JULY 23rd AZ HEARING on NATURAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION

ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Arlin Troutt

 

Appellant

                  

                   v.

 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, WILL HUMBLE, et al

 

Respondents

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No.: 2014-MMR-T181-DHS

Case No.: 2014C-MMR-0312-DHS

 

 

RESONSE TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR

DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

 

(Assigned to Hon. Tammy Eigenheer)

 

 

 

 

1. The Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”) and their attorneys (“the Respondents”) have submitted a July 18, 2014 response to Arlin Troutt’s (“Appellant”) REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE submitted to the court on July 11, 2014.

2. Gregory Falls (“Mr. Falls”), the head attorney for the ADHS is not defending Columbian drug lords here. This is an administrative hearing to resolve a dispute regarding the English language, the Respondents’ interpretation of the law, and the intent, purpose and meaning of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f).

3. A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f) only has 199 words and this controversy and the litigation and damage of these illogical interpretations seem to have no “ADMINISTRATVE END” in sight according to the Respondents.

4. The Respondents should not be allowed to limit the scope of an administration hearing to resolve or conceal criminal conduct. The Appellant and Respondents are not in a criminal court with these 199 words of voter initiated law and administrative rules.

5. The preponderance of evidence is in comparing the intent, content and context of the 199 words in A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f). The Appellant compares them to the volumes of ADHS rules the Respondents have relied on to exploit the AMMA and citizens of Arizona.

TITLE 9. HEALTH SERVICES

CHAPTER 17. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM

 

5. Once again: The same following 199 words are the source of this conflict and dispute on the meaning of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f):

36-2804.02. Registration of qualifying patients and designated caregivers:

(A.) A QUALIFYING PATIENT MAY APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD BY SUBMITTING:

1. WRITTEN CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY A PHYSICIAN WITHIN THE NINETY DAYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF APPLICATION.

2. THE APPLICATION FEE.

3. AN APPLICATION, INCLUDING:

(a) NAME, MAILING ADDRESS, RESIDENCE ADDRESS AND DATE OF BIRTH OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT EXCEPT THAT IF THE APPLICANT IS HOMELESS NO ADDRESS IS REQUIRED.

(b) NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S PHYSICIAN.

(c) NAME, ADDRESS AND DATE OF BIRTH OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY.

(d) A STATEMENT SIGNED BY THE QUALIFYING PATIENT PLEDGING NOT TO DIVERT MARIJUANA TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT ALLOWED TO POSSESS MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.

(e) A SIGNED STATEMENT FROM THE DESIGNATED CAREGIVER, IF ANY, AGREEING TO BE THE PATIENT’S DESIGNATED CAREGIVER AND PLEDGING NOT TO DIVERT MARIJUANA TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT ALLOWED TO POSSESS MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.

(f) A DESIGNATION AS TO WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO CULTIVATE MARIJUANA PLANTS FOR THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S MEDICAL USE IF A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY IS NOT OPERATING WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE

QUALIFYING PATIENT’S HOME.

6. These 199 words simply cannot produce the multiple interpretations and over-regulation the Respondents relied on to collect over $9 million and violates federal and state law.

7. Distributing and or representing counterfeit preparations and or contaminated controlled substances to the public for profit is above and beyond any authority given to the ADHS in the AMMA or A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f).

8. A.R.S. § 13-3451. (2.) “Counterfeit preparation” means a preparation that has an appearance which imitates another preparation but that, in fact, is a different preparation.

9. The Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Will Humble (“Mr. Humble”), attempted to convince Judge Thomas Shedden that marijuana had no medical value for victims of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by utilizing Marinol Studies. There is a big legal, chemical and medical difference in Marinol and the natural marijuana the electorate approved for medical use.

10. The fact that the Appellant reported to the ADHS that the Appellant had become sick using artificial cannabis products and was threatened and retaliated on by ADHS administrators for reporting this health hazard to the ADHS has everything to do with this appeal.

11. The difference in marijuana and drugs and the nonsensical interpretations of law that created and perpetuates this parade of costly, confusing and damaging litigation is ripe for administrative remedy.

12. The rotten fruit of over-regulation and criminal violations should have been stopped at an administrative level before it contaminated and threatened the public health and violated the public trust.

13. A.R.S. § 13-3451. (4.) “Imitation controlled substance” means a drug, substance or immediate precursor which does or does not contain a controlled substance that by texture, consistency or color or dosage unit appearance as evidenced by color, shape, size or markings, apart from any other representations, packaging or advertisements, would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance is a controlled substance but it is a counterfeit preparation.

14. Marinol, SPICE and artificially produced marijuana products, by definition, are “imitation controlled substances”.

15. The Respondents are battling to keep evidence off the record that will expose them to criminal prosecution. The Respondents are trying to narrow the scope of Appellant’s appeal by attempting to suppress evidence in bad faith to narrow the scope of a valid administrative hearing. Using this administrative hearing to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution is a violation of Appellant’s right to Due Process of Law.

16. Mr. Falls’ previous misleading statements to the press and the following statement demonstrate the Appellant’s reason and need for an English interpreter just to clarify and document these damaging statements.

17. Mr. Falls: “It appears Troutt has formed a conclusion that the “nearest operating dispensary” to his residence sells medical marijuana that is artificially cultivated, contains mold and is contaminated by chemicals used “for fumigation and ingestion.” Request, p. 3.” (Page 1, 22-27)

18. Mr. Falls is deliberately insulting the Appellant and misleading the court or he simply does not know the difference in bug infestation chemicals and the common medical terms for oral consumption and inhaling medications into the lungs.

19. Appellants health and safety concerns triggered Mr. Falls’ conclusive apparition and or malicious allegation to the court. The Appellant stated:

7. The ADHS should be especially aware of their responsibilities for the safety of the public and these problems with artificial cultivation and contamination of medical marijuana products produced primarily for fumigation. (Paragraph 7, Page 2, lines 15-18)

10.The Appellant requests the court to order Respondents to turn over all information the ADHS possesses that relates to the drawbacks, risks and dangers of artificial cultivation, mold, chemical contamination of plants used for fumigation and ingestion. Paragraph 10, Page 3, lines 13-16)

20. If the Respondents don’t know the difference in “Bug spray and Fumigation” how could the Respondents ask this court to ethically refuse the evidence the Appellant has submitted or the important discovery the Appellant has requested.

21. How could the Respondents ask this court to “affirm the Department’s denial of Appellant’s request for authorization to cultivate” when a request to cultivate does not exist in the AMMA or in the 199 words of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f).

22. The Appellant formally informed the ADHS and complained that this same disputed dispensary advised the Appellant that they did not carry the naturally cultivated and cured medical marijuana that is safe and beneficial to the Appellant and that no ADHS dispensary in the state sells marijuana that is naturally cultivated, medically beneficial and or safe for the Appellant to consume.

23. Respondents admit: “Troutt should know whether there are pesticides present when he purchases his medical marijuana from a dispensary because the product label must include, among other things, “[a] list of all chemical additives, including non-organic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, used in the cultivation and production of the medical marijuana. Arizona Administrative Code § R9-17-317(A)(6).” (Page 4, lines 17-24)

24. The Appellant knows there are pesticides in artificially cultivated marijuana because the Appellant is an expert in the cultivation of marijuana and knows that mold and chemical contamination are a reality of artificial cultivation.

25. Appellant’s appeal is securely supported by the court rulings, scientific reports, studies and the ADHS publications the Respondents are desperate to keep off the administrative desk and record.

26. The Appellant still possesses the bottle and content label that contained the moldy marijuana that stinks of artificial air freshener that Respondents refer to in the Arizona Administrative Code § R9-17-317(A)(6).

27. Appellant submits as evidence a photo of the label and bottle that contained the dispensary marijuana that made the Appellant sick on April 2, 2014. EXHIBIT

28. The Respondent’s allegation to the court that there are 8 of these dispensaries within 25 miles of the Appellant’s residence is a ridiculous claim and moot argument even if these dispensaries were legally operational, which they are not.

29. The map the Respondents have submitted to the court as evidence in their response to Appellant’s REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE only proves that the ADHS interpretation of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f) is a deliberate violation by the Respondents of the equal protection rights that Judge Cooper so clearly warned the Respondent’s about in her ruling on A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(f).

30. How could the Respondents ask this court to deny the Appellants appeal under these circumstances and how could this court ethically and legally grant this protection to the Respondents?

31. The Respondents admit: “The term “artificial cultivation” is not defined. (Page 1, lines 26-27) The reason artificial cultivation and Marinol is not defined in the AMMA is because it is not authorized in the AMMA.

32. However, what was specifically authorized in the AMMA is the naturally cultivated marijuana with the 5,000-year history of beneficial medical use that the voters approved back in 2010 and the ADHS is restricting today.

33. The Respondent’s have told this court: “If Troutt means he

expects to harvest marijuana plants growing naturally in the desert, he is mistaken.” (Page 1, lines 26-27)

34. The Respondents misguide the court by alleging: “Nothing in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 through 2819 (“AMMA”), provides for the harvesting of naturally growing marijuana plants. (Page 1, line 28 to Page 2, line 1)

35. 5,000 years of marijuana history also confirms that marijuana will naturally grow in the greatest extremes of the wilds. This is one of the many reasons humans have worshiped God for this unmatched gift of food, fuel, fiber and medicine for thousands of years.

36. The Respondents incorrectly inform the court: “Nothing may grow in the wild. If Troutt is unhappy with this, he needs to work to change AMMA.”

37. According to the AMMA and the ADHS any registered qualified patient can simply choose to “acquire” marijuana for medical use from any source possible: (R9-17-101) Definitions: In addition to the definitions in A.R.S. § 36-2801:1. “Acquire” means to obtain through any type of transaction and from any source.,

38. The Respondents appear to know very little about marijuana or the language of the AMMA or even the rules of the ADHS. It seems more logical that the Respondents are pretending not to understand in an effort to avoid criminal prosecution.

39. Respondents’ allege to the court that: “The law is clear.” Let’s get this “the law is clear” fantasy behind us, as we should have from the beginning. The language that the framers of the AMMA employed and the ADHS exploited “is written in a way that no ordinary person could understand what conduct is prohibited.”

40. Respondents state in their July 18, 2014 HEARING MEMORANDUM: ”Appellant bears the burden of proving that the Department’s statutory interpretation is unreasonable and that his proposed cultivation is authorized. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(1); State v. Fields ex rel. County of Pima, 232 Ariz. 265, 269, ¶ 14, 304 P.3d 1088, 1092 (App. 2013) (“[I]t is the defendant’s burden to ‘plead and prove,’ by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her actions fall within the range of immune action.”) (Page 3, lines 2-16)

41. Judge Richard Fields had sent State v. Fields ex rel. County of Pima back to the Grand Jury because the prosecutor only instructed the jury on the ADHS interpretation of the AMMA.

42. Appellant confirmed with the Pima County Clerk of Court’s Office on July 18, 2014 that on July 2, 2014 Judge Richard Fields dismissed CR-2013 4266. Appellant requests admission of this ruling into evidence: Judge Fields stated in his Under Advisement Ruling: ”Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 16.6 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Predicated on the argument that, under his interpretation of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”), he could admit to all of the acts in the Indictment and still not have violated the law. He further argues that if the court does not agree with the interpretation, the rule of lenity applies and the case must be dismissed because the statute is written in such a way that no ordinary person could understand what conduct is prohibited. On the other hand, the state argues that the statute is not ambiguous and the motion should be denied. The court has read the pleadings, reviewed the statutes, and listened to arguments. For the following reasons, the Motion IS GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.” EXHIBIT

43. If A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) is interpreted by the court to restrict cultivation of medical marijuana for certain patients based on residence then that is a violation of state and federal equal protection laws and A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) is a constitutional violation.

44. The Appellant is requesting this court to rule in the Appellant’s favor, accept the Appellant’s interpretations of the AMMA and resolve this damaging controversy over interpretations of law and A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) that no reasonable person could understand what conduct is prohibited. It is time to declare that the “Emperor Wears No Clothes”

 

I, Arlin Troutt, reside in Arizona and I swear that the information I have undersigned today is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called on to testify regarding these matters I will do so.

Respectfully submitted on July 20, 2014

————————————–

Arlin Troutt

 

COPY of the forgoing sent via fax, email and/or U.S. Mail on July 20, 2014 to:

Clerk of the Department

Arizona Department of Health Services

1740 West Adams, Room 203

Phoenix, AZ 85007

 

Gregory Falls

Matthew A. Hesketh

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

201 East Washington Street, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2327

gfalls@shermanhoward.com

mhesketh@shermanhoward.com

 

——————

Arlin Troutt July 20, 2014

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

AZ Health Services Threatens Medical Marijuana Patient

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

 

Arlin Troutt

 

Appellant/Plaintiff


v.

 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

WILL HUMBLE, ROBERT LANE, TINA WESOLOSKIE, JEFF BLOOMBERG, et al

 

Respondents

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No.: 2014-MMR-T181-DHS

 

RESPONSE TO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AND COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPARTMENT FOR INTIMIDATION, COERSION, THREATS AND OTHER DAMGES ASSOCIATED WITH AN AGENCY ACTION REGARDING FEES AND APPLICATION RENEWAL MODIFICATION

 

 

(Registry Application

 #AZQP0016870000161953)

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Arlin Troutt, referred to herein as “Plaintiff, is critically ill, does not have funds to hire an attorney, and has a limited education with no formal legal training. Plaintiff respectfully requests consideration regarding inadvertent deficiencies, errors or offense as a result of these disadvantages.

The proceeding is in response to Arizona Department of Health Service (ADHS) acceptance of fees and failure to renew Arlin Troutt’s (Plaintiff) Arizona Department of Health Services Registration Card (ADHSRC) in a safe, legal, timely and meaningful manner. Additionally, Plaintiff complains of subsequent threats from ADHS Administrators and their unauthorized modification and issuance of an unauthorized ADHSRC in the Plaintiff’s name.

Basis for Appeal and Compliant

1. ADHS Administrators’ methods and reasons for failure to renew the Plaintiff’s ADHSRC and subsequent issuance of an unauthorized and modified ADHSRC are in error and violate Arizona Administrative rules, Arizona Revised Statues and damage the Plaintiff, his family and community.

2. Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S”) § 36-132(A)(1) delegated responsibility to the Arizona Department of Health Services for the protection and health of the people of the State of Arizona.

3. A.R.S. § 36-136(F) authorizes and requires the Director of the ADHS to “make and amend rules necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of laws relating to the public health.”

4. A.R.S. § 36-136 (G) provides that the director may define and prescribe emergency measures for detecting, reporting, preventing and controlling infectious diseases or conditions if the director has reasonable cause to believe that a serious threat to public health and welfare exists. Emergency measures are effective for no longer than eighteen months.

5. A.R.S. § 36-136 (H)(4) provides that the director, by rule, shall Prescribe reasonably necessary measures to assure that all food or drink, sold at the retail level, provided for human consumption is free from unwholesome, poisonous or other foreign substances and filth, insects or disease-causing organisms.

6. A.R.S. § 36-136 (H)(11) prescribes reasonably necessary measures to keep confidential information relating to diagnostic findings and treatment of patients, as well as information relating to contacts, suspects and associates of communicable disease patients. In no event shall confidential information be made available for political or commercial purposes.

7. A.R.S. § 36-136(I) provides that the rules adopted under the authority conferred by this section shall be observed throughout the state and shall be enforced by each local board of health or public health services district, but this section does not limit the right of any local board of health or county board of supervisors to adopt ordinances and rules as authorized by law within its jurisdiction, provided that the ordinances and rules do not conflict with state law and are equal to or more restrictive than the rules of the director.

8. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-136(K), the director, in establishing fees authorized by this section, shall comply with title 41, chapter 6. The department shall not set a fee at more than the Department’s cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged.

9. A.R.S. § 36-2803(A)(2) provides that the Department shall adopt rules “establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under” A.R.S. Title 36,

10. Chapter 28.0. A.R.S. § 36-2803(A)(3) provides that the Department shall adopt rules governing the manner in which it shall consider applications for and renewals of registry identification cards “for the purpose of protecting against compromising the confidentiality of cardholders”.

11. ADHS is in violation of A.R.S. § 41-1092,03., and other Arizona Revised Statutes including but not limited to “A.R.S.” § 36-132, A.R.S. § 36-136, A.R.S. § 36-2801 et seq.

12. In addition to the definitions in A.R.S. § 36-2801, the following definitions apply: R9-17-101. (1.) “Acquire” means to obtain through any type of transaction and from any source. (3.) “Amend” means adding or deleting information on an individual’s registry identification card that affects the individual’s ability to perform or delegate a specific act or function.

13. Pursuant to A.R.S.” § 41-1493.01.(A.) Plaintiff’s right to Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

14. Pursuant to A.R.S.” § 41-1493.01.(D.): A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.

15. Rules adopted by the ADHS for Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R9-17-101 et seq., to implement the AMMA violates aforementioned statutes and creates damages for Plaintiff and his family as well as public safety and health risks.

16. The ADHS rulemaking exemption violates A.R.S. § 36-2803(A)(3) by failing to promulgate rules for the ADHS AMMA program in a safe, legal, timely and meaningful manner.

17. The following is taken from the “25-mile cultivation preference” in the AMMA: A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f), Registration of qualifying patients: “A QUALIFYING PATIENT “MAY” APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD BY SUBMITTING: (2) THE APPLICATION FEE, (f.) A DESIGNATION AS TO WHO “WILL” BE ALLOWED TO CULTIVATE MARIJUANA PLANTS FOR THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S “MEDICAL USE” IF A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY IS NOT OPERATING WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S HOME.”

18. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2013-005901 07/29/2013 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER ruled: ““There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of many public officials to facilitate or participate in the distribution of medical marijuana. Nothing in the Act or the Rules guarantees that every dispensary with a DRC will be able to open. Nothing guarantees there will be a dispensary in every CHAA.”

19. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-2804.05(A) Denial of registry identification card: “THE DEPARTMENT “MAY” DENY AN APPLICATION OR RENEWAL OF A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD “ONLY IF” THE APPLICANT: (1). DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36-2801, PARAGRAPH 13, (2). DOES NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED, (3). PREVIOUSLY HAD A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD REVOKED FOR VIOLATING THIS CHAPTER, (4). PROVIDES FALSE INFORMATION.”

20. A.R.S. § 36-2804.05(A) does not authorize AMMA administrators to amend, alter, revoke, restrict, constrain or refuse to renew the same terms of Plaintiff’s 3 prior ADHS registrations. ADHS Administrators arbitrarily and capriciously violated the Plaintiff’s right to renew his pre-existing ADHS identification card in a timely, meaningful and legal manner.

21. According to A.R.S. § 36-2808. Notifications to department, the Plaintiff cultivation designation is a “preference” coming from the Plaintiff not a “request” to the ADHS to cultivate medical marijuana.

22. “The Plaintiff does not and will not be coerced to designate or authorize a dispensary to cultivate marijuana for the Plaintiff or the ADHS AMMA program.”

23. There is nothing in the AMMA that would authorize the ADHS to prohibit, restrict constrain or limit the cultivation, acquisition or use of naturally cultivated medical marijuana. R9-17-101 (1.) “Acquire” means to obtain through any type of transaction and from any source.

24. There is nothing in the AMMA that would ever authorize the ADHS to allow the distribution of artificially cultivated and or contaminated and or harmful marijuana. Pursuant to R9-17-320 (A) (1.) the ADHS is required to protect the public from contaminated medical marijuana. However, ADHS Administrators retaliated on Plaintiff for reporting contaminated medical marijuana being sold at an ADHS dispensary.

TIME FRAME

25. Plaintiff was issued an ADHSRC in 2011 and renewed this card in 2012, 2013 and again applied and paid fees to the ADHS for a renewal of this same ADHSRC on April 29, 2014.

26. On April 29, 2014 Plaintiff gave Dr. Elaine Burns $75.00 for the ADHS renewal fee and $99.00 for a Doctor’s renewal recommendation fee discount. Additionally, it was necessary to pay a $20.00 fee for a 3rd party, from Dr. Burn’s office, to submit the required renewal information via ADHS email, to the ADHS.

27. On May 2, 2014 @ 3:41 PM ADHS sent Plaintiff an email after Plaintiff’s renewal had been “processed” with a “Notice of Deficiencies” attached that included a list of the information or documents needed to complete the application from AZMedicalMarijuana@azdhs.gov stating:

“Your Application for a Qualifying Patient Registry Identification Card (Registry Application #AZQP0016870000161953 has been received by the Medical Marijuana Program (‘Program’), Arizona Department of Health Services (‘Department). The following issue(s)with your application was/were identified by the Program: The patient date of birth listed on the “physician certification form does not match the date of birth listed in the application and/or the identification document submitted. Please re-submit the corrected information and /or documents to the Program via the Department’s online application system at: https://medicalmarijuana.azdhs.gov/PatientResubmissionSearch.aspx?id=F8737738F57627A8E044002128B5C820 “Renewal Application AZQP0016870000161953 has been processed and it has been determined that some items need to be corrected.”

28. Plaintiff immediately brought this electronic “deficiency notice” to Dr. Burn’s office staff and was assured they had corrected their error. ADHS confirms that this May 2, 2014 “Deficiency Notice issue” had been resolved on May 2, 2014.

29. Had there been any other issues to correct or amend, those issues should and would have been processed and listed on that ADHS Notification at that time.

30. However, ADHS was using the lapsing expiration date of Plaintiff’s valid cultivation ADHSRC to coerce Plaintiff into withdrawing his cultivation designation privilege and legal right to cultivate medical marijuana.

31. On May 8, 2014 @ 12:51 ADHS sent a second email notification that was identical to the ADHS May 2, 2014 email Notice of Deficiency. This notice claimed that Plaintiff lived within 25 miles of an operating dispensary and advised the Plaintiff he could not cultivate marijuana.

32. The only options this ADHS “blocked response” email system offered Plaintiff was to make it appear that Plaintiff chose to terminate the terms of Plaintiff’s prior agreement with the ADHS and transfer cultivation rights to an ADHS “designer drug dispensary”. The only other option was to demand the legal right to cultivate marijuana and submit the requested and required information documents to the ADHS within 10 days of this May 8, 2014 unauthorized ADHS notification.

33. On May 8, 2014 Plaintiff spoke to Flora who advised Plaintiff that Tina Wesoloskie was reviewing Plaintiff’s cultivation designation renewal. Flora provided Plaintiff with Tina Wesolowskie’s contact information to send the information documents requested per instruction of the untimely May 8, 2014 Notice of Deficiency.

