ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES September 25, 2013 at 2:30pm A. The first section of this paper pertains to the constitutional challenge already filed, challenging denying users of medical marijuana from growing their own medicines if they live within a 25 mile radius of a dispensary. Article 27 Section 2 of the State Constitution, was adopted by a vote of the people in a general election. This article defined the right that each individual in Arizona has the right to decide for themselves how they get their medical treatments and from whom, that the State of Arizona cannot make these decisions for anyone. This includes providing, growing, cultivating my own pharmaceuticals. In implementation of the medical marijuana system, the Health Department violated this amendment. The amendment includes all medical systems including medical marijuana, Obomacare, and any other medical treatments or systems. This constitutional amendment does not give the Health Department the authority to eliminate the medical marijuana system, nor self-providers, from this amendment. Examples follow The Head of the Health Department of the State of Arizona, Will Humble, is not a medical doctor and is not qualified to determine what medical treatment is best for my medical conditions. Denying my right to grow my own medical marijuana plants violates my constitutional rights. The University of Washington medical center did a study that showed raw garlic was 100 times more effective in treating an infection than current medical antibiotics. My question to Will Humble is “Are all the people in Arizona who are growing garlic in their gardens going to have to get a medical garlic card from the Health Department? After all, it is a plant we can easily grow in our own homes to treat our own medical conditions. At the beginning of the program the Health Department issued 38,000 cultivating licenses, and delayed the opening of the dispensaries for two years. In effect the Department of Health recognized that 38,000 self-providers were fully capable of meeting their own medical needs. B. This second section describes two additional potential constitutional challenges should the court find that the 25 mile rule to be constitutional. Article 2 Section 13 of the State Constitution, the equal protection article, states that no person, group of people, or corporations cannot be granted any special rights that are not granted to everybody in the state equally. With that said, it is thus a violation of the state constitution for the Department of Health to authorize another dispensary to do business within 25 miles of an existing dispensary and then refuse other people, including the filers of this court action, to be able to have the same special rights as the department has already granted to dispensaries. The special right, in this case, is the right to grow, cultivate, their own medical marijuana regardless of where they live. Article 14 Section 15 of the State Constitution states that the state cannot, in any manner whatsoever, control the distribution of any product or commodity. Mr. Humble has stated that he knows that the intent in the rules already designed by the Health Department controls the distribution of the medical marijuana through the dispensaries and thus violates this article of the state constitution. If this first challenge, the 25 mile rule, is not accepted as legitimate by the court, the two constitutional challenges above await court action.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 05:09:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015