parents
have been convicted of an excluded offense. These minors will not be able to benefit from medical
cannabis, because if the draft rules are imposed, no one will be eligible to serve as their primary
caregiver. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hestitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
1. R9-17-307 Section C # 1-5 This rule appears to have no basis nor justifies the origination of the
percentage base (70%). If the medical marijuana business (a business is an organization designed to
provide goods, services, or both to consumers or businesses in exchange for money) is to survive and
thrive for the participants, meaning the dispensaries, the patients, care givers, cultivators etc., there
will need to be a sharing and bartering of products, supplies and inventory. For the longevity as well
as the ability to produce revenue for the state you will want to ensure the life of the medical
marijuana industry. By putting limitations on the ability for dispensaries to diversify their products
and variety of growers is putting a strangle hold on the Arizona medical marijuana industry. If
patients have a variety of medical conditions or desire multiple strands and products of marijuana
then they will want a variety of products. You run the risk of dispensaries being limited in what they
can offer if they have to grow 70% of their own products. Patients will want to take advantage of the
best products at convenient locations, this concept goes for any business. The variety will suffer at
each location given the current rules set out in this section of the draft. You also have to take into
consideration the time it takes to cultivate marijuana. A harvest of new plants and products can take
months to come up with a finalized product. This is different then your current medical supplements
as you create pills, medicines, and liquids in warehouses in assembly lines that produce new batches
at a rapid pace. Crops can go be bad, infested or not grow properly. If this happens the whole
inventory can be in jeopardy. For this reason locations need to have the availability to purchase
inventory from suppliers to ensure enough product is available to the consumer.
Drop the 70% self cultivation requirement for dispensaries! This will save so much I really can't
imagine why it was added & badly need someone to explain to me the thinking behind it. What
possible good effect can this have? I can tell you a couple of the bad effects. First & foremost it will
unnecessarily inflate prices patients pay for this medication by not allowing the industry to take full
advantage of the economies of scale & the economies of specialization for no reason other than
keeping the price artificially inflated. It will also unnecessarily inflate the number of manhours spent
by the state on inspecting, documenting, etc. redundant facilities that wouldn't otherwise exist, again
driving up costs for no reason. Granted, we want to gain all the legitimate jobs we can from this as a
state, but can jobs created by unnecessarily driving up costs to patients be considered legitimate? It's
also very foreseeable that different areas in the state won't have the medication available for patients
due to no other reason than compliance with this rule. Maybe what's needed is one more level,
wholesalers, to be added to the 3 currently licensable entities, patients, caregivers, & dispensaries. It
seems so obvious fewer growing facilities would be more productive & less problematic I have to ask,
why was this rule added? I was planning on dealing solely with dispensaries & having my business be
an invaluable source of manufacturers support as well as product for them. R & D is an extremely
important activity in this field that will be severely limited without the existence of a wholesale level.
There's no way a dispensary in a less populated area can afford extended trips to Amsterdam &
California to collaborate with those most knowledgeable in growing, so in effect the rule forces 70% of
the inventories of dispensaries in rural areas to be less effective and/or more expensive than their
urban counterparts, again, completely unnecessarily & due solely to compliance with this rule which
exists for no reason.
1. Concerning R9-17-302.5 A certificate of occupancy required before a license is issued is an onerous

and unnecessary requirement. A C of O shortly after a license is issued and before it can open should
be enough. The current draft rule will only insure that "deep pockets" such as cartel money will be
able to afford the gamble for one of the 124 dispensaries. 2. Concerning R9-17-302.15.a. A
dispensary is not a pharmacy! A registered pharmacist should not be required. Again, you are setting
this up so only the wealthy or the cartel money can afford to have a pharmacy. b. Requiring a surety
bond is not even required for a pharmacy! A Medical Doctor does'nt even have to have a surety bond!
The result of this is again not in line with what we the voters voted for. 3. Concerning R9-17-
307.A.3 Requiring each dispensary to employ a Medical Director is again not in line with the way Prop
203 was presented to us. Pharmacies don't have an M.D. on staff. 4. Concerning R-9-17-310.A.
, R-9-17-310.B. , R-9-17-310.C. These rules concerning the M.D. on staff are again sure to create
problems with the drug cartel money playing a dominant role. A doctor friend of ours told us that a
low estimate for the cost of a Medical Director as defined would be $20,000.00 annually. With that
expense added to the overhead of a new business, only the aforementioned "deep pockets" or cartel
money will be able to afford to be in the dispensary business, and the true healer motivated people
who actually care about helping sick and dying patients will never be able to afford to open a
dispensary.
Re-wording of patient/doctor requirements in order to perscribe medical cannabis, patients with

cronic conditions should not have to wait to appreciate the benefits of medical cannabis,
Require â€œwarningâ€ language on marijuana packaging that addresses the addictive nature of the
drug and its impact on motor skills (e.g. do no operate a vehicle or machinery while using); Cancer
causing agent: also require dispensary representative to verbally discuss the side effects of the drug
and impact on others.
Obviously, you didnâ€™t understand the will of the people. We voted and clearly you lost, and now
you want to change the rules because you are a sore loser, LOSER!!!
There is still potential for abuse, and loopholes in the proposed Rules that could be tightened. The
main concerns are centered on food establishments that will be allowed to produce marijuana-
infused food and products, physician requirements, and patient education. It seems that there is
much potential for theft and loss of marijuana after it is sent to the food establishment for marijuana-
infused food products. There is also likelihood of marijuana being infused into electronic cigarettes,
which should be addressed. The regulations need to be greatly tightened in this area and more closely
aligned with the regulations for dispensaries. Alternatively and more simply, the food and other
marijuana-infused products need to be produced and distributed only in the Dispensary. In order to
prevent abuses, the physican medical visit should be in-person, and the physican should be licensed in
Arizona. This could prevent on-line and videoconference medical visits that occur in some other
states. I understand that there has been some concern about veterans not being able to access
medical marijuana through the V.A. medical system. However, they can be prescribed marinol by their
physican, and they can also choose another physican who is not within the V.A. medical system. The
physician should not have any financial or other affiliatin with the Dispensary in order to prevent
conflict of interest or benefiting from the recommendations for medical marijuana. More defiinition
of what "on-going physican patient relationship" means is needed by including the projected medical
visits in the next year. There are extensive requirements for patient educaitn regarding the
marijuana product, health side effects, interaction with other drugs, etc.. However, it needs to be
clear that these materials need to be in writing and given to the client. Pharmacists are required to
give similar information on prescribed medication in writing to their clients. It would be most accurate
for the materials to be approved or provided by ADHS. Other concerns include definitions of public
places, inspection advance notice, allowing anonymous complaints, disposal of unusable marijuana dn
product dispensing tracking. There should be language reaffirming the right of a multi-unit housing
provider to prohibit smoking of marijuana inside units or on property to protect tenants and property.
This is a right thatis increasingly used by owners concerning smoking of tobacco products, and should
extend to marijuana smoke. Foster care homes should also be included in the list of public places.
Despite the fact that these are private homes, secondhand smoke should be regulated in order to
protect the health of the children. Date and time of inspection of dispensaries does not have to be
specific. Original Initative language states in 36-2806, H that "The Department shall give reasonable
notice of an inspection under this notice". It does not say that the dispensaries have to be forewarned
with the exact date and time. Advance notice is not given for environmental health inspections,
smokefree air inspections, or any other inspections. A general notice within a month period rather
than an exact notice helps to protect the integrity of the inspection. Anonymous complaints about
dispensary non-compliance should be allowed to protect the safety of the person lodging the
complaint. The number of complaints will be very minimal if complainants need to identify
themselves, and the amount of non-compliance by dispensaries will increase. Disposal of marijuana
needs more definition and regulation to avoid potential abuse. Tracking of the source of marijuana
may be necessary for health reasons, and the product should be labeled with an ID number.
Clear abuse of power here. You just can't make up your own laws; we have a legislature for that.
There needs to be a fundamental reconsideration of the objective of the Department. Some key
questions for you to ask yourselves: whom do you serve? If the answer is "conservative skeptics
opposed to this Act," or "those with the deepest pockets," or "my own personal agenda/values" which
all appear to be the case, then your premise and perspective would well be re-examined and abruptly
changed to one which EMBRACES and ENACTS a WORKABLE AND REASONABLE PROGRAM whose
intent and SOLE OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE MEDICAL MARIJUANA CONVENIENTLY AVAILABLE TO
QUALIFIED PATIENTS. Mind you, the term "qualified" implies ligitimate and there should be little if
any further hinderances in the market to procure this naturally occuring herb for said persons.
Another major point of contention is the extreme security interest the Department has charged itself
with taking. The security of the inventory is rightfully of more concern to the proprietors, prospective
dispensary owners, than to an overly vigilent, self aggrandized Department of peeping Toms (or Wills)
who wish to look in on businesses who are, again, qualified and ligitimate until found otherwise, NOT
TREATED AS SHADY, SUSPECT OPERATIONS, as appears to be the disposition of the Department. Such
surveilance by the State is a gross and flagrant infringement on personal privacy of individuals and an
unnecessary and offensive way of treating proprietors with whom you should be extending intentions
of earnest cooperation, IF THIS IS TO BE AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM, that is. In the same vein,
prescribing build-outs of these facilities is presumptuous and even laughable; how about offering
suggestions or recommendations for achieving an effective level of security, which may take many
shapes, and not tread where YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS?! Leave such specifics to the enterprises, they
know better than you, who are certainly NON-EXPERTS, and reluctant implementors of a program you
admit to not support. Now Will, I challenge you to keep your cool (er, INTEGRITY) and not get in the
sack with Big Joe or DEA or whoever might have the weapons/money to help you feel bigger than you
are by "making examples of some" or "setting up" or planting evidence, or anything SHADY yourself;
DO THE RIGHT THING WITH THOSE WHO ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, AND DON'T EMBELLISH
CHARGES OR EVIDENCE OR ALLEGATIONS FOR UNSCRUPULOUS AGENDAS. If you can abide by this,
there will still be enough heads to roll, don't worry, it's not so different than many other businesses at
its core; PLEASE DON'T TREAT WOULD-BE PROPRIETORS, SO MANY WHO ARE TRULY COMPASSIONATE
AND INTEGROUS, AS SECOND-CLASS BUSINESSPEOPLE, OR SET THEM UP TO FAIL BY ANY NUMBER OF
MEANS!! You'll be surprised at the level of cooperation you'll get when you meet this industry where
its heart is; leave profiteering and unscrupulous dealings to cartels and DON'T CONFUSE THE TWO!
By now you've heard from me a few times, and, although my only means of passion is use of ALL
CAPS, and my responses don't always address the questions above the given text boxes, this is the
vehicle by which you've invited response. I have participated in good faith and with sincerity in the
interest of helping shape an effective program with ample, not undue regulation. My well wishes go
out to you, and if I've hurt any feelings, it was only to shake some sense and effect abrupt
reconsideration of your first attempt; I hope I've been reasonably effective. Be well, and do a great
job. Thank you much.
There are several areas that are of concern after a thorough review of the initial draft rules. 1.-R9-17-
302 B-9-F,G (Detailed Security plans) f. Location of each video camera g. Location of each panic
button Including detailed security plans of video camera locations including panic button is not a
good security policy due to the eventual publication of said materials. Such information could be
obtained and render a well implemented security plan useless. 2.-R9-17-102. Fees Setting the initial
application fee at $5,000.00 and requiring each person employed by the dispensary to pay a $200 fee
for a registration card will place an undue financial burden on non-profits that are working to help sick
people. 3.-R9-17-310. Medical Director "During hours of operation, a medical director is: 1. On-site,
or 2. Able to be contacted by any means possible, such as by telephone or pager." This is one of the
most unrealistic parts of the draft rules. The cost to a non-profit would be unsustainable and
undermine the foundation of an organization. Pharmacies like Wallgreens and CVS are not required
to have a Medical Director available during hours of operation, on-site, or able to be contacted by any
means possible, such as by telephone or pager. This is an excessive requirement for a non-profit to
comply with; furthermore the doctor that writes the prescription should be available if there are any
questions that need to be addressed in a urgent manor. 4.-R9-17-315. Security C. To prevent
unauthorized access to medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable, the
dispensary's cultivation site, the dispensary shall have the following: 1. Security equipment to
deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into limited access areas that include: c.
Electronic monitoring including: ii. A video printer capable of immediately producing a clear still
photo from any video camera image; iii. Video cameras: (1) Providing coverage of all
entrances to and exits from limited access areas and all entrances to and exits from the
building, capable of identifying any activity occurring in or adjacent to the building; and (2)
Have a recording resolution of least at 704 x 480 or the equivalent; v. A video camera in each grow
room capable of identifying any activity occurring within the grow room in low light conditions;
vii. A failure notification system that provides an audible and visual notification of any failure in
the electronic monitoring system; ix. The capability of providing authorized remote viewing of live
and recorded video with: (1) Internet connectivity of at least 384 kbps upstream; and (2) A
static IP address to allow for remote connection; The draft rules on electronic monitoring R9-17-315
-C-1.-C are requiring technology that is currently not required in most government buildings. It seems
excessive to have this requirement for a non-profit dispensary. The current availability of the required
communications infrastructure in the state of Arizona is not available in most rural counties. This is a
major hang-up with compliance. The total cost of the internal infrastructure for a dispensary to
comply with these draft rules would be more than twenty thousand dollars based off of initial
estimates. The section that requires " ix. The capability of providing authorized remote viewing of
live and recorded video with: (1) Internet connectivity of
at least 384 kbps upstream; and (2) A static IP address to allow for remote
connection;" Would appear in its current wording to not even be legal under current State and
federal telecom laws. The term "authorized remote viewing" is not defined and would be legally
questionable as well. Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments and suggestions.
Desist with or amend the one year prior relationship and four visit patient qualification. R9-17-202 F
5 e subsection i. I understand the intent, but this causes both medication and patient to be treated
differently than other prescriptions. This requirement delays treatment, causes expense to the
patient and generates multiple pays to the provider before ever arriving at the first administration.
I see at least two areas where the ADHS is over reaching its authority and will likely be challenged in
court if not removed from the rules. I do not believe that ADHS has authority to create zoning
restrictions and I also believe that by limiting how much medicine a dispensary can acquire from
another dispensary and forcing dispensaries to produce specific percentages of the medicine they sell
is clearly government over reaching and is not in line with the merchants right to free enterprise, as
well, this could be viewed as overly burdensome on the dispensaries.
A couple of the draft provisions appear to be in direct conflict with Article IV(1)(6)(C) of the Arizona
Constitution which prohibits actions which do not "further(s) the purposes of such measure." In
particular the requirement for a 'medical director' could easily be categorized as an attempt to thwart
the initiative. Every doctor we interviewed indicated that they believe that any 'affiliation' with a
dispensary would be grounds for the DEA to revoke their authorization to write prescriptions.
Furthermore the duties set forth in R9-17-310(C) do not require the expertise of a doctor and in many
cases are outside their education, training, or are in direct conflict with their malpractice coverage.
These are normally administrative actions. If they need to be reviewed by a qualified professional, it
can easily be accomplished without the affiliation. The requirement that 70% of the marijuana sold
by a dispensary must be to patients defies logic. It would seem from a public safety perspective that it
would be much better for patients, law enforcement, and the DHS if natural selection concentrated
the growing of marijuana to a few dispensaries with excellent results and safeguards rather than
having numerous growers doing thier own thing. Allowing for concentration would have several
benefits which include: 1. Excellent quality control. 2. Ease of audit. 3. Economies of
scale resulting in cost savings to the patient. 4. Consistent policies designed to focus on quality
patient experiences within the boundaries of the law. Limiting outside acquisitions to 30% of the
marijuana sold only burdens the patient by unnecessarily increasing the cost of the medical marijuana
as well as dramatically increasing the probability and therefore risk to the patient of financial hardship
to the dispensary and resulting chance that the lack of resources will result in contaminated or
adulterated product, unverified quantities, or financial loss. Furthermore, the administrative
overhead burden has the strong potential of creating a broad network of non-compliant 'cottage
industries' among patients and caregivers. In all reality, there is no way to effectively police anyone
outside the dispensary chain. The dispensaries are the best place to make this work by developing a
mechanism that produces a clean, consistent, and affordable product. Costly and unnecessary
impediments will only increase your administrative burden and result in costly and protracted
litigation. In addition, they will significantly reduce the funds available for education. Please keep in
mind that just because a business is 'non-profit' does not mean that it is not a business. It still needs
to generate sufficient income to pay its bills as well as set aside reserves for unexpected expenses.
The requirements on patient doctor relationship is troubling. As I stated before, as a non-user I
believe that if this is going to be like any other prescription, it should be handled the same way.
Putting these restrictions could well mean that someone who would otherwise qualify would be
denied the benefits because their primary care physician was unwilling or precluded from
recommending marijuana. If this is truly medically related, the relationship restricitions could also be
a constitutional violation. It is our goal to see that this works. Establishing rules that are counter
productive, no matter how well intentioned, runs the risk that some judge will issue an injunction
against them until this is resolved leading to no regulation at all. We trust this is not your goal.
The draft Rules can be improved by making sure that this program follows along the Arizona's
Constitutional laws that take precedence over the laws that were enacted. A state run program can
not be set up with rules that violate the Citizens Rights. as in PREAMBLE 2 SEC 32. Constitutional
provisions mandatory Section 32. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by
express words they are declared to be otherwise.
Remove the restiction of having a MD or DO on the board. I understand the pharmisist on-call which
can help with the drug interactions, but the patient has a doctor, and that is who the patient should
be contacting.
Remove the restictions on the amounts of marijuana a dispensary can grow and must sell. If there are
dispensaries that can not afford or want to purchase instead of grow the product they shold be able
to. The language should be removed.
I have read the rules about having a medical doctor on call at dispensaries. This should not be the way
it is handled. A trusted doctor has already recommended the marijuana for treatment and submitted
all of the necessary paperwork in their review of why the patient needs marijuana. Why should a
patient physician relationship start again with a new doctor that is not there? If something was really
wrong a patient would contact their own doctor or go to a hospital. No established doctor that we
have spoke with is going to make house calls, and if they did it would be only at extremely high rates
as they have their primary practices to run. Plus a lot of doctors will not risk their achievements and
schooling as this still goes against Federal Law and a doctor runs the risk of losing their practice. If the
patient is not feeling well, they are not going to be told to drive in and see a new doctor. If they drove
anywhere it would be to their own physician that they have an existing physician-patient relationship.
We must assume that they have no other person to drive them, as there are many sick people without
friend and family which makes it even harder to go through an illness. Patients are already told about
the effects and not mixing drugs by their own doctors. And that information can also be reiterated to
the patient at the time of pickup at the dispensary or by their caregiver about possible effects exactly
how prescription drugs have warning labels about not mixing with alcohol. Having to pay large
salaries to less competent doctors or paying enormous salaries to already highly paid doctors is going
to increase the cost for the patient. Lets remember that this law is for people that are very sick. It is
not right to raise the cost of the product for them. If you call a Pharmacy and you feel sick, they will
tell you go see your doctor, go to a hospital, or call 911. What doctor with a successful practice is
going to want to be at a dispensary all day? Only ones that you will have to pay high salaries too
accommodate them. And if you go lower, then you get a lesser of a doctor and run into problems with
ethics. Either way it is a slippery slope. Perhaps you should make it read a â€œA medical doctor or
nurseâ€. That way their can be a nurse there, and they can dispense the marijuana in the dispensary
to the patients and talk with them and take down the information of which strains are helping them
and identifying results on a pain scale of 1-10, nausea, and other effects. Then the data can be given
to the Department Of Health which will achieve the goal of finding out the best way to treat patients
with marijuana. If anything, the doctors should be educated by dispensaries as they will not be the
ones talking with the patients, dispensary agents will be. Therefore, dispensary agents should have to
take a course or pass a test to become agents so we know there are knowledgeable people around
the valley (state) giving proper information at the educational facilities within the dispensaries. These
agents will also be developing regular relationships as the draft rules state the exact record keeping of
use data on different strains of marijuana and their effect on the patient. That data can be requested
by their primary physician that recommended marijuana so they can be in tune with what is going on.
Much like how a transplant team works with a NP, doctor, surgeon, altogether to make sure the
patient is getting the ultimate care possible. It is extremely difficult to find a doctor to be on call and
also have their license at risk by the Federal Government for a few extra bucks a week. Most doctors
do not want to get involved and those that do are mostly in it for the money. As the draft rules state
that if you are a doctor, you can own 3 dispensaries and be on call for them. Then they could just pay
themselves. Also, how can 1 doctor be on call for so many patients? If something were to happen to
multiple people, the doctor would be overtaxed and still recommend they go see their primary
physician or go to the emergency room. The medical factor is already taken care of by the physician-
patient relationship. Also for caregivers, which medical person is overseeing them? Who does the
patient contact when they have questions or concerns with medical help? The dispensary that the
caregiver bought the marijuana from? The Department of Health should have the power to police the
caregivers.
The draft Rules can be improved by making sure that this program follows along the Arizona's
Constitutional laws that take precedence over the laws that were enacted. A state run program can
not be set up with rules that violate the Citizens Rights. as in PREAMBLE 2 SEC 32. Constitutional
provisions mandatory Section 32. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by
express words they are declared to be otherwise.
Only used for those with TERMINAL ILLNESS or those who are denied organ transplants An effective
caregiver would only have 5 patients maximum. Those under 18 do not need medical marijuana as
it could be misused by a parent for the wrong purposes. I am unhappy with medical marijuana being
allowed in Arizona, my father has had glaucoma for 45 years & takes eye drops-he has never
complained or wished that he could take "medical marijuana" It is a big trick to get illegal drugs in
the front door, opening up a pandora's box. Arizona is too broke and this further burdens our
government. The draft still leaves too many loopholes...I have a migraine.
I don't think a person should be required to pay a five thousand dollar dispensary application fee but
rather a more modest one thousand dollar application fee which should be refunded if the person is
not granted a medical marijuana dispensary license. I don't think a medical director is necessary at all
as this will simply make marijuana seem dangerous when in fact it is less dangerous than many
prescription pills. I think its only fair to allow anyone that meets the final requirements established by
your board, the opportunity to own and operate a medical dispensary if they choose to do so and not
determine this by how deep the individuals pockets.
â€¢ R9-17-102 The Liquor Licensing model would be a better choice in regards to the application
process The license fee is similar cost but there is a non refundable $100 application fee and the
license fee due upon the granting of license Perhaps a $100 application fee and a refundable license
fee posted with application â€¢ R9-17-101.20 Work Day hours are too limited, need longer days and
at least Saturdays with same hours â€¢ R9-17-202.B This removes a patient's freedom of choice of
health care. If their Designated Caregiver is unavailable for unexpected reasons, the patient would
suffer needlessly â€¢ R9-17-302.G No need for a Medical director, customers already have a
relationship and a recommendation from a licensed medical doctor No other business is required to
attempt to educate their customers â€¢ R9-17-302.B.4.c Normal Business Practices in providing a
high value product have inherent interest in providing a safe and secure environment for their staff
and inventory â€¢ R9-17-302.B.d No other business is required to attempt to educate their
customers â€¢ R9-17-307.C State has no business defining where inventory comes from beyond a
licensed producer nor what percentage from whom â€¢ R9-17-310.A No Medical Director needed
This requirement provides no value to state or patient - implies their primary health care provider is
providing inadequate medical advice â€¢ R9-17-315 This category needs to be deleted in whole
Normal business practices will control inventory and staff security not necessary to define excessive
controls The requirement for a Surety Bond serves no purpose to vet an applicants worthiness of
qualifying for a Dispensary License Surety Bonds are enormously expensive and difficult for any entity
that is not extremely wealthy, to acquire - This requirement must be eliminated not modified
The rule could be improved by requiring the doctors to have patients submit a extensive medical
history, at least two office visits prior to recieving the drug, and at least two follow-ups appointments.
This relationship between the doctor can only occur by monitoring of the drug in each individual. This
occurs in conventional methods easier because samples of drugs are generally available from doctors.
ELIMINATE THE SURETY BOND. ALLOW PRESCRIPTIONS LIKE ANY OTHER DRUG ELIMINATE REPRTS
ON HOW CROP IS GROWN DO NOT INVOLVE PHARMACISTS DO NOT REQUIRE MORE OF A DOCTOR
RELATIONSHIP THAN FOR ANY OTHER DRUG DO NOT REQUIRE A LOCATION BEFORE GETTING A
LICENSE MAKE THE RULES MORE CONDUCIVE TO SMALL OPERATORS ELIMINATE VIDEO 24/7 SINCE
IT IS NOT REQUIRED OF ALLL PHARMACIES
PLease include more information as to baked infused medicine. You have to purchase and secure
goods from start to finish.There are no clear guidelines other than it can be a baker in a health dept ok
place
Make sure that one entity cannot get more than one license so we do not create a "Corporate" chain
environment.
The $150 fee for patients and $200 fee for designated caregivers for initial and renewal cards should
be changed to a sliding fee scale. For example, patients whose income is under the poverty line should
pay nothing (and their caregivers, if they use one, should pay nothing as well), patients whose income
is 200% of the poverty line should pay $75 (and their caregivers should pay $100), and only those
whose income is greater than 200% of the poverty line would be charged the full $150 ($200 for their
caregivers). The way the fees are currently set up, a patient with low income and high medical
expenses would face the added burden of having to pay an additional $150 (or $200 for their
caregiver), an amount which could be a severe burden to an already ill person.
204.B.4(f)I, and R9-17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to
the department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b)
defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the
department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to
require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way,
much less to promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere
in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary
responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a
one-year relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy,
including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department
usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed
upon drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a
cannabis specialist assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and
other potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the
arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients' rights of choice, including their rights to
choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek
(or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). â€¢
Any Arizona physician may in a single visit prescribe "speed," e.g., Adderall, to a kindergartner-without
4 visits spread out over 1 year any Arizona physician may prescribe to a kindergartner a drug that can
kill that child by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other "side effects." â€¢ Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C,
and ALS patients often do not have 1 year to live. â€¢ The patients that do live are cruelly being told
to change doctors or suffer for 1 year. â€¢ Deadly and addictive drugs such as the opiates are
prescribed in a single visit by Arizona physicians and, despite the best efforts of physicians, some of
those deadly and addictive drugs are illegally diverted, but that does not cause the AzDHS to demand
4 visits, 1 year of visits, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of the patient. â€¢ Marijuana
is 100% safe, gives patients good relief, and cures some conditions-Marijuana is not deadly and is not
addictive. â€¢ The alternative offered by the AzDHS to avoid 1 year of suffering, the cannabis
specialist takes over the primary care of the pt's qualifying condition, is done nowhere else in
medicine-Nowhere else in medicine does a specialist take over a patient's primary care. â€¢ The
AzDHS does not have the authority to define or re-define the patient-physician relationship or the
number of doctors visits, or the length of time for those visits-that infringes on the patient's choice
â€¢ The draft regulations are cruel and unreasonable. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and
usurps authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection
Act. The department has no authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a
physician's professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The
department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to require
the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine.
â€¢ The draft regulations are cruel and unreasonable.
Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping
for cultivation or to require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of
medicine.strict a physician's professional practice.
I believe the 25 mile rule will make it very hard for poor patients. They can not afford to purchase
$2000.00 worth of medicine a month. But you can authorize them to grow a 5X5 garden. It is very
cheap for them to grow there own medicine.
*More clarification is needed regarding the Surety Bond for a medical marijuana dispensary license? A
dollar amount is needed as well as a party to be named. Information is also needed as to when and
where the bond form can be obtained. *More clarification is needed regarding the Certificate of
Occupancy? Does this require potential dispensaries to build out a dispensary and cultivation site
without preliminary approval from the AZDHS? If so, this significantly hinders the ability of small
entrepreneurs to enter the industry by the shear fact of money. Does a potential cultivation site have
the ability use a "staged growth" model? *More clarification is needed regarding the medical
director or pharmacist on staff or as consultants? I am concerned this requirement significantly favors
the larger and possible out of state investment groups by the simple fact of money.
Work the sections little more
I am not sure why there must be a physician on call or on the premisis during opperation or at any
time. The patient is seeing a physician for his condition and is being reffered to use medicinal
marijuana for his or her ailment. I think as long as you provide them with a information of what indica
and sativa's are to be used for, what their affect are, when to use them and to let them know that if
they are having any adverse affects to contact their physician or call 911 if they feel it is a life
threatening condition. Also provide them with the rules and regulations of using the medical
marijuana and the laws backing them. 2. I am not sure if I read it right but I am confused if a person
owning or working in a dispensary can or cannot be a qualifing patient with the right to use marijuana
for their own illness. If so I don't understand why I think they would be the best people to own or run
a dispensary: one they believe in the usage 2 it would not be someone just in it to make money. That
would be like saying only people who don't drink can own a brewery they wouldn't understand the
difference between quality medical marijuana and mediocore and we want the patients who qualify
for this medical ussage to get the very best product. Only those who use know the difference. Those
of you making all the rules and regulations may not agree with this new law but we all need to put the
patients best interest first and make sure people with experience are doing the cultivation and
running the dispensaries. It doesn't make sence to disquallify them.
1. This draft has illegally redefined the pt-dr relationship. This action would prevent patients whose
primary care doctors won't recommended Medical marijuana (MMJ) and prevent patients from access
to this medicine. VA doctors in particular, are not allowed to recommend MMJ. Please decline from
unfair redefinition of the MD patient relationship. Consider the blind, patient who cannot tolerate
conventional pain meds. He is blind and has multiple sclerosis and unable to get out of the house. He
wants to try MMJ but has no access. His VA doctor is not allowed to recommend it even though he
thinks it would help him. How will this patient be served? Multiple visits, changing physicians are not
options and should not be considered such.
can the cultivating site and retail site be in the same location with wall and doors separating the two
areas?
R9-17-307. Administration I believe the 70/30 split in this rule will first of all be very hard to track and
second does not have much to do with the running the dispensaries. If one has a shortage and
another has a surplus, they should be able to sell between themselves freely on the wholesale market
as long as it is accounted for audit purposes. There can only be approved growers that are attached
to the dispensaries so it isn't leaving any openings for wholesale growers.
With the current financial situation, how is DHS ever going to be able to keep up with all these rules
effectively? Shouldn't the dispensaries be farther than walking distance from our schools? How is it
possible that DHS would be able to monitor patients growing their own marijuana? What will
happen to a person who uses marijuana legally then drives? Is he/she considered impaired? Would it
be like drunk driving?
I would recommend that the dispensary fee of $5,000 at least be doubled or tripled as this will hold
the dispensaries financially more accountable to follow the rules and this will keep out the ones who
will be more likely to break rules and less to lose. In raising the dispensary fees, i would offset this
by lowering the cost to the patients in the system...These dispensaries are the ones who will have a
lot to gain and therefore the ones who should be financially more liable.
can the cultivating site be located in a residential area?
I think the number of dispensers shouldn't be so limited for the state, but have limitations within city
limits.
Though I understand the purpose of the 1 year Dr./patient relationship requirement and the
subsequent requirement to have four visits within the year, I do strongly believe that Cancer, Aids/HIV
patients, and any other patient who has a prognosis that is terminal, particularly those less than 1
year, should have expedited processing of all valid documentation (Medical Records, to include X-
Rays, CT Scans, and all other pertinent records relating to the patients medical care) This is to say that,
provided all documentation and or physical examinations validate such conditions, a patient should
not have to wait the 1 year to obtain an ID, Recommendation, or any access and or protection
provided by proposition 203. Depending on the case by case submissions, each potential patient
should be granted a recommendation based upon careful examination of the patients physical,
mental, emotional status. Some patients do not have the time to wait for relief, such as sufferers of
Aids/HIV/Wasting syndrome, or Cancer, and they should not have to if doing so would present more
hardship and or loss of life.
LAW OFFICE OF
I am an attorney in Flagstaff, Arizona who is consulting with

twenty-five groups or individuals who hope to apply for dispensary licenses from ADHS, many others
who hope to become patients or caregivers and three doctors who have concerns about the
December 17, 2010 proposed regulations (â€œPRâ€). DISPENSARIESâ€™ CONCERNS All of the
groups that I have been consulting with consist of 2-6 individuals who hope to operate relatively
smaller dispensaries in the smaller rural communities of northern Arizona. Their biggest concerns are
that the PR appear to be written so as to favor the few wealthy individuals and entities that can afford
to comply and who will then control the new medical marijuana industry in Arizona while making the
application process and regulations so expensive and burdensome that no â€œmom and popâ€ or
boutique type of dispensary owners will be able to obtain a license. Specifically, the requirement that
the applicant obtain a physical location that is fully in compliance with all of the PR and local zoning
requirements prior to knowing if they will receive a license effectively eliminates all but the wealthiest
individuals and entities. The PR especially discriminates against the small groups and individuals in the
rural areas and reservations who cannot afford to buy or lease property in the smaller communities
and bring those properties into full compliance with the PR with no assurance that a license will be
available. The medical director requirement is equally unfair and unworkable for the small guy in
the rural communities. No one but the most wealthy can afford to have a medical doctor on staff or
on call. The three doctors I have spoken with in Flagstaff all tell me that no reputable doctor would
leave their practice to act as a monitor for a dispensary, especially if they could not treat the patients,
nor would any doctor want to assume the responsibility and liability which the PR create for a medical
director. The medical director requirement is especially unfair for those in the small communities,
rural areas, and reservations, where medical doctors are already scarce and overworked. If ADHS is
going to require medical doctors to serve as monitors at all dispensaries, it should first confirm that
there are any doctors who would be foolish or desperate enough to accept such a position. At a
minimum the requirement should be modified to allow other types of doctors and nurse practitioners
to serve as medical directors. The current requirement has to be changed in a way that will be feasible
for all of the small communities and rural areas of Arizona. Otherwise, we will end up with
dispensaries only in Tucson and Phoenix and everyone else in the State left on their own to grow their
own medicine. The State will be creating an administrative nightmare if it has to regulate and inspect
the thousands of patients throughout rural Arizona who will be denied access to an urban dispensary.
Other concerns include the apparent requirement that dispensaries will need to obtain a security
bond and maintain inventory controls, security and patient information in a way that no other
business in Arizona is required to do. It seems apparent that the purpose of the PR is to strangle the
infant medical marijuana industry to death before it even has a chance to breathe or grow into what
the voters in Arizona envisioned it would be when they passed Proposition 203. Clearly, much of the
PR are contrary to the intent of the voters and must violate the Voter Protection Act. Another clear
example of this is residency requirement which is not required of any other corporation or its officers
or members and which prevents several of the small family groups that I have been working with from
even applying because one or more family members currently lives out of state. In one case a
family with two members who are doctors in Florida had intended to retire in Sedona and to operate
an alternative medicine wellness center. Neither of the doctors, who represent the medical
knowledge and financial backing for the project, are able to apply or act as officers or members
because of the residency requirement. Another client has successfully operated a dispensary in
another state and he and his family are denied the opportunity to bring his knowledge and experience
back to Arizona so that his family can open a dispensary here in rural northern Arizona.
PATIENTSâ€™ CONCERNS The single largest concern is the PR definition of the doctor-patient
relationship. Most low income people who rely on urgent care facilities and public health clinics do
not see the same doctor each time they seek medical assistance. The turnover in Indian Health
Services hospitals is also very high which results in patients seeking several different doctors over the
time they receive treatment and care. In speaking with the three doctors here in Flagstaff, they
again all agree that few low income patients are treated 4 or more times by the same doctor in a year
especially with serious conditions that often involve seeking general practitioners and several
different specialists. They also agreed that no reputable doctor would feel comfortable committing to
provide all future care for a patient with a serious and complex medical condition in order to be able
to recommend that the patient try medical marijuana to see if it will benefit them. Finally, the doctors
expressed concern that few, if any, doctors in the smaller towns and rural communities have the
knowledge about serious medical conditions listed in Prop 203 or about marijuana as medicine to be
able to recommend marijuana or be a medical director. Again, this extremely burdensome
requirement seems clearly to be designed to prevent all but the weathiest patients and the most
unethical doctors from being able to comply with the PR. And, again, this requirement is clearly
contrary to the votersâ€™ intent and violates the Voter Protection Act. I strongly urge you to
reconsider the PR and re-draft them in a way that is true to the intent of the voters rather than
desires of the state politicians and law enforcement officials who oppose any use of marijuana. -
need clarification on whether or not an LOI for the space for the dispensary and cultivation site is
sufficient for the application process. It seems difficult to have a site up and running and ready for
inspection prior to having been approved - need better clarification here. does the Medical Director
have to be an MD or have any specific credentials other than performing the tasks listed on pages 38
& 39? I suggest a less expensive registration fee for low-income patients A dispensary may provide
only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered dispensaries and may acquire only 30% of its
own marijuana supply from other registered dispensaries. This is very problematic and not in the best
interests of patients, as it will likely create acute shortages in rural areas and drive costs up. Those
patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary unable to meet demand will have no secondary option
for safe access to their medicine. We propose an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries.
This will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients, and lower
costs due to increased competition of organizations trying to meet demand. Additionally, we are
looking into offering a Dispensary only facility and purchasing all medicine from other growers/
Dispensaries. This model works very well for Harborside Health Center in Oakland CA. From what we
understand, it is one of the premier facilities in the United States. A patientâ€™s Arizona physician
must either 1) have been treating that patient for the debilitating medical condition for at least a year
that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for the care of the debilitating
medical condition after compiling a medical history, conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing
medical records. This provision is stricter than in most of the medical marijuana states, but does not
appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a demonstrable debilitating medical condition
from getting a written certification. It may make it impossible for some veterans to qualify, because
Veterans Administration Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations. Is there a square footage
requirement of the maximum allowable size of a Dispensary, or is this up to each Licensee?
Costs will significantly increase if a medical doctor must be present at the dispensary. I would suggest
that this requirement be omitted. Suggest clarification on what non-profit means for both the state
and IRS. Specifically, does a dispensary need a 501(c)3 status with the IRS before submitting for a
license?
The intent and purpose of the law is being undermined by excessive and unwarranted restrictions in
the draft rules. Too costly for the patient, doctors will not want to give recommendations and the
rules will effectively once again maintain the illegal status of medical marijuana. total intrusion into
the doctor patient relationship. Legislation by the bureaucrat.
There are a couple items that did not seem to have a reasonable basis to establishing a professional
and healthy market. The major items include: The definition of "enclosed" does not seem to include
any flexibility in allowing growers to use secure greenhouses. I am worried about the electrical
requirements (particularly during the summer months in Arizona) of these cultivation centers.
Growing medicinal marijuana indoors requires a tremendous amount of electrical energy, which is
expensive, unsafe, and harmful for the environment. One negative event, such as a fire, could force
the entire industry and regulations into the public spotlight. With such a nascent industry, this 70% /
30% rule seems counter to encouraging a healthy market. Different patients will require different
strains depending on their condition, and an artificial rule, such as this one, does not allow for
dispensaries to offer sufficient variety. Compounded with this, some highly-qualified potential
dispensary agents may be discouraged from applying for a license without the expertise on the grow
side. As a long-time Arizona resident, the two-year requirement seems unnecessary and borderline
legal. Finally, there didn't appear to be any clarity on how this process will work (first-come first-
serve, competitive, etc), so added transparency on that front would be greatly appreciated.
I disagree with the state determining what a doctor patient relationship is. I have issues with chronic
pain and when my primary doctor sends me for treatment itâ€™s usually just for that one visit and
then I go back to him for my primary care. He has been my doctor for over 20 years and I want to keep
him as my primary doctor. He has counseled me on the issue of using cannabis as a treatment but will
not recommend it for me because he sayâ€™s there isnâ€™t enough scientific data that proves it
helps with chronic pain I told him I disagree because I have been using it for my pain for many, many
years so he suggested I go to a doctor who knows more about cannabis and pain. I will be taking his
advice but I still want him as my primary physician for everything but this one issue. Sir for any other
treatment besides cannabis I can go to a specialist my doctor has recommended and then I go back to
him. Stop this foolishness of you changing the definition of my doctor patient relationship. I already
have a doctor I just need to go to a specialist for this one issue. Thank you for your time
R9-17-02 A sliding scale of fees for card holders. Low income patients (ie elderly on fixed income)
need to benefit from this new law as well. R9-17-101 Ability to be diagnosed needs to be less formal
and as drafted, could be prohibitive for some patients such as veterans or those treated at a
goverment hospital. R9-17-202(F)(5) Physicians already have verifiable relationships with their
patients. The wording of this seems cumbersome and extremely restrictive. R9-17-307 This could be
detrimental to patients and sellers if there was a traumatic event that lead to crop failure. There is no
ability for free market with this provision. R9-17-310 This is more restrictive than current pharmacy
oversight. A trade organization will eventually be formed and should be responsible for these items.
Or the recommending physician could provide said oversight.
Outdoor cultivation needs to be allowed with proper security in agricultural areas of the state which
are in heavy decline. The state should encourage dispensaries to locate grow facilities and even indoor
cultivation in depressed agricultural areas. This will provide tremendous economic boost in those
depressed economies and the tax benefits to rural counties will be tremendous. There are obvious
and clear differences in outdoor and indoor grown marijuana and both have their place in therapeutic
care situations.
Draft Rule R9-17-311 should be expanded to include a requirement that when verifying the
qualifying patient's identity, dispensaries must employ a biometric identity verification system, such
as a thumb print scan. DHS is mandated by the Initiative to ensure that dispensaries are only
releasing medical marijuana to qualifying patients who hold a validly issued registration card. If DHS
required biometric verification in the rules, it would ensure that counterfeiting, identity theft, or
other forgeries resulting in medical marijuana falling into the wrong hands would be prevented. This
requirement will have the best chance of preventing the type of abuse we see, for example, with
underage persons purchasing alcohol using fake identification. By requiring biometric identity
verification, it would be nearly impossible for a dispensary employee to dispense marijuana illegally.
While it is certainly expected that dispensaries will self-police their agents, under the current Rules it
would be very easy for a disreputable agent to collude with a non-patient to dispense MM under
somebody else's registry number. In this scenario it would be extremely difficult for a dispensary
owner to discover illegal transactions as the record would appear legitimate. However if that
transaction must be accompanied by a cardholder's thumbprint illegal transactions would be
impossible. The proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verify information from the State's
medical marijuana electronic verification system and enter additional information into the system
relating to the transaction. The technology is available to allow this process to be automated so that
the dispensary computer directly communicates with the medical marijuana electronic verification
system without a human user being required to enter the information. This automatic
communication from computer-to-computer would reduce the chances of human error while
reviewing or inputting information, and thus better prevent fraud and improper dispensing of
medical marijuana. It would also mean that human users could not alter or enter fraudulent
information, again reducing the chances for fraud or abuse of the medical marijuana system. The
rules should explicitly allow such electronic transactions by making the existing R9-17-311 part A and
adding as part B:
Will & Staff....keep up the good work! I think I have a way you can let patients not abuse the system,
but not hurt the patient who needs it. A new patient must have 2 visits each year unless it is obvious,
like a paraplegic, advanced cancer, etc. A patient who has a year's history can keep their doctor and
can see a marijuana doctor once each year providing the original doctor provides the marijuana
doctor the necessary documentation.
The criteria that a location must be secured before, and possibly built out before, we know if we have
been selected for a license. That is undo cost not only upfront but ongoing as most landlords will
require a long term lease be signed.
I would ask that the 25 mile distance requirement for self cultivation be cut in half if possible. I
implore you to maintain the 2 year AZ residency requirement for those whom wish to run a
dispensary. People that are opposing this will most likely be from California and they seek to dominate
the dispensary locations. They are most likely already established in their state and therefore capable
of putting up the money, immediately, that it will take to start a "Non-Profit" establishment. Arizona
residents should have first rights to serve Arizona patients!
Include criteria for placement of dispensaries in communities such as Bulhead City.
Section R9-17-106 is far too restrictive. In particular, section A7, requiring papers in peer reviewed
journals, is not appropriate for many conditions which are rare (and thus unlikely to be specifically
researched), but widely researched to be chronically debilitating and painful which would potentially
be a good candidate for medical marijuana. For example, Ulcerative Colitus is very similar to Crohn's
Disease (a specifically allowed condition in Prop 203), and would similarly enjoy the help for nausea,
pain, digestion, and lack of appetite, but happens to have less research in this area. There are a great
number of rare conditions for which it is not realistic to expect specific peer reviewed studies. The
strictness of this requirement goes far beyond the physician's usual ability to prescribe medications as
needed (for example, not every painful condition has a peer reviewed study suggesting that
conventional pain killer will help. Furthermore, generating a peer-reviewed study will be beyond the
means of most suffererers of chronic, disabling conditions. As the requirements for the
recommending physician are quite thorough, it should suffice to determine that the condition in
question is in fact chronic and debilitating (per the Proposition) to be added to the qualified list, and
thus allow Medical Marijuana provided the qualified physician. Or, at the very least, to make the
requirements to add the condition less onerous. Similarly, the requirements in section R9-17-106 B
are too restrictive. Also, it is not clear when a public hearing would be needed. There should not
need to be any public hearing for these requests. Section R9-17-106-C appears to be completely
unnecessary and could potentially cause undue suffering to victims of chronic, debilitating diseases.
Petitions should be allowed at any time
Re: The fee structure (especially for patients with limited income) This absolutely needs to be
addressed! These prices are far too high! (pun) Re: The processes for approving dispensary
registration certificate You need to allow people to have a location secured, but NOT built! Secured
via a contingency lease and then providing a blueprint of how
security/patients/sales/growing/preparation/ storage/etc. will all be provided for. Approve a tentative
license that will be fully granted once a dispensary has complied with their agreement to build the
location that is virtually identical to their plan. Simple solution and this will eliminate hundreds if not
thousands of unnecessary medical marijuana dispensaries popping up and then most promptly going
out of business, what a mess that would be! Re: The requirement that dispensaries have a medical
director ADHS' intentions for this were in the right place, however this position is superfluous and will
be complete overkill. Require the dispensaries to adhere to a policy implementing educational
materials and advisement of dangers and responsibilities. Qualified Patients already have consulted
with their own Doctor and have access to that Doctor for any technical questions. According to our
business attorney the unnecessary expense of this position would legally be deemed an undue and
unreasonable burden. By all means when you evaluate and consider business entities consider the
addition of medical professionals an obvious benefit! Along with Horticultural, botany, law
enforcement, clerical, and business experience.
I disagree with patients being filmed; grant them anonymity. Charging $150/year, every year is
prohibitive. Establishing a year-long relationship with your doctor, including 4 visits a year, is also cost
prohibitive and some patients do not have more than a year to live. Or military personnel aren't
around long enough to establish the required relationship. Some patients who have established
relationships with their doctors have doctors who will not prescribe medical marijuana.
No mention herein makes mention of sourcing genetic material from within the state. Early news
stories reported such material must originate from within the state. There are portions of the
proposed draft rules that are not entirely clear but may be implied; R9-17-302 B. 9. f. location of
cameras but no mention on number of cameras needed/required R9-17-302 B. 3. d. vi- as it pertains
to utility bill dated within 60 days before the date of dispensary application. The wording of this
section has led to some confusion. However, I believe, it is only one of other potential proof of
residency by the principal applying for the application; not a requirement on the proposed site of the
dispensary prior to being awarded a license as many alarmist are claiming. R9-17-102 6. a.b.c.
Qualifying patients with chronic illness, at least the more severe cases, should have a lower annual
renewal fee.
pricing! from cards to product. smoking areas
The draft rules state that only debilitating medical conditions can be added at a future date. There
are numerous scientifically-reviewed non-debilitating medical conditions to which marijuana can have
theraputic value. Debilitating means a condition that causes a disability. Those patients with
disabilities are generally eligible to receive some form of Social Security. Based on what I can make of
the draft rules I have read.patients eligible to receive marijuana are most likely to be on Social
Security. How can you expect someone living below the poverty line to pay $150 for a registry
identification card let alone for the marijuana?
Please clarify the language that deals with the principal officer and Arizona residency requirements.
Does each principal officer have to be a resident or at least one officer? I believe that perhaps the
requirement of Arizona residency could effectively be relaxed. Perhaps it would be adequate to allow
individuals who do not currently reside in Arizona but show intent to take up permanent residence in
Arizona. For those non-Arizona residents, each case could be considered on an individual basis.
I just thought of a fabulous idea for adding to the definition of an ongoing physician patient
relationship. You should make it absolutely clear on the physician recommendation and attestations
that the physician is required to have and maintain medical records to back up his or her
recommendation for Cannabis. These definitions are already in state law in ARS Title 32. Make it
clear that if a physician doesn't have and maintain a medical record to back up the recommendation
that it's considered unprofessional conduct. It would help if the form actually lists the language in
Title 32 so that the physician knows they are held accountable to the record retention requirement.
Since the Initiative language states that the physician needed to be in an ongoing physician
relationship as well as have done a medical history- these should be evident in the medical record.
32-1501. Definitions 3. "Adequate medical records" means legible medical records containing, at a
minimum, sufficient information to identify the patient, support the diagnosis, describe the
treatment, accurately document the results, indicate advice and cautionary warning provided to the
patient and provide sufficient information for a similarly qualified practitioner to assume continuity of
the patient's care at any point in the course of treatment. 32-2936. Patient records A licensee must
keep a patient's medical records as follows: 1. If the patient is an adult, for at least seven years after
the last date the licensee provided the patient with medical or health care services. 2. If the patient
is a child, either for at least three years after the child's eighteenth birthday or for at least seven years
after the last date the licensee provided that patient with medical or health care services, whichever
date occurs first. 3. If the patient dies before the expiration of the dates prescribed in paragraph 1 or
2, for at least three years after the patient's death. 32-3211. Medical records; protocol;
unprofessional conduct; corrective action; exemptions A. A health professional must prepare a
written protocol for the secure storage, transfer and access of the medical records of the health
professional's patients. At a minimum the protocol must specify: 1. If the health professional
terminates or sells the health professional's practice and the patient's medical records will not remain
in the same physical location, the procedure by which the health professional shall notify each patient
in a timely manner before the health professional terminates or sells the health professional's practice
in order to inform the patient regarding the future location of the patient's medical records and how
the patient can access those records. 2. The procedure by which the health professional may dispose
of unclaimed medical records after a specified period of time and after the health professional has
made good faith efforts to contact the patient. 3. How the health professional shall timely respond
to requests from patients for copies of their medical records or to access their medical records. B.
The protocol prescribed in subsection A of this section must comply with the relevant requirements of
title 12, chapter 13, article 7.1 regarding medical records. C. A health professional shall indicate
compliance with the requirements of this section on the health professional's application for
relicensure in a manner prescribed by the health professional's regulatory board. D. A health
professional who does not comply with this section commits an act of unprofessional conduct. E. In
addition to taking disciplinary action against a health professional who does not comply with this
section, the health professional's regulatory board may take corrective action regarding the proper
storage, transfer and access of the medical records of the health professional's patients. For the
purposes of this subsection, corrective action does not include taking possession or management of
the medical records.
Allow physicians other than patients primary care provider to write recommendations. They may not
have an established physician, they may not have a home. No insurance etc.. Allow for a fefund of
fees, if for some reason a dispensary is denied. It is unreasonable to keep the entire $5,000.00 It
should be a portion of the fee submitted
Change the fencing requirements to less restricitive ones. The current draft puts to many limits on
making it in peoples reach.
The 2 year residency requirement is onerous and really not constitutional, plus will lead to a weak
industry with poor quality and quantity of medical marijuana The patient-doctor relationship needs to
be toned down. Only the chronically ill with good insurance see the same doctor 4 times a year. If
you don't have insurance you only go to a doctor in emergencies. This also discriminates against the
under-insured, e.g. super high deductibles. Just encourage the doctor to maintain the relationship on
a yearly basis when the renewal comes up. Be reasonable, most specialists only require a yearly visit
to maintain a prescription for blood pressure, cholesterol, arthritis, etc.
1. Regarding Rule R9-17-306(F)(1), Local jurisdictions should be provided notification of violations

identified by the Department and updates as to corrections of the violations. 2. Rule R9-17-307
requires a dispensary to cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana it provides. How is the other
30% acquired? The statutes allow a medical marijuana dispensary to cultivate marijuana at its facility
and one additional off-site cultivation site. If Dispensary A acquires medical marijuana from
Dispensary B, is Dispensary B deemed to be the one additional off-site cultivation site for Dispensary
A? This rule needs clarification. 3. Rule R9-17-313(B)(5) provides for record-keeping requirements
related to medical marijuana inventory sent by a dispensary to a food establishment for infusion into
an edible food product. The statutes allow for possession of medical marijuana by dispensaries, off-
site cultivation sites, qualifying patients and registered caregivers. What is the authority in the
statutes for a â€œfood establishmentâ€ to receive, possess and process the medical marijuana?
This Rule permits a â€œfood establishmentâ€, which is an undefined entity, to possess and process a
substance which is illegal under federal law. The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a letter stating
that it will not pursue actions against persons using and possessing medical marijuana as long as the
person is in compliance with state laws. The Arizona state law does not authorize possession by a
â€œfood establishmentâ€, leaving the entity and all who work there open to prosecution for a
federal crime. Either the state law needs to be amended to allow for â€œfood establishmentsâ€ as
manufacturing sites or the Rules should require manufacturing (meaning infusion) to be conducted at
the site of the dispensary or the one additional permitted off-site cultivation facility. Additionally,
there are strict security requirements and personnel screening for dispensaries and cultivation sites,
but absolutely no such regulations or requirements for the food establishment. If the Department
intends to permit processing of the medical marijuana by â€œfood establishmentsâ€, there need to
be restrictions on access, employees and transport to prevent the medical marijuana from leaving the
premises and being used illegally.
The fencing requirements are way to high! How can caregivers and card holders come up with that?
Make fencing more reasonable for caregivers & card holders to grow outdoors. Allow them to grow in
8 ft chainlink or simliar without a covering over it. Otherwise you are pushing people to grow more
expensive, more unnatural, indoor medicine. Allow people to grow for one year even if there will
eventually be a dispenssary within 25 miles since it will take dispensaries so long to get up and
running.
1. The draft does not specify HOW the DHH will determine WHO will receive one of the 125
Medical Marijuana Dispensary certificates. 2. The draft does not specify WHAT are the qualifications
they will be using to determine who will be issued a Medical Marijuana Dispensary certificate. 3.
The draft does not specify WHEN the Medical Marijuana Dispensary certificates will be issured. 4.
The draft does not specify if the Applicant HAS to have a signed lease in place before subimitting their
application for a Medical Marijuana Dispensay Certificate. 5. The draft is very vague on the Fusion
facilities - ie; distance from worship centers, schools, residences, etc., what city health department
codes are required, security, OR can folks just make moon cakes, brownies, suckers in their kitchen??
6. I am a professional commercial realtor working with a number of people wanting to lease space
now, but unsure of getting a Medical Marijuana Dispensary Certificate to operate. Which comes first,
the Certificate or the lease obligation. Too much uncertainty as to who will get them.
I saw comments that someone wants physician assistants to be able to be medical directors. I believe
that would be outside the scope of a PA's duty since they must work under the direction of a doctor.
On consuming and buying medical marijuana, I noticed that caregivers, and possibly patients can be
reimbursed after a year of spending money on medical marijuana. However, even though our state
budget is not as badly in debt as many other states, I feel it would be easier on our budget to allow
those to cultivate marijuana on a regulated basis, instead of 25 miles away. Allowing personal growth
of no more than 2-4 plants, as I don't see why anyone would need more than that, would prevent
massive growth of marijuana, but also ease our budget crisis. I also feel that 12 plants is a lot for
personal growth for someone who is 25 miles away from the dispensary. This can be fine and dandy
for a busy dispensary, but personal growth of 12 plants under 3 feet can include as much as a pound
or more of marijuana a month. That amount of marijuana COULD go to dispensaries, but again, 12
plants for a dispensary would be more than plenty. Personal growth should be separate to dispensary
growth, as one can build a system that allows all the processes of cultivating marijuana to be done
within two weeks worth of time, again a pound or more a month. Cloning, Vegging, and Flowering
could be done with 12 plants. With 2-4 plants, it's possible to do this, but you're not likely to get an
excess amount of medical marijuana you won't know what to do with. This excess would certainly
allow room for thinking twice about whether they should illegally sell it, because they have no need
for it, and the profit that comes with selling it illegally. It could possibly be done so that personal
growth can allow a continuously flow of medicinal marijuana by allowing 2 plants, 2 clones, instead of
4 plants.
The only area that I even have a suggestion is in the area of the R9-17-201, Debilitating Medical
Conditions. Again, using my history as a pharmacist, a physician is allowed to prescribe a drug for any
condition he or she believes the patient will benefit. This is referred to as off labeled uses. I believe
that if the trust is given to the physician to recommend marijuana period, we should be able to trust
that same physician to recommend or prescribe it for conditions that may improve with its use. There
is an area, in the rules, to add a condition or treatment to the list, but that process is extremely
lengthy and complex.
see below
The rules could be improved by removing the excessive fees for patients, caregivers, and
dispensaries.I understand the desire to not have this voter approved proposition become a similar
program as those in CA andCO but much of what I have read is so cumbersome that I fear many
patients will continue to use marijuana in a covert and unlawful way.
â€¢ R9-17-313.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and places and unusual burden on the dispensary owner.
an undue burden on recordkeeping and the auditing of any business inventory or process every thirty
days that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. â€¢ Auditing under Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles once every 30 days would require a certified public accountant to visit the site,
complete the work, and provide professional â€œcertificationâ€ services to complete the audit. The
department is concerned with inventory management and accountability, I understand that. .
Verifiable, reliable, timely, and accurate inventory records and be maintained without this onerous
requirement of an "audit" every thirty day. Audit is not a defined term in either the regulations or
the proposition.
I also believe Mr. , spokesman for the Arizona Assoc. of Dispensary Professionals has many
valid points. My main personal gripe is the suggestion of a 24/7 video monitor to the health dept.
What is this? Soviet style Big Brother in America? I neither want nor need this medicine, but there
are plenty of folks out there getting anti-depressants and serious pain killers and , even though these
are sometimes abused and re-sold for money, there are not 24/7 cameras spying on them in every
pharmacy in the state. I understand if the business owner of the dispensary wants to have a security
camera, and of course all transactions should be documented or we won't get any tax money out this,
but in the end, the goal should be getting a medicinal product to those in need......not impeding them
every step of the way.
I'm not sure I understand the 70/30 rule for dispensaries. How is it going to be possible for a
dispensary to grow 70% of their product? Shouldn't we encourage large scale cultivation sites with
strict production and quality control measures in place? I can see quality issues and rising costs
passed to the consumer if this is not changed. Secondly, how will the 70/30 ratio be measured? I
would think that this would need to be evaluated over the course of 24 months.
CONT. 4. The legislature should impose criminal penalties for smoking marijuana in the presence of
children. Rationale: Children exposed to marijuana use are desensitized to the hazards of marijuana
use
ISSUES 1. A ceritificate of occupancy (CO) may have been issued years ago and is still valid for a
building without any improvements being made for a dispensary. -->What is the intent by the ADHS
for a CO? 2. A CO for a improved, but vacated space in a shopping center would have been given to
the original and prior tenant. If this is what the ADHS wished to have as part of the application
process, there is not issue. A *new* CO would not be given for that space for a dispensary; however,
unless improvements are made for a dispensary. -->Again, what is the intent by the ADHS for a CO?
To have improvements made by the applicant for a dispensary without any quarantees of application
approval by ADHS? 3. Older buildings may not have certificates of occupancy. -->An applicant will
need to make improvements to have a CO issued without a guarantee that he would be selected.
SUGGESTION: Clarify that the building have an prior approved Certificate of Occupancy, but not
necessarily for the intended specific use.
Limit the usage in "cohabitation" circumstances, such as apartments, dorms, senior living situations,
anywhere with shared walls of other tenants/residents. Limit usage in homes, etc where minors live.
See comments above

1. The sole purpose of P-203 was to make the use of cannabis as medication an available choice to
seriously ill patients, NOT to balance the budget of the State of Arizona! Don't punish the patients
with reoccurring burdensome fees. The fee for an Arizona drivers license is age dependent ($25 - $10)
and good for 15 years. A diagnosis of AIDS (ect.) is permanent... if a patient qualifies for a Medical
Marijuana card, why is it necessary for them to renew annually? 2. The $5000 NON-REFUNDABLE fee
to "apply" for a dispensary license is unrealistic. It will only serve to eliminate many potentially
qualified dispensary applicants, and those that do apply will most likely be backed by "silent" out of
state financial partners. An application from the Arizona State Board Pharmacy for a pharmacy permit
is $240 annually. A revenue enhancing alternative would be a "reasonable" application fee, and an
additional "more substantial" licensing fee if the applicant is qualified to operate as a dispensary. 3.
IF you decide to keep the $5000 NON-REFUNDABLE fee, then a provision for tracking where the
money came from should be required (using the SBA loan process as a model). 4. The term "medical
director" should apply to any licensed medical professional, not just an MD. 5. A Pharmacist wanting
to open a dispensary should not also have to employ a "medical director".
Give out more licenses to help unemployment.
Increase the Residency requirements to 3-5 years.
More clarification on medical directors.
The draft rules can be improved by not changing the language of the initiative that was passed by the
voters. The draft rules are changing the doctor patient relationship and that will result in denial of
access to needed medicine to many people that the voters voted to help. In one visit I can get
prescribed phamaceutical drugs that can kill me but to get medical marijuana I have to be seen for a
year or have a specialist take over my primary care? Rules that restrict safe medicine to people that
need it are not what the people voted for. These rules are cruel and unusual and are too restrictive,
the people have spoken, now enact the law as it was written. Thank you for allowing the input of the
public.
The Act does not limit dispensaries to those owned by Arizona residents. In addition, the term
resident is not defined. If a person owns a home in both Arizona and another state, pays property
taxes to Arizona, pays utility bills in Arizona, does contract work in Arizona, etc., is that person an
Arizona resident? That person does have the "proof" under R9-17-302(3)(d), but before substantial
money is invested, there should be a clear answer to whether they would at least be qualified,
especially given that the residency requirement was nowhere in the Act as approved by the voters.
Principal officer is also not defined. New Mexico's Act contains a more general definition which
states a licensed producer "means any person or association of persons within New Mexico that the
department determines to be qualified to produce, possess, disttribute and dispense cannabis
pursuant to the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act and that is licensed by the department." While
that language is not perfect it does not hinge on residency but I assume allows the department to look
at the totality of the person or association of persons.
I believe that the 5 day timeframe for for inspection seems really generous. I would prefer to see that
inspections take place within 24 hours no more than 72 hours after notice is given.
Doctor/patient relationship is not a good idea for a one year requirement. Doctors come and doctors
go. which means to patients a new Doctor.
1. Neither the statute nor the rules provides where the seeds or first supply of pot can be obtained.
2. Although it makes sense to require qualifying patients to have continuing/repeated physician care
prior to obtaining/renewing a registry card, some physicians with questionable ethics may make a
mint off of this requirement (as evidenced by a recent documentary with respect to Colorado). I
would suggest including some kind of limitation on the number of qualifying patients for which a
physician can recommend medical marijuana. (Note that in my opinion, the alternative provided in
Section 16(b) is impractical, as virtually no ethical physician will assume "primary responsibility for
providing management and routine care," particularly with respect to patients with whom they do not
have long-standing professional relationships.)
I have been an emergency physician and toxicology researcher for 25 years. Currently, I am working
at the . As a researcher who has written and
published multiple articles regarding toxicology, I have been concerned with the dose risk vs. benefit
ratio of medication. Regarding Cannabis where the LD 50 ( Lethal Dose) has not been determined,
and thought to be very high, the variability of the concentration of what is currently marketed can
vary widely. The variability is dependent, among other things, on cultivation methods, soil, and
lighting techniques. As a physician when I write a prescription for a medication with a certain
concentration, I am assured that the patient will receive that concentration and it will be consistent
and accurate no matter which pharmacy that the patient patronizes. I am relatively assured that it is
free from harmful chemicals and contaminates and will deliver a therapeutic dose. Such is not the
case with Cannabis grown by independent growers. Anecdotal reports have shown that some plants
have intentional sub-therapeutic concentrations of efficacious cannabinoids, (CBD, CGD) for patients,
in favor a tetrahydrocannabinoid (THC), which offers the recreational user the desirable â€œhighâ€.
However, for the medicinal user, this can have deleterious effects. Non inhalation methods , which is
the suggested routes of administration by The Institute of Medicine, as well as other researchers, can
cause harmful untoward side effects, if the concentration or doses are not known. I propose that
dispensaries be required to provide concentration of at least 2 CBDs as well as THC to the consumer.
These dispensaries would be required to send a samples of cannabis from the first and last of their for
laboratory for analysis. Also, they should be required to certify that the product is herbicide and
pesticide free as determined by an independent laboratory. At least one reported case of an AIDS
patient who may have contracted a fungal lung disease from the inhalation of Cannabis in California.
In response to the first draft of the Medical Marijuana Program guidelines, I am in complete support
of Dr. Edgar Suter, who wrote in the January 3, 2011 edition of The Phoenix Times.com, that the
Arizona Department of Health has no authority to dictate what constitutes the time honored
physician patient relationship. For the Department of Health to even suggest that a patient, where
conventional medicine has failed, wait one year before being able to legally access medical marijuana
is in fact â€œcruel and unusual punishmentâ€. The appearance projected is this moratorium is in
order to conform to bureaucratic hoop jumping. Many AIDS, Hepatitis C, and Cancer patients do not
have one year. Additionally, as a licensed physician in three states, I have spoken with many doctors
regarding the subject of cannabis. The overwhelming majority will not make cannabis
recommendations for fear of DEA sanctions. So to require that each dispensary have a medical
director (estimated need of 40 physicians for the 120 dispensaries) is not reasonable and represents
the need for the guidelines to possess more sensitivity towards the need of legitimate patient access.
Thank you.
Federal law requires a bona fide doctor-patient relationship before a physician prescribes a
controlled substance. The same requirement should apply for medical marijuana recommendations.
The definition proposed by the Board, in R9-17-101(16)(a), which requires four visits over the span of
a year, may prevent some patients from obtaining the relief offered by the Act in a timely manner.
Principles of medical ethics have standards for the doctor-patient relationship and the dispensing of
medication. Doctors are bound to follow their medical ethics in making recommendations for
medical marijuana. It would violate their ethical standards to make recommendations for medical
marijuana without conducting a proper examination of the patient's health and history. Excessive
government regulation, such as rules that tell the doctor how to practice "" including how many visits
or length of treatment "" overstep the bounds of this rulemaking. Doctor's ethical standards, not
government rules, should control the doctor-patient relationship. Part B of the definition of
"ongoing," in R9-17-101(16)(b), is good to an extent, but it would prevent U.S. military veterans
whose primary care physicians are at the Veterans Administration Hospitals from being able to
acquire medical marijuana if it would provide them relief from a debilitating medical condition.
Doctors at the Veterans Administration are not permitted to write recommendations for medical
marijuana because it is still proscribed by federal law. As there are already existing legal and ethical
guidelines for when a physician-patient relationship is established and because the definitions
proposed by the Department would make it unnecessarily difficult for a person with a genuine
medical need to obtain medical marijuana""and make it virtually impossible for veterans using the
services of a VA Hospital"
Please See Below
as a thumb print scan.Â DHS is mandated by the Initiative to ensure that dispensaries are only
releasing medical marijuana to qualifying patients who hold a validly issued registration card.Â If
DHS required biometric verification in the rules, it would ensure that counterfeiting, identity theft, or
other forgeries resulting in medical marijuana falling into the wrong hands would be prevented.Â
This requirement will have the best chance of preventing the type of abuse we see, for example, with
underage persons purchasing alcohol using fake identification.Â By requiring biometric identity
verification, it would be nearly impossible for a dispensary employee to dispense marijuana
illegally.Â While it is certainly expected that dispensaries will self-police their agents, under the
current Rules it would be very easy for a disreputable agent to collude with a non-patient to dispense
MM under somebody else's registry number.Â In this scenario it would be extremely difficult for a
dispensary owner to discover illegal transactions as the record would appear legitimate.Â Â
However if that transaction must be accompanied by a cardholder's thumbprint illegal transactions
would be impossible. The proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verify information from the
State's medical marijuana electronic verification system and enter additional information into the
system relating to the transaction. The technology is available to allow this process to be automated
adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic system of hardware and software
to verify the information required in Section A before dispensing medical marijuana to a qualifying
patient or designated caregiver and to submit the required information to the medical marijuana
electronic verification system.
R9-17-02 Fees A sliding scale or lower cost card should be made available for low income patients.
R9-17-101 This prohibits availability of medical marijuana to military veterans and needs to be
altered. R9-17-202(F)(5) It is reasonable and important to ensure that a physician has a legitimate
relationship with a patient, this language seems overly restrictive R9-17-307 â€œ70/30â€ rule
This provision is restrictive an unnecessary. It will hamper the development of a free enterprise,
wholesale business environment which is necessary to ensure adequate supply and competitive
pricing, both of which are crucial for patients. A single crop failure could cause dispensaries with small
grow operations to run out of supply and patients go without their medicine. R9-17-310 Medical
Director Pharmacies are not required to have a Medical Director. Most doctorâ€™s have
administrators who complete the patient education and clinical practice guidelines for them. A
dispensary will likely have to pay an administrator to create the guidelines and then pay a doctor to
authorize the documentation. There is a professional trade organization being formed for the medical
marijuana industry. The rules should be established to allow the organization to develop the
educational materials, guidelines, etc working closely with medical professionals, and let the active
members utilize these resources. This reduces cost to the dispensaries and patients while at the same
time standardizing the materials which is in the best interest of the patients. An alternative plan
would be to put the duties being required of the Medical Director onto the recommending physician,
was it would likely be handled for any other medication.
1) Follow the rules already set in place. Do not change per what Mr. Humble would like. 2) Start
doing the proper research and re calculate your numbers based on: - Not all plants depending on
variety produce 1- 1.2 ounces. - Indica varieties produce far less than Sativa. - If you limit the amount
of product then what will happen is no one will want to grow Indica which is good for nausea and
neuorpathy. They will only want to produce quantity not quality. Not specific medications that fill
needs. - Also you need to learn that there are two stages to Marijuana cultivation. Space is needed
for vegetative growth and then a separate area for the flowering. In restricting the square footage
like you did you cannot now restrict the amount produced. Of the 2000 square feet at best half of it
will be used for the flowering state. So do the math at 1-2 1.2 ounces per plant. WILL NOT WORK. In
addition, when calculating your numbers not all of the space can be utilized for production. You will
need areas to walk etc. Just seems like you have no idea what you are talking about when you are
discussing the needs of an area to grow, I went to the Tucson council meeting and the numbers they
used were 1 pound per plant. THAT IS CRAZY!!!!!! We are talking about growing indoors not
outdoors. I am not saying that dispensarys should produce and control their own meds, but lets use
the correct figures when deciding how this works. 3) Allow for the other professionals to be the
medical director. In this way it is a win win. You get the concept of control through a medical director
and the dispensaries have options that would maybe prevent them from opening or running
effectively.
This constitutes the

) comments on the Arizona Department of Health Servicesâ€™ (â€œADHSâ€ or
â€œDepartmentâ€) Informal Draft Rules for implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.
The Association is a non-profit, professional business organization created after the passage of
Proposition 203. The Associationâ€™s
qualified this measure for the ballot and then secured its passage. The
Associationâ€™s undersigned counsel authored the text of Proposition 203. The
. Thus, the Association is
committed to the Actâ€™s implementation in a manner that furthers legislative intent. The
Association commends the Department for producing an initial set of draft rules so soon after the
Actâ€™s effective date and for the inclusion of many prospective rules designed to ensure that
Arizona serves as a national model for a well-regulated medical marijuana program that exists to
serve the needs of patients with debilitating medical conditions. But the Association has serious
concerns about whether a number of provisions, even if well-intentioned, are contrary to the intent of
the Act. Some of the proposed regulations are invalid as impermissibly limiting the Act. Others
exceed the Actâ€™s grant of authority to the Department and are inconsistent with or in conflict with
the Act. In commenting on the proposed rules, the Association will endeavor to highlight those
provisions that it applauds as well as those that give it concern. Although the Association has
reviewed the initial draft rules and offers its comments below, it has not commented on every aspect
of the initial draft rules. The Associationâ€™s failure to comment on specific provisions is not
intended to signify its agreement with those provisions. The Association expects to continue studying
the proposed rules and expressly reserves the right to make future, additional comments about any
rules contained in the Departmentâ€™s initial draft. Rulemaking Authority The Departmentâ€™s
rulemaking authority is found in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2803(A). The Department was not given the broad
authority to â€œadopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter.â€ Rather, it is authorized only
â€œto adopt the rules set forth in subsection A.â€ Permissible rules are those: 1. Governing the
manner of adding to the list of debilitating medical conditions; 2. Establishing the form and content of
registration and renewal applications; 3. Governing the manner in which it shall consider applications
for and renewals of registry identification cards; 4. Governing nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensariesâ€”for the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft without imposing an undue
burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of
cardholdersâ€”including: (a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and
renewals of registration certificates; (b) Minimum oversight requirements for dispensaries; (c)
Minimum recordkeeping requirements for dispensaries; (d) Minimum security requirements for
dispensaries, including requirements for protection of each registered nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensary location by a fully operational security alarm system; (e) Procedures for suspending or
revoking the registration certificate of dispensaries that violate the Act or rules adopted pursuant to
the Act; and 5. Establishing registration and renewal fees. All other rules are outside the scope of
the Departmentâ€™s rulemaking power. Each initial draft rule should be closely examined by the
Department to ensure that it is authorized pursuant to A.R.S. Â§ 36-2803(A). The 70% Cultivation
Rule The 70% production provision contained in proposed R9-17-307(C) appears to be drawn from
the Colorado legislation (House Bill 1284) passed in May 2010. It requires that every medical
marijuana center â€œmust certify that it is producing at least 70% of its own medicine.â€ This and
other amendments were intended to bring better governance to an insufficiently controlled
cultivation environment that resulted from shortcomings in the original Colorado medical marijuana
law. Since the Arizona Act provides for strict controls for all medical marijuana cultivation in the state,
this restriction is unnecessary and may, in fact, be bad public policy for Arizona. The Act requires the
establishment of at least 124 dispensaries in the State. It does not necessarily require the creation of
at least 124 cultivation facilities, unless the proposed subsection R9-17-307(C) is enacted. It can be
argued that fewer, larger, cultivation facilities decrease the potential for public nuisance, reduce ADHS
oversight requirements and costs, increase security, and provide economies of scale that can reduce
patient costs. Establishing an unimpeded market where any registered dispensary can choose to
order its usable marijuana from any other registered cultivation facility will likely result in the greatest
economic efficiencies and best prices for patients. Many medical professionals or other entities that
would otherwise be motivated and highly qualified to operate a dispensary may be deterred due to
the technical, financial and liability issues associated with operating a cultivation facility. Under the
Act, every registered dispensary has the right to operate a cultivation facility to meet the needs of its
qualified patients. However, nothing in the Act precludes a stand-alone dispensary from arranging to
obtain its usable marijuana from the cultivation facilities of one or more other dispensaries. Creating
a regulatory environment that allows cooperative interaction between registered dispensaries and
their associated cultivation facilities will structure an Arizona medical marijuana industry that rewards
efficiency; with the foreseeable result of better-managed dispensaries and fewer, more efficient,
cultivation facilities. A proposed regulatory environment that allows commercial cooperation
between registered dispensaries can be readily managed through rules that require cultivation
facilities to establish procedures for verifying that a dispensary placing a order for usable marijuana
has a registration certificate in good standing, that the usable marijuana is delivered in a secure
manner, and that all orders are labeled, packaged, tracked and accounted for in a manner that
prevents diversion. The Department has the authority to adopt rules governing nonprofit medical
marijuana dispensaries, for the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft without imposing an
undue burden on dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including minimum
oversight requirements for dispensaries. Requiring each dispensary to cultivate at least 70% of the
medical marijuana it dispenses does not serve the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft
and imposes an undue burden on dispensaries. More importantly, in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2816(B) and (C), the
Act specifically prohibits a dispensary from dispensing to or acquiring marijuana from any person
other than another registered dispensary, a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated
caregiver. Had the Act intended to limit transfers between dispensaries, it would have said so. Thus,
the proposed rule is in conflict with the Act. If the Department believes a rule is necessary in
addition to A.R.S. Â§ 36-2816(B) and (C), the Association suggests the following: R9-17-307.
Administration C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; 2.1. Shall MAY only provide
medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a
qualifying patient or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this
Chapter to acquire medical marijuana. 3.2. May only acquire medical marijuana from another
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver. 4. May acquire up to 30% of
the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from
another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide
more than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. The
Physician/Patient Relationship The Association believes that the existence of a legitimate
physician/patient relationship is contemplated by the Actâ€™s requirement that a qualifying patient
be diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition and that the physician provide
a written certification that, in his professional opinion, â€œthe patient is likely to receive therapeutic
or palliative benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patientâ€™s
debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical conditionâ€
after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patientâ€™s medical history.
The Departmentâ€™s rulemaking authority set forth in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2803 of the Act does not include
adopting rules concerning the physician/patient relationship. A.R.S. Â§ 36-2803(A)(3) provides that
ADHS shall adopt rules â€œestablishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications
submitted under this chapter.â€ Butâ€”unlike the authority granted with respect to the
consideration of dispensary registration certificatesâ€”the statute does not grant ADHS the authority
to adopt rules for the consideration of patient applications for registration cards. Accordingly, the
Department is not authorized to add substantive requirements to the content of a qualifying
patientâ€™s application or renewal beyond those set forth in the Act. A.R.S. Â§ 36-2804.02 requires
that a qualifying patient applying for a registration card submit (1) the physicianâ€™s written
certification, (2) the application fee, and (3) the application. A.R.S. Â§ 36-2801(18) specifies the
content of the written certification. Although the physicianâ€™s written certification must
accompany the patientâ€™s applicant, it is separate from the application itself and the Department
does not have the rulemaking authority to specify its content. In the case of proposed R9-17-
202(F)(5), the patient would be required to provide far more information than contemplated by A.R.S.
Â§ 36-2804.02, particularly with respect to the physicianâ€™s written certification. Although
proposed R9-17-202(F)(5)(e)(i), (ii) requires the physician to state the nature of his relationship with
the patient in the alternative, both (i) and (ii) are objectionable as overly burdensome to the patients
who are the Actâ€™s intended beneficiaries by dramatically impacting patient access. Consider this
example. A patient diagnosed with cancer is referred to an oncologist. That patientâ€™s reaction to
the chemotherapy administered by the oncologist involves such severe nausea that the patientâ€™s
overall strength is severely diminished and his overall health and ability to withstand additional
treatment is further compromised. The oncologist has only been treating the patient for a matter of
weeks but is willing to write a recommendation for the patientâ€™s use of medical marijuana. Under
this scenario, the physician could not make the statement required by R9-17-202(F)(5)(e)(i) and might
have serious difficulty making the alternative statement required by R9-17-202(F)(e)(ii).
Notwithstanding any assertions the Department may make concerning the wisdom or substantive
merit of these additional proposed physician certifications, the Associationâ€™s position is that they
are not authorized by the Act and would unlawfully require certifications beyond what the Act has
mandated. Time-Frames The Act sets forth a number of time deadlines for the Department to
perform various tasks. For example, A.R.S. Â§ 36-2804 provides that the Department shall register a
dispensary and issue a registration certificate â€œnot later than ninety daysâ€ after receiving a
dispensary application if the dispensary applicant has submitted certain specified items. The
Association wholeheartedly supports the Departmentâ€™s proposal to ensure that the statutory time
period does not begin to run until the application is complete as well as the proposals to give the
Department a limited period of time to review applications for completeness and to give the applicant
a period of time to provide missing information. But the Associationâ€™s position is that a
dispensaryâ€™s registration certificate must be issued not later than ninety calendar days from the
date on which the Department has a completed application. The Departmentâ€™s proposed rules
change the statutory time periods to â€œworking days,â€ significantly lengthen the time periods
and are in conflict with the statute. This issue exists with respect to all statutory time periods set
forth in Table 1.1. In addition to the aforementioned problems with the time-frames listed in Table
1.1, there are numerous errors in Table 1.1 with respect to the â€œstatutory authorityâ€ citations.
These citations should be corrected in the next draft. Outdoor Cultivation The Association
commends the Department for including provisions related to outdoor cultivation. But the proposed
definition of â€œenclosedâ€ in draft R9-17-101(10) requires one or another cumbersome barrier
covering the top area. The association proposes the following amendment: 10. â€œEnclosedâ€
means EITHER: a. A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet. b. An area
metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area that is: i. Welded or woven wire mesh, with
minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 1 inch; ii. Welded metal
wire grid, with minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 3 inches;
iii. Metal chain-link weave, with gauge no less than 9 and no more than 11.5; iv. A panel of metal
vertical bars, with minimum bar thickness of 0.5 inches and maximum gap between bars of 4 inches;
or v. Constructed of iron or other metallic material and similar to the examples in subsections
(10)(b)(i) through (10)(b)(iv), if approved by the Department. c. AN AREA SURROUNDED BY FOUR
SOLID 12-FOOT WALLS, TOPPED WITH CONCERTINA WIRE, CONSTRUCTED OF METAL, CONCRETE, OR
STONE WITH A ONE-INCH THICK METAL GATE AND WITH 24-HOUR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE
ENTIRE OUTER PERIMETER. Inventory Controls To more effectively inventory and track all usable
marijuana, the AzMMA respectfully suggests that the ADHS augment its proposed â€œstrainâ€ and
â€œregistry identificationâ€ system with a â€œBatchâ€ designator. Under this proposal, a
â€œBatchâ€ is simply one or more seeds or cuttings that are planted and harvested at the same time
at a given cultivation site. Each Batch would be assigned a unique â€œBatch Numberâ€ by the
dispensary operating the cultivation site. The cultivation site would also record: 1. Whether the
Batch originated from seeds or cuttings; 2. The origin and strain of the seeds or cuttings; 3. The
number of seeds or cuttings planted; 4. The date the seeds or cuttings were planted; 5. A list of all
chemical additives, including non-organic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation
and production of the medical marijuana; 6. The number and disposition of any male, failed, or
otherwise unusable plants; 7. The number of female plants grown to maturity; 8. The harvest date of
the mature female plants; and 9. The final processed usable marijuana yield weight of the Batch.
The AzMMA also believes that regulations R9-17-313, and R9-17-314 may benefit from making certain
differentiations between inventory controls and labeling requirements for dispensaries and those
requirements for cultivation sites. Accordingly, the Association submits the following proposed
changes to the Departmentâ€™s initial draft regulations: R9-17-101. Definitions: Add the
following definitions and renumber accordingly: 4. â€œBATCHâ€ MEANS A SPECIFIC LOT OF
MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROWN FROM ONE OR MORE SEEDS OR CUTTINGS THAT ARE PLANTED AND
HARVESTED AT THE SAME TIME AT A CULTIVATION SITE. 5. â€œBATCH NUMBERâ€ MEANS A
UNIQUE NUMERIC, OR ALPHA-NUMERIC, DESIGNATOR ASSIGNED TO A BATCH BY A DISPENSARY AT
ITS CULTIVATION SITE. R9-17-313. Inventory Control System A. A dispensary shall designate in
writing a dispensary agent who has oversight of the dispensary's medical marijuana inventory control
system. B. A dispensary shall establish and implement an inventory control system for the
dispensaryâ€™s medical USABLE marijuana LOCATED AT THE DISPENSARY that documents: 1. Each
day's beginning inventory, acquisitions, harvests, sales, disbursements, disposal of unusable
marijuana, and ending inventory BY AMOUNT, BATCH NUMBER AND REGISTRY NUMBER; 2. For
acquiring medical marijuana from a qualifying patient, designated caregiver, or another dispensary OR
CULTIVATION SITE: a. A description of the medical marijuana acquired including the amount and
strain BATCH NUMBER; b. The name and registry identification number of the qualifying patient,
designated caregiver, or dispensary and dispensary agent who provided the medical marijuana; c.
The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent receiving the medical marijuana
on behalf of the dispensary; and d. The date of acquisition;. 3. For cultivation: a. The strain of
marijuana seed planted, type of soil used, date seeds were planted, and the watering schedule; b.
Harvest information including: i. Date of harvest; ii. Amount of medical marijuana harvested,
including the amount of marijuana and the amount of usable marijuana; iii. Name and registry
identification number of the dispensary agent responsible for the harvest; and c. The disposal of
medical marijuana that is not usable marijuana including the: i. Date of disposal, ii. Method of
disposal, and iii. Name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent responsible for the
disposal; 3. FOR ACQUIRING MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM A QUALIFYING PATIENT OR DESIGNATED
CAREGIVER: a. A DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACQUIRED INCLUDING THE AMOUNT
AND STRAIN; b. THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT
OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER WHO PROVIDED THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA; AND c. THE DATE OF
ACQUISITION. 4. For providing medical marijuana to another dispensary: a. The amount and strain
BATCH NUMBER of THE medical marijuana provided,; b. The name and registry identification number
of the other dispensary,; c. The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent who
received the medical marijuana on behalf of the other dispensary,; and d. The date the medical
marijuana was provided;. 5. For providing medical marijuana to a food establishment for infusion into
an edible food product: a. A description of the medical marijuana provided including the amount and
strain BATCH NUMBER; b. The name and registry identification number of the designated agent who:
i. Provided the medical marijuana to the food establishment on behalf of the dispensary, and ii.
Received the medical marijuana on behalf of the food establishment; and. c. The date the medical
marijuana was provided to the food establishment; and. 6. For receiving edible food products infused
with medical marijuana from a food establishment: a. The date the medical marijuana used to infuse
the edible food products was received by the food establishment and the amount AND BATCH
NUMBER of THE medical marijuana received; b. A description of the edible food products received
from the food establishment, including total weight of each edible food product and estimated
amount AND BATCH NUMBER of THE medical marijuana infused in each edible food product; c. Total
estimated amount AND BATCH NUMBER of THE medical marijuana infused in edible food products;
d. A description of any reduction in the amount of medical marijuana; e. For any unusable marijuana
disposed of at the food establishment: i. A description of the unusable marijuana, ii. The amount
AND BATCH NUMBER of THE unusable marijuana disposed of, iii. Date of disposal, iv. Method of
disposal, and v. Name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent responsible for the
disposal at the food establishment; and. f. The name and registry identification number of the
designated agent who: i. Provided the edible food products to the dispensary on behalf of the food
establishment, and ii. Received the edible food products on behalf of the dispensary. g. The date the
edible food products were provided to the dispensary. C. A DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE SHALL
ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT AN INVENTORY CONTROL SYSTEM THAT DOCUMENTS: 1. EACH DAY'S
BEGINNING INVENTORY, DELIVERIES, AND ENDING INVENTORY BY BATCH NUMBER, INCLUDING
WHETHER EACH BATCH ON HAND IS IN CULTIVATION, IN PROCESSING, OR STORED AS PROCESSED
USABLE MARIJUANA; 2. THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER OF ALL PROCESSED USABLE MARIJUANA
STORED OR OTHERWISE LOCATED AT THE CULTIVATION SITE; 3. FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA
PROVIDED TO ANOTHER DISPENSARY: A. THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER OF THE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA PROVIDED; B. THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE OTHER
DISPENSARY; C. THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE DISPENSARY AGENT
WHO RECEIVED THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER DISPENSARY; AND D. THE DATE
THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDED. 4. FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED TO A FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT FOR INFUSION INTO AN EDIBLE FOOD PRODUCT: A. A DESCRIPTION OF THE
MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER; AND B. THE DATE
THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDED TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. 5. HARVEST
INFORMATION INCLUDING: A. DATE OF HARVEST FOR EACH BATCH; B. AMOUNT OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA HARVESTED IN EACH BATCH, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF USABLE MARIJUANA AND THE
AMOUNT OF NOT USABLE MARIJUANA; C. THE DISPOSAL OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA THAT IS NOT
USABLE MARIJUANA INCLUDING THE: I. BATCH NUMBER AND AMOUNT; II. DATE OF DISPOSAL; AND
III. METHOD OF DISPOSAL. CD. The individual designated in subsection (A) shall conduct and
document an audit of the dispensary's inventory according to generally accepted accounting
principles at least once every 30 calendar days. 1. If the audit identifies a reduction in the amount of
medical marijuana in the dispensary's inventory not due to documented causes, the dispensary shall
determine where the loss has occurred and take and document corrective action. 2. If the reduction
in the amount of medical marijuana in the dispensary's inventory is due to suspected criminal activity
by a dispensary agent, the dispensary shall report the dispensary agent to the Department and to the
local law enforcement authorities. DE. A dispensary shall: 1. Maintain the documentation required
in subsections (B) and (C) at the dispensary for five years from the date on the document, and 2.
Provide the documentation required in subsections (B) and (C) to the Department for review upon
request. R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis A. A dispensary shall ensure that medical
marijuana provided by the dispensary to a qualifying patient or a designated caregiver is labeled with:
1. The dispensary's registry identification number; 2. The amount, BATCH NUMBER and strain of
medical marijuana; 3. If not cultivated by the dispensary, whether the medical marijuana was
obtained from a qualifying patient, a designated caregiver, or another dispensary; 4. The date of
manufacture, harvest, or sale; 5. A list of all chemical additives, including nonorganic NON-ORGANIC
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana;
and 6. The registry identification number of the qualifying patient. B. A DISPENSARY CULTIVATION
SITE SHALL ENSURE THAT EACH PACKAGE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED BY THE CULTIVATION
SITE TO A DISPENSARY IS LABELED WITH: 1. THE DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE'S REGISTRY
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER; 2. THE AMOUNT, BATCH NUMBER AND STRAIN OF THE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA; 3. THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE, HARVEST, OR SALE; AND 4. A LIST OF ALL CHEMICAL
ADDITIVES, INCLUDING NON-ORGANIC PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, AND FERTILIZERS, USED IN THE
CULTIVATION AND PRODUCTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA. BC. If medical marijuana is provided
as part of an edible food product, a dispensary, shall, in addition to the information in subsection (A),
include on the label: 1. The total weight of the edible food product; and 2. The following statement
â€œThis product is infused with medical marijuana and was produced without regulatory oversight
for health, safety, or efficacy. There may be health risks associated with the consumption of the
product.â€ CD. A dispensary shall provide to the Department upon request a sample of the
dispensary's medical marijuana inventory of sufficient quantity to enable the Department to conduct
an analysis of the medical marijuana. Certificate of Occupancy Proposed R9-17-302 sets forth the
contents of the application for a dispensary certification. One of those requirements is â€œ[a] copy
of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant
authorizing occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensaryâ€™s
cultivation site.â€ R9-17-302(B)(5). This imposes an undue burden on dispensaries to make the
major capital investments necessary in order to prepare a site for occupancy as a dispensary or
cultivation site without any assurance that certification will be granted. Although the Department has
the authority to adopt rules governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries for the purpose of
protecting against diversion and theft, those rules cannot impose â€œan undue burden on nonprofit
medical marijuana dispensaries.â€ A.R.S. Â§ 36-2803(A)(4). Requiring a certificate of occupancy to
be issued to a proposed dispensary before it even has preliminary approval from the Department is
also an undue burden on counties and municipalities. In contrast, the Departmentâ€™s proposed
R9-17-107 contemplates that an application may be completed over time and that the Department
may issue a preliminary approval of the dispensary registration certificate and identification number
pending approval of at least one principal officer or board member as a dispensary agent. The
Association welcomes this sort of tiered approach to the application process and suggests that the
requirement for producing a certificate of occupancy be moved to a later stage by delaying the final
approval or effective date of the certification until the appropriate certificates of occupancy have
been issued. Audits Proposed R9-17-305(2) and (3) requires that a dispensary applying for renewal
must provide a copy of an audited financial statement for the previous year. Because a registration
certificate is effective for only one year and the renewal application must be made 30 days prior to
expiration, it will be impossible to provided a full, annual financial statement. This requirement needs
to be revisited and revised so that it is not internally inconsistent. The Association fully supports
requiring dispensaries to provide the financial information necessary to determine that it is operating
as a nonprofit and that funds are not being diverted, etc. But an audited financial statement seems to
exceed what it necessary and the cost would be unduly burdensome to entities required to operate as
non-profits. The Association suggests that the Department consider other alternatives. For example,
a compilation as well as copies of the entityâ€™s tax returns may provide the information the
Department needs in a less burdensome way. Medical Director The Association sees value to a
dispensary affiliation with a Medical Director, but suggests that it is more consistent with the scope of
the Departmentâ€™s rulemaking authority to use the existence of a Medical Director as an evaluation
criterion rather than as a mandatory requirement for all dispensaries. Proposed R9-17-101(15)
defines a Medical Director in such a way that all Medical Directors must be medical doctors or
osteopaths even though the Act allows medical doctors, osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths to
certify a patient for the medical use of marijuana. In addition, R9-17-310 limits a Medical Director to
serving only three dispensaries at any time. Together, these provisions may make it extremely
difficult for dispensaries to operate in Arizonaâ€™s rural counties. The Department should state its
rationale for these provisions so that the public can evaluate whether they impermissibly limit the Act.
Security Requirements The Association supports strong security requirements and believes that they
are not only good public policy but further the purpose of the Act. However, the Association is
concerned that the requirement, in proposed R9-17-306, that a dispensary provide the Department
with authorized remote access to the dispensaryâ€™s electronic monitoring system is problematic. If
the Department wants a live feed, there must be very strong encryption to protect patient
confidentiality. The system requirements for a live feed may be unduly burdensome for dispensaries.
Other alternatives should be considered such as requiring a minimum of 30-days storage of the
electronic monitoring system images. Transportation Requirements The Departmentâ€™s initial
draft rules contain no provisions relative to the transportation of medical marijuana between
dispensaries, cultivation sites, patients, etc. The Association believes such rules are necessary and
appropriate for the Department to promulgate. Some suggestions in this regard are that: â€¢
Vehicles used for delivery not bear any identifying markings. â€¢ The dispensary must maintain
current commercial motor vehicle insurance as required by Arizona law. â€¢ Only registered
dispensary agents with access to a form of secure communication with the dispensary may staff any
vehicle during the delivery of usable marijuana. â€¢ All usable marijuana be transported in a locked
container that is locked in the trunk or otherwise secured within the vehicle used to transport the
marijuana. Pharmacist / Surety Bond Information Proposed R9-17-302 sets forth the contents of a
dispensary application. R9-17-302(B)(15) proposes to ask whether â€œ[a] registered pharmacist will
be onsite or on-call during regular business hoursâ€ and â€œ[w]hether the dispensary has a surety
bond and, if so, how much.â€ The Association is unclear as to whether the Department seeks to
require these items or whether they will be used as evaluation criteria. If intended to be a
requirement, the pharmacist provision is extremely problematic and unduly burdensome for
dispensaries. And the reference to a surety bond, generally required to guarantee performance of a
legal obligation, does not appear to make any sense in this context. In short, some further
explanation from the Department is necessary to permit informed comment. Notice of Inspection
A.R.S. Â§ 38-3806(H) provides that medical marijuana dispensaries are subject to reasonable
inspection by the Department and that the â€œDepartment shall give reasonable notice of an
inspection under this subsection.â€ Proposed R9-17-306 goes beyond defining â€œreasonable
notice of an inspection.â€ Proposed R9-17-306(A) provides that the submission of an application
constitutes permission for entry to and inspection of the dispensary. It does not reference any
â€œreasonable notice requirementâ€ and does not limit this inspection to the inspection associated
with the Departmentâ€™s review of a dispensary application (proposed R9-17-306(C) provides for 5
working days notice of a certification or compliance inspection). The application of the 5-day notice
to the inspection refer
the Association is available to discuss any portion of this rule comment or to answer any questions
you may have. Please let us know if we can be of assistance. Sincerely
as a thumb print scan.Â DHS is mandated by the Initiative to ensure that dispensaries are only
releasing medical marijuana to qualifying patients who hold a validly issued registration card.Â If
other forgeries resulting in medical marijuana falling into the wrong hands would be prevented.Â
This requirement will have the best chance of preventing the type of abuse we see, for example, with
underage persons purchasing alcohol using fake identification.Â By requiring biometric identity
verification, it would be nearly impossible for a dispensary employee to dispense marijuana
illegally.Â While it is certainly expected that dispensaries will self-police their agents, under the
current Rules it would be very easy for a disreputable agent to collude with a non-patient to dispense
MM under somebody else's registry number.Â In this scenario it would be extremely difficult for a
dispensary owner to discover illegal transactions as the record would appear legitimate.Â Â
However if that transaction must be accompanied by a cardholder's thumbprint illegal transactions
would be impossible. The proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verify information from the
State's medical marijuana electronic verification system and enter additional information into the
system relating to the transaction. The technology is available to allow this process to be automated
Require all NFP entities to use the state created system for transparency. If you allow all of the
providers to create their own systems they will be able to hide information from the state agencies.
Look to ADOT IID Ignition Interlock Device system for some sample issues that you will run into
As discussed above we believe the Draft Rules are an excellent starting point for a well regulated and
functional program. The intent, clearly, is to create a program that is as safe, secure, and transparent
as possible while at the same time ensuring that reputable dispensaries can adequately operate to
provide medicine to legitimate patients. The revisions we suggest below are intended to help achieve
this goal. 1. Demonstration of Financial Securityâ€”Surety Bond In order to ensure that only the
most capable and reputable applicants are awarded dispensary licenses, it is incumbent upon DHS to
ensure that prospective applicants have the financial ability and fiscal responsibility necessary to
operate a dispensary. Operating a reputable, safe and viable dispensary will be a very expensive and
financially risky endeavor. It would be a disservice to both the State and to qualifying patients to
allow applicants that do not have the required financial wherewithal or fiscal integrity to proceed.
The Draft Rules clearly attempt to address this issue with provisions addressing unpaid taxes and the
posting of a surety bond. See R9-17-302(B)(1)(f). However the Rules do not provide any details
regarding the surety bond. Furthermore, according to our research and discussions with
underwriters, they are unable and unwilling to issue a bond without specific guidelines from the State
regarding why and when the bond would be called. This may make timely compliance with the rule
impractical if not impossible. As a remedy to this uncertainty, we suggest allowing applicants to
demonstrate financial capability with additional options such as a letter of credit, or preferably
documentation of a specified amount deposited in an escrow account. We suggest that an
appropriate sum for this requirement is $250,000. This will ensure that dispensary applicants are able
to fulfill the facility, security and operational expenses that they would incur in establishing a fully
compliant dispensary. We have provided specific language and edits to the Rules below. 2. Prior
Local Land Use Approvalâ€”Certificate of Occupancy As discussed above, the Rules properly require
local land use approval as a prerequisite to a complete application. However as currently written, the
Rules appear to go beyond this by requiring a Certificate of Occupancy as evidence of local approval of
the use. See R9-17-302 (B)(5). This is problematic and not at all feasible. In order to obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy, an applicant would have to actually construct all the necessary
improvements for the property including obtaining all building permits and passing all inspections.
This is particularly burdensome because these facilities are going to require substantial improvements
before being suitable for cultivation or dispensary operations. These improvements are likely to
include significant structural modifications to meet the stringent security requirements. It is simply
not feasible to require prospective applicants to invest the capital and time required to make these
improvements without knowing whether or not they will obtain a license. In addition to this
unnecessary risk, it would be a waste of valuable local resources and funds to issue permits and
perform inspections on facilities that ultimately may not be awarded a license. The effect of this
would be to discourage rational and responsible applicants; an undesirable and certainly unintended
consequence. However, the intent of this provision (i.e. ensuring local jurisdiction approval and land
use compatibility) can be achieved without these problems by revising this section to simply require
evidence from the local jurisdiction that the Applicantâ€™s proposed facility complies with all local
zoning restrictions and land use regulations and will be required to obtain building permits and
certificates of occupancy prior to beginning operations. We suggest specific language below which
will ensure local approval without the undue burden and unintended consequences of the Certificate
of Occupancy. 3. Medical Director Qualificationâ€”Naturopathic Doctors We applaud the inclusion
of the Medical Director requirement, however the qualifications for this positions as stated in the
Draft Rules have inappropriately omitted Naturopathic Doctors from eligibility. Naturopaths have
education and licensing requirements that are as stringent and sometimes more expansive than M.D.s
or D.O.s. Further, naturopaths are uniquely qualified to serve as Director to a MMJ Dispensary
because of their education and experience in alternative healing methods and in particular herbal
therapies. To omit Naturopaths from this role would do a disservice to patients and seems illogical
and unjustified. 4. Cultivationâ€”70/30 Split Requirement. The requirement in the Draft Rules that
Dispensaries must cultivate at least 70% of their product (allowing only up to 30% to be obtained from
other dispensaries/caregivers) is very troubling (See R9-17-307(C)). First and foremost, it is difficult to
determine what the point of this Rule is. Second, regardless of its goal, inclusion of this Rule is likely
to result in unintended consequences that run contrary to the intent of the Initiative and the Rules.
Such a requirement will force those who wish to operate a dispensary into cultivation, and those who
wish only to cultivate into retail dispensing. The end result of this would be to provide patients with
less consistent quality medicine. As those who have interest and expertise in one aspect of the
industry do not necessarily have interest or expertise in the other. Take the example of an applicant
who has a unique talent for growing high quality medical marijuana and a strong background in
growing but either has no desire or lacks the knowhow to run a safe, secure, and well functioning
dispensary business. In the alternative, one can imagine a career pharmacist who has successfully
operated pharmacies for years but lacks the knowledge of how to grow high quality, medical grade
marijuana. It would appear that each of these individuals should be encouraged to be applicants but
that it is in no oneâ€™s interest for these people to be forced into the part of the business that they
are not properly trained to excel at. The State should want to encourage responsible and quality
growers and dispensers of medical marijuana. The 70/30 requirement on the other hand encourages
applicants to reach into segments of the business they might not be good at. By mandating this, DHS
prevents optimization of the industry which will lead to both failed dispensaries and less consistent
quality of medicine for patients. Furthermore, if the intent of the draft Rule is to facilitate tracking
of all MMJ from seed to sale, the 70/30 split hinders this goal rather than advancing it. If the intent of
the Rule is to more easily track and control MMJ inventory, it seems like it would make sense for the
State to consolidate the growing as much as possible into fewer locations. Consolidation is good as
there are fewer such sites for law enforcement and the State to monitor; the 70/30 rule on the other
hand means every dispensary owner must cultivate as well, leading to a proliferation of grow facilities.
A greater number of facilities are not only more difficult to keep safe and monitory, but it also
increases the temptation and opportunity for less reputable licensees to divert MMJ. Finally, by
mandating a program that has more growers with less expertise, DHS is essentially mandating that
some (many) patients will receive less consistent quality of medicine. To be clear, we do feel that
people should be allowed to own both a dispensary and a cultivation location but it should not be
mandated as such. 5. Cultivation Facility Requirements--Greenhouses As discussed above the Draft
Rules do an excellent job of contemplating the necessary security measures and protocols to ensure
that cultivation facilities are not compromised by prospective criminals. However one particular
provision of the Rules may go unnecessarily far in its pursuit of this goal. Pursuant to the language of
the Initiative all cultivation must occur inside an â€œEnclosedâ€ facility. The Rules define Enclosed
as having a solid roof or being covered by a welded or woven metal top. It is important that these
Rules are flexible enough to allow a locked and secured greenhouse facility to qualify for cultivation.
It would be wasteful and unnecessary to prevent cultivators from utilizing natural light as a resource.
Indoor Cultivation requires massive amounts of electricity and can be a strain on the existing electric
grid. Allowing a secure greenhouse on the other hand is more environmentally friendly, more cost
effective and can still be accomplished in a safe secure manner. 6. Product Testing The Rules
should require cultivators to test their product for contaminants and for THC levels and cannabinoid
profiles. Without this information it will be very difficult for patients to identify which strain of MMJ
works best for their particular condition. Further, patients have a right to know that their medicine is
free from contaminants such as mold and pesticides. 7. Initial MMJ Cropsâ€”Seeds or Clones The
Rules are so far are silent as to how a dispensary is allowed to start their initial crop. However, the
only way to be certain that patients have access to quality medicine from the beginning is to allow
dispensaries to utilize clones from plants with a history of producing quality medicine. If on the
contrary, DHS decided to require all cultivation to begin from seed it would be impossible to know
whether the resulting crop would be of sufficient quality. 8. Applicant Selectionâ€”Competitive
Process Currently, it appears that the Rules will award applicants based on a first-come-first-served
basis. While this may ultimately prove workable as the stringent requirements will likely discourage
many applicants, we are concerned about what would happen if there are more qualified applicants
than available licenses and those applicants have exactly the same time frame. In this scenario, we
believe it is incumbent upon DHS to have a fallback Rule which implements a competitive selection
process, potentially administered by a third party. This is the only way DHS can ensure that the
limited licenses go to the best possible applicants. This system could also be used when another
license becomes available either through growth of the program or revocation of an existing license.
The definition/requirements for patient-physician relationship are troublesome. Not only do the
restrictions interfere with doctor/patient confidentiality, they restrict a valid patients ability to receive
a medical marijuana recommendation if their primary care physician refuses to write any medical
marijuana recommendations. The requirement that dispensaries cultivate 70% of their own product
is troublesome. Valid, legitimate, and professionally run dispensaries may be burdened by meeting
the high threshold to cultivate their own medical marijuana. Whereas more illegitimate dispensary
owners that do not hold special medical or legal credentials will specialize in cultivating the product
but not running a professional dispensary. The definition of a medical director is troublesome.
Naturopathic physicians (N.M.D.) and physician assistant (P.A.) should also be included under persons
able to qualify as medical directors. Registered nurses, however, should not be included as they have
not received a substantial amount of education to that of D.O.s, M.D.s, P.A.s, or N.M.D.s.
KEEP OTHER STATES / RESIDENTS OUT
R9-17-310. Please remove the need for an on-site Pharmacist and/or Medical Doctor.
Specify what medical training must be completed for prescribers.
Marijuana and Lupus Dear Will, I am a Lupus patient and hope and pray that the ADHS will add
Lupus to the list of diseases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis May Suppress Immune System Could Lead to New Autoimmune Disorder Treatments, Say
Researchers By Jeanie Lerche Davis WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD on
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 April 15, 2003 -- Cannabis may offer hope to people with autoimmune
disorders such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Cannabis seems to decrease inflammation in the
body by suppressing certain parts of the immune system. Researchers are hoping this finding will lead
to new treatments. Previous studies have hinted at immune system abnormalities among cannabis
users -- specifically, in the function of immune system cells called T lymphocytes and natural killer
cells. While these cells help the body fight infections, no direct link with lowered immunity has yet
been shown. {Moderator's Note: bold applied. Note that this lowered immunity has been found not to
be a contraindication in the use of smoked marijuana for treatment of AID wasting disease in HIV+
individuals. See: Dr. Abrams work at San Francisco Medical hematology/oncology} In this study,
researchers tested the blood of 29 cannabis smokers -- 13 occasional users and 16 regular users
(weekly or daily use). They compared the results with a group of 32 nonsmokers. Again,
researchers found that cannabis smokers had fewer immune-enhancing natural killer cells and
lymphocytes, and higher levels of a protein that may promote tumor growth, called interleukin-10.
{Moderator's Note: however cannabinoids have also been isolated which contain chemicals that cause
tumor necrosis -- death of tumor cells-- and cell apostosis which is the removal of dead cell tissue
from the body as waste material} These changes can dampen the immune system's response to
infection, increasing susceptibility to infections and promoting growth of tumors, states lead
researcher Roberta Pacifici, PhD, with the Instituto Superiore di Sanita in Rome, Italy. But
researchers also say this finding could lead to new treatments for people with autoimmune disorders.
Current treatments suppress the immune system -- thereby calming the abnormal immune response
that plagues people with the conditions. Cannabis lowers levels of the inflammation-promoting
protein interleukin-2 and raises levels of the anti-inflammatory protein interleukin-10. Both of these
findings could be of potential benefit for treating autoimmune disorders one day. {Moderator's Notes:
this would include both systemic Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis} ------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------- SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association, April 16,
2003. Medical Marijuana - Marijuana is sometimes prescribed to Lupus patients for nausea or pain.
It is only legal in some states and there are federal laws to consider. Self medication should not be
done. Always speak to your doctor before taking ANY drug or medication. more info on where it is
legal... Lupus Treatments Medical Marijuana - Marijuana is sometimes prescribed to Lupus patients
for nausea or pain. It is only legal in some states and there are federal laws to ... Does medical
marijuana help with the pain of lupus & rheumatoid arthritis? Hello, I have lupus & rheumatoid
arthritis and I'm at the end of my rope. My doctors can't treat my condition & I have tried everything.
Right now I'm on a medicine "cocktail" of morphine, vicodin & oxycodone which I'm sure is killing my
liver. I have never done marijuana- not even in my younger days. I recently talked to someone else
with lupus & they told me that medical marijuana helps her get through her day. Does anyone have
insight or experience with this? I'm not sure what to do at this point..... I'm just in pain.... 2 years ago
Report Abuse by Mountain Girl Member since: April 28, 2006 Total points: 10,008 (Level 6) Add
Contact Block Best Answer - Chosen by Voters I have also been through this myself. On Fentanyl
patches, other painkillers, muscle relaxers, sleep meds, etc. I have severe fibromyalgia, CFIDS and
arthritic pain. But cannabis is the only thing that helps when the pain meds and muscle relaxers won't.
And it also doesn't make me groggy & lose sight of what I should be doing. I just feel normal when I
use it. If I'm in a very bad flare up, it may not make me able to do a regular day's worth of stuff, but I
can tolerate the pain much, much better. I have no side effects from it as I do from other medications.
I'd be more than happy to tell you everything I know about medical cannabis (which is a lot), all about
my personal experience and what the research says. Just email me if you'd like more information. I'd
love to help. You can message me through my Yahoo Answers profile. Peace to you. Source(s):
medical marijuana user & chronic pain sufferer 2 years ago Report Abuse 100% 1 Vote 1 person
rated this as good Not the right answer? Try Yahoo! Search Search Yahoo! for Search spaige88â€¦ I
would like more information on the medical cannabis please. I suffer from Lupus, Fibromyalgia and
many many more painful diseases and take more medicine then i woulds like to and have never
smoked a day in my life but have had doctors even hint around herbal methods:) Report Abuse
Charlottâ€¦ I have SLE lupus and I am a mother of 3 and sometimes 2 nieces. I was always a go getter
now I can hardley do half of what I used to. I also have Fibromyalgia and Rheumatoid Arthritis I am on
perscription pain killers, but nothing has worked better than cannabis! Report Abuse * You must be
logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register. Other Answers (2) by Chris M Member
since: November 06, 2008 Total points: 103 (Level 1) Add Contact Block I use marijuana to
help me with pain. I have a bad body. my shoulders, knees, and back are the things that cause me
daily pain. I have only been smoking it for a year now. and i will tell you that i can make it though the
day. My pain get so bad that i can not move. when i smoke it help my body lossen up and alows me to
move. Smoking one or two boals and taking a hot shower works wonders. at least that is what i found
out. have a nice day. 2 years ago Report Abuse 0% 0 Votes 1 person rated this as good by jancoole...
Member since: July 13, 2007 Total points: 153 (Level 1) Add Contact Block My daughter in
law has lupus.She was in such pain,my son heard that pot could help so he went and got her
some(they had never smoked pot)She swears by it.Says when her lupus is real bad, the pot is her only
relief.They have 5 children so she has to stay on her toes.hope this helps. 2 years ago Report Abuse
At first glance, I did see two things that I did not like. They are 1) The requirement of a 1-year doctor-
patient-relationship prior to a medical marijuana recommendation and 2) The requirement of
dispensaries to self-produce 70% of their medicine. Here is why: If a potential patientâ€™s primary
doctor will not write a recommendation (for whatever reason, whether personal beliefs or fear or
federal law) and that patient needs to go elsewhere to obtain a recommendation for this natural
medicine that works for them, under these current rules it is impossible for them to get their
medication for another year or without seeing another physician at least 4 times. A cancer patient or
HIV/ AIDS patient simply does not have that sort of excess time to wait for symptom relief. I think this
could be handled in a more humane fashion. Secondly, regarding the 70% piece, many of the small
business owners who Iâ€™ve spoken with who have interest in entering this field have expressed that
they are either specifically proficient on the business side, or are particularly talented in the field of
horticulture. This part of the rules makes it impossible for people to align their work with where their
specialties lie. If a businessperson is great with business and not so much with gardening, s/he should
have the option to forgo the entire (strenuous and demanding) cultivation side and buy wholesale. I
see this portion limiting potential dispensary owners and just generally being unnecessarily restrictive.
Iâ€™d love to see these parts amended, but so far, I commend DHS on their hard work! This is
definitely a lengthy process and I appreciate what youâ€™re doing for the state.
1. R9-17-106 2. How can a lay person be expected to produce evidence that her medical condition
should be added prior to a hearing? A lay person's primary evidence will be anecdotal accounts or
personal experience. There should be a preliminary hearing for comments by the requester and
public. This should be much easier to obtain. If the department determines the proposed condition
may be alleviated by medical marijuana then there should be a final hearing with doctors and more
public debate.
Take out language regarding prior "excluded felony offense." in regards to persons applying to open a
dispensary or being on the board of directors. If these persons had a prior drug conviction such as
possession of small amounts of marijuana or paraphenalia, this should not determine whether those
persons can qualify. Each case should be looked at and considered instead of the blanket statement in
R9-17-302 number 3a.
R9-17-02 Fees A sliding scale or lower cost card should be made available for low income patients.
R9-17-101 This prohibits availability of medical marijuana to military veterans and needs to be
altered. R9-17-202(F)(5) It is reasonable and important to ensure that a physician has a legitimate
relationship with a patient, this language seems overly restrictive R9-17-307 â€œ70/30â€ rule
This provision is restrictive an unnecessary. It will hamper the development of a free enterprise,
wholesale business environment which is necessary to ensure adequate supply and competitive
pricing, both of which are crucial for patients. A single crop failure could cause dispensaries with small
grow operations to run out of supply and patients go without their medicine. R9-17-310 Medical
Director Pharmacies are not required to have a Medical Director. Most doctorâ€™s have
administrators who complete the patient education and clinical practice guidelines for them. A
dispensary will likely have to pay an administrator to create the guidelines and then pay a doctor to
authorize the documentation. There is a professional trade organization being formed for the medical
marijuana industry. The rules should be established to allow the organization to develop the
educational materials, guidelines, etc working closely with medical professionals, and let the active
members utilize these resources. This reduces cost to the dispensaries and patients while at the same
time standardizing the materials which is in the best interest of the patients. An alternative plan
would be to put the duties being required of the Medical Director onto the recommending physician,
was it would likely be handled for any other medication.
There are a few sections of the Draft Regulations that I should be revised or removed, and they
primarily concerned with the patient-physician relationship definitions and restrictions. As required
by ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, the Arizona Department of Health Services
rulemaking be "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries...."
However, I have a number of concerns in the Regulations that I believe are in violation with this
section of the Act: â€¢ R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-
the department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. â€¢ â€¢ ARS 36-
2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not
give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department
including therapies with potentially deadly out comes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department
(or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application) â€¢
R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of
medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to
allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. â€¢ R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
year. â€¢ R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open
above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. â€¢ R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted
supply of medicine. â€¢ R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and
usurps patients' rights to choose other providers or sources of information â€¢ R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-
17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-
309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary
agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be submitted. â€¢ R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-
320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing
errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided
substantive misinformation. â€¢ R9-17-320 is not clearly defined and could be arbitrary. The
Department should identify the â€œprovided format.â€ â€¢ R9-17-302.1B(h) creates an undue
hardship as leasing a facility before acquiring a license will be very expensive and an unacceptable
term of leasing. Each dispensary has set back restrictions, if the Department accepts a dispensary
application before mine, then my location would be negated. â€¢ R9-17-320.6 is arbitrary,
unreasonable and creates an undue hardship. Unless the applicant is an attorney or judge, no one can
certify compliance with zoning restrictions. Management may be able to assert a reasonable
assurance that all zoning has been complied with, but certification is impossible. â€¢ R9-17-302.9 â€¢
R9-17-302.10 is arbitrary, unreasonable and creates an undue hardship. This cannot be done until a
suitable location can be found. Each dispensary has set back restrictions, if the Department accepts a
dispensary application before mine, then my location would be negated. â€¢ â€¢ R9-17-302.A, R9-
17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-
302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e),
R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable
and usurp authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter
Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to establish residency requirements,
medical director, require security measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-
toxic marijuana that exceed security measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored
at and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials
beyond what the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or
warrantless surveillance, or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a
dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers. â€¢ R9-17-310.5 are cruel, arbitrary,
unreasonable, and beyond the scope of the authority of the Department. The department does not
have the authority to require a certificate of occupancy, require surety bonds, require specific security
measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed security
measures required for toxic potentially lethal substances stored at and dispensed from offices),
require educational materials beyond what the law requires, require constant, intrusive, or
warrantless surveillanceâ€¦or Provide approval subject to successfully completing either a
comprehensive or supplemental request. â€¢ R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps
authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act.
The department has no authority to require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a
physician's professional practice. â€¢ R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. â€¢ R9-17-313.B.6 is
of infused food. â€¢ R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
represent a health risk. â€¢ R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
product, medical marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. â€¢ R9-17-317.A.2 is
Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-
toxic refuse. As a Certified Public Account, I understand the need for sound policies, compliance,
data and procedures that are verifiable, reliable, consistent, and relevant. Thank you .
Many people who will qualify for use of medical marijuana live, as we and many others do, in rural
areas with limited local available medical facilities. I see the difficulties that my partner (a recovering
cancer victim with her entire colon removed, back injuries and resultant chronic pain) has had in
getting necessary pain and other controlled medications due to prejudice of primary caregivers. I
believe that a significant number of primary physicians may, due to their beliefs, attitudes, credos and
simple lack of familiarity with a new (and unconventional) treatment method be reticent to provide
the necessary recommendation for a fully qualifying patient to receive a medical marijuana card. This
gives patients several choices; to live without the benefits of medical marijuana, to seek marijuana
illegally or travel excessive, hardship producing distances to seek out sympathetic primary medical
care. Standard medical practice in other cases is, "If you feel it necessary, seek out a second opinion".
I believe this holds true here. I would like to see allowance for a reasonable method of obtaining a
diagnosis from a doctor other than one's primary care physician. I am not referring to "scamming the
doctors" here. The "secondary" physician should have the same requirements of patient diagnostic
review and assessment and the "primary" care physician should be kept informed of the patient
process.
Se below.
1. No jail time for rule violators due to simple negligence. The Regulations are voluminous, and
expansive. Eventually, someone will inadvertently break one of the many rules. These people should
not be prosecuted. It is wrong, and Arizonans cannot afford to waste money punishing them through
criminal prosecution and housing them in our state penal system. 2. The requirement of R9-17-202
5e. seems wholly unnecessary. If someone learns they have terminal cancer or full-blown AIDS, what
good does it do to force them wait 1 year to receive medical marijuana? What if this person also lacks
insurance and a primary care physician. A doctor's conclusion that a debilitating condition exists, such
as from a blood test or CT scan, should be enough. See suggested language at 1. below.
In the Inititive, Page 7, 36-2803 Rulemaking When I read this again, it seems that people who Donate
to the Cause will have more influence on this Department and that the fees should be sufficient. I
thought Arizona voters voted for this to pass because in California it produced Huge Tax Benefits for
the State. I know that is certainly why I voted for it. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries should not be
Tax Excempt. I thought this period of 120 days was to make Rules.
COMMENTS ON INITIAL DRAFT

RULES ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE January 7, 2011 I. ABOUT 1.
is a coalition of over one thousand Yavapai County citizens dedicated to eliminating
substance abuse and its effects in Yavapai County. Since its founding in 2006, has played a
major role in reducing the use of methamphetamine and other recreational drugs in Yavapai County,
particularly among teenagers. efforts have also led to a significant reduction in drug
related crime in Yavapai County. In 2009, was awarded the national â€œGot Outcomes
Coalition of Excellence Awardâ€ award by CADCA. II. GUIDING POLICIES 1. Cultivation, sale,
transportation, possession and use of marijuana are criminal offenses in the state of Arizona. Medical
marijuana is a narrow exception to that policy. It is the policy of the State of Arizona that marijuana
production, possession, use, sale or transportation are all felony offenses. Through the initiative
process the people of Arizona have carved out a narrow exception to the criminalization of marijuana.
The initiative allows those individuals that have a bona-fide medical need for marijuana use to
acquire, possess, and use marijuana to treat symptoms associated with a narrow range of medical
conditions. However, the guiding policy of this state â€“ and the federal government â€“ is that it
remains a crime to produce, use, sell or transport marijuana in Arizona. In other states such as
California and Colorado, insufficient regulation and enforcement has allowed the â€œexceptionâ€ of
medical marijuana to swallow the â€œruleâ€ of marijuana criminalization. This must not be allowed
to happen in Arizona. In order to enforce Arizonaâ€™s strong policy of marijuana criminalization,
policies and procedures developed by DHS and the legislature under the medical use exception
should, to the greatest extent possible, control marijuana production, transportation, sale, possession
and use to insure that marijuana is allowed for medical purposes only. Medical marijuana should not
be allowed to become a source of illicit marijuana; production should be limited to only what is
necessary to supply legitimate demand and should be strictly tracked; medical need should be based
on medical facts subject to objective review; employers should not be forced to tolerate impaired
employees or protect employees that are in violation of federal law. To these ends we suggest the
following: III. DISPENSARIES 1. DHS must require geographic dispersion of dispensaries.
Rationale: The initiative allows individuals and caregivers to produce their own marijuana if they
live more than 25 miles from a licensed dispensary (the 25 mile circle surrounding a dispensary have
been called â€œhalos.â€) Individual production of marijuana is far more difficult to monitor and
control than production by dispensaries. This marijuana can easily be converted to illicit use and the
production location will attract criminal activity as well. Lawful marijuana production for medical
purposes by individuals should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible. DHS should adopt
policies that mandate dispensary locations that cover the state in dispensary â€œhalosâ€ that have
the effect of preventing individual marijuana production. DHS should have the ability to consider in its
sole discretion whether or not the geographic location of a proposed dispensary is appropriate. DHS
regulations should allow DHS to award exclusive dispensary rights to geographic areas. DHS
regulations should allow DHS to mandate that an applicant, as a condition of granting a dispensary
certificate, also apply for and obtain a dispensary certificate at another location in the state
designated by DHS. In short, DHS policies must insure that most if not all of the state is covered with
dispensary â€œhalosâ€ so that no individual will be permitted to produce their own marijuana. This
may be best accomplished by requiring dispensaries in urban areas to operate dispensaries in rural
locations as a condition of their dispensary licenses. Implementation: Substitute for R9-17-107(F)
as follows: â€œThe Department may in its sole discretion consider the geographic location of the
proposed dispensary in determining whether to grant a certificate. In its sole discretion, the
Department may grant exclusive dispensary certification to any geographic area of the State. The
Department may as a condition of granting a certificate pursuant to A.R.S. Title 36 Chapter 28.1 and
this Chapter, require the applicant for dispensary registration to apply for, obtain, and maintain
another dispensary within the state of Arizona within 2 miles from a location designated by the
Department.â€ DISPENSARIES, CONT. 2. Each location where marijuana is produced, infused or
sold must have a separate dispensary certification. Rationale: The Rules as currently written
would double and possibly triple the number of dispensaries within the state. The Rules as written
allow a dispensary to both have a separate location for cultivation and a separate location for
infusion. A.R.S.Â§36-2801 defines â€œNonprofit medical marijuana dispensaryâ€ as an entity that
acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transports supplies, sells or dispenses
marijuana . . .â€. A.R.S. Â§36-2804(C) limits the number of dispensary certificates to approximately
124. A.R.S. Â§36-2806(C) requires each certified nonprofit marijuana dispensary to have a single
secure entrance. If the holder of a single dispensary certificate is allowed to have multiple locations
for sale or cultivation, or to contract with others to infuse food, it would be physically impossible for
the dispensary certificate holder to comply with A.R.S.Â§36-2806(C). Thus, when these sections are
read together, it is clear the intent of the initiative is to require each physical location where
marijuana is produced, infused or sold have a separate dispensary certificate that counts toward the
total allowed in the state under A.R.S.Â§36-2804(C). This rationale also comports with the overall
goal of maintaining tight control over medical marijuana use so it cannot be diverted to illicit use.
Implementation: (a) Modify R9-17-302(B)(5) by striking â€œand, if applicable, as the
dispensaryâ€™s cultivation site.â€ (b) Modify R9-17-304 to strike all references to a Dispensaryâ€™s
Cultivation Site. (c) Modify R9-17-306 to strike all references to a dispensaryâ€™s cultivation site. (d)
Modify R9-17-307 to clarify that cultivation sites require separate dispensary certification. (e) Modify
R9-17-313(B)(5) and (6) to clarify that food infusion sites require separate dispensary certification. (f)
Modify R9-17-315 to clarify that cultivation and infusion sites require separate dispensary
certification. (g) Modify R9-17-316 to clarify that infusion sites require separate dispensary
certification. (h) Strike R9-17-101(6) DISPENSARIES, CONT. 3. DHS may delegate inspection of
dispensaries to local authorities. Rationale: Pursuant to A.R.S. Â§36-136, DHS may delegate to
local authorities their power to regulate matters of health and welfare in the state. Nothing in the
initiative forbids delegation of inspection authority to local governments. The ability to delegate this
authority will allow DHS to better effectuate control of dispensaries, and will give local authorities the
ability to better control the health and safety impacts of dispensaries in their communities.
Implementation: Add R9-17-306(H): â€œThe Department may delegate its authority under this
section to local authority pursuant to A.R.S. Â§36-136.â€ DISPENSARIES, CONT. 4. Reasonable
notice of routine inspections should be 24 hours, and occur within posted business hours.
Rationale: Inspection of dispensaries is designed to insure that the dispensary is operating within
the limits of the law. The rule as currently written gives the dispensary the option of refusing a time
suggested by DHS. The initiative requires only that the inspection be reasonable. Given the strong
policy of this state against marijuana possession or use, it is imperative that DHS inspections provide
an accurate picture of the dispensaryâ€™s operation. 24 hour notice of an inspection to occur during
posted business hours fulfills the statewide policy against illicit marijuana use and fulfills the
â€œreasonable noticeâ€ provision of the initiative. Implementation: Modify R9-17-306(C) as
follows: â€œExcept as provided in subsection (E), routine on-site inspection of a dispensary shall
occur no earlier than 24 hours after the Department submits written notice of the Departmentâ€™s
intent to inspect the dispensary. Routine inspections under this subsection shall occur during the
dispensaryâ€™s normal business hoursâ€ DISPENSARIES, CONT. 5. Dispensaries must
dispense marijuana and marijuana infused products in DHS approved and supplied containers.
Rationale: In order to strictly control medical marijuana, it is important that DHS and law
enforcement be able to clearly and easily distinguish between marijuana possessed, sold, or
transported pursuant to the initiative. The containers must be distinctive and traceable with bar
codes or other computerized tracking system. Distinctive containers that are registered or supplied
by DHS that can be easily identified will help DHS and law enforcement insure that marijuana
encountered is in fact produced pursuant to the initiative and is used strictly for medical use. The
containers should be sealed when dispensed. DHS should strongly consider developing standardized
containers and requiring dispensaries to obtain those containers from DHS. Implementation: Add
to R9-17-314(A)(7): â€œThe marijuana shall be dispensed in a sealed container approved by the
Department. The containers shall contain a bar code or other computerized tracking system approved
by the Department.â€ DISPENSARIES, CONT. 6. Dispensaries may not dispense a smokeable
form of marijuana unless the qualifying patient is approved by DHS to receive it. Rationale:
Based on the proven health risk of smoking, for the past 45 years the medical community has worked
to curtail the use of smoking in the United States. In November, 2006 Arizona voters passed the
Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A.R.S. Â§36-601.01), severely curtailing the use of smoking in the state. For
most people, marijuanaâ€™s alleged therapeutic benefits are effective when it is consumed orally.
Given the serious negative health effects that come with smoking any product (including marijuana),
the smoking of marijuana should be strongly discouraged. Implementation: Modify R9-17-311 to
require the dispensary verify the patient is authorized to receive marijuana in a smokable form prior
to dispensing. Include the requirement that all smokeable marijuana must be dispensed in a
container that prominently displays a warning in substantially the following form: â€œMarijuana
smoke contains known carcinogens and has been determined to be carcinogenic by the Arizona
Department of Health Services. Although preliminary research shows marijuana may contain
substances that may help in the treatment of cancer, this research also shows that smoking marijuana
may be linked to cancer of the lung, skin of the head and neck, testicle and bladder.â€
DISPENSARIES, CONT. 7. Dispensaries should be required to file public reports providing information
on the number of customers, marijuana sales volume, and financial status of the dispensary.
Rationale: In order to insure that dispensaries are not operating illicitly, it is important that the
legislature, DHS, local authorities, and the public have information regarding a dispensaryâ€™s
number of customers, volume of marijuana, and financial condition. A dispensary need not reveal
specific information about individual customers in order to publish public reports regarding the
number of customers, the volume of marijuana dispensed, the kind of marijuana dispensed
(smokeable or infused food), the receipts of sales and costs expended. This information will allow the
legislature, DHS, local law enforcement and the public to insure that the dispensary is not in reality a
â€œfrontâ€ for criminal activity, and that the marijuana produced and dispensed only to those with
legitimate medical need. Implementation: Add as R9-17-312(E): â€œNot less than annually
and prior to recertification under R9-17-305, a dispensary shall submit to the Department a report
covering the period from the last certificate was issued to that dispensary that contains the following
information: (1) the total number of sales of marijuana products, detailing each kind of product sold;
(2) the total amount of usable marijuana sold; (3) the total amount of usable marijuana produced or
otherwise procured; (4) the total amount of marijuana on hand; (5) the total amount of cash or other
reimbursement realized for the sale of marijuana; (6) the total amount of cash or other
reimbursements paid for producing or acquiring marijuana.â€ IV. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND
DISPENSARY AGENTS 1. Caregivers must pay a separate fee for each patient they care for.
Rationale: Caregivers may possess and assist in the use of marijuana for up to 5 qualifying patients
under the act. Each patient that designates a caregiver requires additional administrative scrutiny by
DHS, increasing administrative costs. A.R.S. Â§36-2803(A)(5)(a) requires that the total revenue from
the fees for registry identification cards and dispensary registration certificates must be sufficient to
implement and administer the program. Given the additional administrative costs inherent in a
caregiver assisting multiple patients, and to insure that caregiver activity is adequately monitored, it is
reasonable that a caregiver be required to pay additional fees for additional patients.
Implementation: Modify R9-17-102(5)(b) and (6)(b) as follows: â€œDesignated Caregiver, $200 per
patient for which caregiving services are provided.â€ PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY
AGENTS, CONT. 2. Caregivers must undergo training (at least 8 hours) on, and pass a test on, the
effect and hazards of marijuana, the terms of the initiative, and DHS rules governing medical
marijuana. Rationale: Caregivers under the initiative administer marijuana to qualifying patients.
They are the link between the patient and the dispensary, and need to know the effects and
alternatives to marijuana to properly administer medical marijuana. Without adequate training, the
caregiver runs the risk of improperly procuring or administering marijuana to the patient.
Implementation: (a) Add R9-17-202(F)(6)(l): â€œCertification of completion of a Caregiver Training
Class administered or approved by the Department.â€ (b) Add R9-17-206: â€œThe Department
shall develop a Caregiver Training Class of no less than 8 hours to teach caregiver applicants about the
effects and hazards of marijuana, alternatives to marijuana use, the terms of the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Initiative, and these rules. The class shall include a test designed to reasonably test
caregivers about the subjects taught in the class. Before issuing a certificate of completion to
caregiver applicants, the applicant shall pass the test with a score of at least 80%.â€ PATIENTS,
CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 3. Caregivers, Cardholders and Dispensary Agents
must be residents of Arizona and must possess an Arizona driverâ€™s license or identification card.
Rationale: The initiative declares that its purpose is to remove state-level criminal penalties for
medical marijuana use for the citizens of Arizona. Other states such as California and Colorado have
allowed non-citizens to participate in medical marijuana programs, which resulted in a tremendous
increase of illicit use of marijuana due to cross-border smuggling of marijuana. The use or
administration of marijuana under the initiative should be narrowly tailored for the use and benefit of
Arizona citizens that are in need of medical marijuana. Patients, Caregivers, and Dispensing Agents
should be required to prove they are citizens of the State of Arizona by producing identification cards
issued only to Arizona citizens â€“ an Arizona Driverâ€™s License, or an Arizona Identification Card.
The current draft of rules allows a patient or caregiver to obtain a registry card by showing a U.S.
passport as proof of identity. A U.S. passport contains no information about the personâ€™s state of
residency. In addition, because of the potential for criminal activity inherent in a personâ€™s
possession of marijuana, registry with the Department of Public Safetyâ€™s driverâ€™s
license/identification card system will allow law enforcement to obtain additional information about a
caregiver/patient that is involved with criminal activity. Implementation: (a) Strike R9-17-105(F)
(b) Strike R9-17-107(F)(1)(d)(iv) (c) Strike R9-17-202(F)(2)(d) (d) Strike R9-17-202(F)(6)(i)(iv) (e) Strike
R9-17-202(G)(6)(d) (f) Strike R9-17-203(A)(2)(i)(c) (g) Strike R9-17-204(A)(5)(f)(iv) (h) Strike R9-17-
308(5)(d) PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 4. Caregivers must be subject
to the same security, inspection and reporting requirements as dispensaries. Rationale:
Caregivers are operating small dispensaries. They acquire marijuana in the same fashion as
dispensaries, and distribute the marijuana to others. They are subject to the same security risks as
dispensaries, and have the same potential for diverting marijuana to illicit activities as dispensaries.
Implementation: Apply appropriate provisions of Article 3 (R9-17-301 to R9-17-320) to caregivers
allowed to cultivate marijuana for patients. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS,
CONT. 5. Patients, or caregivers acting on behalf of patients, may not possess smokeable marijuana
unless specifically authorized by DHS. Rationale: Based on the proven health risk of smoking, for
the past 45 years the medical community has worked to curtail the use of smoking in the United
States. In November, 2006 Arizona voters passed the Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A.R.S. Â§36-601.01),
severely curtailing smoking in the state. For most people, marijuanaâ€™s alleged therapeutic benefits
are effective when it is consumed orally. Given the serious negative health effects that come with
smoking any product (including marijuana), the smoking of marijuana should be strongly discouraged.
Implementation: (a) Add to R9-17-202(F)(5) the following: â€œIf the physician is recommending
the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then a statement detailing the at least 3
efforts of the physician and patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such
attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the physician why only smokeable marijuana will
alleviate the patientâ€™s condition.â€ (b) Add to R9-17-202(G)(13) the following: â€œIf the
physician is recommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then a
statement detailing the at least 3 efforts of the physician and patient to administer infused marijuana,
a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the physician why
only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patientâ€™s condition.â€ (c) Add to R9-17-204(B)(4)(f)
and R9-17-204(B)(4)(g) the following: â€œIf the physician is recommending the patient be dispensed
a smokeable form of marijuana, then a statement detailing the at least 3 efforts of the physician and
patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful,
and a declaration from the physician why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patientâ€™s
condition.â€ (c) Issue patient and caregiver cards that clearly indicate if the patient is allowed to
possess smokeable marijuana. (d) Indicate in the Department data base available to dispensaries
and law enforcement whether the patient or caregiver is allowed to possess smokeable marijuana.
PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 6. Private marijuana use â€œclubsâ€
should be prohibited. Rationale: As written, Rule R9-17-101(18) (a) would exclude private clubs
from the definition of public place. This would allow marijuana users to form private â€œsmokingâ€
clubs where marijuana users could gather and use marijuana. The goal of the initiative is to provide
medical marijuana that qualifying patients and their caregivers may administer for medical purposes,
not to establish private marijuana use clubs. Private â€œsmoking clubsâ€ create opportunities to
divert medical marijuana to illicit use, and pose a safety and security threat to the communities in
which they are located. Implementation: Modify R9-17-101(18)(a) to read as follows:
â€œ[Public place:] Means any location, facility, or venue that is not intended for the regular exclusive
use of an individual or the non-commercial use of a specific group of not more than 5 individuals.â€
PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 7. The Rules and statute should clearly
state that the use of medical marijuana by Visiting Qualifying Patients should be limited to only those
conditions and circumstances allowed to Patients under Arizona law. Rationale: With the
exception of obtaining marijuana from a dispensary, A.R.S. Â§36-2804.03(C) limits the rights of a
Visiting Qualifying Patient to the rights of a registration card holder in Arizona. Thus this section limits
the medical conditions that qualify a Visiting Qualifying Patient for the protections of the initiative to
those conditions that qualify an Arizona patient for a registration card. The Visiting Qualifying Patient
should be required by statute to provide proof that they medically qualify for a registration card under
Arizona law. A Visiting Qualifying Patientâ€™s is also limited to cultivation of marijuana by those
that are residents of Arizona for less than 30 days and that reside outside of the 25 mile dispensary
limit, and only for the 30 day limit. A Visiting Qualifying Patients that does not reside in Arizona is not
allowed to cultivate marijuana, because they do not have a residence in the state (see Patients,
Caregivers and Dispensary Agents #3, above). Statutory changes should make this clear.
Implementation: DHS should propose legislation that requires a Visiting Qualifying Patient to prove
they have a Debilitating Medical Condition as defined by A.R.S. Â§36-2801(3) before they are given
the same protection as a registry card issued by DHS. The legislation should also clarify that
cultivation of marijuana by a Visiting Qualifying Patient is a criminal offense. V. MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS 1. Policy Statement Three different types of medical professionals are authorized
to provide certification for medical marijuana use under the initiative. All are governed by a different
licensing board, and none of the licensing boards actively govern their respective charges with regard
to medical marijuana. Unless DHS monitors the activities of these medical professionals, there is no
central authority to monitor and govern the actions of medical professionals authorized to certify
medical marijuana use under the initiative. Under the initiative, DHS is charged with regulating
possession and use of medical marijuana. DHS thus has the authority to qualify medical professionals
designated under the act as appropriate to issue certification for medical marijuana use. Such a
system would ensure a centralized authority to monitor medical professionals for abusive or illicit
issuance of certifications, preventing fraud and abuse. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, CONT. 2.
Medical professionals that wish to issue medical marijuana certificates must be registered with DHS in
order to issue certifications and a reasonable fee should be charged. Rationale: Registration with
DHS would allow the Department to determine the qualifications of medical professionals that wish to
certify medical marijuana use. DHS can examine proof of the medical professionalâ€™s certification
as a medical doctor, osteopath, or naturopath, and of their primary practice in Arizona. DHS can
determine if the medical professional is currently undergoing discipline or substance abuse
counseling. DHS can determine the number of patients the medical professional has certified for
marijuana use, and can monitor the number and quality of contacts between the patient and the
medical professional. DHS can monitor the number and justification for certifications of smokeable
medical marijuana use. Implementation: Create Article 4 for the Medical Marijuana Program in
DHS Rules that governs medical professionals wishing to issue medical marijuana certifications in
Arizona. Medical professionals must meet the following requirements: (a) DHS must create and
administer a medical professional certification registry. (b) Qualified medical professionals that wish
to issue certificates under the initiative must register annual with DHS and pay a reasonable annual
fee to offset the cost of registry administration. (a) Medical professionals must be Arizona licensed
in and primarily practice in Arizona. (b) No more than 30 active patient registry cards may be issued
based on the certification of an individual medical professional at any one time. (c) Medical
professionals must see their certified patient at least once every 6 months, face to face, and
document they have done so in annual certifications. (d) Medical professionals may not issue
certificates to themselves or immediate family. (e) Medical professionals undergoing discipline or
substance abuse problems must not be authorized to certifications. (f) Medical professionals
recommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, must provide a statement
detailing the at least 3 efforts of the medical professional and patient to administer infused marijuana,
a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the medical
professional why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patientâ€™s condition. MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS, CONT. 3. The medical professional issuing the certification should be given the
authority to revoke a patientâ€™s certification at any time. In addition, the medical professional
should be required to revoke if they havenâ€™t seen the patient within 6 months. Rationale:
Medical marijuana is the narrow exception to the criminalization of marijuana in Arizona. In addition
to rules requiring previous and ongoing relationship between a certifying medical professional and a
patient, the medical professional must be able to de-certify a patient if they believe the patient no
longer qualifies for medical marijuana. In addition, the medical professional must de-certify the
patient if they have not seen the patient within 6 months. Once de-certified, the patient must be
presumed to no longer qualify for medical marijuana unless re-certified by two different medical
professionals that are aware of the previous de-certification. This would insure that patients are
seeing their medical professionals on a regular basis, and insure that medical marijuana is continued
to be needed by the patient. It would also encourage medical professionals to act ethically in
certifying, and prevent â€œdoctor shopping.â€ If certification is revoked, the patient must present
certifications from two other medical professionals, both of whom state they are aware of the
patientâ€™s certification revocation, before a new registry card may be issued. Implementation:
(a) Add to new Article 4 a requirement that the medical professional must notify the Department
within 3 business days if the patient no longer qualifies for certification for medical marijuana, or if
the medical professional has not had a face to face contact with the patient for more than 180 days.
(b) Add R9-17-205(I) to require the Department to revoke a Qualifying Patientâ€™s Registry
Identification Card upon notification by the certifying medical professional that the patient no longer
qualifies for certification or that the medical professional has not had a face to face contact with the
patient for more than 180 days. (c) Add to R9-17-202, 203, and 204 a section that requires
certification from two medical professionals for any person applying for a registry identification card
after having had a previous one revoked under R9-17-205(I), and require both certifications state that
the medical professional is aware of the grounds for prior de-certification. VI. LEGISLATIVE
ACTION 1. The legislature should set a presumptive THC metabolite level for impairment (similar to
presumptive blood alcohol level) effective in situations of driving, machinery operation and
employment Rationale: The initiative authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but
does not allow a user to be impaired while employed or operating automobiles or other machinery.
Use of marijuana impairs a personâ€™s ability to operate automobiles and other machinery, and to
properly perform their job. Impairment is difficult to determine without presumptive standards.
Marijuana impairment can be compared to use of alcohol, which is legal but impairment is not
allowed when a person is operating automobiles or other machinery or by most employers. Levels of
presumptive alcohol impairment are codified in law so employers and law enforcement may more
easily determine if a person is impaired. Scientific tests are available to determine the level of
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the active ingredient in marijuana, and standards exist that prove a
person is impaired at blood levels of THC of 2.0 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) or greater.
Presumptive levels of marijuana impairment for both employment and operation of automobiles and
other machinery must be adopted by the legislature in order to allow employers and law enforcement
to quickly and easily determine if probable cause exists that a person is impaired, and to take
appropriate action to protect the person, the employer, and the public. Implementation: DHS
must propose legislation that sets a presumptive level of marijuana impairment at a concentration of
2.0 ng/ml of blood THC for purposes of operating automobiles or other machinery, and for purposes
of employment. LEGISLATIVE ACTION, CONT. 2. The legislature should set enhanced penalties
for cardholders, caregivers, and dispensary agents that produce, transport, sell, or possess marijuana
outside of the terms of their authority granted by the initiative. Rationale: Arizona has a strong
public policy against marijuana. The initiative has carved out a narrow exception to that policy for
medical use. To uphold Arizonaâ€™s prohibition against marijuana, it is imperative that those
individuals granted access to marijuana through the initiative be strongly discouraged from using their
access to marijuana to add to the supply of illicit marijuana in the state, or to supply it to those
without authorization to possess marijuana. One of the best ways this may be accomplished is for the
legislature to specify and clarify what constitutes illegal marijuana activity by dispensaries,
cardholders and caregivers, and to enhance the punishments for those offenses. Such legislation will
discourage dispensaries, cardholders and caregivers from using their access to marijuana for illicit
purposes. Offenses should include cultivation without permission, transfer of marijuana to those not
entitled to possession, consuming, transporting, selling, cultivating marijuana without the appropriate
registry card in immediate possession. Implementation: DHS, working with state and law
enforcement officials, should draft and propose legislation that
working with state and law enforcement officials
To help keep the cost of cultivating Medical Marijuana low, Dispensories should be able to grow their
crop outside in an enclosed structure so that natural light can be used instead of grow lights. that will
reduce the cost to produce the medicinal marijuana. This will help keep the Medical Marijuana
available to low income patients.
R9-17-107 When the Dept of Health provides a list of deficiencies, does that mean they are on to
receive a License if they comply within the 60 days? There is quite a bit of expense going in and
there has to be a better way to determine if any one stands a chance beside those associated with AZ
Medical Marijuana Policy Project. The AZ Corporation Commissioner has people filing for 40 to 60
Trade Names. While those Trade Names are just that, it seems that deep pockets are wanting to
Monopolize this covetted License.
adding as part B:
Remove duplication, example, when reapplying, I don't see the need to resubmit finger print
information. What if a person does not have email - a lot homeless people probably do not have
email. I think some of the fees are way out of line, especially the application fees and some should
be waved for individuals with low income. Why have a separate Medical Marijuana Card, can access
to medical marijuana be linked to the state ID or Drivers License. Show your AZ drivers license/ ID and
the dispensary can look up the ID number and verify eligibility. Standard forms should be made so so
to be consistence for each request This would also make the review process more streamed lined.
the one year doctor/patient relationship is too long
costs to the patients required 4 visits Doctor or medical person on staff Most sick patients cannot
work and have little money to buy food
They are defining the work day as Monday â€“ Friday 8 to 5. What about employers who have shift
hours? There are no rules about people working in safety sensitive positions. Shouldnâ€™t there be
a minimum requirement that employees must not use medical marijuana at least _____ number of
hours prior to working in a safety sensitive position? Bus drivers? Pilots? Forklift Operators?
Machine Operators? Teachers? What about guidance on pre-employment and/or for cause drug
screens that are positive? If there is a zero-tolerance workplace, how is this impacted? The law allows
for termination for on the job use, but it seems that this is open to interpretation, e.g., law suits for
wrongful termination. If a person who is in an accident in a company vehicle or on company
property, what is the employerâ€™s liability? What is the standard to being â€œunder the
influenceâ€ of marijuana? It doesnâ€™t exist as it does for alcohol. How must employer drug
testing programs be revised to accommodate the law? The discrimination rule also has an exception.
Because marijuana is illegal under federal law, this gives companies with federal contracts an "out,"
allowing them to avoid employing medical-marijuana users so they don't risk losing contracts or
funding.
1. I was informed today by my Physician, one of many in a multi location health practice in the
Phoenix metro area, that the Practice will not be prescribing medical marijuana and would not even
offer a referral. I'm pretty sure that this may not be the only practice doing so. Now I must find a new
physician for prescribing and this could cause unnecessary delay (searching for a physician and
transferring medical records) in my receiving medication. In addition, I'm not sure i want to sever the
relationship with my current physician just because he isn't prescribing. Is there a way to clarify how
two physicians can be treating the same illness? Is there a way to have a directory available to the
citizens of Arizona in April of prescribing physicians? 2. There are many people of limited financial
means that would find the $150.00 registry identification card fee a hardship. A sliding scale fee would
be better.
The Draft can require that the Medical Marijuana pay Taxes. The inititive states that they are tax
exempt.
The definition of â€˜Medical Directorâ€™ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in A.R.S.
Title 32, Chapter 14. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians. They have
pharmaceutical prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona. These
doctors specialize in managing pain through other means than just narcotics. I believe that they would
be valuable people to be involved in the process of managing patients.
The draft rules state that the facility must be ready for inspection. This is a reasonable request in
regards to cleanliness, prep area, bathroom facilities, and overall environment knowledge. It should
not be required to have all security tools implemented i.e.: alarms, cameras, etc. Why would a
business owner want to spend thousands of dollars on a security system if they do not receive the
dispensary license? If a dispensary applicant is not awarded the license, they don't need that serious
of a security system if they proceed to open a boutique or real estate office. Are they supposed to
take down all the equipment and try to get a refund of those thousands of dollars?
The biggest problem with the way the rules have been proposed relates to the requirement that
applicants have a leased space in place before the applicant even knows if they will get a dispensary
license. This would create a very large upfront expense to a dispensary applicant without them
knowing if they are going to be approved for a license. The suggestion would be to have the
applicants evaluated on their business plan and financials and a clear background check. Once the
124 licenses have been granted, then the licensees would go to the various cities to secure a location
that fits both the city's and the state's requirements. There also needs to be clarification on how the
dispensaries and the the growers are licensed/affiliated. It would make more sense for the growers to
have their own license with a requirement that they have a contract to supply one or more licensed
dispensaries. To require each dispensary to have their own grow makes it much more difficult to
make this industry work, and creates more grow sites than necessary. One grower should be able to
contract with several dispensaries to supply them product. The dispensary owner should not be held
responsible for the actions of the growers.
There should be language incorporated into the rules tht state the same person or group of people
should not be permitted to operate more than one dispensary. The language needs to state that
these rules are drafted for the benefit of Arizona residents and that the State Department is doing all
they can to insure fairness in teh selection.
As a I'm concerned over language that would require marijuana-infused foods to

be processed in County-licensed food establishments. As a non-approved food ingredient (with
pharmacological properties) it would be handled in the same kitchen as deli sandwiches, etc. ... this
would be akin to handling prescription or OTC meds around other customers' foods (in the Food Code,
that can lead to a cited critical violation). Also, I do not see how a County could issue a
license/permit to a dispensary that chooses to infuse and make its own food products, yet will be
exempt from the County's "regulatory oversight". How can we work with local Planning&Building to
determine the suitability of the dispensary food preparation area if we have no authority
(entreprenuers would balk at putting in a three-compartment sink, for example, and challenge any
requirements due to our lack of regulatory oversight)? And once a license/permit is issued, on what
do we base renewal or revocation?
Rewrite the rules to allow engineers and architects to design buildings that are reasonably secure and
that will function as their intended purpose as a dispensary or cultivation facility respectively.
There are a few provisions in the first working draft of the rules that I believe might be improved
through revision. I recommend to you the following additions and modifications: 1. Medical
Director and Certifying Physician â€“ The definition of â€œMedical directorâ€ in R9-17-101(15) and
the remainder of the rules do not appear to require that the medical director or certifying physician
be in good standing with Medicare or be free from any restrictions on their licensure. Such a
requirement should be inserted, perhaps in the definitions within R9-17-101. 2. Denial or Revocation
of Card â€“ R9-17-205(C)(2) provides that the Department may deny a patient card or decline renewal
of a patient card if the patient or designated caregiver provides false or misleading information to the
Department. The Department also should have the discretion to deny issuance or renewal of a card if
the patient or designated caregiver has provided false or misleading information on an application in
any other state. 3. Dispensary agents â€“ There does not appear to be any prohibition against
employing as dispensary agents or having board members whose privileges have been revoked for
some reason other than having been employed by a dispensary that had its certification revoked.
Such a restriction should be inserted, perhaps in R9-17-301 or R9-17-302. 4. â€œPrincipal officer or
board memberâ€ â€“ The term â€œprincipal officer or board memberâ€ is used repeatedly. See,
e.g., R9-17-302(A); R9-17-302(B)(1)(f); etc. This term should be defined in R9-17-101 or should be
replaced with a broader and more inclusive term. As it is now used, it appears to exclude member or
associates of less formally-structured legal entities and is not clarified by R9-17-301. It could be
argued that the rules, as drafted, do not require individuals who are not â€œprincipal officers or
board membersâ€ of their respective organizations to comply with the dispensary rules, including
the prohibition against some felons. 5. GAAP â€“ R9-17-302(B)(4) lists four areas in which policies
and procedures must be adopted and implemented by dispensaries; a fifth should be added for
maintaining and keeping financial transaction and accounting records according to generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP), and there should be an audit requirement regarding the financial
statements, as there is regarding the inventory. 6. Local Zoning Compliance Certification â€“ An
applicant for a dispensary registration certificate should be required to certify that not only the
dispensary, but also any off-site cultivation location associated with the dispensary, is in compliance
with local zoning restrictions. In addition, the applicant for a dispensary registration certificate should
be required to send the local jurisdictionâ€™s chief zoning official a copy of the R9-17-302(B)(6)
certification swearing that the dispensary would be in compliance with local zoning restrictions. The
reason for the copy to the local jurisdiction is to ensure that it receives timely notice enabling it to
verify the accuracy of the certification. Similarly an applicant for renewal of such certification should
face the same requirements - namely the requirement to submit a certification that it remains in
compliance with local zoning restrictions and the requirement to send a copy to the local jurisdiction.
This could be inserted into R9-17-305. 7. Corrective Actions â€“ There is mention in R9-17-306(F) of
â€œcorrective actionsâ€ being undertaken to remedy violations discovered during inspections of
dispensaries or cultivation sites; however, there is no follow-up or approval mechanism set forth as is
the case with other regulated health entities and food establishments. Such a mechanism should be
established in the rules. 8. Inventory Control System - The provision for auditing a dispensaryâ€™s
inventory according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) every 30 days is curious.
Typically, pharmacies do not use GAAP for inventory purposes, and there are heavy penalties for
keeping inaccurate records. So, it is unclear why ADHS would require that methodology here.
Moreover, GAAP prescribes financial accounting principles; whereas, there are different standards for
audits, such as generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). Regular inventory reporting is
extremely important, and the 30-day requirement is excellent. This comment is simply intended to
suggest re-consideration of the specific wording in R9-17-313(C). 9. Testing Marijuana Samples â€“
R9-17-314 allows ADHS to obtain samples of marijuana for testing. ADHS should retain the ability to
sample marijuana but should add a requirement for regular testing to be imposed upon the
dispensaries and cultivation operations. They should be required to obtain regular lab testing of their
inventory for quality and safety, and this should be at their expense. ADHS should retain the authority
to determine which labs are acceptable for this testing. A list of â€œapprovedâ€ labs perhaps could
be issued by ADHS. Dispensaries should be required to submit the lab testing results to ADHS. 10.
Product Labeling and Analysis â€“ There is no requirement in the draft rules that the marijuana at the
dispensaries be organized, displayed, labeled or advertised according to the medical condition it is
designed to treat, the particular effect it is intended to produce, or the strain or potency of the
specific marijuana plant or product. New Mexico requires marijuana products to be labeled as to
strain and potency. ADHS should do the same in its rules. It could be inserted in R9-17-314. There
also should be a prohibition on the use in or on marijuana of any chemicals prohibited by law from
being used in or on tobacco and cigarettes. 11. Security and Transportation â€“ Delivery of
marijuana to the patient by someone other than a caregiver would be permissible under R9-17-315 as
it is currently drafted. This presents a security and public safety concern. It should be prohibited by
ADHS rules, as has been the case under local zoning ordinances in Pima County. It is important to
expressly prohibit the delivery of marijuana by anyone under the age of 18 so that dispensaries do not
hire juveniles as delivery persons. 12. Food Establishments â€“ The â€œfood establishment
contracted with the dispensary to prepare edible food products infused with medical marijuanaâ€
that appears in R9-17-315(B)(4) and R9-17-316 seems to open the control system to abuse. While it
has food safety benefits, it does not appear to require any kind of control over the marijuana while it
is at the â€œfood establishmentâ€ or provide any qualifications for â€œfood establishmentâ€
employees who handle the marijuana. It appears to permit a person handling marijuana at a bakery
to be someone who would be prohibited from being a dispensary worker or caregiver. This presents a
public safety concern. On the other hand, R9-17-313(B)(5)(b) seems to imply that the person
receiving the medical marijuana on behalf of the food establishment also must be a dispensary agent.
This should be clarified and made explicit. 13. Local Building, Zoning, and Fire Code Compliance â€“
The physical plant for a dispensary and cultivation location should be required to comply with local
Building and Zoning and Fire Codes. This requirement could be inserted into R9-17-318. 14. Physical
plant â€“ With respect to the 500â€™ spacing requirement from schools, ADHS should impose rules
requiring additional and heightened scrutiny of applications and/or additional information in the
application for facilities located within a 1000â€™ of a school. This is consistent with state law
requiring a â€œdrug free school zoneâ€ of 1000 feet. 15. Consequence of Local Code Violation
â€“ A dispensaryâ€™s registration certificate should be denied or revoked in the event the dispensary
or its cultivation location fails to maintain compliance with or violates a local building, zoning, or fire
code. Perhaps a cure period could be inserted for already registered dispensaries, such that the
failure to correct a violation within 90 days would give rise to revocation. This could be inserted into
R9-17-319. 16. Denial or Revocation of Dispensary Registration Certificate â€“ R9-17-319(B)(6)
provides that the Department may deny an application for a dispensary registration certificate if the
principal officer or board member of the dispensary provides false or misleading information to the
Department. The Department also should have the discretion to revoke a dispensaryâ€™s registration
certificate on this basis and also the authority to deny or revoke a dispensary registration certificate if
the principal officer or board member of the dispensary has provided false or misleading information
on an application in any other state. 17. Reporting Law Enforcement Interactions â€“ There does
not appear to be any requirement for a dispensary operator or caregiver to report criminal
convictions, indictments, or arrests to the Department. Such a requirement would be beneficial and
should be added. Perhaps there should be a requirement that dispensary agents file an annual sworn
affidavit that no employee or operator of a dispensary has been arrested, indicted or convicted of a
misdemeanor drug offense or any felony. A similar sworn affidavit could be required of caregivers.
Thank you again for providing the opportunity for public comment on the first working draft set of
rules concerning Arizonaâ€™s Medical Marijuana Program. Sincerely,
I am personally am affected by fibromyalgia and have had a hard time getting any treatment for this
chronic condition. I have not even been able to find a doctor in my area that will treat me. I have to
drive 70 miles to get to a doctor for any help. I'm suffering everyday with daily activities. I do believe
that fibromyalgia and some other chronic conditions should be added. I do not understand the 25 mile
limit for patient/caregiver cultivation, because as stated above I have to drive 70 miles just to get to a
doctor for treatment of my condition. The fee structure should be looked at more due to alot more
arizonians being in low-income and/or limited income situations. Also, I do believe that the
definition/requirements for the patient-phsician relationship need clearification. As well as the
rules/requirements of the patient themselves.
The proposed patient fee of $150.00 represents a potential hardship for patients with chronic
conditions, many of whom are on disability, are under- or unemployed. Instead, there should be a
sliding fee-scale to take these circumstances into account. Requirements for security measures
should not exceed those of traditional pharmacies, which have in their inventories drugs and other
chemicals that are known to be potentially deadly. Marijuana has proven to be safe, and no deaths
solely from its ingestion have ever been documented. Traditional pharmaceuticals, on the other hand,
such as narcotics, amphetamines, barbiturates, chemotherapeutic drugs and other chemicals are
known to have caused many deaths. Security measures specifically aimed at preventing theft, access
to persons who do not qualify under the qualifying rules, minors or those seeking to profit from theft
of dispensary inventory are necessary and beneficial. While reasonable measures should be taken
to ensure that patients have been under the care of a physician for their chronic or acute qualifying
condition (s), patients must also have the option of providing records from the physician who is their
primary health care provider AND a recommendation for the use of medical marijuana from a
separate licensed, qualified physician. This is necessary because of the strict rules physicians must
adhere to when prescribing other medications, particularly narcotic pain relievers. Many physicians
are understandably wary of coming under the scrutiny of the FDA and may fear for their prescribing
privileges should their recommendation of medical marijuana come to the attention of that and/or
other regulatory agencies. Though the requirement that a patient provide documentation of his or her
qualifying condition is necessary and should remain, patients may find it necessary to seek out a
physician who is not their primary prescribing health care provider, and rules must be implemented to
allow this within reason.
1. The draft rules can be improved by distinguishing â€œdesignated caregiverâ€ from Direct
Care Professionals and Caregivers by simply renaming â€œdesignated caregiverâ€ to
â€œdesignated cannabis caregiverâ€ or â€œdesignated marijuana caregiverâ€ or â€œdesignated
medical marijuana caregiverâ€ or â€œdesignated cultivatorâ€ or â€œdesignated gardenerâ€ or
â€œdesignated growerâ€. Direct Care Professionals (DCPSs) are certified after completing the
â€œPrinciples of Caregiving Curriculum Projectâ€
https://www.azdes.gov/main.aspx?menu=28&id=1046 designed in collaboration by the Arizona
Department of Economic Security, the Arizona Department of Health Services, AHCCCS/ALTCS,
advocacy groups, provider agencies, and colleges in Arizona. DCPs and Caregivers are required to
have current certifications for CPR and Basic First Aid. I believe â€œdesignated caregiversâ€ should
also be required to have current certifications for CPR and First Aid considering the patient
populations they will be working with. Eventually, I would like â€œdesignated caregiversâ€ to be
required to be certified Direct Care Professionals to ensure higher quality of care for patients to
prevent potential patient neglect and/or abuse and to promote education and safety for the
â€œdesignated caregiversâ€, especially when working with patients with blood-borne
communicable diseases such as HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C. DCPs and Caregivers are required to
show proof of negative results for tuberculosis. I believe â€œdesignated caregiversâ€ should also
provide proof of negative TB results. 2. Renewal fees for dispensaries are twenty percent of
the dispensary application fee. Renewal fees for patients, caregivers, and dispensary agents are 100%
of their respective application fees. I believe renewal fees for patients should be thirty dollars per
year and renewal fees for caregivers and dispensary agents should be forty dollars per year. 3.
Insure that patient confidentiality is preserved if a public hearing is applicable when petitioning to add
a new debilitating medical condition. 4. Open the petition window for adding a debilitating
medical condition from only the months of January and July to all twelve months of the year.
An extension of the 2 year residency rule to a more respectable 5-7 year Arizona residency rule. This
will help keep and protect as a priority the best interest of are local economy in the State of Arizona.
Include Naturopathic and Homeopathic Doctors as Medical Directors of Dispensaries
The problem will always be law enforcement so i think each person that is subscribe MM should have
an idea saying that this person has the right to carry marijuana with him. The bud should be in small
contaiers when sold or in a sealed bag and put that in another normal looking bag so when there on
there way home from the dispensary and they do get stopped they can show that they got there
medicine but have not yet opened it. this is important because lets say im a patient and i have a friend
in the car with me... i can easily smoke it with him and MM will be getting on the wrong hands and
thats why they shouldnt open there medicine till there home. May i also say that there should be like
little rooms in each dispensary lest say someone needs there medication asap they can chill at the
dispensaries smoking room and take a hit or two so they dont do it in public and get caught and go to
jail. If that is possible that would really also help the people stay out of trouble in the streets because
all the MM patients want is to take there medication and what better way then when they purchase it
and do it in a "legal" place instead of in the public..... You never know this people have serious
problems or aches and they need there mediation asap and maybe they cant wait and end up smoking
in there car and get caught there should be someone checking out the dispensaries and making sure
there selling the right medication because over in california there started selling hash and kief and
other stuff more powerful and this is a MM act not hash or oil or nothing like that basically make sure
there in compliance with the law
By specifying temperature requirements for "running water." The current rules allow for only cold
water to be used.
By requiring that patients have a one year relationship with a doctor you eliminate all VETERANS who
use the VA Health Care System. VA doctors are not allowed to prescribe Medical Marijuana. I meet
the patient requirements on several different levels. However because I use the VA for all my medical
needs and due to the one year doctor relationship requirement I will not be able to find out if this
might bring me some relief. In my situation and so many others, I will have to find a civilian doctor
and visit that doctor for one year in order to meet these proposed guidelines even tho I obviously
meet all the medical requirements. If anybody deserves the opportunity to see if this may provide
relief its our VETERANS. As it is currently proposed all veterans who use the VA system exclusively (
which they have earned) will have have go outside the system, doctor shop, and visit that physician
for at least a year. I urge you to take a hard look at this. I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that this
is a potential law suit from VETERANS and VETERANS RIGHTS GROUPS. Thank you for listening.
Improve the rule by the elimination of the requirement that a dispensary shall cultivate at least 70%
of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides and that all marijuana must come from sources in
Arizona. Opening the market between dispensaries or even allowing importation of marijuana from
other states would improve the diversity of products and may help to keep prices of marijuana more
reasonable.
Ease up the time periods, while people are dying. Rules can and will be changed later, until they fit the
situation. Many doctors may have fears and a stigmas in prescribing said substance. This can be an
inappropriate determinant for its non-prescribing and non-use. List of doctors that do prescribe
Mariuana should be available. A doctor and/or a patient should not feel like they are breaking the law
in any manor. The rules and guidelines must be drawn in a clear and understandable fashion and not
cluttered with legal jargon. Marijuana must be considered a medication first and foremost, not
stigmatized or targeted for every person with an attitude. We can't have Marijuana Mills appearing
like bars do. I feel that the government has done an excellent job in seeing to this potential abuse
problem. Facilities should be setup for those patients that will be taking the medication and an expert
should be there and is, at first anyway to help *if necessary" guide the patient through side effects
that will be damaging to it's potential benefits. A feeling of social correctness and not resentment
must be shown. People who are very sick already feel inadequate.
1: Remove the one inch thick outside gate provision, one inch thick metal plates are not readily
available anywhere, and this would appear to be a purposefully prohibitive restriction. A simple
locking gate would suffice, if a person can cut through a fence to gain illegal access, they would
certainly do this to avoid a inch thick metal plate. 2: Change the one year prior doctors/patient
relationship requirement. There will be many doctors afraid to run up against the federal
government, who have patients that clearly qualify for this benefit, who will not recommend
marijuana. For these patients, allow a second doctor (one willing to recommend marijuana should the
patient qualify) to review patient case files.
What parts of the draft rules do you believe are effective? 1) Sections R9-17-202.F.5.e, f, and h, R9-
17-202.G.13.e-g, R9-17-204.A.4.e-i, along with R9-17-204.B.4.f-g, all adequately address my concern
that a would-be "patient" or "caregiver" turned diverter would be able to "doctor shop" and obtain an
excess of marijuana to sell for personal profit, so long as DHS has the resources and motivation to
really audit these requirements. 2) The requirements for criminal records checks in sections R9-17-
202.F.6.k, R9-17-202.G.9, R9-17-203.A.2.k, R9-17-204.A.5.k, R9-17-204.B.6, R9-17-204.C.1.j, R9-17-
302.B.3.c, R9-17-308.7, and R9-17-309.5 are sound policy, again, if DHS has the resources and
motivation to follow-up on any suspicious results from these records checks. 3) The mention of
fingerprint requirements in sections R9-17-107.F.a, R9-17-202.F.6.k.i, R9-17-202.G.9.a, R9-17-
203.A.2.k.i, R9-17-203.A.5.k.i, R9-17-203.B.6.a, R9-17-204.C.1.j.i, R9-17-302.B.3.c.i, R9-17-308.7.a, and
R9-17-309.5.a-b helps me believe that there is a way to make sure those with criminal history cannot
be involved in the sale of medical marijuana. Once again, it depends on the resources available to DHS
for oversight. 4) R9-17-319.A.1 designating that a dispensary be located away from schools is
helpful. 5) R9-17-319.A.2.b and R9-17-319.C.1-2 allowing denial and/or revocation of privileges
based on felony history are helpful. 6) R9-17-306.E allowing DHS to perform an unannounced on-site
inspection if a tip is received about noncompliance will help curb illegal activity. How can the draft
rules be improved? 1) One of the biggest flaws in the law as written and voted upon is the ability of
a qualifying patient to grow their own medical marijuana. This is unheard of- that a person could
manufacture their own medications on the level of a DEA controlled substance! DHS should set up
geographic dispersion of the dispensaries so that it minimizes the number of people eligible to grow
their own. 2) With the state in such a financial crisis, it will be difficult for DHS to feasibly cover their
oversight responsibilities, thus creating opportunities for the illicit distribution of medical marijuana to
potentially "slip through the cracks." Policies should be included that allows the Department to
delegate some of the oversight to local law enforcement. 3) In order to encourage dispensaries to
maintain compliance, the timeframe for a mutually agreed upon, announced on-site inspection in R9-
17-306.C should be within a 24-hour period. 4) While R9-17-319.A.1 attempts to keep medical
marijuana dispensing facilities away from school children, the distance should be much more than 500
feet, which is less than a tenth of a mile and can be covered at a leisure walking pace in less than 3
minutes. A minimum of a quarter of a mile would be more effective. Has anything been left out
that should be in the rules? 1) A policy should be enacted that requires a qualifying patient, a
dispensary agent, or a board member is a legal resident of the state of Arizona. Allowing people to
cross state borders in the trade of medical marijuana creates opportunities for the increase of illicit
inter-state marijuana transportation as has been found in states like California and Colorado, who also
have medical marijuana laws. 2) The medical professional overseeing the care of a qualifying patient
should be allowed to revoke the patient's certification any time he or she has reasonable knowledge
that they are diverting marijuana for illicit use, or if they have not seen the patient within a
reasonable time period, such as six months. This is in line with what is allowed with other
prescriptions such as pain medications. 3) Dispensaries should be required to post all transaction to
the PMP database, just as with other controlled substances. 4) While this suggestion may not be
within the purview of DHS and the medical marijuana issue, the legislature needs to set a presumptive
THC metabolite level to aid law enforcement and employers in deciding if a person is under the
influence of marijuana to a sufficient level as to be impaired and/or a danger to others. 5)
Throughout the draft regulations, there is no mention of criminal penalties for anyone who is out of
compliance, other than a dispensary possibly losing their license. In order to balance the legitimate
use of medical marijuana with the need to prevent illicit use by others, DHS policies must require the
turning over of those out of compliance to law enforcement.
many docotors refuse to even talk about this , leading people to find new docotors that are open
minded. Your rule about 1 year docotor and a second docotor to sign off is just wrong and will just
make people go to the black market and not support the local taxes that will be implied for store sales
to qualifying patients. i under stand your concern about headache abusers but the fact is you cant
punish the sick to help your agenda. The law was voted on and this set of rules seems extreme for
patients to get legal help. please recondsider the time frame and amount of visits to allow a card.
again dont punish the sick , patients rights give them the right to see other docotors for medical help
and a second opionion.
KISS THE DRS AND LETS GET STARTED

I would suggest clarifying the fees - specifically it was a little vague that both a dispensary registration
and dispensary agent registration are required. Too, are separate dispensary agent application fee's
required if all applicants work for the same dispensary? Regarding R9-17-108 A, 1, b - clarify whether
the qualified patient's/designated caregiver's ID card needs to be presented each time. Do qualified
patients less than 18 years of age have to reapply at the time of his/her 18th birthday? I wondered
whether a designated caregiver could hold both a qualified patient and a designated caregiver card.
There's a typographical error, page 23, first sentence, letter f, "If the qualifying patient is designated" -
should be designating. Are fingerprints for dispensary agents required at each renewal? Will the
State be restricting/limiting the operation hours of a dispensary? For those of us who don't know,
what is a proper method of disposal?
Eliminate page 14, section e (ii)...which provides for a new doc to evaluate the patient. I think this
opens the door wide to doctor-shopping. I think the patient should be under treatment by a physician
for a full year before deciding that medical marijuana is a reasonable therapy to default to.
I would like to see the year long waiting time waived, requiring a history with a physician before you
can get medical marijuana if you are a cancer patient and in need of it immediately. Thank you.
I would like to see a change in the definition of â€œenclosedâ€ as it applies to a dispensery

cultivation site; specifically the requirement of 12â€™ concrete or metal walls with metal coverings
over the enclosed area. This seems to make it impossible to cultivate in a greenhouse, which is the
most efficient means of light and environmental control here in Arizona. Not only do these
requirements cause an extreme financial burden on constructing a greenhouse cultivation site, but
they also would block out a majority of the natural light available to the greenhouse and dramatically
decrease airflow for environmental control. I suggest that a way to ensure security for the
cultivation site can be found in focusing on the perimeter of the property, rather than enclosing a
greenhouse with a security barrier.
My 85 year old mother has Glaucoma, a badly torn rotator cuff in her right sholder and osteoporosis
in her back. both give her much pain. I think she will try to get some relief from medical maijuana. It
seems that your rule to put dispensories in commercial areas ,off of the beaton path, gives the
dispensories and patients a stigma that they are doing something wrong. I think you should reconcider
attaching this stigma of wrong doing to the process.
the state can make a lot of money that is currently going to Mexico. people with cards should be able
to smoke in public.
I do not think a "doctor-patient" relationship for a year prior to making an application for medical
marijuana is good for all the people seeking medical marijuana. Does a doctor have to have a year
long relationship with a patient before narcotics are prescribed for treatment of some type of pain?
So, assuming the answer is "No", medical marijuana should not have "special" terms or conditions out
of the norm when it comes to doctors prescribing pain management medications. If terms or
conditions like a year long doctor-patient relationship is necessary for medical marijuana, the ADHS
will be wide open for lawsuits. The afore mentioned "doctor-patient" year long relationship is not
applicable nor does it seem to address the issue of getting people medical marijuana that need it! The
reason people have started using marijuana for medical treatments is due to many people can not
afford regular doctors care, such is my case. Furthermore, many people prefer a natural pain
management substance such as marijuana over pharmacutical prescription drugs that effect so many
other parts of the body. you can get addicted to pain drugs, but you can not get addicted to
marijuana, nor can you "overdose". I need an affordable, usable medication for my treatment of
Hepititus C now! I have never had a regular doctor for over thirty years, simply because I can not
afford the office visits and costly, ineffective gamit of tests that doctors like to do. My disease is
treatable but tottaly unpracticable for myself as well as for others in similar positions such as mine.
Marijuana gives me an appetite, helps with constant joint pain, and helps me deal with depression
and fatigue. Please consider individuals like me, when all is said and done ,on the implication of these
requirements for issuing medical marijuana certification. The rules need to be fair and affordable for
all citizens of Arizona that voted and need such medication. Thanks
The draft rules should be the same as Liquor Rules. Don't make it so difficult to place these
dispensaries on the outskirts of town away from neighborhood. Should allow these dispensaries on a
c-1 zone, 300 feet from a school. Keep it simple but only so many allowed in different sectors of
town. Not to allow so many like liquor license, only one within certain sectors.
Any individual with prior drug arrest or convictions should not be allowed to own or operate a
dispensary. For example, who campaigned hard to get this initiative passed has multiple
arrest for cocaine dealing. He should not be allowed to own a dispensary as he plans to do.
When creating the law needed to cover our new "medical marijuana" legislation, it should be stated
that only pharmacies would be allowed to fill prescriptions for medical marijuana, in pill form. We
are not California. The law should also state that only pharmaceutical grade marijuana would be
acceptable. This will not only eliminate drug cartels from moving into our towns and cities with
storefront dispensaries, but will provide a pharmaceutical grade product not grown by drug dealers in
Mexico. By having pharmacies distribute this drug in pill form only, anyone "smoking" the drug --
or baking it into brownies and other baked goods -- can still be prosecuted. Pharmacists will also be
able to report suspicious prescriptions to doctors and the proper authorities. Pharmacists follow laws
already in place.
please see below
I believe the fees listed in the draft rules (R9-17-102. Fees) are way too high. When comparing to
Colorado, they charge $90. And that is not per year, it is one time. They lowered it from $110 before.
They assess the fee yearly to ensure it covers the cost of the program. If Arizona is going to require
yearly renewals and such, the initial fee should be more like $25 and $10 for a renewal, as less work
will be required to renew a patient card. If Colorado can maintain a system with one time fees of
$90, then AZ should have no problem maintaining one with smaller recurring fees. I like the fact that
Arizona is making them renew yearly as a persons condition can change where they no longer need
the current medication.
Marijuana is a drug that in this case is being used to relieve chronic pain. In this sense it is no different
from other drugs currently available in pharmacies. Many of those drugs are far more powerful and
addictive, with potentially much more threatening side effects. Therefore marijuana should be
regulated in a similar manner. I understand the legal need for separate dispensaries, but the
regulations should parallel those for the much more powerful drugs currently available in pharmacies.
This means that the physical location and licensing requirements for the dispensaries should be the
same as those for pharmacies. Dispensaries should be able to freely trade inventory with other
dispensaries without the 30% limit, as long as strict inventory control is maintained, just as is done for
other drugs. Likewise, the requirements for doctor-patient relationship should be the same as what is
required for the prescription of more powerful drugs, such as codeine.
The rules need to be less controlling. Licenses should be issued before investments are required.
Growing techniques, watering and soil types should not be required above that of any other crop
Medical directors should not be restricted. Any doctors who is allowed to prescribe a drug should be
allowed to prescribe this under exactly the same conditions as for any other drug. Small operators
should be considered more favorably under the proposed rules as these are only for big operators.
Intitial licences should be extended to allow for ramp up of operations and amortization of
investments Rules should be rewritten to make the legal availablity easier.
I don't see how you can require that as a physician you need to have a relationship going back a year
with at least four visits. Many patients seeking this form of help are doing so due to lack of health
insurance. Inability to afford expensive prescription medicine, etc. Being able to grow their own would
be a huge advantage in being able to treat their symptoms in a manner that will not drain on the
states economy with excessive emergency room visits that go unpaid. I strongly encourage this
language be removed because it has nothing to do with the care of the patient but rather gouge the
patient for money. It Also means that any patient who has a current doctor with a moral delimea with
this treatment a patient will now have to find a compassionate doctor, visit four time and not be able
to receive treatment for a year. Many cancer patients as you know do not have a year and make them
suffer with symptoms that could be treated is immoral and cruel. Please take this into consideration
and do not give in to the greed of a few looking to drain money out of people already suffering. If a
patient can go to a doctor and in one visit get a prescription for a highly addictive opiate for random
unconfirmed pain like headaches or joint pain they should not have to jump through these kind of
hoops for a naturally occurring, nonaddictive treatment like medical marijuana. There are people who
will certainly abuse both but I think we can agree opiate abuse is much worse on the patient, society,
and the criminal system as a whole. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
1) One of the biggest flaws in the law as written and voted upon is the ability of a qualifying patient to
grow their own medical marijuana. This is unheard of- that a person could manufacture their own
medications on the level of a DEA controlled substance! DHS should set up geographic dispersion of
the dispensaries so that it minimizes the number of people eligible to grow their own. 2) With the
state in such a financial crisis, it will be difficult for DHS to feasibly cover their oversight
responsibilities, thus creating opportunities for the illicit distribution of medical marijuana to
potentially "slip through the cracks." Policies should be included that allows the Department to
delegate some of the oversight to local law enforcement. 3) In order to encourage dispensaries to
maintain compliance, the timeframe for a mutually agreed upon, announced on-site inspection in R9-
17-306.C should be within a 24-hour period. 4) While R9-17-319.A.1 attempts to keep medical
marijuana dispensing facilities away from school children, the distance should be much more than 500
feet, which is less than a tenth of a mile and can be covered at a leisure walking pace in less than 3
minutes. A minimum of a quarter of a mile would be more effective.
There are many areas of the draft that can be improved upon. The first one is in reference to R9-17-
302, it goes into detail to ensure the individuals, members, partners, and company are looked at
thoroughly. However, investors are not taken into account. Colorado put into their rules and
regulations a statement on any investor of 5% or more would need their background checked. I think
this is huge to ensure we don't have investors from other states coming in and creating the toxic
environment they have developed in other states. I also think this is a good idea because I am most
fearful of the drug cartels from Mexico, and other organized crime in my community. -R9-17-
302.B.15.a asks whether a pharmacist is on-site or on-call. Is this relevant if there is truly no
prescriptions being made? Also is this a requirement? If not why is this question in here? -R9-17-
302.B.15.b talks about relaying information on the "importance of physical activity and nutrition
onsite." I feel this is good information the dispensaries should provide. However, I don't believe this
will always pertain to every patient. Some patients will not be able to perform physical activity or
have extreme dietary problems. -R9-17-302.B.15.d states "Whether the dispensary has a surety
bond and, if so, how much." What is the reason for this question? Is a surety bond a requirement?
Will the Department of Health Services be following up on the surety bond to make sure its not from a
questionable source. *Also I have been informed of Marijuana Policy Project and Arizona Medical
Marijuana Association involvement with the Department of Health Services in creating rules and
regulations on the Application Review Board. Due to their involvement it should be mandated per R9-
17-319.a.2.g that any member of Marijuana Policy Project or Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
should be denied a registration certificate due to the large conflict in interest.
I believe the portion of the draft rules pertaining to the medical director in R9-17-310 is unnecessary.
A patient has to have a relationship with their doctor prior to getting a recommendation. They should
be calling a doctor familiar with their condition for concerns, not a doctor that does not know their
medical history. You specifically state the patient should not have a patient/physician relationship
with the medical director. The sections of that rule state things their doctor should already be doing
with them. And your rule specifically states the medical director should not have a patient/physician
relationship. Some of the section listed are just that, like creating a log book for pain (this is very
typical for patients with pain management doctors). Also the policies and procedures about abuse in
part C cross into that patient/physician relationship. This is also something their recommending
doctor and/or other doctors they patient sees should be responsible for. The educational materials
dispensaries are required to have will also point them to an outside source for that information that
would be better suited to address those concerns.
- In section R9-17-307 Administration, Number 3, clarification on the maximum amount of medical

marijuana a dispensary is allowed to cultivate. The Draft Rules specify that each dispensary shall
cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispens
1. The year long requirement for patient doctor relationship. This seems a little excessive. I note that
there is an attempt to limit the number of recreational users and prescriptions drops as have
developed in other jurisdictions. I like the exception that was availabe; however, presenting too many
hurdles to cross will cause patients to seek illicit marijuana. A period of 30 days, would stil stop the
instant granign of a card, while requireing that at least the patient has a minimal wait. keep in mind
that this is not the only delay they will incur, but also the delay of the processing etc. Was there any
mention about the patients ability to grow if a dispensary is not within certain distance? what
standard of measure will be used (google maps?). 500 feet, from the edge of the schools property or
from the building location? what about school owned property that is not used for holding and
teaching students?
Quads and paraplegics should be specifically mentioned as qualifying.
Make them simpler. If you qualify - you get it.
adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic system of hardware and
software to verify the information required in Section A before dispensing medical marijuana to a
qualifying patient or designated caregiver and to submit the required information to the medical
marijuana electronic verification system.
START OVER OR THE LEGISLATURE WILL BE FORCED TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
The rules need to be specific about an "in-person" exam and follow-up visits with doctors
recommending marijuana. No internet recommendations. And, no internet sales of marijuana. The
rules, as drafted, leave open the possibility that "patients" can receive recommendations and
purchase marijuana over the internet. Also, there needs to be tracing of all marijuana grown by
dispensaries from "cradle to grave." Colorado is considering rules concerning this. There should be
no marijuana whatsoever unaccounted for.
medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and
toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician
offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video surveillance,
residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable
arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the
1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient.
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require
"ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a relationship
among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere
in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else
in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the
prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly
dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care
of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other potentially terminal qualifying
conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so.
The department's regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and
denial of patients' rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers, other
sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical
17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11
Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and
arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit
requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two
months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need
more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-
applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-
302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-
17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp
The department does not have the authority to establish residency requirements, control the
occupation of the principal officers or board members, require surety bonds, require a medical
director, require security measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic
marijuana that exceed security measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at
and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials beyond
what the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or warrantless
surveillance, or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or
transferred to another dispensary or caregivers. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps
toxic refuse.
Patients must not be required to shift their entire care in cases when their primary care / specialist
cannot or will not provide medical marijuana in cases where it's efficacy is clearly indicated. The
doctor/patient definitions are already defined, and any sudden encroachments are sure to be
challenged in court. Let us use pragmatism and compassion be our guide. As long as a single
doctor, ANY doctor, is willing to provide annual checkups for a medical marijuana patient, that should
have NO bearing on their primary care physician, specialist or anything else. Please drop the
stipulations altogether on defining this relationship. We will just have to accept some diversion and
abuse. We do the same for opiates and anxiolytics because of their efficacy in their given roles.
Marijuana has the same efficacy for nausea, pain suppression, appetite stimulation, and is breaking
more ground daily. Opiates and other drugs are far more serious cases of diversion, but again, AZ law
hasn't re-defined any special doctor/patient privileges for those because they are known to be
effective where indicated. We can only hope that abusers seek help eventually, and that diverters will
be caught eventually. Nothing is perfect, nor will this implementation be. We are only human. Let
the patient's needs dictate the [lack of] language, not the diversion or recreational use. As for
requiring listening software daemons and arbitrary numbers of kilobytes directionally to dispensaries,
that is just over the top and as an IT guy, I had a chuckle. As long as you have daily access to database
files, this role of "384K" and stateful listening daemons on the dispensary end are just technobabble.
Please omit this superfluous requirement. Can you imagine such a thing in a pharmacy setting ? It is
almost funny. We do not need security cameras poised to wait for someone to pocket a flower. Panic
buttons are adequate to identify any security risks. Continuity in stock and records will tell the tales
adequately. These camera requirements are way over the top.
It appears, from the different City meetings I have attended, that big out of State operators
represented by $400 per hour Law Firms ( lobbyists ) have missed the point on the INTENT of the bill
which is to be for Non-Profit organizations. Why are they coming here to Arizona in droves? To
support local Arizona Non-Profits? I don't think so. The 2 year residency requirement for Board
Members is a start but I feel it should be taken one step further as was done with the States
Charitable Bingo Statutes/Rules which designate that to obtain a License, An Arizona non-profit must
have been in business as a non-profit in the State for 2 years. Non Profits in the State are looking
closely at this as a fund raiser for their charities. With donations down and city/state and federal
funding slashed, they are struggling to keep their doors open. Lets make the 2 year requirement for
existing ARIZONA Non-profit organizations. This will help insure that the net proceeds from these
ventures go towards what they were intended. SECURITY: Lets insure that the operations have
security systems that allow the police department to access at any time to help insure that the srong
element is not operating or entering these premises.
medical marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and
toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician
offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video surveillance,
residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable
arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the
1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient.
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple assessments, require
"ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to promulgate a relationship
among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere
in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else
in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year relationship or multiple visits for the
dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist assume primary care
of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other potentially terminal qualifying
conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so.
The department's regulations are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and
denial of patients' rights of choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers, other
sources of care or information, or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical
17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11
Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and
arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit
requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two
months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need
more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-
toxic refuse.
* A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered dispensaries and
may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered dispensaries. This will likely
create acute shortages in rural areas and drive costs up. Patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary
unable to meet demand will have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. We need to
create an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This will assure consistent supply to
rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs due to increased competition of
organizations trying to meet demand (R9-Ââ€17-Ââ€307)
Throughout the document Please replace the term physician with approved medical care-giver to be
consistent with other Arizona Department of Health Programs language. R9-17-102. Fees- overall
the fee schedule is totally unrealistic for an individual with a chronic disease or is on disability. The
pricing structure isnâ€™t conducive to â€œrealâ€ non-profit orgs setting up dispensaries â€“I
understand there is a motivation of this adding to the states struggling coffers- but the reality that
needs to be faced is the â€œpatientsâ€ needs-not the states. I know there is a the â€œsnickerâ€
through out the population that medical marijuana is only a way for marijuana partiers to get
marijuana legally and thus needs to be treated with a â€œsinâ€ tax mentality. In reality for
chronically ill individuals it is a true medication and should be priced affordably. See below : 1. For
registration of a dispensary, $5,000;-Too high- not practical for small business or non profit to do legit
2. To renew the registration of a dispensary, $1,000; too high not practical for small business or non
profit 3. To change the location of a dispensary, $2,500;-too high not practical for small business or
non profit 4. To change the location of a dispensary's cultivation site, $2,500;-too high not practical
for small business or non profit Fee schedule is not appropriate for the patients who will be seeking
the medication. Gives no advantage to use "legal" stream marijuana-The patient population that
should be seeking this medication is generally on fixed incomes and disability. see suggested re-pricing
below. 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $150;-too high for patients on
fixed income or disability - needs to be at $50 or less. b. Designated caregiver, $200; and too high
needs to be a max of $50-why should a caregiver have to be licensed? I am thinking of the 60 year old
parent taking care of the 30 year old cancer patient-whose sole job is to drive to pick the medication
up or prepare it for smoking or cook with it? c. Dispensary agent, $200; too high needs to be a max
of $50 6. For renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; too high needs
to be a max of $40.00 b. Designated caregiver, $200; and too high c. Dispensary agent, $200; tooooo
high 7. For amending or changing a registry identification card, $10; and 8. For requesting a
replacement registry identification card, $10. R9-17-202 Subsection 5 e Time frames for patient
/physician relationship are inappropriate in the scope of modern clinical practice. In multi practice
care giver practices the potential of seeing the same MD 4 times in a row is limited. - The concept of
wasting 4 units of a health care professionals expensive time to prescribe an herbal substance where
as controlled much more lethal and dangerous drugs can be prescribe in one 10 minute visit with
limited chart review makes no sense. Again patients applying for this medication are on limited
incomes or do not have the ability to be easily transported. In the current state of Medcaid s fiscal
condition wasting time with 4 appoints is unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible. Additionally patients
seeking Medical Marijuana who are on other pain management medications should not be driving
unnessarily. An identification of one or more of the debilitating medical conditions in R9-17-201 as
the qualifying patient's specific debilitating medical condition; The following are all burdensome and
not required for other schedule medications â€“ at no point is an MD required to do any of the
following for the prescription of other mood or mind altering medications on most formularies. The
written prescription is the MD/Caregivers testimony of need. At any point in time an individual can
walk into any Urgent Care facility and in in 10 minutes time leave with prescriptions for more
dangerous controlled substances with no chart review, or formal attesting to patient need. Thus the
below is in the realm of ridiculous and inappropriate. An addition example might be the model for the
morning after pill- where a pharmacist asks the persons age, verifies age explains product usage and
dispenses in less than 5 minutes time-the medication in the morning after pill has much higher health
risks and long term side effect potential. i. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician:
(1) Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and
the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's
debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship; or (2) Has assumed
primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient's
debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical
examination, including a personal review of the qualifying patient's medical record maintained by
other treating physicians that may include the qualifying patient's reaction and response to
conventional medical therapies; ii. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician has
explained the potential risks and benefits of the use of the medical marijuana to the qualifying
patient's custodial parent or legal guardian responsible for the health care decisions for the qualifying
patient; and iii. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician plans to continue to assess
the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's use of medical marijuana during the course of the
physician-patient relationship; f. For the physician listed in subsection (G)(11), a statement, initialed
by the physician, that the physician conducted a comprehensive review of the qualifying patient's
medical records from other treating physicians; g. A statement that, in the physician's professional
opinion, the qualifying patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the qualifying
patient's medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the qualifying patient's debilitating medical
condition; Where the rules need to be strengthened and reviewed are in the category of
Administrations, operations and accountability. The rules need to include language that requires use
of electronic double entry accounting systems and Point of Sale Systems(costs under $1000). The
department should in order to stream line management should look to a standard POS and off the
shelf accounting system for all dispensaries. The current language leaves too many loop holes for
dishonest accounting/double books. R9-17-307. Administration A. A dispensary shall: 1. Develop,
document, and implement policies and procedures regarding: a. Job descriptions and employment
contracts, including personnel duties, authority, responsibilities, and qualifications; personnel
supervision; training in and adherence to confidentiality requirements; periodic performance
evaluations; and disciplinary actions; b. Business records, including manual or computerized records
of assets and liabilities, monetary transactions, journals, ledgers, and supporting documents, including
agreements, checks, invoices, and vouchers; c. Inventory control, including tracking, packaging,
accepting marijuana from qualifying patients and designated caregivers, and disposing of unusable
marijuana; d. Qualifying patient records, including purchases, denial of sale, delivery options, if any,
confidentiality, and retention; e. Patient education and support, including availability of different
strains of marijuana and the effects of the different strains, information about and effectiveness of
various forms and routes of medical marijuana administration, methods of tracking the effects on a
qualifying patient of different strains and forms of marijuana, routes of administration of marijuana,
and prohibition on the smoking of medical marijuana in public places; 2. Maintain copies of the
policies and procedures at the dispensary and provide copies to the Department for review upon
request; 3. Employ or contract with a medical director; 4. Not allow an individual who does not
possess a dispensary agent registry identification card issued under the dispensary registration
certificate to: a. Serve as a principal officer or board member for the dispensary, b. Serve as the
medical director for the dispensary; c. Be employed by the dispensary, d. Have access to medical
marijuana at a food establishment contracted to infuse medical marijuana into edible food products
for the dispensary; or e. Provide volunteer services at or on behalf of the dispensary; and 5. Provide
written notice to the Department, including the date of the event within ten days after the date, when
a dispensary agent no longer: a. Serves as a principal officer or board member for the dispensary, b.
Serves as the medical director for the dispensary, c. Is employed by the dispensary, d. Has access to
medical marijuana at a food establishment contracted to infuse medical marijuana into edible food
products for the dispensary, or e. Provides volunteer services at or on behalf of the dispensary. The
following rules are unrealistic in commercial plant husbandry and cultivation. Please consult a
greenhouse growing specialist. Have you calculated the potential product production per square foot
of grow space? C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the
acquire medical marijuana; DRAFT 12/17/10 36 12/17/10 3. May only acquire medical marijuana
from another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up
to 30% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated
caregivers from another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5.
Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other
dispensaries. The below R9-17-310 represents an undo burden on patient, and caregiver. - Few
other specialty drugs/conditions require such cumbersome requirements- For the much more
dangerous HIV medications there is no "tracking" of symptoms, rating scale for pain or additional time
wasting activities. Pharmacists do not ask you to rate or track your pain when they fill a script for any
other pain reliever. R9-17-310. Medical Director A system for a qualifying patient or the qualifying
patient's designated caregiver to document the qualifying patient's pain, cachexia or wasting
syndrome, nausea, seizures, muscle spasms, or agitation that includes: a. A log book, maintained by
the qualifying patient and or the qualifying patient's designated caregiver, to track the use and effects
of specific medical marijuana strains and products; b. A rating scale for pain, cachexia or wasting
syndrome, nausea, seizures, muscles spasms, and agitation; c. Guidelines for the qualifying patient's
self-assessment or, if applicable R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis- current scripted
pharmaceuticals, food products or tobacco product labeling does not require the labeling of materials
used in the growing of the product. The use of organic vs non organic in the terms of fertilizers and
pesticides is in appropriate and misleading. Organic Nicotine insect compounds have more lethality
potential than off the shelf compounds. R9-17-317. Cleaning and Sanitation Insufficient definition
and direction â€“ not appropriate this section needs to broken into more subsections with each
addressing cultivation area, food preparation, retail front. In commercial green house management
there needs to be issues addressing cross contamination, plant disease, the use of chemical sterilents,
the use of gloves during processing or cutting of plant materials. Item B.1 cleaning the dispensary
agents hands and exposed portions of arms in hand washing sink needs to be fleshed out to include
the method, and duration type of soap or sanitizing agent used. There needs to be a
â€œgloveâ€requirement put into rule before the handling of any food, equipment, utensil- this
needs to be identical to food handling code and rule. R9-17-318. Physical Plant Though truly
minimal the rules need to be addressed requiring a public accessible bathroom in each retail space
(think chemo therapy patients and access) Hand washing sinks should meet safe food handling
requirements and have WARM water available. â€¢ Signage and labeling shall be required for
storage areas and cupboards. â€¢ If food product is prepared or portioned on site a three
compartment sink and hotwater suppy â€¢ Commercial dishwasher that attains temp of 180
degrees â€¢ Uses only approved commercial sterilizing agents.
PHYSICIAN: Drop the rule of seeing a physician 4 times. A licensed physician is the primary person
who can offer compassionate care to any individual in need of medical marijuana. The requirement of
four times is just a way to deny a person who really needs medical marijuana. It seems to be a slap in
the face of people who voted to make medical marijuana legal. THE 70/30 RULE: The State will
already have a means of tracking producition and dissemination of the grown marijuana. The
cultivation factory has to be able to sell its product to other dispensaries if it is to survive in this highly
regulated enviornment. SCRAP THE 70/30% RULE. MEDICAL DIRECTOR: This provision only adds to
the cost of medical marijuana, SCRAP IT! COST OF SETTING UP A DISPENSARY: Set up a preliminary
approval system where one could get a license to operate based on the proper location and approval
by the City Where the cultivation building or Dispensary would be located. Then inspect and apply the
rules that the cultivation or dispensary would have to meet in order to finalize its license. Make the
time limits as you like, but don't expect someone to put all the money out up front with no idea that
he or she may not be approved.
As discussed above we believe the Draft Rules are an excellent starting point for a well regulated and
functional program. The intent, clearly, is to create a program that is as safe, secure, and transparent
as possible while at the same time ensuring that reputable dispensaries can adequately operate to
provide medicine to legitimate patients. The revisions we suggest below are intended to help achieve
this goal. 1. Demonstration of Financial Securityâ€”Surety Bond In order to ensure that only the
most capable and reputable applicants are awarded dispensary licenses, it is incumbent upon DHS to
ensure that prospective applicants have the financial ability and fiscal responsibility necessary to
operate a dispensary. Operating a reputable, safe and viable dispensary will be a very expensive and
financially risky endeavor. It would be a disservice to both the State and to qualifying patients to
allow applicants that do not have the required financial wherewithal or fiscal integrity to proceed.
The Draft Rules clearly attempt to address this issue with provisions addressing unpaid taxes and the
posting of a surety bond. See R9-17-302(B)(1)(f). However the Rules do not provide any details
regarding the surety bond. Furthermore, according to our research and discussions with
underwriters, they are unable and unwilling to issue a bond without specific guidelines from the State
regarding why and when the bond would be called. This may make timely compliance with the rule
impractical if not impossible. As a remedy to this uncertainty, we suggest allowing applicants to
demonstrate financial capability with additional options such as a letter of credit, or preferably
documentation of a specified amount deposited in an escrow account. We suggest that an
appropriate sum for this requirement is $250,000. This will ensure that dispensary applicants are able
to fulfill the facility, security and operational expenses that they would incur in establishing a fully
compliant dispensary. We have provided specific language and edits to the Rules below. 2. Prior
Local Land Use Approvalâ€”Certificate of Occupancy As discussed above, the Rules properly require
local land use approval as a prerequisite to a complete application. However as currently written, the
Rules appear to go beyond this by requiring a Certificate of Occupancy as evidence of local approval of
the use. See R9-17-302 (B)(5). This is problematic and not at all feasible. In order to obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy, an applicant would have to actually construct all the necessary
improvements for the property including obtaining all building permits and passing all inspections.
This is particularly burdensome because these facilities are going to require substantial improvements
before being suitable for cultivation or dispensary operations. These improvements are likely to
include significant structural modifications to meet the stringent security requirements. It is simply
not feasible to require prospective applicants to invest the capital and time required to make these
improvements without knowing whether or not they will obtain a license. In addition to this
unnecessary risk, it would be a waste of valuable local resources and funds to issue permits and
perform inspections on facilities that ultimately may not be awarded a license. The effect of this
would be to discourage rational and responsible applicants; an undesirable and certainly unintended
consequence. However, the intent of this provision (i.e. ensuring local jurisdiction approval and land
use compatibility) can be achieved without these problems by revising this section to simply require
evidence from the local jurisdiction that the Applicantâ€™s proposed facility complies with all local
zoning restrictions and land use regulations and will be required to obtain building permits and
certificates of occupancy prior to beginning operations. We suggest specific language below which
will ensure local approval without the undue burden and unintended consequences of the Certificate
of Occupancy. 3. Medical Director Qualificationâ€”Naturopathic Doctors We applaud the inclusion
of the Medical Director requirement, however the qualifications for this positions as stated in the
Draft Rules have inappropriately omitted Naturopathic Doctors from eligibility. Naturopaths have
education and licensing requirements that are as stringent and sometimes more expansive than M.D.s
or D.O.s. Further, naturopaths are uniquely qualified to serve as Director to a MMJ Dispensary
because of their education and experience in alternative healing methods and in particular herbal
therapies. To omit Naturopaths from this role would do a disservice to patients and seems illogical
and unjustified. 4. Ensuring Secure Patient Access--Biometrics Crucial to the success of the
Initiative and the Rules is ensuring safe secure patient access, and preventing unauthorized users from
obtaining MMJ. The patient database and registry ID cards requirements in the Rules go a long way
towards achieving that goal. Unfortunately this system still leaves an easily exploitable loophole
which could be used to obtain MMJ illegally. The system, as proposed, requires a patient to have a
valid registry ID card. However there is no way to be 100% certain that the patient is actually the valid
cardholder. For example, the card could be a fake, or the cardholder could look very similar to the
actual patient whose card was lost or stolen. In addition, by working in tandem with a disreputable
Dispensary Agent, a fake patient could purchase MMJ using a valid patientâ€™s ID card without
leaving evidence of the illegal transaction. All of this could be eliminated by requiring Dispensaries to
verify a patientâ€™s identity using biometrics (e.g. a thumbprint). This will prevent illegal transactions
from occurring and will help ensure that any potential bad actors are identified and reported. The
proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verify information from the Stateâ€™s medical
marijuana electronic verification system and enter additional information into the system relating to
the transaction. The technology is available to allow this process to be automated so that the
dispensary computer directly communicates with the medical marijuana electronic verification system
without a human user being required to enter the information. This automatic communication from
computer-to-computer would reduce the chances of human error while reviewing or inputting
information, and thus better prevent fraud and improper dispensing of medical marijuana. It would
also mean that human users could not alter or enter fraudulent information, again reducing the
chances for fraud or abuse of the medical marijuana system. 5. Cultivationâ€”70/30 Split
Requirement. The requirement in the Draft Rules that Dispensaries must cultivate at least 70% of
their product (allowing only up to 30% to be obtained from other dispensaries/caregivers) is very
troubling (See R9-17-307(C)). First and foremost, it is difficult to determine what the point of this Rule
is. Second, regardless of its goal, inclusion of this Rule is likely to result in unintended consequences
that run contrary to the intent of the Initiative and the Rules. Such a requirement will force those
who wish to operate a dispensary into cultivation, and those who wish only to cultivate into retail
dispensing. The end result of this would be to provide patients with less consistent quality medicine.
As those who have interest and expertise in one aspect of the industry do not necessarily have
interest or expertise in the other. Take the example of an applicant who has a unique talent for
growing high quality medical marijuana and a strong background in growing but either has no desire
or lacks the knowhow to run a safe, secure, and well functioning dispensary business. In the
alternative, one can imagine a career pharmacist who has successfully operated pharmacies for years
but lacks the knowledge of how to grow high quality, medical grade marijuana. It would appear that
each of these individuals should be encouraged to be applicants but that it is in no oneâ€™s interest
for these people to be forced into the part of the business that they are not properly trained to excel
at. The State should want to encourage responsible and quality growers and dispensers of medical
marijuana. The 70/30 requirement on the other hand encourages applicants to reach into segments
of the business they might not be good at. By mandating this, DHS prevents optimization of the
industry which will lead to both failed dispensaries and less consistent quality of medicine for
patients. Furthermore, if the intent of the draft Rule is to facilitate tracking of all MMJ from seed to
sale, the 70/30 split hinders this goal rather than advancing it. If the intent of the Rule is to more
easily track and control MMJ inventory, it seems like it would make sense for the State to consolidate
the growing as much as possible into fewer locations. Consolidation is good as there are fewer such
sites for law enforcement and the State to monitor; the 70/30 rule on the other hand means every
dispensary owner must cultivate as well, leading to a proliferation of grow facilities. A greater number
of facilities are not only more difficult to keep safe and monitory, but it also increases the temptation
and opportunity for less reputable licensees to divert MMJ. Finally, by mandating a program that has
more growers with less expertise, DHS is essentially mandating that some (many) patients will receive
less consistent quality of medicine. To be clear, we do feel that people should be allowed to own both
a dispensary and a cultivation location but it should not be mandated as such. 6. Cultivation Facility
Requirements--Greenhouses As discussed above the Draft Rules do an excellent job of
contemplating the necessary security measures and protocols to ensure that cultivation facilities are
not compromised by prospective criminals. However one particular provision of the Rules may go
unnecessarily far in its pursuit of this goal. Pursuant to the language of the Initiative all cultivation
must occur inside an â€œEnclosedâ€ facility. The Rules define Enclosed as having a solid roof or
being covered by a welded or woven metal top. It is important that these Rules are flexible enough to
allow a locked and secured greenhouse facility to qualify for cultivation. It would be wasteful and
unnecessary to prevent cultivators from utilizing natural light as a resource. Indoor Cultivation
requires massive amounts of electricity and can be a strain on the existing electric grid. Allowing a
secure greenhouse on the other hand is more environmentally friendly, more cost effective and can
still be accomplished in a safe secure manner. 7. Product Testing The Rules should require
cultivators to test their product for contaminants and for THC levels and cannabinoid profiles.
Without this information it will be very difficult for patients to identify which strain of MMJ works best
for their particular condition. Further, patients have a right to know that their medicine is free from
contaminants such as mold and pesticides. 8. Employee Education The Rules should require a
basic level of education for all dispensary employees and volunteers. Education of dispensary
employees and cultivation employees should be mandatory and should be pursued at a reputable and
accredited institution. Dispensary owners and employees need education in regulatory compliance,
accounting, strain education, and medical education. Cultivators and their employees require years of
training in growing techniques, use of pesticides, strain identification, testing methods, botany,
nutrients, construction, lighting, HVAC, environmental issue, pesticides, biology, etc. The only way to
get the best medicine to the patient is for cultivators to be trained in the latest techniques from
experts in the industry. The Rules should also encourage patients to seek educational opportunities
and should require dispensaries to offer information on where patients can get further educational
information. 9. Initial MMJ Cropsâ€”Seeds or Clones The Rules are so far are silent as to how a
dispensary is allowed to start their initial crop. However, the only way to be certain that patients have
access to quality medicine from the beginning is to allow dispensaries to utilize clones from plants
with a history of producing quality medicine. If on the contrary, DHS decided to require all cultivation
to begin from seed it would be impossible to know whether the resulting crop would be of sufficient
quality. 10. Applicant Selectionâ€”Competitive Process Currently, it appears that the Rules will
award applicants based on a first-come-first-served basis. While this may ultimately prove workable
as the stringent requirements will likely discourage many applicants, we are concerned about what
would happen if there are more qualified applicants than available licenses and those applicants have
exactly the same time frame. In this scenario, we believe it is incumbent upon DHS to have a fallback
Rule which implements a competitive selection process, potentially administered by a third party.
This is the only way DHS can ensure that the limited licenses go to the best possible applicants. This
system could also be used when another license becomes available either through growth of the
program or revocation of an existing license.
How are you going to select companies to get the 124 licenses? This needs to be publisized. Need to
look at the requirement for a Dr. Director. This will add cost to the end product. Their is no real value
add here. The patient's own doctor should be the responsible party. We need to look to reduce the
cost of medicine to the patient! To drive the costs down, not add too much overhead. Therefore: 1)
Allow the dispensary to form a stragegic partnership with a grower. Within those partnerships, make
sure each party keeps auditable records for shipment / deliveries. Eliminate the 70/30 rule. The
ability to create the product needed in sufficent quantity, will drive the prices down thru competition
and better growing practices. 2) Do not allow them to purchase from anyone that has product to
sell! Too many gray areas. 3) Keep the AZ only language in the document. We Arizonan's can figure
out how to produce product cheaply and drive the price down to the $100 level. 4) Dispensary /
growers - allow them to find locations after the award of licenses. Give them 90 days to find and get
approval of location on a first come first serve basis. The number of applications will greatly
outweight the allowed number of dispensaries licenses. This will help us who are trying to get into
this business.
Nope sorry. Lighten up 1. Lower Fees 2. Expand condition list 3. Lighten time regulations 4.
Eliminate 25 mile rule Making someone wait one year under doctor's care??? Are you kidding.
What kind of joke is this? It is obvious the department has no idea of how the treatment can
immediately improve coditions. You are also not allowing others that need this treatment to have
access with only including very limited conditions. Expand the condition list!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Depression,
Pain (you want people who suffer with pain to jump through more hoops?) fibromyalgia??? Do you
want me to continue to add to the black market and support the Mexican cartels???? What are you
afraid of. Loosen up big brother regulators! This isn't crack people. Secondly a medical director. This
is an insult. You want taxpayers to pay for a person to oversee the distribution and needs a medical
designation. What a waste to time and money. We are talking about distributing material grown from
a plant right? I have been self medicating myself for many years. I am an upstanding citizen of the
community and pay my taxes and hold a regular job. My condition is not listed in your draft, so I am
out of luck? It helps me live and function properly. Why should you be albe to determine if I can use or
can't if i am responsible? you if you block me.
I have a qualifying disability. Yesterday my doctor advised me that he is not allowed to make a medical
marijuana recommendation due to his clinic's policies. It is the largest clinic in northern Arizona and is
the only service provider in many of the small rural communities. My insurance will not allow me to
see anyone else. I need to keep my physician but I also need medical marijuana. Please allow me to
keep my physician but also see another physician for a recommendation.
Simplify, simplify, simplify! I have read the suggetions from , and I believe they are the
most clear of any, and they make greater sense.
By killing drug cartels and other people that would do harm to the innocent civilians and their
children, and all citizens of this great state. Oh, and stop letting them pay off politicians.
If I understand the language correctly, it appears that dispesaries and cultivation sites must be fully
functioning minus any product prior to certification. I am concerned that the dispensary
requirements are so stringent that there will be few that qualify for certification. The lack of
dispencaries may result in a large numbers of patients that must cultivate their own marijuana.
Personal cultivation may be difficult if not impossible for many patients. HIPAA rules must be applied
to all sections of R917-203. Remote surviellance of security camers and customers activity should be
protected and not reviewed without proper reason such as criminal investigations. The requirement
of surviellance does not specify who may access the video and under what conditions. All measure
must be taken to protect a patients privacy. Due to the controversial nature of R9-17202, the
opportunity for abuse of patient information is significant.
I am concerned about the potential for misuse of medical marijuana. Therefore, below are some of
my suggestions:
If a qualified, licensed physician determines a patient can benefit from a recommendation for
marijuana use, and the patient is comfortable with the recommendation, the recommendation should
be issued without delay. No other prescription for medicine, not even narcotics, are treated with such
scrutiny that a patient must suffer with a debilitating condition for a year before relief is given. I don't
understand the delay given the terminal condition of the patients meeting the criteria.
Most of our concerns are around the issue of edibles: - Can a dispensary subcontract with another
entity to prepare the edibles? If yes, what are the rules for the subcontractor? Must they comply
with the same rules as the dispensary regarding inventory, security, etc.? - If a dispensary can
subcontract for edibles, and it appears they can, will there be additional rules addressing co-mingling
with other food products. That is, the marijuana will need to be ground to a flour type consistency or
infused in an oil to be made into edibles. If the subcontractor also produces food products other than
medical marijuana edibles as well, there will be a need to address sanitation of surfaces between
uses, etc. If these rules don't address this, local ordinances will need to be developed, and you could
have fifteen different sets of rules by ordinance. - R9-17-314 B. states that if medical marijuana is
provided as part of an edible food product must also include a statement that "This product...was
produced without regulatory oversight for health, safety or efficacy..."). R9-17-316A.1. requires that
the facility "...has a food establishment permit pursuant to 9.A.A.C.8, Article 1 and that local
ordinances and requirements of the local health department..." These statements seem to conflict. A
food permit assumes regulatory oversight. Please clarify what is meant in R9-17-314 B about lack of
regulatory oversight. - A.R.S. 36-901 does not include marijuana as a food additive. Will these rules,
in essence, add marijuana as an additive or will there be new rules to address adding medical
marijuana as a food additive under this statute (36-901)? While the Smokefree Arizona statute is
silent on smoking related to medical marijuana, can and should the rules address this gap. Items to
consider: smoking in dispensaries, other public buildings, outdoor patios and parks, public places with
children. Since Smokefree Arizona is not pre-emptive, local ordinance could be more restrictive (as it
is in Coconino County and some of the cities and towns in Coconino County). Will the use of
vaporizers (hookahs) be allowed in dispensaries? If not generally, will it be allowed for the purpose of
teaching patients how to use it? Will hookahs be allowed in other public places?
The requirement for site inspection as a condition of dispencary license approval should be modified
to state that on-going site inspections are a requirement for RETENTION of the license. The initial site
inspection can certainly be a condition of "release for retail" - that is inspection must be completed
before retail transactions can be made. The requirement for site inspection BEFORE license approval
will prevent a fair entry into this opportunity for those who are inventsing substantial money to build
NEW facilities from the ground up, leveraging state-of-the-art security, controls, and safety measures.
Even a preliminary granting of a license - contingent on a subsequent successful site inspection would
be far more equitable.
Repugnant assumptions in the draft regulations The unstated but evident fundamental assumptions
of the regulations are immoral, lawless, cruel, elitist, and demagogic, utterly incompatible with moral
imperatives of a decent free nation. These repugnant assumptions are: 1) the lives of Arizona's
citizens belong to the State; the State, not the patient, will decide if, when, and what care patients will
receive; 2) the department of Health Services is, as its spokesperson has indicated, above the law and
may disregard the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act to usurp authority; and 3) the department may
patronize the wealthy and elite to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the suffering, dying, and
good citizens at large. In your introduction of the draft regulations you even opined that you drafted
the regulations for the â€œgoodâ€ of the opponents of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, a bizarre
concept akin to â€œSegregation is no longer the law, but the department is obliged draft rules to
satisfy segregationists.â€ Reminders Patients, not the State, own their own lives, so have the right
to choose if, who, when, and what kind of medical care they will seek. Marijuana is completely safe in
itself, cannot be lethal, and so should be treated as a safe, effective, and legal product as the findings
of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act require, certainly not treated with more stringency than is
currently required for the dispensing of drugs, prescription or otherwise, from Arizona's pharmacies
and physician offices, The safety, efficacy, and legality of medical marijuana warrant the spread, not
the suppression, of its use. For these reasons and in view of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
medical marijuana services must be readily available to the qualifying patients and dispensary
licensing must not be available only to an elite and wealthy group. Partial listing of defects ARS 36-
2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services
rulemaking be â€œwithout imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensariesâ€¦.â€ In no way do the MPP/AZDHS draft regulations respect that requirement. Quite
the contrary, the regulations impose unacceptable burdens not only on dispensaries, but on the
suffering, dying, and good citizens of Arizona. ARS 28.1 Section 2 â€œFindingsâ€ of the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies
offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly,
yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site
arbitrary, and unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and
unreasonable burden. 6 to 8 foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security
for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
department. It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the
authority to deny the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-
2806.12. R 9-17-101.16, R 9-17-101.17, R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.G.13(e)I ,
R9-17-202.G.13(e)iii , R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9-17-204.A.4(h), R9-17-204.B , R9-17-204.B.4(f)I, and R9-
17-204.B.4(f)Iii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp authority denied to the department.
Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an
assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not give the department
authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require
multiple assessments, require â€œongoingâ€ care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way,
responsibility for a patientâ€™s care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a
requisite training or experience to do so. The departmentâ€™s regulations are a cruel, unreasonable,
and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patientsâ€™ rights of choice, including their rights
to choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information, or even to choose not to
seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application).
R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-
17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5
only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or
amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m)
are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patientsâ€™
provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-
activities of daily living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to
accomplish their activities of daily life. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The
regulation only allows suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical
conditions to the list of qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is
cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure
an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii and R9-17-202.F.5(h) are cruel, arbitrary,
unreasonable, and usurp patientsâ€™ rights to choose other providers or sources of information. R9-
17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-
have the authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal
officers or board members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security
measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-toxic marijuana that exceed security
measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from Arizona
pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials beyond what the law requires,
require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance, or regulate the
portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary
or caregivers. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to
require a medical director, much less to define or restrict a physicianâ€™s professional practice.
Arizona's pharmacies dispense drugs that are very toxic, yet are not required to have medical
directors on-site or on-call. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to
authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to require the use of soil,
rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-313.B.6 is arbitrary,
Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping by
requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite or swallow of infused food.
violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence of peer-reviewed evidence,
the department has no authority to require a statement that a product may represent a health risk.
R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section
marijuana, that is not required for toxic, even lethal, products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary,
Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic
refuse.
Delete Â§R9-17-307(C) from the rules completely.Â This section has many implications, none of
which are good for the industry, DHS, patients, or the State as a whole. Â Requiring every dispensary
to have its own cultivation operation is a security risk.Â Essentially this rule necessitates more
variables in an equation that already has inherent dangers.Â The more cultivation facilities, the more
difficult they will be to monitor and keep secure. Â Additionally, by requiring each dispensary to
grow its own marijuana you create a quality control issue.Â How can a patient rely on the consistency
of the product when it is grown by different operations under varying conditions? How will DHS
manage to analyze that multitude of plants?Â Logistically it would be much easier to ensure a high
quality product reaches the end user by permitting the market to establish fewer high production
cultivation operations that supply multiple dispensaries.Â Unfortunately, as written now, Â§R9-17-
307(C) does not allow for this. Â Realistically, Â§R9-17-307(C) closes the door on the possibility for
central grow operations can establish themselves.Â This creates a heavy burden on DHS and other
authorities not just for security and quality reasons, but also in terms of monitoring and tracking
inventory.Â If a dispensary needs to grow 70% of what it sells, can only import 30% of what it sells,
and may not export more than 30% of what it grows to other dispensaries, there will be a book
keeping nightmare. Â Not only will the rules will be greatly simplified by deleting Â§R9-17-307(C),
but it is in the Stateâ€™s best interest to do so.Â It will reduce the burden on an already underfunded
government to monitor and secure over one hundred and twenty cultivation operations, and ensure
that pure and safe medicine reaches those who are in need of it.
I believe the doctor-patient relationship portion can be improved. It is too restrictive as proposed. I
would suggest 2 visits rather than 4 is appropriate. I would also clarify the provision that the number
of visits could be waived if the doctor accepts responsibility for treatment by specifying that that the
doctor may still refer to other specialists as appropriate for treatment of the subject condition without
abrogating the requirement for primary responsibility. Often times primary doctors refer to
specialists, and this ability should be should be included as a provision in the rules.
Delete requirement for a Licensed Medical Doctor for dispensaries. Maybe a Registered Nurse but any
employee can be trained for this procedure. Delete the requirement for dispensaries to grow and
purchase in any ratio! Fees for patients to get a medical marijuana cards should be waived for those
using state health care. $5000.00 non-refundable... make a process that the state only keeps a
processing fee if applicant does not get granted the dispensary license. Delete the requirement for
patients to get authorization from the state to cultivate. Delete the requirement for caregivers to
get authorization to cultivate.
Please consider the legal definition of a physician patient relationship as defined by the courts in your
final definition; "The physician-patient relationship is regarded as a fiduciary relationship, in which
mutual trust and confidence are essential. A physician is held to a standard of medical care defined by
the accepted standards of practice in his or her area of practice. Some of the obligations of a
physician's duty of due care include the obligation to fully inform the patient of his or her condition, to
continue to provide for medical care once the physician-patient relationship has been established, to
refer the patient to a specialist, if necessary, and to obtain the patient's informed consent to the
medical treatment or operation." Numerous court decisions have held that: "Once the physician-
patient has been established, it continues until it is ended by the consent of the parties or revoked by
the dismissal of the physician, or until the physician's services are no longer needed. Without proper
notice of withdrawal, affording the patient ample opportunity to seek alternative care, the physician's
termination of services to the patient could be held to be an abandonment, subjecting the physician
to the charge of negligence and liability to the patient for any damages proximately caused by such
negligence." Please ensure that the ongoing part of the definition is established in the final rule.
adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic system of hardware and
marijuana electronic verification system.
1. Medical Director Definition: Should change to include any Doctor who is permitted under Title 36
to recommend Medical Marijuana. 2. Ongoing Definition: AZDHS should rely on the
recommendation of a Arizona licensed Physician, regardless of the relationship period, so long as the
recommending physician complies with the provisions of Title 36, or until such time as there is
evidence of fraud. 3. ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona
Department of Health Services rule making be implemented â€œwithout imposing an undue burden
on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensariesâ€¦.â€ 4. ARS 28.1 Section 2 â€œFindingsâ€ of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies
demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizonaâ€™s pharmacies and
physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially
deadly, yet Arizonaâ€™s pharmacies and physician offices are not required to have on-site
transmission of video surveillance or any of the unusually high security requirements. These
requirements should be modified to reflect the same requirements imposed on compounding
pharmacies. However, in your defense, dispensary owners would be foolish not to have high security
for their own interest as that is the greatest issue faced by those I know in California and Colorado.
5. R 9-17-101.10 falls under this same category of being an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot
high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. 6. R 9-
17-101.15 is reasonable at first glance but then I realized that the department does not have the
authority to deny the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-
2806.12. 7. R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-
203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 seem to be . ARS 36-2803.5 only gives
authority to the department for application and renewal fees, not for changes of location or amending
or replacing cards. 8. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-202.G.1(i), and R9-17-204.B.1(m) seem
somewhat arbitrary. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patientsâ€™ parents, and their
parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. 9. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-
320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing
errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided
substantive misinformation. 10. R9-17-310 seems a bit arbitrary but is a lot like Colorado. However,
Prop 203 did not give the department the authority to require a medical director, much less to define
or restrict a physicianâ€™s professional practice. 11. R9-17-313.B.3 is unrealistic as there is no
language in Prop 203 that gives the department the authority to provide agricultural limitations. The
the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. 12. R9-17-313.B.6
seems like it was written with the intent of using the initial draft as a negotiating tool. The department
seems to have taken some liberties by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or
other bite or swallow of infused food. 13. R9-17-314.B.2 would require the DHS to provide modern
scientific evidence that medical marijuana provides a substantial health risk. Especially in the absence
of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a product
may represent a health risk. 14. R9-17-315 seems arbitrary as dispensaries are in principle no
different than pharmacies. The department has placed an undue burden by requiring security
products. 15. R9-17-317.A.2 seems arbitrary and may violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act.
The department has no authority to require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse. Additional issues:
SURETY BOND: Clarify the purpose, the type, the amount and the third party beneficiary, of the surety
bond, or eliminate its reference from the rules. NON-PROFIT ENTITY: Clarify the need to establish a
non-profit entity. Title 36 only requires an applicant to operate the dispensary under a non-profit
â€œbasisâ€. Can an applicant establish a LLC or other entity so long as his/her bylaws comply with
Title 36? 70% COOPERATIVE GROW: Clarify if a group of dispensaries can form a cooperative to grow
their medical marijuana under one roof, so long as the facility is in compliance with Title 36 and the
AZDHS rules. SEEDS: Please clarify where a dispensary owner can purchase his initial seeds.
LANDLORD RIGHTS: Please clarify landlord rights with respect to entry and inspection of a dispensary/
cultivation facility. (Assuming the landlord is not a registered agent of the Dispensary). Additionally,
please clarify access by a repair service to enter upon the restricted areas of a dispensary/cultivation
to make necessary repairs.
Oh so now we finally learn that all the public comments will be published as a PDF, a full 3 weeks after
you started the process. I like how you are citing the initiative as the final arbitor of the rules when it
suits you (i.e. the 25 mile rule) but choose to ignore it when it doesn't suit your narrow minded view
of marijuana as medicine. Please re-read the section 36-2803 Rulemaking: The Department shall
adopt rules: (b) Minimum oversight requirements for nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries. (c)
minimum recordkeeping requirements for nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries (d) Minimum
security requirements for nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries. So after reading this how do
you justify the most draconian rules in the country in regards to establishing the medical marijuana
program? You are a disservice to our state in putting together rules that even you admit will
eliminate more than 80% of the eligible patients that are legally allowed to have medical marijuana.
Thanks Mr. Humble you have shown your true colors by your actions and why aren't you being
investigated for showing up at a paid event in Pinal County at a Casino (you're listed as a panelist) with
Jordan Rose of the Rose Law Group talking to the well heeled folks about the dispensary application
process on January 15, 2011. The rule making process is still ongoing and you're out there talking
about this prior to the public hearing process? Is this fair? Are you just bought and paid for by the
syndicates headed up by MPP (Marijuana Policy Project), Rose Law Group and Joe Yuhas. Please post
all the communications from those three groups/individuals so all will be revealed. Please don't scrub
this because I'll be posting in the public comment forum which is now part of the public record.
Enjoy your days now because you'll be locked our state up in litigation if you don't revise the rules and
eliminate those high fees for patients, surveillance cameras on our citizens, 41 medical directors (what
idiot came up with this) and the 70/30 rule (are you guys on Oxycontin or something).
remove them
Article 3 subsection B. Your description of an enclosed, locked facility does not make it very
greenhouse friendly. Citizenship of the US is required in many areas of draft. Should legal resident
alien status also be included in the wording. Afterall, this is not a matter of national security.
Medical Director - Needs to be removed. The patient already has a physician. This will only add to the
cost of the patient's product Patient Requirements - A patient should not have to see a dr 4 times
before getting a medical marijuana license. Once again you are adding to the cost of the patient.
The 70% - 30% removes the being able to provide to other locations or buy from other locations if a
dispensary is unable to grow enough. The cost of setting up a dispensary and growing facility
become prohibitive, since the money has to be spent up front and you may not get a license. This rule
will make it only the very "wealthy" or conglomerates can set up a dispensary. How can you know
when you will be approved for a license? At this point it is only after the inspection and after you
have invested a lot of money and prepared a site that may not be able to be used. Most of these
rules will add to the cost of the product and make it cheaper for the patient to look for their product
elsewhere.
Nothing should be done until there has been a public discussion with U.S. Hemp about the
implementation of medical marijuana in Arizona. It is clear that Will Humble or the ADHS take an
adverserial stance toword the will of the voters and this is the first thing that must be dealt with. It is
time for Mr. Humble and the ADHS to admit that marijuana does have medical uses and it is time for
them to admit to what they knew about marijauan as a cancer treatment and when they knew it. The
studies about marijuana killing cancer cells and tumors has been supressed by the ADHS before the
vote on prop 203 and that needs to be addressed before any of these people get an oportunity to do
more sabatage to prop 203
The rules regarding the "working day" may prove to be ineffective and problematic. Not all Arizonans
work from 8 to 5 Mon through Friday. The language needs to be modified to show that the 'working
day' is established by business needs of the employer. This might help cover situations where
employees perform shift and/or weekend work. A definition of 'under the influence' needs to be
included in the rules. Based on scientific evidence, perhaps a period of time might be used...say,
smoking two hours prior to starting work, or something of that nature. And two hours is probably too
small a window. Maybe more like 4-6 depending on the person, and their tolerance to the drug.
Also, the rules might want to include language that prohibits the use of marijuana at least 24-48 hours
prior to working in safety sensitive positions like AIRPLANE PILOTS, etc. This is crucial!!
Medical marijuana should not be allowed to become a source of illicit marijuana; production should
be limited to only what is necessary to supply legitimate demand and should be strictly tracked;
medical need should be based on medical facts subject to objective review; employers should not be
forced to tolerate impaired employees or protect employees that are in violation of federal law;
second hand smoke should not be tolerated (privacy of home should be where a person smokes this
illegal drug)
Regulation of patient charges. You might consider some regulation covering the prices charged for
the medicine. It may seem inappropriate to regulate charges for medical marijuana because we live in
an open market society where demand drives cost, however there are factors involved here that don't
apply to other medicines. 1. The number of suppliers is limited by law. Whereas normal pharmacies
are not limited in number or in location, this new law does limit the number of dispensaries to a
percentile of pharmacies. This narrows the choices of a very ill patient of whom to buy from and how
close they might be. 2. There is precedent for ADHS setting prices for services; ambulance service.
Not only does ADHS regulate the amount the ambulance service provider can charge, ADHS also
regulates how many and who can provide that services through the Certificate of Necessity. This
mirrors the agency's setting limits on where dispensaries can be and who is allowed to open them.
Why not control how much charges can be? 3. Dispensaries are supposed to be non-profit.
Recovery of cost of doing business with a marginal profit is reasonable, gouging the patients who
need medical marijuana is not. By limiting charges for the product, not only would DHS be protecting
the patient from being over-charged, it would also discourage â€˜investorsâ€™ who think that
opening a dispensary is a â€˜gold-mineâ€™ opportunity. 4. Insurance does not cover marijuana.
Whereas regular medicines qualify for minimal co-pays for those who have insurance coverage,
medical marijuana is not going to be covered by any insurance company. By setting prices, DHS will
help ensure those who need the product will have a fair chance of affording it.
We can look at this two ways, one are we going to treat medical marijuana as pharmacy or as a bar?
For one thing you donâ€™t charge your patients $150 to have the right to prescription medicine such
as Codeine, Oxycodone, or Morphine for pain; or Norpramin, Azilect, or Abilify to help fight
depression; or Lumigan, Betaxolol Hydrochloride Ophthalmic, or Diamox Sequels for Glaucoma; or
Chemotherapy for Cancer patients do you? Than to top it off, charge them for the medication besides
would get quite expensive for the patients. Another issue is to have to see a doctor 4 times a year. Is
that before or after the patients are allowed their medicine? What about the people that need the
medical marijuana right away to relieve symptoms caused by Chemotherapy, Multiple Sclerosis,
Epilepsy, or Glaucoma? The idea of charging a dispensary for being there and/or having to move is
really strange. Do we charge our pharmacies like that? Not that I am aware of. See the thing is, is that
these laws being created are not treating this medicine like a medicine nor is it treating the patients
like patients either. If you are going to tax dispensaries and charge the patients to have a license to
possess medical marijuana than you ought to think about doing that to the pharmacies. Now if you
are going to treat it like alcohol in a bar situation than go ahead and tax the dispensaries like you
would a bar, but donâ€™t make patients buy a license. In fact you should legalize it like alcohol is and
just put an age limit on it. Than have everyone show their identification card (driverâ€™s license) like
you would have to at a bar to get served.
The draft rules must be discarded in their entirety and, in an open and honest process, new
regulations should be drafted to the advantage of the suffering, dying, and good citizens of Arizona.
Among the serious problems of the current proposals are the following: ARS 36-2803.4 of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be
"without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries...." ARS 28.1
Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of
the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's
pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike
department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing,
open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable
authority denied to the department. Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act.
ARS 36-2801. 18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
does not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the
department authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the
specialist that is found nowhere in the practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist
required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of
recommendation of any therapy, including therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is
not lethal, but the department usurps authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far
to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or
subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-
17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the
department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal fees,
not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.1(h), R9-17-
internet access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow
for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering
Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause considerable suffering,
yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than
cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose other providers or sources of
information. R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-
has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be
physician's professional practice. Arizona's pharmacies dispense drugs that are very toxic, yet are not
required to have medical directors on-site or on-call. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and
usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection
Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or to
require the use of soil, rather than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine. R9-17-
313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. This section
burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording of weight of each cookie, beverage, or other bite
or swallow of infused food. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to
the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in the absence
of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that a product
may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to
toxic refuse.
As a full time provider of HIV services I want it to be very clear that not ALL HIV diagnosed persons are
appropriate for the Certification Card. I would very much like to NOT have to have any part of this
process and I wish there were Marijuana Clinics that gave the certifications. I have been asked daily
when I would be able to give patients their "card". A Medical Director should be appointed for the
distribution centers. I feel that as an HIV Provider I am being forced to be a part of a program that will
force me to go against what I believe is the appropriate use of MJ, or be that mean provider that
patients will loose confidence in my "empathy".
The first is the Physician/Patient relationship. To have a one year relationship with a physician before
they can receive this medicine, is a very sensitive and serious matter. Some patients do not want to or
feel comfortable taking their complete issues of ailments over to a completely "new" physician. This
also is like telling the patient who has an oncologist for cancer related issues, to take their issue over
to a physician who is not an oncologist. One year of a relationship between physician/patient could
also be an impossible task. Some patients may just learn that they have cancer and that they need to
start treatment right away or that they may not have one full year of life left to live to be able to
change over physicians to be able to receive medical marijuana. This would limit some patients from
being able to receive the wonderful medicinal qualities of marijuana for any sorts of chemo or other
issues that effect their appetite, chronic pain or nausea related issues etc. As I am learning, this is a
ruling that is not required by other states with medicinal marijuana laws. Why have this here in
Arizona? Next issue would be the 70/30 issue for dispensaries having to cultivate 70 percent of their
own medicine and only be allowed to purchase 30 percent from other dispensaries. With some of the
federal laws kept in mind on cultivation, as far as how many plants an individual can grow before the
DEA could step in, this ruling you have made makes any dispensary flirt with the federal laws for
cultivation and puts all dispensaries and growers for the dispensaries in risk of federal prison. How will
you address this issue? Next issue is the build out on dispensaries to have to be already done and
built out, before even knowing if they will get a dispensary license. This ruling puts potential
dispensary owners in a high money bracket that stops small business free enterprise from
happening...ie: a mom and pop owned dispensary that can supply enough marijuana medicine for
patients. This ruling makes many people I have spoken with, feel that this ruling is making it possible
for 'Only the wealthy' and not make it available for small business owners who Can make a business
happen and work in this industry. Small mom and pop stores open all the time, they do and can work,
and they do and can stay in business while being productive and putting money back into the
community as well. What would we like to see? No build out mandatory before applying for a license.
We would like to see that a well made business plan be shown at the time of applying for a license.
As a physician, I find your rules alarming. The POOR need to be considered. Do not make it hard for
those patients in NEED to procure medical marijuana. In many cases it is more effective and less
dangerous than pain pills. Make application fees low, make dispensary costs low. Make it easy for the
patient to get a doctor. It is up to the doctor, not the patient, not the AZ Health Dept., to determine
whether a patient should have medical marijuana.
More clarity on the limitations of cultivation.
Implementing a two stage application process in which AZDHS: 28. TWO STAGE APPLICATION
PROCESS: R9-17-302 Applying for Dispensary Registration Certification - - Review the principals and
legal entity first. - Perform whatever background checks AZDHS desires, including FBI and all the
other requirements as set forth in the proposed rules relevant to the principals and legal entities. -
Issue a conditional License to the 125 most qualified individuals subject to approval of the facilities. (
dispensary and cultivation sites) - The conditional license would require that the applicant to
complete the build-out and/or construction of the facilities within 90-120 days. - Thereafter, the
conditionally approved applicant would submit the second half of his application ( Facilities) for
inspection and approval. - The second half of the application must meet all the requirements of the
proposed rules relevant to the facilities. - Provided the applicant meets all the facility requirements
he/she would then be issued a Dispensary Registration Certificate
R9-17-102- fees To be a caregiver is to help out a very ill patient out of their goodwill. I would not
expect the caregiver to pay any money just to help out their patient in obtaining the medication that
they need. Registry Id card should cost 100 and the renewing fee should be 50. Most patients are
lower income families that just don't have the money year after year to pay . These debilitating
mediical conditions make if very difficult for them to work full time to even afford the medication for
themselves. I fully agree on the Dispensary agent for 200, would be another tax for state's economy.
R9-17-107 Time-frames B. An address for where the dispensary is to be located and a written
agreement with owner of building saying that once the license is issued on contiguity the dispensary
will then start setting up shop within 30 days must be an inspection by AZDHS R9-17-202 B. A
qualifying patient may have up to 3 care givers at any given time. Say if your caregiver becomes sick,
or an emergency happens and the caregiver is gone for 2-3 weeks. A patient needs more then one
caregiver to get their medication in a timely manner R9-17-202 F. 5 A physician's written
certification in a Department-provided format dated within "30" calendar days before the submission
of the qualifying patient's application that includes (undue wait time, the severity of the patient's
condition cannot wait 90 days in order to get a card to obtain their medication)..... R9-17-202
5a.v.Email address this should be omitted already have the doctor's license, telephone, and address
R9-17-202 5e.i. Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least
one month and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least 2 visits for the
patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship ( Living in
Arizona 'the nation's melting pot' you constantly have people moving in from out of state. They
should not have to wait for a year to get their medication R9-17-202 G. 13 Change 90 calendar days
to 30, this would be an undue burden on waiting for 3 months to get your medication. R9-17-202 G
13 e.i.(1) Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one
month and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least 2 visits for the
patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship ( Living in
Arizona 'the nation's melting pot' you constantly have people moving in from out of state. They
should not have to wait for a year to get their medication R9-17-202 C. change 30 calender days into
7 days for renewing, there is no need for the extra waiting time. R9-17-307 A. 3. Employ or contract
with a medical doctor. I believe this should be completely removed from the rules. I believe it could
create a conflict of interest. If the doctor is getting financed through a Dispensary, it create a lack of
judgement in the doctors favor. R9-17-307 A.4. Provide volunteer services at or on behalf of the
dispensary. I have a major issue with this, as a potential dispensary owner, I plan on donating 55% of
revenue into local charities and volunteer for local charities. This definitely cannot be in the rules
R9-17-307 C.1. A dispensary shall cultivate at least 25% of the medical marijuana the dispensary
provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers: (the reason for such a low % is if something
happens to the current grow, if it gets infected or something else goes wrong then the dispensary
would be shut down because it wouldn't have enough inventory to make it by. R9-17-307 C. 4.May
acquire up to 75% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients and
designated caregivers from another dispensary in Arizona. a qualifying patient, or a designated
caregiver. The reason for this is that the Dispensary needs inventory, if the Dispensary doesn't have
the inventory for a week or 2 weeks, they can very well go bankrupt and have to close their doors.
R9-17-307 C. 5. Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the
dispensary to other dispensaries. (this omission should just be deleted. For the safety and financial
security of the dispensary R9-17-315 Security C v. this should be omitted just for the reason that the
grow house will already have enough security with the large walls with barbed wire on top.
#1 R9-17-102. Fees 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $150; b.
Designated caregiver, $200; and c. Dispensary agent, $200; 6. For renewing a registry identification
card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200; and c. Dispensary agent, $200;
This is outrageous! I, for one, cannot afford to pay this. Nor could I afford the extremely high prices
of medical marijuana that is being charged in other states. Medical marijuana is supposed to be an
option to patients who have tried other drugs and procedures that haven't worked, or which have
unwanted side effects. How is anyone supposed to afford this? What if you pay all this money and it
doesn't work for you? For my family of 3, our total gross income for last year was $39,000. This puts
me out of the poverty range to get any kind of state help. My individual insurance premium alone, is
$400 per month, and my monthly co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions run $200+ per month.
These fees need to be reduced by at least 75%, or better yet, 90%. This is not supposed to be about
fees to generate revenue for an ailing state budget. It's about giving patients the freedom to try an
alternative medicine that has been used for centuries and grows wild in nature. #2- I see no
exceptions for patients living within the 25 mile range of a dispensary, to cultivate their own plants.
This forces patients to pay whatever the dispensaries are asking. Additionally, many patients would
prefer to cultivate the plants themselves, thereby allowing them to cultivate the plants without the
use of pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, etc... As an avid gardener, personally, I would not trust the
medicine I was getting if not cultivated by myself, or someone whom I know personally.
While the proposed fees for dispensaries and patients are generally reasonable, there should be a
sliding scale or low cost card for low income patients that may be on Supplemental Social Security,
Social Security Disability Insurance or Medicaid. ( R9-17-102) While it is reasonable to require there
be a legitimate physician-patient relationship, the language requiring four office visits in one year or
physician certification of primary responsibility, a comprehensive exam, reviews of medications,
medical records and continued assessment is overly restrictive. (R9-17-202) Certification by the
physician that the patient has one of the listed diseases and may be able to benefit by the use of
marijuana should be sufficient. The draft requires principal officers or board members of
dispensaries to have been Arizona residents for at least two years. (R9-17-302) This provision may
too narrowly limit the pool of dispensary principals and board members and prevent dispensaries
from benefiting from the expertise of successful dispensaries in other states. The draft requires that
70% of a dispensaryâ€™s cultivated marijuana be provided to patients or caregivers while the
remaining 30% may be provided to other dispensaries. (R9-17-307) This provision should be rejected
and replaced by an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries that does not restrict how
much of a dispensaryâ€™s medical marijuana supply must be self-produced and how much may be
acquired from other dispensaries. The draft regulation requires dispensaries to have a medical
director, either a medical doctor or osteopathic doctor with an active license. (R9-17-101) The
medical director position should be widened to include nurse practitioners, public health
professionals, toxicologists and medical and osteopathic physicians with inactive (but not invalid)
licenses. There may not be 45 medical doctors or osteopaths with active licenses in Arizona willing to
work so closely with marijuana dispensaries.
Allow open conversation and input from the parties who are interested in participating in the patient
screening, certification, cultivation, supply, and their patients. Turning a deaf ear to their needs, while
imposing regulations against them will only result in failure. If this is makes it off of the ground, I'm
sure that you would prefer these participants to work with you in a cooperative manner. Apart from
the medicinal aspects of marijuana, please consider the following facts: * over 50 years of
regulations, incarceration, and negative propaganda has done little to curtail the use of marijuana.
However, these same laws and drug screening have reduced otherwise respectable citizens into
unemployable losers (and then blame it on the 'drugs'). Existing laws are more harmful to a person's
well-being than marijuana usage itself. *Existing laws force existing marijuana users to buy from
violent drug cartels. What could be better than reducing the flow of assult weapons to Mexican
villans, while redirecting that money to legitimate local farmers and tax revenue? Legalizing the use
of marijuana among responsible adults instantly turns 'criminals' into productive tax payers. Why
should that be discouraged? There appears to be a presumption that a dispensary and a grower is
one unit. Why can't registered growers be independant suppliers to dispensaries? That would be a
more reasonable business model.
I have lived on Arizona my whole life. I currently work in a laboratory researching Alzheimerâ€™s
disease, at in Sun City. This makes me very familiar with pathology of
diseases that affect the elderly. I am involved with both clinical and molecular aspects of research. I
have a unique understand of disease, because my experience in the lab, as well as my work with
patients, doctors, and scientists. My familiarity with the mechanisms of how drugs interact with
patients, makes me a credible source of information. After many long talks with my father and
several of his friends, I have decided to work part time as their caregiver. This letter is long, because it
greatly affects the health of people I care about. I have put a lot of time and thought into it and hope
you will consider my opinion while writing future drafts. My number one concern is the restricting
placed on both doctors and patients, which prevent individuals with qualifying conditions from
obtaining a recommendation. All of my potential patients receive their medical services through
Veterans Affairs medical hospital. These patients have all requested a recommendation from the VA
doctors, but have been told that writing a recommendation is against VA policy. My patients should
not have to pay hundreds of dollars to see a doctor that is not covered by the VA. This puts patients
in a difficult position if they need medical marijuana. Either change their doctor to one that is not
covered by insurance or continue buying from illegal sources. I agree that rules need to be put in
place, which prevents individuals from gaining a recommendation with a fraudulent condition.
However I feel that the best way to address this problem is through diagnosis requirements. HIV,
cancer, glaucoma, ALS, Alzheimerâ€™s disease, Cohnâ€™s disease, hepatitis C, and multiple sclerosis
have diagnoses that are not easily faked. Any patient suffering from one of these conditions should
require no more than a recommendation, after positive diagnostic results. Requiring 4 visits, a year
long relationship, or a doctor to assume primary care (R9-17-202-F-5-e) is an unnecessary restriction
on patients. While none of my patients have cancer, this measure specifically excludes cancer
patients. When cancer is diagnosed, chemotherapy often starts right away. There is no 1 year
between diagnosis and treatment. Alternatively the patient would need their oncologist to prescribe
the medicinal marijuana. Selecting an oncologist that specializes in the patientâ€™s specific form of
cancer is already a challenge. Adding the additional requirement of finding a doctor that is
comfortable writing marijuana recommendations only hurts patient care. Prohibiting real patients
from obtaining medicinal marijuana, despite a clear diagnosis, does nothing to prevent individuals
from obtaining a patient card with an illegitimate condition. Chronic pain is the only prevision that
should require additional precautions to prevent fraudulent conditions. Chronic pain can usually be
confirmed through results from lab tests that confirm a disease or disorder with chronic pain as one of
the symptoms. If the pain is a result of an injury, x-rays or MRIs should be utilized in confirming
diagnosis. If the cause of pain is determined through reasonable diagnostics, no additional visits
should be required. My patient is missing his right leg from the knee down. The cause of his
pain is indisputable and should not require additional visits. Fraudulent claims only become a factor
when doctors are not able to confirm a cause of the chronic pain through traditional diagnostics. If
the cause of pain diagnostic tests come back negative, only then should additional appointments be
required. Doctors would be prevented from setting up shop and writing out prescriptions to anyone
with a back ache. At the same time individuals legitimately suffering from severe and chronic pain
would not be denied medical marijuana. With proper regulation we should be able to ensure that
only patients with legitimate severe and chronic pain are able to obtain a medical marijuana card.
Medical marijuana provides a significant reduction in the amounts of opiates required to relive pain.
When I first met Bill on Christmas, he was very quiet, barely ate, and had to be assisted by his wife
throughout the night. When I saw him on new years he looked like a changed man. He was very
engaging, telling jokes, and had regained his apatite. When I remarked at how good he looked, Bill
explained that he was having a bad back pain on Christmas and had to increase his dose of oxycodone.
This past New Years Eve, Bill was able to take less than half the dose of oxycodone he took on
Christmas, because of medical marijuana. Being able to cut Billâ€™s opiate prescription in half will
add years to his life, and ensure that he is coherent enough to enjoy them. In my opinion, sustained
use of opiates to relieve pain is a terrible treatment. Patients slowly build up a tolerance, leading to
higher and higher doses of opiates. This continues until the dosage is so high, it causes repertory
depression, which can lead to infections, respiratory arrest, or circulatory collapse. Delaying this
opiate tolerance will dramatically improve the lives of many elderly citizens suffering from chronic
pain. My second major concern is in regards to requiring dispensaries to grow a 70% of their own
marijuana. Colorado has this requirement to minimize the number of unregulated cultivation sights.
Arizonaâ€™s law ensures that all medical marijuana comes from a regulated source. By preventing
dispensaries from trading merchandise, you are restricting patientsâ€™ choices. I donâ€™t want to be
forced into driving half way across the state to get the most effective strain for my patient. Free trade
among dispensaries will also hasten the time it takes dispensaries to be up and running. This benefits
the state by reducing the number of patient and caregiver cultivators. In the beginning there will be
no dispensaries, and all patients and caregivers will have the right to cultivate. The sooner
dispensaries become operational, the sooner patients stop qualifying to cultivate. I do not want tens
of thousands of people cultivating medical marijuana with dangerous, high voltage, equipment
throughout the state. I am not looking forward to cultivating for the first few months, and hope
dispensaries are open ASAP, so I can obtain the medicinal marijuana cultivated by others. Allowing
dispensaries to trade freely, will decrease patient cultivation, encourage specialization, and ensure
that the most effective varieties of medical marijuana are available to all patients. The free market is
an excellent way to ensure that the best dispensaries are able to operate in Arizona. Keeping the cost
of medical marijuana down is a deep concern for me and my patients. This is why I would encourage
the removal of several provisions that increase the cost of marijuana. I am concerned with
dispensaries obligations to have a medical director and pharmacist on staff. This easily adds $300,000
to the annual cost of running a dispensary, while providing no benefit to the patient. It also requires
the doctor to give up their practice, in a state already in desperate need of more doctors. I fail to see
how requiring these two superfluous positions provide any benefit to the patients. I understand that
it is a good idea to provide information to patients, but MDs are there to treat patients not write
pamphlets. Distributing health information could be taken care of by anyone with hospital, or medical
research experience at a far lower cost. Requiring patients to pay 37.5 million a year to support
unneeded doctors in 125 dispensaries will only drive prices up and lead patients back to the black
market. Inspection of dispensary facilities is another area that I felt needed improvement in
efficiency. I like that ADHS require internet accessible cameras. Internet cameras ensure safety of
dispensary agents, offers protection from theft, and ensure that the marijuana is obtained from a
legal source. If cameras only record 100 plants being harvested, but the dispensary reports obtaining
500 plants worth of marijuana, the dispensary can be reported to the police. I also believe ADHS
needs to address why it is inspecting. ADHS should be preventing patients from receiving diseased or
unhealthy plants, and ensuring the marijuana is obtained from a legal source. I think the once a
month inspection is far too often for most dispensaries. Many of these cultivation sites are planned in
remote places in Northern Arizona. It would be unpractical for ADHS agents spending a several hour
long drive to inspect each facility every month. A well run dispensary and cultivation site should be
inspected 2-3 times a year at most. Only when sanitation or inventory problems arrive should ADHS
increase inspections. ADHS could require the destruction of all diseased plants, and require an
additional inspection within one month. If the problem is solved, there is no need for further
inspection. If a dispensary is suspected of obtaining illegal marijuana, or making illegal sales the police
should become involved. Due to the location of the dispensary and cultivation sights being known,
police can easily run surveillance and incarcerate any individuals involved in illegal sales. All ADHS
needs to do is ensure sanitation and reporting of inventory discrepancies to the police. Inventory was
a portion of the law that ADHS did a very well job regulating. I like that the source of each marijuana
purchase is recorded. This ensures that any illegal trading is caught quickly. Verifying the marijuana
strain is a provision that will prevent medical marijuana from being combined with illegal pot. I think
the inventory section was well written and is need of only minor changes. My only two concerns
regarding inventory involves weighing procedures and details of what ADHS is doing with the medical
marijuana samples. I feel that weighing unusable marijuana seems unneeded. While keeping track of
the number of plants and the amount of usable marijuana seems reasonable, requiring a dispensary
to weigh something that would otherwise be trash is just increasing the cost of production. I also
think ADHS needs to define its goals for sampling the marijuana. A statement that ADHS wants to
ensure there crops are disease free, or not from illegal sources would be enough.
Starting with ARTICLE 3. DISPENSARIES R9-17-302 APPLYING FOR A DISPENSARY REGISTRATION

CERTIFICATE B. 1. Is asking for names of board members and name of the person applying for this
business as well as the personal info of who is applying. When this is suppose to be about the
Dispersary the actual facility the non profit business. It shouldn't be asking if this Non Profit business
has any of the following in Section R9-17-302 APPLYING FOR A DISPENSARY REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE B. 1. f i-iv. If this has to be asked about the principal officers and board members what
should it matter if people have a judgement,default on student loans or failed to pay child support.
When a pharmacy apply for a license the pharmacist doesn't have to disclose this. It is the agents that
is owed this or the person that owes this to make arraigement to pay this. How can you determine by
this to allow a business to have a license. For Section R9-17-302 APPLYING FOR A DISPENSARY
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE B. 2. If you are applying through this process with the 5,000 fee. Why
shoould you be applying again as a agent and paying an additional 200.00 dollars. Section R9-17-302
APPLYING FOR A DISPENSARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE B. 3. c i. I see this everywhere throughout
the draft saying fingerprints in a Department provided format. Please clarify if you only want a
fingerprint card or if you are cleared already with a clearance will that be acceptable. I'm hoping that
everywhere that has Department provided format that these items we will have access to this before
that application is given out to the public so that the people that are applying for a dispensary will be
able to have everything in place to turn in the application. Section R9-17-302 APPLYING FOR A
DISPENSARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE 4 Policies and procedures I feel that the State law has asked
the minimum of the Health Department for its record keeping, security, and inventory that should get
turned in every year to the legislature stated in the Prop 203 36-2809 Annual report 1-7. It should be
the same the Health Department should ask the same from dispensaries. The law states in 36-2803 4.
(a) (b) (c) (d) MINIMUM. Please keep it to that. Hours of operation should be what the business
wants them to be it shouldn't be that dispensary should have the same hours of governmental jobs.
Dispensaries operate normally on the weekend and later hours. Medical Director how can a non
profit pay a medical director salary. In the Draft R9-17-202 5. e-k shows all about the relationship
between a patient and a physician. The physician has an on-going relationship with the patient and
should explain to the patient everything and there needs and should continue a relationship with the
patient. Inspections: There should be security measure that all facilities take for precautions but the
Health Department having authorized remote access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system
and cultivation site is a violation of peoples privacy rights. There is quite a bit of things that you are
over stepping the law by what power you want over dispensaries. It shouldn't be that everytime a
patient comes in we document what educational support they are given all this educational material
should be placed if your facility so patients can review it with comfort and not forced to take it.
Inventory control system there is no need to have to disclose to anyone your harvest dates soil
watering schedule all this is a cultivators personal information on how they grow. Labeling its
understandable to put the strain,amount, if its a sativa or indica dispensary name but everything else
is personal information. The samething goes for edibles we should put on the label what medical
marijuana is in it and that information that the Health Department wants posted on all labels but
nothing more If you want the dispensary to keep patients records for five years what good is it to
have the database to enter everything in for the Health Department isn't that what we are keeping
such good track of having this database to keep track of things. Clean and sanitation how can you
say if someone has to have there nails trimmed short no polish no false nails this is over doing your
boundaries.
The first draft of the rules and regulations were beyond the scope of authority that the AMMA law
provided for ADHS. While I realize it is a tactic to make the rules very restrictive and then back off
some, I think that ADHS has set an adversarial position with patients, caregivers, dispensary
agents,and medical professionals. Only the lawyers, who are lining up as we speak, waiting with bated
breath to pounce on ADHS, are excited about the first draft. No state has had the regulations and
control of growth as AZ Prop 203 provided, it gave you the opportunity to set a model program and a
standard for the rest of the nation. Many professionals work their whole lives to have the opportunity
Prop 203 has given you. Many would love to have the job of setting up a new industry that could help
our state with jobs, income, taxes, and turn this state around. You can make this a win/win for the
state of AZ, create a system that will be adopted by other states, and create a legacy for yourself, yet
you are approaching this opportunity the wrong way. Follow the law, which calls for minimal
regulations, and approach this with the spirit you that you have been given a job and will do it to the
best of your ability, regardless of your personal feelings.
Governor Brewer's statement at her Inauguration, "We intend to leave Arizona with a budget that is
balanced, fueled by private enterprise, UNENMCUMBERED BY HEAVY REGULATION AND UNNCESSARY
RULES." The Prop 203 draft is burdened with heavy regulations making most of this draft arbitrary for
patients, not to mention that ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Act (that the people voted in)
requires that the ADHS rulemaking be, "without imposing an undue burden on medical marijuana
dispensaries...." In addition: ARS 28.1 Section 2 â€œFindingsâ€ of the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Act requires the department to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and
dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies
and physician offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant on-site transmission of video
surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable regulations proposed by the department. This is absolutely outrageous and
discriminating and against what the people of Arizona voted in. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and
outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
It violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny
the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple
assessments, require â€œongoingâ€ care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to
promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the
practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for
a patientâ€™s care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year
relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including
therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department usurps
authority to treat it with unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that
are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous, arbitrary and ABSURD for the department to suggest that a
requisite training or experience to do so. The departmentâ€™s regulations are an unreasonable and
cruel usurpation of authority and denial of patientsâ€™ rights of choice, including their rights to
(or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-
17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-
203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5
are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patientsâ€™
provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. Also,
wheelchair and handicapped accessibility must be provided for. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that cause suffering,
conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of
daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows the
qualified patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of
qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. This needs to be ongoing as
prognoses and patient needs change. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Qualifying
patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-
202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patientsâ€™ rights to
additional fingerprints need to be submitted. Over regulation. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3 are
arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing errors.
Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided substantive
misinformation. Over regulation, additional anxiety and inconvenience for patients, also creating
additional burden and expense on the system, caregivers and patients. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-
302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-
302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e),
R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable
and usurp authority denied to the department. These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter
Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to establish residency requirements,
medical director, require security measures that are an undue burden (security measures for non-
toxic marijuana that exceed security measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored
at and dispensed from Arizona pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials
beyond what the law requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or
warrantless surveillance, or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a
dispensary, or transferred to another dispensary or caregivers. The department does not have the
authority to establish any of these regulations! R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps
physicianâ€™s professional practice. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
of infused food. Over regulation, burdon and additional expense on the system resulting in extra
cost to the patient. R9-17-314.B.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the
toxic refuse.
Hi Mr. William Humble. My name is , I am involved with and I have been working
dillengently with all members of the I have also been
working with hopeful dispensary owners, as well as many other individuals who are
hoping to help this medicinal marijuana movement work correctly in our state. I am a native of
Arizona and I have been working hard at putting most Arizona Marijuana Associations together in one
room to put our heads together to make this a great state for this new law. There are a few issues that
I would like to address. Actually, there are many, but I will start with just a few and come back and
drop more on as I get more feedback from the group and others. This is because we run all
thoughts and possible changes that we would like you to address, through each other first, before just
posting them to you. The first is the Physician/Patient relationship. To have a one year relationship
with a physician before they can receive this medicine, is a very sensitive and serious matter. Some
patients do not want to or feel comfortable taking their complete issues of ailments over to a
completely "new" physician. This also is like telling the patient who has an oncologist for cancer
related issues, to take their issue over to a physician who is not an oncologist. One year of a
relationship between physician/patient could also be an impossible task. Some patients may just learn
that they have cancer and that they need to start treatment right away or that they may not have one
full year of life left to live to be able to change over physicians to be able to receive medical
marijuana. This would limit some patients from being able to receive the wonderful medicinal
qualities of marijuana for any sorts of chemo or other issues that effect their appetite, chronic pain or
nausea related issues etc. As I am learning, this is a ruling that is not required by other states with
medicinal marijuana laws. Why have this here in Arizona? What we propose, is that this ruling be
pulled out completely or revised to address the issue I posted above. What would be fair? Well, any
qualifying patient would have the choice of using medicinal marijuana, regardless of how long their
relationship with their primary physician. They should be allowed to go to a physician that specializes
in knowing the qualities of this medicine, without the patient being required to completely change
primary physicians for wanting to use medicinal marijuana as an alternative medicine. Next issue
would be the 70/30 issue for dispensaries having to cultivate 70 percent of their own medicine and
only be allowed to purchase 30 percent from other dispensaries. With some of the federal laws kept
in mind on cultivation, as far as how many plants an individual can grow before the DEA could step in,
this ruling you have made makes any dispensary flirt with the federal laws for cultivation and puts all
dispensaries and growers for the dispensaries in risk of federal prison. How will you address this
issue? Does Arizona have our backs to be able to do a huge grow room to grow enough medicine to
supply 70 percent of our own medicine? This is a scary subject that I have heard many many times
from potential dispensary owners/growers. How would we like to see this subject worked? Open up
the percentage to not having a percentage at all. This would open up dispensaries to work together to
keep each other stocked with enough medicinal marijuana for all patients who qualify. Next issue is
the build out on dispensaries to have to be already done and built out, before even knowing if they
will get a dispensary license. This ruling puts potential dispensary owners in a high money bracket that
stops small business free enterprise from happening...ie: a mom and pop owned dispensary that can
supply enough marijuana medicine for patients. This ruling makes many people I have spoken with,
feel that this ruling is making it possible for 'Only the wealthy' and not make it available for small
business owners who Can make a business happen and work in this industry. Small mom and pop
stores open all the time, they do and can work, and they do and can stay in business while being
productive and putting money back into the community as well. What would we like to see? No build
out mandatory before applying for a license. We would like to see that a well made business plan be
shown at the time of applying for a license. Showing that they have plans of their build out for their
dispensary, have a hold on property or own or already lease property for their location, and also show
they have the investors or capital to make this happen. Dispensary owners shouldn't have to be
millionaires or even close to millionaires, it does not take millions to build a dispensary, that is proven
in many states around our country who have passed the law for medicinal marijuana use. Please do
not make it necessary for a possible dispensary owner to have millions of dollars to be able to open up
a dispensary. This is really not fair to small business owners. We do hope you understand where we
are coming from when we say this. Small businesses have been what have kept free enterprise alive
and helped many causes like this in our country. And this medicinal marijuana industry, shouldn't be
treated any differently. Please Mr. Humble, keep us little guys who know how to run a business in
mind when revising the second draft. I truly thank you for your time and we do hope to see a
standard in medicinal marijuana that is unmatched in this industry.
Regarding R9-17-314 Product Labeling and Analysis I would propose a bar code identification data
collection system was required for cultivatation sites and items sold at a dispensary. Colorado is
pursuing a strategy of enforcement of "Think seeds to cash" traceability with automation
requirements with 24/7 access with local, state and federal access similar to video Surveillance.
Regarding R9-17-312. Qualifying Patient Records This is a healthcare application and the state should
be considering how this becomes Electronic Health Records System which could give the state access
to the American Reinvestment and Recovery funds. I believe the cards issued to patients should
leverage the states investment in the Motor Vehicles system card based system to aid in the data
collection process. Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) are the primary drivers to solve with a
complete archiving solution. You can achieve this with a solution that increases your end-usersâ€™
operating efficiency, solves their regulatory compliance concerns and decreases their costs of
electronic disclosure. I would propose the consideration of complaince with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to Electronic Stored Information to show good faith toward the Federal Mandates. The
term has become a legally defined phrase as the U.S. government determined for the purposes of the
FRCP rules of 2006 that promulgating procedures for maintenance and discovery for electronically
stored information. Electronically stored information, for the purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP) is information created, manipulated, communicated, stored, and best utilized in
digital form, requiring the use of computer hardware and software. R9-17-310. Medical Director I
would propose the Medical Director also be required to ensure all prescribing physicians be required
to have access to a centralized database portal with 24/7 user authorized access requiring all
prescriptions are entered into the system specifying the dispensary of choice in order to regulate
patient usage. Verizon Wireless Health Information Exchange is an example. As part of the
registration fees all medical personal could include a subscription fee to the exchange. Again
potentially another step towards State access to Federal ARRA funds for Electronic Health Records.
Include Naturopathic doctors as able to be medical directors of dispensaries. OR explain why the only
doctors truly trained in herbal medicine are being excluded.
The draft rules can be improved by ensuring the smaller communities have their voice to allow or/and
not allow "democratically" these despenseries into our towns, for the only reason being that it lossens
a grip the public hopefully has on the illegal distribution and use of all drugs amongst the citizens.
ILLIGAL DRUG DISTRIBUTION AND USE IS NOT ONLY A GOVERMENTS PROBLEM AS WELL AS THE
CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITIES PROBLEM!!!!
I feel there are many areas that need to be approved upon and I am sure many will develop over time.
Unfortunately many people are greedy and think of new ways to circumvent the law. -R9-17-302 goes
into great detail to ensure the individuals, members, partners, company,...etc are looked at
thoroughly. However, investors are not taken into account. Colorado put into their rules and
regulations a statement on any investor of 5% or more would need their background checked. I think
this is huge to ensure we don't have investors from other states coming in and creating the toxic
environment they have developed. I also think this takes into account unlawful characters and drug
cartels. -I believe the point mention above also goes for the two year residency requirement in
section R9-17-302.B.3.b -R9-17-302.B.15.a asks whether a pharmacist is on-site or on-call. Is this
relevant if there is truly no prescriptions being made? Also is this a requirement? If not why is this
question in here? -R9-17-302.B.15.b talks about relaying information on the "importance of physical
activity and nutrition onsite." I feel this is good information the dispensaries should provide. However,
I don't believe this will always pertain to every patient. Some patients will not be able to perform
physical activity or have extreme dietary problems. This is a horrible reflection to put upon the
patient. -R9-17-302.B.15.d states "Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much."
What is the reason for this question? Is a surety bond a requirement? Will the Department of Health
Services be following up on the surety bond to make sure its not from a questionable source. *Also I
have been informed of Marijuana Policy Project and Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
involvement with the Department of Health Services in creating rules and regulations on the
Application Review Board. Due to their involvement it should be mandated per R9-17-319.a.2.g that
any member of Marijuana Policy Project or Arizona Medical Marijuana Association should be denied a
registration certificate due to the large conflict in interest.
Infusion of marijuana into food products.
The allowable enclosure for a cultivation facility should include walls with barbed wire protection
instead of stictly a full enclosure covering. A more patient freindly approach pertaining to
registration fees and requirements for sometimes already financially challenged patients creates an
undue burden upon them. Requiring a patient to keep track of their designated caregivers information
creates an undue burden. The Department has no authority to regulate the Doctor Patient
relationship. The 70% cultivation rule will cause shortages of medicine for patients. If a problem
occurs in a dispensaries cultivation facility and they loose their inventory the business could be a
complete loss due to regulations imposed by the Department. A two stage dispensary application
proccess should be implimented to avoid an unjust burden on dispensary owners. The first stage
being the provisional approval of the organizations application for dispensary certification pending
approval from the second stage where approval of the dispensaries certificate of occupancy and
inspection of such location(s). R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition Item 7 requiring
the citations of peer reviewed scientific journals is outside of the Departments authority. R9-17-307.
Administration 4.D. This section requires that persons working at contracted food service facilities not
have access to medical marijuana. We may want to suggest that persons contracted to process the
marijuana from plant to edibles must be supervised by a registered dispensary agent, thus not
requiring all persons involved to be registered agents. Cultivation documentaion to include soil types
is excessive to the growers; this provision becomes invalid with the uses of hydroponic gardening,
does this constitute a non-compliance? The requirement for a medical director needs to be better
defined. Medical professionals are just going to cost the dispensary more money, in the end its the
patient who pays; there is no insurance for MMJ. The patient shouldnt have to apply for the
designated caregiver to provide services, these charges for application fees will only be passed on to
the patients causing even further burden.
R9-17-101 (15) There is no need to have a medical Director at the Dispensary, or any at all. The
â€œPhysician-patient relationshipâ€ R9-17-101(17) takes care of the complete medical oversight for
the patient marijuana use. The â€œDispensaryâ€ R9-17-101(8) should not be required to have a
Doctor involved to allow the marijuana purchasing transaction. -- The same argument supersedes the
needs listed in R9-17-310(C.2.) All this Medical Director requirement and these inflated fees R9-17-
102(5.) is going to do is drive costs up so high people have to buy their pot on the street. You are
requiring the patient R9-17-202(F.2.e.) and caregiver R9-17-202(F.6.i.v.) to be US citizens. That is
wrong. My wife was born in Canada but has lived and worked in Arizona for the last 38 years. She is an
employee of the . She has every right to be my
caretaker or, if qualified under R9-17-201 Debilitating Medical Conditions, a patient. --The same
change is needed at R9-17-203(2.i.e.) also at R9-17-204(A.5.f.v.) R9-17-101(16) â€œOngoingâ€
Please change the one year physician-patient relationship to six months. I see my chronic pain Dr.
every month. Six months gives the Dr. plenty of time to get to know the needs of the patient. One
year is excessive. Also a lot of us will be needing to find a marijuana friendly Doctor, my current one is
not. Six months will give the â€œphysician-patient relationship time to develop.
The requirement for a Medical Director should be eliminated from the proposed regulations. This will
impose additional cost to the patient when most can least afford additional cost is this economic
crisis. What if a Medical director can't be found? The requirement for a one year doctor patient
relation is an undo burden on the patient as well as 4 visits. This should be deleted. R9-17-102 Fees :
A nonrefundable fee is uncalled for burden on a small business person,change it to $1,0 00 of the
5,000 is nonrefundable. Qualifying patient fee should be $50 and renewing $50. to change a location
fee should not exceed $500. After all you already paid $5000. The time frames for adding a
Debilitating Medical Conditions should be cut in half. R9-17-107 B The registration packet for a
dispensary needs to be included in the next draft. F 1. a. add vii. the address of the facility. F.
c.formats need to be included in the next draft. R9-17-302 A. I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT. PLEASE DON'T CHANGE. B. 1. b.delete need a 2 part process this being in the second
phase. B.1.g. delete B. 1. f. iii no surety bond site planes, floor plans should be left up to the cities.
15.a. no pharmacist should be required, possible conflict of interest, unneeded expense. 15.d. no
surety bond R9-17-306 Item B. The electronic monitoring system access by DHS creates a security
risk for the dispensary due to the possibility of transmissions being intercepted or hacked. Also sound
like big brother. .R9-17-307 Administration. A. 1. a Your dictating how to run a business 3. delete,4.
b. delete C.1.change 70% to 50% way to restrictive. 4. change 30% to 50% same in 5 R9-17-310 entire
thing should be deleted R9-17-313 3. a. change soil to type of grow method.
â€¢ The definition of â€˜ongoingâ€™ on page 4 is concerning in that cancer patients may not have a
one year relationship with ANY doctor. Is there any other medicine available today where a patient
must have such a relationship established? If that long-term relationship is not established, the
patient falls under clause b of the definition, which requires that this doctor assume primary
responsibility for the patientâ€™s care. At Cancer Treatment Centers of America, care management is
provided by a registered nurse with oncology expertise. Radiologists, surgeons and other specialized
doctors perform procedures and develop strategies, but do not manage care. According to the draft
rules, a nurse would not be able to recommend medical marijuana and neither would any of the
specialized doctors because none of them â€œassume primary responsibility for providing
management and routine careâ€. It is worth noting that ALL of the doctors and nurse practitioners
for these cancer patients are able to prescribe prescription drugs. (See diagram
http://www.cancercenter.com/landing-pages/cancer/options.aspx). â€¢ Please consider including
Alzheimer's disease to your list of Debilitating Medical Conditions on page 12. Please see the
following online summary with referenced scientific papers in this subject:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7003 â€¢ The need for regulation is understandable, but
the requirement on page 17 (#11) to have a second physician review the recommendation seems
severe. Such secondary review is not a requirement for any other medicine, including those that are
highly toxic and addictive. â€¢ When available, please provide some transparency in the area of
selection criteria used to evaluate a dispensary applicant for licensure. To do otherwise invites undue
speculation, conspiracy theories and generally negative outcomes. â€¢ A surety bond is a
guarantee, in which the surety guarantees that the contractor, or â€œprincipalâ€ in the bond, will
perform the â€œobligationâ€ stated in the bond. It is difficult to understand the purpose of a surety
bond in Dispensary operations. Please consider giving some rational and specifics on the surety bond
that is required, specifically: o A single bond for the dispensary entity, one for each Director or one
per agent? o Who is the beneficiary of this bond and under what circumstances? o What amount
would be sufficient to protect the interest of the beneficiary? â€¢ It seems very extremely
redundant (intended) to require that a Medical Doctor (Medical Director) be tasked with authoring
procedures and educational materials and being â€œon callâ€ when qualified patients have already
gone through a primary and, sometimes, secondary physician before getting a multi-page written
recommendation, and the AZDHS has already approved their patient application. Perhaps a
compromise solution would be to have AZ DHS, in conjunction with state doctors, develop
standardized educational materials. Similar to HIPPA, perhaps patients need to review these
materials and sign a form indicating that they have read / understand the content. Also, producing a
video for required viewing might not be a horrible idea. At least this way, the patients would get
standardized information without having to pay the costs associated with an on call Medical Director.
â€¢ Should AZ DHS persist in requiring a Medical Director, consider that Nurse Practitioners and
Advanced Nurse Practitioners can prescribe medications and act as primary care providers. It is
incongruent to require that a Medical Director have M.D. or D.O. credentials. â€¢ The requirement
for a certificate of occupancy is, arguably, controversial, but needed, where available, to avoid long
delays for Dispensaries. Note the situation in Maine, in which Dispensaries were delayed by their
municipalities for months following their state approval. â€¢ On one hand it seems to make sense
to distribute growing operations and require that a dispensary grow at least 70% of the marijuana it
sells. On the other hand, it does not. Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart and Costco are not required to
produce the pills they sell. Please consider providing some rational in this area or reducing the
percentage required.
This draft contains many, many pages of restrictions on medical marijuana that do not be
implemented. The cost of meeting all the rules imposed as a patient will allow med marijuana to be
restricted to just wealthy patients as insurance will not cover any of the costs. And if your PMD does
not chose to prescribe marijuana, then you have to wait A YEAR before you can use it AND pay for 4
medical visits. It would be interesting if there was a state law that spelled out these exact same
conditions that Humble proposes for marijuana but was aimed at prescription narcotics. The
pharmaceutical companies would be in an uproar and Humble would be job hunting like so many
other Americans are now. Pain medication and narcotics are the number one drug prescribed in the
USA now. People die from legal prescription narcotics, yet there is no regulations on them similar to
what Humble proposes. How many people have died from a marijuana overdose? Yet he wants to
regulate it like it's deadlier than prescription narcotics? It is obvious Humble is against medical
marijuana, and is trying to impose his negative views on the people that voted this in. Humble, the
people have spoken. The statute outlines the how's, and it's up to the individual cities on how they
want to regulate it without interfering with the statute. Time to hire a new State Health Director.
There are many unemployed people that would be qualified and willing to take this job, and who
would be willing to uphold the right of the people to enact laws.
Add as R9-17-312(E): â€œNot less than annually and prior to recertification under R9-17-305, a
dispensary shall submit to the Department a report covering the period from the last certificate was
issued to that dispensary that contains the following information: (1) the total number of sales of
marijuana products, detailing each kind of product sold; (2) the total amount of usable marijuana
sold; (3) the total amount of usable marijuana produced or otherwise procured; (4) the total amount
of marijuana on hand; (5) the total amount of cash or other reimbursement realized for the sale of
marijuana; (6) the total amount of cash or other reimbursements paid for producing or acquiring
marijuana.â€ Modify R9-17-102(5)(b) and (6)(b) as follows: â€œDesignated Caregiver, $200 per
patient for which caregiving services are provided.â€ Create Article 4 for the Medical Marijuana
Program in DHS Rules that governs medical professionals wishing to issue medical marijuana
certifications in Arizona. Medical professionals must meet the following requirements: (a) DHS must
create and administer a medical professional certification registry. (b) Qualified medical professionals
that wish to issue certificates under the initiative must register annually with DHS and pay a
reasonable annual fee to offset the cost of registry administration. (a) Medical professionals must be
Arizona licensed in and primarily practice in Arizona. (b) No more than 30 active patient registry
cards may be issued based on the certification of an individual medical professional at any one time.
(c) Medical professionals must see their certified patient at least once every 6 months, face to face,
and document they have done so in annual certifications. (d) Medical professionals may not issue
certificates to themselves or immediate family. (e) Medical professionals undergoing discipline or
substance abuse problems must not be authorized to issue certifications. 19 (f) Medical
professionals recommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, must provide
a statement detailing at least 3 efforts of the medical professional and patient to administer infused
marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the
medical professional why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patientâ€™s condition. (a)
Add to new Article 4 a requirement that the medical professional must notify the Department within
3 business days if the patient no longer qualifies for certification for medical marijuana, or if the
medical professional has not had a face to face contact with the patient for more than 180 days. (b)
Add R9-17-205(I) to require the Department to revoke a Qualifying Patientâ€™s Registry
Identification Card upon notification by the certifying medical professional that the patient no longer
qualifies for certification or that the medical professional has not had a face to face contact with the
patient for more than 180 days. (c) Add to R9-17-202, 203, and 204 a section that requires
after having had a previous one revoked under R9-17-205(I), and require both certifications state
that the medical professional is aware of the grounds for prior de-certification.
A medical director should be allowed to prescribe medical marijuana to his/her patients in the
separate setting of his/her office; although it should be inappropriate to prescribe it under the role of
dispensary medical director. The private practice setting and the individual doctor patient
relationship shouled tsuffer just because a doctor happens also to serve as a director in an entirely
different setting/role.
Personal cultivation should not be restricted to people living 25 or more miles away from a
dispensary.
How long must the records be retained? If records are lost/stolen, what types of notifications must
be sent out? Do these rules follow HIPAA? R9-17-312. Qualifying Patient Records A. A dispensary
shall ensure that: 1. A qualifying patient record is established and maintained for each qualifying
patient who obtains medical marijuana from the dispensary; 2. An entry in a qualifying patient
record: a. Is recorded only by a dispensary agent authorized by dispensary policies and procedures to
make an entry, b. Is dated and signed by the dispensary agent, c. Includes the dispensary agent's
registry identification number, and c. Is not changed to make the initial entry illegible; 3. If an
electronic signature is used to sign an entry, the individual whose signature the electronic code
represents is accountable for the use of the electronic signature; 4. A qualifying patient record is only
accessed by a dispensary agent authorized by dispensary policies and procedures to access the
qualifying patient record; DRAFT 12/17/10 40 12/17/10 5. A qualifying patient record is provided to
the Department for review upon request; 6. A qualifying patient record is protected from loss,
damage, or unauthorized use; and 7. A qualifying patient record is maintained for five years from the
date of the qualifying patient's or, if applicable, the qualifying patient's designated caregiver's last
request for medical marijuana from the dispensary. B. If a dispensary maintains qualifying patient
records electronically, the dispensary shall ensure that: 1. There are safeguards to prevent
unauthorized access, and 2. The date and time of an entry in a qualifying patient record is recorded
electronically by an internal clock. C. A dispensary shall ensure that a qualifying patient's record for a
qualifying patient who requests medical marijuana from the dispensary contains: 1. Qualifying patient
information that includes: a. The patient's name; b. The patient's date of birth; and c. The name of
the qualifying patient's designated caregiver, if applicable; 2. Documentation of any patient education
and support materials provided to the qualifying patient or the qualifying patient's designated
caregiver, including a description of the materials and the date the materials were provided; 3. For
each time the qualifying patient requests and does not obtain medical marijuana or, if applicable, the
designated caregiver requests and does not obtain medical marijuana on behalf of the qualifying
patient from the dispensary the following: a. The date, b. The name and registry identification
number of the individual who requested the medical marijuana, and c. The dispensary's reason for
refusing to provide the medical marijuana. D. A dispensary shall provide qualifying patient record to
the Department for review upon request.
1. I wouldn't rule out partial out of state ownership of dispensarys. Make it 50% Arizona resident or
100% Arizona property owners. 2. Let a physician recommend marijuana - period. Time restrictions
are wrong. They don't do it with any other medicine. 3. No time limit with physician. What if you are
new to the city. What if it is a specialist. 4. Allow delivery. Some sick people are home bound or can't
drive. 5. Make the liscense affordable. $50 is fair. 6. Let a dispensary buy marijuana from other
sources. You don't limit a Walgreens type store of where they get their products. 7. Allow smoking or
eating on premisis based on zoning.
Are the following Security Rules the same for all pharmacies? The Security rules for the dispensaries
should not be more stringent than a typical pharmacy. This set of rules may inadvertantly raise the
cost of establishing a dispensary. These additional costs will be passed along to patients already
incurring high medical expenses. R9-17-315. Security C. To prevent unauthorized access to
medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site, the dispensary
shall have the following: include: a. Devices or a series of devices to detect unauthorized intrusion,
which may include a signal system interconnected with a radio frequency method, such as cellular,
private radio signals, or other mechanical or electronic device; b. Exterior lighting to facilitate
surveillance; c. Electronic monitoring including: i. At least one 19 inch or greater call-up monitor; ii. A
video printer capable of immediately producing a clear still photo from any video camera image; iii.
Video cameras: (1) Providing coverage of all entrances to and exits from limited access areas and all
entrances to and exits from the building, capable of identifying any activity occurring in or adjacent to
the building; and (2) Have a recording resolution of least at 704 x 480 or the equivalent; iv. A video
camera at each point of sale location allowing for the identification of any qualifying patient or
designated caregiver purchasing medical marijuana; v. A video camera in each grow room capable of
identifying any activity occurring within the grow room in low light conditions; vi. Storage of video
recordings from the video cameras for at least 30 calendar days; vii. A failure notification system that
provides an audible and visual notification of any failure in the electronic monitoring system; viii.
Video cameras and recording equipment with sufficient battery backup to support at least five
minutes of recording in the event of a power outage; and ix. The capability of providing authorized
remote viewing of live and recorded video with: (1) Internet connectivity of at least 384 kbps
upstream; and (2) A static IP address to allow for remote connection; d. Panic buttons in the interior
of each building; and
patient relationship has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the
patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the
physician-patient relationship; The definition of "Ongoing" is too stringent. Too many medical
conditions progress at a rate too rapid to develop an ongoing relationship of at least one year. In
addition, it seems burdensome and cost prohibitive for a patient to visit a physician at least four visits.
see above info
It is confusing on what operating procedures the department is requiring to obtain dispensary license.
The term operating procedure pops up in many sections but it is not clear if those are at time of
submission or in place for operation and on hand for when the department requests. Also the
request for business records is in unclear. Are these for personal records or for the dispensary non
profit records kept once dispensary is up and running. The request for business plan is strange for a
state agency. It needs to clarify a couple points. It seems that the guidelines are asking for how the
dispensary's profit will be put to use. Due to the dispensary being non-profit, it leads one to believe
that the state is asking for wording explaining where the profits from medical marijuana will be put
into action in the community, more than a business plan that a banker will be looking for in this case.
Plus, the difficulty of developing a business plan in the first year for a system that will depend on the
state processing patients leaves much to the imagination.
The time and duration of the Dr. patient relationship seem to be unnecessarily onerous and lengthy.
This could prevent needed care for a patient. The 70-30 requirement for growing seems unnecessary
and would lead to difficulty in proper regulation and quality control.
See Matforce recommendations
The draft laws appear to have fiscal and political motivations that do not serve the citizens of AZ.
Homeopathic and Naturopathic Physicians have been unjustly eliminated from the distribution of
effective and cost effective health care to AZ residents. The greed and self serving interests of MD's
and DO's has cost the residents of AZ millions due to their own self interest. When are we going to
stop the self serving motivations of this group that destroys the health and economy of AZ? The state
of AZ has declared that ND's and HMD's are licensed care physicians in our progressive state.
R9-17-101: 16 â€“ â€œOngoingâ€ â€“ The definition for ongoing is facially discriminatory in that it
discriminates against low-income patients, veterans, and uninsured potential medical marijuana
patients. The definition does not follow the purpose of the proposition as voted on by the citizens of
Arizona because it serves to deny medical marijuana to those patients who discover shortly before
death that they have a qualifying condition. These are some of the people that most need access to
medical marijuana, and denying them based on lack of a one-year doctor patient relationship will only
serve to frustrate the purpose of the statute. A doctor can adequately assess a patientâ€™s need for
medical marijuana in a single visit. 16(b) provides for the important ongoing monitoring of the
patientâ€™s progress, and is good for monitoring after the fact instead of a year before the fact when
the patient needs medicine. R9-17-307 â€“ C(1) â€“ The 70/30 rule will create shortages for patients
in rural areas and increase prices across the state because facilities better suited to cultivation will not
be able to adequately supply those better suited to dispensing. Please reject this rule in favor of a
open relationship that does not impose supply restrictions. R9-17-310 â€“ Other health
professionals are capable of serving in the role of medical director. As written this is too restrictive
because of the continued illegality of medical marijuana on the federal level and many doctorsâ€™
hesitance to embrace â€œnewâ€ medicines soon after they are made available. R9-17-311,12 â€“
Maintaining dispensary records for five years is excessive, and records should be kept by patient and
caregiver ID, not name.
Delete: R9-17-310 There is no need for a medical Director to be onsite. The pt has already
established a relationship with their personal DR. who can provide the appropriate information and
monitor the patients usage and health. Having another Doctor provide more and possibly conflicting
information,can be detrimental to pt. health and care. Lower pt. fee for medical card. Lower 5k
dispensary application fee, comes across as enabling the wealthy and limiting others. $2500 address
change is excessive esp. after a 5k dispensary app fee. Should allow a one time free change
The draft rules would make the legal prescription, distribution and use of medical marijuana
impossible to achieve in a clinically or humanely effective way. It completely usurps medical judgment
and universally accepted notions of physicain-patient relationship. Nowhere else in medicine is a
doctor required to wait a year before initiating treatment whose need can be clinically determined in
one visit. Nowhere else in medicine must a patient wait a year, or even the time it takes for 4 doctor
visits, before she "qualifies" for relief of suffering. Nowhere else in medicine must a physician
specialist unethically assume primary care of a patient in order to treat the condition for which he is
exclusively qualified. This would constitute medical malpractice. Nowhere else in medicine is a patient
compelled to surrender her right to qualified primary care in order to be treated by a specialist.
Perhaps the rule drafters would like to turn their primary care over to their opthamalogist? No other
pharmacy is required to operate from within the confines of walled, patrolled fortress. It is quite
obvious that the proposed rules are intended to circumvent any and all legal avenues by which the
medical marijuana law can be implemented. The proposed rules are a cruel, shameless and
fundamentally illegal attempt to treat as criminal the humane treatment of human suffering. The
draft rules must be consistent with every other medical treatment norm. I direct your attention to the
comments of valley physician Dr. Sutar for a detailed critque of the rules. I concur with Dr. Sutar's
comments in their specifics and in their entirety. regards,
I feel the patient and doctors relationships are being overly scrutinized. Why a patient would need to
have a 1 year relationship with 4 visits to qualify for marijuana is unknown to me. A doctor can
currently write prescriptions for medications far more lethal than marijuana without such scrutiny.
Not every Arizona resident has the means or insurance to maintain a primary care physician.
Additionally anyone currently working with a federal doctor such as veterans will not be immediately
able to obtain a doctors recommendation. Requiring a dispensary to have a medical director shows
how the AZDHS views the use of medical marijuana. The fears of the AZDHS should not impede the
ability of the dispensary to operate. If the a patient has questions they should consult the physician
who gave them the recommendation. It could prove difficult for a dispensary to contract such a
physician and what liability would the medical director absorb in this role? As for the educational
material, I understand the need and the importance of such material. But for the sake of a consistent
and dependable information, I think it would be more beneficial if the state developed material
dispensary's should administer during new patient registration or even with each sale. From what I
see in the draft, at the time of application the dispensary must already have a sight location for the
dispensary and cultivation sight being that dispensary's must grow at least 70% of their own medical
marijuana. I feel this is a little difficult to mandate as that requires significant investment with no
guarantee. This leads me into additional questions about the application review process. From what I
understand cities are going to be designated a certain amount of dispensaries that can open up. What
concerns me is that even if I am one of the strongest applicants but am looking to serve patients in an
area that is popular among applicants, will I miss out on the opportunity to operate a dispensary over
possibly a less qualified applicant who applied for a more rural area and is the only applicant for that
area? I feel the only way to safely address would be with a lottery system. While this scares me as
very qualified applicant, I feel this approach should ensure there is no political favors being offered to
any applicants and address the concerns I mentioned. An example will be provided below. An
example of the lottery system could give each applicant 3 tickets that were numbered 1 through 3
based on their preference. The applicant could choose to put all their eggs in one basket or divide
them out over various cities. If an applicant was fortunate enough to get selected in more than one
city, they would be defaulted to the city with the higher preference ticket. Then after the dispensaries
were selected they could get to work developing their site and set an appointment with the AZDHS for
inspection prior to opening.
#l. The licensing application should be a two step process. First the approval of the application and its
applicants, then the final licensing approval within 90days after the inpection of the facitly. This will
allow the applicant to first aquire a conditional license before they sign a lease and aquire a facility. It
would be poor business practice and financially irresponsible to sign a lease and build a facitly on a
gamble that one would qualify for a license. #2 The information provided in the application should be
kept confidential to protect against identity theft and to prevent possible law suits against the State
should this occur. #3. A waiting list approval could be implemented if a company does not meet their
deadline or if another company goes out of business then the next in line could be selected. #4.
Business should not have to be Non Profit, this adds to the expense of the Corporation. Physician
office as well as Pharmacys are not Non Profit.
R9-17-101. Definitions 16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship
means: a. The physician-patient relationship where the debilitating medical has been assessed
Naturopathic Medical Doctors (NMD) were excluded from the ability to be medical directors of
medical marijuana clinics. NMD's are clinically trained experts in herbal therapy and have studied the
benefits, mechinism, phytochemistry and side effects of hundreds of herbs. NMD's are the most
trained and experienced physicians in herbal therapy and should therefore have the privilage of being
medical directors.
R9-17-101. Definitions 15. "Medical director" means a person or persons who will oversee the
policies and practices on patient information and who has been designated by a dispensary to
provide medical oversight at the dispensary. This person does NOT need to have a medical degree,
but must assist in the development, review and maintenance of records as determined by by a State
sponsored Medical Research Panel from the University of Arizona and Arizona State
I feel that a major part of the draft rules that can be improved is the area in which the department's
proposal specifies that the patient must have severe and chronic pain as a result of a chronic or
debilitating disease or its treatment. In my case, I do not have a disease. However, I do have chronic
debilitating pain and muscle spasms that were onset by a traumatic head on collision car accident in
1999 which I was ejected through the windshield and suffered lacerations to the face, a severe
concussion, and started the beginning of severe chronic back and nerve pain. I have been successful in
using treatment with other narcotic pain medications but these treatments begin to stop working
after long term use/tollerance and leave one with little options. I would greatly benefit from the use
of Medical Marijuana and would feel much better knowing that these treatments could be utilized
correctly under my doctors supervision, rather than having to self medicate Illegally. Thank you
for your time and consideration,
PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR ASSOCIATION WITH MPP AND AMMA specifically Andrew Myers and his "round
table" that has recently come to light. If these allegations are true in any sense then this process is
tainted and people need to go to jail!
Please see below.
start over and don't regulate to the least common denominator...think about the sick people this
medicine will help and write rules to facilitate their healing.
R9-17-307. Administration should be rewritten as shown below. A. A dispensary shall: 1. Develop,

document, and implement policies and procedures regarding: a. Job descriptions and employment
contracts, including personnel duties, authority, responsibilities, and qualifications; personnel
supervision; training in and adherence to confidentiality requirements; periodic performance
evaluations; and disciplinary actions; b. Business records, including manual or computerized records
of assets and liabilities, monetary transactions, journals, ledgers, and supporting documents, including
agreements, checks, invoices, and vouchers; c. Inventory control, including tracking, packaging,
accepting marijuana from qualifying patients and designated caregivers, and disposing of unusable
marijuana; d. Qualifying patient records, including purchases, denial of sale, delivery options, if any,
confidentiality, and retention; e. Patient education and support. Information collection will be
handled by the Department of Health by a survey. Questions to be determined by a State sponsored
Medical Research Panel from the University of Arizona and Arizona State 2. Maintain copies of the
policies and procedures at the dispensary and provide copies to the Department for review upon
request; 3. Not allow an individual who does not possess a dispensary agent registry identification
card issued under the dispensary registration certificate to: a. Serve as a principal officer or board
member for the dispensary, b. Be employed by the dispensary, c. Have access to medical marijuana
at a food establishment contracted to infuse medical marijuana into edible food products for the
dispensary; or d. Provide volunteer services at or on behalf of the dispensary; and 4. Provide
written notice to the Department, including the date of the event within ten days after the date, when
a dispensary agent no longer: a. Serves as a principal officer or board member for the dispensary, b.
Is employed by the dispensary, c. Has access to medical marijuana at a food establishment
contracted to infuse medical marijuana into edible food products for the dispensary, or d. Provides
volunteer services at or on behalf of the dispensary. B. Except as provided in subsection (C), a
dispensary shall cultivate the medical marijuana dispensed by the dispensary in an enclosed, locked
facility. C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary
provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; 2. Shall only provide medical marijuana
cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a
designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this Chapter to acquire medical
marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying
patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of the medical marijuana the dispensary
provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from another dispensary in Arizona, a
qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical
marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries.
The disabled veterans that do not have medical health insurance need to be considered as to the draft
rule that the patient needs to have seen a private doctor for over a year or four medical office visits.
I have been to both the Phoenix VA hospital as well as the Williams Field VA Clinic dozens of times for
different problems. I don't think that any of the federal government employed Doctors would be
willing or allowed to provide a prescription for medical marijuana. I do not have heath insurance
other than the VA and have not been to a private Doctor in several years. I have been provided
from the VA with copies of my medical records which is 3-4 inches thick. Will a private medical Doctor
be able to form a opinion and provide a prescription, if warrented, from these records? So how is a
disabled low income veteran suppose to aquire a prescription? Could this problem be addressed on
behalf of the thousands of Arizona disabled veterans who might benefit from the new medical
marijuana program? Thank You
R9-17-311 Medical Director 1. a. Omit the requirement for the medical director to give alternative
medical options for the condition. The medical director does not have a physician-patient relationship
with the patient. That is something the qualifying physician should be providing to the patient not the
medical director. In addition it is undermining to the recommendations of the qualifying physician
who is responsible for the patient's care. Add this as a requirement for the qualifying physician! R9-
17-306 Inspection B. Requiring the dispensary to provide authorities authorized remote access to the
dispensary's electronic monitoring system. This is concerning on several levels: a. On an inspection
side it may seem reasonable, but overall security of the dispensary is compromised if an outside entity
can get into the electronic monitoring system. It is one more level that can be breached lthat leaves
the dispensary more vulneriable to theft. It is reasonable that the authorities have access to all
tapes/recordings but access to real time remote monitoring is not reasonable or practical on the
security side b. There are concerns about HIPPA HITECH privacy violations of the patients privacy
rights. c. It's an over intrusion of the Dept of Health and an expression of lack of trust that the
dispensary and the agents will follow the regulations set forth. R9-17-315 Security B. Transport
between dispensory and: There should be added an additional transport site of: 5. laboratory
contracted with dispensary to conduct analysis of the medical marijuana.
I feel that a major part of the draft rules that can be improved is the area in which the department's
proposal specifies that the patient must have severe and chronic pain as a result of a chronic or
debilitating disease or its treatment. In my case, I do not have a disease. However, I do have chronic
debilitating pain and muscle spasms that were onset by a traumatic head on collision car accident in
1999 which I was ejected through the windshield and suffered lacerations to the face, a severe
concussion, and started the beginning of severe chronic back and nerve pain. I have been successful in
using treatment with other narcotic pain medications but these treatments begin to stop working
after long term use/tollerance and leave one with little options. I would greatly benefit from the use
of Medical Marijuana and would feel much better knowing that these treatments could be utilized
correctly under my doctors supervision, rather than having to self medicate Illegally. Thank you
for your time and consideration,
I think its unfair to put an undo burden to charge a terminally ill patient $150 for a medical card and
make people jump thru hoops to just to try a medicine that is much less harmful than narcotics
doctors are providing.
1. Certified doctors must answer to AZDHS, and only be AZ Doctors. Doctors to be certified. 2. Patient
and Doctor must meet in person. 3. Limit number of marijuana patients per doctor to 30. 4. Patients
provide medical history to doctors for their chief complaint including workers comp claims 5.
Database tracking doctors that write certifications and patients they are written for including the
medical condition 6. Add requirement for a psychological evaluations for minors 7. Legislation
authorizing lawsuits against doctors that are negligent, including where it causes injury 8. Stronger
penalties for forged/fake cards 9. Card to have doctor name, office address and phone number 10.
Caregivers must be trained, earn a certification (statewide standardized) that must be renewed
annually. This includes those who transport MM. 11. Training, licensing, certification process for
caregivers to include: legal requirements, handling, safety, security, transportation requirements
(sealed container) and penalties. 12. Active duty certified public safety officers cannot be medical
marijuana holders. 13. Transportation must be in a sealed, tamper proof container and have a chain
of custody. 14. It is illegal for cardholders to smoke MM in the presence of minors. 15. Cardholders
must keep supply of THC locked in a secure area, just as they have to lock growing plants. 16.
Establish strict standards including photo ID, DL or other state issued ID. 17. Cardholder must be an
AZ resident according to AZ residency requirements 18. DHS should have a Review Panel to review
the case of anyone who gets a marijuana recommendation for more than one year. 19. Doctors must
report all data. We need a list of what data must be collected and kept Â¬ age, diagnosis, number of
prescriptions per doctor per month, how long patients are kept on pot. Records we need from
dispensaries: how often patients go to dispensaries, times of day and week that marijuana is sold by
dispensaries. 20. Requirements for trials of standard medications first, including marinol. 21.
Managed care does this. It should be a requirement with most illnesses to prove that. Penalties for
doctors abusing dispensing. 22. Special review of doctors prescribing more than 30 cards per year.
23. Doctors canÂ¹t prescribe to family, friends or self. 24. Doctors must be Arizona licensed physicians
and live in Arizona. 25. Make special requirements about how they come up with the need for
medical marijuana. 26. Doctors must see patients every 2 months. (like Adderall) 27. Make it clear
what doctors can be disciplined for. 28. Doctors with substance abuse issues and legal problems
canÂ¹t be approved to write marijuana recommendations. 29. Define doctorÂ¹s liability for
prescribing marijuana. 30. Require insurance & bonding for prescribers. 31. Get the licensing board
to define improper prescribing. 32. Exclude internet docs, out of state docs and patients. 33. No
doctor can have more than 25 active marijuana patients at one time (like suboxone) 34. Second
opinions required for: patients given a marijuana recommendation on their first visit to a doctor,
patients with a diagnosis of pain or muscle spasms. 35. Requirement that patients try two standard
medications first, especially marinol. Anti-nausea drugs for HIV/AIDS 36. Glaucoma only by
ophthalmologist. 37. Cancer only with cytological or radio logic evidence. 38. Zoning ordinances to
require dispensaries and home grows in specified zoning districts 39. Home and commercial grown
facilities, once licensed, must be included on DHS website. Database accuracy must be a priority. 40.
DHS to delegate authority for inspection to local authorities through IGAâ€™s. 41. Home grow to
require training and a fee.
Clarification on R9-17-107. Time Frames B. Need clarification on if the dispensary must be ready to
open when applying for the dispensary application.
1. I believe the 25 mile rule should be specified as DRIVING DISTANCE to dispensary. 2. I do not
believe the patient should need to have an established (one year) relationship with any doctor for a
recommendation. No other prescription requires this including many much stronger pain medications.
3. Patients make good caregivers due to the better understanding of the medicine and how it helps
with different conditions, what strains help with pain, what strains help with spasms or siezures. Let
anyone who is actually sick with debilitating condtions be caretakers as well. 4. The structures you
describe with 12 foot high walls and cage tops (outdoor grow structures) are basically ovens. This is
something that really needs more thought. I understand the need for security, but the structure
described, unless you were growing a landrace strain found growing in the Sahara desert, is an oven.
The Original Prop 203 that passed by the majority of Arizona residents, stated the definition of
Physicians to include MD's, DO's, Naturopathic Doctors and Homeopathic Doctors, your draft has
changed the legal definition to "Medical Director" and has excluded Naturopathic and Homeopathic
Physicians. These two excluded licensed physicians in the proposed draft are the most highly qualified
to recommend medical cannabis. I'm greatly concerned this exclusion of Alternative Medicine licensed
primary care physicians in OUR wonderful state is politically motivated by self serving interests.
The Original Prop 203 that passed by the majority of Arizona residents, stated the definition of
Physicians to include MD's, DO's, Naturopathic Doctors and Homeopathic Doctors, your draft has
changed the legal definition to "Medical Director" and has excluded Naturopathic and Homeopathic
Physicians. These two excluded licensed physicians in the proposed draft are the most highly qualified
to recommend medical cannabis. I'm greatly concerned this exclusion of Alternative Medicine licensed
primary care physicians in OUR wonderful state is politically motivated by self serving interests.
1. Eliminate the "Ongoing" definition 2.Do not exempt AzDHS from A>R>S> 4-1001
include NDs (Naturopathic Doctors) in the group of doctors allowed to operate in this new arena
1. Eliminate the requirement for a medical director. This greatly increases operational costs that will
be passed on to the patients. It's not in Prop 203 and is unreasonable. Is there any other retail
business in Arizona that must have a medical director? My understanding is that no other state that
legalized medical marijuana requires dispensaries to have a doctor as a medical director. Do you
know if a doctor's malpractice insurance would cover services to the dispensary? The doctor may not
be covered by malpractice insurance because the insurance company may say that being a medical
director for a marijuana dispensary involves an industry that violates federal law and/or does not
involve the practice of medicine. 2. If you retain the medical director, allow licensed pharmacists to
be a medical director. 3. Do not require dispensaries to get a certificate of occupancy. Many cities
(Mesa for example) do not provide a CO,. It was only a few years ago the Phoenix started issuing
them. 4. Do not require Arizona residency. It's not is Prop 203 and is unreasonable. I don't believe
there is any other type of business in Arizona that must be owned by an Arizona resident. 5. Give
dispensaries guidance on what criteria you will use to select licensees. 6. Create a preliminary
approval so dispensaries can determine they will be able to get a license before spending a large
amount of money without any assurance they will actually get a license. Dispensaries could then build
tenant improvements, purchase equipment and hire personnel knowing that they have a good chance
of getting the license. Applicants that are rejected and that do not get preliminary approval, will be
spared wasting their money. 7. Ease up on the requirements for a patient to get a recommendation
from a doctor. As one local doctor wrote recently, doctors can see a patient once and prescribe any
number of drugs that are potentially much more harmful than marijuana. 8. Eliminate or greatly
reduce the requirement that a dispensary grow at least 70% of the marijuana it sells. This growing
requirements causes dispensaries to fund and operate a retail business and a farm, both of which are
time-consuming and expensive. Let dispensaries that want to grow more than the sell do so. It would
reduce the capital required by other dispensaries.
R9-17-101: 16 â€“ â€œOngoingâ€ â€“ The definition for ongoing is facially discriminatory in that it
discriminates against low-income patients, veterans, and uninsured potential medical marijuana
patients. The definition does not follow the purpose of the proposition as voted on by the citizens of
Arizona because it serves to deny medical marijuana to those patients who discover shortly before
death that they have a qualifying condition. These are some of the people that most need access to
medical marijuana, and denying them based on lack of a one-year doctor patient relationship will only
serve to frustrate the purpose of the statute. A doctor can adequately assess a patientâ€™s need for
medical marijuana in a single visit. 16(b) provides for the important ongoing monitoring of the
patientâ€™s progress, and is good for monitoring after the fact instead of a year before the fact when
the patient needs medicine. R9-17-307 â€“ C(1) â€“ The 70/30 rule will create shortages for patients
in rural areas and increase prices across the state because facilities better suited to cultivation will not
be able to adequately supply those better suited to dispensing. Please reject this rule in favor of an
open relationship that does not impose supply restrictions. R9-17-310 â€“ Other health professionals
are capable of serving in the role of medical director. As written this is too restrictive because of the
continued illegality of medical marijuana on the federal level and many doctorsâ€™ hesitance to
embrace â€œnewâ€ medicines soon after they are made available. R9-17-311,12 â€“ Maintaining
dispensary records for five years is excessive, and records should be kept by patient and caregiver ID,
not name.
Notwithstanding the â€œloopholeâ€ for chronic pain, eliminate the concept of â€œongoingâ€ and
â€œ physician-patient relationshipâ€ from the draft rules at LEAST for glaucoma.
Definitions of the following need to be added: Inventory What is an inventory audit? Audit
I have many criticisms of the proposal, but I will defer to Dr. Edgar A. Suter, who has already said
everything I thought of more eloquently than I could have dreamed of. "ARS 36-2803.4 of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be
"without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries...." ARS 28.1
Section 2 "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take notice of
the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. Arizona's
pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic drugs that, unlike
department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open
above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and
department authority to require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the
required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of
to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or
subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-
105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the
yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients' rights to choose other providers or sources of
toxic refuse."
They could be improved by cutting the fat: getting rid of say 90% of the proposed regs.
R9-17-315. Security It is recomended to enhance the security of the facilities that the following
voluntary video security measures be enacted. Recomendations to remain the same with the
omisison of 2.iv 2.v. ix. 1 ix. 2 Which must be legal and unconstitutional as requirement.
1. Medical directors should not be required for each dispensary, 2. The cost for medical directors
would put undue burden on small business. 3. Dispensaryâ€™s should be able to serve any patients
with a valid medical use card issued by any state where similar laws for medical use have been
approved by popular vote. 3. Remember that patients are not criminals the law was voted in by
popular vote to help sick persons. 4. My doctor gives me a prescription for 5 different drugs for a 1
year period and I can even have the pharmacy call and get another few months supply in a pinch but I
have to make an appointment to see the doctor. When I see the doctor he reminds me that I need to
see him every 6 months and he refills my 1 year prescription. Why is the AZ Dept of Heath services
treat these patience differently than another medical patient could that be discrimination. 5.
Delete the 70-30 rule, they should be allow to purchase and not have to grow the marijuana cost are
significant to start up and you are making it that way. 6. The very restrictive rules and regulations will
make the cost of the medicine inflated.
As stated above, I think the draft rules can be improved to really consider abuse by qualified patients
and caregivers. Not that I assume these people are necessarily out to break the rules, but I think a
whole can of worms will be open if neighbors and criminals discover someone is growing on their
property. I am concerned with the crime element having access to innocent civilians. I think the best
way to about implementing medical marijuana is to only allow AZDH approved cultivation sites to
grow marijuana. These sites can be monitored electronically and information about where the seeds
used to grow the plants originated, growing time, quantity, THC levels, etc.. can be controlled. Then
distribution records to dispensaries can be maintained and the public is safe from "tainted" product or
black market product, too. I think that dispensaries should only be a place where product is sold and
information and merchandise, including edibles, are sold. They should have safe and secure access
and video monitoring for everyone's protection. I also believe that the cultivation sites should be
away from the dispensaries at an undisclosed location to the public. This way criminals, drug lords,
and even fanatics who are totally against medical marijuana are not tempted to vandalize, destroy, or
injure the property or employees of the dispensary. The culivation sites are heavily guarded and
monitored and the inventory of a dispensary is limited by the amount of qualified patients it serves. If
a dispensary only serves a handful of people, it's inventory should reflect the number of patients x the
legal amount (I think it's 2.5 oz every other week). So if the dispensary serves 100 people, then it's
inventory is limited to 250 oz. every other week. As the number of patients grow, the inventory can
grow with it. This is a great way to control abuse in the system. All qualified patients are logged and
documented and all inventory is manageable. Then, when a dispensary needs more product it places
a P.O. with the off-site cultivation center and a paper trail is generated from receipt of the P.O. to it's
delivery to the dispensary. I would say that a cultivation site could supply more than one dispensary
as it must grow product in anticipation for demand. Then different strains could be monitored and
developed for "sale" back to it's approved dispensary. Now you can control and regulate product,
supply, demand with a tracking system from seed to patient. If a patient should ever get sick from a
particular product the products are able to be traced..just like what happened with e-coli and spinach.
Each bag had a production date, a batch number, and facility attached to it's UPC code. That's my
advice. A grocery store doesn't grow it's own spinach. It gets it from quality controlled suppliers.
Likewise, a qualified patient, caregiver, or dispensary should not be able to grow its own product, but
can order it from an AZDH approved cultivation site. For those living too far away, or don't have
transportation there needs to be a mechanism to get the medical marijuana to the people who need
it such as a Medical Marijuana Transport Company that is licensed, insured, and specializes in delivery.
We must protect the public from the harm from others and/or the criminal element that might seek
to harm individual dispensaries, caregivers, or patients if they knew where they were growing their
product. Keeping the cultivation sites separate from the dispensary will solve that serious dilemma. It
allows control, inventory, record keeping and security. An added thought: neighboring commercial
businesses might also object to a dispensary growing medical marijuana in a place near where they
operate. Consider the fire hazard that might occur with grow lights and electrical appliances used to
grow. That is a disaster waiting to happen. A cultivation site should maybe only be a stand alone
building or a secure industrial building away from commerce. The dispensaries can then just feature
the finished product without endangering the public. I know I've said alot, but I think what I offer
makes complete sense. Good luck and God speed! Hope this helps!
Create esaier access so that the spirit of the law is upheld
I feel that Neurofibromatosis should be included as a condition. There are three different types my
mom and I have Schwannomatosis it causes tumors to grow on nerve endings and is very painful. I
have read that THC can slow or stop the growth of some tumors and for that reason and to help with
sleep and pain it should be added to the list. I have been to several specialists to see if I can get some
of my tumors removed and have just been referred to pain management and was told that I will just
have to live with it. I don't like the meds that I have tried and I have tried more that I count. the only
thing that helps at all is Hydrocodone and I take 6 10/660 pills a day along with some other pills just to
get through a day. I don't like narcotics and may not like marijuana but I am willing to try anything to
feel better. I also feel that to have to be with a doctor for a year or more is tough. I have been with my
PCP for five years but they say that a specialists needs to make that recomendation even though they
feel that medical Marijuana could help me . I have only seen most of the specialist once and was told
that I will just need to live with it.
â€œIf people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their
bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.â€ ~Thomas
Jefferson, 1781 Any Arizona physician may in a single visit prescribe "speed," e.g., Adderall, to a
kindergartener-without 4 visits spread out over 1 year any Arizona physician may prescribe to a
kindergartener a drug that can kill that child by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other "side effects."
â€¢ Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis C, and ALS patients often do not have 1 year to live. â€¢ The patients that
do live are cruelly being told to change doctors or suffer for 1 year. â€¢ Deadly and addictive drugs
such as the opiates are prescribed in a single visit by Arizona physicians and, despite the best efforts
of physicians, some of those deadly and addictive drugs are illegally diverted, but that does not cause
the AzDHS to demand 4 visits, 1 year of visits, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of the
patient. â€¢ Marijuana is 100% safe, gives patients good relief, and cures some conditions-Marijuana
is not deadly and is not addictive. â€¢ The alternative offered by the AzDHS to avoid 1 year of
suffering, the cannabis specialist takes over the primary care of the pt's qualifying condition, is done
nowhere else in medicine-Nowhere else in medicine does a specialist take over a patient's primary
care. â€¢ The AzDHS does not have the authority to define or re-define the patient-physician
relationship or the number of doctors visits, or the length of time for those visits-that infringes on the
patient's choice â€¢ The draft regulations are cruel and unreasonable.
It should also include employees of Manufacturing products to require back ground checks. I also
think that people that cannot afford the Renewal fee, should be allowed a Renewal fee based on their
income. That is of course if they paid the Initial Patient fee at least up front. The surety bond
requirement did not state who would be required to have it. Doesn't a surety bond insure an
individual and not a Company? If a Dispensary is not entering into a contract with the patient, why
would they have to have a Surety Bond? Isn't a bond required when there could be a potential loss
and the bond would insure that loss? Doesn't a Doctor have malpractice Insurance?
However, I see no duty for card holders to report convictions of excluded offenses. Applicants
should be required to disclose any offenses reported in their criminal history, so records can be obtain
to rule out they are not excluded offenses. Need to make specific requirements for all applicants to
provide official records showing proof they do not have excluded offenses when they disclose a
criminal offense. The Administrative Review completeness having a 5-day time-frame seems way too
short when the DHS may have thousands of applicants coming in during the first few months after
April 1st??? The same goes for the Substansive Review time-frames, time-frame seems way too
short? How long is it going to take to get fingerprint records back? What if the fingerprints were
not cleared and the applicant has to roll them again to determine if they have a criminal record?
What about getting the criminal records to prove that any offenses reported in their fingerprints are
not excluded offenses?
#NAME?
R9-17-102 Fees $5000 Registration Fee is setting to monopolize industry for the wealthy only $2500
to change location of Dispensary is excessive,maybe one free charge,considering $5000 registration
fee. Qualifying Pt. $50 fee and not $150 $25 to renew R9-17-102 Cultivation site definition-The one
additional location besides the dispensary where Marijuana will also be cultivated by and for the
dispensary. Delete 10-b Delete 15. The patient already has supplied adequate information and
relationship with a DR. That relationship proves that their personal DR. can provide medical oversight.
16-a Change Physician-Pt. relationship to 3 months not 1 year. 2 visits not 4 R9-17-106B 3-Not 90
days change to 45 4-Strike 150 days change to 75 5-Strike 180 Days change to 100
The appreciates the opportunity to make some initial

comments on the informal draft of the Medical Marijuana Rules: 1. Regarding R9-17-101 (18), a
citation within this section is needed to confirm that a hospital is a public place. The existing statute
ARS. 36-2814 A.2 clearly includes hospitals. 2. Please confirm that hospitals may prohibit the
possession of marijuana on their property by anyone.
The inreasonable burdens placed upon dispensaries. 12 ft walls and constant video surveillance? Why
wouldn't medical marijuana be treated like any other medicine? It seems extremely unreasonable to
require 4 visits to a doctor over 12 months in order to get a doctor's recommendation. If a patient is
suffering why would the State of Arizona take the position that the patient needs to wait ONE YEAR to
get medicine? They don't need to for any other type medicines. If a doctor can't make a
recommendation to their patient after one visit, then they shouldn't be licensed to practice. Why
would they need to see the same suffering FOUR times and allow the patient to suffer for a year
before they can make a recommendation? Who comes up with this stuff? You have a NON LETHAL
drug recommendation as compared to a possibly lethal prescription medicine, but you can get the
lethal one after one visit, but the State of Arizona will make you wait a year, suffer for a year, until you
can get the non lethal medicine????? What sense does that make?
THE LAW GIVES YOU ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO PLACE THESE RESTRICTIONS ON DISPENSARIES:
36-2803 36-2804 36-2804.01 Where is the authority to deny someone a dispensary app if he is in
default on a student loan?
the way it is written potential for wide abuse with recreational users and not medical need
i cant believe you have to have a physician for a year or more what about the people that cant afford
that i no that especially in these hard times i cant in fact i should have went to a doctor a long time
ago i thought maybe this medical marijuana would be a good option for me and now i have no hope
because of the fact that i dont have enough money u need to seriously rethink this i cant believe u
would do this
R9-17-101 17. Proposed rules state: "Physician-patient relationship" means interaction between a
physician and an individual in which the physician has ongoing responsibility for the assessment, care,
and treatment of the patient's debilitating medical condition. A physician may be treating one
aspect of the patient's care which would be eased by the use of medical marijuana but may not have
the ongoing responsibility for treatment. In the case of a cancer patient, the chemotherapy treatment
may be eased by using marijuana during the treatment period. As with any prescription it is inherent
that the prescribing physician monitor the patient and discontinue prescribing the treatment when no
longer necessary. An radiation oncologist may prescribe the use of medical marijuana during the
radiation but not to continue beyond. This is a relatively short term relationship between the doctor
and patient. R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit
the following nonrefundable fees: a. Qualifying patient; $150; I feel that this fee could be
prohibitive to some patients who are already struggling with medical bills. The amount seems
extraordinarily high. In fact this is higher than a driver's license which many would consider to be a
lethal weapon. R9-17-103. Electronic Submission An applicant submitting an application for a
registry identification card or to amend, change, or replace a registry identification card for a
qualifying patient, designated caregiver, or dispensary agent shall submit the application electronically
using a Department-provided format. Amazing as it may seem there are people who do not have
access to electronically submit a form. Applicants should be permitted to submit forms in paper or to
submit at Dept of Health in person via a terminal. F. If the Department determines that an initial
application for a dispensary registration is in compliance with A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this
Chapter, the Department shall provide a written notice of preliminary approval of the dispensary
registration certificate that contains the dispensary's registry identification number. d. A copy the
principal officer's or board member's: i Arizona driver's license issued after October 1, 1996; ii.
Arizona identification card issued after October 1, 1996; iii. Arizona registry identification card; iv.
Photograph page in the principal officer's or board member's U.S. passport; or v. An Arizona driver's
license or identification card issued before October 1, 1996 and one of the following: (1) Birth
certificate verifying U.S. citizenship, (2) U. S. Certificate of Naturalization, or (3) U. S. Certificate of
Citizenship. The above section is not clear as to whether one of each is required for items i, ii, iii, iv.
This should be clarified to indicate that a valid AZ driver's license or registry identification card or
passport R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate 1. An application in a
Department-provided format that includes: a. The legal name of the dispensary; b. The physical
address of the dispensary; It is beyond comprehension that an organization applying for a
dispensary license would already have a physical address. This should be clarified to state that the
physical address is proposed and/or based on preliminary application acceptance. f. Whether a
principal officer or board member ii. Is a physician currently making qualifying patient
recommendations; iii. Has not provided a surety bond or filed any tax return with a taxing agency;
Two objections to the above wording: ii - Is a physician precluded from being involved in a dispensary
and also making patient recommendations? This is unclear by the wording. iii - Why would a surety
bond be required to ensure performance? What other Arizona businesses must post a surety bond in
order to be licensed? This seemed like a discriminatory practice. 4. Policies and procedures that
comply with the requirements in this Chapter for: a. Inventory control, b. Qualifying patient
recordkeeping, c. Security, and d. Patient education and support I did not see where the above
reference "requirements" were specified. 5. A copy of the certificate of occupancy or other
documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing occupancy of the building
as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site; 6. A sworn statement signed
and dated by the individual or individuals in R9-17-301 certifying that the dispensary is in compliance
with local zoning restrictions; As previously noted, I am not clear on how a business can establish a
certificate of occupancy and a sworn statement that it is in compliance with local governing
authorities without actually have a license. These terms should be conditionally required based on
receiving a preliminary approval. 15. Whether: a. A registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call
during regular business hours; b. The dispensary will provide information about the importance of
physical activity and nutrition onsite; c. Whether the dispensary has or has not incorporated; and d.
Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much; and The above section is not clear
as to whether a through d are requirements for licensing. This should be clearly stated and if required,
justification provided. C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; The proposed regulation does
not address how the dispensary shall acquire the initial seeds or inventory to commence growth of
the product.
Instead of AZ resident being able to own the dispensery- how about anyone who owns and pays
property taxes in state of AZ.
Ensure that the rules are strict, clear, and restrictive. Try to eliminate any and all loop holes.
The draft can LIMIT the number of dispensaries to a group and/or individual. The Patient/physician
relationship (4 times in the last year) is hard for those of us on fixed incomes with no health insurance.
I do like the fact that a Physician/Medical Doctor cannot issue a presrciption for Medical Marijuana.
It does not address employees of Manufactures into brownies or creams. The draft can address how
much of the INITITIVE it is going to approve as I thought the Dept of Health could amend the inititive.
Google [URL=http://google.com]google[/URL]
Add Migraine Headaches to the list of approved debilitating conditions. I have suffered from these
headaches for years and have seen multiple doctors, most of them long term, and have tried many
different drugs and diet recomendations. No medication has worked to reduce the frequency of my
headaches. Iâ€™ve seen that other states have approved marijuana for this use and Iâ€™m desperate
to find some relief!
It seems stupid to apply for licenses when the 5000.00 is a non-refundable application fee and retail
space for dispensary/grow- op are needed before knowing if a person will be granted the licenses?
And still non-refundable....... Also limiting the dispensary/grow-op space will stop the dispensary
from having enough medicine to supply the patients. Seems that growers and cooks will be tied to
dispensaries, giving them all the control of prices and products. It is not clear about the caregivers
needing to pay 200.00, is that per patient they are caring for? Or is that just a onetime yearly fee that
will cover the 5 patients they will care for?
My concern with the rules is that the patient and State of Arizona are not fully protected. The
following are my concerns: Medical marijuana is by definition a medicine. Therefore, it needs the
quality control through manufacture, dispensing and use by patients as all medicines require. The
State needs to insure that the same protections and requirements developed for medicines by the
Federal Food and Drug Administration are adopted for this medicine. Otherwise the State is opening
itself for class action legal liability from the patients. Therefore, dispenraries need to meet all of the
Federal standards. It makes no sense to allow patients to produce their own medicine (medical
marijuana) without the same requirements as the dispensaries. The State needs to inspect all
patient's cultivation and medicine production and dosage they use. Patients do not have keep
accurate records to prevent unauthorized sales of medicine to other users. Just saying (by affidavit)
they will not sell on the street is not good enough. Also, there is no specification as to where and what
variety of seed or plant a patient is required to use. The State should disallow the sale of patient
medicine (medical marijuana) to anyone. There are no requirements for laboratory testing by
dispensaries on medicine (medical marijuana). Therefore, the state has no idea what quality of
medicine the patients are using from a dispensary. Random laboratory testing should be mandated by
dispensaries and records kept. What determines a usable or unusable medicine (medical marijuana)?
The State labeling requirement for dispensaries to state that "marijuana is added to food without
oversite" is actually stating the State is liable because it has not provided the necessary oversight. This
would be a class action attorney's dream in a law suit.
My concern as a lifelong citizen of Arizona is the abuse and corruption that will follow through the
processes of obtaining and administrating the medicinal marijuana, and to insure its kept available
only to those that are truly the persons intended for it. As I prepare and propose these new
considerations and measures, I do have to say I am in support of Arizona legalizing medicinal
marijuana, I think it would be beneficial to the intended users and also to the State of Arizona, but I
also have a grave concern for the dispensing. I want to see that the dispensing to be administered by
proven professionals, ideal citizens, and business owners and their partners in Arizona. As I propose to
change the fee schedule, I would like to make the point that the new "medicinal marijuana industry" is
and should be treated as big business for the State of Arizona, and shall therefore be considered as
such. Changing the fee schedule I also feel it would: 1.) deter the average person, business, or
entity with a few thousand dollars to be able to apply as dispensary. I would rather have and see
reputable pharmacists (CVS, Walgreens, Wal-marts,) that have been in business in Arizona or as a
whole, for a minimum of 10 years and without any violations or lawsuits against them- whether
business, state, federal, personal, and also including applicants,owners, assigns, partners, board
members. (this reassures me personally that the business and owner are truly interested in the
process and running a respectable program, as opposed to having tons of "pop-up" smokeshops, or
business's flood the streets like Circle K's, control measures must be implemented through financial
means and process. I would also recommend that the "License" or "certificate" be only obtainable to a
dispensary if a "Certified Licensed trained Pharmacist by the State of Arizona" is employed at the
location, (again control measures.) 2.) Be able to implement, support, and possibly create new state
jobs to enforce "control measures" for the dispensing and monitoring of the applicants, process,
business's, owner's, partners, and assigns. 3.) The employed dispensing agent must be certified and
licensed as a "Pharmacist", and that they are the only ones allowed to handle and fulfill orders. there
must be at least 1 "certified and licensed pharmacist" on site during business hours. (not sure where
this fits in) My main proposals are to reconsider changing: R9-17-102 Fees, which affects- R9-
17-301. Dispensaries, R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate. R9-17-102.
FEES An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following
nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $8,000 1.5 Once registration is approved,a
"Medical Marijuana Dispensary License" fee of $35,000.00- $45,000.00 due within 30 days of approval
by the state. (after considering what a liquor license costs) 1.6 Fee if the business is not already
registered as a "Licensed Pharmaceutical Dispensary " through the State of Arizona- $50,000 (control
measures, after all its for medical purposes) 2. To renew the YEARLY registration of a dispensary,
$10,000; (control measures) a. additional fees if not renewed within 2 weeks of expiration $20,000 or
even loss of License. 3. To change the location of a dispensary, $4,500; (control measures) a.
additional fees if not reported within 2 weeks $20,000 4. To change the location of a dispensary's
cultivation site, $10,000; (control measures) a. additional fees if not reported within 2 weeks $20,000
5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $150; b. Designated caregiver, $800;
c. Dispensary agent, $800; 6. For YEARLY renewing of a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying
patient, $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200; and c. Dispensary agent, $200; 7. For amending or
changing a registry identification card, $75; and 8. For requesting a replacement registry
identification card, $1500. (control measures so that they are not abused) Thank you for reading
and strongly considering my views and requests for changes-
6 January 2011 Mr.

Will Humble Director Arizona Department of Health Services 150 North 18th Avenue Phoenix,
Arizona 85007 Re: Draft Regulations, Arizona Medical Marijuana Act Dear Mr. Humble, Our
Association voices strenuous objection to the seriously defective content of the draft regulations. In
aggregate, the draft regulations inform Arizonaâ€™s suffering, dying, and good citizens that they are
chattel. If the State says â€œSuffer!â€ we must suffer. If the State says â€œWait and die! We must
wait and die. Indisputably too, the proposed dispensary regulations benefit only the elite super-
wealthy, only those who can gamble millions of dollars to build fortresses that may never be licensed,
fortresses that indulge police state spy-cam fantasies, but are unreasonable and unnecessary to the
task. Such blatant favoritism in your proposed regulations only buttresses the allegations of collusion
between the Arizona Department of Health Services (hereinafter, "the department") and a favored
wealthy few [cf. 1/4/2011 Professionals letter, exhibits, and news
release]. The current rulemaking process is damaged beyond repair. We demand that the department
rescind the draft regulations immediately and begin the process anew. In a transparent public
process, promulgate draft regulations that are moral, legal, compassionate, and to the advantage of
Arizona's suffering, dying, and good citizens. Repugnant assumptions in the draft regulations The
unstated but evident fundamental assumptions of the regulations are immoral, lawless, pathological,
elitist, and demagogic, utterly incompatible with moral imperatives of a free nation. These repugnant
assumptions are: 1) the lives of Arizona's citizens belong to the State; the State, not the patient, will
decide if, when, and what care patients will receive; 2) the department of Health Services is, as its
spokesperson has indicated, above the law and may disregard the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act;
and 3) the department may patronize the wealthy and elite to their advantage and to the
disadvantage of the suffering, dying, and good citizens at large. In your introduction of the draft
regulations you even opined that you drafted the regulations for the â€œgoodâ€ of the opponents
of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, a bizarre concept akin to â€œSegregation is no longer the law,
but the department is obliged draft rules to satisfy segregationists.â€ Reminders Patients, not the
State, own their own lives, so have the right to choose if, who, when, and what kind of medical care
they will seek. Marijuana is completely safe in itself, cannot be lethal, and so should be treated as a
safe, effective, and legal product as the findings of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act require,
certainly not treated with more stringency than is currently required for the dispensing of drugs,
prescription or otherwise, from Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices, The safety, efficacy, and
legality of medical marijuana warrant the spread, not the suppression, of its use. For these reasons
and in view of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, medical marijuana services must be readily
available to the qualifying patients and dispensary licensing must not be available only to an elite and
wealthy group. Partial listing of defects ARS 36-2803.4 of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires
that the Arizona Department of Health Services rulemaking be â€œwithout imposing an undue
burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensariesâ€¦.â€ In no way do the MPP/AZDHS draft
regulations respect that requirement. Quite the contrary, the regulations impose unacceptable
burdens not only on dispensaries, but on the suffering, dying, and good citizens of Arizona. ARS 28.1
Section 2 â€œFindingsâ€ of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department to take
department. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden. 6 to 8 foot high chain link fencing,
open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable
department authority to require multiple assessments, require â€œongoingâ€ care, or redefine the
required to assume primary responsibility for a patientâ€™s care. Nowhere else in the practice of
specialist may not have the requisite training or experience to do so. The departmentâ€™s regulations
are a cruel, unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patientsâ€™ rights of
choice, including their rights to choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information,
or even to choose not to seek (or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or
subsequent to application). R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-
105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the
patients, qualifying patientsâ€™ parents, and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship,
the sections make little or no provision for patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or
yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily life. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and
caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii and R9-17-202.F.5(h)
are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurp patientsâ€™ rights to choose other providers or sources
of information. R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-
physicianâ€™s professional practice. Arizona's pharmacies dispense drugs that are very toxic, yet are
not required to have medical directors on-site or on-call. R9-17-313.B.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable
and usurps authority denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter
Protection Act. The department has no authority to place an undue burden on recordkeeping for
denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in
the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that
a product may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security
products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to
require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse. Summary The department has a duty to
facilitateâ€”not subvertâ€”the law. Consistent with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, the
department must acknowledge that patients have rights to choose their care and their providers. The
department has a duty to ensure that compassionate and talented providers who do not have millions
of dollars to gamble are awarded licenses. The current rulemaking process has been irreparably
contaminated, mostly by the maliciousness of your own proposed regulations. The process must begin
anew. If malefactors are identified, they must be excluded. The new process must be open, a matter
of transparent public record, and reflect the passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, not
opposition to that law. To do otherwise demands immediate injunctive relief. Sincerely,
Requiring a fee of up to $150 could cause a major economic strain on many AIDS and Cancer patients
who are already struggling with medical bills. The terminology which states the requester is unable
to "accomplish daily living" is very subject to interpretation. R9-17-204 4-e Requiring a patient to
have a one year relationship with the prescribing physcian doesn't make any sense when a cancer
patient may have just begun a relationship with an oncologist who prescribes the marijuana to help
alleviate the effects of chemotherapy. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer I had 4 different
physician's treating me at different times in the process, none of which I had seen for a year prior to
my diagnosis. R9-17-302 - Requiring as part of the dispensary application process to have a site built-
out and ready to open for business prior to the license approval is beyond comprehension. I question
why any logical businessperson would invest the time and funds before even a preliminary license
approval is received. R9-17-302 B-f-iii - The definition of a surety bond is to protect an obligee
against failure to perform by a principal. This proposed rule would seem to preclude individuals from
meeting license requirements. It would also seem that failure to comply with the regulations once a
license had been issued would result in revocation of the license rather than revocation of a surety
bond. What other businesses in Arizona are required to post a surety bond in order to open for
business?
I have issues with the stipulation requiring a year's treatment with a doctor prior to being able to
obtain a medical card. As a nurse, I feel that this violates doctor/patient confidentiality. Since there
will most likely be doctors reluctant to recommend medical marijuana out of fear of the Feds, people
with qualifying medical conditions may have to find another doctor willing to make the
recommendation. Forcing them to wait a year could be viewed as inhumane and cruel. This stipulation
does not apply when a physician prescribes Oxycontin, which is far more dangerous than medical
marijuana. How about we apply a little reason here?
No where did I read that medical marijuana is to be used specifically for the terminally ill. The
illnesses are extremely vague. 98% of California marijuana "cardholders" are not the terminally ill, or
cancer patient Use a bar code so the Dept. can track the dispensaries, designated caregiver &
patient use/disperse. Overall, medical marijuana is a total joke. The Federal laws should supersede
any state laws...it's an illegal drug. period.
One major issue I see is the 70%/30%. This means that there will be potentially over one hundred
cultivation facilitates around town, it seems safer to have less cultivation and have a zero rule on
cultivation, so dispensaries can purchase 100% of product from outside sources
The language on qualifying patients doesn't seem to make sense. There are two parts to this section.
The first says there must be a 1 year relationship and at least 4 visits regarding the health issue. The
FAQ on the web site has incorrect information. It says that it's either a 1 year relationship or 4 visits
covering the health issue. But the draft says you need both. The second parts says "or" which seems
to suggest, "if the patient doesn't meet the first criteria the following criteria must be met." Here the
draft says the recommending doctor has assumed primary responsibility and routine care for the
medical condition AND that they have also conducted a comprehensive medical history and physical
exam. Wouldn't a comprehensive medical history and physical exam always be indicated? Does that
mean if you've seen a doctor at least 4 times for at least a year for a debilitating medical condition
that it's not necessary to have taken a complete medical history or done any physical exams? If the
second section is meant to cover patients that need immediate care and can not wait a year and 4
visits for treatment, it would be helpful to be clear in the language.
The definition of â€œMedical Directorâ€ must be expanded to include Naturopathic Physicians.

As the definition is written now in the draft rules, â€œMedical Directorâ€ means â€œa doctor of
medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32,
Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17
or its successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at a
dispensary.â€ This definition has wrongly omitted a licensed Naturopathic Physician. Naturopathic
Physicians are certainly no less capable of performing the duties of a Medical Director, and in fact may
be in a better position to guide the alternative care required for medical marijuana patients.
According to the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges â€œnaturopathy is a
traditional approach to health that is holistic, meaning that it encompasses the whole being. It is
based on natural and preventative care. Naturopathic medicine combines many methodologies, such
as acupuncture, massage, chiropractic adjustment, homeopathy and herbal cures, along with sensible
concepts such as good nutrition, exercise and relaxation techniques. The exclusion of Naturopathic
Physicians is not only illogical but is also unfounded based on the language of existing statutes and the
language of Prop 203. For example the education and licensure requirements for Naturopaths are no
less stringent than those for M.D. and both are afforded nearly identical authority to treat patients
(See A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14). Further, Naturopaths have specialized education in botany and
herbal therapies, making them uniquely qualified to serve as Medical Directors for a dispensary.
Excluding them from serving as Medical Directors does a severe disservice to patients. Finally
Naturopaths qualify as a â€œPhysicianâ€ as defined in Proposition 203 Â§36-2801(12). Thus,
Naturopathic Doctors will be permitted to recommend MM to patients under State Law. How then
can they be excluded from serving as Medical Directors? This seems contrary to the intent of the law
at best and discriminatory and potentially illegal at worst. Naturopathy is a legitimate and widely
accepted field that focuses on natural and primarily non-invasive therapies to treat disease, stimulate
healing, and promote overall health. Naturopaths are trained to understand the way herbs and
homeopathic remedies affect the body. Since, licensed Naturopathic Physicians can and likely will
legally recommend the use of MM to patients according to State Law, it seems axiomatic that the
same credentials should entitle a person to work as a Medical Director at a MM Dispensary. Further,
Naturopathic doctors above other professionals included in the definition of â€œPhysicianâ€ set out
in Proposition 203 Â§36-2801(12), are uniquely qualified to understand and oversee the use of MM by
registered users, because they understand how natural remedies effect the body.
1. I believe the 12 foot wall requirement for "enclosed" should be eased for those who are cultivating
within their own residence because they are not within 25 miles of a dispensary. Not all homes have
12 foot walls. 2. The $150 registry identification card for patients may be too much for less
fortunate people and may exclude lower income patients. I believe a sliding scale or reduced cost
card is appropriate under certain circumstances. 3. In my opinion the written certification from an
Arizona physician unduly discriminates against Veterans as veteran physicians cannot generally
prescribe marijuana because of Federal laws. I believe the taking primary responsibility for the care of
the qualifying patient may be too strict a requirement for the veterans who cannot afford private
medical care for outside physicians and those outside physicians are required to take over medical
treatment and may thus refuse if the Veteran cannot afford the private physician. I would
recommend excluding Veterans from this language. 4. I really like the Arizona residency
requirement of two years however do so may exclude the "expertise" of out-of-state people running
dispensaries from helping set up and run the new dispensaries and being compensated for such.
Allowing these members to provide services would allow their input without necessarily allowing
them to "own" the company. I believe clarification in this respect is appropriate. I like the two year
requirement though. 5. The dispensary application is very cumbersome but appropriate. I believe it
will be necessary for many dispensaries to have the assistance of legal counsel for the application and
ongoing compliance issues relating to procedures, policies, contracts etc. As you know there is an
issue as to whether attorneys can assist these clients under the Arizona ethical rules. I would
recommend providing your input to permit legal assistance to the Arizona State Bar. 6. I do not
believe the cultivating marijuana requirement of only 30% being able to be provided to other
registered dispensaries is appropriate as it will limit supplies to the smaller (likely rural) dispensaries.
The rule is too preclusive and is not in the best interests of the patients. Instead, a market-
based/wholesale relationship between dispensaries that does not limit how much it can produce
and/or supply would be more effective and help the economic viability of dispensaries and assure
rural communites can be supplied adequately. I also believe there needs to be clarification regarding
cultivation in that a dispensary can acquire its marijuana from a wholesaler who cultivates for more
than one dispensary. In other words, a large cultivator should be able to supply multiple dispensaries
simultaneously, from one location, and not be inhibited by the 30% rule. 7. The requirement of each
dispensary having a medical director with a current license will likely preclude many small
dispensaries from sustaining its operations or even beginning operation. With 125 dispensaries and
physicians only being able to serve three dispensaries, there will be a need for a minimum of 42
licensed physicians. Because of the illegality of medical marijuana on the federal level, it may be
difficult to find 42 physicians willing to serve in this capacity and work so closely with the dispensary
while they also have to keep their own practice going. i would recommend you also allow RN, Nurse
Practitioners, Public Health PhDs, AZ physicians and osteopaths with inactive (not invalid) licenses
serve the dispensaries as well. 8. Keeping records for five years is ok, but the provision should be
clarified to better protect privacy and state all records should be kept according to qualifying patient
id number and caregiver ID number--not the individual's name. 9. The inventory system
requirements is very complex but workable after working through the problems that will arise initially.
The DHS may want to provide inventory sheets that can be filled out and will be easily inspected as
needed. 10. The amount of electronic surveillance and other electronic requirements are going to
be very expensive for the average dispensary and will probably keep many smaller entrepreneurs out
of the business. This in turn may affect the more rural personnel wherre dispensaries will be unable
to open because of the amount of capital needed to meet the requirements and the small number of
qualifying patients that will move through the dispensary. The requirements are good ideas may may
have the opposite effect on dispensaries opening up because of lack of funding. 11. 9.
Listen to the people
keep pricing down on medications. card cost are to high. smoking areas need to be open. its not like
every person here will have it and smoking.
open the smoking areas. hotels and outdoors need to be included. pricing for the cards and for the
product. theres nothing to protect the patientfrom high cost including your fees. this is medicine and
yet anybody can open a dispensary. the state should own and operate the dispensaries. but no matter
who owns them there should be a flat monthly fee of $100-200 for 5oz of medicine. protect the
patients remember people who really need this will get it and those are on limited incomes like social
security disability. and any law can be amended and change the growing part of it let us grow our own
if we want.
Section R9-17-307 needs to be expanded to handle more HR issues that can be sensitive to this
industry. If this industry is going to be accepted by the main stream business community, then it
needs to subject itself to more scrutiny and hold itself to a higher standard. With that being stated, I
have listed below the changes and or addtions to be made to the above referenced section:
the requirements that make sure that a patient has a legitimate medical condition that require the
use of medical marijuana. The requirements that a patient get a card to ID themselves as having a
qualifying condition. But that is written into the initial rules that were voted upon initially. Most
other rules that you, as an agency are trying to implement, in addition to what was voted upon by the
voters, is an obvious and unconstitutional attempt to complicate a fairly simple idea and an obvious
attempt to subvert the political framework that our nation, and more importantly, the state of
Arizona was founded upon. Regardless of what the personal beliefs of those that are placed in charge
of writing the rules for Arizona, THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF ARIZONA wants people with cancer and
seriously painful conditions to have access to medication that relieves their pain. Arizona voters want
the AZ MMJ Act implemented exactly as they VOTED for, not what you feel that you personally want.
With the holidays & several end of/ first of year tasks out of the way, I'll start memorizing the section
this weekend. From what I have seen so far, requirements for documentation.
I believe that the draft rules have only partially followed (conformed) with the intent of what we the
voters intended. The majority of the 47 pages, however, seem to be well thought out and should be
effective. The following comments will address the corrections feel should be made.
Discription of Dispensary requirements and operations! Pricing seems fair!
None
There are many parts of the draft Rules that ensure safegruards to prevwent medical marijuan from
being used for non-medical reasons. The requirement tha ta physicain with an on-going physicain-
patient relationship make the recommendation for medical marijuana fro their client is important. Itis
also important for a physican to be the medical director for the licensed dispensary. However, this
physican can not also give the clients of the Medical Marijuana Dispensary the recommendation for
medical marijuana.There are many safeguards for preventing theft and loss of hte marijuana through
strict regulations of the Dispensary. The $150 fee for the registration identification card for the client
is a reasonable amount to help defray the cost for administering this program. The
has estimated that operation costs will run $ 600,000 in year one, $ 1.5 million in
year two, and $3.1 million in year three. The $ 150 is a minimal cost compared to the cost of the
marijuana product and may deter non-medical use.
The rules appear to be well written and cover a lot of territory. As a matter of fact, I think they cover
a little more than they should. They seem to be overly restrictive and require things that are not
required in any other industry or business. I think you should rethink some of the restrictions as they
will not hold up in court.
Truly, with all due respect, I wish the first draft had sufficient effective content to warrant response
here; such that it is, I shall reserve effort and response for the next section, in hopes that in the next
period I'll spend more time in this text box than the next...
N/A
The draft seems comprehensive in its specificity of qualifications for patients, caregivers, pharmacists,
sources and grow conditions. Perhaps overly so. I like the medical history transfer option between
doctors in lieu of establishing a new, protracted relationship. YEA for progress applying this
innocuous substance for medical purposes. Good fortune for futher commercial applications. It has
been unjustly oppressed since .
As a non-user, I believe most of the rules are appropriate. The job you have done is admirable given
the time constraints.
Hi, and thanks for giving the public a great way to respond with feedback. I believe you overall
judgments and policy are quite good and I appreciate how strict it is. This will result in sick people in
pain, getting the help they desperately need. I have seen father go through a liver transplant and prior
to the transplant he suffered for 5 long years, during which he would take marijuana from time to
time to ease the pain of constant itching. The urea from the body is deposited on the skin constantly
and makes one extremely dry and itchy to the point you do not know when you are constantly
scratching and cannot sleep. Not a fun event at all, but the marijuana gave him enough relief to get
some rest which was a great help. At the same time this was going on my dear friend was got Hodgkin
disease and his doctor recommended he try marijuana to fight the effects of nausea from the
Chemotherapy. With the use of marijuana he was able to eat food and actually keep it down to digest
it. In fact, on one visit to the doctor, his physician remarked how he had actually put on weight. So a
recommendation from a doctor in an established doctor-patient relationship per the description in
the draft rules is good. Plus, this will deter less scrupulous doctors from giving out random
recommendations for marijuana when not warranted. People that are in pain deserve treatment, and
we should not soil the medicine they need with problems that other states have. This marijuana
should be able to be produced inexpensively while allowing the patient access to it when needed.
R917-201 makes perfect sense in establishing appropriate conditions for issuing medical marijuana
but the one year / four office visit relationship requirement is going excessively too far. I agree with
the facility security requirements and electronic verification systems to keep facilities safe and keep
marijuana sales legitimate and only to individuals with medical marijuana cards. I would like to see a
lot of the stress put on the security aspect to make sure the dispensaries are safe and crime free and I
feel this to be the most crucial part of the equation when implementing the medical marijuana act in
Arizona.
â€¢ The effort to limit the number of Dispensaries, although the number proposed is too low â€¢ The
apparent concern for the Dispensaries security, expressed by the excessive security specifications
proposed â€¢ The effort to avoid allowing a felon to be involved in the supply or distribution process
This comment effects the doctor patent relationship portion of the draft. I agree with your thinking ,
but up until recently there has been only conventional mainstream methods available to all. This Act, I
believe, is a more natural approach to treating a variety of chronic illness. It opens up a whole new
genre of medical practice, however, building a long term relationship initially will take extensive out-
of- pocket funds.
THE PART ABOUT DISTANCE FROM SCHOOLS
Most of it is Great!
â€¢ The draft regulations are cruel and unreasonable.
I believe the residency requirement is very good.
I believe that the two year residency requirement is essential to keep the revenues produced from the
Medical Marijuana industry within the state of Arizona.
I Believe all parts are effected. Minors? I really think a little more restraint, children have a way to
come back. Children have RA but I would think that a child would not want to be buzz all the time,
especially in a school setting. School authorities would have a fit if something happened to the child,
because of this section Zero Tolerance drugs. Transportation: If the Med Mar is in my car and
anything and everything happens and the cops come. Is this going to be hazzled. DUI or what may
Come.
Although it is a noble idea to have an Arizona only residency requirement for dispensary owners, I
think it seems unfair. I think changing the draft to read at least 75% of licences issued must be
Arizona residency is adequate.
On-site inspections Criminal record checks Fingerprinting
The health requirements to obtain a medical card.
I first want to thank the AZDHS, Mr. Humble, and all involved in allowing a safer alternative to
prescription pharmaceuticals. I personally appreciate the open dialogue provided. I believe the
mandated State Medical Marijuana Card is a major step in the right direction when it comes to
providing security, protection of patient and caregivers from prosecution and arrest, as well as to
combat against fraudulent attainment of a recommendation and ID. I myself originate from Northern
California, and have been one of the legitimate Medical Cannabis patients, as I do suffer from a life
long condition known as Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy, Peripheral Nervous System Disorder, a set of
conditions that have been extensively improved from Cannabis use. However, I was uneasy about the
state of California's lax regulation, and sometimes no regulation. I do also appreciate the reciprocity
provision, allowing other qualified patients from either neighboring Med Cannabis states or other
Medical Cannabis states across the nation to safely use their medicine in Arizona for up to 30 days.
overall the draft rules are effective
I like the non-profit nature of the dispensaries. I agree with the overview that the intent is focused on
medical marijuana and to take necessary steps to keep the focus on medical marijuana. I agree with
draft which requires that dispensaries cultivate 70% of their own product. This clause will ensure
compliance and help with regulatory control over the product.
Overall, I thought the draft was highly comprehensive and well-written/thought-out.
Everything but the doctor patient part.
R9-17-302 2 year residency requirement will ensure that Arizonans take ownership, and the money
stays within our State. R9-17-311 Verification criteria is fantastic.
The draft rules are effective in that they do require two year residency for dipesary applications and
the legal requirements for dispensary owners are good, owner need to be held to a high standard and
be contributing members of their community with valid nonprofit status and intent.
Rule R9-17-311 "Dispensing Medical Marijuana" is effective, but could be stronger. This rule is
necessary to ensure that medical marijuana ("MM") does not end up in the wrong hands. It is
the wrong hands.
MOSTLY OK. I BELIVE HIT WILL HELP WITH MY CANCER AND THE PAIN. I ALSO THINK PEOPLE THAT
HAVE BEEN IN 4-5 AUTO ACCIDENTS MOST OF THEM ARE IN LOTS OF PAIN THAT WILL NEVER GO
AWAY. I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE IT. PROBABLY BETTER FOR THEM THAN THESE DRUGS THEY
GIVE US! aNYONE THAT NEEDS IT FOR A MEDICAL RESON SHOULD NOT BE DENIED EVEN IF THE DR
DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PAIN. I HAVE LOTS OF PAIN. CHEMICAL NEROPATHY FROM CHEMO
DRUGS, HAVE HAD 6 AUTO ACCIDENTS NONE MY FAULT, AND LOTS PAIN IN BONES ETC FROM MY
CANER THAT IS BACK. I MADE IT 4YRS AND NOW IT IS WORSE THAN EVERY. IF I DIE I HOPE IT IS WITH
POT TO HELP BE CROSS OVER!
Residency
I agree with most everything that is in the 1st draft.
I represent . I have reviewed the rules. My main concern is

that there is no criteria establishing the placement of dispensaries throughout the State. Could all of
the be placed in Maricopa and Pima counties? This is a significant concern to as we
would become a community of legal medical marijuana growers.
The rules establishing the nature of the doctor-patient relationship are clear and should prevent
abuses
Re: "The requirement that dispensaries cultivate 70% of their own product" We intend to produce
100% of our medicinal cannabis, in the event of a crop failure or surge in demand it is nice to have
some cushion. We think this is a responsible rule to keep for many reasons! Unregulated home grown
marijuana with chemical pesticides and questionable ties to the black market will fill dispensaries
unless this rule is kept! I would recommend keeping it 66.7-70%! Re: "The 2 year residency
requirement for dispensary applicants" This will greatly reduce the influence of outside interests with
ties to organized crime and an agenda to just use this as a stepping stone to push for legalization.
Arizona has been hit as hard and harder than almost every other state in this recession! The
thousands of underemployed Arizonans should be protected with this regulation! Re:Adding
additional medical conditions including mental illness, PTSD, fibromyalgia, depression, etc. You were
correct in not addressing this as it is presently a non-issue! Release a public statement explaining that
this will be addressed after the rules are in place to get the dispensary/patient licenses distributed!
The present tasks at hand are more than enough to keep you busy along with all the other duties your
Department has, that haven't all just magically stopped so you can reinvent this wheel! Re: The 25
mile limit for patient/caregiver cultivation (which is actually in the Initiative, not the rules) Not
addressing this is the correct course of action as changing the law isn't your duties! Re: The
requirement that cultivation facilities be licensed in association with a dispensary Not addressing this
is the correct course of action as changing the law isn't your duties! (what are these people
smoking?!)
Growing plants in enclosed premises.
I believe much of the regulations are effective and not overly restrictive. In general, as a prospective
dispensary operator I welcome state law makers to look at Colorado as a model of successful
integration of medicinal cannabis laws and businesses as a model worthy of emulation; as with
anything we have the opportunity to improve on that model at the beginning. California presents
some interesting challenges and industry opportunities but because of its size and unique situation
does not work as an overall model for our state to emulate necessarily. Specific parts of the proposed
draft rules will depend how they are implemented and to what degree the state is willing to work with
business and patient's right to seek medicine with in a humane manner. Like: R9-17-103 R9-
17-102 B. a. b. c.
safety.
I don't know because I only read the draft rules that pertained to me. Based on what I read I do not
have a debilitating medical condition on your list.
I believe that the qualification that the medical director be an M.D. is important. I believe that this
requirement lends the program some legitimacy in the medical community as well as the public
community. The medical director should be able to understand the intricacies of the diseases and
conditions that qualify patients as well as the interplay of physiology and pharmacology. A medical
doctor has the training to read and decipher the burgeoning medical marijuana research. Also, a
medical doctor would be in a position to coordinate social work, hospice care and at-home needs for
patients who have particularly debilitating diseases and conditions.
I believe there are people who have been in trouble for specifically marijuana in the past and would
possibly benefit the program if they were allowed a second chance Shorten the rule to five years or
less for a felony top work in the field
1. The rules relating to the procedures for obtaining a doctors perscription for medical marijuana and
obtaining a registry identification card.
I like that your laws are conservative. I feel that this is justifiable enough for patients who really do
benefit from the 400 components that medical marijuana has. I know a lot about pharmaceuticals,
and many of them, like opiates, are addictive and harmful to people over time. Long term side effects
from many drugs are far more serious than cannabis' occasional couch lock laziness. I am happy that
you are allowing an open opinion on what should be added for medical usages, as there are much
evidence leading the way of the many uses that cannabis has. There are some with ADHD who even
benefit well, and I would rather they smoke cannabis then be zombied by adderall or Ritalin. And you
know Adderall is legal meth. If someone is misdiagnosed with ADHD, the long term effects can be
detrimental. Over time, research will become less biased from either side, and the health of a person
will be more of a priority than money. I also like that we are on the same page and want a legit
program going, instead of California's terrible "Just give me the $150 and you're qualified!" ways. Also
how overran by dispensaries they are.
I have read thru the 47 page draft three times. It is obvious that a lot of time and effort has got into
this work. I am a pharmacist by profession and I believe that the accountablility demanded in these
rules have raised the bar to such a level that it would make those responsible proud. I know there is
much skepticism about this entire issue and I believe that an educated public, shown the length you
have gone to, to make this as functional and professional as possible would be supportive. Therefore,
I believe the draft rules are very effective.
see below
Most of these rules will be effective if your purpose is to allow only wealthy patients and drug cartels
to be involved in a voter approved proposition. The rules regarding a minor being a qualified patient
appear to be the pertinent.
I believe most or the reg.s are logical, such as a limit to dispensary numbers, distance from schools
and rehab centers, etc. however, see below...
should draft and propose legislation that provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for
cardholders smoking marijuana in public. 23 24 LEGISLATIVE ACTION
R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B.3.5 A copy of the certificate of
occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing
occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site;
Dear Mr. Humble: I am writing this letter on behalf of a client who intends to provide information
and services for patients in connection with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program. We have
thoroughly reviewed the text of Prop 203, as well as the 12/17/10 Draft Rules (the â€œDraft
Rulesâ€). The following are my comments and suggestions. Overall, the Draft Rules do not appear
to place the interests of Arizona at the forefront. In their current draft form, the rules are designed to
benefit a few wealthy individuals, and they essentially lock out smaller Arizona entrepreneurs from
competition and access to opportunities to make Arizonaâ€™s Medical Marijuana Program a model
for future state programs. The current rules stifle competition and would create a de facto monopoly
by artificially locking the wholesale to the retail business with the 70/30 requirement proposed under
DR9-17-307, which has no basis in Prop 203. This will not only stifle competition, but will also result in
artificially inflated prices for medical marijuana. The effect will be that few licensees will benefit, and
patients and caregivers in outerlying areas will suffer. This artificial cost structure will no doubt
negatively impact the industry in the long term. What is very troubling about the rules is how they
propose to establish guidelines for issuing dispensary licenses. In its current form, the rules require an
applicant to possess a certificate of occupancy or some other documentation issued by a local
authority authorizing occupancy as a condition for obtaining a dispensary license. DR R9-17-302(B)(5)
The applicant must also submit site plans and floor plans for the dispensary and the cultivation site to
be eligible. DR R9-17-302(B)(8 - 11) This rule favors those few who have the financial wherewithal to
(a) locate a site that complies with local zoning laws, (b) prepare and submit site and floor plans to
obtain a building permit, ( c) construct the facilities, (d) pass inspections, and (e) obtain a certificate of
occupancy. All of this must be accomplished before an application can be considered. These
requirements are an undue burden, are arbitrary and capricious, and they are not supported by the
language of Prop 203. The proposed rules appear to be cut from whole cloth with no basis in the
law and without consideration for the fairness of the licensing process. Such regulations are
undoubtedly subject to challenge in the courts and possible disruption of implementation of the
program by injunctive relief. Perhaps granting a provisional license to an otherwise qualified applicant
pending zoning approval and obtaining a certificate of occupancy will level the playing field. Putting
the cart before the horse only benefits those with enough horse power to push the cart. In addition,
the licensing procedure should be less subjective and more transparent. Allowing licenses to be
issued by using subjective criteria promotes all that is bad about politics and business in America:
cronyism, graft, illegal contributions, corruption, etc. Instead, licenses should be granted by way of a
lottery or auction. All pre-qualified candidates should have an equal chance at obtaining a license.
Licenses should not be awarded solely to those who have the most money or who can afford to meet
the current requirements and suffer the consequences without much harm if a license is not awarded
to them. Regarding the non-profit status of entities described in Â§36-2806 of Prop 203, the
following questions should be answered to provide guidance to dispensaries and to prohibit abuses:
â€¢ Can a license owner sell a dispensary license for a profit? â€¢ How much can a dispensary retain
above its short term needs? â€¢ How much can dispensary management be compensated? â€¢ What
related-party transaction protections will be implemented? â€¢ What accounting information must a
dispensary share (and with whom and how often) to demonstrate its non-profit status? â€¢ What
rights will the public have to question the non-profit status of a dispensary that is not required to be
recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS under Â§36-2806(A)? Failure to address these issues will not
only result in abuse of the system, it will also result in the perception that the ADHS tacitly approves
weak controls to allow the powerful few to exploit the system and turn a huge profit in violation of
Prop 203. With respect to the Medical Director requirement proposed in DR R9-17-310, please
explain how ADHS has authority to mandate such a requirement given the fact that the need for a
medical director apparently has no basis in Prop 203. Undoubtedly, implementation of this provision
would be costly to dispensaries, and ultimately to patients down the stream of commerce.
Doctorsâ€™ salaries, malpractice insurance, and other associated costs will have to be absorbed by
dispensaries on a pro rata basis. This provision appears to be poorly conceived to employ lots of
doctors who have little or no knowledge of the subject matter, and it raises the question whether
doctors were involved in the drafting of these rules to provide doctors with a retirement pension, so
to speak. In the interests of patients, the ADHS should instead employ an industry-supported
medical director to be headquartered at ADHS to help oversee and administer the program. The
medical directorâ€™s salary should be paid from revenues generated pursuant to Â§36-2803(A)(5).
Finally, the Draft Rules are silent as to the acquisition of initial strains of medical marijuana and the
addition of new strains as time progresses. Dispensaries need a legal method for obtaining genetic
strains of medical marijuana, and this issue needs to be addressed in the context of current federal
laws. Failure to address it will result in dispensaries technically having to violate the law to conduct
business. For instance, from where will seeds and plants be acquired? Will interstate commerce be
infringed by prohibiting the acquisition of seeds and/or plants from states that currently allow the use
of medical marijuana? These are just a few of the many questions that go unanswered but need to be
addressed. Perhaps the following language could be considered in any future rules:
â€œDispensaries shall be allowed to obtain seeds and/or marijuana plants for the purpose of
perpetuating specific genetics during the calendar year 2011. After 2011, any dispensary can petition
the ADHS Director for approval to obtain additional seeds and/or marijuana plants to add new
genetics, and ADHS shall approve such petitions that provide for protection of the supply chain from
theft and/or diversion.â€ I appreciate the opportunity to provide my feedback, and I would
welcome a meeting with you and my client to discuss these issues and implementation of the program
in general, including the review of future draft rules before they are proposed once again. If you have
any questions, or if you wish to discuss any matters set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact
me. Thank you. Sincerely,
1. Established criteria defining Physician/Patient relationship parameters 2. Established residency

requirements for principals involved in dispensary operations 3. Established requirement of "medical
director" at a dispensary
The requirement for investors to be licensed is good to keep organized crime away.
I strongly agree with enforcing a two year minimum residency requirement. I would actually
encourage a 3-5 year requirement. The last thing Arizona needs is an influx of people outside of our
state coming here in masses to open up shop to make a quick buck. Although I don't necessarily agree
with this Proposition, I think if we allow qualified citizens of the state who have a vested interest in
the community operate, we will be much better off.
I beleive the initiative should be enacted as written, the draft rules are changing the initiative that is
the will of the people of Arizona. The parts of the draft rules that are effective are the rules that
mirror the initiative as written with no "special" additions.
MOst of it is effective.
I believe the rules are very well organized and cover all the aspects of this legislation that will need to
monitored by ADHS. It is still extremely disappointing to me that this bill has even passed. I believe it
will only bring negative consequences to our state. It is my hope that ADHS will provide strict
oversight of these dispensaries. I believe the application process and qualifications are appropriate.
Via Electronic Delivery and US Mail Will Humble Director Arizona Department of Health Services
150 North 18th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 Re: ADHS Informal Draft Rules for the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act Dear Director Humble: This firm represents XX [please insert the appropriate name
here] regarding the Informal Draft Rules proposed by the Arizona Department of Health Services (the
â€œDepartmentâ€) for implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (the â€œActâ€). We
applaud the Departmentâ€™s efforts in drafting rules governing the safe and responsible
administration of the Act. We commend staff and agree with many of the proposed rules, however
we are concerned about a number of provisions that are inconsistent with the Act or contrary to the
intent of the law. 70% Cultivation Rule Proposed rule R9-17-307(C) requires a dispensary to
â€œcultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or
designated caregiversâ€ and limits the amount it can provide to other dispensaries. This provision is
similar to the Colorado legislation (House Bill 1284) passed in May 2010 which was intended to bring
greater oversight to an inadequate cultivation environment that was not sufficiently addressed in the
original Colorado legislation. In contrast, the Arizona Act already provides for strict oversight and
control of all cultivation facilities in the state such that any limit on cultivation and sales to other
dispensaries is unnecessary. As it exists today, this provision is unreasonable, over-burdensome,
against public policy, and may lead to adverse unintended consequences. Many medical
professionals and other highly-qualified dispensary applicants may be dissuaded from operating a
dispensary if it requires the technical knowledge, experience, and prohibitive costs of owning and
operating a cultivation facility. We agree that the Act should allow a dispensary the right to operate
its own cultivation facility, however, the Act does not prohibit a dispensary from obtaining medical
marijuana from the cultivation facilities of other dispensaries. To impose a 70% requirement is over-
burdensome on dispensary owners and will cause an exodus of otherwise highly-qualified and capable
dispensary owners. It may also lead to unintended consequences such as waste, under-qualified
cultivation operators, and the possible creation of a secondary, illegal market of oversupply product.
There are a number of benefits in allowing greater product exchange among dispensaries and
cultivation facilities. Unit costs will decrease if there is more commerce among the registered
dispensaries and cultivation facilities. Decreased unit costs are essential for qualified patients who are
already struggling to afford the otherwise prohibitive cost of medication. Lower unit costs also ensure
greater regulation by discouraging the purchase of cheaper, inferior-quality marijuana that may be
obtained illegally. The inter-commerce among dispensaries and cultivation facilities will lead to more
responsible, qualified and superior facilities as purchasing dispensaries will support only the best
quality suppliers. Fewer, larger and more efficient cultivation facilities decrease the potential for
public nuisance and oversaturation, reduce regulatory costs and oversight, and are less burdensome
on the state. Ultimately, an unrestricted market among the registered dispensaries will result in a
more responsible and superior cultivation facility with lower unit costs. Medical Director We are
supportive of proposed rule R9-17-310(C) which requires a medical director to oversee the
development and dissemination of education, systems, policies and procedures of dispensaries.
However, we disagree with provision (D) which prohibits a physician-patient relationship with the
medical director and which also restricts its ability to write medical marijuana recommendations for a
qualifying patient. The medical director requirement will likely absorb a large number of primary
care physicians which regularly treat patients who already have an existing physician-patient
relationship. In many cases, longstanding patients would need to find a new primary care physician to
write medical marijuana recommendations for a qualifying patient. A more reasonable approach
should allow a medical director to write a medical marijuana recommendation for a qualifying patient
where there is an existing physician-patient relationship of at least 5 years. This approach would
allow the continued physician-patient relationship and encourage credible physicians to apply as
medical directors. It would also discourage less credible and under-qualified individuals from
becoming dispensary medical directors. Bonding Proposed Rule R9-17-302 sets forth the criteria
for applying for a dispensary registration certificate, including (B)(15)(d) which asks the applicant to
state, among other things, â€œwhether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much.â€
This provision is one of the criteria used in evaluating an application, however, it is unclear if this is a
mandatory requirement. The Act has generated significant interest among potential dispensary
applicants, both good and bad, who may see the new law as an opportunity without regard to their
own experience, responsibility, financial ability, and ultimate liability. In order to ensure that future
dispensary owners are the most qualified, capable, and responsible, we propose a $200,000 cash
bond requirement as part of the dispensary registration application process. Such a provision would
require an immediate investment that would effectively sift out unsuitable potential applicants. It
would also ensure that only the most responsible, capable, and committed applicants apply for a
dispensary registration certificate. Conclusion We commend the Department and recognize their
exhaustive efforts in drafting rules implementing the Act. While we are grateful for the opportunity to
comment, we will continue to analyze the proposed rules in greater detail, and reserve the right to
make further comments about the initial rules as necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the proposed text amendment, and we look forward to working with you on this matter.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
most everything
Most of them. Well done.
Please see "... draft rules be improved"
The tight regulation is necessary, especially at first. STAND YOUR GROUND! The current proposed
regulations can be revisited and revised if patient access is truly a problem. The department's
attempts to keep the "medical" in medical marijuana are visible and appreciated.
Rule R9-17-311 "Dispensing Medical Marijuana" is effective, but could be stronger.Â This rule is
necessary to ensure that medical marijuana ("MM") does not end up in the wrong hands.Â It is
agent, but does not say anything about what method must be used.Â A quick, effective, and secure
the wrong hands.
R9-17-302 Officers and board members should be restricted to AZ residents. Itâ€™s about what is
good for the state. There are plenty or opportunities already being capitalized on by residents of
other states that have expertise in growing and dispensing medical marijuana in the form of
consulting, training, etc. R9-17-311 Patient Verification/Identification The provision is effective as
written. It is no secret that certain entrepreneurs are pushing their own agenda by suggesting specific
methodologies and equipment for patient verification such as biometrics. While use of biometrics
should be allowed, there are many other methods for ensuring proper patient verification that suffice
for pharmacies, liquor sales, etc. Required use or biometric technologies benefit a few while
burdening the patients as the non-profit dispensaries will have yet more costs to pass on.
1) The definition/requirements for patient-physician relationship * This has already been determined
and you are trying to change per your beliefs. Will Humble has already admitted that this is
something he wants and may not even be able to do. So you get to pick and choose what you want
even thought it has been voted on? 2) The requirement that dispensaries cultivate 70% of their own
product; You obviously do not know that much about growing indoors. There is no way that a 2000
square foot area will leave enough for the different stages of the marijuana plant, veg and flower. In
doing this there will not be enough medical mj for the patients. The figures you use of over a one
pound of useable marijuana is laughable. Maybe for plants grown outside but if you are lucky you
yield 1-2 1/2 OUNCES per plant indoor. The lights only penetrate so far and as a result yield is lower.
So you will need to eliminate the 70 percent figure or the dispensaries will not have enough. Also, in
doing this you are allowing the criminal element to live. When it is this restrictive dispensaries may be
forced to try and get additional medical mj. You would never be able to track all of it even with the
most sophisticated equipment in place, just look at Colorado and California. 3) The requirement that
dispensaries have a medical director; The qualifications for medical directors (e.g. allow other medical
professionals including a pharmacist, naturopathic physician, homeopathic physician, family nurse
practitioner, physician assistant, or registered nurse to be the medical director) Once again you are
making too restrictive that ultimately will lead to a system that will not work properly.
The is pleased to present its comments to the draft rules

issued by the Arizona Department of Health Services that will guide the implementation of
Proposition 203, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The recognizes the major
responsibility entrusted in the Arizona Department of Health Services and the complexity of the tasks
it must complete within an aggressive time frame called for under Prop 203. We are confident that
the Department is and will continue to carry out a public process that will respect the needs and
balance the interests of industry professionals who aspire to meet patient needs, prospective
patients, and the general public. The leaders of the played a leading role in the drafting of
the initiative, and carried out the campaign that led to its passage. Throughout our two year effort, we
remained committed to the goal of nothing less than creating the best medical marijuana program in
the nation, learning from both the best practices as well as the mistakes made in 14 other states
nationwide where medical marijuana laws have been adopted. With only 125 dispensary licensees
available, there is no reason to settle for anything less, and the public will demand nothing less. After
all, Prop 203 was approved by the slimmest of margins and will remain a controversy for years to
come, particularly if it is not implemented properly. At this still early stage, the process undertaken
by DHS appears to be taking that same approach. Hence, we generally find the draft rules to be a very
solid effort in the initial attempt to craft appropriate program rules. The leadership of our
association has reviewed the draft in concert with our attorney,
. We respectfully
offer our comments and suggestions regarding the draft rules which we believe will preserve the
commitment of both DHS and our association to high industry standards, yet do not impose
unreasonable and unnecessary regulations that result in the unintended consequences of increased
cost to dispensaries and the patients they serve, simply driving patients back to the criminal market.
Those comments can be found below. A hard copy of our comments was also had delivered to the
DHS on Friday, January 7. We ask that document be included in the official records. We look
forward to continuing engagement in the rule making process, the submission of additional comments
and recommendations, and the ultimate adoption of rules consistent with the initiative approved by
Arizona voters. Thank you for your consideration, and for your service to our great state.
the Association commends the Department for its efforts in creating the initial draft rules. It hopes
that the foregoing comments and suggestions will be of assistance to the Department as it prepares
the next draft. In the interim
Rule R9-17-311 "Dispensing Medical Marijuana" is effective, but could be stronger.Â This rule is
necessary to ensure that medical marijuana ("MM") does not end up in the wrong hands.Â It is
agent, but does not say anything about what method must be used.Â A quick, effective, and secure
the wrong hands.
I question how the ADHS can create the very intricate system that is required by the initiative? The
current rules do not address the issue. Will the state put out a RFP to have this system created? A
web based SSL secured site to allow for the data to be kept while adhering to the Hipaa
Requirements. The final system should allow for specific reports that will track the following issues.
Doctor Shopping to get more drugs. The ability to track growing with distribution to ensure more pot
is not grown than allowed The ability to track the NFP to make sure they are not part of organized
crime and that there are no hidden or secret partners who would not have been approved originally
Where the money goes and who gets it.
The requirement that dispensaries have an INDEPENDENT medical director, but they MUST BE AN MD
or DO. The WILL OF THE VOTERS was to ensure ONLY DOCTORS could recommend this medication.
You cannot then CHANGE the rules on the voters to have DOCTORS SUPERVISED by a NON-DOCTOR
medical director. That seems like a violation of Voter Protection act and is in OPPOSITION to the will
of voters. DO NOT allow other ANY medical professionals except MD or DO. EXCLUDE pharmacist,
naturopathic physician, homeopathic physician, family nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or
registered nurse to be the medical director--DOCTORS WERE THE ONES THE VOTERS WANTED
INVOLVED and DOCTORS SHOULD ONLY BE SCRUTINIZED by OTHER DOCTORS in spirit of PEER
REVIEW. The 2 year residency requirement for dispensary applicants is a GOOD CONCEPT, but may
also limit good producers who are able to grow HIGH-quality plant to SPEC--i think we should GIVE
PRIORITY to applicants who've been AZ Resident long-term, but NOT FULLY exclude applicants who
are from out of state if they have all the other GOOD CREDENTIALS and excellent track record in other
states.
In general, the Draft Rules appear to be mostly workable and are likely to be generally effective at
regulating the production, sale, distribution and use of Medical Marijuana (MMJ). The first Draft is an
excellent starting point and we wish to commend DHS for its work and leadership on this difficult task.
The Rules appear well designed to ensure that only qualifying patients with legitimate medical
concerns will qualify for the program and that the licensing and operation of dispensaries will
discourage disreputable participants. However we do feel there are some areas of the Rules that may
lead to unintended consequences and there are other areas that must be clarified and supplemented
to ensure that the licensing process is as smooth and controversy-free as possible. Effective Rule
Provisions: 1. Dispensary Application Requirements and Process The stringent dispensary
application requirements as presented in the Draft rules will ensure that only the most qualified and
reputable operators are able to submit applications. In particular we believe the requirement to have
a Medical Director, and to submit some form of financial guarantee (some clarifications and revisions
to the surety bond requirement are neededâ€”see below) will be effective at eliminating unqualified
applicants. Further the requirement to obtain zoning approval prior to submitting an application (as
mandated by the Initiative) is absolutely vital to ensure that those who wish to operate a dispensary
are willing and able to take the time and capital to secure a suitable location that is approved by the
local jurisdiction. This both screens out less reputable applicants and minimizes the potential for land
use conflicts. We do, however believe that some clarifications and revisions are necessary as
discussed below. We feel it is important to emphasize the requirement of prior zoning approval, as
it has come to our attention that a handful of potential applicants are suggesting that DHS should
postpone zoning approval until after licenses are awarded. However, this not only conflicts with the
law as written in the Initiative, but it also would create a completely unworkable land use scenario rife
with opportunity for public outrage and potential litigation. To ignore the plain language of the
Initiative would serve nothing but to expose DHS and local jurisdictions to controversy and liability.
2. Dispensary Operations Requirements The dispensary operation requirements as drafted in the
Rules are likely to be generally effective for tracking medical marijuana and ensuring that patients
receive safe, quality medicine. In particular the sections on security, recordkeeping, inventory,
employee/procedural plans, and sanitary and edible products, appear to be both generally effective
and feasible to implement. We feel some additions to the Draft rules are advisable and we discuss
these below.
The 2 year residency requirement for dispensary applicants is legitimate.
1. There needs to be a mechanism to add more dispensaries just like there is a mechanism to add
conditions. 2. Since there will initially only be 120 dispensaries serving the entire state, the
Department has to recognize that the few dispensaries that do obtain licenses will realize revenues
beyond expenses. What will happen when it comes time to renew their dispensary applications? What
must this dispensary do with profit? What is fair compensation? Why must only dispensaries
subscribe to not-for-profit model while pharmacies dispensing powerful pain narcotics rake in
billions? Do profitable dispensaries become criminals even if they adhere to the mountain of
regulations heaped upon them by the Department? The rules provide no guidelines on how after-
expense revenues can be allocated.
NOT ALLOWING OTHERS FROM OTHER STATES TO JOIN
Homeopathic physicians may not be adequately trained or certified to be diagnostician and to

prescribe controlled substances. Homeopaths with an MD or ND degree may be suitably informed to
diagnose and prescribe, but those without medical training should be excluded.
Thank you for the quick and thorough posting of the rules. AZDHS is really doing a great thing by
getting the community involved in the process. I am a 15-year Arizona resident who is extremely
excited to see this come to a strong fruition. I truly like the residency requirement and would like to
see it strengthened. Prop 203 is special because it took heed from other medical marijuana states'
mistakes. I do not like the idea of letting the people who made these mistakes we learned from into
our pristine, untouched medical marijuana industry. Furthermore, I believe any revenue generated
from this new industry should go straight into Arizona, not to out-of-staters who already had their
chance. Arizonans will have more drive to see this succeed, rather than people who have the option to
flee back to their home state available if they mess up here in our state. I've also read some
interesting things about outdoor cultivation that suggest it is a healthier way to grow medicine
(something about the natural sunlight). I was happy to see that medicine could be grown outdoors so
that not all plants must be grown in artificial conditions. I also think this could be more cost-efficient.
If anything, the residency requirements to be a dispensary should either be kept at two years
minimum or make it even longer like 3-5 years. DO NOT MAKE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
SHORTER THAN TWO YEARS!!!! I don't want people from other states coming in here to take jobs and
business opportunities away from AZ residents.
Format is easy to follow, but it would have been nice to have page numbers in the table of contents to
find specific items more efficiently.
Please see the letter emailed to Thomas Salow from

on January 7, 2011. The letter was comprehensive and lengthy. The formatting of the letter was
deleted or altered when we attempted to use this electronic submission form, and therefore it was
submitted in a form that was easier to read.
the wrong hands.
R9-17-302 Officers and board members should be restricted to AZ residents. Itâ€™s about what is
good for the state. There are plenty or opportunities already being capitalized on by residents of
other states that have expertise in growing and dispensing medical marijuana in the form of
consulting, training, etc. R9-17-311 Patient Verification/Identification The provision is effective as
written. It is no secret that certain entrepreneurs are pushing their own agenda by suggesting specific
methodologies and equipment for patient verification such as biometrics. While use of biometrics
should be allowed, there are many other methods for ensuring proper patient verification that suffice
for pharmacies, liquor sales, etc. Required use or biometric technologies benefit a few while
burdening the patients as the non-profit dispensaries will have yet more costs to pass on.
Mr. Director: ARS 36-28 Sect 2 (G) states that the act is to â€œprotect patients â€¦..as well as their
physicians and providersâ€¦â€¦..from â€œ certain prosecution. I appreciate that the Regulations
are written to ensure equal protection for the public through regulation and management of this
essential access to alternative care. Patients and patient rights will also be protected by creating a
regulatory structural framework with accountability and consequences that provides each patient
with confidence that the dispensary has been established, and is operated, under carefully crafted
rules with strict guidelines. Even though I agree with parts of the Draft Regulations put forth by the
AzDHS in December, there are areas I believe need to be revised before these Regulations become
final. Following the advice of the AzDHS Director, I will provide my comments, both positive and
negative, for the Department and the public to consider. Letâ€™s start with the positives. R-12-106
Table 1.1 has outlined reasonable timelines for reviewing, and either approving or denying an
application for patients, caregivers, and dispensaries. This allows any applicant to know when to
expect his or her patient card or dispensary certificate, as well as reduce inquiries from applicants.
Section R9-17-318 sets reasonable standards for the physical plant and layout of the dispensary,
which provides potential applicants specific search criterial for potential locations for dispensaries and
cultivation sites. With the financial investment that comes with securing a building lease, it is
reassuring to know beforehand that if it meets the requirements from this section and is located in an
area approved by local zoning laws, the building would not cause the application to be denied.
I find the document to be thorough and well thought out, with comprehensive safeguards in place to
prevent abuse of the system. I am thankful that I do not see restrictions on cultivation for personal
use based on proximity to dispensaries as many of the patients, due to their debilitating conditions,
are typically living on severely limited incomes. I appreciate the clauses that allow patients (and
seemingly caregivers) to sell to dispensaries within the defined legal parameters. I also appreciate the
required labeling to show the use of chemical additives and date of manufacture and the seemingly
reasonable regulations placed on edible products.
In general the draft rules are good.
The part where a 2 year residency is required. I would not want to see the benefits of prop 203 go to
residents of other states. Also, the 70% rule for growing your own product is a good idea. This will
prevent major wholesale operations that would be tempted to sell excess product to the black
market.
Please do not change the 2 year residency requirement. I like the 70% that a Dispensary can
cultivate for it's own business and 30% can be sold to other Dispensaries. How are you going to Tax
this?
These suggestions are made on behalf of the

. is a coalition of over one thousand Yavapai County citizens dedicated to
eliminating substance abuse and its effects in Yavapai County. Since its founding in 2006,
has played a major role in reducing the use of methamphetamine and other recreational drugs in
Yavapai County, particularly among teenagers. efforts have also led to a significant
reduction in drug related crime in Yavapai County. Below please find 22 comments. These comments
are also being forwarded by , to the Director
of the Arizona Department of Health Services. The comments range from a suggested statement of
guiding principals to suggestions of changes to specific rules. Please contact
if you have any questions.
and are more likely to use marijuana illegally in the future. Children exposed to marijuana smoke will
suffer the same health hazards as exposure to tobacco smoke. Smoking marijuana in the presence of
children should be made a serious criminal act. Implementation: DHS
the wrong hands.
That there is an overall plan, however there seems to a lot of duplication
Good work. There are a few things that could use improving. See below.
I like the fact tht dispensaries have to cultivate their own and account for inventory. I like the 2 year
residency. I hope to open a dispensary, but I have having a tough time of getting a Medical Director
as there are still taboo thoughts of Medical Marijuana. How will that part work. A Medical Doctor
goes to school for approximately 8 years. Does that mean they have to give up their practice?
Most of the draft seems reasonable.
the sanitation aspect, the recordkeeping, security requirements are good. It is not fair to require all
the cameras ad video equipment as part of the inspection without the issuance of a license already.
This is very expensive equipment to purchase and install unless the business operator knows they will
be a dispensary.
be a dispensary.
be a dispensary.
I believe there needs to be a 5 year residency requirement. I am alarmed that there are a few large
"out of state groups" planning to work around residency by having one person in the group meet the
residency requirement but have all the out of state investors benefit.
R9-17-101. Definitions 10 b Enclosed is OVERLY effective in deterring theft. Four 12 inch thick solid
walls? Quarter inch thick metal grid? These requirements would rule out any construction of a
greenhouse and would be prohibitively expensive
Comments by Concerning A First Working Draft Rules by ADHS
for its Medical Marijuana Program I have reviewed the first working draft of the Arizona Department
of Health Services concerning its Medical Marijuana Program. The Department has done an
outstanding and excellent job in preparing a draft set of rules for implementation of the Medical
Marijuana Program. Your efforts to ensure that the program restricts the use of marijuana to medical
use, rather than recreational use, are highly appropriate and will enhance public safety. I am pleased
to see the level of detail and thoroughness that went into this first draft. I am particularly pleased
with the detailed monitoring and security provisions. They are precisely what is needed to ensure the
public safety is adequately protected.
I believe most of the rules of the dispensaries are good and written well!
I believe R9-17-107, R9-17-108, and R9-17-201 are effective parts of the draft rules.
The Arizona residency rule. As a local Natives to Arizona we are pleased to know that a residency
rule has been considered and established to help protect the local economy for the State of Arizona.
verifies patient has appropriate medical diagnosis alows patients to chose another doctor to manage
their care in those situations when the current doctor is not willing to recommend medical cannabis,
even though the patient is a candidate
All Seem to be except for one.
WILL I NEED HELP WITH THE CLARIFICATION OF WHAT TYPE OF LICNESES I NEED TO APPLY FOR ???
Im wanting to open a Lab here in the Phoenix metro area that will test and certify cannabisfor its
qualities. We will be testing for several things: 1. Mold 2.
Pesticides 3. Cavanoid counts 4. THC percentages As well as
others. This type of service is a must to guarantee the quality of medicine that will be produced and
distributed. My background comes from 26 years of having a FDA certified lab in Colorado that is still
very much in buisness. I hope to be able to work along side of the state of Arizona and become a
partner in this new world of Medical Marijuana.
Next to the "ongoing" " physician-patient relationship" is the most egregious part of these rules. R9-
17-307. C (Administration) 1. A dispensary: Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the
dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; Also subparts 2,3,4, and 5,
These parts would be effective only in driving up, prices creating shortages of marijuana, and reducing
the diversity of strains of marijuana while making it less available to to qualifying patients
Most of the background checks appear to be relevant as to dispensary and caregivers. The care to
growing the substance and where, should have an adequate locking system and the patient or
caregiver must be solely responsible for this obligation. Penalties should be provided to anyone whom
doesn't take a serious approach to cultivation and use of this medication. Having a patient/doctor
relationship will reduce Marijuana Mills but not all doctors prescribe the same way. If this is the case,
there's no adequate work around provision.
1. Allowing people 25 miles away from a dispensary to grow their own marijuana is helpful for many
people who would otherwise not be able to access this benefit. 2. Charging a $5000 dollar
dispensary fee. This, and similarly prohibitive property requirements in the bill, will effectively
discourage any dispensaries in many areas, allowing people to grow their own.
January 7, 2011 William Hunbelt Director of Dept. Of Health Services

http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/ RE: Medical Marijuana Administrative Regulations in Public
Comment Dear ADHS: There are several areas of the proposed administrative regulations that
need to be changed or eliminated entirely. It appears from the legislative findings that there is an
intent to make medical marijuana available to Arizona citizens with a medical need for cannibus on a
low key, non-profit secure basis. The administrative regulations as proposed in many areas, directly
thwart the legislative intent and the will of Arizona voters. First: The non-refundable registration fee
of $5,000.00 under R-0-17-102(I). This is very unclear. If an application is denied, is the $5,000.00 fee
submitted with the application returned to the applicant or forfeited to the State? This needs to be
clarified or otherwise qualified applicants will not submit an application not knowing what will happen
to the $5,000.00 if the application is denied. R-9-17-202 - G 13(E) 1. This requires a patient to receive
a certification card from a physician with whom the patient has had a minimum 1-year relationship
and has seen the physician at least four times for the debilitating condition. This is pure bureaucracy
attempting to establish medical criteria that doesnâ€™t fit the medical condition. Is a patient
suffering cancer required to see an Oncologist for one year and four visits prior to receiving Morphine
for pain? The State doesnâ€™t regulate physician standards in medical practice other then leaving
these matters to the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners. The extent of the patients care should be a
judgment made by a physician under his or her liscensure standards not the Department of Health
Services criteria. Under R E-17-302 each dispensary is required to maintain a licensed physician as a
medical director. This requirement eliminates any responsibility for the physician prescribing
marijuana. The prescribing physician would be the doctor most familiar with the patientâ€™s
condition, use of prescriptive drugs and/or mood altering drugs. What real purpose does the medical
director have other than to cost the dispensary a lot of money just to be able to meet the
requirement? The role of the medical director is simply a figurehead and a costly one at that. This
requirement should be eliminated entirely. Public education should be the obligation of the
Department of Health. R-9-17-101 (10) â€œEnclosedâ€ is defined as an area of four solid walls
covered by a steel mesh or an indoor growing operation. This effectively makes growing an indoor,
utility heavy activity. If the legislature and the population desires to achieve â€œgreenâ€ businesses,
this definition kills any green aspect of growing a plant. Electric costs will have to be passed on to the
consumer resulting in high prices. The Federal Government operates an experimental marijuana
farm in Alabama behind eight foot chain link fence with razor wire on top. This should be the
definition of an outdoor cultivation area. Requiring 12 ft. solid walls and a steel mesh top is overkill
and an impossible use of agriculture property. Sincerely,
I feel that the securtiy was a good idea to help keep people safe. i feel the labeling was good aswell.
ID CARDS / FINGER PRINT
I think the rules are, overall, very good and comprehensive. I like that you provided for patients
(possibly new to Arizona) to continue to receive marijuana while establishing a relationship with a
new physician. R9-17-202, F, j - It's a great idea to build in the possibility of human subject trials.
the law passing its self. people who are hurting deserve to have what they need.
Doing your best to keep it regulated is a good thing.
Dispensary Ownership
We need to start over. When creating the law needed to cover our new "medical marijuana"
legislation, it should be stated that only pharmacies would be allowed to fill prescriptions for medical
marijuana, in pill form. We are not California. The law should also state that only pharmaceutical
grade marijuana would be acceptable. This will not only eliminate drug cartels from moving into our
towns and cities with storefront dispensaries, but will provide a pharmaceutical grade product not
grown by drug dealers in Mexico. It is obvious to me that those who voted for legalizing marijuana
did not know, or remember, that when you smoke this drug everyone in the room gets high, including
children and pets. This mind-altering drug is in the smoke, and for that reason should be distributed
in pill form only. Marijuana also stays in the system for a week or longer, having a long-term effect
on the brain of its user. For this reason, no one on this prescription should be allowed to drive. If you
donâ€™t believe what this drug can do to oneâ€™s brain, clap your hands and ask the user to tell you
when a minute has gone by. By having pharmacies distribute this drug in pill form only, anyone
"smoking" the drug -- or baking it into brownies and other baked goods -- can still be prosecuted.
Pharmacists will also be able to report suspicious prescriptions to doctors and the proper authorities.
Pharmacists follow laws already in place. I hope you will consider the above. It is not only
reasonable but a smart compromise.
This is my second submission of comments
Dear Director Humble: On behalf of the comments have been

submitted to you and Mr. Thomas Salow directly in pdf format following our review of the Informal
Draft Rule language published by your Agency regarding implementation of the Medical Marijuana
Initiative (Proposition 203). Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments. Please do
not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted,
I think most of the draft rules are acceptable, but there needs to be give and take after this ACT
becomes effective since it is a new area we are delving into. I'm sure it will need to be tweeked when
those out there try to beat the system. And you know they will try. We need to keep it intact for those
in our society who will actually benefit from its use. This "weed" was put on this earth for a reason
long before man stepped onto the planet.
The draft regulations appear to be comprehensive, well thought out and designed to track Proposition
203 rather closely.
I think the department has made a serious attempt to create rules to regulate the use of medical
marijuana. Insofar as parts of the regulations parallel controls placed on other prescription drugs, they
are good.
Issueing the cards to identify patients
Most all
1) Sections R9-17-202.F.5.e, f, and h, R9-17-202.G.13.e-g, R9-17-204.A.4.e-i, along with R9-17-

204.B.4.f-g, all adequately address the posssibility that a would-be "patient" or "caregiver" turned
diverter would be able to "doctor shop" and obtain an excess of marijuana to sell for personal profit,
so long as DHS has the resources and motivation to really audit these requirements. 2) The
requirements for criminal records checks in sections R9-17-202.F.6.k, R9-17-202.G.9, R9-17-203.A.2.k,
R9-17-204.A.5.k, R9-17-204.B.6, R9-17-204.C.1.j, R9-17-302.B.3.c, R9-17-308.7, and R9-17-309.5 are
sound policy, again, if DHS has the resources and motivation to follow-up on any suspicious results
from these records checks. 3) The mention of fingerprint requirements in sections R9-17-107.F.a,
R9-17-202.F.6.k.i, R9-17-202.G.9.a, R9-17-203.A.2.k.i, R9-17-203.A.5.k.i, R9-17-203.B.6.a, R9-17-
204.C.1.j.i, R9-17-302.B.3.c.i, R9-17-308.7.a, and R9-17-309.5.a-b helps assure that there is a way to
make sure those with criminal history cannot be involved in the sale of medical marijuana. Once
again, it depends on the resources available to DHS for oversight. 4) R9-17-319.A.1 designating that
a dispensary be located away from schools is good. 5) R9-17-319.A.2.b and R9-17-319.C.1-2 allowing
denial and/or revocation of privileges based on felony history are good. 6) R9-17-306.E allowing DHS
to perform an unannounced on-site inspection if a tip is received about noncompliance will help curb
illegal activity.
The draft rules had many effective areas. The main part of the draft that I thought was effective was
that background checks will be required of the board members and each principle officer as
referenced in section R9-17-302.B.3. I think this is effective because I do not want any organized
crime, including the drug cartels coming into this industry and into my community. I also thought
that it is very effective that the draft rules require the board members to be Arizona Residents. I think
it is extremely important that the people who run these dispensaries be Arizona Residents for a
myriad of reasons. The first reason, we need to keep the money from this industry in the state, as our
state is in financial trouble. Also, its a great business opportunity for AZ residents to get involved in. I
DO NOT want to see someone from another state that has made money from this industry elsewhere
exploiting our state for their own personal gain. I thought that it was effective that the draft asked
possible dispensary owners to come up with a set of policy and procedures. I liked how applicants
will have to provide detailed floor plans referred to in Section R9-17-302.B.9 I also liked that AZDHS
will be able to have an unannounced inspection of the dispensary or the dispensary's cultivation site
when the department receives an allegation of a dispensary or a dispensary's cultivation site is in
noncompliance in section R9-17-306.E. I liked the requirement to have a medical director, it helps
facilitate key medical interaction with patients rather than leaving them without knowledge on how to
use this product. There were many effective parts of the first draft, but there were also a few parts
that needed clarity.
Overall, we feel that that these initial rules are very good and would like to commend the ADHS for
the work completed thus far. The areas we feel are effective include: - The Draft Rules clarify the
medical conditions that allow a recommendation to be written for medical marijuana. - The Draft
Rules plainly list the qualifications necessary for a for an individual to obtain a Registry Identification
Card. - We were very pleased to see that each dispensary is required to have a Medical Director
either on-site or on-call. This will greatly benefit the dispensary and the qualifying patients. - We
were also satisfied that the Draft Rules discussed the development of Educational Materials that can
be shared with qualifying patients at the dispensaries. - The Draft Rules make it clear that the medical
marijuana grown and sold will be closely tracked from seed to patient and we support this. - We're
pleased that Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate will be limited to Arizona residents.
Overall, these rules look great. I am an ALJ with the state and was very curious as to how these
regyulations would end up. Again, Overall, very effective regulation. I am sure some ambiguities will
creep up from time to time.
None. Too hard to read for a free, legal service.
the wrong hands.
the wrong hands.
nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $5,000; NO OTHER NON-PROFIT ENTITY HAS
EVER SUFFERED THIS KIND OF UNREASONABLE HIGH TAX, FEE OR CHARGE. THIS FEE IS EXCESSIVE
AND UNREASONABLE. THE ADHS EXPECTS TO BE PAID TWICE FOR ITâ€™S INCOMPETENT
PERFORMANCE AND BECAUSE IT CAN NOT STAY WITHIN A REASONABLE BUDGET. THIS TAX WILL
ONLY BENEFIT THE ADHS EMPLOYEE UNIONS BY HELPING THEIR MEMBERS CONTRIBUTE MORE TO
THE ORGANIZATION. THIS PRECEDENT WILL ALLOW DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT
SYSTEM TO LEVY TAXES/FEES/CHARGES/DUTIES/CONTRIBUTIONS/TAXES WHICH IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE ADHS HAS THE GUILE TO DEMAND THIS FEE IS EVIDENCE TO THE
TAXPAYERS THAT BAD GOVERNMENT MUST BE STOPPED AND THE ADHS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
THE HIGH NON-REFUNDABLE FEE PURPOSE IS TO NULLIFY THE LAW PASSED BY VOTERS THE HIGH
NON-REFUNDABLE FEE IS AN ATTEMPT TO STIFLE PARTICIPATION WITH TAXES. THE ADHS LACK THE
AUTHORITY TO LEVY THESE FEES ON A SPECIFIC CLASS OF PEOPLE IT HAS DECLARED CRIMINALS.
HIGH FEES DESIGNED TO RESTRICT USER PARTICIPATION WILL SUBJECT THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE TO
POOR QUALITY, HIGH COSTS AND SUPPLY SHORTAGES. 2. "Activities of daily living" means
ambulating, bathing, dressing, grooming, eating, toileting, and getting in and out of bed. THE
STATE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE WHAT THE â€˜ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVINGâ€™ ARE. THE
ADHS LACKS THE AUTHORITY AND KNOWLEDGE TO DEFINE THIS TERM. THE ADHS HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO INVENT DEFINITIONS OF WORDS OR CHANGE THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF WORDS
APPROVED BY VOTERS. 10. "Enclosed" means: a. A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor
room or closet; or b. An area surrounded by four solid 12-foot walls constructed of metal, concrete,
or stone with a one-inch thick metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area that is: i. Welded
or woven metal wire mesh, with minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum gap between
wires of 1 inch; ii. Welded metal wire grid, with minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and maximum
gap between wires of 3 inches; iii. Metal chain-link weave, with gauge no less than 9 and no more
than 11.5; iv. A panel of metal vertical bars, with minimum bar thickness of 0.5 inches and maximum
gap between bars of 4 inches; or v. Constructed of iron or other metallic material and similar to the
examples in subsections (10)(b)(i) through (10)(b)(iv), if approved by the Department. THE ADHS HAS
NO AUTHORITY TO INVENT DEFINITIONS OF WORDS OR CHANGE THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF
WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. â€œENCLOSEDâ€ IS CONTRARY TO THE
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE DEFINITION. THE ADHS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
CONTRADICT THE UPC OR THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODES. THE ADHS LACKS THE EXPERTISE TO
SPECIFY MATERIALS AND METHODS AS EVIDENCED BY THE ABOVE RULES AND LACKS THE AUTHORITY
TO CONTRADICT THE NBC AND THE UBC. THE INTENT OF THE DEFINITION IS UNCLEAR. WHAT IS THE
PURPOSE OF THIS CAGE? THE MATERIALS SPECIFIED ARE NON STANDARD AND IMPRACTICAL.
THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS IN PHOENIX THAT CONFORM TO THIS DEFINITION. THE RULE STATES THAT
IF THE STATED DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY THEN IT WILL BE APPROVED ARBITRARILY BY UNTRAINED
ADHS DEPARTMENT PERSONAL. THIS WILL CONTRADICT CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENTS RULES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES.
Limiting, as much as possible, those who are eligible to receive "medical" marijuana and those who
are eligible to recommend "medical" marijuana. The biggest abuse in other states with these laws is
the ease with which anyone can get a recommendation.
I believe that almost all of the Rules are fair and follow the Intent of the Statute...........However.
WHAT PART OF THE DRAFT RULES DO YOU BELIEVE ARE EFFECTIVE? Rule R9-17-311 "Dispensing
Medical Marijuana" is effective, but could be stronger. This rule is necessary to ensure that medical
marijuana ("MM") does not end up in the wrong hands. It is important that dispensaries verify the
identity of card holders before providing them with MM. Subsection 1 requires identity verification of
registered patients and caregivers by the dispensary agent, but does not say anything about what
method must be used. A quick, effective, and secure method such as a fingerprint scan should be
required by DHS to ensure that MM does not end up in the wrong hands. HOW CAN THE DRAFT
RULES BE IMPROVED? Draft Rule R9-17-311 should be expanded to include a requirement that when
verifying the qualifying patient's identity, dispensaries must employ a biometric identity verification
system, such as a thumb print scan. DHS is mandated by the Initiative to ensure that dispensaries are
only releasing medical marijuana to qualifying patients who hold a validly issued registration card. If
electronic verification system. DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO IMPROVE THE RULES?
PLEASE INCLUDE WHERE THE LANGUAGE COULD BE INCORPORATED. Yes. Amend rule R9-17-311(1)
to read: "Verify the qualifying patient's or the designated caregiver's identity using biometric
identity verification technology such as a thumb print scan or other DHS approved method;" Also:
The rules should explicitly allow such electronic transactions by making the existing R9-17-311 part A
and adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic system of hardware and
marijuana electronic verification system. HAS ANYTHING BEEN LEFT OUT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE
RULES? Yes, DHS has should include a provision requiring biometrics to ensure the success of the
identity verification required in rule R9-17-311. There is a compelling State interest in requiring
dispensary agents to employ a safety precaution (at no expense to the State) that would help keep
MM out of the hands of unregistered illegitimate users. Therefore it seems advisable for DHS to
require medical marijuana dispensaries to use biometric identity verification systems to confirm the
identities of patients and designated caregivers who present registry identification cards prior to
dispensing marijuana to them. Furthermore, Federal law requires a bona fide doctor-patient
relationship before a physician prescribes a controlled substance. The same requirement should
apply for medical marijuana recommendations. The definition proposed by the Board, in R9-17-
101(16)(a), which requires four visits over the span of a year, may prevent some patients from
obtaining the relief offered by the Act in a timely manner. Principles of medical ethics have
standards for the doctor-patient relationship and the dispensing of medication. Doctors are bound to
follow their medical ethics in making recommendations for medical marijuana. It would violate their
ethical standards to make recommendations for medical marijuana without conducting a proper
examination of the patient's health and history. Excessive government regulation, such as rules that
tell the doctor how to practice "" including how many visits or length of treatment "" overstep the
bounds of this rule making. Doctor's ethical standards, not government rules, should control the
doctor-patient relationship. Part B of the definition of "ongoing," in R9-17-101(16)(b), is good to an
extent, but it would prevent U.S. military veterans whose primary care physicians are at the Veterans
Administration Hospitals from being able to acquire medical marijuana if it would provide them relief
from a debilitating medical condition. Doctors at the Veterans Administration are not permitted to
write recommendations for medical marijuana because it is still proscribed by federal law. As there
are already existing legal and ethical guidelines for when a physician-patient relationship is
established and because the definitions proposed by the Department would make it unnecessarily
difficult for a person with a genuine medical need to obtain medical marijuana""and make it virtually
impossible for veterans using the services of a VA Hospital""the Department should eliminate the
definition of "ongoing" in the proposed rules at R9-17-101(16) and require a bona fide doctor-patient
relationship.
the wrong hands.
The draft mandates that a principal officer or board member of a dispensary must have been an
Arizona resident for the two years immediately preceding the dispensary application submission date.
(R9-Ââ€17-Ââ€302)
the existing rules represent a loose outline that needs tightening and attention to reality and market
conditions there is undue burdens and expectations in some areas and unrealistic or lackadaisical
attention to detail in others.
PHYSICIAN: First, the cost of seeing a physician 4 times before a medical marijuana recommendation
can be made will make people deal with marijuana the way they currently deal with it, illegally. If you
make the rules so onerous that you can't get a medical marijuana card, you may as well continue to
prosecute those that need medical marijuana to have a quality of life. You are making rules that rule
out those that need help. The way the rules are drafted, only a few doctors will be willing to put
themselves out to make recommendations for marijuana. THE 70/30% RULE: The 70/30% rule is
self defeating, because you may not be able to get enough medical marijuana from other growers if
you cannot produce enough, or you may not be able to sell enough to cover costs if you cannot move
your product to other dispensaries. MEDICAL DIRECTOR: This is probably one of the most
egregious application of rules that I can think of. The cost of a staff medical director will likely be
prohibitive. It will boost the price of the medical marijuana to the point that few will be able to
afford. The patient already has a doctor that he can call. Why do a medical director at all when the
patient has the capability of calling his own doctor of 911? COST OF SETTING UP A DISPENSARY:
How can you set up a dispensary when you have to put all the money out up front with only a
possibility that your site will be approved as a cultivation site or a dispensary? Under the current
draft, we will not apply for a license, because the investment may go down the tubes before you can
even get approved.
In general, the Draft Rules appear to be mostly workable and are likely to be generally effective at
regulating the production, sale, distribution and use of Medical Marijuana (MMJ). The first Draft is an
excellent starting point and we wish to commend DHS for its work and leadership on this difficult task.
The Rules appear well designed to ensure that only qualifying patients with legitimate medical
concerns will qualify for the program and that the licensing and operation of dispensaries will
discourage disreputable participants. However we do feel there are some areas of the Rules that may
lead to unintended consequences and there are other areas that must be clarified and supplemented
to ensure that the licensing process is as smooth and controversy-free as possible. Effective Rule
Provisions: 1. Dispensary Application Requirements and Process The stringent dispensary
application requirements as presented in the Draft rules will ensure that only the most qualified and
reputable operators are able to submit applications. In particular we believe the requirement to have
a Medical Director, and to submit some form of financial guarantee (some clarifications and revisions
to the surety bond requirement are neededâ€”see below) will be effective at eliminating unqualified
applicants. Further the requirement to obtain zoning approval prior to submitting an application (as
mandated by the Initiative) is absolutely vital to ensure that those who wish to operate a dispensary
are willing and able to take the time and capital to secure a suitable location that is approved by the
local jurisdiction. This both screens out less reputable applicants and minimizes the potential for land
use conflicts. We do, however believe that some clarifications and revisions are necessary as
discussed below. We feel it is important to emphasize the requirement of prior zoning approval, as
it has come to our attention that a handful of potential applicants are suggesting that DHS should
postpone zoning approval until after licenses are awarded. However, this not only conflicts with the
law as written in the Initiative, but it also would create a completely unworkable land use scenario rife
with opportunity for public outrage and potential litigation. To ignore the plain language of the
Initiative would serve nothing but to expose DHS and local jurisdictions to controversy and liability.
2. Dispensary Operations Requirements The dispensary operation requirements as drafted in the
Rules are likely to be generally effective for tracking medical marijuana and ensuring that patients
receive safe, quality medicine. In particular the sections on security, recordkeeping, inventory,
employee/procedural plans, and sanitary and edible products, appear to be both generally effective
and feasible to implement. We feel some additions to the Draft rules are advisable and we discuss
these below.
A good first draft! You put a lot of thought into the process & rules. The bottom line is how can we
(help) reduce the cost of product to the end user? We need to look at the rules, use some lean
thinking techniques in the production and dispensing of the product and drive those cost down. This
should not be a get rich, but a method to get the medicine in the hands of the folks that need it for
the least amount. Like thinking owners should be the ones chosen to run the dispensaries, not those
that are in it only to make a fast buck! Yes let everyone make a reasonalbe amount on the
investment, but let's not make them wealthy.
That we are getting a program finally. The fact that you cant prevent the implementation this time.
I like how you have people who require to sign it
Not sure
None because drugs scientifically kill people, ruin families, and make it dangerous in the work
environment.
The processing and sanitary guidlines. Education information. Record keeping and inventory
requirements.
I like the first set of rules and was very glad to see you added "day care."
I think this bill should be renamed "Why bother".

In general, we think the rules are good. There are a few places where we believe additional
specification is needed or the language needs to be clarified. These are listed below.
The vast majority of the rules are clear and offer fair regulations.
The earlier draft with allegations of criminal collusion is retracted. Our Association voices strenuous
objection to the seriously defective content of the draft regulations. In aggregate, the draft
regulations inform Arizonaâ€™s suffering, dying, and good citizens that they are chattel. If the State
says â€œSuffer!â€ we must suffer. If the State says â€œWait and die! We must wait and die.
Indisputably too, the proposed dispensary regulations benefit only the elite super-wealthy, only those
who can gamble millions of dollars to build fortresses that may never be licensed, fortresses that
indulge police state spy-cam fantasies, but are unreasonable and unnecessary to the task. Such
blatant favoritism in your proposed regulations is unacceptable. The current draft regulations are
defective beyond repair. We demand that the department rescind the draft regulations immediately
and begin the process anew. In a transparent public process, promulgate draft regulations that are
moral, compassionate, consistent with both the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the 1998 Arizona
Voter Protection Act, and to the advantage of Arizona's suffering, dying, and good citizens.
Thank you Will Humble for adding the 2 year Arizona Residency for dispensary owners, i would have
preferred a 5 year residency for dispensary owners but i will take what ever we could get..
Most of the Draft Rules are effective.Â The sections detailing necessary inventory control measures,
quality analysis, product labeling, and sanitary conditions were particularly well written. Â However
a few restrictions are problematic. Specifically, limits on the percentages of marijuana produced that
can be transferred to other dispensaries for sale to end users, and the restriction on the percentage of
inventory sold that is produced by other registered cultivators.Â These stipulations as stated in Â§R9-
17-307(C) are not conducive a reputable industry that is easy to regulate and provides a consistently
high quality product.
I see the three areas below as giving a due advantage to Arizona businesses and helps patients. R9-
17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B3b. An attestation signed and dated by the
principal officer or board member that the principal officer or board member is an Arizona resident
and has been an Arizona resident for at least two consecutive years immediately preceding the date
the dispensary submitted the dispensary certificate application; R9-17-101. Definitions 18. "Public
place:" c. Does not include: i. Nursing care institutions, as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-401; ii. Hospices,
as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-401; iii. Assisted living centers, as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-401; iv. Assisted
living homes, as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-401; v. Adult day health care facilities, as defined in A.R.S. Â§
36-401; vi. Adult foster care homes, as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-401; or vii. Private residences. R9-
17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition
the wrong hands.
We believe that the general definitions, requirements and fees for qualifying patients and dispensary
licensing fees are congruent with the intent of Proposition 203.
none
I HAVE CANCER. I AM DISABLED AND UNDER V.A. CARE. I WILL RECIEVE CHEMO THE REST OF MY LIFE.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS A STATE LAW AND NOT FEDERAL LAW , THE V.A. WILL NOT WRITE A SCRIPT
FOR MARIJUANA. I REALLY HAVE HAD ENOUGH MORPHINE TO LAST A LIFE TIME. PLEASE
RECONSIDER HAVING A DOCTOR VISIT 4 TIMES IN ONE YEAR. I CAN'T AFFORD A PRIVATE DOCTOR. I
NEED TO STOP THE MORPHINE AND START SMOKING MARIJUANA TO HELP MAKE MYSELF
COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT TIME I HAVE LEFT. I HAVE ALL DOCUMENTATION TO BACK UP MY
CANCER. AGAIN PLEASE RECONSIDER. I HAVE SERVED MY COUNTRY AND MY STATE. I HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN LAW BIDING WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD. YOURS TRULY...
I do not believe any of the rules that are on the table can be effective because there are key parts of
these rules that have been drafted to sabotage the medical marijuana effort instead of the
implementation of the new laws. For example the public comments should have been made public
instead of hidden to protect Will Humble and the ADHS efforts to sabotage this law. Until we
address Will Humble and the ADHS efforts to sabatage this law and the conflict of interest that drives
Mr. Humble's efforts we will do little to have a medical marijuana law that is effective, economical and
does not put the public at risk. There is a serious conflict of interest between the implementation of
medical marijuana rules and the competing interests and goals of the ADHS. Marijuana is an
important medication for alcoholism and drug addiction and it is offered as an alternative treatment
in California and other states for people suffering from alcohol or that want to get off of damaging
and addictive prescribed medications. Will Humble is Director of the Arizona Department of Health
Services (ADHS) and he has been with the agency at a high level since 1992. He controls
approximately 2,000 employees and a budget of $2B. Mr. Humble is now in control of implementing
the rules and regulations for the use, cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana here in the
State of Arizona. Mr. Humble belongs to a culture of anti marijuana supporters. In many ways this
group has prospered and personally and professionally advanced through their opposition to medical
marijuana and the will of the people. They have turned their backs on science and common sense.
Arizonans voted for medical marijuana in 1996 and 1998 and they were ignored. Now Arizona voters
have passed Proposition 203 in November of 2010 legalizing medical marijuana for cancer patients
and a few other serious illnesses. This was accomplished in spite of Will Humble and ADHS opposition
and efforts to defeat the medical marijuana law. There is a great conflict of interest here. The
ADHS has a monopoly on the anti-depressant and chronic pain pill market for the poor. These
powerful individuals have little incentive for allowing homegrown marijuana to compete with their
synthetic drug distribution to the poor or the depression and addiction industry they control through
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Many of these drugs the ADHS push are
referred to as psych-meds on the street. Most marijuana users avoid these drugs because they are
known to make people unstable, suicidal and violent. Many mental health patients prefer marijuana
to alcohol and these highly addictive psych-meds and are offered a legal treatment alternative in
California and other states. is concerned that these dangerous
drugs are being over-prescribed in Arizona. requested Arizonaâ€™s spending data on
prescription drugs for , who is calling for a federal investigation into the
volume of prescription drugs that the government is paying out through Medicare and Medicaid. In
2009 Arizona spent over $5.3 million on pain and anti-psychotic medications for its poorest residents.
discovered that Arizonaâ€™s top Medicaid doctors wrote between 500 and 3,000
prescriptions per year for several of these dangerous drugs that are under scrutiny. Arizona spent at
least $1.3 million on Zyprexa , a schizophrenia drug, for Medicaid patients in 2009. State data show
that one doctor alone wrote 2,977 prescriptions for Oxycontin and Oxycodone for AHCCCS enrollees
in the 2009 fiscal year. The state paid a total of at least $527,449 for the drugs he prescribed to those
patients. This Arizona data lists the top 10 AHCCCS contractors according to their volume of
prescriptions for the medications Alprazolam, Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Roxicodone, Xanax, Abilify,
Geodon, Seroquel, Zyprexa, Risperdal and Risperidone. wrote to Thomas J. Betlach,
director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona's Medicaid program
stating: "The overutilization of prescription drugs, whether through drug abuse or outright fraud,
plays a significant role in the rising cost of our health-care system,â€ These drugs are filling our
living rooms and our emergency rooms with heavily addicted and suicidal patients in epidemic
proportions yet the ADHS is passing these pills out like candy. Will Humble will not implement
unbiased, responsible and meaningful rules and regulations that would safely, economically and
efficiently make medical marijuana available to the people that need it for many valid reasons. Will
Humble and the ADHS are in direct competition with a normal medical marijuana policy. Will
Humble and his heavily funded cartel of medical marijuana saboteurs need to stand down. This
sabotage will result in a continuation of wasted resources, unnecessary crime, suffering, drug
addiction, death, social division and civil disobedience. The individuals responsible for prolonging this
damage should be held accountable. I would like to thank for providing some of the
information I have used in this article from her Saturday, October 30, 2010 posting with the
. I have cleaned her political spin off the facts and added my own but the facts are the facts.
Join in Demanding the Unconditional End of the Prohibition of Marijuana and the
Immediate Release of All Marijuana Prisoners in the State of Arizona.
Stringent controls on who is appropriate for Marijuana. Medical Directors are important.
The 2 yr residency requirement. The registry cardholder process.
It's all good if it takes the crime off the books and allows the personal use of Marijuana for a natural
relaxant, cancer cure or recreational substance. It was given by God, let no man (or woman) put
asunder!
Electronic accountability system.
I believe being an Arizona Resident for 2 years in order to open up a Dispensary is an excellent idea. I
think it would be even better if an extra year would be better. The people that campaigned for prop
203 moved out here about 2 years ago. My biggest fear is that you will have California and Colorado
move out here and set up shop, and take all of those dollars out of our great state of Arizona. Table
1.1 on p 10 of the draft rules is perfect wouldn't change anything. Great job on this one azdhs :) r9-
17-103. Electronic Submission - Perfect!!! R9-17-205 This whole section is great. Perfectly written.
There should be no room in breaking the law. Follow the rules and this wont be a problem. I 2nd this
R9-17-306 Inspections... As a potential dispensary owner/operator, This whole section works perfectly
for me. I believe that the inspections should be very strict. In stead of 20 working days should be a full
calender month, just to be sure the violations can be remedy for complete assurance and compliance.
R9-17-311 Dispensing Medical Marijuana: I have no problems at all with this section, all inventory will
be tracked to the milligram.
I believe, that while they are very stringent, the security procedures outlined for a dispensary are
excellent. The same goes for the inventory procedures. I also think you've done very well on
requiring that doctors have at least a one year relationship with the patient; but additionally, you
provide an option for patients who don't have an ongoing relationship with a doctor. I think it's
extremely important that we don't allow what goes on in other states, where anyone can walk in and
get a doctor's referral as long as they pay whatever the asking price is.
The draft regulations appear to be comprehensive, well thought out and designed to track Proposition
203 rather closely.
I believe most of the draft rules are intended to effectively suppress the implimentation of medical
marijuana. Obviously, dispensaries and their cultivators can not startup nor operate without charging
for their services to offset their overheads and payrolls. Qualified horticulturists and licensed doctors
expect reasonable compensation, as do sales staff and managers. Pharmacutical giants like Phizer are
allowed to be excessively profitable in exchange for pushing drugs, many of which are undertested
and have seriously harmful side affects. These drug companies also provide major incentives to
doctors for prescribing their products. Why should doctors abandon the existing lucrative status quo
in exchange for prescribing an herb that would have previously cost them their licenses? Because of
this risk, most doctors have had little exposure to marijuana and are unlikely to consider it as a serious
alternative to pharmaceuticals. No one can make a living from growing it, selling it, nor prescribing it.
When one also considers the startup costs, security, fees, documentation, and scrutiny; what is the
incentive for anyone to participate? It's easier and less intrusive for the patient to continue to do
business as usual with his existing supplier.
The ADHS rules contained numerous provisions I agree with. Many of the security requirements for
dispensaries and cultivation sites are very reasonable and promote the safety of the dispensary
agents. Requiring camera on all cultivation is a great start. The requirement to allow ADHS to have
access over the internet is a great way to monitor cultivation in a cost effective manor. Sanitation
requirements are another area I agree with. Demanding that equipment be cleaned daily is essential
to preventing mold from having a devastating impact on patient health.
Section R9-17-302 APPLYING FOR A DISPENSARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE B. 3. a,b. I like that you
can't be a convicted Felon and that you have to reside for the last 2 years. Although people are
getting relatives to apply for them it hopefully will help slow people comng from other states. I think
that people from Arizona and big corp business shouldn't have the right to have multiple facilities
what happens to the everyday person that works hard and is trying to get involve to make sure that
this is a successful program and make it work all the way around. The site lay outs and floor plans I
think are a good idea.. I understand about restrooms but as for a extra sink I think that having hand
sanitizer will do the same job. I see it stated everwhere about remonding this is a non profit but
please keep in mind about funding it needs to be reconized that this is non profits trying to get this
together unless this is made for the rich. I just hope that when the time comes for people to operate
a dispencary that people are picked fairly.
I think that requiring board member's to be residents of the state of AZ is definitely a move in the
right direction with the rules and regulations. It allows tighter control of the board members, and
protects the non profit dispensary from large amounts of cash flow leaving the state.
We agree with R9 17-311 and R9 17-312. However, dispensaries need to be located in friendly, open,
well lit areas, be handicapped accessible, including parking and rest rooms. Prop 203 is about
helping sick, debilated, disabled and handicapped people, yet these necessities seem to have been
overlooked? In reading the draft I wondered several times where is the concern and consideration for
the patient and the people trying to help the patient?? HELP!
Most seems to be in good order.
The effective parts of the draft rules i believe to be effective are that after so many generations(what i
believe to around 5 generations of teenagers) that with the legalization of this drug that it will no
longer be such a novelty to our youth. Meaning that now the teenager who is curious as we all know
most of us have our own curiosities to deal with the teenager who wants to experiment with a socially
excecptable medicine will no longer be in situations when they obtain this drug(for it will always be a
drug) that they have at their discretion to try other drugs such a meth, lsd, candy popin, etc. etc.
That's to say that they even want to try the drug since the tabboo is no longer there and the secrecy
of the drug is publicly known to all. What I am saying is they nolonger are walking into a drug dealers
house where they not only have multiple different types of drugs they can try they also have a
lifestyle that more times then not is less than suitable for our communities children/teenagers to be
in. If they do decide to experiment any sound minded person can answer the question of where are
they getting the drug from. The same place most experimental teenagers get the alcoholic bevarages,
tabacco, and the designer drugs(pharm.)
-The background checks for each principal officer and board member in section R9-17-302.B.3 is a
good requirement. I would like to keep unlawful individuals as well as organized crime members out
of this business. -The requirement for asking dispensary
The security requirements are supportive of maintaining a healthy community. Fees required to
apply for a dispensary certification are appropriate to assure viability of the business. Residency
requirements for dispensary certificaitons are appropriate with maintaining a healthy community and
reducing the number of individuals from other MMJ states that are in search of further opportunities.
I think the draft rules are overzealous and absurdly restrictive in their general architecture While there
are some important areas covered by the draft it appears that you are trying to block medical
marijuana in Arizona..
The definitions are very through. R-19-17-302 part A. This is a great requirement.
â€¢ Thank you for collecting comments from the general public on these draft rules. â€¢ Thank
you for allowing a period to evaluate administrative completeness and the opportunity to complete
an incomplete application. â€¢ Thank you for employing a digital format for patient, caregiver and
dispensary registration. It makes the entire process much faster and easier for almost everyone
involved. It is worth considering that this requirement may be burdensome to low-income and some
elderly patients. You could consider offering a mail-in alternative, with an adjusted timeline, but I
donâ€™t think it is required.
Very little is effective. This draft shows that WIll Humble is anti medical marijuana.
Stating where locations should be.
Your intentions are good. You are addressing percieved problems. Zoning by individual cities will
regulate where the dispensarys and grow operations open.
I have not read anything concerning how the state will determine if a person is at a illegal level when
driving. I am owner of a DUI group program. We go by blood level for consequences for how many
groups a DUI will require. What blood levels will be used for POT When is it illegal, when will it be
extreme and when super extreme. We need to know the THC levels that will be used for the levels of
b eing intoxicated and what level of intoxication. This must be given to us who do this for a living we
do alcohol and drug screenings and we have no idea what will be legal and not legal and who can
drive and who can not and who should be given group therapy and who should not. This will need to
be determined since everyone who gets a DUI has to take group therapy to get their license back from
MVD so MVD needs to be in this decision as well as the courts and as well as we counselors who own
companies that do the groups for MVD and the courts.
I have read the draft rules and have the following comment: I believe you approached the
enactment of these laws with practicality and wisdom. As an individual with a bachelor's of science
degree in medical microbiology, I work closely with patients suffering from disease and I fully support
the use of medical marijuana for those who are in need of it. I often travel to California, and though I
support the use of medical marijuana, I do not support the ease of which people in California are able
to set up a dispensary on every corner or worse allowed to grow marijuana in their homes. I fully
support the 25 mile limit from a dispensary rule. I have read articles from Berkeley, CA that indicate
city officials would rather see large, regulated, commercial grow facilities in industrial parks over the
potential fire hazards and criminal activity centered around individual growing areas in people's
homes...unfortunately for most California cities, they did not set up the kind of rules you have
proposed and now they are paying the price. Please stick to your initial instincts regarding the current
guidelines.
I feel that AZDHS draft rules are far too restrictive. AZ voters have decided that medical marijuana is a
safe and effective medication, that requires only a doctors written recommendation. Under the rules
proposed by DHS, it is easier for any patient to get far more dangerous drugs via a presciption, than a
written recommendation for medical marijuana. "Findings" of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
effectiveness of medical marijuana. The following was written by Dr. Suter, as published by New
Times. I agree with Dr. Suter, and believe that if AZDHS does not drastically change the proposed
rules, it is inviting numerous and costly lawsuits. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable
burden. 9 foot high chain link fencing, open above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor
cultivation. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the authority to deny the
involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12. R 9-17-
the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act denies the department authority to require multiple
assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the patient-physician in any way, much less to
promulgate a relationship among patient, physician, and specialist that is found nowhere in the
practice of medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a specialist required to assume primary responsibility for
a patient's care. Nowhere else in the practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year
relationship or multiple visits for the prescription or recommendation of any therapy, including
therapies with potentially deadly outcomes. Marijuana is not lethal, but the department usurps
authority to treat it with cruel and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon
drugs that are deadly. Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a
(or cannot afford to seek) other medical care at all (whether prior or subsequent to application). R9-
17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-
203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the department. ARS 36-2803.5
are cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents,
and their caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or no provision for
patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access. R9-17-106.A(2) is cruel,
arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for addition of medical conditions that
cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering patients to accomplish their activities of daily
living. For example, conditions such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression,
and other conditions may cause considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their
activities of daily living. R9-17-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows
suffering patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of
qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year. R9-17-202.B is cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable. Qualifying patients may need more than one caregiver to ensure an uninterrupted
supply of medicine. R9-17-202.F.5(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.5(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps
patients' rights to choose other providers or sources of information R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-
204.A.5(k)ii , R9-17-204.C.1(j)ii , R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-
309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable. If a caregiver already has a valid caregiver or dispensary
agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need to be submitted. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17-320.A.3
are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not be revoked for trivial or unknowing errors.
Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless the applicant knowingly provided substantive
misinformation. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302.B.1(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.1(g), R9-17-302.B.3(b) , R9-17-
302.B.3(d)i-ix, R9-17-302.B.4(c), R9-17-302.B.4(d), R9-17-302.B.15(a), R9-17-302.B.15(b), R9-17-
302.B.15(d), R9-17-306.B, R9-17-307.A.1(e), R9-17-307.A.3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.5, R9-17-
319.A.2.(a), R9-17-319.B are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied to the department.
These sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department does not have the
authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal officers or board
members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security measures that are an
denied to the department. This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. Especially in
the absence of peer-reviewed evidence, the department has no authority to require a statement that
a product may represent a health risk. R9-17-315 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority
department has no authority to place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security
products. R9-17-317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department.
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act. The department has no authority to
require the daily removal of non-toxic refuse.
In general I think the rules and regs are good.
I support the recommended rules put forward by MatForce. I am a clinical psychologist with 37 years
of practice. I am concerned about the deleterious effects of smoking MJ, use of MJ for vague
diagnoses such as chronic pain that everyone can claim. I am concerned that this may contribute to
traffic accidents while persons drive under the influence. Please make the rules as strict as possible
and tax the dispensaries sufficiently to deal with the harm they may cause.
....We need to retain the highest level of responsibility for medical marijuana providers and users.
R9-17-313 â€“ These rules are a fair and economical way to ensure that inventory is controlled and
distributed only to qualifying patients.
R9-17-302 A.Arizona Resident for 2 years preceding the date. This should remain to keep large out of
state corporations from benefiting where Arizona residents can.
Having attended city zoning meetings I support the intentions of the AZDHS to limit principal offices
and board members to citizens who have lived in Arizona for 2 years. There have been representatives
trying to influence cities and citizens about â€œhow this worksâ€ or â€œwhat we should doâ€. We
have the opportunity to create a medical marijuana system that suits the interest of Arizona citizens,
not anyone else. The influence they are looking to impress may stifle innovation or limit creativity in
defining the rules for medical marijuana in Arizona. But in general I think the AZDHS has done a
great job of showing comprehensive attention to detail with developing the draft.
Rg-17-306 D Department will not accept complaints by anonymously
Including Naturopathic Medical Doctors (NMD).
The department is doing a great job with what is transpiring so far..
Overall the draft rules seem effective.
not many
The majority is thoughtful and well written.

The department is doing a great job with what is transpiring so far..
All rules that protect Arizona from having the "medical" marijuana of California and Colorado. The
rules should allow for patients with truly debilitating illnesses and nothing more. AZDHS has a very
important job to protect the citizens of Arizona from illegal activity and the increased abuse of
marijuana.
After living in California before and after cannabis became legal medicine I think the rules are
generally quite effective and fair. California has something that works up to a point, but, would never
work here in Arizona. I like what Colorado has done with thier program and it seems to me that the
rules written here reflect the rules in Colorado. Eventually, after this law gains more acceptance I
would like to see it become a major generator of revenue for the State of Arizona and it's people. As
we have witnessed in states like Colorado this can work! Thank You for all of your hard work in this
matter, it shows.
provides verification that the patient has an ongoing approved medical diagnosis, and is a candidate
for medical cannabis.
provides verification that the patient has an ongoing approved medical diagnosis, and is a candidate
for medical cannabis.
R9-17-313 â€“ These rules are a fair and economical way to ensure that inventory is controlled and
below. We appreciate the time the Health Department has spent trying to get this out to the people
of Arizona.
"Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient is a terribly INEFFECTIVE concept in the
draft rules, especially for glaucoma patients. Subpart a. â€œThe physician-patient relationship has
existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the patient on at least four visits
for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the physician-patient relationship
â€œ would have no utility to a patient whose traditional ophthalmic specialist has a predisposition
against marijuana. This is likely to be the case where years of training in conventional therapy would
prejudice the doctor against marijuana as medicine. In subpart b, ADHS presents a dismal alternative
where an opthamologist would almost NEVER assume â€œ primary responsibility for providing
management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical conditionâ€ because
opthamologists are specialists, not primary care physicians.
Overall the Definitions are balanced and well thought.
I like the schedules laid out. This prevents Arizona's medical marijuana program from ending up like
some others that did not have a strict timeline. That's about it.
Define effective? If by effective you mean gut the act, they might be if you get them past the
oncoming litigation.
Overall I think the draft rules attempt a balance between necessary medical concerns and maintaining
public safety. I wonder about the rules for allowing patient caregivers and qualified patients the right
to grow their own. Who will monitor that behavior effectively? I think authorized caregivers and
qualified patients should be able to order their medical marijuana from an approved dispensary
where quality, security, and inventory measures are in place and documented. Otherwise, my fear is
that you will create a black market that law enforcement will not be able to handle.
I believe it is ineffective to create a law to help people and then make qualifying so difficult that the
majority of needing patients will not be able to access care. Please consider the potency and available
of most other drugs in comparison. It seems that the double standard that has always existed
regarding this topic has worked its way into the law.
Over all I feel that the draft is fare. I voted yes on prop 203 but I don't want the system to be abused. I
feel that as long as any doctor even if a patient has only seen them once should be able to
recommend medical marijuana if the medical records support the claim. As far as dispensaries go
they should be regulated to be sure that the patient is getting a safe product that has been tested and
is grown locally and not from mexico.
I honestly don't believe any of the draft rules are effective. AZDHS is putting undue burden on the
patients this law will benefit from because they don't like it. This is a prescribed medication as much
as all pharmaceuticals and should be treated as all other pharmaceuticals. The voters have spoken
and it is not your job to make it work for the ones that did not vote or vote for it. Dr Edgar Suter
makes a very strong case and I hope the Voter Protection Act of 1998, which I voted for as I voted for
this, comes into play.
Today in the Arizona Republic there was an article about Medical Marijuana. Joe Yuhas was not happy
about the 70 / 30 cultivation mentioned in the Draft. These yahoos or yuhas don't understand that up
until now --Arizona hasn't even had Medical Marijuana. Why are they projecting that the dispenaries
(120 or 124) can't accomodate the need for Medical Marijuana. I think these Organizers have their
own agenda and it is not the wellfare of the citizens of Arizona, but of Corporate GREED. Heck they
come here from Washington, DC with big bucks. That is from New York. He wants his
Doctors to issue prescriptions and circumvent the rules that the Dept of Health is trying to put in
place. QUESTION: Will the inititive be approved exactly as it was written? Shouldn't the Dept of
Health tweek it and have it comply with current Corporation and taxation laws? The inititive states
that Medical MJ dispensaries do not have to incorporate as required by Title 10 of the Ariz Revised
Statues.
Rules allow department to revoke registry identification cards when holders are convicted of excluded
offenses.
I would like to commend your decision to not allow residents of other states to open dispensaries in
Arizona. This will prevent an influx of â€œprofessional dispensary agentsâ€ from other states here
simply to make a profit, not seeking to truly help those in need.
Keep Dispensary Owners/Officer's and Investor's to Arizona Residency 2 years prior to applying for
Dispensary license.
Limiting the number of locations based on the number of pharmacies.
unhappiness with this action. I am a registered dietitian and have an expertise in brain neuroscience
and nutrition. thank you
Please adopt rules that are very strict and restrictive so that this law does not get abused.
The draft helped provide an over view of what the Dept of Health is expecting
ADHS Approval Process: I'm not sure of what comes first the Chicken or the Egg? In reference to
being approved by ADHS to open a dispensary or the city approval for the Use Permit to open a
dispensary. Example we secure a location but we cannot commit to a lease until each agency
makes the approvals. Lets say that a city is allow 6 dispensaries and 20 corporations submit for zoning
approval. The city does not know which corporation is going to be approved by ADHS and lets say 10
of the 20 corporations that submit to that city are eligible to open the dispensary from ADHS. But the
city has to approve only 6 locations. We need a step-by-step process: 1. Application to AHSD for
approval (Step 1) Â§ Corporation Status Â§ Background checks Â§ Business Plan Â§ $5,000 Deposit
2. Application approved by ADHS (subject to city approval) 3. Applicant can now submit to the city for
zoning 4. Zoning is approved by city, now applicant can submit floor plan to the ADHS (Step 2) for
final approval.
Administrative controls of dispensaries and doctors.
I like that you are limiting the amount of Dispensaries but to regulate them based on the amount of
Pharmacies we have???? Keep it at what I believe now is 125 or so.
As a former cancer patient and active breast cancer patient advocate, I was happy with the passage of
the AZ Medical Marijuana Act. I have the following comments listed in the sections below. Overall I
find that the proposed draft needs a very thorough review before finalization. I understand that the
State is under pressure to complete the final regulations but I caution against hasty implementation or
bowing to personal interest lobbyists from out of State or congomerates wishing to have a monopoly
and eliminate the small business man (with respect to the dispensaries).
Most of the points are effective.
All parts - a job well done.
The requirement for each Dispensary to employ or contract with a Medical Director (R9-17-
302(B)1(g)) is definitely a positive element of the Rules. This should be effective in helping to ensure
that all patients receive a high-quality of care, are fully aware and educated of their treatment
options, and are employing the best possible strategy to alleviate/treat their medical conditions. Also
a dispensaryâ€™s Medical Director can also serve as an additional watch dog against illegitimate
patients. In other words, if a patient somehow managed to obtain a card without a legitimate medical
condition, a Medical Director would be more likely to identify and report this situation. This acts as a
check against not only illegitimate cardholders but also against those Doctors who may write
illegitimate recommendations. Finally, requiring a Medical Director will help ensure that only
legitimate dispensaries are licensed in Arizona. Doctors are less likely to risk their reputation and
ability to practice medicine by associating with a disreputable dispensary and as such this requirement
should serve as a deterrent against potential dispensaries.
The rule that 70% of the product supply must come from a dispensary is very good. I read the
AZCentral article today with people complaining about that but these are individuals that have no
interest in handling anything except the final commercial product. A dispensary should understand
the product at every stage from seed to clone. Giving 30% allowance to get the product from other
dispensaries is more than fair. The individuals that want to simply "deal" and make profits through
their store fronts have no place in the dispensary business. With 124 dispensaries, there is plenty of
competition to keep prices low and prevent supply shortages.
In general, I believe the rules are well thought out and provide adequate protection for physician,
patient and the general public. A job well done! As discussed below, in certain circumstances, I
believe the regulations are a bit too restrictive and will inhibit the economic viability of dispensaries
and patients receiving the benefit from medicinal marijuana. I also believe a couple provisions need
further clarification. Please see my comment below.
Not Many
nothing
not much! the safety parts i like and thats it.

Do you have any specific language to improve the rules? Please include where the
language could be incorporated.
Open-Ended Response
In lieu of the verbiage about four visits to a doctor for this chronic condition within a year the regs
should state simply Use of medical marijuana will be legal upon recomendation of a MD,DO or
naturopath in good standing in the state of Arizona,for treatment of chronic conditions as presently
defined by proposition 203 and for any other condidtion the physician feels in his judgement can be
improved by the use of medical marijuana. Recommendations for marijuana will be guided by the
same rules as those of any other controlled medicine that docotrs prescribe and will only be given upon
the physicians judgement that the condidtion will be helped or alleviated by treatment with medical
marijuana.
• R9-17-302.B.3 appears to cover a background check “For each principal officer and board member”
the language should also include investors, along with principal officer and board members.
Please expand the definition of “Medical Director” as found in Section R9-17-101(15) to read as
follows: “Medical Director” means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to
practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor, a doctor of naturopathic
medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice naturopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S.
Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor, or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing
license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and
who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the dispensary.”
REF. page 4. para.16a - In the section about the ongoing physician/patient relationship it should read
"...on at least four visits over at least four months". (This should be done to stop the four visits from
being conducted in one setting.)
REF. page 4. para.16a - In the section about the ongoing physician/patient relationship it should read
"...on at least four visits over at least four months". (This should be done to stop the four visits from
being conducted in one setting.)
Please consider removing R9-17-101 (16) the ongoing "one year" and "4 visit" rules from the Draft
proposal and apply the same rules as other controlled substances. The physician assumes primary
responsibility for providing prescriptions after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical
examination.
“The definition of ‘Medical Director’ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in A.R.S. Title
32, Chapter 14. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians. They have pharmaceutical
prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona.”
1. See above. 2. Item F. 4. on pate 13 should be reworded. It should state, "If a qualifying patient
has been found guilty in a court of law of diverting marijuana to any individual whatsoever, his/her
Identification card and medical marijuana privileges will be immediately revoked permanently.
programs like you and your staff and we have to little to pay for our own insurance. In no other case
in Arizona do you the “health department” require that a sick or dying person go to a specialist for that
will impose. That I now have to go through the yellow pages to find a new primary doctor who not
only lets me pay in payments but has an office near by and will want to deal with that 24 hour a day
tracking that you and the police department will require….come on this law states reasonable
regulations not some arbitrary idea that the current health director decided is a good way to protect
society from this hideous and dangerous plant that has never killed anyone! My patient/doctor
relationship should be decided by my physician and me not you Mr. Humble.
programs like you and your staff and we have to little to pay for our own insurance. In no other case
in Arizona do you the “health department” require that a sick or dying person go to a specialist for that
will impose. That I now have to go through the yellow pages to find a new primary doctor who not
only lets me pay in payments but has an office near by and will want to deal with that 24 hour a day
tracking that you and the police department will require….come on this law states reasonable
regulations not some arbitrary idea that the current health director decided is a good way to protect
society from this hideous and dangerous plant that has never killed anyone! My patient/doctor
relationship should be decided by my physician and me not you Mr. Humble.
Delete R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate Part B.8
Delete R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate Part B.5
Yes, a "school" should be defined as a public institution where children might be able to wander into a
growing facility or dispensary and suffer ill effects from the operation. Something along that line of
thinking. Let the legislators or license decision makers decide on a case by case basis the danger to
kids and society.
see ABOVE
The parts that need to be re-worded: 1) The legislature should impose criminal penalties for smoking
marijuana in the presence of children. This should be for the USE of marijuana in the presents of a
MINOR. Not just smoking, and the word child is too subjective. 2) The legislature should impose
criminal penalties for smoking marijuana in public. Again this should be the USE of marijuna in public.
This will ensure the users safty as well as ensure it is not lost or stolen.
Delete or drastically shorten and simplify the requirements for the ongoing physician-patient
relationship.
Yes, just add the words, "Naturopathic physicians" to the language in the law on physicians qualified to
make marijuana recommendations and severe as dispensary medical directors.
All public schools are to remain Drug-Free School Zones
More language on the cultivation site related to industrial area. Define better the buying of seeds.
Delete preliminary rules at R9-17-202. Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying
Patient or a Designated Caregiver F.5.e.i and ii.
until such time as there is evidence of fraud.
Page 4 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to
practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of osteopathic
medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S.
Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor, OR A DOCTOR OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE WHO HOLDS A
VALID AND EXISTING LICENSE TO PRACTICE NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE PURSUANT TO A.R.S. TITLE
32, CHAPTER 14 and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the
dispensary. Page 4 Language to include certification requirements (by their respective boards) for
physicians who recommend medical marijuana. Language to limit the number of patients a physician
can recommend medical marijuana to.
No, the specific language is the job of lawyers and administrators - not me.
Eliminate R9-17-101.17. "Physician-patient relationship and R9-18-101.16. "Ongoing" and any further
references to these concepts as presented in the rule.
See Improved
Eliminate the "ongoing" requirement of the definition of a "Physician-patient relationship" in paragraph
17 of Article 1, R9-17-101
Comments by on the DHS draft medical marijuana rules,

submitted Jan. 6, 2011 Issue 1: the legality of Prop 203’s provision for “qualified visiting patients” to
use an out-of-state medical marijuana card in Arizona. Consider this paragraph from Prop 203,
Section 36-2804.03., “Issuance of registry identification cards”: C. A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION
CARD, OR ITS EQUIVALENT, THAT IS ISSUED UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE, DISTRICT,
TERRITORY, COMMONWEALTH OR INSULAR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES THAT ALLOWS A
VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT TO POSSESS OR USE MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES IN THE
JURISDICTION OF ISSUANCE HAS THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT WHEN HELD BY A VISITING
QUALIFYING PATIENT AS A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT
THAT A VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN MARIJUANA FROM A
NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY. The wording is interesting for its ambiguity and
may provide an opportunity for legal challenge. On the surface, it seems to establish a requirement for
Arizona authorities to give an out-of-state patient cardholder equal treatment—permission to use and
possess medical marijuana under Arizona’s law enforcement. That was apparently the intent. But on
closer inspection, it doesn’t quite say that. It says that the visiting patient’s card will have the same
“force and effect” as a card issued by DHS. Therefore, it would seem to carry the same limitations and
restrictions as an Arizona card, making it subject to revocation by Arizona authorities if DHS rules or
Arizona law are violated. If we conclude the out-of-state card has both the same rights and
limitations as an Arizona card, couldn’t a legal case be made that it must meet, as a minimum,
Arizona’s requirements for issue? Couldn’t Arizona stipulate that any state that offers a medical
marijuana card under less stringent circumstances doesn’t qualify to be treated with the same “force
and effect” as an Arizona card? Wouldn’t the visiting patient have to prove to DHS that the out-of-
state card and the patient meet all of Arizona’s standards for issuance? The 203 language seems to be
a direct challenge to Arizona’s authority to enforce its own laws and may be an attempt to pre-empt or
usurp that authority. Is it possible that this section is flawed and so open to interpretation that it might
render it useless, or at least prohibitively difficult for visiting patients to qualify? Issue 2: if the Prop
203 language cited in Issue 1 above is deemed legal, valid, and enforceable, then I suggest DHS
should issue temporary cards to visiting medical marijuana patients: If so, I suggest a modification of
the draft DHS rules as follows: • R9-17-202.F.1.c. Change to read, “. . . county and state . . . “ •
R9-17-202. Insert new paragraph B., and re-order the subsequent paragraphs, as follows: “An
applicant must verify current Arizona state residency in order to be approved for a card unless
circumstances require an out-of-state resident to reside temporarily within Arizona. Under provisions
for temporary Arizona residency, the applicant must provide evidence of compelling need to the card-
issuing authority to reside temporarily. Such evidence must be documented and clearly show
compelling need, the expected continuous duration of stay (not to exceed one year), a statement of
intent to, or not to, apply for permanent residency, a qualifying physician’s statement detailing why
medical marijuana should be authorized, and the resident state’s or territory’s valid medical marijuana
authorization card. The issuing authority will weigh documentation among a panel of three (3) officials
and determine whether the card will be authorized. Such card will be of limited duration, not to exceed
one year, to match the period of approved temporary Arizona residency. Such card will not be
authorized for residents of states or territories that do not legalize medical marijuana, nor will the card
be issued to individuals who enter Arizona jurisdiction for convenience. Any request to extend the
duration of a temporary card must be accompanied by the same provisions stated above and must
allow for a three-week time period for approval. If the extension is approved, a new card will be
issued. When the cumulative authorized period for a temporary card(s) meets or exceeds one year, no
further temporary card authorization will be issued.” Rationale: This is intended to curtail frivolous
cross-border migrations, but still allow temporary, transient workers to obtain medication. It would
require cardholders to be current Arizona residents or apply for a temporary card. It places the burden
of proof on the applicant and requires documentation. It places a limit on temporary card use, and
provides for subjective approval by an officiating panel. Issue 3: prohibitions against consuming
medical marijuana in smoking form. I suggest including a rules statement—or enacting legislation—
clearly stating that medical marijuana smoking is not exempted from any other state laws regarding
smoking. Rationale: Medical marijuana users may attempt to seek exemption from non-smoking
legislation under Prop 203 law. Arizona has taken a position recognizing the dangers of smoking and
second-hand smoke; marijuana smoking and its second-hand smoke are many times more dangerous
than tobacco. For clarity and to avoid ambiguity, such statement would provide clarity and forestall
future challenges or conflicts where marijuana users claim protection and exemption from anti-smoking
legislation under medical marijuana law. Issue 4: prohibition against issuing medical marijuana cards
to National Guardsmen, Reservists, and certain other federal workers. I suggest including a rule that
prohibits issuing cards to members of the National Guard, Reserves, or certain other federal workers,
such as Border Patrol agents. Rationale: National Guardsmen and Reservists are dual-hatted as both
civilian and military workers. Prop 203 protects employers from discriminating against cardholders, but
federal law prohibits and imposes penalties for marijuana consumption. The President has instructed
federal authorities to not enforce the federal law in states that legalize medical marijuana consumption.
The dilemma is that a Guardsman, for instance, could obtain legal protection for marijuana
consumption under state law that conflicts with his/her obligations under federal law. Such employee
could claim legal protection under state law from prosecution for marijuana consumed in a civilian
capacity upon discovery by a positive drug test by military authorities. Although National
Guard/Reserve military authorities are instructed that the federal law pre-empts the state law, they are
also instructed to regard state laws. The conflict presents an ambiguous, interpretive situation. The
importance of eliminating marijuana influences in our protective federal forces cannot be overstated.
Contributing to the ambiguity, there is no common level of marijuana intoxication for drug testing as
yet defined by both Arizona and federal authority. The legal ramifications of conflicting Arizona and
federal law must be investigated and clarified. One way to avoid the conflict is to restrict patients who
perform a federal role from being issued cards, citing the conflict between state and federal laws as
rationale. I recommend that, at the very least, this issue should be discussed and resolved among
legal authorities representing all the involved parties. Issue 5: provide a rule or legislation general
statement that protects bystanders from any harm resulting from the consumption of marijuana by
cardholders. I suggest a catch-all rules statement and/or law saying, “Medical marijuana cardholders
who are currently consuming marijuana are prohibited from performing employment or other acts in
which their intoxication or smoking may jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of other persons or
cause material damage in the course of their duties or actions. Any such abuse of a medical marijuana
authorization is tantamount to immediate revocation of the medical marijuana authorization and will
make the cardholder’s consumption of medical marijuana subject to the same penalties and
prohibitions under existing statutes governing the general use of marijuana.” Rationale: Prop 203
and the draft DHS rules don’t appear to go far enough to protect the rights of those who might be
harmed by medical marijuana users either in the workplace or in public places. A general statement
like this would indemnify bystanders or property interests from abusive medical marijuana users.
Delete R9-17-101. Definitions. 15. "Medical director" and renumber the remaining definitions
No. However we have a specific suggestion for an amendment. The Rules should be amended by
completely removing §R9-17-307 (C).
Improved: R9-17-107. Time-frames B. A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until
the applicant provides the Good overall R9-17-306. Inspections D. The Department shall not accept
allegations of a dispensary's noncompliance with A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 or this Chapter from an
anonymous source. (This is a great clause as it makes for accountability. Not using the system for
vindictive or competitive reasons.) R9-17-307. Administration (This whole section is great. It lays out
guidelines for establishing professionalism and good working practices and helps establish the industry
correctly from the onset. It helps operators understand what will be expected of them on an ongoing
basis prior to application so a decision of weather to be a part of this industry is of interest knowing the
acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide more
than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. These are all
great definitions. There should be some type of measure or time frame such as “1. Shall cultivate at
least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated
caregivers in any rolling calendar year.” The rolling calendar year helps smooth out sales vs. supply.
Example when a store first opens it may only be selling 2 pounds per month. As that store gains
business over the course of a year it may go as high as 40 or 50 lbs per month and may go up or down
based on completion or other market forces. Since it takes roughly 110-120 days from seed to ready
the cultivation needs time to adjust for volume fluctuations. It would also be helpful to allow for some
inventory helping to smooth supply and demand also. The live database to track that the system is
not abused is awesome. R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis 5. A list of all chemical additives,
including nonorganic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production of the
medical marijuana; and this is great for everyone. R9-17-317. Cleaning and Sanitation A. A
dispensary shall ensure that any building or equipment used by a dispensary for the cultivation,
harvest, preparation, packaging, storage, infusion, or sale, of medical marijuana is maintained in a
clean and sanitary condition. (Great Section!) Good overall R9-17-306. Inspections D. The
Department shall not accept allegations of a dispensary's noncompliance with A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter
28.1 or this Chapter from an anonymous source. (This is a great clause as it makes for
accountability. Not using the system for vindictive or competitive reasons.) R9-17-307. Administration
(This whole section is great. It lays out guidelines for establishing professionalism and good working
practices and helps establish the industry correctly from the onset. It helps operators understand what
will be expected of them on an ongoing basis prior to application so a decision of weather to be a part
of this industry is of interest knowing the responsibilities. Other states have had operators before rules
which have made it very chaotic for everyone involved. C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least
70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers;
2. Shall only provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary
in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1
and this Chapter to acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of
the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from
another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not provide
more than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries. These
are all great definitions. There should be some type of measure or time frame such as “1. Shall
cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or
designated caregivers in any rolling calendar year.” The rolling calendar year helps smooth out
sales vs. supply. Example when a store first opens it may only be selling 2 pounds per month. As that
store gains business over the course of a year it may go as high as 40 or 50 lbs per month and may go
up or down based on completion or other market forces. Since it takes roughly 110-120 days from
seed to ready the cultivation needs time to adjust for volume fluctuations. It would also be helpful to
allow for some inventory helping to smooth supply and demand also. The live database to track that
the system is not abused is awesome. R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis 5. A list of all
chemical additives, including nonorganic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation
and production of the medical marijuana; and this is great for everyone. R9-17-317. Cleaning and
Sanitation A. A dispensary shall ensure that any building or equipment used by a dispensary for the
cultivation, harvest, preparation, packaging, storage, infusion, or sale, of medical marijuana is
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. (Great Section!) Department with written notice that
the dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department. (Possible clarification depending on
intent. It is likely that a location will not be ready for an inspection until a license has been granted
and dispensary has been constructed or built out. The license must come prior to any inspections.
This section is confusing.) R9-17-302 Section 1 j. Whether the dispensary and, if applicable, the
dispensary's cultivation site are ready for an inspection by the Department; k. If the dispensary and, if
applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site are not ready for an inspection by the Department, the date
the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site will be ready for an inspection by the
Department; (Same logic as above it seems unreasonable to expect that anything would be ready
prior to a license. Unless it’s just a site visit prior to construction. Once approved for a dispensary it
would be reasonable to except dispensary completion within 120 days. Getting permits, constructing
and beginning operations of the cultivation site could take 6-9 Months depending on jurisdiction and
how fast they can approve location/plans for permit.) 5. A copy of the certificate of occupancy or
other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing occupancy of the
building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site; The logical
progression for a dispensary would be application, application approval by city and state, construction
permitting within a reasonable time frame, construction completion within reasonable time frame, and
final review by building department/ fire/ health or applicable agencies. Issuance of CO by City.
Submittal of CO to state. R9-17-303. Changes to a Dispensary Registration Certificate A. A
dispensary may not transfer or assign the dispensary registration and certificate. (This seems
unreasonable as so many variables change with time. The establishment of this type of business
requires a significant amount of time and equal if not more investment of capital. To define terms that
allow an exit or recoupment of these efforts through a business sale acquisition or transfer would be
beneficial to all parties involved) R9-17-306. Inspections B. A dispensary shall provide the
Department with authorized remote access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system. (While
completely understood that this allows for more efficient use of available funds to regulate and inspect
it also seems that it has some significant legal issues regarding privacy if at all applicable to this type of
business.) C. R9-17-307. Administration 3. Employ or contract with a medical director; (While
completely understood that this allows for more efficient use of available funds to regulate and inspect
it also seems that it has some significant legal issues regarding privacy if at all applicable to this type of
business.) R9-17-308. Submitting an Application for a Dispensary Agent Registry Identification Card
I would be extremely helpful to allow for a dispensary agent registry identification for out of state
consultants or employees to help these businesses. There are significant resources and lessons that
have been learned in other states that would be beneficial for Arizona locations. This would be most
useful in cultivation operations as licensed commercial growing has only existed for a very short time
and there are significant barriers to entry for those who have not yet had to make all the mistakes.
Consultants can help save resources capital and frustration for everyone involved from the building
departments to state regulatory agencies. For example having someone who has already perfected a
great inventory chain of custody which comes by way of trial and error in another state could help
everyone in the industry. There are at least a hundred reasons why opening the industry to some type
of out of state help would benefit all parties. C. A dispensary shall provide to the Department upon
request a sample of the dispensary's medical marijuana inventory of sufficient quantity to enable the
Department to conduct an analysis of the medical marijuana. This also great. There should maybe
be more teeth in this maybe add. It is a violation of the statute If the product that is tested is found to
have chemical substances not listed. There are many chemicals used in cultivation that can be
harmful to people’s health, especially those already in weakened state or with compromised immune
systems. It’s crucial to keep hazardous chemicals out of the medicine! R9-17-315. Security D. To
prevent unauthorized access to medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's
cultivation site, the dispensary shall have the following: (Possibly consider adding more protection.
The more obvious this is and the better the prevention the less likely crime. A series of double one
way doors in and out with buzzers to operate “mantrap”. Steel security doors at dispensary and
location with some specified security rating or higher. A home depot wood door isn’t very secure.)
Bulletproof window at entrance to allow verification of card and id prior to entry to medicine holding
area. R9-17-319 B. The Department may deny an application for a dispensary registration
certificate if a principal officer or board member of the dispensary: 1. Has not provided a surety bond
(could you clarify all the talk of what the surety bond means?) C. The Department shall revoke a
dispensary's registration certificate if: 1. The dispensary: c. Acquires usable marijuana or mature
marijuana plants from any person other than another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a
designated caregiver; or (possibly define mature plants?) The initial stock must come from
somewhere, seed, clone where is it allowed to come from? Can seeds be purchased from seed
distributors either in the US or outside the US?
I think that under section R9-17-202, part 5, E-I should be scraped. A simple statement by a doctor
for a qualifying condition is all that is needed. I think that the state should look at any rule that will put
up an "unnecessary" obstacle to partake in the program from both sides. The 47 pages seems to be
over burdensome and I am sure could be cut down to a shorter more effective document. The goal
should be to have a program that does what the voters wanted, to have sick patients obtain medical
marijuana in a safe legal way.
R9-17-101. Definitions, Section No. 10 b. Are these measurements standard in the industry? I initiated
some research and discovered they are not. Since they are not would the materials be available at
reasonable prices with these measurements to all potential dispensary builders? Who will be doing the
inspections, ADHS employees? Seems inappropriate to impede upon the building departments
responsibilities. With the implication that the building department codes will need to be enforced, the
cost of operation will not be condusive to a “non-profit” organization. R9-17-101. Definitions, Section
No. 13 The inclusion of “or other specialized bodies dealing with accounting and auditing matters”
appears to negate your statement of “Generally accepted accounting principles" means the set of
financial reporting standards administered by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board” Does this imply that dispensary owners/operators will be
required to meet all of the entities rules and regulations in addition to the ADHS's rules? R9-17-101.
Definitions, No. 15 Does this mean that only one Doctor can be assigned to a dispensary? What if the
patient chooses a dispensary which is not located within close proximity to their residence. A patient
should have the ability to choose which ever dispensary they wish to be associated with regardless of
distance or location of the dispensary. R9-17-101. Definitions, Section No. 16 A Doctor's initial
examination for evaluation would be 1 visit, possibly two would be required for review of any test
results the Doctor as requested for a diagnosis and providing a prescription. I can see possibly a
followup visit after a period of 6-12 mos. to review the prescription effectiveness with relieving the
symptoms of the ailment. Four is excessive to require prior to issuing a prescription. R9-17-102.
Fees, Section No. 1 These fees need to be in accordance with other states with a MM law enacted and
in operation. I have not heard of any other non-profit organization which has had to pay these high
fees. It appears the state government is trying to “discourage” helping patients get the alternative
medication and services they need. The ADHS approach is giving the clear message that is what they
are purporting to accomplish. Why are the “renewal” fees for a registry identification card as high as
the first-time fees? These fees should be half the cost for a patient who has already obtained a registry
ID card and met all state guidelines and received approval. R9-17-103. Electronic Submission
Conditions must be in place to ensure this “state run” software and equipment will not fail, be
compromised by hackers, or cause a user to receive "errors" when using the
service/equipment/software. R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition, Section A 4. The
statement “accomplish activities of daily living” does this mean the government is now going to make
those determinations instead of a physician? R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition,
Section No. A 5. Patients should have the choice to decline any other manmade chemical treatments
prescribed. That is why we have alternative cancer treatment centers who do not use conventional
methods to heal a patient. This is unfair in that the use of MM is still in the research/testing stages for
treatment of many ailments/diseases not included in the ADHS list. R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating
Medical Condition, Section No. B 5. This should be no more than 30 calendar days, 180 Days is
unacceptable. This period should be changed to 3 days. R9-17-107. Time-frames, Table 1.1 All
number of days should be reduced to half of the state’s calculation shown in this "draft" R9-17-202.
Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a Designated Caregiver, Section
No. F5_e_j. What if an individual may have suffered a sudden ailment/illness/disease that will result in
long-term "chronic" symptoms going forward. A patient should not be restricted to having a minimum 1
(one) year relationship with his/her physician. R9-17-204. Renewing a Qualifying Patient's or
Designated Caregiver's Registry Identification Card, Section No. A5_i_i. The public needs to
understand what kind of "oversight" does this mean the "care giver" will be required to execute. What
if the "care giver" is not a user of MM or has any knowledge of administering MM dosage. Who will be
determining the knowledge level required? Will that mean additional licensing fees and/or training
being required? R9-17-205. Denial or Revocation of a Qualifying Patient's or Designated Caregiver's
Registry Identification Card, Section No. D. The public needs to have explanations of what methods of
identifying that this action has taken place would the ADHS qualify as a legitimate and actionable?
R9-17-205. Denial or Revocation of a Qualifying Patient's or Designated Caregiver's Registry
Identification Card, Section No. E. The public needs to understand what is a "excluded felony
offense"? A specific listing should be provided. R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration
Certificate, Section No. B_15_a. Now dispensaries must have a Pharmacist associated or employed
with their dispensary? I do not know of a Pharmacist who will “donate” his time for work/oversight at a
“non-profit” facility. R9-17-304. Applying for a Change in Location for a Dispensary or a Dispensary's
Cultivation Site, Section No. A8 The public needs to have explanations of what the "Inspector's"
established guidelines/rules are for measurement of qualifying a "cultivation" site will be. R9-17-306.
Inspections, Section E. This could become problematic in that any citizen who does not like the MM
program could make a “complaint”. What will the ADHS’s criteria be for determining if a citizen’s
complaint is legitimate and worthy of investigation. R9-17-307. Administration, Section No. A4 Why
does having cooking, massage, meditation classes require those providing the “volunteer service” to
posses a "dispensary agent registry ID card". This is unfair, especially since these activities will not be
in the room/part of dispensary where the MM is housed/dispensed. Overall this section gives the
impression that the ADHS is trying to “physically” tax dispensaries with unprecedented levels of
paperwork/files required to operate. R9-17-311. Dispensing Medical Marijuana, Section No. 3 What
is this "electronic verification system"? Who is providing this software/system? R9-17-311. Dispensing
Medical Marijuana, Section No. 5 Is this quantity reasonable? All patients require different dosages to
treat their specific condition(s). R9-17-312. Qualifying Patient Records, Section No. B_1. This means
security software will need to be purchased and maintained by the dispensary personnel. This is an
additional cost intensive activity for a non-profit facility. R9-17-313. Inventory Control System,
Section No. C This is a time intensive activity and the frequency appears unfair compared to the
private industry standards for "audits". R9-17-315. Security This whole section is creating a benefit
for the security industry who will require high fees and expensive equipment. This section opens the
possibility of potential corruption, that individuals within the state government could be making
“arrangements” with corporate groups to give them business because of this law.
See above
"Patients with a terminal illness should be exempt from the rule requiring a patient to have a
professional relationship with a physician for at least one year and assessed for their medical condition
on at least four visits prior to being eligible for a medical marijuana recommendation." You are
correct. Terminal patients should be exempt; however, I believe that if a patient has a painful,
debilitating condition which is supported by a valid, written diagnosis, he or she should be approved for
medical marijuana.
As above, the medical director position should be changed to "licensed healthcare provider" to oversee
the operations of the dispensaries as Dispensary Director. The options could be NP, PA, Rph, PharmD,
NMD, MD, or DO. All persons with the above degrees have the expertise to oversee the responsibilities
outlined in R9-17-310 C. Application approval should be based on the applicant's background check
and business plan, not if they have secured a location. The location site requirement should be
omitted from the language. Dispensaries should be able to acquire marijuana from registered
cultivation sites, whether they are associated with another dispensary or not. There should be 2
distinct registrations. There are persons who are talented in horticulture (green thumb syndrome),
that should be allowed to provide product without having to be a dispensary. The language should
read that there are two registrations available, Dispensary and Cultivation Site and not merge them.
Eliminate the camera surveillance feature which is a violation of HIPAA as well as our constitional right
to privacy. Eliminate the residency rule for dispensary applicants. This is useless anyways since all
the out-of-state big players are using stalking horses for their applicants. Check out and
those are all out of state dispensaries and they have lined up applicants to put
their paperwork in so how ignorant are you people? I know is behind this one
because has poured big bucks into coming here and how coincidental the owners
are Arizona residents already. Shame on you Humble for the piss poor efforts put forth by you.
Really is this the best you can do--- steal Colorado's over restrictive rules and just put the word Arizona
in them and shoot them out? Colorado is a for-profit system and it's currently in moratorium. The
citizens of Arizona voted in medical marijuana and for your information since you are so ignorant laws
are implemented when they passed by a simple majority. You don't get to make this stuff up and say
publicly that even the people that voted no on Prop 203 get to have the rules shaped to give them a
voice. Are you that stupid and ignorant of the law?
May provide some later.
That would depend upon the comment. If you e-mail me , I will suggest
specific language.
R9-17-101. Definitions 8. "Dispensary" means the same as "nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary"
as defined in A.R.S. § 36-2801. 13. "Generally accepted accounting principles" means the set of
financial reporting standards administered by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or other specialized bodies dealing with accounting and
auditing matters. [Comment] - Very Well Written. 15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine
who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its
successor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice
osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been
designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the dispensary. [Comment] - SHOULD
ALSO AND/OR INCLUDE: the involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians. [Comment]
Furthermore- According to the , “Until
federal legislation changes the classification, marijuana is a Class-I controlled substance. It is illegal
and a violation of federal law to possess.” Further, “ strongly recommends that pharmacists do not
get involved in the dispensing of the medical marijuana to avoid a felony conviction that could put their
DEA, State and Federal Law will occur with a Designated Medical Director Physician (and/or
Pharmacist) – State and Federal Medical License Violations.
R9-17-101, #15: Definition of a Medical Director: Physicians defined in the medical marijuana act is
eligible to be a medical director including NMD. R9-17-102- Fees for applications: Fees for Application
are refundable. Fees for user cards are provided on a sliding scale based on FPL R9-17-202, #5, a-k:
Requirements for the Physician- A valid relationship as defined by enrollment into services with an up
to date medical record. R9-17-302- Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate- (A)residency
requirements of 5 years for all persons affiliated with the dispensary operations. (B) 1, (b) (h)- A
proposed physical address that can be changed with minimal fees and no requirement to provide
information until location is secured, after licensure is approved.
R9-17-101. 16 (a)Page 4 R9-17-202.F (5) (e) (i) Page 14 R9-17-202.F (13) (e) (i) (1)Page 18 R9-
17-204.A (4) (e) (i) Page 22 R9-17-204.F (4) (f) (i) (1)Page 25 Individuals enrolled or utilizing federal
health services as their primary care specifically, Veteran Affairs and Indian Health Services shall be
exempt from “The doctor patient ongoing relationship requirements” By the presentation of Veterans
Affairs or Indian Health Service ID Cards to recommending physicians. Physicians shall be educated on
this exemption and held harmless from any violation of said; doctor patient relationship requirements.
A. Within the administrative completeness review time-frame for each type of approval in Table 1.1,
the Department shall: 1. Issue a registry identification card or registration certificate, 2. Provide a
notice of administrative completeness to an applicant, or 3. Provide a notice of ALL deficiencies to an
applicant, including a list of ALL the information or documents needed to complete the application. B.
written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department. If the Department
provides a notice of deficiencies to an applicant:
Yes. R9-17-104. Changing Information on a Registry Identification Card Except as provided in R9-
17-202(B) and (C), to make a change to a cardholder's name DELETE (or address) on the cardholder's
registry identification card, the cardholder shall submit to the Department a request for the change
within 10 working days after the change that includes: 1. The cardholder's name and the registry
identification number on the cardholder's current registry identification card; 2. The cardholder's new
name DELETE (or address, as applicable); DELETE (3. For a change in address, the county where the
new address is located; ) 4. The effective date of the cardholder's new name DELETE (or address);
and 5. The applicable fee in R9-17-102 for changing a registry identification card. .
PLease just allow dr's that think thier patient could benifit to recomend it. How about a 2 week follow
up then 1 month then let it go a year like other scripts. Even telephone follow ups should be allowed.
R9-17-103. Electronic Submission (or Paper Form submission) An applicant submitting an application
for a registry identification card or to amend, change, or replace a registry identification card for a
qualifying patient, designated caregiver, [or dispensary agent shall submit the application electronically
using a Department-provided format, or may do so with a Department provided form through a
common carrier or hand delivered.] The Department shall provide a paper receipt for a hand
delivered application immediately upon receiving it at an official ADHS office.
At R9-17-102. Fees add 9.a. For a registry identification card for a qualifying patient with an
household income greater than $200,00 and less than $400.000 shall be $100; b. For a registry
identification card for a qualifying patient with an household income is less than or equal to $200.000
shall be $25.
Add a clarification as follow: In R9-17-101 Definitions.18.c.vii. Private offices,meeting rooms or other

parts of the facilities in Part b. of this subsection as listed above.
No language to add, but would like to strongly suggest that §R9-17-307(C) be deleted in its entirety.
USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE THAT ALL PATIENTS CAN UNDERSTAND, KEEP IT SIMPLE, PROTECT THE
PATIENTS WRITES.
1) R9-17-307, C, 3: Clarify wording, add some statement to the effect of marijuana not cultivated on
site
1. Limit number of patients for authorized doctors/prescribers 2. Require in-person medical evaluations
of patients 3. Track sales between growers, caregivers, dispensaries and cardholders 4. Guidelines
are needed for proper and secure disposal of unused marijuana 5. Require city/county permits for all
residential or commercial cultivation; clean-up costs are responsibility of the dispensary owner and
alterations to the property require a permit and must be inspected; no cultivation of marijuana in a
residence or property occupied by minor children 6. Require “warning” language on marijuana
packaging that addresses the addictive nature of the drug and its impact on motor skills (e.g. do no
operate a vehicle or machinery while using); also require dispensary representative to verbally discuss
the side effects of the drug and impact on others.
Arizona could recognize Medical Marijuana cards from other states and collect the tax revenue from
their purchase. A list of Dr.s willing to sign for a mediacl marijuana card, if you provide a medical
history of you conditions. Please not only honor our veterans but help them, in this new legislation.
9-17-101 don't know what ars 8-210 states, but my husband is my caregiver, goes shopping for me,
drives me wherever, thinks about dinner etc. why not just say what you mean 9-17-102
17. “"Physician-patient relationship" means interaction between a physician and an individual in which
the physician PERFORMED A MEDICAL assessment, HAS RECOMMENDED treatment of the patient's
debilitating medical condition.”
R9-17-313. Inventory Control System 3. For cultivation: a. The strain AND COMMERCIAL SOURCE of
marijuana seed planted, type of soil used, date seeds were planted, and the watering schedule; I
bolded the additional language above since there needs to be proof of the commercial source of the
strain. This would prevent unsavory dispensaries from selling a popular strain in name only but using
an inferior strain. This false advertising is a problem in Colorado dispensaries so a verified source such
as an Amsterdam or Canadian seed bank should be listed. Seed auctions should not be allowed either.
The goal would be to certify a seed pedigree much like dog pedigrees are tracked and certified.
I'll leave that to the experts!
Substantially shortening the time period as follows, within the definition of “ongoing,” would improve
the rules. “16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship means: a.
The physician-patient relationship has existed for at least one MONTH and the physician has seen or
assessed the patient on at least TWO visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the
course of the physician-patient relationship; or The physician assumes primary responsibility for
providing management ... of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a
response to conventional medical therapies.”
Could you provide a draft of the selection process for WHO will be selected for this venture? Are there
specific qualifications that would guarantee someone to get a license for a dispensary? Right now,
everything is so vague!
Yes. Amend rule R9-17-311(1) to read: “Verify the qualifying patient’s or the designated caregiver’s
identity using biometric identity verification technology such as a thumb print scan or other DHS
approved method;” Also: The rules should explicitly allow such electronic transactions by making
the existing R9-17-311 part A and adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic
system of hardware and software to verify the information required in Section A before dispensing
medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or designated caregiver and to submit the required
information to the medical marijuana electronic verification system.
"Medical director" means any Nurse Practitioner or Physician’s Assistant licensed in the State of Arizona
or doctor who is allowed under Title36 to recommend marijuana as medicine.
Yes. Amend rule R9-17-311(1) to read: “Verify the qualifying patient’s or the designated caregiver’s
approved method;”
The Dr./patient relationship requirements and prescribing requirements for medical marijuana shall be
no more restrictive than those for other prescription medications.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO IMPROVE THE RULES? No language to add, but would
like to strongly suggest that §R9-17-307(C) be deleted in its entirety.
No but we do feel that §R9-17-307(C) should be deleted entirely.
Not right now
No language to add, but would like to strongly suggest that §R9-17-307(C) be deleted in its entirety.
This is the industry at the "starting gate". The rules required to fill the first 124 positions will by
necessity be different then the rules regarding subsequent applications in the future.There needs to be
a selection process which will not tacitly eliminate all but the wealthy and/or corporate interests, by
posing an undue financial burden on the applicants. Requiring a C of O as well as a long term lease
arrangement, approved plans and floor plans , as well as the pursuit of a Conditional use permit in
some jurisdictions (which is always hugely expensive) is unnecessary and serves only to eliminate the
smaller players in the industry. A dual stage selection process would be fair and reasonable to all,
with out squandering many millions of dollars for those ultimately rejected in the process.
Retain: 10. "Enclosed" means: A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet;
Amend the remaining parts of this definition (10) to appropriate measures for a dispensary and
separate the requirements for a cultivation facility as appropriate. Young growing plants have little
value to a burglar or robbers. Only the dispensaries' overnight storage should require a strong physical
enclosure including a safe or a metal cage.
The language above can be incorporated in the draft rules as ADHS best sees fit.
Change to: "Calendar day" means each day, not including the day of the act, event, or default from
which a designated period of time begins to run, but including the last day of the period.
Sorry, but I don't have an email for any of you in ADHS. I wanted to cc: you on an email I sent to
, can you let know that I spoke with ADHS,
directly to clarify the issue. He now understands and is sympathetic, but felt this concept might violate
confidentiality tenets of Prop 203. I disagree, and I feel if the VOTERS UNDERSTOOD THAT
DOCTORS WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS to this information, they would NOT be agreeable to such a
scenario. I suspect voters will support physicians having access to this database in the same way
ADHS will have to provide access to Law Enforcement and to Dispensary Owners. I still would like to
see sponsor a bill that would amend the CSPMP to include Schedule I data. I know
would support it after we discussed it in our last Legislative Affairs Committee. Even if it fails, it's
worth raising the public dialogue. The bill does NOT have to be complicated, since it's just a
straightforward amendment. You can see below how simple the amendment would be. We are still
waiting on info from in terms of FISCAL NOTE for a change to their
software/programming on the CSPMP, but I'm hoping he'll have that for us soon. Bills are due in less
than 2 weeks, so I would like to see us move forward on this asap. Thanks for your attention to this
matter. See language below:
, thanks for the phone meeting earlier.

I am including my suggestions for a single bill which would amend 36-2602. I can try to meet with my
other Legislators from District 8 over next 2 weeks to try to rally other sponsors if you are willing to
draft this prior to Jan 17th. I would like to work thru ADHS rulemaking, and I've included this
item/suggestion to ADHS in their electronic feedback portal. But it looks like they are unable to help.
Furthermore, this issue REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE REMEDY, since ADHS is NOT able to change contents
of CSPMP. This does not limit the "will of the voters" and does NOT violate Voter Protection Act (once
people really understand the reasoning behind requesting this amendment). If I can get the
to support this bill, it may actually have a chance of passing. It is in the best interest of the
Medical Marijuana community to support this effort, to ensure their program has integrity and
transparency when it comes to patients working with their doctors. Your thoughts? 36-2602.
Controlled substances prescription monitoring program; contracts; retention and maintenance of
records A. The board shall adopt rules to establish a controlled substances prescription monitoring
program. The program shall: 1. Include a computerized central database tracking system to track the
prescribing, dispensing and consumption of schedule II, III and IV controlled substances that are
dispensed by a medical practitioner or by a pharmacy that holds a valid license or permit issued
pursuant to title 32. This database would include data from the Department of Health Services
identifying those Arizona residents who possess a Medical Marijuana ID card. The tracking system shall
not interfere with the legal use of a controlled substance for the management of severe or intractable
pain. 2. Assist law enforcement to identify illegal activity related to the prescribing, dispensing and
consumption of schedule II, III and IV controlled substances. 3. Provide information to patients,
medical practitioners and pharmacists to help avoid the inappropriate use of schedule II, III and IV
controlled substances. 4. Be designed to minimize inconvenience to patients, prescribing medical
practitioners and pharmacies while effectuating the collection and storage of information. B. The
board may enter into private or public contracts, including intergovernmental agreements pursuant to
title 11, chapter 7, article 3, to ensure the effective operation of the program. Each contractor must
comply with the confidentiality requirements prescribed in this article and is subject to the criminal
penalties prescribed in section 36-2610. C. The board shall maintain medical records information in
the program pursuant to the standards prescribed in section 12-2297.
18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN,

DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
singular, not plural; 1, not 4] OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL HISTORY. FOLLOW THE
LAW!!! The AZDH has NO right or authority to impose cruel and unusual guidelines for patients. You
can get Oxycodone at any UC,ER, or DR office with a visit, why are we considering these cruel and
unusual rules on a law that we already passed.
In the rules for medical access, medical marijuana should be restricted to those suffering from illnesses
where end of life issues are foreseen and to those who suffer medical illnesses such as cancer or
glaucoma, which were mentioned, and law enforcement agencies should be made aware of those in
their community who are applying for medical marijuana so medical marijuana can be tightly
controlled. This was a major problem in Washington State where a lack of law enforcement oversight
resulteds in medical pot being handed out by patients to friends and relatives, a MAJOR LOOPPHOLE!
It was soon required that long periods of testing other methods of controlling the symptoms that
medical marijuana was su[pposed to help alleviate be required andf all other methods exhausted
before medsical marijuana permits were given out.
Please add RA to the list of illnesses.
The draft rules must be discarded in their entirety and, in an open and honest process, new
regulations should be drafted to the advantage of the suffering, dying, and good citizens of Arizona.
You do not have to add additional language to the basic tenet of the initiative!!! The language which
accommodates the goal of the initiative is best. Keep it simple.
regulations. If you are happy with such an outcome, do nothing. If you want to reduce your suffering
and your costs, you must speak out now and also at the public meetings I have listed below. The
good news: As best I can tell, the AzDHS does NOT have the authority to enact the cruel and
unreasonable package of regulations they propose. Obviously, I am not an attorney, so we are
soliciting the input of qualified attorneys. Because I am a physician, I am restricting my comments here
to the matter of patient-physician relationship. Others with expertise in dispensary and caregiver
matters will share similar analysis and commentary concerning the draft regulations for dispensaries
and caregivers. I have attached the AzDHS Timeline. Please familiarize yourself with the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act (AzMMA): If you pay special
attention to Section 36-2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the AzMMA does NOT give authority to
the Arizona Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the patient-physician relationship and
does NOT give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding "ongoing" to "patient-
physician relationship." The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically DENIES authority for such
usurpations. Please note that even the Director of AzDHS questioned his own authority to do what
he proposes: http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=810 See also:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/11/prop_203_legal_weed_will_be_av.php Next
please familiarize yourself with the draft regulations:
http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/documents/Medical-Marijuana-Draft-Rules.pdf Then please
participate in the public comments online and in person: http://azdhs.gov/news/2010-
Alll/101217_ADHS-Med-Marijuana-Release-and-FAQ.pdf Please plan to testify. Please also mobilize
other suffering patients to comment online, in writing, and to testify at the Public Meetings:
Phoenix, February 15, 2011, 1PM, 250 N. 17th Avenue Tucson, February 16, 2011, 1PM, 400 W.
Congress, Room 222 Phoenix, February 17, 2011, 1PM, 250 N. 17th Avenue Some specifics.
The AzMMA requires this: 18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND
SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN, STATING THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THE
PATIENT IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF
MARIJUANA TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR
SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION. THE PHYSICIAN MUST:
(a) SPECIFY THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN THE WRITTEN
HISTORY. So, one full assessment, specify the qualifying condition, sign, and date-done! Without
the authority to do so, Az DHS proposes: R9-17-202 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician,
that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at
least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for
the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has
assumed primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating
medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination,
including a personal review of the patient's medical record maintained by other treating physicians,
that may include the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies; Key points:
• Any Arizona physician may in a single visit prescribe "speed," e.g., Adderall, to a kindergartener-
without 4 visits spread out over 1 year any Arizona physician may prescribe to a kindergartener a drug
that can kill that child by heart attack, stroke, seizures, or other "side effects." • Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis
C, and ALS patients often do not have 1 year to live. • The patients that do live are cruelly being told
to change doctors or suffer for 1 year. • Deadly and addictive drugs such as the opiates are prescribed
in a single visit by Arizona physicians and, despite the best efforts of physicians, some of those deadly
and addictive drugs are illegally diverted, but that does not cause the AzDHS to demand 4 visits, 1 year
of visits, or that the pain specialist assume primary care of the patient. • Marijuana is 100% safe,
gives patients good relief, and cures some conditions-Marijuana is not deadly and is not addictive. •
The alternative offered by the AzDHS to avoid 1 year of suffering, the cannabis specialist takes over
the primary care of the pt's qualifying condition, is done nowhere else in medicine-Nowhere else in
medicine does a specialist take over a patient's primary care. • The AzDHS does not have the authority
to define or re-define the patient-physician relationship or the number of doctors visits, or the length of
time for those visits-that infringes on the patient's choice • The draft regulations are cruel and
unreasonable. We still believe that an evaluation and a signed physician recommendation stating
the patient's qualifying condition currently gives an "affirmative defense" in the event of a legal
encounter at least until the final regulations, not merely the draft regulations, are announced by the
AzDHS. Once the final regulations are promulgated, we will, of course, abide by them. Until then, we
are still making recommendations to qualified patients. If the AzDHS succeeds in forcing 1 year and
multiple visits upon patients, it is to the advantage of qualifying patients to start the process as soon as
possible.
I'll leave the legal language to the experts.
You have written this out in such a way it's difficult to understand, Couldn't you just use your drivers
license or a card by someone that takes the picture at the DMV or something like that? I don't
understand all the rules on the pictures. I was born in the USA, why do I need my birth cert.? Illegals
don't have any problems getting state aid or public schooling without one. Not that I object to showing
it but since I moved a few years ago it was misplaced so now I have to get a certified copy, just one
more roadblock. I think you are doing everything you can to make it imposable for patients to get
the medication. I understand the need for rules but you are taking this way to far. There are those
that use it illegally and making it hard for the patients isn't going to change a thing for those people.
Those that were using before will continue to do so. Those of us willing to comply have to jump
through hoops.
add outdoors outside of city limits and hotels to smoking areas.
18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN,

DATE THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT
singular, not plural; 1, not 4] OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL HISTORY.
R9-17-101, #16b: The recommending physician will become an integral member of the patient's
medical care team and will establish an ongoing patient-physician relationship for the duration of need
for medical marijuana. The recommending physician will monitor the effect, side-effects and response
to medical marijuana treatment on a routine ongoing basis.
Ex-felons should be able to get medical marijuana. A cultivation site requirement isn't the best idea in
my opinion. An address should be required for the cultivation site, along with an inspection of security
aspects of the grow facility. As long as you have proof of your illness for more than a year in Arizona,
you should be able to get a mmj card. Unless you have been ill less than 12 months. Thats another
reason why I dont think its fair. what if the patient hasnt' been sick for 12 months, but marijuana could
improve their quality of life? Also, if a caregiver is caught dispensing marijuana illegally, they should
have their license taken away. Especially, since there are only 120 licenses available. Also, why does
there need to be a record of a utility bill 60 days before the application is supposed to be submitted?
Again, I think this gives an advantage to "career criminals" who may not have a felony on their record.
Why do you need a registered pharmacist for a drug that isn't federally recognized as a drug?
ADHS needs to create a closed system of medical marijuana sales tracking between growers,
caregivers, dispensaries and cardholders. These systems are currently utilized by many legitimate
retail pharmacies to track the sale of pseudoephedrine products to ensure sales to the ultimate-user do
not exceed legal amounts and prevents the “smurffing” of pharmacies due to a compatible data-base
allowing pharmacies to share information. This system will also ensure that marijuana is not being
obtained from illegal sources. Suggested Language: “ADHS will require all licensed growers,
marijuana dispensaries and caregivers to install and /or subscribe to a secure, computerized web-based
tracking system determined by the ADHS. The real-time logging and reporting of regulated medical
marijuana product sales, electronic signature capture, and secure storage of all transaction data will be
required for all purchases of medical marijuana. All medical marijuana growers, dispensaries and
caregivers must be equipped with a shared electronic purchasing database determined by the ADHS.
This system will be shared among growers, dispensaries, caregivers and the ADHS. When a licensed
grower sells product to a dispensary or caregiver, it will generate an ID reference number; the grower’s
license number, date and time of sale; name of dispensary or caregiver, and the purchaser’s name and
address; name of product sold, quantity and amount of marijuana in the product; and purchaser’s
signature. At the time a licensed dispensary or caregiver sells product to a cardholder, it will
generate an ID reference number; the cardholder number, date and time of sale; purchaser’s name
and address; name of product sold, quantity and amount of marijuana in the product; and purchaser’s
signature. Entering the cardholder’s information will fill required ID information into the system. The
information instantly checks a centralized database to determine if the cardholder is within the legal
purchase limit. The cardholder will confirm the sale with an electronic signature, and the sales
transaction information is sent and stored to the centralized database. Non-compliance of the web-
based tracking system will result in an immediate revocation of grower, dispensary, caregiver, and
cardholder licensing, or permits and; may be subject to criminal prosecution, civil fines and forfeiture.
It is unlawful for a grower, dispensary, caregiver, or cardholder, to knowingly consume, possess,
acquire, purchase, or transport marijuana of an unknown source or origin; other than from ADHS
licensed growing facilities, dispensaries or caregivers. Non-compliance will result in an immediate
revocation of dispensary, caregiver, and cardholder licensing, or permits; and will be subject to criminal
prosecution, civil fines and forfeiture.”
The following mandate should be included in all areas referencing physician-patient relationship to
prevent out-of-control "Pot Doc"s “All doctors listed under the Medical Marijuana Act who are
authorized to recommend medical marijuana are limited to a maximum of ‘thirty’ medical marijuana
recommendations per calendar year.” R9-17-101 (16) (b) R9-17-202 (G)(13)(e)(i)(2) . R9-
17-204(A)(e)(ii) R9-17-204(B)(4)(f)(2)
Follow the law that voters passed, quit trying to change it to fit your own preferences. everyone
knows how aginst the bill the department of health was. We all remember humble's comments before
the vote.
and compression of nerves from fibrosis 3. Chronic inflammations that are all to often with
lymphedema 4. Cellulitis, lymphangitis and other infections 5. Over exertion of areas of the body as it
attempts to cope with the excess strain and weight over an oversized limb 6. Wounds and those
weeping sores we all get from time to time
Rate your plants, only mature ( meaning in the bud stage ) should be counted as usable medication.
Size is not the issue here, a 4 foot plant can be budded into a usable medication. Also there are only 2
kinds of Marijuana plants Indigo, and Sativa. Let dispensarys sell clones to those who do not have a
grow source, or cannot afford the cost of medication at the dispensarys. Remember our insurance does
not cover marijuana as a medicine, or our doctor visits. Look the applications over good, are they
terminal, low income, unable to drive to medication sites. Have no one to help them secure their
medication???? Find a worker who has knowledge in growing marijuana plants. Do not count
unusable plants as medicine. Add language for plants in your regulations. Add under the Arizona
Medical Marijuana act, only a person with a qualifying medical condition who has obtained a valid
Arizona Marijuana card is excepted from criminal laws of the State for engaging in the medical use of
marijuana as justified to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the persons debilitating medical condition.
Protect those that hold cards, stay within the law.
Marijuana prices need to be low for the handicapped. An 8 foot fence is unnecessary. A Dr. on call for
a dispensary is absurd. These will drive up the costs for the disabled consumer. Please keep costs
down. Please have lower fees for the patient. Please make it so a patient can see any doctor for the
yearly medical marijuana recommendation. If the doctor is writing bogus recommendations, fine the
doctor but don't make it hard for the patient. You can go undercover if you believe a doctor is writing
bad recommendations.
fees, that are nonrefundable for any reason once the application is recieved.
See above.
Physician patient relationship- I am currently under a pain managment center. THEY are under
FEDERAL government- they CANNOT prescribe medical marijuana -My relationship has been aprox. 6
months. prior Doctor went out of buisness.( patient for 3 years ) so the patient Doctor relationship is
unreasonaable, and will not work. any Doctor PHD/ DO who prescribes opiates is under the FEDERAL
drug rules, and CANNOT prescribe medical marijuana SO anyone who would like to get off prescription
ADDICTIVE narcotics- opiates, would NOT be able to get the Doctor to sign a statement Findings" of
demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana. I understand you disagree-
Marijuana is GODS wonder drug.I would like the RIGHT to injest or smoke it to see if i can get off
narcotic pain medication without the fear of being put in prison. Debilitating medical conditions:R9-17-
201 more illnesses need to be included. Rheumatoid arthritis ADD - ADHD Depression sleep
disorders diabetitic Neuropathy nerve pain
See above.
PMedical marijuana should be precribed as any other medications available. Doctors licensed in the
state of Az will be able to precribe medical marijuana. Conditions that cause pain and intrusion in the
lives of patients will be precribed med. marijuana when requested. Medical conditions will not include
only patients with terminal diseases. The law will not discriminate against those suffering from mental
health conditions. The law will not dissuade individuals from seeking medical marijuana because of
unnecessary challenges when attempting to obtain easy and appropriate prescriptions. The law will
provide the same prescribing laws in Arizona as all other medications. There will be provisions for
prescribing and dispensing in rural communities and for those with physically or mentally disabling
conditions. This language should be included in rules of prescribing and dispensing of medica;l
marijuana. The current language of the law is discriminatory and may be a source of litigation which
negatively impacts both the STate of Arizona as well of patients in need of medication.
PMedical marijuana should be precribed as any other medications available. Doctors licensed in the
state of Az will be able to precribe medical marijuana. Conditions that cause pain and intrusion in the
lives of patients will be precribed med. marijuana when requested. Medical conditions will not include
only patients with terminal diseases. The law will not discriminate against those suffering from mental
health conditions. The law will not dissuade individuals from seeking medical marijuana because of
unnecessary challenges when attempting to obtain easy and appropriate prescriptions. The law will
provide the same prescribing laws in Arizona as all other medications. There will be provisions for
prescribing and dispensing in rural communities and for those with physically or mentally disabling
conditions. This language should be included in rules of prescribing and dispensing of medica;l
marijuana. The current language of the law is discriminatory and may be a source of litigation which
negatively impacts both the STate of Arizona as well of patients in need of medication.
The Draft also does not state which part of the Inititive it will accept as Law. I thought Arizona voters
voted for this Law to become effective because of the Tax revenue. Page 33 of the Inititive implies
that Non-Profit Dispensaries will be TAX EXempt. How can that be? Dispensaries in California pay
High Taxes and it would be nice to see something balance the Budget in Arizona.
Will submit at another time.
Remove unrealistic mileage and timeline restrictions.

1) fees for qualified patient or caregiver shall be waived on a pro-rated basis, starting at $0 for those
with income accourding to the state income level for public assistance and continued upward according
to a reasonable scale established by the DEPARTMENT. 2) The cultivating site associated with a
dispensary a) shall be identified as to exact address or GPS coordinates, if there is no address assigned
to the property; b) each person employed or regularly visiting the cultivating site shall be identified and
subject to the same qualifying requirements as a dispensary agent and issued an identification card for
a reasonable fee; c) the access code or key to the cultivating site access “locking mechanism” shall be
provided to the DEPARTMENT; d) a list of all persons who know the access code or have access to the
key(s) to the cultivating site access shall be provided to the DEPARTMENT; any changes, additions, or
deletions to this list shall be reported to the DEPARTMENT within 10 days; e) an agreement between
the owners and administrators of the cultivating site shall be executed providing unfettered,
continuous, and unannounced inspection by the DEPARTMENT; f) the exact address and the access
code or key to the cultivating site shall be subject to the same disclosure restrictions as other sensitive
information given to the DEPARTMENT.
1) Medical Director Remove reference to "medical director ". Add educational component as suggested
above. -OR- Change Informal rules, definitions #15,
"medical director" to include NATUROPATHIC and HOMEOPATHIC physicians, to reflect the same
language used in 36-2801, definitions #12. 2) Application Process We propose a two-tiered
application process similar to the current procurement method used by many state agencies: 1. Each
applicant provides a detailed business plan that describes the implementation of all components
required by ADHS. 2. 125 applicants will be chosen by ADHS to proceed to the next stage which will
require the applicant to identify a facility and prepare it for inspection within sixty (60) days. 3)
Requirement for dispensary to provide 70% of their own product: Change R9-17-307, C-1 to: A
dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate it's own crop or acquire inventory from qualifying
Arizona patients, caregivers or licensed dispensaries.
Please see above.
You cannot propose that a person be a legal citizen to get medication you do not have that right a non-
citizen is given a prescription for oxycodone without a birth certificate.
It is not clear to me whether or not there can be mobile dispensaries - particularly in rural counties
with only one dispensary. Or, must the dispensary be in a permanent structure? Also, must some of
the MJ cultivation for use by a particular dispensary occur in the county where the dispensary is
located? Or, can all of the marijuana for use by a particular dispensary be grown in a different county
from where the dispensary is located, provided the cultivator in the different county is affiliated with
the dispensary in another county.
Let me go to another doc for my medical marijuana recommendation but keep my doc.
I am not a lawyer - however, the language should match the Proposition 203 language.
If you have two+ units in a large building, do you utilize the measurement from the wall of the building
or from a corner of the dispensary unit to any nearby park, school, library, etc?
Doctors must cooperate with the new law.
As the dispensary must be located 1,000 feet from schools... what constitutes a school? There are
numerous "schools" in Arizona. Beauty schools, golf schools, dog training schools, meditation and yoga
schools and so on. This needs to be clarified. Perhaps, "schools" should be designated as daycare
centers through grade 12?
Paragraph R9 17 307 Add language to require marijuana to be obtained only from Az licensed facility.
See C. Etc several opportunities to insert "Az licensed" to prevent acquisition of marijuana from other
sources or states
Driving and operating equipment while under the influence of medical marijuana will be as with any
other prescription medication. Monitoring techniques will be used to determine blood levels as with
other prescription medications as appropriate. The adverse affects of side stream smoke are
recognized and the needs of the user of inhaled marijuana user are superseded by the rights of others
to breathe to smoke free air.
Income absolutely should be a factor.
i was hoping more like 4 year Residency rule for dispensary owners..
Remove language that prevents a licensed patient from cultivating medical marijuana for personal use
if a dispensary is located within a 25-mile radius of the patient's residence.
Under R9-17-101 15. The definition of "Medical director" should include a nurse practitioner licensed in
the State of Arizona. (Under R9-17-310, the duties of the Medical Director do not include any scope
that could not be fulfilled by a nurse practitioner)
1. Make MJ fees affordable for poor patients and caretakers 2. Tell clinics they can't prohibit their
doctors from recommending MJ. 3. There are caretakers who have been with their patients for years
that do not caretake for other people. so show two types of caregivers in your rules. 4.
Dispensaries should be able to deliver MJ to their patients. 5. A patient should be able to have a MJ
doctor if the patient really needs MJ and keep their normal doctor. 6. Keep costs down for dispensaries
so MJ won't cost too much. They don't need a doctor. Let a pharmacist be included in the director
definition.
None.
If the idea behind this requirement is to prevent California or Mexican grown marijuana from being sold
in Arizona, I would recommend changing that 70% requirement to a certified Arizona-grown crop. This
helps the state out still and helps scale the dispensaries into smaller nonprofits instead of the deep
pocket multi-million dollar "nonprofits" that grow and sell.
Yes, for one your provision of having a patient see a doctor 4 times in one year for the same ailment?
This is a bureaucratic bottleneck... the people of Arizona voted Proposition 203 into Law and it should
be implemented in to Law in an expedited way. Will Humble, you are trying to inhibit the Law for
whatever reason and you need to get out of the way and just be an Administrator that is all you are;
you are not the king nor the governor and you are trying to implement the law into something that you
have no intelligent input on. Let the people govern their state; all 15 counties, not just Pima and
Maricopa County.
Take out "illegal" put in "legal."

rules take out the 70/30 rule, dispensary are allowed to grow based on the number of members who
sign up for that dispensaries services period and to only allow a dispensary to grow 70% of his
busineess potential is unamerican. do pharmacies has to give 30% of it's business to another
pharmacy? the ADHS is meddeling just the way colorado meddles with their mmj industry. undo
burden for the dispensary. your not suppose to do that by law. or are we reading some other law out
there? prop 203 said that the ADHS can't bring undo burden on a dispensary with meddelsome rules. i
don't want to give 30% percent of business away to anyone who hasn't earned it. it's unamerican.
70/30 rule take it out. it's not working in colorado and it wont work here either. it's noonsense made
up by people who don't know marijuana or the industry enough to be concerened about how much
marijuana is out there. i thing is for sure it isn't enough to help keep the prices down.
The Colorado legislature amended House Bill 10-1284 this past summer. They added the following
language, which is very specific about the process of applying for a dispensary license and spells out
clearly the process. If a dispensary is not approved then they are out their application fees but are
returned any licensing fees. In section R9-17-107F perhaps the following language as adopted from
Colorado bill 10-1284 would clarify the process of initial applications. (4) AN APPLICANT SHALL FILE
AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR 17 A LOCAL LICENSE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
INTERIOR OF THE 18 BUILDING IF THE BUILDING TO BE OCCUPIED IS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME.
19 IF THE BUILDING IS NOT IN EXISTENCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A PLOT 20 PLAN AND A
DETAILED SKETCH FOR THE INTERIOR AND SUBMIT AN 21 ARCHITECT'S DRAWING OF THE
BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED. IN ITS 22 DISCRETION, THE LOCAL OR STATE LICENSING
AUTHORITY MAY IMPOSE 23 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE
24 APPLICATION. (4) AFTER APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION, A LOCAL LICENSING 27 AUTHORITY
SHALL NOT ISSUE A LOCAL LICENSE UNTIL THE BUILDING IN -20- 1284 WHICH 1 THE BUSINESS
TO BE CONDUCTED IS READY FOR OCCUPANCYWITH 2 SUCH FURNITURE, FIXTURES,AND
EQUIPMENT IN PLACE AS ARE NECESSARY 3 TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ARTICLE,AND THEN 4 ONLY AFTER THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HAS INSPECTED THE 5
PREMISES TO DETERMINE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE 6 ARCHITECT'S
DRAWING AND THE PLOT PLAN AND DETAILED SKETCH FOR 7 THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING
SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION. 8 (5) AFTER APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR LOCAL
LICENSURE, 9 THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY SHALL NOTIFY THE STATE LICENSING 10
AUTHORITY OF SUCH APPROVAL, WHO SHALL INVESTIGATE AND EITHER 11 APPROVE OR
DISAPPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR STATE LICENSURE. 12 12-43.3-304.
English
The state prying into doctor-patient relationships and American citizen privacy laws should be the
number one concern.
a fee of $50, $10 for low income and the disabled open wholesale trade between dispensaries Medical
Marijuana recommendation from any qualified physician
In the rules regarding the nature of the doctor/patient relationship should be either thrown out
completely or rewritten to include the right of the patient to determine what kind of doctor/patient
relationship he has. This will allow the patient and his/her doctor the right to determine the need for
the drug, not the state.
R9-17-313. Inventory Control System ... 3. For cultivation: a. The strain of marijuana seed planted,
type of clone taken, type of medium used, date seeds were planted or clones were taken, and the
watering schedule; why the watering schedule?? makes no sense. Also the type of medium may
matter ie. coco coir, hydroponics, or soil, but not the type of soil. -=======-
none
Follow the AZMMA
doctor. My medical doctor can't prescribe MJ because some kind of rules that the hospital made. I
hope you won't make it too hard on me. I want to get off the pain pills and use MJ.
Just what I put above.
programs need to be set up for parients on state programs or medicare. i believe a $100 flat montly
fee should supply a patient with top grade medical marijuana(5oz) from a dispensary. smoking areas
need to include open parks such as lakes campgrounds picnic parks and even hotels. parking lots
should be ok as long as not near schools or churches.
Who can recommend medical marijuana to a qualifying patient? Include Nurse Practitioners.
do through and drop some requirements such as submitting a business plan. this should be treated
equally as with any other program that is overseen by the state.
I will have to research this.
i think the requirement for everybody being remotely involved in the operations having to be a
designated agent is too cumbersome and really resticts the dispensary from getting the best help it
feels it needs. since this is a new endeavor there are not many in the state that might be qualified.
you should drop the residency requirement or drop the qualified a agent requirement - not have both
requirements.
R9-17-305. I recommend a development of a "short form" dispensary registration renewal for

dispensary's without any yearly changes. As you are required to notify of any dispensary move's
throughout the year along with any change in dispensary agents all within 10 days of these changes
happening - if the dispensary is following state guidelines, there should not be any changes that the
state has not already been notified of. You would charge the same amount for the renewal which
would then save money for the state in employee review hours. I recommend changing the verbiage
to: To renew a dispensary registration certificate where as there are no changes to location,
dispensary agents and at least 30 days before the expiration, the dispensary may submit the expedited
form with the following information: 1. a-e h. 4. All other forms have already been filled out and
would be part of the dispensary file prior to renewal. I would also recommend the same for all
medical patients to renew as a short form if no data has changed.
provide a mechanism to give answers to qustions if you are going to regulate to this degree.
you would have to delete the wording "2 years preceeding the date of application". it shoud read "be a
resident for 2 years."
So that dispensaries may blend in with the community, no dispensary shall use exterior signage that
includes and slang terms relative to marijuana. These include ganja, weed, grass, etc. A full list should
be added.
None
I see no need to change any of the language.
I think you could be more specific on what kind of "compensation or reimbursement" a designated
caregiver can receive. Time? Gas? Food? Growing costs? If a dispensary is "non-profit" does that
mean they have to incorporate under the 501 (c) 3 non-profit corporation designate? What taxes are
collected, if any? How are "dispensary agents" or "designated caregivers" compensated? Through the
State? Or on a payroll through the corporation or any other business entity? I think you should also
specify the exact space for "per plant" because it sounds to me that 25 square feet seems kind of
"crowded" for 12 plants.
I would say the work place, i believe that if a person is lazy, or is sleeping, they should be designated
as too intoxicated to work, that should be the work place limit.
There is so much wrong with the basic premise from which the Department levies Rules for this Act. I
will certainly be following up with more specific language when we are closer to a reasonable program;
I will be meeting with an extensive network of professionals, proprietors, patients, and others to
encourage their participation in this dialogue. In the meantime, THE PLACE FROM WHICH THE
DEPARTMENT COMES (from on high), SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED; THE PEOPLE WANT A WORKABLE
PROGRAM, NOT THE G**DAMN GESTAPO!! THIS BUSINESS IS NO MORE DANGEROUS TO CITIZENS
THAN THE PEDDLING OF ALCOHOL, PHARMACEUTICALS, POWER TOOLS, OR LAP DANCES-- GET
REAL!!! YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FACILITATE AND COOPERATE WITH LEGITIMATE
BUSINESSES WHO WILL DISPLACE A DANGEROUS BLACK MARKET AND SIPHON BUSINESS FROM
VIOLENT CARTELS... DON'T BLOW IT!! THESE BUSINESSES DON'T NEED YOU TO TELL THEM HOW
HIGH TO BUILD A FENCE OR WHAT GAUGE WIRE TO USE; THEY HAVE EVERY BIT THE MOTIVATION
YOU HAVE AND MORE, INCLUDING SOME EXPERTISE, STRATEGY, CREATIVITY, AND INTEREST.
That said, how about improving the Rules with LESS LANGUAGE?? Can we start there? Strip this thing
back down before you start believing your own damn RHETORIC and before you're too committed and
invested in your own self-proclaimed HOGWASH to recover. HELP FACILITATE A PROGRAM THAT IS
SYMBIOTIC WITH THE GOOD PROPRIETORS AND FUTURE AGENTS-- IN THIS YOU WILL FIND
SUCCESS, ACCLAIM, AND BE WORTHY OF MODELING A PROGRAM! AGAIN, DON'T BLOW IT!! DON'T
LET THIS GET ANY FURTHER BEFORE YOU CONSIDER A MAJOR PARING DOWN OF THESE ITEMS.
The drama will soon subside and we'll all be left with the FALLOUT or the product of SOUND
IMPLEMENTATION where we have fewer problems than other states and a better working relationship
with your agency, no thanks to undue paranoid regulation. Oh, and the $5K non-refundable: is this
an attempt to quash the IOU the Department has racked up on putting the People's wishes in place
having squandered their funds otherwise? Trying to slip this across while you perceive to have a
pending industry by the short ones?? SHADY, REAL SHADY.
You are making plans for the distribution of a PAIN medication. NOT AN ILLEGAL DRUG!!! Stop being
damn fools when it affects ill people!
First and foremost, the name of the plant in question is Cannabis sp., usually either Cannabis sativa,
Cannabis indica, or a hybrid thereof. There is no such plant called “marijuana” except in colloquial
slang; “marijuana” being a name created by law enforcement authorities after the failure of alcohol
prohibition in the 1930’s, to demonize a new substance by racial associations. So, let’s start with the
attitude that we are going to pursue this with a science based objectivity, and not the racist, subjective
and obstructionist fear mongering that has been characteristic of governments attitude in the past.
Any qualifying patient should be able to grow their own, period.
Reword as show below: A dispensary may provide _up to 50%_ of its cultivated marijuana to other
registered dispensaries and may acquire up to _50%_ of its own marijuana supply from other
registered dispensaries. A patient’s Arizona physician must either 1) have been treating that patient
for the debilitating medical condition that included at least _three_ visits, or 2) have taken primary
responsibility for the care of the debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history,
conducting a comprehensive exam, and reviewing medical records.
As indicated in part two above, "The following diseases, if causing chronic nausea, ........ qualify a
patient for use of medical marijuana, if all other qualifying conditions are met."
A patient who has a demonstrated history can go to any doctor for a medical marijuana
recommendation, if their regular doctor is not allowed to recommend medical marijuana.
see above
see above
PTSD, depession and axiety should be considered debilitating medical condition.
see above
Yes. Article 2, Sec R9-17-201 concerning debilitating medical conditions. Patients who are injured and
have been identified as chronic pain patients can suffer from migraine headaches, sciatic nerve pain, as
well as muscle spasms; which is identified (muscle spasms) in Article 2, Sec R9-17-201, Item #12.
The definition of medical marijuana should be clear and listed in the definition section first. This lack of
a definition leaves this issue loaded for abuse of a normalized medical marijuana policy. The federal
governments definition of marijuana was accepted by California and it should be adopted by Arizona.
TITLE 21 - CHAPTER 13 - SUBCHAPTER I - Part A - Sec. 802. Sec. 802. - Definitions As used in this
subchapter: (16) The term ''marijuana'' means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether
growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such
term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake
made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted there from), fiber, oil, or cake, or the
sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
A section of Michigans law to think about. Rule 333.121 Confidentiality. Rule 21. (1) Except as
provided in subrules (2) and (3) of this rule, Michigan medical marihuana program information
shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure in any form or manner. Program information
includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (a) Applications and supporting information
submitted by qualifying patients. (b) Information related to a qualifying patient's primary
caregiver. (c) Names and other identifying information of registry identification cardholders.
(d) Names and other identifying information of pending applicants and their primary caregivers.
(2) Names and other identifying information made confidential under subrule (1) of this rule
may only be accessed or released to authorized employees of the department as necessary to
perform official duties of the department pursuant to the act, including the production of any
reports of non-identifying aggregate data or statistics. (3) The department shall verify upon a
request by law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without
disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry
identification card. (4) The department may release information to other persons only upon
receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by all individuals with legal
authority to waive confidentiality regarding that information, whether a registered qualifying
patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, or a qualifying patient's registered
primary caregiver. The release of information shall specify what information the department is
authorized to release and to whom. (5) Violation of these confidentiality rules may subject an
individual to the penalties provided for under section 6(h)(4) of the act.
No
Reduced fees for disabled persons: Below is language from Michigan’s medical marijuana law. (19)
"Supplemental Security Income" means the monthly benefit assistance Program administered by the
federal government for persons who are age 65 or older, or blind, or disabled and who have
limited income and financial resources. R 333.111 Fees; reduced fees; renewal. Rule 11. (1)
The fee for a new or renewal application is $100.00, unless a qualifying patient can demonstrate his
or her current enrollment in the Medicaid health plan or receipt of current Supplemental
Security Income benefits, in which case the application fee is $25.00. To qualify for a reduced
fee, an applicant shall satisfy either of the following requirements: (a) Submit a copy of the
qualifying patient's current Medicaid health plan enrollment statement. (b) Submit a copy of the
qualifying patient's current monthly Supplemental Security Income benefit card, showing dates of
coverage.
Strike any and all (Medical Director) language from the rules and regs.
There should be NO restriction of miles from registered dispensaries to cultivation areas, nor
percentage requirement of sale or purchase. Restricting commerce is not the job of the health
department. Good sense and reliance on the public's personal responsibility and discretion is good
health for the State. Please exercise a good sense approach in the "Rules", not unnecessary and
unenforceable restrictions. As to specific language, I forward that to all the lawyers I know to
express eloquently and legally bindingly with clarity for all. My personal plea is the ADHC to be the
facilitator, not the restricter, in order to end the inequity of legal medicinal availability, which would
finally end a plethora of oppression and pain, cultural, mental and physical since the Viet Nam era.
Not at this time but I may provide additional comments and recommendations once I've taken a
second look at the draft rule.
Sorry, but I will have to leave that up to those more technically competent than myself!
I ask that you please include the terminology, "Naturopathic MD", if by "attending physician" this term
is not clearly defined.
none.
"When growing outdoors, a patient may grow the specified number of plants, but will harvest once a
year and may possess their entire allowed amount of medical marijuana at the time of harvest. The
allowable amount for the patient to possess shall use the time of year to calculate roughly whether or
not the patient is in violation of the allowable amount of medicine." (When a patient needs to grow
his/her own medicine, I believe the rules concerning the grow site should be less comprehensive than
those for a dispensary. Concealment from sight of adjoining properties would certainly benefit the
grower and the state, but less affluent persons can ill afford a twelve foot wall. Many people will find it
more economical to grow for themselves. In our Arizona climate even a relatively poor person could
grow a year's worth of medicine for themselves by growing outside. The State of Oregon has modified
their rules to permit a caregiver or patient to grow and possess a year's worth of medicine if they grow
outside instead of indoors. An outdoor grower does not need expensive MH or HPS lights, and will
experience far fewer insect problems. Indoor growers have developed expertise, but there is a steep
learning curve for the first time grower and it is is quite easy to grow outdoors. That's why they call it
"weed"! This initative was passed by compasionate voters to help those who suffer, not to enrich the
coffers of dispensaries or the State, although I believe it will do both.)
Medical Marijuana shall be treated in the same way as any other drug prescribed by a doctor.
N/A
The 25-mile from dispensary growing rule add conditions patient may grow within 25 miles of a
dispensary if they prove a financial hardship to afford dispensary prices. patient may grow within 25
miles of a dispensary if desired strain is unavailable. patient may grow within 25 miles of a
dispensary if they live outside the city limits of any city.
The following are from Maine’s State program, which clarifies the competitive application process:
6.1.1 Selection process. The department shall publish a notice of open application for dispensary
certificates of registration that includes the application requirements. Notices will appear, at a
minimum, in the Kennebec Journal and at www.maine.gov/dhhs/dlrs. Applicants may apply for one or
more districts, but must designate which districts they apply for. The notice will contain the deadline
for receipt of applications and the process for obtaining application material. 6.1.2 Award decisions. A
panel shall be convened by the department to evaluate and score each application. The maximum
point value is based on the quality of the applicant’s submission. The maximum points for each
criterion are indicated in Section 6.1.4 of these rules. To be considered responsive, an application must
have at least 70 points. The panel shall set forth through consensus comments the basis of the scoring
decision for each criterion. A certificate of registration shall be issued in response to the application in
each public health district with the highest score, as long as the application meets all criteria and the
minimum score. In case of a tie, the panel reserves the right to seek supplemental information through
written questions of the applicants and to raise or lower the applicants’ scores based upon the
supplemental information. The following is some suggested language for a variance allowance for
facilities that may be within proximity restrictions but have adequate barriers (this will enable more
consideration in the process and make more areas accessible possibly). A waiver of the provisions in
subsection (A.) and (B.) of this section may be granted if the applicant demonstrates on plans and
materials presented for review and the Planning Department determines that a physical barrier or
similar condition exists which achieves the same purpose and intent as the distance separation
requirements established herein.
A patient can have their regular doctor and a medical marijuana doctor. Dispensaries may deliver
marijuana to their patients. Costs will be lower.
Since I know nothing about legal language I am taking every thing is worded the way it should be but
truly find problems that should be examined and thought out carefully.
I think that the wording that Medical Director be a M.D. or D.O. is limiting. Nurse Practitoner practices
medicine under their own license and due to their consulting training and patient education culture
maybe a better fit as medical director of a dispensary that either a M.D. or D.O.
TAKE OUT THE PHRASE; "On-going' when reffering to any Doctor, Patient relationship! It is the DHS's
job to come up with a form & guidline on how to register patients & dispensaries. It is NOT the DHS's
job to re-write the rules for the AZ Board of Medical Examiners in defining how a Doctor & Patient
reach any conclusion on choosing a course of treatment between themselves. BUTT-OUT!!
"The patient shall provide medical records and honest testimony to the Dr concerning his or her
conditions and medical history and the Dr, in good faith shall provide services in compliance with
recognized medical conditions that warrant marijuana use." This removes the burden of guilt for
fraudulent marijuana use from the Dr and onto the patient. If the courts want to be heavily involved,
then let them decide the rare cases where someone abuses the Dr's trust by lying in conjunction with
false medical records. This also helps people like me who will otherwise be left out by this law we have
been waiting for as otherwise honest and law abiding citizens.
THE LQNGUAGE SEEM'S OK, I DON'T UNDERSTAND RUNNING A DISPENARY ?
no, I'm not a technical writer so I'll leave that to those who are versed in the lingo.
Your rules are a non-starter. The ADHS has elected to stop the productive endeavors of our best
citizens and nullify the election. Marijuana will not be available to patients until after the next election
in two years. We are infuriated by non-elected bureaucrats who make up crazy rules and demand
over the top high taxes to pay for your government class. Bureaucrats have have become a threat to
America...You are bad people.
Not specific language, now. I'm in law school, but I'm not an attorney yet. :)
I have been informed that I may not use it unless I wish to give up my 2nd Amendment rights. I live
in Montana and have Grizzly bears on the property. This was notification via my caretaker that he
could not protect his crops with any kind of weapon, via BATFE. As a retired police officer (from
Arizona) this surplus of cash, drugs and no legal way to protect it will lead to theft, burglary and
eventually death. Our Government to be included in this to outlaw the common right to protect ones
self, not only from criminals but what ever might be lurking (animals, especially). Labs to test the
potency of the drug should be available and at low cost to users to know what they are taking. I had
this problem myself, some would knock your block off while other samples would do nothing to speak
of.
I believe that section 17-201 should be set up a bit easier for patients to understand so as not to
confuse people on not only eligability but also 17-202 the needed steps for patients on how to apply.
Or at the very least a how to guide that makes it easy for paients to understand the eligability area as
well as how to apply part. Similar to the how to for idiots. Something basic. A lot of patients
especially elderly that may apply for medical marijuana will have a very hard time in understanding
language in all of this. Some type of how to guide would be very benefitial for people like that.
I have memory issues also. I can not hold that amount of information, even for the short time it took
me to type this.
see above
I feel that a nice breakdown of exactly what is needed, like a check off list, would be nice, so that
things will not be forgotten or overlooked in the application process. The less applications with
problems, means less work for the people working with them.
None at this time.
Focus on individuals with mental diagnosis that benefit from marijuana therapy...Bi-Polar, Anxiety,
Depression!
All cardholders should be allowed to cultivate for their own use no matter the distance from a
dispensery
Veterans are exempt from the one year and four visit rule because their doctors cannot recommend
anything in Schedule 1 A stupid classification system that needs to be trashed
I strongly suggest the following addition to Arizona Department of Health regulation R9-17-311: 7.
Marijuana may not be dispensed in its raw form or in any form that can easily be used by smoking it.
Marijuana should only be dispensed in forms that can be taken orally, such as in foods or mixed with
oil or butter and made into capsules, or rectally, as in suppositories. The dispensary will keep records
listing the form in which the marijuana is dispensed. Marijuana for medical use cannot be transported
in its raw form. It must be turned into a dispensable form within 100 feet of the place where it is
grown. All marijuana dispensaries must post a warning that can be easily seen by anyone purchasing
medical marijuana. The warning states: “Marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens and has been
determined to be carcinogenic by ADHS. Medical marijuana can only be dispensed in forms that are
taken orally or rectally. Smoking marijuana obtained for medical use is considered illegal diversion and
can be prosecuted. Possessing raw marijuana and smoking marijuana are still illegal under Arizona
law.”
See Above
Pertaining to the comment above, A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physiciant has a
professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year This
language is unnecessary. Please remove it!
Just remove the parts mentioned above
I recommend an additional article on requirements and responsibilities of doctors who write medical
marijuana recommendations. For example: Article 4. Recommending Physicians Definition: A
recommending physician is a physician writing a marijuana recommendation. 1. All physicians must
register with DHS before recommending the medical use of marijuana. DHA may revoke a physician’s
medical marijuana registration if the physician acts unprofessionally, or violates DHS regulations or
state or federal law. 2. All physicians recommending medical marijuana must keep a record of
patients receiving the recommendation. The record must include the name, birthdate, diagnosis,
reason for marijuana recommendation, date marijuana first recommended, dates the patient has been
seen since the first recommendation, and date the recommendation was terminated. 3. Patients
receiving marijuana recommendations for medical use must be seen by the recommending physician at
least every 90 days to continue the recommendation. Otherwise, the recommending physician is
required to contact the Department to request that the patient’s registry card be revoked.
Recommending doctors may also contact the Department to ask that a patient’s registry card be
revoked as set out in R9-17-205. (From my recommended addition to R9-17-205: I. The
recommending physician may contact the Department to revoke a qualifying patient’s registry
identification card if the doctor believes the patient no longer requires medical marijuana, if the patient
fails to follow up with the doctor as prescribed, if the doctor comes to believe that the patient was
dishonest in obtaining the recommendation, if the doctor believes the patient is using the marijuana for
recreational purposes or diverting it to others who are using it for recreational purposes, or if the
doctor believes the patient is misusing the marijuana recommendation in any other way. The
recommending physician is also required to contact the Department to revoke a qualifying patient’s
registry identification card if the patient has not been seen by the doctor for more than 90 days. If a
recommending doctor contacts the Department for any of these reasons, the Department will revoke
the patient’s registry identification card.) 4. No doctor may have more than 30 patients receiving
medical marijuana at any one time. The recommending doctor and the Department are required to
maintain ongoing records of the number of patients with active registry cards for each recommending
doctor. 5. Second opinions will be required for certain marijuana recommendations as part of the
application for a registry card. DHS will keep a list of acceptable doctors for second opinions. DHS will
ask each specialty group to recommend doctors of high moral and ethical character in each
community, city, or town. DHS will choose doctors from this list for its second opinion list. Patients
required to get a second opinion must see a specialist in the diagnosis for which they have been
recommended marijuana. Pain specialists are not acceptable for second opinions. If the patient has
cachexia, wasting syndrome, severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, or muscle spasms, those are
considered symptoms, and the patient must see a specialist in the underlying disease that causes the
symptom. 6. Second opinions are required for: a) any patient under the age of 18, b) any patient
recommended marijuana for pain or muscle spasms, c) any patients recommended marijuana for
nausea, cachexia or wasting syndrome not caused by cancer, HIV or interferon treatment, d) patients
with muscle spasms not part of multiple sclerosis, and e) any patient who receives a marijuana
recommendation at their first or second visit to an individual doctor, clinic or medical group. The only
exceptions to part e are patients with cancer diagnosed by radiologic or cytologic evidence who receive
a marijuana recommendation from an oncologist at their first or second visit. 7. Physicians providing
a second opinion are not required to make their decision on the day they evaluate the patient. They
must be given time to obtain and evaluate records from other physicians. If they decide the patient
does not need marijuana, then the patient will not be given a registry identification card.
Delete the requirement for a dispensary to produce seventy percent of its product.
The following definition is used in this suggestion, and I suggest that it be added to R9-17-101
Definitions: “Recommending doctor” is the doctor writing a recommendation for medical marijuana.
I suggest that R9-17-205 include one more subsection: I. The recommending physician may contact
the Department to revoke a qualifying patient’s registry identification card if the doctor believes the
patient no longer requires medical marijuana, if the patient fails to follow up with the doctor as
prescribed, if the doctor comes to believe that the patient was dishonest in obtaining the
recommendation, if the doctor believes the patient is using the marijuana for recreational purposes or
diverting it to others who are using it for recreational purposes, or if the doctor believes the patient is
misusing the marijuana recommendation in any other way. The recommending physician is also
required to contact the Department to revoke a qualifying patient’s registry identification card if the
patient has not been seen by the doctor for more than 90 days. If a recommending doctor contacts the
Department for any of these reasons, the Department will revoke the patient’s registry identification
card.
The following definitions are used in the rest of my suggestions, and I suggest that these be added to
R9-17-101 Definitions: “Recommending doctor” is the doctor writing a recommendation for medical
marijuana. “Standard medications” are medications widely recognized by the allopathic medical
profession as good treatment for a particular illness or condition. “Appropriate specialist” is a
medical specialist who is expert in the underlying illness or condition afflicting the patient. For example,
if a patient has musculoskeletal pain, then the appropriate specialist is an orthopedist of specialist in
osteopathic manipulation, not a pain specialist. Article 2, R9-17-201, should be rewritten to include
further restrictions. An individual applying for a qualifying patient registry identification card shall
have a diagnosis from a physician of at least one of the following conditions, subject to the limitations
listed for each diagnosis: Cancer. The disease must be diagnosed by radiologic or cytologic evidence,
or agreed upon by second opinion from an oncologist. Marijuana can only be recommended for nausea
or loss of appetite, and the patient must try two standard anti-nausea or anti-wasting drugs first. The
recommending doctor must document that these two trials have failed. If the trials of standard
medications were made by another physician, then the recommending doctor must have written
documentation from that physician. Glaucoma. Marijuana can only be recommended for glaucoma
by an ophthalmologist after two other standard glaucoma medications have failed. If the trials of
standard medications were made by another physician, then the recommending doctor must have
written documentation from that physician. HIV and AIDS. Marijuana can be recommended for
wasting, nausea and loss of appetite after two other standard medications for these symptoms have
failed. If the trials of standard medications were made by another physician, then the recommending
doctor must have written documentation from that physician. Hepatitis C. Marijuana can only be
recommended for nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite if those symptoms are side effects of standard
anti-viral treatment. It can only be recommended while the patient is receiving standard anti-viral
treatment. Marijuana can only be recommended by the doctor administering or prescribing the anti-
viral treatment, and only after two standard medications for nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite have
been tried and failed. If the trials of standard medications were made by another physician, then the
recommending doctor must have written documentation from that physician. Amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis. Marijuana can only be recommended by a neurologist or after a diagnosis of ALS has been
made by a neurologist. Crohn’s disease. Marijuana can only be recommended by a
gastroenterologist or by the patient’s primary care physician after the diagnosis has been made by a
gastroenterologist. Marijuana can only be recommended after the patient has tried and failed to
respond to two standard medications for Crohn’s disease first. A chronic or debilitating disease or
medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that causes
cachexia or wasting syndrome. Regulations regarding cancer, HIV and AIDS are described in those
sections. If the cachexia or wasting syndrome is caused by something other than HIV or cancer, then it
requires a second opinion from an appropriate specialist, and documentation by the recommending
doctor that the patient has tried and failed to respond to two standard anti-nausea or appetite-
stimulating drugs. If the trials of standard medications were made by another physician, then the
recommending doctor must have written documentation from that physician. A chronic or debilitating
disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition
that causes severe and chronic pain. Marijuana can only be recommended if supported by a second
opinion from an appropriate specialist that the patient has severe and chronic pain and that marijuana
is appropriate treatment. The recommending doctor must also document that three standard pain
medications have failed. If the trials of standard medications were made by another physician, then the
recommending doctor must have written documentation from that physician. A chronic or debilitating
disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition
that causes severe nausea. Marijuana can only be recommended if supported by a second opinion from
an appropriate specialist that the patient has severe nausea and that marijuana is appropriate
treatment. The recommending doctor must also document that two standard anti-nausea medications
have failed. If the trials of standard medications were made by another physician, then the
recommending doctor must have written documentation from that physician. A chronic or
debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or
medical condition that causes seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy. Marijuana can only be
recommended by a neurologist who has documented that the patient has a seizure disorder. The
recommending doctor must also document that three standard anti-seizure medications have been
tried and the patient has failed to respond. If the trials of standard medications were made by another
physician, then the recommending doctor must have written documentation from that physician. A
chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease
or medical condition that causes severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of
multiple sclerosis. Marijuana can only be recommended if supported by a second opinion from an
appropriate specialist that the patient has severe and chronic muscle spasms and that marijuana is
appropriate treatment, or by a neurologist documenting that the patient has multiple sclerosis, or by
the patient’s primary care physician after a neurologist has documented that the patient has multiple
sclerosis. The recommending doctor must also document that two standard medications for muscle
spasms have failed. If the trials of standard medications were made by another physician, then the
recommending doctor must have written documentation from that physician. A debilitating medical
condition or treatment approved by the Department under ARS 36-2801.01 and R9-17-106. Then
R9-17-202 (F) 5 (c) and R9-17-202 (G) 13 (c) and R9-17-204 (A) 4 (c) and R9-17-204 (B) 4 (d) should
be changed to read: A statement that the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition as
defined in ARS 36-2801 and that all the specific requirements of Article 2, R9-17-201 have been met.
Non-refundable should state, "Refunds will be for rejected applications." If a application is rejected for
any reason, the applicant will receive a refund for application fee's. R9-17-102. Fees An applicant
registration of a dispensary, $2,000; 2. To renew the registration of a dispensary, $375; 3. To change
the location of a dispensary, $50; 4. To change the location of a dispensary's cultivation site, $50; 5.
For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $25; b. Designated caregiver, $25; and
c. Dispensary agent, $50; 6. For renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient,
$50; b. Designated caregiver, $50; and c. Dispensary agent, $50; 7. For amending or changing a
registry identification card, $5; and 8. For requesting a replacement registry identification card, $5.
These are the price we want to see changed for the best!!
2. Under R9-17-106, Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition, under B4 I suggest: e. DHS will also
accept written comments and testimony from those who are unable to attend the public hearing.
3. The title of R9-17-106 should be changed to: Adding or Deleting a Debilitating Medical Condition
Then, under R9-17-106, there should also be a part D, which reads: D. An Arizona licensed physician
may request the deletion of a medical condition from the list of debilitating medical conditions listed in
R9-17-201 by submitting to the Department, at the time specific in subsection (C), the following in
writing: 1 – 5 will be the same as R9-17-106, A, 1-5 6. A summary of the evidence that the use of
marijuana will not provide therapeutic or palliative benefit for the medical condition or the treatment of
the medical condition; and 7. Articles, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, reporting the
results of research on the effects of marijuana on the medical condition or the treatment of the medical
condition supporting wh the medical condition or the treatment of the medical condition should be
deleted.
R9-17-204 B 4 f. i A statement initialed by the physician that the physician; (1) Has examined the
patient, inspected patients medical records and has decided with his knowledge of medical marijuana
that he believes the patient will benefit from the use of medical marijuana.
Yes, and I need to send you those comments in both hard copy and in MS Word format; so I will mail
them today, and ask you to provide me with an email address where I can send the MS Word version.
nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $2,000; 2. To renew the registration of a
dispensary, $5000; 3. To change the location of a dispensary, $1,000; 4. To change the location of a
dispensary's cultivation site, $500; 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient;
$25; b. Designated caregiver, $50; and c. Dispensary agent, $200; 6. For renewing a registry
identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $25; b. Designated caregiver, $25; and c. Dispensary
agent, $25; 7. For amending or changing a registry identification card, $5; and 8. For requesting a
replacement registry identification card, $5. These fee are more inline with paintents traking to get
their medicine... We would like to see these changes in the draft and finial plan of the Pro 203... This is
what the people want today!!!!
Regarding surety bonds. In some areas a "dispensary" should have a surety bond and in other areas it
is the principal officer or the board member. This should be clarified to one or the other. It will be
difficult for a dispensary to obtain a surety bond as most writers require it to be deemed necessary for
an application. Since most legitimate dispensary boards will have many members, it will be difficult and
expensive to have them all bonded. We would recommend that your wording be changed to either the
principal or the dispensary since it appears that errors were made. Page 28 R9-17-302 Section B f.
Whether a principal officer or board member: i. Has served as a principal officer or board member for
a dispensary that had the dispensary registration certificate revoked; ii. Is a physician currently
making qualifying patient recommendations; iii. Has not provided a surety bond or filed any tax return
with a taxing agency; Page 31 R9-17-302 15. Whether: a. A registered pharmacist will be onsite or
on-call during regular business hours; b. The dispensary will provide information about the importance
of physical activity and nutrition onsite; c. Whether the dispensary has or has not incorporated; and
d. Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much; and Page 46 R9-17-319 Section
B B. The Department may deny an application for a dispensary registration certificate if a principal
officer or board member of the dispensary: 1. Has not provided a surety bond or filed any tax return
with a taxing agency; 2. Has unpaid taxes, interest, or penalties due to a governmental agency; 3.
Has an unpaid judgment owed to a governmental agency; 4. Is in default on a government-issued
student loan; 5. Failed to pay court-ordered child support; or 6. Provides false or misleading
information to the Department. Page 28 and 46 state that the surety bond is attached to the
principal officer or board member and page 31 states that the surety bond is attached to the
dispensary. We understand that a special interest and the DHS may have common legal counsel that is
helping you with the application process. Those attorneys have requested that a surety bond be
mandatory and we appreciate that it is now optional but your wording will need to be cleaned up.
R9-17-202, 5e Whereas a physican has a professional relationship with a qualifing patient, has
reviewed his/her medical history and done a physical, the physican should be able to recomend the
patient receive a MM card. Currently this is all that is required of a physican to write persciptions for
federally controlled drugs and we don't see any reason that the means test for MM should be anymore
difficults. The 1 year, 4 visit rule is unnessecary. I can walk in to any MD have him review my history
and charts, do a physical and get a persription for even the most powerful drugs it shouldn't be
anymore difficult for MM users.
Two visits to a physician or nurse practitioner or Chiropractor and only a written recommendation is
required.
R9-17-101 Definitions - #16 all references to and the term "ongoing" should be removed from this
definition for the reasons stated above. A physician who now has the ability to write prescriptions of
any controlled medication or substance should also be able to write a prescription for medical
marijuana at their discretion. The suggested 1 year "patient-physician waiting period" should be
removed for the reasons stated above. The state is unduly adding expense and suffering to the patient.
Physicians now have the ability to examine a patents established medical records and determine if a
prescription for a controlled substance is appropriate for a patients needs. Why should medicinal
marijuana be different?
Dispensaries that are not readily facilitated to have a cultivation site are allowed to resource from a
common grower. Cultivation Site would be compliant with all rules and regulations included in the
original draft.
I'm immobile and I spoke with my caretaker about having her get me medical marijuana once
available. She refuses because she is afraid of federal law. She also says the fees are too high, there is
too much invasive paperwork, and it is too hard. What am I to do? Please make sure easy delivery
with proper ID will be available. Please make sure marijuana couriers are not restricted or that city
zoning won't prohibit me from getting access to medical marijuana. Please make rules easier for true
caregivers. Please be aware that many patients already have caregivers, unrelated to this marijuana
law. Also allow me to continue seeing my primary physician. He is against recommending medical
marijuana to any patient. allow me to get a yearly recommendation from a second doctor.
I have not finished reading the the rules of Article 3. Aritcle 2 appears to me to be admisitrative rules
directed at the REGISTRY of patients and care givers and not any rules for the facility operations of a
care giver to growth for those who cannot. Since "care givers" will also be able to cultivate for up to
5 patients some controls of the agricultural production of MJ should be included. Example, uses of
pesticides and dangerous (sp) fertilizers. This means testing of the product if the care giver is also an
agriculturalist of MJ since this product will be admiinistered to patients. A prime example of this is the
recent ruling that "fake" MJ such as K2, Spice and etc has dangerious chemicals and is an immenet
danger to public health and is now illegal to sell on open shelves. Believe me when I tell u that DDT
as a pesticide or some simular product will be used by unscroupulus producers of the care giver
catigory.
Page 5. Registration for a dispensary. $50.
Patients should be able to obtain a medical marijuana recommendation from one visit to a physician,
and there should not be a required relationship time between patient and physician. These
unneccesary stipulations are very cruel to people suffering from pain, and other unfortunate issues.
From Stockton, CA and Los Angeles, CA: Dispensaries shall use an independent laboratory to
analyze a representative sample from each separately procured batch of dried medical marijuana and a
representative sample of each separately procured batch of edible marijuana for pesticides and any
other regulated contaminants pursuant to local, state, or federal regulatory or statutory standards at
levels of sensitivity established for the food and drug supply before providing the medical marijuana to
its members. Any marijuana from which the representative sample analysis tested positive for a
pesticide or other contaminant at a level which exceeds the local, state, or federal regulatory or
statutory standard for the food and drug supply shall not be provided to members and shall be
destroyed forthwith. Any medical marijuana provided to members shall be properly labeled in strict
compliance with state and local laws. Dispensaries shall maintain and publicly display a written log at
the location documenting the date, type, and amount or marijuana tested; the name of the laboratory
where the marijuana was tested; the laboratory report containing the results of the testing including
the name and level of substances detected; and the disposition of the marijuana from which the
contaminated samples was obtained including the amount of marijuana and the date and manner of
disposition.
Please, please allow me to stay with my current doctor for most of my care andallow me to see
another doctor annually for a medical marijuana recommendation. Thank you very much.
none
R9-17-313. Inventory Control System A. A dispensary shall designate in writing a dispensary agent
who has oversight of the dispensary's medical marijuana inventory control system. B. A dispensary
shall establish and implement an inventory control system for the dispensary's medical marijuana that
documents: 1. Each day's beginning inventory, acquisitions, harvests, sales, disbursements, disposal
of unusable marijuana, and ending inventory; 2. For acquiring medical marijuana from a qualifying
patient, designated caregiver, or another dispensary: a. A description of the medical marijuana
acquired including the amount and strain; b. The name and registry identification number of the
qualifying patient, designated caregiver, or dispensary and dispensary agent who provided the medical
marijuana; c. The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent receiving the
medical marijuana on behalf of the dispensary; and d. The date of acquisition; 3. For cultivation: a.
The strain of marijuana seed planted, type of soil used, date seeds were planted, and the watering
schedule; b. Harvest information including: i. Date of harvest; ii. Amount of medical marijuana
harvested, including the amount of marijuana and the amount of usable marijuana; iii. Name and
registry identification number of the dispensary agent responsible for the harvest; and c. The disposal
of medical marijuana that is not usable marijuana including the: i. Date of disposal, ii. Method of
disposal, and iii. Name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent responsible for the
disposal; iv. Name of the composting facility where the unusable marijuana is taken;
I would eliminate the one year and 4 visit rules. They don't make any medical sense. A physician
should be able to prescribe a legal medication if they think that it will have a positive impact on the
patients well being.
Like above the smoking areas needs to be opened up a little bit. Hotels open camp grounds lakes parks
all should be ok as long as public and no kids within a 100ft or so. Being able to grow my own
medicine is also a big issue. I don't want to have to pay high dollars for my meds. No one is goons own
operate and pay employees and keep the cost down to where it's cheap enough to buy.
Time frames E 2. The applicant shall submit to the Department all of the information and documents
listed in the written comprehensive request or supplemental request for information within 20
working days after the date of the comprehensive written request or supplemental request for
information. - You need to remember you are working with people in very poor health. Mailing times
and time to get said information from doctors and other time consuming issues on top of possible
mobility issues. G 2. b. The applicant does not submit all of the information and documents listed in
the written comprehensive request or supplemental request for information within 20 working days
after the date of the comprehensive written request or supplemental request for information. R9-
17-307. Administration c. Inventory control, including tracking, packaging, accepting marijuana from
qualifying patients, designated caregivers, and licensed growers, and disposing of unusable
marijuana. 4. Not allow an individual who does not possess a licensed grower or dispensary agent
registry identification card issued under the dispensary registration certificate to: 5. Provide written
notice to the Department, including the date of the event within ten days after the date, when a
dispensary agent or licensed grower no longer: 2. Shall only provide medical marijuana cultivated or
acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, licensed grower, or
a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana; R9-17-315. Security A. A dispensary shall ensure that access to the enclosed,
locked facility where marijuana is cultivated is limited to principal officers, board members, licensed
growers, and designated agents of the dispensary. B. A dispensary or grower may transport
marijuana in any form, marijuana plants, and marijuana paraphernalia 1. An approved cultivation
site and C. To prevent unauthorized access to medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable,
cultivation sites, they shall have the following
There is alot of language that should be changed in the draft..The Draft sounds like it was written by a
law man that is againest Pot for any reason..Grow up please..there is alot of work to be done with the
Language..
The language is well written and clear to understand.
A doctors recomendation should suffice.