34. Plaintiff faxed a 33 pages, detailed information and explanation packet with an emergency request for relief regarding contaminated marijuana sold at the Apache Junction ADHS dispensary. This information included the violations of Plaintiff’s medical confidentiality and extreme harassment by local law enforcement based on the ADHS failure to implement the rules of the AMMA program in a safe, legal, timely and meaningful manner.

35. On May 11, 2014 Plaintiff sent copies of this request for information documents with Plaintiff’s emergency request for relief and complaint of public safety concerns to Tina Wesolowskie and Jeff Bloomberg.

36. Tina Wesolowske did not respond to Plaintiff’s emails regarding complaints of damage and dangers to the Plaintiff his family and community. However Jeff Bloomberg did respond by threatening the Plaintiff via email.

37. On May 13, 2012 @ 4:06 PM Jeff Bloomberg threatened to force the Plaintiff into a lawsuit after he read Plaintiff’s information documents the ADHS requested on May 8, 2014.

38. Jeff Bloomberg sent these threatening emails to Plaintiff immediately after ADHS Administrators had deliberately allowed Plaintiff’s May 12, 2013 ADHSRC to lapse (#AZQP0016870000161953).

39. Jeff Bloomberg sent copies of his May 13, 2014 threat for Plaintiff to “sue him personally” to Robert Lane and Tina Wesoloskie,

40. Pursuant to Time-Frames: R9-17-107 et seq. the ADHS was required to issue or deny Plaintiff’s ADHSRC no later than May 8, 2014. It would be disingenuous for the ADHS to claim that their May 8, 2014 Deficiency Notice was a “written comprehensive request” for supplemental information at such a late and lapsed date instead of a “Notice of Administrative Completeness” the ADHS was required to issue no later than May 8, 2014.

41. The following was generated by ADHS and signed by Robert Lane on May 14, 2014. This was two days after Plaintiff’s valid ADHSRC had lapsed and one day after Jeff Bloomberg threatened the Plaintiff. Plaintiff received Mr. Lane’s ADHSRC renewal delay and appeal information on May 17, 2014. Plaintiff received the ADHS authorized modification of Plaintiff’s ADHSRC on May 21, 2014 also delivered via United States Postal Service.

42. The ADHS states: “ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CULTIVATE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL”. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f), a qualifying patient applying to the Department for a qualifying patient’s registry identification card must submit an application that includes “[a] designation as to who will be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifying patient’s medical use if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient’s home, neither the qualifying patient nor the qualifying patient’s designated caregiver may be granted authority to cultivate marijuana plants.” (Pg.1, line 21-23 to page 2, lines 1-5)

43. The ADHS “ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CULTIVATE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL” states: “REASONS FOR DEPARTMENT’S DENIAL OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO CULTIVATE: The Application, submitted to the Department on April 29, 2014, included a request for authorization to cultivate marijuana plants based on the Applicant’s Residence.” (Page 2, lines 13-15)

44. “ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CULTIVATE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL”: “On May 8, 2014, the Department issued a Request which notified the Applicant for a second time that his Residence “is within 25 miles of an operating dispensary.” The Request also invited Applicant to withdraw his request to cultivate. The Applicant did not withdraw his request to cultivate.” (Page 3, lines 7-10).

45. The ADHS May 2, 2014 Deficiency Notice did not list Plaintiff’s the 25-mile cultivation preference nor did that notice advise the Plaintiff that the “Applicant’s Residence was located approximately 7.8 miles “from” an operating nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary” as Robert Lange incorrectly alleged and misrepresented in his sworn statement on May 14, 2014. (Page 2, lines 15-18)

46. Robert Lane’s justifications and misrepresentations for delay and modification of Plaintiff’s ADHSRC are in error. Plaintiff’s trip “from” the nearest ADHS dispensary was calculated at 26 miles by the vehicle used and this dispensary was only selling marijuana that made the Plaintiff sick.

47. Naturally cultivated and beneficial marijuana is not offered or required in ADHS dispensaries. Naturally cultivated medical marijuana has been systematically prohibited by the ADHS to protect the sale of artificially cultivated and dangerous “designer dope”.

48. This is so even though the electorate exclusively voted for decriminalization of naturally cultivated marijuana. Compare the 5,000-year preponderance of historic evidence that the electorate relied on to approve the AMMA to the history of the sodium light bulb, cloning solutions and vegetable growth hormones and designer drugs.

49. A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does not provide for the medical use and dispensing of artificially cultivated marijuana. Artificially cultivated marijuana was recently developed for illegal secrecy and marketing with synthetic growth and maturity enhancements for dangerous designer drug effects and high profit.

50. Artificially accelerating the growth, maturity and curing time of cannabis can result in adverse reactions. These “bad trips” are especially problematic in inexperienced medical marijuana users.

51. The Plaintiff has absolutely no intentions of designating his cultivation rights to an ADHS street dope dispensary. However, there was no way to submit this information via the ADHS “Please do not respond to this email it was automatically generated by the processing system”.

52. The Plaintiff did not “submit a request”, and did not request to cultivate marijuana plants based on the “Plaintiff’s residence” as Robert Lane alleged. Plaintiff submitted a renewal application and paid the appropriate fees to continue the natural cultivation and use of the only medical marijuana that is effective, beneficial and available to the Plaintiff and the ADHS accepted those fees.

53. However there was no way to transmit any of this information via the ADHS mandatory “no-response” system.

54. Plaintiff was astounded when he received an altered ADHSRC delivered via U.S. Postal Service. Again, Plaintiff has no intentions of authorizing an ADHS dispensary to cultivate and distribute artificially cultivated marijuana in the Plaintiff’s name or under authority of an altered ADHSRC generated by the ADHS against the Plaintiff’s will.

55. Abuse of administrative authority and “deadline rules” to delay, intimidate, threaten and coerce Plaintiff and his family for applying for ADHSRC renewals or for reporting damaging rules and conditions will not be tolerated by an Administrative Law Judge.

56. Plaintiff has an extensive marijuana criminal history and is deeply concerned about being denied due process of law. Plaintiff has valid concerns regarding ADHS violations associated with conflicts of interest, unauthorized accumulation of large sums of money combined with an unauthorized and unjustifiable rulemaking purpose and process.

CONCLUSION

57. The ADHS approved a marijuana dispensary that sold unsafe, unaffordable and unregulated marijuana that made the Plaintiff sick while systematically violating the Plaintiff’s confidentiality and then intimidated and threatened the Plaintiff for reporting the problems as Administrators allowed Plaintiff’s valid ADHSRC to lapse for the sake of coercion.

58. After Plaintiff’s April 2, 2014 sickness from contaminated marijuana and violation of medical confidentiality, Plaintiff spoke many times with Ester, Flora, Martie and Lynn from the ADHS administration office. Plaintiff explained the damages suffered and the emergency situation to these ADHS employees and faxed a 33-page information document requesting review for emergency action and relief to avoid damages at an administrative level.

59. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) interpretations by ADHS Administrators create unequal privileges that exploit different classes of registered cardholding patients and vendors that all pay “fees” to the ADHS for the right to cultivate, dispense, administer and “donate” medical marijuana legally across the state. Plaintiff renewed his ADHSRC to continue cultivating the uninterrupted, safe, and beneficial medical marijuana that the Plaintiff cannot obtain from any other source. The Plaintiff also wants to enjoy the right to donate naturally cultivated medical marijuana to qualified cardholders that can’t get beneficial medical marijuana from other sources and cannot afford to pay for marijuana.

60. This was explained fully in the information documents the ADHS requested on May 8, 2014. On May 13, 2012 Jeff Bloomberg threatened to force the Plaintiff into a lawsuit after he read Plaintiff’s report of contaminated marijuana products at an ADHS dispensary and other abuses associated with ADHS rules.

61. Plaintiff and ADHS Director Will Humble have had many direct public discussions regarding ADHS interpretations and rules and the damages ADHS promulgations are causing. ADHS Administrators have created a wide net of insecurity and legal uncertainty in several areas that require judicial guidance to replace so much arbitrary and capricious disparity.

62. Since 1992 Plaintiff and his family have been widely published, high profile proponents for medical marijuana and prohibition reform.

Plaintiff believes Will Humble, Mr. Lane, Ms. Wesolowskie and Mr. Bloomberg are well aware of the Plaintiff and his family and our well-known name, reputation and dedication to the education of citizens on the catastrophic damages caused by decades of marijuana prohibition.

63. After Plaintiff’s April 2, 2014 sickness from contaminated marijuana, Plaintiff spoke many times with Ester, Flora, Lynn and Martie from the ADHS administration office in an effort to administratively resolve these issues that were met with hostile intimidation, undue delay, undue prejudice, threats and retaliation.

64. The ADHS is involved in many similar legal conflicts of interest and legal challenges with warnings, rulings, orders and public communications and comments. Plaintiff incorporates this public information and conclusions of law into this appeal and complaint for consideration.

65. However, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to support Plaintiff’s appeal and complaint of arbitrary and capricious disparity and damage is easily found within the ADHS Administrators promulgated rules themselves. ADHS rules use the word “Dispensary” 674 times and “natural and artificial lighting” are used twice regarding the placement of dispensary security cameras. Mold is not mentioned.

66. This same obstructive mentality that has damaged the Plaintiff and his family existed when Arizona legalized medical marijuana in 1996 with a 65% margin. Citizens were then forced to pass the Voter’s Protection Act in 1998 and the AMMA in 2010 to protect citizens from government officials. This culture of retaliatory resistance against the will of the electorate for 18 years supersedes the medical marijuana issues here.

67. Sec.2. Findings: “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”.

68. This 2010 voter declaration was based on the acknowledgement and concession by the established medical community that humans have suffered unwarranted criminal penalties and suffered unnecessary pain, death and the loss of loved ones in mass for almost 80 years as a result of the prohibition of the cultivation and use of marijuana. According to Section 2, (D) in the AMMA the State of Arizona and not the Federal Government make 99% of criminal marijuana arrests.

69. ADHS Administrators need a clearer message than what the Arizona electorate and our Arizona Courts have provided over the past 18 years. The Plaintiff respectfully requests a review from the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings on such an important and alarming issue.

I, Arlin Troutt, reside in Arizona and I swear that the information I have undersigned today is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called on to testify regarding these matters I will do so.

Respectfully submitted on June 2, 2014,

 

————————————–

Arlin Troutt

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ADHS COMPLAINT: As the Medical Marijuana Crow Flies

Arlin Troutt

RE: (Registry Renewal Application)

 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

ADHS Registered Cardholder Seeking Administrative Clarification and an Emergency Ruling from the ADHS to Avoid More Damage to Arlin Troutt and His Family from Conflicts of Interest in the ADHS AMMA Rulemaking Process.

 

 

)))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ADHS Registered Identification Cardholder Patient No.:REQUEST FOR A TIMELY RENEWAL OF ARLIN TROUTT’S ADHS RESTISTRY CARD WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATED CULTIVATION PREFERENCE TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMANGES FROM INTIMIDATION AND RETALIATION AND FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF LAW BY THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND THE DEPARTEMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THEIR AGENTS AND OR EMPLOYEES RELATING TO PLAINTIFF”S USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

 

INTRODUCTION

1. In 2010 Arizona voted to decriminalized medical marijuana based on 5,000 years of safe and effective “naturally cultivated” cannabis history. The electorate also voted to stop the 44 years of corruption and devastating damage that Federal and State marijuana laws have brought to our lives, our state and the border we share with our Mexican neighbors.

2. The State of Arizona (State), the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), and ADHS director Mr. Will Humble have a long andwell-documented history of opposing medical marijuana use and obstruction of the electorate’s intent to legalize marijuana since 1996. There is dangerous and damaging confusion that has required declaratory judgments, injunctions and rulings by the court regarding the same or similar complaints of abuse by the State and ADHS concerning the actual language and protections in the ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT (AMMA). The legality and or constitutionality of this language, obstruction of the ADHS rulemaking process, interpretations and promulgation of these interpretations by the State, ADHS and their agents and employees has all come into question. The intimidation and retaliation on the Plaintiff and his family by the ADHS and other State agents and or employees over medical marijuana must be resolved and ended and the intent of the electorate and the intent and actions of the State and ADHS must be scrutinized and accounted for.

3. Plaintiff has already suffered a significant breach of medical confidentiality and an unauthorized and terrifying raid on Plaintiff’s residence and family. This medical marijuana raid and subsequent litigation took place while Plaintiff was recovering from complications of a recent and difficult heart surgery. Plaintiff did not sign his family’s rights to life, liberty and privacy over to the State or ADHS when Plaintiff registered for the AMMA program: A.R.S. Article 2, section 8. Right to privacy No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law

4. In July of 2012 Pinal County Attorney’s office and members of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office violated the protections of the AMMA and other rights of the Plaintiff and his family. Pinal County Attorneys refused to acknowledge the Plaintiff and his family’s “Arizona Victim’s Rights” because legal medical marijuana was involved. EXHIBITS http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/2/2_1.htm

5. The ADHS’s failure to implement the AMMA program in a timely and meaningful manner and failure to instruct and re-educate Arizona law enforcement agents and employees about AMMA protections damaged the Plaintiff and his family. EXHIBIT

6. The Plaintiff was forced to get an “order of protection” issued against a Pinal County Deputy named Mark Osinski. Pinal County Attorney, Joe Albo, had to eventually get the Pima County Attorney’s Office to defend him for his unethical defense of this Pinal County Deputy. Please compare Exhibit A to Exhibit B and note on Pima County Attorney, Thomas Weaver’s caption page that he also got busted playing the “Pinal County bifurcation game” and lying to the new judge. CV 20120369 and CV 20120386). EXHIBIT A, EXHBIT B

7. This is much more than just an embarrassing moment for the State of Arizona, Pinal County and the ADHS. Plaintiff and his family now (more than ever) fear more invasions of privacy, intimidation, retaliation, threats and damage from these agents and employees of the State and or ADHS. EXHIBIT

8. Plaintiff is particularly concerned with this conflict of interest and retaliation against Plaintiff and his family members from State and or ADHS as a result of Judge Katherine Cooper’s rulings against the State and related communications between Plaintiff and ADHS director Will Humble.

9. Plaintiff requests the ADHS to issue an emergency ruling and or warnings to prevent the State, ADHS and or any other of their agents and or employees from any further harassment, intimidation, threats, taking of unauthorized and or “undressed” photos of critically ill Plaintiff or his family and or any further violations of Plaintiff’s right to use and cultivate marijuana for the Plaintiff’s personal medical use. EXHIBIT

10. Plaintiff provides this information to the ADHS to establish that Plaintiff has more than an average knowledge and interest in this matter and a well-founded fear and a documented need for an emergency ruling to avoid more damage from the State, ADHS or its agents and or employees.

Background

11. The ADHS has repeatedly promulgated statements similar to the following statement: ADHS AMMA Program Newsletter (July 2013, pg. 3.): “The law says that patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana. This was part of what voters passed, and ADHS cannot change it.” EXHIBIT

12. Nothing in the language of the AMMA “says” “patients cannot grow marijuana or that the 25-mile preference is a cultivation prohibition. The following is the actual language of the “25-mile cultivation preference” from the Ballot 203 Proposition Guide (BPG) and AMMA: 36-2804.02. Registration of qualifying patients: A. “A QUALIFYING PATIENT “MAY” APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD BY SUBMITTING: (2) THE APPLICATION FEE, (f.) A DESIGNATION AS TO WHO “WILL” BE ALLOWED TO CULTIVATE MARIJUANA PLANTS FOR THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S “MEDICAL USE” IF A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY IS NOT OPERATING WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S HOME.”

13. This designation preference as to who “will” cultivate for the qualified registered patient “may” only come from the “qualified registering patient class”. According to the AMMA, the Plaintiff “will” be allowed to cultivate marijuana for his medical use if the ADHS cannot insure or provide a dispensary that will stay in business in a certain location and provide an uninterrupted supply of “useable marijuana” for the registered patient.

14. 36-2808. Notifications to department; civil penalty A. A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT… REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT’S PREFERENCE REGARDING WHO MAY CULTIVATE MARIJUANA FOR THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT… The definition of preference is: “a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.” “May prefer” is the opposite of: “The law says that patients cannot grow their own medical marijuana.”

15. ADHS’s Application for Initiative or Referendum Petition Serial Number(AIRPSN) was filed May 15, 2009 with the Secretary of State. The following language is from AIRPSN and not the BPG or the AMMA: “The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act Protects terminally or seriously ill patients from state prosecution for using limited amounts of marijuana on their doctors recommendation. Qualifying patients who register with the Arizona Department of Health Services (will) obtain marijuana from non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries regulated by the ADHS. Private cultivation will be allowed by ADHS only when no dispensary is available.”

16. ADHS cannot require anyone to obtain marijuana. ADHS can’t require dispensaries to stay in business or provide “useable marijuana” for everyone. Only the Plaintiff knows how to process the forms of uninterrupted marijuana that is required, beneficial and offers relief to the Plaintiff. The ADHS can’t legally deliver an “uninterrupted” and or even a beneficial “usable” amount of marijuana as mandated in the AMMA to the Plaintiff who “will” be allowed to privately cultivate marijuana for his medical use. EXIBIT

17. Under “Definitions” at A.R.S. § 36-2801(9), the language states: Medical use’ means the acquisition, possession, cultivation…”. However, ADHS has restricted “Medical use” of marijuana to a class of registered patient that must be able to afford an email address to communicate with the ADHS, and can afford yearly double doctor visits, pay state licensing fees and can afford to take twenty-four 50-mile trips to a dispensary to pay $1,750 a month for unregulated ragweed. EXHIBIT

18. The following was promulgated by ADHS and created a great deal of uncertainty, insecurity and concern about the implementation, stability, equity and legality of the ADHS AMMA program: Glendale Dispensary Opening Postponed November 19th, 2012 by Will Humble:“Once the new dispensary begins its operations, we will no longer be “approving requests to cultivate” among new (and renewing) cardholders in most of the metro area… because self-grow (12 plants) is only allowed when the patient lives more than 25 miles from the nearest operating dispensary according to the law.  The vast majority of the Valley is within 25 miles of this new (but not yet operating) dispensary.” http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=3266

19. The AMMA did not authorize frivolous litigation, administrative delays or uncertainty for critically ill patients based on whether an ADHS registered dispensary may be doing business within a 25-mile circle from your home someday.

20. The ADHS has put an overdue burden on dispensaries just to open their doors, with no controls or oversight on product quality or cost. That burden translates to unequal protections and a transfer of unjustifiable liabilities to the ADHS registered patients and uncertainty and insecurity to the Plaintiff. Any marijuana dispensary or pharmacy that does not have State regulatory quality and or cost controls cannot be allowed to operate nor could it be considered operational by the State. EXHIBIT

21. Limiting a critically ill patient’s options to standing at the front door of a pot shop, next to a head shop in a highly visible crime area of Apache Junction, Arizona systematically violates Plaintiff’s confidentiality and creates foreseeable and predictable risks, undue burden and undue prejudice for Plaintiff and his family. http://hoodrate.com/85219/

Dispensary Visit

22. On April 2, 2014 Plaintiff visited “ Natures Wonder” at 68 S. Ironwood Drive, Apache Junction, Arizona 85120 (489-982 1529). The round trip from Plaintiff’s rural home to this new ADHS registered dispensary is “26 miles” and the Plaintiff had to borrow a car, money for gas and $20 bucks for the ADHS “dope”. This dispensary sets in the heart of a small town that the Plaintiff and his family have lived in for 43 years. Plaintiff was recognized from the street as he entered “Nature’s Wonder” for the very first time and Plaintiff was questioned about this visit later. EXHIBIT

23. Plaintiff continually battles nausea and immediately became ill from the dispensary’s required heavy use of artificial air fragrance. Plaintiff became sick before the completion of the dispensary’s “required new patient questionnaire”. Plaintiff was escorted through a jail like security entrance to examine a laughably limited stock of marijuana. A dispensary attendant asked what symptoms Plaintiff suffered. Plaintiff explained that he had Hepatitis C and had problems with mold, mildew and weak potency of artificially cultivated cannabis.

24. The attendant advised Plaintiff that no Arizona dispensaries carry naturally cultivated cannabis because it does not grow well in Arizona’s climate. Nature’s Wonder’s dispensary assistant recommended “Cinderella 99” at $20.00 a gram. Plaintiff rolled the “Cinderella 99” into the “Standard U.S. 1 gram dose of Marijuana” and ignited what is commonly known as a “joint”. Plaintiff could smell and taste the moldy “dank” indicators of indoor cultivation mixed with the artificial air fragrance that was inside the dispensary.

25. “Dank” is a familiar term used by younger, unknowledgeable, marijuana users for this spoiled condition of artificially cultivated cannabis. Plaintiff could taste and feel the hot acrid sensation of the chlorophyll left from avoiding the slow curing process that naturally cultivated medicinal grade cannabis and “fine tobacco” require to avoid headaches and to develop a natural moisture balance for combustion and a rich and pleasing fragrance and flavor. Plaintiff has spent over 30 years developing a strain of what is now called “LOW CBD Medical Marijuana”. This is the kind of marijuana that saves little kids from having seizures and brain surgeries and allows old men like me to die with dignity.

26. The medical marijuana Plaintiff purchased from Nature’s Wonder was so harsh Plaintiff was unable to finish this $20.00 cigarette. Plaintiff felt the slight headache that comes from the chlorophyll left in quickly cured cannabis. Plaintiff felt no relief from smoking half of this joint and found no benefit in this ADHS commercially cultivated marijuana. The AMMA decriminalization of marijuana was based on 5,000 years of naturally cultivated “beneficial medical uses” for marijuana. This does not mean all marijuana or any marijuana is medicinal. There is no language that supports the exclusive dispensing of artificially grown cannabis or even allowing artificial cultivation of medical marijuana use. The marijuana is intended to be beneficial to the critically ill patient not the State the ADHS nor their agents and employees.

27. BPG and AMMA Section 2. Findings. 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

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/arizona-proposition-203-medical-marijuana.pdf

28. On April 29, 2014 Plaintiff met with Dr. Elaine Burns and received Plaintiff’s 4th ADHS required doctor recommendation. Plaintiff paid the ADHS application/licensing fee, Dr. Burns’ “electronic filing fee” and Plaintiff requested his registry card renewal with Plaintiff’s same cultivation preference.

