One of the biggest changes to the 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act passed a major legislative hurdle when SB1420 cleared the state Senate with a 27-3 vote Feb. 22.
The main purpose of SB1420 is to protect consumers through increased regulation of the state’s marijuana industry by legally requiring dispensaries to have their product tested by state-licensed laboratories.
The bill traversed a rocky road in its passage through the Senate, beginning with a close vote in its second committee hearing. Originally, the bill contained a provision to lower card fees for patients and caregivers from the current $150 to $50 with $25 renewals.
Senate Republicans believed that lower costs may result in an increase in the number of patients and promptly pulled their support for the bill, raising concerns among the bill’s backers that it would fall short of the three-fourths vote needed to amend the voter-approved AMMA.
To keep the bill alive, Sen. Sonny Borelli (R-Lake Havasu City), pulled provisions for lower card cost fees.
But according to Arizona NORML Executive Director Mikel Weisser, the bill isn’t out of the fire yet. He said there are concerns on both sides of the aisle over the legislation.
For starters, the bill goes a bit further than regulating testing. Other provisions include licensing testing facilities for marijuana testing, requiring dispensary employees to notify the state if working at more than one dispensary under different ownership and clearly labeling accurate potency information on marijuana and childproofing medical marijuana containers.
The main concern, however, is that the new testing standards will fall under the purview of the Arizona Department of Agriculture, yet another arm of Gov. Doug Ducey, and he has been among the Arizona politicians who support burdensome regulations on the industry with hopes of stifling medical marijuana in Arizona.
According to Weisser, the involvement of another state department has raised concerns among the Arizona medical marijuana industry workers and lobbyists.
Under the new bill, the Department of Agriculture will be responsible for holding the industry to the new testing regulation standards.
Profit margins in the industry are thin, Weisser said, and any burdensome regulation could eat into those profits, even to the point that business may become inviable.
Even among those fears, the consumers are Weisser’s main concern. He estimates roughly half a million marijuana users in the state (beyond those registered in the medical marijuana program).
Given the choice, though, Weisser said he’d take the concerns of the state’s marijuana users over those of the businesses. Admittedly a fine line for a policymaker, but he hopes it doesn’t underscore his desire to continue working with businesses as well.
There is a silver bullet to any hypothetical plans Ducey may have, however. Amendments to the AMMA must further the intent of law—an Arizona constitutional protection to keep lawmakers from overwriting the will of the citizens.
Future regulations imposed on the industry will have to be carefully crafted so as not to run afoul of the state’s constitution, and that might just be enough to keep marijuana legalization on track.
This article appears in Mar 8-14, 2018.
Nick Meyers; Several points I dont agree on the summation of a political ideology.
1-That a Government regulation from the “Department of Agriculture” as apposed to a” Department of Marijuana License and Controls” is burdensome?
A department that you supported if 205 had passed on the ballot. The same department that in it’s proposal encompassed the Department of Agriculture.
So am I to take that the prop 205 was just a ruse to protect the suppliers of Marijuana at the detriment of the patient. Would this department if conceived done innumerable HARM ?
IT APPEARS SO.
This legislation took away so much of what the legalization proposition was proposing. It will bring Arizona inline with other surrounding states in organizational alignment and controls.
As far as margins are thin yea YAWN. Checks in the mail, I will love you for ever after tonight, dog ate my report. Just think of the windfall they will have when market prices are set. Then moved from schedule one to two ! All assets will be depreciating assets and allow to deductible operating expenses a huge windfall.
So really to lift the burden off of everyone and everything in this is to repeal Schedule One the only real target.
Another point!
If half a million Arizona residents are figures to use Marijuana what is the reason to get a license? If this amount of the population already has the ability to acquire the product why get it legally (licensed) if only for recreational use? Does this turn a large amount of AZ/MMj license holders into defacto street dealers? I this a alternative nano supply income market for the really economically disenfranchised. ( as tradesmen/service and such)
I do recall a person a knew of limited abilities and understanding. A wonderful scared individual whom lived off a meager trust inheritance to supplement sold joints in coffee shops in the 80’s>90’s. Then would save his money and shop a ounce and sit around and sell this for pennies. Like in Mexico those street people selling 4 pieces of chicklets meager to unimaginable poverty. So one night local Tucson High punks (gang) followed him home did a home invasion in his 200 SQ foot apt with a toilet sink and no cooling shot/killed his dog robbed him of his saved ounce monies. Has this changed?
Question; Will gangs stop robbing if found not to make this one profitable. Without this market force of legality will values still be worth what the are on both legal and illegal. There is a thought about that somehow Marijuana legalization will curtail Cartel activity. Doubtful there is always expansion of all the time traditions of VICE and Extortion. The very idea that government can license Vice to control it is extortion duh!
IF Marijuana continues to be a social/political endeavor then it will always be in a defensive mode. If one truly believe in a medicinal properties of this plant they would send request to the Federal officials in this state for the removal of schedule one.