Displaying results 1 - 25 of 703 for medical marijuana. Subscribe to this search
PHOENIX (AP) — Three of Arizona's top prosecutors are calling on political and civic leaders to oppose the legalization of marijuana for recreational use.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall and Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk are asking state leaders to stand on the side of decreasing drug use among youth.
The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project filed paperwork in Arizona to begin fundraising for a marijuana legalization ballot measure for 2016.
A University of Michigan survey shows states with medical marijuana make up the top 10 states for illicit use of marijuana by minors between ages 12 and 17.
Prosecutors say an Arizona Youth Survey shows the number of students who use illicit marijuana by getting it from someone with a medical marijuana card is on the rise.
PHOENIX (AP) — Proposed draft rules for Arizona's medical marijuana program are out for public comment.
The state Department of Health Services says the draft rules include court-ordered proposed changes on regulations for licensing of dispensaries but also proposed changes in rules involving patients and caregivers.
The proposed changes include reducing fees for several categories of patients, including ones who are 65 or older or under 18 years of age. Other reductions are envisioned for veterans and patients who receive hospice service and some forms of public assistance.
The latest proposed rules change previous drafts released earlier this year. The department says it plans to have the revised rules take effect next summer.
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — The number of people who died trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped to the lowest level in 15 years as more immigrants turned themselves in to authorities in Texas and fewer took their chances with the dangerous trek across the Arizona desert.
The U.S. government recorded 307 deaths in the 2014 fiscal year that ended in September — the lowest number since 1999. In 2013, the number of deaths was 445.
The Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley sector finished the 2014 budget year with 115 deaths, compared with 107 in the Tucson sector, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press. It marks the first time since 2001 that Arizona has not been the deadliest place to cross the border.
Arizona has long been the most dangerous border region because of triple-digit temperatures, rough desert terrain and the sheer volume of immigrants coming in to the state from Mexico. But more immigrants are now entering through Texas and not Arizona, driven by a surge of people from Central America.
The Tucson and Rio Grande Valley both saw their numbers of deaths decline from 2013, although Arizona's drop was more precipitous.
Border enforcement officials say the lower numbers are in part due to increased rescue efforts as well as a Spanish-language media campaign discouraging Latin Americans from walking across the border.
Tucson Sector Division Chief Raleigh Leonard says the addition of 10 new rescue beacons that were strategically placed in areas where immigrants traverse most often has been a factor in the decrease in deaths.
"I think we can all agree that crossing the border is an illegal act, but nothing that should be assigned the penalty of death," Leonard said in an interview.
Immigrant rights advocates are skeptical that it is solely the Border Patrol's efforts contributing to the decrease in deaths.
"At best, what the Border Patrol is accomplishing is a geographical shift in where these deaths are happening — rather than adequately responding to the scale of the crisis," said Geoffrey Boyce, a border enforcement and immigration researcher at the University of Arizona and a volunteer with the Tucson-based nonprofit No More Deaths.
The Rio Grande Valley sector was flooded with a surge in unaccompanied minors and families with children who turned themselves in at border crossings in Texas. Most were from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, where gang violence and a poor economy have driven out huge numbers of people. That surge has dwindled recently, however, as U.S. and Central American authorities have launched a public relations campaign warning parents against sending their children to the U.S.
Meanwhile, the Tucson Sector, once the busiest in the nation, has seen a steep decline in border crossers. Fewer Mexicans are crossing into the U.S. as the economy here has faltered and drug violence at home has improved.
The Border Patrol also responds to hundreds of cases each year of immigrants who need to be rescued while crossing the desert, long an issue in the Arizona desert. The Border Patrol conducted 509 rescues in the 2014 fiscal year in the Tucson sector, compared to 802 in 2013.
Some of the rescues are made with the help of beacons that were activated 142 times this year. The beacons are 30-feet tall, solar-powered and have sun reflectors and blue lights on top that are visible for 10 miles. The beacons also have signs in three languages directing users to push a red button that sends out a signal for help. Agents respond usually within 10 minutes to an hour.
The agency has a team dedicated solely to rescues, called Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue.
Agents in this elite group spend their days searching for immigrants and responding when one seeks help. They assist not only those who cross the border in search for jobs, but also drug mules and smugglers who become injured or dehydrated in the summer heat.
It was only 10 a.m. and already 95 degrees on a day in late June when the unit's agents provided medical assistance to a 28-year-old man suspected of smuggling drugs near Sells, Arizona.
The thin man had an ID from El Salvador and said he lived in Tucson. He oscillated between Spanish and English, but his message was the same: He was in extreme pain.
The agents gave him a gallon of a sports beverage. He was to drink it slowly, they told him, or else it would make him sick. Next, they connected a saline bag intravenously and checked his vitals.
The agents monitored him and re-examined his vitals, concluding that he wasn't dehydrated but suffering from muscle fatigue. Minutes later, agents who used a drug-sniffing K-9 to search the area found several bundles of marijuana and another suspected smuggler.
The men were arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, but were not charged with smuggling because the loads of marijuana were not found on them.
"To us, it could be a mule, an illegal immigrant. They're all the same. They're human beings," Leonard said.
PHOENIX -- A medical-marijuana card is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for motorists found with active components of the drug in their system, no matter how little, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
The judges rejected arguments by the attorney for Travis Darrah that the positive drug test, by itself, cannot be used to convict him of driving under the influence of drugs. The judges said prosecutors need not prove actual impairment.
Tuesday's ruling is unlikely to be the last word. Attorney John Tatz said he is weighing seeking Supreme Court review, saying the decision is in direct contradiction to the 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. That's also the assessment of Chris Lindsey, a legislative analyst with the Marijuana Policy Project which crafted the law.
Darrah, who has a state-issued card allowing him to obtain and use marijuana, was arrested by Mesa police in 2011. He was charged with two separate counts of driving under the influence of drugs.
One makes it illegal to drive while impaired. The other says a person cannot operate a motor vehicle while there is any illegal drug or its metabolite in his or her body. That was based on a blood test that showed evidence of an active component of marijuana
Tatz asked the second count to be dismissed.
He acknowledged that the 2010 law does not make it legal for a medical marijuana cardholder to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of the drug. But Tatz pointed out the law also says medical marijuana users cannot be considered under the influence solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of the marijuana "that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.'' And he said there was no evidence presented that Darrah was not impaired.
The judge refused to drop the charge and refused to let jurors hear that
Darrah is a medical marijuana users. Jurors then found Darrah innocent of the impairment charge but, based solely on the blood test, guilty of the second charge.
Appellate Judge Michael Brown, writing for the court, said he does not read the law -- and the exemption -- as broadly as Tatz.
"If Arizona voters had intended to completely bar the state form prosecuting authorized marijuana users under (this section of the law), they could have easily done so by using specific language to that effect,'' Brown wrote.
Lindsey said all that ignores the intent of the law: allow patients to use the drug and not be kept from driving simply because there was something left in their bodies that shows up in a blood test.
The key, he said, is impairment -- or the lack thereof.
"You could have a small amount of active metabolite in the system and not be impaired,'' he said, much as someone using a prescription painkiller would not be breaking the law if the concentration was too low to cause impairment. And Lindsey said the 2010 law was crafted to include the impairment requirement because of how long marijuana remains in the system.
Tatz said there is precedent for that argument.
He said the parallel charge for alcohol to the one his client was convicted is operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08.
If the blood test returns a number below that, that charge is dismissed. But the motorist still can be charged with driving while impaired if there is other evidence.
In this case, Tatz said, there is no presumptive number in Arizona law for how much marijuana someone can have in the blood. So that, he said, leaves prosecutors only the option of charging Darrah with driving while impaired -- a charge for which his client was found innocent by a jury.
Brown also said this case is different than one where the Arizona Supreme Court earlier this year voided driving while intoxicated charges against another medical marijuana user.
In that case, though, the justices pointed out that what was found in that driver's blood was an inactive metabolite of the drug which can remain long after the effects had worn off.
A medical marijuana card is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for motorists found with active components of the drug in their system, no matter how little, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
PHOENIX (AP) — A state appellate court ruling says Arizona's medical marijuana law doesn't give authorized users immunity from prosecution under a law against driving while there is marijuana or its chemical compound in a person's body.
A jury had acquitted a man of driving while impaired but convicted him of driving under a DUI law prohibiting a person from driving while having a prohibited drug or its compound in his or her body.
