Three cheers for our interdisciplinary team that’s been working hard on the latest round of Administrative Code to implement the new medical marijuana law that will take effect April 14. We changed lots of provisions since the latest draft that we released on January 31. Here are just a few highlights:
The new draft rules would boost the requirements for physicians who certify a patient for medical marijuana by requiring that they’ve:
- Reviewed the last 12 months of the patient’s medical record;
- Conducted a physical examination;
- Diagnosed or confirmed the relevant diagnosis;
- Established and maintain a medical record for the qualifying patient as required in A.R.S. 2297;
- Examined the patient’s Profile on the Arizona Board of Pharmacy Controlled Substances Monitoring Program database;
- Examined the patient’s response to conventional medications and medical therapies;
- Explained the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana to the qualifying patient;
- Committed to continue to assess the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient’s use of medical marijuana; and
- Assumed responsibility for providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition.
The draft rules also provide for a geographic distribution of the dispensaries to provide easy access to dispensaries and limit the number of people who grow marijuana for themselves. The draft rules also outline how the Department will award dispensary certificates if there is more than one complete application for a specific Community Health Analysis Area. The complete draft rules are available on the ADHS Website along with the electronic comment form and a schedule of public hearings.
We started our last public comment period this week which extends through February 18. At that point, we’ll take a look at the new comments and put together a final rule package by March 28. The actual turn key date for the law will be April 14.
So what hope do Veterans like me have to ever using medicinal marijuana? VA doctors are not allowed to prescribe medicinal marijuana to Veterans. Most Veterans primary physician is the Veterans Hospital physician. Does this mean that a Veteran would have to pay a secondary doctor for an evaluation, costly exams, stay with said physician for a year, get approval to use Marijuana from the physician and then be able to use it? Can someone please clarify. I apologize if I am out of line.
Thanks for easing up on the costs for the poor! Thanks for easing up on the medical requirements by allowing us to keep our doctors and see a MJ doctor with a minimum amount of visits and costs. Keep costs down on dispensairies so MJ won’t be too much. Already I heard some legisklators want to add a 300% tax which will make MJ not affordable.
After reading the rules, there is no limit on the amount of applications that can be submitted by any one group. There is also no limit on the amount of boards that one person can serve on. So it is possible that the same group could be approved in every CHAA essentially monopolizing the industry. I would hate to see the same ownership for every dispensary. Is this what your department has in mind for the future of medical marijuana?
R Camp-
ADHS is working hard to make dispensaries as diverse as possible.
After reading the rules and looking into the boundaries for the CHAAs, it is possible that in Phoenix for instance two applicants can be selected in two different CHAAs and still be within the 1 mile separation requirement from the city. How will this be dealt with? Will an accepted applicant be given the option to find a new location?
Lastly, how long will a Dispensary Registration Certificate be valid?
Jason-
As it states in the draft rules “a sworn statement signed and dated by the individual or individuals in R9-17-301 certifying that the disepansry is in compliance with local zoning restrictions.” This is a zoning issue.
Second, a dispensary registration certificate expires 1 year after the date it was issued.
Thank you for the quick response. Not to be too picky here but I see potential problems. Zoning regulations require separation from other dispensaries among other things. As there are no dispensaries currently, one may make a statement that they are in compliance with zoning restrictions in good faith. And to expect the city to govern such separation prior to the issuance of the certificates is not going to work as the City of Scottsdale has indicated that they will issue a CONDITIONAL Use Permit to anyone that meets the requirements excluding the separation requirement from other dispensaries for the simple fact stated above…there are no dispensaries right now. Though I have not spoken to other city planning departments, I suspect (as they earn fees for the use permit submittal) that they will all act in a similar fashion.
It seems only fair that if someone is in compliance with zoning at the time of the submittal to ADHS but later is in noncompliance that they be given the ability to rectify the situation.
Dear Director,
Given the restrictive zoning in some municipalities, the additional CHAA overlay presents a fair, but rather challenging level of complexity.
While I appreciate the foresight of the provision for a city to request consolidation of CHAA boundaries and reassignment of registrations, I did not see that such would be automatically approved. There is no specific language addressing the very likely possibility of a dispensary proper located in one CHAA, and its off-site cultivation area located in another. An applicant would be unfairly served by the State to be informed after submitting the appropriate paperwork that both are required to be in the same CHAA. I trust ADHS recognizes such may not be possible in cities that zone cultivation in industrial areas and dispensaries in commercial areas, and a literal interpretation of the draft rules indicates that no such requirement exists. (The draft notes that one “dispensary” is allowed per CHAA, and does not explicitly regulate cultivation sites). In short, the draft rules are unclear on regulation (if any is intended) of cultivation sites in regards to CHAA. Please consider a clarification of this issue an important attribute of the draft warranting a timely response.
As you are aware, zoning issues are addressed by mayor and council in many municipalities over several months. Given the requirement for a clearly defined physical address for both dispensary and cultivation site in the application due in May, this concern should perhaps be addressed in this forum or another appropriate and accessible venue, rather than with the final rules in March.
Respectfully,
BK
you say “ADHS is working hard to make dispensaries as diverse as possible.” How is that if the dispensaries are going to chosen by a lottery? that completely contradicts your statement…is it going to be a 100% unbiased lottery or are you going to pick and choose to make “dispensaries as diverse as possible? I can’t figure out how you can have it both ways…
I meant geographically diverse.
I would like to ask what is being done as far as cost for this medical marijuana for persons with limited income? I did not see any cap mentioned or a way to regulate who gets a break on the price. Pardon me if I missed it, I am sick and it is hard to read through a lot of text. I just want MM to be made affordable to people in my position, not jusy availiable. Thank you.
Joan-
We reduced the qualifying patient card fee by 50% for those on food stamps. I’m not sure we have the authority to regulate the prices at the dispensaries.
geographically diverse is not what that poster was inquiring about…he was asking about diversity of ownership.
Please make comments on our website if you have pragmatic ways of doing this, keeping in mind the 124 cap.
The restrictions placed on doctors for advising the use of medical marijuana is biased. I can walk into any doctors office and without so much as past medical records, they can prescribe to me any number of pharmaceutical drugs with the most atrocious side effects, including death. In other countries, where the beneficial effects of the cannaboids found in marijuana have been studied for years, this little weed has shown itself to be effective against numerous cancers, and foreign pharmaceutical companies are even now developing compounds. We need to get off this hysterical prejudice against a very healing plant.
If you want unbiased information, please take the time to see a new documentary film titled: Does Marijuana Cure Cancer? Here is a free link:
http://www.putlocker.com/file/3OI81M7URB8K8S0G#
Hello my people, looking at this from the perspective of a montana native in bozeman where the price of mj has dropped from 350 oz to 200 over the course of 2 years in the dispensaries, the market once fully primed will determine the final price the patient pays. Research indicates a price pf 425 oz for top quality meds now with no (protective) law in place (1996 was overlooked). The wording and limitations of free market in final draft,if unlimiting market forces will drop price to 250 oz for said quality,so this governing body will directly affect the final price of meds. Peace
1. We would ask the Director to consider a local preference instead of a straight lottery system if there are more than one applicant in each CHAA area. Preference should be given to local companies who have demonstrated Medical and/or Agricultural business viability, success and good standing and have been in business in the State of Arizona in those respective areas for a period of not less than 10 years. It is important that this business have strong community ties to ensure legitimacy and support the economic health of the State and communities in which they are located.
2. We would ask the Director to increase the application fees from $5000 to $25,000. This is not an unreasonable request as it is no more than the cost of some liquor licenses.
3. If the application fee is increased to $25,000, we would ask the Director to refund $20,000 or greater of the application fee in the event an application is not awarded.
