#Arizona Employment Discrimination Lawyer

[rockislandadultreads]

In Memoriam: Sandra Day O'Connor | 1930-2023

Out of Order by Sandra Day O'Connor

From Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the United States Supreme Court, comes this fascinating book about the history and evolution of the highest court in the land.

Out of Order sheds light on the centuries of change and upheaval that transformed the Supreme Court from its uncertain beginnings into the remarkable institution that thrives and endures today. From the early days of circuit-riding, when justices who also served as trial judges traveled thousands of miles per year on horseback to hear cases, to the changes in civil rights ushered in by Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall; from foundational decisions such as Marbury v. Madison to modern-day cases such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, O’Connor weaves together stories and lessons from the history of the Court, charting turning points and pivotal moments that have helped define our nation’s progress.

First by Evan Thomas

She was born in 1930 in El Paso and grew up on a cattle ranch in Arizona. At a time when women were expected to be homemakers, she set her sights on Stanford University. When she graduated near the top of her class at law school in 1952, no firm would even interview her. But Sandra Day O'Connor's story is that of a woman who repeatedly shattered glass ceilings - doing so with a blend of grace, wisdom, humor, understatement, and cowgirl toughness.

She became the first-ever female majority leader of a state senate. As a judge on the Arizona State Court of Appeals, she stood up to corrupt lawyers and humanized the law. When she arrived at the Supreme Court, appointed by Reagan in 1981, she began a quarter-century tenure on the court, hearing cases that ultimately shaped American law. Diagnosed with cancer at fifty-eight, and caring for a husband with Alzheimer's, O'Connor endured every difficulty with grit and poise.

Women and men today will be inspired by how to be first in your own life, how to know when to fight and when to walk away, through O'Connor's example. This is a remarkably vivid and personal portrait of a woman who loved her family and believed in serving her country, who, when she became the most powerful woman in America, built a bridge forward for the women who followed her.

Sisters in Law by Linda Hirshman

The relationship between Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—Republican and Democrat, Christian and Jew, western rancher’s daughter and Brooklyn girl—transcends party, religion, region, and culture. Strengthened by each other’s presence, these groundbreaking judges, the first and second to serve on the highest court in the land, have transformed the Constitution and America itself, making it a more equal place for all women.

Linda Hirshman’s dual biography includes revealing stories of how these trailblazers fought for their own recognition in a male-dominated profession—battles that would ultimately benefit every American woman. She also makes clear how these two justices have shaped the legal framework of modern feminism, including employment discrimination, abortion, affirmative action, sexual harassment, and many other issues crucial to women’s lives.

Sisters-in-Law combines legal detail with warm personal anecdotes that bring these very different women into focus as never before. Meticulously researched and compellingly told, it is an authoritative account of our changing law and culture, and a moving story of a remarkable friendship.

American Heroines by Kay Bailey Hutchison

In American Heroines, Kay Bailey Hutchison presents female pioneers in fields as varied as government, business, education and healthcare, who overcame the resistance and prejudice of their times and accomplished things that no woman - and sometimes no man - had done before. Hutchison, a pioneer in her own right, became the first woman elected to the United States Senate from the State of Texas. Interspersed with the stories of America's historic female leaders are stories of today’s women whose successes are clearly linked to those predecessors.

[elizabethtatelaw45]

Civil Rights Attorney Arizona

Need a civil rights lawyer in Arizona? Elizabeth Tate Law is your trusted advocate for civil rights cases in Phoenix and throughout Arizona. Contact us today for expert legal

Civil Rights Attorney Arizona

About Company:-

Elizabeth D. Tate, Attorney at Law, is a dedicated discrimination attorney who works aggressively to defend her clients’ civil rights. She prides herself on working for real people who want to protect their right to fairness and equality under the law. Whether it is a matter of unfair employment actions, illegal consumer discrimination or a violation of established federal leave entitlements, she has the skill set and the passion to work for you. Your fight is her fight.

Click Here For More Info:- https://www.elizabethtatelaw.com/civil-rights-law/

Social Media Profile Links:-

https://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-D-Tate-Attorney-at-Law/100064083577083/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-tate-7aa93027/

https://x.com/ElizabethP38085

[antoine-roquentin]

In the ruling for Wiley v. State, the court emphasized that officers had violated the “personal liberty of both Capt. Bates and the deceased,” who, “having committed no crime, were entitled to proceed on their way without interruption or molestation.” This presented a broad statement on the rights of drivers. Entitling them to proceed on their way without interruption or molestation necessarily included the corresponding right to decide for themselves whether officers had legal cause to stop them. If they decided that an officer did not, then they would have had the additional right to refuse to pull over. Indeed, the court made this exact suggestion when it stated hypothetically that even if “the Bateses had heard [the officers’] outcries and refused to stop, no inference of guilt could have been reasonably drawn therefrom,” a mandatory inference to justify an interference with the Bateses’ right “to proceed on their way.” The rules of the road according to the Arizona Supreme Court would have made it extremely difficult for officers to stop a car they found suspicious. This was the world of Wiley v. State, when the police were few in number, easily mistaken for highwaymen, and limited in their authority over innocent citizens.

A century later, on July 10, 2015, a Texas state trooper pulled over Sandra Bland for failing to use a turn signal. After a tense dialogue, the traffic stop quickly came to a violent end. The trooper first tried to yank the young black woman from the car before forcing her out with a Taser gun. He then arrested Bland, who was lying face down, crying, and screaming in pain. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell. A year later, the Nation published an article that asked the question that had become a viral hashtag, #WhatHappenedtoSandraBland? To find the answer, the article examined Bland’s life, beginning with her birth to a single mother in Chicago’s West Side. The answer, according to the writer, was not just the neglectful conditions in that Texas county jail that led to her death. The answer was also unemployment, insufficient mental health care, and draconian drug laws.

But another motif, never named, loomed throughout the article. The automobile appeared in nearly every significant setback in Bland’s life. Exorbitant traffic tickets that Bland paid for by “sitting out” in jail. Convictions for driving under the influence and arrest warrants for unpaid traffic fines that severely limited her employment options. Charges for possessing marijuana—her lawyer suspected that Bland was self-medicating—that the police discovered in her car. In Bland’s life, the automobile played a prominent role as a site of violence, poverty, and discrimination.

The overpolicing of cars is a fact of life for people of color in the United States. Although Bland was not killed during the traffic stop, in 2015, the year of her death, 27 percent of police killings of unarmed citizens began with a traffic stop. Bland herself had been increasingly vocal on social media against police abuse and violence against African Americans, especially when the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum after a police officer fatally shot eighteen-year-old Michael Brown. It turned out that what had happened in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, was part of a larger trend. The U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation of the Ferguson Police Department and found “a pattern of unconstitutional policing” that skewed along racial lines. Most encounters with law enforcement, the report concluded, began with a traffic stop, an experience that disproportionately befell Ferguson’s black residents. In 2014 its municipal court had roughly 53,000 traffic cases, compared with about 50,000 nontraffic cases. This pattern was not limited to Ferguson. In their book In Context: Understanding Police Killings of Unarmed Citizens, scholars Nick Selby, Ben Singleton, and Ed Flosi concluded, “No form of direct government control comes close to [traffic] stops in sheer numbers, frequency, proportion of the population affected, and in many instances, the degree of coercive intrusion.”

What is the history that can account for the changes from Wiley v. State to Sandra Bland? Today, it would be improbable that Mrs. Bates, a wealthy white woman sitting in the passenger seat next to her influential husband, would be killed in a police shooting. Such tragedy now happens almost exclusively to minority drivers. Contrary to what one might expect, though, the social and legal developments that made the systematic policing of minorities possible did not originate with an intention to do so.

Instead, the shift began with the mass production of the automobile and the immediate imperative to regulate the motoring public. Before cars, U.S. police had more in common with their eighteenth-century forebears than with their twentieth-century successors. What revolutionized policing was a technological innovation that would come to define the new century. In the span of a century, towns and cities throughout the country—and not just in metropolitan centers—expanded their forces and professionalized beat cops, turning them into “law enforcement officers.” Figures are hard to come by, but one early report indicated that in the sixteen smallest states, the number of officers as a percentage of the population nearly doubled from 1910 to 1930.

Those who became subject to regular police surveillance included not just criminals in getaway cars but, more importantly, and for the first time, the respectable class of citizens who were the automobile’s early adopters. The need to discipline drivers and to do so without giving offense necessitated changes to the police function and to well-established laws. Officers now required discretion to administer the massive traffic enforcement regime and deal with the sensitivities of “law-abiding” citizens who kept violating traffic laws. The law’s accommodation of discretionary policing profoundly altered what it meant to live free from state intrusion in the automotive age. By the Cold War, U.S. society’s dependence on the police to maintain order raised troubling comparisons with totalitarian police. Unforeseen by midcentury jurists, their solution to the potential arbitrary policing of everyone led directly to the problem of discriminatory policing against minorities. Only by considering how U.S. society as a whole came to be policed can we more fully understand the history of our criminal justice and its troubled present.

[laurellynnleake]

Fight To Protect Immigrants! - Resource & Organization Masterlist (updated: 6/22/18)

If you need help and/or want to help others trapped in the brutal US immigration system, let me get you started! Regardless of your time and abilities, you can help in countless ways big and small. Head to Informed Immigrant to find local/national/global orgs supporting undocumented immigrants - you can donate money/time/transportation, join protest actions, register voters, cook dinners, watch kids, and simply provide emotional support to people!

I’ve gathered together some useful links and resources here - please help me spread ‘em around, and add any of your own links and info too (and let me know if you donate/contact reps and I’ll draw you some art).

Calling Scripts: 

Check out Celeste Pewter’s twitter for up-to-date call scripts and resources for contacting your reps and fighting for human rights (@ her or use #Icalledmyreps after you call to get a boost and/or share info). She eventually transcribes most scripts here, but can take several days, so while these links below go to images on twitter I’ve also included captions under the cut.

Tips for calling your electeds

Calling Senate/House for Feinstein/Nadler’s Keep Families Together Act post EO (6/22), and for Texans near the border (6/13)

Call scripts pushing for House/Senators to investigate DHS’s Zero Tolerance Policy (6/22), and for contacting the DOJ/DHS to protest the Zero Tolerence Policy post executive order (6/20)

Call scripts for governors to refuse to send the National Guard to the border (6/22) and calling for Sec Nielson’s resignation (6/18)

Calling Congress re: Kids already separated, and rumors of military lawyers (06/22)

Calling governors, federal reps, and state attorney’s about joining the multi-state lawsuit (6/22)

General Guides for Contacting Reps:

Find My Reps

Resistbot (emails and faxes reps for you)

5calls

Herd on the Hill a FB group of dedicated volunteers who will print out your letters, and deliver them.

How to Call Your Reps When You Have Social Anxiety

Legislative & Organizing Resources:

Join a local protest at FamiliesBelong.org. Donate here.

ACLU Know Your Rights pocket guides includes ICE Visits (ICE Visitas), If Questioned About Imm. Status (Que Hacer Si Le Preguntan Acerca de su Estatus Migratorio), and What To Do If Stopped By Police (Qué Debe Hacer Si la Policía/Agentes de Inmigración/FBI) in English and en Español, as well as guides for protests.

Know Your Rights Handouts: If ICE Raids a Home/Employer/Public Space (AILA) in Español, Chinese, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, & Punjabi

Indivisible’s Immigration News Resources

Indivisible’s Immigrant Ally Toolkit

Tisp for attending protests and rallies and advice for white allies

Look up ICE detention centers here

Internet security: FB centric, basic computer security, more elaborate

Organizations to Join/Support:

Use the Informed Immigrant to find groups near you, find legal aid, and join the fight!  

Pueblos Sin Fronteras provides humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees. Donate here.

Al Otro Lado is a bi-national, direct legal services organization serving indigent deportees/migrants/refugees in Tijuana, Mexico. Donate here.

The Florence Project provides free legal services to adults and unaccompanied children in imm. custody in Arizona. Donate here.

Border Angels serves San Diego County’s immigrant population through various migrant outreach programs such as Day Laborer outreach, a free legal assistance program, and more. Donate here.

RAICES provides free and low-cost legal services to underserved immigrant children, families, and refugees in Texas. Donate here.

