Throughout my career I’ve learned that a cornerstone of working with the community is to make sure you have a true partnership. Every partnership starts with trust. In order to establish and maintain trust throughout our implementation period, the ADHS needs to ensure that our process is completely fair, open, honest and transparent. Part of establishing these pillars that result in trust means that we need to ensure that everybody has equal access to information and making sure that everybody has an equal voice in the process.
Our top priority as we implement the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act over the coming months is to ensure that the processes we use to develop the regulations for the program are fair and transparent. Moreover, I want to ensure that we have the opportunity to benefit from everybody’s ideas.
It’s my understanding that there are individuals in the community that are suggesting that they somehow have inside information into – or influence on – our processes and decision-making. Some are even suggesting that they already have a dispensary or that they have one on “reserve”. This is not the case. Nobody outside the department is involved in the development of our informal draft rule that will be posted for public comment on December 17. Nobody and no organization has any influence on our decision making, nor does anybody have any inside track to a license of any kind. Period.
We are committed to ensuring that the process is completely transparent and that everybody in the State has an equal chance at input, which is why I’ve directed my rules team to write a completely internally driven first initial draft. On December 17 we’ll invite (electronic) input to everybody at once from our hub 203 website. We look forward to receiving input from all of Arizona’s residents once our draft is posted.
Follow Medical Marijuana information.
Thank you for this communication. Your assertion for fairness and transparency is not only consistent with best practices, it should serve to also quiet some of the “hoopla” in the community about “insider” favors and influence.
Thanks again.
Peter,
Thank you very much for your comment! We are working very hard to keep this process fair and transparent.
Will
thank you Will. this post was much appreciated. I know there are many of us out there that are worried we will not get a fair shake because we’re the “little guys.” I do know in many cases our motivations and desires to make this work for the benefit of the patients, along with the fact that we do have the business acumen, funding and resources will make this implementation a success in AZ.
Mitch
Mitch,
You’re welcome! Your comment is sincerely appreciated!
Will
Yes Thank You will for that clarification. I as “little guy” am interested because my daughter was diagnosed with glaucoma at the age of 16. She has had succesful surgery and is doing fine, however, that may not be the case in the future. I want to be able to help her as well as anyone else that may need medical marijuana for their treatment or comfort…Thanks again, Ray
Ray,
You’re welcome!
Thanks,
Will
Looking from the outside in, Arizona is way ahead of the game. You guys are doing a great job in keeping the public informed. this blog site is amazing; I wish other states were as open and transparent. Mr. Humble, can you come to New Mexico and get our Department of Health to open up, we could use someone like you over here….thanks again, I’ll be checking the site regularly
Steve
Thanks Steve, I appreciate it!
Will
You guy’s are doing an awesome job….Thank you for all your hard work on this important issue.
Thanks Tony!
Hi Will. Thank you so much for pushing clarity and truth in this process. Everyone is very excited to get started.
Thank you again for the clarity. The best thing potential dispensary owners can do is *wait* and keep up with your blogs.
Thank you Nancy!
As with all things New, there will always be those unscrupulous looking to cash in on it. Reading recent Blogs i too have become a bit worried the “Little Guy” wont get there fair shake.
Fortunately this site exists to help dispel the myths and bring everything out in the open. I for one, would like to thank Will Humble and his team for keeping us up to date and informed.
This is an amazing movement, I hope nothing but good to come from it. In this case i truly believe the little guys have the biggest hearts and will help keep this a CARE driven industry.
Thank you Brandon!
Thank you Will Humble for setting your personal opinions aside, rising to the occassion in a professional manner, and pledging to create fair and honest regulations for AMMA. It is refreshing indeed to see ADHS leading the way in a proactive and positive direction, call for an open and honest process, and is reaching out to the community for guidance. I think PROP 203 gave us a great foundation to work with, and ADHS can have a positive impact for all other states who have, or soon will have a medical marijuana law.
I would like to add one thing on a personal note, as our industry is going to be relatively small due to the amount of licenses that will be issued, ADHS can further create a model medical marijuana industry by keeping the dispensary owners, board members, and directors as AZ residents only. It is difficult to regulate this industry if the owners and board members are out of state. We need the economic growth, and AZ needs the dollars to stay in our state. I think that the citizens of AZ are speaking out on this regulation in particular, and hope ADHS is taking this issue under serious consideration.
Great job Will and team!!
I hope this information will assist everyone in making the best decisions going forward. I was noticing some of the zoning restrictions adopted by Tucson and other cities. For the patient, they are allowed 50 square feet to cultivate their plants, this is a very small area to squeeze 12 pants into. For caregivers, are they allowed to cultivate for up to 5 patients and if so, some of the restrictions I was looking at stated, 250 square feet for caregivers, which is not enough space to cultivate up to 60 plants?? Do I understand this correctly, if so will these zoning restrictions be addressed if they are not realistic?
Just some food for thought,
Thanks!!
Ricky-
ADHS is still in the process of writing the rules/regulations, and will post a draft on our website (www.azdhs.gov) December 17th. Please check back regularly for updates.
Thanks!
Will
I want to thank you for supplying as much information as possible. This will be a great opportunity for the state of Arizona.
Also, It is a bit threatening when you hear about people coming in from Colorado planning to take opportunities away from the residents of Arizona.
Thank you for this post Mr. Humble. Needless to say this is a hotly debated topic, and it is reassuring to know that the state is taking a proactive role in maintaining integrity while implementing Medical Cannabis policies.
I look forward to reviewing the initial draft of policies on December 17th.
Varesh
How many licenses will be issued?
If there is a limit, and more people qualify for a license than actual availability; How will state distribute them fairly?
Linda-
ADHS is still in the process of writing the rules/regulations, and will post a draft on our website (www.azdhs.gov) December 17th. Please check back regularly for updates.
Thanks!
Will
Dear Director Humble:
I have thoroughly researched Prop 203 and the proposed plans regarding Az Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.Also, I have done the math so to speak and the resultant findings are staggering, to say the least. 100,000 “Qualifying Patients” able to possess 2 1/2 ounces every 2 wks means 65 ounces per year or, 6.5 Million ounces of Marijuana per year. Considering most of the “Qualifying Patients” will be located within 25 miles of a Dispensary places the burden of a single Dispensary having to produce about 52, 000 ounces of Marijuana each. Considering, each Dispensary would be allowed 1 additional location to cultivate the Marijuana that would mean each Dispensary would have to locate a warehouse “enclosed locked facility” or greenhouse representing 30 to 40, 000 SF to accommodate the apparent demand. 3, 250 pounds of Marijuana requires a minimum amount of 9-10 SF per plant. The lighting requirements, if a warehouse was used would require 1, 500 to 2, 000, 1,000 Watt Bulbs burning 18-24 Hours per day for 2 months and then 12 hours per day for 3 months. I believe this would place a serious burden on our energy providers and created problems for all residents. We’re talking mega millions of wattages! I propose instead of mandating that each dispensary be required to grow their own Marijuana, in one location, the Department allocate up to 4 growers per Dispensary and issue licenses accordingly and limit the production of the grow to no more than 800 pounds each grower, per year. Additionally, only allow Marijuana to be grown outside of all city limits and only in greenhouses, that are secured according to prop 203…………The State for regulatory purposes could purchase the Marijuana directly from the growers, test the product and sell the product to the Dispensary (for profit) as demand requires. This process would illiminate abuse, misuse and impliment more stringent regulations than what is aparently proposed at this time. It would appear that once a Dsipensary has license in hand, they hold much of the power to grow and sell……………..to their hearts content!
Sincerely,
Charles Gallagher
all you have to do is look at the notes published from the meeting in Scottsdale regarding zoning and check the sign in sheets- CA, MI, CO…they’re all coming! I really hope AZ residents who have a vested interest in really making this work for the right reasons get priority and the big money stays in CA and CO
Dear Director,
I just wanted to take the opportunity to express my appreciation and admiration for your posts, and especially for your efforts to maintain open communication with the community during this process. Your expression of the importance of trust and transparency reflects an ethicist viewpoint that is rarely encountered. You are in a rather unenviable position to balance the interests of patients with providers (against a legislative backdrop that includes roughly a hundred years of controversial history) and your willingness to address the task at hand with that mindset has not gone unnoticed.
Respectfully,
BK
I need to think this through a little bit more but I’m throwing it out now for brainstorming purposes.
I know there’s going to be a rush to submit applications (and I don’t see how anything other than a lottery among “qualified applicants” will prevent a slew of lawsuits) and part of the application process requires that the physical address of the dispensary be listed. In practical terms, isn’t that a little bit of putting the cart before the horse? There are a lot of zoning issues coming up in the various cities, and to ask potentially thousands of applicants to actually go out and secure a site, perhaps commit to a lease, before knowing whether their application will be successful seems a bit problematic. Your thoughts?
One simple question? Understanderably, there will be a significant amount of “Applications” for potential Dispensary Ownership. Considering there are only a limited number of allocated Dispensary s ( 124 )for the entire State, what would happen to the money (which could be as much as
$ 5, 000.00 per App.)if someone Applies and does not get awarded a license. Is the money refunded??
Steve,
This has yet to be decided. For more information, please visit our website at http://www.azdhs.gov, we will post a draft copy of the rules this Friday.
Thanks,
Will
Excellent points Mary. You appear to have the ability to think ahead. Applicants cannot necessarily know their physical locations until zoning has been established. This does hamper the application process. I hope the application committee has thought this through when they create the application.
Mr. Will Humble–
My doctor of many years says he recommends medical marijuana to me. He insists that it will benefit me greatly. He works for Northland Health Care Clinic. The clinic has numerous doctors and clinics in Northern Arizona. In many Arizona cities they are the only provider of medical services
However, the clinic’s policy is to not write recommendations for medical marijuana for any of their patients. Their doctors are precluded from writing recommendations as part of their clinic policy, even though they have countless individuals who need these prescriptions, even though their doctors would write precription recommendations. These are by far the largest clinics of Northern Arizona preventing their doctors from writing prescriptions.
The dilemna I see is that you mentioned in one of your posts that you want prescriptions written by doctors who have established relationships with their patients. How am I to establish a relationship instantly with another doctor? Many of my friends are required to go these doctors as part of their medical plans. Many have built long lasting relationships with these doctors.
As Health Director of Arizona can you stipulate that no governing board may restrict their doctors from writing medical marijuana recommendations?
Can you not trust that a licensed doctor will do what is right for their patient, even if it is a new patient?
If a doctor is writing bad prescriptions, than that doctor should be charged. Do not blame the patient, blame the bad doctor.
Do not put unrealistic restrictions on patients. As it is, the patient will have to pay a new doctor to see them to get the recommendation, perhaps travelling many, many miles. And then possibly the state trying to deny the recommendation. Pain pills are easy to get and they do a lot of harm. Medical marijuana should be no harder to get than pain pills.
Will, do what is right given these barriers for patients.
Thank you.
Donna Davis,
We are going to post a draft copy of the rules on our website (www.azdhs.gov) December 17th, and will have a place to click and send your comments/suggestions. We encourage everyone to participate in the final process, and will take all things into consideration. Nothing at this point has been decided, as the rules have not been finalzed yet. That must come first.
Thanks,
Will