4. We would as the Director to increase the number of awards per CHAA to 500 over a 5 year period.
5. We would ask the Director to consider when applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate to withdraw the request to include the exact physical address of the proposed Dispensary and instead disclose the specific CHAA for which the applicant is applying. The physical address of the Dispensary will be required when applying for approval to operate a Dispensary. For an applicant to locate a suitable premise, sign a lease with the landlord, and then at a later date be informed by the Department that an allocation for a Dispensary Registration Certificate was not granted is in my opinion a hardship to the applicant and to the prospective landlord.
As a patient I’m not interested in seeing Mr. Big Bucks fancy store front dispensary come to town, patients end up paying for all that expense. I hope to see some small time master grower with his heart in the right place get a dispensary. ADHS wants to charge 180.00 for a patient card, that’s four months of the cost of my current meds. ADHS needs to realize all these fee’s, dispensary’s costs all get pushed on to the patient. Please make this affordable for the patient. Set a cap on the cost of oz. Thanks
1. We would ask the Director to consider a local preference instead of a straight lottery system if there are more than one applicant in each CHAA area. Preference should be given to local companies who have demonstrated Medical and/or Agricultural business viability, success and good standing and have been in business in the State of Arizona in those respective areas for a period of not less than 10 years. It is important that this business have strong community ties to ensure legitimacy and support the economic health of the State and communities in which they are located.
2. We would ask the Director to increase the application fees from $5000 to $25,000. This is not an unreasonable request as it is no more than the cost of some liquor licenses.
3. If the application fee is increased to $25,000, we would ask the Director to refund $20,000 or greater of the application fee in the event an application is not awarded.
4. We would as the Director to increase the number of awards per CHAA to 500 over a 5 year period.
5. We would ask the Director to consider when applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate to withdraw the request to include the exact physical address of the proposed Dispensary and instead disclose the specific CHAA for which the applicant is applying. The physical address of the Dispensary will be required when applying for approval to operate a Dispensary. For an applicant to locate a suitable premise, sign a lease with the landlord, and then at a later date be informed by the Department that an allocation for a Dispensary Registration Certificate was not granted is in my opinion a hardship to the applicant and to the prospective landlord.
Please be sure to visit azdhs.gov and make this a public comment.
Thank you!
Will, Physicians and elected officials sent you several suggestions to keep this law from becoming like California’s where any pot-head can claim a medical illness. You ignored every one of these suggestions. And to make it worse, the one rule you had that would have kept pot doctors from setting up practices where they hand out marijuana cards to anyone who walks through their door, you took that one out. You promised Arizona you would protect the state from the terrible sorts of laws they have in California, Montana and Colorado. Instead you are doing everything the pot-smokers want you to do and nothing that responsible Arizonans have asked of you.
The original draft rules had a very good rule requiring a one year doctor patient relationship with at least 4 visits. This rule would have prevented the scandalous behavior we’ve seen in other states where a handful of doctors get rich by by giving marijuana cards to people who really don’t have any kind of medical problem. But you took that rule out. Why? Do you want us to become one of those states where marijuana is basically legal and people in their 20s and 30s are pretending they’re sick. That was an excellent rule and the only rule you had protecting us from becoming like California. Why did you take that out?
We don’t feel that we loosened the standard. We decided to not define “ongoing” and “physician-patient relationship,” but we did add new language to the 01/31/11 draft rules, which was developed during a meeting with the four physician licensing boards, to address the requirements of an ongoing physician-patient relationship and the standard medical practice for physicians providing written certifications to patients for medical marijuana, which is identified below:
A statement that the physician agrees to assume responsibility for providing management and routine care of the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition after conducting a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history;
A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician:
i. Has established a medical record for the qualifying patient, and
ii. Is maintaining the qualifying patient’s medical record as required in A.R.S. § 12-2297;
A statement, initialed by the physician, that the has conducted an in-person physical examination of the qualifying patient appropriate to the qualifying patient’s presenting symptoms and the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition diagnosed by the physician;
A statement, initialed by the physician, that the physician reviewed the qualifying patient’s:
i. Medical records including medical records from other treating physicians from the previous 12 months;
ii. Response to conventional medications and medical therapies; and
iii. Profile on the Arizona Board of Pharmacy Controlled Substances Prescription Monitoring Program database;
1. We would ask the Director to consider a local preference instead of a straight lottery system if there are more than one applicant in each CHAA area. Preference should be given to local companies who have demonstrated Medical and/or Agricultural business viability, success and good standing and have been in business in the State of Arizona in those respective areas for a period of not less than 10 years. It is important that this business have strong community ties to ensure legitimacy and support the economic health of the State and communities in which they are located.