29. On May 8, 2014 @ 12:54 PM Flora from the ADHS contacted Plaintiff by telephone and advised Plaintiff that ADHS had decided to deny the renewal of Plaintiff’s registry card with Plaintiff’s cultivation preference. Flora advised the Plaintiff that he would have to wait for an electronic notice from the ADHS before Plaintiff could request reconsideration of this decision and there would be a denial notification receipt issued by email.

30. Denial of registry identification card 36-2804.05. A. “THE DEPARTMENT “MAY” DENY AN APPLICATION OR RENEWAL OF A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD ONLY IF THE APPLICANT: 1. DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36-2801, PARAGRAPH 13.,2. DOES NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED., 3. PREVIOUSLY HAD A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD REVOKED FOR VIOLATING THIS CHAPTER., 4. PROVIDES FALSE INFORMATION.”

31. Here in SECTION 36-2804.05. A., use of the word “may” indicates that denial to renew Plaintiff’s “registry identification card” is an ADHS option “only if” the Plaintiff/Applicant is not a “qualifying patient”, has not had an ADHS registry card revoked, provided false information or does not provide required information.

32. The definition of “renew” is to make a promise, vow, agreement or contract “again” in the same or similar nature. Refusal to restore or renew the cultivation acknowledgement on Plaintiff’s ADHS registration card after issuing 3 prior cards is over-restrictive and damaging.

33. There is nothing in the AMMA that authorizes the ADHS to refuse to issue or renew Plaintiff’s registry card. There are no grounds for the ADHS to revoke, restrict, constrain or refuse to renew the same terms of Plaintiff’s 3 prior ADHS registrations. That’s what the law “says”. The law “does not say” The ADHS can refuse to renew a registered qualified patient’s registry because a dispensary is operating within a 25-mile radius of the patients home or even might be operating in a meaningful way some day.

34. 36-2801, Definitions 1., (c): MARIJUANA THAT IS INCIDENTAL TO MEDICAL USE, BUT IS NOT USABLE MARIJUANA AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, SHALL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER’S ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA. Here, this term, “INCIDENTAL TO MEDICAL USE” provides an exclusive privilege only for the Plaintiff and or the “qualifying patient’s optional caregiver. All cultivation is controlled by nature not the ADHS. An uninterrupted, safe and useable amount of any cultivated product is uncertain and requires knowledge of natural cultivation skills. Pharaohs of ancient Egypt stored 7 years of marijuana. However, today’s cannabis knowledge has been mostly obtained illegally.

35. 36-2812. Affirmative defense A. specifically speaks to the Plaintiff’s legal right to assert a medical purpose for using marijuana in a criminal prosecution: “TO ENSURE THE UNINTERRUPTED AVAILABILITY OF MARIJUANA FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING OR ALLEVIATING THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION… and if: QUALIFYING PATIENT ENGAGES IN THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, USE OR TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA, PARAPHERNALIA OR BOTH, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF MARIJUANA SOLELY TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.

36. Plaintiff is requesting protection from the ADHS on these grounds. Plaintiff believes the “Affirmative defense” provision in the BPG and or AMMA protects Plaintiff in a medical marijuana criminal prosecution after the damage. However, Plaintiff does not want to suffer more retaliation, and intimidation from Arizona law enforcement because of this Conflict of Interest that the State of Arizona and the ADHS has with medical marijuana and the Troutt family.

37. Plaintiff does not want to confuse his or his family’s other Constitutional Rights with the ADHS’s responsibility to provide protection through their rulemaking mandate in a timely and meaningful manner.

38. BPG Sections D, E and G make it clear the electorate wanted to take criminal prosecutions out of the “medical use and cultivation of marijuana” and not just synthetic party pot for rich people. ADHS has already created over a $7,000,000 surplus off the backs of the Plaintiff and other critically ill medical marijuana patients with these special transaction privileges and licensing fees for ADHS registered cardholders.

39. Had the ADHS implemented the AMMA program in a meaningful and timely manner qualified patients would not be returning to the criminal use of medical marijuana and addictive and dangerous prescription drugs in our state. The ADHS is well aware of the “drop out rate”, the “death rate” and this conflict of interest between Arizona’s Behavioral Health Medicine Industry and the competing benefits of medical marijuana.

40. The 25-mile preference as written in the BPG was consistent with U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, promulgated memorandum on medical marijuana guidelines October 19, 2009. The Obama Administration made it clear the U.S. Government was not wasting dwindling resources on medical marijuana patients. Attorney General Holder makes it clear he is against marijuana transactions that exceed money-laundering guidelines and excessive quantities. EXHIBIT

41. The ADHS should have realized early on that collecting $150.00 from critically ill patients and allowing ADHS registered and unregulated dispensaries to operate massive artificial cultivation sites in urban industrial parks with no quality or cost restrictions would certainly put the State and ADHS at odds with the United States Government. EXHIBIT

42. ADHS created inequality, uncertainty, insecurity, risks and damage with a residential retailer’s grid called “Community Health Analysis Areas”(CHAA). Mr. Humble proudly credits these CHAA divisions for eliminating 92% of registered qualified patient’s right to privately cultivate medical marijuana for their own medications. EXHIBIT

43. The following statements come directly from Mr. Humble 10 months before ADHS filed for a “Rulemaking Deadline Exemption” and 22 months before the AMMA mandate to formulate rules “within 120-day” expired and 4 years before Plaintiff was forced to file this complaint:

44. Medical Marijuana’s on the Ballot June 7th, 2010 by Will Humble “Basically, if the Act were to pass and be certified, it would create a system so that qualifying patients could apply to dispense, use and assist with the use of medical marijuana if they have a doctor’s recommendation.” “It would require us to implement the program within 120 days after the effective date, so we’d be on a short leash to finish the rules and execute the law in time. The Act provides for exempt rulemaking (meaning the rules don’t need to go to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council), which speeds things up considerably. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-04-2010.pdf.

45. Cannabis Cultivation- Post Prop. 203 October 15th, 2010 by admin:“Where would the inventory come from if Proposition 203 (the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act) passes?  As near as I can tell…  it could come from at least 3 places: enclosed cultivation facilities associated with dispensaries; enclosed cultivation facilities operated by caregivers on behalf of cardholders, if the people they care for live 25 miles from the nearest dispensary; or in enclosed locations at cardholders houses if they live more than 25 miles from the nearest dispensary. I think the intent is for all the inventory to come from these 3 places and not the “street”, but the Initiative doesn’t explicitly say that it can’t come from outside sources (e.g. the“street”). http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=797

46. The following is not from the AMMA. This language is from the ADHS: “Agency Receipt Notice of Exempt Rulemaking” filed April 13, 2011 @ 3:34 PM: R9-17-202 F. “Accept as provided in subsection (g), to apply for a registry identification card, the patient “shall submit” to the department the following.” (g.) “Whether the qualifying patient is “requesting authorization” for cultivating marijuana plants for the qualifying patients use because the qualifying “patient believes” that the qualifying patient resides at least 25 miles from the nearest dispensary”

47. Here in R9-17-202 F., subsection (g.) The ADHS is using this rulemaking deadline exemption to change Plaintiff’s medical marijuana cultivation option from “may apply to the department” that is in the language of the AMMA to “shall submit to the department” that is found only in ADHS’s “Agency Receipt Notice of Exempt Rulemaking” filed April 13, 2011. Here the ADHS actually changed the initial intent of the electorate and actual language of the BPG and AMMA to a more restrictive interpretation of language and rules that the electorate did not review or intend. However, even in this change of language: “because the qualifying patient believes that the qualifying patient resides at least 25 miles from the nearest dispensary” does not say: “The law says that patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana. The ADHS then promulgated rules as being required by the BPG and or AMMA. Here the ADHS is using a rulemaking deadline exemption to grant “itself” authority to “Accept as provided” rules that constrain medical options of the Plaintiff and other critically ill patients with unauthorized changes in the language of the law that have resulted in over-regulation and violation of the Voter’s Protection Act and damage to the Plaintiff and his family.

48. The ADHS language in R9-17-203 (C-4) and R9-17-204 (A-h.) is identical in regards to the 25-mile provision with the exception of R9-17-202 (H). Again, ADHS is using this deadline exemption to grant “the State” the authority to “Accept as provided” a burdening constraint on the Plaintiff that ADHS must know is not written in or required by the AMMA. ADHS declares at R9-17-202 (H): ”For the purpose of this Article, “25 miles” in all directions includes the area contained within a circle that extends 25 miles in all directions.”

http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/20110413_Medical_Marijuana_Rules.pdf

49. The AMMA language: “WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S HOME” is a 50-mile trip on a public highway. The ADHS’s “25 miles” in all directions includes the area contained within a circle that extends 25 miles in all directions”, is still a round trip on a public highway. Twenty-five miles as the crow flies in Arizona could easily be a 200-mile, unpaved, round trip through the mountains.

50. ADHS use of this rulemaking deadline exemption to not just interpret but to change the law to the “most” restrictive limits on the Plaintiff’s medical options and rights from: “may apply” to “shall submit” and “fly like a crow in a 25-mile circle” are obviously aimed at over-regulation, undue restriction and prejudice in defiance of the intent of the electorate, recent courts rulings and the purpose of the AMMA. EXHIBIT

51. Section 2,E clearly indicates the electorates’ interest in joining 13 other states in removing criminal penalties for critically ill patients’ “medical use” and “cultivation” of marijuana. Arizona voters know that cannabis cultivation is the key to controlling the illegal cash, corruption, violence and crime in Arizona and across our border.

52. Plaintiff fears more invasions of privacy, intimidation, retaliation, persecution and prosecution of Plaintiff and his family from the State, and or its agents and employees as a result of Plaintiff’s registration with the ADHS. Plaintiff does not have the funds or live in the world of $400 an hour lawyers or $600 an ounce bags of marijuana. The Plaintiff does not own a vehicle or have an income. Plaintiff lives modestly in a remote area and lives mostly on the kindness of family and friends. The Plaintiff has little more than his garden and health and wants or requires little else.

53. 36-2803. Rulemaking (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) 4. Governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, for the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including: (a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and renewals of registration certificates.

54. ADHS interpretation of 2804.02. A, 3,(f) offers similar privileges to ADHS registered cardholding vendors that also pay “licensing fees” to the ADHS for the privilege of dispensing medical marijuana legally across the state. The ADHS does not limit a dispensary to selling or cultivating certain marijuana or marijuana in just one area of Arizona.