10. "Enclosed" means: a. A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet; or
DELETE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE b. An area surrounded by four solid 12-foot walls constructed of
metal, concrete, or stone with a one-inch thick metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area
that is: i. Welded or woven metal wire mesh, with minimum wire thickness of 0.25 inches and
maximum gap between wires of 1 inch; ii. Welded metal wire grid, with minimum wire thickness of
0.25 inches and maximum gap between wires of 3 inches;
patient relationship has existed for at least one MONTH (not YEAR )and the physician has seen or
assessed the patient on at least (not four) TWO visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition
during the course of the physician-patient relationship;
SAA
Add to 36-2801.15 15. as follows: "USABLE MARIJUANA" MEANS THE DRIED FLOWERS OF THE
MARIJUANA PLANT that contain at least fifteen percent by w/w of Tetrahydrocannabinol, AND ANY
MIXTURE OR PREPARATION THEREOF, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SEEDS, STALKS AND ROOTS OF
THE PLANT AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WEIGHT OF ANY NON-MARIJUANA INGREDIENTS
COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA AND PREPARED FOR CONSUMPTION AS FOOD OR DRINK.
Where a qualified patient's doctor is prevented from making a medical marijuana recommendation
through no fault of the patient, a qualified patient may get a yearly marijuana recommenadation
through a second doctor, who has reviewed the qualified patient's records and has examined the
qualifying patient.
selection process for dispensaries
No comment here.
Smoking areas are smoking areas, every knows cigarettes are more harmfuoll than marijuana. The
state should not try to make these people feel like crimanals (hideing in their homes) with curtains
drawn. There should be smoking areas in dispensaries.
For section R9-17-202 (5)(e) it would make more sense to read something like this... e. A
qualifying patient and has assumed responsibility for providing management and routine care of the
patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical
examination. That the patient demonstrates at least a 1-year history in which 4-visits to licensed health
care providers for treatment of a debilitating medical condition; or ii. Has determined that because of
the onset and severity of the debilitating medical condition it would be unreasonable or unethical for
the patient to establish a 1-year doctor-patient relationship in order to receive treatment with medical
marijuana.
use provider neutral language rather than "physician" please be aware that many nurse practitioners
care for patients who qualify for medical marijuana, and in rural areas as well as inner city, health
centers, county health departments and some pain amangement clicins, NPs are in positions to
recommend this medication for appropriate management. I hope that there is room to change the
physician-only language to include NPs and PAs who have training in the specialty areas these
medications are used in. Sincerely,
For the physician listed in subsection (B)(1)(j): i. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the
physician: (1) Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that began prior to November
1st 2010, or that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the
of the professional relationship; or
The proposed fee of $150.00 seems rather steep, especially for people of limited means. THIS IS
AMONG THE HIGHEST FEES IN THE COUNTRY! The price of the alternative {Marinol, or the generic) is
also high. Would it not be fair to not offer a lower card fee for the poor, or the elderly, and our Arizona
veterans?
SUBSTITUTE: 16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship means: a.
The physician-patient relationship has existed for at least one MONTH and the physician has seen or
assessed the patient on at least TWO visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the
course of the physician-patient relationship; or b. The physician SHALL CONDUCT comprehensive
maintained by other treating physicians that may include the patient's reaction and response to
conventional medical therapies. C. NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL IMLPLY THAT (T)he
physician assumes primary responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's
debilitating medical condition OR THE PATIENT'S USE OF MARIJUANA.
15. "Medical director" means A PERSON who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical
oversight at the dispensary.
I haven't gotten that far yet :)
Allow a patient who has seen his doctor for a year, who can prove a illness, who has xrays, etc., to
keep his doctor if the doctor can't recommend med marijuana, and have a med marijuana doctor who
will yearly make a recommendation based on these xrays and history.
No
SMOKE TREEZZ
"Strain" is undefined in the draft, and is a poor choice of word. While useful from a microbiological
standpoint, from a horticultural standpoint the connotation of strain is very different from that used in
other aspects of biology. Specifically, it implies large numbers of plants (such as a field of corn or other
grain) that has been selected through generations to produce a consistent product- a rarity in
marijuana horticulture. A strain is "a population of organisms that descends from a single organism or
pure culture isolate. Strains within a species may differ slightly from one another in many ways." (p.
392, Prescott et al., 1996) In effect, a plant strain should "breed true," which is simply not going to
happen with anything other than wild strains of cannabis. It is strongly recommended that the term be
changed to "cultivar," "grex," or "hybrid" as appropriate. Prescott, L.M., Harley, J.P., Klein, D.A.
(1996). Microbiology. Third Edition. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA.
nope
None at all.
If a patient has a HISTORY of one of the covered illnesses, than that patient may yearly see another
doctor for a marijuana recommendation and keep their primary doctor.
No.
Qualified patients can smoke medical marijuana in their homes "or on private property with the
consent, verbal or written, of the property owner", not in a public place. They will be able to consume
marijuana-infused edibles in public, but must ensure the safety of the edibles. This wording protects
the fundamental right of private property owners to give consent to and allow legal activities by
individuals on that property. For example, guests of the property owner that require medical marijuana
treatment and will be living with the property owner for an extended period of time.
The informal draft rules would require qualified patients to have an on-going relationship with a
physician (medical doctor, osteopath, naturopath, homeopath) who diagnoses the patient with certain
conditions. On-going means the physician has seen the patient at least 4 times in one year OR is
beginning a course of treatment and "is intending" to treat the patient. According to the informal draft
rules, the physician will need to initial the type of relationship they have with the patient and sign an
affidavit when recommending medical marijuana. Explanation: The word "will" should be changed to
"is intending" to eliminate the possibility of legal action against a physician if the patient chooses to
discontinue treatment by that physician without indemnification if future health problems occur.
Most of the language is pretty easy to understand,
Allow a patient to have a primary doctor and at the same time be able to see yearly a medical
marijuana doctor. But with the caveat, that the patient has a true history where it is needed.
R9-17-302 Section B #1 subsection f, iv through vii are NOT LEGAL!!!!!!! Those requirements are NOT
permissible(as this is personal info that in no way relates or effects this type of business and also is a
FEDERAL not STATE issue) or even pertinant. Perhaps we should also put other arbitrary requirements
in like being only born in certain months or only those who have never divorced. REMOVE these
subsections or you will face legal challenges from many fronts.
Not yet...
The suggestion that a "one year" relationship must exist is extreme.
none
It seems to me that the issues involving the infusion of marijuana into an edible food product should
be completely addressed within R9-17. It should also be more effective to require the infusion of,
storage and dispensing of an edible food infused with marijuana should be restricted to an operation
within the licensed dispensary.
ADHS needs to define Smoking In or Near a Dispensary as "inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any
lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, weed, plant, or other combustible substance in any manner or in any
form. This activity is prohibited in or near a dispensary." This could be included under Definitions (R9-
17-101). Smoking in or near a dispensary - Any proposed rule should defer to the Smoke Free
Arizona rules or local Smoke Free rules, if the local Smoke Free rules are more strict than Smoke Free
Arizona rules. There is no need to create another set of rules as the state and local Smoke Free rules
have been effective. This could be included under Dispensaries Administration (R9-17-307).
You could do a shorter amount of days for approvals. Over a year it could be for a dispensary
approval?? Come on, that is ridiculous. Instead of weighing waste, how about just tell when and
how the waste was discarded.
Dispensaries may only offer marijuana that is priced relative to labor required for its proper growth and
handling. Labor includes cost of water, soil, any fertilizer, costs involved in maintaining equipment
required to grow marijuana or fraction of total cost of equipment for the first six months after acquiring
said equipment, etc. Handling includes costs in transporting marijuana to patient, or transporting and
holding marijuana at dispensary. (I have no experience in legal writing, as you can tell, but something
to keep the cost of this medicine reasonable and not based on illegal black market prices would do
patients a tremendous service.)
Dispesary licenses could be held my any AZ resident with no felony records and at least 2 years
residence. There woiuld be no limit to number of dispensaries. The market would determine the
number through competitition. Patients could cultivate as long as it is in an enclosed, locked area and
could be inspected by the department of health.
A doctor can not be barred from making marijuana recommendation by a clinic or hospital. A patient
may have a primary doctor and a marijuana doctor at the same Yearly fees for a marijuana card are
$50 A dispensary can have a registered nurse, a pharmacist or a doctor on call.
...
There are many medical conditions that should qualify that are not debilitating. The word debilitating is
not the right word. Maybe qualifying would be better.
Page 28 f i-- I would like to see a Rule that requires Applicants to address the fact if they are applying
for multiple licenses for a dispensary. I would like there to be an opportunity for 120 DIFFERENT
applicants to get at least 1 (one). ii -- I do not understand what that means. iii -- same -- I don't
understand. ix -- of the Department (what department?) Is that the Health Department? There are
MANY different departments within the state. It address Law Enforcement. Shouldn't it address if
they are also employees of the State, County, or a City. I would like to see that. I have heard your
Department already has the licenses ready to go the Organization that bank rolled this Inititive.
How about this for an ongoing Dr. Patient relationship means: "A physician and a patient have a
treatment relationship in the course of which the physician has and can documentation demonstrating
that the physician has: 1) completed a full assessment of the patients medical history and current
medical condition including a complete physical examination; 2) consulted with the patient with
respect to the patients debilitating medical condition; and 3) commited to follow up care and treatment
to the patient including but not limited to patient examinations to determine the efficacy of the use of
medical marijuana as a treatment for the patients debilitating medical condition."
Improvement: There are no rules related to Veterans The exception for the rule can state if the
applicant is a Veteran with Honorable Discharge, has a disability rating with a history, and can show
medical documentation then the doctor patient physician relationship is waived.
Change the Patient Registration Fee to $25.
I suggest that the definitions R-17-101 16 b and R-9-17-202 F 5 e ii be revised to require the
recommending doctor to state that he/she has "assumed primary responsibility...." unless it is not
feasible for the recommending doctor to do so. If this is the case, the recommending doctor should
state on the form why it is not feasible for him/her to do so.
As long as a patient has the needed documentation of their illness, a patient can see their primary
doctor and still get a medical MJ recommendation yearly from a secondary physician. A dispensary
shall have either a pharmacist or a doctor available on call.
no
change smoking areas it needs to be more than just your home.
the smoking ares in the rules need changing. parks,campgrounds,lakes etc should be ok for patients to
smke their medicine. im going to be a patient and i like to fish and want the choice to take my
medicine out while im doing that. and hotels should be let in to. if i travel up north or to tucson or
wherever i go its medicine and it needs to be treated like it!
R9-17-102. 3. $1500 4.$1500 5.a. $75 5.b. $150 5.c.$100 6.a. $75 6.b.$150 6.c. $100 Please
start adding all this up and you should see a huge windfall! The dispensary licenses alone should
actually more than cover all the costs of implementing this(and that is without gouging people for the
full $5k for applying and being denied). I believe the AZDHS should see some extra funds that you can
use for other beneficial programs, but please remember these are going to mostly be legitimate
patients needing this medicine (and a lot of those on a fixed income) and they are going to have to pay
for this out of pocket. Please be reasonable. -Please see the other categories.
For instance: Use of medical marijuana is permitted in public areas designated as such. Each public
property such as a hotel or mall, any publically own property such as National or State parks must
designate an area X number of feet from the public throughways for the use of medical marijuana.
{such as the far corner of a parking lot as long as it is under cover}. I can certainly foresee a time
when a patient is in desperate need, yet forced to stay over night in a hotel/motel, who goes outside
around a corner to medicate and ends up getting harassed. This would surely be back in court and
possibly cost money for the State to re-investigate the humanitarian issues this brings up among
others.
At the very least, it would be helpful if a specifc level of marijuana metabolites in the body (e.g.
100ng/ml) were established as conclusive evidence of impairment or being under the influence,
accompanied by examples of the types of observed behavior might indicate impairment or being under
the influence. Such examples would be very helpful for use in training supervisors and employees.
A qualifying patient or the qualifying patient's designated caregiver may be approved by the
Department to cultivate medical marijuana if the qualifying patient lives more than 25 miles from the
nearest dispensary or is unable to access a local dispensary due to financial hardship or a disability.
B. A dispensary may transport marijuana in any form, marijuana plants, and marijuana paraphernalia
between the dispensary and: 1. The dispensary's cultivation site, 2. A qualifying patient, 3. Another
dispensary, and 4. A food establishment contracted with the dispensary to prepare edible food
products infused with medical marijuana. ---- How is this affected by towns or cities that have
'banned' deliveries to patients by dispensaries? Your rules here are clear and fair and are being
circumvented by some towns. Perhaps add, "in spite of your town's unlawful ordinance.'
You that are in charge of writing these proposals, please keep in mind for whom this bill was made
legal for! Not another dept to collects fees to be used for who knows what, and I'm sure you don't
know either. The people REALLY needing this medication are probably like me and strapped to the
bone with existing medical bills that are delenquent, not to mention having to house, and feed
themselves being a struggle in itself. It is ridiculous that correspondance has to be done
"electronically". How about the people in NEED that have NO access to a computer? Do we let them
fall by the weigh-side? It should be no more in cost than that of an AZ Drivers Licence or AZ
Identification card. Otherwise this is blatant exclusion of those entitled to this medication, just because
they are unable to afford a card or even apply for one via a computer! This has to be addressed firstly!
R9-17-201 #9 "severe or chronic pain" is medically subjective and difficult to measure. THis should
specify severe or chronic pain associated with recognized medical conditions. Other wise everything
can be lumped under "severe and chronic pain" and there would be no need to submit a request to
add a debilitating condition (R9-17-106)
smoking areas! open public places like parks,parking lots, campgrounds ,lakes ,etc should be permitted
to smoke as long as patient has a valid users card and not near other people and by schools and
churchs.
smoking areas! open public places like parks,parking lots, campgrounds ,lakes ,etc should be permitted
to smoke as long as patient has a valid users card and not near other people and by schools and
churchs.
If a physician is prevented from recommending medical marijuana, any other physician in good
standing, upon examining one years records of the patient, and having performed an exam on the
patient, may recommend medical marijuana in consultation with the patient's primary doctor.
Please clarify the 5th paragraph, 4th sentence in the FAQs. ADHS should allow qualified cultivation,
regardless of residence distance from a dispensary.
Not being a lawyer—no, I do not.
Change the language of ARS 36-2801 i. and ii. to allow someone with well over a year of
documentation from their current doctors and the department of Social Security to get the benefits of
medical marijuana. Just because my doctors feel that the benefits of medical marijuana would be great
does not mean that they are willing to give a recommendation due to the fear of DEA.
R9-17-102 Fees 5.a. Qualifying patient; $35
Seems like if the dispenceries have to supply 70% of there own product that it takes more jobs from
the unemployed, the dispenceries should dispence, a cultivation and infusion, you get 3 times the
application fees, more jobs, have the despenceries just work with the clients and not worry with the
growing and infusion aspects, Growing certificate for the growers and all they are allowed to do is
grow for the clubs and the an infusions certificate for the people making the baked goods or the
infused items
1. R9-17-202 (F) 1 e This reads: "The name, address and telephone number of the physician
recommending medical marijuana for the qualifying patient." The words "recommending medical
marijuana for the qualifying patient" should be deleted and substitute therefore: " providing the
written certification that in the physicians professional opinion, the qualifying patient may receive
therapeutic or palliative benefit from medical marijuana." The Act uses the "written certification"
language not "recommendation". Reason: Under the Model City Tax Code a drug prescribed or
recommended by a physician makes it exempt from sales tax. Using the written certification of an
opinion may allow sales tax to be applied to these sales. See, R9-17-304(A) in the same regard. 2.
R9-17-302 (B) 6 This subsection has the Applicant certifying that the Dispensary is in compliance
with local zoning restrictions. This is from the Medical Marijuana Act. We think that you should add
"and as verified in writing by the local jurisdiction." 3. R9-17-302 (B) 5 This subsection has as part
of the initial Application process a certificate of occupancy issued by the local jurisdiction authorizing
occupancy for a medical marijuana dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site.
This doesn't happen that way. A certificate of occupancy is the last stage in local building and zoning
approval. It is usually issued when everything is done, all the punch lists are fulfilled and the business
is ready to open. Cities won't be able to issue a C of O for a Dispensary unless and until all of the
requirements, both state and local are met. Cities can't issue a C of O for a Dispensary until all of your
requirements are met and all of the city's are met. Cities probably won't issue the C of O until ADHS
approves it for a Dispensary or cultivation site. I would suggest that you provide instead, somewhere,
that prior to opening or growing, a C of O from the local jurisdiction must be filed with ADHS. This
way, the cart is not before the horse, and local jurisdictions can help ADHS enforce it's requirements.
The C of O should be filed after the ADHS inspection but prior to opening. That way, all of ADHS and
Local requirements can be enforced. The C of O should be the final enforcement tool.
I will have to reread with all these questions in mind
one doctor who reccomends , within a two week period. should be enough for a card
see below
Remove all language relating to the length of this relationship and allow and trust that doctors will do
the right thing.
Less is more
So anybody that applies for a lisence pays 5000 understandable. If you get flooded by applications and
the 124 get dispersed to the best applicants , are you just going to keep the excess funds from the
other applicants even if they meet all the requirements. Does everyone have a equal shot? Is a neutral
third party going to choose. I hope that there are not going to be a bunch of pop-up fees not listed.
DUMP THE 25 MILE IDEA. THIS IS FINANCIALLY A CRUEL THING TO DO TO PEOPLE WHO COULD
OTHER WISE DO FOR THEM SELFS.
No
I want the language to reflect that doctors who are willing to help patients who have major chronic
pain will not be penalized. I want my pain doc to be protected so that he can treat me in a less
medically harmful manner.
Change the following: e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a
physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for the qualifying patient's
debilitating medical condition to: that the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient for the
qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition and this assessment must be conducted annually in
conjunction with application renewals. Note: the requirement that the individual be seen 4 times and
existed at least one year is totally unfaitr and serves as a punishment. At a minimum, waive this
requirement for the new start and grandfather this in for the first 2 years.
Section R9- notes that the Medical Director at the dispensary is responsible for collecting and
disseminating addiction and treatment information. This is GREAT. I did not see, however, any rule
on HOW that is to be done. Perhaps R9-17-307, 1e can be expanded to include provision of
information in every dispensary lobby or common area, clearly displayed and updated regularly, on '
the risks of addiction to MJ' and 'local and national treatment resources', and all of the other info the
Medical Director has to provide.
i propose 2 visits to the same docotor over a month period and only one docotor to reccomend.
All persons holding a medical marijuana permit will be allowed to grow 12 plants in the privacy of thier
own home without discrimination from the state.
patients 8. make it easier for caretakers to help take care of their patients with fewer hurdles and
less costs.
smoking areas need changing. marijuana is a medicine and should be treated like one. it should be
permitted in the same designated smoking areas! camoing fishing parks etc.
I would add under Sec.3 36-2801 Chapter 18-C 28.1 Definitions that the Dept.of Health and Human
Services cannot deny licensing to an individual whose doctor has followed all the procedures and
requirements herein and signed a recommendation. Otherwise, the Board at HHS has the power of
God. Well, he isn't feeling ENOUGH pain or we don't give out cards for that condition, even though it
may be obviously debilitating to the applicant. In addition, cannabis is a home remedy for conditions
like arthyritis, especially in minority cultures. Are we going to deny grandpartents the relief from
aches and pains given by cannabis? Would you rather they take meds with bad side effects instead of
taking a few puffs before bed? That's just plain wrong. Also, how often can one apply for a card? I
thought I read somewhere it was once. I hope I'm wrong. Thank you.
Yes, Medical Marijuana should be used for less major problems. It's a good treatment for PMS cramps,
upset stomach, depression, trouble sleeping, anxiety, pain, headaches.
This is not a program for Recreational use, but for medical use.
stick to the language found within the law itself. Stop trying to expand upon it, stop trying to make it
more difficult to get access for those truly in need and try some compassion. It's missing in your rules.
R9-17-101. Definitions 18. "Public place:" a. Means any location, facility, or venue that is not
intended for the regular exclusive use of an individual or a specific group of individuals; b. Includes
airports; banks; bars; child care facilities; child care group homes during hours of operation. . .
Suggest ammending to: b. Includes airports; banks; bars; child care facilities; STATE CERTIFIED child
care homes during hours of operation. . . or, alternatively b. Includes airports; banks; bars; child care
PROVIDERS AS DEFINED BY ARS 46-801 during hours of operation. . .
English
Take out the part about four visits in one year and it will be fine.
Physicians who are on ADHS Board Of Medical Marijuana Positions are all voluntary with the exception
of one commoner Who has to have clinical experience.
Maybe a thirty or sixty day waite while the doctor goes over your medical file. Maybe you have to be
under tretment for a condition for one year from any Doctor and have the records to prove it.
none.
If a patient falls under a category of a diagnosis which enables him to qualify for medical marijuana ,
and his primary care physician or specialist refuses to write, then he may follow up with a prescribing
physician who will obtain the records for verification. A patient that falls under the accepted diagnosis
for medicine should qualify immediately if verified by records of past medical history by treating
physicians. Applicants for dispensaries can elect a qualified outside grower that can show credentials
to do a grow. The grower they choose will need a complete overview of their history in past grows
including pictures and locations in the application.
changes need to be made to smoking areas! parks,parking lots. should be able to smoke in designated
smoking areas.
smoking areas.
smoking areas.
smoking areas.
smoking areas.
smoking areas.
smoking areas.
i want to be able to take my medicine if im camping or fishing or even take my kids to a sporting
event! as long as im carrying a marijuana card i should do in non closed spaces. this needs to be
improved.
improved.
improved.
improved.
improved.
improved.
improved.
improved.
ya englis and no that comes out of Mr Humble mouth quit pouting it passed efor the 3rd time
do your job and give us dying patients medicine that im wont get addicted to. Your so focused on not
letting someone get a card that doesn't deserve it when technically it can be used to prevent cancer
and treat everyday migraines and if they dont get a card they will get it from someone else on the
black market you cant win you lost get over it your such a pussy. You better go get a colostomy you
may have cancer now and the very things your fighting against will come back and bite you in the ass,
quit looking for ways to keep it from us and set the program up fairly. U know PCP are not going to
support it so you are already counting on that like i will show you guys attitude. you look foolish
lightning up its obvious you never smoked before its obvious 5you have no idea of everyday benefits
why dont you study what your trying to rescrict there is a butterfly affect the more poeple with cards
the better the black market is so you are a controlled and less crimes and less cartel movement, i have
a masters degree so im not just a stoner i know what im talking about and my degree is body
language and Psychology and you are easy to rid you were probably crying the night it passed, do
research and quit judging people. good luck because you keep that creiteria you are noy going to be
popular in this state i dont know if you office is by elected official but if it is you better made the right
decisions or i dont see you doing well in any election if you make it harder and harder to get
medication that doesnt compare to a percocet its like the gov wants the public to be sick so the health
care and pharmaceutical industry stay afloat good luck Mr Humble
california has abig enough mess keep them from comming here. keep this for long term arizona
residents
This is supposed to be for Arizonans. All liscences, should be for people living in arizona through the
good and bad times. Make it a 5 year residence requirement for all applicants. All donations go to
arizona charities. No out of state investors, companies, or agents, or caregivers. Must have lived in
the state for 5 year. Proirity to people born in Arizona If this is for Arizonans lets make sure that Az
gets all of the bennfits, jobs, investment opportunities and give Arizonans the bettter quality of life.
Maybe 10 years. I am a non marijuana user and pray to god that I dont ever need it.
None other than mentioned above.
Title 19, Chapter 17: R9-17-101: 15: "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine WHO HOLDS AN
MD DEGREE AND who holds a valid and existing license to practice ALLOPATHIC medicine pursuant to
A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor, or a doctor of osteopathic medicine WHO HOLDS A DO
DEGREE AND who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S.
Title 32, Chapter 17 or its successor, OR A DOCTOR OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE WHO HOLDS AN
MD OR DO DEGREE AND WHO HOLDS A VALID AND EXISTING LICENSE TO PRACTICE HOMEOPATHIC
MEDICINE PURSUANT TO A.R.S. TITLE 32, CHAPTER 29 OR ITS SUCCESSOR, and who has been
designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the dispensary. (INCORPORATED
LANGUAGE SHOWN IN CAP LETTERS)
the way the initiatve was written says it all!
the language regarding definition of medical director. If the dispensary is not staffed with a registered
pharmacist to oversee the medical director functions then it requires a medical director, but if there is a
pharmacist as part of the dispensary this is better than medical director afterall this is medicine being
dispensed, there are already doctors involved in the prescription recommendation
I have not read all the language so I really cannot comment. Shame on me.
A sliding scale will be used for determining fees for medical marijuana patients who have incomes less
than $10000. No Dr. is required for dispensary operators, but a clinic without a dr. can be fined if the
state tests the medical MJ and it does not comply with state standards.
There shall be a price cap of fifty dollars an ounce including any tax, labor or other charge in place for
each dispensery. insert the laguage after raising the 250 pound per year limit to 2000.
Recommending doctors who can veryify thruough a patients medicsal records or through previous
doctors at least a year of substatiated complications from a listed condition., they can make the
recommendation.
Patients with incurable disease or syndromes in accordance with the IDC-9-CM diagnostic codes shall
be exempt from the growing regulations as to distance from a dispensary. Number of plants and usage
shall remain as drafted in consideration of distance regulations. This language and language similar
should be in place where implied patients protective rights or are listed through out the draft. A use of
these codes could also be in place to expedite or release patients from certain residency requirements.
written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department. ONCE A LICENSE HAS
BEEN ISSUED THE APPLICANT HAS UP TO 240 DAYS WHICH TO COMPLETE THE SITE BUILDOUT AND
BE READY FOR INSPECTION. A DISPENSARY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTILL THIS
TIME, OR LICENSE COULD BE REVOKED OMIT THE PART ABOUT A REGISTERED PHARMACIST AND
MEDICAL DIRECTOR BEING PART OF OUR STAFF, THEY CAN BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS BUT IF
THEY ARE AT WORK AND WITH PATIENTS, WE CAN NOT INFRINGE ON THEIR PATIENTS. THE
DOCTORS THAT ARE RECOMMENDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO THEIR PATIENTS WOULD BE THE
ONE WHO NEEDS TO BE CALLED IN THE EVENT A PATIENT HAS QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS, AS THEY
ARE THE ONE WHO KNOWS THEIR PATIENT. THE LIABILITY WOULD THEREFORE BE ON THEM AND
NOT THE DISPENSARY.
people voted on Prop 203 the way it was written. Not to have it so restricted that some, or most
people wont be able to benefit from the law, which goes against the whole intent of the law. I thought
the first thing about required allotted days was interesting, that they had turned the time limits for
them to approve applications, and certifications into working days from just days. I’m sorry but the
statue says days, and not working, or business days. I’m sorry, but the ADHS does not get to rewrite,
and nit pick something that they may not agree with. You must take the law the way it’s written. Days
and not working/business days! The main issue I have with their proposed rules is the restricting
access to the law by trying to define what a patient- doctor relationship is. This part conflicts with Prop
203, as far as any doctor who is licensed to practice medicine MD, DO has the right to recommend
MMJ. And the law doesn’t say anything about having a relationship with your doctor for at least a year,
and have had 4 visits. That same requirement doesn’t apply to any other health standard in the
country. Or any that I could find by looking up requirements for prescriptions/recommendations. Again,
Mr. Humble and staff are taking a huge liberty in defining what they think should apply to Prop 203,
especially when it doesn’t apply to all other aspects of health care. Also, the part that the MMJ doctor
has to become the primary care doctor for the qualifying condition. Most people’s doctors won’t be so
willing to put their names, and required by rules their license number on a patients application. And
who not agree with the new law. So your telling me that I can’t get relief from something that could
help for at least a year? Talk about pain and suffering. The ADHS motto is: Leadership for a Healthy
Arizona. Again not all doctors are qualified specialists who have completed some required fellowship
training to take on ALL aspects of healthcare. As required by law in Chapter 17 Tile 32-1800 Sec 21. I
did find the section on the video cameras amusing, and the location of the hand washing stations. I
was thinking… isn’t that planning and zoning and who ever deals with building permits. And one issue I
couldn’t understand was the part that says if you’re applying for a caregiver card, dispensary agent,
and on behalf a child who is under 18 that they have to signed statement that says they do not
currently hold a valid registry identification card, so these people can’t be patients as well??? This is
just a way for the ADHS to take a more intrusive step into our states MMJ law. I’ve also seen a few
statements from some people, and organizations saying that the ADHS did a good job. And that really
completely blows my mind. Did they really read all 47 pages of the ADHS proposed rules? They have
taken a law that was just over 30 pages and turned a set of proposed rules into 47 pages of things
they want. In a state that has a billion dollar deficit, does the health department really think they
should help waste more taxpayer money the state doesn’t have? I can already see claims being filed
against the ADHS on all aspects of departments proposed rules
Smoked cannabis is not the best option for treatment but once they get the cannabis no one can
control how they use it. Pipes and joints should remain an illegal way to use the cannabis while water
pipes, edibles and vaporizers should be legal so that we can reduce the health consequences on the
body and society. Harm reduction is the best way to incorporate this law because it's been shown to
work in other places around the world.
N/A
I am not versed enough in the legal language to help with that.
nonrefundable fees: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $5,000; --- R9-17-102. Fees An applicant
submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following 'Certified Letter of Funds' to
meet applicable fees upon approval: 1. For registration of a dispensary, $(Final Amount Approved); --
- -------| R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit
the following nonrefundable fees: 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient;
$150; b. Designated caregiver, $200; and --- R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an
application to the Department shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: 5. For a registry
identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $(reduced amount here); b. Designated caregiver,
$(reduced amount here); and --- -------| R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an application
to the Department shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: 6. For renewing a registry
identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; b. Designated caregiver, $200; and --- R9-17-
102. Fees An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit the following
nonrefundable fees: 6. For renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient,
$(reduced amount here); b. Designated caregiver, $(reduced amount here); and ---
I find R9-17-202. F, 5, e, i, stating that the prescribing physician must provide written certification of,
“…a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the
medical condition during the course of the professional relationship,” highly problematic. I would
propose that this be changed (here and elsewhere) to, " “…a professional relationship with the
qualifying patient must be documented to exist and the physician must have seen or assessed the
qualifying patient on at least one visit for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course
of the professional relationship." My rationale for this change is that the requirement for a year of
patient care and four visits fails to account for any number of plausible, legitimate medical scenarios.
As just one example, suppose a previously healthy 40-year-old woman with no recent physician visits is
diagnosed with a stage 4 extensively metastatic breast cancer. She is evaluated by an oncologist who
prescribes a course of intensive chemotherapy resulting in severe nausea and vomiting. Furthermore,
the cancer itself begins causing extreme pain. The patient may have had only a single visit with said
oncologist and the course of events from diagnosis to treatment is likely to have been only a few days
or weeks. Under the proposed regulation the oncologist would be prohibited from prescribing cannabis
for this patient, who would, in fact, be exactly the type of patient most likely to benefit. Under the
current draft regulations, by the time this patient becomes eligible for relief of her suffering by medical
marijuana she will most likely be dead.
N/a
I feel that it would not be good for someone to be able to get a recommendation from a doctor after
seeing him only once for a physical and then getting a medical marijuana ID card. Then go next door
to the dispensary and pick up some marijuana, this would be an open door for abuse.
the pricing and fees need to be changed! and places that the medicine can be smoked. it has parks but
a lot of people fish hike whatsoever and i dont see any harm in smoking it at a park or parking lot. as
long as im not operating the vehicle or up fishing at the lake or up in the river i understand churches
schools etc. but its not radioactive that part needs to be improved!
None
No dr. on call is required
SEE ABOVE
R9-17-102 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $25; b. Designated
caregiver, $25; and c. Dispensary agent, $25; 6. For renewing a registry identification card for a a.
Qualifying patient, $10; b. Designated caregiver, $10; and c. Dispensary agent, $10; 7. For
amending or changing a registry identification card, $10; and 8. For requesting a replacement registry
identification card, $10.
POT IS A SEQUENCE 1 DRUG IF THE DEA CATCHES YOU , YOU WILL GO TO FEDERAL COURT , IF
FOUND GUITY SENT TO FEDERAL PRISON
Inspections should be at anytime open, with out notice as in restaurants.
Yes, change to language to "provider-patient" rather than "physician-patient". Physicians aren't the
only ones diagnosing and treating patients' medical problems. Nurse Practitioners need to be included
or you will be doing a disservice to the many patients who do not see a physican for their medical
needs. As is known, there is a shortage of physicans, especially primary care physicians. Nurse
Practitioners have been, and continue to, fill the gap in the need for patient care providers. We are
trained and certified to treat all medical problems. We can prescribe controlled substances including
opiates, stimulants, and benzodiazepines. If we can correctly ascertain which conditions qualify for
these controlled substances, then it stands to reason that we can identify the medical conditions that
qualify for the use of medical marijuana (especially since they are clearly outlines in the rules).
I have a general question. I want to open a dispensary but I dont have any clue on how to start. You
have put that a dispensary is a non-profit dispensary. Please let me know more in detail. Is there a
difference in between having a dispensary to grow the plant and have a separate one to sell it and
also a dispensary agent to sell it. I am confuse when it comes to that.
Refer to text in (BOLD): R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B. To register
and obtain a certificate for a dispensary, a person shall submit to the Department the following: 1. An
application in a Department-provided format that includes: --- b. The physical address of the
dispensary; (BOLD) --- Language improved to: --- b. The mailing address of the dispensary
applicant; upon acceptance of receiving Dispensary Registration Certificate ID #; The physical address
of the dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site to be submitted within 120 days;
(BOLD) ---
A cultivation site business entity will be allowed to grow and provide medical grade marijuana to legal
dispensary owners. In accordance with state, county, city laws, rules and zoning ordinances. And
of course use all the awesome writing you have already done, ie; site plan requirements, bookeeeping,
security etc.
R9-17-313 subsection 3 a. The strain of marijuana seed or clone planted, growing method or medium
used, and date planted. remove the watering schedule R9-17-302 subsection B. 15. a. this
item should be removed completely
allow home delivery
Most of my above suggestions could be addressed in the "definitions" portion of the guidelines.
15. "Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice
medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine
who holds a valid and existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32,
Chapter 17 or its successor or a a doctor of naturopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing
license to practice naturopahtic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor and
who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the dispensary
R9-17-303 A dispensary may not transfer or assign the dispensary registration and certificate, except
in the case of permanent disability or death of a principal. In the case of permanent disability or death
of a principal, the deparment must be notified within ten (10) days of such occurence. The proposed
transferree or assignee would be required to submit an application and to qualify for a license pursuant
to these rules no later than thirty (30) days after the initial notification. NOT QUITE SURE WHAT
LIMITATIONS YOU'D WANT TO PUT ON THE TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT, HOWEVER CLEARLY AN
APPLICANT'S FAMILY SHOULD NOT BE AT RISK TO LOSE THEIR ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD IN THE EVENT
OF THE DEATH OF THE APPLICANT. LIKEWISE, THE STATE SHOULDN'T RUN THE RISK OF A
BUSINESS JUST SHUTTING DOWN BECAUSE THE APPLICANT CAN'T TRANSFER HIS HER/BUSINESS.
Fees Qualifying patient, $50; For renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient,
$50
See 3. above
Eliminate requirement of seeing your doctor 4 times the PREVIOUS year.

combine and simplify language for patient and caregiver especially if caregiver is a family member. id
information could be combined. simplify te denial part can't remember what else too complicated.
When a doctor is prohibited from making a medical marijuana recommendation, a 2nd doctor may
review all charts, doctors notes (as long as the patient has established a year's visits with the first
doctor) and make a medical marijuana recommendation without being the patient's primary physician.
Also home delivery of medical marijuana is allowable and may not be restricted by local communities.
no
Reduce all this clutter!
I like the way you separated must see a physician for 1 year and four times. If you would have said 4
times in a year, they could have went to a doctor 4 times in a week and it still would have counted.
Please address what type of Physician Statement/Recommedation format will the AZDHS deem
appropriate regarding Section R9-17-202? There are several organizations that utilize different
variations of Physician Statements and Recommmendations i.e. Electronic Verification of
Recommendation, etc. Some are signed, dated and deemed valid for up to 12 months. Will these be
acceptable? R9-17-202. Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a
Designated Caregiver 5. A physician's written certification in a Department-provided format dated
within 90 calendar days before the submission of the qualifying patient's application that includes: a.
The physician's: i. Name, ii. License number including an identification of the physician license type,
iii. Office address on file with the physician's licensing board, iv. Telephone number on file with the
physician's licensing board, and v. E-mail address; b. The qualifying patient's name and date of birth;
DRAFT 12/17/10 14 12/17/10 c. A statement that the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical
condition as defined in A.R.S. § 36-2801; d. An identification of one or more of the debilitating medical
conditions in R9-17-201 as the qualifying patient's specific debilitating medical condition; e. A
of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for providing management
and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive
maintained by other treating physicians, that may include the patient's reaction and response to
conventional medical therapies; f. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician reviewed
all prescription and non-prescription medications and supplements that the qualifying patient is
currently using for consideration of any potential drug interaction with medical marijuana; g. A
statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician has explained the potential risks and benefits
of the medical use of marijuana to the qualifying patient; h. A statement, initialed by the physician,
that the physician plans to continue to assess the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's use of
medical marijuana during the course of the physician-patient relationship; i. A statement that, in the
physician's professional opinion, the qualifying patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative
benefit from the qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the qualifying
patient's debilitating medical condition; j. An attestation that the information provided in the written
certification is true and correct; and k. The physician's signature and date the physician signed;
I no you are trying to get this right the first time and you have a lot to deal with but please think this
out.
None at this point, however if the above suggestion is something we can pursue, feel free to contact
me at and I would be glad to draft the changes for
submission.
it appears to me that the description you have in place for a medical director is the very definition of a
pharmacist. Therefore, by definition , the medical director should include a Registered Pharmacist.
everything is good
36-2801 Definitions (Revised) 36-2801-5(d) ASSISTS NO MORE THAN FIVE QUALIFYING PATIENTS
WITH THE CULTIVATION AND OR MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA. (Revised) 36-2801.05(e) MAY
RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR COSTS RELATED TO CULTIVATING MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR
ASSISTING A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA IF THE
REGISTERED DESIGNATED CAREGIVER IS CONNECTED TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S REGISTRATION PROCESS. PAYMENT FOR COSTS UNDER THIS
SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE UNDER TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34 OR UNDER TITLE
36, CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE 4. (Add) 36-2801.05(f) MAY CULTIVATE NO MORE THAN TWELVE
PLANTS PER QUALIFYING PATIENT ASSIGNED TO THE DESIGNATED CAREGIVER. (Add) 36-
2801.05(g) MAY BE INSPECTED BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT NOT MORE THAN ONCE EVERY 180
DAYS IF CULTIVATING MARIJUANA FOR QUALIFYING PATIENTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE GUIDELINES FOR THE CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA 36-2803. Rulemaking
(Revised) 36-2803.04 GOVERNING NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND
DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING AGAINST DIVERSION AND THEFT
WITHOUT IMPOSING AN UNDUE BURDEN ON DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS OR NONPROFIT MEDICAL
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES OR COMPROMISING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF CARDHOLDERS,
INCLUDING: (a) THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT SHALL CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR
AND RENEWALS OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES. (b) MINIMUM OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR
NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS. (c) MINIMUM
RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND. 36-
2804.02 Registration of qualifying patients and designated caregivers REVISE 36-2804.02(c) NAME,
ADDRESS AND DATE OF BIRTH OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER AND
ADDRESS OF WHERE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA PLANTS OCCURS, IF ANY, REVISE 36-2804.02(f)
A DESIGNATION AS TO WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO CULTIVATE MARIJUANA PLANTS FOR THE
QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL USE IF A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARY IS NOT OPERATING WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S
HOME OR IF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT HAS APPOINTED A DESIGNATED CAREGIVER TO CULTIVATE
MARIJUANA PLANTS ON THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S BEHALF.
No dispensary should be located where it is not accessible to the citizens that are in need of Medical
Marijuana. The Med Cards needed for persons qualified should be issued for $5.00 per card and
should have a renewal fee of $5.00 per year.
Maybe simplify some of the patient cultivation rules into lamins terms.
No dispensary will located where it is no accessible to the citizens that are in need of Medical
Marijuana. The Med Cards needed for persons qualified will be issued at $5.00 per card and will have
a renewal fee of $5.00 per year.
A dispensary that elects to cultivate its own marijuana pursuant to the rules: 1. Must also maintain
a retail location for sales to qualifying patients and designated caregivers. 2. Shall only provide
qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this
Chapter to acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient or a designated caregiver;
I believe that there should be language that says that an application will be tentatively approved based
on a time frame to acquire a bonifde location for their dispensary. Maybe applicants should be
required to get a tentative lease agreement based on a successful application. There could be other
language to make sure the potential site meets all other regulations etc.
I believe there was an error in the draft. R9-17-107 C. pg 8. on C. 2. it says "within 60 working
days..." then on 3. line 3 it changes to "60 calendar days..." I may be misreading this but it appears
to be an error.
You should not call it medical marijana. It is marijana for people with medical problems.
withdraw all the legalese and begin implementing the act which was simple in it's format yet extensive
enough in its coverage.
We are my requesting these suggestions get inserted into ADHS RULEMAKING. But if they are unable
(or unwilling) to implement these ideas, we will probably be seeking a Legislative Remedy. This first
issue actually requires an AMENDMENT TO EXISTING LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. So,I will ask my
Legislators if they can draft a bill that will require AZ's CSPMP (CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
PHARMACY MONITORING PROGRAM) to ADD a notation for all patients who have been approved
for Medical MARIJUANA cards onto the CSPMP website. As a physician, representing other Pain
Management doctors in ASAM (AZ Society of Addiction Medicine), we feel this is crucial, esp in dealing
with our Chronic Pain patients WHO ARE ON NARCOTICS Contracts. Our goal is to REDUCE CRIMINAL
DIVERSION of pain pills, and I have spoken with DEA office who seems supportive of this concept
(if a Bill was ever submitted, I believe they would endorse it). I know ADHS shares our goal, and I
hope they would support this idea. If we don't feel we can have a voice in this process, then we in
ASAM will see if we can draft a Legislative bill instead. This is vital since it's possible that ADHS will
NOT implement either of these ideas, and once Jan 17th passes, I will have no chance of getting a
bill on the table. I also intend to speak to ADHS about a SECOND issue to mandate drug testing for
all CAREGIVERS who are picking up Medical MJ for their patients. I've already run into a situation
where a caregiver/pot addict was usurping all of this terminally-ill patient's cannabis for herself. My
patient has stage 4 colon CA and weighs under 90lbs. This patient desperately needs the Cannabis
for appetite stimulation and pain control, and this "caregiver" has NOT been giving her this supply.
We have to tighten the regulations for caregivers to ensure they do a UDS every month if they are
picking up Cannabis for patients. Since cannabis stays in the urine for 30 days, a mandatory UDS
every month should be sufficient to ensure they are clean. In fact, I think they should be clean
from all Drugs of Abuse--because otherwise they may choose to steal the patient's Cannabis and
then go buy other street drugs instead. This is very serious issue and I feel the DEA will want to
weigh-in on this matter. This patient agrees to come to an ADHS or Legislative hearing if they need
her to speak about her own situation. We will WAIT to call LEGISLATURE in hopes that ADHS will be
able to resolve this adequately before their April deadline. However, If we don't see any progress by
Jan 10th, we will pursue Legislative options, since last day to submit bills is Jan 17th, 2011. We will
let the bills sit in the drawer, and If ADHS is unable to address these issues by the end of April, only
then will we ask the Legislature to push the bills forward.
I see an area that will impact me. Under R9-17-202, Section F, 5, e, i, a doctor who can approve this
use for me must have already known me and treated me for at least a year. I am a disabled Veteran,
and with VA Healthcare, one never knows who their primary doctor might be. We are assigned
"teams". I doubt a Federally-employed physician would commit to such or even be allowed to prescribe
cannibas. I have already given a release of my VA medical records to a third party processing service,
namely AZMMCC, who feels they are in a position to employ physicians to review the VA health
records, and then satisfy the conditions of the Statute and Rules. As I read the rules, I could not
participate until 2012. Am I misreading something?
I think it would be beneficial to add some language regarding these cultivation requirements and taking
some more time to analyze the future effects of the growing percentages. Also, it seemed a little
unclear if the cultivation center and the dispensary are allowed to be in the same location. I would add
some language clarifying this issue as well.
We are my requesting these suggestions get inserted into ADHS RULEMAKING. But if they are unable
(or unwilling) to implement these ideas, we will probably be seeking a Legislative Remedy. This first
issue actually requires an AMENDMENT TO EXISTING LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. So,I will ask my
Legislators if they can draft a bill that will require AZ's CSPMP (CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
PHARMACY MONITORING PROGRAM) to ADD a notation for all patients who have been approved
for Medical MARIJUANA cards onto the CSPMP website. As a physician, representing other Pain
Management doctors in ASAM (AZ Society of Addiction Medicine), we feel this is crucial, esp in dealing
with our Chronic Pain patients WHO ARE ON NARCOTICS Contracts. Our goal is to REDUCE CRIMINAL
DIVERSION of pain pills, and I have spoken with DEA office who seems supportive of this concept
(if a Bill was ever submitted, I believe they would endorse it). I know ADHS shares our goal, and I
hope they would support this idea. If we don't feel we can have a voice in this process, then we in
ASAM will see if we can draft a Legislative bill instead. This is vital since it's possible that ADHS will
NOT implement either of these ideas, and once Jan 17th passes, I will have no chance of getting a
bill on the table. I also intend to speak to ADHS about a SECOND issue to mandate drug testing for
all CAREGIVERS who are picking up Medical MJ for their patients. I've already run into a situation
where a caregiver/pot addict was usurping all of this terminally-ill patient's cannabis for herself. My
patient has stage 4 colon CA and weighs under 90lbs. This patient desperately needs the Cannabis
for appetite stimulation and pain control, and this "caregiver" has NOT been giving her this supply.
We have to tighten the regulations for caregivers to ensure they do a UDS every month if they are
picking up Cannabis for patients. Since cannabis stays in the urine for 30 days, a mandatory UDS
every month should be sufficient to ensure they are clean. In fact, I think they should be clean
from all Drugs of Abuse--because otherwise they may choose to steal the patient's Cannabis and
then go buy other street drugs instead. This is very serious issue and I feel the DEA will want to
weigh-in on this matter. This patient agrees to come to an ADHS or Legislative hearing if they need
her to speak about her own situation. We will WAIT to call LEGISLATURE in hopes that ADHS will be
able to resolve this adequately before their April deadline. However, If we don't see any progress by
Jan 10th, we will pursue Legislative options, since last day to submit bills is Jan 17th, 2011. We will
let the bills sit in the drawer, and If ADHS is unable to address these issues by the end of April, only
then will we ask the Legislature to push the bills forward.
None that I can think of at the moment.
As above. In the sections which relate to the Physicians long term relationship with the patient and the
requirement for continued treatment thereafter. I am on full disability with both Social Security and
the Veterans Administration and the VA supplies all my medical treatment. I was advised by them
that as a Federal Agency they will not issue letters contrary to Federal Laws. The only way for me to
It' great draft but where the patient must see a doctor 4 times a year can be tuff on some patients
with fixed incomes costing Medicare & Medicade how about amending it too read 4 times a year or
proof from a doctor of medical condition
Add: Will Humble is God.
Yes, State licensed Pharmacists at Pharmacies only.
It should take into account that the 25 mile restriction on growing around a dispensary will be found to
violate equal protection laws and will be repealed from the act, so the draft rules should be able to
accommodate this inevitability. I saw no section about growing permits.
$50.00 registration fee. Renewal $10.00. Caregiver Fee $60.00 Renewal $10.00
Non excluded felonies should be no felonies. If you are convicted of any crime, including
misdemeanor crimes I think that goes to character and you should be excluded. Wording similar
to this: "Any conviction of a felony charge or any conviction of a misdemeanor or traffic violation with
in the past 5 years." We want to keep everyone, willing to violate ANY law, out this business.
NO!
Call it Cannabis instead of marijuana.
and says that because he is a federal employee he can't write the prescription even though it is legal
on the state level. Will I have to pay a private doctor to look at my medical file and write the
prescription or, even worse, will I be unable to go to another doctor's recommendation because they're
not my normal doctor? Will I be penalized for a conflict of interest?
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY SHALL NOT BE OPERATED OR MAINTAINED ON A PARCEL

WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET FROM A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, MEASURED BY A
STRAIGHT LINE IN ALL DIRECTIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO INTERVENING STRUCTURES OR
OBJECTS, FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF A PARCEL CONTAINING SUCH
USE. A PATIENT/CAREGIVER RESIDENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATING, SHALL BE
LOCATED 25 MILES OR GREATER, MEASURED BY A STRAIGHT LINE IN ALL DIRECTIONS, WITHOUT
REGARD TO INTERVENING STRUCTURES OR OBJECTS, FROM THE NEAREST POINT OF THE
PROPERTY LINE OF A PARCEL CONTAINING A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY.
Whereas a patient's primary physician is prevented from making a medical marijuana recommendation
by the clinic or hospital that the physician is a member of, the patient can choose a secondary doctor
to receive a medical marijuana recommendation, provided that the patients charts and notes are
available to the 2nd physician, and provided the patient has a relationship with their primary doctor
and the illness meets the guidelines set ny the ADHS..
See above
I would be happy to spend time and energy drafting language for these ideas and am particularly
interested in starting a non-profit research company to study both the potential health benefits and
risks of this complex drug. Please feel free to email me at if you'd like
me to donate my efforts drafting language towards either research center licensing or infused products
licensing.
Hospitals and health care clinics can not prohibit physicians from making medical marijuana
recommendations.
Same as above.
Some medical marijuana patients will not be able to travel to get their prescription. Do not let cities
zone to prevent deliveries. A patient's caregiver should not have to be put in the position of buying
marijuana for their patients since it is a crime in the eyes of the US Government. As a caregiver I do
not want to do an illegal activity. I don't want to get a marijuana card for myself.But, I don't want to
deny my patient marijuana. I want my patient to get a marijuana card and some delivery person or
dispensary operator deliver the medical marijuana to my patient.
I request the opportunity to think for about this and respond later.
Are you trying to derail the new marijuana law. Why would you write something so vague as that the
clinics are required to grow 70% of what they sell. Idiotic. Growers coop makes sense.
Revoke Patients right to Marijuana: 1. For driving under the influence. 2. Committing and found
guilty of violating laws that protect the public from those while under the influence. 3. Cannot claim
innocence for being under the influence. 4. For finding having caused an automobile accident, hitting a
pedestrian, hitting a motorcyclist, hitting a cyclist, and hitting a fixed object while under the influence.
5. For injuring or killing those mentioned in number 4. 6. Cannot be licensed to carry any weapons
whether concealed or not.
No.
See above.
How is a dispensay to get their 1st clones/plants/crop/MM? (someone has to be 1st?) in order to buy
local who provides the 1st Medical Marijuana without going across state lines? Offsite can grow how
much quanity? Any Maximum?
See above. But as usual you will use the legal industry which, in it's normal selfserving mode , will
create a rash of rules that no one will comprehend and everyone will pay inflated fees to those same
lawyers to "interpret" these laws.
If you feel that any of my ideas worthy of consideration, I'd be happy to spend the time to draft the
language. I'd welcome any thoughts...please reply to
See above comments
"Enclosed" means what prop 203 describes. It says nothing about 12' walls.............
R9-17-310 Medical Director I would revise subsection B to read as follows: B. During hours of
operation, a medical director 1. On -site, or 2. The medical director shall provide
oversight for the development and dissemination of educational materials for qualifying patients and
designated caregivers that include: a. ... etc.
No residency requirements for Patients, Caregivers, or Dispensaries.
It was my understanding that the dispensary applicant had to be a non-profit. If so, it couldn't be a
LLC, but would have to be a non-profit corporation. Any language referencing LLC's would be
inappropriate.
I think the rule could say That you want to track from seed or clone.
Disempower the sheriff who consistenly oversteps his bounds.
I think the four visits is proper as this will allow doctors to recommend alternative treatment methods
before a possible recommendation as well as ongoing visits possibly quarterly after the
recommendation to oversee the treatment just like an other treatment method but the one year
requirement needs to be stricken as this ties the hands of the physician and the patient.
In R9-17-314, the use of the term "nonorganic" is perilous without some additional clarity as to what
constitutes “organic”. The popular use of the term contradicts the chemical terminology and while
USDA and others have instituted rules and certification, it is likely safer to require labeling to include
ALL pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers or other additives to be listed, be they manmade or naturally
derived.
REGARDING R9-I7-315 I am concerned regarding the provision to allow dispensaries to transport

marijuana directly to a qualifying patient, a service which has been problematic in other states. My
understanding is several cities will not allow it. "Delivery" restrictions and procedures may need to
be better defined, specifically: "Unless otherwise restricted or regulated by the municipality in which
the dispensary is located, a dispensary may transport marijuana for medical purposes directly to a
qualifying patient if such patient does not a have a designated qualified caregiver who is able to
provide such service" "Such transport shall be limited to: Motor Vehicles in good repair and deemed
reliable by the dispensary director (I.E. No Bicycle deliveries, regardless of how "green" this may be)
and shall include security measures to assure safe and protected transport.
There should be on Doctor's visit with no time frame. Whoever is making these rules up seem more
interested in polictics than helping the citizens of Arizona. Please leave the medical decisions up to the
Doctors which is what the majority of voters demanded.
Date of diagnose of disease from a qualified could override rephysicianquired patient/physician

relationship as long as the physician states he/she will be the physician for the pateient treatment.
When the patient is no longer his/her patient he/she would be required to notify the health department
that they were no longer treating the patient.
plan enlgish not large corporate words that everyone needs a corporate dictionary to
understand.unable to determine
I feel narrowly defining 'chronic pain' as it only applies to diseases and the treatment of diseases is
unfair and inhumane to people who truly suffer from daily pain that is not the result of a disease. I
have a friend who has suffered from chronic pain in his lower back for the better part of a decade. He
has had two operations but the suffering is not the result of a disease. It's a combination of genetics,
a job that required him to lift heavy objects, and a car accident he was in as a teenager. The
prescription pain pills he's been given in the past tend to upset his stomach, yet he says he finds true
relief if he smokes marijuana. I understand not wanting to make 'chronic pain' so broad that anyone
with a hangnail or a headache can be prescribed medical marijuana, but to limit it only to people
suffering from a known disease is unfair to people in Arizona who experience intense pain on a daily
basis but have not been diagnosed with a disease.
page 12 section 12 actually adding arthritis to the verbiage next to m.s
No.
none that I could see
identification
no
Include Certified Nurse Practitioners in the wording ♦where the other allowed practitioners are listed.
A copy of the designated caregiver's: i Arizona driver's license issued after October 1, 1996; or ii.
Arizona identification card issued after October 1, 1996; or iii. Arizona registry identification card;or iv.
Photograph page in the qualifying patient's U.S. passport; or v. An Arizona driver's license or
identification card issued before October 1, 1996 and one of the following:
A health clinic may not restrict it's doctors from recommending medical marijuana to it's patients.
The patient physician relationship should be of either one documented year or four scheduled visits.
I noticed that one of the information pieces needed for a license is 'gender.' Why? What is the reason
you need that? and what if the person is trans-gendered? the requirement also states that
revocation can be issued if "failed to pay child support." What if you are current and at one point in the
past you were behind. The way it is stated says "failed," implying that at anytime past or present can
be assumed here. I think a better phrase is "currently behind on any child support."
A: C.1.c.iii.(2) requires video cameras with a resolution of "704 x 480 or the equivalent". This is a
non-standard resolution which basically doesn't exist in any commercial camera product. The
"standard" video camera resolution in North America is 640 x 480, and almost all security cameras on
the market use this resolution. While other camera resolutions are available, 704 x 480 is not really an
option. A brief perusal of the internet to try to discover the origin of this oddball resolution number
reveals that 704 x 480 is one of several possible resolutions for television displays with rectangular
pixels. This is not relevant to modern security cameras or digital display and recording systems, which
use square pixels. 640 x 480 is a reasonable standard. Any different resolution requirement for
security cameras should be justified by some compelling argument, considering the difficulty in
implementation. Regardless, 704 x 480 is nonsensical and looks like a technical error. B: The
requirements in C.1.c.ix that dispensaries have a static IP address and 384kbps upstream connectivity
seem poorly considered. First, a static IP is not required to implement remote viewing. While it is one
possible approach, it is not an absolute requirement and many solutions exist to provide a robust and
reliable system even with a dynamic IP address. If the functional goals of remote viewing are met,
why should it matter whether the implementation utilized a static IP or not? Secondly, 384kbps is
hardly enough bandwidth for remote viewing of live video at high resolution. A 640x480 video stream
can easily require over 600kbps, possibly over 1Mbps depending on format and compression. Again, a
functional requirement ("internet connectivity sufficient to allow live remote video viewing") avoids
codifying potentially incorrect technical parameters.
The acquisition of the initial product should be clarified. Meaning would a Dispensary need to grow the
initial product from seed or can it be brought it from California or Colorado. Please address the fact
that is should be ok to utilize clones rather than having to grow medicine from seed each time.
Growing from seed would be extremely labor intensive and time consuming for Dispensaries. Will you
be offering certificates for professional cultivators who are not planning to be Caregivers or Patients
but would like to provide professionally grown prpduct to local Dispensaries only? This is something we
are most interested in as we have 28yrs of combined experience in horticulture and Cannabis
cultivation as well as published books.

Do you have any specific language to improve the rules? Please include where the language could
be incorporated.
Open-Ended Response
The following section R9-17-202 of the draft rules should be improved with changing the formal
language in the initial draft to the following: 5e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the
physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient and may provide
management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical condition or may, after conducting
a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the
patient's medical records maintained by other treating physicians, qualify the patients debilitating
medical condition including the patient's reaction and response to conventional medical therapies;
The AzMMA requires this: 18. "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" MEANS A DOCUMENT DATED AND SIGNED
BY A PHYSICIAN, STATING THAT IN THE PHYSICIAN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THE PATIENT IS LIKELY
TO RECEIVE THERAPEUTIC OR PALLIATIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA TO TREAT
OR ALLEVIATE THE PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH
PATIENT'S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION IN THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION. (b) SIGN AND DATE
THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF A PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AFTER
THE PHYSICIAN HAS COMPLETED A FULL ASSESSMENT [NOTE: "assessment," singular, not plural; 1,
not 4] OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S MEDICAL HISTORY.
A patient that can show a providing doctor a current medical record showing history of cancer
treatment or one of the described debilitating conditions may be recommended marijuana by that
provider. Fees paid by patients are calculated on a sliding scale, taking into account low income, # of
household dependents and any bills paid for treatment of the condition for witch the
recommendation is being made, including medical bills, perscriptions, cost of travel, room and board
for treatment purposes
R9-17-101.18 should have a section that has restrictions on what could be defined as a public place.
The list of public places should have a qualifier that reads "... except where there is an area of said
public place that has a fence, or other physical partition that both prevents or inhibits patron access,
and would not be accessed by patrons in the normal operation of said public places." For instances,
the public would not normally go behind a large building in an area around dumpsters. Because this
area would be accessible to employees and not patrons, this should be excluded from the definition of
being in public.
Most of the proposed language is acceptable, after all, it was pretty clear cut what was being voted
upon. The only thing that needs to change is the added requirements that were tacked on by paranoid
Big-Brother types that want to subvert the voters and violate the state constitution. Just Delete the
added "junk" that tries to place all control in the hands of those that disagreed with the bill to start
with.
I'm not a lawyer & this really needs one.
I think that overall you have done a good lawyer-like job of wording the rules. The only problems I
have with them are listed above - I truly believe that in you attempt to make sure there won't be any
"recreational" use increase as a result of Prop 203 that you have forgotten that caring and
knowledgeable people who are honest and sincere about helping the sick and suffering will be
financially unable to apply for a license. The rural county law enforcement community is bound to be
upset as well because these rules, if not changed, will insure that most of the state of Arizona outside
of Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties will have no dispensaries and thus will be wide open for
thousands of qualified medical marijuana patients growing their own since no one will be able to
afford to open a dispensary with the small amount of clientele living in the rural areas.
Specific language detailing the sections where my suggestions can be incorporated has been sent by
other commenters. Please refer to those details.
Suggestion: I propose a source for saleable product could be evidence confiscated by law
enforcement destined for destruction. Instead, it may be redirected and multiply taxed. It could
serve as revenue to the state at three junctures... enforcement release, pharmacy acquisition and
patient purchase. Lesser quality if any, would reflect in a reduced price thereby providing the cost-
conscious consumer an option. This belongs in the section dealing with product source.
When referring to "Marijuana Plants" in 36-2801. Definitions 1. "ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF

MARIJUANA" (a)(ii) and (b)(ii) - use the term "Mature, Female Marijuana Plants" In 36-2801 (1)(c)
use "including male plants, immature female plants (not showing flowers), clones, cuttings, sprouts,
and seeds" In 36-2801 - 3. "DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION" MEANS ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING: (b) ... SEVERE AND CHRONIC PAIN "Including Phantom pain; " In 36-2801 (5) (e) add
"Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances. Compensation costs
may include, but are not limited to, rent and furnishings, utilities, mileage and travel expenses, cost of
supplies and materials, cost of security, record-keeping expenses, and registration fees."
immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. While
this all sounds good it limits people that have moved to the state recently for other jobs. I agree that
the people here should be the ones running the program it should more read but someone that has
recently moved to the state should not be discriminated upon based upon that. I am sure that the
state constitution says that all of its citizens should be treated fairly. It would be unfair for a resident
that was not here for a long time. By doing that it most likely violate the Arizona's constitution. if
you look at PREAMBLE 2 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC 13. Equal privileges and immunities Section
13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than
municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens
or corporations. A. Each principal officer or board member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident
and has been an Arizona resident before the law was voted upon and preceding the date the
dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. An applicant that is not in the state would not
be a citizen of the state must wait one year after establishing residency to apply for a dispensary
license. Proof of Establishment of residency could be one of the following. Mortage, Rental
agreement, or utility bill set up in the same name.
e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with
the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the
qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the
course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for providing
response to conventional medical therapies; If a person is a citizen of the state of Arizona they can
not be discriminated upon simply because a person has recently established a residency here. It is a
clear violation of the State of Arizona's Constitution. If a person has recently relocated to the state
and has become a resident then it shares the same equal rights as a citizen that has previously been
here. And by recently moving to the state it would have a new Doctor in the state. And by direct
action of being a Citizen they retain the same rights. If a person is able to document a previous injury
or ailment prior to becoming a citizen of Arizona, in another state that it has sought treatment for,
then they should be treated as the same as a resident that was previously in the state and currently
seeking treatments for their ailments. It would violate on the following clause of making people into
a "Class of Citizen" PREAMBLE 2 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC 3 13. Equal privileges and
immunities Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or
corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not
equally belong to all citizens or corporations. Therefor once a person is a Resident all pertaining
laws and State Constitutional rights are bestowed upon them as a Citizen of Arizona.
e. A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with
the qualifying patient that has existed for at least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the
qualifying patient on at least four visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the
course of the professional relationship; or ii. Has assumed primary responsibility for providing
response to conventional medical therapies; If a person is a citizen of the state of Arizona they can
not be discriminated upon simply because a person has recently established a residency here. It is a
clear violation of the State of Arizona's Constitution. If a person has recently relocated to the state
and has become a resident then it shares the same equal rights as a citizen that has previously been
here. And by recently moving to the state it would have a new Doctor in the state. And by direct
action of being a Citizen they retain the same rights. If a person is able to document a previous injury
or ailment prior to becoming a citizen of Arizona, in another state that it has sought treatment for,
then they should be treated as the same as a resident that was previously in the state and currently
seeking treatments for their ailments. It would violate on the following clause of making people into
a "Class of Citizen" PREAMBLE 2 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC 3 13. Equal privileges and
immunities Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or
corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not
equally belong to all citizens or corporations. Therefor once a person is a Resident all pertaining
laws and State Constitutional rights are bestowed upon them as a Citizen of Arizona.
C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical marijuana the dispensary provides to
qualifying patients or designated caregivers; Should be changed to buy any amount as long as its by
qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and this
Chapter to acquire medical marijuana; In the event a Dispensary can not keep up with the demand
it would put an undue strain on the patients that need to get their medications or it may drive the
prices out of the reach of the patients that need it most. If a dispensary is a slower sales in the front
office but can produce for many operating dispensaries then it should be able to freely sell its product
to another dispensary that can not produce enough of its own products. This will also allow for many
more medical strains to be available through out the state that will benefit its Medical patients. Some
dispensaries may only be able to produce 1 or 2 strains because of a limitation of space so having an
inventory of more strains and different potencies will be available. Thus it will be benefiting all parties
from the ones that can produce more. To the Dispensaries that can now provide a wider variety of
medicines to its patients. And the Patient would be better off because they can now choose a strain
that more helps out their particular ailment. Some strains work better for certain ailments than
others do.
For medical oversight of the dispensary it should be a medical person such as a "nurse, doctor, or
pharmacy technician with at least a year 2 degree"
immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. While
this all sounds good it limits people that have moved to the state recently for other jobs. I agree that
the people here should be the ones running the program it should more read but someone that has
recently moved to the state should not be discriminated upon based upon that. I am sure that the
state constitution says that all of its citizens should be treated fairly. It would be unfair for a resident
that was not here for a long time. By doing that it most likely violate the Arizona's constitution. if
you look at PREAMBLE 2 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC 13. Equal privileges and immunities Section
13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than
municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens
or corporations. A. Each principal officer or board member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident
and has been an Arizona resident before the law was voted upon and preceding the date the
dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. An applicant that is not in the state would not
be a citizen of the state must wait one year after establishing residency to apply for a dispensary
license. Proof of Establishment of residency could be one of the following. Mortage, Rental
agreement, or utility bill set up in the same name.
medicine.
None
I do not have any specific language, but do commend the AZDHS, The AZ MMA, and those involved in
making sure this law is fairly implemented. I trust that not only my suggestions and concerns
potentially be added or used, but that all who have submitted will be given ample time to make sure
that those like myself get relief and protection sooner rather than later, and that we will not make the
same mistakes of other states. I know from experience that Arizona has the potential to be a shining
example and a national model for other future Medical Cannabis states to follow. My hope is that
with all the thoughtful compassionate input, Arizona will do just that.
Omit the clause that requires dispensaries have a medical doctor.
Any dispensary growing outdoor plants must enclose same in an eight foot chain link fence with either
razor or electric wire topping,to the exact same standards as that of the US Government Experimental
Farm in Alabama. In addition security cameras will guard the premsies and be avaialbel for review as
needed.
Yes. Amend rule R9-17-311(1) to read: "Verify the qualifying patient's or the designated caregiver's
approved method;" Also: The rules should explicitly allow such electronic transactions by making the
existing R9-17-311 part A and adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic
All Arizona Cities and Towns having a population larger than 25,000 with at least five city pharmacies
within its corporate boundaries shall be eligible to have at least one medical marijuana dispensary
located within its city limits effect with the implementation of this ordinance. If no dispensary has
located in the city or town by Jan 1, 2014, the State shall make the license available for utilization in
another locality.
Delete sections R9-17-106 A7 and R9-17-106-C. Edit R9-17-106-B3a to read "Meets the
requirements in subsection (B)(2) and the request is approved" Clarify R9-17-106-B4 that public
hearings are only needed if requested by the petitioner.
R9-17-302 B. 3. d. vi- as it pertains to utility bill dated within 60 days before the date of dispensary
application. The wording of this section has led to some confusion. However, I believe, it is only one
of other potential proof of residency by the principal applying for the application; not a requirement
on the proposed site of the dispensary prior to being awarded a license as many alarmist are claiming.
smoking areas! smoking areas! smoking areas! smoking areas! smoking areas! smoking areas!
Throughout the draft rules the word debilitating is used except in the list of debilitating medical
conditions to which the word chronic is added. There needs to be clarification throughout the draft
rules or at least in the definitions section of the difference between chronic and debilitating.
Can the dispensing agent, if an M.D., also serve as the recommending physician? There should be a
requirement that the business proposal include a patient accountability plan. The caregiver cannot
also be a qualifying patient. Preference should be given to those proposing ongoing medical
marijuana studies and marijuana's therapeutic effects. The language is a bit confusing on the
mandate that a dispensary also cultivate. Throughout the rules, the language implicates that it is an
option, but then at R9-17-307(c)(1), the language mandates 70% cultivation at the dispensary.
I don't consider myself well qualified to add specific language to a law. I would appreciate if you do
the honors. :)
A physician is permitted to prescribe or recommend marijuana for a condition that falls outside of the
original list, providing professional judgement for doing so and providing some form of record keeping
to evaluate the effectiveness.
My name I am a coder/ programmer I hav a completely finished application offering to

AZ THAT DOES EVERYTHING... total tracking.. down to the 1/2 gram..Daily Journal and Point of Sale
specific for this industry I created this great do everything in marijuana dispensary busy, being in and
round California I like Arizona to look at it s possiblities, offering it as may there own. The source
code! Its driven by FileMaker.com and can handle VERY large to small. Its desktop.. quite frankly
most dispensaries rather use a web base application.. ONLY so if they get raided, they don't loose
their computers to the raid. and thus just log on to the net and continue running. I am not greedy
or anything.. just an old man that hope something comes of all the hours spent. What I am finding...
that most dispensaries rather not be compliant and or as tight as I have created
In regards to doctor referrals I believe that a good Dr./patient relationship is a good approach for a
requirement but I also think that for cases of chronic pain this relationship should be given preference
rather than being subject to a bureacratic decision. The DHS can keep tabs on MDs that appear to
only hang out a shingle to recommend for recreational users and revoke their license!
You may already have a draft of this document - but just want to be sure it was submitted
electronically. It is quite comprehensive and is directed to specific sections. Medical professionals and
attorneys assisted in its drafting Thank You
COMMENTS ON INITIAL DRAFT RULES ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE January 3, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TOPIC I. GUIDING POLICIES 3 1. Cultivation, sale, transportation,
possession and use of marijuana are criminal offenses in the state of Arizona. Medical marijuana is a
narrow exception to that policy. II. DISPENSARIES 4 1. DHS must require geographic dispersion of
dispensaries. 5 2. Each location where marijuana is produced, infused or sold must have a separate
dispensary certification. 6 3. DHS may delegate inspection of dispensaries to local authorities. 7 4.
Reasonable notice of routine inspections should be 24 hours, and occur within posted business hours.
8 5. Dispensaries must dispense marijuana and marijuana infused products in DHS approved and
supplied containers. 9 6. Dispensaries may not dispense a smokeable form of marijuana unless the
qualifying patient is approved by DHS to receive it. 10 7. Dispensaries should be required to file public
reports providing information on the number of customers, marijuana sales volume, and financial
status of the dispensary. III. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS 11 1. Caregivers must
pay a separate fee for each patient for whom they care. 12 2. Caregivers must undergo training (at
least 8 hours) on, and pass a test on, the effect and hazards of marijuana, the terms of the initiative,
DHS rules governing medical marijuana and applicable laws. 1 13 3. Caregivers, Cardholders and
Dispensary Agents must be residents of Arizona and must possess an Arizona driverâ€™s license or
identification card. 14 4. Caregivers must be subject to the same security, inspection and reporting
requirements as dispensaries. 15 5. Patients, or caregivers acting on behalf of patients, may not
possess smokeable marijuana unless specifically authorized by DHS. 16 6. Private marijuana use
â€œclubsâ€ should be prohibited. IV. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS 17 1. Policy Statement. 18 2.
Medical professionals that wish to issue medical marijuana certificates must be registered with DHS in
order to issue certifications and a reasonable fee should be charged. 20 3. The medical professional
issuing the certification should be given the authority to revoke a patientâ€™s certification at any
time. In addition, the medical professional should be required to revoke if they havenâ€™t seen the
patient within 6 months. V. LEGISLATIVE ACTION 21 1. The legislature should set a presumptive THC
metabolite level for impairment (similar to presumptive blood alcohol level) effective in situations of
driving, machinery operation and employment. 22 2. The legislature should set enhanced penalties
for cardholders, caregivers, and dispensary agents that produce, transport, sell, or possess marijuana
outside of the terms of their authority granted by the initiative. 23 3. The legislature should impose
criminal penalties for smoking marijuana in public. 24 4. The legislature should impose criminal
penalties for smoking marijuana in the presence of children. 2 I. GUIDING POLICIES 1. Cultivation,
sale, transportation, possession and use of marijuana are criminal offenses in the state of Arizona.
Medical marijuana is a narrow exception to that policy. It is the policy of the State of Arizona that
marijuana production, possession, use, sale or transportation are all felony offenses. Through the
initiative process the people of Arizona have carved out a narrow exception to the criminalization of
marijuana. The initiative allows those individuals that have a bona-fide medical need for marijuana
use to acquire, possess, and use marijuana to treat symptoms associated with a narrow range of
medical conditions. However, the guiding policy of this state â€“ and the federal government â€“ is
that it remains a crime to produce, use, sell or transport marijuana in Arizona. In other states such as
California and Colorado, insufficient regulation and enforcement has allowed the â€œexceptionâ€ of
medical marijuana to swallow the â€œruleâ€ of marijuana criminalization. This must not be allowed
to happen in Arizona. In order to enforce Arizonaâ€™s strong policy of marijuana criminalization,
policies and procedures developed by DHS and the legislature under the medical use exception
should, to the greatest extent possible, control marijuana production, transportation, sale, possession
and use to insure that marijuana is allowed for medical purposes only. Medical marijuana should not
be allowed to become a source of illicit marijuana; production should be limited to only what is
necessary to supply legitimate demand and should be strictly tracked; medical need should be based
on medical facts subject to objective review; employers should not be forced to tolerate impaired
employees or protect employees that are in violation of federal law. To these ends we suggest the
following: 3 II. DISPENSARIES 1. DHS must require geographic dispersion of dispensaries. Rationale:
The initiative allows individuals and caregivers to produce their own marijuana if they live more than
25 miles from a licensed dispensary (the 25 mile circle surrounding a dispensary have been called
â€œhalos.â€) Individual production of marijuana is far more difficult to monitor and control than
production by dispensaries. This marijuana can easily be converted to illicit use and the production
location will attract criminal activity as well. Lawful marijuana production for medical purposes by
individuals should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible. DHS should adopt policies that
mandate dispensary locations that cover the state in dispensary â€œhalosâ€ that have the effect of
preventing individual marijuana production. DHS should have the ability to consider in its sole
discretion whether or not the geographic location of a proposed dispensary is appropriate. DHS
regulations should allow DHS to award exclusive dispensary rights to geographic areas. DHS
regulations should allow DHS to mandate that an applicant, as a condition of granting a dispensary
certificate, also apply for and obtain a dispensary certificate at another location in the state
designated by DHS. In short, DHS policies must insure that most if not all of the state is covered with
dispensary â€œhalosâ€ so that no individual will be permitted to produce their own marijuana. This
may be best accomplished by requiring dispensaries in urban areas to operate dispensaries in rural
locations as a condition of their dispensary licenses. Implementation: Substitute for R9-17-107(F) as
follows: â€œThe Department may in its sole discretion consider the geographic location of the
proposed dispensary in determining whether to grant a certificate. In its sole discretion, the
Department may grant exclusive dispensary certification to any geographic area of the State. The
Department may as a condition of granting a certificate pursuant to A.R.S. Title 36 Chapter 28.1 and
this Chapter, require the applicant for dispensary registration to apply for, obtain, and maintain
another dispensary within the state of Arizona within 2 miles from a location designated by the
Department.â€ 4 DISPENSARIES, CONT. 2. Each location where marijuana is produced, infused or
sold must have a separate dispensary certification. Rationale: The Rules as currently written would
double and possibly triple the number of dispensaries within the state. The Rules as written allow a
dispensary to both have a separate location for cultivation and a separate location for infusion.
A.R.S.Â§36-2801 defines â€œNonprofit medical marijuana dispensaryâ€ as an entity that acquires,
possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transports supplies, sells or dispenses marijuana . . .â€.
A.R.S. Â§36-2804(C) limits the number of dispensary certificates to approximately 124. A.R.S. Â§36-
2806(C) requires each certified nonprofit marijuana dispensary to have a single secure entrance. If
the holder of a single dispensary certificate is allowed to have multiple locations for sale or cultivation,
or to contract with others to infuse food, it would be physically impossible for the dispensary
certificate holder to comply with A.R.S.Â§36-2806(C). Thus, when these sections are read together, it
is clear the intent of the initiative is to require each physical location where marijuana is produced,
infused or sold have a separate dispensary certificate that counts toward the total allowed in the state
under A.R.S.Â§36-2804(C). This rationale also comports with the overall goal of maintaining tight
control over medical marijuana use so it cannot be diverted to illicit use. Implementation: (a) Modify
R9-17-302(B)(5) by striking â€œand, if applicable, as the dispensaryâ€™s cultivation site.â€ (b)
Modify R9-17-304 to strike all references to a Dispensaryâ€™s Cultivation Site. (c) Modify R9-17-306
to strike all references to a dispensaryâ€™s cultivation site. (d) Modify R9-17-307 to clarify that
cultivation sites require separate dispensary certification. (e) Modify R9-17-313(B)(5) and (6) to
clarify that food infusion sites require separate dispensary certification. (f) Modify R9-17-315 to
clarify that cultivation and infusion sites require separate dispensary certification. (g) Modify R9-17-
316 to clarify that infusion sites require separate dispensary certification. (h) Strike R9-17-101(6) 5
DISPENSARIES, CONT. 3. DHS may delegate inspection of dispensaries to local authorities. Rationale:
Pursuant to A.R.S. Â§36-136, DHS may delegate to local authorities their power to regulate matters of
health and welfare in the state. Nothing in the initiative forbids delegation of inspection authority to
local governments. The ability to delegate this authority will allow DHS to better effectuate control of
dispensaries, and will give local authorities the ability to better control the health and safety impacts
of dispensaries in their communities. Implementation: Add R9-17-306(H): â€œThe Department may
delegate its authority under this section to local authority pursuant to A.R.S. Â§36-136.â€ 6
DISPENSARIES, CONT. 4. Reasonable notice of routine inspections should be 24 hours, and occur
within posted business hours. Rationale: Inspection of dispensaries is designed to insure that the
dispensary is operating within the limits of the law. The rule as currently written gives the dispensary
the option of refusing a time suggested by DHS. The initiative requires only that the inspection be
reasonable. Given the strong policy of this state against marijuana possession or use, it is imperative
that DHS inspections provide an accurate picture of the dispensaryâ€™s operation. 24 hour notice of
an inspection to occur during posted business hours fulfills the statewide policy against illicit
marijuana use and fulfills the â€œreasonable noticeâ€ provision of the initiative. Implementation:
Modify R9-17-306(C) as follows: â€œExcept as provided in subsection (E), routine on-site inspection
of a dispensary shall occur no earlier than 24 hours after the Department submits written notice of
the Departmentâ€™s intent to inspect the dispensary. Routine inspections under this subsection shall
occur during the dispensaryâ€™s normal business hoursâ€ 7 DISPENSARIES, CONT. 5. Dispensaries
must dispense marijuana and marijuana infused products in DHS approved and supplied containers.
Rationale: In order to strictly control medical marijuana, it is important that DHS and law
enforcement be able to clearly and easily distinguish between marijuana possessed, sold, or
transported pursuant to the initiative. The containers must be distinctive and traceable with bar codes
or other computerized tracking system. Distinctive containers that are registered or supplied by DHS
that can be easily identified will help DHS and law enforcement insure that marijuana encountered is
in fact produced pursuant to the initiative and is used strictly for medical use. The containers should
be sealed when dispensed. DHS should strongly consider developing standardized containers and
requiring dispensaries to obtain those containers from DHS. Implementation: Add to R9-17-314(A)(7):
â€œThe marijuana shall be dispensed in a sealed container approved by the Department. The
containers shall contain a bar code or other computerized tracking system approved by the
Department.â€ 8 DISPENSARIES, CONT. 6. Dispensaries may not dispense a smokeable form of
marijuana unless the qualifying patient is approved by DHS to receive it. Rationale: Based on the
proven health risk of smoking, for the past 45 years the medical community has worked to curtail the
use of smoking in the United States. In November, 2006 Arizona voters passed the Smoke-Free
Arizona Act (A.R.S. Â§36-601.01), severely curtailing the use of smoking in the state. For most people,
marijuanaâ€™s alleged therapeutic benefits are effective when it is consumed orally. Given the
serious negative health effects that come with smoking any product (including marijuana), the
smoking of marijuana should be strongly discouraged. Implementation: Modify R9-17-311 to require
the dispensary verify the patient is authorized to receive marijuana in a smokeable form prior to
dispensing. Include the requirement that all smokeable marijuana must be dispensed in a container
that prominently displays a warning in substantially the following form: â€œMarijuana smoke
contains known carcinogens and has been determined to be carcinogenic by the Arizona Department
of Health Services. Although preliminary research shows marijuana may contain substances that may
help in the treatment of cancer, this research also shows that smoking marijuana may be linked to
cancer of the lung, skin of the head and neck, testicle and bladder.â€ 9 DISPENSARIES, CONT. 7.
Dispensaries should be required to file public reports providing information on the number of
customers, marijuana sales volume, and financial status of the dispensary. Rationale: In order to
insure that dispensaries are not operating illicitly, it is important that the legislature, DHS, local
authorities, and the public have information regarding a dispensaryâ€™s number of customers,
volume of marijuana, and financial condition. A dispensary need not reveal specific information about
individual customers in order to publish public reports regarding the number of customers, the
volume of marijuana dispensed, the kind of marijuana dispensed (smokeable or infused food), the
receipts of sales and costs expended. This information will allow the legislature, DHS, local law
enforcement and the public to insure that the dispensary is not in reality a â€œfrontâ€ for criminal
activity, and that the marijuana produced and dispensed only to those with legitimate medical need.
Implementation: Add as R9-17-312(E): â€œNot less than annually and prior to recertification under
R9-17-305, a dispensary shall submit to the Department a report covering the period from the last
certificate was issued to that dispensary that contains the following information: (1) the total number
of sales of marijuana products, detailing each kind of product sold; (2) the total amount of usable
marijuana sold; (3) the total amount of usable marijuana produced or otherwise procured; (4) the
total amount of marijuana on hand; (5) the total amount of cash or other reimbursement realized for
the sale of marijuana; (6) the total amount of cash or other reimbursements paid for producing or
acquiring marijuana.â€ 10 III. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS 1. Caregivers must
pay a separate fee for each patient they care for. Rationale: Caregivers may possess and assist in the
use of marijuana for up to 5 qualifying patients under the act. Each patient that designates a caregiver
requires additional administrative scrutiny by DHS, increasing administrative costs. A.R.S. Â§36-
2803(A)(5)(a) requires that the total revenue from the fees for registry identification cards and
dispensary registration certificates must be sufficient to implement and administer the program.
Given the additional administrative costs inherent in a caregiver assisting multiple patients, and to
insure that caregiver activity is adequately monitored, it is reasonable that a caregiver be required to
pay additional fees for additional patients. Implementation: Modify R9-17-102(5)(b) and (6)(b) as
follows: â€œDesignated Caregiver, $200 per patient for which caregiving services are provided.â€ 11
PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 2. Caregivers must undergo training (at
least 8 hours) on, and pass a test on, the effect and hazards of marijuana, the terms of the initiative,
DHS rules governing medical marijuana and applicable laws. Rationale: Caregivers under the initiative
administer marijuana to qualifying patients. They are the link between the patient and the dispensary,
and need to know the effects and alternatives to marijuana to properly administer medical marijuana.
Without adequate training, the caregiver runs the risk of improperly procuring or administering
marijuana to the patient. Implementation: (a) Add R9-17-202(F)(6)(l): â€œCertification of completion
of a Caregiver Training Class administered or approved by the Department.â€ (b) Add R9-17-206:
â€œThe Department shall develop a Caregiver Training Class of no less than 8 hours to teach caregiver
applicants about the effects and hazards of marijuana, alternatives to marijuana use, the terms of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative, and these rules. The class shall include a test designed to
reasonably test caregivers about the subjects taught in the class. Before issuing a certificate of
completion to caregiver applicants, the applicant shall pass the test with a score of at least 80%.â€
12 PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 3. Caregivers, Cardholders and
Dispensary Agents must be residents of Arizona and must possess an Arizona driverâ€™s license or
identification card. Rationale: The initiative declares that its purpose is to remove state-level criminal
penalties for medical marijuana use for the citizens of Arizona. Other states such as California and
Colorado have allowed non-citizens to participate in medical marijuana programs, which resulted in a
tremendous increase of illicit use of marijuana due to cross-border smuggling of marijuana. The use or
administration of marijuana under the initiative should be narrowly tailored for the use and benefit of
Arizona citizens that are in need of medical marijuana. Patients, Caregivers, and Dispensing Agents
should be required to prove they are citizens of the State of Arizona by producing identification cards
issued only to Arizona citizens â€“ an Arizona Driverâ€™s License, or an Arizona Identification Card.
The current draft of rules allows a patient or caregiver to obtain a registry card by showing a U.S.
passport as proof of identity. A U.S. passport contains no information about the personâ€™s state of
residency. In addition, because of the potential for criminal activity inherent in a personâ€™s
possession of marijuana, registry with the Department of Public Safetyâ€™s driverâ€™s
license/identification card system will allow law enforcement to obtain additional information about a
caregiver/patient that is involved with criminal activity. Implementation: (a) Strike R9-17-105(F) (b)
Strike R9-17-107(F)(1)(d)(iv) (c) Strike R9-17-202(F)(2)(d) (d) Strike R9-17-202(F)(6)(i)(iv) (e) Strike
R9-17-202(G)(6)(d) (f) Strike R9-17-203(A)(2)(i)(c) (g) Strike R9-17-204(A)(5)(f)(iv) (h) Strike R9-17-
308(5)(d) 13 PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 4. Caregivers must be subject
to the same security, inspection and reporting requirements as dispensaries. Rationale: Caregivers
are operating small dispensaries. They acquire marijuana in the same fashion as dispensaries, and
distribute the marijuana to others. They are subject to the same security risks as dispensaries, and
have the same potential for diverting marijuana to illicit activities as dispensaries. Implementation:
Apply appropriate provisions of Article 3 (R9-17-301 to R9-17-320) to caregivers allowed to cultivate
marijuana for patients. 14 PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT. 5. Patients, or
caregivers acting on behalf of patients, may not possess smokeable marijuana unless specifically
authorized by DHS. Rationale: Based on the proven health risk of smoking, for the past 45 years the
medical community has worked to curtail the use of smoking in the United States. In November, 2006
Arizona voters passed the Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A.R.S. Â§36-601.01), severely curtailing smoking in
the state. For most people, marijuanaâ€™s alleged therapeutic benefits are effective when it is
consumed orally. Given the serious negative health effects that come with smoking any product
(including marijuana), the smoking of marijuana should be strongly discouraged. Implementation: (a)
Add to R9-17-202(F)(5) the following: â€œIf the physician is recommending the patient be dispensed a
smokeable form of marijuana, then a statement detailing at least 3 efforts of the physician and
patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful,
and a declaration from the physician why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patientâ€™s
condition.â€ (b) Add to R9-17-202(G)(13) the following: â€œIf the physician is recommending the
patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then a statement detailing at least 3 efforts of
the physician and patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts
were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the physician why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate
the patientâ€™s condition.â€ (c) Add to R9-17-204(B)(4)(f) and R9-17-204(B)(4)(g) the following:
â€œIf the physician is recommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then a
statement detailing at least 3 efforts of the physician and patient to administer infused marijuana, a
statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the physician why
only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patientâ€™s condition.â€ (c) Issue patient and caregiver
cards that clearly indicate if the patient is allowed to possess smokeable marijuana. (d) Indicate in the
Department data base available to dispensaries and law enforcement whether the patient or
caregiver is allowed to possess smokeable marijuana. 15 PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY
AGENTS, CONT. 6. Private marijuana use â€œclubsâ€ should be prohibited. Rationale: As written,
Rule R9-17-101(18) (a) would exclude private clubs from the definition of public place. This would
allow marijuana users to form private â€œsmokingâ€ clubs where marijuana users could gather and
use marijuana. The goal of the initiative is to provide medical marijuana that qualifying patients and
their caregivers may administer for medical purposes, not to establish private marijuana use clubs.
Private â€œsmoking clubsâ€ create opportunities to divert medical marijuana to illicit use, and pose
a safety and security threat to the communities in which they are located. Implementation: Modify
R9-17-101(18)(a) to read as follows: â€œ[Public place:] Means any location, facility, or venue that is
not intended for the regular exclusive use of an individual or the non-commercial use of a specific
group of not more than 5 individuals.â€ 16 IV. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS 1. Policy Statement Three
different types of medical professionals are authorized to provide certification for medical marijuana
use under the initiative. All are governed by a different licensing board, and none of the licensing
boards actively govern their respective charges with regard to medical marijuana. Unless DHS
monitors the activities of these medical professionals, there is no central authority to monitor and
govern the actions of medical professionals authorized to certify medical marijuana use under the
initiative. Under the initiative, DHS is charged with regulating possession and use of medical
marijuana. DHS thus has the authority to qualify medical professionals designated under the act as
appropriate to issue certification for medical marijuana use. Such a system would ensure a centralized
authority to monitor medical professionals for abusive or illicit issuance of certifications, preventing
fraud and abuse. 17 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, CONT. 2. Medical professionals that wish to issue
medical marijuana certificates must be registered with DHS in order to issue certifications and a
reasonable fee should be charged. Rationale: Registration with DHS would allow the Department to
determine the qualifications of medical professionals that wish to certify medical marijuana use. DHS
can examine proof of the medical professionalâ€™s certification as a medical doctor, osteopath, or
naturopath, and of their primary practice in Arizona. DHS can determine if the medical professional is
currently undergoing discipline or substance abuse counseling. DHS can determine the number of
patients the medical professional has certified for marijuana use, and can monitor the number and
quality of contacts between the patient and the medical professional. DHS can monitor the number
and justification for certifications of smokeable medical marijuana use. Implementation: Create
Article 4 for the Medical Marijuana Program in DHS Rules that governs medical professionals wishing
to issue medical marijuana certifications in Arizona. Medical professionals must meet the following
requirements: (a) DHS must create and administer a medical professional certification registry. (b)
Qualified medical professionals that wish to issue certificates under the initiative must register
annually with DHS and pay a reasonable annual fee to offset the cost of registry administration. (a)
Medical professionals must be Arizona licensed in and primarily practice in Arizona. (b) No more than
30 active patient registry cards may be issued based on the certification of an individual medical
professional at any one time. (c) Medical professionals must see their certified patient at least once
every 6 months, face to face, and document they have done so in annual certifications. (d) Medical
professionals may not issue certificates to themselves or immediate family. (e) Medical professionals
undergoing discipline or substance abuse problems must not be authorized to issue certifications. 18
(f) Medical professionals recommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana,
must provide a statement detailing at least 3 efforts of the medical professional and patient to
administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a
declaration from the medical professional why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the
patientâ€™s condition. 19 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, CONT. 3. The medical professional issuing the
certification should be given the authority to revoke a patientâ€™s certification at any time. In
addition, the medical professional should be required to revoke if they havenâ€™t seen the patient
within 6 months. Rationale: Medical marijuana is the narrow exception to the criminalization of
marijuana in Arizona. In addition to rules requiring previous and ongoing relationship between a
certifying medical professional and a patient, the medical professional must be able to de-certify a
patient if they believe the patient no longer qualifies for medical marijuana. In addition, the medical
professional must de-certify the patient if they have not seen the patient within 6 months. Once de-
certified, the patient must be presumed to no longer qualify for medical marijuana unless re-certified
by two different medical professionals that are aware of the previous de-certification. This would
insure that patients are seeing their medical professionals on a regular basis, and insure that medical
marijuana is continued to be needed by the patient. It would also encourage medical professionals to
act ethically in certifying, and prevent â€œdoctor shopping.â€ If certification is revoked, the patient
must present certifications from two other medical professionals, both of whom state they are aware
of the patientâ€™s certification revocation, before a new registry card may be issued.
Implementation: (a) Add to new Article 4 a requirement that the medical professional must notify the
Department within 3 business days if the patient no longer qualifies for certification for medical
marijuana, or if the medical professional has not had a face to face contact with the patient for more
than 180 days. (b) Add R9-17-205(I) to require the Department to revoke a Qualifying Patientâ€™s
Registry Identification Card upon notification by the certifying medical professional that the patient no
longer qualifies for certification or that the medical professional has not had a face to face contact
with the patient for more than 180 days. (c) Add to R9-17-202, 203, and 204 a section that requires
after having had a previous one revoked under R9-17-205(I), and require both certifications state that
the medical professional is aware of the grounds for prior de-certification. 20 V. LEGISLATIVE ACTION
1. The legislature should set a presumptive THC metabolite level for impairment (similar to
presumptive blood alcohol level) effective in situations of driving, machinery operation and
employment Rationale: The initiative authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but does
not allow a user to be impaired while employed or operating automobiles or other machinery. Use of
marijuana impairs a personâ€™s ability to operate automobiles and other machinery, and to properly
perform their job. Impairment is difficult to determine without presumptive standards. Marijuana
impairment can be compared to use of alcohol, which is legal but impairment is not allowed when a
person is operating automobiles or other machinery or by most employers. Levels of presumptive
alcohol impairment are codified in law so employers and law enforcement may more easily determine
if a person is impaired. Scientific tests are available to determine the level of marijuana metabolite,
and standards exist that prove a person is impaired at certain levels of marijuana metabolite within a
personâ€™s body. Presumptive levels of marijuana impairment for both employment and operation
of automobiles and other machinery must be adopted by the legislature in order to allow them to
quickly and easily determine if probable cause exists that a person is impaired, and to take
appropriate action to protect the person, the employer, and the public. Implementation: DHS must
develop presumptive marijuana impairment levels that may be determined by blood, urine, breath or
other tests and propose legislation that will implement such standards in the criminal and civil codes.
21 LEGISLATIVE ACTION, CONT. 2. The legislature should set enhanced penalties for cardholders,
caregivers, and dispensary agents that produce, transport, sell, or possess marijuana outside of the
terms of their authority granted by the initiative. Rationale: Arizona has a strong public policy against
marijuana. The initiative has carved out a narrow exception to that policy for medical use. To uphold
Arizonaâ€™s prohibition against marijuana, it is imperative that those individuals granted access to
marijuana through the initiative be strongly discouraged from using their access to marijuana to add
to the supply of illicit marijuana in the state, or to supply it to those without authorization to possess
marijuana. One of the best ways this may be accomplished is for the legislature to specify and clarify
what constitutes illegal marijuana activity by dispensaries, cardholders and caregivers, and to enhance
the punishments for those offenses. Such legislation will discourage dispensaries, cardholders and
caregivers from using their access to marijuana for illicit purposes. Offenses should include cultivation
without permission, transfer of marijuana to those not entitled to possession, consuming,
transporting, selling, and cultivating marijuana without
and are more likely to use marijuana illegally in the future. Children exposed to marijuana smoke will
suffer the same health hazards as exposure to tobacco smoke. Smoking marijuana in the presence of
children should be made a serious criminal act. Implementation: DHS
See comments above
1. I would like to suggest a separate and unique catagory for Pharmacists wanting to open
dispensaries. One of a "specialty" nature, similar to a "compounding" pharmacy. The AzDHS should
recommend to the DEA that these Pharmacists be eligible for a Schedule 1 DEA license as a
manufacturer/distributor. Perhaps with the provision that they work in conjunction with a University
or medical facility with an added "research" element. 2. A Pharmacist wanting to open a dispensary
should not be subjected to "distance" regulations. The Pharmacy I own is not subject to distance
regulations, and we regularly stock drugs much stronger than cannabis.
Make dispensaries cultivate and sell their own marijuana, do not let others who are not dispensaries
grow or sell.
The language of prop 203 that was on the ballot should be the "version" that should be the final rules.
Perhaps R9-17-302(A) could be reworded to read: "Each principal officer [as defined] or board
member of a dispensary must have significant ties to Arizona."
see above
"the Department should eliminate the definition of "ongoing" in the proposed rules at R9-17-101(16)
and require a bona fide doctor-patient relationship.
The section on dispensary application and registration seems to be causing concern with the current
language (or have you noticed?). "approved for a permit" should be clearly differentiated from
"registered" I'm trusting that what was intended should read: "After a complete dispensary
application has been submitted and approved to receive a permit, the 90-day time frame for issuing a
permit (full registration to operate) is suspended until such time as the department receives written
notice that the facility is ready for inspection. After inspection is complete and the dispensary facility
is deemed in compliance with operating guidelines, the 90-day permitting period is resumed, and
registration will be completed and an operating permit issued in accordance with prop 203. A
dispensary will not begin production in any manner until full registration is complete, and may not
operate provisionally after a permit is approved, but only after inspection and full registration is
complete"
Yes.Â Amend rule R9-17-311(1) to read: "Verify the qualifying patient's or the designated caregiver's
approved method;" Also: The rules should explicitly allow such electronic transactions by making
the existing R9-17-311 part A and adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated
electronic system of hardware and software to verify the information required in Section A before
dispensing medical marijuana to a qualifying patient or designated caregiver and to submit the
required information to the medical marijuana electronic verification system.
2) Dispensaries only need to produce 40 percent of their own product. This will allow all types of
medical marijuana that are now great producing plants but deliver great benefit. Remember: Indica
plants do not produce large quantities and are very beneficial. If space becomes to big of an issue no
one will want to grow it.
Yes.Â Amend rule R9-17-311(1) to read: "Verify the qualifying patient's or the designated caregiver's
1. Demonstration of Financial Securityâ€”Surety Bond For the reasons discussed above we believe
the following language should be added to the Surety Bond requirement in R9-17-302(B)(1)(f): Or
other equivalent demonstration of Financial Security such as a letter of credit or equivalent cash
deposit in an escrow account. 2. Dispensary Application Requirementsâ€”Zoning Approval As
discussed above we believe the zoning approval/certificate of occupancy requirement should be
modified with the following language: Revised R9-17-302 (B)(5): An official statement or other
documentation from the city, town or county in which the Dispensary would be located indicating that
for the proposed Dispensary and, if applicable, the Dispensaryâ€™s cultivation site, applicant has
obtained or is in compliance with the local zoning restrictions, including but not limited to appropriate
zoning and use permits, but not including design review, building safety review, build out/certificate
of occupancy permits, business licensing, and any other administrative approvals that would normally
occur in order to perform final improvements prior to operating. Omit R9-17-302 (B)(6) The
same changes should be made for R9-17-304 (A)(2) and (3) concerning a change in location of a
Dispensary of cultivation site, as follows: Revised R9-17-304 (A)(2): An official statement or other
occur in order to perform final improvements prior to operating. Omit R9-17-304 (A)(3) 3.
Medical Director Qualificationâ€”Naturopathic Doctors For the reasons indentified below the
following language to include Naturopathic Doctors should be included in the definition of a Medical
Director in R9-17-101(15) to read as follows: â€œMedical Directorâ€ means a doctor of medicine
who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or
its successor, a doctor of naturopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice
naturopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor, or a doctor of
medical oversight at the dispensary.â€ 4. Cultivationâ€”70/30 Split Requirement To avoid the
unintended consequences of this requirement Rule R9-17-307(C) should be deleted. 5. Cultivation
Facility Requirements--Greenhouses To allow cultivation facilities to utilize our vast natural solar
resource thereby preventing waste. The definition of â€œEnclosedâ€ should be altered to
specifically allow secure greenhouse facilities. 6. Product Testing The only way to ensure that
patients are able to have access to safe and effective medicine is to require cultivators to test their
MMJ for contaminants, THC levels and cannabinoid profiles. Without this information, patients will
have no way of knowing what they are getting. The Rules should be modified to include these
requirements by adding them to the labeling provisions in R9-17-314(A): 1. THC percentage 2.
Cannabinoid profile 3. Results of lab tests for mold and pesticides 4. Verification of any
â€œorganicâ€ claims
NO.
While I do not personally have specific language to improve the first draft of the rules, I place
complete trust in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association (AzMMA) in providing alternative
wording. Their writer is the woman who wrote Proposition 203 and I feel that if anyone has a good
idea of what this bill's implementation would look like with the highest possible standards, it's her and
the AzMMA. I yield to their suggestions with full trust, as their founding members are the ones who
made this bill's existence possible in the first place.
Regarding ARS 36-2801, which discuss current marijuana laws and the application requirements,
please put in language that insures that each application of a director or agent who has had a prior
conviction still be considered and not completely ruled out. Each case is unique and should be given
fair consideration, especially if prior arrests for marijuana possession did not lead to convictions. If an
applicant had successfully completed a rehab program, such as TASC, that should suffice and allow
them to open a dispensary or be a board of director.
Legal terms to describe the above comments....I'm not a lawyer....
Include language that would require training for physicians before making recommendations for MM.
Patients with a teminal illness should have an exemption for the ony year time frame. They may be
dead in a year and it would be unfair to them.
1. Eliminate R9-17-202 5e. R9-17-202 5i. should read: A statement that, in the physician's professional
medical opinion, formed after conducting a sufficient review of the patient's state of health, the
qualifying patient has an enumerated debilitated medical condition and is likely to receive therapeutic
or palliative benefit from the ....
should draft and propose legislation that provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for
cardholders smoking marijuana in the presence of those under the age of 18."
approved method;" Also: The rules should explicitly allow such electronic transactions by making the
existing R9-17-311 part A and adding as part B: B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic
The sections on forms of Identification that must be submitted is confusing.
A medical doctor should not be required as a board member, this is stupid. Very had to obtain in the
more rural parts of Arizona.
If the State has chosen to retain undelegated control over medical marijuana, the State should
regulate and be responsible for all aspects, including where infused foods are produced. The State
should be responsible for issuing permits/licenses to dispensaries for making the infused foods.
Making "brownies" is simple -- using a County-licensed food establishment is not necessary, nor
desirable, from my perspective. Finally, since the State has an exclusion allowing small B&Bs not to
be licensed for food service (with similar caveat-emptor signage), so can simple marijuana-infused
products. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input.
I am not an registered engineer or or architect, just as you are not, and I have no business designing
buildings. In fact State law prohibits non-registrants from doing this type of work. ADHS does not
employ registered engineer or or architects that have this expertise, so they should not be specifying
materials and design.
see above
R9-17-202. Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a Qualifying Patient or a Designated
Caregiver F. Except as provided in subsection (G), to apply for a registry identification card, a
qualifying patient shall submit to the Department the following: 6. If the qualifying patient is
designating a caregiver, the following in a Department-provided format: l. Copies of the designated
caregiverâ€™s: i. Current CPR certification and; ii. Current basic First Aid certification; and m. A
copy of the designated caregiverâ€™s Direct Care Professional Certificate; and n. A copy of the
designated caregiverâ€™s negative TB skin test or x-ray results; and R9-17-203. Amending a
Qualifying Patient's or Designated Caregiver's Registry Identification Card A. To add a designated
caregiver or to request a change of a qualifying patient's designated caregiver, the qualifying patient
shall submit to the Department the following: 1. An application in a Department-provided format
that includes: l. Copies of the designated caregiverâ€™s: i. Current CPR certification; and ii.
Current basic First Aid certification; and m. A copy of the designated caregiverâ€™s Direct Care
Professional Certificate; and n. A copy of the designated caregiverâ€™s negative TB skin test or x-ray
results; and R9-17-204. Renewing a Qualifying Patient's or Designated Caregiver's Registry
Identification Card A. Except for a qualifying patient who is under 18 years of age, to renew a
qualifying patient's registry identification card, the qualifying patient shall submit the following to the
Department at least 30 calendar days before the expiration date of the qualifying patient's registry
identification card: 5. If the qualifying patient is designating a caregiver or if the qualifying patient's
designated caregiver's registry identification card has the same expiration date as the qualifying
patient's registry identification card: l. Copies of the designated caregiverâ€™s: i. Current CPR
certification; and ii. Current basic First Aid certification; and m. A copy of the designated
caregiverâ€™s Direct Care Professional Certificate; and n. A copy of the designated caregiverâ€™s
negative TB skin test or x-ray results; and R9-17-102. Fees An applicant submitting an
application to the Department shall submit the following nonrefundable fees: 6. For renewing a
registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $30; b. Designated caregiver, $40; and c.
Dispensary agent, $40; Remove: R9-17-106B(a),(b), (c), and (d), UNLESS the public hearing has
qualified the petitioning patient and is used as record for precedent for other patients with the same
or similar medical condition. If the patient is denied qualification for medical marijuana, the patient
should not also be subject to loss of privacy with regard to the patient's denied medical condition.
R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition B. The Department shall: 4. If applicable: a.
Schedule a public hearing to discuss the request; b. Provide public notice of the public hearing by
submitting a Notice of Public Information to the Office of the Secretary of State, for publication in the
Arizona Administrative Register, at least 30 calendar days before the date of the public hearing; c.
Post a copy of the request on the Departmentâ€™s website for public comment at least 30 calendar
days before the date of the public hearing; and d. Hold a public hearing no more than 150 calendar
days after receiving the request; and Remove: R9-17-106 C. An individual submitting a request for
the addition of a medical condition to the list of the debilitating medical condition shall submit the
request in January or in July of each calendar year.
Dispensary owners must have a 7 year residency in the State of Arizona from the current date
2011counting back 7 years ( i.e. 2004-2011). Notes: 1) Qualified Example: applicant has a 7year
residency in the State of Arizona from 2004 to current 2011. 2) Disqualified Example: applicant lived
in Arizona for 7 years from 1980 to 1987. Then moved and returned back to Arizona in 2009 to
current 2011.
R9-17-318. Physical Plant C. 1 c. A sink with hot and cold running water;
Delete R9-17-307. C in its entirety and renumber accordingly.
Remove the mandatory log record. The patient will feel they have to use appropriate words, if they
are not written down or they write the wrong words, their privileges will be revoked. The sole
purpose of the log should be to treat the interactions or side effects that may be encountered with
Marijuana. Don't treat it like a parole report, these are truly physically sick people and may not be
able to provide this data and believe they can. Why not state, please write down what you are feel
over the course of a month, and have you experienced and ill effects so we may be able use this
medication. Show an interest, not contempt.
For the outside growing area "A lockable gate" For the doctors qualification "A doctor that has not
had a year long prior relationship can recommend the use of medicinal marijuana for a patient if said
doctor has been provided with a comprehensive patient medical file and finds the patient to qualify"
already stated to lower the time frame and to only have one docotor to reccomend
JUST STOP POT SHOPS AND MAKE $ / PAY THE TAX
There should be a licensing option for facilities that wish to test medical marijuana samples for
cannabinoid content, mold and spore counts, and/or pesticides.
Mexico.
36-2804.02. Registration of qualifying patients and designated caregivers A. A QUALIFYING PATIENT

MAY APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD BY SUBMITTING: 1.
WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY A PHYSICIAN WITHIN THE NINETY DAYS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE DATE OF APPLICATION. 2. THE APPLICATION FEE. If I am reading this correctly, you
are going to charge an application fee to a patient. I don't think the patients should be charged an
application fee. I would venture to bet that most patients have exhausted most of their monies on
traditional methods trying to fight their aliments. (ie cancer) They may not even have medical
insurance any longer. If an application fee has to be incurred by the patient it should be VERY nominal
and the language should state that. We did not vote this in for gov. agencies to make a killing on
application fees but to help those who have tried other avenues and those avenues are not successfull
for them.
R9-17-102 5. For a registry identification card for a: a. Qualifying patient; $150; CHANGE TO $25 b.
Designated caregiver, $200; and CHANGE TO $25 c. Dispensary agent, $200; CHANGE TO $25 6. For
renewing a registry identification card for a a. Qualifying patient, $150; CHANGE TO $10 b.
Designated caregiver, $200; and CHANGE TO $10 c. Dispensary agent, $200; CHANGE TO $10 7. For
amending or changing a registry identification card, $10; and 8. For requesting a replacement registry
identification card, $10. Possibly add something about reassessing the fees to ensure the program
pays for itself annually. As the goal of the state is not to make money off this program, it is for it to
pay for itself and not be a burden/debt to the state.
- R9-17-302.B.5 discusses "certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local

jurisdiction." Does this imply the Department of Health Services expects someone to have a location
already secured. This seems very questionable especially c
I suggest removing R9-17-310 altogether. The portion about educational materials is good but should
not require a staffed medical director. I believe the dispensaries should work with a medical doctor to
create the materials and maintain them, but that would not require a full/part time staffed position.
So I would suggest putting the education materials part in another section or new section.
- In section R9-17-302, B. 15, it specifies that "A registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during
regular business hours". Since this requirement is not mentioned in any other location in the Draft
Rules, is this a correct statement or is this t
If you qualify, you can get it from any dispensary
PLEASE PLACE A STRIKE OUT LINE THROUGH EVERYTHING. REMOVED, DELETED, NEGATED, NOT
APPLICABLE, DISREGARD, UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARE ALL GOOD WORDS TO PUT IN FRONT OF EVERY
RULE.
Please consider changing the term "entity" as defined to "person." The term "person" is used
throughout your suggested rules, but is not a defined term, while "entity" is infrequently used in your
rules. I think you are trying to be as broad as possible when you use the term "person" in your rules,
but your use does not do that.
Furthermore, Federal law requires a bona fide doctor-patient relationship before a physician
prescribes a controlled substance. The same requirement should apply for medical marijuana
recommendations. The definition proposed by the Board, in R9-17-101(16)(a), which requires four
visits over the span of a year, may prevent some patients from obtaining the relief offered by the Act
in a timely manner. Principles of medical ethics have standards for the doctor-patient relationship
and the dispensing of medication. Doctors are bound to follow their medical ethics in making
recommendations for medical marijuana. It would violate their ethical standards to make
recommendations for medical marijuana without conducting a proper examination of the patient's
health and history. Excessive government regulation, such as rules that tell the doctor how to
practice "" including how many visits or length of treatment "" overstep the bounds of this
rulemaking. Doctor's ethical standards, not government rules, should control the doctor-patient
relationship. Part B of the definition of "ongoing," in R9-17-101(16)(b), is good to an extent, but it
would prevent U.S. military veterans whose primary care physicians are at the Veterans
relationship.
1. Demonstration of Financial Securityâ€”Surety Bond For the reasons discussed above we believe
the following language should be added to the Surety Bond requirement in R9-17-302(B)(1)(f): Or
other equivalent demonstration of Financial Security such as a letter of credit or equivalent cash
deposit in an escrow account. 2. Dispensary Application Requirementsâ€”Zoning Approval As
discussed above we believe the zoning approval/certificate of occupancy requirement should be
modified with the following language: Revised R9-17-302 (B)(5): An official statement or other
occur in order to perform final improvements prior to operating. Omit R9-17-302 (B)(6) The
same changes should be made for R9-17-304 (A)(2) and (3) concerning a change in location of a
Dispensary of cultivation site, as follows: Revised R9-17-304 (A)(2): An official statement or other
occur in order to perform final improvements prior to operating. Omit R9-17-304 (A)(3) 3.
Medical Director Qualificationâ€”Naturopathic Doctors For the reasons indentified below the
following language to include Naturopathic Doctors should be included in the definition of a Medical
Director in R9-17-101(15) to read as follows: â€œMedical Directorâ€ means a doctor of medicine
who holds a valid and existing license to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or
its successor, a doctor of naturopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice
naturopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor, or a doctor of
medical oversight at the dispensary.â€ 4. Ensuring Secure Patient Access--Biometrics In order to
be 100% certain that those purchasing MMJ are indeed authorized to do so, we believe that DHS
should require biometric verification of patient identity prior to dispensing medicine by amending R9-
17-311(1) to read: â€œVerify the qualifying patientâ€™s or the designated caregiverâ€™s identity
using biometric identity verification technology such as a thumb print scan or other DHS approved
method;â€ B. A dispensary may use an automated electronic system of hardware and software to
verify the information required in Section A before dispensing medical marijuana to a qualifying
electronic verification system. 5. Cultivationâ€”70/30 Split Requirement To avoid the unintended
consequences of this requirement Rule R9-17-307(C) should be deleted. 6. Cultivation Facility
Requirements--Greenhouses To allow cultivation facilities to utilize our vast natural solar resource
thereby preventing waste. The definition of â€œEnclosedâ€ should be altered to specifically allow
secure greenhouse facilities. 7. Product Testing The only way to ensure that patients are able to
have access to safe and effective medicine is to require cultivators to test their MMJ for contaminants,
THC levels and cannabinoid profiles. Without this information, patients will have no way of knowing
what they are getting. The Rules should be modified to include these requirements by adding them to
the labeling provisions in R9-17-314(A): 1. THC percentage 2. Cannabinoid profile 3. Results
of lab tests for mold and pesticides 4. Verification of any â€œorganicâ€ claims 8. Employee
Education DHS should require dispensary agents to be educated in at least MMJ basics via a
reputable institution. Therefore R9-17-308 should be modified to include: Documentation of
whether the dispensary agent has attended or is enrolled in an approved/accredited educational
institution for medical marijuana education.
See the suggestions.
Yes: "Those that would wish to impart evil upon our land, in our schools and our children will parish,
for we will destroy them and the places that they hide."
1. AZDHS must allow the patient/caregiver to grow if the patientâ€™s home is more than 25 miles
from a dispensary, and individual grows cannot be allowed if the patient lives within 25 miles of a
dispensary. The initiative does not reference where the caregiver resides. The caregiver could
reside next door to a dispensary. Therefore, it would follow that if the caregiver resides within the
25-mile radius there is no need for him/her to grow as access is readily available. 2. Since I live in a
rural area, I really feel strongly that AZDHS should minimize the ability to â€œhome-growâ€ as this
creates a huge potential for misuse and crime. Therefore I urge AZDHS to strategically license
dispensaries to encompass as much geographic area of the state as possible. 3. As with other
medication, marijuana should be kept in properly labeled and sealed and child-proof containers so
that they are safe from young children. This should be the case in either the smokeable or eatable
form. For example, eatable brownies put children at risk unless they are properly contained. 4. The
initiative calls for marijuana that is being grown or sold to be in a locked facility. However, once it is in
the hands of the caregiver or patient, there is no requirement to keep marijuana secure. It can be
stored on the kitchen table. Therefore, some requirement should be made to keep the marijuana in a
secure-locked closet, room, container, etc. 5. Require that sale of marijuana be conducted in
person. No automated sales.
Working on this now...
Summary The department has a duty to facilitateâ€”not subvertâ€”the law. Consistent with the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, the department must acknowledge that patients have rights to choose
their care and their providers. The department has a duty to ensure that compassionate and talented
providers who do not have millions of dollars to gamble are awarded licenses. The department has a
duty to promulgate compassionate and reasonable regulations.
No.Â However we have a specific suggestion for an amendment. Â The Rules should be amended by
completely removing Â§R9-17-307 (C).
The only error in language... 15. Whether: a. A (CHANGE registered pharmacist to medical director)
will be onsite or on-call during regular business hours; b. The dispensary will provide information
about the importance of physical activity and nutrition onsite; c. (DELETE Whether) the dispensary
has or has not incorporated; and d. (DELETE Whether) the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so,
how much; and
Unfortunately, the lawyer on my team has been out of the country for the entire draft comment
period. We hope to provide some useful language in the January 31st - February 18th comment
period. Apologies as this is something I very much wanted to do.
Let people get treatment if they are ill
A barrier wall 8 feet high with razor wire around the top surrounding a greenhouse...
The 25 mile cultivation clause does not mean that marijuana can not be cultivated in less distance to a
dispensary. This is sabotage for the poor people that want to get off alcohol and prescription drugs.
The 25 mile clause says that a patience can grow marijuana at that distance but that sentence does
not preclude a closer more realistic option for people that want to grow their own medicine. The
distance to an expensive and dangerous despensary where you are put at risk by being forced to go to
only adds to the danger and expense of aquiring medical marijuana. This is a sweetheart deal for the
rich cats that want to get into the marijuana business but does nothing for sick people.
DHS may delegate inspection of dispensaries to local authorities. Add R9-17-306(H): â€œThe
Department may delegate its authority under this section to local authority pursuant to A.R.S. Â§36-
136.â€ Modify R9-17-306(C) as follows: â€œExcept as provided in subsection (E), routine on-site
inspection of a dispensary shall occur no earlier than 24 hours after the Department submits written
notice of the Departmentâ€™s intent to inspect the dispensary. Routine inspections under this
subsection shall occur during the dispensaryâ€™s normal business hoursâ€ Add to R9-17-314(A)(7):
â€œThe marijuana shall be dispensed in a sealed container approved by the Department. The
containers shall contain a bar code or other computerized tracking system approved by the
Department.â€ Modify R9-17-102(5)(b) and (6)(b) as follows: â€œDesignated Caregiver, $200 per
patient for which caregiving services are provided.â€ Caregivers must be limited to how many
"medical" marijuana patients they see and must have a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship
established. No more than 30 patients. The medical professional should be required to revoke if they
havenâ€™t seen the patient within 3 months. Just as other federal controlled substances must be only
given out for 30 days, this, too, should be regulated 3. Caregivers, Cardholders and Dispensary
Agents must be residents of Arizona and must possess an Arizona driverâ€™s license or identification
card. (a) Strike R9-17-105(F) (b) Strike R9-17-107(F)(1)(d)(iv) (c) Strike R9-17-202(F)(2)(d) (d) Strike R9-
17-202(F)(6)(i)(iv) (e) Strike R9-17-202(G)(6)(d) (f) Strike R9-17-203(A)(2)(i)(c) (g) Strike R9-17-
204(A)(5)(f)(iv) (h) Strike R9-17-308(5)(d)
An HIV / AIDS person should have documented wasting (10% of lean body weight in the past 3 - 6
months or whatever wasting definition is appropriate), have severe, documented peripheral
neuropathy pain syndrome. A diagnosis of HIV / AIDS DOES NOT imply need for marijuana.
Removal of the attempt to define a patient-doctor relationship. Much of what is in this section is not
the authority of DHS to regulate or define.
R9-17-102 section 18 c viii. Where smoking tobacco is allowed. R9-17-102 section 20. "Working
day" means the period from 8am-10pm on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
Saturday. On Sunday means the period from 10am-3pm. R9-17-204 A to renew a qualifying
patient's registry identification card, the qualifying patient shall submit the following to the
Department at least 7 calendar days before the expiration date of the qualifying patient's registry
identification card: ( 30 days is to long of a time to renew your card, as long as it is renewed before
the expiration date should be fine) R9-17-204 A 4. A physician's written certification in a Department-
provided format dated within 30 calendar days before the submission. ( 90 days is way to long for
patients to wait) R9-17-204 A 4.e.i Has a professional relationship with the qualifying patient that has
existed for at least 30 calendar days and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on
at least 2 visits for the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the
professional relationship
Article 2 R9-17-201 14. Or, whenever the available pharmaceutical medications or treatment for the
above conditions have side effects that are more harmful to the patient's health than marijuana
treatment. (patients should maintain the right to choose the least harmful treatment for their
condition) R9-17-201 g. (append) ... as well as the benefits and risks of alternative pharmaceutical
drugs.
The "activities of daily living" definition should also include working, shopping, and traveling. The
"ongoing" definition should be removed.
Things just need to be reviewed and areas rewrote and understand that some areas your crossing the
law. The Health Department is to over see things to a point We have laws in place so everyone needs
to follow them. I think with some review that this can be put together and this can come together
and operate fine Please remember that there are everyday working hard people that were born and
raised in Arizona trying to get dispensaries to make this program work correctly for everyone.
Overall, it is full of encumbered regulations and unnecessary rules. Please clean this up and make it
more about the patient instead of about the business. If you don't, people won't be bothered with
the despensaries and the black market will reign.
"Medical director" means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license to practice
medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor or a doctor of naturopathic
Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and
existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its
successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the
dispensary
see above
- R9-17-302.B.5 discusses "certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local

jurisdiction." Does this imply the Department of Health Services expects someone to have a location
already secured. This seems very questionable especially c
Medical marijuana dispensaries supplying marijuana used for infusion shall submit samples for
laboratory analysis every 90 days to ensure wholesomeness of the food product. The laboratory
performing the analysis shall be capable of detecting pesticides, fungicides and other toxic chemicals
injurious to human health. Medical marijuana dispensaries shall grow all marijuana used for infusion
and shall not be permitted to obtain marijuana from other sources for the purposes of infusion. The
cost of all the analysis performed shall be the responsibility for the medical marijuana dispensary.
The medical marijuana dispensary shall supply a list of all additives applied to the marijuana while
growing and subsequent to harvesting to prospective customers. The additives shall also be posted in
the medical marijuana dispensary, in a conspicuous place, for public inspection.
Cleaning requirements for storage vessels and equipment/machinery causes an undue burden. The
language could be improved by including that such cleaning be performed "before use/contact with
usable marijuana". Inspections of designated caregiver facilities should be better defined for
regulatory purposes. The timeline provided for audits of financial records does not allow for a
dispensary to submit a full years financial statements for re-certification after the first year of
business.
R9-17-101 # 6 Cultivation site means the one additional location BESIDES THE DISPENSARY where
marijuana will be cultivated by and for the dispensary.
â€¢ In R9-17-301, the draft rules allow a dispensary entity to be an individual, LLC, partnership, etc
and in R9-17-302. B 13, the dispensary business plan is required to â€œdemonstrate the on-going
viability of the dispensary as a non-profit organizationâ€. Please consider revising this verbiage to
â€œan entity that operates on a not-for profit basisâ€. In short, some additional clarity is really
needed in the area of permissible entity structures. â€¢ In R9-17-313 B 3a, please consider
rewording this and other sections that refer to growing methods to read, â€œThe strain of marijuana
and growing method.â€ As you are probably aware, marijuana is commonly vegetatively-propagated
using a method called â€œcloningâ€. With clones, the date that the mother plantâ€™s seed was
sown is irrelevant. Many hybrid strains are only available as clones as their genetics are not stable.
Unless there is an option for â€œnoneâ€, it is misleading to require that the type of soil be recorded
as marijuana is commonly grown hydroponically, without soil. In this case, the watering schedule is
not really needed. In a hydroponic setting, water is constantly supplied to the root system. â€¢ In
R9-17-317 A 1, Please consider rewording this to add color that ensures proper, not daily, disposal of
waste materials.
The entire draft needs to be revised. It does not allow access to medical marijuana as the statute
THAT THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA voted in.
Patients should be allowed to cultivate either 24 plants 1'x1'x1' or 12 plants as big as they want.
The security section should be the same requirements as any pharmacy.
patient relationship has existed for at least three months and the physician has seen or assessed the
patient on at least two visits for the patient's debilitating medical condition during the course of the
physician-patient relationship;
Seel above info

See above
See recommendations
Correct the definitions: In the original proposition voted on by AZ residents, physician included NMD's
and HMD'S. This draft seems to manipulate the definitions and intent of AZ law to selfishly exclude
the extremely beneficially state approved benefits of alternative medicine. It appears as though they
conviently omitted chapter 14 and 29. How sneaky and self serving!!!!!!!!!
No
R9-17-302 Each principal officer board member or person's with financial interest in or a dispensary is
an Arizona Resident and has been for the two years immediately preceeding the date the dispensary
submits a dispensary certificate application. (Key wording "with financial interest")
R9-17-101. Definitions 16. "Ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship
means: a. The physician-patient relationship where the debilitating medical has been assessed
None
* A patient must pay $150 each year for an identification card, and a designated caregiver, $200.
There does not appear to be a sliding scale or lower cost card available for low-income patients, as
most other states have. We suggest reducing the fee for patients receiving SSI, SSDI, or Medicaid
benefits. * A dispensary may provide only 30% of its cultivated marijuana to other registered
dispensaries and may acquire only 30% of its own marijuana supply from other registered
dispensaries. This is very problematic and not in the best interests of patients, as it will likely create
acute shortages in rural areas and drive costs up. Those patients within 25 miles of a rural dispensary
unable to meet demand will have no secondary option for safe access to their medicine. Please
submit comments asking DHS to create an open wholesale relationship between dispensaries. This
will assure consistent supply to rural Arizona, easy access for all qualifying patients, and lower costs
due to increased competition of organizations trying to meet demand. * A patientâ€™s Arizona
physician must either 1) have been treating that patient for the debilitating medical condition for at
least a year that included at least four visits, or 2) have taken primary responsibility for the care of the
debilitating medical condition after compiling a medical history, conducting a comprehensive exam,
and reviewing medical records. This provision is stricter than in most of the medical marijuana states,
but does not appear designed to prevent a seriously ill patient with a demonstrable debilitating
medical condition from getting a written certification. It may make it impossible for some veterans to
qualify, because Veterans Administration Hospital doctors do not issue recommendations.
R9-17-307. Administration A. A dispensary shall: 1. Develop, document, and implement policies and
procedures regarding: a. Job descriptions and employment contracts, including personnel duties,
authority, responsibilities, and qualifications; personnel supervision; training in and adherence to
confidentiality requirements; periodic performance evaluations; and disciplinary actions; b. Business
records, including manual or computerized records of assets and liabilities, monetary transactions,
journals, ledgers, and supporting documents, including agreements, checks, invoices, and vouchers;
c. Inventory control, including tracking, packaging, accepting marijuana from qualifying patients and
designated caregivers, and disposing of unusable marijuana; d. Qualifying patient records, including
purchases, denial of sale, delivery options, if any, confidentiality, and retention; e. Patient education
and support. Information collection will be handled by the Department of Health by a survey.
Questions to be determined by a State sponsored Medical Research Panel from the University of
Arizona and Arizona State 2. Maintain copies of the policies and procedures at the dispensary and
provide copies to the Department for review upon request; 3. Not allow an individual who does not
possess a dispensary agent registry identification card issued under the dispensary registration
certificate to: a. Serve as a principal officer or board member for the dispensary, b. Be employed by
the dispensary, c. Have access to medical marijuana at a food establishment contracted to infuse
medical marijuana into edible food products for the dispensary; or d. Provide volunteer services at or
on behalf of the dispensary; and 4. Provide written notice to the Department, including the date of
the event within ten days after the date, when a dispensary agent no longer: a. Serves as a principal
officer or board member for the dispensary, b. Is employed by the dispensary, c. Has access to
medical marijuana at a food establishment contracted to infuse medical marijuana into edible food
products for the dispensary, or d. Provides volunteer services at or on behalf of the dispensary. B.
Except as provided in subsection (C), a dispensary shall cultivate the medical marijuana dispensed by
the dispensary in an enclosed, locked facility. C. A dispensary: 1. Shall cultivate at least 70% of the
medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers; 2. Shall
only provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary to another dispensary in
Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28.1 and
this Chapter to acquire medical marijuana; 3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; 4. May acquire up to 30% of the
medical marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients and designated caregivers from
another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; and 5. Shall not
provide more than 30% of the medical marijuana cultivated by the dispensary to other dispensaries.
Define more clearly what are "edibles" and what oral agents are considered pharmaceuticals.
None
A registration packet for a dispensary is not complete until the applicant provides the Department
with written notice that the dispensary is ready for an inspection by the Department. The application
process for a dispensary is a two step process. Step One is the application process, as outlined in the
draft under R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate with the following changes.
immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a dispensary certificate application. B. To
register and obtain a certificate for a dispensary, a person shall submit to the Department the
following: 1. An application in a Department-provided format that includes: a. The legal name of the
dispensary; b. The physical address of the dispensary; c. The name of the person applying; d. The
name of the individual designated to submit dispensary agent applications on behalf of the
dispensary; e. The name, address, and date of birth of each: i. Principal officer, ii. Board member,
and iii. Dispensary agent; f. Whether a principal officer or board member: i. Has served as a
principal officer or board member for a dispensary that had the dispensary registration certificate
revoked; ii. Is a physician currently making qualifying patient recommendations; iii. Has not
provided a surety bond or filed any tax return with a taxing agency; iv. Has unpaid taxes, interest, or
penalties due to a governmental agency; v. Has an unpaid judgment due to a governmental agency;
vi. Is in default on a government-issued student loan; vii. Failed to pay court-ordered child support;
viii. Is a law enforcement officer; or ix. Is employed by or a contractor of the Department; g.
Whether the dispensary agrees to allow the Department to submit supplemental requests for
information; h. The dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site will be ready for an
inspection by the Department, 120 days from the date of issuance of the temporary Dispensary
Registration Certificate. i. An attestation that the information provided to the Department to apply
for a dispensary registration certificate is true and correct; and j. The signature of the individual or
individuals in R9-17-301 and date signed; 2. If the person applying is one of the business
organizations in R9-17-301(2) through (7), the following: a. The name of the business organization;
b. The name and title of each principal officer and board member; and c. A copy of the business
organization's articles of incorporation, articles of organization, or partnership or joint venture
documents, if applicable; 3. For each principal officer and board member: a. An attestation signed
and dated by the principal officer or board member that the principal officer or board member has
not been convicted of an excluded felony offense as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2801; b. An attestation
signed and dated by the principal officer or board member that the principal officer or board member
is an Arizona resident and has been an Arizona resident for at least two consecutive years
immediately preceding the date the dispensary submitted the dispensary certificate application; c.
For the Department's criminal records check authorized in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2804.05: i. The principal
officer's or board member's fingerprints in a Department-provided format that includes the principal
officer's or board member's name, date of birth, social security number, and fingerprints; or ii. If the
fingerprints and information required in subsection (B)(3)(c)(i) were submitted as part of an
application for a designated caregiver or a dispensary agent to the Department within the last six
months, the registry identification number on the registry identification card issued to the principal
officer or board member as a result of the application; and d. A copy of one of the following
containing the principal officer's or board member's name and current residence address: i. A non-
expired Arizona driver's license; ii. A non-expired Arizona identification card; iii. A current lease
agreement; iv. A mortgage statement for the most recent tax year; v. A tax statement issued by a
governmental entity for the most recent tax year; vi. A utility bill dated within 60 calendar days
before the date of the dispensary application; vii. A paycheck or statement of direct deposit issued by
an employer dated within 60 calendar days before the date of the dispensary application; viii.
Current motor vehicle, life, or health insurance policy; or ix. Any other document that demonstrates
that the principal officer or board member is an Arizona resident; 4. Policies and procedures that
comply with the requirements in this Chapter for: a. Inventory control, b. Qualifying patient
recordkeeping, c. Security, and d. Patient education and support; 5. Upon receipt of a temporary
Dispensary Registration Certificate, the applicant will provide within 120 days a copy of the certificate
of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing
occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site; 6.
Upon receipt of a temporary Dispensary Registration Certificate, the applicant will provide within 120
days A site plan drawn to scale of the dispensary location showing streets, property lines, buildings,
parking areas, outdoor areas if applicable, fences, security features, fire hydrants if applicable, and
access to water mains; 7. The applicable fee in R9-17-102 for applying for an initial registration of a
dispensary. Step Two in the R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate should
include the following sections of the draft. R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration
Certificate B.-1.-h. The dispensary and, if applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site will be ready for
an inspection by the Department, 120 days from the date of issuance of the temporary Dispensary
Registration Certificate. and R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B.-
5.Upon receipt of a temporary Dispensary Registration Certificate, the applicant will provide within
120 days a copy of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction
to the applicant authorizing occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the
dispensary's cultivation site. and R9-17-302. Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate B.-6.
Upon receipt of a temporary Dispensary Registration Certificate, the applicant will provide within 120
days a site plan drawn to scale of the dispensary location showing streets, property lines, buildings,
access to water main.
25 mile rule: DRIVING DISTANCE
â€œThe definition of â€˜Medical Directorâ€™ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in

A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians. They have
pharmaceutical prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona.â€
Respect the original Proposition 203 definition of "Physician" that was passed by the majority of
Arizona voters. Please refer to the Original definition of "Physician" in Prop 203. Thank You for
honoring the original Prop 203 that was voted on and passed in our wonderful state of ARIZONA.
Respect the original Proposition 203 definition of "Physician" that was passed by the majority of
Arizona voters. Please refer to the Original definition of "Physician" in Prop 203. Thank You for
honoring the original Prop 203 that was voted on and passed in our wonderful state of ARIZONA.
Delete the definition of â€ongoingâ€ and â€œ physician-patient relationshipâ€ from the
â€œdefinitionsâ€ and any subsequent requirements related to doctor certifications or approval of
registration of a qualifying patient.
No. I have never written anything like this. I'm sure you could hire a lawyer to help you, such as
. His website is and his phone number is His office is
in Chandler, but I am sure he would be thrilled to help you.
06 January 2011
Dear Mr. Humble, et al: Please consider the following comments with respect to the 47 pages of
proposed regulations for the Medical Marijuana Program as described in your document of 17
December 2010. I write only on my own behalf, and do not represent any other person or group.
First, I read the text of your proposed regulations a few hours after it was posted. Then I printed it out
and laid it aside for some weeks. Frankly, my initial reaction was that this was a document written by
a committee of bureaucrats whose primary agenda was not the welfare of the sick and suffering.
Rather that agenda was (and remains) primarily the maintenance of the status quo with respect to the
prohibition of cannabis. My initial impression has since expanded in scope. I read with some interest
the feedback from Dr. Suter, which you have no doubt seen as well. Briefly, I agree with him entirely.
So, I wonâ€™t recapitulate his critique. I will offer a little of my own criticism. I noted particularly on
further examination your inclusion of a number of clauses that reference the citizenship status of
applicants for cards. Now why might this have been suggested? Always a fan of Occamâ€™s Razor, I
infer that this reflects the current vile Republican obsession with and exploitation of the Mexican
immigration issue. Shame on you. Call it what you will, I call it racism, pure and simple. While on the
subject of Republicans and Republican politics, I would also observe that many Republicans make
great political hay out of opposing burdensome rules and regulations for business. Yet what do we
find here in your proposed regulations? I know you guessed that much: burdensome rules and
regulations. As an aside, this is largely why I donâ€™t vote Republican: because they talk a good line
about freedom, but deliver mostly hypocrisy. Iâ€™ll further note that while I am not a devotee of
naturopathy or naturopathic physicians, Proposition 203 as passed did allow for NMDs to issue
recommendations. This should be allowed, and you have no authority to prohibit. So, to sum up,
your agenda is transparent. This agenda has little to do with the public welfare, and certainly nothing
to do with freedom. It is straight out of early 20th century progressivism: idealism distorted by a
peculiar world view and manifest first in the Harrison Act, then the Volstead Act, and later by a
succession of laws devoted to the oppression of hated minorities by the application of laws allegedly
devoted to the public health. Mr. Humble, one of my mentors once impressed upon me the value of
brevity and clarity in writing. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor. Pare those 47 pages down to 5.
The rest is horse crap. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,
P.S. In the interests of full disclosure, you might as well know that while I am not one of
the engineers of Prop 203, I was one of its early supporters. I have been a member and backer of
several organizations concerned with drug law reform during the past three decades. cc:
R9-17-315. Big Brother Monitoring and Invasion of Privicy Survailance Since all items listed in this
section are mandatory and not voluntary this section should be retitled to truely represent the
intention.
arthritis, fibromyalgia, stomach problems, nausea, anxiety, high blood pressure, stress
rewite the drafts and treat it as a prescribed medication instead of an illegal activity - I expect more
from those who have a Dr title in front of their name.
The Depart of Health could state somewhere that if the rules are not followed that Criminal action
against a person could happen.
R9-17-109 DUTY TO REPORT/DISCLOSE A. All holders of Registry Indentification Cards must notify the
department within 10 days of being convicted of a violent crime according to ARS 13-901.03 and/or
convicted of a controlled substance law according to ARS 36-2801. R9-17-202(F)(6)(f) An attestation
signed and dated by the designated caregiver that the designated caregiver has not been convicted of
an excluded felony offense as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2801; and proof that any offenses reported in
his/her criminal history are not excluded offenses. (i) Applicant has the burden of proof to determine
that each offense reported in his/her criminal history is not an excluded offense, and (ii) Applicant
must provide copies of official police and court records showing the date of disposition and the final
disposition for each offense reported as a result of providing their fingerprint results. (iii) All
applications are considered administratively incomplete if offenses are reported without the records
required in R9-17-202(F)(6)(b). Applicant understands his/her application or renewal may be denied
without providing official records the department has determined are sufficient to meet requirements
for obtaining a Registry Identification Card. R9-17-202(G)(3) An attestation signed and dated by the
qualifying patient's custodial parent or legal guardian that the qualifying patient's custodial parent or
legal guardian has not been convicted of an excluded felony offense as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2801;
and proof that any offenses reported in his/her criminal history are not excluded offenses. (a)
Applicant has the burden of proof to determine that each offense reported in his/her criminal history
is not an excluded offense, and (b) Applicant must provide copies of official police and court records
showing the date of disposition and the final disposition for each offense reported as a result of
providing their fingerprint results. (c) All applications are considered administratively incomplete if
offenses are reported without the records required in R9-17-202(F)(6)(b). Applicant understands
his/her application or renewal may be denied without providing official records the department has
determined are sufficient to meet requirements for obtaining a Registry Identification Card. R9-
17-302(B) (3) For each principal officer and board member: a. An attestation signed and dated by the
principal officer or board member that the principal officer or board member has not been convicted
of an excluded felony offense as defined in A.R.S. Â§ 36-2801; and proof that any offenses reported in
his/her criminal history are not excluded offenses. (i) Applicant has the burden of proof to determine
that each offense reported in his/her criminal history is not an excluded offense, and (ii) Applicant
must provide copies of official police and court records showing the date of disposition and the final
disposition for each offense reported as a result of providing their fingerprint results. (ii) All
applications are considered administratively incomplete if offenses are reported without the records
required in R9-17-202(F)(6)(b). Applicant understands his/her application or renewal may be denied
without providing official records the department has determined are sufficient to meet requirements
for obtaining a Registry Identification Card.
Eliminate all the political angling in the proposal and treat Marijuana as you would any other
medicine. The voters have decided TWICE and you aren't listening. Use common sense.
Use precise wording and clear directives.
If we are in the State of Arizona, we should comply with Title 10 of incorporating within this state.
Can you imagine if every Company or Corporation was able to Incorporate differently just because of
its line of work. Page 17 of the Inititive states "is NOT" required to incorporate pursuant to Title 10
Didn't this work for the Corporation Commissioner at one time? He is the Chairman of AZ
Med MJ Policy project. I appreciate the Voters of Arizona spoke about this Health Matter, but these
organizers have held fund raising events that have not been open to the Public. They insinuate that
they have an inside track.
In section 3 for cultivation A Type of soil used? Do you mean type of growing medium? You are
asking if soil or hydro? If you are, it should by growing medium....... Seems a little silly to be so anal
about the medicine inventory, when drying/curing will make the weigh evaporate
Incorporate the changes in the above where needed.
The draft of the rules is not clear as to whether or not a Dispensary can have both the grow site and
dispensary at the same physical location. At what point in the process do the City and Town
regulatory agencies come into play? Where are the notations in the rules which mention whose rules
take precedence? Can a local jurisdiction prevent a State licensed dispensary from opening in their
jurisdiction? From what vendor/agency is the Dispensary to purchase their initial inventory? The
preliminary rules state that the dispensary may only purchase or sell 30% of their inventory. How do
they acqurie the initial inventory and if using their own grow site, how do they legally obtain the seeds
to start?
No.
A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician: i. Has a professional relationship with the
qualifying patient for treatment of a debilitating medical condition which includes a complete medical
history and physical exam. ii. That they have provided care for the debilitating medical condition for
a least one year and the physician has seen or assessed the qualifying patient on at least four visits for
the patient's debilitating medical condition; or iii. That the physician has determined that is would
be unreasonable for a patient to wait for treatment to begin because of the patients life expectancy
and or acute nature of their debilitating medical condition.
Please expand the definition of â€œMedical Directorâ€ as found in Section R9-17-101(15) to read as
follows: â€œMedical Directorâ€ means a doctor of medicine who holds a valid and existing license
to practice medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 13 or its successor, a doctor of naturopathic
Title 32, Chapter 14 or its successor, or a doctor of osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and
existing license to practice osteopathic medicine pursuant to A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 17 or its
successor and who has been designated by a dispensary to provide medical oversight at the
dispensary.â€
I leave the appropriate language to you.
pricing card cost and smoking areas u figure it out
make changes to the smoking areas. outdoors hotels any designated smoking area should be fine. all
adults in there anyways. and its not like everybody will be in there smoking pot anyways get real. we
passed it stop making the rules so hard forus. police have other things to worry about than someone
smoking pot. pricing also is a big issue and its no where in the rules or law to protect patients from
high cost of medicine.
Section R9-17-307 Administration: Section 1: expand to include the following: Site-specific employee
handbooks, Non-compete agreements, random drug testing, workers compensation. and a policy
procedure mnual to encompass all other adminstrative and HR functions.
Has anything been left out that should be in the rules?
Open-Ended Response
You forgot to refund the 5000 application fee to dipensary permit applicants that are not approved.!!!!!
Yes but it would take me days to correct the faults of the DHS. and it would be pointless because you
wouldn't take any of it into consideration.
Local governments should be the final arbiters about who is able to establich dispensaries in rural
districts.
1. DHS should require geographic dispersion of dispensaries. Please place dispensaries so that fewer
individuals are allowed to grow their own marijuana. 2. DHS may delegate inspection of dispensaries
to local authorities. Please allow our local authorities to keep our community protected. 3. Reasonable
notice of routine inspections should be only 24 hours. This will insure the dispensary is following
guidelines. 4. Dispensaries should be required to file public reports providing information on the
number of customers, marijuana sales volume, and financial status of the dispensary. (The dispensary
need not reveal specific information about individual customers, but to insure that dispensaries are not
operating illicitly, it is important that the legislature, DHS, local authorities, and the public have
information regarding a dispensary's number of customers, volume of marijuana, and financial
condition.) 5. Caregivers, Cardholders and Dispensary Agents must be residents of Arizona and must
possess an Arizona driver's license or identification card. (The initiative declares that its purpose is to
remove state-level criminal penalties for medical marijuana use for the citizens of Arizona. Other states
such as California and Colorado have allowed non-citizens to participate in medical marijuana programs,
which resulted in a tremendous increase of illicit use of marijuana due to cross-border smuggling of
marijuana. Please require that patients, caregivers, and dispensing agents should be required to prove
they are citizens of the State of Arizona and the United States of America.) 6. The medical
professional issuing the certification should be given the authority to revoke a patient's certification at
any time. In addition, the medical professional should be required to revoke if they haven't seen the
patient within 6 months. 7. The legislature should set a presumptive THC metabolite level for
impairment (similar to presumptive blood alcohol level) effective in situations of driving, machinery
operation and employment. (Impairment is difficult to determine without presumptive standards.) 8.
The legislature should impose criminal penalties for smoking marijuana in public. (The initiative forbids
smoking marijuana in public, but provides no penalty. Smoking of marijuana in public encourages its
illicit use, and exposes marijuana to children. Since marijuana use in public is not authorized by the
initiative and is a criminal activity in Arizona, smoking of marijuana in public by a cardholder should be
made a serious criminal act.)
Is there any way to determine the time frames for the approval/inspection process for the dispensary.
In order to ensure the product's validity, check points should be made for each dispensary to keep an
eye on the cultivation process. This will ensure the product is not just shipped in from somewhere
where there are no regulations. In order to create a dispensary there should be an inspection process
from seed to dispense. And once this is set, a time frame should also be established.
Naturopathic doctors were not included in the definition of “Medical Director”. Naturopathic physicians
are specially trained in how the body operates as system, and routinely work with naturally occurring
herbs and remedies. Thereby Naturopaths are uniquely qualified to work as Medical Directors in MM
Dispensaries in this state. We feel that the omission of “Naturopathic Doctors” from the definition of
“Medical Director”, as stated in the draft rules, is not in the best interest of the State of Arizona and
those patients who will benefit from MM therapies. To incorporate “Naturopathic Doctor” in the
definition of “Medical Director” is to allow those with the greatest understanding of how natural
remedies impact the body to be available to assist in and oversee the use of MM.
I am unhappy with the "medical" marijuana law and plead for rules that will preclude recreational use.
Please See Above. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS.
Please See Above. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS.
Limit out of state interests ability to hire local "puppets" to set up dispensaries for them. When it comes
down to it you're going to have to pick your battles, Bankrupting your agency in litigation to have
Doctors telling patients what their own Doctor already should have is a non issue. Requiring dispensary
owners to be millionaires, when $125-150k will be more than enough to set up and operate a
responsible and respectable establishment is in one word: criminal! Aside from walking the line and
keeping abuse minimized, the one thing you should fight for is keeping the cali/rado consortium from
turning our state into another pothead haven! You know that their motives consist of only two things:
greed, and promoting legalization! Just keeping the residency requirement through the process of
distributing the initial licenses would eliminate 99% of the riffraff from getting in. Legally defending after
that would probably be a waste of money, but it will have already worked for the most part. There
are Arizonans that are respectable hard working middle class people that should have the right to
benefit from any new industry that is coming here! Alone you might be able to shove us under the
carpet, but unless you address the issues we brought up in the improving the draft section we intend to
participate in legal action to keep this fair and honest. We realize the has their own agenda, but
we also agree with more than half of their arguments and unless some revisions are made that address
our grievances we will also consider supporting them. Unless you desire to see a pile of lawyers get
rich at the expense of our bankrupt state we urge you to carefully reconsider your position on the most
heavily contested issues. Bringing this all together won't be easy, but we do wish you luck. I can
honestly say this submission is an attempt to help you make the process better for everyone with the
best of intentions!
I see a lot of infomation about Patients, Caregivers, and Dispensaries, but I see little information on how
employers and law enforcement officers are to adhere to the new laws. Here are two areas that I would
like to see address and/or clarified. 1. What is "under the influence"? That needs to be addressed.
We have clear limits for What is speeding; there is a speed limit; What is the amount a person can
show for alcohol; .08. What type of drugs and their amounts for DOT purposes. There needs to be a
limit for what is considered "under the influence" for medical marijuana. We should be looking at
Colorado's proposed limits of 5 nanograms. We need this placed in the law now because of the
backlash that will happen if we do not. How will employers look at work comp claims; employees who
have accidents while driving vehicles or equipment and cause damage to company property, co-workers,
the public or themselves. Again, the law gives definitions for all of the other terms, but 'under the
influence' has never been address. How is anyone to enforce that part of this law? If there is no clear
cut defination of under the infulence, then the courts will be seeing many more cases and those who will
win will be the lawyers. In essences, you are telling the employers and law enforcement to enforce the
rules, but we will not give you the tools to do so. 2. Employers and Law Enforcement need to have
the ability to look into the card registry to see who is a 'eligible card carrying patient or caregiver'.
Again, "here's the law, enforce it, work with it; but we won't help you with the tools to work with. It
would be no different than using E-Verify. Please get as much of this law as right as you can from
the start. Arizona doesn't not need to turn into another CA. Thank you for your time,
You need to address the disposal of any product or by-product that is left over. Can a dispensary have
more then one (1) grow facility? Can a dispensary also have a kitchen at a seperate location? Can you
own more then one dispensary on a license? Can you own more then one (1) dispensary and have the
same grow facility for both? For chronic pain, does the patient have to have four visits to the Doctor for
accidents where the patient has fallen or gotten into an auto accident and is hurt? I think that the grow
facility should not be made public as to keep the potential crime down. I do not believe that nurses
should be able to fill this spot, only MD's. How do the dispensaries handle repairs? Plumbing leaks,
electrical. Do these people have to be licensed to enter the facility? What happens if the states system
goes down, will their be a telephone contact or does the dispensary have to close until the problem is
fixed?
“The definition of ‘Medical Director’ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in A.R.S. Title 32,
Chapter 14. I value my naturopathic doctors as much as my western medicine caretakers and believe
them to be a medical director of mine. They have pharmaceutical prescription privileges, and are
covered by many insurances here in Arizona, and should therefore be able to dispense in addition to
refer. Thanks.
The definition of ‘Medical Director’ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in A.R.S. Title 32,
Chapter 14. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians. They have pharmaceutical
prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona.
“The definition of ‘Medical Director’ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in A.R.S. Title 32,
Chapter 14. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians. They have pharmaceutical
prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona.”
I want to register my extreme displeasure with this legislation, and my wish that those of you writing
the regulations will make them as difficult and stringent as the parameters of the legislation permit.
The legalization of medical marijuana has been shown to lead to increased marijuana recreational use in
other states, and it will happen in Arizona as well. In Colorado, for example, researchers have found
that since the legalization of medical marijuana in that state, treatment referrals for marijuana at the
Denver Health Medical Center have tripled, "with 83% of the teens who smoke pot daily saying they
obtained it from a medical marijuana patient." We should never have legalized medical marijuana. It
is nothing more than a smokescreen for legalization of recreational marijuana use. Now that the idiots
in our state have legalized it, I implore you to at least follow my suggestions in writing the final draft of
the regulations. It is partidularly important to permanently terminate the rights of any qualifying patient
who is proven to have dispensed it to anyone else at all. You and I both know that most of the patients
will fake symptoms just so they can use pot legally. Let's at least try to make it very tough for them to
do so.
How will patients know when a dispensary is within 25 miles of their residences?
ADHS should provide rules that do not duplicate or usurp the responsibilies of other established
government subdivisions. ADHS should focus less on preventing recreational use and more on rules that
do not interfere with medicine supply, that preserve patient dignity and rules that do not delay or
prevent a patient acquiring adequate marijuana to treat their conditins
The Department has failed to include safeguards for dispensary applicants against crippling costs and
has failed to provide rules that will ensure that an adequate, reasonably-priced supply of marijuana will
not be delayed or prevented by overzealous rules. The Department must take responsibility for allowing
dispensaries to supply marijuana under Title 36 without obstruction from its rules.
Not sure but I'm confident you'll get comments if there is something of substance left out.
unhappy with the "medical" marijuana law and plead for rules that will preclude recreational use.
98% of California marijuana "cardholders" are not the terminally ill, or cancer patient - this can be
WIDELY abused!
SEE ABOVE
There needs to be strong regulation to prevent recreational use.
Since the teenage drug problem has already begun to include the abuse of prescribed or controlled
substances we need to ensure we are keeping this out of the hands of minors. The geographic location
needs to ensure it is not near a school, daycare or church.
The rules leave out understanding, appreciation and respect for patients and their doctors presumably
because the Department is preoccupied and obsessive about preventing recreational use. Title 36 has
adequate intrinsic safeguards
-Driving -Operating Heavy Machinery -Being under the influence of marijuana while at school and work
**Especially driving** Please draft up a rule about patients driving with medical marijuana. This
greatly frightens me that nothing has been said or included and patients can be very heavily stoned
while driving on public roads. Feel free to email me at Thank you.
The rules need to make sure our schools remain drug-free zones in order to ensure the protection and
safety of the students and teachers
Transporting n delivery service to patient that can't leave home.
As patients apply for medical marijuana services (registry ID cards) via ADHS, procedures should include
those used when patients first apply for services from their primary care physician, a medical clinic, or
the hospital. Specifically, in their application, patients should provide, at a minimum, their name, age,
sex, social security number, address, occupation, and ethnic background. This information helps to
uniquely identify the patient. It is the basic information that doctors and medical care systems use to
link records when providing care. It is the basic information needed for entering data into protected,
advanced medical records systems which are now becoming the norm (the systems save money and
improve care). And it constitutes information that ADHS will need for its annual reports that describe
the basic characteristics of the state's medical marijuana population base.
HOW DO WE LEGALLY PURCHASE SEEDS? HOW DO WE STORE AND DISPOSE OF WASTE? DO THE
GROW FACILITY AND POINT OF SALE NEED TO BE SEPARATE OR UNDER ONE ROOF? THE
DISPENSARIES SHOULD BE LOCALLY OWNED, MOM AND POP TYPE BUSINESSES WHICH WOULD MAKE
PATIENTS MORE COMFORTABLE AND HELP THE LOCAL ECONOMY. WE ARE ALSO MORE
KNOWLEDGABLE OF LOCAL CHARITIES AND SPECIAL SITUATIONS. KEEP BIG BUSINESS OUT OF
SMALL TOWNS.
Do not allow dispensaries to purchase marijuana from ANY source that is not PRE-QUALIFIED. Meaning
that the grow areas should be subject to inspection and approval before they can supply "medicinal
marijuana". Also, please do not allow them to purchase from illegal grow areas that are out of the
state, or country.
What are the specific amounts of medical marijuana that a designated caregiver can cultivate for a
qualifying patient?
The rules fail to demonstrate the Department's sensitivity to the needs of patients, by delaying a
qualifying patient’s registration and thereby obstructing the acquisition medicine and the initiation of
treatment as provided by Title 36. Provisions to prevent the delay of acquisition should be held in
higher regard. By focusing through a “lens” that is primarily concerned with preventing recreational use
the Department does no great service to the regulated community. There is little need to build
redundant safeguards against recreational use when Title 36 has many such intrinsic safeguards
already.
The draft rule does not address the area of reciprocity with the rest of the states that have
decriminalized the medical use of marijuana. A valid prescription for any drug accepted by the FDA is
recognized in any of the 50 states and can be filled by any pharmacy. This would include those drugs
that have an illegal, (Black Market), trading system - e.g. morphine sulfate. I recommend that
language be added to permit dispensaries to provide medical marijuana to persons holding valid
recommendations from another state. Arizona is a tourist destination and school destination for many
people. It is an unreasonable burden to require all "snow birds" and other temporary visitors to re-
qualify in this state. The State of Arizona does not require every visitor from another state to re-qualify
for an Arizona Driver's License in order to drive here. When a visitor's status becomes such that am
Arizona Driver's License would be required, a Arizona Medical Marijuana Registration would be required.
Yes, please see above "How Can the Draft Rules Be Improved?"
hello.my concern is i am disabled but do drive.my incomeis very limited and i am worried about driving
under my current perscription pain meds. i have read other state due allow special grow permits of plots
10x10' for personal consumption. i would prefer to grow my own plants and not worry about the driving
and dispencery costs. i would like to see some form of special permit for home growing within the 25
mile rule. for disabled and low income reasons. thank you.
I think the occupancy rules should be changed to 5 years and should be enforced so as to keep out the
influences from California and Colorado. Arizona and Arizonians are center of right and expect only law
abiding citizens who genuinely care about the sick and believe that marijuana has a place in the
medicine cabinet, but not on every street corner.
The Department has left out several important things within the concepts of “Physician-patient
relationship” and "Ongoing." Provisions to prevent the delay of acquisition should be held in higher
regard. Also, provisions that help to protect doctors and patients from the stigma of marijuana that we
all know exists. By focusing through a “lens” that is primarily concerned with preventing recreational
use the Department does no great service to the regulated community. There is little need to build
redundant safeguards against recreational use when Title 36 has many such intrinsic safeguards
already.
See Improved
Suggestions provided above
The Department should focus less on its preoccupation with stopping recreational use and instead look
through a lens that helps patients and reduces suffering. Furthermore, through unrealistic regulation
the Department may be driving the price of marijuana available from registered dispensaries and force
patients back to the criminal market.
No. Aside from our recommendation to delete §R9-17-307(C) because of highly probable detrimental
collateral consequences, the draft rules appear to be well thought out and complete.
I am not a user of MM or a user of marijuana for recreational purposes as I do not like the smell, but
felt compelled to understand what was going to be implemented for those patients who truly need this
alternative medicine. The costs which will be required to implement your rules and regulations on all
parties will ultimately elminate any oppportunity for patients to get this alternative medication. ADHS
Director Humble was very clear prior to the passing of Prop. 203 that he did not want this law. It is now
evident from the "draft" rules and regulations, including how ADHS has set up this "comment" form.
How can patients and their providers get fair treatment and reasonable workable guidelines from a
department whose head and state Governor is against this alternative medication. I do not see it
happening. Director Humble is denying citizens needing this alternative medicine legal, fair, and safe
access. It is a disappointment related to fair treatment for all involved. .
- Do not see where off-site cultivation facilities not specifically associated with a dispensary have been
addressed. - Do not see where requirements for home growing have been addressed, specifically what
happens when someone has been growing at their home and a dispensary becomes available within 25
miles. How is it verified that they are no longer growing at their home? Also do not see any provision
where verification can be made that the home grown facility meets all applicable building and safety
codes. - Do not see requirements on how a dispensary, cultivation facility or home grown operation is
able to obtain initial product.
Dear Will: During our Dispensary Application process and in preparation, I have run into a situation in
obtaining the application for fingerprint clearance, that I feel could possibly be a tremendous issue for
Dispensary Agents, Employees, Volunteers, Board Members, and Caregivers. In contacting the Arizona
Department of Public Safety Application Clearance Card Team and speaking with who is an
ADPS representative, she stated that we need to contact your office because they are not issuing the
fingerprint application packets for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and gave the WWW.AZDHS.GOV
website. There is no information on how to obtain the applications on the above web site, pertaining to
ordering the applications. In speaking with a representative with the Arizona Department of
Health Services, she stated that this process is not complete, and will likely be available in April. Working
in the Health Care Industry and having firsthand knowledge of the timeline of getting a fingerprint
background check complete this could take six to eight weeks and longer if the search is more intense,
for say any past out of state residency history to process. How is this going to directly affect the
Dispensary Application process and will an application be delayed, and or rejected for deficiency due to
its incompleteness of the Fingerprint/background check? Respectfully,
- Please provide rules regarding how a dispensary's landlord (if leasing the building) is to enter the
building without a dispensary agent registry identification card. - Step by step inspection process for
dispensaries and how it coincides with the application process. - Whether or not a surety bond is
required for dispensaries, and for how much.
Assuming 1000 applicants could meet all qualifications an open Public Lottery of these 1000 applicants
for the 125 Licenses is the only solution to Fairness and Transparency! Thus any suggestion of
collusion or corruption on the part of the AZDHS or its representatives COULD NOT be accused. This
system would also alleviate and or dismiss any form of Appeals by non-successful applicants and give
BOTH the Middle and Upper classes a fair, equal and balanced chance of successfully obtaining a
License.
How applicants will be decided upon for licensure as there will be more than 124 competing which
exceeeds the number of available licenses. When and how and if more licenses may be made available if
the number of pharmacies (the standard identified as the measure) increases in a locale. What will be
done in counties that have no applicants. Congruency with the law has been left out to some degree,
and some compassion for those legitimatly pursuing aiding the seriously ill by offering a local option that
takes pride in caring for community.
You will find in the section how the draft can be improved.
COMPASSION FOR PATIENTS
No Too much now-
Include language to incorporate HIPAA rules to insure that private health information (PHI) remains
private.
The list of "debilitating medical conditios" should be expanded. PTSD, Anorexia, Arthritis, Autism,
Crohn’s Dx, depression, incomnia, Migraine, MS, spasticity, stress
I think it is very complete. I have been in the health care business for many years. I have written
several Policy and Procedure Manuals for both hospital and community pharmacies. The mandates or
standards you have set forth are both formidable and attainable, but all the above comments need to be
taken to heart. Thanks for giving us a great format to give you input.
Naturopathic Doctors should be able to be medical directors/owners of a MM pharmacy.
The patients/caregivers that put out a small fortune to start growing before the dispensaries are up and
running need to be grandfathered in for keeping their grow operations once the dispensaries move into
their areas. The dispensaries are grandfathered in if they are up and running first and one of the
forbidden zones (school, church or library) moves into their area so that courtesy needs to be extended
to the caregivers/patients. It is not cheap to set up your cultivation especially if you have to do it offsite
to comply with local zoning rules. Whether you set it up in the rules (which would be nice but I don't
expect that from you) it will be granted by the next Director of Health Services since you will be fired
over your incompetance in handling the rules implementation.
Nothing that I can think of.
A.R.S. §36-2801(5)(e) provides that a designated caregiver may not be paid any fee or compensation
for his service as a caregiver. However, a person with a debilitating medical condition may have a
caregiver who provides medical and/or non-medical services to him. That caregiver may also be his
designated caregiver under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. If so, that caregiver should be entitled to
receive compensation for providing those services, including any time expended as part of his or her
normal duties in connection with obtaining medical marijuana or providing medical marijuana to his or
her client. The regulations should clarify that that is permissible. A.R.S. §36-2804.02(a)(3)(f) provides
that a qualifying patient (or his designated caregiver) may cultivate his own medical marijuana if there is
no dispensary within 25 miles of his home. If a dispensary is subsequently established within that 25-
mile radius, will the qualifying patient’s right to cultivate his own medical marijuana be eliminated, either
upon the establishment of the dispensary or upon the qualifying patient’s annual renewal of his registry
identification card? The regulations should clarify this issue.
Including other means of ingesting medical marijuana as mentioned above such as baked goods,
suckers, lozenges, tinctures, drinks, hashes, etc. should be included and made available to patients.
see above
Rule does not address when/how future application periods for dispensaries will be announced.
Presumably, ADHS will be flooded with applications for the ~124 dispensary licenses in April. However,
what happens after the initial application period? For example, what if no one applies for a dispensary in
Graham County? How/where will it be announced that a dispensary license remains available in that
County? Also, how will additional licenses be added as Arizona's population grows? Will the number of
Arizona pharmacies be re-evaluated on an annual or semi-annual basis, and then when applicable, the
availability of additional dispensary license(s) announced in some widespread and fair fashion?
R9-17-310. Medical Director D A medical director shall not establish a physician-patient relationship with
or write medical marijuana recommendations for a qualifying patient [Comment] - additional
complication, Medical Director – Implied Physician/Pharmacist-patient relationship and Liability Issues.
According to the Arizona Pharmacy Alliance, Medical Marijuana Position Statement: “Until federal
legislation changes the classification, marijuana is a Class-I controlled substance. It is illegal and a
violation of federal law to possess.” Further, “AzPA strongly recommends that pharmacists do not get
involved in the dispensing of the medical marijuana to avoid a felony conviction that could put their
DEA, State and Federal Law will occur with a Designated Medical Director Physician and/or Pharmacist –
State and Federal Medical License Violations. R9-17-313. Inventory Control 3. For cultivation: a.
The strain of marijuana seed planted, type of soil used [Problem – Change to Growing Medium], date
seeds were planted, and the watering schedule; [Comment] Type of Soil – MUST ALSO INCLUDE
HYDROPONICS AND AEROPONICS. Change to: GROWING MEDIUM USED! The word "hydroponics"
comes from the Greek “hydros” (water) and “ponos” (labor), and refers to the method of plant
cultivation achieved without the use of soils. In traditional cultivation, the soil acts as a water reservoir
(and therefore a nutrient reservoir) that feeds the plant roots. The soil is basically a medium that
delivers mineral nutrients, dissolved in water stores, to the plant roots. In actuality, the soil itself is not
necessary, so long as a nutrient-rich water source is supplied to the plant roots. In very basic terms,
hydroponics eliminates the soil completely, and supplies nutrient-rich water directly to the plant roots.
It's a rather simple concept, but the applications and versatility of hydroponics are astonishing, when
compared to traditional cultivation. ‘Environmentally friendly’ has become a mantra amongst those
wanting to preserve our planet and stop the exploitation of the very land we depend upon. This trend to
protect and sustain our fragile planet is one that will continue to grow in the future. The movement
towards a more health conscious society is on the rise, providing an unmeasured opportunity for
hydroponics and organic gardening. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding; the
opportunity and the ability for us to include our Comments and Suggestions for the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Program. Sincerely and Respectfully,
The rules should define the type of items that can be sold. For instance, I heard that only edibles could
be sold - that would really change all of this and not reflect the intent of the law.
A Medical Marijuana Patient Bill of Rights That any citizen having legal access to medical marijuana in
the State of Arizona shall not be tracked in Criminal/Law Enforcement Data Bases in connection with
their homes, vehicles or by any other means. With the spirit and intent that medical marijuana and
those citizens legally recommended for use be treated no differently than any other citizen being
prescribed medication. That any citizen having legal access to medical marijuana in the State of
Arizona shall not be deprived any freedoms, privacy or privilege afforded any other citizen under the
constitution of the United States and the State of Arizona.
The rule leaves out a reflection of understanding that patients may need medication quickly, not to be
held up by a regulatory dance of “please submit additional information” to be followed by another
“request for additional information” only to be followed by another and yet another, only to be followed
by another and yet another, only to be followed by another and yet another...
The preliminary rule leaves out compassion and sensibility for the patient. Changing an address (i.e.,
moving) is trauma enough with a superfluous notification and fee to ADHS.
Security systems, minimally including fencing and cameras, should be required at all faciilites.
You are doing a good job just listen to the people about the Dr patient requirments.
The rules leave out compassion for patients in provisions like R9-17-103. Electronic Submission. Many
elderly patients will have trouble coping with this kind of requirement. Please include a reflection of
compassion that is considerate of suffering people, not criminals trying to obtain marijuana for
recreational use as you seem to assume is the case.
Yes, fairness. Many provisions intrinsic to these rules or caused by other factors my drive up the price
of marijuana to qualifying patients. Department should include measures that show an appreciation that
rule requirements would drive up the price of the medical marijuana and cause more harm and suffering
than otherwise can be achieved. My understanding is that glaucoma treatment would require relatively
high doses, much more that to abate appetite suppression. Fair treatment of glaucoma patients in this
rulemaking is a primary concern to me. Adding a small concession in the fees would provide for greater
fairness in the rules.
I am too busy at this point to continue, I have a meeting to attend but Consideration for people with
limited finances seems lost with the cost of becoming a patient. I am actually saddened by the first
draft and the apparent lack of consideration to patients and Arizonans; except of course the very
wealthy investors or well to do patients whose diagnoses are already included.
Yes, In R9-17-101 Definitions 18. "Public place:" the rule should include “c.vii. Private offices,meeting
rooms or other parts of the facilities in Part b. of this subsection as listed above.” This will help to
ensure that qualifying patients may receive timely doses of their medicine and effective treatment as
intended in Title 36.
No. Once §R9-17-307(C) is removed from the rules they should operate in the way they were intended.
23. SURETY BOND: Clarify the purpose, the type, the amount and the third party beneficiary, of the
surety bond, or eliminate its reference from the rules. 24. NON-PROFIT ENTITY: Clarify the need
to establish a non-profit entity. Title 36 only requires an applicant to operate the dispensary under a
non-profit “basis”. Can an applicant establish a LLC or other entity so long as his/her bylaws comply
with Title 36? 25. 70% COOPERATIVE GROW: Clarify if a group of dispensaries can form a
cooperative to grow their medical marijuana under one roof, so long as the facility is in compliance with
Title 36 and the AZDHS rules. 26. SEEDS: Please clarify where a dispensary owner can purchase
his initial seeds. 27. LANDLORD RIGHTS: Please clarify landlord rights with respect to entry and
inspection of a dispensary/ cultivation facility. (Assuming the landlord is not a registered agent of the
Dispensary). Additionally, please clarify access by a repair service to enter upon the restricted areas of
a dispensary/cultivation to make necessary repairs. 28. TWO STAGE APPLICATION PROCESS: R9-
17-302 Applying for Dispensary Registration Certification; we believe the proposed rules regarding the
application process are inherently unfair and favor the wealthy. The average person who may
otherwise qualify would be reluctant to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a dispensary
application without knowing if they will get a license. In order to equalize the application process we
believe AZDHS should adopt a two stage application process as follows: Review the principals and
legal entity first. Perform whatever background checks AZDHS desires, including FBI and all the other
requirements as set forth in the proposed rules relevant to the principals and legal entities. Issue a
conditional License to the 125 most qualified individuals subject to approval of the facilities. ( dispensary
and cultivation sites) The conditional license would require that the applicant to complete the build-
out and/or construction of the facilities within 90-120 days. Thereafter, the conditionally approved
applicant would submit the second half of his application ( Facilities) for inspection and approval. The
second half of the application must meet all the requirements of the proposed rules relevant to the
facilities. Provided the applicant meets all the facility requirements he/she would then be issued a
Dispensary Registration Certificate This system allows for fairness across all demographic and financial
groups. It would not preclude individuals simply because they are not millionaires, and would allow
those that are chosen to obtain the financing they need to complete the project. Fairness and
transparency requires AZDHS to adopt this application process or similar one.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO GET INVOLVED BUT THE MEDICAL FIELD AND PATIENTS, STATE. NO
OUTSIDE COMPANY'S OR GROUP'S CAN INTERFEAR WITH THE RULE'S AND RULE MAKING.
1) There is no mention of a physician's DEA number requirement for any of the applicable paperwork or
marijuana orders. 2) There is no mention of holding dispensary's accountable for assessing patient's
other medications or medical conditions. Why aren't they being held accountable for this? 3) R9-17-
311, 1: Clarify how patient's identity will be verified. 4) R9-17-311, 2: Will the dispensaries be required
to document any education/patient instructions on a log? 5) R9-17-313, C, 2: Specify once discovered
when and to what organization (i.e. DEA) the loss should be reported 6) R9-17-314, A: Two thoughts
on labeling: should an expiration date be included? should a statement be necessary that medication is
for intended patient only? 7) Upon dispensing of marijuana, is the dispensary responsible for collecting
a signature by the patient or caregiver that the marijuana was picked up/received for proof of
dispensing? 8) It seems that there should be some language stating how the medication will be
measured or how the equipment will be calibrated (i.e. scales) to ensure accurate quantities dispensed.
This is different than other drug formulations that can be more accurately counted.
Suggest language be placed on the marijuana packaging and verbally discussed by the dispensary
representative with their patient: Marijuana is addictive. Its smoke has toxic effects on cells. It should
not be used around other people. Marijuana impacts motor skills. Do not drive or operate machinery
while using marijuana. ----------------- Background information for recommendation: There is
growing evidence of the potential dangers of marijuana and marijuana smoke. According to the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy: “Marijuana has a chemical in it called
tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC. All forms of marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive). In
other words, they change how the brain works. A lot of other chemicals are found in marijuana, too —
about 400 of them, some of which are carcinogenic. Marijuana is addictive with more teens in
treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.
Using marijuana can also lead to disturbed perceptions and thoughts, and marijuana use can worsen
psychotic symptoms in people who have schizophrenia. Additionally, there are higher rates of
depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking among people who use marijuana when compared to people
who don't use. Teens who started using marijuana before age 15 are more likely to suffer from anxiety
and depression in early adulthood. A new study shows that smoking marijuana is associated with a 40%
increase risk of psychosis, and the risk is greater among regular and frequent users.” Marijuana impacts
a person’s motor skills. Sources: White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The
Genotoxicity of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Smoke Condensates. Chemical
Research in Toxicology, Online July 17, 2009
Yes but as stated above, I won't repeat my self, as I know your working hard.
What could possibly be left out, it is sooo long, why not just say what you mean and let the justice
department deal with it, think about the patient
Hydroponic Marijuana was not addressed in this draft. Addition of hydroponic cultivation in the draft will
lead to a higher quality medicine and various cultivation techniques.
people who have no or low income less than 18k a year should get there meds for free
This preliminary rule would assign unreasonable responsibility for the use of marijuana by a patient, a
risk that few doctors would venture to take. The rule should include a recognition that Title 36 means
that while doctors may recommend marijuna, it is the patient who is responsible for its use.
There are going to be a large amount of out of state individuals pooling resources to try and open a
dispensary by listing a token principal officer or board member just to pass the Arizona residency
requirement. Besides requiring Arizona residency for the principal officers and board members, there
should also be a requirement to document the financial contributions toward the initial application and
operation set up. Any dispensary application found to be associated with out of state money should be
denied to keep this system funded and run by Arizonans rather than failed CA, CO, and MT applicants.
My primary concern is black market marijuana making it's way into a dispensary. Any dispensary that is
approved for a certificate should not have a product to sell until at least 3 months after application
approval. This is due to the time it would take to cultivate and harvest the first crop. Any dispensary
caught selling goods prior to that would have had to obtain it from black market sources prior to the
application approval and therefore would have been breaking the law.
Perhaps some language to clarify where dispensaries can obtain their first batch of starter plants and/or
seeds. At this point, based on my interpretation of the regulations, a dispensary can only obtain
marijuana from other dispensaries, patients or caregivers. If it is currently not legal in Arizona, it seems
that a logical step would be to perhaps allow one shipment from another state like California or
Colorado.
The rules leave out appropriate consideration for patients by requiring an overly long, persistent doctor-
patient relationship. The rules fail to demonstrate the Department's sensitivity to the needs of patients,
especially glaucoma patients, by delaying a qualifying patient’s registration and thereby obstructing the
acquisition medicine and the initiation of treatment as provided by Title 36.
Yes, the selection process! Are certificates going to the highest bidder? Do we need to have a medical
'reason' for wanting to go into this business? Is if first come, first served? Is there a waiting list?
You've got to give us something, please!
Yes, DHS has should include a provision requiring biometrics to ensure the success of the identity
verification required in rule R9-17-311. There is a compelling State interest in requiring dispensary
agents to employ a safety precaution (at no expense to the State) that would help keep MM out of the
hands of unregistered illegitimate users. Therefore it seems advisable for DHS to require medical
marijuana dispensaries to use biometric identity verification systems to confirm the identities of patients
and designated caregivers who present registry identification cards prior to dispensing marijuana to
them.
In establishing these rules the Department should demonstrate an appreciation that extra control
requirements would drive up the price of the medical marijuana and cause more harm and suffering
than otherwise can be achieved. My understanding is that glaucoma treatment would require relatively
high doses, much more that to abate appetite suppression. Fair treatment of glaucoma patients in this
rulemaking is a primary concern to me.
agents to employ a safety precaution (at no expense to the State) that would help keep MM out of the
hands of unregistered illegitimate users. Therefore it seems advisable for DHS to require medical
marijuana dispensaries to use biometric identity verification systems to confirm the identities of patients
and designated caregivers who present registry identification cards prior to dispensing marijuana to
them.
HAS ANYTHING BEEN LEFT OUT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE RULES? No. Once §R9-17-307(C) is
removed from the rules they should operate in the way they were intended.
I've read that an average dispensary would need a little over 39 pounds of medical marijuana to operate
throughout the year. How many plants will I be allowed to grow? Also, do we need to get patients to
sign up with us in order to provide to them or are we a retail store allowed to sell to any card holder
that has not exceeded their purchase limits? Thank You
How is the Taxation of these Dispensaries?
No. If §R9-17-307(C) is deleted, the rest of the rules should have the necessary and intended effects.
I think that the way and the tools (map quest, Google maps, Bing etc. ) that you use in determining if a
patients lives 25 miles to a Dispensary and has the permission to grow his or her own medicine needs to
be lined out here.
No. Once §R9-17-307(C) is removed from the rules they should operate in the way they were intended.
Growers should be allowed.
1. There needs to be a proscribed method by which new licenses are given out as the population of
registered pharmacies in the state increases, and forms of attrition reduce the number of active
pharmacies below the 10% level allowed by Prop 203. 2. There needs to be an accommodation so
that a grower can ultimately grow for more then one dispensary. To allow a grower to be registered
agent for more then one dispensary, or allow a grower to be an agent unto his/her own with out a
specific dispensary affiliation. This will be essential to keep within the Fed's 99 plant threshold, and
provide the community with the many varietals that are required for different types of symptoms.
I think this new law needs to be made simple ...and easy to understand..thank you so we may make
this happen ...not so many rules....
Out of state cultivation sites? Although I have been an Arizona resident for 32 years, I own a
licensed cultivation sites in the state of California. I am interested in increasing my output in California
and importing to Arizona. Generally because I can produce higher quality product in the California
climate. Assuming I meet all Arizona dispensary requirements, what would be required to import my
product across state lines for sale in my Arizona dispensary? I would be willing to pay applicable taxes
to both Arizona and California when applicable so neither state loses revenue. I am also willing to
open my cultivation site up for inspection and beef up my security and monitoring system to Arizona
standards once those security monitoring standard have been finalized. Please share with me if
importation is allowed, what other concerns I may have in addition to: Taxes & Security You can
email me at
The Department should include measures that show an appreciation that extreme control requirements
would drive up the price of the medical marijuana and cause more harm and suffering than otherwise
can be achieved. My understanding is that glaucoma treatment would require relatively high doses,
much more that to abate appetite suppression. Fair treatment of glaucoma patients in this rulemaking
is a primary concern to me.
It would appear that you have almost singularly addressed the issues of dispensaries without taking into
consideration that cannabis grow facility is strikingly different from a dispensary and has very different
needs. If you group a grow facility and a dispensary in the same category and apply R9-17-101 item
10 to the facility to have eliminated the most economical method of vegetative growth and that is
natural sunlight which Arizona has in abundance. Cheap and affordable. The definition should be
expanded upon to include secured greenhouse facilities and taking into consideration the angle of the
early and late evening sun. Many important facilities can successfully be maintained with chain link
fence, razor wire, guard dogs, electronic surveillance systems and physical guards. The requirement of
a wall of metal, concrete or stone with a one inch tick metal gate is not well thought out. Should
cannabis grow facility need to meet a higher standard of security? R9-17-313 Inventory Control
System No item has been presented to account for the natural loss of weight that occurs in drying
cycle of cannabis but also the inevitable weight loss that will occur in normal storage conditions. Costly
temperature and humidity controlled environments would prevent some moisture weight loss but may
eventually lead to additional long term storage problems.
The draft rules lack the compassion for patients. Please remember that delays like this will cause harm
and suffering.
---decriminalization of marijuana in AZ. If I can't $ afford MedMJ legally, so I risk paying penalties or
risk being sent to jail? I have don't even have a speeding or parking ticket. I am lawful in every way!
Why doesn't my $2.00 co-pay work for this new medicine? I feel I would be institutionalized without it.
I'm so sorry I can't be there in person. But a room full of people staring at me...NO WAY. I don't deal
with the public well. PS. I understand the need, but high walls or no growing plants? Preposterous.
That punishes growers. The person 'breaking in' is the one to be prosecuted/punished.
How will the law translate for firearms purchases and ownership??????
Nothing has been mentioned about the debilitating effectds of marijuana during the length of time such
a drug as marijuana stays in the body. The effects of marijuana can last for days and weeks and those
with licenses to operate a motor vehicle with ANY levels of marijuana in their physical system are
UNDER THE INFLUENCE! What is going to be done to protect those on the road from intoxicated drivers
having marijuana on their person for medical use"? And how will the law be appklied to those who
have proven to have marijuana in their system when suspected of a DUI? Personally I'm in favour of
those who apply for a permit for medical marijuana surrender their driving priviledges for the concerns
of the others on the road with them. It has been proven that continual use of marijuana results in lower
brain function, slowed and severely disabled emergency reaction time and permanent memory loss! Has
the motor vehicle insurance industry been contacted for their input into this matter? They certainly
should be before these final rules go into effect! I'm also incredibly dissapointed to see therew is little or
no oversight into "medical Marijuana" coming across the border from Mexico further complicating our
war on drugs which we CANNOT affords to lose. Also for each location, 5 minutes of recording time
for secuity cameras is not sufficient. In Washington state several robberies were comitted by just
waiting until the backup power source went dead and then comitted the crime of robbery! In this day
and age is not uncommon for backup battery power sources to not only stream online, which could go
to local law enforcement agencies, but also are made to last for HOURS, not MINUTES! In my
professional opinion, a minimum of 1 hour with A RECOMMENDATION OF 4 HOURS RECORDING TIME!
My laptop computer will function for 2 hours 15 minutes solely on battery power running in "high
performance" mode! Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on this website. As a
supporter and propagator of washington's Initiative 692, I was incredibly dissapointed at how fast
freaud and abuse ran rampant in the system. Concern about workplace accidents were also a reality and
those employers who employ those on medical marijuana should be granted lawsuit immunity form
accidents involving medical marijuana patients on the job! Professional and Commercial driver licenses
should also be denied to patients with medical marijuana permits. Otherwise the State of Arizona could
find itself in a legal situation that it cannot extract itelf from so easily. Surrendering ones drivers license
in order to get medical marijuana is not a bad idea either for those same reasons.
First, a provision should be included that require dispensaries to test each strain for THC potency. This
will ensure that patients will not over medicate which can cause bad reactions such as heart palpitations,
hot flashes, ect. It cost about $80 to have a strain tested with a turn around time of 3 days. This is such
a small price to pay to ensure that the public is aware of the exact potency of strain so they can judge
what's best for their medical needs. There are companies in Montana and California that test strains on
a regular basis. I think this requirement is a must, to ensure public safety. Secondly, most patients
prefer to grow their own medicine which they will not be allowed to grow if they live within 25 miles of
an "operating" dispensary. The term "operating" should be defined in the draft definitions. to mean;
open for business to provide a minimum selection of (10) different tested strains of marijuana. It would
be unfair to disallow a patient's right to cultivate his own medication if the dispensary does not have a
minimum selection for the patients to choose. What potentially would happen is a dispensary would start
producing a few strains that are easier to grow with less quality or warehousing inferior marijuana just
to keep the business "operating". The rule should be if a dispensary does not provide a minimum of (10)
strain selection for a patient to choose from then the dispensary is "not operating" within the meaning
of ARS 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f).
Please add RA to the list of illnesses.
The current draft does not acknowledge or reflect: 1) that patients own their own lives, so have the
right to choose who, when, and what kind of medical care they will seek, 2) that marijuana is
completely safe in itself, cannot be lethal, and so should be treated as a safe and legal product as the
findings of the Arizona Medical marijuana Act require, certainly not treated with more stringency than is
currently required for the dispensing of medicine from Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices, 3)
that the safety and legality of medical marijuana warrants the spread, not the suppression, of its use,
and 4) that provision of medical marijuana services must be readily available to the people at large, not
merely to an elite and wealthy group with favored and perhaps criminal access to the department. I
also incorporate the findings and demands contained in the 1/4/2011 letter of the Arizona Association of
Dispensary Professionals: Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Humble, (EXHIBIT A), clearly these
proposals have had significant influence on AZDHS, since all of them are incorporated into the AZDHS
proposed rules. Additionally, these proposed rules, should they be adopted, will further the agenda of
by adding momentous increases to the cost of obtaining a dispensary license for the following
reasons: Section 36-2804, of Title 36, among other requirements, necessitates an applicant to
provide AZDHS with a “Physical address of both the Dispensary and Cultivation center, and a sworn
statement that the applicant is in compliance with local zoning requirements. This in and of itself
creates a significant expense to an applicant, since they will have to secure a physical location without
ever knowing if they will qualify for the license. However AZDHS has added a significant additional
expense to the cost of the applicant by requiring a Certificate of Occupancy. This adversely changes the
intent of Title 36. Under proposed rule R9-17-302, B-5 AZDHS is requiring an applicant, as part of the
initial application process, to produce a Certificate of Occupancy This would require a applicant to not
only secure a location for his/her dispensary and Cultivation center, but build-it-out as well at a cost of
hundreds of thousands of dollars, all at risk, since all is done without any assurances that they will
obtain a license. This rule alone will serve to eliminate all but the wealthiest of applicants. At the
request of , (See EXHIBIT C ), AZDHS’s proposed rules regarding business operations are
outrageously over-regulated. We recognize the need to maintain strict business operations, but the
proposed rules are simply overkill, intended to play into the hands of s agenda. (More on this
below). There are no provisions in Title 36 that requires an applicant to produce a Bond. According to
statements made by all applicants with less than a million dollars of cash liquidity are considered
“Trivial” and should be required to post a two hundred thousand dollar bond.( See Exhibit D ). While
there is no clarity or designation as to the purpose, type , amount or third party beneficiary of said
bond, AZDHS has nevertheless, under proposed rule R9-17-302,15-D, and as part of the initial
application , asks the question, “Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and , if so, how much?”
While we have sought clarification from AZDHS on this point, none has been provided. Attention must
also be given to the availability of said bond. Because of the unique nature of the medical marijuana
business model, obtaining such a bond might be impossible or extremely costly. Under federal law
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are considered a criminal enterprise; consequently, most if not all
insurance companies would consider a request for a bond a very high risk. Therefore, potential
applicants may be denied a license merely because he/she is not a millionaire. The prompting by
to have a medical director on the staff of each dispensary is not necessarily a bad idea. Unfortunately,
AZDHS, at the urging of has taken the Medical Directors position to place where no Doctor will go
thereby making it impossible to comply with this rule, unless you are wealthy enough to afford a full
time Doctor on your staff. A medical director retained to provide assistance in developing the medical
aspects of the program for a Dispensary is a welcomed idea; however, to have the Medical Director
interact with patients or develop any materials for use by patients could be considered interference in a
patient-physician relationship. All qualified patients of a dispensary must have a recommending, primary
doctor to obtain their registration card. Any log books, rating scales, or guidelines for patient’s self-
assessment, as set forth in AZDHS proposed rule R9-17-310-2, may create a conflict of interest for the
medical Director. This again plays into the main scheme of . We are deeply concerned about the
AZDHS’s plans concerning the selection process. As you will note AZDHS’s proposed rules are silent on
this matter. On October 29th 2010, Director Humble wrote on his blog, (Copy Attached EXHIBIT E),
that he had three choices before him, He asserted that method 3, ( Evaluate the complete application
using some kind of objective criteria), is probably the best because we’d be able to select the best
qualified applicants. Humble went on to say, “ An Interesting twist on method 3 would be to send the
completed (And blindfolded) applications to a 3rd party (e.g. a consulting law firm) and ask them to
score the applications for us. It is perhaps more than coincidence that just prior to that Blog entry,
sent AZDHS a proposal to use their new Association ) as an Application Review Board. (SEE
EXHIBIT F ). This is the most outrageous conflict of interest we have ever heard of. A group of weathly
potential dispensary owners, reviewing their own applications! We demand that AZDHS immediately
disclose their selection process. We further suggest, in fairness, and in compliance with AZDHS
proposed rule R9-17-319, a, 2, g, that any member of the roundtable be excluded from
consideration of a dispensary license. We would further ask that Director Humble make a
full public disclosure as to whether or not any member of AZDHS has had any contact with
or any representative or agent of said organizations. As most people know, staff actually wrote
Prop 203, now the Arizona Medical marijuana Act. Title 36. What most were not aware of is the fact
that under section 6 of Title 36, AZDHS compliance under A.R.S 41-1001 is waived. Title 41, The
Regulatory Bill of Rights, is an Arizona law to ensure fair and open regulation by state agencies, limiting
a state agencies rule making ability to subject matter listed in the specific statute and provides for
citizens right to file a complaint with the States Administrative Rules Oversight Committee. Any
reasonable person would have to cast a sinister eye on reasoning in exempting AZDHS from
compliance with these provisions. This exemption eliminates the public’s ability to object to the abusive
behavior of the AZDHS.
Your 46 page manifesto is excessive and overdone. And ---just like the AZ Legislators---you are on the
threshhold of creating rules that you cannot even begin to enforce.
selection criteria and process for dispensaries is blatantly missing
What the voters voted for.
PTSD as a qualifying condition.
You are allowed to grow your own if you live more than 25 miles from a dispensary, however if you
happen to live closer you have to pay an outrageous price for your medicine. I heard it's about $400.00
per ounce. That is in no way fair to the ones that have to pay. If this is to be for non profit, the price
should be much lower, after all it is a plant. I have heard people say that this is a multi million dollar
industry. Personally I can't afford $2,000 per month for medication. I have to live on less than that per
month! My current meds cost me about $150.00 per month, and they do not help me. What happens
to people in my situation? Also the price for a card is higher than in other states, and I believe if
someone needs to renew it, it should be cheeper the next time. Why is the cost of the caregiver higher?
pricing.
pricing.
pricing.
pricing.
Stronger language supporting the patients RIGHT to CHOICE of treatment. This is all about providing
legal access to a valuable medicine that will help plain and ordinary people in their struggle for life,
liberties and the pursuit of happiness, in a world full of pain.
In the director definition not only the M.D. and O.D. should be listed but a Naturopathic Doctor that has
completed schooling. There should be a minimum of 2-3 years of experience in each field before one
of the three can serve as a Medical Director for a Dispensary. The distance of dispensary or the
cultivation site shall be no less than 2,500 feet from any school, private or public.
Indoor grows often involve the utilization of various fungicides, pesticides, fertilizers, acids, bases and
soil. Many homes are contaminated with mold and chemical exposure as a result of improper storage
and disposal of the aforementioned chemicals rendering the home a toxic waste-dump. In addition,
there are oftentimes children living in these homes who are exposed to these toxic chemicals. Many
states allowing indoor marijuana grows are plagued with an increase in residential fires endangering
lives and property. This is due to amateurs altering residential electrical and plumping fixtures to
accommodate indoor grow lighting and watering. Suggested Language: “Residential or commercial
cultivation (authorized by ADHS) within the jurisdiction of a municipality or county will require a special
use or conditional use permit authorizing the marijuana grow. Cultivation of medical marijuana inside
a residence or property occupied by minor children is prohibited. Rental properties used as a
cultivation site are the sole responsibility of the medical marijuana dispensary owner, caregiver and/or
cardholder residing in the residence. Planned alterations to rental property by the tenants must be
approved by the landlord. Clean-up costs associated with an indoor grow to restore a property to its
original state will be the sole responsibility of the medical marijuana dispensary/owner, caregiver or
cardholder renting the property. Alterations to fixed residential electrical systems, plumbing, or other
permanent structural features will require applying for the appropriate permit through the local
municipality or county. Construction must be completed by a licensed contractor. Once alterations are
complete, the local city or county (ie: Inspector, Fire Department) shall inspect the residence to ensure
all alterations are constructed to code. Illegal grows are subject to criminal prosecution in addition
to civil fines and possible forfeiture.”
Re: recommending physician. Certification/qualification to be a medical marijuana certificate of need

provider is needed. Other situations in which a medical certification is necessary, such as pilot license,
Dept of transportation commercial driver license and DPS law enforcement and firefighter physicial are
performed by physicians who have taken certification courses in providing these services. Medical
marijuana regulations should consider making a recommending provider complete a course, just as the
Federal Aviation Admin requires for pilot physicals, the DPS requires for law enforcement officers and
firefighters and the DOT for commercial license physicals. Without some form of standardization,
medical providers will be using different standards from patient to patient and from, physician to
physician. Certification will allow medical providers to become more knowledgeable about the dosing,
quality and effect of different strains of cannabis. Otherwise we will end up wth medical providers
making their 'best guess' as to how to most effectively use this new tool. Despite the added effort
that will be required, providers recommending medical marijuana need to be certified through ongoing
continuing medical education in order to provide this service. The DHS could contract out this duty and
would not need to make it an in-house responsibility.
I'm a dual-citizen of California and Arizona. I have a mmj card in California, and I'm a legitimate. I have
one of the qualifying medical conditions, but I wouldn't be able to find a doctor to prescribe cannabis
due to the wordings of the draft. This isn't right. A lot of people are not going to have access, and
everyone who has a medical condition that cannabis helps should be able to get medical marijuana.
There needs to be better rules for quality control, especially to check the strength of medication. Also, to
see if there are any pesticides or other harmful contaminants, e.g., powdery mildew, or grey mold.
Samples of cannabis could be screened at a lab. Some dispensaries do this in California, and patients
like to know more about their product. How are dispensaries supposed to get that 30% from other
dispensaries when the dispensaries open without giving an advantage to someone who is breaking the
law?
Currently the rules do not require an examination to be “in-person”. Out-of-state on-line services are
already attempting to pre-qualify potential Arizona medical marijuana cardholders on-line by requesting
the forwarding of medical records and filling out medical questionnaires. To prevent on-line
examinations or on-line doctor-patient relationships; the following requirement should be included as
part of a legitimate examination establishing a true "in-person" doctor–patient relationship. Suggested
Rule Language to be added: “A ‘valid recommendation’ for medical marijuana requires in-person
medical evaluation of the patient.” “It is unlawful to ‘recommend’ medical marijuana solely based on a
patient's completion of an online medical questionnaire.”
A period of time that a person can have from committing a felony to be able to apply for a medical
marijuana card or dispensary/caregiving license. Maybe ten years from a convicted felony. People
change and often people are convicted of felony charges from cannabis years ago. I see no reason to
not allow someone the right to medication or to help others medicate because of a conviction a decade
or more ago.
4. The disposal of medical marijuana (unused or expired) is referenced in the inspection rules – but
there is no mention as to what approved method of destruction is authorized by ADHS. To prevent
diversion, it is imperative that ADHS provide strict guidelines relating to the destruction of unused or
expired marijuana. The discarding of medical marijuana in local trash can or dumpster landfill etc. is
unacceptable. Suggested Language: “Medical marijuana dispensaries, caregivers, and cardholders
can dispose of unused or expired marijuana by documenting the weight and taking it to a local law
enforcement agency or other licensed facility as directed by the ADHS for secure storage and
destruction."
Yes, common sense. And the will of the citizens and voters of Arizona
and compression of nerves from fibrosis 3. Chronic inflammations that are all to often with lymphedema
4. Cellulitis, lymphangitis and other infections 5. Over exertion of areas of the body as it attempts to
cope with the excess strain and weight over an oversized limb 6. Wounds and those weeping sores we
all get from time to time
Protection for Arizona State Marijuana cardholders. No prior notice for State Inspectors to visit
dispensarys, or grow sites. These dispensarys, cardholders, and growers should be open to any visits. If
they are within the law, they do not need prior notice!! Be firm, as there are those who will black market
this product, or possible be over growing for profit. All cardholders, dispensarys should be within 1000
feet of a school, AKA a drug free zone. No minors should ever be present in or around the usage of
medical marijuana. Define the amount of usable product for any cardholder, and dispensary.
Sincerely,
Marijuana prices need to be low for the handicapped. An 8 foot fence is unnecessary. A Dr. on call for a
dispensary is absurd. These will drive up the costs for the disabled consumer. Please keep costs down.
Please have lower fees for the patient. Please make it so a patient can see any doctor for the yearly
medical marijuana recommendation. If the doctor is writing bogus recommendations, fine the doctor but
don't make it hard for the patient. You can go undercover if you believe a doctor is writing bad
recommendations.
I suggest that the state make sure that there is rural/small town dispensaries spread out evenly so that
the 25mile radius for each the dispensaries covers the whole state, or there will be1000s of caregivers
or patients growing they own medical marijuana. If the state does not do this it will be impossible to do
proper inspections and oversee the inventory control of the production and distribution of the medical
marijuana and it will get out of control like it has in other states. Since the state is going to allow
around 125 permits/license for dispensaries, I would guess that there would still be at least 2/3 of them
left for the higher populated city areas. It will be much easier for the state to oversee only 125
locations then 1000s of people saying that a dispensary is not with in 25miles of them and they want to
grow there own. I trust the state and the agencies that have to enforce this new law will work to make
sure this happens or AZ will be having problems like CAL an COLO are having and later have to try and
pull back on the permitting and licensing of dispensaries Concerned Citizen I sent any early comment
in but did not make all my points clear
I suggest that the state make sure that there is rural/small town dispensaries spread out evenly so that
the 25mile radius from the dispensaries covers the whole state so that there are not 1000s of caregivers
or patients growing they own medical marijuana. If the state does not do this it will be impossible to do
proper inspections and oversee the inventory control of the production and distribution of the medical
marijuana and it will get out of control like it has in other states. if the state is going to give out 125
permits to do this i would guess that there would still be at least 2/3 of them left for the higher
populated areas. It will be much easier for the state to oversee only 125 locations then 1000s of people
saying that a dispensary is not with in 25miles of them and they want to grow there own. I trust the
state and the agencies that have to enforce this new law will work to make sure this happens or AZ will
be having problems like CAL an COLO are having and later have to try and pull back on the permitting
and licensing of dispensaries. concerned citizen
Yes, the manner in which how the licesnes will be granted are left out of the rules. I have heard as
many as 5000 people will apply for a dispensory license - it seems unreasonable the state would retain
24,000 million dollars from AZ residents who were denied a license.
Protect personal and public health and the environment by keeping Cancer Tar containing marijuana
SMOKE out of Hospitals, other Health Care facilities, workplaces and other currently smoke-free public
places, plus allow Public Transportation Companies to maintain their current 100% (24/7) drug free
employee safety standards for drivers, Control tower employees and safety equipment operators.
I do not trust but he has this right, please consider it! 1. Review the principals and legal
entity first. Perform whatever background checks AZDHS desires, including FBI and all the other
requirements as set forth in the proposed rules relevant to the principals and legal entities. 2. Issue a
conditional License to the 125 most qualified individuals subject to approval of the facilities. ( dispensary
and cultivation sites) 3. The conditional license would require that the applicant to complete the
build-out and/or construction of the facilities within 90-120 days. 4. Thereafter, the conditionally
approved applicant would submit the second half of his application ( Facilities) for inspection and
approval. 5. The second half of the application must meet all the requirements of the proposed rules
relevant to the facilities. 6. Provided the applicant meets all the facility requirements he/she would
then be issued a Dispensary Registration Certificate 7. This system allows for fairness across all
demographic and financial groups. It would not preclude individuals simply because they are not
millionaires, and would allow those that are chosen to obtain the financing they need to complete the
project. Fairness and transparency requires AZDHS to adopt this application process or similar one.
GOVERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT SHALL CONSIDER PETITIONS FROM THE
PUBLIC TO ADD DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITIONS OR TREATMENTS TO THE LIST OF
DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 36-2801, PARAGRAPH 3, INCLUDING
PUBLIC NOTICE OF, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT IN A PUBLIC HEARING UPON, PETITIONS.
Debilitating medical conditions:R9-17-201 more illnesses need to be included. Rheumatoid arthritis
ADD - ADHD Depression sleep disorders diabetitic Neuropathy nerve pain 36-2801. Definitions IN
THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: (ii) IF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT'S
REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD STATES THAT THE QUALIFYING PATIENT IS AUTHORIZED TO
CULTIVATE MARIJUANA, TWELVE MARIJUANA PLANTS CONTAINED IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED
FACILITY EXCEPT THAT THE PLANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED FACILITY
IF THE PLANTS ARE BEING TRANSPORTED BECAUSE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT IS MOVING. That a
quailfying patient MAY cultivate 12 plants.
The rules as written should be left out. As stated before, this should be approached the same way the
state approaches all new drugs that come on the market for a doctor to prescribe to his/her patient.
see above
1) Requirement for revoking of the card if the caregiver is convicted of a drug distrubtion charge or
providing the medical marijuana to anyone other than their qualifing patient 2) Requirement for
revokement of the card to the qualifiying patient if they are convicted of a drug distrubtion charge or
providing the medical marijuana to anyone other than themself 3) Require that employees, officers,
board members, and the medical director of a dispensory cannot be a card holder or caregiver. 4)
Require that all employees, officers, and the medical director of a dispensory be randomly drug tested in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 40 standards a minimum of once every 30 days. 5) Require that any
employee or medical director of a dispensory be terminated immediately for a postive test, refusal to
test, adulterated and/or subsituted specimen. 6) Require that any officer of a dispensory be terminated
and required to give up any ownership or compensated role for a postive test, refusal to test,
adulterated and/or subsituted specimen. 7) Disallow any employee, officer, medical director or officer to
be allowed to have any association or employmnent for a minimum of 10 years with a dispensory. 8)
Include language that employers can legally terminate, not hire, or demote employees who posess a
legal medical marrijuana card if their duties effects the maintenance of safety for employees, customers,
clients, or the public at large. 9) Method for employers, their agents, and their drug testing program's
MRO to verify the legitmacy/validity of a Card including access to a public database.
Details on inspecting the Marijuana to ensure highest quality Cannabis. The dispensary should be
inspecting all Marijuana being cultivated for sale thoroughly to ensure no mold, or harsh contaminants.
It should be strictly organic with no pesticides, etc. Who will ensure the quality? I also believe that
the State should tax the business to provide funding for education, health, etc., of which currently
funding has been cut off and the programs are no longer offered. This is going to be a billion dollar
business so why shouldn't the State utlitize the business to improve our quality of life and pay off our
debt?
The above information can be construed as what has been left out of the wording of the law such as :
Med. Marijuana will be regulated the same way as other medications including drugs such as narcotics,
psychiatric drugs and all controlled substances.: With no additional regulating of type of medical
condition or time constraints. This law contributes in a positive manner to citizens obtaining and
purchasing prescriptions without encountering prohibitive hurdles which delay or deny a patient the
right to appropriate medications.
The above information can be construed as what has been left out of the wording of the law such as :
Med. Marijuana will be regulated the same way as other medications including drugs such as narcotics,
psychiatric drugs and all controlled substances.: With no additional regulating of type of medical
condition or time constraints. This law contributes in a positive manner to citizens obtaining and
purchasing prescriptions without encountering prohibitive hurdles which delay or deny a patient the
right to appropriate medications.
I think that Cultivation sites should be limited to accommodate no more than 3 dispensaries. The
Limit on the number of Dispensaries that a group has an involvement in. Since this law is NEW to
Arizona, those that have had Marijuana approved in their state think that they have a BETTER chance to
get a license. Has the Department decided how they will proceed with the application process of
eliminating those that might not qualify? The application Fee is non-refundable, right?
1. Can a dispensary agent grow for other dispensaries being that they are not employed by the
dispensary according to the rules the dispensary can obtain 30% of it's inventory from other
dispensaries what about agents? 2.Why are there no medical marijuana edible dispensaries? What if
my wife wanted to start a line of edible products only, and went to the local dispensaries and they did
not like her product or wanted to sell their own product. She is not interested in the distribution of the
flowering of marijuana to be smoked or used by vaporizer; she is only interested in manufacturing a line
of edibles using only specific medical marijuana strands, labeling each for the necessary illness. . I think
you are putting way too much on the dispensary itself, as it is they will have no patients or medical
marijuana for at least 4 months, according to timeline rules in the draft. Why is their no provision or
licensing for edible dispensaries only, which would include growing the medical marijuana and
manufacturing edibles, including tinctures, hash oils and hashes? The dispensaries are going to have a
hard enough time providing enough medical marijuana to keep the medical demands for the patients let
alone have enough for edibles. I believe that you have not put enough thought or rules for the edible
manufacturing and growing. Why is their no provision for 124 edible dispensaries?
Force dispensaries to sell cheaply and not at street drug prices
The Department failed to include provisions for a sliding scale application fee for qualified patients whos
household income is at or below the Federal Poverty Level. There should be provisions to reduce the
application fee from $150 to $50 for qualified patients who are disabled and recieving SSDI, SSI, or
public assistance.
how dispensaries are to be selected,
Please address where dispensaries can obtain their initial seeds? Must the inital seeds be from AZ?
Under 36-2803. Rulemaking, I don't see anything in Prop 203 that allows you to change definitions
voted in by the people, like "enclosure".
No.
see above. The statute regarding 1000 foot separation from Schools and School Bus Stops needs to be
address. In particular, where prior permitted use of qualified patients, caregivers or other licensed
dispensaries exist prior to establishing Schools or School Bus Stops. I am prescribed Codeine for
neurogenic pain, resulting from a Stroke, 7 years ago. The local school just put a bus stop across the
street from me. The only route in my rural AZ town, requires my to travel by the elementary school on
my way to shop for groceries. This requires me to violate State statute regarding Opiates in school
zones. These is no exception or waiver to that statute. Don’t create another similar problem.
shouldn't it be said that the nonprofits should be taxable instead of tax-exempt? The language is vague.
One particular subject I didn't see addressed was if card holders would be able to use their prescription
from another state. For example, an individual from Michigan, a state which honors other states
marijuana prescriptions, moves to Arizona during his treatment for cancer. He needs a refill when gets
to Arizona but would have to wait for a doctor to accept his case, review his history, and undergo a full
exam. If the doctor chooses not to do this, he would have to wait a full year before he is eligible for an
Arizona card. There needs to be written in the law that card holders from other states have the following
rights: 1. Be able to carry the legal limit of marijuana in Arizona, and 2. Be able to fill their prescription
in Arizona.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
1) In addition to the inventory control for cultivation, the department should devise a system for
monitoring the quality of the product being dispensed. Patients deserve to be apprised of the THC and
CBNs, as well as assurance of the absence of mold or fungus, in their medication. It should be the
responsibility of the dispensary to provide accurate quantification. 2) ADHS will develop standardized
educational materials, available online and in hard copy to disseminate to patients. 3) The department
will develop a Hot-line to answer general questions, not to supersede the patient-physician relationship.
Yes, Please see above also. Physicians should see the patient in person. Food and other products
infused with marijuana should only be manufactured and dispensed at a dispensary for regulation and
oversight. It should be noted that smoked marijuana contains carcigens and may be hazardous to
health. Marijuana dispensaries should be smoke free as are other workplaces in Arizona.
something to stop groups from trying to grab multiple licenses...i heard one group is going to try to get
30-40 of them!
*There needs to be a program for for inmates to receive access to medical marijuana only under one
circumstance,if they are in serious pain and have prior records of the pain before there arrest date or
they are over the age of 65 and have severe pain such as arthritis,fibromyalgia
Yeah you should not be writing the rules.
It is not clear to me whether or not there can be mobile dispensaries - particularly in rural counties with
only one dispensary. Or, must the dispensary be in a permanent structure. Also, must some of the
MJ cultivation for use by a particular dispensary occur in the county where the dispensary is located?
Or, can all of the marijuana for use by a particular dispensary be grown in a different county from where
the dispensary is located, provided the cultivator in the different county is affiliated with the dispensary
in another county.
Yes...you should address the types and colors of shoes to be worn by dispensary staff! Hell, you've
addressed everything else...including the kitchen sink.
Let me go to another doc for my medical marijuana recommendation but keep my doc.
I will wait to see the revised rules.
102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5 , R9-17-105.4, R9-17-203.A.3, R9-17-203.B.8, R9-17-203.C.5, R9-17-
regulations. The good news: As best I can tell, the AzDHS does NOT have the authority to enact
the cruel and unreasonable package of regulations they propose. Obviously, I am not an attorney, so we
are soliciting the input of qualified attorneys. Because I am a physician, I am restricting my comments
here to the matter of patient-physician relationship. Others with expertise in dispensary and caregiver
matters will share similar analysis and commentary concerning the draft regulations for dispensaries and
caregivers. I have attached the AzDHS Timeline. Please familiarize yourself with the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act (AzMMA): If you pay special attention
to Section 36-2803 "rulemaking," you will notice that the AzMMA does NOT give authority to the Arizona
Department of Health Services to define-or redefine-the patient-physician relationship and does NOT
give the authority to amend the AzMMA language, e.g., adding "ongoing" to "patient-physician
relationship." The Arizona Voter Protection Act specifically DENIES authority for such usurpations.
- Where patients are able to use medicine? - If (as an example) 500 qualified applications for
dispensaries are submitted, how the state plans to select 124 - Will any information provided to ADHS
as part of any of the applications become part of a public record. If so what?
Regarding measuring from a dispensary to restricted entities, parks, etc: The requirement is from the
wall of the dispensary - 1000 feet to the property line of the park or school. So, if a school is located in a
strip center across the street from the dispensary location,would the measurement go to the property
line of the strip center where the school is located or to the actual location/boundary of the school
within the center?
I am unclear as to how a submitting dispensary can possibly know if there is another dispensary
submitting within 2,000 feet? The statues require that submissions include the site location, plans for
the site, etc... which means that all parties submitting must invest in a property prior to knowing if they
are to receive approval. If two entities are within 2,000 feet of one another, how will selection be
determined? Or, will both be denied approval because of proximity? If so, this seems grossly unfair.
Surely, this issue can be resolved prior to the next draft.
Don't know.
i think that the rules were perfect and to my point of view you didnt leave anything out and i totally
soport you guys!!!!!
i thought that dispensary owners had to be Non for profit and the rules says nothing about that..
The basis for determining which applications for Dispensary will be granted and which will not. In other
words, the criteria for evaluating which applications will be granted a license.
1. We need clarification around two conflicting sections of the Act. Does this mean that as an owner of
assisted living facilities who does not want marijuana to be administered at my nursing homes, I only
need to worry about 36-2805 if I am not lawfully in possession of the property? Is there any definition
of "Lawfully in possession of property" that I should be aware of?: First Section... 36-2805. Facility
restrictions A. ANY NURSING CARE INSTITUTION, HOSPICE, ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY, ASSISTED LIVING HOME, RESIDENTIAL CARE INSTITUTION, ADULT DAY HEALTH
CARE FACILITY OR ADULT FOSTER CARE HOME LICENSED UNDER TITLE 36, CHAPTER 4, MAY ADOPT
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY THEIR RESIDENTS OR PERSONS
RECEIVING INPATIENT SERVICES, INCLUDING: 1. THAT THE FACILITY WILL NOT STORE OR
MAINTAIN THE PATIENT'S SUPPLY OF MARIJUANA. 2. THAT THE FACILITY, CAREGIVERS OR HOSPICE
AGENCIES SERVING THE FACILITY'S RESIDENTS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE
MARIJUANA FOR QUALIFYING PATIENTS. 3. THAT MARIJUANA BE CONSUMED BY A METHOD OTHER
THAN SMOKING. 4. THAT MARIJUANA BE CONSUMED ONLY IN A PLACE SPECIFIED BY THE FACILITY.
B. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION REQUIRES A FACILITY LISTED IN SUBSECTION A TO ADOPT
RESTRICTIONS ON THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA. C. A FACILITY LISTED IN SUBSECTION A MAY
NOT UNREASONABLY LIMIT A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT'S ACCESS TO OR USE OF
MARIJUANA AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS CHAPTER UNLESS FAILING TO DO SO WOULD CAUSE FACILITY
TO LOSE A MONETARY OR LICENSING-RELATED BENEFIT UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS.
Second section... 36-2814. Acts not required; acts not prohibited A. NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER
REQUIRES: 2. ANY PERSON OR ESTABLISHMENT IN LAWFUL POSSESSION OF PROPERTY TO ALLOW A
GUEST, CLIENT, CUSTOMER OR OTHER VISITOR TO USE MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY. 2.
Also, nursing homes and other facilities that receive funding from Medicare are considered to be
government contractors. Would this mean that we would qualify to base employment-related decisions
on the use of marijuana even where an employee is a registered cardholder per the sections that reads:
The Act specifically provides that employers may not discriminate in hiring, termination, terms of
employment, or in any other way penalize an individual based on his or her status as a registered
person, unless doing so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal
law. In other words, must I show an actual monetary or licensing benefit loss or a specific regulation
that states clearly that I would loose a monetary or licensing benefit or is it sufficient to rest on the fact
that my business is a federal contractor and therefor the federal regulations and executive orders would
prevail even where grants and the like are not in play. 3. How do you define impaired in the phrase:
A REGISTERED QUALIFYING 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.
1. Make MJ fees affordable for poor patients and caretakers 2. Tell clinics they can't prohibit their
doctors from recommending MJ. 3. There are caretakers who have been with their patients for years
that do not caretake for other people. so show two types of caregivers in your rules. 4.
Dispensaries should be able to deliver MJ to their patients. 5. A patient should be able to have a MJ
doctor if the patient really needs MJ and keep their normal doctor. 6. Keep costs down for dispensaries
so MJ won't cost too much. They don't need a doctor. Let a pharmacist be included in the director
definition.
For the people who are opening dispensaries, I believe their should be an investigation of where their
money is coming from. I have no doubt that the majority of the dispensaries will be backed by people
already in the illegal drug trade. Making the requirement that they cannot be a felon and an Arizona
resident is a good start, but they can find ways around that. You should do checks on where the money
is coming from, there should be full disclosure. Just like if I buy a house, they want to know where my
money came from, same should apply here. If a person applies for a license and you do a check on his
funds, if he all of a sudden (or anytime in say the last year) had $50,000 deposited in his account, he
should be able to prove where he got that money from. Where is the money coming from paying the
bills, rent, equipment, etc. That should keep out a lot of drug dealers out. If he can't prove where the
money came from, that should be a giant red flag. If he got a loan from a bank, that is easy to prove. If
it's from his savings or selling stock or what not, easy to prove. A "loan" from a friend or "business
associate"....red flag. You should not only investigate him, you should investigate the "friend" giving him
the loan, and where that money came from. That will keep the drug dealers out. The people applying
for dispensaries should be scrutinized to the very last detail, not only their record, but more importantly,
where their money is coming from. If the money trail is analyzed, I bet a bunch of the "shady" people
applying for licenses will back out. It is not fair to the law abiding citizens of Arizona that want to open a
dispensary, whom earned their money legally by working hard, have to compete with the deep pockets
of illegal organizations. Trace the money and keep the drug dealers out.
There MUST be something in the rules to allow qualifying veterans to get it; they must be qualified but
they must have a way to get recommended without extra cost out of their pockets to seek medical
recommend outside of the VA . We have no insurance except for the VA. It would cause my husband
undo stress to see an unknown dr and to pay for at least 4 months to see another dr than his own
trusted dr at the VA on top[ of the cost of the permit and the cost of the marijuana. It would also cause
unjust cost for us to pay for both of us HIM & his caregiver) to pick up the marijuana. He is not always
able to get out of the house due to his health. It feels like in trying to make this well regulated that it is
being written in ways to put more blockades in front of those who were blessed to be able to fall under
receiving the benefits of the law.
New proposals. 1 A dispensing physician should be limited to a maximum of 30 patients. Reason: This
gets away from the 'marijuana doctors' who make a living largely by writing medical marijuana
prescriptions for essentially all comers. 2 A dispensary should be restricted to having 30% of its
dispensing sales revenue come from medical marijuana. Reason: This would reduce the tendency to
have 'marijuana shops'. 3 Medical marijuana prescriptions should be restricted to being dispensed in
food, capsules or suppositories, but never in raw form. Reason: This would make it difficult to obtain
marijuana to smoke.
You only listed 13 Debilitating medical conditions,here should be more. There are also non-debilitating
medical conditions that could be listed. If you are just trying to find a minimal amount medical problems
to be covered by this bill should reevaluate. Should you cover more medical conditions, there would be
the possibility of making more revenue for the state of Arizona and could cause the pharmaceutical
companies to reevaluate their prices to where some medication that are now being sought in different
countries by low income families / medicare patients would be more obtainable. Regardless this Medical
Marijuana Act could be a good thing if only you handle it right way.
There was nothing stating the criteria ADHS was going to use in regards to awarding the dispensaries,
specifically the locations. In other words, how is ADHS going to ensure that the 124 dispensaries have
the proper footprint to cover the needs of the state's patients? I would propose awarding the
dispensaries based on the best business models, ability to comply with state regulations, and financed
operations to ensure a quality experience for the patient. The awarded dispensaries would then be
given/chose a location that they could operate in. This would ensure most of the population has a
dispensary that is within a reasonable distance to use.
Yes, there should be no repercussions to Medical Doctors, City Governments, Law Enforcement for
enacting Proposition 203. There are all kind of protections for the patients as there should be. Also
we do not think rural areas should be held to the same requirements as metropolitan cities, you are not
being FAIR!!!
No matter what is said or done it will never be legal for anyone. The law passed 2 or 3 times already
and the Arizona found a way to outlaw it. I have no doubt it will never be legal in Arizona. Look at
the . It is a federal law to not illegally and the supreme court says "if your in the U.S. you have
the same intitlements as real U.S.citizens.
.What about compassionate care givers who are charitable organizations caring for the sick (Churches,
and civic clubs), you have created a big business proposition between the wording of public health
requirements and city zoning requirements. The effect of this will push the price of medication and care
artificially high. Patients have and need varied support systems.
ADHS should demand that individual caregivers form collectives. register with the state. each patient
caregiver pay $100-125. per year and $100 per renewal. that they can grow in their homes or jointly on
the same facility. thats a control measure. meet the guidlines of the cities municipal code. pay for a
business license. each caregiver can have no more than 5 patients, 12 plants each. make sure the
facility's electrical system is inspected by a licensed electrician for city approval and a small fee for the
trouble. any new modification done on the site must be inspected by a licensed contractor and
electrician. thats a control measure. work with commerce not against it and the state will be better for
it. all excess medicine must be either sold or donated to a dispensary of their choice or sold or donated
The Colorado bill has a dollar amount for the surety bond. Medical marijuana license bond. (1)
BEFORE THE 13 STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY ISSUES A STATE LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT, 14 THE
APPLICANT SHALL PROCURE AND FILE WITH THE STATE LICENSING 15 AUTHORITY EVIDENCE OF A
GOOD AND SUFFICIENT BOND IN THE AMOUNT 16 OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS WITH CORPORATE
SURETY THEREON DULY 17 LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE STATE, APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY 18 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, AND CONDITIONED THAT THE 19 APPLICANT SHALL
REPORT AND PAY ALL SALES AND USE TAXES DUE TO THE 20 STATE, OR FOR WHICH THE STATE IS
THE COLLECTOR OR COLLECTING 21 AGENT, IN A TIMELY MANNER, AS PROVIDED IN LAW. 22 (2) A
CORPORATE SURETY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE 23 PAYMENTS TO THE STATE CLAIMING
UNDER SUCH BOND UNTIL A FINAL 24 DETERMINATION OF FAILURE TO PAY TAXES DUE TO THE
STATE HAS BEEN 25 MADE BY THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY OR A COURT OF COMPETENT 26
JURISDICTION.
There are no operational rules for a person to follow for cultivating own medicine. How are they being
conceived. I have many ideas and have input but cannot find out where to communicate them. Some
of them follows: I have concentrated my concerns here as if I were a patient cultivator otside the 25
mile limit. A. Would seeds be available through the pharmacy and what cost? B. Would setup and
maintainance of "garden" be somehow reimbursed or deductable? As many of us are on lower income
status's, it would be prohibited to some and would be discriminatory to make people pay extra due to
proximity to a pharmacy. A proper setup of lights, containment, security, temp and humidity control, of
any contained system would cost at least $500 dollars whether it is soil,hydro or Aero based. This is an
extra cost just for this group over the group buying directly. C. There has to be a grandfather clause
for this group. I live in Page and I would have to make a 120 mile round trip to the nearest pharmacy
(IF there will be a pharmacy in Flagstaff) for the first six month's or so. I set up my own "garden" and a
year goes by and someone opens one up here. I need protection at that time. D. There should be
some kind of exception for the grower for the six month's it would take to establish and grow the first
crop for consumption. Remember we have to dry the plant after harvesting. Maybe an exception for
the amount obtained at the pharmacy to alleviate the driving. Or shipping the medicine like mail order
pharmacies do. E. Keep in mind that we shouldn't go overboard so it would be impossible not to be
segragated or some how made to feel different by doing this. This is about normalizing or
recatagorizing from it's inaccurate class of "no good" or "evil" to a formidable medicine. Keep in mind
you don't make me jup over hoops to take my morphine, dilaudid or other pain medication.
There is no section concerning veterans. As a vet who is on morphine and several other meds for
chronic pain, depression, ptsd, insomnia and fibromyalgia I would like the oppurtunity to try this method
of pain release istead of narcotics. As I cant afford any other medical ins as I am still fighting with Social
Security and the VA for disability benifits. How am I going to even afford seeing a civilian doctor much
lesss stay with them for a full year. As this is an oversight I would suggest having a qualified dr be able
to review veterans medicle records and if they qualify granting them a card.
YES, pain is pain, if it has been around for years and nothing else has worked, mm should be
administered.
Greetings I think there is a question that should be addressed, and I for one will like to know the
answer. I have been receving treetment for 8 buldging discs and a degenerated disc in my back for
about 5 years. Now after 8 procedures on my back the Dr's say they can only try to keep me
comfortable. This means they have me on nartic pain patches.As part of this treatment I am required to
take randum drug tests. My queation is what problems will come up if I now try to use medical
marijuana to help with some of the affects of the pain patches, and the pain.( )
How about what should be removed. There are way to many pages of regulation. What average citizen
who approved this prop has the time to digest all of this? There appears to be a lack of respect by the
AZ Dept. Health Services for the adult American citizens who approved this prop.
i am now under veterans care for prostate cancer. the va will not give me a script for grass. they will
give me morphine. this is not an option for me, as morphine has to many bad side effects. as long as i
can prove i have cancer, i dont believe i should have to go see a doctor for a year before i can attain a
permit or card to get the weed. i am on disability. i am in a lot of pain. the va is keeping me alive. i will
recieve cemo the rest of my life. i have all the paper work i need to get a script. i just dont have the
time. please make a revision or amendment. while i am still alive. please help me with my pain
Add a statement regarding the nature of the doctor/patient that includes the patient's right to determine
the length and nature of his/her relationship with a doctor.
Rules regarding the amount of medical amount of marijuana that can be sold and grown by dispensaries
and patients should be addressed.
I noticed that you did not include any "Animal/pet" rules or guidlines. I can see where some
dispensaries, and cultivation yards/rooms may consider animals as part of security and I feel that there
should be guidlines as far as vaccinations.
here's something that should not be in these rules nothing in the law about these as exclusionary:
B. The Department may deny an application for a dispensary registration certificate if a principal officer
or board member of the dispensary: 1. Has not provided a surety bond or filed any tax return with a
taxing agency; 2. Has unpaid taxes, interest, or penalties due to a governmental agency; 3. Has an
unpaid judgment owed to a governmental agency; 4. Is in default on a government-issued student
loan; 5. Failed to pay court-ordered child support; or 6. Provides false or misleading information to the
Department.
FBI basic background check, finger printing, domestic violence charges in the last 5 years, sexual
preditors, weapons charges, tax evasion, drug possession with intent to sell/sell to a minor, driving
under the influence of a controlled substance. To me this is the kind of things that need to be
checked for a dispensary license, or even a license to grow and harvest medical marijuana.
doctor. My medical doctor can't prescribe MJ because some kind of rules that the hospital made. I hope
you won't make it too hard on me. I want to get off the pain pills and use MJ.
Not that I have seen but I have not read it all. Sorry.
pricing is a big issue and nothing in the rules to protect the patients. no one is going to open a
dispensary and operate it for free so theres going to be high cost and from examples of prices in other
states most patients who qualify for this medicine wont be able to afford it. i would take federaly
approved marinol but even with medicare and private ins it cost $450 a month. so i choose this over
that cause its cheaper so this needs to be addressed. thanks
Who can recommend medical marijuana to a qualifying patient? Nurse Practitioners.
no
I have to reread it to know.
How will dispensaries obtain their initial crops after approval?
a mechanism to provide answers to questions instead of the operator wh answers the phone and can
only direct you to the faqs
wording that leaves room for when things change after the initial launch of this initiative.
Not at this time.
I believe the rules need to be shrunk, not expanded. There is a cost to doing business, and the rules in
place right now are going to make it very hard to stay afloat as a business. The surveillance system is
way over the top. Why should a government agency get to look into any business with remote
cameras, isn't that fundamentally against citizen's rights? The rules must consider marijuana just like
_any other_ prescription medicine. Taking as an example another prescription medicine, say any
antibiotic, then consider this point: . How would an "antibiotic dispensary" be treated? (and treat
marijuana the same) How would we regulate doctors on prescribing antibiotics? (and treat
marijuana the same) . If there wouldn't be a remote camera surveillance system in an "antibiotic
dispensary", neither should there be one in a marijuana dispensary. This is a fundamental point I'd like
to see the Board address. Thank you.
Did you leave out mobile vending ?
You might consider adding a statement that describes how the medical marijuana should be
transported.
Hospitals appear to be left out of the regulations. It is conceivable that patients may wish to continue to
use medical marijuana while hospitalized, which raises a few issues: Would hospitals need to allow
patients to use medical marijuana, provided that their physicians agree to it? Smoking is hazardous in
a hospital, due to use of oxygen. Also, patients sometimes have to share a room with one or more other
patients, so it would seem that the best course of action would be to require that non-smoking routes
be used for administration.
Yes. Permanent lawful residents that have been living in the state for over two years (within the
excluded felony charge laws) should be permitted to have the same "rights" as U.S. naturalization or
U.S. citizens as patients, qualified caregivers or dispensary agents.
People who are already permanently disabled and are currently under government programs such as
medi-caid and have documentation of the disease should be allowed to recieve Marijuana care. To me
this is really essential and people who have been permanently disabled have voted the law yes, want to
see themselves get covered for what they truly need.
The 25 mile rule
LET’S START BY CARVING OFF THE FAT IN THIS THING, AND THEN WORRY ABOUT WHAT WAS LEFT
OUT. DON'T FORGET YOURSELVES; YOU ARE AGENTS FOR THOSE WHO VOTED THIS IN, NOT
COWBOY JOES WITH SOME SELF-AGGRANDIZED MORAL IMPERATIVE TO IMPOSE YOUR NARROW,
ARCHAIC VALUES UPON THE CLEAR VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. Best wishes, truly. God and good sense
be with you all.
How many miles from a dispensary does one have to be to cultivate marijuana for private use. It should
be calculated by physical miles, or minutes of travel as sometimes complex and terrain difficult to
navigate may be a longer journey than physical miles. Especially on rugged and mountainous terrain.
Secondly, if someone resides "outside city limits" in the outskirts of a town, is that deemed "far enough
away" to cultivate marijuana. Additionally, can medical card holders consume edible forms of THC
(e.g. drinks, food, etc.) in a public place? that should be cleared up and specified as well. Reason being,
marijuana that is smoked gives off a distinctive aroma that can be identified instantly. But if someone
attempts to eat an edible in a public place, that may be very difficult to manage and may be somewhat
of a nightmare to enforce. However, if consuming edible products in public areas with exception of jails,
parks and playgrounds where children are present and any government facility (i.e. court house,
chamber of commerce, etc.) it might be easier to manage. There should be a requirement though, the
edibles may be consumed in public places with the exception of the places stated above, so long as the
edible in its entirety is consumed completely, with no trace of edible material, to ensure someone not
qualified to use medical marijuana as a treatment, does not accidentally obtain it.
Does a dispensary owner have to be a Medical Card holder, and if so, how are their medical marijuana
intakes tabulated? If a dispensary owner is NOT allowed to be a card holder, what sort of precautions
are set to ensure that they do not use the cannabis plants for their own private use? Suggestion: If a
medical marijuana dispensary owner/operator is not allowed to have a medical card, perhaps a drug test
once a month (or maybe every two weeks) to screen for the metabolites found in the blood as a result
of marijuana use would be a method of choice? If they can be a medical card holder and run a
dispensary, the rules in place to regulate the marijuana and who can obtain it are very specific which is
good. There is no vagueness there, but if the person who runs the dispensary can indeed hold a medical
card for marijuana, they should be able to obtain their requirement of marijuana from their own
cultivation without need to provide charge for it. The reason i suggest this is, growing the plants is
beyond a full time job and since the dispensaries are all non-profit (which protects card holders from
getting "ripped off"), a person running one can't really make an "income" off of the facility. Thus would
most likely not be the wealthiest of people, but more along the honest type of person because of the
requirements set forth. So, as a reparation for the cultivation and ensured regulation of such a facility,
they should be allowed to obtain their necessary amounts of marijuana free of charge considering the
amount of work required. Private cultivation of plants for people too far from a dispensary was
mentioned. However, you failed to mention whether the people growing their OWN marijuana could buy
a plant that has already sprouted or just seeds and whether or not it can only female plants (produces
the buds that medical patients use) or whether they can have male plants too, to cultivate a "Better"
strain. Additionally, you should specify whether there is a choice in choosing seeds over a already
sprouted plant, due to the fact that it is an extremely difficult, meticulous and finite process to cultivate
marijuana from a seed. Also, not all seeds are good seeds, you should specify that if seeds may be
obtained to cultivate marijuana in a private residence is acceptable, that the seeds must be germinated.
Germinating seeds is a fine art and not easily done in practice. If the seeds aren't required to be
germinated upon acquisition, then the dispensary should be required to explain explicitly the exact
process to yield a successful outcome. They should also provide a template of how to grow the plants
properly and the requirements of nutrition the plants require. They should also explain the benefits of
organic growing methods versus those requiring pesticides and do so free of charge. The inclusion of
potting soil rich in nitrogen to ensure healthy growth of the plants, a pot suitable for the size of the
plant to grow in, and an explanation of when and how to water the plant with the light requirements
should be included in the purchase of a sprouted plant or seed free of additional charge. You should also
specify that the medical card holders whom can cultivate a plant should be able to obtain whichever
strain is most therapeutic to their specific needs. Secondly, is a green house sufficient? If a medical
card holder lives far enough away from a dispensary, that they are allowed to cultivate their own plants,
there's a high chance they live in rural areas. Which would mean that the likelihood they are further
away from their neighbors rises. Is a greenhouse for cultivation of marijuana permitted? if so, what are
the restrictions? Maybe an iron gate with a padlock on the entrance surrounding the greenhouse and an
additional lock on the green house along with some sort of motion alarm situated on the greenhouse
windows to prevent theft would suffice. That way no one can easily enter without authorization and if
someone DID break in, the motion alarm (set off if windows break) acts in the same way a house alarm
would and automatically calls law enforcement. This would ensure that if a thief broke a window in an
attempt to steal a medical card holder's privately cultivated marijuana, law enforcement could subdue
the suspect and return the plants taken and prevent marijuana from illegally entering the drug dealing
market. However that is just a suggestion if greenhouse type structures are permitted as a private
cultivation site for individuals.
1. What amount surety bond will be req'd? 2. Can an applicant for a dispensary be conditionally
approved before investing in a lease, architect,site plans etc? Is it possible that an applicant for a
dispensary could sign a lease, hire an architect and complete all site plans and floor plans and then be
rejected for a dispensary license? 3. Will dispensary owners be able to sell their license and business?
4. How do cultivators acquire their initial inventories? 5. Why is Arizona the only state to require a
medical doctor to be on staff at dispensaries? Thanks!
I did not see a provision for the disadvantaged in our society: the Poor, the Elderly, the Handicapped, or
the needy. There should be a sliding payment scale to address the needs of these individuals or groups.
The Veterans problem with paperwork needs to be addressed and corrected. Doctors at the V.A. will not
issue certificates so there needs to be a humanitarian waiver to allow their access to treatment with
medical marijuana. The addition of Security Guards to the dispensaries should be implemented for the
security of the dispensaries and their clients. There should be a human factor as well as electronic
security implemented.
Yes. Compassion!
Keep your hearts and minds open. Cannabis has been used by the common folk as a therapeutic
agent for centuries. It was a common ingredient in medicines prior to 1935. The only context in which
the name Marijuana is acceptable is when you consider “Mary and John” to be the average person.
Cannabis is medicine for the people. The average citizen has been largely shut out of a medical system
that operates on a for profit basis. We applaud the idea of a Not for Profit method of providing
Cannabis to the chronically ill; but beware of making rules that are so convoluted that many who should
benefit cannot comply .
Common sense.
No.
A patient who has a demonstrated history can go to any doctor for a medical marijuana
recommendation, if their regular doctor is not allowed to recommend medical marijuana.
see above (see the Redden-Clark decision in Michigan)
see above
please provide a section on how the approval process will work for dispensary certificates. will it be 1st
come 1st serve?, lottery?, or the most logical way, which is to look at business plan and model, and
make an informed decision.
All qualified cardholders should be able to cultivate thier own plants, a few at least. Not everybody that
lives close to a dispensary will be able to afford those prices. Please look at celiac disease (complete
gluten intolerance, that affects almost one percent of the population 0.8%) as one of the diseases
named. We have many digestion/stomach related problems as well as this is an autoimmune disease
and can present itself in almost anyplace in the body or organs, usually causing chronic pain. Nausea is
also extremely common in celiac patients. Med marijuana definitely eases these and many of the
multitude of symptoms. Headaches, sore joints, lack of appetite; to name only a few.
No.
I think there needs to be advertising limits included into the rules. Example one, you should be able to
drive or walk right past a dispensary with out knowing marijuana is sold there. The dispensary name
should be text only with no 'pot leaves' or other graphics so minors will not know marijuana is sold
there. Example two is something I have seen in California and didn't like at all is the amount of
advertisements in the back of local town papers that had massive amounts of pot leaf, bong, and other
paraphernalia. Of course they should be allowed to advertise just with text only and no offending
images. I would compare it to an advertisement for an escort company putting naked bodies on their
add.
Most medicinal marijuana strains are seedless and are grown from clones. This draft appears to assume
that the plants will be started from seeds. Once a dispensary has an established grow operation in
place, the cloning process can be done internally; however, there does not appear to be any provision in
this draft for a dispensary to acquire its initial clones, or for that matter, seeds. Since cultivation is
currently illegal in AZ, how does the Department intend to permit dispensaries to acquire an inventory of
seeds or baby plants to commence their grow operations?
I think it would be beneficial to be a more clear with regards to the rules involved in becoming a
caregiver. To be more specific, does the Qualifying patient HAVE to live 25 miles from a dispensary or
can any Patient apply to grow? If a Qualifying Patient designates a Caregiver, does this possible
distance requirement then go off of the Caregivers address?
I suggest adding language to include people who have sustained an injury, receiving a Permanent
Partial Impairment rating (PPI) from a Dr as the result of a serious accident. Serious accident includes
either a work or a personal injury in which the Dr. declares there is physical and/or mental trauma in
which there are symptoms inclusive of chronic pain; including migraine headaches, and/or sciatic nerve
pain/damage. Also, I do suggest modifying Article 2, Sec R9-17-201 to include migraine headaches
and sciatic nerve issues as the result of an injury in which a PPI has been declared by a Dr.
There is a serious conflict of interest between the implementation of medical marijuana rules and the
competing interests and goals of the ADHS. Marijuana is an important medication for alcoholism and
drug addiction and it is offered as an alternative treatment in California and other states for people
suffering from alcohol or that want to get off of damaging and addictive prescribed medications. Will
Humble is Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and he has been with the
agency at a high level since 1992. He controls approximately 2,000 employees and a budget of $2B.
Mr. Humble is now in control of implementing the rules and regulations for the use, cultivation and
distribution of medical marijuana here in the State of Arizona. Mr. Humble belongs to a culture of anti
marijuana supporters. In many ways this group has prospered and personally and professionally
advanced through their opposition to medical marijuana and the will of the people. They have turned
their backs on science and common sense. Arizonans voted for medical marijuana in 1996 and 1998
and they were ignored. Now Arizona voters have passed Proposition 203 in November of 2010
legalizing medical marijuana for cancer patients and a few other serious illnesses. This was
accomplished in spite of Will Humble and ADHS opposition and efforts to defeat the medical marijuana
law. There is a great conflict of interest here. The ADHS has a monopoly on the anti-depressant and
chronic pain pill market for the poor. These powerful individuals have little incentive for allowing
homegrown marijuana to compete with their synthetic drug distribution to the poor or the depression
and addiction industry they control through Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS).
Many of these drugs the ADHS push are referred to as psych-meds on the street. Most marijuana users
avoid these drugs because they are known to make people unstable, suicidal and violent. Many mental
health patients prefer marijuana to alcohol and these highly addictive psych-meds and are offered a
legal treatment alternative in California and other states. U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is
concerned that these dangerous drugs are being over-prescribed in Arizona. Grassley requested
Arizona’s spending data on prescription drugs for the Senate Finance Committee, who is calling for a
federal investigation into the volume of prescription drugs that the government is paying out through
Medicare and Medicaid. In 2009 Arizona spent over $5.3 million on pain and anti-psychotic medications
for its poorest residents. Senator Grassley discovered that Arizona’s top Medicaid doctors wrote between
500 and 3,000 prescriptions per year for several of these dangerous drugs that are under scrutiny.
Arizona spent at least $1.3 million on Zyprexa , a schizophrenia drug, for Medicaid patients in 2009.
State data show that one doctor alone wrote 2,977 prescriptions for Oxycontin and Oxycodone for
AHCCCS enrollees in the 2009 fiscal year. The state paid a total of at least $527,449 for the drugs he
prescribed to those patients. This Arizona data lists the top 10 AHCCCS contractors according to their
volume of prescriptions for the medications Alprazolam, Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Roxicodone, Xanax,
Abilify, Geodon, Seroquel, Zyprexa, Risperdal and Risperidone. Senator Grassley wrote to Thomas J.
Betlach, director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona's Medicaid
program stating: "The overutilization of prescription drugs, whether through drug abuse or outright
fraud, plays a significant role in the rising cost of our health-care system,” These drugs are filling our
living rooms and our emergency rooms with heavily addicted and suicidal patients in epidemic
proportions yet the ADHS is passing these pills out like candy. Will Humble will not implement unbiased,
responsible and meaningful rules and regulations that would safely, economically and efficiently make
medical marijuana available to the people that need it for many valid reasons. Will Humble and the
ADHS are in direct competition with a normal medical marijuana policy. Will Humble and his heavily
funded cartel of medical marijuana saboteurs need to stand down. This sabotage will result in a
continuation of wasted resources, unnecessary crime, suffering, drug addiction, death, social division
and civil disobedience. The individuals responsible for prolonging this damage should be held
accountable. I would like to thank for providing some of the information I have used
in this article from her Saturday, October 30, 2010 posting with the Arizona Daily Star. I have cleaned
her political spin off the facts and added my own but the facts are the facts. Join in
Demanding the Unconditional End of the Prohibition of Marijuana and the Immediate Release of All
Marijuana Prisoners in the State of Arizona.
no
Please add something that will help Veterans get access to this type of medication. Thank you.
I would like if Az. could consider allowing disabled persons receiving SSI, 100% VA, or Medicaid be able
to grow their own as long as they meet the "closed locked facility" requirements. If we don't do this
low income and government dependant patients will be denied the availability of this program and its
benefits.
Confidentiality: Without protections for the Patients this program has no hope of getting off the ground.
The DEA has issued one subpoena after another in Michigan in order to gain access to their state
records. Below is the text from the Mi. law that pertains to this problem and has so far protected the
Patients involved. Rule 333.121 Confidentiality. Rule 21. (1) Except as provided in subrules (2)
and (3) of this rule, Michigan medical marihuana program information shall be confidential and not
subject to disclosure in any form or manner. Program information includes, but is not limited to, all
of the following: (a) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients.
(b) Information related to a qualifying patient's primary caregiver. (c) Names and other identifying
information of registry identification cardholders. (d) Names and other identifying information of
pending applicants and their primary caregivers. (2) Names and other identifying information
made confidential under subrule (1) of this rule may only be accessed or released to authorized
employees of the department as necessary to perform official duties of the department pursuant to
the act, including the production of any reports of non-identifying aggregate data or statistics. (3)
The department shall verify upon a request by law enforcement personnel whether a registry
identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify
the authenticity of the registry identification card. (4) The department may release information to
other persons only upon receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by all
individuals with legal authority to waive confidentiality regarding that information, whether a
registered qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, or a qualifying
patient's registered primary caregiver. The release of information shall specify what information
the department is authorized to release and to whom. (5) Violation of these confidentiality rules
may subject an individual to the penalties provided for under section 6(h)(4) of the act.
No, but a lot of things that should be out as stated above.
Nurse practitioners independently treat patients with the qualifying diagnoses listed in the draft. Why
are they not included as authorized prescribers?
We must improve the doctor to patient relationship. I feel that we do in deed need to set some grown
rules, but to see the same doctor for up to a year I feel is a bad idea. I feel that with the way people are
getting laid off from jobs they are losing their insurance thus having to see a different doctor. Put your
self in that situation. You need medical marijuana for HIV or chronic pain, but just before the act goes
into play you change your doctor so this means you must find a need doctor and wait for a year before
you can get a medical card to help your medical needs? I feel that a year is to long. Maybe if the patient
have medical records of having the issue(s) for up to a year would sound a lot better.
Again, I may come back and make additional comments after I reviewed the draft a second time.
it would be in everyone's best interest to allow only patients that have been issued medical cards into
dispensaries. Can the cards have the magnetic strip on then with all there info so they can side it
through a reader before the can even entire a dispensary. It would be a huge security feature and
automatically know everything about who is entering a facility.
there is nothing in rules for cultavating for dispenceries this is where the real tax dollar come from.
arizona needs to put them selves in a position to take advantage of this new industry? Lets be first at
something for a change. lets not miss out on this great oppertunity. you guys have a chance threw this
law to become the strongest branch in az goverment.
can a dispenrary liscense be transfered to another party and can two seperate dispensary's use the
same location for a grow facility?
just a question I've received a recommendation from a qualified doctor. Can I grow my own until a
dispensary opens in my area-Scottsdale? Where in the rules is this covered?
I am concerned about the lack of regulation for ceiling fees, i.e., it appears that the dispensaries can
charge whatever they wish.
Early a few months back there was conversation about having testing equipment for THC, etc. I firmly
believe this would take the dispensaries out of the street class of drug and give them legitimacy. I think
this would be one of the most important marketing advantages to the dispensaries. This would also
insure quality of product for the consumer and levels of THC for what ailments. Once again, I believe
NMD's and DO's would be more qualified and reliable than regular MD's
rules concerning the offsite cultivation lenient rules for patients who grow their own for reasons of
expense, purity and even shame of using MJ. distance requirements and space allowed ought to be
reviewed. a good plant covers up to 27 square feet at maturity. something in the state's rules should
supercede P & Z rules which constrict rights to privacy, expense and organic purity.
Any person applying for a dispensary license should be tested for illegal drug use before they are issued
a license. All potential dispensary applicants that are being considered for employment should also be
required to pass a drug test before they are hired. Does that make sense? Unused marijuana has the
potential to be sold on the streets depending on the honesty of the dispensary people. I do believe that
would be easy to do in Arizona and I'm not a drug user. From what I've read the quality of medical
marijuana is much higher than what is sold on the streets and would command more money than what
is sold out there now.
God created marijuana for humans to use...people should never put laws on nature like this...karma
You need a sliding scale for the cost of the member's card. A lot of these patients will be on fixed
incomes, SSI and SSID and $150.00 is too high for them to afford. Also the 25 mile rule to grow their
own at home needs to be elimated. The cost is to high these clinics charge for a plant a patient can
grow at home for almost nothing.
There are too many already!!
The dispensaries should employ a regulator whose sole responsibility is to oversee the dispensaries
operation for compliance and should be State licensed.
Yes, a promise from out government that they will not preclude the people of Arizona from getting
medical marijuana when it is prescribed by a physician.
No.
set a maximum price a dispensary can charge for medicine.
the length of time that a Qualifying Patient's or Designated Caregiver's Registry Identification Card is
valid. how often do these cards need to be renewed?
All have been previously mentioned, but for review: • There is a need for a competitive application
process • Quality Assurance, Staffing, and Cultivation Standards need to be included in application •
Allow for a variance to sensitive uses, as local jurisdictions will follow suit and more good facilities may
be allowed for. • Ensuring a fair and considerate process for the applications is crucial to getting good
people.
Patients ability to grow their own medical marijuana if a dispensary is not available in their area.
A patient can have their regular doctor and a medical marijuana doctor. Dispensaries may deliver
marijuana to their patients. Costs will be lower.
Just amending the cost to include a price people on low income can afford, DHS having an open
agreement with dispensaries and the cost dispensaries have to pay should be looked at even though I
am sure they would be making a profit anyway.
de criminalize it.
There is another condition that should be added to the list of ailments which would qualify an individual
to participate in this program. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD as its commonly reffered to is
known to be medically treated with many benifits, in our neighboring states New Mexico & California.
The Veterans & Crime Victims of Arizona who suffer from PTSD, should be included as quickly as
possible in the list of Qualifying Conditions, so as to assist in their treatment!
I would like to see language on specific penalties should a prescribed user provide their medical
marijuana to another person. Potentially a description of these penalties could be provided on a flyer
with each prescription provided statewide. The reality is that those with prescriptions will become
dealers for their friends without prescriptions.
I couldn't find if veterans are inlcluded or excluded from this. Some veterans have medical coverage
ONLY through the V.A. WIll there be a dispensery at the VA Hospital in Phoenix...or will the veterans
be excluded from this?
ADHD ought to be included in the list. I suffer from this too. There have been multiple testimonies from
psychiatrists before Congress on the effective use of marijuana to treat ADHD. Without going into
medical jargon: people who suffer from ADHD are impulsive (think too quickly), suffer from excessive
energy, insomnia, etc. In my personal life I've lost a number of girlfriends because I could only sleep for
3-5 hours a night without smoking marijuana and falling asleep together is one of the most comforting
things of a relationship. Whereas most people don't need to slow their train of thinking down, my
experience has been that smoking marijuana lowers my energy levels and thought trains to more
socially acceptable levels so that I can integrate into society better. I understand for some people
smoking marijuana may make them less apt for school, driving, the work force, etc. But in my case I
was born cursed to be on a different playing level energetically and intellectually and smoking marijuana
helps me to mellow out. Basically, it makes sense for someone who is hyperactive to smoke some
marijuana to mellow out. I am more than happy to answer further questions or testify in public
concerning this as it effects my every day life in very fundamental ways. Best wishes,
As it stands now the 20,000 eligable patients would garner $3 million dollars, but if the pool were the
orginal estimated 100,000 patients that would equal $15 million in additional revenue. Given the
economic place where AZ is, it would make fiscal sense that the rules be relaxed. There will always be a
level of abuse for any prescriptions (pill poppers) as there can be expected with medicinal marijuana. It
would be sensible that we increase the pool of people who can obtain a card AND pay the $150 fee.
NOT AT THIS TIME.
Already stated
Incredible! Left out? Only a bunch of corrupt (@#!!?%$#) could be so detached from reality as to ask
that kind of question. You people and your unions are truly Marxist/communist/progressives who hate
free enterprise and the open market.
Not that I can think of.
Arizona Physican: Will Medical Mari be a schedule I or 2-5 scheduled drug
Individuals on fixed income or Social Security should be exempted from annual fees, or at least receive
some kind of discount.
One thing I also saw that I think should be changed is which patients can grow their own plants. I think
all qualified patients should be allowed to grow their own plants, not just those who live a certain
distance away from a pharmacy. Of course their should be a limit to about 1-3 plants per patient and
they must me grown in a confined and secure place.
It would be nice to mention that the DEA says on their page for "Marinol" that we have medical
Marijuana it's called Marinol. Marinol contains less than 10% of the cannabinoids of the plant, but by
Schedule 1 law, this should also be outlawed. There is nothing there that says it must be grown to of
"No medicinal use". Pressure via additions to this law could help make the government move Marijuana
out where it can be scientifically evevaluated without the pressure of government and give the ability to
doctors. This would also relieve a lot of burden on the police make giving it away or other crimes
Federal crimes.
Should use a well established analytical lab for their products.
Noe that I saw at this time
Same as last...
conditions for operating a motor vechicle? 2hours after taken, ect. it will always show up. so does that
mean you can never drive agian? where oxycontin use is tolerated?
What criteria will be used in selecting a person or persons application for a dispensary? and how will
they be allocated or dispersed demographically throughout the state? If I submit an application and
want it in Phoenix, if there are no more dispensaries allowed in Phoenix, will I be able to move to
another location/town? Will I be able to get a partial refund on my application fee if I choose not to
open one else where? I live in Phoenix and do not want to operate a dispensary in Yuma, and if central
Phoenix is filled, will I be given an option for another town before I pay my application fee? $5,000.00
given in good faith, I should hope this will not taken lightly and that everyone will be treated fairly as to
not lose the application fee. If due diligence was not followed or the background check came back
negativley and proven, well then I can understand that.
It appears you have done a thorough job.
Where I can find a doctor.
I am not sure where the initial seeds/plants will come from. That is not explained in the regulations.
What's been left out is compassion for the patients. It has the feel that it was written by heartless,
paranoid anti-marijuana people. You appear to be doing what you can to cut off access to medicine to
as many people as possible.
1. What is the criteria for the issuing of dispensary licences? Is it gegraphic, population, a lottery? 2.
How will initial Marijuanna stock be sourced within Arizona?
I think there should be consideration for who many dispensaries each county will permit. This last week
I heard from a very reliable source that in one Los Angeles county there sprang up approximately 200
dispensaries. This become so problematic that they enacted legislation that reduced the number to 12
per county yet no limits that I could find. I may have missed this aspect in my quick review but I
don’t find a quantity that can be dispensed. Again, with drugs there are limits to what can be taken and
when refills can be requested based on prescription quantity and directions – but I don’t find this in the
proposed rules. Can one get as much as they like and use it as they like? I’m hoping not.
I have contacted 4 different Waste disposal companies in the valley in regards to proper, legal of waste
MMJ, and waste from the farm. None have any set programs, and can give me no advice on what is
accepatable disposal.. Does the state have any reccomendations,
make it more available to people with chronic pain (especially back pain, migraines, and other
debilitating pain).
Veterans need help TODAY not in ONE YEAR and FOUR VISITS
include that a caregiver can produce marijuana for up to 5 patients and allow at a minimum of 500 sq.
ft. for this purpose. 250 sq. ft. is not enough room to care for 5 patients as prop. 203 allows.
No comment.
Medical marijuana should be available to people who cannot afford it. They should be allowed to grow
it, even if they are within the 25 miles distance from a dispensary. People who are very ill, out of work,
cannot afford what will probably be 400 dollars an ounce. Let them grow it.
1. Define the length of time a potential dispensary can have to schedule the final inspection with the
state. 2. Define what type of business organization will be allowed to operate a dispensary. 3. Define if
a certificate of occupancy is required, if not at what point in the process will it be needed. 4. Define
how a dispensary will obtain seeds or clones to start growing 5. Reduce the high application fee for
patients from $150 to $50. 6. Modify the patient doctor relationship to include only supporting
documents with no length of time required for the doctor/patient relationship. 7. Remove the language
that requires medical direction and allow a medical assistant or pharmacist give advise on
contraindications. 8. Allow a dispensary application be submitted without a certificate of occupancy and
require the dispensary obtain one prior to the final state inspection. 9. Remove the requirement for
dispensaries to submit an annual report to the state and leave the financial data for the IRS. 10. Allow
dispensaries to have their marijuana tested by an independent agency for quality and THC content and
this can be included in their labeling. 11. Define if the 30% that a dispensary can get or give to another
dispensary, can be bought or sold. 12. Can the dispensary have a delivery service? If so how much can
be in the vehicle at any given time. 13. Require that cities allow for delivery service as some
ordinances are already trying to restrict this, as it is written into the proposition and should be allowed.
Yes, you have left out Respect for Patients. Have some respect for the intent of the new law that
resulted from Proposition 203. If conventional medications fail to control my glaucoma, I would like to
have the option to acquire the quantities of marijuana that I would need as provided for as provided in
the proposition. Change the rules to ensure that glaucoma patients won't be priced out of the market
because you have artificially inflated the price.
Please see the specific language above.
Non-refundable should state, "Refunds will be for rejected applications." If a application is rejected for
any reason, the applicant will receive a refund for application fee's. There should not be any charge for
updating a file, if the is done by logon the update could take effect within 24 hrs.... There most be a
way to reduce all these fee you are try to add on to access to medicine. It should not take more that 10
day to process any and all applications. This 90 day process will only delay, people having access to the
medcine the voter supports. There is no reason for the procress to take this long.. 15 days is the
maximum need for any application. There should not be any road blocks to medicine, and you should do
everything possible to elimianated paper work (paperless process), and deliver access freely.
I noticed that the law only allows US citizens What about the folks’ that are here legally but are not
citizens? Are they to be excluded??
Where is Quality Assurance of the medicine? Patients severely ill by the 13 point protocol you publish
must have safe medicine. Your ordinance spends a great deal of language on making money but none
on bringing safe medicine to patients. All medicine should be tested for microbiological safety, that is
APC, coliform, and E.coli; absence of harmful residues (pesticides, fungicides); and potency of
cannabinoid content at the very minimum. All medicine should be managed with a test and release
protocol mentality for the safety of the patient. Independent laboratories are available to provide these
services.
Yes, see comments re: sustainability.
We know that thing have been left out of this Pro 203, but we will trust that you orgainze this to support
the paintent of Airzona!!!
Under ARS 36-2801 of the proposition. Chapter 17 17. "VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT" MEANS A
PERSON: And 36-2804.03. Issuance of registry identification cards C. A REGISTRY
IDENTIFICATION CARD, OR ITS EQUIVALENT, THAT IS ISSUED UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER
STATE, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, COMMONWEALTH OR INSULAR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES
THAT ALLOWS A VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT TO POSSESS OR USE MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL
PURPOSES IN THE JURISDICTION OF ISSUANCE HAS THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT WHEN HELD BY A
VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT AS A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT THAT A VISITING QUALIFYING PATIENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN
MARIJUANA FROM A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY. We foresee problems with this
clause that need to be clarified in the rulemaking process. Although all other medical marijuana states
have some sort of a registration card, the only state that does not require you to possess one is
California. Since it is a bordering state and the largest state in the country, there will be a considerable
amount of infractions that could be avoided. Another issue is that the majority of physicians in
California provide you a card with your picture and your name on it making them feel as if they have a
legitimate card. Even the physicians office explains that the card is a novelty but the population believes
that it is a state issued medical marijuana identification card. This will incur many legal problems that
will need to be addressed. I would create verbiage that states that California residents need only their
physicians recommendation to avoid arrest for possession or use of their medication. Again for
clarification, to purchase and legally use medicinal marijuana in California, you only need your physicians
recommendation. A state card is available but not required by any entity. It is believed that less than
2% of the medical marijuana patients in California possess a card but over 90% believe that they will be
in compliance with proposition 203 reciprocity clause. Regarding security, we can learn a lot from
operations that currently exist in California and Colorado. Parts of Los Angeles and the bay area have
dispensaries that are just one room where San Diego dispensaries have "check in" areas. It is our
recommendation that the dispensaries are divided up into 3 areas. Reception, dispense, and storage.
The reception area is used in many areas of the country where dispensaries have recently been
approved. This will be a location where the patient can be verified before setting foot into the area
where the medicine is dispensed. The dispensary location and the reception will be separated by a
locked door a accessible by keypad or other similar device that will keep out these patients out until
verification. If you read the white paper put out by the sheriffs in California, you will notice that the
majority of crime that has occurred in the dispensaries did not have a verification area. This should be
mandatory to adopt and will cut crime by 90%. Also, we recommend that the "dispensary" area that is
not reception or storage be defined as the dispensary. Since on site usage is forbidden, anyone in the
proposed area regardless of identity could use a product there and put the dispensaries certificate in
jeopardy. They would be held accountable for any usage in the secure area. Some groups have stated
their intention to propose requirements stating that THC content should be attached to every batch that
is cultivated. This will not be feasible until there is someway to monitor dosage such as prescription
medication. There have been no ideas or precedents set anywhere to monitor the dosage on smoked
marijuana and to this date no studies on edible marijuana products as this is fairly new ground to the
industry. There should also be some sort of clarification on the location rules and if this is really a two
part process that many groups have proposed. Will the location need to be up an running in order to
receive a certificate or will you tentatively approve a dispensary board and then they will find their
location and will that apply to the cultivation facility. It is our recommendation that the dispensary and
the cultivation facility be operated as two different parts. The municipalities will reasonably approve the
dispensary locations but have not been reasonable to the cultivation facilities. This is another reason
that the product will be in short supply. Dispensaries should be approved initially and the cultivation
facilities should be approved as they are ready to be operational. Since retail experts and cultivation
experts are of two different makeups, it would be sensible to have those dispensaries designate a
grower that they are responsible for. Regarding a non-refundable fee. You will run into troubles the
costs incurred for application approval and they will need to be in the area of $5000. Denver currently
charges a $2000 non refundable fee but there is no cap on the amount of dispensaries. Please make
sure that there are $5000 of costs incurred for application or lower it to something more reasonable
such as a $2000 non-refundable deposit with the $3000 being required upon approval. Please
remember that this medicine is so vital to these patients that some states are introducing legislation that
does not require voter approval. It is also important to understand that the federal government enacted
a program in 1978 called the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. They have been
providing marijuana for medical usage to a select group of patients for over 30 years. Although the
negative stigmas still exist, it is a fact that marijuana has medical efficacy and will help people. Your
departments slogan is "Leadership for a Healthy Arizona" and according to your website you promote
and protect the health of Arizona's children and adults. I see nothing stating that you are here to protect
the morals of the citizens. Please act accordingly in allowing this medicine that the pharmaceuticals,
paper companies, plastic companies and politicians do not want and do what is right for the health and
well being of the community regardless of future confirmation hearings.
Decades ago a doctor suggested marijuana might give me relief from severe nausea since the two
medications on the market did not and my weight had dropped to the low 90s. Marijuana was not an
“alternative” method to keeping me alive, it was the only method. The draft recognizes the homeless
with regards to receiving a patient card, yet it is completely unrealistic for them or low income people to
afford the fee. The fee for patients excludes the poor from this medication and that is not right. There
should be a sliding scale fee for the poor. I know this makes it more for you to manage, yet you have
other government sections that do have scales, like ACCESS and Food Stamps, and you could use their
system.
Will out of State Medical Marijuana cards be honored in Arizona? And can out of state cardholders
leagally purcahse medicinal marijuana through a dispensary? Will there be a process for out of state
cardholders to obtain an Arizona Medical Marijuana card?
Can an individual or corporation apply for more than one dispensary license? Can an individual or
corporation own a percentage of more than one dispensary? Will dispensaries cultivate on-sight, or in
a seperate facility?
1. Criteria for selecting from competing applicants. 2. Cross reference to the standard regulations that
prescribe the process for hearings, OAH's role, the Director's decision, etc., all as a prerequisite for a
final agency decision that is subject to judicial review. These regs often say that "the Department's"
decision can be reviewed in superior court. But many lay people would not recognize that a bunch of
steps have to occur before "the Department" issues its decision. Just so the regs are more user
friendly.
QUESTION: Because of the costs involved in setting up a dispenary, how will a person know if they
should proceed? How will it be determined on WHO will get a license or a preliminary approval? The
application process asks for drawings to scale---if somone applies and they are not approved, it seems
there would be quite an expense without knowing. Is it true that the Dept of Health already has the
licenses deligated to certain groups?
QUESTION: Because of the costs involved in setting up a dispenary, how will a person know if they
should proceed? How will it be determined on WHO will get a license or a preliminary approval? The
application process asks for drawings to scale---if somone applies and they are not approved, it seems
there would be quite an expense without knowing. Is it true that the Dept of Health already has the
licenses deligated to certain groups?
The Prop. and draft rules speak of "dispensaries" in the nature of (apparently) locations/facilities where
a patient would go to obtain MM. There also are references to the security requirements for areas where
MM is cultivated. However, the Prop. and draft rules do not seem to clearly address the status, licensing
requirements, etc. of facilities operated solely for the cultivation of MM (such as a warehouse-type
facility, an open lot) or the people who might operate them. Will it be possible for an entity which is not
a certified "dispensary" to cultivate MM for sale to dispensaries, or will certified "dispensaries" be the
only entities allowed to cultivate MM? Some AZ jurisdictions (e.g., Phoenix) contemplate having
dispensaries and grow facilities in different zoning classifications. This suggests a distinction I do not see
in the Prop. and draft rules.
Yes DON'T play games and try to restrict access to this medication as you can already purchase is on
any street corner in Arizona........ So stop being so stupid.
Rules are to restrictive. Marijuana should be treated like any medication approved for the use and
treatment of pain, or to relieve undue suffering. The physician should not be required to adhere to any
rule making procedures not already in place for the prescription or recommendation of a controlled drug
or substance.
I'm immobile and I spoke with my caretaker about having her get me medical marijuana once available.
She refuses because she is afraid of federal law. She also says the fees are too high, there is too much
invasive paperwork, and it is too hard. What am I to do? Please make sure easy delivery with proper
ID will be available. Please make sure marijuana couriers are not restricted or that city zoning won't
prohibit me from getting access to medical marijuana. Please make rules easier for true caregivers.
Please be aware that many patients already have caregivers, unrelated to this marijuana law. Also
allow me to continue seeing my primary physician. He is against recommending medical marijuana to
any patient. allow me to get a yearly recommendation from a second doctor.
There should be a specific license/permit for "growing" separate from the "dispensary" permit. The two
operations are completely different. Both require security but slightly different types. One is dealing
with retail space and customers and prescriptions and inventory and cash in/out daily. The other is
more agriculture related. Still requiring a set of business skills but quite different if they were compared.
If there were "growers" and "dispensaries" the two could become better at what they do, rather than
trying to be everything. The growers could produce more quality and quantity (more consistency) to
the dispensaries and the end user would have a far better choice from different facilities which will keep
the prices stable and product consistent as labeled. IE: If there were a particular strain that was
better for one person but the dispensary nearest that person didn't grow that type, the patient might
have to go all over the state to find what he/she needs. If the growers could produce consistent strains
and distribute them equally, the product would be easier manage. ------------------- secondly I didn't
see anything about the "public use" of marijuana if you have a permit or prescription. There should be
something written into the statute that states WHERE you can participate in the use of the product. IE:
home, or in a designated location? but not on the street or in the park . . . . etc. . . Businesses will
have a bit of a time deciding how to handle a "legal" user, similar to coming to work drunk??? or not???
This can not likely be written in to the law, but a guideline to help employers know how to handle
it,might be helpful THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING INPUT. Also the State could better oversee
the quality of the product(s)
Include guidelines for caregivers to cultivate for registered patients autonomous of the regulation on
patients cultivating within 25 miles of a dispensary. This will help patients acquire medicine cheaper and
decentralize this economy. It will keep the Dispensary Owners from over-exploiting the market from a
business perspective, resulting in a decline of quality and integrity in their product.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For dispensary grow operations,
there should be a provision for fire inspection from the local chief or what not. The dispensaries that
plan on growing should have the right to public privacy of their grow operation location. There should
be strict penalties for acquiring medicine from the illegal market. Out of state dispensary owners
should not be allowed to own in our state. The DHS should sponsor a local laboratory that tests
medicine for dispensaries for levels of THC and other active cannabinoids, this is crucial information for
patients. This would also be available to test for pesticides and pests. This is just as much for health as
it is for efficacy. Thank you for your time.
Have not finished reading it - will post more comments as time goes on.
yes! Most people.
Yes. The rules should definitely include a product safety component that includes analytical testing of all
products. We must protect patients! Please see my more detailed comments in the previous question.
And feel free to call or email anytime with questions or concerns.
1. Specific criteria to be used in determining the granting of dispensary licenses from the pool of ALL
qualified applications 2. how will applicants meeting these criteria be selected? many more qualified
applicants are to be expected for a limited number of licenses. will there be a lottery among the
qualified applicants. will applicants be notified that their application has been accepted and is eligible for
the lottery. Transparency is absolutely necessary. We can not accept obfuscation in this process. 3. A
prescribed location for the dispensary can not be part of the criteria used to determine qualified
applicants. Just as the application fee is excessive in light of the limited number of licenses vs
applicants. Leasing or purchasing property prior to being granted a license is not acceptable. Licenses
should be granted contingent on meeting designated zoning criteria for the designated dispensary. 4. A
statement from the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners (AZ BOMEX) regarding their interpretation of
the law. This needs clear guidelines for physicians 5. Assurance that AZ BOMEX will not harass or
obstruct the practice of physicians in compliance with their guidelines. 6. A remedy for physicians who
feel that their practice is being unfairly targeted by AZ BOMEX based on their participation in this
medical marijuana program.
Please, please allow me to stay with my current doctor for most of my care andallow me to see another
doctor annually for a medical marijuana recommendation. Thank you very much.
1.Explain if a card holder could also be a caregiver. 2. list how greenhouse growing is also an option.
no
My suggestion concerns disposal of unusable marijuana. As I'm sure you do not want it in the
dumpsters, perhaps a composting facility should be used, or they could compost their own. I don't know
how much waste the dispensaries will generate, but it could be a lot, and the green thing to do would
be to compost it (stalks, stems, fan leaves, old buds, moldy buds, etc.) Perhaps a company could get
'certified' as a facility that could compost this material without worry that any usable marijuana would
fall into the wrong hands.
Security section R9-17-315: First area lacking specifics relates to part B of the security section. A
dispensary may transport marijuana...etc. Please address additional specifications regarding
transportation. If dispensaries are able to transport marijuana, how does an "agent" maintain security
or the positive control of the product while in transit? Arizona law allows open carry and concealed
carry of a firearm. How does securely transporting marijuana correlate with the existing laws that
prohibits carrying a weapon while in possession of a controlled substance, such as medical marijuana?
What are the rights of AZ citizens with a CCW permit while functioning as a transport "agent" for a
dispensary? The transportation between grow facilities and dispensaries will be a high-risk job. The
draft rules need to address this issue of securely transporting medical marijuana. Security section R9-
17-315: The security section covers security equipment, devices, cameras, internet security, etc, but
do not address physical security with armed or unarmed security guards. Medical Director R9-17-
310: Medical Director has been defined as a doctor of medicine or a doctor of osteopathic medicine. Do
you foresee adding Advanced Nurse Practitioners (NP) to who can provide the oversight as medical
director or have the existing patient relationship? The Centers for Medicare/Medicaid and The Joint
Commission recognize documentation of any of the following: an MD, APN, or Physician Assistant
(those who see patients and have prescribing rights) with many standards for quality care. Finally
many debilitating medical conditions have been listed, but many are not included. The process to add a
debilitating medical condition is very complex. For instance, the following information could be
considered as we have numerous military veterans in Arizona: Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is
a severe anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to any event which results in psychological
trauma. This event may involve the threat of death to oneself or to someone else, or to one's own or
someone else's physical, sexual, or psychological integrity, overwhelming the individual's psychological
defenses. PTSD is a less frequent and more enduring consequence of psychological trauma than the
more frequently seen acute stress response. PTSD has also been recognized in the past as railway spine,
stress syndrome, shell shock, battle fatigue, traumatic war neurosis, or post-traumatic stress syndrome.
Diagnostic symptoms include re-experiencing original trauma(s), by means of flashbacks or nightmares;
avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma; and increased arousal, such as difficulty falling or
staying asleep, anger, and hypervigilance. Formal diagnostic criteria (both DSM-IV and ICD-9) require
that the symptoms last more than one month and cause significant impairment in social, occupational,
or other important areas of functioning (e.g. problems with work and/or relationships).
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007 May;32(5):1032-41. Epub 2006 Oct 18. Inhibition of Fatty-Acid
Amide Hydrolase Accelerates Acquisition and Extinction Rates in a Spatial Memory Task. Varvel SA,
Wise LE, Niyuhire F, Cravatt BF, Lichtman AH. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical
College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0613, USA.
Recent reports have demonstrated that disruption of CB(1) receptor signaling impairs extinction of
learned responses in conditioned fear and Morris water maze paradigms. Here, we test the hypothesis
that elevating brain levels of the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide through either genetic deletion
or pharmacological inhibition of its primary catabolic enzyme fatty-acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) will
potentiate extinction in a fixed platform water maze task. FAAH (-/-) mice and mice treated with the
FAAH inhibitor OL-135, did not display any memory impairment or motor disruption, but did exhibit a
significant increase in the rate of extinction. Unexpectedly, FAAH-compromised mice also exhibited a
significant increase in acquisition rate. The CB(1) receptor antagonist SR141716 (rimonabant) when
given alone had no effects on acquisition, but disrupted extinction. Additionally, SR141716 blocked the
effects of OL-135 on both acquisition and extinction. Collectively, these results indicate that endogenous
anandamide plays a facilitatory role in extinction through a CB(1) receptor mechanism of action. In
contrast, the primary psychoactive constituent of marijuana, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, failed to
affect extinction rates, suggesting that FAAH is a more effective target than a direct acting CB(1)
receptor agonist in facilitating extinction. More generally, these findings suggest that FAAH inhibition
represents a promising pharmacological approach to treat psychopathologies hallmarked by an inability
to extinguish maladaptive behaviors, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome and obsessive-compulsive
disorder. PMID: 17047668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Learn Mem. 2006 Jul-Aug;13(4):426-30.
Aversive Memory Reactivation Engages in the Amygdala Only Some Neurotransmitters Involved in
Consolidation.
Consolidation refers to item stabilization in
long-term memory. Retrieval renders a consolidated memory sensitive, and a "reconsolidation" process
has been hypothesized to keep the original memory persistent. Some authors could not detect this
phenomenon. Here we show that retrieved contextual fear memory is vulnerable to amnesic treatments
and that the amygdala is critically involved. Cholinergic and histaminergic systems seem to modulate
only consolidation, whereas cannabinoids are involved in both consolidation and reactivation. The lability
of retrieved memory affords opportunities to treat disorders such as phobias, post-traumatic stress, or
chronic pain, and these results help searching for appropriate therapeutic targets. PMID: 16882859
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
To fight counterfeting or fraudulent regustration cards ultraviolet or laser impressions Those impressions
should contain some state symbol,the digital id of the issuing doctor and the digital ID of the cards.
The draft rules stipulate that each dispensary must grow 70% of their own marijuana, but nowhere does
it state that a facility must sell the marijuana it grows to the licensed patient directly. Under the
guidelines set forth, would it be possible for a facility to be set up to strictly grow marijuana for other
dispensaries to fill in the 30% gap?
I am not saying we do not need the formation of responsible and compassionate "laws and rules" but do
have a concern with the direction and wording of Director Mr. Humble. He seems to be implementing his
own personal beliefs in the laws and regulations and is showing a biased stance toward people who are
trying to get this thing moving in the right direction. Please be understanding and know its the will of
the citizens and above your own personal beliefs that this law will be enacted.
Pricing has been left out. Dispensaries can't run for free so patients need to be able to grow their own if
they choose to and still buy product. Thank you for your time
R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition
8. Only exception to said rules are in cases of diseases that effect less than 1 in 5000 based on the fact
of limited test pools for accurate studies, but condition is long term, chronic, provided symptoms such as
depression, anxiety, and/or pain with specialist recommendation. If a rare or uncommon disease not
listed but includes 2 or more of conditions listed R9-17-201 8 - 12 as verified by a specialist in area.
(Bases on shear lack of funding for normal research and very limited populations for many of these so
called orphan diseases. Could be conditions listed http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/RareDiseaseList.aspx
and must include chronic pain, anxiety, depression and/or other symptoms listed R9-17-201 8 - 12.)
R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis D. All products will have a complete list with ingredients
included an allergy list including calorie and fat values based on daily calorie intake guidelines.
Just that it should be easy for Medical Patiants not hard to get Medicine...The outline makes it seem like
Marijuana is a drig not a Medicine..The 60's R over Marijuana is used by most Medical patiants under
the law and use it for their illness..It should be easy to get and easy to get a script from any Doctor
that believes that Marajuana can help them..
1. Will the Non Profit need to be setup as a tax paying or a non tax paying entity? 2. Referencing
rough draft R9-17-107 Timeframes F .There is no reference to minimum or maximum requirements for
number of board members. How many board members will be required? 3. Will the funds required to
setup the dispensary be reimbursed if no license is granted to the applicants. Ie: rules call for properties
to be already leased and ongoing will the monies required be lost? 4. Timeframes/ Will the overall
timeframes run concurrent or run consecutive. Reference table 1.1 in the DSHS rough draft page 10?
5. Where will the dispensaries be able to acquire seeds or startup plantings? Will AZ residents be able to
purchase seeds from Cali or Colorado for example? Most international seed banks won’t ship to US due
to current federal laws. 6. When the seed or plant source is established what system will be in place
to assure the strains or quality of the seed sources? 7. Can an infusium be located on the same
property as the dispensary? 8. What is going to be the selection process for issuing dispensary
permits? What measures will be in place to assure fairness in selections. 9. What measures are being
taken to assure that out of state interests will not be able to dominate the permitting process. Truly will
only AZ residents be able to be a dispensary? 10. Will the State of AZ be supplying the computer
systems and costs associated with managing the data base that are required per the rough draft rules?
allow chiropractic physicians to recommend medical marijuana--- see above
Naturopathic Doctors
law enforcement was left out. how will this new law change the way our police enforce our laws?
It is IMPERATIVE that you consider and implement the following changes: Add mental health
disabilities to the list of approved conditions for marijuana treatment, including but not limited to: severe
anxiety, major depression, bipolar syndrome, and schizophrenia. These diseases and other mental
disorders plague communities across our state and imprison those who suffer from them. Marijuana has
been realized as an effective alternative to amphetamine based drugs such as Ritalin/Adderall and
benzodiazepines like Xanax or Valium. Many of these prescription medications are truly poisonous to
children and adults alike, given out like candy by psychiatrists. I'm not going to pretend for a second
that the new law in the books is going to stop the illegal marijuana trade in Arizona. The more restrictive
this law becomes, the less it will do to assist the community at large. Money is flowing nonstop into
Mexican drug kingpins' hands and will continue to do so until real, comprehensive legislation is passed to
provide patients of all reasonable afflictions with legal, taxable means of obtaining marijuana. I would
rather see my state reap the benefits of this newly created market than see any more good money from
my neighborhood go directly back into the funding of weaponry, drugs and violence propagated by the
cartels.
What about a qualified patient from California? Is that patient's card good in Arizona? You might want
to take a look at what works in California. The card there is only $150. which is far more reasonable.
why allow "medical director" paid by Dispensary--isn't that the fox guarding hen house? --they can't
possibly be objective. i think we need an INDEPENDENT team of medical directors NOT in the back
pocket of these dispensaries, to ensure proper adherence to medical ethics, etc. i agree with
restriction on year long dr-patient relationship, but would like you to make an exception for people in
HOSPICE. if you have enrolled in Hospice and meet CMS definition of terminally ill, then you should be
granted a card automatically to cut thru beaurocracy and ensure they can have access for
compassionate use since many HOSPICE patients only enroll with 1 week - 3 months left to live.
Sourses of prescriptions need to be monitored. There will arise some physicians in this state who will
provide a large number of these prescriptions with little or no medical indication.
Questions for DHS 1) If you can only buy from other Arizona Dispensaries, patients or growers, how
do you get your initial plants or seed legally? 2) What types of other peripheral products may be sold
in the same dispensary? 3) The rules do not specify how often the registration needs to be renewed.
4) Will lab testing of the strains THC values be required? 5) What taxes are there going to be? Sales
tax? And if so, will it be just the normal sales tax for the state and city? 6) R9-17-107.B. and R9-17-
302.B.5 and . R9-17-302.B.9 it seems based upon the draft rules that your grow site and dispensary
have to be built out with a certificate of occupancy and everything in place. How can a business do this
if they are not guaranteed a license? This will be a major cost to start up the business. Or can the
applicant just have a letter of intent for a lease and draft plans for the build out? 7) In R9-17-307.C.is
the 70% of product based on sales in dollars or sales in weight? Also is the 70% of product calculation
completed monthly or annually? 8) What do you mean by the disposition of Revenue and Receipts in
Section, R9-17-302.B.12 of the draft rules? Does this mean, net income or excess of revenues over
expenses of the entity as the majority of the revenue will be used to pay expenses. 9) In R9-17-
302.B.15.a it mentions a registered pharmacist. Is this required? Nowhere else is this mentioned in the
rules. 10) Do all of an applicant’s policy and procedure need to be completed by the time of
application? (Section R9-17-307.A. of the rules) 11) Can you give us a better description of the
logbook for patients mentioned in R9-17-310.C.2.? Is this a requirement for dispensaries or patients?
12) Is the state’s tracking system going to be updated in real time to ensure that a patient does not
purchase more than the allotted amount per R9-17-311.5. from two dispensaries within a 10 minute
period of time? 13) As discussed in the rules Section R9-17-314.C. related to providing product for
testing purposes, how much product will be needed for this? 14) How are the patient’s ID cards going
to be created to stop counterfeiting of the cards? 15) When will the final application for dispensaries
be available?
It should be added or explained how caregivers & card holders can also grow within a greenhouse like
the law stated.
The rules should state that "no political subdivision shall ENACT ZONING REGULATIONS pertaining to
construction standards or security plans that interfere with qualifying patients acquiring marijuana, but
only those THAT LIMIT THE USE OF LAND ... TO SPECIFIED AREAS.
Provisions that prevent delay of a qualifying patient acquiring an allowable amount of HIGH QUALITY,
usable marifuana.
no numbers concerning the number of plants allowed for self or caregiver or dispenser production. no
"ramp up" schedual for start of system.
Yes, as mentioned above some protection of patients rights.
Where a qualified patient's doctor is prevented from making a medical marijuana recommendation
through no fault of the patient, a qualified patient may get a yearly marijuana recommenadation
through a second doctor, who has reviewed the qualified patient's records and has examined the
qualifying patient.
what happens if dispensary has difficulty growing are they still limtied to only being able to purchase
30% of their product, what about variations in demand?
Regarding the expiration and renewal of a Qualifying patient's or Designated Caregiver's Registry
Identification card: Maybe I'm missing it but I could not find any information in the draft rules stating
how long a Registry ID card is valid for. Did I miss it somewhere? I reviewed the document several
times. If this information is not included then it should be and if it is then ADHS needs to change the
draft rules to make this information easier to find (in a table maybe?).
YES THE SICK AND THE POOR!

R9-17-204 Renewing a Qualifying Patient or Designated Caregiver Registry I.D. Card -It should be
added that the card is renewed annualy. R9-17-305 Renewing a Dispensary Registration Certificate -it
should be required to done annualy. R9-17-310 Medical Directors- Know where does it state that a
medical director must register and pay a fee to be the M.D. of one to three dispensarys. They should be
required to register for each seperate dispensary they are the M.D. for and renew this annualy. R9-
17-205, R9-17-319, and R9-17-320 These all deal with the denial or revocation of I.D. cards or certs. If
any illegal action is involved, there should be stated penalties and fines listed. The way the draft is
written now, there is nothing listed for any kind of penalties whether they are possible jail time or fines.
INCLUDE PROTECTION FROM IMPARTING PHYSICIAN LIABILITY FOR FOR RECOMMENDING

MARIJUANA OR FOR THE PATIENTS' USE OF MARIJUANA. INCLUDE PROTECTION AGAINST DELAY IN
THE DISPENSING OF AN ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA TO A QUALIFIED PATIENT OR THE
APPROVAL OF A QUALIFIED PATENT'S REGISTRATION CARD BEYOND THE TIMEFRAMES IN 36-2804.
ADD: Nothing in these rules shall cause a delay in the issuance of a card or in the dispensing of an
allowable quantity of marijuana to a qualified patent unless the provision causes an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health.
I think that its fair to only have to see a doctor once.
I think that its fair to only have to go to the DR one time a year !!!
Can a caregiver grow for a card holder that lives 25 miles out if the caregiver does not? & vis a versa.
-The cities should have a responsibility to the ADHS in order to aid in the selection process. Perhaps
ADHS could request liaisons be appointed by each city that make recommendations with the cities' best
interest as a key concern. So, for example, if ADHS determines that the city of Scottsdale will be allowed
2 dispensaries, the liaisons could provide relevant information and preferences from the cities' point of
view; maybe even provide a ranking of applicants that wish to locate within the city limits. In this way,
the cities could determine ideal dispensary businesses taking into consideration location and operational
competency, while simultaneously completing much of the "heavy lifting" that would otherwise be the
responsibility of the ADHS or a proposed "third party". I believe that leaving it up to the cites and
counties, instead of a private institution, would take a lot of the guess work out of the process (and cut
back on application processing time, 90 work days is too much); I foresee problems arising when
geographical considerations are taken into effect, and how do you ensure an equal distribution of
dispensaries throughout the state? Let the cities municipalities choose, that's how! Since they all have
different regulation standards being imposed, they should be the ones with the primary responsibility,
allowing the ADHS to make informed decisions in the final licensure distribution!
R9-17-201. Debilitating Medical Conditions Should be considered: A chronic or debilitating disease or

medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that causes
severe depressive disorders; A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment
for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that causes severe anxiety disorders; A
chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease
or medical condition that causes severe anorexia nervosa; A chronic or debilitating disease or medical
condition or the treatment for a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that causes severe
bipolar disorder;
Just phone verification for deliveries. It seems like this would be so cheap & easy. The dispensary
delivery agent just takes then sends a picture of the patient with a text of all pertinent information,
license number, what they're getting, etc. This could eliminate the need for a caregiver for some
patients making them more independent.
Allow a patient who has seen his doctor for a year, who can prove a illness, who has xrays, etc., to keep
his doctor if the doctor can't recommend med marijuana, and have a med marijuana doctor who will
yearly make a recommendation based on these xrays and history.
1. I'm concerned with oversight of the physicians that treat patients. I pray there is wording, that would
red flag a physician whose clinic deals solely or in large with patients who require this. 2. I didn't
notice what the actual oversight rules are, as to ongoing control of the dispensaries. Will the owners and
employees be subject to fingerprint and background checks? 3. There should also be a limit to how
many dispensaries are allowed, based on population. This would prevent them from popping up in
sparsely populated areas. Also consider a study that would regulate the electric use, to prevent
additional hidden growing areas. This growth should not occur outdoors, unless a very high and private
razor wire fence is installed with security in place. 4. Neighborhood or police watch of these places
should be required, to prevent illegal sales. Would it be possible to require them to hire guards or some
sort of police surveillance? This could be monitored by a private security company or police, and would
record all actions done around and within the dispensary. It would require that the data be held off
sight, so no tampering could occur. 5. Can a system be implemented that oversees the dispensary
financial records and accounts. We should just assume they will be honest about the income.
no
500 feet from schools still seems too close. The major concern I have is what rules govern the
patients on how they use the drug- In other words, will I be at the park with my kids or out in my back
yard and be forced to smell someone's second hand Marijuana smoke? That really concerns me, not
just smell wise, but health wise for my family. A solution to this problem would be to only sell it in
forms that can be ingested instead of smoked. What rights do I have if something like this happens?
Who is responsible to enforce how this affects neighbors? The police don't have time for that.
yes, legalize marijuana so we can all get high
A clarification as to what happens to individuals when they are licensed to grow, and a dispensary opens
within the 25 mile radius of said individual grower. Individuals should be permitted to maintain their
ability and permission to grow once established within their own property- and, in effect, be
grandfathered in. The rules lean far in the favor of dispensaries, which will endeavor to maintain as high
a price as possible for material such that it will simply be priced out of the realm of those who truly need
medical marijuana. Seriously- does anyone reasonably expect an individual laid up with cancer, Crohn's,
multiple sclerosis, etc. to be able to afford medical marijuana at $400/oz? That's insulting.
nope
Nothing else to add at this time.

If a patient has a HISTORY of one of the covered illnesses, than that patient may yearly see another
doctor for a marijuana recommendation and keep their primary doctor.
How are you going to award the licenses? Why is this such a big secret? Please include the process so
people can know if they have a fair chance to be a dispensary, that's what all this transparency is all
about. I am very disappointed in how you have proceeded with this draconian rules of applying to be
a dispensary and after all cannabis is an herb that's been on this planet longer than man and to this
date not one person has died from ingesting it, making it the safest plant on the planet. This is not
tobacco or alcohol which have far less restrictions upon it and yes it's illegal under Federal Law but that
doesn't address the nature of how the plant works. Please educate yourself about this plant and read
some more and not continually conflate marijuana and tobacco because both are smoked. Vaporization
is the new way to receive the medical benefits of cannabis without any of the toxins associated with
smoking.
Yes. I believe that individuals with serious mental illnesses should be allowed access to marijuana. I'm
talking about conditions like schizophrenia, which is an incurable disease, and it brings about symptom
such as paranoia, intense anxiety, and overall discomfort. All those symptoms would without a doubt be
subdued with the use of medical marijuana. Individuals with severe mental illnesses suffer more than
cancer patients, or people with ms. This medicine should not be held from people who could benefit
from it.
I would like to know what the laws are concerning growing the male species for the purpose of making
hemp seed and fiber products.
What type of electronic system will be implimented in order to track the distribution of medical
marijuana? Will all dispensaries be required to use the same database program to record inventory/
sales? If Arizona dispensaries do not have to use a universal computer system how will the AZDHS and
law enforcement minimize confusion when interpretating patient records? Will the health department be
supplying this system to all dispensaries? If not, how can the AZDHS ensure all non-profits are operating
according to the designated guidelines? It is obvious that charges will be filed against non-profits who
operate outside of the legal realm, however the slightest error during the invoice review process could
lead to unjustified consequences and wasted resources. Please elaborate on the steps the AZDHS and
law enforcement are taking to ensure that there will be no interruptions for businesses that are
adhearing to all laws.
There should be oversight for how much dispensaries can charge for medical marijuana products.
Dispensaries should have rules governing maximum allowable charges, minimum allowable charges, and
oversight to eliminate price fixing among the dispensaries.
The rules as written seem to cover most areas, one thing that was left out, was the voice of the patient,
it seems that the rules were written by people who did not want this to happen. Being open and
receptive to new ideas is key to accepting others views. I understand DHS thinks it is trying to regulate
the recreational use, but the patients are the ones that have the right and say as to what they take for
medication.
I have not read or studied the draft here at Christmas time but I would like to say a few words The
new law should contain previsions to protect the non-smoking public. In a valley like the greater
Phoenix area people live very close together. They live wall to wall in large building with multiple
units. They also live relatively close together in neighborhoods with only a few feet separating the
houses. When the air in the valley is cool and heavy at night and early in the mornings, especially in the
wintertime, the smoke and fumes accumulates. This will force non-smoker to breathe the smoke, second
hand breath and other fumes and chemicals.
Allow a patient to have a primary doctor and at the same time be able to see yearly a medical marijuana
doctor. But with the caveat, that the patient has a true history where it is needed.
The local makeup of the non-profit organizations. How is they to be integrated with the existing medical
and pharmaceutical establishements? I think that the dispensaries should be at the existing pharmacies.
!I'm not sure if this item has been addressed, but if it hasn't, it should be: Since the majority of voters
decided that medical marijuana should be available to qualifying patients, I do not think it would or
should be ethical or propper for any law enforcement officer to stake-out, or record who goes to and
from any legally licensed marijuana dispensary, take names, license plates, or any other harrassing act
except strictly adhereing to the provisions described in proposition 203 initiative language. Legally
qualified patients should not be harrassed while legally acquiring their marijuana medicine and should
not be stopped unless a law has been broken or there is a real issue of concern. Law enforcement
officers should not be able to stop a legal marijuana patient based on any phony or made-up excuses or
charges. Harrassment of legal marijuana patients by any state or local law enforcement officer or agent
should be investigated by the Arizona State Health Director and he shall forward his findings and
recommendations to the appropriate county attorney for review and possible action. ( Since the
passing of proposition 203, there have been a number of newspaper articles about how law
enforcement officials were trying to find loop-holes or faults in the proposition 203 language. This was
so authorities could find a way to prevent proposition 203 from going into affect. I am so very tired of
electing politicians that promise you the world and after elected they say they know what's best for us
and then they do what "they" want. I always was told and I always thought that our government was
"OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE !". The people have spoken; Get over it!)
!I'm not sure if this item has been addressed, but if it hasn't, it should be: Since the majority of voters
charges. Harrassment of legal marijuana patients by any state or local law enforcement officer or agent
should be investigated by the Arizona State Health Director and he shall forward his findings and
"OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE !". The people have spoken; Get over it!)
I'm not sure if this item has been addressed, but if it hasn't, it should be: Since the majority of voters
charges. Harrassment of legal marijuana patients by any law state or local law enforcement officer or
agent should be investigated by the Arizona State Health Director and he shall forward his findings and
"OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE
YES business and background verifications of the dispenser owners applicants should be of the upmost
importance! Lotteries or first come first awarded applications is NOT the way this license process should
be determined. Good Luck 1 bad apple could sour the barrel.
Please cite the literature that the physician should review when proposing the risk benefit analysis for
the uses of medical marijuana. Is there a BOMEX position paper? Is there comprehensive review article
in JAMA?
please see the above questions .
Pharmacists are the experts in drug use, effects, side effects and patient benefits. The rules should state
that only Pharmacists be allowed to own and operate marijuana businesses. Rules should state that only
pharmacists or pharmacy technicians be allowed to dispense marijuana.
where do patients cultive marijauna?
no
An annual $150 fee for applying for a registry identification card is outrageous and is de facto a denial of
said card, status and aid to the many poor people in the State of Arizona. The rules as they stand will
merely serve to drive that person to purchase their marijuana from an illegal source, which is what the
State is supposedly trying to eliminate. This fee works against the purpose of the Medical Marijuana
law. In addition, the fees paid to a physician also severely limit or prohibit many people from
complying with the statutes and rules governing the Medical Marijuana Act. There does not appear to
be any provisions for people who are otherwise qualified to have the fees reduced in order to avail
themselves of the relief the Medical Marijuana Act alleges to provide. Overall, it appears that the State
of Arizona does not wish the People's Initiative to succeed. It further appears that the State of Arizona
is making the statutes and rules so prohibitive that the majority of the people needing and already using
marijuana illegally will continue to do so.
Shouldn't Investors that fund these dispensaries be disclosed?
1. Paraphernalia a. decriminalization of paraphernalia for MMJ users b. place(s) where paraphernalia

may be bought and sold, and/or manufactured. 2 keeping the cost of MMJ regulated. Literally all people
that MMJ will be legally available to will have medical restrictions and, thus, financial restrictions which
may keep most of them from purchasing it at dispensaries and putting it to good use, if the price is
prohibitive. This may force some users to seek less expensive, lower grade marijuana from illegal
sources, thus defeating the purpose of the law in the first place. Which brings me to: 3. Non-profit
dispensaries. Dispensaries will employ volunteers as well as salaried employees and managers, possibly
security. Understandably, all employees will be paid from the revenues, while some monies must be paid
to the dispensary's grower(s), food manufacturer, delivery to housebound patients, mortgage or rental
of property, maintenance, and other overhead costs not mentioned. Dispensaries should be required to
dispense MMJ at the lowest price allowable while still maintaining the premises with essential employees
and paying overhead.
COST.....haven't heard a word about cost. Non profit...I have heard. What actually is 'non profit'?
Cost should be a factor as well. Ca. sysytem is a joke with thier prices. Most of us sick can't work, ins.
won't pay for it either. What's the sense of having the law if sick people can't affored it to begin
with...?? PLEASE , please watch the cost.
A directive to the Department of Public Safety to leave Qualifying Visiting Patients from other states
alone. A patient from California, who used to come here every year for the Gem Show, was arrested
with his LEGAL medicine and incarcerated for over 30 days and left town instead of going to court where
he would have been arrested for missing a court date because he never received the summons to
appear. Unbelieveable and disgusting behavior by Tucson police and the Pima County prosecutor.
Smoking in and near dispensaries (see above comments). Electronic verification system - The
dispensing of medical marijuana should not begin until this verification system is live for the entire state.
Why not get some people on your staff that have a clue about what the heck is really going on.
Without a pricing structure that is based on labor, MEDICAL MARIJUANA WILL BE UNAFFORDABLE FOR
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PATIENTS. Dispensaries will be able to sell marijuana at current black market
prices. New Mexico only allows marijuana to be sold to patients at cost of actual labor involved in
growing the plant. Seeing as how dispensaries and growers are not being paid to smuggle across
borders, avoid the police, maintain a low profile, and somehow offer a safe product at the same time, I
do not see a requirement for paying 100-200 dollars for a two weeks worth of medication. Such prices
would be insulting to the patient and the Medical Marijuana movement at large, and would truly show
that Arizona does not take this seriously. Please enforce a pricing structure based on labor instead of
ridiculous (and highly profitable) black market prices.
A doctor can not be barred from making marijuana recommendation by a clinic or hospital. A patient
may have a primary doctor and a marijuana doctor at the same Yearly fees for a marijuana card are
$50 A dispensary can have a registered nurse, a pharmacist or a doctor on call.
...
No licences should be handed out to . the guy is holding classes on how to open a marijuana
dispencery, and is taking advantage of people who are just as greedy as him. Medical marijuana should
be ran by compasoniate people who want to help sick folks, not by greedy SOB,S
Will dispencery applicants that are denied because there are no more licences to hand out be refunded
their money. How the applications will be given out. you need to write this into the rules so, all of us
average people that are not milonaires have a idea weather they want to take the gamble and put up
their 5,000$.
Naturopathic medical doctors were not yet mentioned as prescribers under the draft
You have given this a lot of good thought. I hope you are flexible enough to make this successful for
everyone's needs.
Do I have to see a physician 4 times before I get a rx?
1) Your only going to give Dispensary applicants a few days to adjust to Final Rules if language is
changed in the final application processes??? PLEASE how could anyone be financially prepared for
this and get a FAIR chance of a qualifying application? 2) If you don't make this process up & up
legitament so guys like don't already have your rules before they are published, I pray someone
will be charged with CORRUPTION! It will come out.
.................................................................................................................................................
Democracy Today is Two Wolves and a Lamb Voting on what to have for Dinner…
Will AZ have a MM reciprocal law that will honor patients with another state MM License? What if I have
a MM License from another state, can I use MM now and be protected under the current law?
I would like to see some type of regulations on the food preparers. If a pound of marijuana was given
to them to make into edible foods, how does anyone know that really happened.
Rules applying to Veterans
I would like to see better coordination with the local jurisdictions specially where the local zoning
ordinances are being used to provide local regulation. Also, we would like to see coordination on
inspections with local jurisdictions. Also, if there could be some coordination with the local jurdictions in
the event of a revocation of a caregivers registration.
Will Humble-- I know you are a busy man with many responsibilities. I know your department has put
much thought into these regulations to prevent recreational smokers. I am a "Travelling Nurse" and I
see the poorest of poor patients. It is better to err on the side of the patient, instead of trying to be so
restrictive that no one benefits from this law. I see paraplegics, quads, patients with every type of
illness where their nausea is so bad that they can not eat. For many of them MJ helps the patient
function so that they are able to eat. Many of the doctors I have spoken to are willing to recommend
Medical MJ but the hospital or clinic to which they belong prohibits them from doing so. Some doctors
are afraid they will be prosecuted or they might jeopardize losing their medical license. You must
understand that there are many cases where the patient needs to stay with their existing doctor even if
that doctor cannot or will not recommend Medical MJ. I have patients who are locked into their
current doctor due to insurance requirements. If they go to another doctor they lose their coverage. I
have patients who live in rural communities where there may only be one doctor. I have patients who
are unable to travel or can not travel long distances. I have patients who have established long term
relationships with their doctors. Their doctor may believe Medical MJ will help their patient, but many
doctors do not want to write a recommendation for a myriad of reasons. Do not put any restrictions
on a patient seeing any doctor for a Medical MJ prescription, except making sure the patient has a
documented history that would warrant Medical MJ. Make it easy, not difficult, for those who are
suffering. If a Doctor chooses to be "liberal" with his or her prescriptions give the doctor a "hefty"
fine, take away the doctor's license or send the doctor to jail, but allow the poorest of the poor to see
their regular doctor and concurrently see a doctor for their Medical MJ recommendation. Also keep
costs down for the poor. $150 each year for a Medcal MJ card is a lot of money for someone who has no
income, or who draws a $600-$700 check for social security disability. Having a doctor on call for the
dispensary will only drive up costs for Medical MJ for the patient. A pharmacist is all that is needed.
Make dispensaries safe, but do not add extra rules that will raise the price for the patient who already is
struggling to survive. Thank you Will and staff for your hard work, but remember the poor patient
should always be on your mind when you are setting up these rules.
Yes, the Dept. of Health Svcs. is having 3 public meetings, 2 in Phoenix and 1 in Tucson. This is NOT
FAIR for the residents in other parts of Arizona. There should be at least 3 other locations for public
meetings: 1. North, 2. West, 3. East. Everything in Arizona does not revolve around just Phoenix and
Tucson. Please publicize that you will have more meetings in more geographical areas!! This is
imperative!!
pricing needs to be a key issue. it needs to have its limits. in isreal the patients pay $100 a month for
their meds no matter if they use 10g or 100g. then well see how many people would want to open a
dispensary. this isnt for the sick its all about money.
pricing should be heavily watched. non profit dispensaries are going to charge a lot for meds.
Prescriptions. when filled, should be reported to the Arizona Board of Pharmacy Controlled Substances
progam since this is a controlled substance.
Recommended/required Amount of the Surety bond?!
There must be public areas that allow patients to medicate themselves other than a private residence.
Same as above
Language on how much marijuana can be cultivated at any given time. Please consult with industry
insiders to learn how many plants a dispensary would have to cultivate to maintain enough supply for a
typical amount of patients.
There needs to be language in section R9-17-313, b, #3 - "for cultivation", to cover cuttings or clones.
Is the date planted the day you take those cuts, or the day they are actually rooted and planted?
in the rules it states dispensary must grow 70% of their product ? who will grow the rest ? how can we
apply for a cultivation license to sell to dispensary's? plz reply to that question to email above
The draft can be improved by including a section that allows for a compliance audit to be conducted by
the Department and non-compliance or failure to report revenues and remit taxes will result in
revokation of license. Also, compensation expectations should be outlined to prevent not for profit
revenues from turning into excessive owner salaries.
Dear Mr. Humble I do not know if you have any influence with the medical marijuana discussion, but if
you do, please think about the following considerations: First, medical grade marijuana should be
certified organic. When people discuss medical marijuana, I tell them I worry about the negative effects
of ingesting pesticides and commercial fertilizer. It only takes one second before folks realize that drug
cartels are not concerned with anyone’s health. I cannot think of any regulated medicine which contains
DDT, ammonium nitrate, etc… Second, T.V. commercials seem to have a tag line “and if you cannot
afford your medications, please contact (e.g. AstraZeneca) and we have programs to help you pay for
the cost of your medication.” Drug makers are obligated to keep their products affordable. Who will be
accountable for the affordability of this latest drug? How do you prevent profiteering? (I like a State set
price of $50.00 per pound. That would pretty much stop the cartels from shooting each other.) Third,
who will be accountable for the cost of any long term health problems which result from the use of this
drug? Cigarette companies coughed up billons of dollars to pay for on-going smoking related health
issues. Drug manufacturers are constantly getting sued if their product harms anyone. Who will pay for
the medical marijuana related health issues? The general public wants to try medical marijuana as a
legal herbal remedy for their various health issues. The role of our representative style of government is
not to judge the will of the voters, but rather to make the voters’ will a safe and fiscally responsible
reality. My personal fear is that every kid between the ages of 18 and 32 will have some sort of health
issue which requires medical marijuana. A doctor will sign off on a disability, and the State of Arizona
will be forced to pay these kids welfare so they can sit in their section nine apartment and get high all
day. The public will eventually learn whether or not our culture can afford medical marijuana. In the
meantime, the product should be both taxed and as safe as possible. Thank you for your time and
consideration of this matter.
-============- R9-17-319. Denial and Revocation of a Dispensary Registration Certificate C.

The Department shall revoke a dispensary's registration certificate if: 1. The dispensary: c. Acquires
usable marijuana or mature marijuana plants from any person other than another dispensary in Arizona,
a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver; ----- How does a dispensary or caregiver or patient
aquire first seed stock or clones to get it all started? -=============-
You that are in charge of writing these proposals, please keep in mind for whom this bill was made legal
for! Not another dept to collects fees to be used for who knows what, and I'm sure you don't know
either. The people REALLY needing this medication are probably like me and strapped to the bone with
existing medical bills that are delenquent, not to mention having to house, and feed themselves being a
more details and specifics on what consituities a "public or private school" As an example, is
Montessori school really a public or private school or more of a daycare? And is the underlying concern
under age children being close by a dispensary? Does that really matter if they are so young (e.g. 3 - 10
years)
Our major concern is we reside in a condominium community with eight units per building with outdoor
covered patios. We do have neighbors with macular degeneration and they voted for the medical
marijuana law. Our concern is they will be sitting on their 3 sided enclosed patio smoking or that the
smoke will come through the bathroom venting (another owner is a smoker and at certain times we
smell their smoke in our bathroom. We do not smoke and did not support or vote 'yes' for this law.
Can there be a rule added that patients using medical marijuana must be responsible for any costs to
prevent marijuana smoking from entering adjoining condominium units by installing proper venting
systems if necessary, that all costs should be that of the patient using the prescription for marijuana.
My husband and I do not drink or do illegal drugs and we want to keep our jobs and don't want to test
positive for marijuana because our neighbors are using the drug and the smoke is coming into our home
through vent systems. It is too bad they cannot come up with a 'pill' form of this drug.
Because the Dept of Health is only issuing 120 dispensary licenses, I think that the initial 150 days of
application process should consider only 1 application for a group of individuals so it be fair to those
Arizona people that don't have relatives in California or Colorado. If you look at the Corporation
Commissioner Web site, there are multiple origainizational names with the same individuals filing the
paper work. If one group is granted a license for 2 or more dispensaries, it doesn't spread the wealth or
give others an opportunity for even 1. Your application process should specifically ASK if they are
applying for multiple licenses.
I think there should be a rule to address how and where the money came from. I mean after all, south
of us there are many Drug Running orgainizations with big pockets. They could easily fund many
dispensaries.
Is medical marijuana the first line of intervention or are there other protocols that would call for the use
of other medications first and then documentation that these have been ineffective before marijuana is
prescribed? Does every licensed medical physician have to prescribe marijuana or can he or she refuse
to do so. If they can opt out this should be spelled out in the rules. Will patients, growers,
dispensaries be informed they are violating the Federal Controlled Substance Act and can not use the AZ
statute as a legal defense if subject to Federal law enforcement action?
pricing! nothing about keeping the cost down so patients can get safe medicine without having to go to
the black market. i know its non-profit but these people are not going to work for free. so patients
should have the choice to grow their own even if they live with in 25 miles of a dispensary. thank you
pricing! nothing about keeping the cost down so patients can get safe medicine without having to go to
the black market. i know its non-profit but these people are not going to work for free. so patients
should have the choice to grow their own even if they live with in 25 miles of a dispensary. thank you
If a physician is prevented from recommending medical marijuana, any other physician in good
standing, upon examining one years records of the patient, and having performed an exam on the
patient, may recommend medical marijuana in consultation with the patient's primary doctor.
Availability of medical marijuana to poor below $11,000 a year.
The FAQs refer to a patient or caregiver only being allowed to cultivate if they live more than 25 miles
from a dispensary. However, I can find no mention of this in the draft rules. Question: Why should a
patient or caregiver be forbidden to cultivate, even if they live within 25 miles from a dispensary?
Please keep in mind that some people want to take charge of their own medicine the same way that
some people like to grow their own food. (organic, sustainable etc)
Other than a more open option for cultivation by the patient or caregiver and provisions to control
abuse, it looks like a pretty good law to me.
I am concerned that there was not much information at all about patient confidentiality. Medical
marijuana treatment should fall under HIPPA rules and guidelines. How are patient records going to be
kept confidential and what would be the ramifications of "leaking" patient information? This needs to be
addressed in more completeness by both dispensary and Department of Health levels. This becomes an
even larger issue because although the use of medical marijuana is legal on the State level, it is still
illegal on the Federal level, or so I have come to understand. How are patients going to be kept safe if
their personal information is not kept confidential?
Remember who this law was passed for and the fear that most doctors have about writing a
recommendation even if they see how much their patient would benefit.
I respectfully suggest that state laws be reviewed as they pertain to punishment for those found guilty
of committing crimes (robbery, burglary, assault) in, on, or near the dispenceries. The facilities may be
considered high-value targets by criminals.
-Set state mandated dispensary operating hours. -Add language to allow transport of medical marijuana
to analytical laboratories for characterization (these labs will open, as they did in Colorado, California,
and Montana). -The dispensary license selection should include input from the cities, I believe this
would make the process more efficient for the ADHS. There could potentially be geographical problems
encountered because each cities zoning requirements are different. If you allow the city to contribute its
desires for the potential businesses that will locate within its borders, local considerations can be taken
into account, streamlining the final selection responsibilities of the department.
Cultivation sites are ASSUMED to be indoor facilities. You have seemed to not anticipate a regular farm
grown agricultural product. These farms could also be controlled in a likewise manner. Indoor facilities
will exponentially increase the number of growing areas. This would appear to be counter productive
and increase the need for expanded government overview. Outdoor areas should be considered as long
as those areas submit proper security plans and have county/city approval as an agricultural area.
there needs to be a cap on the pricing from dispensories.if the cost is the same or higher than on the
street people will be more apt to get it illegally.the price shouldnt be based on supply and demand since
i cant think of any other medication on the planet is based on such.also if its medication why wont state
insurance help pay for it as such?also there needs to be labs in place to monitor the level of thc versus
the cbd levels depending on what the patient needs and for health reasons such as bacteria,algea
etc..how else would a patient know what he/she needs and get the same every time?there are alot of
breeds out there mostly grown for thc levels and they could be monitored as different forms of the
medication and have some specifically grown for different purposes by the government for these
afflictions.if i were to get a medical card (im still considering the possibility) im not interested in getting
blitzed.im interested in being stable but if the quality and components are not monitored heavily enough
then more than likely most people are just using it as an excuse to get high or they may get a bad form
of the medication and have seizures,paranoia and other problems although the doctors may prescribe it
for necassary things the doctor wont be able to prescribe the proper 'type' of medication needed to
control the patients problems properly.how would the patient know what to get or what he or she needs
for his or her particular problems?
Other state cards and if they can be used, where are the clubs to get the other 30%, who can grow for
them?
In Colorado, there were doctors who had left their practices years before the passage of medical
marijuana , who came out of retirement to provide prescriptions for medical marijuana. They wrote
hundreds of prescriptions, almost always to alleviate "back pain", with many of those Rx's going to
people in their twenties. The prevailing opinion was that the doctors were "writing prescriptions for
anybody, using back pain as the reason since it is hard to dis-prove back pain, and the doctors were
benefitting financially and the young pot-heads were getting easy access". I hope that the draft rules
will prevent this type of abuse. I commend you on an excellent and thorough job. You probably have
consulted with other states with medical marijuana laws. If you haven't already spoken to officials in
Colorado, I would recommend it. It was a real mess when the dispensaries opened. It was unchartered
territory and the state was caught off guard initially. Perhaps we could avoid some of the mistakes
made in Colorado by consulting with them. Thank you.
Where do you aquire the seeds or plants to start? Since any source would be unregistered to begin with!
Severe penalties for doctors who do not follow regulations. Severe penalties for patients abusing this
privilege.
I will research this question.
the fact that if there was 100,000 people applying for a card each year , that would be 15 million in fees
the state would collect. The fact that the fee is non refundable seems kinda wrong too. if the new rules
are to only have 10,0000 people sign up each year , that sure won't help the state with paying for this
program. i understand you dont want abuse but you can not punish the sick to get your way.
12/21/2010 PROPOSED STEPS

TO CONTROL ARIZONA’S “MEDICAL MARIJUANA” DISTRIBUTION BASED ON EXPERIENCE IN
CALIFORNIA In the interest of saving a few lives, or the quality of life for all Arizonians, I would like to
offer some suggestions so that Arizona doesn’t fall victim to the same chaos we have in California.
Since the two top priorities of the government are to protect the people and manage tax dollars, it
might behoove you to take more time to ensure you have done so … in the interest of public safety.
1) The Dangers of Medicine by Popular Vote – If by popular vote, marijuana is to be considered a food
and drug, the same rules should apply as with other food and drugs. That would include control over
production, manufacturing, packaging, testing and identifying contents, identifying dosage and
identifying and setting standards for potency. Packaging should comply with safety standards for child
proof containers and all side affects duly noted on the labels.. 2) Control Doctor’s
Recommendations – Set new standards for controlling doctor’s recommendations, requiring full exams;
completed questionnaires on patient’s conditions and history with legal medicines; recommendations
that are sensible. Stipulate conditions for taking license away for failure to comply. Your proposed rule,
that a patient have a relationship with a doctor for 12 months is good. It is worthy to note that most
doctor’s will not prescribe a drug that has unknown ingredients, unknown dosage and unknown
potency when better, legal medicines exist. 3) Control Acquisition Standards – Design and
implement a computer based system to make it impossible for a “patient” to use a doctor’s
recommendation to buy from numerous dispensaries. In Colorado 60% of kids get their pot from ID
card holders. A similar survey in California would probably reveal the same result as currently Anyone
with an ID card can buy from numerous dispensaries.. 4) Prevent Underage Use of Marijuana –
Knowing that marijuana is readily available to adolescents and those under 21; and knowing the
damage that can occur by marijuana on brains that are underdeveloped (age 25); the only sensible
protection policy to ensure kids aren’t using is random drug testing. Given the pandemic of health and
economic impacts on America from underage use of ATOD, the Governor should be encouraged to
mandate non-punitive random drug testing for all middle and high schools. Scientific information
must be communicated to all schools, parents and children on the adverse impacts of marijuana on the
body and brain. The brain is not fully developed until age 25, or even later. Marijuana use by males or
females can cause death to a fetus and/or cellular and brain damage, deformities to the fetus, and is
even mutagenic … meaning it can cross over generations and affect grandchildren. Raise the age level
to obtain a marijuana ID card from 18 to 21. The human brain is not fully developed until age 25, and
permanent brain damage including psychosis can occur before then, particularly during adolescence.
Unfortunately, the two age groups with the highest consumption rates are 18-25 and 12 to 17. As a
nation, we can ill afford the loss of their talents or the economic burden of more addicts. 5) Provide
Educational Materials On Facts About Marijuana – Provide materials to enlighten parents, kids, schools,
legislators and the general public on the potential benefits and harms, based on scientific evidence (not
propaganda) so that they can make enlightened decisions on smoking or consuming marijuana, and
determine whether it should be legalized by legislative action or popular vote. Attach a questionnaire
to be signed by all dispensary owners and employees, and “patients” as a criteria for obtaining a
“medical marijuana” ID card. 6) Restrict Driving Privileges A) “Medical Marijuana” ID Card Holders
must have their driver’s licenses flagged so that arresting officers know they are consuming marijuana
and can determine if additional testing is required to determine impairment. Drivers impaired by
marijuana should be treated the same as for alcohol impairment. In cases where doctors have
recommended excessive amounts of marijuana which would imply permanent impairment, driving
privileges should be taken away completely. Deaths due to marijuana impairment have doubled in
California in the last five years compared to the five previous years, 1240 vs 631. B) Under 21 –
Make Random Drug Testing a Requirement For A Driver’s License. Hair analysis four times a year would
cost $180 to $200. Hair gives a 90 day window and its harder to cheat the test. Savings in traffic
accidents and death could offset the cost, and insurance companies might also participate by offering
lower rates. Those with no hair (i.e. gangbangers) will have to subject themselves to random drug
testing with urine, saliva or other means. 7) Dispensaries – Replace dispensaries with County
facilities to tax, regulate and control the distribution of “medical marijuana;” to insure availability of the
drug for those who are not well served with existing legal medicines; and to ensure they are fully
informed on the potential harms of smoked marijuana and aware of any and all legal medicinal
alternatives, and that the product they receive has known ingredients, dosage and potency, and is
packaged properly in child proof containers and the side effects duly labeled in conformance with federal
and state laws. 8) Potency Limit - We have information from former director
of 5 ½ acre “pot farm” from 1981 to 1987 that “….we supply the scientists with
marijuana which has a THC potency of two percent ….. The U.S. government and responsible scientists
cannot administer a drug to a human being which is as potent as today’s marijuana (i.e. 2%). But if
we did, the results would be even more sobering.” We are in contact with and to
clarify this, as that statement was made some time ago. Of concern, the marijuana being sold in
California ranges from 10 to 21% THC normally, and goes as high as 37%. 9) Eliminate Glaucoma
- The Glaucoma Association recommends not using marijuana. While it can relieve pressure, the
quantity required for lasting relief leaves the patient permanently impaired and can actually
damage the eye. 10) Permanent Impairment - The responsibility for employers to hire and
retain pot smokers unless they can prove impairment, which will certainly drive jobs out of
state, based on scientific evidence you can conclude that anyone who smokes marijuana is impaired.
The degree may vary on the frequency or use. But because pot is fat soluble, it stays in one’s system
for up to a month. Even weekend use only stacks THC on top of already retained THC, and the
outcome is less work performance, impaired cognition, more accidents, more absenteeism, more
sickness, et al. If a person has a right to alter their performance with a mind-altering narcotic, an
employer certainly should have the right to not hire them. I hope these suggestions are helpful to
you. Please let me know if I can provide additional information. Sincerely
Provision for revocation of the card by the physician when the patient is thought to be diverting or when
the therapy is judged ineffectual. Or... possibly the duty of the physician to submit names of those not
thought to be benefitting from or diverting/abusing medical marijuana back to the state.
I don't know anywhere else to ask this: if I live in multiple housing units (apartments, condo's,
duplexes), there is already a problem with smoke filtering in between units (common problem via
sockets in all price ranges). If a tenant is lung-compromised (asthma, etc) what will breathing in 2nd
hand pot do to them? I'm concerned about the quality of life issues, never-mind the legal liability for the
owner. Also, how do the no-smoking ordinances affect the use if medical marijuana? How will
employees who aren't smokers of any substance now be protected? Please direct us to any site that can
provide answers. Thank you for your time.
F. A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY MAY ACQUIRE USABLE MARIJUANA

OR MARIJUANA PLANTS FROM A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT OR A REGISTERED DESIGNATED
CAREGIVER ONLY IF THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT OR REGISTERED DESIGNATED
CAREGIVER RECEIVES NO COMPENSATION FOR THE MARIJUANA. How is a dispensary supposed
to get medicine if it cannot reimburse growers for their costs? Given that a “caregiver” can only serve up
to 5 patients, with each allowed 12 plants, even if a dispensary is considered a caregiver, which I’m not
sure if the Act does, that doesn’t allow for much production. It may be in the text somewhere, but I
don’t see how a dispensary is going to get its medicine given these criteria.
When will medical marijuana be available to qualifying patients?
The patients right to choose and the doctors right to prescribe
How many plants can a dispensary grow that = 70% If you grow in a warehouse that has a office suite
attached to it, one door is never going to work these bigger place all have bay doors in the back that are
very secure.
JUST THIS. #1.KEEP THE SPIRIT ON COMPASSION FOR THE ILL IN MIND IN ALL DECISIONS. DON`T
BE STUPID, MEAN OR CRUEL AGAINST THESE PEOPLE FOR THE UNFOUNDED FEARS OF OTHERS THAT
HAVE HIDDEN AGENDAS. THIS ACT SHOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR THOSE IN NEED, NOT FOR
THOSE WHO WANT MORE.
Mandate the medicine to be sold as cheaply as possible. Do not allow companies to sell the medicine at
the illegal street value.
Until there are studies on second hand smoke dangers I hope you will restrict the use by pregnant
women (require pregnancy test) and limit exposure to minor children. I hope you will take into
consideration use of marijuana in residences with adjoining walls and in medical and assisted living
centers. I think the number of people using the drug should be limited in each residence to limit transfer
to adjoining residences, and its affect on caregivers or other residents. Please limit marijuana use in
vehicles not just by drivers but passengers as well. Second hand smoke does not stay with the smoker
it travels and is more intense in enclosed spaces.
LABS ????
See above. Will comment in more detail, after Holidays.
Bottom line, if you make it this difficult for patient to get marijuana legally, then they will buy it illegally
which they have for years and the state get no money. It is a safer drug then alcohol, BUT, you need to
subject sales personel to periodic uninalysis. Thanks,
How many square feet can a cultivation location be? Is the amount of plants going to remain at 99 at
any given time? How many plants can be grown at any one time?
Objective evidence of chronic pain.
I believe that dispensaries should be housed in regular licensed pharmacies. There the security
measures are in place, the phramaceutical professionals are there, and the stigma of buying this
beneficial medicine is reduced. I think your rules need to be essentially thrown out and re-examined
from the perspective that this truly is a beneficial, efficacious phramaceutical, and not a demon that will
harm anyone who consumes or is exposed to it. The people of Arizona, who voted on this issue deserve
nothing less. Your draft rules are counterproductive to the dispensing of conscientious medicine, and
seem more politically than medically driven.
There definately should be consideration for the private growing of the medicine due to the crime
element knowing there is a helpless or disabled person growing on his or her property. This concern
shouldn't end up prohibiting the person doing such due to cost or space. A 4x8 growing space would be
adequate for up to 12 plants. Female plants have more of the ingrediant wanted so there should be
consideration for disposal of the unwanted male plants. What would happen if when the plant is at it's
latter development and when the sex is being formed and determined and you find out you have 9
males and only 3 females.
What about the LEGAL purchasing of firearms by a medical marijuana patients? Will PROP 203 infringe
on the rights of these individuals???
1. There is nothing specific about management of waste produced by dispensaries or cultivators. There
is a great deal of waste created by cultivators in the process of pruning, dead or dying plants, etc that
could be diverted by the public from the waste bin and taken for recreational use. There needs to be
rules on not only the frequency of waste removal from the various sites, but rules on how it is
eliminated (burned? sealed containers taken to the dump? marked as medical waste and incinerated like
medical waste? 2. I did not see anything about products such as oils and lotions. It is common
practice (on the streets) for the elderly to infuse MJ into oils and tinctures to apply topically. Will
dispensaries be able to make these products? Sell them? Locally we already have a massage therapist
interested in co-locating with a dispensary...don't know if she intends on using regular or MJ infused
oils. 3. Is tea considered food? Will there be rules regarding operating 'tea houses' for patients where
MJ tea and MJ foods are consumed?
Dispensary cards for visitor cards to acquire medical marjiuana
visiting patients applications as 36-2801-17 " visiting qualifying patinet" did not see anywhere for
this since , you changed it to have to be with the same doctor for a year
i think some standard should be placed on the cannabis in general .In other states there have been
some issues with quality control of the cannabis I.E. problems with mold, fungus, or pesticides, all 3 of
these can be serious problems for any patient that is immunocompromised such as a chemo patient and
h.i.v. patient i would think it would be more cost effective to effect quality control and testing to make
sure that the product being sold to the patients is clean and not potentially harmful .
patients 8. make it easier for caretakers to help take care of their patients with fewer hurdles and less
costs.
The doctor's should have to report to the state the number of patients that it is giving the medical cards
to, and this should somehow be montiored so that if a particular doctor is giving out too many cards
that doctor can be investigated. In Colorado, you can take a bus to Denver and see a "doctor" who will
give anyone a medical marijuana card, for a fee. You do not have to prove anything. Arizona is saying
there must be 4 visits prior to getting the card, but you could go to the doctor Monday through
Thursday and get your card on Friday. It's out of control in Colorado, and I hope that doesn't happen
here in Arizona.
i dont see anything in the rules about pricing. in isreal patients pay $100 a month no matter how much
their monthly allotment is and we need to do something similar bet you wont see as many dispensary
license applications come in. this is for the sick and owners have dollar signs in their eyes and it
shouldnt be that way.
It does not cover those of us who have on-going untreatable bipolar or use of a high cbd low thc for
people with A.D.D. or A.D.H.D.I happen to fall into the 1% category of people who get the biggest
effect off of the smallest doses of medications including side effects such as:seizures,mania,suicidal
tendencies,confusion,and black-outs just to name a few.I think it would be extremely effective in
treating mental illnesses such as disorders previously stated and schitzophrenia.
No, in fact, if anything it's WAY overrated. I wonder how many people will be willing to open
dispensaries, with all the red tape and inventory control. It's obvious that the emphasis is on denial, not
acceptance. I read on-line that only about 20,000 will be cardholders, rather than the 100,000
previously predicted. Is that something to be proud of? I would be proud the more people I could help,
not how small a group I can make it.
It should be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco. It's safer then either one. Not doing so will keep
drug lords. Even the former surgeon general said so.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/18/former.surgeon.general.marijuana/index.html
Spell out not a" RECREATIONAL PROGRAM,BUT MEDICAL PROGRAM" just like this.
Yes, try helping some of those who might benefit from use of Medical Marijuana for serious illnesses and
stop trying to punish those who really do need access to better health care. We have laws against the
recreational use of marijuana and also things like percoset, morphine and other drugs that are used for
medical use. But you don't find rules limiting the access to other doctors for a second opinion by
waiting a year or having four visits just so you can appear getting touch on those who mis-use it. You
are punishing those who need a second opinion as well as those who mis-use it. Stupid rule and it will
be challenged by just about everyone. There will be a joiner and certainly class action against the State
for even consider such a move.
How are you going to pick who gets a Dispensary License ? Will it be a drawing ?
How are you going to pick who gets a Dispensary License ? Will it be a drawing ?
As the draft states in the definitions section R9-17-101.15 Medical director only allows MDs and DOs to
be a medical director. Arizona licenses Naturopathic Physicians to practice and according allows
Naturopathic Physicians to recommend medical marijuana. Naturopathic Physicians have extensive
training in botanical medicine and would be highly qualified to act as medical directors. Please consider
and implement a change to include Naturopathic Physicians as Medical Directors.
Guidance for employers. Prop 203 creates a new protected class by providing employee protections to
users of medical marijuana, including protections against termination solely on the basis of a positive
test for marijuana or metabolites. However, the legislation provides no guidane for employers on how
to determine if an employee is "impaired" by marijuana on the job, which would be cause for
termination. It is absolutely vital to employers (especially employers not based in Arizona, but who
have locations in that state) to know what constitutes a terminable offense (impairment) and what is
protected activity.
selection process for dispensaries. relationship between grower and dispensary
past a lot. It makes since, but what If I changed my doctor recently so that means I have to see him for
at least a year before I can be prescribed medical marijuana. I feel that having medical records of your
disease and or pain for up to a year would be good enough. I know that I will in fact be changing my
insurance thus making me see different doctors in a few months. So I'm going to have to wait a year
for the help of medical marijuana? I really think this has to go into more thought.
Not to my knowledge.
I'm sorry I have to apologize and redo this questionnaire, however I put some deep thought into these
ideas.Please accept them .ty
The laws regarding driving under the influence of cannabis, the current laws are too broad and allow
anyone with detectable metabolites to be arrested, even weeks after last administering cannabis.
not to my eyes
I think everything appears good
Specific language releasing caregivers, physicians, and others from misbehavior by individuals.
Responsibility for obeying the rules should be on an individual and personal basis without ridiculous
attempts to victimize others by making them responsible for things thay have no control over, such as
the actions of others. Specific language limiting invasion of privacy to what is normal at this time
without increasing privacy invasion. Privacy should be respected and protected, or else this rulemaking
might be used as a precedent to invade privacy and the personal lives of others in the future.
patients who cant afford to pay high dollar for medicine should get the choice to grow their own or have
someone grow for them even if they live within 25miles of a dispensary.
price should be a big issue. this is for the sick and people who need it are gonna be prety much on
limited incomes and wont be able to pay high price for medicine. non profit dispensaries is to loose and
has no regulations on pricing. we should have to pay a flat fee a month like a $100 no matter how much
you get. its working in israel.
ya any patient with at least a year worth of medical history that overwhelmingly proves a patient would
benefit for MM by any new doctor who is an advocate should be able to recommend it, especially
cancer patients and chronic pain patients who are addicted to narcotic pain pills its no difference then a
second opinion and in this case no doctor in Az will recommend MM unless he is an advocate and
believes in alternative medicine. Doctor's now are not going to recommend because they will lose
patients because the MM will solve more then half the ailments therefore they lose a customer and they
dont want a law suit there not enough know for a established dr to take achance in reccomendation
there nothing in it for them so MR Humble tell me you didnt anticipate that thas why your projected
number changed from 100,000 cards to 10-20,000 because with you new rule of dr patient relationship
of a year you know the dr wont recomend MM so you thought this out, but the public will always find a
way to get around your you just pist people off good luck, I get my card as you quoted if you
dont meet the first requirement of dr relationship and you have cancer and getting chemo treatment
now tehn i can go to any doctor to get my recommendation which i plan to do you need to be more
specific about this rule and iut should be modified that you can see any dr as long as you have medical
records to provide the new dr that ar at least within one year old then make the dr responsible for
making decision based on then medical records good luck
Very comprehensive
More information on the cultivation ( i.e. number of plants, size of facility, where to obtain seeds, strains
of plants suggested to be grown.)
yes. " narcotic pain contrats " have not been addressed , i have an established doctor patient
relationship. i must take opiod medication, and therefore have had to sign a " narcotic pain contract ".
this contract states that if i have marijuana in my system, i can be dismissed at a patient . * this
contract is several years old, and outdated now , with the new law concerning prop 203 has passed and
medical marijuana will soon be legal as medicine . in the rules, it should be known to every pain
management or m.d. in the state of arizona, that they must re-write the " narcotic pain contract " to
exclude marijuana as a reason for dismissal .
selection process on dispensaries
in doing a little research in regards to the price, i was shocked. i dought my insurance company will help
me out.im disabled and on other pain meds.im hoping to reduce them and use some marijuana. i would
like to see some sort of home grown clause for low income people to grow at home. even if they are
within the range of a dispencery.i hope you will take this plea under consideration. ps i drive as little as
i can due the fact i am on meds.id prefer to stay home. i guess you could assume id be forced to drive
DUI to get there. a good question for your legal dept? should a person on perscribed medication be
given the right to grow at home also? thank you
I am sure there is, but again my failure to look at all of it, going to the common sense approach I failed
to read all the items.
Policy allowing delivery to MJ patients. (many can not travel)
There is nothing I have seem about people who qualify from other states to be legal if they have a
legal card from there and medical proof, like an MRI. If I have a colorado card and all the qualifications
needed to help with pain, I would like either my card to be honored or the ability to obtain one not
require but one visit to a doctor if I have the necessary documents for qualification in Az. where I spend
the winter. There are a lot of snowbird here who would have the same issue.
To get started ware are we to get seeds,clones in a legal way. How many plants are we allowed to
grow and how many grow facilities is one dispensaries allowed to have. Do you have to have a
dispensary to culivate or can you though a co-op cultivate for several dispensaries.
The selection process! If there are only 120 days to until the selection process citizens have the right to
know if their non-profit will stand a chance in this upcoming market. There are a few non-profit
organizations who have expressed that they are guaranteed a dispensary license. If this is so, why
would the AZ heath department be leading all other non-profits to believe that they have slightest
chance of obtaining a license to dispense medical marijuana? Are people providing money/ bribes to
gain an unfair advantage? Approximately 120 dispensaries will be chosen throughout the state, each
dispensary will be paying $5,000 for a license, that is $600,000. I have read recent articles that have
express an estimated 5000 dispensary applications will be sent inn for review, that is $25,000,000 to the
Arizona Health Department. Where will all this money be appropriated? Is it possible that the ADHS has
already promised majority if not all of these licenses to certain non-profits and are using the selection
process to gain revenue for the state of Arizona. It seems to be a borderline scheme if the claims of a
guaranteed dispensary license are true. Is it unfair to ask Will Humble to release a video of him assuring
the public that this is not and will not be the case?
The selection process! If there are only 120 days to until the selection process citizens have the right to
know if their non-profit will stand a chance in this upcoming market. There are a few non-profit
organizations who have expressed that they are guaranteed a dispensary license. If this is so, why
would the AZ heath department be leading all other non-profits to believe that they have slightest
chance of obtaining a license to dispense medical marijuana? Are people providing money/ bribes to
gain an unfair advantage? Approximately 120 dispensaries will be chosen throughout the state, each
dispensary will be paying $5,000 for a license, that is $600,000. I have read recent articles that have
express an estimated 5000 dispensary applications will be sent inn for review, that is $25,000,000 to the
Arizona Health Department. Where will all this money be appropriated? Is it possible that the ADHS has
already promised majority if not all of these licenses to certain non-profits and are using the selection
process to gain revenue for the state of Arizona. It seems to be a borderline scheme if the claims of a
guaranteed dispensary license are true. Is it unfair to ask Will Humble to release a video of him assuring
the public that this is not and will not be the case?
patients and caregivers controll of the market and prices in the form of a price cap.
I very much feel that patients rights, both medical and civil, are being stepped on and striped away.
There is no mention of price caps. Price caps would do everything that is trying to be done through
these fee systems and push out the ones with money in their eyes and no true compassion in their
hearts. Reduce all the fees, relax all the grow concerns for the incurable and other patients burdened by
your efforts and put a price cap of fifty dollars an ounce in place,,, tax included. Folks that really want
to help will stay,,, the carpet baggers will leave.
Yes, security in transport, insuring safety and efficacy through lot analyses, those of us who long-ago
abandoned traditional pain-killers as ineffective and too debilitating (no current or recent records at our
MD or DO...)
DISPENSING MACHINES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN A DISPENSARY
people voted on Prop 203 the way it was written. Not to have it so restricted that some, or most people
wont be able to benefit from the law, which goes against the whole intent of the law. I thought the first
thing about required allotted days was interesting, that they had turned the time limits for them to
approve applications, and certifications into working days from just days. I’m sorry but the statue says
days, and not working, or business days. I’m sorry, but the ADHS does not get to rewrite, and nit pick
something that they may not agree with. You must take the law the way it’s written. Days and not
working/business days! The main issue I have with their proposed rules is the restricting access to the
law by trying to define what a patient- doctor relationship is. This part conflicts with Prop 203, as far as
any doctor who is licensed to practice medicine MD, DO has the right to recommend MMJ. And the law
doesn’t say anything about having a relationship with your doctor for at least a year, and have had 4
visits. That same requirement doesn’t apply to any other health standard in the country. Or any that I
could find by looking up requirements for prescriptions/recommendations. Again, Mr. Humble and staff
are taking a huge liberty in defining what they think should apply to Prop 203, especially when it doesn’t
apply to all other aspects of health care. Also, the part that the MMJ doctor has to become the primary
care doctor for the qualifying condition. Most people’s doctors won’t be so willing to put their names,
and required by rules their license number on a patients application. And who not agree with the new
law. So your telling me that I can’t get relief from something that could help for at least a year? Talk
about pain and suffering. The ADHS motto is: Leadership for a Healthy Arizona. Again not all doctors are
qualified specialists who have completed some required fellowship training to take on ALL aspects of
healthcare. As required by law in Chapter 17 Tile 32-1800 Sec 21. I did find the section on the video
cameras amusing, and the location of the hand washing stations. I was thinking… isn’t that planning and
zoning and who ever deals with building permits. And one issue I couldn’t understand was the part that
says if you’re applying for a caregiver card, dispensary agent, and on behalf a child who is under 18 that
they have to signed statement that says they do not currently hold a valid registry identification card, so
these people can’t be patients as well??? This is just a way for the ADHS to take a more intrusive step
into our states MMJ law. I’ve also seen a few statements from some people, and organizations saying
that the ADHS did a good job. And that really completely blows my mind. Did they really read all 47
pages of the ADHS proposed rules? They have taken a law that was just over 30 pages and turned a set
of proposed rules into 47 pages of things they want. In a state that has a billion dollar deficit, does the
health department really think they should help waste more taxpayer money the state doesn’t have? I
can already see claims being filed against the ADHS on all aspects of departments proposed rules
36-2806.02 discusses requirements for dispencery verification of amounts dispensed previously to

ensure a patient does not exceed there possession limits of 2.5 oz per 2week. What about caregivers?
Are they required to monitor what is dispensed to patients? Can caregivers deliver to other patients that
are not registered with them but have a valid registration card. Other states have delivery services, that
allow patients in remote regions or that are disabled to have access to medication. Is that permitted?
Modern devices like iPads and cell phones can provide validation through mobile Internet, recording
dispensed amounts? There's no wording or rules for this.
Yes, the wording I have seen so far seems to be to restrictive and costly for the patient to obtain
medical marijuana for pain management. So leave the "year/ 4 office visits" out of consideration for the
prescription. It is to costly for people like me.
There has been no mention as to how the selection process will be implemented for a permit. I am sure
the competiton between N. Scottsdale and a very remote County will be different. Based on the draft, it
says the $5000 permit fee is nonrefundable and I read that to say if you are not selected it will not be
returned? Clarify. Will an dispensary applicant from a remote county be selected (for that county) before
a non county resident?
I am from California and moved here at the end of Oct. to be with my husband. His work transferred
him hear for the next year; as suffer from M.S and chronic pain. My husband is currently my
caregiver.Will I be able to use my California approved id to now purchase in Arizona? Or do I have to
wait and apply and pay another fee to have a new Arizona id? As well as have my husband pay $200.00
more as he is my caregiver
Insomnia is a legitimate medical condition for cannabis because it helps calm down patients that have
trouble sleeping. Other drugs made for insomnia can make the user feel doped up to the point that they
cant function normally. In rare instances these drugs can cause the user to hallucinate or go into a
delirium and end up causing danger to the people around them if not killing themselves unknowingly,
through behavioral or physical toxicity. Cannabis acts on the CB1 receptor in the brain which can cause
the user to feel sleepy. We should put in place that any patients with this condition can only buy
cannabis indica dominant strains for their higher levels of other cannibinoids and lower levels of thc.
Indica dominant strains mean that the plant matter has to have over a 50% indica genetics in it.
Cannabis Indica has a more of a sedating effect as opposed to sativa which has more of a stimulating
effect.
N/A
Not that I can see. That is all for now
Ya how are you going to take our picture for card when do we pay 150 fee when can we send in Dr
recommendations can the dispenser charge what they want for the pot, like will it be cheaper in the
black market? answer theses questions. And will you have a fast track system for cancer patients?
Include insomnia/sleeping problems to the conditions that qualify for medical marijuana. I believe this
should be included because numerous studies have shown that marijuana is an effective tool in aiding
those with sleeping problems also, marijuana would be a much safer alternative to the sleeping
medications already offered. Additionally eating disorders should be applied to the conditions that would
cause a patient to need medical marijuana.
How long will the ID cards be valid? With this kind of registration fee I feel that the cards should be
valid for two to three years. Will there be any price reductions for patents that cannot afford a $150.00
Charge. There are many families that are struggling to make their bills, and living paycheck to
paycheck. And if they have to pay this kind of money it will put them out on the streets. If the patient is
on AHCCCS will it cover the price of the medication? How about the registration fee?
As stated above. Clarification of the Infused Food Product Facility. Additionally, Can a Dispensary
prepare, but not manufacture, an infused food product i.e. the serving of Pizza that is heated, the
serving of an ice cold slushy that is infused etc. If so, current guidelines from various city ordinances are
stating that infused food cannot be within a certain distance from a Dispensary so, can the dispensary
actually be both the infused food and a Dispensary?
Reduced fees for people who are on Medicare and those disabled and on a fixed income.
theres no restictions on what dispensarys can charge whatsoever.
Yes, expand on the limitations or amounts of medicine grown by patients and caregivers who sell to the
dispensaries. Also expand on the self monitoring system and caregiver monitoring system journals
required. Also with this monitoring system how often and when to turn this in, or if they are held on to
for our doctor or you guys. Also will tools for self monitoring in PDF will be offered for free to the
quailfying patient or caregiver. Thank you
make costs as low as feasibly possible for the patient, especially patients without money.
SEE ABOVE
I like the rules regarding security measures needed. With technology being as cheap as it is, I would
like to see adding biometrics as a requirement to dispensaries. For instance it would be easy to
incorporate a fingerprint scanner to verify a persons identity. That will keep patients honest and not
passing their card around. A lot of things can be faked, but fingerprints cannot be.
NO SMOKING IN PUBLIC NO SMOKING WHILE DRIVING OR UNDER THE INFULENCE NO SMOKING

AT WORK OR GOING TO WORK IMPARRIED NO SMOKING IN FRONT OF OTHERS AS IN CONTACT
HIGH NO SMOKING IN FRONT OR NEAR CHILDERN SEEING THE SAME DR AT LEAST 2 YEARS 4X
TO 8X , AND SEE A SPECIALIST THAT THE GOVERMENT WILL ASSIGN , THAT WILL HAVE THEIR OWN
TESTS AND COMPARE NOTES TO YOUR OWN DR , HAVE DOCUMENT PROOF THAT YOU WERE SEEN
FOR THAT SPECIFIC REASON THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO HAVE A PRESCRIPTION TO POT MAKING
SURE YOU HAVE TIRED ALL OTHER TREATMENTS AND PROOF THAT YOU DID TRY THEM BEFORE
GOING ON POT AND IF YOU ARE CAUGHT HAVING A LITTLE GET TOGETHER WITH FRIENDS WHILE
YOU SO CALL SMOKE YOU CAN GET YOUR PRESCRIPTION REVOKED IF YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH A
MINOR SMOKING YOUR PRESCRIPTION WILL BE REVOKED IF YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH POT OTHER
THEN FROM THE DESPENCERARIES THEN YOUR PRESCRIPTION WILL BE REVOKED
There is nothing on fines, closure, Removal of license of the dispensary or Doctor if found to be not
complying.
Yes, Nurse Practitoners have been left out as qualified medical providers and need to be included as
qualified to certify patients for medical marijuana cards.
How much is all of this going to cost a patient yearly? How much are the Dispensaries going to charge?
Is there going to be a price limit on the product? Will this new law be so complicated that the people
who need it ( WILL RUN) and just keep buying off of the street? Everyone I know say that it has
become to scary and troublesome for them to deal with. Most people who are disabled have a very
small income and will not be able to afford the complicated building standards or the product that is
sold.
The Dispensary Licensee selection process. We know what the Licensee applicants are required to bring
to the table, but there is no mention of how the 5,000 to 10,000 potential applicants are going to be
narrowed down to the best 124 applications. Lottery, Analysis of Financial Ability, Strengths of Business
Plan, or do you have to know somebody. How is the State going to track a patient's purchase history?
Will all transactions have to be submitted electronically to a State database to consolidate all purchases
made from all dispensaries and if so how frequently? every sale, every day, every month, or only if
requested as part of an audit..
The ability to be a legal cultivator without being a dispensary owner
Naturopathic physicians need to be included in the draft as medical directors of dispensaries.

Naturopathic physicians are licensed in the state of Arizona and should be included in this law as
medical directors for medical marijuana dispensaries.
Please include board certified naturopathic physicians to be medical directors of dispensaries.
allow home delivery
Mainly whether vaporizing is smoking (technically it isn't, so better deal with that now). And clarifying
what portion (other than waiting rooms) of doctors' offices, medical cannabis clinics, hospitals and age-
restricted retirement communities are considered public.
R917-310: Medical director designation should include naturopathic physicians. Naturopathic physicians
are included as prescribing physicians but not here. Naturopaths are capable of the requirements
posted for the description of medical directors.
My comments following need to be made specifically clear unlike the the Prop 203 language. Almost
seems as if some alterior motivated cover-up concerning registered qualifiying patients cultivation is
purposely continuing to be promulgated. Here it is: New Arizona Medical Marijuana Law A Common
Misconception “I’m gonna get my medical marijuana permission slip and start growing my twelve
allotted plants!” Wrong! This is a common misconception concerning the cultivation of medical
marijuana. According to my interpretation of the now passed Proposition 203 language, only three
entities legally qualify to cultivate marijuana: 1) A registered non-profit medical marijuana dispensary
which is also allowed to have one other physical address different from the dispensary location to be
used for the sole purpose of cultivation. 2) A registered qualifying patient holding an identification card
stating that the patient is authorized to cultivate marijuana. Only patients living more than twenty-five
miles from an operating registered dispensary will be eligible for this cultivation authorization. 3) A
registered designated caregiver holding an identification card stating that the caregiver is authorized to
cultivate marijuana. A caregiver’s registered patient must live outside the twenty-five mile limit from an
operating registered dispensary. Only if you meet one or more of these three conditions will you be
allowed to legally grow marijuana in the State of Arizona. Individuals meeting conditions number three
or four will be allowed to cultivate up to twelve marijuana plants. As with most legislation, ambiguity
and lack of definition exists within the Proposition 203 language. The term “cultivation” is not defined
under the proposition language which will most likely create a debate as to if harvested drying plants
are considered as part of the allotted twelve. Neither the issue of plant gender nor the term “marijuana
plant” is addressed or defined. The term “marijuana” is defined and defined as “all parts of any plant of
the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.” The term “usable marijuana”
is defined and defined as “the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation
thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of
any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or
drink.” The term “usable marijuana” is used only in conjunction with possession and not cultivation.
Local law enforcement will be forced to make its own interpretation regarding cultivation possession
until the judiciary sets precedents. And be aware that federal law prohibits any of this activity. President
Obama did recently issue a letter to the DEA requesting them to let any states be who have legalized
medical marijuana; however, occasional raids on state legal dispensaries have continued. For the full
Proposition 203 lingo, gotto: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/e-book.pdf
pages 73-84.
See my questions above? Perhaps think about the counties with very small populations. Any special
"help" for those dispensaries?
How would the rule of one dispensary per 10 pharmacies work in our state with so many small
communities? Some communities may have one or two pharmacies and be required to drive a hundred
miles to a town with a dispensary.It seems the smaller communities should be guaranteed a dispensary
near their town is someone qualified petitioneds for one. Our rural citizens already have to drive many
miles to recieve basic services readily available in the 3 major cities. This particular service might prove
dangerous if those who need it are required to drive to get it.
C-above
Yes, the entire issue of how an applicant can transfer, sell and/or assign his/her business to another
qualified applicant.
Compassion for the poor.
TESTING OF CANNABIS
Make growing outdoors for card holders/caregivers easier to understand & achieve. Make the
requirements reasonable for them, but keep them the way they currently are for dispensaries.
"Enclosed" should not mean having to spend thousands & thousands of dollars on fencing & even
having a top on it for people other than dispensaries.
Give a place that questions from the public can be asked via the internet, then the actual questions
answered & posted on your web site answering similar questions only once. I think the public could use
a way to ask more specific questions which may help you know what needs to clarified in the rules. I
know this site is similar to that, but maybe helpful if you did it also in that format.
My latest inquirys on the internet has introduced me to new questions .What is a cardbroker?How will
the amount of plants grown for each cultivation faucility be determined?Will the input of the
townspeople be considered in issueing the license to dispensary?will we have a voice in keeping this out
of our community?
too much there already, too complicated. can't imagine anything has been left out.
To protect AZ from possible future lawsuits , and to protect the citizens of this state, a section should be
added that states that medical marijuana should be held to the same pesticide standards currently
governing other foods by the EPA. There are limits to pesticide levels in corn, there should be limits on
marijuana that is ingested as well. The producer should have to sign an affidavit for each batch that
the crop conforms to EPA standards and they agree to abide by current laws and procedures governing
pesticides in food products. Mandatory independent lab testing should also be required . Any batch
exceeding the EPA limits would need to be destroyed under government supervision. Any growing
facility who repeatedly fails these tests could be subject for license revocation.
I believr that you should require that the AZ non-profit be in business for a period of at least 2 years
much like the Department or Revenue requires before getting a Bingo License. This woul stop new ones
from being created to just comply with the new law.
Need to address what happens if a patient is a Veteran that uses the VA system. The doctors cannot
address this issues with the veterans. What happens when the patient will benefit from the use but
cannot get a doctor to approve it? Most veterans that use the VA do not have other doctors outside.
Home deliveries, cases where doctors are prohibited from making medical marijuana recommendations
Arizona is a large open state, so finding a corner that is 500' from a public place will be very easy. Will
there be a limit to the number of dispensories so that we will not see dispensories pop up on every
street corner? Does Arizona trully have that many qualifying patients to enable a large number of
dispensories to make their profits legally? Are there appropriate rules to regulate the quantity of weed
a patient can home grow and how the state will enforce illegal distribution of the excess product
produced by the patient. What penalties will be enforced if the patient unlawfully redistributes/sells his
purchased "medical" weed for personal profit?
I have had a question that so far no one has been able to answer for me. Why can't the distribution of
medical marijuana be handled by the normal store pharmacies with a licensed Doctors prescription, just
like any other controlled substance?
Left out? How about leaving out a lot of this nonsense!
Don't know of any.
The treatment for Tourette's syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder should be added to the
approved list of medical conditions.
Yes, I would raise the issue concerning individuals who are unable to provide proof of a medical history,
due to a lack of health insurance and no past medical treatment of existing conditions were/are unable
to provide the required documentation and no way to substantiate history other than existing current
medical conditions which in many cases are self medicated to treat said conditions and remain
undocumented. Are these individuals going to have to wait until they can not only afford to see a
physician for documentation but wait an additional year to be able to meet the requirements? What
option/options are available for these instances? "other than for the individual to continue to break the
law", due to a lack of documentation and no way to avail themselves of the current laws/rules and
requirements due to persistent financial constraints and limitations. While Arizonan's have voted in
favor of providing an avenue to legal medical marijuana to individuals who are in dire need. The
governing body in charge of the rules are placing burdensome constraints on individuals who will not be
able to comply due to financial necessity to obtain "physician documentation" to treat ongoing medical
conditions. Apparently the rules making committee has some notion that all persons applying for a
marijuana medical card are flush with discretionary cash and that every person will be able to provide a
full medical history, "because we all have insurance and can afford to see a doctor on a whim.
<sarcasm..." Perhaps there will be some people that Oh I don't know, weren't/aren't able to afford to
see a doctor and cannot provide the required information documenting their ongoing medical
conditions?? While I'm certain that those writing the rules have health insurance and a source of
income that would allow them to document their medical treatments, please take into consideration that
there are some that cannot comply to those restrictions and still need to be treated as people instead of
statistics. Provide a legal avenue for those individuals to obtain a medical marijuana card as well..
Naturopathic and homeopathic physicians are specifically allowed to recomend treatment by the
innitiative but not included in the rules. The innitiative does not give the state the right to specify the
type and durration of relationship with the medical provider. This will lead legal challenges and
associated expense. The appropriate bodies to determine reccomendation guidlines are the relevent
professonal licensing boards. They should be responsible for enforcing standards of care for
recomendations and penalties for innapropriate supervision...loss of medical license etc.
Mental as well physical conditions will be considered.
What about edibles?
There are many potentially eligiigible individuals who would not fall neatly under the strict guidelines as
outlined above. These individuals would include those who's primary care givers are employed by the
Federal Government (Department of Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Services). These doctors are not
allowed to complete a recommentation for medical marijuana due to their possitions within the Federal
Government (even if they think it would help). It is also noted that there are many individuals that
recieve primary medical care from Nurse Practitioners who, based on what I read, would not be allowed
to make reccomendations either. Based on the proposed guidelines, it would not be possible for these
otherwise qualified patients to obtain a recommendation for medical marijuana from "their" primary care
givers due to the "status" of the doctors employment. Therefore, the need for facilities/doctors that can
review comprehensive medical history and complete an examination and issue the doccuments needed
for the ID card are warrented and necessary. Based on the ouutline "DRAFT" you would have a patient
change their primary care giver just to meet the needs of the proposed draft. It has to be understood
that there are many doctor patient relationships where the doctor CAN NOT write a reccomendation and
it is not a matter of choice. In such cases, potentially eligibal patients need an alternative to obtain a
doctors recommendation that does not require giving up years of "physician-patient relationship" , the
very thing you are trying to ensure.
Those under V.A. Care can with record of proof of condition be allowed for consideration by an out side
Doctor with out being seen by such Doctor for a preseading year of care by such Doctor. Thanks for
your devoted time for this issue.
LOL....there should be a lot left out of this draft, not put in.
~Measures to prevent "straw purchases" of dispensaries should be in place. Require disclosure (and
resultant scrutiny) if an outside organization will "manage and operate" the dispensary for the owners.
~Require "dispensary agents" to meet the "2 Year Rule" of residency as well. This will minimize the
likelihood misconduct by employees with experience in less-restrictive environments.
The draft is pretty comprehensive, will let you know if I find something.
Since your emphasis is on medical marijuana vs recreational marijuana, I hope the selection process
reflets your priority , and that people running these dispensaries have proper medical background, such
as in a pharmacy.
1) relationship of grower and dispensary and compensation, a) transportation of product from grow to
dispensary 2) selection process for dispensary
everything is good
There needs to be language that further defines Designated Caregivers like as shown in the above
example.
BECAUSE IT IS CALLED MEDICAL MARIJUANA,WHY DO YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY STREET PRICES FOR
THW SAME AMOUNT.SHOULDN'T THERE BE A MAX LIMIT OF 80 TO 100 PER OUNCE.
Medication prescriptions are nobody's business except the doctors and the patients. No laws should
come between the doctor and the patient.
Yes, the thing that has been left out is "If at anytime you or any individual, that had anything to do with
the writing of these rules ever need to utilize said Dispensaries, will not ever be allowed to do so unless
you are willing to pay 10 times the amount necessary for the right to do so!"
Just the NO DRIVING. That should be an absolute, and NON-negotiable rule attached; you want to use
this, you forfeit your privilege to drive or operate any motor vehicle, period. As an EMT, years ago, I
saw more than enough accidents involving the use of drugs, including marijuana, that were very like
those associated with the use of alcohol. But the effects of marijuana don't seem to wear off in a few
hours as alcohol does, so the public needs them to NOT be operating motor vehicles, period. If they're
unwilling to comply with this condition, their "need" for the marijuana is insufficient, and it should be
denied.
I think that the despensorys fee's and the patient application fee's are a bit high, maybe $3500 for
despensory fee, and $100 patient application fee, also does the $150 for patients include any application
fee for patient cultivation? Also how will the despensorys be protected from mexican drug cartels?
Who's to say they dont just come over the border and intimidate the despensory owner into only
purchseing/despencing (their) product? The last thing i want is to find that the money im spending in a
legal despensory is funding some over the border drug cartel.
Yes the thing that has been left out is "If at anytime you or any individual, that had anything to do with
the writing of these rules ever need to utilize said Dispensaries, will not ever be allowed to do so unless
you are willing to pay 10 times the amount necessary for the right to do so!"
If a person has a medical condition so debilitating it requires them the use of marijuana; said person
should have their drivers license revoked while under the treatment, such as a patient with a seizure
disorder, etc. This would also discourage the misuse of the drug by those who are merely seeking
without a debilitating medical condition. I overheard many young college people vote in favor of and
have said they will use depression, acid reflux, etc. as an excuse to get a Dr. to prescribe the marijuana.
I asked if they would still do it if their drivers license were revoked. Their answer was "NO".
Why can't there be 2 categories of dispensary licenses, i.e. a). a dispensary that wants to sell to
patients/caregivers in a retail setting AND also grow and sell to other dispensaries, b). a dispensary that
only wants to sell to patients/caregivers marijuana acquired from another dispensary(ies).
Need more time to think about that.
The first draft looks pretty good. I appreciate the efforts to keep medicinal marijuana in the hands of
qualified patients and out of the hands of the using for recreational purposes. That being said, it is an
impossible battle. No matter what measures are taken, unethical physicians and people will divert
marijuana. Whenever something is put in place to help people you will always have people who will
abuse the system and that is unfortunate. Physicians take an oath to use their powers for the good of
people and we are at their mercy when it comes to them doing the right thing. Good luck to all of you
and please let me know if I can be of help in any way.
PS I would make sure your office has the number of a few DEA agents so
you can report any activity that seems unethical by physicians. I have one I use when I suspect a
physician is prescribing unethically.
What will stop owners that run the shops from smoking themselves? How are you going to prevent
criminals from robbing these stores? How are you going to stop those friends and relatives of the
supposed people with medical problems from smoking with them? Or giving some to these people
without medical problems?
yes, what has been left out of the rules is dignity of the patient doctor privilege, honor due those who
are chroically diseased, privacy between doctor and patient. If Roe V Wade had begun like this then
the women's rights movement would have died in the starting gates as many of us who are ill may also
by the time this is implemented.
How are the Dispensaries going to be granted to the lucky 120?
How do you handle process of dealing with NEW PETITIONS to ADHS regarding insertion of
ADDITIONAL qualifying diagnoses for Medical MJ program? I've both FAXED and EMAILED a petition on
MONDAY DEC 13th 2010 (along with a 15-page essay supporting this position) to add PTSD to list of
qualifying dx's already approved by 203. Unfortunate4ly, I never got a confirmation from your dept.
THAT MUST BE FIXED. YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE PETITIONS. I believe
you need to have a PROTOCOL in place for how you are going to VERIFY DATE RECEIVED given law
says you have 180 days to respond. Also, WHO MAKES THE DECISION of which diagnoses can be
added? Do you have an EXPERT PANEL of health professionals and community members who will
assess the validity of the petition and material submitted, science available, etc? How will this panel be
selected? Furthermore, I believe doctors or other Health Professionals who have Direct Association with
dispensaries ie. benefit from their revenue, should NOT be allowed to serve in any decisionmaking
capacity in the ADHS decisions moving forward. That needs to be WRITTEN POLICY as nobody in the
public believes these HCP's can be objective.
As stated above, there is little counsel for those disabled seniors who live in the remote areas of Arizona
far away from dispensaries. I saw that there is a method of requesting the legal privilege to grow my
own plants, but I did not see any rules for independent patients to follow if that privilege is granted. If
you wish to communicate directly back to me, I am Thanks, and
good work!
The one situation that seemed to go unaddressed is where the Dispensaries will acquire their initial crop
of Marijuana. As it is currently illegal to possess or sell Marijuana in Arizona, where will cultivation
centers be allowed to go to obtain their first plants? Also, at what stage will they be allowed to acquire
these plants? Will they have to start from seeds, clones, or will they be able to start with somewhat
mature plants? This appears to be something that needs to be addressed so that all operations can be
held to the same standards.
Yes. There is no rule mentioned about Dr's denying a reccomendation to a qualified patient due to not
wanting their reputations tarnished. This has happened in other states. Is it permitted under these rules
for Dr's to deny a Qualified Patient a Reccomendation or continued monitored treatement? I will qualify
because I have severe Neuropathy. I may or may not take advantage of the new law, but I am unsure
as to weather my doctor at the health clinic will write a reccomendation, or even treat me. How am I
protected by these rules/regs. for fair and unbiased treatment to obtain a Reccomendation for a
Marijuana Card? This is Tucson and there are a lot of conservative Dr's here. I really don't wish to
HUNT for a new doc just because mine has a problem with Medical Marijuana.. **** Are there any
provisions for those individuals who will benifit from the new Madicinal Marijuana laws, but just can not
afford to pay the $150 fee for the card? Any Low Income Help? The reality is that most can not afford
to pay that fee, then turn around and pay for the Marijuana.. Medacine should be affordable and
obtainable by anyone who qualifies. It is true that most can not afford the cost of full price
prescription drugs.. Maybe there can be some language that addresses the issue of Assistance of Fees
upon the Card Holder.. ?? If this is truely a Medical minded list of rules/regulations, then there really
should be some language that protects the rights of an individual to obtain a Reccomendation with out
Predudice and to make the Card Fee affordable to those who really can benifit from it. Drug abusers
will not complain about fees, but those who need midication should not be requited to pay anymore for
an identification card from the Dept of Health then they would at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.. I'd
enjoy seeing the justification of administrative costs for the Card Fee in the rules and regs.. Take care
and thanks for all the hard work on this. You are doing a great job so far.
None that I can think of at the moment.
As above. In the sections which relate to the Physicians long term relationship with the patient and the
requirement for continued treatment thereafter. I am on full disability with both Social Security and the
Veterans Administration and the VA supplies all my medical treatment. I was advised by them that as
a Federal Agency they will not issue letters contrary to Federal Laws. The only way for me to
QUOTE FROM YOUR BLOG: "Prop. 203 requires the department to develop an electronic data and
verification system to keep track of patient and dispensary information. Law-enforcement and
dispensary agents must be able to access this system at any time." WHY DON'T THE RULES ALLOW
PHYSICIANS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS E-DATA SYSTEM? THE DOCS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE
ACTUALLY MANAGING THESE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND MUST BE AWARE OF WHAT THE
PATIENT IS TAKING. IT WOULD BE BEST TO HAVE A NOTATION ADDED TO CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE PHARMACY MONITORING PROGRAM, SINCE THAT'S ALREADY PART OF OUR WORKFLOW
TO CHECK CSPMP ON EACH PATIENT. BUT IF YOU CAN'T ADD THIS INFO TO CSPMP, THAN AT
MINIMUM, I THINK IT'S NEGLIGENT TO DISALLOW DOCS FROM HAVING ACCESS TO THIS DATABASE
YOU CITE ABOVE TO LEARN WHICH OF MY PATIENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR ID CARD.
I strongly disagree with the idea that a homeopath or a naturopath can certify a patient for medical
marijuana. They do not have a strong enough knowledge base of available medications to decide if the
patient is considered a treatment failure. Which brings me to my next point. Medical marijuana should
be used for treatment failures or intolerance only. So I actually believe that medical marijuana should
only be prescribed by a DO or MD in the area of expertise that the patient's condition requires. For
example: as treatment for Crohn's disease, only a gastroenterologist who has been seeing the patient
regularly should be able to prescribe marijuana. And for chronic pain: a pain specialist. Anxiety? a
psychiatrist.
No operating heavy machinery or driving while medical marijuana is prescribed. Why prescribed and not
influence? Because if it is prescribed you should be under its influence until treatment is over.
There isn't any language on acquiring MM seeds. There should be an additional ARTICLE that covers
cultivation and the acquisition of seeds.
Will Humble is God
this many hoops to dispense Oxy and Xanaxs? Do you need to get a card for $150 dollars in order for
the pharmacies to dispense OXY and Xanax? I know two people that are going thru chemo right now,
that I've already heard say "that they will not got thru the hassle and will continue getting it from
URGENT CARE with a bad back and walk out with a script for pain pills (very addicting pills) and then go
to CVS and have the pills to alleviate your pain, all with in a couple of hours. Yet to get this medication
you "Have to have a RELATIONSHIP with your doctor for at least a year and he has to want to prescribe
it to you" WHAT A JOKE!!!! What other medication has all these hurdles in front of it?
I feel that neroupahy caused by long term diabetics should be listed in the medical conditions criteria
portion of the rules.
My concern being disabled and on a fixed income. The fee's of obtaining a mm card and cost of MM
after getting a card will be cost prohibitive for the lower income patients that are already running short
for monthly medications.
Incorporate the same safe guards that were implemented to handle medications, remember this is a
powerful drug. Also how are you going to deal with different potencies between plant species. There
needs to be limits on the THC strengths prescribed. Only control over the powerful drug can do this.
With no control The Great State of Arizona will be benefiting the drug dealers. After all who will know if
this quantity came from this plant or "somewhere else"?
Growing permits etc.
I do not see what the length of time a certificate is good for when it is issued. The draft talks about the
renewal process for all the certificates, but I do not see how often they need to be renewed. Every 2
years? Every 1 year? I am very concerned about the documented studies in regards to the lung
damage/potential lung cancer with marijuana smoke. What about all the lawsuits towards doctors, the
government, and/or dispensaries when a patient gets cancer after being prescribed marijuana? I can
see that there could be millions of dollars awarded patients, at tax-payer expense. How is the
marijuana controled when it is sent to a "bakery" to make food products. How is it proved that the
marijuana was actually put into the food product?
There should be rules for patients who are physically capable of cultivating for themselves. Not every
patient should have to rely on a local cultivation center, or be asked to find another individual to care-
give. Most severely ill patients will require an outside source of medication, but not all of them should
have to rely on local pricing, and the service of an outside person to provide them with medication. I
believe quality control is sometimes best left in the hands of the person consuming the medication and
in this draft it is not addressed.
I am a current CPL (concealed pistol License) holder. Will I be able to carry my medical marijuana
medicine while carrying my concealed pistol? I know it is legal in other states that have medical
marijuana friendly and CPL friendly.
I feel there should be a minium amount of dollars needed to open and operate a dispensary disclosed.
And also if there is a $5000.00 application fee needed and it is non-refundable how many applications
are you going to accept?
Cultivation allowed if more than 1.5 miles from nearest dispensary. That is, if you must require a
distance at all. Let patients grow their own and save money. Develop rules for a cooperative system for
people who are allowed to grow to earn credits at the dispensary where they donated buds. Which they
can redeem for medicine later as no money may be exchanged for bud. This will ensure a supply and
cut cost for patrons to the dispensary.
Licensing details by the Department of health for independent facilities that will infuse edible products
with Medical Marijuana. Will the facilities require separate license to store and infuse food products
with Medical Marijuana? The rules required to follow for these facilities to be legal while working with
Medical Marijuana at the infusion facility.
Yes! If someone can prove beyond 'my back hurts" or 'I have a head ache" to a LICENSED Physican
then give them pain pills that are alread leagized.
Nope- good to go.
and says that because he is a federal employee he can't write the prescription even though it is legal on
the state level. Will I have to pay a private doctor to look at my medical file and write the prescription
or, even worse, will I be unable to go to another doctor's recommendation because they're not my
normal doctor? Will I be penalized for a conflict of interest?
Specific direction for the disposal of the un-used portion of a marijuana plant after the flower portion
has been removed from the plant.
There is no mention of the state law requirement that a patient or caregiver only be allowed to cultivate
as long as their location is 25 miles or more from a dispensary. Cardholders and dispensaries will be
applying at the same time. Will there be at least a moratorium within the time period dispensaries are
applying for their locations before we start allowing patient/caregiver cultivating? This measurement
should also be determined measuring from the lot line of a patient/caregiver location to the lot line of
the dispensary business. Future renewals for requesting cultivation for a patient's site, should also be
determined as to whether or not there is now a dispensary within 25 miles, measure from lot line to lot
line. When identifying means of egress: Where in the procedures does it address the requirement for
"only one secured entrance". I would hope that the means of egress also fits the secured entrance
term. Please clarify...
An option to have a secondary physician should the primary physician not be allowed to make a
recommendation because of clinic or hospital rules.
Not sure, would have to study the Rules.
Who is going to make the medical id cards? The health department, the D.M.V., or individual
businesses? Who is ? They seem to think they will be the ones making
the medical marijuana cards. Shouldn't it be done by the health dept or another division of the state? It
seems risky to just let any non state affliated business do it.
There should be further cultivation rules for research companies and infused products companies and
separate licensing for each. This will create experts in specific fields within the industry and create
countless jobs and revenue for the state and its citizens.
It doesn't make sense that Caregivers or Patients can't grow their own Medical Marijuana regardless of
where they live. There will be many patients that can't afford the prices that dispensaries will charge
and may want to grow their own. Will there be additional provisions for patients or Caregivers to create
their own co-ops to grow their own medicine ? There should be...
This should be in the rules to prevent hardships to patients in rural areas
With the current laws about Marijuana and its transport across state lines which is federally illegal. It
would be my understanding that it would be several months after a dispensary permit is issued before
any marijuana would be for sale? If its not legal to cultivate without a permit then it should not be
immediately available until in-state cultivation is complete.
Some medical marijuana patients will not be able to travel to get their prescription. Do not let cities zone
to prevent deliveries. A patient's caregiver should not have to be put in the position of buying marijuana
for their patients since it is a crime in the eyes of the US Government. As a caregiver I do not want to
do an illegal activity. I don't want to get a marijuana card for myself.But, I don't want to deny my
patient marijuana. I want my patient to get a marijuana card and some delivery person or dispensary
operator deliver the medical marijuana to my patient.
There is nothing, unless I missed it about people growing private plants and how they will protect others
from accessing it; especially the security of children whom may be in the home. Will these individuals
have to go to a course to learn how to safely grow and cultivate plants? This seems to be a disaster
waiting to happen.
Enforcement of the rules.
We may have missed it in our first run through the Statues, but was the limit on the number of plants
per patients addressed? If the dispensary/cultivation center stays as written, is there a limit on the
amount of medical marijuana grown?
If a persons primary doc refuses to prescribe for any reason, that person has the right to seek another
doctor without any one year "penalty". All Veterans Administration patients have the right to select any
doctor without a waiting period. The VA will not prescribe.
The draft rules must include approved rules in regards to why a dispensary would refuse to dispense to
the patient or qualified caregiver.
I could not locate a list of what the 'excluded felonies' were. Shouldn't it be explicit that those that, in
the past, were arrested for marijuana possession are not excluded from now possessing it legally. That
would be stating that those that were trying to control a condition before it they had a legal remedy are
still being persecuted.
Yes I would like to know if there will be a license for growing marijuana only? I would not be a qualified
patients, caregivers or dispensary. Will you allow grower only to be able to sell to dispensary?
migraines should be included in the conditions.
I think that Nurse Practitioners should be able to recommend.
You were effective in neutralizing the drug-like perception but given the larger trend, I believe your
efforts will only serve to reduce the tax revenue this state so badly needs. Too bad the efforts extended
here were not focused towards the real gateway drug; alcohol.
Regarding Section R9-17-315, Paragraph 1.c.ix, the document implies that the State will be allowed
remote access to the on-site video security system. There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is
to utilize IP cameras to allow a universal interface via a web browser to any remote viewing location.
Many times this type of IP viewing uses a 3rd party software package at the remote viewing site to
consolidate the video streams into the desird viewer interface. The 2nd is to allow Internet Browser
viewing to a web-enabled Digital Video Recorder. The viewing interface for this would vary based on the
manufacturer and model of the DVR utilized. Does the department have any further criteria to define
exactly how they will connect, what type of software must be integrated with, and if there are any other
technological requirements regarding the system used to allow this remote viewing access? Thank
you,
Regarding Section R9-17-315, Paragraph 1.c.ix, the document implies that the State will be allowed
remote access to the on-site video security system. There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is
to utilize IP cameras to allow a universal interface via a web browser to any remote viewing location.
Many times this type of IP viewing uses a 3rd party software package at the remote viewing site to
consolidate the video streams into the desird viewer interface. The 2nd is to allow Internet Browser
viewing to a web-enabled Digital Video Recorder. The viewing interface for this would vary based on the
manufacturer and model of the DVR utilized. Does the department have any further criteria to define
exactly how they will connect, what type of software must be integrated with, and if there are any other
technological requirements regarding the system used to allow this remote viewing access? Thank
you,
Please ensure there is monitoring of the physicians so we don't have physicians who's sole practice is
writing reccomendations. I have real concerns about this new law but feel those who are in true need
and suffering deserve relief. I don't want this to be a free for all. If you hold firm on your rules you will
have met the stated intent of the proposition.
What are the regulation for growers????

Requirement to remain a resident while maintaining a Lic. to grow or dispense.
yes!! you ae making the rules out of reach for a lot of people.
See above
I might have missed something but I would like to see specific rules and guidelines to allow a patients to
grow their own plants for their personal use. I am confused if a person with qualifying conditions can
grow their own plants for just their personal use. I understand the 25 miles and up to 12 plants part of
the law but what about someone that wants to grow 2-3 plants in their home in a locked - secure room
not for sale or co-op to trade or sell to a dispensary but just a few plants for personal use to substitute
for the cost of buying it from the dispensaries. So some clarification on growing strictly for personal
use because you have the letter, years with your doctor and a stated disease if there is anything to
allow you to grow your own in your home just for your personal use. Thanks
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE CAN SMOKE THE MARIJUANA! WILL THE LAW
PROHIBIT THE USE OF IT SIMILAR TO OUR ARIZONA PUBLIC NO SMOKING LAW? I WOULD
CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO INHALE NOR
SMELL THE PUTRID SMOKE COMING FROM MARIJUANA. I ALSO DON'T THINK 25' FROM PUBLIC
DOORS IS FAR ENOUGH AS THE TOBACCO LAW READS. MARIJUANA SHOUDN'T BE USED IN ANY
{PUBLIC} PLACES EXCEPT WHERE ALLOWED IN HOSPITALS OR MEDICAL CLINICS.
Yes. 1) how will an AZ resident be defined. 2) how will dispensary registration be handled if there are
more than 125 applicants.
Rules for co-op grows. This state will require lots of medicine. If i have two ounces of marijuana how
much concentrate can I have to?
I would like the language to be clearer with regard to edible products. Do you have to have a
commecial kitchen in order to prepare products? How will I legally secure the product in which to make
the edibles, would I be allowed to purchase this from a dispensary? My focus is to create an edible food
business and after reading through the proposed act I am still unclear as to legally proceed. Thank you
Since you are only allowing 124 of 1,000+ applications to be approved, why not heavily tax both
dispensaries and infused products companies as they are in Colorado? It seems more fair to accept
more applications and refund all or part of the fee to denied applicants, then tax the applicants that are
accepted. After their 1st yr in business, they will be able to pay huge amounts of taxes. (I am basing
this assumption off numbers. AZ should have 100,000+ patients in just a year but 1/7th the number of
dispensaries as CO, for example). Instead of having such strong residency rules for dispensary owners,
why not allow any citizen in the country (if they are willing to move to and pay taxes in AZ) to apply and
offer a 80% refund of the $5,000 application fee if denied? This way there would be 5,000+ applicants
and you would have a much larger pool of applicants to choose from. You could then provide rules even
more medically strict (see above where I agreed on the rule of having a medical director associated with
each dispensary) so that dispensaries are required to be more in tune with the medical and research
aspects and less like "legal drug dealers," as the opposition likes to word it. Of course, there is a fine
line because there will be plenty of critics who think the rules are too strict. I am just looking at the big
picture. It's great that they are required to be nonprofits, but let's make them have to act like it. Why
not make the only 124 dispensaries allowed in the entire state conduct medical research and make their
growing facilities more like laboratories and less like warehouses?
A pharmacist should be involved in dispensing this medication like any other. This should not be left to
unqualified individuals. Please make sure that there is a chain of control that will avoid diversion.
See above comments
I think in the law it stated you can be a caregiver for 5 total card holders, is that listed in the rules?
should it be? Can a caregiver be compensated by a card holder for actual time or expense due to
growing for them? Will a caregiver need to pay the $200 for each cardholder he is a caregiver for?
Will people be allowed to grow initially even if there will eventually be a dispensary near by? It seems
like it will take a long time for dispensaries to get up and running & have medicine available. How will
the 25 miles away from a dispensary be figured? Actual distance or driving miles?
I think you should add some sleep problems to the list of qualifying medical conditions, like slep apnea
and just trouble sleeping or falling asleep and staying asleep through the night. A lot of people hve sleep
issues and would rather injest marijauna than taking prescription drugs that can become highly addictive
and have side effects. It definatly does work, and other states have sleep issues in there list of
conditions.
Zoning requirements for different counties and cities for dispensories and growing facilities.
Hello, my
name is and I suffer from Ménière’s disease. Marijuana is very effective for treatment of
several of the symptoms associated with the disease. Such as nausea and tinnitus. I have included
some research work below. Please consider adding Meniere's disease as a debilitating condition.
Thank you, Doctors say cannabis treats Meniere’s disease September 30, 2006
People suffering from intense vertigo and nausea due to an inner ear problem — a condition of unknown
cause and limited susceptibility to conventional medical treatment called Ménière’s disease — find
significant improvement from cannabis, according to California doctors. California doctors routinely
approve the use of cannabis by Meniere’s patients who say that it helps ease their symptoms. “Meniere’s
causes dizziness, dizziness causes nausea, cannabis relieves nausea,” says . “I
wouldn’t be surprised if the symptoms caused to be a little depressed and of course cannabis
helps that, too.” corroborates: “I’ve issued many recommendations for
Meneire’s, as well as tinnitus [ringing in the ears]. It works well enough to make a significant
improvement in patients’ lives, i.e., symptoms not gone but much abated so they can function and carry
on their daily activities, instead of sitting and suffering. It also aids sleep.” has
given some thought to how cannabis might help in the treatment of Meniere’s. “Three possible
mechanisms come to mind,” he says. “Number one, the anti-anxiety effect of cannabis would be very
useful to a Meniere’s patient. These people are anxious as can be when they hit the ER. When they get
an attack it’s as if they are wired — that’s why Ativan is one of the treatments, to bring them down. Two
would be the anti-nausea effect. Duh! You’re barfing and there’s a drug that offers relief in 10 seconds.
The third is slowing down the vertigo itself — the sensation of spinning caused by the inner ear
problem. My patients say cannabis is as good as Benadryl, which is the classic treatment. I recall
reading that the auditory nerve does have CB1 receptors. I don’t know about the cochlear structure
itself.”
Yes, the ability for a visiting card holder to get medication.............
Application selection process needs to be clarified for certain situations. Applications that are submitted
and are complete should also be subject to comparison to similar complete applications, in proximity to
one another, for comparison and determination of overall quality of information provided. I.E: If two or
more complete applications are provided for locations that are within the city and states distance
requirements the best application and proposed plan should be selected.
I did not read in any section about honoring other states cards if the person is in our state visiting. I
think I prescription should be honored. is all.
Since a Dispensary must provide 70% of it's own product (and this seems a little high) How many plants
will a licensed dipensary be able to grow at it's cultivating facility? To get several strains and enough
product to serve our customers on a daily bases we will need to be able to aquire seed and use cloning
methodes. To provide 8-10 strains of marijuana on a consistent bases we will need to have 10-20 plants
of each strain in various stages of growth to keep a constant supply. Will this be allowed? We will need
to have about 150 plants in various growth stages to keep our dispensary supplied for our customers.
How long are the patient registration cards valid? Is it one year? five years? one month?
Severe penalties on mass producers of chemically unsafe marijuana for cancer patients. License to grow
should be terminated and Dispensary license revoked. Trust me, if you allow a testing facility to be the
judge of safety, most blackmarket mass producers would be excluded from being vendors.
Medical staff should be considered with all aspects of distribution of all medical marijuana. Most staff
should also be regulated and finger printed like all medical staff, all individuals should be required to
have a high school diploma and furthering their education should be encouraged and placed for staff
requirements. Since all the doctors are going to be responsible for all patients being cared for then
professional medical staff should be encouraged and responsible for patient evaluating and staff.
Therefore most of these dispensaries should consider seeking individuals of educated status of medical
backgrounds and professional levels. Encouraging education will continue to open the doors to more
professionalism and proper distribution of medical product.
Not sure if I missed it or it's not in there, but if I am a caregiver or a dispensary agent, would I still need
to pay for a med card too?
just legalize the damn stuff and you can disempower the drug cartels.
What qualifications must a medical director have?
is there gonna be any other zoning, other than the 500 feet away from a school....
What protection can you provide from Federal DEA agents
I would like to see something about delivery of the product to the infirm or immobile. I know that some
just think that this would allow a mobile drug service. When a patient is with the physician and a
recommendation code is being set, you could have the doctor determine if delivery should be offered to
the patient based on his mobility. In the system that determines if the patient is under the 2.5 ounces
that is allowable, you could create a system that "reserves" the purchased portion much like a credit
card authorization. This will allow those people who are also elderly and afraid of going into some of the
areas that the dispensaries are forced to locate. My main goal is the safe access to medicine, please
continue your hard work to make this a medical issue. If you have any questions, feel free to email
me at
No rules or regulations on Growers (who want to grow and supply dispenseries) a high quality product
for medical use. If a person qualifies for a medical card can the grow plants (1 or 2) for personal use ?
It may be advisable to require ISO13485 or FDA cGMP compliant P&Ps are provided and strictly adhered
to in that this is a therapeutic drug of some considerable potency and side-effects. Such P&Ps address
critical issues such as adulteration, mislabeling and misbranding quite effectively whereas general
manufacturing P&Ps do not. Furthermore, in reference to infused (edible) food products, the labeling
should include ingredients and allergy information as well as the mass of marijuana within each
recommended portion. It would be preferable if ‘raw’ products were periodically assayed as to the
content of active ingredients: THC and total cannabanoids. If such analyses are required, predictable
and reproducible therapeutic effects are more likely to be obtained in both ‘raw’ and infused products.
While it may be impractical to require assay of each package of product, or even each plant’s product,
periodic assay of each strain cultivated and sold should be a requirement.
REGARDING: R9-17-307 C "3. May only acquire medical marijuana from another dispensary in
Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver" Unless I've missed something, the
Department has made no provision that allows the dispensary to receive seeds to begin and maintain
cultivation. In fact, the rules specifically prohibit the acquisition of any marijuana from outside the
dispensary or qualified patient system. Specific strains have demonstrated efficacy for particular medical
conditions, and restricted or denied access to these studied and validated varieties does not appear to
serve the patient population well. My assumption is that most dispensaries will focus on cultivation of
high THC strains only, rather than follow a medical evidence model to provide the best match for a
given diagnosis and constellation of symptoms. If possible, ADHS should implement a seed clearing
house, or designate an approved resource for dispensaries to acquire a variety of strains, otherwise you
are actually requiring the dispensary to wait for a qualified patient to provide seeds, or to break the law
to acquire them.
see above.
This draft shows dilerence in difference to mental health illness. This needs to be added in. We should
also place policies that include protecting the Doctor's choice when prescibing marijuana. We don't want
the state law makers or Sheriffs making rouge decisions like we have seen over the past few years.
I like that a caregiver must provide finger prints, etc. however I see no provision if someone does not
want a caregiver but is house bound, can they have the disperary or someone else deliver it to them.
1. Make sure that you, and the doctors don’t’ discriminate against some patients who have/ has been in
severe pain, and you think they are not being true, which cause them not to prescribe the medicine. 2.
Making sure the doctors are not self medicating and making a profit for themselves, friends, and family.
3. making sure the dispensary are held accountable for the mistake they will make and making sure
there document are accurate and they have a paper trial as well as a computer file 4. Making sure if
there is misuse of the medicine that they are fine extensively. Not just a $50 - $100 fine, but $250-
$5000. Because people go to prison with a sentence of 2-4 years and some even longer for selling, The
same should be treated for the doctors, and the dispensary for misuse and possible misuse of this
medicine. 5. there should be a one time fee or fee’s depending on how many times they make any type
of changes on how they prescribe medicine, which may include the division to do additional paperwork.
Not exactly left out but questions: For AHCCCS eligible patients: 1. Will AHCCCS cover medical
marijuana if prescribed? Will physicians seeing AHCCCS patients need to comply with the dispensing
physician rules? 2. Will AHCCCS pay for the medical marijuana? 3. Since AHCCCS eligibility wans and
wanes, will eligibility be closely tracked to prevent AHCCCS from continuing payment for those no longer
eligible? 4. If no longer AHCCCS eligible but individual still needs marijuana will counseling/assistance
be available to those individuals on how to continue obtaining marijuana?
Add a contingent approval process where a dispensary application can be approved and recieve a
license contingent upon the final site inspection. This would lessen the financial burden/risk of the
proposed dispensary. The application can be approved as per the information submitted by the potential
dispensary. This would allow a potential dispensary to secure a location per zoning guidlines and plan
for the grow/dispensary location without actually spending the money to have the site ready to go only
to be denied a dispesary license. There is already a substantial burden placed on organizations trying to
setup a dispensary with the requirements to have a physical address for the property where the
dispensary and grow will take place along with the license fees. In the contingent plan would be the
business plan outlining the capital required to be "operational" within x amount of days upon a
"contingent" license being approved by the state. This would allow for organizations with "more to
risk/loose" to have a chance at owning and operating a dispensary per the state requirements. The way
it is written now requires a large initial investment that is unrealistic for some organizations to have a
chance to even apply.
Will there be allowances for patients that are cardholders in other states?
My biggest concerns are how law officers are to determine that someone on medical marijuana is driving
under the influence AND if it is going to be in a smokable form, not only does this potentially create
respiratory disease issues, it can also create 2nd hand smoke issues, including but not limited to positive
drug screenings by family members in the household.
The system for selecting dispesaries should have been included. If its based on merit, we'd like to get
started now. If its a lottery system a March 31st start date would suffice. Please post a date of when
the issue will be decided on your web site. Thank you
No, I think everything has been covered.
1. Regarding R9-17-202 F.1.g: If an patient requests the ability to cultivate, will they also have
permission to purchase at a licensed dispensary? 2. If a patient is allowed to cultivate, will there be
any inspection rules/requirements? 3. If a patient is allowed to cultivate, then a dispensary opens
within 25 miles of them, when will their permission to cultivate end?
R9-17-314.A.5 Re : Pesticides - The FDA strictly regulates the amount of residual pesticides that may be
present in a food source. Will the same standard apply to food containing marijuana ?
Dispensaries should be located situationally in the same manner as Liquor stores, and Pornography
outlets. We aren't talking about a "Walgreens", and the costs to our children and society will be great.
All one has to do is look at Oakland, California.
One concern I had was the quality control to ensure that what is being sold and its advertised strength
is in fact correct. I would like to see if possible, random test sampling done by an independent lab as
they do in Colorado. I am particular concerned that since there will be a limited number of dispensaries,
there may be inflated pricing and the people who are in need and truly disabled and on a disability
income may face some challenges in cost. If they are in that situation, there should be some comfort in
knowing that they are in fact getting what they are paying for and dispensaries can be held accountable
for falsely selling product or misrepresenting the quality of the product they are selling.
identification
More information about cultivation (locations, guidelines, amounts, who can do it) and designated
caregivers (where they must live/grow and amounts, etc.). I am confused about the link or
relationship between caregivers and patients? Why would someone need a caregiver when there are
dispensaries everywhere? Could you please provide information about caregivers.
What about people who have past Marijuana (just use or possesion not distribution) offenses? will that
affect getting a card?
For the chronic pain diseases will that include Fibromyalgia, because I have Fibro and I have chronic
pain, severe nausea, and persistant muscle spasms.
It appears that certified nurse practitioners have been left out of who can prescribe medical marijuana. I
believe they should be included. Nurse practitioners in the state of Arizona are allowed to prescribe
narcotics. I have had a DEA number here for nine years and it would benefit some of my 2000+
patients to be able to use marijuana for medical reasons.
high blood pressure is not put on the rules....as are a lot of conditions that medical use will help.
Product safety Quality assurance processes in production Guidelines on product development, including
additives, testing, etc. Treat it like a OTC drug or prescription drug at least. At least give the
production process the same consideration you would give twinkies or viagra.
1. Off site grow centers or cultivators rules, if allowed. 2. What about the dispensing machines that
they are trying to get us to buy? (kind clinics) They are saying that 5-20 people can join in for 1
dispensary license and that it helps the odds to be in compliance with the ADHS. Seems like these
machines could easily be stolen or broken into. 3.Where will the initial seeds or clones come from?
Who will provide these to the dispensaries or the caretakers.
I didn't see the licensure requirements for the Medical Director. What is the criteria for being a Medical
Director? Can it be someone in the mental health field? The term "excluded felony offense" is used
but I didn't find a definition for it.
delivery to patients who are homebound, who either do not have a caregiver, or if they have a caregiver
who does not want to cooperate with their patient and will not procure their marijuana, due to federal
laws still in place
TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS ONLY
With the setup and grow times and the amount of time it could take to get dispensaries up and running
I think for the first year every qualifying patient or a caregiver for that patient should have the ability to
cultivate at least until which time the dispensaries are ready to start dispensing medical marijuana. The
process from what I under stand to cultivate Marijuana Could take up to 4 months before the first seeds
to actually be harvested. this doesn't include time spent getting certified which sounds like it could take
up to 4 months as well. Especially considering ever site has to be inspected at least once by your
department. I don't believe medical patients should be made to wait to have their medication for
anywhere from 4 to 8 months when they have to renew their card every 12.
protection for home care staff who make home visits
How are you going to select a dispensary from the application pool?
If you can regulate and make the same operating hours for all dispensaries statewide that would keep
everything in the state on an equal playing field.
carrying weapons or firearms as a caregiver, patient or dispensary owner. Also, cultivation sites may
include a residential home in some zoning areas and are we allowed to have a weapon or firearm within
the house if we are cultivating?
The vetting process for Dispensaries would be helpful. Is it going to be first come first serve etc Is
something being put into place to combat the issues with zoning that are now arising with cities putting
in place zoning that is far less than reasonable? Specifics of security would be great. Certain size safes
required or anything like that.
I would like to see a section regarding landlords. Right now landlords have a right to not rent to
someone who smokes because they don't want their home to smell like smoke or have smoke damage.
As I understand it, with this new law, landlords cannot prevent a medical marijuana individual from
renting or smoking in the house. This seems to place an unfair burden on the landlord. The landlord
may not care whether someone uses medical marijuana or not HOWEVER they may not want to have to
deal with the smoke damage/clean up of the marijuana. Therefore, I would like to see some
provisions that allow the landlord to say no smoking inside the house or they can only use non smoking
methods to intake the drug ... or even allow the landlord to not have to rent to smokers of marijuana.
Afterall, if the landlord really needs a renter he will make concessions but at the same time, why should
he/she be required to endure the additional hardship of a smoker. I would also like clarification as to
whether or not the landlord can inquire whether the prospective tenant is a marijuana smoker on the
application and how the question can be phrased.