2. We would ask the Director to increase the application fees from $5000 to $25,000. This is not an unreasonable request as it is no more than the cost of some liquor licenses.
3. If the application fee is increased to $25,000, we would ask the Director to refund $20,000 or greater of the application fee in the event an application is not awarded.
4. We would as the Director to increase the number of awards per CHAA to 500 over a 5 year period.
5. We would ask the Director to consider when applying for a Dispensary Registration Certificate to withdraw the request to include the exact physical address of the proposed Dispensary and instead disclose the specific CHAA for which the applicant is applying. The physical address of the Dispensary will be required when applying for approval to operate a Dispensary. For an applicant to locate a suitable premise, sign a lease with the landlord, and then at a later date be informed by the Department that an allocation for a Dispensary Registration Certificate was not granted is in my opinion a hardship to the applicant and to the prospective landlord.
Please be sure to place these comments into public record via our website at http://www.azdhs.gov.
Thank you!
You should make it as difficult as possible for people to get marijuana. There is no reason marijuana should be legalized, there is already a prescription form that can be used. The downside is it does not get you high. There are a lot more negatives to this law then there are positives. Look at the money and lives that will pave our road ways with people impaired by marijuana get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Whoever voted to legalize marijuana is clueless!
The drug you are referring to, Marinol, is not the same thing. It is designed to increase appetite,(it makes you put a fat pad on your back) the down side is it does not control pain. Big difference my friend. Look at all the money and lives that CURRENTLY pave our roadways with people impaired by alcohol.
Who ever voted against legalization of medical marijuana is clueless and has never had pain or a medical condition that would not go away. The most dangerous drug, more dangerous than heroin is alcohol and school children can get it from their parent’s cabinet and almost anywhere else they look. A 6 pack of beer costs less than a 6 pack of Pepsi.
We need to start with dangerous drugs first, like alcohol, a proven killer. Not one death reported from marijuana but tens of thousands of deaths and disabilities from alcohol. In countries where marijuana is legal, use goes down and there have been no great increase in traffic accidents.
Congrats to the ADHS in implementing the fledgling program. Two changes need to be looked at: You need to go back to the original plan of dispensaries keyed to the number of drugstores, with at least every county having at least one dispensary AND most important, the citizens and patients need to be able to grow their own medicine; This is the only way for the medicine to be available and affordable. A reasonable amount of plants would be 4 to six.
what if i can’t afford to buy from a dispensaries? and i’m not aloud to grow it. i am still an outlaw of the drug war
Bill-
You will be able to grow at least at first because we don’t expect to have the dispensaries to open before fall.
Thanks
I really hope us 100% permanently disabled
people get some kind of price reduction –
I don’t get alot of $$ from SSD every month.
Thanks !
One thing that I beleive that PTSD should be added to the list.
This is much improved, then they add that a physician must be onsite at a dispensary looking for withdrawal symptoms from a drug that is non-physically addictive? A Non-profit business that must hire an onsite physician will have to pass this salary onto the consumer in the form of much higher prices. Imagine how much our meds would be now if a doctor had to be at every pharmacy. The physician that prescribes the marijuana and is responsible for the patient should be responsible about education and looking for signs of abuse. This is a dangerous addition, as it implies that recommending physicians do not have to monitor their patients since that would be done at the dispensary….. This addition is ludicrous simply.