COURT RULINGS

55. The State and ADHS is involved in several AMMA related lawsuits filed in Federal Court and the Courts of Arizona with warnings, rulings, orders and public communications and comments. Plaintiff incorporates these public communications, comments, complaints, filings, rulings and orders into Plaintiff’s complaint to show a pattern of disregard for the rights, health and welfare of the Plaintiff, the intent of the electorate, laws of our state and rulings of our courts. ADHS maintains an online list of the costly AMMA litigation filed against the State and ADHS: http://www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/dispensaries/lawsuits.htm

56. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV (2011-0112900 -1/17/2012 Filed 01/18/2012, HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA, . MINUTE ENTRY: The Court intended its January 2012 ruling to be case dispositive and that Defendants would comply therewith.” “…The Court’s ruling and the revised regulations serve not only as a roadmap to applicants but as notice to the public that the AMMA will be implemented.” “The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and 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.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done within 120 days of the effective date of the Act; it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the voters were the Court to conclude otherwise.” A.R.S. § 36-2818(A). http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

57. HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY (CV 2013-011447) UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING: Filed 11/14/2013: “Qualifying patients are free to decide whether they wish to apply for and obtain a registry identification card. The AMMA protects people from criminal prosecution if they choose to use medical marijuana. It does not compel people to use medical marijuana or even to obtain a qualifying registry card.” Equal Protection Argument: “Differential treatment is an equal protection issue, not a question of the applicability of the Amendment to the AMMA. The 25-mile provision does appear to create two groups of AMMA participants based on residence.”

http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/112013/m6038157.pdf

58. HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY (CV 2013014852) MINUTE ENTRY filed 03/21/14: In applying the plain language of the statute to the rules of statutory interpretation, the Court concludes that nothing in the statute limits the form in which patients may use medical marijuana. “The plain and ordinary meaning of the AMMA’s text is reflected in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of these words: “Usable” is defined as “a convenient or practicable use.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usable.” Conclusion: “The Court is solely concerned with the interpretation of the AMMA as written. The language of the AMMA and its ballot materials make clear that proponents and votes intended the AMMA to provide access to medicine for debilitating medical conditions without fear of criminal prosecution. The AMMA does not limit the form in which that medicine can be administered.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED …this Declaratory Judgment Order means that Plaintiffs may treat Zander with medical marijuana in extract form and are entitled to the same protections under the AMMA that other medical marijuana patients enjoy. “Statutory construction requires that the Court construe the law as it is written… “ Protective Purpose: “It is undisputed that medical marijuana is intended to be used by patients to treat chronic, debilitating, and/or painful conditions. A.R.S. § 36-2801(3). It makes no sense to interpret the AMMA as allowing people with these conditions to use medical marijuana but only if they take it in one particular form. Such an interpretation reduces, if not eliminates, medical marijuana as a treatment option for those who cannot take it in plant form, or who could receive a greater benefit from an alternative form.” “Constraining patients’ medical marijuana options contradicts the stated purpose of the AMMA — to “protect patients with debilitating medical conditions . . . from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Prop. 203 § 2(G).

Proponents’ and Voters’ Intent: “Ballot materials demonstrate that proponents and voters did not intend patients to be prosecuted for using medical marijuana in the form that is the most beneficial to them. For example: The Descriptive Title voters read before casting their vote on the AMMA stated that the law “allows the use of marijuana for people with debilitating medical conditions who obtain a written certification from a physician and [it] establishes a regulatory system governed by the Arizona Department of Health Services for establishing and licensing medical marijuana dispensaries.”

.http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/032014/m6226527.pdf

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/10.28.13_welton_-_complaint.pdf

  1. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2013-005901 07/29/2013 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER: “Not later than one hundred twenty days after the effective date of this chapter, the department shall adopt rules: Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under this chapter.

“Governing…without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including:(a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and renewals of dispensary registration certificates.”

The Rules are designed to protect against diversion and theft, but they also effect other provisions of the

Act and are designed to further the Act’s goal of making medical marijuana available to those who need it across Arizona.

There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the

part of many public officials and property owners to facilitate or participate in the distribution of

medical marijuana. Nothing in the Act or the Rules guarantees that every dispensary with a DRC will be able to open. Nothing guarantees there will be a dispensary in every CHAA. http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/One%20year%20limit%20ruling.pdf

Harm to Plaintiffs

59. Under the aforementioned circumstances, Plaintiff ‘s options are limited to destructively impossible choices. Plaintiff can either treat his critical medical condition with the only affordable, accessible and effective form of marijuana available and or risk further intimidation, retaliation, breaches of medical confidentiality, invasions of privacy and or criminal prosecution based on incorrect interpretations of Arizona law and or a failure by ADHS to implement the ADHS AMMA program in a timely and meaningful manner or: Plaintiff can comply with these erroneous and damaging interpretations of Arizona law and be deprived of the only medicine that has proven to be effective and beneficial for Plaintiff.

60. Plaintiff will suffer greatly from his illness and live in fear of more invasions of privacy and terrorization of Plaintiff’s family; more unauthorized photos of Plaintiff in an undressed and critical condition of duress, further intimidation, retaliation and threats of arrest, seizure of medicine and prosecution by State agents and or employees.

61. This possibility is so even though Plaintiff has renewed his physician’s recommendation required by the AMMA and applied and paid all fees for Plaintiff’s renewal of his ADHS registry card on April 29, 2014 and before his prior card expires.

62. On May 8, 2014 @ 12:54 PM, Plaintiff received a call from Flora of the ADHS advising me that my same designated cultivation preference had been denied after 4 years of registering and paying fees. Flora said my official denial would come by email.

Conclusion

63. The Department of Health Services (ADHS) issued Plaintiff’s first AMMA ADHS registry card in May of 2011. ADHS has issued Plaintiff 3 yearly ADHS registry cards with a “designated cultivation preference”. Plaintiff has maintained a legal medical marijuana status with cultivation rights in the State of Arizona to the present time.

64. Plaintiff wants to continue to enjoy his right to cultivate medical marijuana in privacy; religious and medical confidentiality and freedom without uncertainty, insecurity and or fear of criminal prosecution, intimidation, retaliation or other damages based on incorrect interpretations and or flawed applications of Arizona law.

65. The ADHS failed to adopt policies that would protect and provide for the naturally cultivated cannabis with the 5,000 years of safe and effective medical history that Plaintiff relies on and the voters relied on to approve the AMMA.

66. The ADHS over-regulated, out-priced and intimidated the largest class of medical marijuana patients into using cheaper Mexican marijuana illegally and avoiding the ADHS altogether.

67. Plaintiff’s interpretation of the “25-mile provision” held logic because it indicated that commercial cultivation of cannabis would be encouraged in our economically struggling rural farm communities and discouraged in our densely populated urban areas or Mexico.

68. The ADHS improperly assumed authority to set limitations on medical confidentiality, treatment and or doctor’s recommendations for “life-saving treatment regimens”. EXHIBIT

69. Genetically altered and cloned strains of dispensary cultivated cannabis have only been recently developed under highly illegal and extreme artificial conditions for extreme secrecy, extreme narcotic like potency and extreme profit. This is not the medical marijuana that Herodotus described 2,500 years ago in the Scythian burial purification ceremony nor is it the good ole marijuana that got smoked in college 40 years ago. EXHIBIT

70. ADHS dispensaries are not monitored for quality control and it is unlikely that anyone could claim to have an uninterrupted supply of any naturally cultivated agricultural product. Self-cultivation is the safest and best chance for Plaintiff to avoid an “interrupted” supply of marijuana that is organically grown, affordable, accessible, effective and beneficial to the Plaintiff and or other qualified patients. This would decrease the crime rate.

71. Artificially cultivated and unregulated marijuana that is commercially produced in urban industrial parks will not benefit the Plaintiff or satisfy his medical needs and the Plaintiff is the only one that could possibly know.

72. ADHS’s incorrect interpretation of the AMMA and recalcitrant disregard for court rulings creates uncertainty and insecurity for Plaintiff and his family, who fear that if the Plaintiff continues to cultivate the medical marijuana that is most beneficial to him, he “will” be intimidated, harassed and may be forced to destroy his uninterrupted medical marijuana supply to protect himself and his family from being criminally prosecuted, physically injured and or raided out of retaliation.

73. This is so even though Plaintiff has been issued 3 yearly ADHS registry cards with the Plaintiff’s “unchanged” cultivation designation preference approved.

74. The ADHS does not have the authority to limit what particular medical marijuana Plaintiff needs for “hepatitis C, and increasing the chances of the Plaintiff continuing on life-saving treatment regimens.”.

75. ADHS cannot insure that an ADHS registered dispensary “may, will or shall” be operating continually within 25 miles of the Plaintiff’s residence nor can the ADHS compel a dispensary to provide an uninterrupted supply of the specific and beneficial medical marijuana that the Plaintiff requires for his critical illness. ADHS rules limit Plaintiff’s options for “acquiring” the beneficial and necessary, naturally cultivated marijuana Plaintiff needs.

76. The ADHS AMMA program systematically violates an ADHS registered patient’s confidentiality with rules that are obstructing the intent of the electorate and or purpose of the AMMA.

77. Plaintiff’s current cultivation registry card expires in 2014 and Plaintiff renewal card should have been approved and issued before this complaint was necessitated. The ADHS does not have the authority to refuse to renew Plaintiff’s registry card or interpret or decide what kind of marijuana is personally beneficial to any critically ill patient or the Plaintiff.

78. The 25-mile provision as written in the AMMA creates unequal classes of qualified patients and is therefore unconstitutional. There is nothing to insure an ADHS dispensary can provide the uninterrupted supply of medical marijuana that is beneficial for the qualifying patient or Plaintiff.

79. There is nothing in the AMMA that authorized the ADHS to deny, revoke or refuse to renew the original terms of the Plaintiff’s registry card.

80. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2013-005901 07/29/2013 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER: There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of many public officials and property owners to facilitate or participate in the distribution of medical marijuana. Nothing in the Act or the Rules guarantees that every dispensary with a DRC will be able to open. Nothing guarantees there will be a dispensary in every CHAA. http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/One%20year%20limit%20ruling.pdf

81. The ADHS interpretation of the AMMA creates a damaging disparity and unequal classes of medical marijuana patients based on economic and residential status that violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States of America and or the State of Arizona.

82. 84. 2804.02. A, 3,(f) offers unequal privileges to ADHS registered cardholding patients and vendors that all pay “licensing fees” to the ADHS for the privilege of dispensing medical marijuana legally across the state. The ADHS does not limit a dispensary to selling or cultivating certain marijuana or any marijuana in just one area of Arizona.

83. The 25-mile provision offers options to a special class of registered qualifying patient to participate in cultivating, and dispensing marijuana to meet the ADHS AMMA requirement to provide marijuana to other registered qualified patients.

84. Patients that pay $20.00 a gram for artificially cultivated marijuana simply do not know any better and or have no other options. ADHS dispensaries can easily exploit this class of registered qualifying patient. This is especially so in the dispensaries located in the outskirts of the urban areas because ADHS dispensaries are allowed to interchange and divert their more expensive products to the urban areas and unload their most inferior products in the rural areas for a desperate top dollar.

85. There are no ADHS regulations regarding cost, quality control or this type of diversion and unequal protection for qualified patients. ADHS’s absence of quality controls puts ADHS registered patients at risk from having dangerous drugs like “SPICE” mixed or laced onto marijuana and especially into marijuana edibles to increase the potency with a synthetic chemical high that inexperienced patients might not recognize as dangerous. EXHIBIT

86. This class of inexperienced and vulnerable medical marijuana patient is still a very small percentage of people that use marijuana in Arizona. ADHS rulemaking process intimidated and dissuaded the largest class of medical marijuana patients with over regulation, highly publicized retaliation on qualified patients, licensed doctors, and dispensaries. EXHIBIT

87. A great number of ADHS registered cardholders have dropped out of the ADHS program since it began and enrollment is far under what it should be compared to other states with similar laws. Over-regulation has resulted in unaffordable fees and unaffordable inferior marijuana, artificially cultivated and sold in inconvenient and dangerous areas. This violates patient’s medical confidentiality, the intent of the electorate, the powerful purpose of the AMMA and the Voter Protection Act. EXHIBIT

88. The State and ADHS has consistently demonstrated an opposition to the AMMA and has attempted to undermine the effect of the law multiple times. “Interpretations are personal constructions of meaning based on logic associated with symbols of language.”

