Pubdate: Mon, 17 Jan 2011
Source: Kingman Daily Miner (AZ)
Copyright: 2011 Kingman Daily Miner
Contact:  http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3469
Author: Suzanne Adams, Miner Staff Reporter
Referenced: Arizona Medical Marijuana Act http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?273 (Proposition 203)
Bookmark: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/geoview/n-us-az (Arizona)

PROPOSED POT RULES GENERATE COMMENTS

PHOENIX - The first draft of the rules governing the use of medical 
marijuana in Arizona has been met with a flood of comments. The 
Arizona Department of Health Services released the latest draft of 
the rules governing medical marijuana in December. The department 
received more than 1,300 comments through its online system.

It seems as if nearly everyone in the state had something to say 
about the first draft of the rules. The department received comments 
from various city, town and county governments, various police 
departments, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Pharmacy 
Alliance, a doctor from Prescott, the Yavapai County Substance Abuse 
Coalition, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association, several law 
firms representing different organizations and individuals, the 
Naturopathic Medicine Association, the Gun Owners of Arizona, 
Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, the Arizona Association of 
Dispensary Professionals, the Institute for Holistic Health and 
Healing, a man who runs a business that encourages sustainable 
farming practices, and the Coalition for a Drug-Free California, as 
well as residents. The names of residents were removed from all comments.

The comments can be found on the ADHS' website at 
http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/.

Most of the comments centered around 10 major issues residents had 
with the rules.

The issue that received the most comments was the rule that patients 
must have a one-year relationship with their doctor and have had four 
visits before being eligible to apply for a medical marijuana card.

Several people commented that the rule was too restrictive, 
especially when it came to people who were suffering from a terminal 
illness and were unlikely to survive another year.

Some argued that a year's worth of medical records or a diagnosis of 
a qualifying illness should be enough to be able to apply for a card. 
Many commenters said their current doctor was unlikely to approve 
medical marijuana for them and they didn't want to switch primary 
care doctors, wait a year and go through four exams in order to get a card.

More than one person commented that they are receiving healthcare 
from the Veterans Administration and would not be able to get 
approval for medical marijuana from their doctor and did not have the 
funds to go to another doctor.

Other commenters challenged ADHS's authority to write such a 
requirement into the rules. They said the department had no authority 
to regulate the doctor/client relationship and it had no authority to 
dictate who should and should not receive medicine.

"I voted for Proposition 203 (the initiative that approved medical 
marijuana in November.) 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 ... I will certainly support any 
lawsuit that ensues that your agency's regulations exceed your 
authority under the law," one commenter wrote on ADHS's website.

Others liked the restriction or asked the department to make it even 
more stringent to keep the drug out of the hands of children.

Another request brought up by a commenter was to include more 
illnesses in the list of those acceptable for treatment by medical 
marijuana. Many asked the department to include post-traumatic stress 
disorder, depression, social anxiety disorder and others.

The current qualifying conditions include: cancer, glaucoma, HIV, 
AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease or 
a chronic disease that causes any of the following: wasting syndrome, 
severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, or severe or 
persistent muscle spasms. There is a process to have additional 
illnesses added to the list.

Other people asked the department to better define some of the 
current illnesses on the list to make sure that people who did not 
need the drug did not gain access to it by claiming they had a 
debilitating illness or pain when they really didn't.

Another big issue among those who left comments was the cost of the 
patient and caregiver cards and the cost to open a dispensary. A 
large number of people stated they did not have the funds to pay the 
$150 fee for a patient card or the $200 fee for a caregiver's card.

Others liked the fee structure, saying it would discourage people who 
did not have a qualifying illness from easily getting approval for a card.

A lot of the comments involved the registration, construction and 
operation of dispensaries. Many people objected to the $5,000 cost to 
register a dispensary with the department and the requirements to 
apply and operate a 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," 
said one commenter.

"I think the requirements to become a dispensary are very good. 
Particularly the non-refundable $5,000 application fee and the 
requirement that the principles be Arizona citizens for at least two 
years. I believe that will filter out a lot of glorified smoke shops 
and investors from other states," said one person.

The rule limiting the operation of dispensaries to Arizona citizens 
who have lived in the state for at least two years was well received 
by many people who commented. A small number even asked the 
department to increase the residency requirement to five or more 
years in order to discourage out-of-state operations from moving 
people in to meet residency requirements.

People also said it would be hard to meet the requirement to have a 
certificate of occupancy for a building to operate a dispensary in 
hand before applying for a dispensary license.

Others stated that the requirement that a dispensary grow at least 70 
percent of its stock was unreasonable and would lead to an increase 
in cost for the product and a shortage in supply.

People were mixed on the idea requiring a dispensary to have a 
medical director on call. Some liked the idea and said it would deter 
people who might abuse the drug and provide information for patients. 
Others said the requirement would drive up the cost of the drug 
because the dispensary would have to cover the cost of hiring a 
doctor. They recommended allowing dispensaries to use nurses or nurse 
practioners to fill the position. Others stated that it was one more 
unnecessary hoop for a patient to jump through and the requirement 
should be eliminated.  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake