plantmagic
Active Member
The entire purpose is to have the judge remove the unconstitutional portion form the law. they are not asking them to recognize the validity of medical marijuana.
No 25 Mile Rule, The Legal Battle Has Begun
- Thread starter Bill Hayes
- Start date
taekwondoguy
Well-Known Member
I second that, but also wondering why this is not before a state judge since it is a state program not a federal program.
BeaverHuntr
Well-Known Member
Damn good question...
whitegato777
Well-Known Member
I hope he argues the fact that her claim that its against federal law is incorrect, the federal law actually is in violation of the tenth amendment of the us constitution "states rights". also the federal government cant regulate it in any way under United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Because there is no interstate commerce. they will try and say the production can cross the boarder so they have the right. But that's a bunch of bullpoo!Tthat's like saying your human and have a gun and are capable of killing some one but haven't so i'm going to arrest you or make guns illegal.
the federal court at this point cant dismiss it because MMJ is illegal under federal law. he is asking them to heear the case about the constitutionality of the 25 mile rule. if jan wanted to file a seperate case with the federal court saying that the law is in violation of federal law then she could, but we can fight that!
right!
https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/county-sheriff-powers.44777/
Gotta get the sheriffs on our side
Gotta get the sheriffs on our side
Bill Hayes
Active Member
here, feel the sting... and read carefully...something very important is being done here folks, can you see it?? Judge Bolton did, hence I wasn't dismissed. Not only do I make the case the State attorney's failed to make when they tried and Judge Bolton lashed out at them for the failure, (their involvement can put them in the clink too) I do something else very very important to marijuana legalization efforts everywhere. I am asking the federal gov for equal protection, under State law, to grow cannabis, you are 100 % correct, think about that for a split second and you suddenly fathom the scope of the case in front of you all as well as just how tactical these moves are on my behalf.
This wasn't a last ditch effort folks, if your ever going to quote me on anything make it this phrase, "words are very important, words have meanings, and often those meanings are different once you enter a court of law." State attorney's have to walk a very very miniscule line thanks to SB1070, things they have already said, things they may want to say later, words are very important folks
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."
Case No.: 2:12-CV-00322-SRB
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS (AMENDED) MOTION(S) TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Honorable Susan R. Bolton)
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Billy B. Hayes, Jr., Pro Se, and hereby submits the within PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS (AMENDED) MOTION(S) TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. In support thereof, I state as follows:
Introduction
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that I am in receipt of both Defendants Motion to Dismiss (hereafter Motion) and the Defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss (hereafter Amended Motion) filed on March 1, 2012 and March 2, 2012 respectively. As best I can tell the only distinguishing characteristic is contained in Footnote 2 contained on the second page of both of Defendants pleadings. I certainly have no objection to the correction of a clerical, formatting and/or procedural error(s) by the Defendants as the substance of the case is the issue that is of paramount concern to both parties. To the extent that any other distinguishing characteristic(s) is/are recognized, it will be noted herein.
Memorandum of Law and Points of Authority
While not mentioned in either the Defendants Motion or Amended Motion, (but as pled by me in my original Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction), upon the conclusion of CV 2011-01072-PHX-SRB and the State cases regarding Compassion Clubs, Defendant, Governor Brewer, in her official capacity, stated for the record that there would no longer be a challenge to the states Medical Marijuana law in court and instead there would be cooperation to see that the voters demands are once and for all fully enacted. Said the Governor in a press release:
The State of Arizona will not re-file in federal court a lawsuit that sought clarification that State employees would not be subject to federal criminal prosecution simply for implementing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Instead, I have directed the Arizona Department of Health Services to begin accepting and processing dispensary applications, and issuing licenses for those facilities once a (separate) pending legal challenge to the Departments medical marijuana rules is resolved. With our request for clarification rebuffed on procedural grounds by the federal court, I believe the best course of action now is to complete the implementation of Proposition 203 in accordance with the law.
See: Exhibit A, January 13, 2012 Statement by Governor Brewer-Medical Marijuana, Attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Additionally, despite any inadvertent or purposeful failure to disclose, the Arizona Department of Health Services is actively taking accelerative action toward full implementation of the AMMA, including the finalization of Dispensary rules, the submittal of the same to the Secretary of State and the advertising that they will be soon processing applications for, and licensing of, Dispensaries as defined by the AMMA. See: Arizona Department of Health Services Directors Blog, http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=2175. Again, upon the acceptance of and licensing of Dispensaries, the 25-Mile Rule of the AMMA will automatically be triggered if the statutory provision in question (Arizona Revised Statute 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)) is not immediately addressed by way of injunction. This is far more imminent than the Defendants assert in their pleadings.
For example, Defendants point out that t is also unlawful to aid and abet the commission of a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2; assist an offender thereby becoming an accessory to a crime, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3; and make certain financial transactions designed to promote illegal activities or to conceal or disguise the source of the proceeds of that illegal activity, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956 See: Amended Motion, p. 3-4, l. 27; l. 1-4. However, the Defendants do not tie those provisions to any argument in support of their Motion. Arguably such posturing serves no purpose but to attempt to instill fear within myself as a Plaintiff and as a overt message to anyone serving to offer assistance with the within legal battle. Such behavior is consistent with the Defendants stance against Medical Marijuana, their publically stated position, their overt actions regarding Medical Marijuana, their indignation toward Qualifying Patients and blatant indifference to the will of voters in the State of Arizona since the inception of the AMMA (and prior via Prop 203).
I have never asked the within Court to address the legality of Marijuana which is what makes the Defendants position even that much more disconcerting.
The issue, plain and simple is whether the 25-Mile Rule is Constitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether the underlying activity leading to the repercussions of the imposition of the 25-Mile Rule relates to Marijuana is of nominal significance when looking at the issue of whether a Motion to Dismiss my Complaint and Motion is appropriate.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has established a two-part approach when measuring the adequacy of pleadings. See: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Under the Iqbal framework, the Court should isolate the well-pleaded, non-conclusory factual allegations that are entitled to a presumption of truth. Id. Then, considering only the well-pleaded facts and assuming their truth, the court should determine whether those facts give rise to a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. at 1949-1950.
Defendants are correct that I am asserting that the provision of the AMMA, A.R.S. Sec. 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. See: Amended Motion, p. 4, l. 13-23. (citations to my Complaint omitted).
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State hall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. (Emphasis added).
Despite the Defendants contentions to the contrary, I have never argued that I have a Constitutionally protected Right to cultivate Marijuana. Accordingly, the legal authority cited by Defendants (with respect to fundamental rights as they pertain to marijuana) are wholly inapplicable my situation. Moreover case citations to the commercial production and distribution of Marijuana are inapplicable as I am a single individual and have never asserted any contention to produce or distribute Marijuana on a commercial level. Once again, the Defendants cite case law supportive of their position; however their position is not what is being argued here by me and therefore makes the citations inapplicable.
Once more, the sole issue, plain and simple is whether it is Constitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to have State issued criminally punitive sanctions for one group of qualified patients while similarly situated qualified patients, by the very nature of their geographic location would be subjected to intervention by the State of Arizona legal authorities that would lead to severe criminal sanctions at a State level (regardless of Federal involvement whatsoever). Therein lays the distinguishing characteristic, regardless of whether the Defendants choose to endlessly argue privilege versus right. I will defer to my originally filed Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the interest of avoiding duplicitous argumentation regarding this issue.
Plainly stated, if you were to substitute a restriction (that has severe State criminal implications) on the pharmacy I have to go to for my controlled substance medications (with a 25-Mile Rule imposition for example), and the Federal government does approve of that controlled substance, the argument remains the same. The Defendants simply seek to defray attention away from the substance of my Constitutional argument by obscuring the issues before the Court based upon their staunch opposition toward Medical Marijuana and the fact that while State approved, it is not on the Federal level. However, the Defendants fail to state how it is that this Court is without the authority to protect against equal protection violations.
Take the Defendants own argument, (by way of argumentation)-by the Defendants own reasoning, the State of Arizona, et. al would then be complicit in the very same illegal activity in which they claim warrants the need to dismiss the within case. See: Amended Motion, p. 2, l. 24-27; p. 3, l. 1-3, as of January 27, 2012, the ADHS has registered 19,364 qualified patients and 1,154 designated caregivers. Of the registered qualifying patients, 16,298 have been authorized [by the State of Arizona] to cultivate marijuana.