The Immigrant Children’s Assistance Project is an American Bar Association project currently helping unaccompanied children in South Texas w/ knowing their rights. Donate here.

United We Dream is the largest immigrant-youth led group in the USA, and their site provides news, event info, as well as guides and toolkits for fighting the system, protecting LGBTQ immigrants, and taking care of your mental health. Donate here.

The Black Alliance for Just Immigration “educates and engages African American and black immigrant communities to organize and advocate for racial, social, and economic justice.” Donate here.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the largest civil rights and advocacy organizations dedicated to fighting against discrimination against Muslims. Click here to donate to the national organization or a specific campaign, or click here to find your local CAIR chapter (which needs your support as much/even more).

CUNY CLEAR provides representation and rights training to Muslim communities targeted by law enforcement. Donate here.

Families for Freedom fights on behalf of families facing deportation. “We are immigrant prisoners (detainees), former immigrant prisoners, their loved ones, or individuals at risk of deportation.” Donate here.

The Immigrant Defense Project uses impact litigation, advocacy, and public education to fight to stop mass deportations and an unjust immigration system. Donate here.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national resource center that helps train immigration lawyers and advocates on the local, state and federal level. Donate here.

The International Rescue Committee works to provide aid to people affected by humanitarian crises. You can donate to specifically support U.S. refugee resettlement programs re: Trump’s Muslim Ban here, and see other ways to get involved (volunteering/calling reps) here.

The International Refugee Assistance Project works to organize lawyers and law students to fight for the human and legal rights of refugees through legal aid and policy advocacy. For legal help click here, and to donate click here.

Make the Road New York uses policy advocacy, organizing, education, and survival services (including workforce training and adult education) to improve the lives of immigrants—in particular Latino and working class communities—in NYC. Donate here, get involved here.

Mariposas Sin Fronteras works with LGBTQ people detained in immigration facilities and works to get vulnerable detainees out on bond. Donate here.

MPower Change does grassroots organizing, campaigning, and storytelling to empower Muslim communities in the USA. Donate here.

National Immigration Law Center works for the rights of low-income immigrants through impact legislation, policy analysis and advocacy, communications, and education programs. Donate here.

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project offers legal services directly to immigrants with its network of 350 pro-bono attorneys. Donate here.

Remember, one person alone can’t do everything, so please take care of yourself and each other - but if we all do a little, we can make a difference together!

Captions for the Pewter call scripts under the cut, as well as a list of pro-bono legal aid and therapist volunteers organized by Joanna Rothkopf.

Tips for calling your electeds, especially if you’re leaving a VM

If you’re leaving a voicemail, make sure you clearly state your name and where you are calling from. (Zip, etc.)

Make sure you have a concrete ask, or specify a specific opinion. Imagine a staffer asking: “What’s the best outcome/resolution for you?” and frame your comment that way. E.g. If you want them to specifically oppose an amendment, say that, and explain why.

Always clarify if you would like a response, and leave a way for the office to reach you. (Phone number, email, etc.)

If you have another issue, bring it up on the phone at the time. Always personalize your comments.

For Cruz/Cornyn constituents on the TX detention facilities: (06/18, tweaked by OP)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [zıp code]. You: I am calling today to ask [Cruz/Cornyn] take a stand... 

Opposing the detention facilities for young people in Texas, and

To also oppose the DHS’s overall zero tolerance policy.

You: The horrific conditions being experienced by these children are absolutely unacceptable, and betray the values of our state.

You: <Insert optional comments here>

You: Furthermore, I am also calling on [Cruz/Cornyn] to support their colleague Senator Feinstein’s Keep Families Together Act. President Trump has clearly and repeatedly stated he would support a bill to keep families together, so I expect [Cruz/Cornyn] to follow the GOP agenda.

Call the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Talking points for Texas residents re: local/state electeds re: the detention facilities (06/13)

What did the city/county/state know about these proposals to hold children in warehouses, with limited access to fresh air? Does local city/county/state official condone these practices?

If yes: does [official] understand that these kids are in conditions that are comparable to what certain criminals experience in jail?

If no: great. How will [elected] address this with their federal counterparts? I do not support facilities like these, and want [elected] to exert all possible pressure with their federal counterparts.

Will [elected] come out with a public statement condemning these facilities?

Call the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTEPEWTER

For House/Senators re: DHS’s Zero tolerance policy (opening investigations) Talking points post-Trump executive order (6/20)

The Executive Order would only create family detention centers which would continue to lead to expanded camps.

The executive order doesn't offer recourse for reuniting already- separated families The EO gives wide discretion to DHS Secretary Nielsen

Crossing the border will be deemed a criminal violation, vs. a civil one (which will lead to parents being charged criminally; and children likely being taken)

The EO doesn't address asylum seekers, and will still prohibit anyone seeking asylum under domestic violence/gang violence from seeking asylum

The House bill (Border Security and Immigration Reform Act) will also not fully address these concerns.

Call the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Talking points re: the DOJ/DHS following Trump's Executive Order signing (6/20)

Ask the DOJ/DHS stop lying about the origins of zero tolerance policy - it's well documented it's a Trump Administration policy

Stop using Flores to justify this policy.

Stop saying it's about the wall. Democrats have actually offered funding for the wall before (during the DACA debate) and the GOP/Trump Administration passed. This is NOT about the wall

Per news reports this morning, DHS thought the zero tolerance policy would deter border crossings. According to public documents sited by outlets like the Hill, crossings have actually gone up, including crossings by unaccompanied minor children

The Executive order doesn't have a recourse for how families will be reunited. How will the DOJ/DHS address this?

Stop insisting this is up to Congress to act - this is a DHS/DOJ created problem

Call your SENATORS post-Trump's executive order signing re: family separation (06/22)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [zip code} You: I am calling to ask Senators to continue to do everything in their legislative power to address the DHS/DOJ's zero tolerance policy. You: This week's executive order does not adequately solve the problem of family separation; it just creates family detention centers, and doesn't address the overarching problem. You: We also need clarity on how this executive order helps the children who have already been separated. The administration is claiming 500 kids have been reunited. When will we get proof? When is this rumored staging ground in Texas supposed to be complete?

Dem Senators: Finally, I'd like to call on [Senator] to continue to express support for Feinstein's Keep Families Together Act. GOP Senators: I am calling on [Senator] to support Feinstein's Keep Families Together. You: <Additional comments>

Call the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Call both chambers re: asking for Secretary Nielsen's resignation (06/18)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [zip code]. You: I am calling on [elected] to issue a public statement to ask for Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation. Not only has she been complicit in helping the Trump Administration institute their new zero tolerance policy, she has lied repeatedly to the public on the policy, and what it does and doesn't do. You: I am calling on [elected] to follow in congressional colleague Senator Kamala Harris's footsteps, and call for Secretary Nielsen's resignation immediately. You: <insert optional comment>

Call the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Call your GOVERNORS and ask them to direct the national guard to NOT send resources to the border (06/18)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [zip code].

You: I am calling to ask [GOVERNOR] to please follow Governor Baker of Massachusetts, by instructing the national guard to not deploy to the US-Mexico border. The National Guard cannot and should not be used to further assist in enforcing the Zero Tolerance policy being enacted by the Trump Administration.

You: I am also calling on [GOVERNOR] to commit to signing an executive order similar to Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado, prohibiting any state resources from being used to asssist the Trump Administration's efforts to enforce the zero tolerance policy. I understand it's largely ceremonial, but I want [GOVERNOR] to commit to taking a stand.

You: <insert optional comments here>

Find your governor's contact info here: https://openstates.org #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Talking points re: JAG corps allegedly being assigned to try cases at the border (06/22)

JAG lawyers have different rules to follow than civilian lawyers. How can we be sure they'll follow proper procedure when trying cases? How will any appeals process on behalf of the defendant be impacted (if applicable) given that military and civilian appeals are different?

WHY are we letting DHS/HHS utilize DOD resources, for something that is strictly in DHS/HHS territory? What is the justification?

Should we not be concerned we're allowing military personnel to handle civilian affairs? This is conflating multiple departments and cross issues.

Call the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Call your GOVERNORS and ask them to continue issuing directives to NOT support border efforts + support their requests for clarity on children in their respective states (06/22)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [zip code]

You: I am calling to ask [GOVERNOR] to continue to refuse to utilize any state resources that would help the federal government's zero tolerance policy. [GOVERNOR] should commit to signing an executive order similar to Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado.

If there are children in your state: I am also calling on [Governor] to continue to be vocal on the need to get accurate numbers on how many children are in our state, and where these facilities are. I ask [Governor] to do everything in their power to tour these facilities. Accountability is needed. You: <insert optional comments here>

Find your governor's contact info here: https://openstates.org #ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Call your local electeds to request a resolution condemning the zero tolerance policy/family separation (6/22)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [address/zip code].

You: I am calling to ask [MAYOR/CITY COUNCILMEMBER] to please endorse a resolution that makes clear [CITY] does not condone the Trump Administration's current immigration practices, including family separation, family detention centers, and the refusal to provide asylum to those who are seeking it under domestic violence and gang violence.

You: Yesterday's federal executive order does little to solve the problem. Families are still separated, and the executive order only opens up the pathway to family detention centers.

You: I am calling on [MAYOR/CITY COUNCILMEMBER] to show what our city stands for, and take a stand. You: <insert optional comment here>

#ICALLEDMYREPS @CELESTE PEWTER

Call your Attorneys general, and ask them to join the multi-state lawsuit. (06/22)

You: Hi, my name is [name]. I am calling from [zip code].

You: I am calling on [AG] to join the other state attorneys generals who are planning on suing the Trump Administration to compel reunification for the 2.3K children separated from their families.

You: As Maryland's AG Frosh confirmed in an interview: the executive order does not adequately address the problems that have resulted in family separation; including how to reunite the families, and the government appears to not have a concrete plan.

You: Please sign onto the lawsuit and compel the administration to act.

You: <insert optional comment>

Find your AG: http://www.naag.org/naag/attorneys- general/whos-my-ag.php

Attorneys:

Ted Colquett, Birmingham, AL -  ted@colquettlaw.com, (205) 245-4370

Morgan Petriello, Los Angeles, CA - mpetriello@frandzel.com, (323) 651-2577

Elleni Kalouris, Chicago suburbs, IL - ekalouris@kalourislawfirm.com

Therapists:

Muni Olia, Philadelphia, PA - Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist - munira.olia@nyu.edu

Ruth Durack, MSW, Peoria, IL - Social Worker - ruth.durack@lssi.org

Lauren Fallon, LCSW, IL - Social Worker - lauren.brown04@gmail.com

Jennifer Goldstein, Chicago, IL - Therapist - jennifergoldstein2@gmail.com

Gloria Jetter, LMSW, New York, NY - Social Worker - glojetter@gmail.com

Note: These attorneys and therapists/psychiatrists were shared via Jezebel, and have not been vetted by the website; their inclusion on the list is by request.If you are an attorney or therapist who would like to offer your services to immigrants and refugees pro-bono, email Joanna Rothkopf with your contact information at joanna@jezebel.com. The descriptions I found for many of these resources are also courtesy of Rothkopf and Pewter.

Please consider boosting this post, @phonescripts​, @justsomeantifas​, and @nativenews​! 

[employeelawoffice-blog]

Find best employment discrimination lawyers Phoenix, Arizona? Employee Law Office is one of the best law firms offers employment discrimination lawyer in Phoenix Arizona. For more information please visit our website https://employeelawoffice.com/

[elizabethtatelaw45]

Civil Rights Attorney Phoenix

Need a civil rights lawyer in Arizona? Elizabeth Tate Law is your trusted advocate for civil rights cases in Phoenix and throughout Arizona. Contact us today for expert legal

Civil Rights Attorney Phoenix

About Company:-

Elizabeth D. Tate, Attorney at Law, is a dedicated discrimination attorney who works aggressively to defend her clients’ civil rights. She prides herself on working for real people who want to protect their right to fairness and equality under the law. Whether it is a matter of unfair employment actions, illegal consumer discrimination or a violation of established federal leave entitlements, she has the skill set and the passion to work for you. Your fight is her fight.

Click Here For More Info:- https://www.elizabethtatelaw.com/civil-rights-law/

Social Media Profile Links:-

https://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-D-Tate-Attorney-at-Law/100064083577083/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-tate-7aa93027/

https://x.com/ElizabethP38085

[thelawyerking]

Rachel talks about anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws and employment and how there are some gray areas that need to be navigated.