Has anything been left out that should be in the rules?
Open-Ended Response
A doctor has the authority to prescribe medications such as Dilaudid, Fentanyl, Oxycontin, and several
other VERY damaging medications for the alleviation of pain, nausea etc. It is that doctor that is
responsible for the issuance of such medications to the patient. It is my opinion that these same
professionals we trust to prescribe the public the medicines currently on the maket today can also be
trusted to prescribe NON-LETHAL medical marijuana. Tylenol is OTC and can be deadly. Where is the
literature or clinical trials that indicate that anyone has ever died from the use of THC?
More medical conditons should be identified.
Wording from Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry Rejected Applications: Rejected applications
will be returned to the patient; however, the application fee is non-refundable. Patients will be given
60 days to return a corrected application to be processed without any further application fees. If a
patient fails to return a corrected application within 60 days, any later filed application must contain a
new application fee.
I think something needs to be added about the program that will be use to monitor usage
The draft rules do not contain any mention or safeguards regarding food allergens for marijuana
baked foods. The top 8 food allergens should be required to be listed with every piece of food items
sold; all food ingredients should be listed as well. Additionally, those baking food items should be
required to practice food allergen cross-contamination prevention. Also, it is possible that during
marijuana preparation, a food allergen may be introduced. For instance, bread is sometimes used to
retain moisture. The top 8 food allergens should be banned from ever touching marijuana, even if the
marijuana is not destined to be prepared into food for sale; a patient may choose to cook marijuana
into food at a later time. People with food allergies need help with ensuring that they are not
consuming an allergen.
There is nothing here that allows for low income patients such as those on AHCCCS and those who
don't qualify for Medical Assistance but are still very low income. The recommendation is that the fee
and renewal be a fraction of the "Normal" registration fee: $15
after my comment I feel we have a working draft thanks for your time and effort in making this a
functionable medical marijuana program
The major concern is the lack of accountability on the part of dispensaries to test their product in a
laboratory where the patients will know the various cannabinoid percentages (THC, CBDs, CBNs) as
well as how clean the product is for mold and pesticides. Very ill patients need healthy medicine and
marijuana can be grown organically or low pesticides/herbicides. In fact growing marijuana reduces
carbon emissions more than any other plant in this world so AMMA allows for greenhouse growing
outdoors which should be encouraged. You have not addressed two very important features of
AMMA. 1. Medical Marijuana Fund -- why don't you blog about the ability to use funds donated to
ADHS to get the program running and help defray low-income patient costs. Have you even received
any donations yet and if so what are you going to use those funds for? 2. Clinical Trials -- patients
when they apply for their Registry ID card can indicate whether they want to participate in any clinical
trials. Your office will keep track of all clinical trials that will be initiatied and then contact patients
that have signed up to learn more about these trials. Why haven't you addressed this very important
component of AMMA? This is where one medical director (not 43) would be useful since this person
could oversee the Medical Marijuana Fund, coordinate the educational materials in the state, inform
patients about clincial trials and be an advisor for responding to petition requests to add medical
conditions.
how about, If a patient begins growing their own crop legaly, and a dispensary opens within 25 miles
of the patient AFTER the patient plants the crop, the patient may continue cultivating that crop until it
is harvested. This would prevent a patient from being prosecuted for a crime that he didn't even
know he was committing.
Just what would need added to support a wholesale level growing operation that can deal with
dispensaries only & is capable of producing the revenue to support R & D while keeping Arizona prices
the lowest in the nation.
Should not be smoked around children, where children might be exposed.
No. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I did not see anything in the rules about schools and how this will be regulated. Will schools have to
allow medical marijuana use on campus for employees or students and how will this be monitored?
What cost will this be to the school (extra security, smoking rooms, etc.).
Ummm...yes, common sense...I can't beleive my taxes pay your salaries...
A provider registration list for likely or assured locations to obtain a prescription. The notion of any
MD is too general. The passion surrounding this charged subject prevails, even within the medical
community. It will take considerable time for general clinicians to become routinely comfortable
recommending it as well as realizing its benign nature and intrinsic value. My doctor is adverse to
writing for reasons of inconsistent dosages and professional liability. Administration dosage in this
respect does not need to be exact and indiosyncracies between compounds are favorable variables.
As regards liability, I naively thought she was supposed care for me.
Yes, liver disease and any organ disease such as kidneys should be covered as well. I also think that
the residency of 2 years for a dispensary owner or caregiver to be 5 years residency in Arizona. This
will help to ensure that true residents of the community are responsible for helping sick people while
abiding by strict guidelines of growth to sale. You are doing a great job over there. This is history in
the making and keep up the great work.
I am a baker and have been interested in producing cosumable infused treats for packaging and
distribution. How would one be able to obtain the licensing to purchase the medicine in order to
infuse it into edible products? How will you monitor the amount allowable so that the baker can
produce a sufficeint quantity? How must marijuana be stored? a locked freezer? Will consumable
infused treats need to be accounted for? If so how would that be determined, a written log like a any
schedule 2 pharmacy drug? That way amounts can be detected. Are bakers allowed to grow there
own for organic products? How must one sell there baked goods to a dispensary? Lastly how can we
ship our produced goods to other dispensaries and out of state dispensaries?
One License per Entity.
Currently, as the rules are written, a patient would be forced to purchase medical marijuana if they
live within 25 miles of a dispensary. Being forced to purchase medical marijuana, as opposed to
growing it on their own, could create a severe financial burden to an already ill patient who might
have high medical expenses and possibly low income. The rules should be changed so that any
medical marijuana patient with a valid license (or their validly licensed designated caregiver) could
cultivate their own medical marijuana as long as they do it inside a building that the general public
would not have easy access to (i.e., the doors must be kept locked). To alleviate concerns about
unauthorized persons obtaining medical marijuana grown by patients, patients living within 25 miles
of a dispensary would not be allowed to grow medical marijuana outside, as marijuana grown outside
could be more easily stolen by the general public.
A change of caregiver form needs to be developed or a notification to a patientâ€™s caregiver if the

patient changes caregivers.
None
Compassion for sick, debilitated patients seems amiss here. Costs will be unreasonably high new
business owners and those cost will be passed on to sick debilitated patients. To me this represents a
a lack of compassion for our patients..
I was a patient in Nevada and for years there was only one doctor in the state that worked through a
referral agency who got paid to make appointments with doctors. This fee was usually $150 to the
agency plus the doctors $150, plus the state fees. This was very expensive to the patients and a huge
inconvenience. DHS should provide information on which doctors are giving referrals, with that
doctors permission to stop these out of state agencies from coming into Arizona just to make money
off sick people by providing a doctor that should be public information if the doctor so chooses.
Specifications on "cronic pain"
R9-17-314 requires product labeling to include a list of chemical additives including pesticides and
herbicides used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana. Will testing be required
to verify that pesticide and herbicide residue levels are below safe levels, and will ADHS provide
guidance on acceptable limits for pesticides? The rules do not mention any requirements for testing
THC / cannabinoid levels, although knowing the potency of the medical marijuana would be important
for dosing considerations and this information should be included on the label. The presence of
mold, bacteria, and fungus could also be harmful to patients, will ADHS consider establishing safe
limits for those and require testing to verify that the marijuana is safe? R9-17-315 section B does not
mention transportation of medical marijuana from the dispensary or cultivation center to a laboratory
for testing. Has this been considered?
I am not certain, but just in case this is not present within the regulations, I strongly advise the AZDHS
and all it's officials consider an allowance to those under the age of 18 who, with both parental
consent and under the strict supervision of the recommending physician, that have ailments such as
childhood cancer/leukemia be allowed access, so to aid in relief of any other recognized treatments,
such as loss of appetite and vomiting from chemo therapy and radiation. A signed and notarized
statement from the parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and a state board certified MD (In the state of AZ)
should be submitted with the ID application. Also. any patient, caregiver, or both, that currently
receives. or is in the process of receiving any state aid, such as ACCHSS medical insurance (also known
as medicaid, medicare, etc) or those, that by nature of their condition(s) fall under the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Arizona State Disability guidelines as having a major life event
which adversely affects a person, in this instance, ability or lack of ability to pay for services, should,
by basis of income level threshold, or lack thereof, to be decided by AZDHS, be assessed, and based on
financial hardship, have some, and in certain instances, all applicable ID application fees waived, and
or discounted, whether it be for first time ID or renewal applicants. It should consist of a reasonable
monetary amount; one that would not cause greater financial hardship to the applicant, yet still
provide revenue to maintain the Arizona medical Marijuana Act, Proposition 203. This should include
cost of Medical Cannabis itself, in whichever form of intake is usable to the patient (IE: Liquid tincture,
edible medicine, or the amount of Dried mature Cannabis (Marijuana) allowed by the law, which is 2.5
Ounces every two weeks.) I propose a nominal fee of 25 dollars be the standard fee provided to a
valid ACCHSS/Medicaid/Medicare state beneficiary who proves the ability to pay, however limited,
and is in good standing; has met the Gross Annual Income Requirement ( Not to exceed $8088
annually from any state benefits, Cash Assistance, UI Benefits, State SSI or SSDI Insurance) A [a Or as
to be determined by the AZDHS and the particular case.(s) (Patient applicant and his or her caregiver,
or both. The above amounts, of proven to be below the income threshold adopted, should be
considered for a fee waiver, to be on record with the AZ DHS and the recommending physician. Such
status should be reviewed annually at the time of ID card and recommendation renewal, and or
should be updated when such beneficiaries obtain more income, such as gaining of employment,
which would increase income above the decided amount. An exemption of fees and or discount
should be granted to those who are on permanent disability, and who cannot attain gainful
employment due to any of the approved medical condition(s) specified within the Arizona medical
Marijuana Act. (Proposition 203, and ratified by the recommendation and or caregiver application
submitted by all interested parties. (Doctor, patient, Caregiver, or all of the above) As for the
cultivation of Medicinal Cannabis, provided that a patient lives further from the 25 mile area of a
dispensary, they should be allowed a small space, fenced, secluded from public view, to cultivate
medicine outdoors. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for hearing the will of the people and of
the patients of Arizona! I applaud your open, honest, compassionate efforts. Sincerely,
What does "non-profit" mean as it pertains to the IRS? Does a company need to have 501(c)3 status
with the IRS before applying for a dispensary license?
quite the opposite..it would appear government employees are wy overdictating the intent of the
legislation.
agents to employ a safety precaution (at no expense to the State) that would help keep MM out of
the hands of unregistered illegitimate users. Therefore it seems advisable for DHS to require medical
marijuana dispensaries to use biometric identity verification systems to confirm the identities of
patients and designated caregivers who present registry identification cards prior to dispensing
marijuana to them. Furthermore, Federal law requires a bona fide doctor-patient relationship before
a physician prescribes a controlled substance. The same requirement should apply for medical
marijuana recommendations. The definition proposed by the Board, in R9-17-101(16)(a), which
requires four visits over the span of a year, may prevent some patients from obtaining the relief
offered by the Act in a timely manner. Principles of medical ethics have standards for the doctor-
patient relationship and the dispensing of medication. Doctors are bound to follow their medical
ethics in making recommendations for medical marijuana. It would violate their ethical standards to
make recommendations for medical marijuana without conducting a proper examination of the
patient's health and history. Excessive government regulation, such as rules that tell the doctor how
to practice "" including how many visits or length of treatment "" overstep the bounds of this
relationship
IF PATIENT IN THE PAST HAS BEEN ON PAIN MEDS FOR OVER 5 MONTHS AND STILL NEED THEM, THEY
SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THIS.
submit this letter in response to your Call for Public

Comment concerning the draft rules authored by the Division of Public Health Services. One of the
primary concerns shared by Arizona employers with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
(â€œAMMAâ€) is the ambiguity with its use of the term â€œimpaired.â€ This is because of the
limitations that AMMA imposes on employers in regulating their workplaces. Pursuant to AMMA,
Employers generally are prohibited from taking adverse employment action against employees for
lawful medical marijuana use, except in limited circumstances such as when an on-duty employee is
â€œimpairedâ€ by marijuana. The term, â€œimpairedâ€ is not defined under AMMA, and legal
precedent in other jurisdictions and other legal arenas does not provide adequate guidance.
Marijuana may remain in an individualâ€™s system for weeks after it is used. Thus, a positive drug
test will not itself indicate whether an employee is impaired. Because of the ambiguity, employers
will struggle with knowing when it is appropriate and lawful to take action against employees who
may be impaired in the workplace. Taking action puts the employer at risk of a discrimination claim
under AMMA. Failing to take action may put employees, customers, and other community members
at risk of harm. Employers, thus, request guidance from the Division of Public Health Services in the
final rules on understanding and applying the Impairment Exception to the employment
discrimination prohibitions in the AMMA. On page 14 letter (e) â€“ It goes over how the physician
has to have a professional relationship with the qualifying patient for one year and the physician has
seen or assessed the qualifying patient for at least four visits. It also states that the physician may also
â€œassume responsibility for providing management and routine careâ€ to a patient with a
debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive review of the patientâ€™s medical
history. We request clarification on how long this â€œqualifying patientâ€ would need to be a
patient of the physician? Is it possible to define a comprehensive review? Our members believe this is
a gray area and requires more interpretation. We greatly appreciate your consideration of these
comments. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance.
Yes. The rules must address the needs as outlined above. Bullhead City, Arizona, cannot become a
community of legal growers because all of the state licenses are located in other areas. Sincerely,
The rules do not discuss how the Department will approve Medical Marijuana for conditions which are
rare (and thus do not have peer-reviewed literature regarding marijuana) but known to be chronic,
debilitating, and "impairs the ability of the individual to accomplish activities of daily living".
No mention herein makes mention of sourcing genetic material from within the state. Early news
stories reported such material must originate from within the state. That is obviously problematic as
most medicinal cannabis was previously illegal and there are no control groups from which to select
and monitor the effectiveness of varying strains. There are many good companies dealing specifically
in selling genetic material. Similarly, there is opportunity for interested dispensaries to improve or
cross strains for increased or decreased potency with the development of programs to help
individuals narrow down what works best for patients and to progressively monitor the management
of the patients condition and reaction to the medicine.
protecting qualified patients from price gouging. change smoking areas!
You betcha. Numerous scientifically-reviewed debilitating and non-debilitating medical conditions to

which marijuana can have theraputic value have been ignored. There is not one psychological
condition on the list, for example PTSD. Shame on you.
1. Rule R9-17-305 does not require a sworn statement that the dispensary is in compliance with local
zoning regulations at the time of application for renewal. We believe this is an oversight and a
statement of continuing compliance with local zoning regulations should be required. 2. The Rules
require the dispensary and off-site cultivation facilities be at least 500 feet from the nearest public or
private school but do not say how this distance is measured. The Rules should include how this
distance is measured. Since it is only 500 feet, it should be from lot line to lot line, rather than
building wall to building wall. 3. In the definition of â€œworking dayâ€ (Rule 9-17-101(20))
excludes â€œstatewide furlough dayâ€, but does not define what a â€œstatewide furlough dayâ€
is. A definition should be added.
can you clarify where and when the initial seedlings are to be obtained from? Are applicants
expected to have obtained and fully build out the location, without having a secured dispensary
certificate? This cost would be great, and at a huge risk to the applicant, along with the process of
having permits obtained. Will there be a time period for applicants to obtain the location and
complete construction after the application is submitted?
Talk about how people can growoutside, but in greenhouses like the law states.
1. How the DHH will determine who gets a Certificate? 2. What are the criteria/qualifications that
will be used? 3. When will the Certificates be issued? 4. Which comes first - the signed lease or
the Certificate? 5. What will be the requirements for a Fusion facility? 6. How long will the
Certificates be good for? (This will determine how long a lease term they will sign)
Refer to Rules to be improved.
We all hate rules, but I believe these rules are tight and I like the daily and monthly monitoring which
elimates any suprises that might occur with an annual audit, like we have for controlled substances in
the pharmacy.
thanks
I'd like to see a bit of the tax dollars go to a "Don't Smoke and Drive" campaign. I'm serious. Because
marijuana is a pretty "soft" drug, I don't think people (legal or not) take seriously the fact that it can
slow reaction time. Just as we implore, "Don't Drink and Drive," I believe smoking should be added.
working with state and law enforcement officials
See comments above
1. The State of Arizona has the opportunity to lead the Nation in this effort to make a much
stigmatized medication available to seriously ill patients who CHOOSE to use it. Like all medications, it
won't work for everyone; and it will, unfortunately, be abused. I implore AzDHS to do whatever it can
to enforce the MEDICAL component in medical marijuana. 2. A medical professional who has the
authority to write recommendations for patients to use cannabis SHOULD NOT have any financial
interest in a dispensary.
Give out more licenses to help unemployment.
Sub-Contracting Only the persons licensed by the ADHS can cultivate or dispense in accordance with
the Act. Sub-contracting cultivation, dispensing, or acting on behalf of ac caregiver is not permitted..
Where/ how will dispensaries obtain seeds for cultivation.
Reciprocity To prevent Arizona residents circumventing the system and obtaining California medical
marijuana cards, the following needs to be addressed. Suggested language: Only Arizona Medical
Marijuana Card Holders can legally purchase medical marijuana at a licensed dispensary or caregiver.
While out-of-state cardholders are recognized, they can posses medical medical marijuana previously
purchased in their home state.
Definition of resident if it is to be included in the rule. Definition of principal officer.

The terms â€œimpairedâ€ and â€œunder the influenceâ€ should be defined in rule.
I am not sure if this can be defined within the rules, but it would be nice to see dispensaries utilize
fingerprint scanning technology. Also, if they are to label the products they dispense, will they contain
scannable barcodes? Will law enforcement be able to confirm the barcode. There seems to be things
that are missing but may be more on the legislative end. I believe we need strict penalities for
dispensaries, caregivers, patients and doctors that violate the rules.
see above
Consideration for shrinkage and spoilage could be better addressed. I support the tight inventory
measures, but ADHS staff must surely be aware that freshly harvested cannabis has a high water
content (roughly 20% by weight) and will "lose" about 7 grams of weight per pound, per day, until its
ideal moisture content is achieved (ideal is about 8-12%). I don't want to see any dispensary
inappropriately altering inventory in any way, but department resources spent trying to track down
inventory loss and "discrepancies" due to normal changes in moisture content is also a potential
problem. AND what does a dispensary actually due with spoilage other than record it? If a bud falls to
the floor, it needs to be discarded. If not dried properly and it becomes laden with mold, it needs to
be thrown out, BUT where and how? Given to law enforcement to burn? I DO NOT want to see people
going through the trash dumpsters behind dispensaries looking for contaminated cannabis, or see
dispensaries claiming "spoilage" that is actually being sold. Given the potential volume of a "crop gone
bad" and written off the books, this issue is as important as required daily inventory control
measures. Please note that extractions are indicated for oral use by a significant percentage of
seriously-ill patients for whom smoking or vaporizing is contraindicated. . "Allowable extraction
methods" (such as water, alcohol, glycerin, and CO2 extraction) of cannabinoids, and those that
should not be allowed (hexane and other chemical solvents) should be better clarified, regulated, and
addressed in the content of the rules and requirements.
the hands of unregistered illegitimate users.Â Therefore it seems advisable for DHS to require
medical marijuana dispensaries to use biometric identity verification systems to confirm the
bounds of this rulemaking. Doctor's ethical standards, not government rules, should control the
relationship. Best Regards,
(Supporter for a safe, secure & ethical approach to the distribution of medical marijuana)
See comments under "How can the draft rules be improved."
the hands of unregistered illegitimate users.Â Therefore it seems advisable for DHS to require
medical marijuana dispensaries to use biometric identity verification systems to confirm the
bounds of this rulemaking. Doctor's ethical standards, not government rules, should control the
relationship.
I'm a physician, and I feel definition/requirements for patient-physician relationship is GOOD and
should be EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE except when it comes to HOSPICE PATIENTS. Any patient who is
DEEMED TERMINALLY ILL by ANY PROVIDER whether it be a HOSPICE doctor, an ER doctor or a NEW
SPECIALIST. I think we all agree that terminally ill patients should have IMMEDIATE ACCESS to the
medical MJ and should NOT be subject to 1 year rule for a relationship given they often have VERY
LITTLE TIME LEFT and it's a matter of COMPASSION and relief of suffering at END OF LIFE. I think all
the public in AZ would support you on this concept.
7. Initial MMJ Cropsâ€”Seeds or Clones As discussed above, the Rules are silent regarding a
dispensaryâ€™s initial crop. We believe that the Rules should allow for initial cultivation from clones
as this is the only way to ensure the quality of the medicine for patients. 8. Applicant
Selectionâ€”Competitive Process DHS simply must have some sort of alternative procedure in the
event that it receives more qualified applicants than available licenses on the same day. This is the
only way for DHS to ensure that licenses will go to those who are most capable and qualified. In
addition, this procedure can be used when an additional license becomes available. The Rules are
currently silent on this issue.
1. The rules should specifically state that the Department can revoke a Qualifying Patientâ€™s (QP) or
Designated Caregiverâ€™s (DC) right to cultivate medical marijuana if someone obtains a registry
identification card because his location is more than 25 miles from a dispensary and a dispensary is
subsequently established within 25 miles. Cultivation permits should not be issued based on a
QPâ€™s residence being 25 miles from a licensed dispensary until dispensaries have had an
opportunity to be established. Since this is a new program, all applicants will be able to qualify based
on the 25-mile rule at the inception of the program because there will be no licensed dispensaries.
Once the registry identification card is issued to a QP for cultivation based on no dispensary within 25
miles, how will that right be terminated when a dispensary is established? The rules should contain a
provision that addresses this situation. 2. The draft rules talk about renewal of a registry identification
card and dispensaryâ€™s license within 30 days of expiration, but it is not clear as to the length of
time a registry identification card is valid. Maybe I missed it, but I didnâ€™t see where this is stated.
3. The Act does not make any provisions for infusion of medical marijuana into edible products, unless
it is done at a licensed dispensary. The draft rules contain reasonable requirements to insure secure
storage of medical marijuana at dispensaries, but make no such provisions for food establishments
contracted with the dispensary to prepare edible food products infused with medical marijuana.
Likewise, there is no limit on how much marijuana may be transported and stored at a food
establishment which is not subject to the Actâ€™s licensing requirements. Such establishments
should be subject to licensing and regulation as well. The Medical Marijuana Act did not make specific
provisions for this type of use other than at a licensed dispensary. The draft rules make the
dispensary responsible for tracking the amount of medical marijuana provided and the safety of the
manufactured product, but the Department should assume some responsibility for licensing and
inspection of food processing facilities where medical marijuana is infused into some other product.
4. The Medical Marijuana Act states that it is not an offense for a Qualifying Patient or Designated
Caregiver to cultivate medical marijuana and provide some of it to a licensed dispensary. But the Act
specifically states that it is only allowed if nothing of value is provided in exchange for the product.
Although it is stated in the Act, it should be repeated in the rules.
PLEASE! PLEASE! DO NOT ALLOW RESIDENTS AND OWNERS FROM OTHER STATES TO OPEN BUSINESS
HERE! They did not vote on this. They do not pay Arizona taxes. They have no business here. The only
reason they would come to Arizona is to exploit a proposition by Arizona people, for Arizona
residents. Thanks.
Dispensaries are required to use a Medical Vending Machine for the distribution of the medicine along
with a database that tracks every patients transaction.
There are some rather important issues that were left out of this first draft of the rules that I anxiously
await to see in the revision. They are: 1) Transport: How shall marijuana be safely transferred from
grow site to sale site (unmarked vehicles, safes, etc.)? And how shall disabled patients acquire
medicine (For example, safely regulated delivery services or solely through caregivers)? 2)
Dispensary-selection: How will the 125 dispensary owners be chosen out of the larger pool of
applicants? My hope is that it will be based on scoring, versus a random lottery or on a first-come-
first-serve basis, in order to maintain the industry's integrity (so that only the most qualified
applicants are selected). And also, how will transfer of ownership work, should a dispensary owner
pass away, decide to move, etc.? 3) Quality disclosure: How will patients know the various levels of
chemicals in their medication (CBDs, THC levels, etc.)? Ideally, I would like to see a standard for
medicine, or at least a regulated disclosure of chemical levels present. Thank you so much for taking
the time to read citizen input!
What are the qualifications for people who want to work in a dispensary? What about prior
convictions or arrests of possession of marijuana? Will that automatically deny an application for a
patient, caregiver, director and owner??
relationship.
The most noteable exclusion has been the process for evaluating propsals. I would suggest a third
party review with some of the following criteria: Quality of the business plan Wellness / Health
model Professionals and certified individuals on the management Administrative capabilities
Charitable mission consistent with the act
See comments on draft rule improvements. As an aside, thank you for the opportunity to submit
personal feedback on the draft regulations.
Include language that would include naturopathic physicians as medical directors.

See comments in boxes 1 and 2, above
In the application process, maybe you could have the applicant write a brier essay as to why they
believe they are suited to operate a business, cultivate and dispense Medical Marijuana. Corporate
GREED and Because they "headed it up" is not a good enough reason to me.
relationship.
Should be able to apply on line

Yes a great deal has been left out: They are defining the work day as Monday â€“ Friday 8 to 5.
What about employers who have shift hours? There are no rules about people working in safety
sensitive positions. Shouldnâ€™t there be a minimum requirement that employees must not use
medical marijuana at least _____ number of hours prior to working in a safety sensitive position? Bus
drivers? Pilots? Forklift Operators? Machine Operators? Teachers? What about guidance on pre-
employment and/or for cause drug screens that are positive? If there is a zero-tolerance workplace,
how is this impacted? The law allows for termination for on the job use, but it seems that this is open
to interpretation, e.g., law suits for wrongful termination. If a person who is in an accident in a
company vehicle or on company property, what is the employerâ€™s liability? What is the standard
to being â€œunder the influenceâ€ of marijuana? It doesnâ€™t exist as it does for alcohol. How
must employer drug testing programs be revised to accommodate the law? The discrimination rule
also has an exception. Because marijuana is illegal under federal law, this gives companies with
federal contracts an "out," allowing them to avoid employing medical-marijuana users so they don't
risk losing contracts or funding.
The rules should follow the Arizona and Federal requirements for Non-Profit Organizations which I
believe require a Board of Directors, not just a Sole owner of a Non-Profit Dispensary. Because the
number of licenses will be limited to 120 to 125, there should be an opportunity for each
person/individuals to get one of these licenses. Let's leave the Lottery System for that--the Lottery. I
don't think the Lottery system is a very good idea.
the inclusion of Naturopathic Physicians as qualified doctors to act as a Medical Directors for a
dispensary
Can you have a security dog in the building?
Need clarification on the "single entrance" requirement. Fire Marshal/Building regulations for a
business always require a minimum of two entrances/exits for safety reasons. This statement in the
rules needs to be addressed more clearly - ie: "A single ENTRANCE for customers to access the
dispensary". There needs to be a secondary exit allowed for safety and for deliveries.
Not that anything was "left out" but application fees should allow anyone to be able to become a part
of this newly approved medical program. Application fees should be refundable if not selected.
(maybe a small fee for the review would be non-refundable.
ADHS has left out full consideration of the limits placed upon it by Title 36 and other state laws.
see above
Due to the overwhelming amount of misinformation relating to medical marijuana and its use,
reasonable attempts must be made to educate, physicians, patients, employers and the general public
regarding the true efficacy, alternative methods of ingestion, and to dispel myths surrounding its use.
Provision must be made to forbid drug testing companies from revealing a positive marijuana test of a
patient who possesses a valid registry identification card. Patients who have chronic conditions
typically must take more sick days, have more work-related restrictions, may experience higher levels
of job insecurity and should not be subject to further discrimination in the workplace.
36-2803. Rulemaking A. NOT LATER THAN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS CHAPTER, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADOPT RULES: 5. ESTABLISHING APPLICATION
AND RENEWAL FEES FOR REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS AND NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING: (e) THE DEPARTMENT
MAY ESTABLISH A SLIDING SCALE OF PATIENT APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEES BASED UPON A
QUALIFYING PATIENT'S HOUSEHOLD INCOME. (f) THE DEPARTMENT MAY CONSIDER PRIVATE
DONATIONS UNDER SECTION 36-2817 TO REDUCE APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEES. B. THE
DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT THE RULES SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION A AND SHALL ADOPT
THOSE RULES PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6. 36-2817. Medical marijuana fund; private
donations A. THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FUND IS ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF FEES COLLECTED,
CIVIL PENALTIES IMPOSED AND PRIVATE DONATIONS RECEIVED UNDER THIS CHAPTER. THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE CONTINUOUSLY
APPROPRIATED. B. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY ACCEPT AND SPEND PRIVATE
GRANTS, GIFTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEVISES TO ASSIST IN CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. C. MONIES IN THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FUND DO NOT REVERT TO
THE STATE GENERAL FUND AT THE END OF A FISCAL YEAR.
With the best interest of our local economy in the State of Arizona. Arizona
native/residence/business owners to have priority of licenses issued and exhausted before any issued
licensees to out of state applicants.
Include Naturopathic and Homeopathic Doctors as Medical Directors of Dispensaries. Why does the
draft only include MD's and DO's as potential Medical Directors of Dispensaries. Naturopathic and
Homeopathic Doctors were included in prop 203, they are able to make recommendations for medical
cannabis, they should also be able to be Medical Directors of Dispensaries.
I want to open a Lab for testing of products. What kind of licenses do I need to apply for ??
This rule leaves out appropriate regard for the new law 36-2803..A.4 that says the Department may
make rules â€œ...WITHOUT IMPOSING AN UNDUE BURDEN ON NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES...â€ Also, the Department must adopt rules that preserve patient dignity, reflect
compassion, and do not foster greater harm to patients. The Department has left out rules that avoid
delay or prevent a patient acquiring adequate quantities and quality of marijuana to treat their
conditions at a reasonable price. This is especially important for glaucoma patients because as the
research literature has shown, it will take very high doses of marijuana to treat glaucoma and the
price of medicine must therefore, be kept as low as possible. Since Title 36 recognizes glaucoma as
one of the debilitating medical conditions, the Department should do everything practicable to allow
glaucoma patients to acquire marijuana at the lowest price possible..
Someone to help the patient, or prevent the patient from have nervous or paranoia fantasies. They
must be reminded or told, that it's only the effect of the drug and will pass. Some type of mental
screening is necessary for the patient benefit and society, to see if they can use Marijuana mentally,
with safety, nothing is for everyone.
Yes, dispensaries should not be allowed to sell marijuana paraphernalia. No pipes, bongs, papers,
vaporizers, etc. Similarly dispensaries should be required to provide holistic recipes for the proper
use of medicinal marijuana. Show people how to make a tea, brownies, and other food items. No
one wants the Arizona marijuana dispensaries to look like a head shop, or a Bob Marley concert. I
would consider discouraging dispensaries from selling pot head culture items as well. No t-shirts, lava
lamps, jewelry, patchouli oils. Just dispense marijuana, in raw or food form. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment
out of state patients , visiting patients , how do they apply for a card when not living here for a year ?
YOU THE MAN
There is no language within the draft rules to allow for independent testing and verification of content
and claims. Specifically: There is no explicit exemption for testing facilities that would allow for
determination of cannabinoid content; mold/spore counts; or pesticide content. These factors are
important health and safety considerations- all three of which are considered essential in the field of
natural products that are used for medication, and should be implemented within the state of Arizona
in order to allow customers to select product that is third party analyzed for safety and potency.
Can a dispenser be located inside a smoke shop?
Are the cards valid for a specified period of time - add language.
Mandatory annual reevaluation for efficacy of this therapy.

It appears that Felony references are restricted to Caregivers, principal officer, board members, and
dispensary agents and are not addressing the actual criminal. Are prisoners allowed to obtain a
registry identification card? Are prisoners allowed to cultivate or dispense? How are current
prisoners affected if they are in federal prisons vs. state faciltites?
Allow Naturopathic Doctors to be Medical Directors. Their training is very intense and can prescribe
medications with the exceptions of Narcotics. They study the same type of idleness and treatment
but natural products and herbs are also taught and leaned as an addition or alternative to just only
medicine. More and more of the public are turning towards this mode of treatment. All medical
directors must have a minimum of 2-3 years of practice after graduating before being allowed to be a
Medical Director.
Mexico.
It is not clear as to whether or not a Pharmacist will be required to be present at the dispensary, the
rules simply ask for a statement of "whether or not" there will be a pharmacist present. This is truly
problematic because the registered pharmacist would be prohibited from working with class 1 illegal
drugs, at the risk of losing their DEA Permits . . .I don't believe any Pharmacist would risk their
professional license by working at or owning a dispensary.
Please see above
One area not addressed in the draft regulations is the testing of medical marijuana supplies for mold,
proportions of various cannabinoids and other tests that a physician, dispensary or patient may find
necessary. The level of mold in medical marijuana is an important safety issue for patients with
compromised immune systems, such as HIV and AIDS. The level and proportions of the various
cannabinoids in different strains of marijuana can also be important for treatment of some diseases.
I believe the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program should provide some legal protection at the State
level for the laboratory and laboratory personnel who perform medical marijuana-related testing.
Although a proficiency testing or licensing program for laboratories specific to medical marijuana
testing does not seem to be warranted at this time, the testing should certainly be done by persons
with expertise in microbiology and analytical chemistry. The availability of standard samples with
known concentrations of mold or cannabinoids, perhaps provided by ADHS, would certainly facilitate
and provide some confidence in the results of the testing.
There are far to many rules
1) A policy should be enacted that requires a qualifying patient, a dispensary agent, or a board
member is a legal resident of the state of Arizona. Allowing people to cross state borders in the trade
of medical marijuana creates opportunities for the increase of illicit inter-state marijuana
transportation as has been found in states like California and Colorado, who also have medical
marijuana laws. 2) The medical professional overseeing the care of a qualifying patient should be
allowed to revoke the patient's certification any time he or she has reasonable knowledge that they
are diverting marijuana for illicit use, or if they have not seen the patient within a reasonable time
period, such as six months. This is in line with what is allowed with other prescriptions such as pain
medications. 3) Dispensaries should be required to post all transaction to the PMP database, just as
with other controlled substances. 4) While this suggestion may not be within the purview of DHS
and the medical marijuana issue, the legislature needs to set a presumptive THC metabolite level to
aid law enforcement and employers in deciding if a person is under the influence of marijuana to a
sufficient level as to be impaired and/or a danger to others. 5) Throughout the draft regulations,
there is no mention of criminal penalties for anyone who is out of compliance, other than a dispensary
possibly losing their license. In order to balance the legitimate use of medical marijuana with the need
to prevent illicit use by others, DHS policies must require the turning over of those out of compliance
to law enforcement.
Seeds. How do dispensaries acquire seeds legally and in full compliance of Arizona State Law?
- In the Draft Rules, it specifies that the dispensary is a non-profit organization (R9-17-302, B. 13) that
can be structured as various business organization types (e.g., Individual, Partnership, LLC,
Corporation, etc. from R9-17-301). However, it does
Was there any mention about the patients ability to grow if a dispensary is not within certain
distance? what standard of measure will be used (google maps?). 500 feet, from the edge of the
schools property or from the building location? what about school owned property that is not used for
holding and teaching students?

Simplicity.
relationship.
relationship.
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ! YOU GUYS ARE NOT LOOKING FOR INPUT AT ALL. THIS IS ANOTHER
SCHEME TO RAISE MONEY FOR YOUR OWN ENRICHMENT. THOUSANDS OF US ALREADY KNOW THAT
THE FIX IS IN AND MANY MORE WILL KNOW BY THE 2012 ELECTION. EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT
THERE IS SOME COLLUSION BETWEEN YOUR OFFICE AND CORPORATE INTERESTS LOOKING TO MAKE
LARGE PROFITS. A STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF YOUR TAX - FINE COLLECTORS THIS PAST MONTH
COLLABORATE THIS BELIEF.
One important factor for the State of Arizona to consider is the well-established fact that driving skills
are seriously impaired for hours after smoking marijuana. As the former Director of Research at the
U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, I have overseen, conducted and published numerous research
papers demonstrating the impairing effects of marijuana on driving skills
If individuals qualifying for the AZ program are so ill they require marijuana to function, should these
individuals be permitted to drive on Arizona roads and endanger the rest of the driving public? This is
a serious issue for the Dept of Health in trying to balance the health and safety of all Arizonans. I
would strongly encourage the Arizona Department of Health to consider requiring those applying to
receive state regulated â€˜medical marijuanaâ€ to surrender their driversâ€™ license in order to be
eligible for the program.
There should be a limit on how much marijuana can be grown by any dispensary. Any excess grown
should be disposed of by a company similar to the ones that dispose of pharmaceutical drugs. Do not
leave it to the dispensaries to dispose of the excess themselves. That will just be abused! The
possibility of "cannabis caravans" still is open in your rules. Rules need to be adopted preventing the
Montana disaster. For specific rules, see the draft Montana rules. You need to include warning
labels, similar to Nevada's, concerning use of marijuana. Marijuana is not a safe drug and yet the
Department will be overseeing its use! The State of Arizona will be held liable at some point when
someone contracts cancer or has some untoward side effect. Also, the Glaucoma Foundation has
warned glaucoma patients not to use marijuana, yet glaucoma is a condition for which doctors can
recommend marijuana. Who is looking out for glaucoma patients? At a minimum, someone needs to
warn glaucoma patients! There also needs to be a warning with marijuana dispensed that marijuana
still is a federally illegal drug and users can be prosecuted by the federal government. There will be no
State protection. With respect to all of these warnings, the "patient" should have to sign something
acknowledging that they are assuming the risks, including cancer, mental health issues, substance
abuse issues, federal prosecution, etc. "Medical" marijuana cardholders should lose their cards if
they acquire marijuana from anyone other than a dispensary or a caregiver and if they sell marijuana
to ANYONE, in addition to the other consequences. A "naturopath" or other non-medical doctor
should not be able to recommend marijuana for sick people. If a non-medical doctor is
recommending marijuana for a glaucoma patient, for instance, the recommendation should be void.
Because marijuana is at best an experimental drug, all FDA-approved drugs available for the condition
should be exhausted. Marijuana should be a drug of last resort and a medical doctor should have to
recommend it. Naturopaths can't prescribe (or recommend) medicine, so why can they recommend
an illegal, dangerous drug? At the very least, a "patient" should have to show that they have
exhausted treatment by medical doctors before seeing a naturopath or other non-medical doctor. It
might be there, but I didn't see it -- there should be no smoking or ingesting marijuana on the
premises of a dispensary. And, there should be no marijuana "cafes" allowed. Furthermore, there
should be no smoking of marijuana allowed. There should be rules adopted to protect children and
others from second-hand smoke.
I would really like to see the inclusion of Interstitial Cystitis in the qualifying conditions. Interstitial
Cystitis is a bladder condition caused by the destruction of the bladder lining, leading to excruciating
pain, frequency and urgency. While the pain will be indicated and covered in most cases, there are
other cases where extreme frequency/urgency/nocturia may be significantly improved by certain
marijuana constituents in cases of moderate to severe Interstitial Cystitis. I would like to see
requirements added that dispensaries have to keep basic microscopy tools so that marijuana being
taken in can be adequately screened for visible mites, molds and fungi. Nothing fancy, just a basic
student grade microscope and an employee who's duty it is to inspect a cross-section of each
incoming batch.
See Above! Plus for security of transportation from growery to dispensary, that it be mandated in the
State Rules that a dispensary be allowed to grow its own product on the same premises in the
designated present zoning for dispensaries. There is presently requirements for No fumes, odors etc
so why is this a problem. Maybe it can be done with a restriction on the size of the premises for a
combo of both - say 5000 sq ft.
relationship.
There are no rules on who registered growers can be. There are also no rules on the types of
organizations that can be registered caregivers. Will Co-operatives be able to grow outside of
dispenseries?
attention to food safety standards attention to real patients needs
9. Initial MMJ Cropsâ€”Seeds or Clones As discussed above, the Rules are silent regarding a
dispensaryâ€™s initial crop. We believe that the Rules should allow for initial cultivation from clones
as this is the only way to ensure the quality of the medicine for patients. 10. Applicant
Selectionâ€”Competitive Process DHS simply must have some sort of alternative procedure in the
event that it receives more qualified applicants than available licenses on the same day. This is the
only way for DHS to ensure that licenses will go to those who are most capable and qualified. In
addition, this procedure can be used when an additional license becomes available. The Rules are
currently silent on this issue.
I will easily qualify for my Pot card. My question...If I can't afford a Pot card, and I can't, and I live less
than 24 miles from a Pot dispensory, and I couldn't afford the Pot at the dispensory anyway, my only
option would be to grow the Pot at my home. What are the rules for my situation?
1) Edible food products 316: Need to expand this area - most likely need to certify specific companies
that want to take on this type of production. Who has the right to produce this product? How they
will get approved, ect. Logging of supply in and out, etc. If I wanted to ship the leaf product to have
cookies made by a gourmet cookie company in Phoenix, will that be allowed? Can I sell those to all
the dispensaries? How will they handle the spoilage? This is a major hole in the rules, as I see it. A)
This gets into the "Price is right" - larger production base, lower cost to the customer. B) Strategic
partnerships between grower and food product manufacturer? C) Product testing (both for THC
content & end product) - batch to batch for consitency / potency. Therefore you would have a
strategic relationship between Grower / Dispensary and Grower / food product manufacture.
DRAFT 12/17/10 A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic
or debilitating disease or medical condition that causes severe depression or obsessive compulsive
disorder or other mental disabilities diagnosed by a proper doctor.
I feel that if anyone has the condition and doctor knows about its okay for doctor to write a script.I
feel V.A. is not going to write scripts for patients
Again the MATForce suggestions are top notch.
Yes: Drugs kill people, therefore don't do them.
See above.
Left out? No, I don't think so. If anything there are too many rules.
Included in list of items To Be Improved
The current draft regulations are defective beyond repair. Rulemaking must begin anew, open, a
matter of transparent public record, and reflect the passage of the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Actâ€”not opposition to that law
No. Aside from our recommendation to delete Â§R9-17-307(C) because of highly probable
detrimental collateral consequences, the draft rules appear to be well thought out and complete.
Create a method of applying for a dispensary license without having to spend a half million bucks only
to not be sure you will granted one of the 124.
relationship.
When can someone start growing medical marijuana? After they get a dispensary certificate? What
about the lead time required to cultivate, package and make the product salable? Director Humble
says this in his blog dated October 29th, 2010 titled "Selecting Marijuana Dispensaries": There are
probably a number of ways to do it, but 3 come to mind right away. We could, for example: 1. Use
some kind of first-come first-served process and simply approve the first 124 complete dispensary
applications; 2. Place the complete applications in a pool and have some kind of random drawing on
a particular date; or 3. Evaluate the complete applications using some kind of objective criteria
(such as the professional quality of their business model, security plan, customer validation and
inventory system etc) and select the best applications from the stack for approval. Method 3 is
probably the best because weâ€™d be able to select the best of the qualified applicants, but it would
also be far more labor intensive than methods 1 or 2. Method 3 would also be more challenging in
terms of ensuring transparency etc. An interesting twist on method 3 would be to send the
completed (and blindfolded) applications to a 3rd party (e.g. a consulting law firm) and ask them to
score the applications for us. 1. Please clarify which of those 3 you plan on using. 2. If you choose
option 3 and there is going to be a 3rd party, please define the RFQ/RFP process to be nominated as a
candidate for that 3rd party. What are going to be the requirements? Best regards and thank you
for all the hard work.
i don't see how... 47 pages of rules for a simple process... its not rocket science.
Will Humble should be excluded from the rule making process. The public comments that would have
exposed Will Humble and his drug cartel should have been made public.
Not all working hours are included. It should also clearly point out that employees 'off the clock' on
lunch hours cannot use marijuana if prohibited by their employer. Rules are needed regarding what
'under the influence' means. Rules are needed regarding employees who hold safety sensitive
positions. Rules regarding pre-employment testing for substance abuse, such as how much time
should an employer allow someone to show they have a medical card to use marijuana? Really clear
rules on how employers may discipline employees who while allowed to use marijuana, have used it
in a way that is inconsistent with an employers policies.
DHS, working with state and law enforcement officials, should draft and propose legislation that
provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for cardholders smoking marijuana in public. DHS,
working with state and law enforcement officials, should draft and propose legislation that provides
specific and enhanced criminal penalties for cardholders smoking marijuana in the presence of those
under the age of 18. A large percentage of the profits should be required to be funneled back into
the community.
As a Nurse Practitioner providing services to HIV-infected and HCV-infected persons I am very

concerned about the listing of HIV and HCV as conditions warranting the prescription of marijuana. In
spite of the will of Arizona's electorate, marijuana is not medicine; it is a harmful drug. We have very
effective treatment available for HIV infection and most of its morbidities. There are proven effective
medications to manage all of the conditions that marijuna is purported to treat. Furthermore, many
people with HIV have problems with their lungs and many people with either HIV or HCV have hepatic
steatosis. Marijuana will make these conditions worse. Neither HIV or HCV are terminal conditions in
most cases and palliative care is not an issue for these patients. Therefore, we should not do them any
harm. Please remove HIV and HCV as conditions qualifying for medical marijuana.
Seeds.
I think each dispensary should have an individual dedicated as a community liaison. This person
would act to ensure that the community always had someone to reach in case of questions or
concerns.
I feel that if marijuana is now legal to smoke, the public should be given the same rights we have
under current tobacco laws. Specifically, in regards to rental properties. Currently, I can list my rental
home as being smoke free, from tobacco. I am not violating any potential renters rights or
discriminating against them, according to state law. Proposition 203 clearly states in section 36-2813
Discrimination Prohibited- A. that, "No landlord may refuse to lease to a person solely for his status as
a cardholder." This wording could allow a medical marijuana card holder to sue me personally for not
renting to him. I would site my rights to a smoke free rental and he would claim I am discriminating
against him because he smokes marijuana. This situation could be avoided, if we treat second hand
marijuana smoke the same way we treat second hand tobacco smoke. Current state tobacco laws
give me rights as a rental owner, Proposition 203 takes away my right to maintain my own property in
the best possible manner I can. I respectfully ask that DHS consider treating marijuana and it's
second hand smoke, with the same regard as tobacco and it's second hand smoke. Thank you,
Hi I have a couple questions/concerns about being a caregiver that I am unable to find the answers to
within prop 203 or the drafted rules. 1 Can a caregiver live in a different city or county than the
patient? I believe they should be able to, and didn't see any restrictions on this. 2 If I am reading it
correctly 203 states that a caregiver can cultivate plants for a patient, but cannot possess more than
the patient is allowed to possess (2.5 ounces within a 14 day period) However there is no way to know
what quantity a grow will produce until the marijuana is dried, so there is no way to be certain it
won't produce more than 2.5 ounces per patient. Will this make the caregiver a criminal because their
plants got too big? It doesn't sound like the caregiver is allowed to possess any sort of overage. 3 To
grow marijuana it takes at least 8 weeks from the start of the flower cycle until it is ready to cut. If the
caregiver is limited to the 2 week rule, in order to produce cannabis every 2 weeks it would take 4
small perpetual grow cycles, one every 2 weeks. It would be much easier for the caregiver to have 1 or
2 larger grow cycles and supply the patient as needed, and give any excess to a dispensary. 4 When
cannabis is freshly cut the weight is much higher because of a high content of water. The weight is
reduced by more than 75% when it is dry. If there is a 2.5 oz / patient / 14 days limitation to the
cultivator it should be made clear that when the cannabis is still wet the weight cannot be considered
as being in violation of the law. 5 Thank you so much for your part in this, it means a lot to a lot of
people.
I think adding in that the dispensaries show a way to provide for lower income patients. Patients on
government assistance might not be able to afford their medication. There was nothing about a
visiting patient from out of state. I think this is a great start to working together in getting the best
rules for dispensing the medication. Thank you for being so open and your willingness to work
together with the community. Sincerely,
R9-17-106. Adding a Debilitating Medical Condition What about adding exceptions on an individual
basis? A patient may have a condition (such as behavioral disorders) that in general, the medical
community would not agree that medical marijuana is beneficial; but their personal physician finds it
acceptable for the patient to try this alternative, so that the patient may no longer have to take drugs
that damage their organs over time. R9-17-202. Applying for a Registry Identification Card for a
Qualifying Patient or a Designated Caregiver The draft does not include a Designated Caregiver for
more than one patient. One Designated Caregiver, could easily cultivate for several patients, thereby
saving the expense of having to pay Dispensary prices and higher electric bills; for in my estimation,
the research I have done, shows that the only successful way to cultivate the plants indoors is by
hydroponics. I see this as a community builder and a way for patients to help each other to take
charge of what medicines we put in our bodies. ARTICLE 3. DISPENSARIES This does not address
the cost to patients to obtain the medicine. In my research, it appears that dispensaries in some other
states, (under the guise of being 'non-profit'), are making huge profits. I realize that it is a business,
and businesses have to make money; but I know patients in other states who simply can't afford
medical marijuana. In those states, it seems the only people who CAN afford it, are the ones who just
want to get 'high'. To reiterate what I have stated before: Marijuana grows in nature as a weed.
There is no reason this shouldn't be one of the most inexpensive medicines out there. Additionally,
the draft does not provide for individual patients to grow the plants outdoors. Growing outdoors
would eliminate the additional expenses of growing hydroponically. Also, there is no mention of
someone becoming just a cultivator, providing the plants and medicine to dispensaries and patients,
except if they are non-compensated. I see no problem with someone who has a greenhouse or plot of
land, being compensated for their efforts, as the dispensaries will be. Thank you for taking the time
to read this.
* Provisions for registered patients to share a secured common cultivation site, as a coop. Each
patient could grow up to 12 plants, with identifying labels. Only registered patients would have access
to the growing site. The patients would own the plants, rent the space inside a secured growing
environment, and collectively pay the wages of a registered cultivator/security guard. Admission and
collections would be logged and monitored via webcam. *Although marijuana itself may possess
many medical benefits, its misuse can also cause harm. The inhalation of smoke from traditional
marijuana pipes and cigarettes (joints) can allow tars and small particals to be drawn into the lungs.
This leads to congestion, which will inevitabily become an issue. At the present point in time,
marijuana should be safely consumed orally or inhaled from a vaporizer.
Your rules should focus on ensuring that ALL patients who qualify under prop. 203 can receive medical
marijuana. Reducing the number of patients who would have qualified under the statute by adding
unreasonable regulations does not fall within your power and will only lead to expensive litigation
that will force patient back to the black market. If nothing else you regulate has a similar restriction,
the restriction is not reasonable. Concern for the patient seems to have been left out in in the drafting
of all of the rules. This is not a third world country. America is a democracy that respects the rights of
voters to pass legislation.
I think after reviewing the next Draft we will be able to tell at this point I think there is more than
what the law really wanted in there. Maybe not in the rules but I think someone at the Health
Department needs to address some issues with this dispensary that says they are the first dispensary
to open. . This gentleman should be the first one not to get one and
.. Maybe someone should be review his background and what he is doing over there at
this facility right now. I think there shoud be some kind of breach there He is making 10,000 off
people to set up there paper work and 200.00 a class. He telling people basically they will get a
dispensary when the time comes because they are putting things together for them he states he has
pull at the Health Department and that he has heads up from City people that he plays golf with for
everything. He states that he is grandfathered into his area already. How can that be when these
parks, houses and everything else have been there prior to he opening this site. Review his history
and all he has is judgements against his for acting as an attorney when he works under someone as a
document preparer. Please have someone address this man and his group of people he has working
there with him.
Dispensaries need to be located in friendly, open, well lit areas, be handicapped accessible, including
parking and rest rooms. Prop 203 is about helping sick, debilated, disabled and handicapped people,
yet these necessities seem to have been overlooked? In reading the draft I wondered several times
where is the concern and consideration for the patient and the people trying to help the patient??
HELP!
I did not see a section on the taxation of sales of the various products considered acceptable use and
saleable by a dispensary.
I am a Canadian ( AB) resident that spends 4-5 months in the Phoenix Az area. I presently am dealing
with cronic pain and arthritis issues which require the use of narrcotic type medication for relief of
pain. I am presently considering theuse of marijuana as an option with my family doctor in Calgary
Alberta, as it marijauna use for medical purposes has been approved in Alberta. The proposal notes
that an applicant must have an Arizona resident, and under the care of a AZ doctor for a year
minumum. I would not be able to meet these requirements. Has any consideration been giving to
none residents like myself that are legally using marijuana from their main home residence, but what
happens when they spend their winters in this area. I am sure there are others like myself as we find
the warmer climate better for our medical problems, and pain isssues. I am sure it would be very
difficult to be able to cross the border with months supply , if this is requirement for pain relief ,
hopefully there is an option for obtaining here. I would be open to discuss more details in person and
can be reached at , and will be staying in the Mesa area until the end of march I am
presently 65 years of age and hope to spend future winters in the Mesa area , as long as I can travel
Thank you
Where do dispensaries purchase seeds to start the business? There is no rules and regulations for
where these dispensaries or cultivation centers derive their initial seeds. This should be regulated to
ensure unlawful sources are not providing these businesses product. Again the large conflict of
interest lies in the Marijuana Policy Project and Arizona Medical Marijuana Association involvement
with the Department of Health Services in creating rules and regulations on the Application Review
Board. Due to their involvement it should be mandated per R9-17-319.a.2.g that any member of
Marijuana Policy Project or Arizona Medical Marijuana Association should be denied a registration
certificate due to the large conflict in interest.
The rules should be protective of health with regards to infusion. There needs to be protection as in
regular food you would get through a restaurant.
Marijuana is an annual weed and if I grow 12 plants, cut down and throw away all of the male plants,
lets say Â½ of the crop. I am left with 6 plants and between 4 and 6 pounds, of marijuana. I am only
allowed to posses 2 and Â½ ounces. What do I do with the rest? I need it to last me the next 52 weeks.
You allow 2 and Â½ ounces every 14 days which equals 65 ounces per year or just a touch over 4
pounds. Do I get to lock it up for future use? Sell it to the Dispensaryâ€™s? What if they donâ€™t want
it? On a related note, please drop the 25 mile limit on being able to grow my own pot. With the rules
and feeâ€™s you are putting in place the marijuana will cost about $30 to $40 per gram, and sell
around $300 to $500 per ounce. My family budget is $240 per month for food for 4 people. I canâ€™t
afford my medicine now. How am I going to get money to buy the medicine/marijuana that will better
my quality of life. I have to grow it.
Are dispensaries to be allotted per city based on the number of pharmacies a city has? Where or how
is a dispensary to acquire it's initial seeds or clones? clarification as to if a landlord or a repairman can
be escorted into a grow area. I would like to recommend that DHS establish a two stage application
process. Stage one: the legal entity would be granted a conditional approval. In this stage no location
or address of the facility would be required. the entity would be given 120 days to acquire a facility
meeting all established state and local requirements and submit to the state. Stage two: Upon
submission of their business site address and other requirements A dispensary certification would be
granted. the rational being that the current proposal favors big corporations or the wealthy as they
have the money to acquire and develop a location and in the event they are not selected they are
better able to absorb the financial loss. The small business owner under the 2 stage process would
not have the financial loss to worry about if they did not receive approval. If approved they could then
proceed to acquire a site knowing they have approval . Lets give the little guy a break Thanks for
the time and effort you have and will be putting in
Please consider creating a registry certificate for medical marijuana testing facilities, separate from
dispensary licenses. If Arizona dispensaries could legally transport medical marijuana across state
lines, they could optionally use out-of-state testing agencies, but this is federally illegal. As such,
testing facilities need to reside within the state. Due to a potential conflict of interest, it would be
best if they were not directly associated with a dispensary. Testing facilities must be able to receive,
store, process, and dispose of medical marijuana samples. The process of creating a robust procedure
for testing takes a long time and is unique to each testing agency. Some testing agencies use HPLC
while others employ gas or liquid chromatography techniques to identify the levels of THC in a
sample. Some testing facilities also test for bacteria, pesticides, and heavy metal content.
Yes, 99% of it. When and where were the meetings that and other anti-marijuana groups
were invited too? Why was the general public, WE THE PEOPLE that voted prop 203 in, not invited to
these draft meetings? I SMELL A LAWSUIT, WILL, the last thing AZ citizens that voted this in want or
need to pay for!
1. DHS, working with state and law enforcement officials, should draft and propose legislation that
provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for cardholders smoking marijuana in public. 2.
DHS, working with state and law enforcement officials, should draft and propose legislation that
provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for cardholders smoking marijuana in the presence
of those under the age of 18. 3. DHS must develop presumptive marijuana impairment levels that
may be determined by blood, urine, breath or other tests and propose legislation that will implement
such standards in the criminal and civil codes.
there needs to be special rules regarding the use on school property. Even though it may be
prescribed to minors, there are residual effects which may affect others on school property. Also in
that setting it might become too easily acquired into the wrong hands. Just as there are not liquor
stores within a certain distance from school property, the dispensaries should not be within the same
distance of a school. Because of the residual effects of marijuanna persons using should not be
driving public trasportation including flying. This should especially affect school bus drivers. Just as
tobacco products are not allowed on school campuses so too Marijuanna in a smokable form should
not be allowed by anyone on school campuses. If it is medically necessary, a smokeless form should
be used.
The department of health official that is heading up this crusade against 203 should have NO business
violating the rights of patient/Dr. cofidentiality. This person should not be allowed to attempt to place
arbitrary and unreasonable rules upon this law and the patients.
See above info
Not that I am aware of. Keep the emphasis on professionalism, patient care and compassion.
We have a President who has been attempting to correcting the dysfunction and injustice of our
health care system.. Let's start with AZ and become just, fair and real. If it is a goal for all to have
health care. Who is better to provide it than cost effective, state approved primary care physicians!!!!
When are we going to let these special interest groups bankrupt our state and citizens for their own
personal interests. It's time to real!!!!!
see above
Address the following: What is the allowed methods of proper disposal? Address where original
seeds and first crop can be obtained. Included in application for dispensaries,why not include a
section where one can put first choice for county and city,and second choice for county and city. For
example,first choice: Chandler,Maricopa County. second choice:San Tan Valley, Pinal County. This can
possibly minimize the approval process. Address: The number of dispensaries allowed in the state has
been discussed, not how many have been allotted per city/county. What's to stop 120 dispensaries
from opening up in Mesa? Proper procedure for utility/landlord repair access to dispensary/grow
facility. Will dispensary and grow area be allowed in different counties,but under same license?
I think information needs to be include about how licenses will be given out in the future. In the future
when more pharmacies have opened this would allow for more medical marijuana dispensaries. In the
event a dispensary has their license revoked the license needs to be issued to another applicant and
this needs to be public information on how and when these will be reviewed. I would like to add
comments on how I feel the applicants should be chosen. I previously suggested a lottery type of
system and will give a brief example. In a lottery system, each applicant could be given 3 tickets that
were numbered 1 through 3 indicating their preference. The applicant could choose to put all their
eggs in one basket or divide them out over various cities. If an applicant was fortunate enough to get
selected in more than one city, they would be defaulted to the city with the higher preference ticket.
Then after the dispensaries were selected they could get to work developing their site and set an
appointment with the AZDHS for inspection prior to opening.
Dear ADHS, NMD are board certified, licensed medical doctors. Although Naturopathic Medical
Doctors (NMD) were included in the list of physicians to recommend medical marijuana (MM), NMD's
were excluded from the ability to be medical directors of MM clinics. NMD's are clinically trained
experts in herbal therapy and have studied the benefits, mechinism, phytochemistry and side effects
of hundreds of herbs. The use of formulating, prescribing and treating the public with herbal therapy
is a long-standing, well-established modality of NMD's. NMD's, being trained and experienced
physicians in herbal therapy in Arizona, should absolutely have the privilage of being MM clinic
medical directors. Sincerely,
NONE
Please see above.
Address the use of clones and cuttings for cultivation and how to be accounted for in inventory. The
current draft only adresses the use of seeds.
NONE
Please modify the rules to include Naturopathic Medical doctors as Co-Directors of dispensaries.
Allowance of private testing facilities so patients know what they are getting. Is it organic? How will
this strain affect my pain? How much THC is in this strain? This is something happening in Colorado
and working very very well.
I would suggest to the rules committee that Naturopathic Physicians (A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 14) be
included in the definition of referring physicians. Naturopathic Physicians should be defined in the
rules to serve as Medical Directors of the dispensaries.
SEE ABOVE
SEE ABOVE
The Department must adopt rules that preserve patient dignity, reflect compassion, and do not foster
greater harm. The Department has left out rules that do not delay or prevent a patient acquiring
adequate quantities and quality of marijuana to treat their conditions at a reasonable price. Older
specialists in opthamology commonly have a predisposition that is decidedly against treatment with
marijuana. A glaucoma patient in this position will be forced to find new doctor and the long term
ongoing physician-patient relationship that the draft rules require would delay treatment and possibly
endanger the patients sight. Furthermore specialists rarely would take on the â€œ primary
responsibility for providing management and routine care of the patient's debilitating medical
condition.â€ This rule is draconian and must be amended to allow the intent of Title 36 to be
implemented unhindered by a â€œfilterâ€ that causes obsession with stopping recreational users.
Definitions of the following need to be added: Inventory What is an inventory audit? Audit
I think we need to get the rules in a such a state that they don't violate any existing laws before we go
trying to add more things to it.
Oh, no, you've gone way overboard.

The definition of â€˜Medical Directorâ€™ should include Naturopathic Physicians, as defined in A.R.S.
Title 32, Chapter 14. Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians. They have
pharmaceutical prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona
Medical marijuana is applicable to a very wide variety of ailments, many times more what has been
stated.
Neurofibromatosis / Schwannomatosis should be added to list of medical conditions. NF causes

tumors to grow all over the body and many can't be removed and the common meds don't work for
everyone and all have dangerous side effects or will cause liver and kidney damage over time.
There should be a LIMIT to how many Dispensaries a Cultivation Site can provide Med MJ for. The
Cultivation site should be according to the City or County zoning and planning and not in a City if the
City does not allow it. I have heard that in some states, the Cultivation is allowed in the Dispensary
itself.
According to R9-17-202. (F) (6)(k), the department will be doing criminal background checks. DOES
DHS HAVE STAFF TO DO THIS? DOES THE DEPARTMENT HAVE INVESTIGATORS THAT KNOW HOW TO
OBTAIN RECORDS TO DETERMINE EXCLUDED OFFENSES? RECORDS WILL NEED TO BE OBTAINED
FROM THIS STATE AND ANY OTHER STATE THE APPLICANT AS INCIDENTS REPORTING ON THEIR
CRIMINAL HISTORY WHEN THE FINGERPRINT RESULTS COME BACK POSITIVE. April 1st when
everyone starts applying for the identification card is may cause severe delays in getting DPS and FBI
fingerprint results back, with a requirement to grant the registry identification card. substantive
review time-frame if not denied. Since DHS is not a law enforcement agency, criminal records can
be difficult to obtain. The DPS and FBI criminal records are confidential and without the police and
court records, how will DHS defend a denial when the applicant can request review in the Judicial
Review process?
How will the verification system be implmented? How will access to the provider, patient, law-
enforcement, and admistrative personnel be provided? Are there existing DHS software capabilites
for the verification system or will it need to be purchased / created? (It seems to be a unique
requirement and challenge to provide access to mobile law-enforcement etc.) It would be
appropriate to include (in the rules) an an outline of the system requirements, including access
requirements, interfaces, system administration and a failover plan for the verification system.
Please include "Naturopathic Physicians" in the definition of "Medical Director." As defined in A.R.S.
Title 32, Chapter 14, Naturopathic Doctors are licensed primary care physicians, have pharmaceutical
prescription privileges, and are covered by many insurances here in Arizona.
Make the Application process a 2 step process instead of 1. First approve the principals and legal
entity through you,set forth rules. Second.If approved issue a conditional or temporary license.
Applicants submission of location and layout of the dispensary,meeting all rules and conditions. With
Final approval,the issuance of Dispensary Certificates.
The appreciates the opportunity to make some initial
comments on the informal draft of the Medical Marijuana Rules: 1. With respect to ARS 36-2813 and
ARS 36-2814, Hospital employers in particular would need a broad definition of the terms
â€œimpairmentâ€ and â€œunder the influenceâ€.
I have grave concerns that the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes be confined and
overseen effectively so they do not open the door to legalization for recreational use.
As an Arizona resident, I am very disappointed that this proposition was approved by the voters.
Please ensure that the rules will make it very clear that marajuana use will not be permitted for
recreational use.
is a Greedy Business man from New York that has come to our state and expects to have
his Physcians ( ) issue scripts for his so called dispensary. These
outsiders have not lived with what Arizona has had to endure with Drug Trafficing. California people
should not be allowed to come here and monopolize this industry. should not worry so
much about the 70/30 ratio that the Dept of Health has propossed in it's draft. Please stick to this as
it will weed out the undesirables. I think you should accept applications for the first 30 days and in
those 30 days put the multiple dispensary requests on "hold" for 6 months. Advise them of this and
give all those that want to opperate a legit business a chance. I have lived in AZ over 50 years and I
personnally have Never been in a Dispensary, but those who have should not have an upper hand or
those who operate one in a different state should not come here. There is no doubt this is Big
business. California residents have always made more income than AZ. The cost to do this is nothing
to them. The License fee in Calf is $200K So how are Taxes going to be collected?
Can a MD become a medical director if he/she holds a AZ medical license but he/she also has a MD
license and works in an another state.
How do you plan to pick the lucky 125 people who will receive a dispensary licenses? How will you
decide who will get a dispensary, when the state can add more? It is not clear to me if patients can
only shop in the dispensary in their area or will they be able to shop around for good prices.
See above concerns.
know you don't want just anybody being able to use this medicine legally but I can't tell you strong
enough that panic attacks, and many other ailments are very real and whether you believe this or not
is NOT the issue. Its up to the Specialized Dr.s I see that between they and myself can make an
intelligent decision, not you. Please don't take this upon yourself and or anybody else like Brewer,
neither of you are qualified. I would love it if she could site where medical marijuana has increased
crime. I have personally been admitted to the emergency room in the past, the DR.s thinking I was
having a heart attack, as this was not ever the case. When I started self medicating with Marijuana my
symptoms went away. I do not go to work altered but find relief with nightly use and am a very
involved committed, productive citizen of this State. So please lets take the politics, the
pharmaceutical and alcohol industries out of this and get with the program and don't pretend to think
you are anywhere in the position to say what is and is not a qualified reason to get the help of this
plant . Thank you
No, you all have accomplished overkill.
No.
Naturopathic doctors were not included in the definition of â€œMedical Directorâ€. Naturopathic
physicians are specially trained in how the body operates as system, and routinely work with naturally
occurring herbs and remedies. Thereby Naturopaths are uniquely qualified to work as Medical
Directors in MM Dispensaries in this state. We feel that the omission of â€œNaturopathic Doctorsâ€
from the definition of â€œMedical Directorâ€, as stated in the draft rules, is not in the best interest
of the State of Arizona and those patients who will benefit from MM therapies. To incorporate
â€œNaturopathic Doctorâ€ in the definition of â€œMedical Directorâ€ is to allow those with the
greatest understanding of how natural remedies impact the body to be available to assist in and
oversee the use of MM.
Great job. I believe these are some of the most comprehensive rules of any of the states where
marijuana has been legalized.
My son is 17 years old. He has been batteling Tourettes Syndrome and Bi-Polar diagnosis since he was
about 4. At 4 years old he was prescribed Tenex and Haldol. At 5 and 6 he was taking dexedrine - after
that they prescribed him ritalin - concerta - staterra and depakote. All with good results for a little
while and then back to his normal, well, not so normal self. Most of these medications should never
be given to a Tourettes Patient, but they prescribe it anyway with another pill to even out the other
one. Some of these pills made him a monster. Now as a single mother, I have endured alot. My son's
behaviors are extreme. I have called the police for help, they take him and then I have to go and pick
him back up. He is very dangerous and explosive. Once he found cannabis, 80% of his tics and
behaviors went away, over night it seemed. This stuff was working. Now I'm batteling the courts in
regards to his cannabis use. They look at my son like he's completely normal teenager who smokes
pot all day, well he looks normal, but isn't normal in his brain. In regards to the new law. They really
need to look at the mental illness side of how cannabis helps. The American Board of Psychiatry even
has cannabis on their own web site and how it helps Tourettes Patients. It helps, it works and pick and
choose your battles. Kids are trading ritalin at school and chopping the pills up and snorting them like
cocaine. Cannabis is a natural substance that heals.
pricing
protecting patients from high cost of medicine. there should be a cap on what we pay a month for 5oz
of medicine. $100-200 should be what we pay for 5oz of marijuana. if the state wants to make money
off of it legalize it until then protect us patients from high cost!
1845 E Southern Avenue, Iempe, AZ85282 (480) 838-3385
January 7,2011
Director Will Humble

Arizona Department of Health Services
150 N lgthAvenue
Phoenix. AZ85007
Re: Comments on Informal Draft Rules for Medical Marijuana
Dear Director Humble:
On behalf of the Arizona Pharmacy Alliance (AzPA) the comments below follow our review of the Informal
Draft Rule language published by your Agency regarding implementation of the Medical Marijuana Initiative
(Proposition 203) The Arizona Pharmacy Alliance is the only organization in the state that represents
pharmacy professionals, including: pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and student pharmacists Our mission
is to provide optimal patient care, foster safe and effective medication therapy, promote innovative practice,
and empower members t o serve the health care needs of the public
Chanaes to State Law are inconsistent w ~ t hFederal Law
Any law which bypasses the normal approval and distribution process for medications, including the State
regulated drug distribution system and licensed pharmacies, is of grave concern t o AzPA Since the new
Arizona law allows marijuana use for medical purposes, it should be treated as a medication To support the
safe distribution and use of medical marijuana, AzPA supports changes to federal law that would re-classify
marijuana from a C-l t o C-ll so that it could legally be prescribed by medical and nursing providers and
managed by pharmacists through licensed pharmacies Support for reclassification should not be construed as
support for the use of medical marijuana as a means to treat specific health conditions since marijuana does
not have a USP monograph nor is it approved by the FDA It is simply a pragmatic recognition that more and
more states are beginning t o allow use of marijuana within a medical context AzPA commits to raising this
issue with national pharmacy organizations and the Arizona Congressional delegation Until federal law allows
marijuana t o be legally managed by pharmacists and licensed pharmacies, AzPA strongly recommends that
pharmacists avoid direct involvement with activities related t o the dispensing of marijuana to avoid violations
of Federal law that may place professional licensure and participation in Medicare and Medicaid at risk
AzPA recommends that licensed users of medical marijuana be identified in the State of Arizona's Prescription
Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) database, which is already available t o health care professionals who need
t o know about controlled substance use to protect the safety of the patients they treat Although ADHS has
proposed its own database, your Agency's initiative only permits law enforcement officials access By requiring
dispensaries to report medical marijuana dispensing to the State's PDMP database, health care professionals
are able to facilitate safer treatment optionsfor their patients
Pharmacists are Medkation Exoerts.
Although AzPA is concerned about the dispensing of marijuana by pharmacists, AzPA recommends
pharmacists' involvement in the care of the patients receiving medical marijuana to ensure safe and effective
use The institute for Safe Medication Practices, in a document entitled, Protecting U S Citizens from
lnapprapriote Medication Use, writes that pharmacists are uniquely positioned t o provide solutions to the
problem of medication misuse Pharmacists are widely accessible and have the ability t o improve care,
enhance communication among healthcare providers, and optimize medication use, resulting in better patient
outcomes Pharmacists also can help eliminate unnecessary healthcare costs through medication therapy
management (MTM), which involves reviewing and monitoring medication use, counseling patients, and
conducting wellness and disease-prevention programs Engaging the pharmacist as a resource for ensuring
safe medication use will greatly improve the health of the patient
Since the rules do require patient education and a medical director, AzPA recommends that the rules should
also require that a pharmacist provide medication therapy management services at least annually, including a
comprehensive medication review which would include a review of medication history, including all
prescription and non-prescription medications and supplements that the qualifying patient is currently using
Since medical marijuana use is approved for qualifying patients with complex illnesses, the risk for drug-drug
and drug-condition interactions is significant MTM services will ensure safe medication use as well as
detection and management of adverse drug reactions related t o medical marijuana The pharmacist could
easily provide these clinical services through a collaborative practice agreement with the medical director
This team approach is necessary to prevent unforeseen complications and unnecessary costs associated with
adverse drug events, especially new adverse drug events associated with the addition of an understudied
substance to the patient's medication regimen Reducing health care expenses through medication
misadventure avoidance should be a top priority of the Agency
Finally, many patients that receive medical marijuana as outpatients will not be able to continue their therapy
if admitted into the hospital because of smoking bans in Arizona facilities We recommend that health-
systems and hospitals work with their pharmacists t o develop protocols t o address the absence of marijuana
during the acute and long term in-patient stay
Qual~tvAssurance
Now that marijuana is purported to treat medical conditions, it should be regulated as a medication
Pharmacies follow USP guidelines for the preparation and dispensing of medications When pharmaceuticals
are compounded by pharmacies, the pharmacist routinely sends compounds for testing on a regular basis t o
ensure accuracy and safety of the medication As such, dispensaries and growers should be required t o have
each "lot" or "batch" tested for percentage of THC t o appropriately label the strength of the medication This
practice is necessary t o prevent overdoses and unwanted drug-drug interactions in additional, it would
emphasize that Arizona intends to treat the marijuana as medication rather than a recreational drug Under
the proposal drafted by your Agency, marijuana is only measured by weight without regard to dose With
traditional medications, volume and weight do not always translate t o dose or potency it is common
knowledge that the level of THC in 2 5 oz of marijuana vary greatly depending on the type of plant and
preparation of the plant The draft rules do not make any distinction in this area and do not require such
disclosure Proper labeling would allow a physician to recommend marijuana t o their patient with a specific
THC dose, thus ensuring patient safety Use of THC in food or cigarettes should also require similar labeling
Dispensaries Oversioht
To ensure safety to the public at large, AzPA strongly recommends that dispensaries be held t o an equally high
standard of quality and safety regulations as pharmacies Pharmacies are required to comply with copious
Federal and State statutes and regulations overseen by the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy Likewise,
medical marijuana dispensaries should be routinely inspected and held to similar standards by ADHS
AzPA recommends that ADHS only approve permits for dispensaries that publish policy and procedures
focused on patient safety, quality assurance standards focused on product quality, and provide accurate
methods t o label dosing Policies and procedures must include a mechanism (managed by the Medical Director
and Clinical Pharmacist) t o assess the effect medical marijuana has on a patient's other medical conditions,
safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of concurrent medications Your regulations must ensure that each
dispensary has policies and procedures that address inventory control, qualifying patient recordkeeping,
security, patient education, and prevention of fraud, waste &abuse
Post Marketinq Surveillance
As with all medications, new unpredicted adverse effects can present after widespread public use (e g Vioxx)
Since medical marijuana has not been reviewed for safety or efficacy by the FDA, the risk for unpredicted
adverse events may be greater Consequently, AzPA recommends that ADHS implement post marketing
surveillance through pharmacists at the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center at The University of
Arizona to track adverse drug events and monitor quality, safety and efficacy
Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments Please do not hesitate to call if you have any
questions
Respectfully Submitted,
Mindy D Smith, BSPharm, R Ph

Chief Executive Officer
Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
January 7,2011
Will Humble
Director
150 North 18'~Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Association is pleased t o present its comments to the draft rules issued
by the Arizona Department of Health Services that will guide the implementation o f Proposition 203,the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
The AzMMA recognizes the major responsibility entrusted in the Arizona Department of Health Services
and the complexity of the tasks it must complete within an aggressive time frame called for under Prop
203 We are confident that the Department is and will continue t o carry out a public process that will
respect the needs and balance the interests of industry professionals who aspire t o meet patient needs,
prospective patients, and the general public
The leaders of the AzMMA played a leading role in the drafting of the initiative, and carried out the
campaign that led t o its passage Throughout our t w o year effort, we remained committed t o the goal of
nothing less than creating the best medical marijuana program in the nation, learning from both the
best practices as well as the mistakes made in 14 other states nationwide where medical marijuana laws
have been adopted With only 125 dispensary licensees available, there is no reason to settle for
anything less, and the public will demand nothing less After all, Prop 203 was approved by the slimmest
o f margins and will remain a controversy for years t o come, particularly if it is not implemented
properly
At this still early stage, the process undertaken by DHS appears to be taking that same approach
Hence, we generally find the draft rules to be a very solid effort in the initial attempt to craft
appropriate program rules
The leadership of our association has reviewed the draft in concert with our attorney, Lisa Hauser o f the
firm Gammage and Burnham and who also drafted the language of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
We respectfully offer our comments and suggestions regarding the draft rules which we believe will
preserve the commitment of both DHS and our association to high industry standards, yet do not
impose unreasonable and unnecessary regulations that result in the unintended consequences of
increased cost to dispensaries and the patients they serve, simply driving patients back to the criminal
market
We look forward t o continuing engagement in the rule making process, the submission of additional
comments and recommendations, and the ultimate adoption of rules consistent with the initiative
approved by Arizona voters
Thank you for your consideration, and for your service t o our great state
fi/ -.,
n rew Myers
Executive Director
GAMMAGE& BURNHAM
A PROFEISIONAL L l M i i E D LIABILIm COMPANY
ATTO R N E I S AT LAW
TWO N O R T H CENTRAL A V E N U E
RICHARD B 8URNHAM GRAPY OAMMAGL, JR FIFTEENTH FLOOR TELEPHONE 1602I 2 5 6 - 0 5 6 6

MICHAEL R KING RICHARD K MAHRLE
P H O E N I X , A R I Z O N A 85004-4470 F A C S l M I L E 16021 2 5 6 - 4 4 7 5
CURTIS YLLMAN T H O M A S 2 McDONALD
JAMES A CRAFT KEVIN il MERFLliT
RANDALL S DALTON KEVIN -I BLAKLEY
JOHN R DACE"
CAMERON C ARTIOUE
JEFFRLI J MiLLLR
SUSAN L WATCHMAN
January 7,201 1 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE
STEPHEN W ANDERSON CHRISTOPHER A WOMACK (602) 256-4462

TIMOTHY J MARTENS
JERRY D WORSHAM n
LISA i. HAUSER
GEORGE U. WINNLY iii
Ihauser@gblawcorn
MANdULA M VAZ KAY BlGLLOW
JAMES F POLESE PATRICIA E NOLAN
RACHEL R WEISS CIRECl0RY-I GNEPPER
HEATHER IBOYSEL RYAN J. MILLECAM
JONATHAN A BENNETT CAROLYN Y WILLIAMS
OF COUNSEL F WILLIAM SWEPPARO

MARY 8 . A R I I D U E
DIANE K GElMER
Will Humble, Director

150 North 18" Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Re: ADHS Informal Draft Rules for Implementation of the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act; Comment by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
This constitutes the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association's ("AzMMA" or "Association")

comments on the Arizona Department of Health Services' ("ADHS" or "Department") Informal Draft
Rules for implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act The Association is a non-profit,
professional business o~ganizationcreated afler the passage of Proposition 203. The Association's
membership includes the individuals who, as the Arizona Marijuana Policy Project, qualified this
measure for the ballot and then secured its passage The Association's undersigned counsel authoied the
text of Proposition 203 The Association essentially is the successor ofthe Arizona Marijuana Policy
Project Thus; the Association is committed to the Act's implementation in a manner that furthers
legislative intent,
The Association comnends the Department f o producing

~ an initial set of draft rules so soon
after the Act's effective date and for the inclusion of many prospective rules designed to ensure that
Arizona serves as a national model for a well-regulated medical marijuana program that exists to serve
the needs of patients with debilitating medical conditions But the Association has serious concerns
about whether a number of'provisions, even ifwell-.intentioned, are contrary to the intent of the Act,
Some of the proposed regulations are invalid as impermissibly limiting the Act Others exceed the Act's
grant of authority to the Department and are inconsistent with or in conflict with the Act In
commenting on the proposed rules, the Association will endeavor to highlight those provisions that it
applauds as well as those that give it concern
Although the Association has reviewed the initial draft rules and offers its comments below, it
has not commented on eveiy aspect of the initial draft rules 'The Association's fiiilure to comment on
January 7,201 1
Page 2
specific provisions is not intended to signify its agreement with those provisions The Association
expects to continue studying the proposed rules and expressly reserves the right to make future,
additional comments about any rules contained in the Department's initial haft
Rulemaking Authority
The Department's rulemaking authority is found in A R S 5 36-2803(A) The Department was

not given the broad authority to "adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter " Rather, it is authorized
only "to adopt the rules set forth in subsection A " Permissible rules are those:
1 Governing the manner of adding to the list of' debilitating medical conditions;
2 Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications;
3 Governing the manner in which it shall consider applications for and renewals of' registry
identification cards;
4 Governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries-for the purpose of protecting against

diversion and theft without imposing an undue burden on nonp~ofitmedical marijuana
dispensaries or conlpromising the confidentiality of cardholders-including:
(a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and renewals of
registration certificates;1
(b) Minimum oversight ~equirementsfor dispensaries;
(c) Minimum recordkeeping requirements for dispensaries;
(d) Minimum security requirements for dispensaries, including requirements for protection of
each registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary location by a fully operational security
alarm system;
(e) Procedures for suspending or revoking the registration certificate of dispensaries that
violate the Act or rules adopted pursuant to the Act; and
5 Establishing registration and renewal fees
I No rules were provided in this initial draft with respect to how the Department intends to evaluate dispensary applications
It is critical for these rules to be included in the next draft and made available for pubiic comment
9 9 518305 1 1/7/2011
Page 3'
All other rules are outside the scope ofthe Department's rulemaking power Each initial draft rule
should be closely examined by the Department to ensure that it is authorized pursuant to A R S 5 36-
2803(A)
The 70% Cultivation RuIe
The 70% production provision contained in proposed R9-17-307(C) appears to be drawn from
the Colorado legislation (House Bill 1284) passed in May 2010 It requires that every medical
marijuana center "must certify that it is producing at least 70% of its own medicine " This and other
amendments were intended to bring better governance to an insufficiently controlled cultivation
environment that resulted fiom shortcomings in the original Colorado medical marijuana law Since the
Arizona Act provides for strict controls for all medical marijuana cultivation in the state, this restriction
is unnecessary and may, in fact, be bad public policy for Arizona
The Act requires the establishment of at least 124 dispensaries in the State It does not
necessarily require the creation of at least 124 cultivation facilities, unless the proposed subsection R9-
17-307(C) is enacted It can be argued that fewer, larger, cultivation facilities decrease the potential for
public nuisance, reduce ADHS oversight requirements and costs, increase security, and provide
economies of scale that can reduce patient costs Establishing an unimpeded market where any
registered dispensary can choose to order its usable marijuana fiom any other registered cultivation
facility will likely result in the greatest economic efficiencies and best prices for patients
Many medical professionals or other entities that would otherwise be motivated and highly
qualified to operate a dispensary may be deterred due to the technical, financial and liability issues
associated with operating a cultivation facility Under the Act, every registered dispensary has the right
to operate a cultivation facility to meet the needs of' its qualified patients However, nothing in the Act
precludes a stand-alone dispensary fiom arranging to obtain its usable marijuana from the cultivation
facilities of one or more other dispensaries Creating a regulatory environment that allows cooperative
interaction between registered dispensaries and their associated cultivation facilities will structure an
Arizona medical marijuana industry that rewards efficiency; with the foreseeable result of better -
managed dispensaries and fewer, more efficient, cultivation facilities
A proposed regulatory environment that allows commercial cooperation between registered

dispensa.ries can be readily managed through rules that require cultivation facilities to establish
procedures for verifying that a dispensary placing a order for usable marijuana has a registration
certificate in good standing, that the usable marijuana is delivered in a secure manner, and that all orders
a e labeled, packaged. tracked and accounted for in a manner that prevents diversion
The Department has the authority to adopt rules governing nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensaries, for the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft without imposing an undue burden
on dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including minimum oversight
requirements for dispensaries Requiring each dispensary to cultivate at least 70% of the medical
January 7,201 1
Page 4
marijuana it dispenses does not serve the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft and imposes
an undue burden on dispensaries More importantly, in A R S 3 36-2816(B) and (C), the Act
specifically prohibits a dispensary fiom dispensing to or acquiring marijuana fiom any person othe~than
another registered dispensary, a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver Had
the Act intended to limit transfers between dispensaries, it would have said so Thus, the proposed rule
is in conflict with the Act
If the Department believes a rule is necessary in addition to A R S § 36-2816(B) and (C), the
Association suggests the following:
R9-I 7-,307. Administration
C A dispensary:
1 W M A Y only provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the

&pesty+ to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient or a designated
caregiver authorized by A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1 and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana
3,2 May only acqui~emedical marijuana fiom another dispensary in Arizona, a

qwMymg patient, or a designated caregiver
The PhysicianO'atient Relationship
The Association believes that the existence of a legitimate physiciadpatient relationship is

contemplated by the Act's requirement that a qualifying patient be diagnosed by a physician as having a
debilitating medical condition and that the physician provide a written certification that, in his
professional opinion, "the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical
use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated
with the debilitating medical condition" after the physician has completed a full assessment of the
qualifying patient's medical history
January 7,201 1
Page 5
The Department's rulemaking authority set forth in A R S § 36-2803 of the Act does not include
adopting rules concerning the physician/patient relationship A R S 8 36-2803(A)(3) provides that
ADHS shall adopt rules "establishing the form and content of'registration and renewal applications
submitted under this chapter" But-unlike the authority granted with respect to the consideration of
dispensary registration certificates-the statute does not grant ADHS the authority to adopt rules fbr the
consideration of'patient applications for registration cards Accordingly, the Department is not
authorized to add substantive requirements to the content of a qualifying patient's application or renewal
beyond those set forth in the Act
A R S 5 36-2804 02 requires that a qualifying patient applying for a registration card submit
(1) the physician's written certification, (2) the application fee, and (3) the application A R S 5 36-
2801(18) specifies the content of the written certification Although the physician's written certification
must accompany the patient's applicant, it is separate from the application itself and the Department
does not habe the rulemaking authority to specify its content
In the case of proposed R9-17-202(F)(5), the patient would be required to provide far more
infbrmation than contemplated by A R S 5 36-280402, particularly with respect to the physician's
written certification Although proposed R9-1'7-202(F)(5)(e)(i), (ii) requires the physician to state the
nature of his relationship with the patient in the alternative, both (i) and (ii) are objectionable as overly
burdensome to the patients who are the Act's intended beneficiaries by dramatically impacting patient
access Consider this example A patient diagnosed with cancer is referred to an oncologist That
patient's reaction to the chemotherapy administered by the oncologist involves such severe nausea that
the patient's overall strength is severely diminished and his oberall health and ability to withstand
additional treatment is further compromised The oncologist has only been treating the patient fbr a
matter of weeks but is willing to write a recommendation for the patient's use of medical marijuana
Under this scenario, the physician could not make the statement required by R9-17.-202(F)(5)(e)(i)and
might have serious difficulty making the alternative statenlent required by R9-17-202(F)(e)(ii)
merit of these additional proposed physician certifications, the Association's position is that they are not
authorized by the Act and would unlawfully require certifications beyond what the Act has mandated
Time-Frames
The Act sets forth a number of' time deadlines for the Department to perform various tasks For
example, A R S 5 36-2804 provides that the Depatment shall register a dispensary and issue a
registration certificate "not later than ninety days" after receiving a dispensary application if the
dispensary applicant has submitted certain specified items The Association wholeheartedly supports
the Department's proposal to ensure that the statutory time period does not begin to run until the
application is complete as well as the proposals to give the Depatment a limited period of'time to
review applications foi completeness and to give the applicant a period of time to provide missing
information But the Association's position is that a dispensary's registration certificate must be issued
January 7,2011
Page 6
not later than ninety calendar days from the date on which the Department has a completed application
The Department's proposed rules change the statutory time periods to "working days," significantly
lengthen the time periods and are in conflict with the statute This issue exists with respect to all
statutory time periods set forth in Table 1 1
In addition to the aforementioned problems with the time-frames listed in Table 1 1, there are
numerous erxors in Table 1 1 with respect to the "statutory authority" citations These citations should
be corrected in the next draft
Outdoor Cultivation
The Association commends the Department for including provisions related to outdoor
cultivation But the proposed definition of "enclosed" in draft R9- 17-lOl(10) requi~esone or another
cumbersome barrier covering the top area The association proposes the following amendment:
10 "Enclosed" means EITHER:
a A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet
b An area surrounded by four solid 12-foot walls constructed of metal, concrete, or

stone with a one-inch thick metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area
that is:
i Welded or woven wire mesh, with minimum wire thickness of 0 25 inches

and maximum gap between wires of 1 inch;
..
11, Welded metal wire grid, with minimum wire thickness of 0 2 5 inches and
maximum gap between wires o f 3 inches;
iii Metal chain-link weave; with gauge ilo less than 9 and no more than 11 5;
iv A panel of metal vertical bars, with minimum bat thickness of 0 5 inches

and maximum gap between bars of 4 inches; or
v Constructed of iron or other metallic material and similar to the examples

in subsections (10)@)(i) through (lO)(b)(iv), if approved by the
Department
c AN AREA SURROUNDED BY FOUR SOLID 12-FOOT WALLS, TOPPED

WITH CONCERTINA WIRE, CONSTRUCTED OF METAL, CONCRETE, OR
STONE WITH A ONE-INCH THICK METAL GATE AND WITH 24.HOUR
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE EXTIRE OUTER PERIMETER
January 7,201 1
Page 7
Inventory Controls
To more effectively inventory and track all usable marijuana, the AzMMA respectfully suggests
that the ADHS augment its proposed "strain" and "registry identification" system with a "Batch"
designator Under this proposal, a "Batch" is simply one or more seeds or cuttings that are planted and
harvested at the same time at a given cultivation site Each Batch would be assigned a unique "Batch
Number" by the dispensary operating the cultivation site The cultivation site would also record:
1 Whether the Batch originated from seeds or cuttings;
2 The origin and strain of the seeds or cuttings;
3 The number of seeds or cuttings planted;
4 The date the seeds or cuttings were planted;
5 A list of all chemical additives, including non-organic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers,
used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana;
6 The number and disposition of any male, failed, or otherwise unusable plants;
7 The number of female plants grown to matu~ity;
8 The harvest date of the mature female plants; and
9 The final processed usable marijuana yield weight of the Batch
The AzMMA also believes that regulations R9-17 -313, and R9-1'7-314 may benefit from making
cer.tain differentiations between inventory controls and labeling requirements for dispensaries and those
requirements for cultivation sites Accordingly, the Association submits the following proposed changes
to the Department's initial draft regulations:
R9-17-101. Definitions.:
Add the following definitions and renumber accordingly:
4 "BATCH MEANS A SPECIFIC LOT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROWN FROM

ONE OR MORE SEEDS OR CUTTINGS THAT ARE PLANTED AND HARVESTED
AT THE SAME TIME AT A CULTIVATION SITE
5 "BATCH NUMBER" MEANS A UNIQUE NUMERIC, OR ALPHA-NUMERIC,

DESIGNATOR ASSIGNED TO A BATCH BY A DISPENSARY AT ITS
CULTIVATION SITE
January 7,201 1
Page 8
R9-1 7-313. Inventory Control System
A A dispensary shall designate in writing a dispensary agent who has oversight of the
dispensary's medical marijuana inventory control system
B A dispensary shall establish and implement an inventory control system for the
USABLE marijuana LOCATED AT THE DISPENSARY that
documents:
1 Each day's beginning inventory, acquisitions,

.. ,sales, disbursements,
and ending inventory BY AMOUNT, BATCH
NUMBER AND REGISTRY NUMBER;
2 For acquiring medical marijuana f ~ o m

. .
et: another dispensary OR CULTIVATION SITE:
a A description of the medical marijuana acquired including the amount and

&BATCH NUMBER;
. .
b The name and egist try identification number of'the
~ c a r e g i v e r ; - e dispensary
r and dispensary agent who provided the
medical marijuana;
c The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent

receiving the medical marijuana on behalf of the dispensary; and
d The date of acquisition:

January 7,201 1
Page 9
c. Th
..
medical^
the
1.
3 FOR ACQUIRING MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM A QUALIFYING

PATIENT OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER:
a A DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACQUIRED

INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND STRAW;
b THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NIJMBER OF THE

QUALIFYING PATIENT OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER WHO
PROVIDED THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA; AND
c THE DATE OF ACQUISITION
4 For providing medical marijuana to another dispensary:
a The amount and &RATCH NUMBER of THE medical ma~ijuana

provided;:
b The name and registry identification number of the othe~dispensary;;
c The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent who
received the medical marijuana on behalf of the other dispensary;; and
d The datc the medical marijuana was provided?
5 For providing medical marijuana to a food establishment for inhsion into an

edible food product:
a A description of the medical marijuana provided including the amount and

&BATCH NUMBER,
b The name and registry identification number of the designated agent who:
i Provided the medical marijuana to the food establishment on

behalf of the dispensa~y,and
January 7,20 11
Page 10
..
11 Received the medical marijuana on behalf of the food
establishment-
c The date the medical marijuana was provided to the h o d establishment?

d
6 For receiving edible food products infused with medical marijuana from a food
establishment:
a The date the medical marijuana used to infuse the edible food products
was received by the food establishment and the amount AND BATCH
NUMBER of THE medical marijuana received;
b A description of the edible food products received from the food

establishment, including total weight of each edible food product and
estimated amount AND BATCH NUMBER of THE medical marijuana
infused in each edible food product;
c Total estimated amount AND BATCH NUMBER of' THE medical

marijuana infused in edible food products;
d A description of any reduction in the amount of'medical marijuana;
e For any unusable marijuana disposed of at the food establishment:
i A description of the unusable marijuana,
ii The amount AND BATCH NUMBER of THE unusable marijuana

disposed of,
iii Date of disposal,
iv Method ofdisposal, and
v Name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent

responsible for the disposal at the food establishmentw
f The name and registry identification numbe~of the designated agent who:
i Provided the edible food products to the dispensary on behalf of

the food establishment, and
..
11 Received the edible h o d products on behalf of the dispensary
January '7,20 11
Page 11
g The date the edible food products w e ~ provided

e to the dispensary
C A DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE SHALL ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT AN

INVENTORY CONTROL SYSTEM THAT DOCUMENTS:
1 EACH DAY'S BEGINNING INVENTORY, DELIVERIES, AND ENDING

INVENTORY BY BATCH NUMBER, INCLUDING WHETHER EACH
BATCH ON HAND IS IN CULTIVATION, IN PROCESSING, OR STORED
AS PROCESSED USABLE MARIJUANA,
2 THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER OF ALL PROCESSED USABLE

MARIJUANA STORED OR OTHERWISE LOCATED AT THE
CULTIVATION SITE;
3 FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED TO ANOTHER DISPENSARY:
A THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER OF THE MEDICAL

MAR1JUANA PROVIDED;
B THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE

OTHER DISPENSARY;
C THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE

DISPENSARY AGENT WHO RECEIVED THE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER DISPENSARY; AND
D THE DATE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDED
4 FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED TO A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT

FOR INFUSION INTO AN EDIBLE FOOD PRODUCT:
A A DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED

INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER; AND
B THE DATE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDED TO THE

FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
5 HARVEST INFORMATION INCLUDING:
A DATE OF HARVEST FOR EACH BATCH;
B AMOUNT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA HARVESTED EACH

BATCH, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF IJSABLE MARIJUANA
AND THE AMOUNT OF NOT USABLE MARIJUANA;
Januar y 7,20 11
Page 12
C THE DISPOSAL OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA THAT IS NOT USABLE

MARIJUANA INCLUDING THE:
I BATCH NUMBER AND AMOUNT;
I1 DATE OF DISPOSAL; AND
111 METHOD OF DISPOSAL
6D The individual designated in subsection (A) shall conduct and document an audit of the
dispensary's inventory according to generally accepted accounting principles at least once
every 30 calendar days
1 If the audit identifies a reduction in the amount of medical marijuana in the

dispensary's inventory not due to documented causes, the dispensary shall
determine whe~ethe loss has occurled and take and document corrective action
2 If the reduction in the amount of medical marijuana in the dispensary's inventory

is due to suspected criminal activity by a dispensary agent, the dispensary shall
report the dispensary agent to the Department and to the local law enforcement
authorities
BE A dispensary shall:
1 Maintain the documentation required in subsections (B) and (C) at the dispensary
for five years fiom the date on the document, and
2 Provide the documentation required in subsections (B) and (C) to the Department
fbr review upon request,
R9-I 7-314. Product Labeling arrd Analysis
A A dispensary shall ensure that medical marijuana provided by the dispensary to a

qualifying patient or a designated caregiver is labeled with:
1 The dispensary's registry identification number;
2 The amount, BATCH NUMBER and strain of medical marijuana;
3 If not cultivated by the dispensary, whether the medical marijuana was obrained
fiom a qualifying patient, a designated caregiver, or another dispensary;
4 The date of manufacture, harvest, or sale;

January 7,20 11
Page 13
5. A list of all chemical additives, including- NON-ORGANIC

pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production ofthe
medical marijuana; and
6 The registry identification number of the qualifying patient
B A DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE SHALL ENSURE THAT EACH PACKAGE

OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED BY THE CULTIVATION SITE TO A
DISPENSARY IS LABELED WITH:
1 THE DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE'S REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION

NUMBER;
2, THE AMOUNT, BATCH NUMBER AND STRAIN OF THE MEDICAL

MARI JUANA;
3 THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE, HARVEST, OR SALE; AND
4 A LIST OF ALL CHEMICAL ADDITIVES, INCLUDING NON-ORGANIC

PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, AND FERTILIZERS, USED IN THE
CULTIVATION AND PRODUCTION OF THE MEDICAL MARI JUANA
BC If medical marijuana is provided as part of an edible food product, a dispensary, shall, in

addition to the information in subsection (A), include on the label:
1 The total weight of the edible food product; and
2 The following statement "This product is infused with medical marijuana and was
produced without regulatory over sight for health, safety, or efficacy There may
be health risks associated with the consumption of the product "
€D A dispensary shall provide to the Department upon request a sample of the dispensary's
medical marijuana inventory of sufficient quantity to enable the Department to conduct
an analysis of the medical marijuana
Certificate of Occupancy
P~oposedR9-17-302 sets forth the contents of the application for a dispensary certification One
of those requirements is "[a] copy of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the
January 7,201 1
Page 14
local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing occupancy ofthe building as a dispensary2 and, if
applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site" R9-17-302(B)(5) This imposes an undue burden on
dispensaries to make the major capital investments necessary in order to prepare a site for occupancy as
a dispensary or cultivation site without any assurance that certification will be granted. Although the
Department has the authority to adopt rules governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries for the
purpose of protecting against diversion and theft, those rules cannot impose "an undue burden on
nonp~ofitmedical mari,juanadispensaries " A.R.S.9 36-2803(A)(4). Requiring a certificate of
occupancy to be issued to a proposed dispensary before it even has preliminary approval from the
Department is also an undue burden on counties and municipalities
In contrast, the Department's proposed R9-17-107 contemplates that an application may be

completed over time and that the Department may issue a preliminary approval ofthe dispensary
registration certificate and identification number pending approval of at least one principal officer or
board member as a dispensary agent The Association welcomes this sort of tiered approach to the
application process and suggests that the requirement for producing a certificate of'occupancy be moved
to a later stage by delaying the final approval or effective date of the certification until the appropriate
certificates of occupancy have been issued,
Proposed R9-17-305(2) and (3) requires that a dispensary applying for renewal must provide a
copy of an audited financial statement for the previous year Because a registration certificate is
effective for only one year and the renewal application must be made 30 days prior to expiration, it will
be impossible to provided a full, annual financial statement This requirement needs to be revisited and
revised so that it is not internally inconsistent
The Association fully supports requiring dispensaries to provide the financial information
necessary to determine that it is operating as a nonprofit and that h d s are not being diverted, etc But
an audited financial statement seems to exceed what it necessary and the cost would be unduly
burdensome to entities required to operate as non-profits The Association suggests that the Department
consider other alternatives For example, a compilation as well as copies of the entity's tax returns may
provide the information the Department needs in a less budensome way
Medical Director
The Association sees value to a dispensary affiliation with a Medical Director, but suggests that
it is more consistent with the scope of the Department's rulemaking authority to use the existence of a
Medical Director as an evaluation criterion rather than as a mandatory requirement for all dispensaries
It is also unclear whether a certificate of occupancy can or will be issued by a jurisdiction for a particular purpose such as
this
9 9 518305 1 1/7/2011
January 7,201 1
Page 15
Proposed R9-17-lOl(15) defines a Medical Director in such a way that all Medical Directors
must be medical doctors or osteopaths even though the Act allows medical doctors, osteopaths,
naturopaths and homeopaths to certify a patient for the medical use of marijuana In addition, R9-17-
3 10 limits a Medical Director to serving only three dispensaries at any time Together, these provisions
may make it extremely difficult for dispensaries to operate in Arizona's rural counties The Department
should state its rationale for these provisions so that the public can evaluate whether they impermissibly
limit the Act
Security Requirements
The Association supports strong security requirements and believes that they are not only good
public policy but further the purpose of the Act However, the Association is concerned that the
requirement, in proposed R9-17-306, that a dispensary provide the Department with authorized remote
access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system is problematic If' the Department wants a live
feed, there must be very strong encryption to protect patient confidentiality The system requirements
for a live feed may be unduly bu~densomefor dispensaries Other alternatives should be considered
such as requiring a minimum of'3O-days storage of the electronic monitoring system images,
Transportation Requirements
The Department's initial draft rules contain no provisions relative to the transportation of
medical mruijuana between dispensaries, cultivation sites, patients, etc The Association believes such
rules are necessary and appropriate for the Department to promulgate Some suggestions in this regard
are that:
Vehicles used for delivery not bear any identifying markings
The dispensary must maintain cuIrent commercial motor vehicle insurance as required by
Ar izona law
Only registered dispensary agents with access to a form of secure communication with the
dispensary may staff any vehicle during the delivery of usable marijuana
All usable marijuana be transported in a locked container that is locked in the trunk or
otherwise secured within the vehicle used to transport the marijuana
Pharmacist / Surety Bond Information
Proposed R9-17-302 sets forth the contents of a dispensary application R9-17-302(B)(15)

ploposes to ask whether "[a] registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during regular business
hours" and "[wlhether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much " The Association is
January 7,201 1
Page 16
unclear as to whether the Department seeks to require these items or whether they will be used as
evaluation criteria If intended to be a requirement, the pharmacist provision is extremely problematic
and unduly burdensome fbr dispensaries And the reference to a surety bond, generally required to
guarantee performance of a legal obligation, does not appear to make any sense in this context In short,
some futher explanation from the Department is necessary to permit informed comment
Notice of Inspection
A R S 3 38-3806(H) provides that medical marijuana dispensaries are subject to reasonable

inspection by the Department and that the "Department shall give reasonable notice of an inspection
under this subsectiod " Proposed R9-17-306 beyond defining "reasonable notice of an &spection "
Proposed R9-17-306(A) provides that the submission of an application constitutes permission for
entry to and inspection of the dispensary It does not reference any "reasonable notice requirement" and
does not limit this inspection to the inspection associated with the Department's review of a dispensary
application (proposed R9-17-306(C) provides for 5 working days notice of a certification or compliance
inspection) The application of the 5-day notice to the inspection referenced in (A) needs to be clarified
If the notice provision is intended to apply, it may be advisable to combine (A) and (C)
Proposed R9-17-306(E) allows an unannounced inspection of'a dispensary or cultivation site

based on "an allegation" of noncompliance with the Act or Department rules This is contrary to the
express intent of the Act that Department inspections be conducted upon reasonable notice If the
Department receives information o f a possible criminal violation ofthe Act or other laws, it should refer
those to the appropriate law enforcement agency for follow-up The proper method of entering without
notice under those circumstances is for the law enforcement agency to establish probable cause to
believe that a crime has been or is being committed and to secure a search warrant The Act does not
preclude the appropriate investigation of criminal offenses, but it absolutely protects dispensaries from
Department inspections without notice Subsection (E) of'this proposed rule should be eliminated
Cleaning Requirements
With respect to proposed R9-17-3 17(A)(1), the Association suggests that the word "securely" be
deleted and replaced with "reasonably " This change is suggested because, if this provision is intended
to apply to outdoor cultivation, it is impossible to protect plants from dust, for example
Residency Requirement
The Association is very supportive of the residency requirement for principal officers and board
members of dispensaries contained in the initial draft rules and suggests that the requirement be
strengthened from two to three years and that these applicants be required to funish three years of
Arizona tax returns to the Department for additional proof ofresidency only,
Januay 7,201 1
Page 17
It is important that dispensary officials have sufficient ties to Arizona This new industry must
be protected fiom those who would undermine it and undermine public confidence in the ability to have
a legitimate medical marijuana program Those with stIong Aizona ties will have a greater incentive to
enswe the program's long-term success Also, Arizona residents are more easily subject to the state's
jurisdiction in the event of a problem The Association wants Arizona to avoid the mistakes made by
other states A residency requirement helps to prevent those that created problems in other states from
bringing the same set of problems to Arizona
CONCLUSION
Again, the Association commends the Department for its efforts in creating the initial haft rules
It hopes that the foregoing comments and suggestions will be of assistance to the Department as it
prepares the next draft In the interim, the Association is available to discuss any po~tionof this rule
comment or to answer any questions you may have Please let us know if we can be of assistance
Sincerely,
GAMMAGE & BURNHAM
Lisa T Hauser
The Law OfJice o j
7047 E Greenway Pkwy, Suite 140 *Scottsdale AZ 85254
tel480 624 2765 + fix 480991 0920
wwwarizonalawonlinecom
jjhernandez@az-lawnet
Jef'f'ery J. Hernandez
January '7,201 1
Vza facsimile to 602-542-1062

Ovlginal to follow via U S Mall

Arizona Dept ot Health Services
150 N lgthAve , Suite 500
Phoenix, AZ 85007-324'7
RE: 12/1'7/10 Draft Rules for Arizona Medical Marijuana Program
Dear Mr Humble:
. ~
. ,
I ani writing this kittei bn behalf of a client who intends to provide information and services
for patients in cinrikition ivith the Ai'iiona Medical MafijuanaProgzam W e have fhoroughly
reviewed the text of prop 203,-tis we11 $5 the12117110 Draft Rules (the " ~ r a..f.i R u l ~ s ! ~The
)"
following ark mi comments and suggestibns i . ~
Overall, the Draft Rules do not appear to place the interests of Arizona at the forefront In
their current draft fbrm, the rules are designed to benefit a few wealthy individuals, and they
essentially lock out smaller Arizona enttepreneurs from competition and access to opportunities to
make Arizona's Medical Marijuana Program a model for fkture state programs The current rules
stifle competition and would create a de facto monopoly by artificially locking the wholesale to the
retail business with the 70130 requirement proposed under DR9-17-307, which has no basis in Prop
3 This will not oniy stifle competition, 'out will also result in atificial!~inflzted prices for
medical marijuana The effect will be that few licensees will benefit, and patients and caregivers in
outer lying areas will suffer This artificial cost structure will no doubt negatively impactthe industry
in the long term,
What is very troubling about the rules is how they propose to establish guidelines for issuing
dispensary licenses In its current form, the rules requite an applicant to possess a certificate of'
occupancy or some other documentation issued by a local authority authorizing occupancy as a
condition for obtaining adiipensary license DR R9-17-302(B)(5) The applicant must also submit
site plans-and'floo~.. . . . for the'dispensary &nd the cultivation site to be eligible DR R9-17-
302(B)(8 -, 11) This rule
.. , ~ ,favbri
,.. .
those fewwho have tlte financial wherewithal to (a) locate a site that
complieswith local zoning laws, (bJ ptepafe and submit site and floo: plans to obtain a building
permit, ( c) construct the facilities, (d) pass inspections, and (e) obtain a certificate of occupancy,
Will Humble
Arizona Dept of Health Services
Januar y 7 , 2 0 11
Page - 2 -
All of this must be accomplished before an application can be considered These requirements are
an undue burden, ate arbitrary and capricious, and they ate not supported by the language of Prop
2 03
The proposed rules appear to be cut from whole cloth with no basis in the law and without
consideration for the fairness ofthe licensing process Such regulations are undoubtedly subject to
challenge in the courts and possible disruption ofimplementation ofthe program by injunctiverelief
Perhaps granting a pr ovisional license to an otherwise qualified applicant pending zoning approval
and obtaining a certificate of occupancy will ievel the playing field Puiiing the cart before the horse
only benefits those with enough horse power to push the cart
In addition, the licensing procedure should be less subjective and more transparent
Allowing licenses to be issued by using subjective criteriapromotes all that is bad about politics and
business in America: cronyism, graft, illegal contributions, corruption, etc Instead, licenses should
be granted by way of a lottery or auction All pre-qualified candidates should have an equal chance
at obtaining a license Licenses should not be awarded solely to those who have the most money or
who can afford to meet the current tequitements and suffer the consequences without much harm
if a license is not awarded to them
Regarding the non-profit status of entities described in 536-2806 of Prop 203, the following
questions should be answered to provide guidance to dispensaries and to ptohibit abuses:
.. Can a license owner sell a dispensary license for a profit?
.. How much can a dispensary retain above its short term needs?
How much can dispensary management be compensated?
. What related-party transaction protections will be implemented?

What accounting information must a dispensary share (and with whom and how
. o!:en) to demonstrzte its ilon-pofit status?

What rights will the public have to question the non-profit status ofa dispensary that
is not requited to be recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS under $36-2806(A)?
Failure to address these issues will not only result in abuse of the system, it will also result
in the perception that the ADHS tacitly approves weak controls to allow the powerful few to exploit
the system and tutn a huge profit in violation of Prop 203
Withrespect to the Medical Director requirement proposed inDRR9-17-3 10, please explain
how ADHS has authority to mandate such a requirement given - the fact that the need for a medical
direct01 apparently has no basis in Ptop 203 Undoubtedly, implementation of this provision would
be costly to dispensaries, andultimately to patients down the stream of commerce Doctors' salaries,
n~alpracticeinsutance, and other associated costs will have to be absorbed by dispensaries on a pro
Will Humble
January 7,201 1
Page - 3 -
rata basis This provision appears to be poorly conceived to employ lots of doctors who have little
or no knowledge of the subject matter, and it raises the question whether doctors were involved in
the drafting of these rules to provide doctors with a retirement pension, so to speak
In the interests of patients, the ADHS should instead employ an industry-supported medical
director to be headquartered at ADHS to help oversee and administer the program The medical
director's salay should be paid from revenues generated pursuant to $36-2803(A)(5)
Finally, the Draft Rules are silent as to the acauisition of initial strains ofmedical mariiuana
and the addition of new strains as time progresses Dispensaries need a legal method for obtaining
genetic strains of medical marijuana, and this issue needs to be addressed in the context of current
federal laws Failure to address it wiil result in dispensaries technically having to violate the law to
conduct business For instance, fiom where will seeds and plants be acquired? Will inte~state
commerce be infringed by prohibiting the acquisition of seeds &dl01 plants from states that currently
allow the use of medical marijuana? These are just a few of the many questions that go . unanswered
but need to be addressed Perhaps the following language could be considered in any future rules:
"Dispensaries shall be allowed to obtain seeds andlor marijuana plants for the
purpose ofperpetuating specific genetics during the calendar gear 201 1 After 201 1,
any dispensary can petition the ADHS Director for approval to obtain additional
seeds and/or marijuana plants to add new genetics, and ADHS shall approve such
petitions that provide fbr protection ofthe supply chain from theft andlor diversion."
I appreciate the opportunity to provide my feedback, and I would welcome a meeting with
you and my client to discuss these issues and implementation ofthe program in general, including
the review of future draft rules before they are proposed once again If you have any questions, or
ifyou wish to discuss zi3y mattss set forth hcicin, please do il& liesitak to coritac: :nr ThaA you
JJH:jh
cc: Tom Horne, Arizona Attorney General

3 LPL Financial Ryan G Toronto. MBA
Investment Advisor Representative
AZ 85282 Rd #112
1270 E Broadway
Tempe,
January 6,201 1 11 J11.#-7 AH 9 4 6
480 9663131 office
;$u;.l
';IS
-'
602 820 6673 mobile
480 966 3554 fax
Will Humble BIAECi'ORS OFFICE ryan toronto@lpl corn
Director, Arizona Department of Health Services www IPI comiryan toronto
150 N 18" Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix. AZ 85007-3247
RE: Medical Directors of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries;

Allowing Registered Pharmacists as well as Medical Doctors
Director Humble:
I am submitting this letter due to what I believe is valuable input into the development of
the Administrative Code for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
I believe the proposal to require each medical marijuana dispensa~yto have a Medical
Di~ectorthat is a medical doctor (either an M D or a D 0 ), will effectively put control of
the entire industry in the hands of a few While I see the need for Medical Directors, I
believe Registered Pharmacists should also be allowed to act as Medical Directors for
dispensaries This will open up the pool of candidates that could potentially act as
Medical Directors for dispensaries, thereby eliminating the potential monopoly doctors
could have over the industry
Forcing medical marijuana dispensaries to keep a docto~on staff would create an inflated
expense for the business operations ofthe dispensaries and may affect their ability to
compete It may also create a situation where doctors are the only one's able to afford to
run a dispensary, because they would not have to pay themselves (and incur the business
expense) If doctors become entrenched as Medical Directors of dispensaries, they could
control how much they charge dispensaries for their services and have an unfair impact
over the business cost structure,
Pharmacists are regulated, licensed professionals in the field of healthcare and have
expertise in counseling patients on how to use their medication Let them be part ofthe
solution, help keep costs down, and prevent a monopolization of the industry by doctors
Furthermore, under current draft guidelines, acting Medical Directors for dispensaries
would not be allowed to write medical marijuana recommendations, anyway The patient
would have to obtain their recommendation prior to coming to the dispensary. Therefore,
doctors will still be part ofthe process; they just will not have an inequitable impact on
the cost structure of dispensary operations Doctors will still have the opportunity to
evaluate symptoms, changes in symptoms, and the need to recommend medical
marijuana during initial physician-patient consultations and follow up consultations
Member FINRAISIPC
9 LPL Financial Ryan G Toronto, MBA
1270E Broadway Rd $112

Tempe, A285282
480 9663131 ofice
602 820 6673 m o b ~ l e
480 966 3554 fax
iyantaronto@lpl cum
www lpl comliyan toronto
This is being submitted by a concerned citizen and businessman, who is concerned with
maintaining fair competition for all hizonans that have a desire to become involved in
this new industry
I have wo~kedas a Financial Advisor in the Valley for 17 years and am a graduate of the
Thunderbird School of Global Management I can be reached for furthe1 comment at
(480) 966-3131
Thank you for taking the time to review these suggestions
Sincerely,
6
~ y a n Toranto, MBA
Financial Advisor
Member FINRA/SIPC
Stephanie Bishop f I
From: Sabrina Vazquez [sabrinaabarnesaz com]
Sent: Thursday, January 06,201 1 9:28 AM
To: Stephanie Bishop
Cc: Thomas Salow
Subject: Letter to the Director from AzNMA
Hello, /
Below is a letter t o Director Humble from the President of the Arizona Naturopa Medical Association Thank you for
your time
Sabrina Vazquez
Barnes &Associates
331 N 1 Ave, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-,452-2943
Cell: 602-503-8354
Fax: 602-452-2942

Office of the Director
150 North 18th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 8500 7
January 4, 201 1
Dear Direct Humble,
The Arizona Nahrropathic Medical Association (AzNMA) applauds the effbrt and dedication of the Arizona Department
of Health Services to create a regulatory system that will allow for a responsible Medical Marijuana Program Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on and participate in, the rules making process
At this time AzNMA has three requests for changes to the rules as the process moves fbrward The requests are as
follows:
1 The Naturopathic, Allopathic and Osteopathic Boards of Examiners should require physicians who recommend
medical marijuana to complete no less than eight hours of training (through classroom situations, seminars at
professional society meetings, electronic communications, or otherwise) that covers the clinical, pharmacological,
ethical and legal aspects of using medical marijuana in patient care
2 Naturopathic Physicians should be included in the definition of "medical director" as they are included in the
definition of "physician" in the voter approved Medical Marijuana Act and authorized to recommend medical
marijuana to qualifying patients In this instance natu~opathicphysicians have the same qualifications as
allopath~cand osteopathic doctors to successfully serve as medical directors
3 Patients with a terminal illness should be exempt from the rule requiring a patient to have a professional
relationship with a physician for at least one year and assessed fbr their medical condition on at least ibur visits
prior to being eligible for a medical marijuana recommendation
AzNMA appreciates the department's attention to these matters and encourages the suggested changes be included in the
formal draft rules released later this month
We have contacted the department and discussed these issues with your rules attorney Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Amy Te~lisnerN D
President of Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association
RE'c?,f:/id~~
11 J4Y -6 Pg 2: 23
PO. Box 18640 Tucson, AZ 85 731-8640
-.. P&&jP20) 298-4781
lJlM,LI !!ti's OFFlCF
Arizona Department of'HealthServices
Office of the Direct01
W E 1 W L E , DIRECIOR
150 N. 18th Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix, Axizona 85007-3247
(602) 542-1025
(602) 542- 1062 FAX
> ,
Internet: www azdhs gov
Re: Official Comments on hizona Proposition 203 Proposed Rules
January 5,201 1
The following was submitted to your office via you electronic form on January 5,201 1 at 0823 hours:
The interests of individual citizens who own fnearms are of utmost concern Iherefore, the qualifying patient registry identification
card must be eliminated as a requirement
RAIIONALE: It will remain illegal for an individual to possess and use marijuana under federal law (21 USC $811) In Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U S. 1 (2005), the United States Sup~emeCout held that the federal govanment has the constitutional authority to prohibit
maxijuana for all purposes In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave
Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use ofmarijuana, despite state law to the contrary
Any individual who purchases a fueaxm from a federally licensed firearms (FFL) dealer must complete a BATFE F o ~ m4473
Question 1 le, which is a YES or NO question, reads as follows:
"Are you an unlawful user of; or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?"
Ihis puts the potential purchaser of a firearm in a quandary The individual purchaser can neither answer YES nor NO to BAIFE
Form 4473, question 1l e because, 1) Lying on this f o ~ mis a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to
fmes and 2) Answering YES will result in a denial ofpurchase order from the National Instant Criminal Backpound Check System
V C S ) This will effectively deny the individual right to keep and bear arms for anyone who submits an application for a Patient
Registry Identification Card
Futhermore, filing an application for the Patient Registry Identification Card will ab~idgethose rights conferxed in the United States
Constitution, Articles in Amendment, Amendment 5, especially self-imimimation, among others
Additionally, in order to prevent an occurrence in Atizona like what happened in Oregon, rules must be written and implemented that
prohibit the decimation of an Arizona Concealed Car~yWeapons pexmit based solely on ones application and/or issuance of a Patient
Registry Identification card and/or the putchase of medical marijuana from a dispensaty
Kenneth R Rineer
President
LlNlCS
- - -. .~ ~
M E D I C A L MARIJLIANAD I S P E N S A R I E S
1)ilcciol Will I-Iuunblc

Ziizoti;~Dcpail~nenlof 1Ic;ilth Sc~riccs
150 X 18111kvcnuc
Phocuir, h%85007
Re: Comrncnts 1Xcg;utiing l>~aliRudcs on Sl;ute Llcdkal Ykoijl~ulal'roy~uu
Kind Clinics is dedicated to helping establish the highest possible standards for the medical marijuana indushy,
We have experience in every state that currently allows medicinal use of marijuana Kind Clinics is committed to
helping develop the medical marijuana industry as a secure and well-regulated system that promotes ease of use for
truly qualified patients and a level of comfort from the community and lawmakers that the system will be effective and
secnre
W e appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the draft rules implementing the State Medical
Marijuana Program W e want to assist in being the leader in implementing rules that will establish a secwe, eficient,
safe and fraud-proof system from seed to sale of medical marijuana We are pleased to contribute to the process,
Suggested language for the rules is in italics, with language to be removed indicated by a strikethrough,
1. THE RULES SHOULD ESTABLISH THE STAiiDARDS BY WHICH DHS WILL ASSESS
DISPENSARY APPLICATIONS IF THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS EXCEEDS THE NUMBER
OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES THAT THE DEPARTh.LIENT MAY ISSLX.
The proposed ~ulesshould acknowledge that the number of dispensary registration certificates that the
Department may issue is limited to one for every ten pharmacies registered and operating in Arizona A R S 5 36-
280410 Section R9-17-107(G)provides that DHS shdlissue a dispensary registration certificate if DHS determines
that the application is complete and the applicant complied with A R S Title 36, Chapter 2 8 1 and the rules The only
two reasons listed for denial are that the applicant does not comply with A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1 and the rules or
that the applicant has fiiled to submit infbrmation after.DHS makes a request,
The rules need to acknowledge the T i t s in place on the number of dispensary registration certificates that the
Department may issue The rules also need to address how the Department will decide to which dispensaries to issue
registration certificates if the number of applications exceeds the number of permissible dispensaries
A. The De~arbnentShould Establish Time Fiames for Acce~fineA~~lications.
Because the limit on the number of dispensary ~egistrationcertifkates is based on the number of pharmacies, it is
possible that the number of pharmacies and dispensaries will increase, The Department needs to establish a procedure
for announcing the availability of dispensary registration ceralcates and a window for accepting and reviewing
applications, starting with the fust set of applications that will be reviewed starting in April 201 1
This time fiame would work in conjunction with the selection criteria discussed in Section B below to help
ensure that the Department timely receives and processes applications but is also able to select the best qualif~ed
Kind Clinics Medlcal Marijuana Dispensary Marketing 8. Consulting
5450 E. High Street, Suite 220 - Phoenix. AZ 85054
877-998-6999 [direct) www Kindclinics corn
applicants that demonstrate the greatest likelhood of providing a safe, secure, eficient dispensary The Department
could add a new rule:
When dspensary regseation cer?lijcates are avadable, the Depariment shall issue a nohie iden&hg the
number of dispenruy regibation cerh5cates available and the deadhne for appljmg f b ~the dispensary
regiibahon certdicates, which shall not be more than 21 calendar days afier the date of the notice All
app/icahbns rece~veddumg t b ~ penbd
s will be evaluated and we&bed based on the oitena established in
Section - When the number of dispensank to which the Department has issued a dispensaryregshation
cerbXcate meto the number of dispensaryregitrmon cerh5cates that are pennitted by A R . S 5 36-2804lC1,
the Department shallis,suea notice that there are no dispensaryrefl:strabbncert5cates available,
B. The Deuarhnent Should Establish Standards to Eduate A~~licaiions.

Maine and New Jersey also limit the number of dispensaries that may operate in their states Each has created
or proposed a system for evaluating and weighmg applicants based on various factors Each has a panel to select the
applicants to whom dispensary licenses will be issued W e recommend that Arizona implement a similar system to
help ensure that the dispensaries that receive registration certificates are the ones most likely to operate a professional,
secue, fraud-proof dispensary The system adopted in Maine uses a point system and any applicant with less than 70
points will not be considered, which may be beneficial in k i z o n a and save time for the Department
W e recommend adding a new rule that sets out factors that the Department will evaluate before issuing a
dispensary regishation certificate
LIiMZZATZON ON NUMBER Oli DZSPENSARIHAND SELECTION C R I m
A Liimtahon on number of dispensaries. The Deparhnent may not issue more than one n o n p d t medical
mmJuana dispensary regish-ation cerli6cate Eor every ten pharmacies that have registered under A R S 5 32-
1929, have o h h e d a phannacy pesmit from the Aniona Board of Pharmacy and operate w'thiti the State
except that the Deparhnent may issue nonprofitmedical mariJuana dispensary reg.'shation ce~bi'icatesin excess
of this limit ifnecessary to ensure that the Deparhnent is,sues at least one nonprofit medical mmjjana
dispensaryreg:shationcertibcate in each cvuntyvl which an application has been approved
B . SelecDon process. Zf'theappkahons for a djpenrary regzstration cer~cateexceed the number of dispens&y
regirh.ation cerhXcater that may be issued, the Department shall convene a panel to evaluate and score each
applicahon urlng the tntenon in sub,section- - To he considwed for a dispensary regjshation ceroficate, an
applicahon must score at least 70 povltr Subject to the limkaons of the number o f dispensaries, the
Department shallis,suea dspensaryre@'strahoncemEcate to the applicantr with the hlkhest scores,
C Selection cnteria Each complete appficahon contauung all of'themfomahon requ~redin R9-17-302 shall be
eduated and scored based on:
I Secunty & Inventory Cone01 fi0pomtr mawmum) Factors to be cons~deredmdude,but are notlmted
to
the application demonshates that the dspensary and culhvation huh& d applicable, U2U meet or
exceed the standards eitabhhedh thele ~ules;
thepol~ciesandprocedures wdl dscoumge udawfulachwtv;
thepohues andprocedmes mclude a p o h c y h i d e n h h a~n d r e p o m unlawfiul achna
* the policies and procedures demonreate #at transporntion of medical marijjana and paraphemaha
wjY he conducted in a safe &d secure manner that d r n k m i z e the MeWood of theftor Io,ss,
the Me& effechvenessofmethods and tools to prevent andreduce fraud and abuse
Up to 5 addhonal pomts should be awarded for excetdmg the muumuni standards estabhrhed m
these Ruler
2 Busheas plans andpolicit's (25pornti m k u m ) Factorr to be cons~deredhclude,but are notlimted to:
the bushers plan demonsti-ate9 the ongolng wabdiv of the drpensary as a non-psofit orgaruzation,
which may hclude a detailed dercnption of the amount and source ofthe eqwly cormmtment and
debt ob&ahons for.the dispensary that demonsmte the inmediate and l o n g e m fmancial ftasibility
oftht proposed fmanckgplan and the relative avai'Iab2ityo f f i d s for capitaland opera&gneeds;
the dispensuy by-laws contan pprvisions for dspo,sition of revenuer and recerpts to m a n h non-
profit status
the pah.entrecord-ktepuy policies demonst-ate that the pah'ent h50nnation w d be recure fiom accer r
by or dj,tnhuhon to unauthorizedparties; and
the plan for patient education and documentation of patient pan demonrpater an understaodng of
the benefiti andnsks ofmedicalmaryiuana
3 Other (25pomtti mawmmum) The panelmay consider other factors, mcludng b u t n o t h t e d to
factors that demonshate the IIkehhood that the dispensary d successful^ operate h a safe, secure,
and effectivemanner h compliance wjth all applicable laws andrules,
location of dispensary;
dliahon mth other non-profit o@mrzahons,
. comnubnent to and use of up-to-datetechnolop,
comnubnent to commuruty service,
application is h e . $ submtted,
application i s fuVy complete and doer notreqwre supplementalmfoormation;and
commitment to developing the mdustry zh safe, secure, fiaudpsoof manner that keeps medical
mar@nna uredfor the purports htended b y A R.S Xde 36; Chapter 28.1.
C.. If the Deuartment Does Not Adout a Formal Evaluation System. It Should Still Consider the Most
Qualiiied A D D ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~Issuing
When S ! Disuensarv Recishation Certificates.
If the Department does not adopt a formal system to evaluate and rank dispensary applicants, it stiU must
address the limitation on the number of dispensaries If there are multiple applicants 61 a dispensary in the same
general location and the applications are complete and comply with A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1 and these rules, the
Department should issue the dispensary registration certification to the most qualified applicant,
LfiWITATIOfV O I V I V U I M ~OFDISPEVSARIESAhD
~R SELECTION CRITERIA
A h t a h o n on number of dispensmes. The Department may not Issue more than one drspenrary re@rhation
certZcate for every ten pharmacies that have registered under A R.S 5 32-1929, have ohtaked a pharmacy
permit from the Aniona Board of Pharmacy and operate w'hh the State except that the Department may
issue djpensaryregistration cer~catesin e.xces,sof thjs himtifnecerrary to ensure that the Deparhnenfzrsues
atleast one aYspensaryregishation cedficatein each counpljl which a n a p p h h b n has been approved
B Selechon procrrs. #the appifcahonr for a &spenraryregzstration ceroticate exceed the number of dfspensary
reg:~Liahoncertiiicates that the Depamnent may issue, the Department shall issue a dispensary regishation
ceroi7cate to the mo,st qualiiied applicants The Department shail consider hctors that incfude, hut are not
Iimied to:
1 7be strength of the busmess plan, ljlcludng whether the huribess p h demonstrates the ongomg wabdip
of the dispensary as a non-profit organization and demons hate,^ appropnate oversight and non;orofi
SbUChlre;'
2 The shength of secun&planr andpoficies for growtli, &ansportahon, storage, and rlrspensrng ofmedical
mmyuana, ibdudhgph~icalsecurity feahnes and secm'ppoifcer and the fikelihood that the secm;ly ~171
deter fraud, theft, orlo,ss;
3 7be sLiength of the hventory conhol plans and poifcies, mcludhg whether the applicant i s uszbg best
available technology toprevent fraud, theft or 10,s.s;
4. The strength of thepatientrecords secun;lypoifcies and thepatient educahonalpolicies;and
5 The she& of dspensmgpohc~erand t h w Irkellhood to prevent fiaud, thee or loss
11. 'IT% DEPARTMENT SHOULD REQUIRE DISPENSARIES TO RE CORPORATIONS OR DEFINE

PRIS(=IPAL OFFICER OR BOARD MEMBER.
The residency requirements and other requirements of the rules apply only to "principal officers or board
members" The proposed rules do not defme these terms Officess and board members are most often associated
with corporations
The proposed rules seem to contemplate that dispensaries, however, may have a variety of legal forms and
leadership governance stIuchlres R9-17-301 Non-profit organizations are usually corporations, which would be
required to have a board and officers The Department should require a medical marijuana dispensary to be formed as
a corporation, which would then allow principal officer and board member to have theu normal meanings in the
corporate context The regulations in Maine require that dispensaries incorporate under the laws of the State of Maine,
The proposed New Jersey regulations also seem to require inco~poration,as the application requires submission of the
Articles of'Incorporation for the dispensary,
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act defines a medical marijuana dispensary as a "not-for-profitenti@ but
does not define entity The Department could defme entity in the rule to be corporations duly organized under the
laws of the State of Arizona
If the Department does not require the dispensary to be a corporation, it should defme the scope of the people
covered by the residency requirement One defmition could be:
'Fnnc~palofficer or board member" means the pnnupd ofiers or hoard members of a corporahon, the
manag& member of a member-managed Iiinited Lahilip company or the manager of a manager-managed
llmied ifabiliw company, members of'the go& board o f an association or cooperahbe, and other
ibdiiduals holdng the equialentroks ljl other types of'busines,sorganizations.
111. THE RULES SHOULD CLARIFY WHETHER MEDICAL MARIIUANA IS SUElECT TO SALES
TAX
The Act and the rules are silent regarding whether there will be a sales tax There are diffe~entpractices in the
diCferent states that have medical marijuana laws Some of them did not tax medical marijuana initially and are now
issuing opinions that the sales are subject to sales tax (see
liiir~:i/irI ~ . I ~ : ~-
OJIII~~~IIIS.~YOO~/~~(/~ O
$for the /
Colorado attorney ~II
general
opinion) The Rules should address whether medical marijuana, l i e prescribed medications, is exempt fiom sales tax
or whether, like tangible personal property, is subject to State and local sales tax
IV. THE RULES SHOULD REQUIRE BIOMETRIC IDENTIPICATIONPRIOR TO DISPENSING
MEDICAL MARWANA.
In order to prevent fraud and abuse, the Department should require the use of biomehic identification, such as
fingerprintidenrif~cation,prior to dispensing medical marijuana
As we are all aware, identification cards are too frequently forged or altered The only way to insure against
fraud and identity theft is to require biomehic fmgerprint identification prioi to dispensing medical marijuana,
Photographs and picture IDS can be altered Relatives can often look similar enough to use each other's identification
cards (which has enabled minors to purchase alcohol using an older sibling's or cousin's identification) However, an
individual cannot fjke fingerprints The only way to ensure that medical marijuana is dispensed only to persons
authorized to receive medical marijuana is using fmgerprint biomehics The technology is readily available for all
dispensaries to be able to satisfy this requirement,
Based upon a request from law enforcement, the City of Peo~iarecently discussed requiring biometrics for
dispensing of any Schedule I or Schedule I1 controlled substance by pharmacies in Peoria Using biomehic
identification is the way that Peoria police believe that they can control prescription fraud The same l o ~ applies
c in
the medical marijuana context Law enforcement favors biomehics to help prevent and detect fiaud and abuse
The Department should add a new requirement in R9-17-302(B):
A sworn statement s&ved and dated by themdw'dual or mdiw211als m R9-17-301cerb&mg that the dispensary
has purchased or dpurcbase andmantun equ~pmentand r o ~ fore required to ure iingepnnt biomehjcs
to verfi the identip of all qudfkgpatientr and deslated caregrvers prior to d~spensi~rnedicalman~uma,
The Department should modify R9-17-311 dealing with dispensing medical marijuana:
Before a dispensaryagent dispenser rnedicalmaq~uanato a q u ~ g p a t i e nor
t a desjgnated caregrver, the
d~spenmyagtntshall
I Venfythe q u m p a h e n t k or the designated careg~verkideno* us& a biomehi; fmgepnntreader,
Biometries will assist in the prevention of fraud and identity theft by the electronic verification of each
cardholder's identity as well as assisling the Department and law enforcement in monitoring and tracking medical
marijuana dispensing and patient use of medical marijuana,
V. CARDS SHOULD INCLUDE SECURITY FEATURES TO PREVENT
REGISTRY I D ~ C A T I O N
FORGERIES.
Registry identification cards should include security featu~esto prevent fbrgeries Security features could
include optically variable ink graphic f h laminate, holographic seals or other visible security features to help idenhfy
genuine cards and prevent reproduction The cards could also use RFID chips or magnetic slrips that do not store
personal information but that can be l i k e d to the Department database and integrated with a dispensary's elechonic
inventory and dispensing records to help the Department and dispensaries hack and conhol the medical marijuana
process from seed to sale
I . DISPEVSNUES S H O L U BE ABLE TO ACQV1RE MEDICAL MAR-NA IZI ANY AMOUXT
- PATIEWS OR DESIGNATHI CAREGNERS.
FROM OTHER DISPEZlSARlES OR QUALIFYISG
A. Reauirine Each Dis~ensawto Cultivak its Own Medical Maribma Unnecessdv Increases the
Number of Cultivation Sites in the S m .
By requiring that each dispensary cultivate a minimum of7096 of the medical marijuana it dispenses, the
Department would ensure that there will be approximately 125 cultivation sites It is in the best interest ofthe SQte of
Arizona and law enforcement to have fewer cultivation sites; The fewer cultivation sites that exist, the easier they will be
to monitor and regulate and the prospects for production and inventory control will be enhanced Rather than
requiring each dispensary to cultivate its own medical marijuana, the Department should allow dispensaries to acquke
medical marijuana fiom any other dispensary or q u a l i i g patient or designated caregiver
There are some capable, professional business people who would be very good at running a secure, effective,
fraud-proof dispensary, but who may not necessarily be as good at cultivating medical marijuana Rather than turning
every local dispensary into a grower, the Department should implement rules that would allow the number of
cultivation sites to be reduced and for market forces to optimize cultivation
B.. The 7096130% Rule is Not Effective for Inventow Control.
We understand that the intent of the 70% requir.ementis to help with inventory conbal In reality, this system
increases the likelihood of fraud and of medical marijuana being sold on the illegal drug market This could happen in
at least two ways First, some dispensaries will have too mucb supply, increasing the chances for fraud or loss and that
the lawful medical marijuana could be sold on the illegal drug market Second, some dispensaries would not always
bave sufficient stock so excess stock from one dispensary could end up being sold to other dispensaries that are unable
to grow sufficient stock or the dispensary would acquire it from the illegal drug market, requiring the dispensaries to
fraudulently document hansactions to maintain the impression of compliance with the Rules Dispensaries may end up
with too litlle or too much medical marijuana, which is not effective invento~yconhol
Having the 70%/30% requirement also interferes with the purpose of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
which is to provide relief to persons suffering fiom debilitating illnesses If dispensaries are unable to keep fresh,
effective stock to dispense to patients because of the 70%/30% rule, they will be unable to further the purposes of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act Further, if dispensaries are required to destroy medical marijuana that it cannot sell to
other dispensaries, the costs of doing business will increase, which will increase the costs to the patients If dispensaries
are unable to grow sufficient stocks of medical marijuana and cannot acquire medical marijuana from other
dispensaries, the patients the Act was designed to help may not be helped This could be an especially acute problem
in rural areas with fewer dispensaries
A fiemarketsystemin which a dispensary can purchase or sell to any other dispensary as part of a
competitive fiee market is the best way to guarantee the appropriate supply of medical marijuana, to discourage
dispensaries from going outside authorized sources to obtain marijuana, and to reduce the incentive or risk of the sale
of excess marijuana on the illegal drug market Effective hacking and controlling of sales between dispensaries is mucb
better inventory conhol and fraud prevention than is accomplished by requiring each dispensary to bave its own
cultivation site
Because the 70%/30%will not be effective,we recommend removing Rule R9-17-307(C)(1)and (C)(5)and
revising R9-17-307(C)(4)to read:
4, :May acqrxie the medical marijuana the dspeniary provides to qu&mg pahentr and
dei~batedczegivers from another d,spenrary ul Arizona, a q u a l h pahent, or a desl~ated
czegiver.
C. Electronic Trackiw from Seed to Sale is B e t h Inventow Control and Fraud Prevention than
Reauirinc Each Dis~ensawto Cultivate its Own Medical Mariiuana. and the De~artmentShould
Rwuire Dismaries to Provide the D e m e n t with Access to the Trackiap and Inventow Svstem.
In order to keep track of sales and medical marijuana inventory, to prevent fiaud, and to minimize the
possibiiry of loss or theft, the Department should require real-time electranic tracking of the medical marijuana from
seed to sale
The proposed draft rules would require that dispensaries establish an inventory control policy, A A C R9-17-
307(l)(c),and require that their inventory contra1 system identlfy certain minimum information A A C R9-17-313
The proposed rules do not identify how dispensaries are required to maintain the reco~ds,leaving it entirely up to the
dispensary how to track the infbrmation and record i t This opens the door for sigdcant fraud, as paper records can
be more easily manipulated than a verifiable electronic tracking and inventory system
Real-time electronic tracking of medical marijuana from seed to sale-using an electronic system that can be
accessed and reviewed by the Deparment-will be more eff'ectivethan allowing each dispensary to establish its own
inventory control and tracking methods Appropriate language revisions are:
Modily R9-17-313(B)as follows:
A dispensary shall establish and implement an electronic inventory control system to @track,monitor andreport
the followngfor the dispensary's medical marijuana &Aewme&
Modify R9.17-313(D) as follows:
2: Provide the documentahon reqlrkd N1 sub,sechons (Bl and (C)to the Deparment for review upon
request, and provide the Department with access, mcludng remote access, to the dispensary's
eleceonic inventory conho/ system upon reguest,
D. The De~artment's I n s d o n Authoritv Should Reauire Electronic Inventow and Indude

Unannounced Access to Electronic T& and Inventow Control Systems.
In addition to requiring electronic tracking and inventory control, the Department should add to the inspection
requirement that its authority to conduct unannounced inspections includes the authority to access the electronic
tracking and inventory control system
An integrated electronic and technologically advanced system that allows real-time tracking of patient usage,
each dispensary's dispensing of medical marijuana, verification that physician statements and cards are un-expired prior
to dispensing to patients, and inventory connol and management is critical to a stable, secure, and fxaud-proof medical
marijuana system The technology is currently available in the medicine dispensing software market to allow
dispensaries to electronic& record and track all inventory and transactions,
This system would allow the Department better auditing capabilities It will allow the Department to conduct
audits remotely to do an electronic audit This would also prevent potential HIPAA violations and invasion of client
privacy involved in potentially monitoring cameras and reviewing individual patient fdes
\'I1 'THE RIJLES SHOIJLD EXPRESSLY PERMlT DISPENS.4RlES TO DEVELOP FIECmONIC
SYSTEMS T - @ m ~ m ~ . & W p R O V I D EMORhMTION T O THE STATE'S MEDICAL
W k U A ELECTKONIC VERIFICATION SYSTEM
The proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verlfy information from the State's medical marijuana
electronic verification system and enter additional information into the system relating to the transaction The
technology is available to allow this process to he automated so that the dispensary computer directly communicates
with the medical marijuana electronic verification system without a human user being required to enter the information,
This automatic communication from computer-to-computer would reduce the chances of human error while reviewing
or inputting information, and thus better prevent fraud and improper dispensing of medical marijuana It would also
mean that human users could not alte~or enter fraudulent information, again reducing the chances for fraud or abuse
of the medical marijuana system
The rules should explicitly allow such elecbonic transactions by making the existing R9-17-311 part A and
adding as part B:
B A dispenrarymayuse an automated elechomi system ofhardware and 9ofhyar.eto v e d t h e
infbnnahbnrequ~rededm Sechon A befbre dijpenjrngmedcdmanjuana to a quddjmgpatient or dej&nated
care@verand to submit the r e q u ~ r e d ~ b h a h otonthe rnedicdma~uanaelectronic venficahon system,
VIII 1'HE REQUIRElEYT THAT A DISPESSARY BE READY FOR IKSPE(JIION BY DHS PRIOR M
.4U APPLICATION BEtNG CONSmERED WMPLETE IS AN L'NNECFSSARY RWDFN T O
APPLICANTS WHOSE APPLICATION MAY KOT BE APPROVED kW UNNECESSARILY
DELAYS THE OPENNG OF DISPEZIS_ARIF&
k The Department Should Issue Prelimhaw ADDIOV~~

for D i s m a n Registration Certification Prior to
Ins~ection.
It is unclear in the Rules whether the Department may issue a preliminary approval of dispensary registration
ceracate prior to a dispensary being ready fbr inspection by the Department The rules requue that the applicant
identify whether the site is ready for inspection or identify the date on which it will be ready A A C R9-17-302
Another rule, however, states that an application for a dispensary registration certificate is not complete until the
applicant provides written notice to the Department that the dispensary is ready for inspection A A C R9-17-302
This would make it appear that before the Department will review an application and provide preliminary approval of a
dispensary regisrration certificate, the applicant must go through the time and expense to complete the construction and
build out of the dispensary and cultivation site with the required security and physical plant requirements In addihon
to the time and money spent building out the property, this would also require obtaining permits from the municipal or
county government where the dispensary will be located, which could again delay the process
Requiring a complete build-out before the Department deems the application complete will place all
dispensary applicants in the situation where they must spend a great deal of time and money with no guarantee that they
will receive a dispensary registration certificate This is wasteful, unnecessary, and places an undue burden on
dispensary applicants
The Department should review applications and issue preliminary approval based on floor plans, security
plans, etc After a dispensary applicant receives preliminary approval, final approval could be contingent upon an
inspection demonstrating that the dispensary has filly implemented floor plans, security, zoning, and other elements of
the building proposal The Department could allow fbr 120 days after notice of preliminary approval fbr the
dispensary to be completed and ready fbr inspection
The Department should eliminate the proposed rule R9-17-107(B) The Department should revise Section
R9-17-107(F)(1)so that it reads as follows:
1 Wrthm 120 calendar days after the applicant recehes the rviitten notice of preliminary approval, the
applicant shall submit to the Department:
(al Wr~aen for mspechbn by DHS,
notice that the dspensary and culhvahon srte, rf apph~able,are ~eady
01) An application for a dispensary agent registry identitication card
The Department should also revise Section R9-17-107(F)(2)so that it reads as follows:
2 After receipt of the information and documents in subsection @)(I) m d a@ercompletzi~gan hspecoon
of the dispensary and culhvahon site, Zappficable, the Department shall review the information and
documents, and if the rhspection of the dispensary and cdtivahon site, iFappficabIe, demonsmted
compfimce w'th A R S Etle 36, Chapter 281 and there Rules and the information and documents
for at least one of the principal officers or board members complies with the A R S Title 36, Chapter
281 , ,
Because it may not be possible to determine a date on which a site will be ready fbr inspection at the time of
the application, R9-17-302@)(l)(j)-(kshould be eliminated 'The only dispensary applicants required to provide notice
that the dispensary is ready for inspection would be those who have received preliminary approval
In this way, applicants will still be required to have identified and secured a location that complies with the
zoning laws and r.es'uictions on placement of dispensaries and have established a plan for compliance with the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act and implementing rules, but the dispensary is not necessarily required to go though the
expense of building out the space and acquiring all of the security features prior to knowing that the dispensary may be
able to acquire a dispensary registration certificate
B The ADDliCant Should he Permitkd to Ideniifv a C u l l i d o n Site or Source After the F'rehnharv
ADDr0-d.
As discussed above, it is better to allow each dispensary to obtain medical marijuana in any amounts fiam other
medical marijuana dispensaries Dispensaries should be requued to have a plan for acquiring sufficient supplies of
medical marijuana to serve their patients Requiring a physical address Lbr a cultivation site prior to application,
however, could delay the application process and the build-out of medical marijuana dispensaries The rules should
provide f o ~dispensaries with otherwise complete applications, time after preliminary approval to i d e n ~ ay separate
cultivation facility that is properly zoned and for which the applicant obtains a certificate of occupancy or other required
documentation
The Rule could permit an applicant who has not identified an off-site cultivation source to provide the
Department with notice of'a cultivation site that is separate fiom the dispensary after preliminary approval Preliminary
app~ovalcould be contingent upon the cuitivation site also being ready f o ~inspection withim 120 days after the
Department provides preliminary approval to the dispensary Approval could also be contingent on the submission of
information about the cultivation site within 60 days after notice of preliminary approval
Language to use for a revised R9-17-301(B)(l)(h)is below:
Whether the dispensary wrV culhvate medicalman~uanaat the dspensary site or at a cdhwhon sjte, m d l f a t a
cdhiahon site the physicaladchess ofthe dipensay's cdhvation site or a statement that the dispensqhtends
to ob- a cu/bwbon srte m compfimce wth al(localzo~?gordmanceq
C Revisim the Rule to k e d i t e Dis~ensamA D D r o d W i Reduce the Number of Patien& and

Carebers Gmwin~Their Own M a r i k &ich is B e n e f i d to the De~artmentLaw Enforcement
and the State.
Revising the proposed Rule will also help dispensaries be operating quicker, as the application will be
considered complete and be considered by DHS sooner This will benefit the State, law enfbrcement, and the
Deparh~ent,because the sooner the dispensaries are operative, the sooner qualifying patients will be prohibited from
growing their o m medical marijuana if they live within 25 miles of a dispensary Dispensaries can submit completed
applications-to be processed within the timelines set out in the rules-prior to completing build-out of their facilities,
which will expedite the processiig of applications, which in turn means fewer individuals cultivaLing their o m medical
marijuana If every applicant has to have a completed struchue-with all security and physical requirements met-,
before the Department considers the application complete, it could be several months before any dispensary
applications are complete, causing significant delays in dispensaries being opened,
During the period of time that the Department is reviewing dispensary applications, all quabfymg patients or
designated caregivers will be able to grow their own medical marijuana, because when no dispensaries exist every
patient will be more than 25 miles from a dispensary Tbis is not a desirable situation, as the Deparbnent has less
control and oversight over home growers than it does dispensaries There is much greater potential for fraud and
abuse if there are more people growing their own medical marijuana than if they are obtaining it fiom a regulated
dispensary Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Department to make rules that will expedite the ability of
dispensaries to become operative across the State more quickly
IX. THE RULES SHOULD CONTAIN GREATER SECURITY REQ-S RELATING TO

STORAGE OF MEDICAL MARIIUANA AT DISPENSARIES.
In order to deter theft and abuse, the Rules should require that medical marijuana supplies that are stocked in
a dispensary during the day are stored in a safe or other locked, limited access area during non-work hours and are not
left on shelves overnight,
The Department could add a new requirement to R9-17-315:
D. Storage of Manjana Dur~ngnon-hu~~ness hours, medcd manjuma that 15 prepared for dshihnrion
shallhe stored securelyin compliance with 21 C Z R 1301 72,as amended and supplemented,
The Code of Federal Regulations provides more specific detail on the types of safe or storage facilities that are
required for Schedule I and I1 controlled substances, and requiring this type or storage is consistentwith the
requirements placed on other lawful medications that are Schedule I or Schedule I1 controlled substances
Alternatively, as part of Section R9-17-315, the following language could be added:
fC)(3flFor stonng medial mariirana that i s prepared for dismhution m a rde, vault, or other simrla~locked,
secure, andlinited access storage container d u n k non-worhnghours,
fCl(3)A safe, mult, or other s d a locked, secure, andlmttd access storage container for storage ofmedicd
rnmjuana th~jatisprepared for distn'bution and stored at the dispensary during non-work& hours
If medical marijuana is left stocked on dispensary shelves or otherwise readily accessible by breaking into a
dispensary business, it could encourage more break-ins and theft than if dispensaries were required to remove and lock
away the medical marijuana during non-business hours
X. THE RULES SHOULD CONTAIN SECURITY REQ-S FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF MEDICAL MARIWANA.
The proposed rules expressly permit the transportation of medical marijuana, plants, and paraphernalia, but
places absolutely no security requirements on the bansportation This leaves a big gap when the marijuana could be
the most vulnerable Colorado and New Jersey have proposed regulations relating to the bansportation of medical
marijuana Maine also has regulations that address transportation
At a minimum, the Department should add as part of Section R9-17-315(C)(2)a requirement that the
dispensary create policies relating to bansportation:
That prvvixe for iafely &ansporhng mmjuana m any h,
maquana plants, and marijuana paraphernalia
between the dispensagand
I The dspmsary's cufhvahon site,
3 Another drspenrary, and
4 A food estabLshment conbacted with the dispensary to prepare e&Ie food products iihsed w?h
medcalrnan~uana,,
Taking a combination of the requiremenb in other states, the Deparment could implement an on-line
reporting and tracking system for medical marijuana and adopt the following new rules relahg to the transportation of
marijuana, which could be added at RS-l7-315(B)(Z)andrenumbe~the exisling Section B to he Section (B)(l), as
follows:
1 When a dspensary transports marfuma ~nany form,mmjuana plants mdmarIjuana paraphernalia
a Vehicle9 used for hanspozhhg mmjuana ~n any h,marfuana plants, and manjmna
paraphernalia shall bear no i d e n m g markr"g;
b The dispensary agent jtaEng the vehicle must have accer,s to a form of secure
telecommuniLaLions with the dispensary, such ar a cellular phone;
c. ~Manjma~nany h, mmjuana plants, and mm~uanaparaphemdia must be secured and

protected during msportation andmay not be v1iibIe from outside of the vehicle;
d The dispensary ;gent sMmg each vehicle must have a tnp inventory, created and submitted
onlrne uriq a form approved by the D e p P m e n tandpnnted for retention with the mmjuana
pruduch behg hmsported, that~ndudesthefollo&gidormabon:
I the name and addreis of the dnpensary,
u the oriqn and derhnabon of themedz~almmjuana,
m the name and regiihy idenhfication number of the dspensary agent staffmg the
vehicle,
IV the route to be haveled,
v the hme and date of'hansporiahon;
~l the make, modeland/icense plate number of the vehicle bemg used for hanport and
w the amount and form of mmjuana and mmjuana m a t e d that is being ans sported
e, When detemuiuig and repodng the route to take, &,penjarits should reled the best diect
route thatprovidts efidencyand safe@
The Department should require an electronic inventory and tracking system that will be used during the entire
stage of the process, including befbre transportation, during transportation, and upon delivery to the intended
destination There is cur~entlyavailable and affordable technology that can perform this h c t i o n An electronic
hacking and reporting system to be used bef'o~eand during transportation ofthe medical marijuana and upon delivery
to the destination will assist the Department and law enforcement with enforcing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
and will help ensure that medical marijuana is properly dispensed and does not become a part of the illegal drug
market
XI THE R W SHOULD COh'AIN CERTIFICATION OR SECT.?IITY REQL?RE.\TS FOR
FhClUTES Ih'FUSING hlEDICAL MARJJUAKA INTO FOOD P R O D U m .
A. Additional Reuuirements Need to be Placed on Entities Infusii Medical Mariinana Into Food
Prcdum.
The rules need to address more specifically the preparation of medical marijuana-infusedfood products It is
not clear from the proposed rules what, if any, limits or requirements are placed on the facilities or persons preparing
the medical marijuana food products aside fium holding a valid food establishment permit and working under contract
with the dispensary,
The A a and the proposed rules require that each individual employed by or contracted with a dispensary must
bave a dispensary agent registry identification card before working at the dispensary A A C R9-17-308;A R S § 36-
280401 Does this requirement extend to the companies who infuse medical marijuana into food products, as the
rules require that they be under contract to the dispensary? What is the defmition of "under contract? What if the
contract is with an entity, not an individual? Is the entity an "agent" of the dispensary that is able to receive a dispensary
agent legistry identification card?
Although R9-17-316 contains very little information relating the limitations and requirements on food facilities
infusing medical marijuana into edible food products, other sections of the proposed rules seem to suggest that the
persons handling medical mar~j'uanaat a food establishment would be the agents of a dispensary For example, R9-17-
307(A)(4)(d) requires that the dispensary not allow an individual who does not possess a dispensary agent registry
identification card issued under the dispensary's registration certificate to bave access to medical marijuana at a food
establishment contracted to infuse medical marijuana into food products This raises several issues One problem is
that many food establishments are entities, not individuals, but it appears from the rules that only individuals can be
dispensary agents Another problem is that the food establishment would be the employer of the individuals working at
hat establishment, not employed by or supemised the dispensary, making it difkult for the dispensary to control those
individuals
The lack of regulation of facilities infusing medical marijuana products raises several additional issues What
kind of inventory control is really taking place? What ensures that the medical marijuana is infused in the amounts that
are seplesented to the dispensary? What ensure the quality of the perfbrmance? Is it the intent of the Deparment that
these issues will be solely regulated by the contract between the dispensary and the food establishment?
At a minimum, the regi~lationsshould identify some of the required elements of a contract between a
dispensary and a food establishment The proposed regulations in Colorado require the Medical Marijuana
Enforcemeni Division to approve the form and substance of such contracts The Department should conside1 doing
the same by adding a rule R9-17..316(C):
C. to R9-17-316(AJ(1)murtbe approved as to fbnn and rubrtance by the
Any ~ontractreqiurtdpursu~t
Deparment
B,. The Rules Should Allow a Disuensam to Obtain Medical M a r i b Infused Food Products From
Other Disuensaries.
The current proposed rules seem to contemplate that a dispensary will provide medical marijuana to a licensed
food preparing facility and will sell only those infused food psoduct~that are produced using marijuana provided by the
dispensary T h e x is no logical reason to prevent a medical marijuana dispensary fiom acquiring medical marijuana-
infused food psoducts from another dispensary, a s the rules already allow dispensaries to obtain medical marijuana
from another dispensary Tbe medical marijuana-infused food products should be permitted to be sold between
hspensanes (as long as properly labeled, etc), as part of the market system for sales between hspensaries that we
hscussed m our comments above
The Department should revise R9-17-307(C)(2)as follows:
Shall only provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary or edible foodproducts lnfured
with medical marijuana made or acgukd by the dipensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a quahfwng
patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A R S Title 36, Chapter 281, and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana
xlr. THE RLZES SHOULD WOVE OR D ~ - "NDMDUAL E . .. CONTRACTED w

IN RELATION TO A DISPEUSARY AGENT SO l T IS CLEAR THAT CORPORATIONS AND
OTHER LEGAI. F N l l T E S PROVIDING SERVICES T O m.DISPENSARY ARE NOT " A G F m
WH_O REQUIRE A DISPENSARY AGEY-CAW.
In R9-17-101(9), the proposed ~ulesdefine "dispensaryagenr' to mean the same a s "nonprofitmedical

marijuana dispensary agent" as defined in A R S § 36-2801 The Act defmes "nonprofitmedical marijuana dispensary
agent" as a principal officer, board member, employee or volunteer of a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary who is
at least twenty-one years of age and has not been convicted of an excluded felony off'ense However, in Section R9-17-
308 a dispensary is required to apply for a dispensary agent registry identification card f o ~
individuals "conhactedwith"
the dispensary The definitions of dispensary agent in the Act and in the rules do not include an individual "conhacted
with" a dispensary Therefore, the Department should remove "conhacted with"from R9-17-308, as it is outside of the
scope of the definition of dispensary agent
If "contracted with" is not removed rrom the rule, then it should be clarified The proposed rules require a
dispensary agent identification card for an "individual , , conhacted with" a dispensary The rules do not define the
term "individual" Individual is generally understood to be a human person, and it is used throughout the rules in
contexts in which it clearly means a physical person, not a legal entity Nevertheless, the rules should clarify that an
agent is an individual person, not another legal entity For example, if a company provides accounting services,
advertising services, cleaning services, consulting services, etc to a dispensary, the company providing the services is
generally "under contract" with the dispensary There is a contractual relationship The service provider, however, is
not an agent of the dispensary that can act on the dispensaries behalf and should not be considered a dispensary agent
for purposes of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
The rules for dispensary agent identification card applications clearly contemplate that the agent will be a
single, live person and not any other form of entity, but the Department should clarify this requirement,
XIII. THE RULES SHOULD ALLOW ONE SIGNATURE O N DISPENSARY APPLICATIONS.
The Department should eliminate the proposed rule (R9-17-301)relating to individuals to act for the
dispensary for two primary reasons First, as discussed above, the dispensaries should be required to be corporations,
and therefore there is no need to identify who in other business formations would act fbr the dispensary Second, it is a
general principle of corporate law that one corporate officer can bind the corporation It could delay processing of
applications and the responsiveness of the applicants if they are required to obtain multiple signakres for all documents
and information submitted to the Department Additionally, it is lawful to establish a corporation with the same
individual acting in all officer roles One authorized signature is legally binding on an entity and the Department should
not require more Therefore, the Department should delete R9-17-301 or revise so that in each section requiring two
signawes it will require only one signature
MV. I'HE -4RIZONA MEDICAL XURIIIXVA ACT PROVIDES SHORTER TMELIWS FOR ISSLN3
DOPENSARY REGB.rn4TIOK m . R m C A T ' E THANARE PROVIDED m!T I I E R U
-
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that DHS issue a dispensary regishation cerNicate "not later than
ninety days after receihg an application" that is complete and satisfies the Act and rules, A R S 5 36-2804 In R9-17-
107, the proposed rules provide the Department with 90 working days, rather than 90 calendar days, as the timeframe
in which to issue a dispensary registration cerIilicate Because the Act does not speclfy calendar days or working days,
the Act should be given the common usage of "daysx-which is calendar days, not working days
A R S 51.213 establishes that in interpreting statues, if there is no specific definition, "words and phrases shall
be constmed according to the common and approved use of the language" The common usage of 90 days is 90
calendar days The differencein processingtime could be almost 6 weeks if the Rules use 90 working days (18 weeks if
there are no holiday or furlough days) as opposed to 90 calendar days (justover 12 weeks)
Additionally, the proposed rules identify the overall time frame for processingthe dispensary registration
certificate as 90 working days The rules require a preliminary approval notice to be issued if the application is
complete, then the applicant submits dispensary agent registry card applications for the principal officers and board
members before the dispensary registration certificate is issued There could be some confusion regarding whether the
preliminary approval notice must be issued within working 90 days or the actual regishation ceitificate must he issued
within 90 working days, although the table indicates that 90 working days is for completing the entire process
Consequently, the language in R9-17-107 should be revised to state calendar days rather than working days for
processing dispensary applications
X . THE REQUJREWCYTS k\D -ATIONS O X 'IXE MEDICAL D I R E O R EXCEED THE
DEPARTMFmS RULEMAKtNG AUTHORITY AND MAY KEGATIVEJ-Y IMPACT T H E ABILlTY
oFDB.PENSUll3 TQ.OBTAIN A MEDI.CAL DIRECTOR
A. The Limibiion on the Medical Direcbr Beiw: an MD or D O Exceeds the Demrhnent's Rulemaking
Authoritv.
The limitation on a medical director being an MD or DO exceeds the Department's rulemaking authority, as it
is inconsistent with the Act's broad definition of physician to include naturopahs and homeopaths There is no logical
reason for allowing nahropaths and homeopaths to provide recommendations for patients but not to act as the medical
director of the dispensary where the patient obtains the medical marijuana Additionally, nurse practitioners in the
State of Arizona can act as primary care doctors and write prescriptions The State of Arizona heats nurse practitioners
as physicians f o ~most purposes Therefore, the rule should also be expanded to include nurse practitioners
Additionally, because marijuana is still illegal on the federal level, licensed physicians may be reluctant to serve
as a medical director of a medical marijuana dispensary This could limit the number of people available to serve as a
medical director The problem could be worse in rural areas where there are fewer physicians This supports
expanding the medical director definition to include homeopaths, naturopaths, and nurse practitioners
In order to ensure that each applicant can ohtam the senices of a qualified person to serve as medical director,
the Department should defme physic~anto include a homeopath, naturopath or nurse practitioner
The Department should therefore revise the definition of medical director in R9-17-101(15):
'Medcal dkector"means a doctor of m c d c h t who holds a valid and ens* license to practice mtditvle
pursuant to ntie 32, chapter 13 or its successor, a doctor of o,steopathicrncdcme who holds a valid and existrig
license to practice o,steopathk m e d i b e pursuant to title 32, chaptm 17 or its successor, a naturopathic
physician who holds a d d and exishglicmse to practice naturopathic rnedchepursuant to hue 32, chapter
14 or its succeigor or a homeopathic physiaul who holds a valid and exkiing license to practice homeopathic
medicme pursuant to hue 32, chapter 29 or 1'0suceisor, or a nurse prachboner who holds a vdid and eulrLmg
lzcense to practice ar a nurse pracbhoner pursuant to ntle 32, Chapter 1501its succesror and who has been
designated by a d~spensaryto provide mtdcd oversrght at the dspensary
B The I i m on a Medical Die.ctor A& for Onlv Three IXc~ensariesis Unnecessanlv Limitim and
CouldAdvenelv Impact the Abllity of a Dismsaty w Obtain the Senic-egfa Medical Director.
Because medical disectors are required only to be available to be contacted as needed, there is no logical
reason to limit a medical dlector to sewing only three dispensaries Some dispensaries may serve fewer patients and
not need as much time and attention from the medical director, while others may be busier. The dispensary and
medical duector should be able to determine if the medical director is providing the appropriate time and atLention to
the dispensary If the Department believes it necessary to impose a limit, the Deparbnent should limit the number of
dispensaries that a medical director can serve to 10 dispensaries
Further, as discussed above, there may be reluctance on the part of some physicians to serve as a medical
director, making it diicult to procure the services of a medical &lector if the medical director is limited to working in
three dispensaries
Many of the processes in the dispensary could easily be automated A medical director could oversee the
development of electronic pain records for quallfylng patients and caregivers to use and it would not require extensive
time for the medical director to oversee this electronic system The record keeping and oversight could also be mostly
electronic The use of electronic and automated systems would allow a medical &ector to act effectively and efficiently
on behalf of more than three dispe~~saies Because of the specialized nature of sening as a medical director and the
extents ofregulatory requirements, greater compliance may be achieved if medical duectors are permitted to serve
more than three dispensaries Otherwise, medical directors se~vingone, two, or lhree dispensaries may not devote as
much time to such duties and their expertise in the medical and regulatory environment in which the dispensaries
operate may be less than someone who develops a greater specialty and expertise in the area The arbitrary limit to
three dispensaries is unnecessary,
Therefore, in order to ensure that each applicant can obtain the s e ~ c e of
s a quaJiied person to serve as
medical hector, the Department should remove the limit on the number of dispensaries that one medical director can
serve The Department should revise R9-17-310(A):
A medical director may only serve as a medical director fbr k k e ten dispensaries at any time
X\'I. THE DEPARTMENT'S D-OX OF "ONGONG' FOR A PHYS1CIA.U-PATIGUT

RELATIONSHIP AlTEhETS TO TELL DOCTORS HOW THEY MUST PRACTICE. IS
~ T C E S S A N L Y ONEROUS. AND -nr WITH THE P L T T S E FOF
, THE ACT.
Federal law requires a bona fide doctor-patient relationship befbre a physician prescribes a contralled
substance The same requirement should apply for medical marijuana recommendations, but the definition proposed
by the Board, in R9-17-101(16)(a),which requi~esfbu visits over the span of a year, may prevent some patients from
obtaining the relief offered by the Medical Marijuana Act in a timely manner Arizona common law already has
standards for determiningwhen a doctor-patientrelationship exists, for example in the context of medical malpractice
torts or duties of confidentiality It takes significantly less than one year to establish a bona fide doctor-patient
relationship under existing legal standards
Principles of medical ethics also have standards fbr the doctor-patient relationship and the dispensing of
medication Doctors are bound to iblow their medical ethics in making recommendations for medical marijuana It
would violate their ethical standards to make recomrnendations for medical maijuana without conducting a proper
examination of the patient's health and history Excessive government regulation, such as rules that tell the doctor how
to practice - including how many visin or length of beatment - overstep the bounds of this rulemaking Doctor's
ethical standards, not government rules, should control the doctol-patient relationship
Part B of the defmition of "ongoing," in R9-17-101(16)(b),is good to an extent, hut it could prevent U S
military veteIans whose primary care physicians are at the Vetexans Administration Hospitals from being able to
acquire medical marijuana if it would provide them relief from a debilitating medical condition Doctors at the
Veterans Adminishation are not permitted to write recommendations for medical marijuana because it is still
proscribed by federal law Yet many veterans cannot afford to move their primary health care for a debilitating
condition to an outside doctor The rules should be revised to allow veterans - or others with limited means -to
receive evaluation and recommendations tiom other physicians without hansferring long-term, ongoing care to another
physician Many military veterans are suffering from debilitating conditions because of their military service The State
should take exes steps to ensure that these veterans are able to obtain the care and benefits provided by the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act,
As there are already existing legal and ethical guidelines for when a physician-patient relationship is established
and because the definitions proposed by the Department would make it unnecessarily d i c u l t for a person with a
genuine medical need to obtain medical marijuana-and make it virtually impossible for veterans using the services of a
VA Hospital-the Department should eliminate the definition of "ongoing" in the proposed rules at RC-17-101(16)and
require a bonafide doctor-patient relationship Sample language to achieve this revision to be added in R9-17-101 and
replace "physician-patientrelationship" (with corresponding changes throughout the rules) is:
'Zona fide physician-pahent re1ahonsh1p"mtans
(a a physician and a pahent have a aeatment or counsehig relahonsh~p,IR the course of which the physician
has completed a fuU assessment of the pahenti medical histov and current medical condition, inchrdkg an
appropriate personal physical exanunahon and a personal review of the pahint's medical record mahtahed by
other eeahhg physicians that may ~ncludethe patienti reaction and response to convenhonal medical
therapies,
(j,! the physician has consulted wvlth the pahent umvlth respect to the pahentk debrlitabbng medical condition
before the pahent apphr for a aegistry idenbficahon cad, and
hi1 the pbyslujD 1.5 avalable to or offers to provide hflow-up care and eeahnent to thepatien:enr,mcludug but
nothhted to patient e x h a h o n s , to determne the eficacy of'theuse of medical mari~uanaas a eeament of
fie pahentk deb~Xtatingmedicalcon&hon,
I WHERE RESIDENCY IS S O T A R E Q U I R E . . . THE PERMISSIBLE IDEM'FICATION

PROVIDED TO OBTAIN A REGISTRY I D E N ' C A T I O N CARD SHOULD BE EXPANDED.
The proposed rules require in R9-17-107(D(l)(d)and R9-17-308(5) that an applicant for a dispensary agent
registry identification card provide either an Arizona driver's license or identification card issued after October 1, 1996,
an Arizona regshy card, a US passport photo page, or an Arizona ID issued prior to October 1, 1996 with additional
proof of U S citizenship W e realize that the State is required to verlfy lawful presence in the U S prior to awarding
any license ox benefit However, because there is no requirement that the dispensary agents (other than principal
officers and board members) be Arizona citizens, the list of acceptable documents should he expanded to add as
permissible identification the following:
w i d ahver's Jcense or idenhfication card lrrom another state who,se qualdication requkements are as shict
ar those of the state ofAniona
vahd h v e r 5 license or identu5cation card k o m another rtate whose quah5cation iequuements are not ar
rhict as those o f the state ofhizona and one of the fbIlowU,g:
fist same documentJ ar requuedto accompanyhona kenst pnbz to 1996)
XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS.