Requested Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request immediate and emergency relief from the ADHS as follows:

1. Plaintiff is requesting the ADHS to take immediate emergency action and renew Plaintiff’s registry card with the right to cultivate and possess medical marijuana for the specific needs of the Plaintiff and for the protection of the Plaintiff and his family from any further obstructive, intimidating, retaliatory and damaging practices of the State, the ADHS and or by its agents and employees.

2. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the ADHS issue an emergency approval for the Plaintiffs renewal of his registry card with the same terms as the last 3 years to prevent any further damage to the Plaintiff and his family.

3. If the ADHS can find any defendable legal application for this controversial 25-mile preference it should be the least restrictive “round-trip on a public highway” and “not as a crow flies”, interpretation. Plaintiff will consider this a sign of good faith that the ADHS has finally signaled and end to the attack though it is long after the bugle was blown.

4. Plaintiff wants an emergency action from the ADHS to prevent further adverse acts against Plaintiff and or his family members based on any and all unsupported interpretation or incorrect allegation that the AMMA’s decriminalization of marijuana does not protect the Plaintiff and his family.

5. Plaintiff expects the ADHS to take the appropriate steps to educate, retrain and restrain State employees, agents, and their successors from further and similar damage. Plaintiff wants to prevent more adverse action and violations of A.R.S. § 13-3408 involving “cannabis” as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) based on Plaintiff’s “medical use” of marijuana or any other qualified patients meaningful medical use of marijuana. “Adverse action” includes but is not limited to arresting, prosecuting, and seizing property from Plaintiff, invading the Plaintiff’s privacy, violating Plaintiff’s confidentiality, the taking of unauthorized and undressed photos of Plaintiff, trespassing, harassing, intimidating, threatening of Plaintiff and his family members or limiting Plaintiff’s options for his doctors treatments or limiting options to the medical marijuana that is most beneficial to Plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff wants the ADHS to acknowledge that the registered qualifying patient is the most likely and only person that can actually tell if medical marijuana benefits and relieves the patient’s symptoms of a critical disease and this knowledge should be held in strict confidentiality with the patient and the patient’s doctor.

CLOSING STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a serious form of chronic urticaria in about 1962 and was treated with debilitating and ineffective medications such as “barbiturates” and “promethazine”. This condition created a chronic irritation of the skin that was mentally and physically excruciating and advanced to long-term chronic infection of the skin.

2. Plaintiff started using medical marijuana illegally in about 1965 to treat this condition. Cannabis relieved these symptoms so miraculously that Plaintiff began to study the religious and medical history of cannabis. Soon Plaintiff combined and adopted this ancient medical and religious knowledge into a personal practice of religious medication and meditation.

3. The very act of gardening cannabis with other healing herbs and foods naturally represents 5,000 years of human nature, medicine and religion. Plaintiff requires untreated water and natural sunshine to create the garden fresh cannabis leaves for juicing, seeds, roots, male and female flowers and other naturally cultivated herbs and foods for health and the pursuit of my happiness. Plaintiff has been cultivating cannabis and making his own personal medications for almost 50 years.

4. Plaintiff accepted a request to run for Vice President of the United States in 1996 from the “Grass Roots Party” with Dennis Peron running for the presidency. We only won a place in the Electoral College Archives; however, Mr. Peron was largely responsible for the language and passing of Proposition 215 into California law in 1996. This law is still in effect and has opened the door to the marijuana prohibition reform that is sweeping the nation now.

5. In 1996 Plaintiff was qualified as an expert on the grading, quality and “mold” of marijuana and confirmed in U.S. District Court by a seated jury in Minnesota.

6. Plaintiff was raised on his families existing Tennessee tobacco farm and is an expert in the natural cultivation, curing and processing of fine tobacco and cannabis.

7. Plaintiff contracted and was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 1997 while serving an 8-year marijuana sentence in the custody of the U.S. Justice Department/Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff has suffered significant harm, from the threat of death, extreme physical torture for information, and prosecution and incarceration for Plaintiff’s medical needs, religious belief and reverence for cannabis. Cannabis still offers the Plaintiff the same peaceful joy, physical relief and religious guidance that it did when Plaintiff was a young man.

8. Plaintiff does not have funds to hire an attorney, has a limited education and no formal legal training. Plaintiff respectfully requests any consideration, compensation and relief the authorized State Administrative Review Officers can afford the Plaintiff regarding inadvertent deficiencies, errors or offense as a result of Plaintiff’s disabilities and these disadvantages.

I, Arlin Troutt, reside in Arizona and I swear that the preceding is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called on to testify regarding these matters I will do so.

Respectfully submitted on May 9th, 2014,

Arlin Troutt

ADHS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS

 

Plaintiff will immediately provide a list of stipulations for the ADHS to review and approve for the sake of expediency and conservation of public resources. Most of Plaintiff’s exhibits are from mainstream news organizations, ADHS promulgations, court filings and exhibits and other public information the ADHS should already be familiar with and possess. For the economy of this ADHS review and expediency of the Plaintiff’s need for immediate protection, Plaintiff is attaching Exhibits A, B, C and D. Exhibit D is a list of links to support related complaint information. Exhibits highlighted in red will immediately follow.

There is a wealth of information on the way to support Plaintiff’s request for overall relief and to assist the ADHS with the difficulties they are having implementing the AMMA.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/arizona-proposition-203-medical-marijuana.pdf

Exhibit A:

Injunction Pinal County

Injunction Pinal County

Injunction Pinal County

Injunction Pinal County

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B:

 09 14 12 scan 1st page

EXHIBIT C:

Dispensary reciept

Dispensary receipt

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D:

Exempt Rulemaking Process

The Arizona Department of Health Services is exempt from the rulemaking requirements in A.R.S § Title 41, Chapter 6 only if authorized by a specific statute or bill. When the Department conducts an exempt rulemaking:

See Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Part 1, Section 1, Subsections 6(A) and (B).

Pursuant to the Voter Protection Act, legislative amendments are limited to ones that further the purpose of the voter initiative and are approved by 3/4 of the members of each legislative branch. Id. Subsection 6(C). Thus, by state law and Constitution,

The arguments in the publicity pamphlet also leave no doubt about the intended purpose of the initiative and the impact of its passage on the AHCCCS program. AHCCCS is required to provide health care coverage to the Proposition 204 population. By proposing this rule, AHCCCS is violating

Proposition 204 and the Voter Protection Act. The persons the citizens of Arizona mandated eligible for the State Medicaid program include childless adults, the very persons upon whom AHCCCS seeks to impose an enrollment freeze and/or reduced eligibility. Proposition 204 and the Arizona Constitution require

AHCCCS to cover these persons. AHCCCS cannot ignore the Arizona State law and Constitution. Therefore based on Proposition 204 and the Voter Protection Act, AHCCCS must withdraw its proposed rule.

The federal government took no position on whether closing enrollment is appropriate and regardless, whatever the federal government’s interpretation of the MOE requirements in federal law, that interpretation is not relevant to the mandatory requirements in Proposition 204 and the Voter Protection Act.

http://www.azdhs.gov/ops/oacr/rules/rulemakings/process.htm

http://www.azahcccs.gov/reporting/Downloads/UnpublishedRules/NOERR9-22-1443.pdf

http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/chronicdisease/index.htm

EXHIBIT

ADHS rules on harassment: http://www.azdhs.gov/search/index.htm?cx=001225935467932717699%3Avl4yt5w5dzq&ie=UTF-8&q=harassment&sa.x=0&sa.y=0

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ruling on Arizona Extracts & Concentrates

Major news in Arizona government’s war against Medical Marijuana. The 5 yr. old boy, Zander that needs marijuana oil for his seizures was in Judge Cooper’s Court On Valentine’s Day for an injunction order. Arizona argued that cannabis concentrates and extracts were illegal; and Zander’s parents would be arrested if they gave Zander an oil extracted from cannabis. This portion of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act was so clear it’s hard to imagine why Bill Montgomery and the State of Arizona would want to deliberately put this family through the torment and risk they did.

Judge Cooper is a Jan Brewer appointee and after her ruling on the 25-mile medical marijuana cultivation clause you can bet she did not make this ruling out of the goodness of her heart or based on the language of the law. However, national public pressure on this issue like Dr. Gupta’s CNN special on MMJ for kids has turned the tide on this crime against humanity.

Judge Katherine Cooper ruled this morning that cannabis extracts and concentrates are covered under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. This is a huge blow to Arizona’s adversarial government. However, it is a Godsend for parents that are flooding to Arizona with their infants for the right to Health, Happiness and the Freedom guaranteed under our Constitution. We would like to congratulate Zander’s parents, Zander, the Harvest of Tempe, Dr. William Troutt and the attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union for their courage and commitment to the health welfare and constitution rights of the Citizens of Arizona. Thank you.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=672998342748561&set=a.672998339415228.1073741833.478661468848917&type=1

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Arizona Department of Health Services New Draft of the Same Ole Rules

 Agrarian Church "Treat others as you would like to be treated"

Agrarian Church “Treat others as you would like to be treated”

First let’s identify the problem:

Even after the “Arizona Voter Protection Act” and “Arizona Medical Marijuana Act” became law Will Humble ADHS is still waging a litigious campaign against medical marijuana patients and the law that was meant to protect them. Nonsensical interpretations, oppressive restrictions and frivolous litigation prevents medical marijuana patients from having safe, legal and affordable access. The following is the first in a long and costly list of lost taxpayer paid and pending lawsuits:

January 17, 2012 (MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2011-011290 01/17/2012) Judge Gama Ruled: In construing a statute adopted by initiative, the Court’s primary objective “is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” “The voters passed Proposition 203 informed of marijuana’s therapeutic value in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. Prop. 203, at § 2(B). The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and 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.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done in 120 days.”

This is the language of Subsection 2 (G) that Judge Gamma cautioned Mr. Humble and the ADHS about: “State law should make a distinction between the medical and non-medical 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. Will Humble has done the exact opposite.

Arizona Revised Statutes Section: 36-2803.-Rulemaking (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) “Not later than one hundred twenty days after the effective date of this chapter, the department shall adopt rules: Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under this chapter.”

On July 29, 2013 Maricopa Superior Court Judge Randall Warner ruled that Will Humble (ADHS) had failed to meet a set deadline and ordered him to rewrite rules 3 years after the legal mandate. Judge Warner state: “Predictably, the implementation of medical marijuana in Arizona has met resistance. There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of many public officials…” Will Humble admits in his ADHS blog that another Superior Court has ruled against him and it will take an additional year to rewrite new rules. http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?tag=medical-marijuana

Will Humble is now changing his “25-Mile as the Crow Flies Interpretation. However Mr. Humble still clings to this interpretation from his Arizona Medical Marijuana Program Newsletter July 2013, pg. 3.): “ The law says that patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana. This was part of what voters passed, and ADHS cannot change it.”

“As the Crow Flies” is not mentioned in Prop 203 and nowhere in Prop 203 does it say: “patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana”. 

Original Ballot Format version of Prop 203: “If the qualifying patient’s home is located more than 25 miles from the nearest nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary, the patient or designated caregiver may cultivate up to 12 marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked facility.”

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 36-2804.02 – Registration of qualifying patients and designated caregivers (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) “A designation as to who will be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifying patient’s medical use if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not operating within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient’s home.”