A three-judge Court of Appeals panel's ruling Tuesday lets stand Travis Lance Darrah's conviction.
Darrah's appeal argued that part of the medical marijuana law was intended to make authorized users immune from prosecution unless they drive while impaired.
The Court of Appeals said the medical marijuana law could have included a blanket immunity provision but didn't.
PHOENIX -- Saying the state needs the cash, a first-term Tucson Republican lawmaker wants to legalize marijuana -- and do it before it ends up on the 2016 ballot.
Ethan Orr said he believes a Colorado-style law here could generate upwards of $250 million a year in tax revenues. He said the state, heading into a budget deficit, needs the cash.
But Orr said there's another reason for lawmakers to act: a proposed 2016 ballot measure.
He said if that is passed, it is virtually impossible to make changes if it turns out there are problems. By contrast, Orr said anything approved by the Legislature can be amended by the Legislature.
The proposal drew a sharp rebuke from Rep. Victoria Steele, D-Tucson, who is also running in the same legislative district. She said the timing -- a month before the general election -- is suspicious as she, Orr and Democrat Randy Friese face off for the two available seats.
But this isn't Orr's first foray into the issue of marijuana.
Last session he sponsored legislation designed to allow the use of state dollars, obtained from medical marijuana users and dispensaries, to study the effects of the drug. That measure was approved by the House but killed in the Senate.
Timing aside, Steele said that, as a substance abuse counselor, she cannot support anything that has the possibility of making marijuana more easily available to teens, even if the law were designed to limit its purchase to adults.
The proposal is getting a decidedly chilly reception from Republican gubernatorial hopeful Doug Ducey who would be in a position to sign or veto the bill if it ever got to his desk.
"As the father of three boys and the son of a cop, he thinks it's a bad idea,'' said spokeswoman Melissa DeLaney.
But Democrat Fred DuVal appears open to the idea -- but just not yet.
"Fred wants to wait and see what happens with the states that already moved to legalize recreational marijuana,'' said Geoff Vetter, his press aide. "There's a lot of things we're still learning and Fred wants to discover all the consequences of legalization before moving in that direction.''
But the Marijuana Policy Project, which got voters in 2010 to approve a medical marijuana law, is not about to drop its plans for 2016.
Chris Lindsey, the group's legislative analyst, said Orr's proposal is "not surprising'' given what he said has been the success of legalization in Colorado.
"We applaud Rep. Orr for taking a stand for a more sensible law,'' Lindsey said. But simply introducing a bill is far from a guarantee of getting a hearing, much less the measure making its way onto the books.
"For the time being, while we wish the representative and his legislation every success, our plans to place a measure before voters in 2016 has not changed,'' Lindsey said.
Orr's plan is a direct extension of that 2010 initiative when voters decided that those with certain medical conditions and a doctor's recommendation could purchase up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks from state-regulated dispensaries.
Since that time the state's finances have deteriorated.
The current projection is Arizona will end this budget year $520 million in the red if lawmakers have to reset state aid to schools to where it would have been had they not ignored for several years a requirement to consider inflation. And for the coming year the deficit is projected to exceed $1 billion.
Orr said the experience in Colorado shows legalization can work.
"All of the apocalyptic predictions made have not come true,'' he said.
"You have not seen an increase in the hardcore drug usage of things like heroin and cocaine,'' Orr said, or any increase in arrests for disorderly conduct. "But what you have seen is an increase in tax revenue.''
Potentially more significant, Orr said, is the chance that the 2016 initiative might pass.
He said this means Arizona law will be crafted not after careful consideration and debate by lawmakers but instead go to voters as a take-it-or-leave-it plan. Worse yet, Orr said, is the Arizona Constitution precludes virtually any change by lawmakers in voter-approved measures even if problems develop.
"This is going to happen,'' he said.
"Is it going to happen in an intelligent way because my colleagues chose to act like leaders and do what was right for the state?'' Orr continued. "I guess another way of putting it (is), are we going to govern or are we going to be governed by the initiative process?''
"I don't think we should have it either way,'' responded Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall. "We don't need another highly addictive substance available to adults or adolescents.''
LaWall acknowledged that what Orr is proposing would be only for adults. But she said its greater availability will make it more accessible to teens.
"Research shows it has a devastating and damaging impact on developing brains and can lead to life-long addiction,'' she said. "Among other risks, marijuana impairs thinking, leads to poor educational outcomes and lowered IQ, and increases a teen's likelihood of dropping out of school.''
And LaWall said even assuming marijuana sales could be limited to adults, legalization sends the message that it's use is somehow OK.
Steele said Colorado residents are having second thoughts. In a poll last month by Suffolk University and USA today, about half of residents surveyed said they are not happy with the law and how it is being implemented.
"And in Colorado, we're seeing since this has happened, that the use of marijuana among teenagers is 39 percent higher than the national average,'' Steele said.
But another report raises the question of whether any of this is related to the 2012 law.
A report released by Healthy Kids Colorado found that in 2013, the first full year the drug was legal for adults, 20 percent of high schoolers admitted using marijuana in the prior month and 37 percent said they had used it at some point in their lives.
By contrast, the 2011 survey found 22 percent who admitted to use in the prior month and 39 percent to sampling it.
But along the lines of LaWall's concern of acceptance, the same survey said the percentage of students who perceive a moderate or great risk from marijuana use declined from 58 percent in 2011 to 54 percent two years later.
Steele said her concern is for those children.
"I do think that adults have the right to make that decision,'' she said.
"But I'm a substance abuse counselor,'' Steele continued. "And I have dealt with so many people who started their drug and alcohol addiction in their teenage years, starting at 11 and 12.''
Orr said he has never used marijuana. And he agrees that, at least for teens, the drug should remain off limits for recreational use.
"In high school I saw it fundamentally destroyed some of my friends' lives,'' Orr said, who started with marijuana and, having decided that illegal drug use is OK, moved on to other substances.
This isn't the first foray by lawmakers into the area of legalizing -- or at least decriminalizing -- marijuana for recreational use.
John Fillmore, then a Republican representative from Apache Junction, tried in 2011 to make possession of up to two ounces a fine of no more than $200. When that failed, he tried a scaled-back measure the following year, with a $500 fine for possession of up to an ounce.
That also failed.
Just this past session Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, tried total legalization and recreation but could not get a hearing for his measure.
PHOENIX -- Arizona's chief health officer is proposing to make it more difficult to add new conditions to the list for which doctors can recommend the drug.
The change would require "clear and convincing evidence'' published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, that there is some benefit from the use of marijuana to humans for the specified medical condition. State Health Director Will Humble said that probably means multiple articles.
That's a big change from the current regulations which allow consideration of "a summary of the evidence'' that marijuana will either help treat the condition or at least provide some relief from symptoms. And while the current rules also ask for articles in scientific journals, there is no mandate that the research be "evidence based'' -- or that the conclusions be clear and convincing.
Humble's proposal comes months after he effectively was required, against his own judgment, to allow doctors to make medical marijuana available for post-traumatic stress disorder.
He originally had rejected the application as being based largely on anecdotal evidence. But Humble reversed himself when a state hearing officer pointed out that his agency's own rules specifically require him to consider such evidence.
And Humble said had his proposed rules been in effect at the time, he never would have made marijuana available for PTSD.
The move drew opposition from Jeffrey Kaufman, an attorney whose practice includes representing marijuana dispensaries.
"The governments have constructed a complex and impossible program and maze for anyone to get medical marijuana studies funding,'' he said. "So, obviously, it's going to be impossible for anybody to have any type of peer-reviewed literature or studies.''
That's also the assessment of attorney Ken Sobel who brought the legal challenge that resulted in Humble adding PTSD to the list. And he said a lawsuit is likely if Humble goes ahead with the change.
"It would be really in violation of the voters' intent,'' Sobel said, saying wanted an easy method of adding conditions because of the legal roadblocks to scientific research.
But Humble is defending the new restriction.
"I want everything we do to be based on evidence and data,'' he said.
The 2010 The voter-approved law allows the use of the drug by patients suffering from a list of specific medical conditions, ranging from glaucoma and AIDS to any chronic or debilitating condition that leads to severe and chronic plan. At last count, close to 53,000 people have qualified under that existing list, allowing them to purchase up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.
That 2010 law, however, also requires Humble to consider requests to expand the list of conditions for which marijuana can be legally recommended by a doctor.