There is an inconsistency between R9-17-107(C)(2)and (C)(3) Section (C)(2)provides an applicant 60
workvgdays to provide missing information or documents after a notice of deficiency Section (C)(3)provides that if
the information is provided withim 60 calendar dap, then substantive review starts after the documents are received It
appears that the two sections should use the same time frame, and calendar days would be the appropriate measure, as
discussed previously in these comments
Section R9-17-108(3)(a)contains a reference to mitten notification required from a dispensary when a
dispensary agent is no longer associated with the dispensary and says that R9-17-306(A)(5)sets out this requirement
Section RS-l7-306(A) is inspections The Rule should be R9-17-307WO.
XIX. CONCLUSION.
Arizona should set the strictest requirements fbr safety, security and fraud prevention that any state has yet
established Arizona has the opporiunity to do what no state has yet done: establish a safe, secure, efficient, and
virtually fraud-proof system for the cultivation, sale, and use of medical marijuana The State has a chance to avoid the
pitfalls that other states have encountered in enforcing their medical marijuana laws hizona should get the rules right
the Fist time so that it has an effective medical marijuana program that balances all the competing interests and assists
law enforcement to continue to enforce criminal drug laws while allowing medical marijuana patients the relief that the
Act intended to provide Having the best possible rules at the outset is crucial, as it will be more difficult to change
practices later than to establish the best practices at the beginning of the p~ogram
The Department is to be commended for the excellent job it has done in a very short period of h e , with
limited resources, to prepare a comprehensive set of proposed rules The Department's circulation of draft proposals
is extremely beneficial, as it has permitted early input and suggestions from parties interested in this process W e hope
these recommendations are helpful and will be incorporated into the remainder ofthe rulemaking process in order to
best serve the interests of all affected parties in Arizona,
Sincerely,
* i d d dnver3 5cense oride~~hfitahon
card from mother rtate whore qud~ficationreqru~mentFare not as
rBicta9 tho,se ofthe rhte o f h o n a and one of thefo//om&;
XVIII.MISCELL4NEOUS COMMENTS.
T h a e is an inconsistency between R9-17-107(C)(2)and (C)(3) Section (C)(2)provides an applicar~t60

r.vorku,g days to provide missing infor~nationor documents after a notice cif'deficiency. Section (C)(3)provides that if
the infor~nationis provided within 60 cdenda days, then substantive se5iew starts after the documents are received It
appears that the two sections should use the same h n e fifiam and calendar days would he the appropriate measuse, as
Section R9-17-108(3)(a)contains a reference to mitten notification sequired fiom a dispensary when a
dispensary agent is no longer associated with the dispensary and says that R9-17-306(.4)(5) sets ont this requirement
Section R9-17-306(A) is inspections The Rule should be R9..17-307(A)O.
XIX. CONCLUSION.
Arizona should set the strictest requirements for safety, security and fraud prevention that any state has yet
established Arizona has the opportunity to do what no state has yet done: establish a safe, secure, efficient, and
vilttially fraud,.psoof systern for the cultivation, sale, a i d use of medical marij~~araThe State has a chance to avoid the
pitfalls that other states have enconntered in enforcing their medical marijuana laws Arizona sliould get the rules right
the first time so that it has an effective medical marijuana propam that balances all the competing interests and assists
law e~lforcementto continue to enforce criminal drug laws while allowing medical marijuana patients the relief that the
Act i~ltendedto provide Having the best possible rules at the outset is crucial, as it uill be more difficult to ctlalge
practices later than to establish the best practices at the beginning of the program
limited resources, to psepare a comprehensive set of proposed rules The Department's ~ir~xlation of &aft proposals
is exhemely beneficial, as it has permitted early input and suggestions from parties interested in this process W e hope
these recommendations are helpful and will be incorporated into the remainder ofthe rulemalting process in order to
best serve the interests of all affected parties in Arizona.
Sincerely,
DLBluce Bedrick
CEO
Kind Clinics
5450 E High St
Suite 220
Phoenix,AZ 85054
@ Arizonans Concerned About Smoking
525 W. Southern Ave, Suite 109, Mesa, AZ, 85210 Ph: 480-733-5864
Fax: 480-733-1844
Oclrslro www acasinc.org
Our Purpose Is January 6,201 1

To Save Lives
FOUNDERS Mr Will Humble, Director
Herbert 8 Betty Cameo Arizona Department of Health Services
F v ~ u Brown
d 150N. 18th Avenue
OFFICERS Phoenix, AZ 85007
President
Leland Fairbanks. M D Dear Mr. Humble:
Executive Director
Philip J Carpenter As stated eariier, Arizonans Concerned About Smoking (ACAS) is very appreciative of
Vice President your respected leadership in developing the health based guidelines for implementation of
Alton Brasher AZ Proposition 203
Recording Secretary
Susan Johnson
Our organizational recommendations can be summarized as follows:
secretarymreasurer
Kim Gallagher
TRUSTEES
I ,, Honesty in labeling requires that written potential toxicity warning labels be
attached to all products dispensed at marijuana dispensaries including cancer
Alton Brasher
Dennis J. Cahill warnings when crude marijuana is smoked
Laura Carpenter
Michael Evans 2. The written warnings must include documentation, both as sound medical ad-
Gregory Fairbanks
David Gailagher vice and for medico-legal protection for the State of' Arizona in case of'adverse
Donald Morris, Ed. D toxicity drug reactions or highway accident lawsuits from patients Information
Eric Osowski, M.D.
Patricia Goss Rhodes inserts should clearly inform that FDA Federal Drug Policy does not support the
Alex Romero smoking form of marijuana for any medical purpose (see attached US-FDA
ADVISORY BOARD Statement) which is recommended as an insert with each marijuana product
Dorothy Brasher dispensed.
Paul L. Cloke, PhD.
Edward Diethrich. M D, 3 In addition to a Medical Director for each dispensary, a Pharmacist Expert on
Joe Garagiola. Sr.
Bemice Gerig Carver drug toxicity and interactions should be assigned to each dispensary
Carol Hanis. FNP
Ctiiord J. Ha&. M D, 4 For public safety reasons, organizations responsible for public transportation
Frank Kush
Sue Llnney. Ed.D and community safety currently or in the future maintaining a 100% drug free
Marcia Manhles policy requirement (241'7) daily for employees should be allowed to continue this
Robert W. Matthias. MD
Diane Mehok. RN safety based policy.
Art Moilen. D O
Patricia Monis 5 Current Arizona Voter Initiative Smoke Free Policies relative to hospitals,
Marguerite Munkachy
Delos 'Sonny" Ness, Emeritus other health care facilities, other public service facilities, workplaces, and public
Catherine Ann Nichols gathering places will continue to be smoke free from marijuana smoke pollution
David Niehen. M D the same as applies to tobacco smoke.
Albert Ortiz
Wilfred Potter, M D
Ann Robb, M D
Kent Shelton
John Spealman
Geoffrev Walker: J D
~ a i ~e i b bM, d
MEMORIAL HALL, of FAME
Leland L Fairbanks, MD, MPH
President. Arizonans Concerned About Smoking
Erma Bombeck (1927-i996) 1866 East Vinedo Lane, Tempe, AZ 85284
Dan Devine (1924-2002)
Bary Goldwater (1909.1998) Te1480: 820.3740, e-mail; acasinc@msmsn.com
Katherine Herberger (1914-1999)
John lrvine (19382008)
Andy Nichols, M D (1937-2001)
Karsten Solheirn (1911~2000)
Mrs LutherTeny (19132000)
December 2 1,2010
A non-profit tax exempr corporation dedicated to acclrieving robaccofree environments
Inter-Agency Advisory ~ e ~ a r d i n ~ That Smoked Marijuana i s a Medicine
Claims Page 1 of1
US. Food and D N Administration

~
~,N~rtE~entl.LIILLYtLeP~?rerr~
News & Events
NEWS RELEASE
Media Inquiries:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEilSE FDA PmS OMCe, 301-827-6242
April 2 4 2006 Consumer Inquiries:
888.INFO-FDA
-~ -- - -
Intsr.AaencvAdvborv Reawdtna -
CkinWThrt Smoked Huiluana I
s a Msdldne
Claims have been advanccd aaerting smoked marilwna has a value in treating vd!ious mediwl cond.tionr. Some have aqucd that hcmai
mnluana is a sale and eff&e medication and that i t shwld be made available l o woplc who suffer fmm a n u m h r of ailments upon a docto<r
remmmendation. even mauoh ..
. 11tr not an aDDmvcd dru~
Marijuana is Llsted in schedule Iof the Controlled Substances Act (CSAI, the m m t restn'cIive schedule. m e 0 w g Enforcement Administration
(DEA), v n i t h adminlaers the CSA, continues to support that pla&me$and FDA concurred because marijlana met the three &ria for placement
in Schedule Iunder 21 U S.C 812(b)(l] (e.g., marijuana has a high patennal for abur. has no currently acce~ledrnedial use in treafmmt in lhe
Unlted
.. ~~~ Stales. and has a
~- -
~~ lack
~ of aceeoted s f e
.-..,
~~ h~for~use
.~under
~~~rncdlel
~ ~oerulYon1.
...----. ~ ~ ~ Furthermore. thcre Is cumnUv .~~~
round
~ evidence that smoked-
marijuana is harmful A past evaluation by several O w m n e n t of Hearth and ~ u & n services (HHS) agencies. including the Foodand Drug
Adminlsauon (FDA), Substance Abusc and Mental Health Services AdmlnlsPatlon (SAMHSA) and National lnstiNte for Drug Abuse (NIOA),
crmduded that no sound xientificrtudles supported medical use of marijuana Tor treatment In the United States, and no animal or human data
supported the safety or efficacy &marijuana for general medical use,.There are alternative FDA-appmved medlcatians in existence for treatment
of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana.
FDA is the sate Federal aoencv that aoomves druo omdurn as n l e and efeclive far Intended indications.. The Federal Food. D m . and Cosmetic
(m&O Act requires that>ewdrugs g s h a w n to b i safe and effemve for their intended use before being marketed In thls munt?. FDA's dmg
apprnml pmcess requlres well-mbO led r(inical mls that pmv~dethe necessary saenulic dam upan which FDA makes ib a m a l and abellng
deda'ons I f a drug pmduct is to be marketed, disciplined, systematic. wicntifimlly conducted trials are lhe best means to obtatn data to ensure
chat
. - - druo
- I s sale and . ~~-~ when bscd as indlated.
-~- e(1mtive~ ~.~~~ ERom that
~ -.---~~
~..
seek m or- the FDA dm0 sD0mval D m e s r would not serve the intererts of
~~
~
Dublic health Lxcause they m b h t eroose oatienk to unsafe and Ineffective dm0 ~ m d u c t sm~ha's'notapumved smoked mariiuana for anv
~
;ondition or disease indication

A growing number of states have paned voter referenda (or legislative amons) mamng smoked marijuana available for a varieCy of medical
condltims ~ p o na dxtol's remmmendat~onThese m e m m are #ncolrs#stentwlth effom to ensure that medicallon; undergo the ngwous
wiencllic -Uny of the FDA appmval p m c e n and are pmven wfe and effecwe under the standards of me FD&C Act. Acmidtngfy, FDA, as me
frdersi aoencv res~ons~ble far revlemno the safetv and e 8 m o of drum. DEA as the fedcnl allencl darned m t h enfordna the CSA. and the Ofice
of ~ a t i o & l ~ & cbntml
g PoNw, as the iedeml co~dinatorof d;ug conGI policy, do not suppa? the use of smoked rnanju&a for medical purposes
It
ffis Feed for FDA N e m Releases' [what k P5&1
tlnks m &page:
1 http:Uwww fda govlAbouLFDNMntactFDAlStaylnformed/RSSFeedslPressReiea5e5INxmi
2 ht~p:/lwmvfda gov/A~uLFDNCantadFDn/StayInTormed/ffiSFeedsluml44575 htm
http:llwww ,fdagovlNewsEventsMews1~0m/P1es~Announ~ementSi20061~~m108643
htm 1U612010
VICTOR
J. MARC
~ ..
MARC J,.VICTOR, Esq.

--. \- '/-,~,~ -.-A '.~-
MARK E,.HALL,
Certified Criminal Law Specialist P.C.
by the h z o n a ~ o a r of
d L.egal Specialization ATTORNEY AT LAW SCOTT CAMPBELL, E s ~ . .
VICKI A. R..LOPEZ, Esq. STEVEN M. ELLSWORTH, Esq.
Ce&ed Criminal L.aw Specialist January 5,201 1 Of Counsel Cerlified Family Law Specialist
by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization by the A r i z o n e a r d of Legal Speeializatitb
x
l
- 1
.4
rri L '2
0 -2 pg?
..
Will Humble, Director --,
c; ,
:.-
C
:
-
;cI
o
:
.
'
j
s 37
Arizona Department of Health Services ;
:j
150 North lath venue, Suite 500 ,

,x 2
iiil
-11
'-0
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3247 - . iri
--
'+7
0 ;t c3.
Re: Comment on Draft Rulzs reg~di@Medi%l
P.Aarij uana
Dear Mr tlumble,
Onr law firm intends to be on the forefront of the Medical Marijuana issue as pertains to
the enforcement of laws and rules As such, we have loolted closely at the laws enacted under
voter initiative in Pruposition 203 and the December 1'7, 2010 d a f t rules published by the
Department of'FLealth Sertices,
,As p a t of our malysis, we have looked at the application of Proposition 105 passed in
Novembet, 1998, that imendec? the Arizona Constitution. Speciiic.ally, we looked at Article IV,
Part 1, § 1icij(C) ol the Arizona Constitution that reads:
Legislatare's pawerr to amend initiative or. referendum. The

Legislature shall not have the power to amend an initiative measure
approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, or to amend a
~eferendummeasure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon,
unless the 'unending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and
. . <:+f & ;>ziyi beis 2f e.;;c 3Gz5eof&* ~,,:c;s~A~x3,
..,
c,c->,cz ;;i.>,:
a[ ;ea,st PLi ..by
roll call of ayes &id nays? vote to anlend such measure
In addition, we note that the authority ofthe Department of Health Services to

make rules, such as those authorized by Proposition 203: arises from A R S 5 36...
136cF) That statute was enacted by the legislature and any rules made pursuant to
that statute would be subject to the restrictions imposed on the legislature by the
Arizona Constitntion As the leiiilature needed only a simple majority to pass that
statute, any rule created that is does not further the purpose of' Proposition 203 would
be unconstitutional
3920 S O U I H ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, S U I I E 5

PHONE: (480) 755.:7110 . .
CHANDLER, ARIZONA 85248
FAX: (480) 755-8286
www.AttorneyFo~Freedom.com
We believe Proposition 203, as passed by the voters, was intended to allow
the use of medical marijuana with only restrictions enumerated in the statutes that
were enacted by Proposition 203 Any restrictions making the cultivation,
distribution, or use of medical marijuana more onerous than those included in
Proposition 203 would violate the Arizona Constitution
We are of the opinion that any rules made by the Department of Health
Services must comply with the quoted section of the Arizona Constitution in that they
must furthe1 the purpose of Proposition 203 I that light, we comment on the Draft
Rule as follows:
1) Draft Rule R9-17-.101(15)defines "Medical Director " Draft Rule R9-17-,

302(B)(l)(g) requires a dispensary to include the name and license number of
its medical director on ~UI application for a Eisperisarj C~erii,'lc~,- ".-'
L L\uE, .,
R9-17-307(A)(3) requires a dispensary to employ or contract with a medical
ditector Draft Rule R9-17-3 10 specifies duties and restrictions of medical
directors
Neither the term "hfedical Director" nor any description of qualifications,

duties, and restrictions of medical directors appears in the laws included in
Proposition 203 We believe that requiring a dispensary to employ or contract
with a medical director conflicts with the Arizona Constitution because it
places requirements on dispensaries more onerous than those included and
does not further the putposes of Proposition 203
2) Draft Rule R9- 17-101(1 8) defines "Public Place " A R S 5 36-2802(C)(2), a

new statute created by Proposition 203, specifically does not authorize
smolting marijuana "in any public place " The term "public place" is not
defined in any of the statutes enacted by Proposition 203
ARS 5 36-2803 is a new statute enacted by Proposition 203 giving the

Department of Health Services rulemalting authority to pass rules for certain
enumerzted a ? s Thc$@:,a?&zaxe: 4 he marsex for ccslci-ic'ering,petit^^&
from the public to add debilitating medical conditions; b) establishing the
form and content of registration applications; c) the manner in which
applications for registry identification will be governed; and d) governing
dispensaries for the purpose of p~otectingagainst diversion and theft This
new statute did not give the Department of Health Se~vicesauthority to define
terms as they elate to ctiminal statutes We believe the defining of the term
"p~tblicplace" in the rules is not authorized
3) Draft Rule R9- 17-202(F)(5)(f) and (g) describe certain statements required of
physicians befote a registry identification card for a qualifying patient or
designated caregiver is issued These statements include that the physician
reviewed all prescription and non-prescription medications and supplements
used by the patient and that the physician has explained the potential risks and
benefits of using medical marijuana with the patient We object to these
requiiements for two reasons: a) requiring disclos~ueof what a physician has
or has not discussed with a patient interferes with doctorlpatient
confidentiality, and b) we know of no other treatment that requires such
written statements to the State before a patient may avail himself of the
treatment Again this requirement does not further the purpose of Proposition
203, was not passed by a three-fourths vote of the legislature, and is therefore
unconstitutional
4) Draft Rule R9-17-302(A), as well as others, requires each principal officer or

board member of a dispensary to have been an Arizona resident for two years
We repeat our stance that this provision does not further the purpose of
Proposition 203, was not pased by a three-fourths vote of ibc iegis'lriiwe, a i d
is therefore unconstitutional We further point out that, even if it was
constitutional under the cited article of the Arizona Constitution, it would
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States That analysis is lengthy and not be
appropriate fbr this comment, but we would be happy to expound upon it at
you req~lest,
5) Draft Rule R9-17.-302(B)(l)(f), as well as others, requires any principal

officer or board member to disclose, among other things, whether he is a
physician malcing qualifying patient recommendations, has not filed a tax
return in the past, is in default on a student loan, has failed to pay court-
ordered child support, or is a law enforcement officer
We reiterate our previous statements that such a provision is not

constit~~tionally
authorized
6) Draft Rule R9-1'7-302(8)(16) requires a dispensary to present, with its

application fbr a certificate, a business plan demonstrating the on-going
viabilitpof tj:e :!ispezso~y zs s nnn-peftB organization,
Beyond our previous statements that such a provision is not constitutionally

authorized, it is impractical because it requires a business to show it can
flomish before it starts Medical maijuana dispensaries will be new to
A~izona The demand for medical marijuana is unknown It is impossible
under these circumstances for any new business to demonstrate that it will be
v~ableuntil demand is known
7) Dlaft Rule R9-17-307(C) makes certain requirements on the amount of
marijuana that a dispensary must cultivate itself:,
No such provision is made in any statute enacted by Proposition 203 and, as

we have previously detailed, is not constitutionally authorized,
8) Draft Rule R9-17-315 addresses security of dispensaries Section (C)(l)(c) of

the rule requires electronic monitoring including the capability of remote
viewing Draft Rule R9- 17-306(B)requites a dispensary to ptovide the
Department of Health Services with authorized remote access to that
electronic monitoring
A R S jj 36-2306(C), a new statute enacted by Proposition 203, only requires

that a dispensary "iniplc~neiitappropriate sec~uiiytneasi:ties .to dciw and
prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entrance into areas containing
marijuana " A R S 5 36-2806(H) provides that "dispensaries are subject to
reasonable inspection by the Department"
The Draft Rule has two significant problems First, it requires remote
viewing Remote viewing will not deter or prevent theft; it just provides the
opport~mityto watch if a theft is occurring Good locks and a premium alarm
system would be appropriate to deter or prevent theft, but remote viewing
does not further the purpose of Proposition 203,,
Next, and more significant, we do not believe "reasonable inspection"

includes constant remote viewing Certainly, regular or announced
inspections are appropriate Perhaps surprise inspections based on some level
of suspicion would be appropriate Requiting constant remote video
monitoriilg goes far beyond "reasonable inspection," does not further the
purpose of Proposition 203, and probably is an unreasonable search prohibited
by the Fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article
11, 5 8 of the Arizona Constitution
We hope you take our comments as they are intended; as constructive conunentaries on
proposals that may make the rules ultimately promulgated by the Department of Health Services
comply with the laws and Constitution of Arizona We would be happy to expound on any areas
you may desire additional comment
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 0 9 : 1 0 FAX 4 8 0 7 8 2 4 2 2 2 Chandler PD
Chandler + Arizona
Where %zduesMake The Bffkmce
Arizona Depar.tment of Health Services

Divlsion of Public Health Services
RE: Public comments to DHS draft regulations concerning Proposition 203 (Medical Marijuana)
Dear Sirmadam:
Please find attached the Chandler Police Department's comments to DHS draft regulations
concerning Proposition 203 -Medical Marijuana As a general matter, the draft regulations do a very
good job outlining the application and licensing of' patients, caregivers and dispensaries The ability to
regulate who may obtain, provide and dispense medical marijuana is of great concan to law enforcement,
The &aft regulations aclequately address the ability of law enforcement to access the DHS licensing
database This will be key to determining a person's lawful right to possess and distribute medical
marijuana
With that said, there are many other law enforcement concerns that are not addressed Ihe two
largest are the lack of meaningful regulation regarding the transportation of medical marijuana by
dispensaries and casegivers, and the possession, storage, safekeeping and processing of marijuana-infused
food products by food establishments These two areas need further regulation to protect the public and
those involved in the metiical masljuana industry
Ihe attached comments are arranged accor.ding to re.platory section I hope they ?.~eilsef?i! tc
you in devising a workable system that will further the intent of the p~.opositionwhile protecting the
public If the Chandler Police Department can be o f ' h t h n assistance, please do not hesitate to call
Assistant Chandler City P~~ttorney

Police T,egal Advisor ITninit
Mrn'h&Ad&~~ Police Legal Unit Lor&&

k i d Stop 602 Office of the Cily Attorney S"ke 232
PO B m 4008 Tz@bont ( U O ) 782~4640 55 North A ~ Z O E Place
C
Chandler, Arizona 8524'-4008 %x (480) 782 4652 Chandlq h o n a 85225
Web wsmchandierazgov
01/10/20ll 0 9 : 1 0 FAX 4 8 0 7 8 2 4 2 2 2 Chandler PD
Chandler Police Depar hnent Comments on DHS Draft Regulations for Medical Marijnaua
(18) Public place - Ilne definition does not specifically include substance abuse treatmenticounseling
-
centers,,
R9-17-106 - Adding a 1)ebilitating Medical Condition
This section addsesses the method for adding debilitating medical conditions, but there is no method for
removing a debilitating medical condition that was added undn I)HS regulations (as opposed to statute),
For example, there may be additional research in particular areas of medicine that disputes prior studies
pertaining to the benefitri of'medical marijuana for particular debilitating illnesses
R9-17-202 -Applying for Registr y ID Card fbr Qualifying patient or Designated Ca~egiver
(AjTbis section essentially states that only qualifying patients under 18 need to have a designated
caregiver It seems the regulations should require a designated caregiver for a patient who is under
guasdianship or medical powet of' attorney,
(F)(l) In addition to the list oi required information, the patient should be required to disclose whether
helshe is under any couirt orda pertaining to guardianship, mental health order, or whether anyone else
holds medical power of attorney, and if so, the case number, and the name of the guardian, case manager
or person holding power of attorney Additionally, said guardian, case worker, court or person holding
power of'attorney is aware ofthe patient request for medical marijuana and consents to the request
(F)(5) In addition to the requirements of the physician's certification, a statement that the physician islis
not aware of any court order pertaining to guardianship, mental health order, or whether anyone else holds
medical power of attorney, and if so, the case number, andlor the name of the guardian, case manages or
person holding power of atto~neyAdditionally, said physician islis not aware of any mental or emotional
disability that would be negatively impacted by the ingestion of medical marijuana Finally, the
physician should be req~luedto state a recommended ingestion method, e.g, s m o h g , eating, drinking,
pill form, etc
(G) This section lists requirements fox patients under 18 It should also include requirements for
patients who are subject to any court order pertaining to guardianship, medical power of' attorney, mental
health order For example, instead of'having the requirements pertain to a parent, have them apply
to the pason or agent of the entity that controls medical decisions
The regulations should zilso include an affirmative, ongoing duty that the patient or caregiver inform the
Department of' a conviction for. any excludable felony within 10 days ofthe conviction This requirement
should apply as well to d!ispensaryagents, officers and board members
Finally, ARS 36-2801(5) allows caregivers to assist up to five patients and eithn pow up to twelve plants
per patient, or possess inp to 2 5 ounces of marijuana p a patient. Assuming the caregiver is also a
licensed patient, the caregiver could legally grow up to 72 plants or possess up to 15 ounces of marijuana
(almost a pound) In ordler to prevent the unregulated operation of large-scale grow sites or possession of
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 0 9 : 1 1 FAX 4807824222 Chandler PD
lmge quantities of maijuana by an "association" of multiple caregivers living at or associated with one
location, the regulations should prohibit more than 72 plants or 15 ounces of' marijuana at any one
location. This would go a long way in preventing "de f'acto" illegal cultivation sites
R9-17-302-R9-17-305 - Applying for, changing, renewing Dispensarylcnltivation site registration

certificate
I h e regulations require the applicants to submit a signed statement that the facilities are incompliance
with local zoning laws The regulations should require that the applicant submit a letter from the local
zoning body indicating the facilities aIe in compliance Additionally, the regulations should require
applicant to inform the Department within 10 days of being notified by the local zoning body that the
dispensatylcultivation si~teis out of compliance with local zoning laws.
R9-17-306 .- Inspections
@) This section prec:ludes the Ilepartment from accepting anonymous-source allegations of' a
dispensaty's noncompliance with Title 36, chapter 281 requirements This section seems to
unnecessarily hamstring the Deparment's ability to enforce its own regulations Even criminal
constitutional law allou's police to use anonymous sources of' information, if' they comply with ce~tain
prerequisites For example, police can use anonymous source information if reliability is shown, either by
the source reliably predicting future behavior, or through independent corroboration of the anonymous
information This regulation specifically cuts off this possibility
(F) This section seems to require the Department to give notice and a chance to rectify a statutory or
regulatory violation It does not allow for any possibility of'immediate ceaseidesist FOI example, what if
the Department discovers blatant felony violations? Is the dispensary still given 20 days to submit a
corrective riotice? This :reemsto be an absurd outcome
R9-17-310 - Medical Drir ector

This section requires the medical director to be available during hours of operation, but it fails to set forth
any time kame within which the medical director must respond to communications, or for any
repercussions if' helshe is not available as required (e g , loss of' ability to act as medical director)
Additionally, it fails to require coverage for the medical director when helshe is unavailable (e g , on
vacation, sick etc),
W-17..311- Dispensiny: Medical Marijuana

This section places responsibilities on the dispensary agent There is no requirement, however, that the
patient/caregives avow that the amount dispensed will not place the caregivedpatient in possession of'
more than 2 5 ounces of medical matijuana If'this is not required, then patientslcaregivers could "hoard"
prior amounts This would make it very difficult for law enforcement to prove a patientJcaregiver is in
violation of state lawlregulation
R9-17-313 --.InventoryControl System

(B)(3) - This section p2rtains to cultivation While it includes certain tracking, it fails to require the
cultivation site to provide to the Department a record of utility usage. Such records can be useful in
01/10/2011 0 9 : l l FAX 4807824222 Chandler PD
determining whetha t h a t has been an increase in cultivation, and consequently whethex cultivation
records accwately reflect an increase in y~eld,
R9-17-313(B)(5) and (63, and R9-17-314

While these sections ~rovidefox regulation of' the dispensary providing marlluana to and receiving
infused food products from a food establishment, there is no regulation of'the food establishment itself or
of'the company 01.persons receiving the marijuana or pseparing the product. (As an aside, R9-17-307(C)
does not specifically alllow fbr dispensaries to provide marijuana to food establishments for infusion
purposes, a!though P.9-17-?l5(9) allows for dispensaries to transport marijuana to food establishments)
There is also no requirement that the food product list the quantity and type of'marijuana or the amount of
active ingredient in the food product Finally, there is no requirement that the food establishment obtain
its marijuana fsom a dispensary within the state or that the dispensaries obtain their food products from
food establishments within the state
W..17..315- Security
General concerns - This section places certain security requirements on dispensaries. It does not,
however, place any ret:luirements on the dispensary fbr the packaging, labeling, or secusing
transoortation of' medical marijuana tolfiom other dispensaries, qualifymg patients or ca~.egivess,or food
infusion establishments Indeed, there are no restrictions or limits for the amount of marijuana that can be
ttanspor.ted at any given time
Law enfbrcement has real concerns involving transportation of' medical maxijuana Those concerns
involve 1) the safety of the dispensary agent, the patient and the caregiver who may be targeted for
theftkobbery while transporting, delivering os receiving medical marijuana, 2) the ability to distinguish
medical marijuana fsom potentially illegal marijuana that may be transported at the same time It seems
prudent to require that id1 medical marijuana be labeled so that it lists such things as the source, type,
dispensary, transporting agent, intended recipient, quantitity received by each r.ecipient, the date, time and
location of delivery, and the name, title, identification and signature of' the actual recipient Ihe
marijuana should be hansported only in a vehicle that does not indicate it is tsansporting medical
marijuana or affiliated with a dispensary Ihe marijuana itself should be tsansposted in some secured
manner, such as a secured, locked contamex accessible only by an authorized dispensaty agent I h ~ \nil s
help reduce and101 deta incidents of theft, robbery and assault
Except for limited exceptions, the regulations do not addsess security or regulation of food establishments
that receive and infuse inedical marijuana Ihls is a glruing oversight and is possibly the largest hole in
the regulatory schemti: If dispensaries will be transporting medical marijuana to such food
establishments, the regulations should place requirements on the food establishments and theu workers
similar to those placed (:In dispensaries and dispensary agents. n o s e should include:
1 licensing req~~irements of'the establishment, and pxoof' that the establishment is in compliance
with all local, state and federal regulations pertaining to food processing and handling;
2 Background checks and licensing of'its board members and employees;
3 facility security and monitoring ~equirementssimilar to those of'dispensaries;
4 limits on infusion facility locations
5 inventory control, oversight and management;
6 accounting standards for the marijuana;
0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 1 09:SZ FAX 4807824222 Chandler PD
7 limiting access to areas where medical marijuana or infused food products are located;
8 if othehn thac infused food production occurs on site, physical facility separation from marijuana
storage and inhsion
(C)(2) -Policies and psc~cedures- This section should require policies and procedures for ensuing that
video systems are tested on a regular basis, and that system failures are rectified promptly, preferably
within a specified time Game, or that the facility be shuttered untd the secu~itysystem becomes fully
functional
(C )(l)(c) - Ihis section addresses where video cameras are to be located There is no requirement that
packaging areas be monitored Ihis would be useful in maintaining inventory control and deterring agent
theft of the marijuana
R9-17-317 - Cleaning and sanitation

(B)(4) requires reports to the medical director of' any health condition of' an agent that may adversely
affect the safety or quality of the medical masljuana There is no requirement that the medical director
notify the Department either of the medical condition or the agent's recovery Such info~mationwould be
necessary if the Department wished to suspend the agent's license while heishe had such a medical
condition,
R9.:319(c)(l) - This section allows for dispensary license revocation under ce~taincircumstances It
should also include a provision for revocation if the deparbnent is notified that the dispensary has fdlen
out of compliance with local zoning laws,
City of Phoenix
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
January 7,2011

Re: Preliminary Comments on December 17, 2010 Proposed Rules

R9-17-101 et seq, Regarding Medical Marijuana
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above draft rules The following are
the City of Phoenix's preliminary comments Please note that these comments are
those of City staff members and not those of the Mayor or Council,. We look forward to
working with you on these rules as they evolve,,
Overall, the proposed rules are very thorough,. There are just a few areas where we
would suggest some clarification.
R9-17-101. Definitions.
"Dispensary" is defined the same way that it is in the statute However, the rules seem
to anticipate "cultivation sites" which may be separate from the more retail "dispensary"
Even though the statute mixes the two concepts (retail sales and cultivation in its
definition), we would suggest adding a definition of "cultivation sites" to make it clear
which type of use is being regulated in different sections of the rules
R9-17-316. Edible Food Products
We think that there may be a number of products that may use marijuana as an
ingredient, among them are lotions, balms, and baked goods or other types of food In
order to cover all types of products, we suggest renaming the section something like
"Infused Products,."
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor. Phoenix, Arizona 85003.602-495-5411

Preliminary Comments on December 17,2010 Proposed Rules
R9-17-101 et s e q , Regarding Medical Marijuana
January 7,2011
Page 2
Because the creation of "infused" products could have some negative secondary land
use effects, such as gases or vapors emitting from the production facility, the City of
Phoenix would require these uses to be in industrially zoned areas They would be
treated differently from a bakery, say, within a grocery store, that could be located in a
C-2, Intermediate Commercial zoning district Because of these potentially negative
effects, we would suggest that the rules do not permit marijuana-infused food to be
produced side-by-side with other food products.
R9-17-313 Inventory Control System
Subparagraph B 5 describes inventory control for providing medical marijuana to a "food

establishment" Again, the City believes that this term should be changed to a more
general one, such as "infused product "
Subparagraph B 5 b ii suggests that a person who receives medical marijuana at an

infused product facility should be a "designated agent,," A "designated agent" is not
defined in section 101, but "dispensary agent" is defined. It means the same as "non-
profit medical marijuana dispensary agent" as defined in A R . S § 36-2801 It is not
clear whether the proposed rules would regulate a food or other product with infused
marijuana in the same manner as a dispensary The City believes that the infused
product facility should be regulated in the same manner as a cultivation site or a retail
dispensary, as discussed above, because of the presence of medical marijuana,,
R9-17-302 Applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate
Subparagraph B 5 requires an applicant to provide a copy of the certificate of

occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to the applicant
authorizing occupancy of the building as a dispensary Certificates of occupancy are
not issued until the structure and all of its tenant improvements (and possibly, off site
improvements) have been completed These can be costly for an applicant, and would
most likely not be done at the time an application is made The City suggests that the
rules require that a cash bond be posted with the City to ensure that needed physical
improvements are made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Subparagraph B 6 requires a sworn statement by the applicant certifying that the

dispensary is in compliance with local zoning restrictions The City suggests that the
rule instead require a statement signed by the local zoning ofticial (in Phoenix, the
Planning and Development Department director) that a given site meets zoning
restrictions Further, in Phoenix (and some other cities), there will be a timing problem,
as the newly adopted zoning ordinance requires a dispensary to find property in the
R9-17-,101et seq , Regarding Medical Marijuana
January 7,2011
Page 3
proper zoning district and to then secure a use permit The City suggests a state
investigative process that would involve a two step procedure: The first step would
involve the DHS qualifying an entity for a dispensary license The second step would
require the entity to work with the local jurisdiction to find an appropriate location (and in
Phoenix, secure a use permit) Upon finding that location and securing the use permit,
the entity would return to DHS to finalize the steps necessary to secure the state
license,
R9-17-304 Applying for a Change in Location for A Dispensary or a Dispensary's

Cultivation Site
Subparagraph A 2 - see above comment in R9-17-302 85

Subparagraph A3 - see above comment in R9-17-302 66
R9-17-307 Administration
Subparagraph C requires that a "dispensary" must cultivate at least 70% of the medical
marijuana the dispensary provides to qualifying patients or designated caregivers
First, the use of the term "dispensary" under the statute includes both a retail outlet and
a cultivation site As noted above, the City suggests a clarification in the definition
section to separate a retail dispensary from a cultivation site,,
Second, the rule seems to suggest that each retail dispensary must also cultivate the
marijuana that it sells If the goal of this rule is to ensure that marijuana sold in Arizona
is grown here, the City suggests that the rule be clarified to permit the opportunity for a
separate retail dispensary to acquire its marijuana from an Arizona cultivation site which
it does not own,. This might encourage cultivation in large quantities, which would be
easier for cities to monitor and regulate,
Third, as a matter of arithmetic, it is impossible to calculate 70% (or any other

percentage) unless some definite time period is prescribed for purposes of the
calculation Because it would be unwieldy to specify a time period that is too short (e g,.,
daily) we suggest that any such regulation should specify that the calculation should be
made on an aggregate, annual basis,.
R9-17-101 et seq , Regarding Medical Marijuana
January 7,2011
Page 4
We look forward to working with you on the rules as they are formulated Please call
me at (602) 495-5412 if you have any questions about our comments,,
Debra W Stark
Planning and Development Director
s:\director's off1ce\Debra\letters\2011\1-7-11DStark- Will Humble - Medical Marijuana Rules doc
c: Larry Tom
Margaret Wilson
AWBjlglNA CHAMBER
of Coamtir<eand i ~ ~ r f r < s t i y
January 7, 201 1

150 N 1sth venue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Re: Rules and Regulations of Medical Marijuana in the State of Arizona
Thank you for meeting with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry's (the
"Arizona Chamber" or "Chamber") Workforce and Insurance Committee (the "Committee") to
discuss Arizona's new Medical Marijuana Act (the "Act") and the Department of Health
Services' (the "Department" or "DHS") proposed rules to implement the Act We appreciate you
taking the time to meet with the Committee, to discuss concerns, and to provide the opportunity
for input fiom the Chamber on issues associated with the new l a w The Committee members
have cooperated to develop the comments we are submitting,
1. Introduction and General Principles
For more than 35 years the Arizona Chamber has served as the leading statewide
advocate for the Arizona business community Its members employ more than a quarter of a
million Arizonans in all sectors of the economy, working for small, medium and large
employers The mission ofthe Arizona Chamber is as follows:
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry is committed to advancing

Arizona's competitive position in the global economy by advocating free-market
policies that stimulate economic growth and prosperity for all Arizonans
The Arizona Chamber has adopted five guiding principles:
1 Promoting a globally competitive tax climate
2 Decrease the regulatory burden on business
3 Sustain a strong workforce
MANUFACTURERS 1850 N CenbalAve, Suite 1433 S Phoenix, A285004

www azchamber com r Phone 602-248-9172 0 Fax 602-2651262
unsitng Burri!&ss~ d v a n c . n g~ r t z o n o
4. Maintain a strong infrastructure,
5 Support economic development and diversification
An explanation of each of those guiding principles and additional information regarding

the Chamber and its policy positions can be found on the Chamber's website at
htt~:llwww.azchamber.com
An overriding interest of the Chamber is to urge the adoption of regulations that

maximize the security procedures for medical marijuana supplies, from cultivation through
consumption, in order to minimize the potential that the Act could result in unauthorized users,
including employees, obtaining supplies illegally
The business community strongly believes that security is a very important part of' the
regulations and oversight that the Department of Health Services should implement Technology
exists today to ensure that biometrics and security features are incorporated to prevent fraud and
abuse regarding the use of medical marijuana Employers are concerned with safety issues,
especially regarding safety-sensitive positions Arizona should develop the best standards for
ensuring safety, security and preventing misuse Arizona has the opportunity to do what, thus
far, none of'the other states with medicinal marijuana laws has accomplished: establishing a safe,
secure, efficient and virtually fraud-proof' system for the cultivation, sale and use of medical
marijuana Arizona should be the leader in this area,
Please feel fiee to contact us with any questions We appreciate your consideration of
these suggestions
2. Definition of Terms
There is an important term that is undefined in the Act which should be clarified in the
definition section of'the rules The term "monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law
or regulation" is included in A R S 5 36-2813(8) As set forth below, we suggest that the
definition of that term include, at a minimum, employers who receive federal funding and grants,
obtain a federal license, andlor secure a federal contract of any kind,
In compliance with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, any firm with a single
(or more) federal contract of more than $100,000 is subject to the Drug-Free Workplace Act,
This would include any employee, full-time or temporary, who works on any activity under the
grant or contract Additionally, contractors or grantees performing work in federal facilities,
ARIZONA
MANUFACTURERS 1850N CentmlAve, Surte 1433 0 Phoenu, A281004
GOUNCIL www archamber corn 0 Phone 602-248-9172 8 F a r 602-265-1262
unc:,ng aurirrss ~ d v r o c ' n g~ i t r o n o
involved in federal procurement of utility services, issued other contracts or grants to educational
organizations are included in these provisions covered by the Act,
Furthermore, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has drug policy
regulations under its Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation 49 C F R . 5 4 0 151( e ) These
regulations do not authorize "medical marijuana" allowed under a state law to be a valid medical
explanation for a transportation employee's positive drug test result DOT has declared the
following transpor.tation positions as safety-sensitive and therefore, unacceptable for these
employees to use medical marijuana based, even if consumed in compliance with DHS
regulations: pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, subway operators, aircraft
maintenance personnel, transit fire-armed security personnel, ship captains and pipeline
emergency response personnel We suggest that employers of workers in safety-sensitive
occupations also be included within the definition of recipients of"monetary or licensing related
benefit under federal laws or regulations "
A number of federal agencies (including the Department of Defense, Department of

Ener.gy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
have issued regulations that require federal contractors, grantees and licensees to maintain
fitness-for-duty requirements or drug-free workplace programs For example, licensees for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") are also held to similar regulations as DOT through
the NRC Fitness-For-Duty program as defined in 10 C F R Part 26 The NRC regulation
addresses the concern of trustworthiness and reliability as related to use of medical marijuana
and other hallucinogens Its regulation is imperative to ensure individuals who are subject to
Part 26 requirements are not impaired from using drugs when performing duties subject therein,
As this prohibition has concurrence from the Departments of Justice and Health and Human
Services, as well as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, we request personnel in these
and similar positions also be included in the definition of"monetary or licensing related benefit
under federal laws or regulations"
There are also situations in which employers may legitimately believe that they must
maintain a drug testing or drug-free workplace policy in order to achieve the monetary benefit of
avoiding citations and penalties under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act
("OSHA"), which in Arizona is administered by the Arizona Division of' Occupational Safety
and Health ("ADOSH") o f t h e Industrial Commission of Arizona Under federal OSHA law,
ADOSH must enforce standards at least as stringent as federal law and regulations, and must
enforce the OSHA general duty clause, which is codified at A R , S 5 23-403(A) That law
obligates each employer to "fbrnish to each of his employees employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death
ISSON CenrrolAve, Surle 1433 b Phoenur, AZ81004

*
www azchamber com Phone 602-248-9172 a Fax 602-265-1262
.
Uniting Busintss Advanc ng Arilonu
or serious physical harm to his employees " There will be circumstances in which employers
believe that they must enforce drug-free workplace policies to comply with OSHA, and
compliance with OSHA is necessary to achieve the monetary benefit of avoiding citations and
penalties under OSHA Consequently, the definition of "monetary or licensing related benefit
under federal law or regulations" should also include compliance with OSHA
Incorporating all of the above recommendations, the following is a definition of

"monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations" that should be included
in DHS's rules:
"Monetary or licensing related benejt under federal law or regulations" means any
federal statute, regulation orprovisibn of any federal grant, contract or other federal
program, including but not limited to the Drug-Free Workplace Act o j 1988,
requirements of the Department of Transportation, Department of Defense,
Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Aervnautics and
Space Administration, or Occupational Safety and Health Administration, that causes
an employe, to adopt, implement or enforce any policy, practice or personnel action
intended to maintain a drug-fiee workplace, including but not limited to drug testing,
reassignment frvm safety-sensitive positions, or discipline or termination of an
employee believed to be impaired in the workplace
The above definition uses the term "workplace," and therefore that term should also be
defined "Workplace" is already defined in the Arizona Occupational Safety and Health Act,
A R S 5 23-401(15), and therefore the same definition should be used in these regulations It is
as follows:
"Workplace" means any location or site wherein work, either temporary or

permanent, is being conducted in connection with an industry, trade or business,
Another term used in the Medical Marijuana Act, as well as in the above proposed
definition of "monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations" that should
be defined is "impaired" It is not defined in the proposed rule The following is a
recommended definition of "impaired:"
'Tmpaired" means displaying symptoms that an individual may be under the influence
ojdrugs or alcohol that may reduce the employee's firlfillment ofthe duties or tasks of
the employee's job position, including, but not limited to, symptoms o j the employee's
speech, walking, standing, physical dexterity, agility or coordination, actions,
MANUFACTURERS
.
1850 N Cenbnl Ave, Stcrte 1433 0 Phoenu, AZ 85004
www azchambe, corn Phone 602-248-9172 Fax 602-265-1262
Unziing Bus n t s r Advanc ng #rirona
movement, demeanor, appearance, clothzng, odor, or other symptoms causing a
reasonable suspzczon ojthe use of drugs or alcohol
The above definition of "monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or
regulations" includes the term "safety-sensitive positions," and the concept of safety-sensitive
positions is also a part ofthe Department of Transportation regulations dealing with drug testing,,
Using the Department of Transportation regulations as a foundation, the following is a
recommended definition of "safety-sensitive positions," which should be included in the
Department's rules:
'Safity-sensitive positions" means positions in which an impaired employee could

pose a risk to the safety ojthe employee or others, including but not limited to, pilots,
school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, mass transit operators; aircraft
maintenance personnel, fire-armed security personnel, watercrafl operators, pipeline
workers, emergency response personnel, operators of motor vehicles, other vehicles,
machinery, power tools; performing duties repairing, maintaining or monitoring the
performance or operation of any equipment or machinery the malfunction o j which
could result in injury or property damage, or performing duties in the residential or
commercial premises o j a customer, supplier or vendor
3. The Rules Should Include Criteria for Evaluating Applications for

Dispensary Registration Certificates..
The Arizona Chamber believes that it is in the interests of all affected parties, including
employers, employees, the public, and users of medical marijuana, for the Medical Marijuana
Act to be implemented with the most effective system possible for dispensing marijuana in a
manner that complies with the law and regulations
A lynchpin of a system to prevent abuse would be the selection of the most qualified
applicants to be certified as dispensaries The number of dispensaries is limited by statute to one
dispensary for every 10 pharmacies operating in an area A R S 5 36-2804(C) The proposed
regulations, Section R9-17-107(G), contemplate that the Department shall issue certificates for
qualified applicants; however, the proposed rules do not have any procedure for the Department
to distinguish between multiple applications in the same area The Department should therefore
establish criteria to determine the most qualified applicants so that if the Department receives
more than one application for every 10 pharmacies in an area, the Department should select the
ARIZONA
MANUFACTURERS 1850N CentlalAve, Surte 1433 8 Phoenir. AZ85004
CouNciI. www azchambe, com 8 Phone 602-248-9172 8 Fhx 602-265-1262
uniiing ~ u s . r i s s~ d v o a c . n gArizono
most qualified applicant, as that will help promote compliance with the law and regulations
thereafter
In order to evaluate the most qualified applicants for dispensary certification, the
Department should develop the criteria for evaluating and ranking the applicants The Arizona
Chamber believes that the most objective and fairest system would be to utilize a point system
with criteria that emphasizes security over the inventory of the dispensaries, the qualifications
and strength ofthe owners/operators ofthe dispensaries, and other factors It is in the interests of
all affected persons, as well as employers, to minimize the potential abuse through lack of
inventory control and other procedures, and for that reason the Arizona Chamber supports
objective selection criteria for determining the most qualified dispensary applicants who will be
certified,,
4. The Status of Entities Certified to be Dispensaries Should be Clarified.
The proposed rules contain ambiguity with respect to the status of the entities that are
certified as medical marijuana dispensaries The Act provides that the dispensary must be a
"not-for-profit entity," but the Act does not contain a definition of or a requirement for the form
of the entity that may be certified Although the Act would seem to exclude individuals from
operating a dispensary business as a proprietorship, it is unclear about the permissibility of
partnerships or limited liability corporations The rules contain various provisions that are
applicable to officers and board members, which are positions commonly associated with
corporations but not with partnerships, R9-17-301
The rules should therefore clarify the status of the entities to be certified so that
employers and others will not face any uncertainty with respect to whom is responsible for the
actions of medical marijuana dispensaries The rules should either expressly require that the
certified entity be a corporation, which will assure that there will be officers and board members,
or the rules should modify the definition of' "principal officer or board member" to encompass
persons such as the managing member of a LLC or the general partner of a partnership,,
5. The Rules Should Allow for a Market-Based System for Allocation of

Supplies Among Certified Dispensaries.
The Arizona Chamber generally supports market solutions to supply and demand issues,
rather than government regulation of the private sector, as expressed in our guiding principles
listed earlier The free-market system on which on our economy is based contains inherent
strengths to allocated and balance supply and demand
MANUFACTURERS 1850 N CenaalAve, Surte 1433 * Phoenrr. AZ 85004

www azchamber com 9 Phone 602-248-91 72 @ Fax 602-265-1262
iini:ing aurmcri ~ d u o a c ~ nnitmno
g
The proposed rules contain a requirement that each dispensary must cultivate at least
70% of the supply distributed by the dispensary That regulatory approach could result in
inefficiencies and distribution issues If some medical marijuana dispensaries have superior
programs for maintaining inventory control and cultivation of supplies, the regulatory and
framework should allow for those benefits from a market-based system to be achieved,,
It could be in the interests ofthe state to have a fewer number of cultivation sites rather
than requiring that each dispensary also cultivate 70% of its own supply Dispersing and
fragmenting the cultivation to each dispensary in greater quantities and to produce greater
quantities of product could cause greater inventory control issues because it will cause a larger
number of cultivation sites to exist than what otherwise might be the case in a fkee-market
system The greater number of and smallet size of cultivation sites could result in less inventory
control and greater diversion of inventory outside the controlled system for potential misuse, and
other problems
Accordingly, we recommend that R9-17.,307(C) be modified so that the mandates for

cultivation and the restriction on acquiring supplies from other dispensaries are deleted
6. Inventory Control Procedures Should be Strengthened to Include

Department Monitoring Procedures and Electronic Tracking of Inventory.
Although the Arizona Chamber generally does not support government regulation of
businesses, in the case of the inventory of medical marijuana dispensaries, it is important that
there be rules that will assure the tracking of inventory by each dispensary from the cultivation
through the distribution to the consumer, and compliance monitoring by the Department
It is important for employers that the marijuana cultivated and dishibuted as a result of
the Medical Marijuana Act be limited to those who are qualified under the Act, and that the
supplies not be distributed among the general population which could cause marijuana use
among non-qualifying employees to increase In order to prevent the unauthorized distribution
and use of marijuana, the Department's rules should require that each dispensary maintain
inventory control and document the amount of marijuana cultivated, stored, and sold by each
dispensary Only through a comprehensive monitoring system from cultivation through
distribution can there be assurances that product is not grown and redirected to the illegal market,
or that inventory is not dissipated to the illegal matket without being sold
The inventory control system should allow for real time tracking through electronic data
that can be verified remotely by the Department The deterrent effect of the Department's ability
to remotely verify the inventory control procedures will hopefully be effective, and therefore
,,,,,--,,,,,,,,.,.-,,,----,-.----."-- --." - .
ARIZONA
HAUUFACTURERS 1850N CenbnlAve, Suite 1433 0 Phoenix, AZ85004
COUNCIL www azchambet com e Phone 602-248-9172 *
Fhx 602-265-1262
ARIZONA CHAMBER
.?,!:I1,2,/!,,/,.,
$/'(''G,,>:>:;?,~.
'lnlimg Bvr.nesr Advnnong anzono

avoid time-consuming paperwork audits that the Department undoubtedly lacks the resources to
conduct
Consequently, we recommend modifying R9-17-313 to require that each dispensary

implement an electronic inventory control system that will also provide the Department with the
ability to remotely access the cultivation data, inventory control and sales data for each
dispensary
7. Security Requirements for Storage of Medical Marijuana Inventories by

Dispensaries Should be Strengthened.
As previously stated, maintaining the effectiveness of the inventory control systems to

prevent supplies from being redirected from the medical marijuana distribution chain to the
illegal drug market is important to the interests of employers and others Part of those security
precautions should include enhanced requirements to mandate that medical marijuana inventories
should be stored only in secure locations and containers so that supplies are not redirected to the
illegal market as a result of break-ins, thefts, dispensary employee misconduct, and other
potential abuses Those enhanced inventory storage control requirements should be added to R9-
17-315
8. Transportation Security Requirements Should be Added to the Rules
Consistent with the desirability of enhanced security procedures for the storage of
medical marijuana inventory, the rules should be strengthened to create security procedures for
the transportation of medical marijuana, either in the form of plants while still being cultivated,
or marijuana supplies after cultivation Requirements that dispensaries maintain both electronic
record-keeping to track transportation of product, as well as security procedures during
transportation, should therefore be added to Section R9-17-3 15
9. Biometric Identification Procedures for Recipients of Medical Marijuana

Should be Added,.
Employers have experience with the challenges and difficulty of verifying the identity of
persons The 1-9 process imposed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act places upon
employers the burden of checking documentation to verify the identify and employment
eligibility of all newly-hired employees The difficulties and lack of effectiveness of employers
operating with a system that mandates acceptance of more than 20 different forms of
identification have resulted in both expense, regulatory burden and controversy well-known to
all Arizonans who have followed the immigration issue Even the E-Verify system that is
-,,..-.,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,-,,,,,--.,,..---,-,.,- - ,,,,,,-, --
ARIZONA
MANUFACTURERS 18.50 N Central Ave, Suite 14.33 a Phoenix. AZ 85004
COUNCIL w w w azchamber corn 8 Phone 602-248-9172 0 F a 602-265-1262
H
ARiZONA CHAMBER
c e 1111ilr,t?y
e f C o n ~ r n ~ rnnrt
Ulbiing Eus.ress 9dvo;ong ari2ono
voluntary on a federal basis, but mandated in Arizona, has been found by studies commissioned
by the federal government to be ineffective and permit about one-half of those unauthorized to
work to be successfully cleared by the system
Consequently, any system of marijuana distribution that does not have effective
verification procedures will run the risk of being thwarted by identity fraud that can enable
supplies to be diverted to non-qualified recipients The Arizona Chamber supports a rule that
would mandate a biometric identification system for each qualified recipient l'echnology is
available to have a fingerprint-based system or other comparatively effective system to verify the
identity ofthe qualified users
Accordingly, a rule should be added at R9-17-302 to require a fingerprint biometric

system of verification of the identity of qualified recipients and caregivers before each
distribution of medical marijuana as an alternative system that is similarly effective R9-17-311
should be modified to require the verification ofthe patient or caregiver's identity through use of
either a biometric fingerprint reading system or other equally effective biometric verification
system
10. Conclusion
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry appreciates the opportunity to submit
its views and recommendations regarding the proposed draft regulations to implement the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act The Arizona Chamber remains ready, willing and able to assist
the Department regarding the implementation of the Act and would welcome further
opportunities to exchange views and explore these issues
Sincerely,
Glenn Hamer
President & CEO
ARIZONA
MANUFACTURERS 1850N Central Ave, Suite 1433 @ Phoenu;, AZ81004
COUNCIL www ozrhamber com Phone 602.248-9172 Far 602.261-1262
1845 E Southern Avenue, Iempe, AZ 85282 (480) 838-3385
AzPA Medical Marijuana Position Statement
AzPA strongly opposes any law which bypasses the normal process of normal chains of custody for drug
distribution which is through a pharmacy Since the new AZ law defines marijuana for use for medical
purposes, it should therefore be treated as a medicationldrug Therefore, AzPA recognizes the need for
federai legislation to changelre-classify marijuana from a C-l t o C-ll and commits t o raise this issue with
national pharmacy organizations and AZ Congressional delegation in order t o ensure safe delivery of all
medications in Arizona In addition, because marijuana is a drug classified as a controlled substance Class-l
and is illegal and a violation of federal law t o possess, AzPA strongly recommends that pharmacists do not
get involved in the dispensing of the medical marijuana to avoid risk of losing their pharmacy license
Recommendations:
1.. AzPA recommends that the users of medical marijuana be identified in a database or that a
dispensary report users through a database so that health care professionals can identify patient
user for safe treatment. AzPA would support changing Arizona law so that C.-l are required t o be
reported into the ASBP prescription monitoring program,.
2.. AzPA recommends that the state implement post marketing surveillance through the UofA Poison
Control Center t o track adverse drug events and monitor quality, safety and efficacy.
3 . AzPA recommends only dispensaries that have policy and procedures and operates t o ensure the
delivery of quality medical marijuana and standardized dosing of medical marijuana be granted a
dispensary license since pharmacies cannot be involved a t this point in time,.
4. AzPA does not support use of a drug which has severe health implications/adverse effects similar to
smoking tobacco cigarettes..
Mr. Humble
Please keep the 70130% growing rule in you rules package
You akeady know that the big players fiom Colorado and California are lobbying you to
remove the 70130 % rule.
If you remove the 70130 rule, we ask that you also remove the requirement that
dispensaw auplicant is reauired to list a mower on the application.
Otherwise, every person who applies for a dispensary permit, will have to be in bed with
a grower fiom CO or CA to demonstrate experience for success
These big growers are encouraging us to list them as our grower and sign contracts with
them, because of their "experience "
Arizona has many experienced growers--patent-winning botanists and agricultu~al
savants who have vast experience and are extremely capable
The CO and CA growers want to be the sole growers to force dispensaries to buy hom
them I don't blame them We could still set up our own growing facility, but for
application purposes would be forced to contract with them in order to have a complete
application listing legal growers.
We've done the math. At current production and pu~chaserates, MM will cost lox more
which we'll have to then pass on to the patients
Thank you for your thorough analysis

R9-17-315. Security
A. A dispensary shall ensure that access to the enclosed, locked facility where marijuana is cultivated is
limited to principal officers, board members, and designated agents of the dispensary,
B . A dispensary may transport marijuana in any form, marijuana plants, and marijuana paraphernalia
between the dispensary and:
1 The dispensary's cultivation site,
2 A qualifying patient,
3 Another dispensary, and
4 A food establishment contracted with the dispensary to prepare edible food products infused with
medical marijuana
C . Duiinx transportation.
1. All marijuana. mariiuana plants. and matiiuana aarapherrialia shall be in a locked container or
otherwise secured to minimize the uotential d t h e l t .
2. All rnariiuana. mariiuar~aplants. and marijuana naraphernalia shall be under the iriimediate conirol of'a
I Ilispensarv Agent at all times,

-3. Dispensarv A ~ c n t trarisporting
emereencv. and
s shall s-1, a nieans of communications in the cvcrit of an
4.Any loss, theft or comaroniisc of ~niarjjuana.rnarijuana plants. and mariiuana paraphernalia shall&
repot.ted to the aporooriate law enforcenierit agencGy,a Dispensa~vAgent imniediate!~upon discovyxy,
and to the Department as soon asgracticable
GQ. To prevent unauthorized access to medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable, the
dispensary's cultivation site, the dispensary shall have the fbllowing:
1 Security equipment to deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into limited access areas that include:
I a Devices or a series of devices to p~o~iiptlv detect unauthorized intrusion, which may include a signal
system interconnected with a radio frequency method, such as cellular, private radio signals, or other
mechanical or electronic device;
I b Exterior lighting at a level sufticcto facilitate visualsurveillance;
c Electronic monitoring including:
i. At least one 19 inch 01 greater call-up monitor;
I i i A video printer capable of immediately producing a clear still photo& fiom any video camera
image;
i i i Video cameras:
I ( I ) Providing tmobstrucled coverage of all entrances to and exits fiom limited access areas and all
entrances to and exits from the building, capable of identifying any activity occurring in 01 adjacent to the
building; and
(2) Have a recording resolution of least at 704 x 480 or the equivalent;
I iv A video camera at each point of sale location allowing for the identification of w.& qualifying
patient or designated caregiver purchasing medical marijuana;
I v A video camera in each grow room capable of identifying aI& activity occurring within the grow
room in low light conditions;
1 vi Electrctnic Sztorage and retrieval capabilities of video recordings and still irnaees from the video
cameras for at least 30 calenda days;
vii A fBilute notification system that provides an audible and visual notification ofany failure in the
electronic monitoring system;
viii Video cameras and recording equipment with sufficient battery backup to support at least five
minutes of recording in the event o f a power outage; and
ix. The capability of p~ovidingauthorized remote viewing of live and recorded video with:
( I ) Internet connectivity of at least 184 kbps upstream; and
(2) A static IP address to allow fot remote connection;
d Panic buttons in the interior of each building; and
2 Policies and procedures:
a , That restrict access to the areas of the dispensary that contain marijuana and if applicable, the
dispensary's cultivation site, to authorized individuals only;
b That provide for the identification of authorized individuals;
c That prevent loitering;
d . For conducting electronic m o n i t o r i n g 4
e For the use of a panic b u t t o n d :
f: That are reviewed and updated at least ariouallv or inore often as needed.
E. 4 principal office!, board membei. or desirnated agent ofthe dispensary shall ensure that aiiv crime
occurring on the premises of tlie dispensaiv is reported to the appro~riatelaw enforceiiielit agency
imtnediatelv, and reported to tlie Department as soon as piacticabie.
Dear MI Humble:
The City of Maricopa appreciates the diligence and efforts of your staff in writing of'the draft rules for
Proposition 203, and the opportunity to comment The following observations are for review and your
consideration:
General Comment
Proposition 203 - A~izonaMedical Marijuana Act does not address 01 provide clarification
whethe1 Sovereign Nations in the state are exempt from the rulemaking Will DHS address this
in their final rulemaking? The City of Maricopa is bordered by the Gila River Indian Community
to the north and Ak-Chin Indian Community to the south, and information in this matter will
help the City draft zoning I egulations accordingly
It appears that DHS will require dispensaries, cultivation sitelocation etc to acquire zoning
clearance prior to DHS issuing registration certificate/ license Many municipalities are requi~ing
the applicants' to provide some sort of evidence or approval from DHS prior to issuing of a
certificate of occupancy What happens if the applicants' fail to meet DHS requirements?
Informal Draft Rules Comment

1 Rg-17-101# 15 Medical Director AND
Rg-17-302 # 15 (a) Registered Pharmacist; are they used interchangeably? If so, is there difference
in role between the two, and will the pharmacist be requi~edto be on site as well?
2 R9-17-302 # 15 (b) The dispensary willprovide information about the importance ofphysical
activity and nutrition onsite Please clarify
3 R9-17-313 # B (5) Forproviding medical marbuana to food establishmentfor infusion into a n

ediblefoodproduct. The "food establishment" terminology as used here is too broad and will
need clarification with an appropriate definition Will restaurant fall under this terminology and
required to meet zoning regulations?
4 R9-17-318 Physical Plant- is this definition same as dispensary and cultivation site?
5 The question of separation (distance from church, daycare rehabilitation center etc), shouldn't
this provision be subject to local regulation?
Once again, we are appreciative of this oppo~tunityto comment and be part of the process
Sincerely,
Kazi H a q u e
Planning Manager
Development Services D e p a r t m e n t City of'Maricopa
45145 West Madison Avenue
P.0 Box 610
Maricopa, AZ 85139
p: 5201316-6985
f: 520/568-9120
c: 520/251-1884
kazi.haque@maricopa-az.~ov
>nyw.maricoua-az.eov
"The City of Maricopa will be open, responsive, and accountable while serving the public
with integrity."
Questions / comments about Medical Marijuana Act & Rules
Physician licensing boards / directors comments
1 The term "recommend" (in any form) does not appear in the text of the actual statute (appears
in initiative cover sheet and in preamble) It only appears in R9-17-310, as "recommending" physician
Other references use language "provided certification" such as in R9-17.108, and R9-17-202 (F)(S)
May consider changing language in R9-17-310 to "certifying physician"
2 Regarding access to records:

a Regarding the boards' access to dispensary records/ medical records at dispensaries:
most of physician boards have authority t o subpoena records from any health care institution defined in
36-401 Is DHS considering amending that statute to include dispensaries? Is it DHS' position that the
M M Act and rules already provide that authority? will we be able t o get them, as do with Board of
Pharmacy's Controlled Substances - Prescription Monitoring Program'? Board access to DHS compiled
records, also?
b Who (besides DHS) will have access t o the M M electronic verification system records?
Will this be similar to the Controlled Substances Prescription Monitoring Program overseen by the Board
of Pharmacy, in that individual health care providers may check on their patient, and licensing boards
and law enforcement agencies will also have access for investigations?
3 Standards for writing certification for patient; (see R9-17-202 (5) (e) (ii) as an example)
a " primary responsibility" This term is not clear; are you requiring the certifying
physician to become the patient's primary care provider? If so, using that readily recognized
terminology would be helpful
The reality is, most patients are concurrently treated by a number of physicians, many of whom
are specialists in the area of the debilitating condition/disease from which the patient is suffering
While it would be the ideal scenario, for example, that a cancer patient receive a certifying statement
from his/her oncologist, that may not occur, leading the patient to seek out another physician forthat
certifying statement Does assuming "primary responsibility" require that the certifying physician take
over the cancer therapy?
The boards would welcome language that encouraged communication between the certifying
physician and other concurrent health care providers For example, could an affirmative duty of
certifying physician be added, that he/she send a copy of qualifying cert to other (currently/within past
6 months) treating health / mental health providers? Or, will other providers have access t o the M M
electronic system t o see if patient getting M M / how much, etc? (this would be similarto how providers
can now check other rxs via Pharmacy's CS- PMP)
b "personal review of records other treating physicians" You may wish to broaden this
to include all licensed health care providers with prescribing privileges, noting, for example, that
patients may be under the care of advance practice nurses To keep this from being an onerous
requirement, you may consider establishing a minimum time period, for example, review records of
treatment / prescribing for past 12 months
Does DHS see itself as the agency that will enforce this requirement? Or does DHS expect the
physician licensing board to do so? If so, does DHS see itself forwarding cases to the boards for
investigation?
Recommended DHS regulation on Arizona's Medical Marijuana Law
Proposed Change: Medical ma~ijuanashould not be dispensed in a form that

can be smoked and it should remain illegal to smoke marijuana, even for
someone with a registry card
Suggested language: The following should be added t o Arizona Department of

Health regulation R9-17-311:
7 Marijuana may not be dispensed in its raw form or in any form that can
easily be used by smoking i t Marijuana should only be dispensed in forms that
can be taken orally, such as in foods or mixed with oil or butter and made into
capsules, or rectally, as in sz~ppositoriesThe dispensary will keep records
listing the form in which the marcztana is dispensed Marijuana for medical use
cannot be transported in its raw form It must be turned into a dispensable form
zuitlzin loo feet oj the place where it is grown.
A11 marijuana dispensaries mztstpost a warning that can be easily seen by

anyone purchasing medical mczrijuana The warning states: "Marijuana smoke
contains known carcinogens and has been determined to be carcinogenic by
ADHS,. Medical marijuana can only be di,spensed in,forms that are taken orally
or rectally. Smoking marijuana obtained for medical use is considered illegal
diversion and can beprosecuted. Possessing raw marijuana and smoking
marijuana are still illegal under Arizona law "
Rationale: Marijuana smoke contains dozens of carcinogens, and preliminary

research shows that smoking marijuana can increase the risk for respiratory
problems and several types of cancer-lung, head and neck, testicular and
bladder I I eview some of the research below. The medical profession and others
in public health have made a huge effort for several decades to eliminate the
smoking of tobacco because it's such a serious health hazard, and doctors should
not recommend any substance to be smoked
Following the adage, "First, do no harm," doctors should always prescribe

medications by the least harmful route of administration And, in fact, we always
try to give medications orally For people whose illness makes it hard to take a
pill or to keep one down, we have skin patches and suppositories..The last resort
is injecting medicine But there is no precedent for a medication that is smoked,,
To my knowledge, there is no medicine prescribed today that is smoked, and for
good reason Smoking any plant material causes cancer and lung damage And
there is no need for a medication that is smoked; ther'e is nothing that smoking
accomplishes from a medical point of view that can't be accomplished by safer
routes of administration. Arizona should forbid the dispensing of medical
marijuana in any form that can be easily smoked
As a doctor, I firmly believe that marijuana for medical use should never be
dispensed in a form that can be smoked Marijuana can be made into capsules or
suppositories or cooked into food, and those are the only routes of administration
that should be permitted.
He~e'ssome ofthe research on problems caused by smoking:
Research has shown that marijuana smokers have several respiratory tract
changes including lesions that are considered pre-cancerous. So far theie is no
evidence of emphysema, but smoking marijuana does cause problems with
airflow obstruction
There are a small number of studies of cancer in marijuana smokers, some

positive, some negative. Negative studies are quite common in research, and all
they mean is this particular study did not find this particular result Negative
studies do not prove that something never happens unless the same research
repeatedly gives negative outcomes and there are never positive outcomes.
Remember, nobody bats 1000..
However, many pro-marijuana websites and media outlets have taken a single
negative study and claimed marijuana does not cause cancer There are also
articles designed to look scientific that make this claim. This is an illcorrect
reading of the research
Two studies did show no increase in cancer in marijuana users, but both studies
have been criticized for bias One large study (Tashkin 2006) of 1200 people with
head, neck and lung cancer showed no increase in cancer in marijuana smokers.
Tashkin was the same researcher who had previously fbund that marijuana
caused pre-cancerous changes in the respiratory tract, so he was surprised to find
no increased cancer risk. That large study has been criticized for selection bias-
marijuana users in the control group were more likely to also smoke cigarette
than the marijuana users in the group with cancer. The authors admitted
selection bias possibly explained their negative findings,,
One other study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1997
(Sidney et al) that fbund marijuana smokers had no increase in cancer has been
criticized for using subjects who were too young, so cancers would not have had
time to develop,,
There are sever a1 I esear ch studies showing increased cancer I ates in marijuana
smokers
A New Zealand study published in the European Respiratory Journal in 2008

looked at 79 patients with lung cancer and found the risk of lung cancer increased
by 8 percent for every joint-year (averaging one joint daily for one year) and 7
percent for every pack-year (averaging one pack of cigarettes daily for one year),
leading them to conclude that smoking marijuana posed the same lung cancer
iisk as smoking cigarettes
T h e e North African case studies showed a very strong link between marijuana
smoking and lung cancer, but none of these studies controlled for tobacco use, so
these results are questionable
A 2009 study done at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and
published in the journal Cancer found that men who smoked marijuana once a
week had twice the risk of testicular cancer when compared to men who never
used marijuana, and marijuana was most strongly linked to nonseminoma, the
most aggressive form of testiculai cancer
Research published in the journal Urology in 2006 showed increased rates of

bladder cancer in marijuana smokers They also found that marijuana-smoking
patients were younger at the time of diagnosis than most patients with bladder
cancer Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor for bladder cancer, but the
researchers concluded that smoking marijuana may be as bad or worse than
cigarette smoking as O a risk factor for bladder cancer ,,
In 1999, a study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology fbund that

squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck increased with marijuana use and
there was a strong dose-response curve, the heavier marijuana users had higher
rates of cancer However, in 2004, another study published in Cancer Research
fbund no association between marijuana use and squamous cell carcinoma.
This is not a complete list of studies, and there aren't many So it is not enough to
draw definitive conclusions on marijuana and cancer However, the evidence that
smoking marijuana is linked to cancer is far more substantial than the research
supporting marijuana as treatment for many of the disorders listed in Arizona's
new medical marijuana law,. Also, remember, it took decades of heavy tobacco
use by large swaths ofthe population before we had a definitive link between
tobacco smoking and cancer.
On several pro-marijuana wehsites I fbund the claim that there is no direct

evidence linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer in humans That is exactly
what the tobacco industry said for decades after the first studies came out linking
cigarette smoking with lung cancer. What they said was technically true; until
recently we did not know ibr certain the exact mechanism by which smoking
caused cancer. However, the statistical evidence was overwhelming, so the
tobacco industry was being completely disingenuous and so are the pro-
marijuana groups who say marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Anyone who claims
that marijuana does not cause cancer is ignoring the research.
Also, in November 2010 an alticle printed in the European Journal of
Immunology described a possible mechanism by which smoking marijuana
causes cancer and the research supporting this possible mechanism If further
studies support these findings, then we will have direct evidence linking
marijuana smoking to cancer in humans
Anyone who goes on the internet will find the pro-marijuana groups
misrepresenting research What they almost always do is take one study or one
bit of information and run with it as if that were the whole story That's how
Arizona ended up with a law that says marijuana is good for glaucoma even
though the Glaucoma Foundation warns patients not to use marijuana because it
could make their symptoms worse,
The American Cancel Society points out on its website that it's hard to study
marijuana and cancer because so many marijuana users also smoke cigarettes
and because it's hard to study illegal drugs British cancer researchels noted the
same problem
However, one part ofthe research is veiy clear. We know for certain that
marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke,
produces more tar than tobacco, and that the way people smoke marijuana (down
to the roach, unfiltered, inhaling deeply, holding it in) delivers more tar to the
lungs than the way people smoke tobacco.
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ruled in 2009

that marijuana smoke is carcinogenic They are not calling the marijuana plant a
carcinogen, just the smoke That seems right; the research shows a link between
smoking n~aiijuanaand sever a1 types of cancel also commonly caused by
smoking tobacco Theie is no evidence that ingesting marijuana by other
methods causes cancer
Smoking marijuana is also linked to respiratory problems Research shows that

marijuana smokers have decreased respiratory function, increased airflow
obstruction, and fewer ofthe anti-oxidants that protect against cancer and heart
disease,
In summary, smoking marijuana has been implicated in several health problems

including cancer Not definitively, but enough evidence to make it likely So no
doctor should be recommending marijuana in a form that can be smoked,,
Arizona should not allow such a potentially dangerous route of administration
Marijuana can be mixed into food, foimed into a suppository, or cooked in

vegetable oil or butter and put into a capsule Dispensaries should only be
allowed to dispense maiijuana in these forms, and they should not be allowed to
sell marijuana in a form that can be smoked
Marijuana users have responded to the harm of smoking by developing

vaporizers so they can continue to inhale cannabinoids without the dangers of
smoking. However, the reasoil for vaporizing marijuana is still to get a quick
high, just like smoking it It still offers no medical advantage over taking cannabis
orally or tectally, and it allows marijuana to be dispensed in the same form that
can be smoked, allowing diversion Besides, the vaporized product has not, to my
knowledge, been tested for carcinogens
1 suggest a rule against transporting marijuana in its iaw form, and a
requirement that marijuana be turned into dispensable forms where it is grown,,
This will help to distinguish recreational fiom medicinal use It will also help law
enfbrcement beca~~se,
in other states with medical marijuana laws, it is a common
practice for drug dealers to get marijuana cards so they can claim the marijuana
they are carrying around is fbr medical use.,
Most of all, though, I ask DHS please do not force doctors to recommend
carcinogens just because they decide to recommend marijuana to their patients
And marijuana smoke is full of carcinogens
The marijuana users who sponsored this law in the hope of surreptitiously
legalizing recreational marijuana will come up with all sorts of reasons that
illarijuana should be dispensed in its raw, easily-smoked fbrm I know how
convincing the stories of some of my substance abusing patients can be, but
please do not believe them And if you do find yourselves believing them, then at
least let's try for one year with a r'ule that marijuana cannot be dispensed in it's
raw fbrm or any form that can be easily smoked,.And after a year we can assess
the situation and see if anyone with genuine medical need was really harmed by
such a regulation,
I quote a lot of research in the above discussion You can find links to all the
iesearch at my website, http://edgogek com.
Ed Gogek, M D Prescott, Arizona 928 443-0032

Recommendations to ADHS relative to the Medical Marijuana Act.
1. To eliminate unscrupulous doctors abandoning legitimate practices in

lieu of specializing in providing marijuana cards or becoming full-time
out-of-control 'Pot Docs" as experienced in other medical marijuana
states; The following mandate should be included:
Suggested language
"All doctors listed under the Medical Marijuana Act who are
authorized t o recommend medical marijuana are limited t o a
maximum of 'thirty' medical marijuana recommendations per year."
Also, the following language should be stricken entirely from the rules:
" OR (a physician who) -Has assumed primary responsibility for

providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient's
debilitating medical condition after conducting a comprehensive
medical history and physical examination, including a personal
review of the qualifying patient's medical record maintained by
other treating physicians that may include the qualifying patient's
reaction and response t o conventional medical therapies:
2. Currentlv the rules do not require an examination to be "in-person".

Out-of-state on-line services are already attempting to pre-qualify
potential Arizona medical marijuana cardholders on-line by requesting
the forwarding of medical records and filling out medical
questionnaires To prevent on-line examinations or on-line doctor-
patient relationships; the following requirement should be included as
part of a legitimate examination establishing a true in-person doctor-
patient relationship.
Suggested language:
'A 'valid recommendation' for medical marijuana requires in-person

medical evaluation of the patient."
'It is unlawful t o 'recommend' medical marijuana solely based on a

patient's completion of an online medical questionnaire."
ADHS needs to create a closed system of medical marijuana sales
tracking between growers, caregivers, dispensaries and cardholders.
This are systems currently utilized by many legitimate retail
pharmacies t o track the sale of pseudoephedrine products to ensure
sales t o the ultimate-user do not exceed legal amounts and prevents
the "smurffing" of pharmacies due to a compatible data-base allowing
pharmacies to share information. This system will also ensure that
marijuana is not being obtained from illegal sources.
Suggested language:
"ADHS will require all licensed growers, marijuana dispensaries and

caregivers t o install and /or subscribe t o a secure, computerized
web-based tracking system determined by the ADHS. The real-time
logging and reporting of regulated medical marijuana product sales,
electronic signature capture, and secure storage of all transaction
data will be required for all purchases of medical marijuana.
All medical marijuana growers, dispensaries and caregivers must be

equipped w i t h a shared electronic purchasing database determined
by the ADHS. This system will be shared among growers,
dispensaries, caregivers and the ADHS. When a licensed grower sells
product t o a dispensary or caregiver, it w i l l generate an I D reference
number; the grower's license number, date and time of sale; name of
dispensary or caregiver, and the purchaser's name and address;
name of product sold, quantity and amount of marijuana in the
product; and purchaser's signature.
At the time a licensed dispensary or caregiver sells product t o a

cardholder, it will generate an I D reference number; the cardholder
number, date and time of sale; purchaser's name and address; name
of product sold, quantity and amount of marijuana in the product;
and purchaser's signature.
Entering the cardholder's information w i l l fill required I D

information into the system. The information instantly checks a
centralized database t o determine if the cardholder i s within the
legal purchase limit. The cardholder will confirm the sale with an
electronic signature, and the sales transaction information is sent
and stored t o the centralized database.
Non-compliance of the web-based tracking system w i l l result in an
immediate revocation of grower, dispensary, caregiver, and
cardholder licensing, or permits and; may be subject t o criminal
prosecution, civil fines and forfeiture.
I t is unlawful for a grower, dispensary, caregiver, or cardholder, t o
knowingly consume, possess, acquire, purchase, or transport
-
marijuana of an unknown source or oriain; - . other than from ADHS
licensed growing facilities, dispensaries or caregivers. Non-
compliance will result in an immediate revocation o f dispensary,
caregiver, and cardholder licensing, or permits; and will be subject
t o criminal prosecution, civil fines and forfeiture."
4. The disposal of medical marijuana (unused or expired) is referenced in

the inspection rules - but there is no mention as to what approved
method of destruction is authorized by ADHS. To prevent diversion, it
is imperative that ADHS provide strict guidelines relating to the
destruction of unused or expired marijuana. The discarding of medical
marijuana in local dumpster landfill etc, is unacceptable.
"Medical marijuana dispensaries, caregivers, and cardholders can

dispose of unused or expired marijuana by documenting the weight
and taking it t o a local law enforcement agency for secure storage
and destruction."
5. Indoor grows often involve the utilization of various fungicides,

pesticides, fertilizers, acids, bases and soil. Many homes are
contaminated with mold and chemical exposure as a result of improper
storage and disposal of the aforementioned chemicals rendering the
home a toxic waste-dump, I n addition, there are oftentimes children
living in these hornes who are exposed to these toxic chemicals..
Many states allowing indoor marijuana grows are plagued with an

increase in residential fires endangering the lives and neighborhoods
This is due to amateurs altering residential electrical and plumping
fixtures to accommodate indoor grow lighting and watering.
"Residential or commercial cultivation (authorized by ADHS) within
the jurisdiction of a municipality or county will require a special use
or conditional use permit authorizing the marijuana grow.
Cultivation of medical marijuana inside a residence or property

occupied b y minor children is prohibited.
Rental properties used as a cultivation site are the sole

responsibility of the medical marijuana dispensary owner, caregiver
and/or cardholder residing in the residence.
Planned alterations t o rental property by the tenants must be

approved by the landlord. Clean-up costs associated with an indoor
grow t o restore a property t o its original state will be the sole
responsibility of the medical marijuana dispensary/owner, caregiver
or cardholder renting the property.
Alterations t o fixed residential electrical systems, plumbing, o r

other permanent structural features w i l l require applying for the
appropriate permit through the local municipality or county.
Construction must be completed by a licensed contractor. Once
alterations are complete, the local city or county (ie: Inspector, Fire
Dept.) shall inspect the residence t o ensure all alterations are
constructed t o code.
Illegal grows are subject t o criminal prosecution i n addition t o civil

fines and possible forfeiture."
Proposed Regulation: Requirements for Physicians Who
Recommend Medical Marijuana
Submitted by Ed Gogek, M.D. Prescott, AZ 928 443-0032
I notice there is no section or article about requirements for the

doctors who recommend medical marijuana, with the one exception of
the documentation they provide to the patient. As a doctor, Iwould
normally like that--a law that does not give us extra paperwork or
administrative responsibilities. However, certain requirements are
necessary to make sure doctors cannot abuse their authority to write
medical marijuana recommendations. I n particular, doctors should not
be able to set up practices where they making a living handing out
marijuana cards to everyone who walks through their door, which has
been a huge problem in other states.
Limiting doctors to only 30 active marijuana patients at a time would

prevent the type of pot doctors other states have, doctors who just
hand out marijuana recommendations all day long to anyone who can
pay their fee. The 30-patient limit would not be a problem for
legitimate doctors, because they only recommend marijuana to
patients who need it. Marijuana is not a first line medication for any
medical condition or disorder, so legitimate doctors will not
recommend it often.
The precedent for this is the exact same rule used for doctors who
prescribe buprenorphine when used to treat drug addicts. I n order to
use buprenorphine in my practice, Ihad to take an 8 hour course and
then got a certificate from the DEA. Even so, the law limits me to 30
active buprenorphine patients a t a time When one patient finishes his
or her course of buprenorphine, Ican add another, However, Inever
go as high as 30 because I'm very strict about who gets it. I f Ihanded
out buprenorphine to everyone who requested it, I'd reach my 30
patient limit in a few weeks, maybe even sooner once the word got out
among the drug-abusing community.
The DHS guidelines should also include some system for authorizing
doctors to recommend medical marijuana. It should be very simple so
it won't be a problem for the doctor who only recommends it
occasionally. This would be exactly like the requirement that doctors
get a DEA certificate before prescribing scheduled medications like
benzodiazepines, narcotics and stimulants.
Lastly, physicians who do recommend medical marijuana should be
able to revoke a patient's card for a number of reasons. This is the
case with all other prescription medications and should be the case
with medical marijuana as well. Especially with addictive drugs and
drugs of abuse, doctors often find it necessary t o cancel a prescription,
cancel refills or stop giving a patient a medicine they had previously
prescribed.
So, Isuggest the following additions to the proposed DHS regulations:
First, I suggest the following definition be added to R9-17-101,

Definitions:
"Recommending doctor" or "recommending physician"is the

phys~cianwriting a recommendation for medical marijuana.
Second, I suggest that R9-.17-205 include one more subsection, under

the letter 'I":
I. The recommending physician may contact the Department to

revoke a qualifying patient's registry identification card if the
doctor believes the patient no longer requires medical
marijuana, if the patient fail,s to follow up with the doctor as
prescribed, if the doctor comes to believe that the patient was
dishone,st in obtaining the recommendation, if the doctor
believes the patient is using the marijuana for recreational
purpo,ses or diverting i t to others who are using it for
recreational purposes, or if the doctor believes the patient i,s
misusing the marfjuana recommendation in any other way. The
recommending physician is also required to contact the
Department to revoke a qualifying patient's registry identification
card if the patient has not seen the doctor for more than 90
days. If a recommending doctor contacts the Department for any
of these reasons, the Department will revoke the patient's
registry identification card.
Thirdly, I recommend an additional article, which would be Article 4:

Article 4 Recommending Physicians
Definition:. A recommending physician is a physician writing the

marijuana recommendation that the patient uses to obtain a
registry card,,
1..All physicians must register with DHS in order to recommend

the medical use of marduana.
(This should be a simple process, otherwise it discourages

doctors who might only recommend the drug a few times.
Doctors should be able to call a number at DHS and then
receive a letter or fax saying they are registered. DHS should
require the doctor's name, degree, office address, phone and
fax numbers, and any specialties or subspecialties, even if
they are not board-certified in the specialty. When a doctor
receives a registry with DHS as a recommending physician, it
should be accompanied by a description of what is required
of the doctor, so they know the law. All this can be done by
fax or phone in a matter of 15 minutes.)
2 All physicians recommending medical marijuana must keep a

record of patients receiving the recommendation. The record
must ~ncludethe name, birthdate, diagnosis, reason for
marijuana recomrnendation, date marijuana first recommended,
dates the patient has been seen since the first recomrnendation,
and date the recommendation was terminated.
(This is similar t o the requirements for buprenorphine. DHS

should look at what is required for buprenorphine and devise
a simple form for doctors t o use and keep as part of their
office record. This is not an onerous requirement as all the
information is already in the patient's medical record. Please
don't require us t o copy this out of the medical record and
keep it anywhere else, just let us know it must be in the
medical record. Then the only extra thing doctors will be
required t o do is t o keep a list of patients currently using
marijuana medically, and when they were last seen, which
are needed for Parts 3 & 4. This is exactly what I do for
patients on buprenorphine.)
3. Patients receiving marijuana recommendations for medical

use must be seen by the recommending physician a t least every
90 days to continue the recommendation. Otherwise, the
recommending physician is required to contact the Department
to request that the patient's registry card be revoked.
Recommending doctors may also contact the Department to ask
that a patient's registry card be revoked, as deemed medically
appropriate, as set out in R9-17-205-1.
( I made suggestions above t o be included in R9-17-205 as t o

when a doctor can have a card revoked, so if those are
included, then they can be referred to here..)
(This section is similar t o the rule with stimulants which are

Schedule I1 drugs. Prescriptions for stimtllants, used for
ADHD, are only good for 60 days, so usually the patient must
be seen every two months. Some doctors simply write
prescriptions every two months and just let the patients pick
them up, but ADHD is not a debilitating medical condition.
Anyone with a genuinely debilitating medical condition will be
seeing their doctor at least every 3 months anyway, and it
will not pose a hardship.)
4. No doctor may have more than 30 patients receiving medical

marijuana at any one time. The recommending doctor and the
Department are required to maintain ongoing records of the
number of patients with active registry cards for each
recommending physician.
(This is identical to the rule the DEA has for buprenorphine.

Thirty should be plenty for all legitimate doctors. The only
people this rule will pose a hardship for are doctors who want
t o earn a living handing out marijuana recommendations,
and those are the people w e want t o stop. This is the most
important recommendation in this list. I n fact, from my point
of view as a doctor, the 30-patient limit and the requirement
that marijuana only be transported and dispensed in forms
that cannot be smoked, are the two most important
suggestions I have t o make. If you just do those two things,
along with the recommendation made by others that
dispensary permits be awarded geographically so no square
inch of the state is more than 25 miles from a dispensary,
then this law will be transformed from a recreational
marijuana law into a medical marijuana law, which is what
the voters intended.)
5. Second opinions will be required for certain marijuana
recommendations as part of' the application for a registry card.
DHS will keep a list of' acceptable doctors for second opinions,.
DHS will a,sk each specialty group to recommend doctors of' high
moral and ethical character in each community, city, or town,,
DHS will choo,se doctors from this list for its second opinion list.
Patients required to get a second opinion must see a specialist in
the diagnosis for which they have been recommended
marijuana. Pain speciali,stsare not acceptable for second
opinion,^. I f the patient has cachexia, wasting syndrome, severe
and chronic pain, severe nausea, or muscle spasms, those are
considered symptoms, and the patient must see a specialist in
the underlying disease that causes the symptom.
(For example, if they have musculoskeletal pain they must

see an orthopedist or specialist in osteopathic manipulation,
not a pain specialist.)
(Second opinions are used in medicine to prevent

inappropriate prescriptions. They are most commonly used
when surgery is prescribed, and the use of second opinions
has prevented a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate
surgery. However, the state of New Mexico uses second
opinions as part of its medical marijuana law for certain
diagnoses. Second opinions are useful in medical marijuana
laws when the disorder has only subjective symptoms and is
easily faked, like pain )
6. Second opinions are required for: a) any patient under the

age of 18, b) any patient' recommended marijuana for pain or
muscle spasms, c) any patients recommended marijuana for
nausea, cachexia or wasting syndrome not caused by cancer,
HIV or interferon treatment for hepatitis C, d) patients with
muscle spasms not part of multiple sclerosis, and e) any patient
who receives a marguana recommendation at their first or
second visit to an individual doctor, clinic or medical group. The
only exceptions to part e are patients diagnosed with cancer by
radiologic or cytologic evidence and receiving cancer
chemotherapy who receive a marijuana recommendation from
an oncologist at their first or second visit.
(Section e will not be necessary if DHS includes teh much

stronger already-suggested requirement that patients must
be treated b y the recommending doctor for a t least one year
with at least 4 prior physician visits..)
7. Phys~ciansprovid~nga second opinlon are not required to

make their decision on the day they evaluate the patlent. They
must be given tlme to obtain and evaluate records from other
physic~ansand other ancillary sources. I f they decide the patient
does not need marijuana, then the patient will not be given a
registry identification card
8. DHs may revoke or suspend a physicians registrat~onto

recommend medical marijuana as the director's discret~on,and
then the physician IS not permitted to recommend marijuana
unless the registration is reinstated a t the director's discretion
10DHS Staff
As you contemplate the development of regulations for implementation of Proposition 203 We strongly I ecommend
that you include the recommendations put forwar d by Ed Gogek, M D namely that :
I Marijuana dispensaries only dispense marijuana in food, in capsules or as suppositories, but never in its raw form
or in any other form that can he smoked Mar~juanasmoke contains dozens of carcinogens and research links pot-
smoking to several types of cancer and respiratory problems An extensive description of the ~esearchcan he found at
my website, htt~://edgogek.com
2 Doctors who recommend medical ma~iinanacan have a limited number medical mariiuana ~ a t i e n t at s a time This
is the same as the rule for buprenorphine The reason for this rule is that, in other states; almost all the marijuana is
recommended bv a handful of doctors who set UD mariiuana ~racticesand earn their livine handine our
A
recommendations to anyone who pays their fee 30-patientlimit will stop these pot doccor s
-
Thank you for consideration of our concerns
Sincerely,
Gene A Gerber, DDS, MPH
Linda Ott
Scottsdale. Arizona
7 Dispensaries should be required to file public reports providing
infbrmation on the number of customers, marijuana sales volume, and
financial status of the dispensary
IV. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS
1 Caregivers must pay a separate fee for each patient for whom
they care
2 Caregivers must undergo training (at least 8 hours) on, and pass
a test on, the effect and hazruds of marijuana, the terms of the initiative, and
DHS rules governing medical marijuana
3 Caregivers, Cardholders and Dispensary Agents must be

~esidentsof Arizona and must possess a Arizona driver's license or
identification card
15 4 Caregivers must be subject to the same security, inspection and

reporting requirements as dispensaries
17 5 Patients, or caregivers acting on behalf of patients, may not

possess smokeable marijuana unless specifically authorized by DHS
17 6 Private marijuana use "clubs" should be prohibited
18 7 The Rules and statute should clearly state that the use of medical
marijuana by Visiting Qualifying Patients should be limited to only those
conditions and circumstances allowed to Patients under Arizona law
V . MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
19 1 Policy Statement
20 2 Medical professionals that wish to issue medical marijuana

certificates must be registered with DHS in order to issue certifications and
a reasonable fee should be charged
22 3 The medical professional issuing the certification should be

given the authority to revoke a patient's certification at any time In
addition, the medical professional should be required to revoke if they
haven't seen the patient within 6 months
VI,. LEGISLATIVE ACTION
23 1 The legislature should set a presumptive THC metabolite level

for impairment (similar to presumptive blood alcohol level) effective in
situations of driving, machinery operation and employment
24 2 The legislatu~eshould set enhanced penalties for cardholde~s,

caregivets, and dispensary agents that produce, transport, sell, or possess
marijuana outside of the terms of their authority granted by the initiative
25 3 The legislature should impose criminal penalties for smoking

marijuana in public
26 4 The legislature should impose criminal penalties fbr smoking

marijuana in the presence of children
11. GUIDING POLICIES
1. Cultivation, sale, transportation, possession and use oj marijuana are

criminal offenses in the state ojArizona. Medical marijuana is a narrow exception to
that policy.
It is the policy of the State of Atizona that marijuana production, possession, use,
sale or transportation are all felony offenses Through the initiative process the people of
Arizona have carved out a narrow exception to the criminalization of marijuana The
initiative allows those individuals that have a bona-fide medical need for marijuana use to
acquire, possess, and use marijuana to treat symptoms associated with a narrow range of
medical conditions However, the guiding policy of this state - and the federal
government - is that it remains a crime to produce, use, sell or transport marijuana in
Arizona
In other states such as California and Colorado, insufficient regulation and

enforcement has allowed the "exception" of medical marijuana to swallow the "rule" of
marijuana criminalization This must not be allowed to happen in Arizona In order to
enforce Arizona's strong policy of marijuana criminalization, policies and procedures
developed by DHS and the legislature under the medical use exception should, to the
greatest extent possible, control marijuana production, transportation, sale, possession
and use to insure that marijuana is allowed for medical purposes only Medical
marijuana should not he allowed to become a source of illicit marijuana; production
should be limited to only what is necessary to supply legitimate demand and should be
strictly tracked; medical need should be based on medical facts subject to objective
review; employers should not be forced to tolerate impaired employees or protect
employees that are in violation of federal law
To these ends we suggest the fbllowing:

11. DISPENSARIES
1. DHS must require geographic dispersion oj dispensaries
Rationale:
The initiative allows individuals and caregivers to produce their own marijuana if
they live more than 25 miles from a licensed dispensary (the 25 mile circle surrounding a
dispensary have been called "halos ") Individual production of marijuana is far more
d~fficultto monitor and control than production by dispensaries This marijuana can
easily be converted to illicit use and the production location will attract criminal activity
as well Lawful marijuana production for medical purposes by individuals should be
eliminated to the greatest extent possible
DHS should adopt policies that mandate dispensary locations that cover the state
in dispensary "halos" that have the effect of preventing individual marijuana production
DHS should have the ability to consider in its sole discretion whether or not the
geographic location of a proposed dispensary is appropriate DHS regulations should
allow DHS to award exclusive dispensary rights to geographic areas DHS regulations
should allow DHS to mandate that an applicant, as a condition of granting a dispensary
certificate, also apply for and obtain a dispensary certificate at another location in the
state designated by DHS In short, DHS policies must insure that most if not all of the
state is covered with dispensary "halos" so that no individual will be permitted to produce
their own marijuana This may be best accomplished by requiring dispensaries in urban
areas to operate dispensaries in rural locations as a condition of their dispensary licenses
Implementation:
Substitute for R9-17-107(F) as follows:
"The Department may in its sole discretion consider the geographic location of the
proposed dispensary in determining whether to grant a certificate In its sole discretion,
the Department may grant exclusive dispensary certification to any geographic area of the
State The Department may as a condition of granting a certificate pursuant to A R S
Title 36 Chapter 28 1 and this Chapter, require the applicant fbr dispensary registration to
apply fbr, obtain, and maintain another dispensary within the state of Arizona within 2
miles from a location designated by the Department"
DISPENSARIES, CONT.
2 Each location where marijuana is produced, infused or sold must have a

separate dispensary certijication
Rationale:
The Rules as currently written would double and possibly triple the number of
dispensaries within the state The Rules as written allow a dispensary to both have a
separate location fbt cultivation and a separate location fbr infusion
A R S $36-2801 defines "Nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary" as an entity

that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transports supplies, sells or
dispenses marijuana " A R S $36-2804(C) limits the number of dispensary
certificates to approximately 124 A R S $36-2806(C) requires each cettified nonprofit
marijuana dispensary to have a single secure entrance
If the holder of a single dispensary certificate is allowed to have multiple

locations for sale or cultivation, 01 to contract with others to infuse food, it would be
physically impossible for the dispensary certificate holder to comply with A R S $36-
2806(C) Thus, when these sections are read together, it is clear the intent of the
initiative is to tequire each physical location where marijuana is produced, infused or sold
have a separate dispensary certificate that counts toward the total allowed in the state
under A R S $36-2804(C) This rationale also comports with the overall goal of
maintaining tight control over medical marijuana use so it cannot be diverted to illicit
use
Implementation:
(a) Modify R9..17-302(B)(5)by striking "and, if applicable, as the dispensary's

cultivation site"
(b) Modify R9-.17-304to strike all references to a Dispensary's Cultivation Site,
(c) Modify R9-17-306 to mike all references to a dispensary's cultivation site
(d) Modify R9-17-307 to clarify that cultivation sites tequire separate dispensary
certification
(e) Modify R9-17-313(B)(5) and (6) to clarify that food infusion sites require
separate dispensary certification
(f) Modify R9-17-315 to clarify that cultivation and infusion sites require
separate dispensary certification
(g) Modify R9-17-,316to clarify that infusion sites require separate dispensary
certification
(h) Strike R9-17-101(6)
DISPENSARIES, CONT.
3. DHS may delegate inspection of dispensaries to local authorities
Rationale:
Pursuant to A R S $36-136, DHS may delegate to local authorities their power to

regulate matters of health and welfare in the state Nothing in the initiative forbids
delegation of inspection authority to local governments The ability to delegate this
autho~itywill allow DHS to better effectuate conhol of dispensaries, and will give local
authorities the ability to better contr.01 the health and safety impacts of dispensaries in
their communities
Implementation:
Add R9-1'7-306(H): "The Department may delegate its authority under this
section to local authority pursuant to A R S $36-136"
DISPENSARIES. CONT.
4 Reasonable notice oj routine inspections should be 24 hours, and occul

within posted business hours,,
Rationale:
Inspection of dispensaries is designed to insure that the dispensary is operating

within the limits of the law The rule as currently written gives the dispensary the option
of refusing a time suggested by DHS The initiative requires only that the inspection be
reasonable Given the strong policy of this state against marijuana possession or use, it is
imperative that DHS inspections provide an accurate picture of the dispensary's
operation 24 hour notice of an inspection to occur during posted business hours fulfills
the statewide policy against illicit marijuana use and fulfills the "reasonable notice"
provision of the initiative
Implementation:
Modify R9-.17-306(C) as follows:
"Except as provided in subsection (E), routine on-site inspection of a dispensary shall

occur no eariier than 24 hours after the Department submits written notice of tine
Department's intent to inspect the dispensary Routine inspections under this subsection
shall occur during the dispensary's normal business hours"
DISPENSARIES, CONT.
5 Dispensaries must dispense marijuana and marijuana infusedproduets in

DHS approved and s upplied containers,,
RationaIe:
In order to strictly control medical marijuana, it is important that DHS and law
enforcement be able to clearly and easily distinguish between marijuana possessed, sold,
01 transported pursuant to the initiative The containers must be distinctive and traceable
with bar codes or other computerized tracking system Distinctive containers that are
registered or supplied by DHS that can be easily identified will help DHS and law
enforcement insure that marijuana encountered is in fact produced pursuant to the
initiative and is used sbictly for medical use The containers should be sealed when
dispensed DHS should strongly consider developing standardized containers and
requiring dispensaries to obtain those containem from DHS
Implementation:
Add to R9-17-314(A)(7): "The marijuana shall be dispensed in a sealed container

approved by the Department The containers shall contain a bar code or other
computerized tracking system approved by the Department "
DISPENSARIES, CONT.
6. Dispensaries may not dispense a smokeable form ojmarijuana unless the

qualifyingpatient is approved by DHS to receive it.
Rationale:
Based on the proven health risk of smoking, fbr the past 45 years the medical
community has worked to curtail the use of smoking in the United States In November,
2006 Arizona voters passed the Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A R S 536-601 Ol), severely
curtailing the use of smoking in the state, For most people, marijuana's alleged
therapeutic benefits are effective when it is consumed orally Given the serious negative
health effects that come with smoking any product (including marijuana), the smoking of
marijuana should be strongly discouraged
Implementation:
Modify R9- 17-311 to require the dispensary verify the patient is authorized to
receive marijuana in a smokable form prior to dispensing
Include the requirement that all smokeable marijuana must be dispensed in a

container that prominently displays a warning in substantially the following form:
"Marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens and has been determined to be
carcinogenic by the Arizona Depa~tmentof Health Services Although preliminary
research shows marijuana may contain substances that may help in the treatment of
cancer, this research also shows that smoking marijuana may be linked to cancer of the
lung, skin of the head and neck, testicle and bladder "
DISPENSARIES, CONT.
7 Dispensaries should be required to file public reports providing information

on the number oj customers, marijuana sales volume, and financial status oj the
dispensary.
Rationale:
In order to insure that dispensaries are not operating illicitly, it is important that
the legislature, DHS, local authorities, and the public have information regarding a
dispensary's number of customers, volume of marijuana, and financial condition A
dispensary need not reveal specific information about individual customers in order to
publish public reports regarding the number of customers, the volume of marijuana
dispensed, the kind of marijuana dispensed (smokeable or infused food), the receipts of
sales and costs expended This information will allow the legislature, DHS, local law
enforcement and the public to insure that the dispensary is not in reality a "front" for
criminal activity, and that the marijuana praduced and dispensed only to those with
legitimate medical need
Implementation:
Add as R9-17-312(E):
"Not less than annually and prior to recertification under R9-17-305, a dispensary shall
submit to the Department a report covering the period from the last ce~tificatewas issued
to that dispensary that contains the following information: (1) the total number of sales
of maijuana products, detailing each kind of product sold; (2) the total amount of usable
marijuana sold; (3) the total amount of usable marijuana produced or otherwise procured;
(4) the total amount of marijuana on hand; (5) the total amount of cash or other
reimbursement realized for the sale of marijuana; (6) the total amount of cash or other
reimbursements paid for producing or acquiring mar~juana"
111. PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS
1. caregiver:^ mustpay a separate fee for each patient they care for
Rationale:
Caregivers may possess and assist in the use of marijuana for up to 5 qualifying
patients under the act Each patient that designates a caregiver requires additional
administrative scrutiny by DHS, increasing administrative costs A R S $36-
2803(A)(5)(a) requires that the total revenue from the fees for registry identification cards
and dispensary registration certificates must be sufficient to implement and administer
the program Given the additional administrative costs inherent in a caregiver assisting
multiple patients, and to insure that caregiver activity is adequately monitored, it is
reasonable that a caregiver be required to pay additional fees fbr additional patients
Implementation:
Modify R9-17-102(5)(b) and (6)(b) as follows: "Designated Caregiver, $200 per

patient for which caregiving services are provided "
PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT.
2 Caregivers must undergo training (at least 8 hours) on, andpass a test on,
the ejfect and hazards oj mariJuana,the terms oj the initiative, and DHS rules
governing medical marijuana.
Rationale:
Caregivers under the initiative administer marijuana to qualifying patients They

are the link between the patient and the dispensary, and need to know the effects and
alternatives to marijuana to properly administer medical marijuana Without adequate
training, the caregiver runs the risk of improperly procuring or administering marijuana
to the patient
Implementation:
(a) Add R9-17-202(F)(6)(1): "Certification of completion of a Caregiver Training

Class administered or approved by the Department "
(b) Add R9-17-206: "The Department shall develop a Caregiver Training Class
of no less than 8 hours to teach caregiver applicants about the effects and hazards of
marijuana, alternatives to marijuana use, the terms of the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Initiative, and these rules The class shall include a test designed to reasonably test
caregivers about the subjects taught in the class Before issuing a certificate of
completion to caregiver applicants, the applicant shall pass the test with a score of at least
80% "
PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT
3. Caregivers, Cardholders and Dispensary Agents must be residents oj

Arizona and mustpossess an Arizona driver's license or identification card
Rationale:
The initiative declares that its purpose is to remove state-level criminal penalties
fbr medical marijuana use for the citizens of Arizona Other states such as California and
Colorado have allowed non-citizens to participate in medical marijuana programs, which
resulted in a tremendous increase of illicit use of marijuana due to cross-border
smuggling of marijuana The use or administration of marijuana under the initiative
should be nar~owlytailored for the use and benefit of Arizona citizens that are in need of
medical marijuana Patients, Caregivers, and Dispensing Agents should be required to
prove they are citizens of the State of Arizona by producing identification cards issued
only to Arizona citizens - an Arizona Driver's License, or an Arizona Identification
Card
The curlent draft of rules allows a patient or caregiver to obtain a registry card by
showing a U S passport as proof of identity A U S passport contains no information
about the person's state of residency In addition, because of the potential for criminal
activity inherent in a person's possession of marijuana, registry with the Department of
Public Safety's driver's licenselidentification card system will allow law enforcement to
obtain additional information about a caregiverlpatient that is involved with criminal
activity
Implementation:
(a) Strike R9-17-105(F)

(b) Strike R9-17-107(F)(l)(d)(iv)
(c) Strike R9-17-202(F)(2)(d)
(d) Strike R9- 17-202(F)(6)(i)(iv)
(e) Strike R9-17-202(G)(6)(d)
(f) Strike R9- 17-203(A)(2)(i)(c)
(g) Strike R9-17-204(A)(5)(f)(iv)
(h) Strike R9-17-308(5)(d)
4. Caregivers must be subject to the same security, inspection and reporting

requirements as dispensaries
Rationale:
Caregivers are operating small dispensaries They acquire marijuana in the same
fashion as dispensaries, and distribute the marijuana to others They are subject to the
same security risks as dispensaries, and have the same potential for diverting marijuana to
illicit activities as dispensaries
Implementation:
Apply appropriate provisions of Article 3 (R9-17 301 to R9-17-320) to caregivers

allowed to cultivate marijuana for patients
5. Patients, or caregivers acting on behalj ojpatients, may not possess

smokeable marijuana unless specifically authorized by DHS.
Rationale:
Based on the proven health risk of smoking, for the past 45 years the medical
community has worked to curtail the use of smoking in the United States In November,
2006 Arizona voters passed the Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A R S 536-601 Ol), severely
curtailing smoking in the state For most people, marijuana's alleged therapeutic benefits
are effective when it is consumed orally Given the serious negative health effects that
come with smoking any product (including marijuana), the smoking of marijuana should
be strongly discouraged
Implementation:
(a) Add to R9-17-202(F)(5) the following: "If the physician is recommending

the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then a statement detailing the at
least 3 efforts of the physician and patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement
detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the physician why
only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patient's condition "
(b) Add to R9-17-202(G)(13) the fbllowing: "If the physician is recommending

the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then a statement detailing the at
least 3 efforts of the physician and patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement
detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a declaration from the physician why
only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patient's condition "
(c) Add to R9-17204(B)(4)(f) and R9-17-204(B)(4)(g) the following: "If the

physician is recommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable form of marijuana, then
a statement detailing the at least 3 effbrts of the physician and patient to administer
infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such attempts were unsuccessful, and a
declaration from the physician why only smokeable marijuana will alleviate the patient's
condition"
(c) Issue patient and caregiver cards that clearly indicate if the patient is allowed
to possess smokeable marijuana
(d) Indicate in the Department data base available to dispensaries and law
enforcement whether the patient or caregiver is allowed to possess smokeable marijuana
6,Private marijuana use "clubs" should be prohibited,
Rationale:
As written, Rule R9-17-101(18) (a) would exclude private clubs from the
definition of public place This would allow marijuana users to form private "smoking"
clubs where marijuana users could gather and use marijuana The goal of the initiative is
to provide medical marijuana that qualifying patients and their caregivers may administer
for medical purposes, not to establish private marijuana use clubs P~ivate"smoking
clubs" create opportunities to divert medical marijuana to illicit use, and pose a safety
and security threat to the communities in which they are located
Imalementation:
Modify R9-17-101(18)(a) to read as follows: "[Public place:] Means any

location, facility, or venue that is not intended for the regular exclusive use of an
individual or the non-commercial use of a specific group of not more than 5 individuals "
PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS AND DISPENSARY AGENTS, CONT..
7. The Rules and statute should clearly state that the use oj medical marijuana
b y Visiting Qualifying Patients should be limited to only those conditions and
circumstances allowed to Patients under Arizona law.
Rationale:
With the exception of obtaining marijuana from a dispensary, A R S $36-

2804 03(C) limits the rights of a Visiting Qualifying Patient to the rights of a registration
card holder in Arizona Thus this section limits the medical conditions that qualify a
Visiting Qualifying Patient for the protections of the initiative to those conditions that
qualify an Arizona patient for a registration card The Visiting Qualifying Patient should
be required by statute to provide proof that they medically qualify for a registration card
under Arizona law
A Visiting Qualifying Patient's is also limited to cultivation of marijuana by those

that are residents of Arizona for less than 30 days and that reside outside of the 25 mile
dispensary limit, and only for the 30 day limit A Visiting Qualifying Patients that does
not reside in Arizona is not allowed to cultivate marijuana, because they do not have a
residence in the state (see Patients, Caregivers and Dispensary Agents #3, above)
Statutory changes should make this clear
Implementation:
DHS should propose legislation that requires a Visiting Qualifying Patient to

prove they have a Debilitating Medical Condition as defined by A R S $36-2801(3)
before they are given the same protection as a registry card issued by DHS The
legislation should also clarify that cultivation of marijuana by a Visiting Qualifying
Patient is a criminal offense
IV. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
1. Policy Statement
Three different types of medical professionals are authorized to provide

certification for medical marijuana use under the initiative All are governed by a
different licensing boatd, and none of the licensing boards actively govern their
respective charges with regard to medical marijuana Unless DHS monitors the activities
of these medical professionals, there is no central authority to monitor and govern the
actions of medical professionals authorized to certify medical marijuana use under the
initiative
Under the initiative, DHS is charged with regulating possession and use of
medical marijuana DHS thus has the authority to qualify medical professionals
designated under the act as appropriate to issue certification for medical marijuana use
Such a system would ensure a centralized authority to monitor medical professionals for
abusive or illicit issuance of certifications, preventing fraud and abuse
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, CONT.
2 Medicalprofessionals that wish to issue medical marijuana certificates must

be registered with DHS in order to issue certifications and a reasonable fee should be
charged.
Rationale:
Registration with DHS would allow the Department to determine the

qualifications of medical professionals that wish to certify medical marijuana u s e DHS
can examine proof of the medical professional's certification as a medical doctor,
osteopath, or naturopath, and of their primary practice in Arizona DHS can determine if
the medical professional is currently undergoing discipline or substance abuse
counseling DHS can determine the number of patients the medical professional has
certified for marijuana use, and can monitor the number and quality of contacts between
the patient and the medical prof'essional DHS can monitor the number and justification
for certifications of smokeable medical marijuana use
Implementation:
Create Article 4 for the Medical Marijuana Program in DHS Rules that governs
medical professionals wishing to issue medical marijuana certifications in Arizona,
Medical professionals must meet the following requirements:
(a) DHS must create and administer a medical professional certification registry
(b) Qualified medical professionals that wish to issue certificates under the
initiative must register annual with DHS and pay a reasonable annual fee to offset the
cost of registry administration
(a) Medical professionals must be Arizona licensed in and primarily practice in

Arizona
(b) No more than 30 active patient registry cards may be issued based on the
certification of an individual medical p~ofessionalat any one time
(c) Medical professionals must see their certified patient at least once every 6
months, face to face, and document they have done so in annual certifications
(d) Medical professionals may not issue certificates to themselves or immediate

family
(e) Medical professionals undergoing discipline or substance abuse problems

must not be authorized to certifications
(f) Medical p~ofessionalsrecommending the patient be dispensed a smokeable
f o ~ mof marijuana, must p~ovidea statement detailing the at least 3 efforts of the medical
professional and patient to administer infused marijuana, a statement detailing why such
attempts weIe unsuccessful, and a declaration from the medical professional why only
smokeable ma~ijuanawill alleviate the patient's condition
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, CONT.
3 The medical professional issuing the certification should be given the

authority to revoke apatient's certjication at any time. In addition, the medical
professional should be required to revoke $they haven't seen the patient within 6
months.
Rationale:
Medical marijuana is the narrow exception to the criminalization of marijuana in

Arizona In addition to rules requiring previous and ongoing relationship between a
certifying medical professional and a patient, the medical professional must be able to de-
certify a patient if they believe the patient no longer qualifies for medical marijuana In
addition, the medical professional must de-certify the patient if they have not seen the
patient within 6 months
Once de-certified, the patient must be presumed to no longer qualify for medical
marijuana unless re-certified by two different medical professionals that are aware of the
previous de-certification This would insure that patients are seeing their medical
prof'essionals on a regular basis, and insure that medical marijuana is continued to be
needed by the patient It would also encourage medical professionals to act ethically in
certifying, and prevent "doctor shopping " If certification is revoked, the patient must
present certifications from two other medical professionals, both of whom state they are
aware ofthe patient's certification revocation, before a new registry card may be issued
Implementation:
(a) Add to new Article 4 a requirement that the medical professional must notify
the Department within 3 business days if the patient no longer qualifies for certification
for medical marijuana, or if the medical professional has not had a face to face contact
with the patient for more than 180 days
(b) Add R9-17-205(I) to require the Department to revoke a Qualifying Patient's

Registry Identification Card upon notification by the certifying medical professional that
the patient no longer qualifies for certification or that the medical professional has not
had a face to face contact with the patient for more than 180 days
(c) Add to R9-17-202,203, and 204 a section that requires certification from two
medical professionals for any person applying fbr a registry identification card after
having had a previous one revoked under R9-17-205(1), and require both certifications
state that the medical professional is aware of the grounds for prior de-certification
V. LEGISLATIVE ACTION
1 The legislature should set a presumptive THC metabolite level for

impairment (similar to presumptive blood alcohol level) efrective in situations oj
driving, machinery operation and employment
Rationale:
The initiative authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but does not
allow a user to be impaired while employed or operating automobiles or other machinery
Use of marijuana impairs a person's ability to operate automobiles and other machinery,
and to properly perform their job Impaixment is difficult to determine without
presumptive standards Marijuana impairment can be compared to use of alcohol, which
is legal but impairment is not allowed when a person is operating automobiles or other
machinery or by most employers Levels of presumptive alcohol impairment are codified
in law so employers and law enforcement may more easily determine if a person is
impaired
Scientific tests are available to determine the level of Tetrahydrocannabinol

(THC) the active ingredient in marijuana, and standards exist that prove a person is
impaired at blood levels of THC of 2 0 nanograms per milliliter (nglml) or greater
Presumptive levels of marijuana impairment for both employment and operation of
automobiles and other machinery must be adopted by the legislature in order to allow
employers and law enforcement to quickly and easily determine if probable cause exists
that a person is impaired, and to take appropriate action to protect the person, the
employer, and the public
Implementation:
DHS must propose legislation that sets a presumptive level of marijuana

impairment at a concentration o f 2 0 ng/ml of blood THC for purposes of operating
automobiles or other machinery, and for purposes of employment
LEGISLATIVE ACTION, CONT..
2 The legislature should set enhancedpenalties for cardholders, caregivers,

and dispensary agents thatproduce, transport, sell, or possess marijuana outside oj the
terms oj'their authority granted by the initiative,,
Rationale:
Arizona has a strong public policy against marijuana The initiative has carved
out a narrow exception to that policy for medical u s e To uphold Arizona's prohibition
against marijuana, it is imperative that those individuals granted access to marijuana
through the initiative be strongly discouraged from using their access to mar.ijuana to add
to the supply of illicit marijuana in the state, or to supply it to those without authorization
to possess marijuana One of the best ways this may be accomplished is for the
legislature to specify and clarify what constitutes illegal marijuana activity by
dispensaries, cardholders and caregivers, and to enhance the punishments for those
offenses Such legislation will discourage dispensaries, cardholders and caregivers from
using their access to marijuana for illicit purposes Offenses should include cultivation
without permission, transfer of marijuana to those not entitled to possession, consuming,
transporting, selling, cultivating marijuana without the appropriate registry card in
immediate possession,
Implementation:
DHS, working with state and law enforcement officials, should draft and propose
legislation that provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for dispensaries,
cardholders and caregivers using or transferring marijuana in ways unauthorized by the
initiative or regulation
LEGISLATIVE ACTION, CONT.
3 The legislature should impose criminalpenalties for smoking marguana in

public
Rationale:
The initiative forbids smoking marijuana in public, but provides no penalty

Smoking of marijuana in public encourages its illicit use, and exposes marijuana to
children Since marijuana use in public is not authorized by the initiative and is a
criminal activity in Arizona, smoking of marijuana in public by a cardholder should be
made a serious criminal act
Implementation:
DHS, working with state and law enfotcement officials, should draft and propose
legislation that provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for cardholders
smoking marijuana in public
LEGISLATIVE ACTION, CONT.
4 The legislature should impose criminal penalties for smoking marijuana in

the presence oj children
Rationale:
Children exposed to marijuana use are desensitized to the hazards of marijuana

use, and are more likely to use marijuana illegally in the future Children exposed to
marijuana smoke will suffer the same health hazards as exposure to tobacco smoke
Smoking marijuana in the presence of children should be made a serious criminal act
Implementation:
DHS, working with state and law enforcement officials, should draft and propose
legislation that provides specific and enhanced criminal penalties for cardholders
smoking marijuana in the plesence of those under the age of 18
1845 E Southern Avenue, Iempe, AZ85282 (480) 838-3385
January 7,2011
Director Will Humble

150 N lgthAvenue
Phoenix. AZ85007
Re: Comments on Informal Draft Rules for Medical Marijuana
On behalf of the Arizona Pharmacy Alliance (AzPA) the comments below follow our review of the Informal
Draft Rule language published by your Agency regarding implementation of the Medical Marijuana Initiative
(Proposition 203) The Arizona Pharmacy Alliance is the only organization in the state that represents
pharmacy professionals, including: pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and student pharmacists Our mission
is to provide optimal patient care, foster safe and effective medication therapy, promote innovative practice,
and empower members t o serve the health care needs of the public
Chanaes to State Law are inconsistent w ~ t hFederal Law
Any law which bypasses the normal approval and distribution process for medications, including the State
regulated drug distribution system and licensed pharmacies, is of grave concern t o AzPA Since the new
Arizona law allows marijuana use for medical purposes, it should be treated as a medication To support the
safe distribution and use of medical marijuana, AzPA supports changes to federal law that would re-classify
marijuana from a C-l t o C-ll so that it could legally be prescribed by medical and nursing providers and
managed by pharmacists through licensed pharmacies Support for reclassification should not be construed as
support for the use of medical marijuana as a means to treat specific health conditions since marijuana does
not have a USP monograph nor is it approved by the FDA It is simply a pragmatic recognition that more and
more states are beginning t o allow use of marijuana within a medical context AzPA commits to raising this
issue with national pharmacy organizations and the Arizona Congressional delegation Until federal law allows
marijuana t o be legally managed by pharmacists and licensed pharmacies, AzPA strongly recommends that
pharmacists avoid direct involvement with activities related t o the dispensing of marijuana to avoid violations
of Federal law that may place professional licensure and participation in Medicare and Medicaid at risk
AzPA recommends that licensed users of medical marijuana be identified in the State of Arizona's Prescription
Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) database, which is already available t o health care professionals who need
t o know about controlled substance use to protect the safety of the patients they treat Although ADHS has
proposed its own database, your Agency's initiative only permits law enforcement officials access By requiring
dispensaries to report medical marijuana dispensing to the State's PDMP database, health care professionals
are able to facilitate safer treatment optionsfor their patients
Pharmacists are Medkation Exoerts.
Although AzPA is concerned about the dispensing of marijuana by pharmacists, AzPA recommends
pharmacists' involvement in the care of the patients receiving medical marijuana to ensure safe and effective
use The institute for Safe Medication Practices, in a document entitled, Protecting U S Citizens from
lnapprapriote Medication Use, writes that pharmacists are uniquely positioned t o provide solutions to the
problem of medication misuse Pharmacists are widely accessible and have the ability t o improve care,
enhance communication among healthcare providers, and optimize medication use, resulting in better patient
outcomes Pharmacists also can help eliminate unnecessary healthcare costs through medication therapy
management (MTM), which involves reviewing and monitoring medication use, counseling patients, and
conducting wellness and disease-prevention programs Engaging the pharmacist as a resource for ensuring
safe medication use will greatly improve the health of the patient
Since the rules do require patient education and a medical director, AzPA recommends that the rules should
also require that a pharmacist provide medication therapy management services at least annually, including a
comprehensive medication review which would include a review of medication history, including all
prescription and non-prescription medications and supplements that the qualifying patient is currently using
Since medical marijuana use is approved for qualifying patients with complex illnesses, the risk for drug-drug
and drug-condition interactions is significant MTM services will ensure safe medication use as well as
detection and management of adverse drug reactions related t o medical marijuana The pharmacist could
easily provide these clinical services through a collaborative practice agreement with the medical director
This team approach is necessary to prevent unforeseen complications and unnecessary costs associated with
adverse drug events, especially new adverse drug events associated with the addition of an understudied
substance to the patient's medication regimen Reducing health care expenses through medication
misadventure avoidance should be a top priority of the Agency
Finally, many patients that receive medical marijuana as outpatients will not be able to continue their therapy
if admitted into the hospital because of smoking bans in Arizona facilities We recommend that health-
systems and hospitals work with their pharmacists t o develop protocols t o address the absence of marijuana
during the acute and long term in-patient stay
Qual~tvAssurance
Now that marijuana is purported to treat medical conditions, it should be regulated as a medication
Pharmacies follow USP guidelines for the preparation and dispensing of medications When pharmaceuticals
are compounded by pharmacies, the pharmacist routinely sends compounds for testing on a regular basis t o
ensure accuracy and safety of the medication As such, dispensaries and growers should be required t o have
each "lot" or "batch" tested for percentage of THC t o appropriately label the strength of the medication This
practice is necessary t o prevent overdoses and unwanted drug-drug interactions in additional, it would
emphasize that Arizona intends to treat the marijuana as medication rather than a recreational drug Under
the proposal drafted by your Agency, marijuana is only measured by weight without regard to dose With
traditional medications, volume and weight do not always translate t o dose or potency it is common
knowledge that the level of THC in 2 5 oz of marijuana vary greatly depending on the type of plant and
preparation of the plant The draft rules do not make any distinction in this area and do not require such
disclosure Proper labeling would allow a physician to recommend marijuana t o their patient with a specific
THC dose, thus ensuring patient safety Use of THC in food or cigarettes should also require similar labeling
Dispensaries Oversioht
To ensure safety to the public at large, AzPA strongly recommends that dispensaries be held t o an equally high
standard of quality and safety regulations as pharmacies Pharmacies are required to comply with copious
Federal and State statutes and regulations overseen by the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy Likewise,
medical marijuana dispensaries should be routinely inspected and held to similar standards by ADHS
AzPA recommends that ADHS only approve permits for dispensaries that publish policy and procedures
focused on patient safety, quality assurance standards focused on product quality, and provide accurate
methods t o label dosing Policies and procedures must include a mechanism (managed by the Medical Director
and Clinical Pharmacist) t o assess the effect medical marijuana has on a patient's other medical conditions,
safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of concurrent medications Your regulations must ensure that each
dispensary has policies and procedures that address inventory control, qualifying patient recordkeeping,
security, patient education, and prevention of fraud, waste &abuse
Post Marketinq Surveillance
As with all medications, new unpredicted adverse effects can present after widespread public use (e g Vioxx)
Since medical marijuana has not been reviewed for safety or efficacy by the FDA, the risk for unpredicted
adverse events may be greater Consequently, AzPA recommends that ADHS implement post marketing
surveillance through pharmacists at the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center at The University of
Arizona to track adverse drug events and monitor quality, safety and efficacy
Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments Please do not hesitate to call if you have any
questions
Respectfully Submitted,
Mindy D Smith, BSPharm, R Ph

Chief Executive Officer
Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
January 7,2011
Will Humble
Director
150 North 18'~Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Association is pleased t o present its comments to the draft rules issued
by the Arizona Department of Health Services that will guide the implementation o f Proposition 203,the
The AzMMA recognizes the major responsibility entrusted in the Arizona Department of Health Services
and the complexity of the tasks it must complete within an aggressive time frame called for under Prop
203 We are confident that the Department is and will continue t o carry out a public process that will
respect the needs and balance the interests of industry professionals who aspire t o meet patient needs,
prospective patients, and the general public
The leaders of the AzMMA played a leading role in the drafting of the initiative, and carried out the
campaign that led t o its passage Throughout our t w o year effort, we remained committed t o the goal of
nothing less than creating the best medical marijuana program in the nation, learning from both the
best practices as well as the mistakes made in 14 other states nationwide where medical marijuana laws
have been adopted With only 125 dispensary licensees available, there is no reason to settle for
anything less, and the public will demand nothing less After all, Prop 203 was approved by the slimmest
o f margins and will remain a controversy for years t o come, particularly if it is not implemented
properly
At this still early stage, the process undertaken by DHS appears to be taking that same approach
Hence, we generally find the draft rules to be a very solid effort in the initial attempt to craft
appropriate program rules
The leadership of our association has reviewed the draft in concert with our attorney, Lisa Hauser o f the
firm Gammage and Burnham and who also drafted the language of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
We respectfully offer our comments and suggestions regarding the draft rules which we believe will
preserve the commitment of both DHS and our association to high industry standards, yet do not
impose unreasonable and unnecessary regulations that result in the unintended consequences of
increased cost to dispensaries and the patients they serve, simply driving patients back to the criminal
market
We look forward t o continuing engagement in the rule making process, the submission of additional
comments and recommendations, and the ultimate adoption of rules consistent with the initiative
approved by Arizona voters
Thank you for your consideration, and for your service t o our great state
fi/ -.,
n rew Myers
Executive Director
GAMMAGE& BURNHAM
A PROFEISIONAL L l M i i E D LIABILIm COMPANY
ATTO R N E I S AT LAW
TWO N O R T H CENTRAL A V E N U E
RICHARD B 8URNHAM GRAPY OAMMAGL, JR FIFTEENTH FLOOR TELEPHONE 1602I 2 5 6 - 0 5 6 6

MICHAEL R KING RICHARD K MAHRLE
P H O E N I X , A R I Z O N A 85004-4470 F A C S l M I L E 16021 2 5 6 - 4 4 7 5
CURTIS YLLMAN T H O M A S 2 McDONALD
JAMES A CRAFT KEVIN il MERFLliT
RANDALL S DALTON KEVIN -I BLAKLEY
JOHN R DACE"
CAMERON C ARTIOUE
JEFFRLI J MiLLLR
SUSAN L WATCHMAN
January 7,201 1 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE
STEPHEN W ANDERSON CHRISTOPHER A WOMACK (602) 256-4462

TIMOTHY J MARTENS
JERRY D WORSHAM n
LISA i. HAUSER
GEORGE U. WINNLY iii
Ihauser@gblawcorn
MANdULA M VAZ KAY BlGLLOW
JAMES F POLESE PATRICIA E NOLAN
RACHEL R WEISS CIRECl0RY-I GNEPPER
HEATHER IBOYSEL RYAN J. MILLECAM
JONATHAN A BENNETT CAROLYN Y WILLIAMS
OF COUNSEL F WILLIAM SWEPPARO

MARY 8 . A R I I D U E
DIANE K GElMER

150 North 18" Avenue
Re: ADHS Informal Draft Rules for Implementation of the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act; Comment by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association
This constitutes the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association's ("AzMMA" or "Association")

comments on the Arizona Department of Health Services' ("ADHS" or "Department") Informal Draft
Rules for implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act The Association is a non-profit,
professional business o~ganizationcreated afler the passage of Proposition 203. The Association's
membership includes the individuals who, as the Arizona Marijuana Policy Project, qualified this
measure for the ballot and then secured its passage The Association's undersigned counsel authoied the
text of Proposition 203 The Association essentially is the successor ofthe Arizona Marijuana Policy
Project Thus; the Association is committed to the Act's implementation in a manner that furthers
legislative intent,
The Association comnends the Department f o producing

~ an initial set of draft rules so soon
after the Act's effective date and for the inclusion of many prospective rules designed to ensure that
Arizona serves as a national model for a well-regulated medical marijuana program that exists to serve
the needs of patients with debilitating medical conditions But the Association has serious concerns
about whether a number of'provisions, even ifwell-.intentioned, are contrary to the intent of the Act,
Some of the proposed regulations are invalid as impermissibly limiting the Act Others exceed the Act's
grant of authority to the Department and are inconsistent with or in conflict with the Act In
commenting on the proposed rules, the Association will endeavor to highlight those provisions that it
applauds as well as those that give it concern
Although the Association has reviewed the initial draft rules and offers its comments below, it
has not commented on eveiy aspect of the initial draft rules 'The Association's fiiilure to comment on
January 7,201 1
Page 2
specific provisions is not intended to signify its agreement with those provisions The Association
expects to continue studying the proposed rules and expressly reserves the right to make future,
additional comments about any rules contained in the Department's initial haft
Rulemaking Authority
The Department's rulemaking authority is found in A R S 5 36-2803(A) The Department was

not given the broad authority to "adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter " Rather, it is authorized
only "to adopt the rules set forth in subsection A " Permissible rules are those:
1 Governing the manner of adding to the list of' debilitating medical conditions;
2 Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications;
3 Governing the manner in which it shall consider applications for and renewals of' registry
identification cards;
4 Governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries-for the purpose of protecting against

diversion and theft without imposing an undue burden on nonp~ofitmedical marijuana
dispensaries or conlpromising the confidentiality of cardholders-including:
(a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and renewals of
registration certificates;1
(b) Minimum oversight ~equirementsfor dispensaries;
(c) Minimum recordkeeping requirements for dispensaries;
(d) Minimum security requirements for dispensaries, including requirements for protection of
each registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary location by a fully operational security
alarm system;
(e) Procedures for suspending or revoking the registration certificate of dispensaries that
violate the Act or rules adopted pursuant to the Act; and
5 Establishing registration and renewal fees
I No rules were provided in this initial draft with respect to how the Department intends to evaluate dispensary applications
It is critical for these rules to be included in the next draft and made available for pubiic comment
9 9 518305 1 1/7/2011
Page 3'
All other rules are outside the scope ofthe Department's rulemaking power Each initial draft rule
should be closely examined by the Department to ensure that it is authorized pursuant to A R S 5 36-
2803(A)
The 70% Cultivation RuIe
The 70% production provision contained in proposed R9-17-307(C) appears to be drawn from
the Colorado legislation (House Bill 1284) passed in May 2010 It requires that every medical
marijuana center "must certify that it is producing at least 70% of its own medicine " This and other
amendments were intended to bring better governance to an insufficiently controlled cultivation
environment that resulted fiom shortcomings in the original Colorado medical marijuana law Since the
Arizona Act provides for strict controls for all medical marijuana cultivation in the state, this restriction
is unnecessary and may, in fact, be bad public policy for Arizona
The Act requires the establishment of at least 124 dispensaries in the State It does not
necessarily require the creation of at least 124 cultivation facilities, unless the proposed subsection R9-
17-307(C) is enacted It can be argued that fewer, larger, cultivation facilities decrease the potential for
public nuisance, reduce ADHS oversight requirements and costs, increase security, and provide
economies of scale that can reduce patient costs Establishing an unimpeded market where any
registered dispensary can choose to order its usable marijuana fiom any other registered cultivation
facility will likely result in the greatest economic efficiencies and best prices for patients
Many medical professionals or other entities that would otherwise be motivated and highly
qualified to operate a dispensary may be deterred due to the technical, financial and liability issues
associated with operating a cultivation facility Under the Act, every registered dispensary has the right
to operate a cultivation facility to meet the needs of' its qualified patients However, nothing in the Act
precludes a stand-alone dispensary fiom arranging to obtain its usable marijuana from the cultivation
facilities of one or more other dispensaries Creating a regulatory environment that allows cooperative
interaction between registered dispensaries and their associated cultivation facilities will structure an
Arizona medical marijuana industry that rewards efficiency; with the foreseeable result of better -
managed dispensaries and fewer, more efficient, cultivation facilities
A proposed regulatory environment that allows commercial cooperation between registered

dispensa.ries can be readily managed through rules that require cultivation facilities to establish
procedures for verifying that a dispensary placing a order for usable marijuana has a registration
certificate in good standing, that the usable marijuana is delivered in a secure manner, and that all orders
a e labeled, packaged. tracked and accounted for in a manner that prevents diversion
The Department has the authority to adopt rules governing nonprofit medical marijuana
dispensaries, for the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft without imposing an undue burden
on dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including minimum oversight
requirements for dispensaries Requiring each dispensary to cultivate at least 70% of the medical
January 7,201 1
Page 4
marijuana it dispenses does not serve the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft and imposes
an undue burden on dispensaries More importantly, in A R S 3 36-2816(B) and (C), the Act
specifically prohibits a dispensary fiom dispensing to or acquiring marijuana fiom any person othe~than
another registered dispensary, a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver Had
the Act intended to limit transfers between dispensaries, it would have said so Thus, the proposed rule
is in conflict with the Act
If the Department believes a rule is necessary in addition to A R S § 36-2816(B) and (C), the
Association suggests the following:
R9-I 7-,307. Administration
C A dispensary:
1 W M A Y only provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the

&pesty+ to another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient or a designated
caregiver authorized by A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1 and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana
3,2 May only acqui~emedical marijuana fiom another dispensary in Arizona, a

qwMymg patient, or a designated caregiver
The PhysicianO'atient Relationship
The Association believes that the existence of a legitimate physiciadpatient relationship is

contemplated by the Act's requirement that a qualifying patient be diagnosed by a physician as having a
debilitating medical condition and that the physician provide a written certification that, in his
professional opinion, "the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical
use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated
with the debilitating medical condition" after the physician has completed a full assessment of the
qualifying patient's medical history
January 7,201 1
Page 5
The Department's rulemaking authority set forth in A R S § 36-2803 of the Act does not include
adopting rules concerning the physician/patient relationship A R S 8 36-2803(A)(3) provides that
ADHS shall adopt rules "establishing the form and content of'registration and renewal applications
submitted under this chapter" But-unlike the authority granted with respect to the consideration of
dispensary registration certificates-the statute does not grant ADHS the authority to adopt rules fbr the
consideration of'patient applications for registration cards Accordingly, the Department is not
authorized to add substantive requirements to the content of a qualifying patient's application or renewal
beyond those set forth in the Act
A R S 5 36-2804 02 requires that a qualifying patient applying for a registration card submit
(1) the physician's written certification, (2) the application fee, and (3) the application A R S 5 36-
2801(18) specifies the content of the written certification Although the physician's written certification
must accompany the patient's applicant, it is separate from the application itself and the Department
does not habe the rulemaking authority to specify its content
In the case of proposed R9-17-202(F)(5), the patient would be required to provide far more
infbrmation than contemplated by A R S 5 36-280402, particularly with respect to the physician's
written certification Although proposed R9-1'7-202(F)(5)(e)(i), (ii) requires the physician to state the
nature of his relationship with the patient in the alternative, both (i) and (ii) are objectionable as overly
burdensome to the patients who are the Act's intended beneficiaries by dramatically impacting patient
access Consider this example A patient diagnosed with cancer is referred to an oncologist That
patient's reaction to the chemotherapy administered by the oncologist involves such severe nausea that
the patient's overall strength is severely diminished and his oberall health and ability to withstand
additional treatment is further compromised The oncologist has only been treating the patient fbr a
matter of weeks but is willing to write a recommendation for the patient's use of medical marijuana
Under this scenario, the physician could not make the statement required by R9-17.-202(F)(5)(e)(i)and
might have serious difficulty making the alternative statenlent required by R9-17-202(F)(e)(ii)
merit of these additional proposed physician certifications, the Association's position is that they are not
authorized by the Act and would unlawfully require certifications beyond what the Act has mandated
Time-Frames
The Act sets forth a number of' time deadlines for the Department to perform various tasks For
example, A R S 5 36-2804 provides that the Depatment shall register a dispensary and issue a
registration certificate "not later than ninety days" after receiving a dispensary application if the
dispensary applicant has submitted certain specified items The Association wholeheartedly supports
the Department's proposal to ensure that the statutory time period does not begin to run until the
application is complete as well as the proposals to give the Depatment a limited period of'time to
review applications foi completeness and to give the applicant a period of time to provide missing
information But the Association's position is that a dispensary's registration certificate must be issued
January 7,2011
Page 6
not later than ninety calendar days from the date on which the Department has a completed application
The Department's proposed rules change the statutory time periods to "working days," significantly
lengthen the time periods and are in conflict with the statute This issue exists with respect to all
statutory time periods set forth in Table 1 1
In addition to the aforementioned problems with the time-frames listed in Table 1 1, there are
numerous erxors in Table 1 1 with respect to the "statutory authority" citations These citations should
be corrected in the next draft
Outdoor Cultivation
The Association commends the Department for including provisions related to outdoor
cultivation But the proposed definition of "enclosed" in draft R9- 17-lOl(10) requi~esone or another
cumbersome barrier covering the top area The association proposes the following amendment:
10 "Enclosed" means EITHER:
a A building with four walls and a roof or an indoor room or closet
b An area surrounded by four solid 12-foot walls constructed of metal, concrete, or

stone with a one-inch thick metal gate and a barrier covering the top of the area
that is:
i Welded or woven wire mesh, with minimum wire thickness of 0 25 inches

and maximum gap between wires of 1 inch;
..
11, Welded metal wire grid, with minimum wire thickness of 0 2 5 inches and
maximum gap between wires o f 3 inches;
iii Metal chain-link weave; with gauge ilo less than 9 and no more than 11 5;
iv A panel of metal vertical bars, with minimum bat thickness of 0 5 inches

and maximum gap between bars of 4 inches; or
v Constructed of iron or other metallic material and similar to the examples

in subsections (10)@)(i) through (lO)(b)(iv), if approved by the
Department
c AN AREA SURROUNDED BY FOUR SOLID 12-FOOT WALLS, TOPPED

WITH CONCERTINA WIRE, CONSTRUCTED OF METAL, CONCRETE, OR
STONE WITH A ONE-INCH THICK METAL GATE AND WITH 24.HOUR
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE EXTIRE OUTER PERIMETER
January 7,201 1
Page 7
Inventory Controls
To more effectively inventory and track all usable marijuana, the AzMMA respectfully suggests
that the ADHS augment its proposed "strain" and "registry identification" system with a "Batch"
designator Under this proposal, a "Batch" is simply one or more seeds or cuttings that are planted and
harvested at the same time at a given cultivation site Each Batch would be assigned a unique "Batch
Number" by the dispensary operating the cultivation site The cultivation site would also record:
1 Whether the Batch originated from seeds or cuttings;
2 The origin and strain of the seeds or cuttings;
3 The number of seeds or cuttings planted;
4 The date the seeds or cuttings were planted;
5 A list of all chemical additives, including non-organic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers,
used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana;
6 The number and disposition of any male, failed, or otherwise unusable plants;
7 The number of female plants grown to matu~ity;
8 The harvest date of the mature female plants; and
9 The final processed usable marijuana yield weight of the Batch
The AzMMA also believes that regulations R9-17 -313, and R9-1'7-314 may benefit from making
cer.tain differentiations between inventory controls and labeling requirements for dispensaries and those
requirements for cultivation sites Accordingly, the Association submits the following proposed changes
to the Department's initial draft regulations:
R9-17-101. Definitions.:
Add the following definitions and renumber accordingly:
4 "BATCH MEANS A SPECIFIC LOT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROWN FROM

ONE OR MORE SEEDS OR CUTTINGS THAT ARE PLANTED AND HARVESTED
AT THE SAME TIME AT A CULTIVATION SITE
5 "BATCH NUMBER" MEANS A UNIQUE NUMERIC, OR ALPHA-NUMERIC,

DESIGNATOR ASSIGNED TO A BATCH BY A DISPENSARY AT ITS
CULTIVATION SITE
January 7,201 1
Page 8
R9-1 7-313. Inventory Control System
A A dispensary shall designate in writing a dispensary agent who has oversight of the
dispensary's medical marijuana inventory control system
B A dispensary shall establish and implement an inventory control system for the
USABLE marijuana LOCATED AT THE DISPENSARY that
documents:
1 Each day's beginning inventory, acquisitions,

.. ,sales, disbursements,
and ending inventory BY AMOUNT, BATCH
NUMBER AND REGISTRY NUMBER;
2 For acquiring medical marijuana f ~ o m

. .
et: another dispensary OR CULTIVATION SITE:
a A description of the medical marijuana acquired including the amount and

&BATCH NUMBER;
. .
b The name and egist try identification number of'the
~ c a r e g i v e r ; - e dispensary
r and dispensary agent who provided the
medical marijuana;
c The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent

receiving the medical marijuana on behalf of the dispensary; and
d The date of acquisition:

January 7,201 1
Page 9
c. Th
..
medical^
the
1.
3 FOR ACQUIRING MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM A QUALIFYING

PATIENT OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER:
a A DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACQUIRED

INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND STRAW;
b THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NIJMBER OF THE

QUALIFYING PATIENT OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER WHO
PROVIDED THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA; AND
c THE DATE OF ACQUISITION
a The amount and &RATCH NUMBER of THE medical ma~ijuana

provided;:
b The name and registry identification number of the othe~dispensary;;
c The name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent who
received the medical marijuana on behalf of the other dispensary;; and
d The datc the medical marijuana was provided?
5 For providing medical marijuana to a food establishment for inhsion into an

edible food product:
a A description of the medical marijuana provided including the amount and

&BATCH NUMBER,
b The name and registry identification number of the designated agent who:
i Provided the medical marijuana to the food establishment on

behalf of the dispensa~y,and
January 7,20 11
Page 10
..
11 Received the medical marijuana on behalf of the food
establishment-
c The date the medical marijuana was provided to the h o d establishment?

d
6 For receiving edible food products infused with medical marijuana from a food
establishment:
a The date the medical marijuana used to infuse the edible food products
was received by the food establishment and the amount AND BATCH
NUMBER of THE medical marijuana received;
b A description of the edible food products received from the food

establishment, including total weight of each edible food product and
estimated amount AND BATCH NUMBER of THE medical marijuana
infused in each edible food product;
c Total estimated amount AND BATCH NUMBER of' THE medical

marijuana infused in edible food products;
d A description of any reduction in the amount of'medical marijuana;
e For any unusable marijuana disposed of at the food establishment:
ii The amount AND BATCH NUMBER of THE unusable marijuana

disposed of,
iv Method ofdisposal, and
v Name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent

responsible for the disposal at the food establishmentw
f The name and registry identification numbe~of the designated agent who:
i Provided the edible food products to the dispensary on behalf of

the food establishment, and
..
11 Received the edible h o d products on behalf of the dispensary
January '7,20 11
Page 11
g The date the edible food products w e ~ provided

e to the dispensary
C A DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE SHALL ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT AN

INVENTORY CONTROL SYSTEM THAT DOCUMENTS:
1 EACH DAY'S BEGINNING INVENTORY, DELIVERIES, AND ENDING

INVENTORY BY BATCH NUMBER, INCLUDING WHETHER EACH
BATCH ON HAND IS IN CULTIVATION, IN PROCESSING, OR STORED
AS PROCESSED USABLE MARIJUANA,
2 THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER OF ALL PROCESSED USABLE

MARIJUANA STORED OR OTHERWISE LOCATED AT THE
CULTIVATION SITE;
3 FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED TO ANOTHER DISPENSARY:
A THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER OF THE MEDICAL

MAR1JUANA PROVIDED;
B THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE

OTHER DISPENSARY;
C THE NAME AND REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE

DISPENSARY AGENT WHO RECEIVED THE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER DISPENSARY; AND
D THE DATE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDED
4 FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED TO A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT

FOR INFUSION INTO AN EDIBLE FOOD PRODUCT:
A A DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED

INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND BATCH NUMBER; AND
B THE DATE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS PROVIDED TO THE

FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
5 HARVEST INFORMATION INCLUDING:
A DATE OF HARVEST FOR EACH BATCH;
B AMOUNT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA HARVESTED EACH

BATCH, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF IJSABLE MARIJUANA
AND THE AMOUNT OF NOT USABLE MARIJUANA;
Januar y 7,20 11
Page 12
C THE DISPOSAL OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA THAT IS NOT USABLE

MARIJUANA INCLUDING THE:
I BATCH NUMBER AND AMOUNT;
I1 DATE OF DISPOSAL; AND
111 METHOD OF DISPOSAL
6D The individual designated in subsection (A) shall conduct and document an audit of the
dispensary's inventory according to generally accepted accounting principles at least once
every 30 calendar days
1 If the audit identifies a reduction in the amount of medical marijuana in the

dispensary's inventory not due to documented causes, the dispensary shall
determine whe~ethe loss has occurled and take and document corrective action
2 If the reduction in the amount of medical marijuana in the dispensary's inventory

is due to suspected criminal activity by a dispensary agent, the dispensary shall
report the dispensary agent to the Department and to the local law enforcement
authorities
BE A dispensary shall:
1 Maintain the documentation required in subsections (B) and (C) at the dispensary
for five years fiom the date on the document, and
2 Provide the documentation required in subsections (B) and (C) to the Department
fbr review upon request,
R9-I 7-314. Product Labeling arrd Analysis
A A dispensary shall ensure that medical marijuana provided by the dispensary to a

qualifying patient or a designated caregiver is labeled with:
1 The dispensary's registry identification number;
2 The amount, BATCH NUMBER and strain of medical marijuana;
3 If not cultivated by the dispensary, whether the medical marijuana was obrained
fiom a qualifying patient, a designated caregiver, or another dispensary;

January 7,20 11
Page 13
5. A list of all chemical additives, including- NON-ORGANIC

pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production ofthe
medical marijuana; and
6 The registry identification number of the qualifying patient
B A DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE SHALL ENSURE THAT EACH PACKAGE

OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDED BY THE CULTIVATION SITE TO A
DISPENSARY IS LABELED WITH:
1 THE DISPENSARY CULTIVATION SITE'S REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION

NUMBER;
2, THE AMOUNT, BATCH NUMBER AND STRAIN OF THE MEDICAL

MARI JUANA;
3 THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE, HARVEST, OR SALE; AND
4 A LIST OF ALL CHEMICAL ADDITIVES, INCLUDING NON-ORGANIC

PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, AND FERTILIZERS, USED IN THE
CULTIVATION AND PRODUCTION OF THE MEDICAL MARI JUANA
BC If medical marijuana is provided as part of an edible food product, a dispensary, shall, in

addition to the information in subsection (A), include on the label:
2 The following statement "This product is infused with medical marijuana and was
produced without regulatory over sight for health, safety, or efficacy There may
be health risks associated with the consumption of the product "
€D A dispensary shall provide to the Department upon request a sample of the dispensary's
medical marijuana inventory of sufficient quantity to enable the Department to conduct
an analysis of the medical marijuana
Certificate of Occupancy
P~oposedR9-17-302 sets forth the contents of the application for a dispensary certification One
of those requirements is "[a] copy of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the
January 7,201 1
Page 14
local jurisdiction to the applicant authorizing occupancy ofthe building as a dispensary2 and, if
applicable, as the dispensary's cultivation site" R9-17-302(B)(5) This imposes an undue burden on
dispensaries to make the major capital investments necessary in order to prepare a site for occupancy as
a dispensary or cultivation site without any assurance that certification will be granted. Although the
Department has the authority to adopt rules governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries for the
purpose of protecting against diversion and theft, those rules cannot impose "an undue burden on
nonp~ofitmedical mari,juanadispensaries " A.R.S.9 36-2803(A)(4). Requiring a certificate of
occupancy to be issued to a proposed dispensary before it even has preliminary approval from the
Department is also an undue burden on counties and municipalities
In contrast, the Department's proposed R9-17-107 contemplates that an application may be

completed over time and that the Department may issue a preliminary approval ofthe dispensary
registration certificate and identification number pending approval of at least one principal officer or
board member as a dispensary agent The Association welcomes this sort of tiered approach to the
application process and suggests that the requirement for producing a certificate of'occupancy be moved
to a later stage by delaying the final approval or effective date of the certification until the appropriate
certificates of occupancy have been issued,
Proposed R9-17-305(2) and (3) requires that a dispensary applying for renewal must provide a
copy of an audited financial statement for the previous year Because a registration certificate is
effective for only one year and the renewal application must be made 30 days prior to expiration, it will
be impossible to provided a full, annual financial statement This requirement needs to be revisited and
revised so that it is not internally inconsistent
The Association fully supports requiring dispensaries to provide the financial information
necessary to determine that it is operating as a nonprofit and that h d s are not being diverted, etc But
an audited financial statement seems to exceed what it necessary and the cost would be unduly
burdensome to entities required to operate as non-profits The Association suggests that the Department
consider other alternatives For example, a compilation as well as copies of the entity's tax returns may
provide the information the Department needs in a less budensome way
Medical Director
The Association sees value to a dispensary affiliation with a Medical Director, but suggests that
it is more consistent with the scope of the Department's rulemaking authority to use the existence of a
Medical Director as an evaluation criterion rather than as a mandatory requirement for all dispensaries
It is also unclear whether a certificate of occupancy can or will be issued by a jurisdiction for a particular purpose such as
this
9 9 518305 1 1/7/2011
January 7,201 1
Page 15
Proposed R9-17-lOl(15) defines a Medical Director in such a way that all Medical Directors
must be medical doctors or osteopaths even though the Act allows medical doctors, osteopaths,
naturopaths and homeopaths to certify a patient for the medical use of marijuana In addition, R9-17-
3 10 limits a Medical Director to serving only three dispensaries at any time Together, these provisions
may make it extremely difficult for dispensaries to operate in Arizona's rural counties The Department
should state its rationale for these provisions so that the public can evaluate whether they impermissibly
limit the Act
Security Requirements
The Association supports strong security requirements and believes that they are not only good
public policy but further the purpose of the Act However, the Association is concerned that the
requirement, in proposed R9-17-306, that a dispensary provide the Department with authorized remote
access to the dispensary's electronic monitoring system is problematic If' the Department wants a live
feed, there must be very strong encryption to protect patient confidentiality The system requirements
for a live feed may be unduly bu~densomefor dispensaries Other alternatives should be considered
such as requiring a minimum of'3O-days storage of the electronic monitoring system images,
Transportation Requirements
The Department's initial draft rules contain no provisions relative to the transportation of
medical mruijuana between dispensaries, cultivation sites, patients, etc The Association believes such
rules are necessary and appropriate for the Department to promulgate Some suggestions in this regard
are that:
Vehicles used for delivery not bear any identifying markings
The dispensary must maintain cuIrent commercial motor vehicle insurance as required by
Ar izona law
Only registered dispensary agents with access to a form of secure communication with the
dispensary may staff any vehicle during the delivery of usable marijuana
All usable marijuana be transported in a locked container that is locked in the trunk or
otherwise secured within the vehicle used to transport the marijuana
Pharmacist / Surety Bond Information
Proposed R9-17-302 sets forth the contents of a dispensary application R9-17-302(B)(15)

ploposes to ask whether "[a] registered pharmacist will be onsite or on-call during regular business
hours" and "[wlhether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much " The Association is
January 7,201 1
Page 16
unclear as to whether the Department seeks to require these items or whether they will be used as
evaluation criteria If intended to be a requirement, the pharmacist provision is extremely problematic
and unduly burdensome fbr dispensaries And the reference to a surety bond, generally required to
guarantee performance of a legal obligation, does not appear to make any sense in this context In short,
some futher explanation from the Department is necessary to permit informed comment
Notice of Inspection
A R S 3 38-3806(H) provides that medical marijuana dispensaries are subject to reasonable

inspection by the Department and that the "Department shall give reasonable notice of an inspection
under this subsectiod " Proposed R9-17-306 beyond defining "reasonable notice of an &spection "
Proposed R9-17-306(A) provides that the submission of an application constitutes permission for
entry to and inspection of the dispensary It does not reference any "reasonable notice requirement" and
does not limit this inspection to the inspection associated with the Department's review of a dispensary
application (proposed R9-17-306(C) provides for 5 working days notice of a certification or compliance
inspection) The application of the 5-day notice to the inspection referenced in (A) needs to be clarified
If the notice provision is intended to apply, it may be advisable to combine (A) and (C)
Proposed R9-17-306(E) allows an unannounced inspection of'a dispensary or cultivation site

based on "an allegation" of noncompliance with the Act or Department rules This is contrary to the
express intent of the Act that Department inspections be conducted upon reasonable notice If the
Department receives information o f a possible criminal violation ofthe Act or other laws, it should refer
those to the appropriate law enforcement agency for follow-up The proper method of entering without
notice under those circumstances is for the law enforcement agency to establish probable cause to
believe that a crime has been or is being committed and to secure a search warrant The Act does not
preclude the appropriate investigation of criminal offenses, but it absolutely protects dispensaries from
Department inspections without notice Subsection (E) of'this proposed rule should be eliminated
Cleaning Requirements
With respect to proposed R9-17-3 17(A)(1), the Association suggests that the word "securely" be
deleted and replaced with "reasonably " This change is suggested because, if this provision is intended
to apply to outdoor cultivation, it is impossible to protect plants from dust, for example
Residency Requirement
The Association is very supportive of the residency requirement for principal officers and board
members of dispensaries contained in the initial draft rules and suggests that the requirement be
strengthened from two to three years and that these applicants be required to funish three years of
Arizona tax returns to the Department for additional proof ofresidency only,
Januay 7,201 1
Page 17
It is important that dispensary officials have sufficient ties to Arizona This new industry must
be protected fiom those who would undermine it and undermine public confidence in the ability to have
a legitimate medical marijuana program Those with stIong Aizona ties will have a greater incentive to
enswe the program's long-term success Also, Arizona residents are more easily subject to the state's
jurisdiction in the event of a problem The Association wants Arizona to avoid the mistakes made by
other states A residency requirement helps to prevent those that created problems in other states from
bringing the same set of problems to Arizona
CONCLUSION
Again, the Association commends the Department for its efforts in creating the initial haft rules
It hopes that the foregoing comments and suggestions will be of assistance to the Department as it
prepares the next draft In the interim, the Association is available to discuss any po~tionof this rule
comment or to answer any questions you may have Please let us know if we can be of assistance
Sincerely,
GAMMAGE & BURNHAM
Lisa T Hauser
The Law OfJice o j
7047 E Greenway Pkwy, Suite 140 *Scottsdale AZ 85254
tel480 624 2765 + fix 480991 0920
wwwarizonalawonlinecom
jjhernandez@az-lawnet
Jef'f'ery J. Hernandez
January '7,201 1
Vza facsimile to 602-542-1062

Ovlginal to follow via U S Mall

Arizona Dept ot Health Services
150 N lgthAve , Suite 500
Phoenix, AZ 85007-324'7
RE: 12/1'7/10 Draft Rules for Arizona Medical Marijuana Program
Dear Mr Humble:
. ~
. ,
I ani writing this kittei bn behalf of a client who intends to provide information and services
for patients in cinrikition ivith the Ai'iiona Medical MafijuanaProgzam W e have fhoroughly
reviewed the text of prop 203,-tis we11 $5 the12117110 Draft Rules (the " ~ r a..f.i R u l ~ s ! ~The
)"
following ark mi comments and suggestibns i . ~
Overall, the Draft Rules do not appear to place the interests of Arizona at the forefront In
their current draft fbrm, the rules are designed to benefit a few wealthy individuals, and they
essentially lock out smaller Arizona enttepreneurs from competition and access to opportunities to
make Arizona's Medical Marijuana Program a model for fkture state programs The current rules
stifle competition and would create a de facto monopoly by artificially locking the wholesale to the
retail business with the 70130 requirement proposed under DR9-17-307, which has no basis in Prop
3 This will not oniy stifle competition, 'out will also result in atificial!~inflzted prices for
medical marijuana The effect will be that few licensees will benefit, and patients and caregivers in
outer lying areas will suffer This artificial cost structure will no doubt negatively impactthe industry
in the long term,
What is very troubling about the rules is how they propose to establish guidelines for issuing
dispensary licenses In its current form, the rules requite an applicant to possess a certificate of'
occupancy or some other documentation issued by a local authority authorizing occupancy as a
condition for obtaining adiipensary license DR R9-17-302(B)(5) The applicant must also submit
site plans-and'floo~.. . . . for the'dispensary &nd the cultivation site to be eligible DR R9-17-
302(B)(8 -, 11) This rule
.. , ~ ,favbri
,.. .
those fewwho have tlte financial wherewithal to (a) locate a site that
complieswith local zoning laws, (bJ ptepafe and submit site and floo: plans to obtain a building
permit, ( c) construct the facilities, (d) pass inspections, and (e) obtain a certificate of occupancy,
Will Humble
Januar y 7 , 2 0 11
Page - 2 -
All of this must be accomplished before an application can be considered These requirements are
an undue burden, ate arbitrary and capricious, and they ate not supported by the language of Prop
2 03
The proposed rules appear to be cut from whole cloth with no basis in the law and without
consideration for the fairness ofthe licensing process Such regulations are undoubtedly subject to
challenge in the courts and possible disruption ofimplementation ofthe program by injunctiverelief
Perhaps granting a pr ovisional license to an otherwise qualified applicant pending zoning approval
and obtaining a certificate of occupancy will ievel the playing field Puiiing the cart before the horse
only benefits those with enough horse power to push the cart
In addition, the licensing procedure should be less subjective and more transparent
Allowing licenses to be issued by using subjective criteriapromotes all that is bad about politics and
business in America: cronyism, graft, illegal contributions, corruption, etc Instead, licenses should
be granted by way of a lottery or auction All pre-qualified candidates should have an equal chance
at obtaining a license Licenses should not be awarded solely to those who have the most money or
who can afford to meet the current tequitements and suffer the consequences without much harm
if a license is not awarded to them
Regarding the non-profit status of entities described in 536-2806 of Prop 203, the following
questions should be answered to provide guidance to dispensaries and to ptohibit abuses:
.. Can a license owner sell a dispensary license for a profit?
.. How much can a dispensary retain above its short term needs?
How much can dispensary management be compensated?
. What related-party transaction protections will be implemented?

What accounting information must a dispensary share (and with whom and how
. o!:en) to demonstrzte its ilon-pofit status?

What rights will the public have to question the non-profit status ofa dispensary that
is not requited to be recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS under $36-2806(A)?
Failure to address these issues will not only result in abuse of the system, it will also result
in the perception that the ADHS tacitly approves weak controls to allow the powerful few to exploit
the system and tutn a huge profit in violation of Prop 203
Withrespect to the Medical Director requirement proposed inDRR9-17-3 10, please explain
how ADHS has authority to mandate such a requirement given - the fact that the need for a medical
direct01 apparently has no basis in Ptop 203 Undoubtedly, implementation of this provision would
be costly to dispensaries, andultimately to patients down the stream of commerce Doctors' salaries,
n~alpracticeinsutance, and other associated costs will have to be absorbed by dispensaries on a pro
Will Humble
January 7,201 1
Page - 3 -
rata basis This provision appears to be poorly conceived to employ lots of doctors who have little
or no knowledge of the subject matter, and it raises the question whether doctors were involved in
the drafting of these rules to provide doctors with a retirement pension, so to speak
In the interests of patients, the ADHS should instead employ an industry-supported medical
director to be headquartered at ADHS to help oversee and administer the program The medical
director's salay should be paid from revenues generated pursuant to $36-2803(A)(5)
Finally, the Draft Rules are silent as to the acauisition of initial strains ofmedical mariiuana
and the addition of new strains as time progresses Dispensaries need a legal method for obtaining
genetic strains of medical marijuana, and this issue needs to be addressed in the context of current
federal laws Failure to address it wiil result in dispensaries technically having to violate the law to
conduct business For instance, fiom where will seeds and plants be acquired? Will inte~state
commerce be infringed by prohibiting the acquisition of seeds &dl01 plants from states that currently
allow the use of medical marijuana? These are just a few of the many questions that go . unanswered
but need to be addressed Perhaps the following language could be considered in any future rules:
"Dispensaries shall be allowed to obtain seeds andlor marijuana plants for the
purpose ofperpetuating specific genetics during the calendar gear 201 1 After 201 1,
any dispensary can petition the ADHS Director for approval to obtain additional
seeds and/or marijuana plants to add new genetics, and ADHS shall approve such
petitions that provide fbr protection ofthe supply chain from theft andlor diversion."
I appreciate the opportunity to provide my feedback, and I would welcome a meeting with
you and my client to discuss these issues and implementation ofthe program in general, including
the review of future draft rules before they are proposed once again If you have any questions, or
ifyou wish to discuss zi3y mattss set forth hcicin, please do il& liesitak to coritac: :nr ThaA you
JJH:jh
cc: Tom Horne, Arizona Attorney General

3 LPL Financial Ryan G Toronto. MBA
AZ 85282 Rd #112
1270 E Broadway
Tempe,
January 6,201 1 11 J11.#-7 AH 9 4 6
480 9663131 office
;$u;.l
';IS
-'
602 820 6673 mobile
480 966 3554 fax
Will Humble BIAECi'ORS OFFICE ryan toronto@lpl corn
Director, Arizona Department of Health Services www IPI comiryan toronto
150 N 18" Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix. AZ 85007-3247
RE: Medical Directors of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries;

Allowing Registered Pharmacists as well as Medical Doctors
Director Humble:
I am submitting this letter due to what I believe is valuable input into the development of
the Administrative Code for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
I believe the proposal to require each medical marijuana dispensa~yto have a Medical
Di~ectorthat is a medical doctor (either an M D or a D 0 ), will effectively put control of
the entire industry in the hands of a few While I see the need for Medical Directors, I
believe Registered Pharmacists should also be allowed to act as Medical Directors for
dispensaries This will open up the pool of candidates that could potentially act as
Medical Directors for dispensaries, thereby eliminating the potential monopoly doctors
could have over the industry
Forcing medical marijuana dispensaries to keep a docto~on staff would create an inflated
expense for the business operations ofthe dispensaries and may affect their ability to
compete It may also create a situation where doctors are the only one's able to afford to
run a dispensary, because they would not have to pay themselves (and incur the business
expense) If doctors become entrenched as Medical Directors of dispensaries, they could
control how much they charge dispensaries for their services and have an unfair impact
over the business cost structure,
Pharmacists are regulated, licensed professionals in the field of healthcare and have
expertise in counseling patients on how to use their medication Let them be part ofthe
solution, help keep costs down, and prevent a monopolization of the industry by doctors
Furthermore, under current draft guidelines, acting Medical Directors for dispensaries
would not be allowed to write medical marijuana recommendations, anyway The patient
would have to obtain their recommendation prior to coming to the dispensary. Therefore,
doctors will still be part ofthe process; they just will not have an inequitable impact on
the cost structure of dispensary operations Doctors will still have the opportunity to
evaluate symptoms, changes in symptoms, and the need to recommend medical
marijuana during initial physician-patient consultations and follow up consultations
Member FINRAISIPC
9 LPL Financial Ryan G Toronto, MBA
1270E Broadway Rd $112

Tempe, A285282
480 9663131 ofice
602 820 6673 m o b ~ l e
480 966 3554 fax
iyantaronto@lpl cum
www lpl comliyan toronto
This is being submitted by a concerned citizen and businessman, who is concerned with
maintaining fair competition for all hizonans that have a desire to become involved in
this new industry
I have wo~kedas a Financial Advisor in the Valley for 17 years and am a graduate of the
Thunderbird School of Global Management I can be reached for furthe1 comment at
(480) 966-3131
Thank you for taking the time to review these suggestions
Sincerely,
6
~ y a n Toranto, MBA
Financial Advisor
Member FINRA/SIPC
Stephanie Bishop f I
From: Sabrina Vazquez [sabrinaabarnesaz com]
Sent: Thursday, January 06,201 1 9:28 AM
To: Stephanie Bishop
Cc: Thomas Salow
Subject: Letter to the Director from AzNMA
Hello, /
Below is a letter t o Director Humble from the President of the Arizona Naturopa Medical Association Thank you for
your time
Sabrina Vazquez
Barnes &Associates
331 N 1 Ave, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: 602-,452-2943
Cell: 602-503-8354
Fax: 602-452-2942

Phoenix, Arizona 8500 7
January 4, 201 1
Dear Direct Humble,
The Arizona Nahrropathic Medical Association (AzNMA) applauds the effbrt and dedication of the Arizona Department
of Health Services to create a regulatory system that will allow for a responsible Medical Marijuana Program Thank you
for the opportunity to comment on and participate in, the rules making process
At this time AzNMA has three requests for changes to the rules as the process moves fbrward The requests are as
follows:
1 The Naturopathic, Allopathic and Osteopathic Boards of Examiners should require physicians who recommend
medical marijuana to complete no less than eight hours of training (through classroom situations, seminars at
professional society meetings, electronic communications, or otherwise) that covers the clinical, pharmacological,
ethical and legal aspects of using medical marijuana in patient care
2 Naturopathic Physicians should be included in the definition of "medical director" as they are included in the
definition of "physician" in the voter approved Medical Marijuana Act and authorized to recommend medical
marijuana to qualifying patients In this instance natu~opathicphysicians have the same qualifications as
allopath~cand osteopathic doctors to successfully serve as medical directors
3 Patients with a terminal illness should be exempt from the rule requiring a patient to have a professional
relationship with a physician for at least one year and assessed fbr their medical condition on at least ibur visits
prior to being eligible for a medical marijuana recommendation
AzNMA appreciates the department's attention to these matters and encourages the suggested changes be included in the
formal draft rules released later this month
We have contacted the department and discussed these issues with your rules attorney Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Amy Te~lisnerN D
RE'c?,f:/id~~
11 J4Y -6 Pg 2: 23
PO. Box 18640 Tucson, AZ 85 731-8640
-.. P&&jP20) 298-4781
lJlM,LI !!ti's OFFlCF
Arizona Department of'HealthServices
Office of the Direct01
W E 1 W L E , DIRECIOR
150 N. 18th Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix, Axizona 85007-3247
(602) 542-1025
(602) 542- 1062 FAX
> ,
Internet: www azdhs gov
Re: Official Comments on hizona Proposition 203 Proposed Rules
January 5,201 1
The following was submitted to your office via you electronic form on January 5,201 1 at 0823 hours:
The interests of individual citizens who own fnearms are of utmost concern Iherefore, the qualifying patient registry identification
card must be eliminated as a requirement
RAIIONALE: It will remain illegal for an individual to possess and use marijuana under federal law (21 USC $811) In Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U S. 1 (2005), the United States Sup~emeCout held that the federal govanment has the constitutional authority to prohibit
maxijuana for all purposes In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave
Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use ofmarijuana, despite state law to the contrary
Any individual who purchases a fueaxm from a federally licensed firearms (FFL) dealer must complete a BATFE F o ~ m4473
Question 1 le, which is a YES or NO question, reads as follows:
"Are you an unlawful user of; or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?"
Ihis puts the potential purchaser of a firearm in a quandary The individual purchaser can neither answer YES nor NO to BAIFE
Form 4473, question 1l e because, 1) Lying on this f o ~ mis a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to
fmes and 2) Answering YES will result in a denial ofpurchase order from the National Instant Criminal Backpound Check System
V C S ) This will effectively deny the individual right to keep and bear arms for anyone who submits an application for a Patient
Registry Identification Card
Futhermore, filing an application for the Patient Registry Identification Card will ab~idgethose rights conferxed in the United States
Constitution, Articles in Amendment, Amendment 5, especially self-imimimation, among others
Additionally, in order to prevent an occurrence in Atizona like what happened in Oregon, rules must be written and implemented that
prohibit the decimation of an Arizona Concealed Car~yWeapons pexmit based solely on ones application and/or issuance of a Patient
Registry Identification card and/or the putchase of medical marijuana from a dispensaty
Kenneth R Rineer
President
LlNlCS
- - -. .~ ~
M E D I C A L MARIJLIANAD I S P E N S A R I E S
1)ilcciol Will I-Iuunblc

Ziizoti;~Dcpail~nenlof 1Ic;ilth Sc~riccs
150 X 18111kvcnuc
Phocuir, h%85007
Re: Comrncnts 1Xcg;utiing l>~aliRudcs on Sl;ute Llcdkal Ykoijl~ulal'roy~uu
Kind Clinics is dedicated to helping establish the highest possible standards for the medical marijuana indushy,
We have experience in every state that currently allows medicinal use of marijuana Kind Clinics is committed to
helping develop the medical marijuana industry as a secure and well-regulated system that promotes ease of use for
truly qualified patients and a level of comfort from the community and lawmakers that the system will be effective and
secnre
W e appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the draft rules implementing the State Medical
Marijuana Program W e want to assist in being the leader in implementing rules that will establish a secwe, eficient,
safe and fraud-proof system from seed to sale of medical marijuana We are pleased to contribute to the process,
Suggested language for the rules is in italics, with language to be removed indicated by a strikethrough,
1. THE RULES SHOULD ESTABLISH THE STAiiDARDS BY WHICH DHS WILL ASSESS
DISPENSARY APPLICATIONS IF THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS EXCEEDS THE NUMBER
OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES THAT THE DEPARTh.LIENT MAY ISSLX.
The proposed ~ulesshould acknowledge that the number of dispensary registration certificates that the
Department may issue is limited to one for every ten pharmacies registered and operating in Arizona A R S 5 36-
280410 Section R9-17-107(G)provides that DHS shdlissue a dispensary registration certificate if DHS determines
that the application is complete and the applicant complied with A R S Title 36, Chapter 2 8 1 and the rules The only
two reasons listed for denial are that the applicant does not comply with A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1 and the rules or
that the applicant has fiiled to submit infbrmation after.DHS makes a request,
The rules need to acknowledge the T i t s in place on the number of dispensary registration certificates that the
Department may issue The rules also need to address how the Department will decide to which dispensaries to issue
registration certificates if the number of applications exceeds the number of permissible dispensaries
A. The De~arbnentShould Establish Time Fiames for Acce~fineA~~lications.
Because the limit on the number of dispensary ~egistrationcertifkates is based on the number of pharmacies, it is
possible that the number of pharmacies and dispensaries will increase, The Department needs to establish a procedure
for announcing the availability of dispensary registration ceralcates and a window for accepting and reviewing
applications, starting with the fust set of applications that will be reviewed starting in April 201 1
This time fiame would work in conjunction with the selection criteria discussed in Section B below to help
ensure that the Department timely receives and processes applications but is also able to select the best qualif~ed
Kind Clinics Medlcal Marijuana Dispensary Marketing 8. Consulting
5450 E. High Street, Suite 220 - Phoenix. AZ 85054
877-998-6999 [direct) www Kindclinics corn
applicants that demonstrate the greatest likelhood of providing a safe, secure, eficient dispensary The Department
could add a new rule:
When dspensary regseation cer?lijcates are avadable, the Depariment shall issue a nohie iden&hg the
number of dispenruy regibation cerh5cates available and the deadhne for appljmg f b ~the dispensary
regiibahon certdicates, which shall not be more than 21 calendar days afier the date of the notice All
app/icahbns rece~veddumg t b ~ penbd
s will be evaluated and we&bed based on the oitena established in
Section - When the number of dispensank to which the Department has issued a dispensaryregshation
cerbXcate meto the number of dispensaryregitrmon cerh5cates that are pennitted by A R . S 5 36-2804lC1,
the Department shallis,suea notice that there are no dispensaryrefl:strabbncert5cates available,
B. The Deuarhnent Should Establish Standards to Eduate A~~licaiions.

Maine and New Jersey also limit the number of dispensaries that may operate in their states Each has created
or proposed a system for evaluating and weighmg applicants based on various factors Each has a panel to select the
applicants to whom dispensary licenses will be issued W e recommend that Arizona implement a similar system to
help ensure that the dispensaries that receive registration certificates are the ones most likely to operate a professional,
secue, fraud-proof dispensary The system adopted in Maine uses a point system and any applicant with less than 70
points will not be considered, which may be beneficial in k i z o n a and save time for the Department
W e recommend adding a new rule that sets out factors that the Department will evaluate before issuing a
dispensary regishation certificate
LIiMZZATZON ON NUMBER Oli DZSPENSARIHAND SELECTION C R I m
A Liimtahon on number of dispensaries. The Deparhnent may not issue more than one n o n p d t medical
mmJuana dispensary regish-ation cerli6cate Eor every ten pharmacies that have registered under A R S 5 32-
1929, have o h h e d a phannacy pesmit from the Aniona Board of Pharmacy and operate w'thiti the State
except that the Deparhnent may issue nonprofitmedical mariJuana dispensary reg.'shation ce~bi'icatesin excess
of this limit ifnecessary to ensure that the Deparhnent is,sues at least one nonprofit medical mmjjana
dispensaryreg:shationcertibcate in each cvuntyvl which an application has been approved
B . SelecDon process. Zf'theappkahons for a djpenrary regzstration cer~cateexceed the number of dispens&y
regirh.ation cerhXcater that may be issued, the Department shall convene a panel to evaluate and score each
applicahon urlng the tntenon in sub,section- - To he considwed for a dispensary regjshation ceroficate, an
applicahon must score at least 70 povltr Subject to the limkaons of the number o f dispensaries, the
Department shallis,suea dspensaryre@'strahoncemEcate to the applicantr with the hlkhest scores,
C Selection cnteria Each complete appficahon contauung all of'themfomahon requ~redin R9-17-302 shall be
eduated and scored based on:
I Secunty & Inventory Cone01 fi0pomtr mawmum) Factors to be cons~deredmdude,but are notlmted
to
the application demonshates that the dspensary and culhvation huh& d applicable, U2U meet or
exceed the standards eitabhhedh thele ~ules;
thepol~ciesandprocedures wdl dscoumge udawfulachwtv;
thepohues andprocedmes mclude a p o h c y h i d e n h h a~n d r e p o m unlawfiul achna
* the policies and procedures demonreate #at transporntion of medical marijjana and paraphemaha
wjY he conducted in a safe &d secure manner that d r n k m i z e the MeWood of theftor Io,ss,
the Me& effechvenessofmethods and tools to prevent andreduce fraud and abuse
Up to 5 addhonal pomts should be awarded for excetdmg the muumuni standards estabhrhed m
these Ruler
2 Busheas plans andpolicit's (25pornti m k u m ) Factorr to be cons~deredhclude,but are notlimted to:
the bushers plan demonsti-ate9 the ongolng wabdiv of the drpensary as a non-psofit orgaruzation,
which may hclude a detailed dercnption of the amount and source ofthe eqwly cormmtment and
debt ob&ahons for.the dispensary that demonsmte the inmediate and l o n g e m fmancial ftasibility
oftht proposed fmanckgplan and the relative avai'Iab2ityo f f i d s for capitaland opera&gneeds;
the dispensuy by-laws contan pprvisions for dspo,sition of revenuer and recerpts to m a n h non-
profit status
the pah.entrecord-ktepuy policies demonst-ate that the pah'ent h50nnation w d be recure fiom accer r
by or dj,tnhuhon to unauthorizedparties; and
the plan for patient education and documentation of patient pan demonrpater an understaodng of
the benefiti andnsks ofmedicalmaryiuana
3 Other (25pomtti mawmmum) The panelmay consider other factors, mcludng b u t n o t h t e d to
factors that demonshate the IIkehhood that the dispensary d successful^ operate h a safe, secure,
and effectivemanner h compliance wjth all applicable laws andrules,
location of dispensary;
dliahon mth other non-profit o@mrzahons,
. comnubnent to and use of up-to-datetechnolop,
comnubnent to commuruty service,
application is h e . $ submtted,
application i s fuVy complete and doer notreqwre supplementalmfoormation;and
commitment to developing the mdustry zh safe, secure, fiaudpsoof manner that keeps medical
mar@nna uredfor the purports htended b y A R.S Xde 36; Chapter 28.1.
C.. If the Deuartment Does Not Adout a Formal Evaluation System. It Should Still Consider the Most
Qualiiied A D D ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~Issuing
When S ! Disuensarv Recishation Certificates.
If the Department does not adopt a formal system to evaluate and rank dispensary applicants, it stiU must
address the limitation on the number of dispensaries If there are multiple applicants 61 a dispensary in the same
general location and the applications are complete and comply with A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1 and these rules, the
Department should issue the dispensary registration certification to the most qualified applicant,
LfiWITATIOfV O I V I V U I M ~OFDISPEVSARIESAhD
~R SELECTION CRITERIA
A h t a h o n on number of dispensmes. The Department may not Issue more than one drspenrary re@rhation
certZcate for every ten pharmacies that have registered under A R.S 5 32-1929, have ohtaked a pharmacy
permit from the Aniona Board of Pharmacy and operate w'hh the State except that the Department may
issue djpensaryregistration cer~catesin e.xces,sof thjs himtifnecerrary to ensure that the Deparhnenfzrsues
atleast one aYspensaryregishation cedficatein each counpljl which a n a p p h h b n has been approved
B Selechon procrrs. #the appifcahonr for a &spenraryregzstration ceroticate exceed the number of dfspensary
reg:~Liahoncertiiicates that the Depamnent may issue, the Department shall issue a dispensary regishation
ceroi7cate to the mo,st qualiiied applicants The Department shail consider hctors that incfude, hut are not
Iimied to:
1 7be strength of the busmess plan, ljlcludng whether the huribess p h demonstrates the ongomg wabdip
of the dispensary as a non-profit organization and demons hate,^ appropnate oversight and non;orofi
SbUChlre;'
2 The shength of secun&planr andpoficies for growtli, &ansportahon, storage, and rlrspensrng ofmedical
mmyuana, ibdudhgph~icalsecurity feahnes and secm'ppoifcer and the fikelihood that the secm;ly ~171
deter fraud, theft, orlo,ss;
3 7be sLiength of the hventory conhol plans and poifcies, mcludhg whether the applicant i s uszbg best
available technology toprevent fraud, theft or 10,s.s;
4. The strength of thepatientrecords secun;lypoifcies and thepatient educahonalpolicies;and
5 The she& of dspensmgpohc~erand t h w Irkellhood to prevent fiaud, thee or loss
11. 'IT% DEPARTMENT SHOULD REQUIRE DISPENSARIES TO RE CORPORATIONS OR DEFINE

PRIS(=IPAL OFFICER OR BOARD MEMBER.
The residency requirements and other requirements of the rules apply only to "principal officers or board
members" The proposed rules do not defme these terms Officess and board members are most often associated
with corporations
The proposed rules seem to contemplate that dispensaries, however, may have a variety of legal forms and
leadership governance stIuchlres R9-17-301 Non-profit organizations are usually corporations, which would be
required to have a board and officers The Department should require a medical marijuana dispensary to be formed as
a corporation, which would then allow principal officer and board member to have theu normal meanings in the
corporate context The regulations in Maine require that dispensaries incorporate under the laws of the State of Maine,
The proposed New Jersey regulations also seem to require inco~poration,as the application requires submission of the
Articles of'Incorporation for the dispensary,
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act defines a medical marijuana dispensary as a "not-for-profitenti@ but
does not define entity The Department could defme entity in the rule to be corporations duly organized under the
laws of the State of Arizona
If the Department does not require the dispensary to be a corporation, it should defme the scope of the people
covered by the residency requirement One defmition could be:
'Fnnc~palofficer or board member" means the pnnupd ofiers or hoard members of a corporahon, the
manag& member of a member-managed Iiinited Lahilip company or the manager of a manager-managed
llmied ifabiliw company, members of'the go& board o f an association or cooperahbe, and other
ibdiiduals holdng the equialentroks ljl other types of'busines,sorganizations.
111. THE RULES SHOULD CLARIFY WHETHER MEDICAL MARIIUANA IS SUElECT TO SALES
TAX
The Act and the rules are silent regarding whether there will be a sales tax There are diffe~entpractices in the
diCferent states that have medical marijuana laws Some of them did not tax medical marijuana initially and are now
issuing opinions that the sales are subject to sales tax (see
liiir~:i/irI ~ . I ~ : ~-
OJIII~~~IIIS.~YOO~/~~(/~ O
$for the /
Colorado attorney ~II
general
opinion) The Rules should address whether medical marijuana, l i e prescribed medications, is exempt fiom sales tax
or whether, like tangible personal property, is subject to State and local sales tax
IV. THE RULES SHOULD REQUIRE BIOMETRIC IDENTIPICATIONPRIOR TO DISPENSING
MEDICAL MARWANA.
In order to prevent fraud and abuse, the Department should require the use of biomehic identification, such as
fingerprintidenrif~cation,prior to dispensing medical marijuana
As we are all aware, identification cards are too frequently forged or altered The only way to insure against
fraud and identity theft is to require biomehic fmgerprint identification prioi to dispensing medical marijuana,
Photographs and picture IDS can be altered Relatives can often look similar enough to use each other's identification
cards (which has enabled minors to purchase alcohol using an older sibling's or cousin's identification) However, an
individual cannot fjke fingerprints The only way to ensure that medical marijuana is dispensed only to persons
authorized to receive medical marijuana is using fmgerprint biomehics The technology is readily available for all
dispensaries to be able to satisfy this requirement,
Based upon a request from law enforcement, the City of Peo~iarecently discussed requiring biometrics for
dispensing of any Schedule I or Schedule I1 controlled substance by pharmacies in Peoria Using biomehic
identification is the way that Peoria police believe that they can control prescription fraud The same l o ~ applies
c in
the medical marijuana context Law enforcement favors biomehics to help prevent and detect fiaud and abuse
The Department should add a new requirement in R9-17-302(B):
A sworn statement s&ved and dated by themdw'dual or mdiw211als m R9-17-301cerb&mg that the dispensary
has purchased or dpurcbase andmantun equ~pmentand r o ~ fore required to ure iingepnnt biomehjcs
to verfi the identip of all qudfkgpatientr and deslated caregrvers prior to d~spensi~rnedicalman~uma,
The Department should modify R9-17-311 dealing with dispensing medical marijuana:
Before a dispensaryagent dispenser rnedicalmaq~uanato a q u ~ g p a t i e nor
t a desjgnated caregrver, the
d~spenmyagtntshall
I Venfythe q u m p a h e n t k or the designated careg~verkideno* us& a biomehi; fmgepnntreader,
Biometries will assist in the prevention of fraud and identity theft by the electronic verification of each
cardholder's identity as well as assisling the Department and law enforcement in monitoring and tracking medical
marijuana dispensing and patient use of medical marijuana,
V. CARDS SHOULD INCLUDE SECURITY FEATURES TO PREVENT
REGISTRY I D ~ C A T I O N
FORGERIES.
Registry identification cards should include security featu~esto prevent fbrgeries Security features could
include optically variable ink graphic f h laminate, holographic seals or other visible security features to help idenhfy
genuine cards and prevent reproduction The cards could also use RFID chips or magnetic slrips that do not store
personal information but that can be l i k e d to the Department database and integrated with a dispensary's elechonic
inventory and dispensing records to help the Department and dispensaries hack and conhol the medical marijuana
process from seed to sale
I . DISPEVSNUES S H O L U BE ABLE TO ACQV1RE MEDICAL MAR-NA IZI ANY AMOUXT
- PATIEWS OR DESIGNATHI CAREGNERS.
FROM OTHER DISPEZlSARlES OR QUALIFYISG
A. Reauirine Each Dis~ensawto Cultivak its Own Medical Maribma Unnecessdv Increases the
Number of Cultivation Sites in the S m .
By requiring that each dispensary cultivate a minimum of7096 of the medical marijuana it dispenses, the
Department would ensure that there will be approximately 125 cultivation sites It is in the best interest ofthe SQte of
Arizona and law enforcement to have fewer cultivation sites; The fewer cultivation sites that exist, the easier they will be
to monitor and regulate and the prospects for production and inventory control will be enhanced Rather than
requiring each dispensary to cultivate its own medical marijuana, the Department should allow dispensaries to acquke
medical marijuana fiom any other dispensary or q u a l i i g patient or designated caregiver
There are some capable, professional business people who would be very good at running a secure, effective,
fraud-proof dispensary, but who may not necessarily be as good at cultivating medical marijuana Rather than turning
every local dispensary into a grower, the Department should implement rules that would allow the number of
cultivation sites to be reduced and for market forces to optimize cultivation
B.. The 7096130% Rule is Not Effective for Inventow Control.
We understand that the intent of the 70% requir.ementis to help with inventory conbal In reality, this system
increases the likelihood of fraud and of medical marijuana being sold on the illegal drug market This could happen in
at least two ways First, some dispensaries will have too mucb supply, increasing the chances for fraud or loss and that
the lawful medical marijuana could be sold on the illegal drug market Second, some dispensaries would not always
bave sufficient stock so excess stock from one dispensary could end up being sold to other dispensaries that are unable
to grow sufficient stock or the dispensary would acquire it from the illegal drug market, requiring the dispensaries to
fraudulently document hansactions to maintain the impression of compliance with the Rules Dispensaries may end up
with too litlle or too much medical marijuana, which is not effective invento~yconhol
Having the 70%/30% requirement also interferes with the purpose of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
which is to provide relief to persons suffering fiom debilitating illnesses If dispensaries are unable to keep fresh,
effective stock to dispense to patients because of the 70%/30% rule, they will be unable to further the purposes of the
Arizona Medical Marijuana Act Further, if dispensaries are required to destroy medical marijuana that it cannot sell to
other dispensaries, the costs of doing business will increase, which will increase the costs to the patients If dispensaries
are unable to grow sufficient stocks of medical marijuana and cannot acquire medical marijuana from other
dispensaries, the patients the Act was designed to help may not be helped This could be an especially acute problem
in rural areas with fewer dispensaries
A fiemarketsystemin which a dispensary can purchase or sell to any other dispensary as part of a
competitive fiee market is the best way to guarantee the appropriate supply of medical marijuana, to discourage
dispensaries from going outside authorized sources to obtain marijuana, and to reduce the incentive or risk of the sale
of excess marijuana on the illegal drug market Effective hacking and controlling of sales between dispensaries is mucb
better inventory conhol and fraud prevention than is accomplished by requiring each dispensary to bave its own
cultivation site
Because the 70%/30%will not be effective,we recommend removing Rule R9-17-307(C)(1)and (C)(5)and
revising R9-17-307(C)(4)to read:
4, :May acqrxie the medical marijuana the dspeniary provides to qu&mg pahentr and
dei~batedczegivers from another d,spenrary ul Arizona, a q u a l h pahent, or a desl~ated
czegiver.
C. Electronic Trackiw from Seed to Sale is B e t h Inventow Control and Fraud Prevention than
Reauirinc Each Dis~ensawto Cultivate its Own Medical Mariiuana. and the De~artmentShould
Rwuire Dismaries to Provide the D e m e n t with Access to the Trackiap and Inventow Svstem.
In order to keep track of sales and medical marijuana inventory, to prevent fiaud, and to minimize the
possibiiry of loss or theft, the Department should require real-time electranic tracking of the medical marijuana from
seed to sale
The proposed draft rules would require that dispensaries establish an inventory control policy, A A C R9-17-
307(l)(c),and require that their inventory contra1 system identlfy certain minimum information A A C R9-17-313
The proposed rules do not identify how dispensaries are required to maintain the reco~ds,leaving it entirely up to the
dispensary how to track the infbrmation and record i t This opens the door for sigdcant fraud, as paper records can
be more easily manipulated than a verifiable electronic tracking and inventory system
Real-time electronic tracking of medical marijuana from seed to sale-using an electronic system that can be
accessed and reviewed by the Deparment-will be more eff'ectivethan allowing each dispensary to establish its own
inventory control and tracking methods Appropriate language revisions are:
Modily R9-17-313(B)as follows:
A dispensary shall establish and implement an electronic inventory control system to @track,monitor andreport
the followngfor the dispensary's medical marijuana &Aewme&
Modify R9.17-313(D) as follows:
2: Provide the documentahon reqlrkd N1 sub,sechons (Bl and (C)to the Deparment for review upon
request, and provide the Department with access, mcludng remote access, to the dispensary's
eleceonic inventory conho/ system upon reguest,
D. The De~artment's I n s d o n Authoritv Should Reauire Electronic Inventow and Indude

Unannounced Access to Electronic T& and Inventow Control Systems.
In addition to requiring electronic tracking and inventory control, the Department should add to the inspection
requirement that its authority to conduct unannounced inspections includes the authority to access the electronic
tracking and inventory control system
An integrated electronic and technologically advanced system that allows real-time tracking of patient usage,
each dispensary's dispensing of medical marijuana, verification that physician statements and cards are un-expired prior
to dispensing to patients, and inventory connol and management is critical to a stable, secure, and fxaud-proof medical
marijuana system The technology is currently available in the medicine dispensing software market to allow
dispensaries to electronic& record and track all inventory and transactions,
This system would allow the Department better auditing capabilities It will allow the Department to conduct
audits remotely to do an electronic audit This would also prevent potential HIPAA violations and invasion of client
privacy involved in potentially monitoring cameras and reviewing individual patient fdes
\'I1 'THE RIJLES SHOIJLD EXPRESSLY PERMlT DISPENS.4RlES TO DEVELOP FIECmONIC
SYSTEMS T - @ m ~ m ~ . & W p R O V I D EMORhMTION T O THE STATE'S MEDICAL
W k U A ELECTKONIC VERIFICATION SYSTEM
The proposed rules require a dispensary agent to verlfy information from the State's medical marijuana
electronic verification system and enter additional information into the system relating to the transaction The
technology is available to allow this process to he automated so that the dispensary computer directly communicates
with the medical marijuana electronic verification system without a human user being required to enter the information,
This automatic communication from computer-to-computer would reduce the chances of human error while reviewing
or inputting information, and thus better prevent fraud and improper dispensing of medical marijuana It would also
mean that human users could not alte~or enter fraudulent information, again reducing the chances for fraud or abuse
of the medical marijuana system
The rules should explicitly allow such elecbonic transactions by making the existing R9-17-311 part A and
adding as part B:
B A dispenrarymayuse an automated elechomi system ofhardware and 9ofhyar.eto v e d t h e
infbnnahbnrequ~rededm Sechon A befbre dijpenjrngmedcdmanjuana to a quddjmgpatient or dej&nated
care@verand to submit the r e q u ~ r e d ~ b h a h otonthe rnedicdma~uanaelectronic venficahon system,
VIII 1'HE REQUIRElEYT THAT A DISPESSARY BE READY FOR IKSPE(JIION BY DHS PRIOR M
.4U APPLICATION BEtNG CONSmERED WMPLETE IS AN L'NNECFSSARY RWDFN T O
APPLICANTS WHOSE APPLICATION MAY KOT BE APPROVED kW UNNECESSARILY
DELAYS THE OPENNG OF DISPEZIS_ARIF&
k The Department Should Issue Prelimhaw ADDIOV~~

for D i s m a n Registration Certification Prior to
Ins~ection.
It is unclear in the Rules whether the Department may issue a preliminary approval of dispensary registration
ceracate prior to a dispensary being ready fbr inspection by the Department The rules requue that the applicant
identify whether the site is ready for inspection or identify the date on which it will be ready A A C R9-17-302
Another rule, however, states that an application for a dispensary registration certificate is not complete until the
applicant provides written notice to the Department that the dispensary is ready for inspection A A C R9-17-302
This would make it appear that before the Department will review an application and provide preliminary approval of a
dispensary regisrration certificate, the applicant must go through the time and expense to complete the construction and
build out of the dispensary and cultivation site with the required security and physical plant requirements In addihon
to the time and money spent building out the property, this would also require obtaining permits from the municipal or
county government where the dispensary will be located, which could again delay the process
Requiring a complete build-out before the Department deems the application complete will place all
dispensary applicants in the situation where they must spend a great deal of time and money with no guarantee that they
will receive a dispensary registration certificate This is wasteful, unnecessary, and places an undue burden on
dispensary applicants
The Department should review applications and issue preliminary approval based on floor plans, security
plans, etc After a dispensary applicant receives preliminary approval, final approval could be contingent upon an
inspection demonstrating that the dispensary has filly implemented floor plans, security, zoning, and other elements of
the building proposal The Department could allow fbr 120 days after notice of preliminary approval fbr the
dispensary to be completed and ready fbr inspection
The Department should eliminate the proposed rule R9-17-107(B) The Department should revise Section
R9-17-107(F)(1)so that it reads as follows:
1 Wrthm 120 calendar days after the applicant recehes the rviitten notice of preliminary approval, the
applicant shall submit to the Department:
(al Wr~aen for mspechbn by DHS,
notice that the dspensary and culhvahon srte, rf apph~able,are ~eady
01) An application for a dispensary agent registry identitication card
The Department should also revise Section R9-17-107(F)(2)so that it reads as follows:
2 After receipt of the information and documents in subsection @)(I) m d a@ercompletzi~gan hspecoon
of the dispensary and culhvahon site, Zappficable, the Department shall review the information and
documents, and if the rhspection of the dispensary and cdtivahon site, iFappficabIe, demonsmted
compfimce w'th A R S Etle 36, Chapter 281 and there Rules and the information and documents
for at least one of the principal officers or board members complies with the A R S Title 36, Chapter
281 , ,
Because it may not be possible to determine a date on which a site will be ready fbr inspection at the time of
the application, R9-17-302@)(l)(j)-(kshould be eliminated 'The only dispensary applicants required to provide notice
that the dispensary is ready for inspection would be those who have received preliminary approval
In this way, applicants will still be required to have identified and secured a location that complies with the
zoning laws and r.es'uictions on placement of dispensaries and have established a plan for compliance with the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act and implementing rules, but the dispensary is not necessarily required to go though the
expense of building out the space and acquiring all of the security features prior to knowing that the dispensary may be
able to acquire a dispensary registration certificate
B The ADDliCant Should he Permitkd to Ideniifv a C u l l i d o n Site or Source After the F'rehnharv
ADDr0-d.
As discussed above, it is better to allow each dispensary to obtain medical marijuana in any amounts fiam other
medical marijuana dispensaries Dispensaries should be requued to have a plan for acquiring sufficient supplies of
medical marijuana to serve their patients Requiring a physical address Lbr a cultivation site prior to application,
however, could delay the application process and the build-out of medical marijuana dispensaries The rules should
provide f o ~dispensaries with otherwise complete applications, time after preliminary approval to i d e n ~ ay separate
cultivation facility that is properly zoned and for which the applicant obtains a certificate of occupancy or other required
documentation
The Rule could permit an applicant who has not identified an off-site cultivation source to provide the
Department with notice of'a cultivation site that is separate fiom the dispensary after preliminary approval Preliminary
app~ovalcould be contingent upon the cuitivation site also being ready f o ~inspection withim 120 days after the
Department provides preliminary approval to the dispensary Approval could also be contingent on the submission of
information about the cultivation site within 60 days after notice of preliminary approval
Language to use for a revised R9-17-301(B)(l)(h)is below:
Whether the dispensary wrV culhvate medicalman~uanaat the dspensary site or at a cdhwhon sjte, m d l f a t a
cdhiahon site the physicaladchess ofthe dipensay's cdhvation site or a statement that the dispensqhtends
to ob- a cu/bwbon srte m compfimce wth al(localzo~?gordmanceq
C Revisim the Rule to k e d i t e Dis~ensamA D D r o d W i Reduce the Number of Patien& and

Carebers Gmwin~Their Own M a r i k &ich is B e n e f i d to the De~artmentLaw Enforcement
and the State.
Revising the proposed Rule will also help dispensaries be operating quicker, as the application will be
considered complete and be considered by DHS sooner This will benefit the State, law enfbrcement, and the
Deparh~ent,because the sooner the dispensaries are operative, the sooner qualifying patients will be prohibited from
growing their o m medical marijuana if they live within 25 miles of a dispensary Dispensaries can submit completed
applications-to be processed within the timelines set out in the rules-prior to completing build-out of their facilities,
which will expedite the processiig of applications, which in turn means fewer individuals cultivaLing their o m medical
marijuana If every applicant has to have a completed struchue-with all security and physical requirements met-,
before the Department considers the application complete, it could be several months before any dispensary
applications are complete, causing significant delays in dispensaries being opened,
During the period of time that the Department is reviewing dispensary applications, all quabfymg patients or
designated caregivers will be able to grow their own medical marijuana, because when no dispensaries exist every
patient will be more than 25 miles from a dispensary Tbis is not a desirable situation, as the Deparbnent has less
control and oversight over home growers than it does dispensaries There is much greater potential for fraud and
abuse if there are more people growing their own medical marijuana than if they are obtaining it fiom a regulated
dispensary Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Department to make rules that will expedite the ability of
dispensaries to become operative across the State more quickly
IX. THE RULES SHOULD CONTAIN GREATER SECURITY REQ-S RELATING TO

STORAGE OF MEDICAL MARIIUANA AT DISPENSARIES.
In order to deter theft and abuse, the Rules should require that medical marijuana supplies that are stocked in
a dispensary during the day are stored in a safe or other locked, limited access area during non-work hours and are not
left on shelves overnight,
The Department could add a new requirement to R9-17-315:
D. Storage of Manjana Dur~ngnon-hu~~ness hours, medcd manjuma that 15 prepared for dshihnrion
shallhe stored securelyin compliance with 21 C Z R 1301 72,as amended and supplemented,
The Code of Federal Regulations provides more specific detail on the types of safe or storage facilities that are
required for Schedule I and I1 controlled substances, and requiring this type or storage is consistentwith the
requirements placed on other lawful medications that are Schedule I or Schedule I1 controlled substances
Alternatively, as part of Section R9-17-315, the following language could be added:
fC)(3flFor stonng medial mariirana that i s prepared for dismhution m a rde, vault, or other simrla~locked,
secure, andlinited access storage container d u n k non-worhnghours,
fCl(3)A safe, mult, or other s d a locked, secure, andlmttd access storage container for storage ofmedicd
rnmjuana th~jatisprepared for distn'bution and stored at the dispensary during non-work& hours
If medical marijuana is left stocked on dispensary shelves or otherwise readily accessible by breaking into a
dispensary business, it could encourage more break-ins and theft than if dispensaries were required to remove and lock
away the medical marijuana during non-business hours
X. THE RULES SHOULD CONTAIN SECURITY REQ-S FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF MEDICAL MARIWANA.
The proposed rules expressly permit the transportation of medical marijuana, plants, and paraphernalia, but
places absolutely no security requirements on the bansportation This leaves a big gap when the marijuana could be
the most vulnerable Colorado and New Jersey have proposed regulations relating to the bansportation of medical
marijuana Maine also has regulations that address transportation
At a minimum, the Department should add as part of Section R9-17-315(C)(2)a requirement that the
dispensary create policies relating to bansportation:
That prvvixe for iafely &ansporhng mmjuana m any h,
maquana plants, and marijuana paraphernalia
between the dispensagand
I The dspmsary's cufhvahon site,
3 Another drspenrary, and
4 A food estabLshment conbacted with the dispensary to prepare e&Ie food products iihsed w?h
medcalrnan~uana,,
Taking a combination of the requiremenb in other states, the Deparment could implement an on-line
reporting and tracking system for medical marijuana and adopt the following new rules relahg to the transportation of
marijuana, which could be added at RS-l7-315(B)(Z)andrenumbe~the exisling Section B to he Section (B)(l), as
follows:
1 When a dspensary transports marfuma ~nany form,mmjuana plants mdmarIjuana paraphernalia
a Vehicle9 used for hanspozhhg mmjuana ~n any h,marfuana plants, and manjmna
paraphernalia shall bear no i d e n m g markr"g;
b The dispensary agent jtaEng the vehicle must have accer,s to a form of secure
telecommuniLaLions with the dispensary, such ar a cellular phone;
c. ~Manjma~nany h, mmjuana plants, and mm~uanaparaphemdia must be secured and

protected during msportation andmay not be v1iibIe from outside of the vehicle;
d The dispensary ;gent sMmg each vehicle must have a tnp inventory, created and submitted
onlrne uriq a form approved by the D e p P m e n tandpnnted for retention with the mmjuana
pruduch behg hmsported, that~ndudesthefollo&gidormabon:
I the name and addreis of the dnpensary,
u the oriqn and derhnabon of themedz~almmjuana,
m the name and regiihy idenhfication number of the dspensary agent staffmg the
vehicle,
IV the route to be haveled,
v the hme and date of'hansporiahon;
~l the make, modeland/icense plate number of the vehicle bemg used for hanport and
w the amount and form of mmjuana and mmjuana m a t e d that is being ans sported
e, When detemuiuig and repodng the route to take, &,penjarits should reled the best diect
route thatprovidts efidencyand safe@
The Department should require an electronic inventory and tracking system that will be used during the entire
stage of the process, including befbre transportation, during transportation, and upon delivery to the intended
destination There is cur~entlyavailable and affordable technology that can perform this h c t i o n An electronic
hacking and reporting system to be used bef'o~eand during transportation ofthe medical marijuana and upon delivery
to the destination will assist the Department and law enforcement with enforcing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
and will help ensure that medical marijuana is properly dispensed and does not become a part of the illegal drug
market
XI THE R W SHOULD COh'AIN CERTIFICATION OR SECT.?IITY REQL?RE.\TS FOR
FhClUTES Ih'FUSING hlEDICAL MARJJUAKA INTO FOOD P R O D U m .
A. Additional Reuuirements Need to be Placed on Entities Infusii Medical Mariinana Into Food
Prcdum.
The rules need to address more specifically the preparation of medical marijuana-infusedfood products It is
not clear from the proposed rules what, if any, limits or requirements are placed on the facilities or persons preparing
the medical marijuana food products aside fium holding a valid food establishment permit and working under contract
with the dispensary,
The A a and the proposed rules require that each individual employed by or contracted with a dispensary must
bave a dispensary agent registry identification card before working at the dispensary A A C R9-17-308;A R S § 36-
280401 Does this requirement extend to the companies who infuse medical marijuana into food products, as the
rules require that they be under contract to the dispensary? What is the defmition of "under contract? What if the
contract is with an entity, not an individual? Is the entity an "agent" of the dispensary that is able to receive a dispensary
agent legistry identification card?
Although R9-17-316 contains very little information relating the limitations and requirements on food facilities
infusing medical marijuana into edible food products, other sections of the proposed rules seem to suggest that the
persons handling medical mar~j'uanaat a food establishment would be the agents of a dispensary For example, R9-17-
307(A)(4)(d) requires that the dispensary not allow an individual who does not possess a dispensary agent registry
identification card issued under the dispensary's registration certificate to bave access to medical marijuana at a food
establishment contracted to infuse medical marijuana into food products This raises several issues One problem is
that many food establishments are entities, not individuals, but it appears from the rules that only individuals can be
dispensary agents Another problem is that the food establishment would be the employer of the individuals working at
hat establishment, not employed by or supemised the dispensary, making it difkult for the dispensary to control those
individuals
The lack of regulation of facilities infusing medical marijuana products raises several additional issues What
kind of inventory control is really taking place? What ensures that the medical marijuana is infused in the amounts that
are seplesented to the dispensary? What ensure the quality of the perfbrmance? Is it the intent of the Deparment that
these issues will be solely regulated by the contract between the dispensary and the food establishment?
At a minimum, the regi~lationsshould identify some of the required elements of a contract between a
dispensary and a food establishment The proposed regulations in Colorado require the Medical Marijuana
Enforcemeni Division to approve the form and substance of such contracts The Department should conside1 doing
the same by adding a rule R9-17..316(C):
C. to R9-17-316(AJ(1)murtbe approved as to fbnn and rubrtance by the
Any ~ontractreqiurtdpursu~t
Deparment
B,. The Rules Should Allow a Disuensam to Obtain Medical M a r i b Infused Food Products From
Other Disuensaries.
The current proposed rules seem to contemplate that a dispensary will provide medical marijuana to a licensed
food preparing facility and will sell only those infused food psoduct~that are produced using marijuana provided by the
dispensary T h e x is no logical reason to prevent a medical marijuana dispensary fiom acquiring medical marijuana-
infused food psoducts from another dispensary, a s the rules already allow dispensaries to obtain medical marijuana
from another dispensary Tbe medical marijuana-infused food products should be permitted to be sold between
hspensanes (as long as properly labeled, etc), as part of the market system for sales between hspensaries that we
hscussed m our comments above
The Department should revise R9-17-307(C)(2)as follows:
Shall only provide medical marijuana cultivated or acquired by the dispensary or edible foodproducts lnfured
with medical marijuana made or acgukd by the dipensary to another dispensary in Arizona, a quahfwng
patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A R S Title 36, Chapter 281, and this Chapter to acquire
medical marijuana
xlr. THE RLZES SHOULD WOVE OR D ~ - "NDMDUAL E . .. CONTRACTED w

IN RELATION TO A DISPEUSARY AGENT SO l T IS CLEAR THAT CORPORATIONS AND
OTHER LEGAI. F N l l T E S PROVIDING SERVICES T O m.DISPENSARY ARE NOT " A G F m
WH_O REQUIRE A DISPENSARY AGEY-CAW.
In R9-17-101(9), the proposed ~ulesdefine "dispensaryagenr' to mean the same a s "nonprofitmedical

marijuana dispensary agent" as defined in A R S § 36-2801 The Act defmes "nonprofitmedical marijuana dispensary
agent" as a principal officer, board member, employee or volunteer of a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary who is
at least twenty-one years of age and has not been convicted of an excluded felony off'ense However, in Section R9-17-
308 a dispensary is required to apply for a dispensary agent registry identification card f o ~
individuals "conhactedwith"
the dispensary The definitions of dispensary agent in the Act and in the rules do not include an individual "conhacted
with" a dispensary Therefore, the Department should remove "conhacted with"from R9-17-308, as it is outside of the
scope of the definition of dispensary agent
If "contracted with" is not removed rrom the rule, then it should be clarified The proposed rules require a
dispensary agent identification card for an "individual , , conhacted with" a dispensary The rules do not define the
term "individual" Individual is generally understood to be a human person, and it is used throughout the rules in
contexts in which it clearly means a physical person, not a legal entity Nevertheless, the rules should clarify that an
agent is an individual person, not another legal entity For example, if a company provides accounting services,
advertising services, cleaning services, consulting services, etc to a dispensary, the company providing the services is
generally "under contract" with the dispensary There is a contractual relationship The service provider, however, is
not an agent of the dispensary that can act on the dispensaries behalf and should not be considered a dispensary agent
for purposes of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
The rules for dispensary agent identification card applications clearly contemplate that the agent will be a
single, live person and not any other form of entity, but the Department should clarify this requirement,
XIII. THE RULES SHOULD ALLOW ONE SIGNATURE O N DISPENSARY APPLICATIONS.
The Department should eliminate the proposed rule (R9-17-301)relating to individuals to act for the
dispensary for two primary reasons First, as discussed above, the dispensaries should be required to be corporations,
and therefore there is no need to identify who in other business formations would act fbr the dispensary Second, it is a
general principle of corporate law that one corporate officer can bind the corporation It could delay processing of
applications and the responsiveness of the applicants if they are required to obtain multiple signakres for all documents
and information submitted to the Department Additionally, it is lawful to establish a corporation with the same
individual acting in all officer roles One authorized signature is legally binding on an entity and the Department should
not require more Therefore, the Department should delete R9-17-301 or revise so that in each section requiring two
signawes it will require only one signature
MV. I'HE -4RIZONA MEDICAL XURIIIXVA ACT PROVIDES SHORTER TMELIWS FOR ISSLN3
DOPENSARY REGB.rn4TIOK m . R m C A T ' E THANARE PROVIDED m!T I I E R U
-
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that DHS issue a dispensary regishation cerNicate "not later than
ninety days after receihg an application" that is complete and satisfies the Act and rules, A R S 5 36-2804 In R9-17-
107, the proposed rules provide the Department with 90 working days, rather than 90 calendar days, as the timeframe
in which to issue a dispensary registration cerIilicate Because the Act does not speclfy calendar days or working days,
the Act should be given the common usage of "daysx-which is calendar days, not working days
A R S 51.213 establishes that in interpreting statues, if there is no specific definition, "words and phrases shall
be constmed according to the common and approved use of the language" The common usage of 90 days is 90
calendar days The differencein processingtime could be almost 6 weeks if the Rules use 90 working days (18 weeks if
there are no holiday or furlough days) as opposed to 90 calendar days (justover 12 weeks)
Additionally, the proposed rules identify the overall time frame for processingthe dispensary registration
certificate as 90 working days The rules require a preliminary approval notice to be issued if the application is
complete, then the applicant submits dispensary agent registry card applications for the principal officers and board
members before the dispensary registration certificate is issued There could be some confusion regarding whether the
preliminary approval notice must be issued within working 90 days or the actual regishation ceitificate must he issued
within 90 working days, although the table indicates that 90 working days is for completing the entire process
Consequently, the language in R9-17-107 should be revised to state calendar days rather than working days for
processing dispensary applications
X . THE REQUJREWCYTS k\D -ATIONS O X 'IXE MEDICAL D I R E O R EXCEED THE
DEPARTMFmS RULEMAKtNG AUTHORITY AND MAY KEGATIVEJ-Y IMPACT T H E ABILlTY
oFDB.PENSUll3 TQ.OBTAIN A MEDI.CAL DIRECTOR
A. The Limibiion on the Medical Direcbr Beiw: an MD or D O Exceeds the Demrhnent's Rulemaking
Authoritv.
The limitation on a medical director being an MD or DO exceeds the Department's rulemaking authority, as it
is inconsistent with the Act's broad definition of physician to include naturopahs and homeopaths There is no logical
reason for allowing nahropaths and homeopaths to provide recommendations for patients but not to act as the medical
director of the dispensary where the patient obtains the medical marijuana Additionally, nurse practitioners in the
State of Arizona can act as primary care doctors and write prescriptions The State of Arizona heats nurse practitioners
as physicians f o ~most purposes Therefore, the rule should also be expanded to include nurse practitioners
Additionally, because marijuana is still illegal on the federal level, licensed physicians may be reluctant to serve
as a medical director of a medical marijuana dispensary This could limit the number of people available to serve as a
medical director The problem could be worse in rural areas where there are fewer physicians This supports
expanding the medical director definition to include homeopaths, naturopaths, and nurse practitioners
In order to ensure that each applicant can ohtam the senices of a qualified person to serve as medical director,
the Department should defme physic~anto include a homeopath, naturopath or nurse practitioner
The Department should therefore revise the definition of medical director in R9-17-101(15):
'Medcal dkector"means a doctor of m c d c h t who holds a valid and ens* license to practice mtditvle
pursuant to ntie 32, chapter 13 or its successor, a doctor of o,steopathicrncdcme who holds a valid and existrig
license to practice o,steopathk m e d i b e pursuant to title 32, chaptm 17 or its successor, a naturopathic
physician who holds a d d and exishglicmse to practice naturopathic rnedchepursuant to hue 32, chapter
14 or its succeigor or a homeopathic physiaul who holds a valid and exkiing license to practice homeopathic
medicme pursuant to hue 32, chapter 29 or 1'0suceisor, or a nurse prachboner who holds a vdid and eulrLmg
lzcense to practice ar a nurse pracbhoner pursuant to ntle 32, Chapter 1501its succesror and who has been
designated by a d~spensaryto provide mtdcd oversrght at the dspensary
B The I i m on a Medical Die.ctor A& for Onlv Three IXc~ensariesis Unnecessanlv Limitim and
CouldAdvenelv Impact the Abllity of a Dismsaty w Obtain the Senic-egfa Medical Director.
Because medical disectors are required only to be available to be contacted as needed, there is no logical
reason to limit a medical dlector to sewing only three dispensaries Some dispensaries may serve fewer patients and
not need as much time and attention from the medical director, while others may be busier. The dispensary and
medical duector should be able to determine if the medical director is providing the appropriate time and atLention to
the dispensary If the Department believes it necessary to impose a limit, the Deparbnent should limit the number of
dispensaries that a medical director can serve to 10 dispensaries
Further, as discussed above, there may be reluctance on the part of some physicians to serve as a medical
director, making it diicult to procure the services of a medical &lector if the medical director is limited to working in
three dispensaries
Many of the processes in the dispensary could easily be automated A medical director could oversee the
development of electronic pain records for quallfylng patients and caregivers to use and it would not require extensive
time for the medical director to oversee this electronic system The record keeping and oversight could also be mostly
electronic The use of electronic and automated systems would allow a medical &ector to act effectively and efficiently
on behalf of more than three dispe~~saies Because of the specialized nature of sening as a medical director and the
extents ofregulatory requirements, greater compliance may be achieved if medical duectors are permitted to serve
more than three dispensaries Otherwise, medical directors se~vingone, two, or lhree dispensaries may not devote as
much time to such duties and their expertise in the medical and regulatory environment in which the dispensaries
operate may be less than someone who develops a greater specialty and expertise in the area The arbitrary limit to
three dispensaries is unnecessary,
Therefore, in order to ensure that each applicant can obtain the s e ~ c e of
s a quaJiied person to serve as
medical hector, the Department should remove the limit on the number of dispensaries that one medical director can
serve The Department should revise R9-17-310(A):
A medical director may only serve as a medical director fbr k k e ten dispensaries at any time
X\'I. THE DEPARTMENT'S D-OX OF "ONGONG' FOR A PHYS1CIA.U-PATIGUT

RELATIONSHIP AlTEhETS TO TELL DOCTORS HOW THEY MUST PRACTICE. IS
~ T C E S S A N L Y ONEROUS. AND -nr WITH THE P L T T S E FOF
, THE ACT.
Federal law requires a bona fide doctor-patient relationship befbre a physician prescribes a contralled
substance The same requirement should apply for medical marijuana recommendations, but the definition proposed
by the Board, in R9-17-101(16)(a),which requi~esfbu visits over the span of a year, may prevent some patients from
obtaining the relief offered by the Medical Marijuana Act in a timely manner Arizona common law already has
standards for determiningwhen a doctor-patientrelationship exists, for example in the context of medical malpractice
torts or duties of confidentiality It takes significantly less than one year to establish a bona fide doctor-patient
relationship under existing legal standards
Principles of medical ethics also have standards fbr the doctor-patient relationship and the dispensing of
medication Doctors are bound to iblow their medical ethics in making recommendations for medical marijuana It
would violate their ethical standards to make recomrnendations for medical maijuana without conducting a proper
examination of the patient's health and history Excessive government regulation, such as rules that tell the doctor how
to practice - including how many visin or length of beatment - overstep the bounds of this rulemaking Doctor's
ethical standards, not government rules, should control the doctol-patient relationship
Part B of the defmition of "ongoing," in R9-17-101(16)(b),is good to an extent, hut it could prevent U S
military veteIans whose primary care physicians are at the Vetexans Administration Hospitals from being able to
acquire medical marijuana if it would provide them relief from a debilitating medical condition Doctors at the
Veterans Adminishation are not permitted to write recommendations for medical marijuana because it is still
proscribed by federal law Yet many veterans cannot afford to move their primary health care for a debilitating
condition to an outside doctor The rules should be revised to allow veterans - or others with limited means -to
receive evaluation and recommendations tiom other physicians without hansferring long-term, ongoing care to another
physician Many military veterans are suffering from debilitating conditions because of their military service The State
should take exes steps to ensure that these veterans are able to obtain the care and benefits provided by the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act,
As there are already existing legal and ethical guidelines for when a physician-patient relationship is established
and because the definitions proposed by the Department would make it unnecessarily d i c u l t for a person with a
genuine medical need to obtain medical marijuana-and make it virtually impossible for veterans using the services of a
VA Hospital-the Department should eliminate the definition of "ongoing" in the proposed rules at RC-17-101(16)and
require a bonafide doctor-patient relationship Sample language to achieve this revision to be added in R9-17-101 and
replace "physician-patientrelationship" (with corresponding changes throughout the rules) is:
'Zona fide physician-pahent re1ahonsh1p"mtans
(a a physician and a pahent have a aeatment or counsehig relahonsh~p,IR the course of which the physician
has completed a fuU assessment of the pahenti medical histov and current medical condition, inchrdkg an
appropriate personal physical exanunahon and a personal review of the pahint's medical record mahtahed by
other eeahhg physicians that may ~ncludethe patienti reaction and response to convenhonal medical
therapies,
(j,! the physician has consulted wvlth the pahent umvlth respect to the pahentk debrlitabbng medical condition
before the pahent apphr for a aegistry idenbficahon cad, and
hi1 the pbyslujD 1.5 avalable to or offers to provide hflow-up care and eeahnent to thepatien:enr,mcludug but
nothhted to patient e x h a h o n s , to determne the eficacy of'theuse of medical mari~uanaas a eeament of
fie pahentk deb~Xtatingmedicalcon&hon,
I WHERE RESIDENCY IS S O T A R E Q U I R E . . . THE PERMISSIBLE IDEM'FICATION

PROVIDED TO OBTAIN A REGISTRY I D E N ' C A T I O N CARD SHOULD BE EXPANDED.
The proposed rules require in R9-17-107(D(l)(d)and R9-17-308(5) that an applicant for a dispensary agent
registry identification card provide either an Arizona driver's license or identification card issued after October 1, 1996,
an Arizona regshy card, a US passport photo page, or an Arizona ID issued prior to October 1, 1996 with additional
proof of U S citizenship W e realize that the State is required to verlfy lawful presence in the U S prior to awarding
any license ox benefit However, because there is no requirement that the dispensary agents (other than principal
officers and board members) be Arizona citizens, the list of acceptable documents should he expanded to add as
permissible identification the following:
w i d ahver's Jcense or idenhfication card lrrom another state who,se qualdication requkements are as shict
ar those of the state ofAniona
vahd h v e r 5 license or identu5cation card k o m another rtate whose quah5cation iequuements are not ar
rhict as those o f the state ofhizona and one of the fbIlowU,g:
fist same documentJ ar requuedto accompanyhona kenst pnbz to 1996)
XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS.

There is an inconsistency between R9-17-107(C)(2)and (C)(3) Section (C)(2)provides an applicant 60
workvgdays to provide missing information or documents after a notice of deficiency Section (C)(3)provides that if
the information is provided withim 60 calendar dap, then substantive review starts after the documents are received It
appears that the two sections should use the same time frame, and calendar days would be the appropriate measure, as
Section R9-17-108(3)(a)contains a reference to mitten notification required from a dispensary when a
dispensary agent is no longer associated with the dispensary and says that R9-17-306(A)(5)sets out this requirement
Section RS-l7-306(A) is inspections The Rule should be R9-17-307WO.
XIX. CONCLUSION.
Arizona should set the strictest requirements fbr safety, security and fraud prevention that any state has yet
established Arizona has the opporiunity to do what no state has yet done: establish a safe, secure, efficient, and
virtually fraud-proof system for the cultivation, sale, and use of medical marijuana The State has a chance to avoid the
pitfalls that other states have encountered in enforcing their medical marijuana laws hizona should get the rules right
the Fist time so that it has an effective medical marijuana program that balances all the competing interests and assists
law enforcement to continue to enforce criminal drug laws while allowing medical marijuana patients the relief that the
Act intended to provide Having the best possible rules at the outset is crucial, as it will be more difficult to change
practices later than to establish the best practices at the beginning of the p~ogram
limited resources, to prepare a comprehensive set of proposed rules The Department's circulation of draft proposals
is extremely beneficial, as it has permitted early input and suggestions from parties interested in this process W e hope
these recommendations are helpful and will be incorporated into the remainder ofthe rulemaking process in order to
best serve the interests of all affected parties in Arizona,
Sincerely,
* i d d dnver3 5cense oride~~hfitahon
card from mother rtate whore qud~ficationreqru~mentFare not as
rBicta9 tho,se ofthe rhte o f h o n a and one of thefo//om&;
XVIII.MISCELL4NEOUS COMMENTS.
T h a e is an inconsistency between R9-17-107(C)(2)and (C)(3) Section (C)(2)provides an applicar~t60

r.vorku,g days to provide missing infor~nationor documents after a notice cif'deficiency. Section (C)(3)provides that if
the infor~nationis provided within 60 cdenda days, then substantive se5iew starts after the documents are received It
appears that the two sections should use the same h n e fifiam and calendar days would he the appropriate measuse, as
Section R9-17-108(3)(a)contains a reference to mitten notification sequired fiom a dispensary when a
dispensary agent is no longer associated with the dispensary and says that R9-17-306(.4)(5) sets ont this requirement
Section R9-17-306(A) is inspections The Rule should be R9..17-307(A)O.
XIX. CONCLUSION.
Arizona should set the strictest requirements for safety, security and fraud prevention that any state has yet
established Arizona has the opportunity to do what no state has yet done: establish a safe, secure, efficient, and
vilttially fraud,.psoof systern for the cultivation, sale, a i d use of medical marij~~araThe State has a chance to avoid the
pitfalls that other states have enconntered in enforcing their medical marijuana laws Arizona sliould get the rules right
the first time so that it has an effective medical marijuana propam that balances all the competing interests and assists
law e~lforcementto continue to enforce criminal drug laws while allowing medical marijuana patients the relief that the
Act i~ltendedto provide Having the best possible rules at the outset is crucial, as it uill be more difficult to ctlalge
practices later than to establish the best practices at the beginning of the program
limited resources, to psepare a comprehensive set of proposed rules The Department's ~ir~xlation of &aft proposals
is exhemely beneficial, as it has permitted early input and suggestions from parties interested in this process W e hope
these recommendations are helpful and will be incorporated into the remainder ofthe rulemalting process in order to
best serve the interests of all affected parties in Arizona.
Sincerely,
DLBluce Bedrick
CEO
Kind Clinics
5450 E High St
Suite 220
Phoenix,AZ 85054
@ Arizonans Concerned About Smoking
525 W. Southern Ave, Suite 109, Mesa, AZ, 85210 Ph: 480-733-5864
Fax: 480-733-1844
Oclrslro www acasinc.org
Our Purpose Is January 6,201 1

To Save Lives
FOUNDERS Mr Will Humble, Director
Herbert 8 Betty Cameo Arizona Department of Health Services
F v ~ u Brown
d 150N. 18th Avenue
OFFICERS Phoenix, AZ 85007
President
Leland Fairbanks. M D Dear Mr. Humble:
Executive Director
Philip J Carpenter As stated eariier, Arizonans Concerned About Smoking (ACAS) is very appreciative of
Vice President your respected leadership in developing the health based guidelines for implementation of
Alton Brasher AZ Proposition 203
Recording Secretary
Susan Johnson
Our organizational recommendations can be summarized as follows:
secretarymreasurer
Kim Gallagher
TRUSTEES
I ,, Honesty in labeling requires that written potential toxicity warning labels be
attached to all products dispensed at marijuana dispensaries including cancer
Alton Brasher
Dennis J. Cahill warnings when crude marijuana is smoked
Laura Carpenter
Michael Evans 2. The written warnings must include documentation, both as sound medical ad-
Gregory Fairbanks
David Gailagher vice and for medico-legal protection for the State of' Arizona in case of'adverse
Donald Morris, Ed. D toxicity drug reactions or highway accident lawsuits from patients Information
Eric Osowski, M.D.
Patricia Goss Rhodes inserts should clearly inform that FDA Federal Drug Policy does not support the
Alex Romero smoking form of marijuana for any medical purpose (see attached US-FDA
ADVISORY BOARD Statement) which is recommended as an insert with each marijuana product
Dorothy Brasher dispensed.
Paul L. Cloke, PhD.
Edward Diethrich. M D, 3 In addition to a Medical Director for each dispensary, a Pharmacist Expert on
Joe Garagiola. Sr.
Bemice Gerig Carver drug toxicity and interactions should be assigned to each dispensary
Carol Hanis. FNP
Ctiiord J. Ha&. M D, 4 For public safety reasons, organizations responsible for public transportation
Frank Kush
Sue Llnney. Ed.D and community safety currently or in the future maintaining a 100% drug free
Marcia Manhles policy requirement (241'7) daily for employees should be allowed to continue this
Robert W. Matthias. MD
Diane Mehok. RN safety based policy.
Art Moilen. D O
Patricia Monis 5 Current Arizona Voter Initiative Smoke Free Policies relative to hospitals,
Marguerite Munkachy
Delos 'Sonny" Ness, Emeritus other health care facilities, other public service facilities, workplaces, and public
Catherine Ann Nichols gathering places will continue to be smoke free from marijuana smoke pollution
David Niehen. M D the same as applies to tobacco smoke.
Albert Ortiz
Wilfred Potter, M D
Ann Robb, M D
Kent Shelton
John Spealman
Geoffrev Walker: J D
~ a i ~e i b bM, d
MEMORIAL HALL, of FAME
Leland L Fairbanks, MD, MPH
President. Arizonans Concerned About Smoking
Erma Bombeck (1927-i996) 1866 East Vinedo Lane, Tempe, AZ 85284
Dan Devine (1924-2002)
Bary Goldwater (1909.1998) Te1480: 820.3740, e-mail; acasinc@msmsn.com
Katherine Herberger (1914-1999)
John lrvine (19382008)
Karsten Solheirn (1911~2000)
Mrs LutherTeny (19132000)
December 2 1,2010
A non-profit tax exempr corporation dedicated to acclrieving robaccofree environments
Inter-Agency Advisory ~ e ~ a r d i n ~ That Smoked Marijuana i s a Medicine
Claims Page 1 of1
US. Food and D N Administration

~
~,N~rtE~entl.LIILLYtLeP~?rerr~
News & Events
NEWS RELEASE
Media Inquiries:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEilSE FDA PmS OMCe, 301-827-6242
April 2 4 2006 Consumer Inquiries:
888.INFO-FDA
-~ -- - -
Intsr.AaencvAdvborv Reawdtna -
CkinWThrt Smoked Huiluana I
s a Msdldne
Claims have been advanccd aaerting smoked marilwna has a value in treating vd!ious mediwl cond.tionr. Some have aqucd that hcmai
mnluana is a sale and eff&e medication and that i t shwld be made available l o woplc who suffer fmm a n u m h r of ailments upon a docto<r
remmmendation. even mauoh ..
. 11tr not an aDDmvcd dru~
Marijuana is Llsted in schedule Iof the Controlled Substances Act (CSAI, the m m t restn'cIive schedule. m e 0 w g Enforcement Administration
(DEA), v n i t h adminlaers the CSA, continues to support that pla&me$and FDA concurred because marijlana met the three &ria for placement
in Schedule Iunder 21 U S.C 812(b)(l] (e.g., marijuana has a high patennal for abur. has no currently acce~ledrnedial use in treafmmt in lhe
Unlted
.. ~~~ Stales. and has a
~- -
~~ lack
~ of aceeoted s f e
.-..,
~~ h~for~use
.~under
~~~rncdlel
~ ~oerulYon1.
...----. ~ ~ ~ Furthermore. thcre Is cumnUv .~~~
round
~ evidence that smoked-
marijuana is harmful A past evaluation by several O w m n e n t of Hearth and ~ u & n services (HHS) agencies. including the Foodand Drug
Adminlsauon (FDA), Substance Abusc and Mental Health Services AdmlnlsPatlon (SAMHSA) and National lnstiNte for Drug Abuse (NIOA),
crmduded that no sound xientificrtudles supported medical use of marijuana Tor treatment In the United States, and no animal or human data
supported the safety or efficacy &marijuana for general medical use,.There are alternative FDA-appmved medlcatians in existence for treatment
of many of the proposed uses of smoked marijuana.
FDA is the sate Federal aoencv that aoomves druo omdurn as n l e and efeclive far Intended indications.. The Federal Food. D m . and Cosmetic
(m&O Act requires that>ewdrugs g s h a w n to b i safe and effemve for their intended use before being marketed In thls munt?. FDA's dmg
apprnml pmcess requlres well-mbO led r(inical mls that pmv~dethe necessary saenulic dam upan which FDA makes ib a m a l and abellng
deda'ons I f a drug pmduct is to be marketed, disciplined, systematic. wicntifimlly conducted trials are lhe best means to obtatn data to ensure
chat
. - - druo
- I s sale and . ~~-~ when bscd as indlated.
-~- e(1mtive~ ~.~~~ ERom that
~ -.---~~
~..
seek m or- the FDA dm0 sD0mval D m e s r would not serve the intererts of
~~
~
Dublic health Lxcause they m b h t eroose oatienk to unsafe and Ineffective dm0 ~ m d u c t sm~ha's'notapumved smoked mariiuana for anv
~
;ondition or disease indication