The same is true under Defendants arguments for dismissal citing the CSA. The Defendants clearly state that it is unlawful to aid and abet the commission of a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; assist an offender thereby becoming an accessory to a crime. See: Amended Motion, p. 4, l. 1-4. Again, by the Defendants logic, by authorizing cultivation for nearly 17,000 qualified Medical Marijuana patients they themselves have violated the very same federal laws (vis a vis cultivation) by authorizing even one patient, much less the number of patients they claim they have already authorized to engage in, as the Defendants termed it, activity that is prohibited by law. See: Amended Motion (p. 4, l. 1-4).
The Defendants are correct that the commencement of a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. See: F.R.C.P. 3. Furthermore, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8, as cited by the Defendants,
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief
In reviewing my Complaint and Motion it is clear that I complied with F.R.C.P. 8, regardless of how the actual document may appear stylistically. Specifically, my Complaint lays out a section for Parties addressing jurisdiction/venue, a Background section which familiarizes the Court with the AMMA (similar to the one contained in Defendants Motion(s) to Dismiss), and a legal standard and argument section which clearly lay out my claim for relief as well as the legal authority supporting that claim. See: Complaint at p. 3-19.
If Defendants are correct in their assertion that [t]he purpose of these rules is to ensure that the complaint is sufficiently clear so as to enable each defendant to effectively formulate a response (citations omitted), then inarguably, as long as the Defendants have been able to formulate a response, a dismissal would not be appropriate; or at least the Defendants fail to cite one scintilla of legal support for a dismissal on these grounds. Moreover, the ability to formulate a Responsive pleading by the Defendants was further simplified by my inclusion of a Table of Contents that directly references the sections that they claim do not exist.
To the contrary, regardless of form/style, as long as jurisdiction is asserted and the claim(s) for relief is/are clearly delineated the reasoning is articulated fully, and the relief requested from the Court has been properly pled. Alternatively, any alleged defects would be curable by an Amended filing as opposed to the extreme measure of case dismissal; similar to the Motion and Amended Motions filed by the Defendants that were designed to cure their formatting defects.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY Defendants (Amended) Motion(s) to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction regarding the 25-Mile Rule. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requests an Oral Argument to address any potential dismissal.
I also hereby renew my request that a preliminary injunction be granted regarding the statutory provision in question, A.R.S. Sec. 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) pending the resolution of the within issues.
DATED: March 19, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________
Billy B. Hayes, Jr., Pro Se
15508 W. Bell Rd., Ste. #101
PMB 502
Surprise, AZ 85374
This wasn't a last ditch effort folks, if your ever going to quote me on anything make it this phrase, "words are very important, words have meanings, and often those meanings are different once you enter a court of law." State attorney's have to walk a very very miniscule line thanks to SB1070, things they have already said, things they may want to say later, words are very important folks
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."
Case No.: 2:12-CV-00322-SRB
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS (AMENDED) MOTION(S) TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Honorable Susan R. Bolton)
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Billy B. Hayes, Jr., Pro Se, and hereby submits the within PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS (AMENDED) MOTION(S) TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. In support thereof, I state as follows:
Introduction
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that I am in receipt of both Defendants Motion to Dismiss (hereafter Motion) and the Defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss (hereafter Amended Motion) filed on March 1, 2012 and March 2, 2012 respectively. As best I can tell the only distinguishing characteristic is contained in Footnote 2 contained on the second page of both of Defendants pleadings. I certainly have no objection to the correction of a clerical, formatting and/or procedural error(s) by the Defendants as the substance of the case is the issue that is of paramount concern to both parties. To the extent that any other distinguishing characteristic(s) is/are recognized, it will be noted herein.
Memorandum of Law and Points of Authority
- I. Background
- A. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA)
While not mentioned in either the Defendants Motion or Amended Motion, (but as pled by me in my original Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction), upon the conclusion of CV 2011-01072-PHX-SRB and the State cases regarding Compassion Clubs, Defendant, Governor Brewer, in her official capacity, stated for the record that there would no longer be a challenge to the states Medical Marijuana law in court and instead there would be cooperation to see that the voters demands are once and for all fully enacted. Said the Governor in a press release:
The State of Arizona will not re-file in federal court a lawsuit that sought clarification that State employees would not be subject to federal criminal prosecution simply for implementing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Instead, I have directed the Arizona Department of Health Services to begin accepting and processing dispensary applications, and issuing licenses for those facilities once a (separate) pending legal challenge to the Departments medical marijuana rules is resolved. With our request for clarification rebuffed on procedural grounds by the federal court, I believe the best course of action now is to complete the implementation of Proposition 203 in accordance with the law.
See: Exhibit A, January 13, 2012 Statement by Governor Brewer-Medical Marijuana, Attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Additionally, despite any inadvertent or purposeful failure to disclose, the Arizona Department of Health Services is actively taking accelerative action toward full implementation of the AMMA, including the finalization of Dispensary rules, the submittal of the same to the Secretary of State and the advertising that they will be soon processing applications for, and licensing of, Dispensaries as defined by the AMMA. See: Arizona Department of Health Services Directors Blog, http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=2175. Again, upon the acceptance of and licensing of Dispensaries, the 25-Mile Rule of the AMMA will automatically be triggered if the statutory provision in question (Arizona Revised Statute 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)) is not immediately addressed by way of injunction. This is far more imminent than the Defendants assert in their pleadings.
- B. The Controlled Substances Act
For example, Defendants point out that t is also unlawful to aid and abet the commission of a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2; assist an offender thereby becoming an accessory to a crime, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3; and make certain financial transactions designed to promote illegal activities or to conceal or disguise the source of the proceeds of that illegal activity, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956 See: Amended Motion, p. 3-4, l. 27; l. 1-4. However, the Defendants do not tie those provisions to any argument in support of their Motion. Arguably such posturing serves no purpose but to attempt to instill fear within myself as a Plaintiff and as a overt message to anyone serving to offer assistance with the within legal battle. Such behavior is consistent with the Defendants stance against Medical Marijuana, their publically stated position, their overt actions regarding Medical Marijuana, their indignation toward Qualifying Patients and blatant indifference to the will of voters in the State of Arizona since the inception of the AMMA (and prior via Prop 203).
I have never asked the within Court to address the legality of Marijuana which is what makes the Defendants position even that much more disconcerting.
The issue, plain and simple is whether the 25-Mile Rule is Constitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether the underlying activity leading to the repercussions of the imposition of the 25-Mile Rule relates to Marijuana is of nominal significance when looking at the issue of whether a Motion to Dismiss my Complaint and Motion is appropriate.
- II. Argument
Moreover, the Supreme Court has established a two-part approach when measuring the adequacy of pleadings. See: Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Under the Iqbal framework, the Court should isolate the well-pleaded, non-conclusory factual allegations that are entitled to a presumption of truth. Id. Then, considering only the well-pleaded facts and assuming their truth, the court should determine whether those facts give rise to a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. at 1949-1950.
- A. Response to Defendants Argument that there is a Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted.
Defendants are correct that I am asserting that the provision of the AMMA, A.R.S. Sec. 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. See: Amended Motion, p. 4, l. 13-23. (citations to my Complaint omitted).
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State
Despite the Defendants contentions to the contrary, I have never argued that I have a Constitutionally protected Right to cultivate Marijuana. Accordingly, the legal authority cited by Defendants (with respect to fundamental rights as they pertain to marijuana) are wholly inapplicable my situation. Moreover case citations to the commercial production and distribution of Marijuana are inapplicable as I am a single individual and have never asserted any contention to produce or distribute Marijuana on a commercial level. Once again, the Defendants cite case law supportive of their position; however their position is not what is being argued here by me and therefore makes the citations inapplicable.
Once more, the sole issue, plain and simple is whether it is Constitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to have State issued criminally punitive sanctions for one group of qualified patients while similarly situated qualified patients, by the very nature of their geographic location would be subjected to intervention by the State of Arizona legal authorities that would lead to severe criminal sanctions at a State level (regardless of Federal involvement whatsoever). Therein lays the distinguishing characteristic, regardless of whether the Defendants choose to endlessly argue privilege versus right. I will defer to my originally filed Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the interest of avoiding duplicitous argumentation regarding this issue.
Plainly stated, if you were to substitute a restriction (that has severe State criminal implications) on the pharmacy I have to go to for my controlled substance medications (with a 25-Mile Rule imposition for example), and the Federal government does approve of that controlled substance, the argument remains the same. The Defendants simply seek to defray attention away from the substance of my Constitutional argument by obscuring the issues before the Court based upon their staunch opposition toward Medical Marijuana and the fact that while State approved, it is not on the Federal level. However, the Defendants fail to state how it is that this Court is without the authority to protect against equal protection violations.