Call or text 951-834-7715 or visit 💻 www.thelawyerking.com

* Not intended to be legal advice or counsel ⚖️

#thelawyerking #legal #law #california #arizona #californialaw #arizonalaw #womeninlaw #legalwomen #womanlawyers #womanownedbusiness #womenowned #smallbusinessowner #smallbiz #veteran #veteranownedbusiness #veteranowned #VetOwnedBiz #lawyer #familylaw #attorney #litigation #lawyers #attorneys #lawfirm #divorce #courts #courtroom

[expatimes]

Repression of speech and scholarship on Palestine needs to end | Middle East

In an open letter, more than a thousand academics and lawyers call on academic and government institutions around the world to cease subjecting those defending justice for Palestinians to censorship and penalization.

As lawyers and academics, we are deeply troubled and exasperated by the pervasive repression of speech and scholarship on Palestine. This includes recent reports that the University of Toronto's Faculty of law rescinded an employment offer to noted international human rights scholar Valentina Azarova, following a complaint by a sitting judge regarding her research on Israel's occupation policies *.

The reported treatment of Azarova is consistent with a broader and intensifying climate of suppression. Lawyers, academics, journalists, teachers, artists, students, activists, and trade unions in Canada have been subjected to smear campaigns, event cancellations, physical violence, professional disciplinary measures, and condemnation by the prime minister and other political leaders for opposing Israel's gross Violations of international law and expressing solidarity with Palestinians. In August, Indigenous CBC journalist Duncan McCue was required to apologise simply for using the word “Palestine” on-air.

The situation in Canada mirrors that of other countries. In the United States, for example, 1,494 incidents taking aim at free speech were reported to NGO Palestine Legal from 2014 to 2019; 74 percent were directed at students and academics at universities. In France, rights activists have been criminally convicted for their support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign pressuring Israel to comply with international law. This criminalisation was recently condemned by the European Court of Human Rights as a violation of freedom of expression.

The clampdown threatens to be further exacerbated by the institutionalization of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism.

As a 2018 letter from more than 40 Jewish organizations around the world warns: “The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former. A statement signed by more than 400 academics opposes the implementation of this definition in Canada for this reason.

Even the original drafter of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has cautioned against “enshrin[ing] this definition into law ”due to the danger of legally conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Yet Ontario's Bill 168 proposes to do precisely that, by mandating the use of the IHRA definition to interpret anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws. Motions to adopt this problematic definition have also been tabled in municipal councils across the country.

The intensification of speech repression coincides with the intensification of Palestinian oppression and dispossession, with Israel's planned formal annexation of Palestinian territory - denounced by 48 UN human rights experts as the "crystallisation of an already unjust reality."

In the face of these gross and flagrant transgressions, it is vital that the space for scholarship, speech, and activism in defense of the most basic rights of Palestinians be preserved. This includes the work of scholars such as Azarova. It is highly perturbing when academic institutions and law faculties - instead of protecting free speech and fundamental rights - are participants in the suppression.

We call on the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to restore Azarova's employment offer and issue an apology. We also call on the Canadian Judicial Council to investigate the conduct of the judge who complained about Azarova's appointment. And we call on all academic and government institutions to cease subjecting those defending justice for Palestinians to censorship and penalization.

Signatories:

Judith Butler: University of California, Berkeley

Diana Buttu: lawyer, University of Toronto Faculty of Law alumnus

Noam Chomsky: Laureate Professor, University of Arizona; Institute Professor (emeritus), MIT

Angela Davis: Professor Emerita, UCSC

John Dugard SC: Emeritus Professor of Law, Leiden and Witwatersrand; former Judge ad hoc, International Court of Justice

Noura Erakat: Assistant Professor, Rutgers University-New Brunswick

Richard Falk: Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University

Mireille Fanon-Mendes-France: former UN Expert on People of African Descent

Leilani Farha: former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing (2014-2020); Global Director, The Shift

Guy S Goodwin-Gill: Professor of Law, University of New South Wales; Emeritus Professor of International Refugee Law and Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, University of Oxford

Ghada Karmi: doctor; author; Former Research Fellow, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter

Robin DG Kelley: Gary B Nash Endowed Chair in US History, UCLA

Viet Nguyen: University Professor, University of Southern California; Pulitzer Prize winner, Literature

Ilan Pappe: University of Exeter

Avi Shlaim: Emeritus Professor of International Relations, University of Oxford

Full list of 1300+ signatories can be viewed here.

* University of Toronto denies an official employment offer was ever made to Valentina Azerova.

The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

#world Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=11260&feed_id=8282

[ladystylestores]

#MeTooSTEM founder admits to creating Twitter persona who “died” of COVID-19

Enlarge / Twitter drama erupted over the weekend when a much-beloved online persona supposedly died of COVID-19 complications—only to be exposed as a fake account/catfishing scheme by controversial neuroscientist and #MeTooSTEM founder BethAnn McLaughlin.

A segment of science Twitter was rocked over the weekend by the discovery that a long-standing, pseudonymous online member had died of COVID-19-related complications. But grief quickly turned to shock, hurt, and anger when the deceased turned out to have never existed. Rather, it was a sock puppet account that we now know was created and maintained by BethAnn McLaughlin, a neuroscientist and founder of the #MeTooSTEM advocacy group whose Twitter handle is @McLNeuro.

“I take full responsibility for my involvement in creating the @Sciencing_Bi Twitter account,” McLaughlin said in a statement provided to The New York Times through her lawyer. “My actions are inexcusable. I apologize without reservation to all the people I hurt. As I’ve reflected on my actions the last few days, it’s become clear to me that I need mental health treatment, which I’m pursuing now. My failures are mine alone, so I’m stepping away from all activities with #MeTooSTEM to ensure that it isn’t unfairly criticized for my actions.”

This certainly isn’t the first time a fake persona has manifested on social media. Way back in 2003, controversial American Enterprise Institute scholar John R. Lott Jr.. was outed by The Washington Post for creating a sock-puppet online persona, “Mary Rosh,” purportedly a former student, and using it to mount spirited defenses of his work online. In 2017, there was the case of “Jenna Abrams,” who boasted 70,000 Twitter followers; the fake persona was so convincing that she managed to spread a viral rumor that CNN’s local Boston station had accidentally aired 30 minutes of pornography late one night in November 2016.

In 2019, we had the strange case of Eugene Gu, a former surgery resident at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who went viral on Twitter a few years ago after taking a knee in his hospital scrubs in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick. An investigation by The Verge revealed evidence that Gu operated several sock puppet Twitter accounts, most notably one under the name @MaryLauryMD (since deleted). And just last month, The Daily Beast exposed a network of fake op-ed writers who had been placing editorials on Middle East policy with conservative outlets, such as Newsmax and the Washington Examiner.

But the particular case of @Sciencing_Bi is unique because of its unusually long duration—the Twitter account was created in October 2016—and the absence of any obvious financial motive that is a common feature of catfishing scams.

“I’ve been acquainted with that account for years, and nothing seemed unusual about it,” Greg Gbur told Ars. He’s a physicist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and he interacted occasionally with @Sciencing_Bi on Twitter. He never noticed anything amiss. “She seemed like a nice person, passionate about STEM representation. No indication of a scam for money or anything like that. It’s all a bit mystifying.”

Tweets and sympathy

Screen cap of @Sciencing_Bi tweet detailing her struggles with COVID-19.

Greg Gbur

@Sciencing_Bi tweet: “Anyone want to guess my hospital bill for my in patient stay in the ICU for 15 days?”

Greg Gbur

@Sciencing_Bi tweet: “I need a solid comeback to people telling me how lucky I was to get COVID-19 early.”

Greg Gbur

@Sciencing_Bi tweet: “Still struggling hard with recovery”

Greg Gbur

@McLNeuro (BethAnn McLaughlin) tweet announcing death of @Sciencing_Bi.

Jennifer Ouellette

@McLNeuro tweet: “It just didn’t occur to me that she’d die.”

Jennifer Ouellette

@McLNeuro tweet: “She wanted me to get a tattoo that matched hers”

Jennifer Ouellette

@McLNeuro tweet: “She was forced by her university to teach in person until April.”

Jennifer Ouellette

@Sciencing_Bi, identified on her profile only as “Alepo,” claimed to be a female bisexual Native American anthropologist at Arizona State University who was involved with combatting discrimination and sexual harassment in the scientific community. She had a modest follower count (about 2,400) and interacted frequently with several well-known scientists, science writers, and science communicators on Twitter. (Full disclosure: while I never interacted with the account myself, I know many of those on science Twitter who did.)

In April, she announced that she had contracted COVID-19 and subsequently documented a months-long struggle with the disease. She specifically blamed her employer, ASU, for her plight, and she claiming that she and other teachers, staff, and students had been forced to remain on campus well into April. She also asserted that the school had cut her salary by 15 percent while she was hospitalized. Then on Friday, July 31, McLaughlin tweeted that @Sciencing_Bi—purportedly a close friend—had died of complications from COVID-19, followed by a series of impassioned tweets eulogizing her late friend.

There was the usual online outpouring of condolences and grief alongside outrage at her plight and purported mistreatment by ASU. McLaughlin even set up a Zoom memorial service for @Sciencing_Bi; those attending included noted University of California, Berkeley, biologist Michael Eisen and Melissa Bates, a physiologist at the University of Iowa.

Huh.

That’s when things got weird. Both Eisen and Bates were surprised that only five people, including themselves and McLaughlin, attended the virtual memorial—no former students, no colleagues, no friends, and no family members. As Bates noted in a twitter thread, “This is a community. And if this person was part of the community, where was the community?” Bates’ suspicions were aroused in earnest when McLaughlin told her that Sciencing_Bi had mentioned her in her will. “You don’t leave sh*t to randos on the Internet when you’re first gen and you’ve got an undocumented family,” Bates tweeted. “You do everything for your familia.”

Additional details revealed during the service seemed didn’t seem to add up. Several photographs that @Sciencing_Bi tweeted turned out to be stock photos. And while @Sciencing_Bi had been well-known online to many in the sci-comm community, it turned out that nobody had actually met her in real life—except for McLaughlin.

Others found it odd that there was no outside confirmation of @Sciencing_Bi’s death from ASU or a local obituary. “We have been looking into this for the last 24 hours and cannot verify any connection with the university,” ASU spokesperson Katie Paquet told BuzzFeed News on Monday. “We have been in touch with several deans and faculty members and no one can identify the account or who might be behind it. We also have had no one, such as a family member or friend, report a death to anyone at the university.” ASU also denied that there had been any salary cuts and said that, like most other educational institutions, the university had shut down in March and switched to online classes. By Sunday, Eisen and many others publicly acknowledged that they’d been had: the person they had known as @Sciencing_Bi had never existed.

Attention next turned to identifying the person behind the fake account. For Twitter sleuths, McLaughlin was the most obvious suspect. McLaughlin is a polarizing figure within the community after having risen to prominence as an advocate for victims of sexual harassment in STEM. She shared MIT Media Lab’s Disobedience Award in 2018 with biologist Sherry Marts and #MeToo movement founder Tarana Burke. She also founded #MeTooSTEM.

Twitter sleuths on the case

Melissa Bates tweet: “The weirdest sh*t went down.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Rachel Leingang tweets image of her email exchange with BethAnn McLaughlin.

Jennifer Ouellette

Isabel Ott tweet: “I have seen no credible evidence that this was a real person.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Isabel Ott tweet offering evidence of stock photos tweeted by @Sciencing_Bi.

Jennifer Ouellette

Screenshot of tweeted group photo in which @Sciencing_Bi was tagged, but not shown.

Jennifer Ouellette

Isabel Ott tweets “more stock photo weirdness.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Amber Barnard tweets screenshot of Google doc invite from McLauglin on behalf of @Sciencing_Bi.

Jennifer Ouellette

Isabel Ott tweet: “There is still no evidence that an ASU lecturer died last week.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Jacquelyn Gill tweet: “I’m now convinced @Sciencing_Bi was a fake account.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Shrew tweet: “A lack of credibility, consistency, and accountability, is a problem no matter who you are.”