Humble had rejected repeated efforts to add PTSD to the list, saying there was a lack of scientific studies.
But in June, a hearing officer said the agency's own rules require Humble to consider the anecdotal testimony of doctors and nurses who said the drug has helped their patients. And Humble backed down after proponents, in what he called "a stroke of luck,'' also came up with a study out of New Meixco that found what he said was "an association between cannabis used and PTSD symptoms in some patients.''
Still, Humble said all that probably would not meet the new standards.
"The rules that we're proposing today make it really clear that it needs to be not just published data but published data that's convincing,'' he said. "And not just one, unless it's a really, really good study.''
He said the single study on PTSD that was presented to him did not meet the standard for "clear and convincing evidence.'' In fact, the study says that further research is necessary.
Their plans to fix Arizona's economy may be hard to decipher, and neither Democrat Fred DuVal nor Republican Doug Ducey is precise on exactly how they think the state will permanently come up with more money for schools.
PHOENIX -- Their plans to fix Arizona's economy may be hard to decipher.
And neither Democrat Fred DuVal nor Republican Doug Ducey is precise on exactly how they think the state will permanently come up with more money for schools.
But anyone seeking clear distinctions between the major candidates for governor need look only at their positions on what might be called "morality'' issues to find some stark contrasts.
And given how often these issues translate into legislation, what the next governor believes could be the difference between when some measures become law and others are vetoed.
Consider of gay rights.
DuVal has come out forthright in favor of the ability of gays to wed.
Ducey, by contrast, wants to limit marriage to one man and one woman, as approved by voters in 2008, though he did say after Tuesday's ruling by the 9th Circuit overturning laws in Nevada and Idaho he will "follow the law.''
But he also opposes granting health insurance and other benefits to the domestic partners of gay state and university employees. And that's an issue where the views of the governor matter.
Jan Brewer is currently in federal court fighting a bid to permanently void a provision in a 2009 law which she signed that limits benefits solely to those who are married. That action overturned a rule adopted just a year earlier to the contrary.
Brewer has said this was a question not of bias but of saving state finances. But a federal judge already has issued a preliminary injunction, saying it appears to be a clear case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Whoever is the next governor could decide to keep the issue alive or simply drop the defense.
There are other issues of gay rights that divide the pair.
For example, existing Arizona law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, age, race, religion or national origin. Ducey said he opposes expanding that list to include sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
"I'm for equal protection under the law for everyone,'' he said. "But I don't want to continue to divide people up through these protected classes.''
Ducey said, though, he would not turn back the clock and try remove things like race or religion from that special "protected class'' status that gives victims of discrimination the right to sue.
DuVal conceded that new rights for gays may result in new litigation.
"But we need to constantly expand rights and opportunities in ways that broaden success and participation,'' he said. DuVal said the country, having provided legal protections to other groups, now needs to extend that to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals.
Along the same lines, the pair parts ways about whether Arizona should protect businesses and individuals from being required to provide services in a way that runs counter to their own moral or religious beliefs.
This became an issue following the decision earlier this year by Gov. Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062. It would have expanded existing laws on religious freedom to provide an absolute right of businesses to cite their "sincerely held religious beliefs'' as a reason to refuse service to someone.
Brewer said it was a solution in search of a problem. And both Ducey and DuVal have said they back her veto.
But Ducey said he does support providing some protections for religious beliefs from government intrusion, citing the case of Hobby Lobby which fought for and got the right to refuse to include contraceptive coverage for their workers.
"Private employers should be able to make a decision on which benefits are provided to employees,'' he said.
DuVal, however, said he sees the issue from a different perspective.
"You should not be allowed to discriminate,'' he said.
"I recognize that runs into conflict with folks' private businesses,'' he continued. But DuVal said those same arguments were made over passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forbade businesses from discriminating against African Americans.
"We've been through these issues before,'' DuVal said. "And we now must face them on gays and lesbians.''
The other perennial hot-button issue at the Legislature has been abortion.
Arizona lawmakers have in the last six years imposed impose new limits on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said is the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. That includes waiting periods, clinic inspection rules and restrictions on the use of RU-486 for medication abortions.
Ducey has made no secret he supports additional restrictions. In fact, he said that he is in favor of prohibiting all abortions except in certain narrow circumstances like preventing the death of the mother or in cases of rape and incest.
