MPP’s Andrew Myers Discusses Medical Marijuana in Arizona

[Russ adds: When Andrew talks about the limited number of dispensaries, he means one for every ten pharmacies (36-2804 C), and the "control" of which he speaks is the 25-mile "halo" that means if you live within 25 miles of one of these dispensaries, you must get your medicine there and are not allowed to grow your own (36-2804.02 A 3 (f)). You'll also be given an ID with your photo, address, and designation whether you've got plants growing in your home - don't lose your wallet! (36-2804.04 A 4-7).  Every purchase you make will be tracked in a state database to ensure you don't acquire any more than 2.5 ounces every two weeks (36-2806.02 A 3).  (Read for yourself.)  As you know, NORML cautions all reformers about the importance of the right to home grow:

The Importance of Permitting Consumers the Right to Cultivate Marijuana for Personal Use

Now why would anyone supporting marijuana users force them to purchase overpriced medicine when they could grow it themselves? Because without that coercion, the dispensaries would never be able to stay in business. Don't believe it? Listen to Andrew himself at November's DPA Conference in Albuquerque:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

As if anyone who's ever sold weed anywhere to anyone has ever had trouble staying in business! Lest you think the quote is out of context, here's the context.  I especially like the idea that "95% of the patients would prefer" dispensaries so we have to make sure the dispensaries have a viable market.  Which is it?  If 95% were going to shop there anyway, why force the 5% who'd grow their own to pay prohibition prices?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I also find it ironic that the Arizona MPP page would mention this:

65% of Arizona voters support removing criminal penalties for the medical use of marijuana, according to a February 2009 poll. And voters have already passed medical marijuana initiatives twice in the state, in 1996 and 1998.

In 1996 the measure that got 65% of the vote stated, very simply:

...persons who have been convicted ... of the personal possession or use of ... marijuana and who are serving their sentence in prison be released on parole.

...allow medical doctors to prescribe a controlled substance such as marijuana to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously or terminally ill patient.

You have nearly two-thirds support from the voters fourteen years ago for a measure that imposed no limits on medical marijuana possession or home growing and you have the identical level of support now for medical marijuana... so, obviously it's time to trade away fundamental patient rights and restrict medical marijuana users more tightly than people on morphine, to ensure the initiative will pass, right?

This isn't a bill that has to survive nervous legislators intimidated by the law enforcement lobby, where you might consider draconian measures in trade for getting it through the two chambers and past the governor (see: New Jersey) - this is a citizen initiative going before voters who have already approved something much more liberal in the 1990s!

Then again, when your constituency is a billionaire businessman, you tend to write legislation that is good for business.

There are many, many good things, however, in the Arizona bill.  Protections for employment, for example.  I wouldn't officially tell anyone to vote against it - it is a marijuana law reform - but I think it is important that Arizonans know exactly what it is they're voting for.  However, personally, I would not sign the petition and I would skip that question on my ballot if I lived in Arizona.]