Take the Defendants own argument, (by way of argumentation)-by the Defendants own reasoning, the State of Arizona, et. al would then be complicit in the very same illegal activity in which they claim warrants the need to dismiss the within case. See: Amended Motion, p. 2, l. 24-27; p. 3, l. 1-3, as of January 27, 2012, the ADHS has registered 19,364 qualified patients and 1,154 designated caregivers. Of the registered qualifying patients, 16,298 have been authorized [by the State of Arizona] to cultivate marijuana.
The same is true under Defendants arguments for dismissal citing the CSA. The Defendants clearly state that it is unlawful to aid and abet the commission of a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2; assist an offender thereby becoming an accessory to a crime. See: Amended Motion, p. 4, l. 1-4. Again, by the Defendants logic, by authorizing cultivation for nearly 17,000 qualified Medical Marijuana patients they themselves have violated the very same federal laws (vis a vis cultivation) by authorizing even one patient, much less the number of patients they claim they have already authorized to engage in, as the Defendants termed it, activity that is prohibited by law. See: Amended Motion (p. 4, l. 1-4).
- B. Form of pleadings
The Defendants are correct that the commencement of a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. See: F.R.C.P. 3. Furthermore, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8, as cited by the Defendants,
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief
In reviewing my Complaint and Motion it is clear that I complied with F.R.C.P. 8, regardless of how the actual document may appear stylistically. Specifically, my Complaint lays out a section for Parties addressing jurisdiction/venue, a Background section which familiarizes the Court with the AMMA (similar to the one contained in Defendants Motion(s) to Dismiss), and a legal standard and argument section which clearly lay out my claim for relief as well as the legal authority supporting that claim. See: Complaint at p. 3-19.
If Defendants are correct in their assertion that [t]he purpose of these rules is to ensure that the complaint is sufficiently clear so as to enable each defendant to effectively formulate a response (citations omitted), then inarguably, as long as the Defendants have been able to formulate a response, a dismissal would not be appropriate; or at least the Defendants fail to cite one scintilla of legal support for a dismissal on these grounds. Moreover, the ability to formulate a Responsive pleading by the Defendants was further simplified by my inclusion of a Table of Contents that directly references the sections that they claim do not exist.
To the contrary, regardless of form/style, as long as jurisdiction is asserted and the claim(s) for relief is/are clearly delineated the reasoning is articulated fully, and the relief requested from the Court has been properly pled. Alternatively, any alleged defects would be curable by an Amended filing as opposed to the extreme measure of case dismissal; similar to the Motion and Amended Motions filed by the Defendants that were designed to cure their formatting defects.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY Defendants (Amended) Motion(s) to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction regarding the 25-Mile Rule. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requests an Oral Argument to address any potential dismissal.
I also hereby renew my request that a preliminary injunction be granted regarding the statutory provision in question, A.R.S. Sec. 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) pending the resolution of the within issues.
DATED: March 19, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________
Billy B. Hayes, Jr., Pro Se
15508 W. Bell Rd., Ste. #101
PMB 502
Surprise, AZ 85374
whitegato777
Well-Known Member
Damn! Did u write these up or did you have help from the lawyer?
Hey I heard that the maricopa board of supervisors will not zone any land fro cultivation use until the fed government removes cannabis from schedule 1? Has anyone heard about this and what the full implications and nuances of this action would be. I have also heard that the city of Scottsdale has made regulations and an approval process for caregiver grows?
UnderBelly
Active Member
Nobody (not even Bill) has any standing to bring a suit at this point. Nobody who has a cultivation license has had it revoked due to the location of a dispensary. So nobody has had action taken against them for which they can seek redress in the court system. I hope, as much as anyone, that the 25 mile rule is amended to accommodate patient cultivation, but I don't think it's going to happen as a result of the action being discussed in this thread. I don't think it's even possible to amend the 25 mile rule without another ballot initiative (which would probably eliminate the MMJ program altogether if we tried it at this point!)
UnderBelly
Active Member
You have "heard" these things from what kind of source?
UnderBelly
Active Member
They can, and probably will dismiss it because it doesn't ask a question that they can answer. It doesn't ask the court to correct a wrong that has been done to the plaintiff, it asks the court to change a law in order to prevent some future damage, but the court can't do that. They have already moved to dismiss it. This challenge probably dies on the vine, unfortunately.
Until you get a Supreme Court decision different from Raisch, the whole "states' rights" angle is DOA.
UnderBelly
Active Member
Bill's legal advisers are wise to note that the state doesn't have any power to amend the 25-mile rule because it was already in the ballot initiative. In a nutshell, if the state could change the law to remove the 25 mile restriction, there isn't any element of the law that they couldn't change. Meaning, they could end the program altogether, and trust me, if this legislature could do that, they would have done it. But AZ state law doesn't allow for that kind of amendment, fortunately or unfortunately, for a voter-initiated ballot proposition that becomes law.
Removing the 25-mile rule will require a separate ballot initiative to amend the AMMA. If we could do that, we could just legalize. Or end up losing the AMMA that we have now. Let's not forget that it _barely_ passed, and that a lot of the people who voted for it have left the state for greener pastures in the last few years, and that right-wing activism is at an all time high this election year.
UnderBelly
Active Member
Why doesn't anyone consider a new ballot initiative? The way it works in AZ, that is the only realistic avenue to change this rule. The Legislature can't do it. A Federal court could fix it by accident by stopping the dispensaries, but they can't surgically amend the law even if they were so inclined.
It sounds more and more like you want the 25 mile rule to go in place.you should read about about voter initiatives and the actual ways which they can be amended. The house can change them with a 2/3 majority. You lust not read the papers. The zoning info above I heard from a few hydrostores who heard it from the zoning commission. I also read an article about a while back in one of the local papers. You sure are pessimistic and uninformed about this issue. They say half smart is worse than stupid.
BeaverHuntr
Well-Known Member
What happened to the "like" feature.. I cant "like" Irieie's post!!
But now I can post how much I like your liking my post. LOL
according to Mr Joe Yuhas
"A 1998 constitutional amendment, approved after legislators voided a 1996 medical marijuana law approved by voters, specifically bars lawmakers from altering any voter-approved initiative.
The only exception is when a change furthers the underlying purpose of the original voter-approved measure. "
source
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/panel_votes_to_ban_medical_marijuana_on_arizona_ca.php
so it can be changed, but there needs to be a definition of what "furthering the underlying purpose of the original voter-approved measure. "
was this law passed for people to make $ from people with debilitating medical conditions, OR was it passed and put up as an inititive to HELP qualifying patients with debilitating medical conditions.
so which is it?
clearly allowing patients a CHOICE to grow their own, or $ to purchase from the (only) legal source furthers the inititive (for patients). Unless you are trying to profit from this law( at the expense of patients), I just cant see how it can be viewed as not furthering the inititive.
if the above quote is correct, then clearly the laws can be changed, but i guess only if it fits a certain agenda..................
"A 1998 constitutional amendment, approved after legislators voided a 1996 medical marijuana law approved by voters, specifically bars lawmakers from altering any voter-approved initiative.
The only exception is when a change furthers the underlying purpose of the original voter-approved measure. "
source
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/panel_votes_to_ban_medical_marijuana_on_arizona_ca.php
so it can be changed, but there needs to be a definition of what "furthering the underlying purpose of the original voter-approved measure. "
was this law passed for people to make $ from people with debilitating medical conditions, OR was it passed and put up as an inititive to HELP qualifying patients with debilitating medical conditions.
so which is it?
clearly allowing patients a CHOICE to grow their own, or $ to purchase from the (only) legal source furthers the inititive (for patients). Unless you are trying to profit from this law( at the expense of patients), I just cant see how it can be viewed as not furthering the inititive.
if the above quote is correct, then clearly the laws can be changed, but i guess only if it fits a certain agenda..................
UnderBelly
Active Member
I am pessimistic because I am quite certain that the law is not going to be amended, and that no "zoning commission" has any kind of authority to change a substantive component of the letter of this law. I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of the challenge here. I also don't think you are considering that if all it took was a 2/3 majority to change this law, this legislature would have already ended the AMMA. If the legislature can change one word of the law, they can repeal it altogether.
Once again half smart is worse than stupid. Keep ranting on it does not really matter what you or I think this issue will run its course and then we will play the hands dealt. Keep telling us the sky is falling chicken little.