DuVal said the right to abortion is "established federal law'' and should remain. He also is opposed to new limits.
In other issues which have moral or ethical considerations, Ducey said he is opposed to legalizing marijuana for recreational use. DuVal said he thinks Arizona should take a wait-and-see attitude, watching how such laws are playing out in Colorado and Washington.
Ducey also said he opposes legalizing physician-assisted suicide. Oregon has such a law which permits a doctor to help someone who has a terminal illness.
DuVal said he has not really thought about the matter.
And Ducey said he wants Arizona to scrap its 40-year-old system of merit selection of judges for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and trial courts in Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties. That system requires the governor to make selections from a list of recommendations by a special screening committee.
Ducey said he favors allowing the governor to pick whoever he or she wants, subject only to Senate confirmation similar to the federal system. DuVal said the current system works to take much of the politics out of the process.
Follow Howard Fischer on Twitter at @azcapmedia.
PHOENIX -- Arizona law could preclude the kind of fight playing out in Colorado over whether workers testing positive for medical marijuana can be fired.
The crafters of the 2010 Arizona included a specific provision spelling out that an employer may not make decisions on hiring, firing or discipline based on the person's status as a registered marijuana user.
But it goes farther than that.
It states that a positive drug test for marijuana from someone who is a registered user cannot be used against that employee unless the person either used or possessed the drug at work or was actually impaired while on the job. The only exception is in cases where an employer is required to do drug testing under federal law for positions such as truck drivers.
There is, however, no definition of what constitutes being "impaired.'' And the issue has never been reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The one time the high court did weigh in earlier this year came on the parallel question of driving. In a unanimous ruling, the justices said those who smoke marijuana cannot be charged with driving while impaired absent actual evidence they are affected by the drug. Without dissent, the justices rejected arguments by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office that a motorist whose blood contains a slight amount of a certain metabolite of marijuana -- what's left over after the drug is processed by the body -- can be presumed to be driving illegally because he or she is impaired. The court said the medical evidence shows that's not the case, pointing out that the metabolite remains in the blood long after someone can be presumed to be impaired.
FILE - In this April 25, 2013, file photo, attorney Michael Evans, left, listens in his office in Denver, as his client Brandon Coats talks about the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that upheld Coats being fired from his job after testing positive for the use of medical marijuana. The Colorado Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the marijuana-related firing case that could have big implications for the state’s pot smokers. Coats is a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient who was fired from his job at Dish Network after failing a drug test in 2010. Coats says he needs the drug to help with violent spasms he has suffered since he was paralyzed in a car accident as a teenager. (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski, File)
DENVER (AP) — Pot may be legal in Colorado, but you can still be fired for using it.
Gov. Jan Brewer says terminally ill patients should have the right to use drugs which have not yet been approved — and may never be approved — by federal agencies.
A Tempe man is facing three counts of child abuse after his girlfriend’s 14-month-old baby died earlier this week.
State health officials are facing a new legal challenge over a provision in the voter-approved Medical Marijuana Act that bars those who live within 25 miles of a dispensary from growing their own plants.
A marijuana advocacy group is challenging limits imposed by state Health Director Will Humble on how and when patients with post-traumatic stress disorder can legally use the drug.
Medical marijuana users have no right to grow their own plants once a dispensary moves within 25 miles as the crow flies, a state hearing officers concluded Tuesday. But some rural residents may get to start cultivating again next year.
It may look like a cigarette, and it certainly delivers a dose of nicotine like a cigarette.
Backers of a would-be medical marijuana researcher are now planning to pressure the Board of Regents to intercede after the University of Arizona will not rehire her.
State judges cannot bar those placed on probation from using medical marijuana if they are otherwise eligible, the state Court of Appeals ruled Friday. And that even includes those who were convicted for drug offenses.
The head of the organization offering to fund a study on medical marijuana at the University of Arizona said he will pull the cash unless the school restores fired doctor and researcher Sue Sisley to the staff and the project.
A Pima County Superior Court judge may have paved the way for the state's more than 52,000 medical marijuana users to get into business of selling the drug, at least to each other.
A University of Arizona doctor and researcher, given her walking papers last month, is not going quietly.