A growing number of states have paned voter referenda (or legislative amons) mamng smoked marijuana available for a varieCy of medical
condltims ~ p o na dxtol's remmmendat~onThese m e m m are #ncolrs#stentwlth effom to ensure that medicallon; undergo the ngwous
wiencllic -Uny of the FDA appmval p m c e n and are pmven wfe and effecwe under the standards of me FD&C Act. Acmidtngfy, FDA, as me
frdersi aoencv res~ons~ble far revlemno the safetv and e 8 m o of drum. DEA as the fedcnl allencl darned m t h enfordna the CSA. and the Ofice
of ~ a t i o & l ~ & cbntml
g PoNw, as the iedeml co~dinatorof d;ug conGI policy, do not suppa? the use of smoked rnanju&a for medical purposes
It
ffis Feed for FDA N e m Releases' [what k P5&1
tlnks m &page:
1 http:Uwww fda govlAbouLFDNMntactFDAlStaylnformed/RSSFeedslPressReiea5e5INxmi
2 ht~p:/lwmvfda gov/A~uLFDNCantadFDn/StayInTormed/ffiSFeedsluml44575 htm
http:llwww ,fdagovlNewsEventsMews1~0m/P1es~Announ~ementSi20061~~m108643
htm 1U612010
VICTOR
J. MARC
~ ..
MARC J,.VICTOR, Esq.

--. \- '/-,~,~ -.-A '.~-
MARK E,.HALL,
Certified Criminal Law Specialist P.C.
by the h z o n a ~ o a r of
d L.egal Specialization ATTORNEY AT LAW SCOTT CAMPBELL, E s ~ . .
VICKI A. R..LOPEZ, Esq. STEVEN M. ELLSWORTH, Esq.
Ce&ed Criminal L.aw Specialist January 5,201 1 Of Counsel Cerlified Family Law Specialist
by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization by the A r i z o n e a r d of Legal Speeializatitb
x
l
- 1
.4
rri L '2
0 -2 pg?
..
Will Humble, Director --,
c; ,
:.-
C
:
-
;cI
o
:
.
'
j
s 37
Arizona Department of Health Services ;
:j
150 North lath venue, Suite 500 ,

,x 2
iiil
-11
'-0
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3247 - . iri
--
'+7
0 ;t c3.
Re: Comment on Draft Rulzs reg~di@Medi%l
P.Aarij uana
Dear Mr tlumble,
Onr law firm intends to be on the forefront of the Medical Marijuana issue as pertains to
the enforcement of laws and rules As such, we have loolted closely at the laws enacted under
voter initiative in Pruposition 203 and the December 1'7, 2010 d a f t rules published by the
Department of'FLealth Sertices,
,As p a t of our malysis, we have looked at the application of Proposition 105 passed in
Novembet, 1998, that imendec? the Arizona Constitution. Speciiic.ally, we looked at Article IV,
Part 1, § 1icij(C) ol the Arizona Constitution that reads:
Legislatare's pawerr to amend initiative or. referendum. The

Legislature shall not have the power to amend an initiative measure
approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, or to amend a
~eferendummeasure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon,
unless the 'unending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and
. . <:+f & ;>ziyi beis 2f e.;;c 3Gz5eof&* ~,,:c;s~A~x3,
..,
c,c->,cz ;;i.>,:
a[ ;ea,st PLi ..by
roll call of ayes &id nays? vote to anlend such measure
In addition, we note that the authority ofthe Department of Health Services to

make rules, such as those authorized by Proposition 203: arises from A R S 5 36...
136cF) That statute was enacted by the legislature and any rules made pursuant to
that statute would be subject to the restrictions imposed on the legislature by the
Arizona Constitntion As the leiiilature needed only a simple majority to pass that
statute, any rule created that is does not further the purpose of' Proposition 203 would
be unconstitutional
3920 S O U I H ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, S U I I E 5

PHONE: (480) 755.:7110 . .
CHANDLER, ARIZONA 85248
FAX: (480) 755-8286
www.AttorneyFo~Freedom.com
We believe Proposition 203, as passed by the voters, was intended to allow
the use of medical marijuana with only restrictions enumerated in the statutes that
were enacted by Proposition 203 Any restrictions making the cultivation,
distribution, or use of medical marijuana more onerous than those included in
Proposition 203 would violate the Arizona Constitution
We are of the opinion that any rules made by the Department of Health
Services must comply with the quoted section of the Arizona Constitution in that they
must furthe1 the purpose of Proposition 203 I that light, we comment on the Draft
Rule as follows:
1) Draft Rule R9-17-.101(15)defines "Medical Director " Draft Rule R9-17-,

302(B)(l)(g) requires a dispensary to include the name and license number of
its medical director on ~UI application for a Eisperisarj C~erii,'lc~,- ".-'
L L\uE, .,
R9-17-307(A)(3) requires a dispensary to employ or contract with a medical
ditector Draft Rule R9-17-3 10 specifies duties and restrictions of medical
directors
Neither the term "hfedical Director" nor any description of qualifications,

duties, and restrictions of medical directors appears in the laws included in
Proposition 203 We believe that requiring a dispensary to employ or contract
with a medical director conflicts with the Arizona Constitution because it
places requirements on dispensaries more onerous than those included and
does not further the putposes of Proposition 203
2) Draft Rule R9- 17-101(1 8) defines "Public Place " A R S 5 36-2802(C)(2), a

new statute created by Proposition 203, specifically does not authorize
smolting marijuana "in any public place " The term "public place" is not
defined in any of the statutes enacted by Proposition 203
ARS 5 36-2803 is a new statute enacted by Proposition 203 giving the

Department of Health Services rulemalting authority to pass rules for certain
enumerzted a ? s Thc$@:,a?&zaxe: 4 he marsex for ccslci-ic'ering,petit^^&
from the public to add debilitating medical conditions; b) establishing the
form and content of registration applications; c) the manner in which
applications for registry identification will be governed; and d) governing
dispensaries for the purpose of p~otectingagainst diversion and theft This
new statute did not give the Department of Health Se~vicesauthority to define
terms as they elate to ctiminal statutes We believe the defining of the term
"p~tblicplace" in the rules is not authorized
3) Draft Rule R9- 17-202(F)(5)(f) and (g) describe certain statements required of
physicians befote a registry identification card for a qualifying patient or
designated caregiver is issued These statements include that the physician
reviewed all prescription and non-prescription medications and supplements
used by the patient and that the physician has explained the potential risks and
benefits of using medical marijuana with the patient We object to these
requiiements for two reasons: a) requiring disclos~ueof what a physician has
or has not discussed with a patient interferes with doctorlpatient
confidentiality, and b) we know of no other treatment that requires such
written statements to the State before a patient may avail himself of the
treatment Again this requirement does not further the purpose of Proposition
203, was not passed by a three-fourths vote of the legislature, and is therefore
unconstitutional
4) Draft Rule R9-17-302(A), as well as others, requires each principal officer or

board member of a dispensary to have been an Arizona resident for two years
We repeat our stance that this provision does not further the purpose of
Proposition 203, was not pased by a three-fourths vote of ibc iegis'lriiwe, a i d
is therefore unconstitutional We further point out that, even if it was
constitutional under the cited article of the Arizona Constitution, it would
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States That analysis is lengthy and not be
appropriate fbr this comment, but we would be happy to expound upon it at
you req~lest,
5) Draft Rule R9-17.-302(B)(l)(f), as well as others, requires any principal

officer or board member to disclose, among other things, whether he is a
physician malcing qualifying patient recommendations, has not filed a tax
return in the past, is in default on a student loan, has failed to pay court-
ordered child support, or is a law enforcement officer
We reiterate our previous statements that such a provision is not

constit~~tionally
authorized
6) Draft Rule R9-1'7-302(8)(16) requires a dispensary to present, with its

application fbr a certificate, a business plan demonstrating the on-going
viabilitpof tj:e :!ispezso~y zs s nnn-peftB organization,
Beyond our previous statements that such a provision is not constitutionally

authorized, it is impractical because it requires a business to show it can
flomish before it starts Medical maijuana dispensaries will be new to
A~izona The demand for medical marijuana is unknown It is impossible
under these circumstances for any new business to demonstrate that it will be
v~ableuntil demand is known
7) Dlaft Rule R9-17-307(C) makes certain requirements on the amount of
marijuana that a dispensary must cultivate itself:,
No such provision is made in any statute enacted by Proposition 203 and, as

we have previously detailed, is not constitutionally authorized,
8) Draft Rule R9-17-315 addresses security of dispensaries Section (C)(l)(c) of

the rule requires electronic monitoring including the capability of remote
viewing Draft Rule R9- 17-306(B)requites a dispensary to ptovide the
Department of Health Services with authorized remote access to that
electronic monitoring
A R S jj 36-2306(C), a new statute enacted by Proposition 203, only requires

that a dispensary "iniplc~neiitappropriate sec~uiiytneasi:ties .to dciw and
prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entrance into areas containing
marijuana " A R S 5 36-2806(H) provides that "dispensaries are subject to
reasonable inspection by the Department"
The Draft Rule has two significant problems First, it requires remote
viewing Remote viewing will not deter or prevent theft; it just provides the
opport~mityto watch if a theft is occurring Good locks and a premium alarm
system would be appropriate to deter or prevent theft, but remote viewing
does not further the purpose of Proposition 203,,
Next, and more significant, we do not believe "reasonable inspection"

includes constant remote viewing Certainly, regular or announced
inspections are appropriate Perhaps surprise inspections based on some level
of suspicion would be appropriate Requiting constant remote video
monitoriilg goes far beyond "reasonable inspection," does not further the
purpose of Proposition 203, and probably is an unreasonable search prohibited
by the Fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article
11, 5 8 of the Arizona Constitution
We hope you take our comments as they are intended; as constructive conunentaries on
proposals that may make the rules ultimately promulgated by the Department of Health Services
comply with the laws and Constitution of Arizona We would be happy to expound on any areas
you may desire additional comment
I
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: January 4,2011
Allan Sobol
The ConsiglieriGroup, LLC (Marketing Agent)
Voice 602 504-6050
Fax 866 521'.86&
Consiglierillc@gmaiI.com
Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals

10640 N ~ 8Ave ' ~
Suite C-205-2
Phoenix. AZ 85029
AZDHS and MPP Acting in Collusion to limit access to Dispensary

Applicants.
Monopolization abuses outlined in letter t o Arizona Heath Department.
This is the formal response from the Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals, (AZADP),
to the Arizona Department of Health Services, ( AZDHS) concerning the implementation of the Arizona
Medical Marijuana Act
he AZADP is an oraanization comorised of over 4600 members AZADP members hi^ includes
-
concerned dispensary candidates, individuals who believe they are qualifying patients, Physicians and
other individuals and entities involved in the Marijuana industry,
While we want to believe M r Humble when he states that, ( EXHIBITA), "Fairness and
Transparency are the keys to effectively implementing the AZ Medical marijuana Act", the evidence
contained herein suggest otherwise
We believe that the AZDHS has been influenced by and is conspiring with other organizations,
namely the Marijuana Policy Project, (MPP) and their recently established association, the Arizona
Medics\ Marijuana Association, (AzMMA), t o cr'eate an elitist and monopolistic program where only the
wealthy influential, informed sponsors of MPP will qualify for one of the 125 licenses We believe that
the following evidence will show that the AZDHS in collusion with MPP are intentionally developing
program rules that are so complicated and costly so as t o preclude otherwise qualified applicants
merely on the basis of wealth and influence We believe it is the intention of MPP to control the
market~lace,
Accordingly, we submit the following:

Citations:
1. Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, hereinafter referred to as "TITLE 36"

2 Arizona Department of Health Services, hereinafter referred to as "AZDHS"
3 Marijuana Policy Project hereinafter referred t o as "MPP", a national political action committee
who sponsored Proposition 203 in Arizona MPP has a local chapter in Arizona,
4 Arizona Medical Marijuana Association hereinafter referred t'o as " A M M A An association
recently established by MPP
5 Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals hereinafter referred to as "AZADP", An
independent association comprised of concerned citizens
6 Arizona Voter's protection Act hereinafter referred to as "AVPC" A 1998 voter approved
initiative petition amending the Arizona Constitution, to revoke the government's power to
amend an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, unless the
amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure (AZ Cons Article 4 Section 1(6)(c),,
7 Regulatory Bill of Rights, ( A M 41-1001 01) hereinafter referred to as "TITLE 41" An Arizona
law to ensure fair and open regulation by state agencies, limiting a state agencies rule making
ability to subject matter listed in the specific statute and provides for citizens right to file a
complaint with the States Administrative Rules Oversight Committee
8 Affirmative Defense, (A R S 36-2802), hereinafter referred to as "ARS36-2802" Qualifying
Patients and Caregivers mat assert medical purpose as a defense to any prosecution of an
offense involving marijuana
9 Sherman Antitrust Act: To establish a violation of 'The Sherman Act, Monopoly Power may be
defined as the power t o fix prices to exclude competitors, or to control the market in the
relevant geographical area in question
Prefatorv Statement:
AZADP was established as a direct concern of so many individuals who are alarmed a t the
direction the AZDHS is taking in their rule making progress Prior to the election some of our members
where involved with MPP and provided us with internal documents generated in the course of MPP's
campaign operations These documents will be produced herein and used as evidence to support our
arguments
In September, 2010 MPP established an advisory committee According to the local Campaign
Manager for MPP, Andrew Meyer, this Advisory Committee was established at the request of AZDHS,,
Presumably, AZDHS was concerned that should the voters approve Prop 203, their understaffing and
budget cuts would curtain their ability to complete the rule making process in the time allowed under
the law ( 120 days). According to Meyers, AZDHS asked MPP if they could assist AZDHS by preparing
some proposed rules for consideration by AZDHS. "A blueprint to help AZDHS start the process" MPP
agreed to assist AZDHS and established the Advisory Committee, also known as the "Roundtable". MPP
invited 12-14 of its members to join the Roundtable and create proposed rules for consideration by
AZDHS Presumably most of the members on the Roundtable were either dispensary candidates or have
other business interest in the medical matijuana industry
The members of the roundtable we1.e divided into "taskforces" each given a specific
assignment (EX: Cultivation rules, testi'ng/quolity control, security, oppiicatibns, qualifications, etc)
The roundtable participants also worked together t o develop and establish the MMP Association,
"AzMMA it is no coincidence that the acronym for MPP's Association and Title 36 are the identical;
"AzMMA". MPP took ownership of'Title 36, and intended to impose its own agenda on the people of
Arizona MPP's stated agenda was to limit the competition and to assure that as many of their own
members as possible received dispensary licenses During the weeks leading up to the election, the
Round table became fractured Some of the members realized the true agenda of MPP and resigned
from the group
Let us first understand that MPP is funded and sponsored by very wealthy individuals and
organizations The following evidence will show that MPP invested over half a million dollars of its
money to secure an elitist program designed t o solely promote the interest of their sponsors The
agenda of MPP is to make the dispensary application process as difficult and expensive as possible to
preclude all applicants except the well informed wealthy members of MPP As evidenced by the
attached internal memorandum ( EXHIBIT "B"), MPP, in the process of establishing it's Association,
recommended that, "AZDHS implement dispensary applications and licensing standards that are
m u s enounh to d-rjvial applications, but that do not unduly i m ~ a i the
r abilitv of serious
applicants to operate successfuliv" It would be a serious conflict of interest to allow a Association
comprised of wealthy future dispensary owners t o determine what a "trivial application" is, but that is
exactlywhat they moved on to d o Contained within the same documents MPP makes the following
recommendationsto AZDHS;
A Would require applicants to provide proof that they have obtained dispensary and /or cultivation
facilities that meet the requirements of the ACTand local zoning
B Requiring that the applicant provide a business plan demonstrating that the licensee will be
operational within a specific time frame
C Requiring the applicant provide proof of financial competency through a BOND or other means.
D Requiring that the applicant demonstrate medical expertise by having physicians or pharmacists on
staff or engaged as consultants,
Contrary to the assertions of Mr Humble, (EXHIBITA), clearly these MPP proposals have had
significant influence on AZDHS, since all of them are incorporated into the AZDHS proposed rules
Additionally, these proposed rules, should they be adopted, will further the agenda of MPP by adding
momentous increases to the cost of obtaining a dispensary license for the following reasons:
A Section 36-2804, of Title 36, among other requirements, necessitates an applicant to provide
AZDHS with a "Physical address of both the Dispensary and Cultivation center, and a sworn
statement that the applicant is in compliance with local zoning requirements This in and of
itself creates a significant expense to an applicant, since they will have to secure a physical
location without ever knowing if they will qualify for the license However AZDHS has added a
significant additional expense to the cost of the applicant by requiring a Certificate of
Occupancy This adversely changes the intent of Title 3 6 Under proposed rule R9-17-302, 5-5
AZDHS is requiring an applicant, as part of the initial application process, to produce a Certificate
of Occueancv.This would require a applicant t o not only secure a location for hisfher dispensary
-
and Cultivation center, but build-it-out as well at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, all
a t risk, since all is done without any assurances that they will obtain a license This rule alone
will serve to eliminate all but the wealthiest of applicants.
B. At the request of MPP, (See EXHIBIT C), AZDHS's proposed rules regarding business operations
are outrageously over-regulated We recognize the need to maintain strict business operations,
but the proposed rules are simply overkill, intended to play into the hands of MPP's agenda,,
(More on this below)
C, There are no provisions in Title 36 that requires an applicant to produce a Bond According to
statements made by MPP ail applicants with less than a million dollars of cash liquidity are
considered "Trivial" and should be required to post a m n d r e d thousand dollar bond.( See
Exhibit D ). While there is no clarity or designation as to the purpose; type, amount or third
party beneficiary of said bond, AZDHS has nevertheless, under proposed rule R9-17..302,15-D,
and as part of the initial application, asks the question, "Whether the d i ~ ~ e has n ~a surety
a ~
.
bond and if so. how m w While we have sought clarification from AZDHS on this point,
none has been provided Attention must also be given to the availability of said bond Because
of the unique nature of the medical marijuana business model, obtaining such a bond might be
impossible or extremely costly Under federal law Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are
considered a criminal enterprise; consequently, most if not all insurance companies would
consider a request for a bond a very high risk 'Therefore, potential applicants may be denied a
license merely because he/she is not a millionaire
D The prompting by MMP to have a medical director on the staff of each dispensary is not
necessarily a bad idea Unfortunately, AZDHS, a t the urging of MPP has taken the Medical
Directors position to place where no Doctor will go thereby making it impossible to comply with
this rule, unless you are wealthy enough to afford a full time Doctor on your staff A medical
director retained to provide assistance in developing the medical aspects of the program for a
Dispensary is a welcomed idea; however, to have the Medical Director interact with patients or
develop any materials for use by patients could be considered interference in a patient-
physician relationship All qualified patients of a dispensary must have a recommending,
primary doctor to obtain their registration card Any log books, ratingscales, or' guidelines for
patient's self-assessment, as set forth in AZDHS proposed rule R9-17-310-2, may create a
conflict of interest for the medical Director 'This again plays into the main scheme of MPP,,
E We are deeply concerned about the AZDHS's plans concerning the selection process As you will
note AZDHS's proposed rules are silent on this matter On October 2gth2010, Director Humble
wrote on his blog, (Copy Attached EXHIBIT E), that he had three choices before him, He
asserted that method 3, ( €'valuatethe complete opplicatibn using some kind of objective
criteria), is probably the best because we'd be able to select the best qualified applicants,
Humble went on to say,"terestina twist,on method 3 would be to sendhe completed
jAnd blindfolded) a ~ o l i c a t i o n party
s ~ ~(e.~.
~ ~ a.consultina law firm) a n d t h e m to score
the auulications for us. It is perhaps more than coincidence that just prior to that Blog entry,
MPP sent AZDHS a proposal to use their new Association (AMMA) as an Application Review
Board (SEE EXHIBIT F ) This is the most outrageous conflict of interest we have ever heard of.
A group of weathly potential dispensary owners, reviewing their own applications!
We demand that AZDHS immediately disclose their selection process
We further suggest, in fairness, and in compliance with AZDHS proposed rule R9-17-319,
a, 2, g, that any member of the MPP roundtable be excluded from consideration of a dispensary
license
We would further ask that Director Humble make a full public disclosure as to whether
or not any member of AZDHS has had any contact with MPP, AMMA or any representative or
agent of said organizations,,
As most people know, MPP staff actually wrote Prop 203, now the Arizona Medical
marijuana Act. 'Title 3 6 What most were not aware of is the fact that under section 6 of Title 36,
AZDHS compliance under A R S 41-1001is waived Title 41, The Regulatory Bill of Rights, is an
Arizona law to ensure fair and open regulation by state agencies, limiting a state agencies rule
making ability to subject matter listed in the specific statute and provides for citizens right to file
a complaint with the States Administrative Rules Oversight Committee Any reasonable person
wouid have to cast a sinister eye on MPPS reasoning in exempting AZDHS from compliance with
these provisions This exemption eliminates the public's ability to object to the abusive behavior
of the AZDHS.
Point bv Point Objection to AZDHS P ~ O D ORules:

S~~
1 ~ e d i c aDirector
l Definition: Should change to include any Doctor.who is permitted under Title 36 to
recommend Medical Marijuana
2 Ongoing Definition: this is merely an attempt on the part of AZDHS to create an artificial bottle neck,
choking off a potential revenue stream for struggling new dispensary owners This is an unfair, abuse of
authority on the part of AZDHS, intending to further the agenda of MPP This rule is intended to
dissuade marginal ("Trivianl)applicants from submitting applications AZDHS should rely on the
recommendation of a Arizona licensed Physician, regardless of the relationship period, so long as the
recommending physician complies with the provisions of Title 36, or until such time as there is evidence
of fraud,
3. ARS 36-2803.4 o f the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act requires that the Arizona Department of
Health Services rule making be implemented "without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit
medical marijuana dispensaries."
4. ARS 28.1 Section 2 "Findings" of the Ar.izona Medical Marijuana Act requires the department
to take notice of the numerous studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of medical
marijuana. Arizona's pharmacies and physician offices dispense addictive, dangerous, and toxic
drugs that, unlike marijuana, are potentially deadly, yet Arizona's pharmacies and physician
offices are not required to have 12 foot walls, constant omsite transmission of video
surveillance, residency requirements for principals, or any of the other cruel, arbitrary, and
unreasonable regulations proposed by the department.
5. R 9-17-101.10 is an undue and unreasonable burden 9 f o o t high chain linkfencing, open
above, constitutes reasonable security for outdoor cultivation
6. R 9-17-101.15 is unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department. It violates the
1998 Arizona Voter Protection A c t 'The department does not have the authority to deny the
involvement of naturopathic and homeopathic physicians as defined by ARS 36-2806.12.
7. R 9'-17-101.16, R 9-17.101.1'7, R9-17-202.F.S(e)i-ii ,R9-1'7,-202.F.5(h), R9-17-202.6.13(e)l,
~9-17-202.~.13(e)iii,R9-17-204.A.4(e)i-ii, R9,-17-204.Aa4(h),R9-17-204.8, R9-1'7-204.6.4(f)l,
and R9-17-204.5.4[f)lii are cruel, arbitrary, unreasonabie, and usurp authority denied t o the
department. 'Those sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection A c t ARS 36-2801.
18(b) defines an assessment, singular, as sufficient The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does
not give the department authority and the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act deniesthe
department authority t o require multiple assessments, require "ongoing" care, or redefine the
patient-physician in any way, much less t o promulgate a relationship among patient, physician,
and specialist that is found nowhere in the practice o f medicine. Nowhere in medicine is a
specialist required to assume primary responsibility for a patient's care. Nowhere else in the
practice of medicine does Arizona require a one-year r.elationship or multiple visits for the
outcomes Marijuana is not lethal, but the department usurps authority to treat it with cruel
and unreasonable stringency far beyond the stringency imposed upon drugs that are deadly,,
Plainly, it is dangerous and arbitrary for the department to suggest that a cannabis specialist
assume primary care of cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS, multiple sclerosis, Hepatitis C, and other
potentially terminal qualifying conditions when the cannabis specialist may not have the
requisite training or experience to do s o The department's regulations are a cruel,
unreasonable, and arbitrary usurpation of authority and denial of patients' rights of choice,
including their rights t o choose other medical providers, other sources of care or information,
or even to choose not (or cannot afford) to seek other medical care a t all (whether prior or
subsequent t o application)
8. R9-17-102.3, R9-17-102.4, R9-17-102.7, R9-17-102.8, R9-17-104.5, R9-17-105.4, R9-17-
203.A.3, R9-17-203.8.8, R9-17..203.C.5, R9-17-304.A.11 usurp authority denied to the
department. ARS 36-2803.5 only gives authority to the department for application and renewal
fees, not for changes of location or amending or replacing cards
9. R9-17-103, R9-17-202.F.l(h), R9-17-202.G.l(i), and R9-17-204.B.l(m) are cruel, arbitrary,
and unreasonable Though many qualifying patients, qualifying patients' parents, and their
caregivers suffer financial and medical hardship, the sections make little or no provision for
patients, parents, and caregivers without internet skills or internet access.
10. R9-1'7-106.A(2) is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation does not allow for
addition of medical conditions that cause suffering, but do not impair the ability of suffering
patients to accomplish their activities of daily living For example, conditions such as Post-
'Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety, Depression, and other conditions may cause
considerable suffering, yet still allow patients to accomplish their activities of daily living.
11.R9-1'7-106.C is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The regulation only allows suffering
patients of Arizona to submit requests for the addition of medical conditions to the list of
qualifying medical conditions during two months of every year
12. R9-17-202.8 is cruel, arbitrary, and unreasonable Qualifying patients may need more than
one caregiver t o ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine.
13. R9-17-202.F.S(e)i-ii , R9-17-202.F.S(h) cruel, arbitrary, unreasonable, and usurps patients'
rights to choose other providers or sources of information
14* R9-17-202.F.6(k)ii, R9-17-204.A.5(k)ii, R9-17-204.C.l(j)ii, R9-17-302.B.3(c)ii, R9-17-
308.7(b), R9-17-308.7(b), and R9-17-309.5(b), are arbitrary and unreasonable If a caregiver
already has a valid caregiver or dispensary agent registry card, no additional fingerprints need
to be submitted,,
15. R9-17-205.C.2 and R9-17,-320.A.3 are arbitrary and unreasonable. A registry card should not
be revoked for trivial or' unknowing errors. Revocation of a card should not be allowed unless
the applicant knowingly provided substantive misinformation..
16. R9-17-302.A, R9-17-302..B.l(f)ii, R9-17-302.B.l(g), R9.,17-302.8.3(b), R9-17-302.8.3(d)i-ix,
R9-17-302.8.4(c), R9-17-302.8.4(d), R9-1'7-302.8.15(a), R9-17-302.8.15(b), R9-17-302.8.15(d),
R9-17-306.8, R9-17-307.A.l(e), R9-17-307.A..3, R9-17-307.C, R9-17-308.3, R9-17.319.A.Z.(a),
R9,-17-319.8 are arbitrary, unreasonable and usurp authority denied t o the department These
sections violate the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act, The department does not have the
authority to establish residency requirements, control the occupation of the principal officers or
board members, require surety bonds, require a medical director, require security measures
that are an undue burden (security measures for "on-toxic marijuana that exceed security
measures required for toxic potentially lethal medications stored at and dispensed from
Arizona pharmacies and physician offices), require educational materials beyond what the law
requires, require an on-site pharmacist, require constant, intrusive, or warrantless surveillance,
or regulate the portion of medicine cultivated, legally acquired by a dispensary, or transferred
t o another dispensary or caregivers.
17. R9-17-310 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied t o the department These
sections violate the 1998 ~ r i z o n aVoter Protection Act. The department has no authority t o
require a medical director, much less t o define or restrict a physician's professional practice,,
18. R9.17-313.8.3 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied t o the department.
'This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection Act The department has no authority t o
place an undue burden on recordkeeping for cultivation or td require the use of soil, rather
than hydroponics or aeroponics, in cultivation of medicine,
19. R9-1'7-313.B.6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied t o the department,,
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection A c t The department has no authority t o
place an undue burden on recordkeeping by requiring the recording o f weight of each cookie,
beverage, or other bite or swallow o f infused food
20. X9-17-314.8.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department,,
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection A c t Especially in the absence of peer-
reviewed evidence, the department has no authority t o require a statement that a product may
represent a health risk,,
21. R9-1'7-315 is arbitraw, unreasonable and usurps authority denied t o the department This
section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection A c t The department has no authority t o
place an unreasonable or undue burden by requiring security practices t o monitor a safe
product, medical marijuana, that is n o t required for toxic, even lethal, products,,
22. R9-17..317.A.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and usurps authority denied to the department,
This section violates the 1998 Arizona Voter Protection A c t The department has no authority to
require the daily removal o f non-toxic refuse,.
-
ADDITIONAL RECOMMEDATIONS:
23. SURETY BOND: Clarify the purpose, the type, the amount and the third party beneficiary, of the
surety bond, or eliminate its reference from the rules
24. NON-PROFIT ENTIN: Clarify the need to establish a non-profit entity Title 36 only requires an
applicant to operate the dispensary under a non-profit "basis" Can an applicant establish a LLC or other
entity so long as hislher bylaws comply with Title 36?
25. 70% COOPERATIVE GROW: Clarify if a group of dispensaries can form a cooperative to grow thei~
medical marijuana under one roof, so long as the facility is in compliance with Title 36 and the AZDHS
rules
26. SEEDS: Please clarify where a dispensary owner can purchase his initial seeds
27. LANDLORD RIGHTS: Please clarify landlord rights with respect to entry and inspection of a
dispensary/ cultivation facility (Assumingthe landlord is not a registered agent of the Dispensary)
Additionally, please clarify access by a repair service to enter upon the restricted areas of a
dispensary/cultivation to make necessary repairs,
28. TWO STAGE APPLICATION PROCESS: R9-17-302 Applying for Dispensary Registration Certification;
we believe the proposed rules regarding the application process are inherently unfair and favor the
wealthy The average person who may otherwise qualify would be reluctant to invest hundreds of
thousands of dollars in a dispensary application without knowing if they will get a license in order to
equalize the application process we believe AZDHS should adopt a two stage application process as
follows:
1 Review the principals and legal entity first Perform whatever background checks AZDHS
desires, including FBI and all the other requirements as set forth in the proposed rules
relevant to the principals and legal entities,
2 issue a conditional License to the 125 most qualified individuals subject to approval of the
facilities. ( dispensary and cultivation sites)
3 The conditional license would require that the applicant to complete the build-out and/or
construction of the facilities within 90-120 days
4 Thereafter, the conditionally approved applicant would submit the second half of his
application ( Facilities) for inspection and approval
5 The second half of the application must meet ali the requirements of the proposed rules
relevant to the facilities,,
6 Provided the applicant meets all the facility requirements heishe would then be issued a
Dispensary Registration Certificate
7 This system allows for fairness across all demographic and financial groups
It would not preclude individuals simply because they are not millionaires, and would allow
those that are chosen to obtain the financing they need to complete the project,,
Fairness and transparency requires AZDHS to adopt this application process or similar one,
IN CONCLUSION:
'Taken in totality, it appears that AZDHS is working in collusion with MMP t o make this
application process as difficult as possible, beyond what is fair and reasonable What was alleged to be
"fair and transparent", has now become biased and opaque, demanding a comprehensive review and
explanation
The sole agenda of AZADPs is to assure the success of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act To
bring the dispensaries out of the dark corner of society into the main stream of America We understand
that to accomplish thatwe need to change the image, we need to exceed the highest standards, and we
need to conduct ourselves and our businesses with the utmost professionalism, always in full
compliance with the law,,
While you allege that "nobody outside the department is involved in the development of your
informal draft rules", it appears that is not correct. The fact remains you may not know if MPP is
communicating with your underlings The answer to your problem is to embrace ALL, these
organizations rather than create the illusion that you are NOS' being influenced by some. You may want
to establish a round table of your own, invite all the organizations, associations and industry leaders in
Arizona including MPP, to offer and exchange ideas That way nobody feels left out, and you perhaps
may even learn a few things
We would welcome the opportunity to assist you in organizing a round table of industry,
leaders In the alternative we hope you will make a full disclosure of your involvement with MPP
Sincerely,
Allan Sobol
President/ AZADP
602 504-6050
EXHIBITS, Attached below

Fairness and Transparency are the Keys lo Effectively Implementing the AZ Medical Ma1 Page 1 of 4
AZ Dept of Health Services Director's Blog
Fairness and Transparency are the Keys to Effectively

Implementing the AZ Medical ~ a. r i.j u a n aAct
/ I , : ..,: , , .,,,,L,, 8, I, ,, s 8 ,.I,,>
~ l l ! ~ ~ , l < #~W !l ~,2t,-:,~ t , ~ l I$ t I; : ~ # i1,n,

?,~ :a ,,r>rl ,,e 1 :;;<,,,: ,\. ,,1<t:>g .,&it!, ,I,c <,>!~,<,;,,i,i,! it: ,"
;,t;,ILe $$5,? y,,,, k ~ , \.$ ~,,a,-,
i?18 i l i , c ! ~ i o i i x c 11 i a l u,:~rl?ii>i i l i I S i&iilii r u i l Ill iaili 8 i t 5 ui:al>b:ii. ilrh.1 oi:iii~i,~ili ! i ~ ; s iih,lioyiiuul oci in;i.lrii~~,ai;~ii
:>,#s!v.: I i h 3\1>i1:< t,<:tiis tG> I!>>!! 088, ,:,,:<!,,, ;s L,>,,,f,l,,rI> snir <q>b:,, !,,><,WS, t,,,'l !,~:z;t,8i,<,,,t t':,,, ,,! z ':,~,t,!~sl,i!,,~
!I?,: i:ill:$i illml ~i.i;,lii.l ililli i)ii ltiis 1!1 li i s . I : I C ~ l i . i r ~ i t l l ' t :I11I e$.:i!ii:)li! liiis crl!l!I ia~i:i.>?; i e ) i t l l c , l ~ , l : \ l i i!,i % u i
: i i : : I t ,, : x I , I , : I: i i I,, , 1;s
l>l#, ,,>I: $>,i<,,it::Is ;>,;I lk,,,t,>, t,!, <,*

:\,iz,,,,;, ~i~:<lic:,l51c,ij,,:,r,t, t:,,;
IIIIIP'NS ,AW ~ U L A O Sg ~ ~ i / ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ / ? l ~ l i l ! ~ : ei ~ : i ~i xi i /~l l i>il ~
l /: iil l>il O
~i i lr /l i ~l oic,i
~ ~ i i~h ~
i iO~ni:i(i
~ i ~ : ~!lsciri:h'
~~~ i is L W : !:iiil
I
8ihv CPW ,,~oLP%;<~%>.e 118: !I,>% lk?j>~ I1~,~~81;4?i0n:i

v ! t ~ t (kt; :?!o!:~;:I?I :I:<? Iai) t!#kJ fit$ri:,:>zt~e)n hlo,,,:t,t,, # ! ,,>:,,, >,,
c.:>><,,,< tl,:,l\$.: ,;:,$c ,I< ,,>,><,$,,,,3i,> !U l,<,,?Ji, ~~<>,T,*,,,>I,?,,<I> $ ~,I<.,.,S
1, s :>I:. ,*!,&IC>C~<>O lh,,t, tl,,, t:,r:!# 3 , ' t i,,<ii~i<l,,t,:s i>, tIN C,,$,,n?l~:~i,! (!!;<I : # I ? sL,j%:csti!,s tl%", ti20 s,,,ttI,r,., i,<,,t ,,,:;,, .
:t:i.~b:>:m> m i i w ~ ;~:IIW znc.c 11 O\I> I>,<,, *!ss,.s *,,,<i <I,~ , i b i ~ ~ > - ~ t % \ ~s,,,~:~,
: i ~ > g :t t t t ,243 S L I I ! S ~ ~ S ~ I>I,,X~
~ ~ ~ tt,, ! ;II~c:l I!
. --
k i r i i r l i r i v ~ ~ r i ~(3:! : f l ~ i iki t ! Iiigc ,IIO cii, i t 6 , i i l ' l h i s ISilnt the eosa. Tcjlr~dya?itsi<lr?rlv:. drr,l>;iiiihi i iii~io,ii.t1
I * i l i r tie\. int:i>~i:n!<>I
--
-~~~n$~,Icw 1h:w :w:y i ~ ~ i l ~,o)!~ ~
ULI! :illlmti>:i>l
-
tl!ilil ii#ldri1111$ull1,:i izosl(.d /~11.i)~1ill/c
; #<lk~ci%icu~
t~!tr w ~ ~n~:~l.:i~~:. nor dot,s n r l s l ~ ~lhthse
i~i8l)tixerit OI.D~~C?IIII)I,I.I~.
~tlm ~ ~~ it~si,kq
y
,-
li!iil~:,ti~a,?! .ti
rrn,.!: I W licwys,- , ~ :,I!?;, f iii:!d
i>?.,'i,.,~I.
1 t , , : i ! i 0 ,S i I I s is I ::,,,,,,,I t i , . I i t I ! I , ,,n:
< . l ~ m i r iopiii iil~it.!i is ih!.: I'II? ~ l i i i , : : i t l oii 8;lI. I; !, ;,nl irr a > i l e: c<iilir,iotili ulieii?illlj ldiin~, i i r i i iiiiii;,; CII:J< )!,
L i i ! slii, I i i u * 11 i o % n t lrlrcli~ihhit!i!~put10 i ( t # ! . h ~ l i ! 1 1 1111~1: i j t ) ~ t ?i~iliilul) O : J! ,.b$-l,sirr:
l l a l ~ ~ : / i a z ~ I l i s ~ u i / p ~ r r ~ , YW~ zl aiiic!k
/ l 1.r , s n l :.o i i c c i i ~ i g iiiorir eoiil nil ?or A r i 2 i l f ~ i l x ~ r i i s i i i 0 cL,I~CJ
i i ~ 9 , ~ :iiii+lt I:<
/i,l?b. 0
' iliiiil iltili.:sil &lniijani~:iii,fa~,nihlio~il l ~ l t ~ ~ / ! ~ l i ~ i c r r , s Iiiialsli

~ l o i ! iirilh:: 8or/hs=lt,aiijiinoai
1, : :. .: : ,*,. I,,!,,,:
,,:I:#,#,: cl,,,t,.,,~,,,,,:,;,,
15 comments ,,,:> ,, ,,,,,,.,,,
http:i!directoisblog health azdhs govl?p=913

. .. .
Here alc some of my initial thoughts regarding inteifacing with thc DHS on the
dispensary licensingiapplication process:
.- - ?srociation u:mrs to encourdce rke DHS t0Memr.r.t disosnsrry

Our ~ndur~rv -
-.~pplicstionand licensing srandxds thst arc ricordcs c:loug:l !o Jetcr@i;ll aoplican~3.- -
..- -
b~rtklti'o
-. --unculy impair thc&rfi\.of
no1 s;.riouj spplicmts to operate iuscesst~ily.
.As 3 govc:m:lcnr a?cni), [he DiJS cannor implcmrr~t?pp!icarion/iicensing reqii~:mc~!tj

1:121 cin bc conjrr~cda j dis:rin.icaror) On the other band, rhc DkIS is cbrgcd !\,irii
?rotccring th;. public interest, and can a a on rwsmmcnd~tions1331derorst~dbly
promote rhc public good Some ofthc conjidcrations :hat were i2cntificd ot r!ie m c c t i n ~.-
as oojsibl\ wananting DHS ~ n u i 2 ; :he n applicaikliccnsiny process ;r.cluJ-l: ...
-. Reqiting that :he applicst pro\.ih p:oof!har they h a x obhinei dispensary

-- ana/orculti\aliun facilities tllar m e ~ the
! r?quircnlents ol'thc ! \ ~ l a n d - . - -
,,* regul~tiot~s.,
-
Requiring that the applicant provide proof:of financiil competency tluougha
-
hond or other means.
. ~
.
-- I<equiringtilanhe applicnr demuns~~ctc
ph)-
.- - ricians
--or-?harmscists
- an--
sati'or
medical expertise by havinz
. cngagcd ~vonsullants-, --
.-
Requiring rhar the appli;dnr ei~ablishtraining process:s tbr all ema:t~?.e?s,

?3r:ntiilly incluJing thitd patry cc11ificn:idn like liquor lic:nscer
Other possible DIIS application/licensing requirements not 111entionedat the meeiing,

but inherent in the Act include facility f l o o ~plans; specifi@on of facilitysecurity
provisions, inventory Storage and transport+ion pro<isions, accessibility, signage,
street visibility, co~nplianccwith dispensing limits faci{ity,accesSprocedures, ilonprofit
wlicles of incorporation, corpoiate. bylaws; disclosure hnd background checks foi
directors, officers and agents, patient vnification procedures, record keepini
procedures and proactive anti..dilersion policies
My background is in aviation, which is a highly regulated industry thatmay p~ovide

regulatory processes that may be adaptable to the lnedical marijuana indusiry One
impo~tantclement to air safety is procetlufes to verify lhat only certified p a l s
(including trace..ahility 'back to birth') are initailed on ai~crafi.Similar procedures
requiiing cultivators to identify and document production 'lots', iqd for distributois to
implement record keeping that haces ail marijuana sold backto certiiied production
lots, could be a way to reduce illegal diversion of medical marijuana
Perhaps even more applicable is the requirement by the FAA that all aircr;ift
mnlntenance facilities operate in accordance with an FAA-approved internal
procedures manual (IPM) An IPM specities procedures for virtually every activity
undertaken by a repair station, is updated regularly, and is avaclable and farniliat to
every certified aircraft technician
The FAA docs clot specify the exact form in which any g i v p IPM l u s t be written to
be approved Instcad, the FAA establishes topics that must be addressed and some
criteria that must be met regarding certain of Lhose topics Similarly.,the DHS might
welcome assistance in developing criteria for &I IFM-type document that must be
submitted to the DIIS to demonstrite sufficient o ~ ' e ~ t i o n ~ l ~ ~ a nandn i com+tencv
n.g
1, pact ~f the a n x d pcuc~ssti11 tncdicnl ~rc~rijuvla disp;nu:ii.s and'or cultiva;io.l
fa:tlitics Tor only ~ o u l dthis applicarion'licznsiti2 12quilen:ent w i r . n ~ aout m a ! si
rlle less scriuus or cornretent &.~. ~ l i v mitt s~votlld
. have !he uddcd berlciir 3ctualls
esoblishing pnlccsses ~ n p~occdutcj
d rhar \bould ensure tkt dispensaries 3rd
:ultivation i3cilitir.s operate in 32 cfficie~~r nrld rcjponsib:e m3~1c1
Appendix C
Dispensary lntemal Procedures Manual Resuirements
Notice: Each certified Dispensary shall be required to. maintain on .i& premises at $1
times a Dispensary internal procedures manual (DIPM) approved: by the niizoila
Department of Health Services (DFIS) All revisions to theD1EM must be approved i i ~
witing by thc DHS, and each DIPM must contain a form ihat logs any icvisions to'thc
DIPM to ensure that the DIPM on file at the DHS ilndoi~siteatthe Dispensary is the
most current revision All Diiectors, Officers and Agents of'the Dispensary are required
to be familiar with, and have access t6, the most currerl,t revisionof the DIPM. Failure to
mect any of these requirements can bc grounds o r revocttion . .
of the Dispensary
certification registration
Each DlPM submined to the DHS for appioval must provide prdcedure~,szitisfactbry to
the DHS at its sole discretion, governing theactivities of the Dispensary. each DIPM
must also include info~matinoregarding processes and facilities necessary to f u i l l the
operational requirements of the Dispensary. The procedures, processes and facility
requirement!; that must be addressed in the DIPM include:
A) A floor plan of' the Dispensary showing all windows, accesses, ,coU~te;s,display
cases, seating, restrooms, storage areas, off~cearc&, waitink at'eas, shippihg and
' ,
teceiving areas, employee areas, and, ifapplicable, marijuana grow and processing areas
B) A detailed description of all security devises utilized to prcvent thc diversion of

marijuana and protect customerx and corporate persomcl
C) A description of the corporation's sccurity policies, safety and security procedioes,

pe~sonalsafety and crime prevention techniqucs
P) A list of all equipment u e d to weigh, measue and dispense marijuana
F) Procedures and forms to regulatly cal~brateand record the calib~ationot all equipment
used to d ~ ~ p e nmarijuana
se
G) Procedures and forms to record all 1)IPM revisions
H) A list of all duties and responsibilities andlor employment contracts denoting the same
for all Directors. Officers and Agents of the corporation
I) An on.sile curriculum, 01 a copy of a contract or proposed contract wllh outside

resources capable of mecting employee training nceds, which training must include
tialnlng in piofessional conduct, ethics, patient conkidentiality, how to respond to an
emergency, including robbery or a violcnt accident, and the performance of the duties
and responsibilities of tlre employee as specified in thc DIPM
J) liaining documentation maintained for each employec including the forms and
proccdures to ~ecordall earning of corporate employees, verified by signatures of both
the eniploycc and a corpotatc officer or director, with such documentation to bc kept on
file for at least 6 montl~sfollowing termination of each individual employee
K) Forms nnd procedures fat listing all regularly used subc,~nt~~?~tors

and service
providers and, when appropriate, forms and proceduies to perfaim and record quality
assurance audits of all such subcontracto~sand service providgts,'
L) A description of the corporation's disfributiun criteria for qnnlified patlents and

approved categivers
M) A description of how the corporation will safely. dispense medicul marijuana to

qualified patients or qualified patient's primay caresivers
N) A description of the corpolation's record keepiilg policies, procedti~esand forms
0 ) A desctiption of the corporation's policy on the right of thc entity to refuse ser5ice
P) A description of the packaging for the medical marijuana lhat the corporation will
distribute, including the name of the strain, batch and quantity The label must display a
statement that the marijuana iu for medical use only and not for resale
Q) A description of how the corpotation will keep stat? and patients updiited oil
informational developments in the field of medical marijuana
R) A personilel record for each employee that includes an application for employment,
training records and a record of any disciplinary action taken
S) A Forms Control Page that identifies all corporate forms by from numbet, name.
revision number and date last updated
1)Self-Audit program ISto assure that all procedures are appropriately implemented, and
to provide the necessary fcedback for continuous improveitlent in the operation
Appendix D
Cultivation Fac~litvInternal Procedures Manual Reauirements
Notice: Each certified Dispensary cultivation facility shall be required !omaintaiii on its
premises at all times a cultivation facility internal procedures manual (CFIPM) approved
by the Arizona Department of Health Services (DIIS). All revisions to tlie CFIPM must
be approved in writing by the DHS, and each CFIPM must contain a form that logs any
revisions to the CF'IPM to ensure that tho CFIPM on file at the DI1S ,and on'site at the
Dispensary is the most current revision All Directors, Officers ' g d Agents of the
Dispensary that have access to, or interact with, tlie cultivation faciliiy &e required to be
familiar with, and have access to, the most current revision of the CFIPM F'ailureto meet
any of these requirements car1 be grounds for revocation of the Dispensary certification
registration
Each CFIPM submitted to the DHS fbr approval must provide procedures, satisfactory to
the DHS at its sole discretion, governing the, activities af the cultivation ficility. Each
CFlPM must also include information regarding processes and Iacilitios necessary to
fulfill the oDcrational requirements ofthe cultivation ficility. The ptbcedures, processes
aid facility requirements that must beaddressed in the CFlPM intludc:
A) A floor plan of the cultivation fucrlity showing all windows, accesses, counters, racks,
lighting schematic, air conditioning/filtralion provisions, restrooms, storage areas, office
areas, processing areas, shipping and receiving areas, and employee areas
R) A detailed description 01 all security dev~sesutilized ta prevcnt the diveision ot

matijuana and protect corporate personnel
C) A descr~ptionof the cultivation facility's security pdlicies, safety and security

procedures, personal safety w d crlnie prevention techniques
D) A list of all equipnicnt used to weigh, measure and package marijuana
E) Procedures and forms to regularly calibrate and record the calibration of all equipment
used to weigh and measure marijuana
F) Procedures and forms to record all CFIPM revisions

G) Forms and procedu~csfor listing all regularly used subcontraotars and servlce
providers and, when approptiate, forms and procedures to perform and record quallty
assurance audits of all such subcontractors and service providers
P) A description of the tracking procedures including segregation and identification by

batch and strain, fmished product weight by batch and strain, and die location of all
marijuana through delivery to tlie Dispensary
Q) A desciipt~onmarijuana storage faciiilies and procedures
R) A description the cultivation facil~ty'senvironmental policies and prvced~ues

inclnding, but not limited to, disposal procedures for all marijuana byproducts and all
rnaiijuana cultivation process byproducts
Mark Slegei <drmslegeli @holmallmm>
RE, Gleeflnris
octobii20, ioi09:18:5i AM MST
"iandy@weaibrldgecam" ~randyewealbiidgecorn?
Not that I know of pulled thts out ofmy ara this AM Yope*atthjs is a goad sbrt Didnt send to other guys
From: randy@weaibridQe.r:om
To: d i m s i e g e l l ~ h o m a i l a ~ m
vak: Wed, 20 OciZOlO 07:55:10-0700
Subject Re: Greetings
~iMa*,
i h i s i~ a great ria* A couple of inRia1question5 before 1 divein too far
I isthisthe first ieal workthat ha5 been done on this or 15 theiebth~rurork&dud form the gmupout therefloaiiny around?
2. DO ycju Loow if anyone hassourced the applicaiiins from any of the differink states b i d e r New Mexico; w n i d i l wQJwas
passed around iast aight?
3 DO rue have a set of comparative appllratlan from say, liquor, pharmacy, etc ?
Thanks,
Randy
01,Oct 20, 2010, at 7 3 7 AM, MahSlwel wrote:
toadmarnmg Rand,
APPUCAiION FOR MtDlCAL MAWUANA
hlame of applicant
P.ddress
Orcupanon Years In current occupahan
:I references Names Address Phone Years known
Must record fingetpilntinQ whh state .+=( 66,~

JJ ,-:!,. ~
:~ , ~ c-, e j :c G?-R:.
luo pali, felonies~&~;~"2hi..:C , J ,441 yp/?,;1.3,C
rW bankwirptsp;b;ior5 yeam G:.i & ,/,:.;*.,>

C l e i record with bcttei business bureau
5000 dollar nonefundable application fee

Name of afililated gmrvlnQk l l Q \,
1.0mfionol dispensary aod letter of appmval fmm mu~~lclpality
-
--- --
.
2W thourand dollar
,
-,
!summary of prior businers and
.fi:i;.u swear me information above is correct to the best of my knowledge Signature
Hello Gentlemen,
!'lease forwavz this to anyone eimthat needst? be Included in this conv~nabonpriorto our ioe;ing Q 4:30 an
murrjay I look foward to seeing everyone's lnlti4 ideas.
..hank and Regards,
Randy Smlth
BLANK
Selecting Marijuana Dispensaries !) AZ Dept of Health Services Directo~~s
BIog Page 1 (9' 5
AZ Dept of Health Services Director's Blog
Selecting Marijuana Dispensaries

i l l l l . : I, i : , ._,
!ii,,,>,, ,$;,i:,#,
2 0 ; ">,>;!<< s ltl,, $i,k,>>,~ hle<lic$,l &h,,i!i,t,,,2,
[ l : / / s oI i 1 / : l l . ; l l : t / l - 1 I l lI !r e ! o h 1 % i s I . . m i
it, :;,.,i l l ' $"I,,,. ,,,,
liiiilj ,if ~ < I t l i i V , " ' . , SI il'i app,*i1,,g ninlii,,;,,,:, ,lis,r:*rlsiii! ap,,iici,iiu!,. !?iU $:&#I63
trt.?: :I,,?
I i ( oaa,~~i,liirt,.es:i;ir:; niti hi ii(niir:l to io'.z :,I L!X ~nmihci~fj,hi:ililiici.;s i n c i i i al;i~r': ,'\' o! !izi;iir,rv tl>;,i
,,v~,L,!'I c:, I!,, ,,L,,?,>,# 1 ,,;,,is,,<,,,,!*,,, ii,.?!::;r:s ;,t :,,<>,t,,<j 121, r\ib,i,:,,~~:; ir, ,,ti,?, :!!:,les s\,,!q<,s, r1,:1 ,\c L,,,, ex,> v t ,,
, i I ,
, I 1 I: : I : ~:ie*vii!s!li;n dr 4 ju iihitir :#lai~ii iii,o~i! liab, i i c ' r l s r i i c i :he r s < r (;:iii#l
,,,,l,~;,:a~,k :,,>!,,I,II (,r ,I,C i,,ii<~ ,,il0 +<,,:I ;,,,,,ti,iti<,,,~
1Ib t P :I!,, olmt>l! :>~ i t t n ? l >4,r~ #,<,:>! s cc <I,>

it 1h1t :j < , > n L~ U !n~in,lnisi,: my?? !Ye ,:+><#Id f t x r.>xtw~uI,:
I 1 sv icmtnr
I:;,,<I<,l
fig st-,:,,,>,^ f i , ~::,:,>td
~ I~~oc~::!;
:,IICI !;~I~,ISI~ ~,I,!>Bo,< r!,::, 12<JC~I~I,IC:IG" rlit;~*it,::;n!
;#,t,2Ilt:,,i:>,,s:
; I,I;,L+~ ~ h ;t , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ t,i r~, ~ig,~ sa lporl no Ih:s>?, on^,:: 1ki:xi t ~ c,r>~,lon)
;,~>~ili\ f c l i w i ~ ~ s8 ~$tttic~#lz>c !I:ILS?' < ) >
!,
,: I:,~I,:;,L,, ,I>C ,,,,,,,:I, ,,:,JI~.z,,~!,,,s ,,sit,s 2 , : ~~<i,,,iC,~<>I,~~LI~, C I ~ : ~ ii ,!
, (:<,,CI>,.,s :I,,.: II,C,~~SS),~~INI <,u:,I~L> r 8 :I,,.,,
~
',>,::i,~ts:. t ~ , dI :,<<.tbtit! I,I;,II , i,::!,,,,~ r ~ + ~ l i ~ l n t ; i~c ~~ ~v ~ n: ~ nr y~! ; it c t ~ j t,lt:j sur,,! 3rltt:i i11t 1hk:st ;u;plica~ia,~x<1,m:
. . w s,
,I,, ? f < , ~ b :<,,:,r1>,,;,:,1
\!.!IIL,,~ ; : i s, ~ 8 ~ ~ ~!I>\ . l 5~t l ),: L,.7t;ss, ,v$. 8 1 ! b e ~1,It iC8st!le<.t rlw hc!.s; or the ~ , ; ~ i ~ l i ~ j c , l , ~ o t ~ kIbktt
~ v I*, i ? n it
~ ~$!$,!sl
s I ~ i s c1-v~ P,#>
. .
8,.,c,~8,ktl>,,) th)wn~ihc.tl?~;: m'.tl>,~tl; I ,,\
2 hit t!>n~I3 ,,vcmId k~lsolbe ?nwz c l ~ b ~ l l ~ ~ i~> r #,+.)III!+
g i ~ ~ gu! tr8sai)ir~g, u s > ~ ~ w : t # ! t !>:
--
i i ; , >\#> ~ i $ t ru,c:tlie>~i :I ,,\n$#I:lI h c c S,,IXI
law:x,~s~~r?g (11t. t<w,plete~t~ C O > I ~l ~ l i n ~ i ~ ~?~rtDli:::>ti,ois
l ~ l t ? ~ l ~t o ~8 3' I ~c!&l!:I $7. m
- -
,~n,,rulli,i~! lea rii.113 0,ill ;,>;b ,I,,?," ,n.-<oi... hi,? ;,i,niic.,,iiini tnr ,us. -- ---. . .
1 5 , ~'<I>,IS,, 4 1,) ?II;,~I:>>hcm~
l h L,,tli:,~~,iin,t~ti><
~ *nu3 k : ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ : t p '1 l ~ i c ~ ~ SP<,!CW;
ll~ t l ~ iri 3 -h crmuc~ni;: *;:lifI! , !
,<, L,, I: 8r-5 I :ll!<,,t:,,!;:,,> I:",,,., ,
,,,,, ,,,i&:f,I >,IS,, , ~, 1?8,<1, 8 :,il,>ci,li:,&l ,><,\e,,ti;,l li<:<',,:%<.! ?I<,<>vc~'' ",In ,,Pi C&!!>~,Z' I > > ~ % I '1'::
.C,OJL :hL,<,ss ~ I W:a , N , l , : \ n i ~ ! ,,,t, 11 k:xns w:,:~ ~,t:c.l,: L~~I,C:$I,P, , A * ,):,ttl !L, (lt:.~! \vi!l-. an!, o i ! I v t l ~ ; a x s ? b t W + I C , M
: ! ' I t 1 ; i :1 ,,
?,,,, ,,,.,,,,,,:$,>,!,,,,,,,,,>,,',,>,:,,,\h,,,v>
\ \>,,:,,,,,v,yl,,,,,,,,,,8::? n,*ml,c,#,l~,,,,
18 comments
AZ Medical Marijuana Dispensary Application Review Board Proposal
'!.'e 5 l l y ape:{ ~har:to kc a high nunS;.~o! initial Visp:nsay 3?plic3:ionj to h e

.\VlIS. l r i; .:ie :ecommcndirisn oi;'le h i z o n a hledical Llariiuana ,\srocj+t&. -.
.-- '.AL'\lh.l,A)tha! we oYer our ;enices to 11:e .42 DHS in !he rbrm o i a 1)ispcns;:ry -
.- ~pplica:ion-Aeview
? i t h ~Dispen~ary
.
--
--- B o ~ -r. d .It will be t k responjibiliry oilhis rcvi:w hoiru td rcview nll
app:ica~ionssubmit:ed 10 th: ,\DLIS acd ro inak; rcques!s of ippli;an:i
.-
ci-==n-K
fi.~-cOmZ-
.- - . -- .--. - - -
1 l i i : alrhc ro? !24 u?plicdiio~~s
- .---
for an A% h!cd~rrl--.-:
.--.
Ll&+:u~cd 3ispcxary . .lic:rtrs:o
.. !he
.-
.DHS-i'& rh2:r ril!nl 3 = a L . -
Any applications rejected by thc ADHS from this initinl list ~ h a ibe
l replaced with the
same number of the next most qualified applic&tionsas reviewed by the AZMMA
Application ~ e v i e wBoard Once the XDHS has successfully approveddl ofthe 124 A 2
Dispensaries to be licenscd the rcview board shill process the remaining ap'plications
These remaining applications shall be processed by the Rcvicw Boafdfor selections into
either acceptance or rejection classification Fol future expinsion 01 attrition these
remaining acceptable applications will be submitted to the ADHS f+ their final approval
or rejection as requested,
I!lis plocrss sllall i r s ~ r cthat 1t.c iniiir! ap?licm~s:$ill be :!<a:eJin !he sim: marzei 2s
I".).fdlute npplican:~ :hen a dispz?sa:y licens: becames a\zilsbld i e xn :acteast in :h:
hcen,cd I'b.annar) to D:ip~nsnr)Iaric n \vcll as fat i!i) 3icpcns2r). diao!ri:iuris
.\ny
- ..- h ! d -.
--- --
- --
21 direcku~;I~a.lgc icv d n A Z disgel~sarymcst b- suin.i~redru A 3 H S did rhc
.-.-. - - -. - -- -
L\il
. - ... -- - .
.. .4Z\IMA Rcyiesv Hoeru. The K & %aid r n e k rccommcr.dations ro the 4DHS --
- l i .e cs i~n-.r .
.- on ~..-. -- -. .- ~ their f.nd approval. The AZ>l\l.4 Kcview Rot112 will ~ ! S OASS!~:
8 ~for
------,.--.-- - -
L"U ADCIS z ~ : q u c ~ ~ T s iiifo.u:!on?.
~ ~ n s ~ r ~
Licensing Task Group Meeting
October 21,2010
Mark Siege1
Patric Allan
Randy Smith
Gordon Himilton
Scott
Minutes
hiker discussion, the task gmup agreed that a highly rigoroug application process is the
best way to limit frivoL~usapplications and enslire thai'thc most qualified applicants arc
awarded nonprofit medical maiijuana dispensary registration certificates.'
Toward that end, the members agreed to use an Allzo? D L ~ CLicjuot Iimnsc
Application Foi~nas a folmnt ro crcarc a rcconi~oendcdArizona Dl I S ivledical Maiijuaii;~
Dispensoly Application tonn Also sddcd to the Liquor ~ i ~ c ~fiaii~<woiksd, ivoiilii be
pe~iinenli.cqui!c,mcnts fioin ;I!> apjilicution foim crealtid by thc Newhlerico Ue~laitiiieiii
of llcalth I ~ that
I Ststc s Medical Cunnnbis Plogiarn, ~rqrdrcii~cnts EOI pCSrcesscs and
proccdurcs ~iianunls,req~iitclncntof a. plan fix piittingiiic Dispcnssly into opelatioil
within a reasonable time pciiod ~ollowingnwald ofthc cc~tificote,$nil proof of iiuanciiil
capability la sthitup aild opei;i!e the Dispensary
Although not unanimously, it was also agreed that the recommended amount of the
application fee should be $5,000 and that the applicatio~ifeeshould be nonrefundilble
Thc group also agreed that shce the applicitiqn fee would be $6n.ref$,ntiabl'e, tho
application should include a comprehensive checklist'wiih a warning thnt failure to meet
ALL requirements of the application wbuld rcsuk in rejection of the application and
forfeit of the application fee
I h e meeting was then adjourned

Governniental Affairs Issues > AZDHS Implementation Plans Page Iof I
Governmental Affairs issues AZMMA
AZDHS implementation Plans

FI.?~:~ a n d smith
y
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 at 8:laam
--- -. --- . .
According to the uploaded article, the initial plan of M D H S is t i iurn the Patient Card
responsibiiities over to the Office of Vital Records since they already have a computer
system capable of receiving and processingthis,iype of data, pbesfhis mean they DO or
DO NOT have technology issue @ MDHS7 If so, is it just in the process af applications?
AZDHS 1s also saying that the Office of Environmental Heaith will establish the dispensary
regulaDons?
. ,
,$ Randy Smith Sun, 24 Oct at 10:18pm
;;.,,'t?i&y
..* \,'!-i.
-We will have an update as soon as Jue gets i n frontof them .A

AzNMA
Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association
Arizona Department of'Health Services

-
-
iJ
=o .-'-..
$7
.a
.--4
C-
h
a a
;q
January 4,201 1 .-
4.
- v 5.
-4.
0
-, >:
113
>
2
:
-,, ..-
a %
.-.
Dear Direct Humble, "'I .-... 54)
The Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association (AzNMA) applauds the e f f o ~ @
s
t di d e ~ a t i i p o fthe
'
Arizona Department of Health Se~vicesto create a regulatory system that will allow for a responsible
Medical Marijuana Program Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and participate in, the rules
making process
At this time AzNMA has three requests for changes to the rules as the process moves forward The
requests are as follows:
1 The Naturopathic, Allopathic and Osteopathic Boards of Examiners should require physicians who
recommend medical marijuana to complete no less than eight hours of haining (through classroom
situations, seminars at professional society meetings, electronic communications, or otherwise) that
covers the clinical, pharmacological, ethical and legal aspects of'using medical marijuana in patient care,
2 Naturopathic Physicians should be included in the definition of "medical director" as they are included in
the definition of "physician" in the voter approved Medical Marijuana Act and authorized to recommend
medical marijuana to qualifying patients In this instance naturopathic physicians have the same
qualifications as allopathic and osteopathic doctors to successfully serve as medical directors
3 Patients with a terminal illness should be exempt from the rule requking a patient to have a professional
relationship with a physician for at least one yea and assessed fbr their medical condition on at least fou~
visits prior to being eligible for a medical marijuana recommendation
AzNMA appreciates the department's attention to these matte~sand encourages the suggested changes
be included in the formal draft rules released later this month
We have contacted the department and discussed these issues with your rules attorney Thank you for
your time
Sincerely,
&--- --__
hyd g r ~ d
D~
2101 East Broadway Rd Ste 14 Tempe, AZ 85282 . (480)921-3088 www AzNMA otg
@
(*a$ lbNMA
Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association
2101 East Btoadway Rd Ste 14 . Tempe, AZ 85282 (480)921-3088 . www.AzNMAotg

January 4,201 1
Dear Direct Humble,
The Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association (AzNMA) applauds the effott and dedication of
the Arizona Department of Health Services to create a regulatory system that will allow for a
responsible Medical Marijuana Program Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and
participate in, the rules making process
At this time AzNMA has three requests for changes to the rules as the process moves forward
The requests are as follows:
1 The Naturopathic, Allopathic and Osteopathic Boards of' Examiners should require physicians
who recommend medical marijuana to complete no less than eight hours of training (through
classroom situations, seminars at professional society meetings, electronic communications, or
otherwise) that covers the clinical, pharmacological, ethical and legal aspects of using medical
marijuana in patient care
2 Naturopathic Physicians should be included in the definition of "medical director" as they are
included in the definition of "physician" in the voter approved Medical Marijuana Act and
authorized to recommend medical marijuana to qualifying patients In this instance naturopathic
physicians have the same qualifications as allopathic and osteopathic doctors to successfully
serve as medical directors
3 Patients with a terminal illness should be exempt from the rule requiring a patient to have a
professional relationship with a physician for at least one year and assessed for their medical
condition on at least four visits prior to being eligible for a medical marijuana recommendation
AzNMA appreciates the department's attention to these matters and encourages the suggested
changes be included in the formal draft rules released later this month,
We have contacted the department and discussed these issues with your rules attorney Thank
you for your time
Sincerely,
Amy Terlisner N D
EL-RIO
z=LL
-= -~;==.rz=---T--=
C O M M U N I T Y
HEALTH C E N T E R
January 03,201 1
Will Humble
Director
ADHS
150 North 18th Ave,,
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Director Humble,
On behalf of El Rio Community Health Center and our Special Immunology Associates providers who
serve over 1,100 HIV and AIDS patients we submit the attached comments on the draft Chapter 17 -
Medical Marijuana Program regulations
There is no consensus within OUI physician gtoup about whether recommending marijuana is good
medical practice. The lack of sufficient clinical trial data demonstrating dose-related effectiveness and
detailing risk-benefit analysis as well as the ~eluctanceto recommend a psychoactive inhaled substance
with well documented potential for harm (physical and behavioral) contribute to this ambivalence Even
the providers who are comfortable using the existing data to recommend marijuana as a therapeutic option
are troubled by the apparent burden of responsibility placed on them for unknown consequences that are
implied in the t egulatory language
We are concerned about the challenge this new law and regulations may place on our relationships with -
existing patients who have no evident need for unconventional therapies. We expect the pressure to
"certify" may damage om relationships with such patients or cause them to seek the documentation from
non-El Rio providers thereby complicating our providers' ability to manage their primary care,
We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments
Sincerely,
Kathy Bytne Arthur Martinez, MD

Executive Director Chief'Medical Officer
839 West Congress St. Tucson, Arizona 85745 (520)792-9890 Page 1
Cc: Kevin Carmichael, MD
Sara Vasquez, MD
Richard Feldman, MD
Laurie Mottl, PA
B a r y London, MD
Lois Estok,MD
839 West Congress S t Tucson, Arizona 85745 (520)792-9890 Page 2

-
Fees
The law allows the development of a sliding fee scale based on household income for patient
applications and we did not see one in the draft regulations (R9-17-102) The fees for a
qualifying patient could prove excessive for some patients and we recommend such a process be
incorporated in r egulation
Lack of'Complete Data

Will there be any guidelines forthcoming for "dosing" ofthe drug? Are there clinical trials that
can inform patients and providers?
We are very troubled by the requirement that the physician certify that in hisher "professional
opinion the patient is to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of'
,,
marijuana , " (R9-17-202 F5.i) While we recognize this is the language from Prop 203 ow
physicians would have difficulty with certification of "likely" benefit Can this language be
broadened to "possible benefit?"
Quality of Drug
Who will standardize the supply? How will patients or their designated caregiver know what
kinds of chemical additives, including nonorganic pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are used
in the cultivation and production associated with dispensaries?
Inter actions
What are known and anticipated interactions (protease inhibitors, silfenadil, SSRIs, warfain)?
Will there be an authoritative source for physicians to rely upon?
Potential for Inappropriate Requests for Drugs

The definition of "ongoing" when used in connection with a physician-patient relationship at
16a seems important in discouraging maijuana mills but then at part b it essentially opens the
doors to such abuse Are there any additional qualifiers that could tighten R9-17-101 16 b ?
Our providas are already receiving requests for records from a Phoenix group that seems to be
positioning itself to meet the requirements under 16 b
Impact on Relationship with Patients

In this time of emphasis on a patient centered health care home it seems ironic to us that this new
law may cause patients to leave o w practice because our providers are not willing to follow the
certification process or patients may end up with two primary care providers - one to meet most
of'their prima y health care needs and one to manage their medical use of marijuana,,
Was any thought given to using a committee for the review and certification process for patients
seen inside a group practice - such an approach would preserve the individual patient-provider
relationship and allow a more arms length assessment of the value of the medical use of
marijuana for each individual case The way the regulation is mitten seems to preclude such an
approach
Miscellaneous Concerns
There appears to be no provision for mid-level providers to recommend the use of' marijuana for
medical reasons Would this require a physician to certify on behalf' of' patients managed by a
nurse practitione~or physicians assistant? Could this be clarified?
11 .!8?j - 5 Ptj 2: 55
The Institute for Holistic
fiij;i j
Health and Healing D;gE:C :fli?S OFFICE
(A Not For Profit Organization Opening Spring 2011)
Vincent J..Tancredi
vincent.tancrediOgmail.cog
6544 S..Oakwood Way
Gilbert, Arizona 85298
(602) 295-4316
January 03,2011

Mr. Will Humble (ADHS Director)
150 N. isth Ave
(602) 542-1025
Re: Comments, Questions and Concerns; the 12/17/2010 DRAFT

Title 9. Health Services; Chapter 17 Department of Health Services -
Medical Marijuana Program
Dear Mr. Humble
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments, questions, and concerns regarding:
The 12/17/2010 DRAFT Title 9 Health Services; Chapter 17 Department of'Health Services -
Medical Marijuana Program You and y o ~ ustaffhave done an excellent job, taking 011the
exhausting and daunting task of iinpleinenting Medical Marijuana for the State of Arizona
Taking lessons from Colorado and Califo~niaimplementation of Medical Marijuana Initiatives,
the State of Arizona and you1 office have perfected a safe, compassionate, and very detailed
Medical Marijuana Program draft, attempting to explain and discuss every aspect of what will be
a very polished final set of Regulations 'ii:nc!oscdis it i.,ist of our ('omments and Suggestions.
Please Rcviex~:
,Mission Statement
-------<
-
I'he mission of -
The institute"- sf HcbBistic Healtf?_andN&aaBi-~g$:
will be to provide tiie purest, most effective and affoidable
medical cannabis along with integrated holistic health services.
We will create and maintain the standards of excciler~cefor
~nedicalcannabis in a!] ihat u e do. We will continue to Cosle~a
unclerslanding and inspires action Additionally, it is ut:r position that
a highly reguiated bilsiness strr~clureis required to separate the Medical
Marijuana li~dustryf'i.oln illegal and biack ruarket operators, additionaliy
incleasing the status and quality cif the wellness inodels.
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL
R9-17-101. Definitions
8 "Dispensary" means the same as "nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary" as defined in A R S 5
36-2801
13 "Generally accepted accounting principles" means the set of financial reporting standards
administered bv the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board, or other specialized bodies dealing with accounting and auditing
t t e r s . [ C o r n r n e n t ] . Very Well Written.
m a-
-
15,. "Medical director" means a doctor o f medicine who holds a valid and existing license t o
practice medicine pursuant t o A.R.S. Title 32. C h a ~ t e 13
r or its successor or a doctor of
osteopathic medicine who holds a valid and existing license t o practice osteopathic medicine
pursuant t o A.R.S. Title 32. Chapter 17 or its successor and who has been designated bv a
[COmmell~].. SIJ0tJl,D
dispensary t o provide medical oversight at the dispensary.
Al.,SO ANIPICIR INC1,IJDE.: the involvement of naturopathic and
honleopathic physicians..
[Comment.] Furthermore- Acco~clinglo the Arizona i41arl~lacy
Alliance, Medical Mari,,juanaPosition Slatemel~t:"liJ13tiljkder~k'
legislation c l z ~ ~ a ~the
g wcl~zss2Jickrti~1d?~
marijtianed is a Cltz.vs-1
co~tridiledsdtbsta~tcbb11 is iflegk~land u vioiafil~~p qffktlerd law to
" Further, ---
po.~.~es,~~ "&PA .s;dro~glv I ~ C O F P ~ F J ~ ~ ~
do reof~-rt
-.,-m
involved i f the
------- ~ sliL~~e;az?ia"it,e
- ~P'fi'tei - ~ z
tlmt co8tlcI put their
that this same problem ancl posit:ion
regarding col~flictingDEA, State and Federal Law will o c c u ~with
a Llesignated Medical 1:)irector Physician (and/or Pharmacist) -
State and Federal Medicailicense \?iolations.
R9,-17-102.Fees
An applicant submitting an application to the Department shall submit the followin<
[Conlment] --- if-' cienieci, Application Fee should be
nonrefundable fees:
refgrrtadable-at early stage ol'1,icense i2ppro\ial, should be
considered nonr.e&r?dabl.eAFTE.R IIHS has issued written notice
itf'p-proval of'the dispensa~yregistration certificate
that contains the dispensary's registry identification number, as in
X9-'I 7-1 07 (Y) As there continues to be a lot of addifiol~alstages
afier this preiirnil-larv approval point to he complett:d by both
,.
Dispensary and I:li-ISbefore E'ull Approval of a Liccrlse.

1. For registration of a dispensary. $5,000;
[C~I'nr~letlt,]s h o ~ l dbt!
2. To renew the registration of a dis~ensarv,$1,000;
increased i:o $2,500 arid corisitleretl a cost of doing business,,
Yearly
.- -.- Not for. Profit Orgariizaiic.)ns.
. ....Fixed Expense
R9-17-107. Time-Frames
F If the Department determines that an initial application for a dispensary registration is in
compliance with A R S Title 36, Chapter 28 1and this Chapter, the Department shall provide a
written notice of preliminary approval of the dispensary registration certificate that contains the
dispensary's registry identification number
-
ARTICLE 2. QUALIFYING PATIENTS AND DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS
R9-17-,201.Debilitating Medical Conditions [(lommentj - Weli I:lc!ne.

An individual applying for a qualifying patient registry identification card shall have a diagnosis
from a physician of at least one of the following conditions:
1 Cancer;
2 Glaucoma;
3 Human im~nunodeficieiicyvirus;
4 Acquired immune deficiency syndrome;
5 Hepatitis C;
6 A~nyotrophiclateral sclerosis;
7 Crohn's disease;
8 A chronic or debilitating disease or medical conditio~ior the treatment for a chronic or
debilitating disease or medical condition that causes cachexia or wasting syndrome;
9 A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or
debilitating disease or medical condition that causes severe and chronic pain;
10 A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chronic or
debilitating disease or medical conditiotl that causes seveIe nausea;
1 1 A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or the treatment for a chtoiiic or
debilitating disease or medical condition that causes seizures, including those characteristic of
epilepsy;
12 A cli~onicor debilitating disease or ~ n e d ~ ccondition
al or the t~eat~nent
for a chronic or
debilitating disease or med~calcondition that causes severe or persistent ~nusclespasms,
including those cha~acte~ istic of multiple sclerosis; or
13 A debilitating medical condition or treatment approved by the Department under A R 5 §
36-2801 0 1 and R9-17-106
ARTICLE 3. DISPENSARIES [fornment] ..Ail Good Poiriis

A Each principal officer. or board member of a dispensary is an Arizona resident and has been an
Arizona resident for the t w o years immediately preceding the date the dispensary submits a
[(:omr?-~nl(]-.GREATPOINT! \Nil1 I)isr:ourage and
dispensarvcertificateapplication.
Eliminate out-of..st,ateFranchises, out-of-stale investors, and absentee
Dispensary Owners attempting "t possibly take advantage of Arizona's
Medical Marijnana Program,
B, (g) The name and license number of the dispensary's medical director [C~l'ntTif?rl~:]
.Again,
a possible Prok)lem with a Designatct Medical Ijirector 1)hysician
(and/or IPharmacist) ~::onflicting UEA, State and Federal Medical
4 Policies and procedures that comply with the lequitements in this Chapter fbr:
a Inventory control,
b Qualifying patient recordlteeping,
c Security, and
d Patient education and support
5 Acopy of the certificate of occupancy or other documentation issued by the local jurisdiction to
the applicant authorizing occupancy of the building as a dispensary and, if applicable, as the dispensary's
cultivation site
6 A sworn statement signed and dated by the individual or individuals in R9-17-301 certifying that
the dispensary is in compliance with local zoning restrictions
7 The distance to the closest public or private school from:
a The dispelisary; and
b If applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site
8 Asite plan drawn to scale of the dispensary location showing streets, property lines, buildings,
access t o water mains
9 A floor plan drawn to scale ofthe building where the dispensary is located showing the:
a Layout and di~ne~lsions of each room,
b Name and filnctioii of each room,
c Location of each hand washing sink,
d Location of each toilet room,
e Means of egress,
f Location o f each video camera,
g Location of each panic button, and
h Location of natural and artificial lighting sources
10 If applicable, a site plan drawn to scale of the dispensary's cuitivation site showing streets,
property lines, buildings, parking areas, outdoor areas if applicable, fences, security features, fire
hydrants if applicable, and access to water mains
12 The dispensary's by-laws containing provisions for the disposition of revenues and receipts
13 A business plan demonstrating the on-going viability of the dispensary as a non-profit
organization
14 The dispensary's hours of operation
15 Whether:
a A registered pharmacist w i l l be onsite o r on-call during r e g ~ ~ l bnsiness
ar hours;
[Comrnent:]..Again, a possible Problem with a Designated Medical
I>ii:cctor Pilysicia~l(and/or Pi~armaclsr)-~coniiict:ing
DEA, Stat:e arld
Federal Medical licensing Law.
b The dispensary w i l l p ~ o v i d einfbrrnation about the importance of physical activity and nutritiori
onsite;
c Whether tile dispensary has or has not incorporated; arid
d Whether the dispensary has a surety bond and, if so, how much
16 The applicable fee in R9-17-102 for applyingfor an initial registration of a dispensary
R9-17-306. Inspection [Comment] -- Agreed
A Submission of an application to register and certify a dispensary constitutes permission for entry
to and inspection of the dispensary
R9-17-307, Administration [Cornrnent] Well Written
A A dispensary shall:
1 Develop, document, and implement policies and procedures regarding:
a Job descriptions and employment contracts, including personnel duties, authority,
responsibilities, and qualifications; personnei supervision; training in and
adherence to confidentiality requirements; periodic performance evaluations; and disciplinary
actions;
b Business records, including manual or computerized records o f assets and liabilities, monetary
transactions, journals, ledgers, and supporting documents, includirlg agreements, checks,
invoices, and vouchers;
c Inventory control, including tracki~lg,pacltaging, accepting marijuana from qualif'yirlg patients
and designated caregivers, and disposing o f irriusable rnar ijuana;
d Qtralifyi~igpatient records, including pirrcllases, denial of sale, delivery options, i f any,
confidentiality, and retention;
e Patient education and support, including availability of different strains of marijuana and the
effects of the different strains, information about and effectiveness o f various forms and routes
o f medical marijuana administration, methods of tracking the effects on a quaiifying patient of
different strains and forms of marijuana, routes of administration of marijuana, and prohibition
on the smoking o f medical marijuana in public places
B Except as provided in subsection (C), a dispensary shall cultivate the medical marijuana
dispensed by the dispensary in an enclosed, locked facility,
C A dispensary:
1 Shall cultivate at least 70% of the medical m a r i m the dispensary provides to
qualifiing patients or designated caregivers [C~Il'lllleiltl- 50% - 50% Split
bet\.tleexl Grown arld Acquired;
2 Shall onlv, ,Drovide medical mariiuana cultivated or acauired bv the dis~ensarvto another
dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient, or a designated caregiver authorized by A R S Title
36, Chapter 28 1and this Chapter to acquire medical marijuana;
3 May o ~ i l yacquire medical lnar ijuana from another dispensary in Arizona, a qualifying patient,
0 1 a designated caregiver;
4 May acquire up to 30% ofthe medical rnariiuana the dispensary provides to q u a l i f ' w
patients and designated caregivers from another dispensary in Arizona, a qualify&
patient, o r a designated caregiver [Comnler~i]- 50% - 50% Split bctwee~i
C'i~owi?and Acc)uiretl; and
5. Shall not provide more than 30% of the medical mariiuana cultivated by the dispensary t o
other dispensaries.. [C~mnlerlt]
-. 50% .- 50% Sp1i.t bet ween Growit artd
4cquirzd
--- 'The Instittdte for HoIistic kBeaii$B.sand biealina:

ICommer~tl
Dail~Prscedures
----.-- - --. -----
and inventory Cantroi
Proper arid C:omplete Record !Keeping of Patierit and Inventory is essential A

wri.kten Plan of Clear and Proper Procedure from the moment a patient i ~ a i k sin
through %hedoor, and a plan for how to assist them until ifley walk back out the
door [and, within the parkir~gl o t ] Daily b~isiiiessForms and [Iocuments, along
with a DHS Data Management Systerri must be coris.tari"ty rriairttairied and strictly
enforced Patient and Employee sign-in sheets, clear transaction records, and
other. daily necessities. Dispensary Fioor.Plar¶and Security Design: A Secure and
IiIPPA sensitive patient environment, pronioting Effective and Safe Patient Care
Within a professional atmosphere, gated, well lit and fenced parking lo:, \Nit11a
2417 Security Staff on premises a t all times
R9-17-310. Medical Director [Corr,rner!t] Sarne as R9-17-101 'Medical Dirrector'
A A medical director may only serve as a medical d~rectorforthree dispensaries at any time
B During hours of operation, a medical di~ectoris:
1 On-site, or
2 Able to be contacted by any means possible, such as by telephone or pager;
C A medical director shall provide oversight for the developme~itand dissemination of:
1 Educational materials for qualifying patients and designated caregive~sthat include:
a Alternative medical options for tlie qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition;
b Infbrrnatio~iabout possible side effects of and contraindications for medical marijuana
incl~rdillgpossible impairment with use and operation o f a motor vehicle or heavy
machinery, when caring for children, 01 of job performance;
c Guidelines for notifying a reconimending physician if side effects or cont~aindications
occur;
d A description of the pote~itiali b ~differing strengths of~nedicalmarijuana strains and
ploducts;
e lnf'orrnation about potential drug-drug interactions, i~icludinginteractions with alcohol,
prescriptio~idrugs, riori-prescr iptio~idrugs, and supplements;
f Safe techniques for the use of~nedicalmarijuana and mar iji~anaparaphernalia;
g Different methods and forms ofrnedical marijuana use;
h Signs and symptoins of substance abuse, including tolerance, dependency, and
withd~awal;atid
i A listing of substance abuse programs and referral information
D A medical director shall not establish a ehvsician-patient relationship with or write medical
[C:~mmer-it/
mariiuana recommendations for a sualifying eatient - adtjili0rlaI
complication, Medical Director - irnplied P1.!ysiciaii/Pharmaclst-pai:ient

relationship and Liability lssiles Accor.dil.1gto .the Arizona Ighaimacy
Alliance, Medical Mari:,juana Position Slaleruent: "U~'2tiIfk~ierai
-
;.ze-,rxef iffvaalved ---
tIze ih
{&dot-&~C O N Y ~ C ~ tIzta1' 3"icCe$?se
~ O P t'oedi~dgg4~~~cir
~~ eek riskk"- (ct~c!osed).It is
our bclie'thal this sairtc problem and posilion regarding corll'liciing
i>E,A, Slati: and Federal L.aw will occur with a l>csigna~cdh/ieclical
llireclor Ptlysiciarl andioi i)i~armacisl--St;:tc arrd ~ & c r a lMec4ical
f.,iceo.seViolailoils.
-
R9-17-311. Dispensing Medical Marijuana [Conlmer'itl Section I.)orle Well
-- ----Bns$itut9$aibr Holistic Health -

IComrnentLTha: and-
Wcadinn,:
aChoice of Providers: You have the right lo accurate and easily

understood inkrmation about the laws and local regtilations,,
Accuracy and Cowtrol: You have the iighexo accurately
labitled and \veighed quality il~edicatior,artii accurate
informatioil about illc rneciicatjoli being provided.,
Safety: You have ihe riglit to obtain your rl~edicationin a sal-'e,
secure and fkiendly e n v i r o n n x n i . .
Respect and Non-li~iscrimiwaPio%p: You havc the right tn
considerate, respect-fill, and n c i i ? ~ - d i s c i i m i n a t c ) ~care..
y
a Coni1"sdntiaitiQysf Health infi,rmaQieal;a:You have the sight to
talk in corificience with yonr providel.~,and to have voiir health

(:are i1ifi)rmation protected under. all appropriate safety
provisiolis,.
R9-17-312. Qualifying Patient Records [Lornrnent]- Section Done Well
R9-17-313. Inventory Control
A A dispensary shall designate in w~itinga dispensary agent who has oversight of the dispensary's
medical marijuana invento~ycontrol system
B A clispe~isaryshall establish and implement an inventory co~~trol system for the dispensary's
medical marijuana that docnments:
1 Each day's beginning inventory, acquisitions, harvests, sales, disbursements, disposal of
unusable marijuana, and ending inventory;
2 For acquiring ~nedicalmarijuana from a qualifying patient, designated caregiver, or anotlie~
dispensary:
a A description of the medical marijuana acquired including the a~noiintand strain;
b The name and registry identification number of the qualifying patient, designated
caregiver, or dispensary and dispensary agent who provided the medical marijuana;
c The name and registry identification number of the dispe~isaryagent receiving tlie
medical marij~~ana on behalf of the dispensary; and
d The date of acquisition;
3 For cultivation:
a The stlain of marijuana seed planted, tyne of soil used iProblern - C h a ~ to ~ e
Gronino
-. .. - A Merliud,
i_- date seeds were planted, and the watering schedule,
[Comment] Type sf Soif - MUST AhSQ INCLUDE HYDROPONICS AND

%NGMEDIUM USED! The word
l i h ~ d r ~ ~ ~ r acomes
i c s ' ' from the Greek "hydros" (water) artd "ponos" (labor), and
refers to the method of plant culfivatior~achieved without the use of soils In
traditional cultivation, tile soil acts as a water reservoir (and therefore a nutrient
reservoir) that feeds the piant roots. The soil is basically a medium that delivers
mineral rlutrients, dissolved iri water stores, to the plant roots In actuality, the
soil itself is not necessary, so long as a nutrient-rich water source is supplied to
the plant roots In very basic t e r m s L n i s eliminates*soil com~Ieteiv~
and sumlies
-- nutrient-rich water directivfo the piant roots, It's a rather simple
concept, but the applications arid versaiility of hydroponics are astonishing, when
cornpared to traditiotlal cultivation ~ g ~ ~ r o n s r r e n friensiSyf
t a i ! ~ has Laecoqga
mantra amongst those wanting t o DiBeserIgeour ~ I a n e and
t stop the ewrrloitat&
sf the very land we depend uponn'"fkistrend to proeec.sand sustain our fragile
planet is one "rat will --
------ cantinue togrow in the future. 'The movemen"rowrards a
more health conscious society is a n tkp2 rise*~rovidingan b a n m e a s u
~gaporturlitvfs:.~ydro~o~*rics and orga?ic gardenin&
b Harvest information including:
i Date of harvest;
i i Amount of ~nedicalmarijiraria harvested, including the ainount of ~narijuana
and the a~i~oirrit
of usable marijuana;
i i i Name and registry identification nu~nberof'the dispensary agent responsible
for the harvest; and
c 'The disposal of medical marijuana that is not usable ~narijiianaincluding the:
i Date of disposal,
i i Method of disposal, and
i i i Name and registry identification number of the dispensary agent responsible
ibr the disposal;
a The amount and strain of~nedicalmarijuana p~ovided,
b The na~neand registry identificatioii nr~~nber of tlie other dispensary,
c Tlie name and registry identification number ofthe dispensary agent who received the
medical marijuana on behalf ofthe other dispensary, and
d The date the medical marijuana was provided;
5 For providing medical inarijuana to a h o d establishmerit for infi~sioninto ail edible food
product:
a A description of the medical ~narijiranaprovided including the amount and strain;
b The name and registry identification number ofthe designated agent who:
i Provided the medical mariji~anato the food establishment on behalf ofthe
dispensary, and
ii Received the medical marijuana on behalf of the food establishment; arid
c Tlie date the medical ~narijuanawas provided to the food establishment; and
6 For receiving edible h o d products infiised with medical ~narijiianaf i o ~ na food establishment:
a Tlie date tlie medical marijuana used to infirse the edible h o d products was received by
the h o d establishment and the amount of medical inarijuana received;
b A desc~iptionofthe edible food products received from the food establishrne~it,
including total weight of each edible h o d product and estimated amount of medical
marijuana infused in each edible food ploduct;
c Total estimated amount of medical rnaiijuana infused in edible food p~oducts,
d A description of any reductio~iin the amount of medical marijuana;
e For any unusable marijuana disposed of at the food estabiishment:
i i The amount of tinusable marijuaiia disposed of,
iv Method of disposal,
JCornment] The Institute fo- Hslis"cic Health& Healing:

---- & Psant Sraclti&
Grrs~~ilsg
Each Plant will bc i~uillibei'edand iracited jdaily log] from Seed lo

Maturc Plant. Seed Sir.ain, 1-lydroponicbjrowing infiirrnatiort, and
Mature Plant Yield will be accutatelq and constantly measur'etl, as
('?ro\.vi!lg Cycles will be doeumecred fronl seedling to harvest
- Well Wi itlcll
R9-17-314. Product Labeling and Analysis {ron~rncni]
A A dispensary shall ensure that medical ~narijua~ia provided by the dispensary to a qualifying
patient or a designated ca~egiveris labeled with:
1 Tlie dispensary's regist~yidentification number;
2 The amount and strain of medical marijuana;
3 If not cultivated by the dispensary, whetliet the inedical marijuana was obtained f i o ~ na
qualifying patient, a designated caregiver, or another dispensary;
5 A list of all cliernical additives, including nonorganic pesticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers, ~ ~ s in
e dthe cultivation and prodr~ctionoftlie medical marijuana; and
6 Tlie registry identificatio~innmber ofthe qualifying patient
B If medical marijuana is provided as part of an edible food product, a dispensary shall, in addition
to tlie infor~nationin subsectio~i(A), include on the label:
2 The following statement "This product is iiifused with medical marijuana and was
produced without reg~llatoryoversight for liealth, sakty, or efficacy There !nay be health
risks associated with tlie consumption ofthe product "
C A dispensary shall provide to the Department upon request a sample of the dispensary's medical
marijuana inventory of sufficient quantity to enable the Department to conduct an analysis of
the medical marijuana
--for Nnlhtic Health and H e a l i n s

- institoke
The
Resea
Out mission wili he to provide a safe ei~virofimri~t for medicai marijuana
patients 1hlougl.1increased procfuci knot.viedge ancl testing The potential
hamids of inhaiirig unregulattd nlarijuana :ni,!sc be recognii-eci &
fnslitutc: for. IJolislic i~Iealthand Weilrless will send out a sa1~ipl.eof uI1
oilt products (Cjrown andlor Acquil..eci), to be tested by an independent
t h i ~ , d - p iscreening.
~~t~ A i~~depentlent cotn])any illat accu~atelynleasures
the potency of Medicinal Cannabis through the use of its gas
c11lomaxog~ay)hyr:ouplecl wilh a mass-speetrometer(C3CiMSj and ilame
iol~izaiiortdetectox (GCif:~lL3).'I'l~isrnearls that oiir organization and
patients' can Itnow exactly how much THC, CWN. a n d CW1) chemicals
are in each dosi:. This \%rill increase the patients' ability lo effectively
identify tllc best riledication for tlleil personal i:ondition and preresence.,
-
Additisjr.iatly, wc v,lill be S C T C C I I ~ I ~ibs
E any rlio!tls andior pesticides.,
R9-17-315. Security [Comment] Vcly Well Mi~ittcn
A A d~spensaryshall ensure that access to tlie enclosed, loclced facility where ~narijuanais
cultitated is limited to principal officers, board members, and designated agents of the dispensary
B A dispensary may transpolt ~narijualiain any form, marijuana plants, and ~narijuanaparaphernalia
between tlie dispensary and:
1 The dispensary's cultivation site,
2 A qualifying patient,
3 Another dispensary, and
4 A food establishment contracted with the dispensary to prepare edible b o d products
infi~sedwith medical marijuana
C To prevent unauthorized access to medical marijuana at the dispensary and, if applicable, the
dispensary's cultivation site, the dispensa~yshall have the following:
I Security equipment to deter and prevent unautliorized entrance into limited access
areas that include:
a Devices or a series of devices to detect unauthorized intrusion, which may
include a signal system intercon~iectedwith a radio freque~icymethod, such as
cellular, PI ivate radio signals, or other mechanical or electronic device;
b Exterior ligliting to facilitate si~rveillance;
c Electronic monitoring including:
i . At least one 19 inch or greater call-up monitor;
ii A video printer capable of immediately producing a clear still photo
from any video camera image;
iii Video cameras:
( 1 ) Pioviding coverage of all entrances to and exits from limited access aleas and all entrances to
and exits f i o ~ nthe building, capable of identifying any activity occurring in or adjacent to the
building; and
(2) Have a recording resolution of least at 704 x 480 or the equivalent;
iv A video camera at each point ofsale locatio~lallowing for the
identification of any qualifying patient or designated caregiver
purchasing inedical marijuana;
v A video camera i n each grow room capable of identifying any activity
occurring within the grow room in low light conditions;
vi Storage ofvideo recordings fiom the video cameras for at least 30
calendar days;
vii A failure notification system that provides an audible and visual
notification of any failure in the electronic monitoring system;
viii Video cameras and recording eqi~ip~nent with sufficient battery
backup to support at least five mi~lutesof recording in the event of a
power outage; and
ix The capability of providing authorized remote viewing of live and
recorded video with:
(I) Internet connectivity of at least 384 ltbps upstream; and
(2) A static IP address to allow for relnote connection;
d Panic buttons in the interior of each building; ant1
2 Policies and procedures:
a That restrict access to the areas of the dispensary that contain marijuana and if
applicable, the dispensary's cultivation site, to authorized individuals only;
b That provide for the identification of ailthotized individuals;
c That prevent loiteiing;
d For conducti~lgelectronic monitoring; and
e For the use of a panic button
Komanent] The lnskitute

-.----..-- for Holistic, HeAth, and Healin%
Seesnrii9-. yi Sai*
----
21-hour.Seeusity Service Iduri17g business liours, and noi~..,lx.isit-iess
hours/ Armed Chards;
Steel Doons and/or Grates [on ali doors and ~ i i n d o ~ v s f ;
Vidco Survi:iilancc [Inside zlci outside Building];
Safi: andlor Safe Room;
Hurglar. 4la1m System;
insurance;
HIPAA Ol3ce Design a11dPatier11 E~~vironrneili
Opening and Closing Routines;
kleta! iietectors at 1:loors:
5~ledicalMarijuana Card Sca!inel;
-
Cash Maita~e!nentSystem & Inveflory !,'ontrol System;
Safe Pa~ienrarid Ei~iployeeEnvironment;
72fl~kcfjYe
and Safe i'a~ient :lccess and Cali:,
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding; the opportunity
and the ability for us to include our Comments and Suggestions for
the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program
Sincerely and Respectfully,
The Institute for Holistic

Health and Healing
1845 E Southetn Avenue, Iempe, AZ 85282 (480) 838-3385
AzPA Medical Marijuana Position Statement
Pharmacists are proven experts in medication therapy management To ensure optimal treatment
outcomes, it is critical that medication therapy management includes a review of all medications and all
health conditions
AzPA strongly opposes any law which bypasses the normal approval and distribution process for
medications including the normal chains of custody for drug distribution and licensed pharmacies,
Since the new Arizona law allows for marijuana use for medical purposes, it should be treated as a
medicationldrug
To best support the safe distribution and use of medical marijuana, AzPA supports changes to federal
legislation that would re-classify marijuana from a C-l to C-ll The change would allow the distribution of
medical marijuana through licensed pharmacies AzPA commits to raise this issue with national pharmacy
organizations and AZ Congressional delegation. Until federal legislation changes the classification,
marijuana is a Class-l controlled substance it is illegal and a violation of federal law to possess
AzPA strongly recommends that pharmacists do not get involved in the dispensing of the medical
marijuana t o avoid a felony conviction that could put their license at risk
Recommendations:
1 AzPA recommends that licensed users of medical marijuana be identified in a database that is
accessible t o health care professionals This will give health care professionals an added resource to
facilitate safer treatment options AzPA would also support changing Arizona law to require that C-l
medications are reported into the ASBP prescription monitoring program
2 AzPA recommends that the state implement post marketing surveillance through pharmacists a t
the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center at the University of Arizona to track adverse drug
events and monitor quality, safety and efficacy
3 AzPA recommends only dispensaries that have policy and procedures focused on patient safety and
quality assurance standards focused on product quality and accurate dosing be granted a
dispensary license Policies and procedures must include a mechanism to assess the impact medical
marijuana use will have on the patient's other medical conditions as well as the safety,
pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of their other medications
Hydroponics - Wikipeaia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 13
Hydroponics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Sozp drug on^ c~lbu~n,

see Hydi ophonic
Hydroponics (From the Greek words hydro, water

andponos, labor) is a method of growing plants
using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without
soil, Terrestrial plants may be grown with their roots
in the mineral nutrient solution only or in an inert
medium, such as perlite, g~avel,mineral wool, or
coconut husk,
Researchers discovered in the 19th century that

plants absorb essential mineral nutrients as inorganic ,I*F. -.-!
k ~
ions in water In natural conditions, soil acts as a

mineral nutrient reservoir but the soil itself is not
essential to plant growth When the mineral nutrients
in the soil dissolve in water, plant roots are able to NASA researcher checking hydroponic onions
absorb them When the required miner a1 nutrients with Bibb lettuce to his left and radishes to the
right
are introduced illto a plant's water supply artificially,
soil is no longer required for the plant to thrive
Almost any te~restrialplant will grow with hydroponics Hydroponics is also a standard technique in
biology research and teaching
~ . .. ~.. .
Contents
1 History
2 Origin
2 1 Soilless culture
a 3 Advantages
4 Disadvantages
5 Techniques
5 1 Static solution culture
m 5 2 Continuous flow soiution culture
m 5 3 Aeroponics
m 5 4 Passive subirrigation
m 5 5 Ebb and flow 1 Flood and drain subirrigation
5 6 Run to Waste
m 5 '7 Deep water culture
m 5 8 Bubbleponics
m 6 Media
= 6 1 Diahydro
m 6 2 Expanded clay (Ex-clay)
m 6 3 Rock wool
m 6 4 Coir
6 5 Perlite
Hydroponics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 13
s 6 6 Vermiculite
H 6 7 Sand
H 6 8 Gravel
H 6 9 Brick shards
s 6 10 Polystyrene packing peanuts
H 6 11 Wood fiber
H 7 Nutrient solutions
H 8 Commercial
H 9 Advancements
H 10 See also
H 11 References
12 External links
History
The earliest published worlc on growing terrestrial plants without soil was the 1627 book, Sylva
Sylvavum by Sir Francis Bacon, printed a year after his death Water culture became a popular research
technique after that In 1699, John Woodward published his water culture experiments with spearmint
He found that plants in less pure water sources grew better than plants in distilled water By 1842 a list
of nine elements believed to be essential to plant growth had been made out, and the discoveries of the
German botanists, Julius von Sachs and Wilhelm Knop, in the years 1859-65, resulted in a development
of the technique of soilless cultivation ['I Growth of terrestrial plants without soil in mineral nutrient
solutions was called solution culture It quickly became a standard research and teaching technique and
is still widely used today Solution culture is now considered a type of hydroponics where there is no
inert medium
In 1929, Professor William Frederick Gericke of the University of Califbrnia at Berkeley began p~iblicly
promoting that solution culture be used for agricultural crop production[21He first termed it aquaculture
but later found that aquaculture was already applied to culture of aquatic organisms Gericke created a
sensation by growing tomato vines twenty-five feet high in his back yard in mineral nutrient solutions
rather than soil [31 By analogy with the ancient Greek term for agriculture, geoponics, the science of
cultivating the earth, Gericlce introduced the term hydroponics in 1937 (although he asserts that the term
was suggested by D r W A Setchell, of the University of Califbrnia) for the culture of plants in water
(from the Greek hydros, "water", andponos, "labor")[']
Reports of Gericke's worlc and his claims that hydroponics would revolutionize plant agriculture
prompted a h~lgenumber of requests for further information Gericlce refused to reveal his secrets
claiminghe had done the work at home on his own time This refusal eventually resulted in his leaving
the University of California In 1940, he wrote the book, Complete Guide to Soilless Gardening
Two other vlant nutritionists at the Universitv of California were asked to research Gericke's claims
Dennis R ~ o a ~ l a (http:llpmb
nd berkeley edhnewpmblfaculty/hoagland/N~~S~emoir pdf) and Daniel
I Arnon (http:llpmb berkeley edu~newpmblfacultyldeceasedshtml) wrote a classic 1918 agricultural
bulletin, The Water Culture Method for Growing Plants Without ~ o z l , [debunking
~] the exagge~ated
claims made about hydroponics Hoagland and Arnon found that hydroponic crop yields were no better
than crop yields with good quality soils Crop yields were ultimately limited by factors other than
mineral nutrients, especially light This research, however, overlooked the fact that hydroponics has
other advantages including the fact that the roots of the plant have constant access to oxygen and that the
httn //en~ n 6 L i n d i an r n I ~ x i i L i / U ~ i r l ~ n n n n i c a 1/ A / 7 n l 1
Hydroponics - Wiliipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 13
plants have access to as much or as little water as they need This is important as one of the most
common errors when growing is over- and undel- watering; and hydroponics prevents this from
occurring as large amounts of water can be made available to the plant and any water not used, drained
away, recirculated, or actively aerated, eliminating anoxic conditions which d ~ o w nroot systems in soil
In soil, a grower needs to be very experienced to know exactly how much water to feed the plant Too
much and the plant will not be able to access oxygen, too little and the plant will lose the ability to
transport nutrients, which are typically moved into the roots while in solution
These two researchers developed several formulas for mineral nutrient solutions, known as Hoagland
solution Modified Hoagland solutions are still used today
One of the early successes of hydroponics occurred on Wake Island, a rocl<y atoll in the Pacific Ocean
used as a reheling stop for Pan American Airlines Hydroponics was used there in the 1930s to grow
vegetables for the passengers Hydroponics was a necessity on Wake Island because there was no soil,
and it was prohibitively expensive to airlift in fresh vegetables
In the 1960s, Allen Cooper of England developed the Nutrient film technique The Land Pavilion at
Walt Disney World's EPCOT Center opened in 1982 and prominently features a variety of hydroponic
techniques In recent decades, NASA has done extensive hydroponic research for their Controlled
Ecological Life Support System or CELSS Hydroponics intended to talte place on Mars are using LED
lighting to grow in different color spectium with much less heat
In 1978, hydroponics pioneer DI Howard Resh published the first edition of his book "Hydroponics
Food Production " This book (now updated) spurred what has become laown as the 3-part base
nutrients formula that is still a major component of today's hydroponics gardening Resh later went on to
publish other boolts, and is currently in cha~geof a highly advanced hydroponics ~esearchand
production facility in the Caribbean
In the last few years, the popularity in the hydroponics marketplace has increased rapidly [51
Origin
Soilless culture
Gericke originally defined hydroponics as crop growth in mine~alnutrient solutions, with no solid
medium for the roots He objected in print to people who applied the term hydroponics to othe~types of
soilless culture such as sand culture and gravel culture The distinction between hydroponics and soilless
culture of plants has often been blurred Soilless culture is a broader term than hydroponics; it only
requires that no soils with clay or silt are used Note that sand is a type of soil yet sand culture is
considered a type of soilless culture Hydroponics is a subset of soilless culture Many types of soilless
culture do not use the mineral nutrient solutions required for hydroponics
Billions of container plants are produced annually, including fruit, shade and ornamental trees, shrubs,
forest seedlings, vegetable seedlings, bedding plants, herbaceous perennials and vines Most container
plants are produced in soilless media, representing soilless culture However, most are not hydroponics
because the soilless medium often provides some of the mineral nutrients via slow release fertilizers,
cation exchange and decomposition of the organic medi~unitself Most soilless media for container
plants also contain organic materials such as peat or composted bark, which provide some nitrogen to
the plant Greenhouse growth of plants in peat bags is often termed hydroponics, but technically it is not
because the medium provides some of the mineral nutrients
Plants that are not traditionally grown in a climate would be possible to grow using a controlled
environment system like hydroponics During World War I1 produce was grown with hydroponics on
the barren Pacific Islands According to a 1938 Times magazine article, this was one of the first times
that commercial use of hydloponics was used on such a large scale to feed people This group of'islands
was used as a refueling stop for Pan-Am Airways and the food was used to feed the staff and crew This
means that salad greens could possibly be growl in Antarctica or even the Mojave Desert NASA has
also looked to utilize hydroponics in the space progiam Ray Wheeler, plant physiologist at Kennedy
Space Center's Space Life Science Lab, believes that hydroponics will create advances within space
travel He terms this as "a life support system with the biological component of growing plants-called
a bioregenerative life support system It has several benefits for NASA " These Scientists are
researching how different amounts of light, temperature and carbon dioxide, along with plant species
can be grown and cultivated on planets like Mars
Advantages
Some of the reasons why hydroponics is being adapted around the world for food production are the
following:
a No soil is needed
H The water stays in the system and can be reused- thus, lower water costs
a It is possible to control the nutrition levels in their entirety- thus, lower nutrition costs
a No nutrition pollution is ieleased into the environment because of the controlled system
a Stable and high yields
Pests and diseases are easier to get rid of than in soil because of the container's mobility
Today, hydroponics is an established branch of agronomy Progress has been rapid, and results obtained
in various countxies have proved it to be thoroughly practical and to have very definite advantages over
conventional methods of horticulture The two chief merits of the soil-less cultivation of plants are, first,
much higher crop yields, and second, hydroponics can be used in places where in-ground agriculture or
gardening is not possible
Disadvantages
The hydroponic conditions (presence of fertilizer and high humidity) create an environment that
stimulates salmonella growth 16' Other disadvantages include pathogen attacks such as damp-off due to
Verticillium wilt caused by the high moisture levels associated with hydroponics and overwatering of
soil based plants Also, many hyd~oponicplants require different fertilizers and containment systems[']
Techniques
The two main types of'hydroponics are solution culture and medium culture Solution culture does not
use a solid medium for the roots, just the nutrient solution The three main types of solution culture are
static solution culture, continuous flow solution culture and aeroponics The medium culture method has
a solid medium fbr the roots and is named for the type of medium, e g sand culture, gravel culhue or
rockwool culture There are two main variations for each medium, subirrigation and top ir~igationFor
all techniques, most hydroponic reservoirs are now built ofplastic but other materials have been used
including concrete, glass, metal, vegetable solids and wood The containers should exclude light to
prevent algae growth in the nutrient solution
Hydroponics - Wikipedia, the flee encyclopedia Page 5 of 13
Static solution culture

In static solution culture, plants are grown in containers of nutrient solution, such as glass Mason jars
(typically in-home applications), plastic buckets, tubs 01 tanks The solution is usually gently aerated but
may be unaerated If unaerated, the solution level is kept low enough that enough roots are above the
solution so they get adequate oxygen A hole is cut in the lid of the reservoir fbr each plant There can be
one to many plants per reservoir Reservoir size can be increased as plant size increases A homemade
system can be constructed fiom plastic food containers or glass canning jars with ae~ationprovided by
an aquarium pump, aquarium airline tubing and aquaiium valves Clear containers are covered with
aluminium foil, butcher paper, black plastic or other material to exclude light, thus helping to eliminate
the formation of algae The nutrient solution is either changed on a schedule, such as once per week, or
when the concentration drops below a certain level as determined with an electrical conductivity meter
Whenever the solution is depleted below a certain level, either water or fresh nutrient solution is added,
A Mariotte's bottle, or a float valve, can be used to a~rtomaticallymaintain the solution level In raft
solution culture, plants are placed in a sheet of buoyant plastic that is floated on the surface of the
nutrient solution That way, the solution level never drops below the roots
Continuous flow solution culture

In continuous flow solution culture the nutrient solution constantly flows past the roots It is much easier
to automate than the static solution cult~uebecause sampling and adjustments to the temperature and
nutrient concentrations can be made in a large storage tank that serves potentially thousands of plants A
popular variation is the nutrient film technique or NFT whereby a very shallow stream of water
containing all the dissolved nutrients required for plant growth is recirculated past the bare roots of
plants in a watertight thick root mat, which develops in the bottom of the channel, has an upper surface
which, although moist, is in the air Subsequently, there is an abundant s~rpplyof' oxygen to the roots of
the plants A properly designed NF T system is based on using the right channel slope, the right flow rate
and the right channel length The main advantage of the NF T system over other forms of hydroponics is
that the plant roots are exposed to adequate supplies of water, oxygen and nutrients In all other forms of
production there is a conflict between the s ~ ~ p pof
l ythese requiren~ents,since excessive or deficient
amounts of' one results in an imbalance of' one or both of the others NFT, because of its design, provides
a system where all three requirements for healthy plant growth can be met at the same time, providing
the simple concept of NFT is always remembered and practised The result of these advantages is that
highe~yields of high quality produce are obtained over an extended period of cropping A downside of
NFT is that it has very little buffering against interruptions in the flow e g power outages, but overall, it
is probably one ofthe more productive techniques
The same design characteristics apply to all conventional NFT systems While slopes along channels of
1:I00 have been recommended, in practice it is difficult to build a base for channels that is sufficiently
true to enable nutrient films to flow without ponding in locally depressed areas Consequently, it is
recommended that slopes of 1:30 to 1:40 are used This allows for minor irregularities in the surface but,
even with these slopes, ponding and waterlogging may occur The slope may be provided by the floor,
or benches or racks may hold the channels and provide the ~equiredslope Both methods are used and
depend on local requirements, often determined by the site and crop requirements
As a general guide, flow rates for each gully should be 1 liter per minute At planting, rates may be half
this and the upper limit of 2Limin appears about the maximum Flow rates beyond these extremes are
often associated with nutritional problems Depressed grow^ rates of many crops have been observed
when channels exceed 12 metres in length On rapidly growing crops, tests have indicated that, while
oxygen levels remain adequate, nitrogen may be depleted over the length of the gully Consequently,
httn //en ~ri;!z;nerl;sn r n h r i i k - i l U ~ i r i ~ n n n n i r , r 1 IAl'301 1

channel length should not exceed 10-15 metres In situations where this is not possible, the reductions in
growth can be eliminated by placing another nutrient feed half way along the gully and reducing flow
rates to ILlmin though each outlet
Aeroponics
Main article Aeroponics
Aeroponics is a system where roots are continuously or discontinuously kept in an environment

saturated with fine drops (a mist or aerosol) of nutrient solution The method requires no substrate and
entails growing plants with their roots suspended in a deep air or growth chamber with the roots
periodically wetted with a fine mist of atomized nutrients Excellent aeration is the main advantage of
aeroponics
Aeroponic techniques have proved to be commercially successful for propagation, seed germination,
seed potato production, tomato production, leaf crops and micro-greens 18] Since inventor Richard Stoner
commercialized aeroponic technology in 1983, aeroponics has been implemented as an alternative to
water intensive hydroponic systems worldwide ['I The limitation of hydroponics is the fact that 1 kg of
water can only hold 8 mg of air, no matter if aerators are utilized or not
Another distinct advantage ofaeroponics over hydroponics is that any species of plants can be grown in
a true aeroponic system because the micro environment of an aeroponic can be finely controlled The
limitation of hydroponics is that only certain species of plants can survive for so long in water before
they become water logged The advantage ofaeroponics is due to the fact that suspended aeroponic
plants receive 100% of the available oxygen and carbon dioxide to the roots zone, stems and leaves,['01
thus accelerating biomass growth and reducing rooting times NASA research has shown that
aeroponically grown plants have an 80% increase in dry weight biomass (essential minerals) compared
to hydroponically grown plants Aeroponics used 65% less water than hydroponics NASA also
concluded that aeroponically grown plants requires % the nutrient input compared to hydroponics
Unlike hydroponically grown plants, aeroponically grown plants will not suffer transplant shock when
transplanted to soil, and offers growers the ability to reduce the spread of disease and pathogens [ ' I 1
Aeroponics is also widely used in laboratory studies of plant physiology and plant pathology Aeroponic
techniques have been given special attention from NASA since a mist is easier to handle than a liquid in
a zero gravity environment
Passive subirrigation
~Mclinarticle Passive hydroponics
Passive subirrigation, also lmown as passive hydroponics or semi-hydroponics, is a method where plants
are grown in an inert porous medium that transports water and fertilizer to the roots by capillary action
from a separate reservoir as necessary, reducing labor and providing a constant supply of water to the
roots In the simplest method, the pot sits in a shallow solution of fertilizer and water or on a capillary
mat saturated with nutrient solution The various hydroponic media available, such as expanded clay and
coconut husk, contain more air space than more traditional potting mixes, delivering increased oxygen to
the roots, which is important in epiphytic plants such as orchids and bromeliads, whose roots are
exposed to the air in nature Additional advantages of passive hydroponics are the reduction of root rot
and the additional ambient humidity provided th~oughevaporations
Hydroponics - LVikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 7 of 13
Ebb and flow / Flood and drain subirrigation

Main atticle Ebb and flow
In its simplest form, there is a tray above a reservoir of nutrient solution The tray is either filled with
growing medium (clay granules being the most common) and planted directly, or pots of medium stand
in the tray At regular intervals, a simple timer causes a pump to fill the upper tray with nutrient solution,
after which the solution drains baclc down into the reservoir This lceeps the medium regularly flushed
with nutrients and air Once the upper tray fills past the drain stop it begins recirculating the water until
the pump is turned off and the water in the upper tray drains back into the reservoirs
Run to Waste
In a Run to Waste type system, nutrient and water solution is periodically applied to the medium
surface This may be done in its simplest form, by manually applying a nutrient and water solution one
or more times per day in a container of inert growing media, such as rockwool, perlite, vermiculite, coco
fibre, or sand In a slightly more complex system, it is automated with a delivery pump, a timer and
irrigation tubing to deliver nutrient solution with a delivery frequency that is governed by the lcey
parameters of plant size, plant growing stage, climate, subskate, and substrate conductivity, pH, and
water content
In a commercial setting, watering frequency is multi factorial and governed by pc or plc based
controllers
Commercial hydroponics production of large plants lilce tomatoes, cucumber and peppers, use one fbrm
or another of run to waste hydroponics
In environmentally responsible uses, the nutrient rich waste is collected and processed through an on site
filtration system to be used many times, making the system very productive [121[131
Deep water culture

Main avticle Deep water culture
The hydroponic method of plant production by means of suspending the plant roots in a sol~~tion of
nuQient rich, oxygenated water Traditional methods favor the use of plastic buckets and large
containers with the plant contained in a net pot suspended from the centre of the lid and the roots
suspended in the nutrient solution The solution is super oxygenated from an air pump combined with
porous stones With this method the plants grow much faster because of the high amount of oxygen that
the roots receive
Bubbleponics
"Bubbleponics" is the art of delivering highly oxygenated nutrient solution direct to the root zone of
plants While Deep Water Culture involves the plant roots hanging down into a reservoir of water below,
the term Bubbleponics describes a top-fed Deep Water Culture (DWC) hydroponic system Basically,
the water is pumped from the reservoir up to the roots (top feeding) The water is released over the
plant's roots and then runs baclc into the reservoir below in a constantly recirculating system As with
Hydroponics - Wilcipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 8 of 13
Deep Water Culture, there is an airstone in the ~eseivoirwhich pumps air into the water via a hose from
outside the reservoir The airstone helps add oxygen to the wate~Both the airstone and the water pump
run 24 hours a day
The biggest advantages with Bubbleponics over Deep Water Culture involve increased growth during
the first few weeks With Deep Water Culture, there is a time where the roots haven't reached the water
yet With Bubbleponics, the roots get easy access to water from the beginning and will grow to the
reservoir below much more quickly than with a Deep Water Culture system Once the roots have
reached the rese~voirbelow, there is not a huge advantage with Bubbleponics over Deep Water Culture
However, due to the quicker growth in the beginning, a few weeks of grow time can be shaved off [I5]
Media
One of the most obvious decisions hydroponic farmers have to make is which medium they should use
Different media are appropriate for different growing techniques
Diahydro
Sedimentary rock medium that consists of the fossilized remains of diatoms Diahydro is extremely high
in Silica (87-94%), an essential component for the growth of plants and strengthening of cell walls
Expanded clay (Ex-clay)

Balted clay pellets, also laown under the trademarks 'Hydroton'
or 'Hydroltorrels' or 'LECA' (lightweight expanded clay
aggregate), are suitable for hydroponic systems in which all
nutrients are caref~~llycontrolled in water solution The clay
pellets are inert, pH neuttal and do not contain any nutrient
value
The clay is formed into round pellets and fired in rotary lcilns at
1,200 OC (2,190 O F ) This causes the clay to expand, like
popcorn, and become porous It is light in weight, and does not
compact over time Shape of individual pellet can be irregular or Hydroton brand expanded clay
uniform depending on brand and manufacturing process The pebbles
manufacturers consider expanded clay to be an ecologically
sustainable and re-usable growing medium because of its ability
to be cleaned and sterilized, typically by washing in solutions of white vinegar, chlorine bleach or
hydrogen pe~oxide(HzOz), and rinsing completely
A less popula view is that clay pebbles are best not re-used even when they are cleaned, due to root
growth which may enter the medium Breaking open a clay pebble after a crop has been grown will
reveal this growth
Rock wool
Rock wool (mineral wool) is probably the most widely used medium in hydroponics Rock Wool is an
inert substrate for both 'free drainage' and recirculating systems It is made hom molten rock spun into
cotton candy-like fibers, resulting in a fibrous medium accessible to capillary action that is not degraded
Hydroponics - Wikipedia, the flee encyclopedia Page 9 of 13
by microbiological activity Advantages are that rock wool is light weight, free of pathogens, it has very
low CEC (Cations exchange capacity) making nutrients and water readily available, and it comes in
different fiber sizes and orientations Higher density rock wool also improves the wicking and dispersion
of moisture and nutrients, enticing roots into more areas of the medium, and therefore increasing
nutrient heled sites for premium plant production After usage, rock wool can be recycled into bricks or
into new lock wool again, and or incorporated into soil because it is made of natural rocks and contains
great amount of fertilizer left within it
Coir
Coco Peat, also ltnown as coir or coco, is the leftover material after the fibres have been removed from
the outermost shell (bolster) of the coconut Coir is a 100% natural grow and flowering medium
Coconut Coir is colonized with trichoderma bacteria which protects roots and stimulates root growth It
is extremely difficult to over water coir due to its perfect air to water ratio, plant roots thrive in this
environment, coir has a high cation exchange, meaning it can store unused minerals to be released to the
plant as and when it requires it Coir is available in many forms, most common is coco peat which has
the appearance and texture of soil but contains no mineral content
Perlite
Perlite is a volcailic roclc that has been snperheated into very lightweight expanded glass pebbles It is
used loose or in plastic sleeves immersed in the water It is also used in potting soil mixes to decrease
soil density Perlite has similar properties and uses to vermiculite but generally holds more air and less
water If not contained, it can float if flood and drain feeding is used It is a fusion of granite, obsidian,
pumice and basalt This volcanic rock is naturally fused at high tempelatures undergoing what is called
"Fusionic Metamorphosis"
Vermiculite
Like perlite, vermiculite is another mineral that has been superheated until it has expanded into light
pebbles Vermiculite holds mole water than perlite and has a natural "wiclting" property that can draw
water and nutrients in a passive hydropoilic system If too much water and not enough air surrounds the
plants roots, it's possible to gradually lower the medium's water-retention capability by mixing in
increasing quantities of perlite
Sand
Sand is cheap and easily available However, it is heavy, does not hold water very well, and it must be
sterilized between use
Gravel
The same type that is used in aquaiums, though any small gravel can be used, provided it is washed
first Indeed, plants growing in a typical traditional gravel filter bed, with water circulated using electric
powerhead pumps, are in effect being grown using gravel hydroponics Gravel is inexpensive, easy to
keep clean, drains well and won't become waterlogged However, it is also heavy, and if the system
doesn't provide continuous water, the plant roots may dry out
htto://en wikioedia or ~/wiki/Hvd~nnnnicq

Hydroponics - Wikipedia, the fiee encyclopedia Page 10 of 13
Brick shards
Brick sha~dshave similar propelties to glavel They have the added disadvantages of possibly altering
the pH and requiring extra cleaning bef'o~ereuse
Polystyrene packing peanuts

Polystyrene packing peanuts are inexpensive, readily available, and have excellent d~ainageHowever,
they can be too lightweight for some uses They are mainly used in closed tube systems Note that
polystyrene peanuts must be used; biodegradable packing peanuts will decompose into a sludge Plants
may absorb styrene and pass it to their consumers; this is apossible health ~ i s k
Wood fiber
Wood fiber, produced fiom steam fiiction of wood, is a very efficient organic substrate for hydroponics
It has the advantage that it keeps its structure for a very long time
Nutrient solutions
Plant nutrients used in hydroponics are dissolved in the water and are mostly in inorganic and ionic
form Primary among the dissolved cations (positively charged ions) are cazt (calcium), M ~ ~ +
-
(magnesium), and K ' (potassi~un);the majot nutrient anions in nutrient solutions are NO3 (nitrate),
SO:- (sulfate), and ~ 2 ~ (dihydrogen
0 4 phosphate)
Numerous 'recipes' for hydroponic solutions are available Many use diffe~entcombinations of
chemicals to reach simila~total final compositions Commonly used chemicals for the macronutrients
include potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate, potassium phosphate, and magnesium sulfate Various
mictonutrients are typically added to hydroponic solutions to supply essential elements; among them are
Fe (iron), Mn (manganese), Cu (copper), Zn (zinc), B (boron), C1 (chlorine), and Ni (nickel) Chelating
agents are sometimes used to lceep Fe soluble Many variations of the nutrient solutions used by Arnon
and Hoagland (see above) have been styled 'modified Hoagland solutions' and are widely used
Variation of different mixes througho~ttthe plant life cycle, further optimizes its nutritional value [I6]
Plants will change the composition of the nutrient solutions upon contact by depleting specific nutrients
more rapidly than others, removing water from the solution, and altering the pH by excretion of either
acidity or alkalinity ["I Care is required not to allow salt concentrations to become too high, nutrients to
become too depleted, or pH to wander far from the desired value
Commercial
The largest commercial hydroponics facility in the world is Eurofresh Farms in Willcox, Arizona, which
sold 200 million kilograms of tomatoes in 2008 [I8] E~uofreshhas 318 hectares under glass and
represents about a third of the commercial hydroponic greenhouse area in the U S [I9] Eurofiesh does not
consider its tomatoes organic, but they are pesticide-free They are grown in rockwool using the run to
waste technique
Hydroponics -. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 1 of 13
Some commercial installations use no pesticides or herbicides,

preferring integiated pest managemeill techniques Theie is often
a price piemium willingly- . paid
. by consumers foi nloduce which
is 1dbc.lcJ 'organic" Som? tatcs i n rhe U S t-clr~i~c soil as .In
css:ntial to ohrain dlganic c;.~tiiicarion T h t ~ c: L Idljo
~
o\.c~lappingand jornc.\\.hu <onr~ndic~oi\. I L I I ~ Scji~blijhcdby the
IIS Federal Go\.elnmenr, so janlt iooJ zto\\n \vith hyd~oponics
a n bc :e~tifictlol:anic
II!.dtoponics also sa\,ej\vatcl; ir uses as liulc .ij I.?. rhc arnomr

as a regular farm to produce the same amount of food The water A, ~~~~~~~d~~ using hydroponics
table can be impacted by the water use and run-off of chemicals and aer oponics
from farms, but hydroponics may minimize impact as well as
having the advantage that water use and water returns are easier
to measure This can save the farmer money by allowing reduced water use and the ability to measure
consequences to the land around a farm
To increase plant growth, lighting systems such as metal halide for growing stage only or high pressure
sodium for growing/flowering/bloomingstage are used to lengthen the day or to supplement natural
sunshine if it is scarce Metal halide emits more light in the blue spectrum, making it ideal for plant
growth hut is harmful to unprotected sltin and can cause skin cancer I-Iigh pressure sodium emits more
light in the red spectrum, meaning that it is best suited for supplementing natural sunshine and can be
used thoughout the growing cycle However, these lighting systems require large amounts of electricity
to operate, malting efficiency and safety very c~itical
The environment in a hydroponics greenhouse is tightly controlled for maximum efficiency and this new
mindset is called soil-less/cor~t~olled-environment
agriculture (CEA) With this growers can make ultra-
premium foods anywhere in the world, regardless of temperature and growing seasons Growers monitor
the temperature, humidity, and pH level constantly
Hydroponics have been used to enhance vegetables to provide more nutritional value A hydroponic
farmer in Virginia has developed a calcium and potassium enriched head of lettuce, scheduled to be
widely available in April 2007 Grocers in test markets have said that the lettuce sells "very well", and
the farmers claim that their hydroponic lettuce uses 90% less water than traditional soil farming 1201
Advancements
With pest problems reduced, and n~rtrientsconstantly fed to the roots, productivity in hydroponics is
high, although plant growth can be limited by the low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or
limited light exposure To increase yield further, some sealed greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into
their environment to help growth (CO2 emichment), add lights to lengthen the day, or control vegetative
growth etc
See also
Aeroponics
Aquaponics
Folkewall
m Grow box
Hydroponics - Wiltipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 12 of 13
m Growroom
m Organoponics
w Passive hydroponics
w Vertical fatrning
w Xeriscaping
References
1 /' " Douglas, James S Hydro~onics5th ed Bombay: Oxford UP, 1975 1-3.
2 " http://www techno-preneur net/information-desk/sciencetech-magazine/2007/jan07/Hyd1oponics
pdf
3' A Turner, Bambi "How Hydroponics Works " 20 October 2 0 0 8 HowStuffWorks corn
<http:Nhome howstuffworks.com/hydroponicshtm> 17 September 2009

4 " The Water Culture Methodfor Growing Planti Without Soil
(http:Npmbberkeley edu/newpmb/facultylarnoniHoagland~Arnon~Soiution.pdf)
5 A [I] (http://wwwhydroponicsgroup comlindex php?-a=viewDoc&docId=5) Hydroponics Group Industry
6 " 10:49 a m ET (2009-03-04) "Alfalfa Sprouts Source Of Salmonella, Experts Say - Omaha-
msnbc corn" (http://www insnbc msn co1n/id/294912388/) MSNBC
,
http://www msnbc rnsncom/id/29491388/. Retrieved 2009-.03-14.

7 " Winterborne, J, "Hydroponics Indoor Horticzr1tzire':Pz~blished by Pukka Prers, 2005, p l l 3
(http:i/books google corn/books?
id=Mwv_jnw6QQwC&pg=PTI 12&lpg=PT I12&dq=verticillium+wilt+in+11ydroponics&soucb&otsP1q
-YU4s) http://books google com/books?
id=Mwv_jnw6QQwC&pg=PT 1 12&lpg=PT 112&dq=verticiIIium+wilt+in+hydroponics&so~1rce=bl&ots=P1 q
-YU4s
8 " "Research News, "Commercial Aeroponics: 'The Grow Anywere Story", In Vitro Report - An Official
Publication of'the Society In Vitro Biology, Issue 42 2, April-June
2008" (http://www sivb org/InVitroReport/42-.Ziresearchhtm) http://wwwsivb org/lnVitroReport/42-
Zlresearch htm.
9 " "Stoner, R , "Aeroponics Versus Bed and Hydroponic Propagation", Florist Review, Vol 173 no 4477,
September 22, 1983" (http://www biocontrols corn/aero28.htmi) , http:/iwww biocontrols comlaero2S html
10 " Stoner, R J(1983) Rootingin Air Greenhouse Grower Voi 1 N o 11
11 " Aeroponics
12 " http://www grodan com/soli~tions/water+content+meter
13 " http://www newagehydrocorn/shopifaq php
14. " "Deep Water Culture" (http://www growell co ukipr/60/Deep-Water-C~ilture-It-s-all-aboi~t-the-b~lbbles-
html) Growell http://www growell co ~tk/prl6O/Deep-Water-Cuiture-It-s-all-about-the-bubbles-html
15 " "Growing Cannabis with Bubbleponics" (http://growweedeasy comihigh-yield-bubbleponics-technique)
GrowWeedEasy cam http:/lgrowweedeasy comlhigh-yield-bubbleponics-technique.Retrieved 2010-09-27
16 " Coston, D C , G W Krewer, R C Owing and E G Denny (1983) Air Rooting oJ'Peach Semihardwood
Cutting "HortScience 18(3) 323
17 " Understanding pH (http://www dutchrnaster corn au/?
language=english&page=growers_guide&topic=phinfo) DutchMaste~Hydroponics
18 " Kenney, Brad P "Success Under Glass " American Vegetable Grower 1 May 2006: 12-1 3
19 " Sorenson, Dan "Pampered tomatoes " Arizona d a i l m 223 April 2006 [2]
(http://~wwazstarnet com/allheadlines/l25882 php)
20 " Murphy, Katie "Farm Grows Hydroponic Lettuce " The Observer 1 December 2006 [3]
(http:Nwww observernews corn/storieslcur1ent/news/120106/Lettuce shtml)
External links
w Controlled Environment Agticultme Center, Univet sity of Arizona
(http://www a g atizona edulceac)
w Hydroponic Resources, Online Guide (http://www makehydroponics corn)
Hydroponics - Wilcipedia, the flee encyclopedia Page 1 3 of 13
n Hydroponic Lesson Plans (http:ii%ww hydroponicsonline comilessonsitable-of'contents htm)

B Barak, P 2002 Essential Elements for Plant Growth: Hydroponics
( h t t p : / / m s o i l s wisc edu/courses/soils326ihydroponhtm)
B Jensen, M H 1997 Hydroponics HortScience 32
(http://ag arizona edu/PLS/faculty/MERLE html)
n Hydroponics as a Hobby Growing Plants Without Soil University ofIllinois, Circular 844
(http://wwwaces uiucedu/vista/l~tmlqubs/hydrokydrotochtml)
Utah State University Hydroponics (http://www usu edulcplhesearch-hydroponics htm)
m Hydroponics at McMurdo Station Antarctica (http://www schundler c o m ~ m c m u d ohtm)
Cornell University Commercial Hydroponic Lettuce, Spinach and Pak Choi Grower's Handbooks
(http:/iwwwcornellceacom/handbool~home htm)
Hydroponics and Soilless Cultures on Artificial Substrates as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide
Soil Fumigation (http://www epa govlOzone/mbr/casestudies/volume3ihydropn3 html)
Essential elements for hydroponics set up (http:i/www hydroponics eukydroponics-setupasp)
Retrieved from "http://en wilcipediaor g/wilci/Hydroponics"
Categories: Hydroponics
This page was last modified on 30 December 2010 at 15:08,

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAliIce License; additional terms
may apply See Terms of'Use for details
WikipediaO is a registered trademall<of the Wilcimedia Foundation, Inc , a non-profit
organization
NATIVE
SUN ENTERPRISES, LLC
Office: 480 488-4889
Fax: 480 488-5875
Mobile: 602 361-2482
Noel@NoelHebets.com,
127 East 14'~Street
Tempe, Arippa 85281
.
December 28,2010
Attn: Section Receiving Comments on:

Office of t h e Director
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT' OF HEALTH SERVICES
150 North 18th Avenue #500
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3247
Re: Comments on Draft Rules for Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
Dear. Good People:
Please accept the enclosed hard copy of my comments on the 12/17/2010 draft o f proposed
rules for the implementation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana A c t As you can see, they
suggest a mechanism whereby proper rewards for sustainability can be included into the rules,
I would be glad t o discuss these suggestions and answer questions at any public hearings you
might h a v e Please let me know if and how I might do so,,
Note: Today, I filled in a brief message on your website where it allows for comments t o be
made electronically in that electronic message, I promised t o send the enclosed hard copy,
and asked for an email address where I can also send you the document in an MS Word format.
Sincerely,
Noel J Hebets
N1H:njh
enclosure
SUGGESTED RULE FOR REWARDING THE APPLICATION OF SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES
I N THE APPLICATION OF THE ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT'
Submitted by:
Noel@NoelHebets.com
Noel J Hebets 480 488-4889 fax: 480 488-5875
NOEL J HEBETS, PLC 127 East 14'~Street
NATIVE SUN ENTERPRISES, LLC Tempe, Arizona 85282
Comments:
After the mistakes and problems with how California and Colorado have allowed for the use of medical
marijuana, the whole country is watching to see if Arizona will really do it right,
Certainly, one way in which Arizona can set a national example, and do right for all of its citizens,
especially those Arizona patients who will use medical marijuana, is to favor those who dispense
medical marijuana grown following appropriate principles of sustainability
(Note: The adjectives "sustainable", "environmentally sustainable" and "ecologically sustainable" are
loosely translated as "green" and "planet friendly" by most people)
Before proceeding t o a suggested rule t o accomplish that goal, the following considerations should be
recognized as important places t o start when considering how t o achieve sustainability in our planning
and agriculture:
a In our planning, architecture, landscaping, and the like, we are not likely t o develop some
single "sustainable silver bullet" No "green gadget on the roof'' is ever likely t o rescue a project
beneath it from the continuing and significant ecological and economic costs o f a poor
environmental design instead, real sustainability will come from orchestrating multiple
techniques, while observing two very important and overlapping approaches:
(1)"stay local" - Optimize the use o f renewable onsite resources, such as sunlight, shade,
nighttime cold, and rainwater, before going offsite for other resources, especially non-
renewable resources that come from long distances
( 2 ) "go low-tech" -Apply the fundamental laws o f science and nature, especially the basic
but critical principles of thermal science, as inherent aspects of the overall design Before
looking at complex and exotic technologies, especially those that function as afterthoughts
on inefficient designs, favor low-tech solutions incorporated in the design itself
b Similarly, in our agriculture, we must strive for locally and organically grown crops if we are
ever t o balance the needs of the growers and consumers of those crops if not the planet and the
rest of its people as well
Proposed Rule Rewarding Sustainability under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
1 When evaluating competing applications for the issuance or renewal of nonprofit medical
marijuana dispensary registration certificates, the Department may consider the extent t o which the
applicant will or does apply general sustainability principles, including:
a the marijuana that is ultimately provided by the applicant t o qualifying patients was or will
be grown sustainably and organically, including the evaluation of appropriate factors such as the
extent t o which:
i the marijuana plants are grown under natural sunlight;

ii artificial lighting used on the plants is powered by energy produced onsite or nearby;
iii the plants are grown in soil or other growing media that is composted or otherwise
consistent with organic or sustainable growing practices;
iv few or no chemicals are used the various aspects of the cultivation of the plants and
processing of the harvested portions of the plants;
v rainwater and other sources of renewable onsite water are used in the cultivation of
the plants; and
vi any other approaches or techniques are used to reduce the "carbon footprint" of the
operation of the dispensaty or otherwise make it more environmentally sustainable,
b if and how the applicant provides for reasonable verification by the Department and by
appropriate independent third-party agents, such as agents of non-profit entitles that certify the
use and application of renewable energy or organic growing techniques, that such sustainability
factors are being consistently observed
2 The Department may condition the continuance or renewal of dispensary registration certificates
upon such reasonable verification of the consistent application of sustainability principles
3 The requirement that marijuana cultivated under the Act be grown in an enclosed, locked facility
does not prevent a party who is otherwise legally cultivating marijuana under the Act from using secure
greenhouses or translucent materials or open-screening for the roofs, walls, siding or fencing around the
plants, or from growing the marijuana in the ground, in lieu of in containers
Proposed Rule Rewarding Sustainability under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
0
VI
I
w
C 5
6: II
5,,
gmN
sE m
=ut.T'
? : Z , zIw
L
-
3 0
c o
Z " " $ %
$ 2 :c<
a%.==
= . z n $ 5 S
8 " aw:.z
O w5n.,=<
,-
ZZe<.t:
m o z O.?Z'
..z Egzs
5 ° C e- L0n0S
z <Loe a rln.
Arizonans Concerned About Smoking
525 W. S o u t h e r n Ave, Suite 109, Mesa, AZ, 85210 P h : 480-733-5864 Fax: 480-733-1844
www acasinc org
Our Purpose Is
To Save Lives Mr Will Humble, Director ADHS and Staff
FOUNDERS
Those of us in the medical and public health community have long appreciated the wis-
Herbert 8 Betty Carnes
F V Bud Brown dom of Governor Brewer in her appointment choice for Director of ADHS That wisdom
OFFICERS was demonstrated once again by the work of your team in carefully drafting the Prop 203
Medical Marijuana Program Guidelines released on December 16,2010 The work of
President
Leland Fairbanks. M D your team rates a 10 on the 1 to 10 scale
Executive Director
Philip J Carpenter An especially important component relates to the warning label requirements and side ef-
Vice President fects risk guidelines (which need to be in writing, not just verbal) just as now occurs in
Alton Brasher pharmacies every time we receive a medication by prescription Also, even over the
Recording Secretary counter medications have warning instructions on the containers plus table of contents
Susan Johnson
ingredients More and more food items in grocery stores contain similar written labels
Secretaryllreasurer
Kim Gallagher
FDA Position Statement: Shouldn't there be a factual FDA position statement in writing
TRUSTEES
on each marijuana product package dispensed to point out what form (s) (oral or other-
Alton Brasher wise) has been approved (or not approved) as a safety approved "medicine" by the FDA
Dennis J Cahiil
Laura Carpenter and Federal Food and Drug Laws? Also, for full honest disclosure and as an Arizona
Michael Evans State Medical-Legal protection feature in case of lawsuit challenges, should not it be men-
Gregory Fairbanks tioned in writing that the FDA has not approved the smoking form of crude marijuana as
David Gallagher
Donald Morris, Ed. D an approved treatment method for any medical diagnosis?
Eric Ossowski, M.D.
Patricia Goss Rhodes
Alex Romero Another questions: In addition to your highly commendable requirement for a Dispensary
Medical Director, should there not also be a Pharmacists Specialist Director because of
ADVISORY BOARD
the unique training of pharmacists as special experts to point out side effects, interactions
Dorothy Brasher
Paul L. Cloke, Ph D. with other medicines and added potentiation of cancer risk when carcinogen tar containing
Edward Diethrich, M D tobacco and marijuana are smoked together, etc?
Joe Garagioia, Sr.
Bernice Gerig Carver
Carol Harris. FNP Respectfully,
Clifford J H& MD
Frank Kush
Sue Linney, Ed.D
Marcia Matthies
Robert W. Matthles, MD Leland L Fairbanks, MD, MPH
Diane Mehok, RN President, Arizonans Concerned About Smoking
Art Moilen, D 0 1866 East Vinedo Lane, Tempe, AZ 85284
Patricia Morris Tel480: 820-3740, e-mail; acasinc~,msn.com;
Marguerite Munkachy
Daios 'Sonny" Ness, Emeritus
Catherine Ann Nichols
David Nieisen, M D
Albert Ortiz
Wilfred Potter. M D
Ann Robb, M D
Kent Shelton
John Spealman
Geoffrey Walker, J D
Dale Webb, M D
MEMORIAL HALL of FAME
Erma Bombeck (1927-1996)
Dan Devina (1924-2002)
Barry Goldwater (1909-1998)
Katharine Herberger (1914-1999)
John lrvlne (1938-2008)
Karsten Soiheim (1911-2000)
Mrs Luther Terry (1915-2000)
December 21,2010
A non-profif fax exempt corporation dedicated to achieving fobaccofree environmenfs
1 2 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 0 O E : 5 9 FAX
Roger Morgan, Chairman, Executive Director

Coalition for a DrupFree California
P,.O,.Box 1450, Lincoln, 95648 (916) 435 5629 (916) 434 5676 fkx (916) 300 5200 cell
Email: rogerm0rgan339@gmaiI.com
10: Will klumble

Director of Public Health Sexvices
Swtv o f Aizond
12/21/2010 0 6 : 5 9 FAX
Roger Morgan, Chairman, Executive Director

Coalition for a Drug-Free California
P.O. Box 1450, Lincoln, Ca. 95648 (916) 434 5629 (91q 434 5676 fax (916)300 5200 cell
Email: rogemorgan339@gmnil.com -- -
PROPOSED STEPS TO CONTROL ARIZONA'S

"MEDICAL MARIJUANA" DISTlUBUTlION BASED ON
EXPEKPIENCE IN C i U l F 3 R \ U
In the interest of saving a few lives, or. the quality of Me for a11 Arizonians, I would like to offer
some suggestions so that hrizona doesn't fall victim to ihc m e chaos we have in rklifornia
Since the two top priorities ofthe government axe to protect the people and manage tax dollars, it
might k h w v e you to take more time to ensure you have done so . . in the intetsst of public
safety.
1) The Danvers of Medicine bv PopularV&- If by popula~vote, mafjuana is to be

considered a food and drug, thc same rules should apply as with other f w d and
drugs That would includc control over production, manufacturing, packaging,
testing and identifying contents, identi&ing dosage and identifying and setting
standards fox polency. Packaging should comply with safety standards for child
pxoof contajnm~and all side affects duly noted on the labels
2) -
Control Doctor's Rccornmendntions Set new standards for controlling doctor's
~ecommendations,Rquiring full exnrns; completed questionnaires on patient's
conditions and history with legal medicines; recommendations that are
sensible. Stipulate conditions for taking license away for failure to comply Your
proposed mle, that a patient have a relationship with a doctot for 12 montlis is good
It is wofthy to note thag most doctor's will not prescribe a drug that has unknown
ingredients, unknown dosage and u n b o r n potency when better; legal medicines
exist,
3) ~ 1 , A o q u i s i t i o Standards
n -Design and implement a cornputr based system to
makc it impossible for a "patient"to use a doctor's recommendation to buy f r ~ n l
numerous dispensaries. In C:olotado 60% of kids get their pot fiorn ID card holde~s,
A similar survey in Calikrnia would probably reveal the same result as curr~ntly
anyone with an ID card can buy from numerous dispensaries.
4) Prevent Undera-e Use of Mnriiuana -..Knowing that marijuana is readily available to

adolescents and rhose under 21; and knowing the damage that can occur by
marijuana on brains that are underdeveloped (age 25); the only sensible protection
policy m ensure kids sren't using is random drug test& Given the pandemic of
health and economic impacts on America fr'om underage use of ATOD,the Governor
should be encouraged to mandate non-dimitive random d r u testing
~ for all middle
md hjgh schools.
12/21/2010 06:EO FAX
Scientific information must bc communicated to all scl~ooIs,parents and children on

the adverse impacts of'marijuana on me body aod brain. The brain is not fully
developed until age 25, or even later,.Maijuana use by males or females can cause
death to a fetus and/or cellular and brain damage, deformities to the fetus, and is
even mutagenic .- . moaning it can cross over generations and affect grandchildrm,,
Raise the age level to obtain a mnriiuana XD card f im,mtoZL , llumau brain
The
is not fully developed until age 25, and permanent brain &amage including psychosis
can occur before then, particularly d~uingadolescence IJnfodunately, the two age
gioups with the highest consumption rates we 18-25 and 12 Lo 17 As a nation, we
can ill afford the loss of their talents or the economic burdcr, of more addicts.
5) &vide Educational Materials On Facrs About Mariiuana- Provide materials to

enlighten parents, kids, schools, legislators and the gcneral public on the potential
benefits and harms, based on scientific evidence (no1 propaganda) so that they c m
make enlightened decisions on smoking or. consuming marijuana, and determine
whether it should be legalized by legislative action or popular vote,
Attach a questionnaire to be signed by all dispensary owners and employees. and

"patients" as a c ~ i t e ~for
i a obtaining a "medical marijuana" LD card,.
6) Restficr k i v f n p P r i v j w
A) "Medical Mariiuana" ID Card Holders must have their driver's liccnscs flaggcd
so that arresting officers h o w they are consuming marijuana and wr dcbrminl:
if additional testing is required to determine impairment. Dtivers impaired by
marjjuana should be treated the same as for alcohol impairment. In cases where
doctots have recommended excessive amounts of ma~juanawhich would imply
permanent impairment, driving privileges should be taken away completely
Ileatiis due to masjnana impairment have doubled in California in che last iivc
years compared to the five previous years, 1240 vs 631
-
B) Under 21 Make Random U t u ~ T e s t i na ~Reauirernme~.For A Driver's License
Hair analysis four times a year. would cost $180 to $200. TIair gives a 90 day
window add its harder to cheat the test Savings in traffic accidents and death
couid offset the cost, and insurance companies might also participate by offering
lower rates. Those with no hair (i-e. gangbangers) will have to subject
themselves to random dmg tcsting with tnine, saliva or other means,,
7) Disuensaries -Replace dispensaries with County facilities to tatau, togulate and control
the distribution of "medical mariiuana;" to insutc availability of the druz- for those
who a.enot well served with e&ting mcdicincs; and io cnsurc they we fully
informed on the potential h a r m of smoked mazijuana and awarc of my and all legal
medicinal alternatives, and that the producl. they receive has known ingrcdicnts,
dosage and potency, and is packaged properly iu child pradcontahers and the side
: efiects duly labeled in conformance with federal and state laws,.
8) -
Porencv Limit We haye information fronl DI. Carlion Ttune~,former director of'
NIDA'S 5 !4 acre "pot farm" from 1981 to 1987 that "...,..we supp?vthescientists with
mar~uanawhichhar a IXCpotency of two percent .,,.. The US,government and
,
: i'zsponsiblescientists c n n o t &ministep a b u g to u huma?~

being vjhick is arporent
1 ar rodqy 's m(~pijuana.Bur fwe did, the resufts would be even more sobering " We
i are in contact wilh IX Tmer and NIDA to clarify this, as that statement was made
: sometime ago,. Of concern, the marijuana being sold i n Califo~niam g e s &om I0 to
: 2 1% normally, and goes as hi$ as 37%.
9) i Eliminate Glaucoma - The Glaucoma Association recommends not using marijuana..

Wliile it can relieve pressure, the quantity required for lasting relief'leaves the patient.
i permanently impaired and can actidly damage the eye,
~ m r m ~ ~ . T m w a i n n-- eThe
n t responsibility for employers to Ere and retain pot
smokers unless they can prove impairment, which will ce~tainlyd~ivejobs out of
state, based on scientific evidwce you can conclude that anyone who smokes
marijuana is impaired The degree may vary on the frequency or use. But because
pot is fat soluble, it slays in one's system for up to a month Even weekend use only
stacks IHC on top of already reained THC, and the outcome is less work
performance, impaired cognition, more accidents, more absenteeism, more sickness,
et al,. If a person has a right to alter their performance with a mind-altering narcotic,
an employer cerlainly should have the right to not hi1.e them,
I hope the&. ~ ~ g g e ~ t iare

o n helpful
s to you. Please let me know if I can provide additional
information.
oger Mor
Chairman, gxecutive Director
il.IEDI('XLMICONTROLS AWL

MMJ Comments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MMJ Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What parts of the draft rules do you believe are effective?

The parts pertaining to the physician-patient "ongoing" relationship.

The parts pertaining to the physician-patient "ongoing" relationship.

Most parts look to be effective.

Dispensery rules for starting and operation.

I do not find any parts that are ineffective.

Remains to be seen. There are always unintednded consequences.

The timeline established is very nicely put together.

On the whole, the regulations have been very well drafted.

The (A Not For Profit Organization Opening Spring 2011)

R9-17-107. Time-frames Seems to be effective.

The applauds the effort and dedication of the

Google <a href="http://google.com">google</a>

The time-frame rules seem to be reasonable and effective.

R9-17-101 and R9-17-103 thru 108

Arizona residency requirement Security and product tracking requirements

What the voters voted for.

most everything I see is O.K.

Limited areas where marijuana can be grown and dispensed

It's effective in being cruel and unreasonable

Establishment of a Physician-Patient relationship for a minimum period of time

The rules that explain residency and Medical Director.

I believe the dispensary application process is fair.

Basic framework of Registration & Regulation.

I do not want to change my Doctor.

It would be more effective if the rules were not so long winded,

Most of it is well-written and makes sense.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

the safety aspect of it i like.

I like that the dispensaries will be so closely regulated.

The regulations appear well thought out.

Dispensary descriptions, inspections (although should allow reporters of noncompliance a method of

all of the draft rules are acceptable,

The draft on a whole seems to be effective except my opinions below.

I think the security is excellent.

the dispensary parts.

For the most part, you seen to have everything covered

Rules regarding id, sanitation, and requirements are excellent...

allowing people to use the herb is very affective, thank you

The draft is very comprehensive and is a good start.

Overall, I feel it is a fair and balance.

Requiring a License Fee

ARTICLE 2. QUALIFYING PATIENTS AND DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS. “A statement, initialed by the

the fact that medical marijuana is being made available at all.

Overall I like them

I think the rules are effective.

I think having rules is very good.

Identifying caregivers and patients. Other than that it is a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think the security measures will be very effective.

These comments are submitted by but they are