Tag Archives: jan brewer

Governor Jan Brewer’s Lawsuit Against Medical-Marijuana Law Dismissed by Federal Judge

Phoenix New Times:

A federal judge today tossed Governor Jan Brewer’s lawsuit against the state’s Medical Marijuana Act, saying in her ruling that the state’s complaint wasn’t ripe.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the case without prejudice and invited the state to file an amended complaint to correct the flaws in their argument. However, Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne have made it clear they’re loathe to do what Bolton asks: Pick a side for or against the law.

Brewer and Horne both opposed Prop 203 before it was passed narrowly by voters in November of 2010, but they didn’t want to be perceived as attacking their own state’s law. So, they tried to have it both ways with a lawsuit that asked the federal court whether the medical pot was legal, yet didn’t state their opposition to the law.

Read More..

Thousands of Arizonans get Medical Marijuana Cards

Cronkite News:

“WASHINGTON – More than 7,500 Arizonans had been approved for personal medical marijuana licenses as of Wednesday, despite a well-publicized court battle that has delayed implementation of other parts of the law.

The court fight between the state and federal governments has temporarily halted approval of marijuana dispensaries but not personal licenses, which had been granted to 7,570 individuals and 270 caregivers by this week. The Arizona Department of Health Services could not say how many of the caregivers, if any, also had patient licenses.

Only seven patient applications have been denied so far and 93 percent of applications for caregivers — who help patients administer their medical marijuana — have been approved.

Three-quarters of approved patients are men and about 60 percent are older than 41. But the department said two minors have also had applications approved. The vast majority of applicants cited chronic pain as the reason they needed medical marijuana.”

Read More…

Arizona Officials Say Medical Marijuana Questions Remain

CannnabisNews.com:

“Arizona officials said a new federal memo they reviewed Friday on possible medical marijuana-related criminal prosecutions leaves unanswered questions as to whether state-licensed dispensaries and state employees who administer a fledgling medical marijuana program are at risk of prosecution.

Like a similar memo issued by the Justice Department in 2009, the new document said users of marijuana for medical purposes and individuals who provide care to other individuals shouldn’t be prosecution priorities. However, significant drug trafficking “remains a core priority” and commercial dispensaries and growers “and those who knowingly facilitate such activities” would still be violating federal drug laws regardless of state law, it said.

Expressing disappointment and frustration, Attorney General Tom Horne said Friday that memo states there’s no shield from prosecution for those who “knowingly facilitate” marijuana commercial cultivation and distribution even if purportedly complying with state laws on medical marijuana.

“The federal government knew there was broad concern about whether ‘facilitate’ sale was a term that could endanger state employees,” Horne said.

That means Arizona will continue to press the lawsuit it filed May 27 against the federal government and other parties.”

Read More…

 

Arizona Prospective Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owners Sue the ADHS

June 14th, 2011

azcentral.com:

“Serenity Arizona and Medzona Group had the property leases, zoning permits and capital to open up to six dispensaries across the state and planned to apply for permits this month.

But state Department of Health Services Director Will Humble put the dispensary permit process on hold just days before it was to begin, citing a federal lawsuit filed by Gov. Jan Brewer that asks a judge to decide whether Arizona’s voter-approved law is enforceable since it conflicts with federal drug statutes.

Attorney Ken Frakes, representing the dispensary owners, said the pending federal case does not give the state license to ignore its own law.

The state was to accept permit applications for a month, beginning June 1. The law requires the health department to initiate and oversee the process and requires the dispensaries to be non-profit operations. Rules approved by the department limit the number of dispensaries to 126 statewide and include a variety of minimum requirements for potential dispensary owners.

Jane Christensen said she met those requirements and intended to open three dispensaries, including one in Paradise Valley and another in Payson.

“We are concerned that the state is putting medical marijuana into a crisis situation,” she said. “A lot of caregivers will be growing marijuana in backyards with no oversight.”

Proposition 203, approved by voters in November, legalized medical marijuana use for people with certain debilitating conditions and allowed them to designate someone as a “caregiver” to grow or otherwise obtain marijuana for them.

Since there are not yet any licensed dispensaries, caregivers and patients are allowed to grow their own. The state has licensed nearly 3,800 growers so far.

Frakes said Humble and the health department have no right to upend the dispensary application process and withhold the required state application.

“The ultimate goal here is to require the Department of Health Services to publish the application . . . and to live up to the obligation of their non-discretionary duties,” Frakes said.

The health department was preparing a statement to respond to the suit.

Arizona and 15 other states have medical marijuana laws that conflict with federal law, which outlaws the cultivation, sale or use of marijuana.

Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne said their federal lawsuit was prompted by a letter from U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Humble, warning that prospective pot growers and sellers could be prosecuted under federal drug-trafficking laws.

Horne and Brewer maintain that his letter, along with a raft of memos from federal prosecutors in other states, signaled a harder-line policy and the threat that state workers could be prosecuted.”