Credit: BigStock

The Arizona Dispensaries Association announced their plans for a 2020 voter initiative to legalize adult-use cannabis last week. While this article was written prior to the announcement, we’ve been talking about the prospects for the initiative for a while.

For starters, a statewide poll released by OH Predictive Insight at the beginning of the month indicated wider support for adult-use cannabis than the last time the state voted on an initiative.

In September 2016, Mike Noble, chief pollster for OH Predictive Insight, said he found 47 percent of Arizonans opposed to legalization and 43 percent in favor. While the new poll could be an outlier and is at best a snapshot in time, the numbers have flipped, with 52 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed. Not only has the majority opinion

flipped, but fewer people remain undecided. That’s not a surprising development because people generally become more accepting of cannabis the more they learn about it. Go figure.

It’s even less surprising considering one of the poll’s other insights: older people remain less convinced about cannabis than younger people.

Four years later, there’s a lot of former 14-year-olds who can vote (not to mention those above the age of 18 who are more likely to exercise their right to vote). Perhaps a traditionally unnerving notion, but “kids” these days seem a lot more informed than before.

Some 2016 polls showed voters in favor of cannabis then, but a less-organized industry faced formidable opposition from the well-funded Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, who raised more than $2 million to keep cannabis illegal.

This time around, cannabis proponents must face a purported correlation between cannabis and schizophrenia.

Another hurdle for the 2016 initiative was voters’ concern over a dispensary stranglehold on the industry. Some provisions appeared to limit benefits of an expanded industry to those already in it. Whether the ADA addresses that concern in this initiative could make or break efforts for legalization.

That concern may be balanced by issues in other states where unfettered growth has led some legitimate businesses to consider black market relief for declining prices of wholesale cannabis—a narrative the opposition will surely seize upon.

Voters may have to decide if adult-use cannabis is worth the price of a tightly controlled industry if proponents need that component in the bill to assuage potential opposition fears.

Another major Arizona cannabis development occurred this week after this article was written. The Arizona Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the appeal of State v. Jones to decide whether cannabis concentrates are protected by the 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk has been left to defend her prosecution alone after Attorney General Mark Brnovich pulled his office’s support for the case.

While that alone may be enough to convince the court the case is nothing but a personal crusade, the industry has mobilized to form a defense Rodney Jones didn’t have before.

It may take some time for the court to come back with a decision, but you can expect a breakdown of what the court heard next week, along with some industry takeaways.

5 replies on “MMJ: Marijuana in Motion”

  1. Every arguement you just stated against the legalization of marijuana could also be used to against the leagalization of alcohol. Would you also recommend making recreational alcohol consumption illegal? If not, why is one drug ok and one not?

  2. Its amusing seeing people trotting out the same tired, reactionary anti-cannabis propaganda. Of all recreational intoxicants available, cannabis is by far the safest in every metric. Among other things, it is the only popular intoxicant that is not fatal in any quantities. Caffeine, sugar and even water can be fatal in excess. Cannabis cannot. Regarding the mental health issues it is true that cannabis can trigger latent mental health problems but so can virtually any other intoxicant, as can environmental issues, music and food. Try again.

  3. I am neither a consumer not a producer.

    However, I voted no in 2016 based upon free market factors, as I did not like the semi-monopoly it gave to the current dispensary owners and growers.

    If this Bill has the same flaws, I will vote no again.

  4. I voted against prop 205 because it rewrote the whole of the state constitution.

    We dont needed regulatory department with constitutional authority to rewrite misdemeanor criminal laws to civil offences. Protect business interests of a restricted market and supply

    Just think the case above with State v. Jones with civil case filings at the “Marijuana Administrative Court” Fees and fines could be applied like the DMV. And after Polk was done roasting it’ citizen on criminal charges

    All one has to do is look at how prop 64 rolled out in California. The Same model of administration as prop 205 it is a failure to the extreme.
    This kind of regulation keeps prices high criminal organizations in cash flow. While maintaining enforcement courts and incarcerations be careful of what props are being floated.
    This sure as night follows day it wont shine well on the user/consumer, A windfall well for government administration business

Comments are closed.