Jennifer Ouellette

But allegations soon emerged that McLaughlin bullied and harassed others, especially people of color. She also faced accusations of a lack of transparency. The entire #MeTooSTEM board would eventually resign, leaving just McLaughlin herself and a single volunteer listed on the site.

Could McLaughlin actually have concocted the @Sciencing_Bi persona? There were strong hints this might be the case. For instance, a July 2018 tweet in which McLaughlin claimed to be with @Sciencing_Bi at Yosemite National Park was accompanied by a photograph, but the partially obscured person in the picture turned out to be McLaughlin’s daughter, not @Sciencing_Bi. (McLaughlin admitted as much to Gizmodo.)

@Sciencing_Bi was tagged in a group photo at a 2019 academic conference, along with several others, but she was not depicted in the photograph. Analytical chemist Amber Barnard tweeted about a 2019 exchange with @Sciencing_Bi when she volunteered to help with a campaign last year to get McLaughlin’s tenure restored at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. @Sciencing_Bi promised to send access to a Google doc, but when the invitation came, it was from McLaughlin’s account.

All of this is technically circumstantial evidence, of course. But most of those who were duped were soon convinced that McLaughlin was behind the account, even though she initially denied the allegations. Gizmodo’s Ed Cara spoke with McLaughlin on the telephone, reporting:

She stuck by her claim that @Sciencing_Bi had died from covid-19, as far as she knew. When I asked how she had learned of the death, she only would say that it was through a family contact. I then asked if she would be willing to reveal the identity of @Sciencing_Bi, and she said no. She also denied being the creator of the account. McLaughlin did admit, however, that she had access to the @Sciencing_Bi account, though she went on to state that it was not her who made the account private.

Her response to BuzzFeed was more succinct: “I’m not going to dox anyone. Thank you for your interest.” Now, of course, she has doxxed herself with her admission of guilt to The New York Times.

Both McLaughlin’s and Sciencing_Bi’s accounts were suspended late Sunday night by Twitter for violating the platform’s terms of use, and the Twitter account for MeTooSTEM has been slapped with a “suspicious activity” label. As BuzzFeed, Gizmodo, and Arizona Republic reporter Rachel Leingang all noted in their reporting, Twitter declined to elaborate further regarding the evidence on which its decision was based (e.g., whether there was any hard evidence linking the two accounts). McLaughlin has since been removed from the editorial board of the Journal of Neuroscience and no longer has access to the associated rogue joke account Twitter, according to editor in chief Marina Picciotto, a Yale neuroscientist.

The aftermath

Josh Fessel tweet: “No matter what the truth turns out to be, my heart is broken.”

Jennifer Ouellette

McLNeuro tweet: “I’m going to say something and be quiet.”

Jennifer Ouellette

McLNeuro tweet: “I’m in a position of privilege to be able to use my real name on a real account.”

Jennifer Ouellette

McLNeuro tweet: “It will likely get worse before it gets better.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Screenshot showing @Sciencing_Bi account suspension notice.

Jennifer Ouellette

Screenshot showing @McLNeuro account suspension notice.

Jennifer Ouellette

Screenshot showing #MeTooSTEM account temporarily restricted notice.

Jennifer Ouellette

Rachel Leingang reporting Twitter’s confirmation of the suspension.

Jennifer Ouellette

Marina Picciotto tweet: “BethAnn is no longer on the editorial board of the Journal of Neuroscience.”

Jennifer Ouellette

Michael Eisen’s screen cap of McLaughlin’s admission of guilt.

Jennifer Ouellette

It might be surprising that so many smart people fell for what, in retrospect, seems to be a fairly obvious hoax. But the online science community has a long history of incorporating pseudonymous personas going back to the earliest days of science blogging, when many scientists—especially those without tenure—wanted to avoid being penalized by their departments for blogging. (I still occasionally think of science writer Bethany Brookshire by her early pseudonym, Scicurious.) So the inclination to give someone the benefit of the doubt for using a pseudonym was already established. All McLaughlin needed, according to Eisen, was plausibility, a connection, and a good hook to gain the community’s trust. The @Sciencing_Bi persona had all three elements.

“It’s not like we don’t know there are trolls and sock puppets, etc.,” Eisen told Ars. “But this account was good. It had a backstory. It had a reason for being a pseud that we all accepted easily because we understand how people who aren’t straight feel in a tenuous position with regard to employment, and a pseud is a natural for them. We also saw that people we know exist said they knew her. That was enough to pretty quickly elevate this person to reality. She just seemed like one of us.”

The account was so convincing that nobody who interacted with her on Twitter thought to verify her various claims, many of which were easily checked. For example, Eisen admitted that he naively took @Sciencing_Bi’s word for odd claims like the 15 percent paycut from ASU. “I was willing to excuse various idiosyncrasies of the account because I could chalk them up to her not being totally forthcoming in order to protect her identity,” he said. “Plenty of people either obscure or fake their institutional affiliations to maintain anonymity.”

But why?

McLaughlin’s motives for creating the sock puppet account are also puzzling to many. Here, one can only speculate. But attention on social media is a form of capital in its own right; we’ve all experienced the occasional rush of dopamine from a positive online interaction—or the shot of adrenaline when our sense of outrage is triggered. In McLaughlin’s case, it seems she sought to counter criticism for her alleged harassment of people of color by creating an indigenous sock puppet—a cool bisexual Hopi scientist—to defend her.

“‘I have POC friends’ is a line used across the racist spectrum, but inventing your POC friend is next level,” a researcher and organizer who frequently deals with misinformation, but asked not to be identified, told Ars.

McLaughlin also may have derived satisfaction from manufacturing a series of personal crises for @Sciencing_Bi in order to provoke an outpouring of sympathy without having to reveal her true self. The New York Times article quotes psychiatrist Dr. Marc Feldman, who specializes in what he has dubbed “Munchausen by internet.” This is the virtual version of Munchausen syndrome by proxy—and a behavior that he is seeing more of during the ongoing pandemic. “I think it happens online more than offline these days because it’s so easy to mislead people via social media,” Feldman told The New York Times. “Nobody wants to be near a Covid-19 sufferer so they say, ‘We can’t meet.’ There’s no way to arrange a face-to-face meeting.”

Ultimately, McLaughlin’s fatal mistake was the decision to kill off her @Sciencing_Bi persona and make false, easily disproven accusations against ASU. That drew the attention of actual ASU faculty members on Twitter, among others, who quickly weighed in to correct the record and sparked widespread suspicion. Twitter drama may be most effective when it’s relevant to the current sociopolitical discourse, but too much relevance risks real scrutiny—and the @Sciencing_Bi persona wasn’t created to withstand such scrutiny.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/30uugJG

[judahuiyp802]

The Results Of Medications As Well As Drug On Sex As Well As Libido

"I wouldn't be a good attorney unless I prefaced this article by incorporating disclaimers:

1) Marijuana is still a controlled schedule I substance and is illegal in the eyes from the Federal Government from the United States;

2) This article is to never be construed as legal services, nor should take the place of the advice associated with an attorney, and you ought to check with a lawyer before taking any actions in furtherance of the subject theme of this article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws within the State of Arizona. However, it's going to still take the time before medical marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for that drafting with the rules surrounding the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, necessities such as important periods of time that should be paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft with the medical marijuana rules must be released making intended for reply to this date.

January 7, 2011: This will probably be the deadline for public discuss the first draft of rules stated previously.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules will probably be released about this date. Once again, it's going to be intended for informal comment as within the draft referred to above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will likely be held concerning the proposed rules at this time, after which the ultimate rules is going to be published to the Secretary of State making public on the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules go into effect and become published in the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is vital that all the time during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests unlike that regarding medicinal marijuana advocates may also be making presentations, and may even convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to gain access to it if you have no voice to advocate in favor of patients' rights.

Some key points about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana for their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in such a way restricted to normal medical doctors. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana for patients.

-In order to be prescribed medical cannabis, an individual should be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient means someone who has been diagnosed by a ""physician"" (as defined above) as creating a ""debilitating medical condition.""

-Debilitating medical ailments include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or treatments for these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment who makes several from the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other problem or its treatment added with the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined since it is very important through the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to include conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously nearly impossible to find to alter any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments may be exercised throughout the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore crucial that, in the event that the addition of health concerns is known as during the consultations, any stakeholder who wishes to get a medical condition unpublished inside first 2 bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for the Department to add the excess medical problem for the set of debilitating health conditions. In order to boost the prestige associated with a presentations designed to justify adding health concerns under Section 36-2801.01, it might be necessary to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed health professionals who is able to testify in writing at people hearings about why the proposed condition should be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana being a treatment for the proposed condition may be helpful, as would medical journals for the subject.

It must be remembered that despite west wendover dispensary his cheery YouTube videos regarding the medical cannabis rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition to the passing of Proposition 203. He did so about the grounds the FDA doesn't test the drug, and although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should not trusted just as one authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to believe that Director Humble is going to be any less inclined to obstruct using medical marijuana in the rulemaking stage, and all sorts of proponents of medicinal marijuana should be guaranteed to make their voices heard on the consultations to avoid the obstruction from the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There are other provisions in Proposition 203 which is going to be discussed throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they're going to apt to be the main objective of the consultations. The consultations will create rules:

* Governing the way in which where the Department of Health Services encourage the petitions from the population earlier mentioned, regarding the addition of health concerns on the list with the already enshrined debilitating medical ailments.

* Establishing the shape and content of registration and renewal applications submitted underneath the medical cannabis law.

* Governing the way when the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical marijuana ID cards.

* Governing various aspects around the newly legalized nonprofit medicinal marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, as well as other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medicinal marijuana dispensary applications.

The vital part from the consultation period will be concerning the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to create the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it will have the consequence of reducing the availability of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving inside the price of medicinal marijuana due for the insufficient supply. It could simply become expensive to conform to all with the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medicinal marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists with a amount of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules will have a negative effect around the patients this Proposition should certainly help. The proposed rules have not appear yet, however when they certainly, they ought to be closely scrutinized for your possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries might have on patients.

The other major factor in the rulemaking should do using the fees. The Department will probably be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries through the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that this fees may not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with a few lobbying throughout the public consultation, it is possible that this actual fees is going to be significantly less because these are merely the utmost how the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical marijuana users will likely be prohibited in certain circumstances. Based on our analysis, an individual might not exactly:

* As a school or landlord, will not enroll someone you aren't penalize them solely because of their status like a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not this would result inside lack of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions with them since they're a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing this would result inside loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers may still terminate employees if the employee is possessing or impaired by marijuana about the premises with the office or in the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana must be treated because other medication prescribed by way of a physician.

* Be prevented, like a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time which has a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger towards the safety of the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are particular prohibitions on discrimination, there are also provisions which allow discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical help programs and personal health insurers are certainly not required to reimburse someone for his or her medical marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business owners, is required to allow medicinal marijuana on their premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, whilst they cannot refuse tenants based on their own as being a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana to the landlord's property).

* Employers are not required to allow cardholders to become within the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, the presence of marijuana inside the body which is not of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment will not establish being underneath the influence of it.

Rules Related towards the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the final rules around security, recordkeeping, and also other requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries will never be established until April 2011, there are certain requirements which can be enshrined in Proposition 203 itself which enable it to be known ahead from the time that the ultimate rules emerge. These minimal requirements may well not be as restrictive as the final requirements that are published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries should be nonprofit. They have to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they desire not considered tax-exempt with the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents from the dispensaries must include provisions to the oversight of the dispensary and then for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary must have a single secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter preventing the theft of marijuana and unauthorized usage of areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary must not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for virtually any purpose other than providing it right to a cardholder in order to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana will need to take place only at a locked, enclosed facility in a physical address provided towards the Department of Health Services through the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered with the Department.

* A dispensary can get marijuana coming from a patient of their caregiver, but only if your patient or caregiver receives no compensation correctly.

* No use of marijuana is permitted for the property of the dispensary.

* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection with the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice in the inspection for the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is simply by no means the same as the law in California. There are certainly some differences involving the two, though in some respects they're comparable. This is a comparative analysis in the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as being a practical matter, allow for broad discretion around the part of your physician to prescribe marijuana to patients that are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" is the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits lifespan of the patient to conduct one or more major life activities as defined with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or that if not alleviated, will cause serious harm on the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have many illnesses that happen to be automatically considered qualifying illnesses for your prescription of medicinal marijuana. These include, but are not limited to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws need the use of an identification card by those that have been prescribed medical cannabis, following the cardholders have undergone a basic application process where the use of the drug may be recommended with a physician.

* Both states usually do not factor inside unusable portion in the marijuana plant in determining the maximum weight of marijuana which is permissible for possession by way of a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have never been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it will be regulated for the state level and thus uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly on the municipal level, and thus the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly from one municipality on the next.

* The Arizona law supplies a broader spectrum of people who are thought a ""physician"" for your purpose of prescribing medical marijuana. In California, only health professionals and osteopaths are believed to be physicians. In Arizona, as well as health professionals and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will also be able to prescribe medical cannabis.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in lieu of using a medical cannabis dispensary. In Arizona, patients may possibly grow marijuana or designate somebody else to take action in lieu of going to a dispensary on the condition that there are no dispensary operating within 25 miles in the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is only 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

"

[brooksrkvz148-blog]

Colorado Medical Cannabis Dispensaries

"I would not be a fantastic attorney unless I prefaced this information with some disclaimers:

1) Marijuana continues to be a controlled schedule I substance which is illegal inside eyes with the Federal Government from the United States;

2) This article is to never be construed as legal counsel, nor is supposed to take the place of the advice of the attorney, and you should consult with a lawyer when considering any actions in furtherance with the material of this information. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which could exempt certain people from controlled substances laws within the State of Arizona. However, it'll still take some time before medical marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for your drafting with the rules around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, these are the basic important periods of time that ought to be paid close focus on:

December 17, 2010: The first draft with the medical marijuana rules should be released generating available for reply to this date.

January 7, 2011: This will probably be the deadline for public reply to the 1st draft of rules stated earlier.

January 31, 2011: The second draft from the rules will likely be released for this date. Once again, it is going to be readily available for informal comment as within the draft known as above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will probably be held concerning the proposed rules currently, after which a final rules will probably be listed in the Secretary of State generating public around the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical marijuana rules will go into effect and become published in the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is essential that at all times during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests despite those of medical marijuana advocates can also be making presentations, and may convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or people that may qualify gain access to it if you have no voice to advocate for patients' rights.

Some key points about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medical marijuana for his or her patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in ways limited to normal medical doctors. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted recommend marijuana for his or her patients.

-In order to be prescribed medical marijuana, an individual have to be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is described as anyone who has been diagnosed by the ""physician"" (as defined above) as developing a ""debilitating condition.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or perhaps the treatments for these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical problem or its treatment that produces several in the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those sign of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical problem or its treatment added from the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined since it is quite crucial through the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to provide conditions under this, bureaucracy is notoriously nearly impossible to find to alter any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments could possibly be exercised in the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this is not certain.

It is therefore essential that, in the event that the addition of health concerns is regarded as through the consultations, any stakeholder wishing for any medical problem not listed in the first couple of bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods to the Department to provide any additional medical problem to the listing of debilitating health concerns. In order to raise the prestige of any presentations made to justify adding medical ailments under Section 36-2801.01, it might be necessary to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical doctors who are able to testify on paper at people hearings about why the proposed condition should be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana like a treatment for your proposed condition might be helpful, as would medical journals on the subject.

It should be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos regarding the medicinal marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition on the passing of Proposition 203. He did so around the grounds that the FDA will not test the drug, and even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be used as a possible authority for unbiased medicinal marijuana research. There is no reason to imagine that Director Humble will be any less inclined to obstruct using medical marijuana through the rulemaking stage, and all proponents of medical marijuana ought to be guaranteed to make their voices heard at the consultations to stop the obstruction of the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There are other provisions in Proposition 203 which will wendover weed store probably be discussed throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they will oftimes be the target from the consultations. The consultations can provide rules:

* Governing the way in which where the Department of Health Services will accept the petitions from the population mentioned earlier on, regarding incorporating health concerns on the list of the already enshrined debilitating medical conditions.

* Establishing the shape and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medical cannabis law.

* Governing the way in which the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical cannabis ID cards.

* Governing the many aspects round the newly legalized nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, along with other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical marijuana dispensary applications.

The vital part with the consultation period will likely be in connection with rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to generate the recordkeeping, security, oversight, as well as other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it's going to have the consequence of reducing the use of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving inside the expense of medicinal marijuana due on the not enough supply. It could simply become too costly to conform to all from the regulations.

During this stage, it is important that stakeholders-particularly medicinal marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, and maybe pharmacists using a little economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules could have a negative effect around the patients this Proposition really should help. The proposed rules have never emerge yet, however, if they actually do, they must be closely scrutinized for that possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries may have on patients.

The other major factor inside rulemaking will have to do while using fees. The Department is going to be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries during the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that the fees may well not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying through the public consultation, it will be possible that this actual fees is going to be a smaller amount website traffic are simply the maximum that the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical marijuana users will be prohibited in certain circumstances. Based on our analysis, a person might not:

* As a school or landlord, won't enroll someone or otherwise penalize them solely for his or her status as being a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not doing so would result inside the loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions to them because they're a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not this would result inside the loss in a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers might still terminate employees if the employee is in possessing or impaired by marijuana for the premises with the office or in the hours of employment.

* As a medical treatment provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana must be treated every other medication prescribed by the physician.

* Be prevented, as a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time using a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger for the safety in the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are specific prohibitions on discrimination, there are also provisions that allow discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers aren't required to reimburse an individual for his or her medicinal marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business people, is forced to allow medical marijuana on his or her premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, whilst they cannot refuse tenants based on the as being a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana on top of the landlord's property).

* Employers are certainly not required to allow cardholders to become beneath the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although the presence of marijuana within the body which just isn't of the sufficient concentration to cause impairment will not establish being under the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the final rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries will not be established until April 2011, there are certain requirements which are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead of the time that the last rules turn out. These minimal requirements might not exactly be as restrictive as the last requirements which can be published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries must be nonprofit. They will need to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they desire 't be considered tax-exempt by the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents with the dispensaries must include provisions for that oversight with the dispensary and for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary will need to have one particular secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and stop the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entry to areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary must not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose apart from providing it right to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana will need to take place only at a locked, enclosed facility in a street address provided to the Department of Health Services in the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered while using Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from your patient of the caregiver, but only in the event the patient or caregiver receives no compensation for this.

* No utilization of marijuana is permitted around the property in the dispensary.

* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection with the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice from the inspection to the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is by no means the same because law in California. There are certainly some differences involving the two, though in certain respects these are comparable. This is a comparative analysis in the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as being a practical matter, accommodate broad discretion around the part of a physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits lifespan with the patient to conduct a number of major life activities as defined through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or when not alleviated, will result in serious harm for the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have numerous illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses for that prescription of medical marijuana. These include, but are certainly not restricted to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require use of the identification card by people that have been prescribed medical cannabis, after the cardholders have undergone a preliminary application process the location where the use with the drug may be recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states tend not to factor inside unusable portion from the marijuana plant in determining the maximum weight of marijuana that's permissible for possession by a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules haven't been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it's going to be regulated around the state level and so uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly about the municipal level, and so the rules around dispensaries may differ greatly from one municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law offers a broader spectrum of people that are believed a ""physician"" for your purpose of prescribing medical cannabis. In California, only health professionals and osteopaths are believed to get physicians. In Arizona, along with physicians and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths is likewise permitted to prescribe medicinal marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants instead of by using a medical cannabis dispensary. In Arizona, patients may grow marijuana or designate someone else to take action instead of going to a dispensary around the condition that there's no dispensary operating within 25 miles from the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

"

[augustsjto942]

An Effective Therapy to Aid People Manage the Neurological Disorder Dystonia

"I wouldn't be a fantastic attorney unless I prefaced this short article with a few disclaimers:

1) Marijuana is still a controlled schedule I substance which is illegal inside eyes of the Federal Government in the United States;

2) This article is to never be construed as legal counsel, nor should take the place with the advice associated with an attorney, and you need to check with a lawyer when considering actions in furtherance from the subject theme of this information. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside the State of Arizona. However, it'll still take the time before medical cannabis is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline to the drafting from the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, these are the basic important periods of time that you should paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft of the medicinal marijuana rules ought to be released making readily available for discuss this date.

January 7, 2011: This is going to be the deadline for public discuss the 1st draft of rules mentioned above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules will be released for this date. Once again, it'll be designed for informal comment as within the draft known above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held in regards to the proposed rules right now, and the last rules will be listed in the Secretary of State and made public about the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical marijuana rules will go into effect and stay published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is vital that at all times through the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests despite the ones from medicinal marijuana advocates may also be making presentations, and may convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to access it when there is no voice to advocate for patients' rights.

Some key points about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana for their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is just not defined you might say limited to normal medical doctors. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana because of their patients.

-In order to get prescribed medical cannabis, somebody should be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is understood to be someone who has been diagnosed by a ""physician"" (as defined above) as developing a ""debilitating medical condition.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or perhaps the treating these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment who makes more than one in the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those manifestation of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other problem or its treatment added by the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined which is quite crucial in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to provide conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously rare to find to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for more treatments might be exercised in the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this just isn't certain.

It is therefore important that, in the event that adding medical ailments is considered throughout the consultations, any stakeholder who wants for any problem not listed inside initial two bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for that Department to provide any additional condition to the report on debilitating medical conditions. In order to increase the prestige of any presentations created to justify adding health conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it may be beneficial to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed physicians who are able to testify in writing and at the public hearings about why the proposed condition must be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both inside the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment for that proposed condition could possibly be helpful, as would medical journals about the subject.

It must be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos in regards to the medicinal marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition towards the passing of Proposition 203. He accomplished it on the grounds how the FDA won't test the drug, and even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be trusted as an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to think that Director Humble will probably be any less inclined to obstruct using medical cannabis throughout the rulemaking stage, and proponents of medical marijuana should be certain to make their voices heard in the consultations in order to avoid the obstruction with the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also another provisions in Proposition 203 which will likely be discussed during the initial rulemaking process, and they're going to probably be the target in the consultations. The consultations will create rules:

* Governing the manner the location where the Department of Health Services need the petitions from people mentioned before, regarding incorporating health concerns to the list from the already enshrined debilitating medical conditions.

* Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted within the medicinal marijuana law.

* Governing the way the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medicinal marijuana ID cards.

* Governing the different aspects across the newly legalized nonprofit medicinal marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, along with other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medicinal marijuana dispensary applications.

The vital part from the consultation period will be concerning the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical cannabis dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to produce the recordkeeping, security, oversight, along with other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it'll have the effects of reducing the use of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving inside the expense of medicinal marijuana due to the deficiency of supply. It could simply become too costly to conform to all in the regulations.

During this stage, it is important that stakeholders-particularly medicinal marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, and maybe pharmacists having a amount of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules may have a negative effect around the patients this Proposition is supposed to help. The proposed rules have never turn out yet, however when they do, they ought to be closely scrutinized for that possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries could have on patients.

The other major factor within the rulemaking will need to do with the fees. The Department will likely be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries through the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that this fees might not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with some lobbying throughout the public consultation, it's possible the actual fees will likely be much less as these are merely the most how the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medicinal marijuana users will probably be prohibited in specific situations. Based on our analysis, a person might not exactly:

* As a school or landlord, will not enroll someone or otherwise not penalize them solely for their status like a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result inside the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions on them because they're a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not doing this would result inside loss in a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers may still terminate employees if the employee is within possession of or impaired by marijuana on the premises of the office or throughout the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana has to be treated because other medication prescribed with a physician.

* Be prevented, as a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time using a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger towards the safety in the wendover weed store minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although a number of prohibitions on discrimination, in addition there are provisions which permit discrimination against medicinal marijuana cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and health insurers usually are not necessary to reimburse a person for their medicinal marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including companies, is required to allow medical cannabis on his or her premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on their own like a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana on the landlord's property).