This 25-Mile Cultivation Designation (by the patient) offers a patient living excessive distance from an urban area protection from economic restrictions, municipalities and private entities that don’t want medical marijuana dispensaries or patients in their communities. There is nothing in the language of Prop 203 that authorizes the Arizona Department of Health Services to force patients to buy their medical marijuana from a dispensary on a grid. Nothing in the language of this law precludes patients from growing their own marijuana. There is nothing in Prop 203 that says: “patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana”.  The language is simply not there.

Mr. Humble’s new interpretation of the 25-Mile Rule killed the crow but kept the cultivation restrictions that protect the dangerously high prices of illegal marijuana, hurt the patients and simply do not exist in the language of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. This Act of allowing medical marijuana patients to continue to suffer and die while the ADHS focuses on exploiting the marijuana use and forcing the prices, dangers and revenues ever higher puts everyone at risk. 

Mr. Humble knows that the secret to making marijuana safer for the public is by reducing the price. The price and police are the only real danger pot poses and there is no credible evidence to the contrary after 60 years of searching for the smoking gun. Now Mr. Humble wants to re-tweak the rules he only had 120 days to complete over 3 years ago.

I live in a rural area, have no car or money to pay the high prices for the moldy and ineffective marijuana that Mr. Humble has forced to be cultivated under artificial lights, polluted air and chemically treated water in a dirty industrial park. This is not the 5,000 years of safe and effective cannabis history Will Humble and the Marijuana Policy Project based the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act on. That 5,000 years was long before Marijuana Prohibition, Miracle Grow, Sodium Lights, Industrial Parks, Closet Hempsters and the Arizona Department of Health Services.   

I don’t want to be forced to use moldy high price pot or SPICE. I’ve been using marijuana as a religious sacrament and God given medicinal herb since 1965. I grow what I need and no one but me knows what I need.  Mr. Humble should consult with people that use marijuana as well as the people that want to sell marijuana.

So under the circumstances and according to Subsection 2(G) of the Medical Marijuana Act, I can only assume that Mr. Humble realizes his job is to protect medical marijuana patients and doctors from the government.  That must mean that Mr. Humble’s new 25-mile trip to a dispensary is a “25-Mile Round Trip”.

I am asking the Citizens of Arizona to join me in demanding the immediate resignation and or removal of Will Humble as Head of the Department of Health Services.

Arlin Troutt/ushempnews.com

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Red Stone Pipe of Peace Award

The Red Stone Pipe of Peace Award to Jeannie Herer
Red Stone Peace Award to Jeannie Herer

Red Stone Peace Award to Jeannie Herer

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Arlin’s Rendition of “Besame Mucho” & “You Don’t Know Me’

“Besame Mucho”

 

“You Don’t Know Me”

Arlin with Jimmie McElroy

Enjoy

Arlin Monterrey Blues Festival

Arlin Monterrey Blues Festival

 

Arlin & Stan Rhythm Room Aug 2010

Arlin & Stan Rhythm Room Aug 2010

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Howard Fischer’s erroneous statement in the Arizona Daily Sun about the language of Arizona Medical Marijuana Act

October, 15, 2013
Brett Fere
Editor of East Valley Tribune
Re: Arizona Daily Sun Article by Howard Fischer containing an erroneous statement regarding the language of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.
Mr. Fere,
Per our conversation and your instruction this morning, I am sending this communication regarding an article that was published this morning in the Arizona Daily Sun. “Judge: Counties can’t prohibit med pot dispensaries”.
My particular concern about this article is an erroneous statement that Will Humble ADHS keeps repeating publicly and the press keeps printing repeatedly that simply is not true.
Mr. Fischer’s statement: “While cardholders were initially allowed to grow their own drugs, the law says they must obtain their supply from a state-regulated dispensary once there is one within 25 miles.
There is a Tsunami of litigation before the Arizona Courts regarding Will Humble’s interpretation of “his” 25-mile rule. I complained directly to Will Humble on his ADHS blog regarding the legal language of “his” 25 mile As the Crow Flies rule.  http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=4567#comments
Mr. Humble responded by printing the actual language of the law that he used to take his hallucinogenic trip on the back of a flying crow.
 
Arlin Troutt
No place in the language of Prop 203 does it say that a patient living within 25 miles of a dispensary cannot grow marijuana. That language “flew like a crow” out of Will Humbles imagination. The only references to 25 miles in Prop 203 asks patients living a long distance from a dispensary to list their cultivation site on their ADHS applications. The ADHS then asks for a pledge not to divert cannabis for illegal use: OK. This 25 miles crow crap seems to be directed at keeping the price of cannabis criminal, dangerous and unaffordable. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act was not passed to create revenue for Will Humble, the ADHS, the State of Arizona or the illegal Mexican marijuana trade. Will Humble has created a Tsunami of complicated and expensive lawsuits that Arizona Taxpayers will pick up the tab for. This same Medical Industry Cartel that seem to be at war with medical marijuana patients also pushed Prop 106 through to wreck Obamacare. However, Prop 106 unintentionally gave Arizona medical patients the right to go directly to their doctors for medicine and treatment without being forced to go through a state or private 3rd party healthcare provider. All of this makes this 25-mile rule laughably moot. And this is what Will Humble really needs to be talking about in his ADHS Medical Marijuana Blog.
  • Will Humble
Here is the voter approved statute regarding qualifying for a registration card regarding cultivation:
36-2804.02. Registration of qualifying patients and designated caregivers
A. A qualifying patient may apply to the department for a registry identification card by submitting:
3. An application, including:
(f) A designation as to who will be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifying patient’s medical use if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not operating within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient’s home.
Mr. Humble censored out my response to his reply to my complaint. On that subject, the Arizona Daily Sun also censored my comments on Mr. Fischer’s story.
But let’s get this straight Mr. Fischer, no place in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does it say or even imply: “While cardholders were initially allowed to grow their own drugs, the law says they must obtain their supply from a state-regulated dispensary once thers one within 25 miles.” You said that. This misinformation and game playing about the language of Prop 203/Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the safety and medical value of cannabis has gone on long enough. People are suffering and dying and I am demanding that your information company print the truth, a retraction, an explanation and an apology. If we need an English language translator for the Department of Health Services and the Press we can do that. I would recommend you go to ushempnews.com and read: As the Crow Flies”. And I would recommend you read the law and compare it to what Will Humble, Howard Fischer and the Press are telling the public. Additionally I would remind Mr. Fischer that drugs are manufactured in laboratories and marijuana grows naturally in my garden. He’s Hemp Hoax Hysteria sounds idiotic.
Thank you for in advance for your consideration of this complaint and your rapid response to my requests for a retraction, explanation and apology.
Arlin Troutt/U.S. Hemp
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“As the Crow Flies”

“As the Crow Flies”

Arizona’s 25 Mile Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ruletruth

In 1996 Arizona citizens bypassed

lawmakers; and won the “voter initiative measure” legalizing medical marijuana. Though it passed by a margin of 65% our State Legislature destroyed that law. This forced citizens to again battle and bypass lawmakers to pass Prop 105 in 1998: “Arizona Voter Protection Act”.  Though this law was a specific reaction to the sabotage of the 1996 medical marijuana law, Prop 105 generally prevents adversarial government from vetoing or obstructing laws that citizens initiate and voters approve.

In 2010 citizens again forced a vote for Medical Marijuana in Arizona and prevailed. This is why when you read the language of Prop. 203 you will repeatedly see this warning in captions: (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)

Even after the “Arizona Voter Protection Act” and “Arizona Medical Marijuana Act” became law Governor Brewer, Tom Horne (Attorney General) and Will Humble (Department of Health Services) are still waging a litigious campaign against medical marijuana patients and the law that was meant to protect them. An ambush of oppressive restrictions and frivolous litigation prevents medical marijuana patients from having safe, legal and affordable access. The following is the first in a long and costly taxpayer paid parade of lost and pending lawsuits:

January 17, 2012 (MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2011-011290 01/17/2012) Judge Gama Ruled: In construing a statute adopted by initiative, the Court’s primary objective “is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” “The voters passed Proposition 203 informed of marijuana’s therapeutic value in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. Prop. 203, at § 2(B). The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and 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.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done in 120 days.”

Arizona Revised Statutes Section: 36-2803.-Rulemaking (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) “Not later than one hundred twenty days after the effective date of this chapter, the department shall adopt rules: Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under this chapter.”

On July 29, 2013 Maricopa Superior Court Judge Randall Warner ruled that Will Humble (ADHS) had failed to meet a set deadline and ordered him to rewrite rules 3 years after the legal mandate. Judge Warner: “Predictably, the implementation of medical marijuana in Arizona has met resistance. There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of many public officials…” Will Humble admits in his ADHS blog that another Superior Court has ruled against him and it will take an additional year to rewrite new rules. http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?tag=medical-marijuana

Judge Warner’s recent ruling confirms that the form and content of registrations and renewals are still unresolved and in violation of the law. However, the controversy over Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and the 25-Mile Cultivation Interpretation will be the “tsunami of crippling and costly lawsuits”.

Will Humble ignores his “25-Mile as the Crow Flies Controversy” and foreseeable storm of litigation with another provocative fabrication in his latest Arizona Medical Marijuana Program Newsletter July 2013, pg. 3.): “ The law says that patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana. This was part of what voters passed, and ADHS cannot change it.”

“As the Crow Flies” is not mentioned in Prop 203 and nowhere in Prop 203 does it say: “patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana”.

Original Ballot Format version of Prop 203: “If the qualifying patient’s home is located more than 25 miles from the nearest nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary, the patient or designated caregiver may cultivate up to 12 marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked facility.”

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 36-2804.02 – Registration of qualifying patients and designated caregivers (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) “A designation as to who will be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifying patient’s medical use if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary is not operating within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient’s home.”

This 25-Mile Cultivation Designation by the patient offers a patient living excessive distance from an urban area protection from adversarial municipalities and private entities that don’t want medical marijuana dispensaries or patients in their communities. There is nothing in the language of Prop 203 that authorizes the Arizona Department of Health Services to force patients to buy their medical marijuana from a dispensary on a grid or precludes patients from growing their own marijuana. There is nothing in Prop 203 that says: “patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana”.  The language is simply not there. Will Humble’s greedy interpretation of Prop 203 will continue to create unnecessary litigation, expense, pain, suffering and death while the ADHS focuses on exploiting the use of marijuana and forcing the prices, dangers and revenues ever higher.

I am asking the Citizens of Arizona to join me in demanding the immediate removal of Will Humble as Head of the Department of Health Services.

Arlin Troutt/ushempnews.com (August 3, 2013)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Happy 420 Spiritually Electric-Lime Kief Superstition Wilderness Winter Crop

ushempHappy 420, I hope you have a ball: This photo is an example of Arizona’s desert cannabis winter crop recently harvested and hand crafted yesterday for the 420 celebration.

Attributes of the oils in the cannabis plant vary at different stages of growth. I identify this early stage of flowering maturity as: “Peak Fluorescence”. Though the yield is low at this stage of flowering maturity the quality of the resin is “Highly Enlightening”

The natural resin ball I collected and photographed on April 18,2013 depict the “Electric-Lime” color I associate with especially exhilarating, delicious and spiritually satisfying Cannabis Sativa.

Peace and Prosperity to All,

U.S. Hemp

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment