Since this could help all the growers in Az

Hello All

Have some very good news for all patients and caregivers!

We will be filing a Class Action suit in the Superior Court of Maricopa on Friday against the "25 Mile Rule". We will ask the court to declare Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) aka "25 Mile Rule" unconstitutional under Arizona law and to stop the enforcement of the 25 mile rule therein; We are also requesting to impose a preliminary injunction which forbids enforcement of the 25 mile rule by the Arizona Department of Health Services, all Arizona law enforcement, the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Arizona Attorney General Office.

Much love to those who have been supportive from day one - thank You! Our day has come and now we all shall be able to provide for our own health instead of being forced into the Medical marijuana Program's Monopoly!





The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“Act&#8221 was passed into law effective December 2010. The Arizona Department of Health Services was put in charge to establish Rules in order to implement the Act which became effective April 2011. Under the Act, a patient may register with the Department by applying for a medical marijuana registry card. Patient’s in possession of a valid registry identification card and in compliance with the Act and the Department’s Rules are except from prosecution under Arizona’s criminal statutes. When an applicant for a patient registry identification card does not live within twenty-five miles of an operating medical marijuana dispensary, the patient may request to cultivate twelve marijuana plants. Under the Act, a patient may request authorization to cultivate 12 marijuana plants “if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not operating within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient’s home.” See A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) also known as the 25 Mile Rule.

“No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.” – Arizona Constitution Article 2, Section 13




More local discussion on the issue can be found here - http://forum.hydrobreed.com/home.php

(07-03-13) As of last night I have joined the current measure against the 25 Mile Rule with Keith Floyd.

Best place as of now to follow - https://www.facebook.com/No25MileRule

excellent, Thank You . . .

Just out of curiosity...
say they find the law unconstitutional, could they get rid of the entire mmj law?

Let me know when your pushing this thru bro im with you all thee way..they are just fycking us with a sick dick in az. Time to stick it back to them. All the money they making off us patients and we cant grow our own unless we live outside a RETARDED circle wtf is az really about with this ive seen many crows fly not once ive seen one fly ina circle.

Keep the word up here , if its signature's or what else helps. I'm sure there are peeps here that will step up and do their part . Thanks for your support

KAL EL said:

Just out of curiosity...
say they find the law unconstitutional, could they get rid of the entire mmj law?

Click to expand...

Prop. 105 - 1998
It prohibits the legislature from ever repealing approved ballot measures, and requires a very large vote -- 3/4 majority-- to enact any amendments to an initiative. In addition, any amendments must "further the purposes" of the approved initiative; they cannot change its intent. It also prohibits the governor's ability to veto the initiative. It's here to stay!

http://www.azsos.gov/election/1998/Info/PubPamphlet/prop105.html

HB DC said:

Prop. 105 - 1998
It prohibits the legislature from ever repealing approved ballot measures, and requires a very large vote -- 3/4 majority-- to enact any amendments to an initiative. In addition, any amendments must "further the purposes" of the approved initiative; they cannot change its intent. It also prohibits the governor's ability to veto the initiative. It's here to stay!

http://www.azsos.gov/election/1998/Info/PubPamphlet/prop105.html

Click to expand...

in all honesty and reality hb how long do we have till we see this pocketbook rule of 25 miles erased? And what do u need us to do..i dont know many folks in az been here almost ten yrs just dont trust the population but im all with going out and doing my part. let me know bro your not in this fight alone.

gamestwin said:

in all honesty and reality hb how long do we have till we see this pocketbook rule of 25 miles erased? And what do u need us to do..i dont know many folks in az been here almost ten yrs just dont trust the population but im all with going out and doing my part. let me know bro your not in this fight alone.

Click to expand...

There are no guarantees that the 25 mile zone will be erased but we can sure stand up for our rights and hope the State will honor them. These laws work for us not the other way around! All laws are amendable to the likings of the populous.

Did anyone read the AMMA when it was first proposed? There in the proposed initiative was the intent of the AMMA which reads - “State law should make a distinction between the medical and non medical use of marijuana. Hence, the purpose of this act is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.”

The intent is clear - medical and non medical use of marijuana needs to be separated! The Department is simple a means to see to getting Arizonans in order by "management of, processing of and enrollment of patients, caregivers, dispensaries and their agents and obviously to collect a fee for this service! The Act is self funded therefore no State money is needed to implement the act. What works against patients is the money collected will be cut off if the (most of it) dispensaries are not the main source of revenue. Thus lower taxes collected by the state and so on. So to believe this Act is all about the patient is absurd. I was told a patient can not legally participate in the medical use of marijuana if they only have a Physicians Certificate stating they suffer from a debilitating condition and the use of medical marijuana out weighs the negatives. A qualifying patient MUST be registered with the Department to receive protection under the AMMA - Registered Qualifying Patient. Period. I have been to 2 hearing thus far on this matter and as the law is written the Certificate means nothing which is clearly not the intent of the AMMA(read above). So it is our duty as citizens to bring the issue to surface and ask for reasons because the intent of the Act is very clear - protect patients and their caregivers from prosecution IF and ONLY IF they suffer from a debilitating medical condition not if they are registered with the Department though in many words that is what the AMMA calls for to be in compliance with the law and the rules.

"The People of the State of Arizona find and declare the following:
A. Marijuana's recorded use as a medicine goes back nearly 5,000 years, and modern medical research has confirmed beneficial uses for marijuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions, including cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS, as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in March 1999.
B. Studies published since the 1999 Institute of Medicine report have continued to show the therapeutic value of marijuana in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. These include relief of neuropathic pain caused by multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS and other illnesses that often fail to respond to conventional treatments and relief of nausea, vomiting and other side effects of drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, increasing the chances of patients continuing on life-saving treatment regimens.
C. Marijuana has many currently accepted medical uses in the United States, having been recommended by thousands of licensed physicians to at least 260,000 patients in the states with medical marijuana laws. Marijuana's medical utility has been recognized by a wide range of medical and public health organizations, including the American Academy of HIV Medicine, American College of Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and many others.
D. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marijuana arrests in the U.S. are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill patients who have a medical need to use marijuana.
E. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island and Washington have removed state-level criminal penalties for the medical use and cultivation of marijuana. Arizona joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.
F. States are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. Therefore, compliance with this act does not put the state of Arizona in violation of federal law.
G. State law should make a distinction between the medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana. Hence, the purpose of this act is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana."

The AMMA we all voted on - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop203.htm

I doubt they would be able to toss the whole law. Typically the unconstitutional parts get chucked the rest remains unless the law is too flawed to continue.

Would be funny to see the dispensaries actually have to compete in the market.

I saved this article from a law student because it goes over various laws and different parts of our federal govt. His paper entitled: What the End of Prohibition May Look Like: Preemption and the Legalization of Marijuana, is carefully scripted and well done.

http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_What_the_End_of_Prohibition_May_Look_Like.pdf

Equal protection. I think the argument comes down to looking at similar examples and asking would that be constitutional?

I don't think any other state has anything quite like this, nor can I think offhand of any similar situations. Utah has the state liquor stores, however there is no provision that someone 25 miles from a liquor store can buy alcohol online instead or distill their own alcohol.

It would be like making a law that it was legal to buy medicine from Canada if you lived more than 25 miles from Walgreens. Or, you would have to buy alcohol from Walmart if you lived in city limits but outside city limits you could buy alcohol from any grocery store.

Thats what the az supreme court justices would do, they would try to make up a comparable example. If I live in a city I have to buy guns from walmart but if I live in the country I can make my own.

At it's heart the law confers a right to a class of people based on their geographic location. If I live in the country I can own slaves but if I live in the city I have to hire mexicans.

Anyone care to give an example of a law which allows someone to do something an average citizen can't but only if they don't live in a city? Zoning laws don't count. Has to be a law which affects something a person could do in the privacy of their home.

I'm not allowed to have horses in my neighborhood

That is a zoning restriction. The law was made in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with zoning. Zoning has a public process with input. You will note that there is no state law which says you can't have horses, this is all done at a city or county level. This would be akin to saying people who lived north of the Mogollon Rim couldn't be allowed to own horses.
Arizona Laws > Title 44 > Chapter 10 > Article 1 > § 44-1403 - Establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly

Establishment, maintenance or use of monopoly

The establishment, maintenance or use of a monopoly or an attempt to establish a monopoly of trade or commerce, any part of which is within this state, by any person for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices is unlawful.


I would submit that dividing the state up into zones and giving each zone a single vendor constitutes creating a system of monopolies which exclude competition.

$350 collected thus far.

Thank you to the folks who have given their money to fight this with me.


Donate here -
http://fundly.com/25-mile-rule-the-r...eir-own-health

Or if you paypal -
[email protected]

If you would like to start your own personal fund raiser please visit - (Recommended! Even a $100 fundraiser will help!)
https://fundly.com/signup/personal-f...ty_id=zulg5wom


Will keep you'll posted!
Danko

Administrative Hearing complete! Moving along to Superior Court soon!


Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decision -



AzDHS Decision after receiving the ALJ (Above) Decision -



I will continue this fight until I am tapped out. Thank you to the few supporters!

Danko

Completely half ass hearing! They didn't even address the legality of the rules.
In my experience lower courts are often a joke and appeals are the way to justice.
Best of luck.

Kervork said:

Would be funny to see the dispensaries actually have to compete in the market.

Click to expand...

You spelled "go out of business" wrong

thecoolman said:

Completely half ass hearing! They didn't even address the legality of the rules.
In my experience lower courts are often a joke and appeals are the way to justice.
Best of luck.

Click to expand...

"Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Department's denial of his application was inappropriate or was not in conformity with the applicable Arizona statutes and rules."

I guess the State Constitution has nothing to do with the laws our State passes! And further if laws violate ones rights it doesn't matter!

I verbally invoked my right to provide for my own health at the hearing so I will do exactly that! I have jumped through enough hoops... I no longer want to be

deprived of good health due to judicial technicalities which only apply to consenting subject matter.

Ill send along some donations on the 1st for your fight!!!!

HB DC said:

"Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Department's denial of his application was inappropriate or was not in conformity with the applicable Arizona statutes and rules."

I guess the State Constitution has nothing to do with the laws our State passes! And further if laws violate ones rights it doesn't matter!

I verbally invoked my right to provide for my own health at the hearing so I will do exactly that! I have jumped through enough hoops... I no longer want to be

deprived of good health due to judicial technicalities which only apply to consenting subject matter.

Click to expand...

Should we asume you you have or will be discussing this with the appropriate attorney before preceding to court again?