* Employers are not necessary to allow cardholders being within the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, the presence of marijuana in the body which is just not of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment doesn't establish being under the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although a final rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries will never be established until April 2011, there are certain requirements that happen to be enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and may be known ahead from the time that the last rules emerge. These minimal requirements may not be as restrictive as a final requirements that happen to be published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries have to be nonprofit. They should have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they require stop considered tax-exempt from the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents of the dispensaries must include provisions to the oversight from the dispensary and for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary have to have one particular secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and stop the theft of marijuana and unauthorized access to areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary mustn't acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for almost any purpose apart from providing it right to a cardholder or to a registered caregiver to the cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana have to take place only at a locked, enclosed facility in a physical address provided on the Department of Health Services during the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered while using Department.

* A dispensary can get marijuana from a patient of the caregiver, but only in the event the patient or caregiver receives no compensation for it.

* No utilization of marijuana is permitted around the property in the dispensary.

* A dispensary is subject to reasonable inspection through the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice in the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is actually no means the same because the law in California. There are certainly some differences between your two, though in a few respects they may be comparable. This is a comparative analysis with the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, like a practical matter, permit broad discretion for the part of your physician to prescribe marijuana to patients that are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits the life from the patient to conduct a number of major life activities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have a number of illnesses that happen to be automatically considered qualifying illnesses to the prescription of medical marijuana. These include, but are certainly not tied to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require use of your identification card by people that have been prescribed medical cannabis, following the cardholders have undergone an initial application process where the use in the drug has been recommended with a physician.

* Both states usually do not factor inside the unusable portion with the marijuana plant in determining the most weight of marijuana which is permissible for possession by way of a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have never been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it'll be regulated on the state level and so uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly about the municipal level, and thus the rules around dispensaries may differ greatly in one municipality on the next.

* The Arizona law offers a broader spectrum of people who are believed a ""physician"" to the purpose of prescribing medical marijuana. In California, only physicians and osteopaths are thought being physicians. In Arizona, along with health professionals and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths may also be allowed to prescribe medicinal marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in lieu of by using a medicinal marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may grow marijuana or designate another person for this in lieu of visiting a dispensary about the condition that there are no dispensary operating within 25 miles with the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is only 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

"

[tysonerpt644]

The Hemp Network - Can the Hemp Network Give Framework to the Medical Marijuana Sector?

I would not be an excellent lawyer unless I preceded this write-up with a few disclaimers:

1) Marijuana is still a controlled timetable I substance as well as is prohibited in the eyes of the Federal Federal Government of the USA;

2) This post is not to be taken as legal recommendations, nor is it intended to fill in the recommendations of a lawyer, as well as you should consult with a lawyer prior to taking any actions in furtherance of the subject of this post. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Recommendation 203, which would certainly spare specific people from illegal drugs regulations in the State of Arizona. Nonetheless, it will certainly still take a while before medical marijuana is carried out as a plan in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Wellness Providers has launched a recommended timeline for the preparing of the guidelines surrounding the execution of Proposal 203. Up until now, these are the essential time periods that ought to be paid very close attention to:

December 17, 2010: The initial draft of the medical marijuana rules should be launched and also made available for comment on this date.

January 7, 2011: This will be the due date for public comment on the first draft of the policies pointed out above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules will be launched on this date. Once more, it will certainly be offered for informal remark as in the draft described above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held regarding the suggested regulations right now, after which the final rules will be submitted to the Secretary of State as well as made public on the Workplace of Administrative Policy website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis policies will go into effect as well as be published in the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is essential that at all times throughout the appointment procedure, interested parties send briefs and/or make public speakings when allowed. Teams with rate of interests as opposed to those of medical marijuana advocates might also be making presentations as well as might persuade the State to needlessly limit the material or those who may qualify to access it if there is no voice to advocate for clients' rights.

Some key points regarding Suggestion 203's results

- Physicians may recommend medical marijuana for their patients under specific problems. "Medical professional" is not specified in a manner limited to normal medical physicians. Osteopaths accredited under Title 32, Phase 17; naturopaths accredited under Title 32, Phase 14; and homeopaths certified under Title 32, Phase 29 may all be qualified to suggest cannabis for their people.

- In order to be recommended medical marijuana, a person must be a "certifying patient." A qualifying patient is defined as someone that has been diagnosed by a "physician" (as specified over) as having a "devastating clinical condition."

- Devastating medical problems include:

• Cancer, glaucoma, HIV favorable condition, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's condition, or agitation of Alzheimer's condition or the therapy of these conditions.

• A persistent or debilitating illness or clinical problem or its therapy that generates several of the following: Cachexia or losing syndrome; extreme and also chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, consisting of that attribute of epilepsy; or serious as well as persistent muscle spasms, including that quality of numerous sclerosis.

• Any other clinical condition or its treatment included by the Department of Health Solutions pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underscored because it is vitally important during the rulemaking procedure. Although Proposal 203 permits the public to seek the Division of Health and wellness Services to exercise its discretion to add problems under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to get to alter any kind of legislation. The first discretionary policies for added therapies could be exercised throughout the general public assessments that happen between December and March, though this is not certain.

It is as a result essential that, in case the addition of medical problems is thought about during the assessments, any stakeholder who longs for a medical problem not detailed in the initial two bulleted things above to lobby during the general public consultation periods for the Department to include the additional clinical problem to the checklist of debilitating clinical conditions. In order to raise the stature of any kind of presentations made to warrant including clinical problems under Section 36-2801.01, it may be practical to obtain the statement of understanding Arizona-licensed medical physicians that can testify on paper as well as at the general public hearings about why the suggested condition needs to be added. Papers showing that territories, both in the United States and somewhere else, presently make use of marijuana as a treatment for the recommended problem may be handy, as would certainly clinical journals on the subject.

It ought to be kept in mind that regardless of his cheery YouTube video clips regarding the medical cannabis regulation drafting procedure, Supervisor of Health And Wellness Services Will Simple composed an entry against the passing away of Suggestion 203. He did so on the grounds that the FDA does not evaluate the medication, as well as even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should not be relied upon as an authority for objective clinical cannabis research. There is no factor to believe that Supervisor Humble will be any kind of much less likely to block the use of medical marijuana throughout the rulemaking phase, and all supporters of clinical marijuana need to be sure to make their voices heard at the appointments to avoid the blockage of the intent of Proposal 203.

The extent of Rulemaking throughout Examinations

There are other stipulations in Recommendation 203 which will be talked about throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they will possibly be the major focus of the appointments. The consultations will create guidelines:

• Governing the manner in which the Division of Health Solutions will approve the applications from the public formerly pointed out, concerning the enhancement of medical conditions to the checklist of the already enshrined disabling clinical conditions.

• Developing the kind and also material of enrollment and also renewal applications sent under the medical marijuana regulation.

• Regulating the fashion in which the Department will certainly consider applications for as well as revivals of clinical marijuana ID cards.

• Governing the various aspects around the recently legalized nonprofit clinical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, safety, oversight, and also other requirements.

• Establishing the fees for client applications and also clinical cannabis dispensary applications.

One of the most essential part of the appointment period will certainly be pertaining to the regulations governing the establishment and also oversight of clinical cannabis dispensaries. If single-interest group lobby the Division to make the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also various other needs around dispensaries as well restrictive, it will have the effect of decreasing the availability of clinical cannabis to clients and driving up the cost of clinical marijuana because of the absence of supply. It could merely come to be too costly to adhere to every one of the regulations.

During this phase, it is necessary that stakeholders-particularly clinical marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, and possibly pharmacists with a few financial knowledge-submit briefs clarifying why certain proposed guidelines may have a negative impact on the clients this Proposal is meant to aid. The recommended rules have not come out yet, but when they do, they must be carefully scrutinized for the possible unfavorable influence that unnecessarily challenging security and recordkeeping on not-for-profit dispensaries might carry individuals.

The other significant consider the rulemaking will relate to the charges. The Department will certainly be establishing costs for clinical cannabis dispensaries throughout the consultation period. Proposal 203 offers that the charges might not surpass $5,000 per preliminary application and also $1,000 per renewal. However, with some lobbying throughout the general public examination, it is feasible that the real fees will be much less because these are merely the maximum that the Division might bill.

Discrimination versus Medical Cannabis Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination versus clinical marijuana individuals will certainly be prohibited in certain scenarios. Based upon our evaluation, a person might not:

• As an institution or landlord, decline to enlist somebody or otherwise penalize them exclusively for their standing as a medical cannabis cardholder, unless refraining from doing so would lead to the loss of a financial or licensing-related advantage under government legislation or guidelines.

• As a company, victimize hiring someone, or end them or enforce any kind of problems on them because they are a clinical cannabis cardholder unless refraining so would result in the loss of a monetary or licensing-related benefit under government legislation or laws. Companies may still terminate employees if the staff member remains in property of or impaired by marijuana on the premises of the area of employment or during the hours of employment.

• As a medical care service provider, victimize heart disease prevention near watsonville a cardholder, including in matters of body organ transplants. Clinical cannabis must be dealt with like any other medication recommended by a medical professional.

• Be prevented, as a cardholder, from having visitation wardship or visitation or parenting time with a minor, unless the cardholder's actions "creates an unreasonable danger to the security of the minor as developed by clear and also convincing evidence."

Although there are particular restrictions on discrimination, there are likewise arrangements which permit discrimination versus clinical cannabis cardholders:

• Government medical aid programs and also personal health insurers are not required to reimburse a person for their medical marijuana use.

• Nobody who possesses building, including company owner, is called for to enable clinical cannabis on their facilities (this seemingly includes proprietors who, although they can not refuse renters based upon their being a cardholder, are allowed to avoid cardholders from bringing cannabis onto the property manager's property).

• Companies are not required to enable cardholders to be under the influence of or ingest cannabis while working, though the existence of marijuana in the body which is not of an enough concentration to trigger disability does not establish being intoxicated of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the last rules around safety and security, recordkeeping, as well as other demands for medical marijuana dispensaries will not be developed till April 2011, there are specific demands that are preserved in Proposal 203 itself as well as can be recognized ahead of the time that the last policies appear. These marginal needs might not be as restrictive as the final demands which are released in April 2011.

• Medical marijuana dispensaries need to be not-for-profit. They need to have laws that maintain their not-for-profit nature, though they require not be thought about tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service, neither need to they be incorporated.

• The running records of the dispensaries have to include provisions for the oversight of the dispensary and also for accurate recordkeeping.

• The dispensary have to have a solitary protected entrance and also should execute ideal safety and security procedures to discourage and prevent the burglary of marijuana as well as unapproved access to locations consisting of cannabis.

• A dispensary have to not acquire, possess, grow, manufacture, provide, move, transportation, supply, or dispense marijuana for any function besides giving it directly to a cardholder or to a registered caretaker for the cardholder.

• All farming of marijuana should happen only at a secured, enclosed facility at a physical address offered to the Division of Wellness Services during the application procedure, and accessible only by dispensary agents signed up with the Department.

• A dispensary can obtain cannabis from a person of their caretaker, but only if the client or caregiver obtains no settlement for it.

• No intake of cannabis is permitted on the property of the dispensary.

• A dispensary goes through affordable inspection by the Department of Health And Wellness Solutions. The Division should initially offer reasonable notification of the inspection to the dispensary.

Comparison to The golden state's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona regulation is by no implies the like the legislation in The golden state. There are certainly some distinctions in between the two, though in some respects they are similar. This is a comparative evaluation of both regulations.

Resemblances:

• Both legislations, as a functional issue, allow for wide discretion on the part of a medical professional to prescribe cannabis to individuals who suffer from discomfort. In the Arizona law, "serious and also persistent pain" is the legislated requirement. In the California regulation, any type of "chronic or consistent medical sign" that substantially restricts the life of the person to conduct one or more major life tasks as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or that otherwise reduced, will create serious harm to the individual's physical or mental safety and security, qualifies.

• Both laws have a number of illnesses that are immediately taken into consideration certifying health problems for the prescription of clinical cannabis. These include, but are not limited to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, consistent muscle spasms, seizures, and also severe queasiness.

• Both legislations require the use of a recognition card by those who have actually been suggested medical cannabis after the cardholders have experienced a first application process in which making use of the drug has actually been recommended by a physician.

• Both states do not consider the unusable part of the cannabis plant in establishing the optimum weight of marijuana that is allowable for ownership by a cardholder.

