My experience or suggestion is...

"25 Mile Rule" is Unconstitutional

What happens to patients cultivation rights when a dispensary opens within 25 miles of a patients address? How will the patient be noticed? How long do they have to stop cultivation?

Please explain the plan!!

When the first dispensary OPENS near me I will file a LAWSUIT against that dispensary and The State of Arizona.

Arizona Constitution

Article 2 Section 13

Equal privileges and immunities:
Section 13. 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.

3 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    D. CassidyD. Cassidy shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    completed  ·  ADHSAdminADHS (Admin, Arizona Department of Health Services) responded  · 

    Each qualified patient will be notified upon their annual renewal if a dispensary is open within 25 miles of where they live. If you renew with a request to grow and there is not a dispensary open within 25 miles you will be able to continue to grow. The final rules for the dispensaries are still being developed so you will want to check back to our agency website for new developments. At this time we do not have a date for the completion of the final rules and no dates for when the Department will be able to license dispensaries.
    The 25-mile rule was part of the Initiative passed by the voters, as such is set in law.

    7 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • RexRex commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This rule sounds more like a business plan then an actual health plan. How can you say only business and corporations can have the right to grow? We pay taxes to live here in this state and now we have to pay to be a patient and pay for medicine when we can grow it ourselves?

      • JoeyJoey commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I also moved here from California and came here to grow my own cause it was cold where i was in california in winters,I went from never being able to grow to finally learning 1000 dollars later here in az, yet I spent 20 thousand to come down here to grow and if they ever arrest me, I will be asking for the 20 thousand to get me back to california and give me my money spent back for the pot. I did't see that clause in the ads they advertised to bring people to arizona from california, I was told stores would never be allowed in outer cities like mine even if stores came. I finally have healthy clones and the growing itself is therapy for being alone out here in az and losing my mother too. Nice to see plant life

      •  anonymous anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        How does a dispensary grow for every patient in their area without violating federal limits of 99 plants too? This is a ridiculous and absurd rule. It doesn't promote self sustainability either but more dependence on government, limiting our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not to mention legalizing nature again would be the best thing for our natural resources and hemp's industrial applications, which if you know your history is why Andrew Mellon and his nephew Anslinger made it illegal to begin with and had nothing to do with drugs. Especially since not one death in human history has ever been attributed to cannabis since the LD-50 (Lethal Dose/50%) is marked at 15,000lbs in UNDER 15 minutes to reach the toxicity of cannabis. We have foods, like the nightshade family (potatoes) that are more toxic to us. Not only is it incredibly non-toxic but it has been found that it has incredible health benefits, even if your choice of getting it into your blood stream is via smoking because it has anti-carcinogenic properties, as well as being a bronchial dilator (good for asthma), unlike toxic tobacco which is a bronchial constrictor...and tobacco is TOXIC...that being the main difference. I moved to Az. from California before I knew about this lame 25 mile rule...now I may be moving to Colorado until sanity comes to the ADHS and they omit this ridiculous monopoly against its own citizens who want to be self sufficient, even to the point of growing their own food, medicine and providing their own energy. I would love to hear an update from their staff about the progress on this 25 mile rule and how long before an Arizona state citizen, that has already been approved to cultivate and provide for themselves, can continue to do so after spending money on equipment to provide for myself. I would also like to know how these dispensaries are providing for their patients without violating the federal limits?

      • K MastersK Masters commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        There is now a Lawsuit against this portion of the initiative.Will you now continue to grant cultivation rights until the lawsuit is settled as you did with the dispensary applications being put on hold ?
        Severability/Facial Challenge of A.R.S. 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f), exclusively

        As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the within challenge is being Filed as a “Facial Challenge” to A.R.S> 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f), exclusively. As this Court is likely aware, a facial challenge is the argument that a law is void on its face; that it is necessarily a violation of the Constitution in any and all applications. United States v. Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987) at 745. The proper remedy under such a case is typically not compensation but an injunction against enforcement and a declaration that the law is invalid. Such a challenge does not necessarily allege that the plaintiff was injured when the law was enacted, but rather when the government acts pursuant to that law and adversely affects the plaintiff’s rights. (Emphasis added). See: Marc E. Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth; Facial challenges and the valid rule requirement, 48 AM UL Rev 359, 431 n. 319 (1998).

        As stated previously, the Defendants herein have taken active measures to act pursuant to the AMMA and such action will ultimately affect my ability to obtain State approved cultivation authorization while someone similarly situation, by pure incident of location will be able to receive State authorization without fear of, or threat of, State of Arizona criminal charges and penalties. Make no mistake, I am not seeking compensation, but rather injunctive relief against the constitutionally infirm portion of the AMMA; the 25-Mile Rule, at a minimum until such time as the matter can be argued at Oral Argument or such time as this Court deems fit to resolve the same with some degree of finality.

        When discussing the issue of the 25-Mile Rule, it is important to remember that the underlying assumption of complete, i.e., “facial,” invalidation, of the challenged statute (in this instance the entirety of the AMMA) ignores the interplay of the severability doctrine (as previously addressed herein) as applied to challenged statutes and is inconsistent with the Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood decision in which the Supreme Court instructed lower courts to hesitate before completely invalidating a statute as a remedy in facial challenges. Ayott, 546 U.S. 320, 328–31 (2006);

        Perhaps most relevant, timely and illustrative is the facial challenge brought against the State of Arizona’s SB 1070. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona severed the portions of SB 1070 determined to be facially unconstitutional from the entire statute rather than striking the statute as a whole. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 1008 (D. Ariz. 2010), aff’d, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).

        Arizona Constitution

        Article 2 Section 13

        Equal privileges and immunities:
        Section 13. 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.

      • SunshineSunshine commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The 25 mile rule was the Brainchild of Cartel Owned Dispensaries.
        This Medicine of God's Earth, should be BY THE PEOPLE -- FOR THE PEOPLE.
        I grow my own food in my garden (healthy/no additives) AFFORDABLE !!!!
        I should be able to grow my own MEDICINE !!! Healthy/no additives AFFORDABLE.
        The existing law will make a few people RICH and deny many their rights.

        LAWS are made to be Changed / Amended.

        Lets make this one RIGHT !!!

      • Jimi HarrisJimi Harris commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        And then how many criminals do you think will be breeding, and what about all the money spent that I had to spend to grow my own because Brewer wanted clairity. I think the cardholders have a good leg to stand on and I'm sure we will protest the 25 mile rule....or the state will have me sueing there butt for expences incurred for my opperation as well as many others will.I think that we only got half of what was voted in, and then teased with growing our own, and now will have to spend twice the price at the Dispensaries.Breeding outlaws is what will happen

      • D. CassidyD. Cassidy commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The Department of Health can DENY the services to dispensaries until this UNCONSTITUTIONAL part of the rules are fixed!

      Feedback and Knowledge Base