Distinctions:

• Though the policies have not been wrapped up, the Arizona law looks like though it will certainly be managed on the state level as well as for that reason consistent throughout Arizona. The California legislation, however, is managed substantially on the municipal level, and therefore the guidelines around dispensaries can vary greatly from one municipality to the following.

• The Arizona regulation gives a broader range of individuals that are taken into consideration a "physician" for the function of suggesting medical cannabis. In The golden state, just medical physicians and osteopaths are taken into consideration to be doctors. In Arizona, along with medical doctors as well as osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will certainly also be permitted to recommend clinical marijuana.

• In California, individuals or their caretakers may expand marijuana plants in lieu of using a clinical marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients might only grow cannabis or mark someone else to do so instead of visiting a dispensary on the condition that there is no dispensary operating within 25 miles of the client's home.

• The optimum belongings limitation for cannabis in California is 8 ounces per person, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per client in Arizona.

-This is not implied to be legal advice and also is offered totally as an evaluation of the existing regulation. You ought to consult with an attorney to discuss these issues. We are offered for appointments for this matter by visit only and also by means of prepayment of the examination cost.

[edwinaotg371]

Is Cannabis Effective As An Anti Nausea Or Vomiting Medication?

I would not be a good lawyer unless I preceded this article with a few disclaimers:

1) Cannabis is still a regulated schedule I material as well as is prohibited in the eyes of the Federal Federal Government of the United States;

2) This post is not to be construed as lawful guidance, neither is it meant to take the place of the guidance of an attorney, and you should consult with a lawyer before taking any activities in furtherance of the subject matter of this short article. Ok, allowed's start.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Recommendation 203, which would certainly spare particular individuals from illegal drugs regulations in the State of Arizona. Nevertheless, it will still spend some time prior to medical marijuana is carried out as a plan in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Wellness Solutions has launched a suggested timeline for the composing of the rules surrounding the implementation of Proposition 203. Until now, these are the vital period that ought to be paid attention to:

December 17, 2010: The first draft of the medical cannabis policies should be released and made available for comment on this date.

January 7, 2011: This will be the deadline for public talk about the initial draft of the regulations mentioned above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the regulations will certainly be launched on this date. Once more, it will be readily available for informal comment as in the draft described above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: Even more official public hearings will be held concerning the recommended rules currently, after which the last guidelines will certainly be submitted to the Secretary of State and also revealed on the Workplace of Administrative Rules internet site.

April 2011: The medical marijuana policies treatments and procedures near watsonville will enter into effect and be released in the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is very important that in any way times throughout the examination process, interested events send briefs and/or make public speakings when allowed. Teams with passions in contrast to those of medical cannabis advocates may likewise be making discussions and may encourage the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to access it if there is no voice to advocate in favor of people' civil liberties.

Some key points concerning Suggestion 203's impacts

- Physicians may prescribe clinical cannabis for their patients under particular conditions. "Physician" is not defined in such a way restricted to normal clinical physicians. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Phase 17; naturopaths certified under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths accredited under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be qualified to advise marijuana for their clients.

- In order to be recommended medical cannabis, an individual must be a "certifying individual." A qualifying patient is defined as a person who has actually been diagnosed by a "medical professional" (as defined above) as having a "debilitating medical condition."

- Debilitating clinical conditions include:

• Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive condition, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic side sclerosis, Crohn's condition, or anxiety of Alzheimer's condition or the treatment of these problems.

• A chronic or devastating illness or medical problem or its treatment that creates several of the following: Cachexia or squandering disorder; extreme and chronic pain; extreme queasiness; seizures, including that quality of epilepsy; or serious as well as persistent muscle spasms, consisting of that quality of numerous sclerosis.

• Any other clinical problem or its treatment added by the Department of Health Providers according to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying problem is underscored since it is vitally important during the rulemaking procedure. Although Proposal 203 allows the public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to add problems under this area, bureaucracy is notoriously hard to get to alter any type of legislation. The initial optional rules for additional therapies could be exercised during the public appointments that take place in between December and March, though this is not particular.

It is for that reason vital that, on the occasion that the enhancement of clinical problems is considered throughout the assessments, any kind of stakeholder that wishes for a medical problem not provided in the initial two bulleted items above to lobby during the public appointment periods for the Division to add the extra clinical problem to the list of incapacitating medical problems. In order to enhance the stature of any type of presentations made to validate including medical problems under Section 36-2801.01, it might be handy to solicit the testimony of thoughtful Arizona-licensed medical physicians who can affirm on paper and also at the public hearings concerning why the suggested condition ought to be included. Papers revealing that other jurisdictions, both in the USA and also somewhere else, currently make use of marijuana as a treatment for the suggested condition might be valuable, as would certainly medical journals on the subject.

It needs to be remembered that in spite of his happy YouTube video clips concerning the clinical cannabis rule preparing process, Supervisor of Health Providers Will certainly Simple wrote an entry in opposition to the passing away of Proposition 203. He did so because the FDA does not check the drug, and despite the fact that the federal government's anti-marijuana plan is popular it should not be relied upon as an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research study. There is no factor to believe that Director Humble will be any type of less likely to obstruct making use of clinical cannabis during the rulemaking stage, and all proponents of clinical marijuana ought to make certain to make their voices heard at the consultations to prevent the blockage of the intent of Recommendation 203.

The degree of Rulemaking during Appointments

There are other arrangements in Proposal 203 which will be talked about during the initial rulemaking procedure, and they will most likely be the main focus of the assessments. The assessments will create rules:

• Controling the manner in which the Division of Wellness Services will approve the requests from the general public formerly discussed, concerning the enhancement of clinical conditions to the checklist of the currently preserved debilitating clinical conditions.

• Developing the type as well as material of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medical marijuana regulation.

• Controling the fashion in which the Division will take into consideration applications for and renewals of medical cannabis ID cards.

• Controling the numerous elements around the recently legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, safety, oversight, as well as other demands.

• Developing the fees for individual applications and medical marijuana dispensary applications.

One of the most important part of the assessment period will certainly be concerning the policies governing the establishment as well as oversight of clinical cannabis dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Division to make the recordkeeping, safety, oversight, and also other needs around dispensaries too limiting, it will have the impact of decreasing the availability of clinical cannabis to individuals and also driving up the rate of clinical cannabis because of the absence of supply. It can just become as well expensive to follow all of the laws.

During this stage, it is important that stakeholders-particularly clinical marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, and also possibly pharmacologists with a few economic knowledge-submit briefs describing why specific suggested policies might have a negative impact on the individuals this Proposition is meant to help. The proposed regulations have not come out yet, however when they do, they must be very closely scrutinized for the feasible adverse impact that unnecessarily hard security and recordkeeping on not-for-profit dispensaries might have on clients.

The various other major consider the rulemaking will pertain to the fees. The Division will be setting costs for medical cannabis dispensaries during the examination duration. Proposal 203 provides that the charges may not exceed $5,000 per first application and $1,000 per renewal. However, with some lobbying throughout the general public assessment, it is feasible that the actual fees will certainly be much less because these are simply the optimum that the Department might bill.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposal 203, discrimination against medical marijuana individuals will certainly be prohibited in specific circumstances. Based upon our analysis, a person might not:

• As a college or property owner, refuse to sign up somebody or otherwise punish them exclusively for their standing as a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would cause the loss of a monetary or licensing-related advantage under federal law or guidelines.

• As an employer, discriminate against working with a person, or end them or enforce any type of problems on them due to the fact that they are a clinical cannabis cardholder unless refraining so would result in the loss of a monetary or licensing-related benefit under government regulation or policies. Employers may still end staff members if the worker is in ownership of or impaired by cannabis on the facilities of the place of employment or during the hrs of employment.

• As a healthcare company, discriminate against a cardholder, including in issues of organ transplants. Clinical cannabis has to be dealt with like any other drug prescribed by a medical professional.

• Be protected against, as a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time with a small, unless the cardholder's actions "develops an unreasonable threat to the safety of the minor as developed by clear and convincing evidence."

Although there are certain restrictions on discrimination, there are likewise provisions which allow discrimination against medical marijuana cardholders:

• Government clinical aid programs and private health insurance firms are not called for to compensate an individual for their medical marijuana use.

• No one who has residential property, including company owner, is needed to permit clinical marijuana on their premises (this relatively consists of property owners who, although they can not reject renters based on their being a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing cannabis onto the property manager's residential or commercial property).

• Employers are not needed to permit cardholders to be intoxicated of or consume marijuana while functioning, though the existence of marijuana in the body which is not of a sufficient concentration to trigger problems does not develop being intoxicated of it.

Guidelines Connected To the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the last policies around safety, recordkeeping, as well as various other demands for medical cannabis dispensaries will not be developed until April 2011, there are specific demands that are preserved in Proposal 203 itself and can be recognized ahead of the moment that the final policies appear. These very little demands may not be as limiting as the final demands which are released in April 2011.

• Medical marijuana dispensaries need to be nonprofit. They must have bylaws that protect their not-for-profit nature, though they need not be considered tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service, neither must they be incorporated.

• The running files of the dispensaries should include stipulations for the oversight of the dispensary as well as for accurate recordkeeping.

• The dispensary need to have a single safe and secure entrance and needs to apply appropriate security steps to deter as well as protect against the burglary of cannabis and also unapproved access to areas containing marijuana.

• A dispensary must not get, have, cultivate, manufacture, provide, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for any type of function besides providing it straight to a cardholder or to a signed up caretaker for the cardholder.

• All farming of cannabis need to occur only at a secured, confined center at a physical address provided to the Division of Health Providers during the application procedure, as well as available only by dispensary agents registered with the Department.

• A dispensary can acquire marijuana from a client of their caretaker, but just if the client or caregiver receives no payment for it.

• No usage of marijuana is allowed on the building of the dispensary.

• A dispensary goes through practical evaluation by the Division of Wellness Services. The Department must initially provide reasonable notice of the assessment to the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Legislation

The Arizona regulation is by no means the like the legislation in California. There are certainly some distinctions in between the two, though in some aspects they are equivalent. This is a relative analysis of both regulations.

Resemblances:

• Both legislations, as a functional matter, enable wide discretion for a physician to recommend cannabis to people that suffer from pain. In the Arizona legislation, "extreme and persistent pain" is the legislated standard. In the California law, any "persistent or consistent clinical sign" that considerably restricts the life of the client to carry out one or more major life activities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or that otherwise reduced, will create serious injury to the person's physical or psychological safety, certifies.

• Both laws have a variety of illnesses that are automatically taken into consideration certifying diseases for the prescription of clinical cannabis. These consist of, but are not limited to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer cells, glaucoma, relentless muscle spasms, seizures, as well as extreme queasiness.

• Both laws call for making use of an identification card by those that have been prescribed medical marijuana after the cardholders have actually undergone a preliminary application process in which the use of the medicine has actually been recommended by a physician.

• Both states do not factor in the unusable part of the cannabis plant in identifying the maximum weight of cannabis that is acceptable for ownership by a cardholder.

Distinctions:

• Though the guidelines have not been completed, the Arizona law appears as though it will certainly be managed on the state degree and for that reason uniform throughout Arizona. The California regulation, nonetheless, is regulated dramatically on the community degree, as well as for that reason the guidelines around dispensaries can differ significantly from one town to the next.

• The Arizona regulation provides a wider range of individuals who are thought about a "physician" for the purpose of suggesting clinical marijuana. In California, just medical physicians and also osteopaths are taken into consideration to be medical professionals. In Arizona, along with medical physicians and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will also be allowed to prescribe medical cannabis.

• In The golden state, people or their caretakers might expand cannabis plants in lieu of using a clinical marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may just grow cannabis or mark someone else to do so in lieu of visiting a dispensary on the problem that there is no dispensary operating within 25 miles of the individual's home.

• The maximum property limit for marijuana in The golden state is eight ounces per individual, whereas the limit is only 2.5 ounces per person in Arizona.

-This is not implied to be lawful advice and is supplied purely as an analysis of the existing regulations. You ought to talk to an attorney to review these issues. We are offered for appointments for this matter by visit only and also through prepayment of the appointment fee.

[ricardoiazu757-blog]

Use Medical Marijuana

"I couldn't survive a great attorney unless I prefaced this information by disclaimers:

1) Marijuana remains a controlled schedule I substance and is illegal in the eyes in the Federal Government in the United States;

2) This article is to not be construed as legal services, nor is supposed to take the place of the advice associated with an attorney, and you ought to consult with a lawyer when considering any actions in furtherance of the subject theme of this article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside the State of Arizona. However, it is going to still take the time before medical cannabis is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline to the drafting of the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important cycles that ought to be paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft of the medical marijuana rules should be released and made intended for reply to this date.

January 7, 2011: This is going to be the deadline for public touch upon the first draft of rules mentioned above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft with the rules will likely be released with this date. Once again, it's going to be designed for informal comment as within the draft referred to above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will probably be held in regards to the proposed rules currently, after which it the final rules will probably be published to the Secretary of State making it public on the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules goes into effect and turn into published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is very important that at all times throughout the consultation process, your customers submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests contrary to that relating to medicinal marijuana advocates are often making presentations, and could convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or people that may qualify to get into it when there is no voice to advocate for patients' rights.

Some outline about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medical cannabis for their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in a way restricted to normal medical professionals. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana for patients.

-In order being prescribed medical marijuana, a person must be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is described as someone who has been diagnosed with a ""physician"" (as defined above) as developing a ""debilitating problem.""

-Debilitating medical conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or perhaps the treatments for these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or condition or its treatment that creates more than one in the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those sign of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical condition or its treatment added through the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined since it is important in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for the public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to add conditions under it, bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to acquire to improve any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments may be exercised in the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore crucial that, inside event that adding medical conditions is recognized as in the consultations, any stakeholder who wants for a medical problem unlisted inside initial two bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for the Department to include the additional condition towards the listing of debilitating medical conditions. In order to raise the prestige from a presentations designed to justify adding health concerns under Section 36-2801.01, it may be helpful to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical doctors that can testify on paper at the population hearings about why the proposed condition should be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both in the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment to the proposed condition could possibly be helpful, as would medical journals on the subject.

It needs to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos in regards to the medical cannabis rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition towards the passing of Proposition 203. He managed it for the grounds how the FDA won't test the drug, although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be used being an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to believe that Director Humble will probably be any less inclined to obstruct using medical cannabis in the rulemaking stage, and proponents of medical marijuana needs to be likely to make their voices heard in the consultations in order to avoid the obstruction in the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also another provisions in Proposition 203 which will likely be discussed in the initial rulemaking process, and they're going to apt to be the target from the consultations. The consultations can provide rules:

* Governing the manner the location where the Department of Health Services encourage the petitions from people mentioned earlier on, regarding incorporating medical conditions for the list in the already enshrined debilitating health concerns.

* Establishing the design and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medicinal marijuana law.

* Governing the way where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical marijuana ID cards.

* Governing the many aspects round the newly legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medicinal marijuana dispensary applications.

The most important part in the consultation period will be in connection with rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to generate the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the effect of decreasing the option of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving inside the tariff of medical marijuana due on the not enough supply. It could simply become expensive to adhere to all in the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medical cannabis dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists having a amount of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules could have a negative effect about the patients this Proposition should really help. The proposed rules never have come out yet, but when they actually do, they ought to be closely scrutinized for the possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries could have on patients.

The other major factor in the rulemaking must do while using fees. The Department will probably be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries in the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides how the fees may well not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying during the public consultation, it will be possible how the actual fees will probably be much less since these are only the utmost that this Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical cannabis users will likely be prohibited in certain situations. Based on cbd products newtown our analysis, somebody might not exactly:

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone you aren't penalize them solely for his or her status as being a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result inside loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions on them as they are a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing this would result within the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can always terminate employees in the event the employee is in possessing or impaired by marijuana around the premises of the job or during the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana have to be treated every other medication prescribed by way of a physician.

* Be prevented, as a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time using a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger for the safety from the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are certain prohibitions on discrimination, there are also provisions which permit discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical help programs and health insurers aren't required to reimburse an individual for his or her medical cannabis use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business owners, is necessary to allow medical cannabis on their own premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on his or her being a cardholder, are permitted in order to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana to the landlord's property).

* Employers are certainly not required to allow cardholders to be within the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although presence of marijuana inside body which is just not of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment doesn't establish being beneath the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the ultimate rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medicinal marijuana dispensaries are not established until April 2011, there are certain requirements which are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead in the time that a final rules come out. These minimal requirements might not exactly be as restrictive as the ultimate requirements which are published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries must be nonprofit. They must have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they want not be considered tax-exempt through the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents from the dispensaries must include provisions to the oversight in the dispensary as well as accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary should have an individual secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entry to areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary mustn't acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose other than providing it right to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana have to take place only in a locked, enclosed facility with a street address provided on the Department of Health Services in the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered using the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from a patient of their caregiver, but only if the patient or caregiver receives no compensation for this.

* No utilization of marijuana is permitted about the property of the dispensary.

* A dispensary is at the mercy of reasonable inspection through the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice of the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is as simple as no means the same as the law in California. There are certainly some differences relating to the two, though in some respects they're comparable. This is a comparative analysis of the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as a practical matter, accommodate broad discretion around the part of an physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits the life from the patient to conduct a number of major life activities as defined from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm towards the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have numerous illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses to the prescription of medical cannabis. These include, but usually are not tied to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws need the use associated with an identification card by those that have been prescribed medical marijuana, as soon as the cardholders have undergone a basic application process in which the use in the drug may be recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states do not factor in the unusable portion of the marijuana plant in determining the most weight of marijuana that is certainly permissible for possession by a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have not been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it is going to be regulated for the state level and for that reason uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly for the municipal level, and therefore the rules around dispensaries may differ greatly from one municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law provides a broader spectrum of people which are considered a ""physician"" for that purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only physicians and osteopaths are considered to become physicians. In Arizona, together with medical doctors and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths may also be able to prescribe medicinal marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in lieu of utilizing a medical cannabis dispensary. In Arizona, patients may grow marijuana or designate somebody else for this instead of going to a dispensary around the condition there's no dispensary operating within 25 miles of the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

"

[trevorgccl718]

The Results Of Medicines And Medicine On Sex As Well As Libido

"I wouldn't be an excellent attorney unless I prefaced this informative article by disclaimers:

1) Marijuana remains a controlled schedule I substance which is illegal within the eyes of the Federal Government with the United States;

2) This article is never to be construed as legal advice, nor is to take the place with the advice of your attorney, and you need to talk to a lawyer before taking any actions in furtherance of the subject matter of this article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside State of Arizona. However, it's going to still take the time before medical cannabis is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for the drafting of the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important time periods that should be paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft from the medical cannabis rules needs to be released and made readily available for reply to this date.

January 7, 2011: This is going to be the deadline for public reply to the very first draft of rules mentioned above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft from the rules will likely be released for this date. Once again, it is going to be readily available for informal comment as within the draft known above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held regarding the proposed rules currently, and the ultimate rules will likely be published to the Secretary of State making it public on the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules go into effect and be published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is important that constantly during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests contrary to those of medical marijuana advocates may also be making presentations, and might convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to get into it when there is no voice to advocate and only patients' rights.

Some outline about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana because of their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is just not defined in a way tied to normal health professionals. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana for his or her patients.

-In order to be prescribed medical cannabis, a person must be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is described as anyone who has been diagnosed with a ""physician"" (as defined above) as using a ""debilitating medical problem.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or perhaps the treatment of these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or problem or its treatment who makes several with the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those sign of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical condition or its treatment added through the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined because it is important in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to incorporate conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously nearly impossible to find to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments could possibly be exercised during the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore important that, inside event that adding medical conditions is considered during the consultations, any stakeholder who wishes to get a problem unlisted cbd products newtown inside first couple of bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for your Department to provide the extra problem to the listing of debilitating medical ailments. In order to improve the prestige from a presentations designed to justify adding health conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it can be beneficial to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed physicians who is able to testify on paper and at the public hearings about why the proposed condition needs to be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment for the proposed condition may be helpful, as would medical journals about the subject.

It must be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos in regards to the medicinal marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition on the passing of Proposition 203. He accomplished it around the grounds the FDA does not test the drug, although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should not relied on as an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to think that Director Humble will be any less inclined to obstruct the use of medicinal marijuana through the rulemaking stage, and all proponents of medicinal marijuana must be certain to make their voices heard in the consultations in order to avoid the obstruction with the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There are other provisions in Proposition 203 which will probably be discussed throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they will oftimes be the target with the consultations. The consultations can provide rules:

* Governing the way in which in which the Department of Health Services need the petitions from the population mentioned before, regarding the addition of medical ailments on the list from the already enshrined debilitating health conditions.

* Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medicinal marijuana law.

* Governing the manner the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical marijuana ID cards.

* Governing the many aspects across the newly legalized nonprofit medicinal marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medicinal marijuana dispensary applications.

The vital part from the consultation period is going to be about the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to create the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the effects of lowering the availability of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving in the price of medical marijuana due for the lack of supply. It could simply become expensive to adhere to all with the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medicinal marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists with a little economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules may have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition really should help. The proposed rules haven't turn out yet, but when they certainly, they needs to be closely scrutinized for the possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries might have on patients.

The other major factor inside the rulemaking will have to do using the fees. The Department is going to be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries through the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that this fees might not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying during the public consultation, it will be possible that the actual fees will be a lot less because these are merely the absolute maximum that the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical marijuana users will likely be prohibited in certain circumstances. Based on our analysis, an individual might not:

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone or otherwise penalize them solely for his or her status as a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not doing this would result within the loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions with them since they're a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not this would result within the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can still terminate employees when the employee is possessing or impaired by marijuana for the premises of the office or during the hours of employment.

* As a medical care provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana has to be treated as any other medication prescribed by way of a physician.

* Be prevented, like a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time having a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger for the safety from the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are specific prohibitions on discrimination, in addition there are provisions which permit discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers usually are not needed to reimburse a person for their medicinal marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business owners, is forced to allow medical cannabis on the premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, although they cannot refuse tenants based on their as being a cardholder, are permitted to prevent cardholders from bringing marijuana on the landlord's property).

* Employers aren't required to allow cardholders to be under the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although the presence of marijuana inside body which is just not of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment does not establish being under the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although a final rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medicinal marijuana dispensaries will not be established until April 2011, a number of requirements that are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead from the time that the ultimate rules appear. These minimal requirements might not be as restrictive as the last requirements that happen to be published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries have to be nonprofit. They have to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they need 't be considered tax-exempt through the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents in the dispensaries must include provisions for that oversight in the dispensary and for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary have to have a single secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and stop the theft of marijuana and unauthorized usage of areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary should not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose besides providing it straight to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana must take place only at the locked, enclosed facility in a home address provided for the Department of Health Services through the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered using the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from your patient with their caregiver, but only if your patient or caregiver receives no compensation correctly.

* No consumption of marijuana is permitted around the property from the dispensary.

* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection through the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice in the inspection for the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is as simple as no means the same as the law in California. There are certainly some differences involving the two, though in certain respects they may be comparable. This is a comparative analysis from the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, like a practical matter, accommodate broad discretion on the part of your physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who suffer from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits lifespan of the patient to conduct several major life activities as defined from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm towards the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have many illnesses which can be automatically considered qualifying illnesses to the prescription of medical marijuana. These include, but are certainly not tied to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require the use of an identification card by people that have been prescribed medical cannabis, following the cardholders have undergone an initial application process when the use in the drug may be recommended with a physician.

* Both states usually do not factor inside the unusable portion with the marijuana plant in determining the maximum weight of marijuana that is permissible for possession by the cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have not been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it will be regulated around the state level and therefore uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly for the municipal level, and so the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly derived from one of municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law gives a broader spectrum of people who are considered a ""physician"" to the purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only health professionals and osteopaths are believed to become physicians. In Arizona, along with physicians and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths may also be permitted prescribe medical cannabis.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in place of using a medical marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may only grow marijuana or designate somebody else to do this in place of visiting a dispensary about the condition that there is no dispensary operating within 25 miles from the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is merely 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

"