Medical marijuana patients are free to have their drug on college and university campuses without having to fear arrest, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The justices said the 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act gave those who have certain medical conditions permission to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.

That initiative also sets out specific places where even those entitled to otherwise use the drug legally may not have it. That includes school buses, public schools and correctional facilities.

Two years later, responding to concerns by university officials, lawmakers added the language at issue here, expanding those prohibited zones to college campuses and making violations a felony.

But in the unanimous ruling, the justices pointed out that the Arizona Constitution forbids lawmakers from altering what voters have adopted unless the change “furthers the purpose” of the initiative. Making criminals out of medical marijuana users, they said, does not.

Justice John Pelander, writing for the court, acknowledged the concern expressed by university officials that allowing marijuana on campus would run afoul of federal laws and could mean the loss of federal funding. It was that fear that resulted in the 2012 amendment.

“But a university does not have to guarantee prosecution for violations of its program,” Pelander wrote.

He noted there are other options, citing the policy at Arizona State University which makes anyone in possession of illegal drugs subject to disciplinary or administrative sanctions. And marijuana does remain illegal in all forms under federal law.

And he said if college and university officials are so inclined they can even refer violations to federal prosecutors.

But none of that, Pelander said, allows state lawmakers to authorize the arrest and prosecution of medical marijuana users under state laws for possessing the drug on college and university campuses.

Wednesday’s ruling is most immediately a victory for Andre Maestas, an Arizona State University student. It means his conviction will be overturned.

It also paves the way for any of the state’s other more than 160,000 medical marijuana patients to have their drugs on campuses without fear of arrest and prosecution under state law.

But Thomas Dean, who represents Maestas, said the implications of the decision extend far beyond medical marijuana. He said it spells out clearly and firmly that lawmakers cannot second-guess and alter what voters have approved.

“If the Legislature was able to get away with here tampering with a voter-passed initiative, and to do so in a way that’s contrary to its stated purpose … then the camel’s nose is under the tent and they’d be able to do the same thing to all voter initiatives, past, present and future,” Dean said. And that, he said, makes the ruling important even for those who are not supporters of medical marijuana.

“This is an affirmation of their constitutional rights to pass a voter initiative,” Dean said. “And the Legislature cannot modify or repeal it.”

Maestas was arrested in 2014 on a charge of obstructing traffic after ASU police found him sitting at an intersection. A search of his wallet produced a state-issued medical marijuana card.

When police questioned him about it, Maestas admitted to having marijuana in his dorm room. That gave police what they needed for a search warrant, coming up with about 0.4 grams of the drug — less than 0.02 ounces — far below the amount of medical marijuana users are legally allowed to possess.

Maestas was originally charged with a felony under the 2012 law. But prosecutors reduced that to a misdemeanor, which meant he was not entitled to a jury trial.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink found Maestas guilty, placed him on unsupervised probation, and imposed a $1,000 fine.

Maestas then appealed.

Pelander rebuffed the contention of the Attorney General’s Office that expanding the list of prohibited places “furthers the purpose” of what voters approved in 2010.

He pointed out that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act specifically says the purpose of the law “is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions … from arrest and prosecution and criminal and other penalties” for using medical marijuana

“Criminalizing AMMA-compliant marijuana possession or use on public college and university campuses plainly does not further the AMMA’s primary purpose,” Pelander wrote. He said the 2012 law does not “protect” medical marijuana patients from being arrested “but rather subjects them to such penalties.”

And what all that means, the justice wrote, is that 2012 change violates the constitutional ban on legislative tinkering with voter-approved measures.

State lawmakers are moving to make felons of doctors who don’t follow all the rules when recommending that a patient be allowed to use marijuana.

The 6-3 vote Thursday for HB 2067 would impose prison terms of up to a year for medical professionals who fail to conduct a full medical exam before issuing the required state certification to buy and use the drug. That same penalty also would apply to doctors who do not review at least a year of the patient’s medical records.

That vote came on the heels of complaints by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk about “pot docs,” people she said who are in the business of making as much money as they can providing the required certification patients need to be able to legally purchase and use the drug.

Polk has made no secret of the fact that she opposes medical marijuana. But with voters having approved the program in 2010, she is powerless to do anything about that.

What Polk said she can do, however, is ensure as much as possible that doctors follow the certification process already required by state regulations. That, she told lawmakers, is not happening.

As proof she cited billboards which say that people can get a medical marijuana card without having any medical records.

Thursday’s vote is the second victory for Polk in her fight against medical marijuana.

Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, said lobbying by Polk has forced him to abandon his effort to slash the $150 annual fee the state Department of Health Services charges to patients.

Borrelli had shepherded his SB 1420 through the Senate Government Committee late last month after pointing out that the amount of money being collected is far greater than the cost of running the program. He pointed out that there is more than $40 million sitting in an account that, by law, cannot be used for other purposes.

But that was before Polk argued to lawmakers that lower fees would make it easier for young people to get medical marijuana cards.

Borrelli told Capitol Media Services that Polk’s opposition threatened to quash the entire bill. By dumping the fee reduction, Borrelli preserves the other key provision he thinks is crucial: having the state test what’s being sold as medical marijuana, both to verify the content of THC, the psychoactive element, as well as to determine whether there are residual pesticides or chemicals.

The 2010 voter-approved law allows those with certain medical conditions and a doctor’s recommendation — it’s technically not a prescription — to get a card from the state allowing them to purchase up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The most recent reports show more than 156,000 Arizonans have been issued these cards.

What’s behind Polk’s efforts on both bills is her belief that it’s just too easy for people — especially newly minted adults — to get the cards.

“I hear a lot from the parents who are very frustrated because their son has turned 18,” she told lawmakers. “They visited what we call the ‘pot docs’ and 30 minutes later they walk out with that recommendation.”

But it isn’t just teens.

“This is a de facto recreational marijuana program,” Polk says of the 2010 law.

She cited figures from the state which show fewer than 3 percent of medical marijuana patients got the certification for cancer and fewer than 2 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder. Conversely, Polk said, about 85 percent of certifications fall into a catch-all category of chronic pain, with the bulk of patients being males between 18 and 30.

That suggestion that many patients really have no legitimate need drew a sharp reaction from Rep. Pamela Powers Hanley, D-Tucson. She cited information which shows that the largest users of opioids for pain among men was that same age group.

“So I don’t think you should discount the idea that because a man is young that he does not have chronic pain,” she said.

Powers Hanley said there are studies that show marijuana is a viable alternative to opioids and being a less expensive alternative to other pain medications.

“I see this bill as an attempt to overregulate a medicinal plant that has been used for centuries safely,” she said.

Rep. Kelli Butler, D-Paradise Valley, said she’s not a fan of recreational use of marijuana.

“But I do think there is a serious medical need for it,” she said, saying she does not want to “criminalize physicians who are doing their job.”

Polk acknowledged that existing law already allows the medical boards that license and regulate doctors to discipline those who do not follow state laws and rules and even revoke their ability to practice. But she did not see that as a substitute for criminal penalties.

HB 2067 now needs approval of the full House.

Faced with an average of two deaths a day, the state’s top health official is looking for ways to curb the abuse of opioids, both legal and otherwise.

And some of that may involve getting doctors to find alternative relief for patients with chronic pain — including possibly recommending the use of medical marijuana.

Dr. Cara Christ, director of the Department of Health Services, said Thursday some of the meteoric rise in deaths — up from 454 in 2012 to 790 last year — can be traced to illegal drug use, people looking for a “high.” That is reflected in a tripling in the number of Arizonans who die from heroin overdose.

But there are more actual deaths from prescription opioids. While Christ said some of these can be people misusing the drugs for recreational purposes, she suspects there are people who have become hooked on them because of chronic pain.

One indication of that, she said, is the pure data.

Christ said the death rate from opioid abuse and overdose is higher among those in the 45 to 54-year-old age group than it is among any other 10-year spread. This is a group, she said, which is less likely using the drug for recreation.

So who’s to blame?

“That’s difficult,” Christ said.

She said some of it starts with doctors.

“People were educated years ago that they are non-addictive, that they are great resources for pain, you don’t need to use them only for cancer or terminal pain,” Christ said. “We underestimated the addictive potential of these medications.”

And the government itself, she said, shares the blame.

Christ said the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services links hospital reimbursement and hospital performance scores to patient satisfaction surveys. And those surveys include two questions about how their pain was treated.

“I think that assisted in this,” she said.

“Then when you clamp down on the supply of it, you have these people who have no other choice and choose, then, heroin,” Christ continued. “And we do know that four out of five heroin drug users started as prescription drug users.”

Changing that, she said, starts with doctors finding alternatives to pain management.

“There are a lot of other effective treatments, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” she said, ranging from aspirin to ibuprofen — drugs like Advil and Motrin — and naproxen, which is marketed as Aleve and similar drugs. And Christ said her agency is going to set up a “chronic pain program” to work with insurance companies to ensure that they are providing coverage for such medications.

That program, she said, also is designed to provide help to patients to manage their chronic pain, “just like you would with diabetes or heart disease.”

And what of medical marijuana?

The 2010 voter-approved initiative allows doctors to recommend the drug to patients with certain specified medical conditions. And one of them is chronic pain.

Christ said she can’t say whether marijuana might be suitable for some people, outweighing the potential dangers of that drug.

“Each individual is going to be different,” she said, saying patients need to discuss options with their doctors.

“The voters decided that medical marijuana was one of them for chronic pain,” Christ said. “If patients are interested, that’s something they should talk with their health care provider about.”

What the new report shows, said Christ, is the need for even more data to understand the patterns — and the causes and possible cures.

There already have been various efforts to reduce the abuse and overuse of prescription opioids.

Last year lawmakers approved creating a centralized database that doctors are supposed to check before writing certain prescriptions. The idea is to curb “doctor shopping,” with patients going from one medical office to another to get prescriptions for not just opioids but other controlled substances.

Gov. Doug Ducey also signed an executive order last October limiting the first prescription of opioids to no more than a seven-day supply in cases where the state is providing the reimbursement.

On the other end of the spectrum, Arizona pharmacists can now dispense naloxone, a counter to opioid-related overdoses, over the counter so that family members can have the drug on hand if needed.

Christ said there is also a role for law enforcement — but not in going after those addicted to or abusing the drug.

I truly believe that opioid addiction and abuse is a health concern,” she said. “It’s a disease.”

And that, Christ said, means that people who want help need to feel it’s safe to get it without risk of getting arrested.

“The law enforcement component comes in with the suppliers,” she said.

“We’ve heard it anecdotally that people who really are trying to go get help, and they’re standing in line at a methadone clinic to get the medication they need to treat their illness, and they’ve got heroin dealers coming up to them in line,” Christ said. “That’s inappropriate.”

A judge on Tuesday refused to block a new state law making it easier for opponents to challenge citizen initiatives, but she sidestepped a decision on whether the law violates the state Constitution.

The ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens said opponents of the law passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature haven’t yet been harmed because there are no pending initiatives that would be affected by the new standard.

“The Court finds this matter is not ripe for judicial review,” Stephens wrote. “Plaintiffs believe House Bill 2244 will affect their future initiative efforts but this Court finds that expectation is not sufficient to make this matter ripe for judicial review of the constitutionality of HB 2244.”

The law goes into effect Wednesday and will apply to all future initiatives.

The ruling came weeks after a two-day hearing where activists who have backed previous initiatives testified that they would be hard-pressed to get them on the ballot under the new law.

Attorneys representing advocacy groups argued the Legislature overstepped its bounds when it passed the law making it easier to challenge initiatives. They also said lawmakers outlined their unconstitutional motives when they said the changes were needed because of their inability to change voter-approved laws.

Roopali Desai, an attorney for the groups, said an appeal is possible. She noted that the judge essentially agreed that initiative backers will have a harder time accessing the ballot.

A lawyer for the Legislature and the state solicitor general told Stephens lawmakers were within their rights to overrule decades of state Supreme Court precedent holding initiative efforts to lower legal standards. They also said initiative backers won’t be unduly hindered by the new law.

The new law was one of a pair of proposals targeting initiatives backed by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the wake of voter approval of a minimum wage increase in November. The wage boost and a failed effort to legalize recreational marijuana were the last straw for the chamber, which has chafed under voter-approved laws that the GOP-controlled Legislature would never pass. Among them are legalized medical marijuana and the state’s independent redistricting commission.

The law changes the legal standard for review for qualifying petitions and the initiatives they aim to ask voters to enact into law. The decades-old standard is “substantial compliance,” which means courts will generally allow an initiative to go forward if there are minor issues with petition signatures or other flaws. The tighter standard would have courts look at the initiative text and qualifying signatures  using a “strict compliance” rule, which offers little leeway for problems commonly seen when thousands of petitions are circulated.

Andrew Chavez, who runs the state’ top petition-gathering firm, testified on July 12 that efforts to get citizen initiatives on the ballot in Arizona will be virtually impossible because of the costs of complying with the new Arizona law tightening the legal standard. He said costs to collect signatures and ensure they meet the tighter standards would likely go up 25 to 30 percent, soaring above $1 million for a statewide initiative effort.

Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen wants medical marijuana dispensaries to pay personal property taxes, and the county’s dispensaries say they’re happy to comply.

But they’re not happy with the way Petersen is going about it, according to Kevin DeMenna, lobbyist for the Arizona Dispensary Association.

Since Arizona voters legalized medical marijuana in 2010, most dispensary owners have been unaware that they owe taxes on business personal property, the value of which businesses are required to remit annually to the state.  Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association, said that covers everything in a business’ building that isn’t nailed to the floor: Computers, display cases, equipment, or other movable items.

According to a press release from the assessor’s office, Petersen “will be placing medical marijuana businesses on the personal property roll for the first time this Friday. This will include applicable penalties for the many medical marijuana businesses who fail to report their property as required by state law.”

Petersen will announce those penalties and the impact of assessing the business personal property at a press conference Thursday morning.

DeMenna said there’s no conspiracy by dispensaries to not pay taxes, just confusion amidst a new industry in the state.

“Arizona’s business personal property taxes are some of the most byzantine and complex aspects of Arizona’s tax system,” he said. “Taxation through press conference is not ideal. We have every intention of being in full compliance, and in fact, expect that with future dialogue and a better understanding of the system, we will be in full compliance immediately.”

Earlier this year, dispensary owners were sent notices and forms from the assessor’s office asking them to put a value on their business personal property — while it’s the responsibility of the state to assess real property, business owners are responsible for valuing the rest, according to McCarthy.

In conversations with dispensary owners, DeMenna said it’s possible some have received such form letters in the past, but most are unaware.

“No one seems to know about this. No one,” he said. “We understand that only about a dozen (dispensaries) have paid. (The assessor’s office) think that there’s more than a hundred out there. We will be in full compliance.”

McCarthy said it’s not uncommon for a business to fail to pay those taxes based on honest confusion.

“They’re not the first entity that didn’t realize to pay their personal property tax,” he said. “Now, it is their obligation to know. In most instances in the tax realm, whether its property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes, it’s the individual’s or the business’ responsibility, right, to know what their tax obligations are.”

Depending on how much personal property a dispensary owns, they may not owe anything at all in taxes. State law exempts the first $124,000 in business personal property from taxation, according to McCarthy. However, if a dispensary owner runs multiple locations, the exemption only applies to one dispensary, not several locations, McCarthy said.

A Lake Havasu City senator says he still has yet to be convinced that marijuana has any legitimate medical uses.

But Republican Sonny Borrelli said Monday the fact remains that voters did approve legalizing the drug for medical uses in 2010 and more than 150,000 Arizonans have state permission to buy and use it. So he figures it’s the state’s obligation to ensure that buyers are getting a product that’s not tainted and, in fact, has the amount of psychoactive THC that buyers are promised.

SB 1420 would give the state Department of Agriculture the same authority over marijuana as it now has over other plants offered for sale for consumption. That would give agriculture inspectors the power to inspect the cultivation facilities where marijuana is grown.

More to the point, Borrelli wants what is being grown tested for what operators are using on the plants.

“It’s the Wild West,” he said of the current state of marijuana regulation, with no rules on pesticides and other chemicals being used on the plants.

For example, he cited a fungicide marketed as “Eagle 20.” Borrelli said federal regulations prohibit its use on tobacco “because it’s a heavy carcinogen.”

But those same federal rules are silent on use on marijuana, meaning it can be used.

“Well, I think the person that’s buying that stuff, they need to know there’s a heavy carcinogen in there,” Borrelli said. “If you’re a cancer patient, would you want to be taking medicine that could make you even sicker?”

Nothing in the legislation would ban any specific chemical. But it would require that when the marijuana is sold at the dispensary that buyers are made aware that it was used in the production.

“I want to concentrate on customer safety,” he said.

Moldy marijuana is a slightly different question.

Borrelli said he’s been told it can be treated to get rid of any fungus rather than retailers having to toss out the plants entirely. At that point it could be offered for sale — along with information on how it was treated.

But Borrelli’s legislation also has what might be considered the consumer fraud provision.

“If they’re going to advertise there’s 20 percent THC and it’s only 5 percent, they need to relabel it,” he said.

If approved, the measure would have another benefit for the more than 150,000 individuals who now have state-issued ID cards allowing them to purchase up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks: More cash in their pockets.

The original 2010 voter-approved legislation did not set a fee, leaving that up to the Department of Health Services to charge enough to administer the program. In fact, the law bars the proceeds from being used for anything else.

The agency currently charges patients $150 for one of the cards, a fee that has to be paid every year.

“It’s kind of hard to justify when they’re sitting on $40 million,” Borrelli said, with current Health Director Cara Christ having refused requests to lower the fees, even in the face of a lawsuit by medical marijuana users.

Christ won the first round when Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry said she lacked the legal authority to declare the fees excessive, even with the health department running the program with a huge surplus.

SB 1420 would lower that to $50 for the first year and $25 for renewals.

His legislation also would give $2 million out of that health department account to the Department of Agriculture to start administering then program.

The measure is being approached cautiously by the Marijuana Policy Project, the national organization that put the initiative on the 2010 ballot and worked to get it approved.

“In principle, additional safeguards that prevent contamination with molds and pesticides is something we support,” said spokesman Morgan Fox, saying he wants to ensure they are “not too onerous for caregivers in practice.”

But he said he wants to review it further before taking a position.

“I’m particularly curious to see if there would be additional or unintended requirements or restrictions that come with medical marijuana being defined as an agricultural commodity,” Fox said.

It also appears to have the cautious support of Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery who has waged repeated unsuccessful efforts to have the Arizona initiative voided because it runs contrary to federal law where possession of the drug remains a felony.

“Unless and until the federal government takes action we have an obligation to ensure the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is truly operated as a system for people who have a medical basis for using marijuana,” he told Capitol Media Services. “Replicating the protections the users of any other type of medicine would have is a reasonable and responsible course of action.”

Because the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act was enacted by voters, it can be amended only with a three-fourths vote of both the House and Senate. Borrelli already is moving to get that margin, getting another 78 of the state’s 90 lawmakers to sign on in support, including Senate President Steve Yarbrough and House Speaker J.D. Mesnard.

But it also would have to survive a possible veto by Gov. Doug Ducey who said as recently as last week that he has seen no evidence that marijuana has any legitimate medical uses.

Taxing personal property at medical marijuana dispensaries and growth operations may net Maricopa County schools more than $1 million, and likely more once the county assessor completes audits of taxes owed in previous years.

Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen announced that the county’s 109 dispensaries, growth operations and medical marijuana card certification offices were notified for the first time this year that they owe taxes on business personal property. Businesses are required to remit the value of that property – which essentially covers everything in their buildings that isn’t nailed to the floor, except for inventory – annually to the county.

Medical marijuana businesses in Maricopa County have failed to do so for years, Petersen said at a press conference August 24. Petersen said he became aware of the problem after touring a dual dispensary and growth facility in 2016.

Of the 109 medical marijuana-related businesses that were sent forms in January to file business personal property taxes, only 11 responded by an April 1 deadline, Petersen said.

In lieu of 98 businesses placing a value on their own personal property, the Assessor’s Office calculated a value for them – and that levy includes a 10 percent penalty for failing to report. Collectively, the taxes and penalties from medical marijuana businesses should net the county roughly $1.5 million in 2017, Petersen said, about 65 percent of which goes to local school districts the businesses are located in.

“The point of this is to tell you all that I will pledge to work with (medical marijuana business owners),” Petersen said. “Even if they received a value they believe is incorrect, I encourage them to come in and meet with my staff. I would like to see their facilities so we can see what kind of property is there. And then we can correct the record if necessary.”

Since Arizona voters legalized medical marijuana in 2010, most dispensary owners have been unaware that they owe taxes on business personal property, according to Kevin DeMenna, lobbyist for the Arizona Dispensaries Association.

There was no conspiracy by dispensaries to avoid paying taxes, only confusion amidst a new industry in Arizona, he said.

DeMenna disputed that collecting taxes on medical marijuana businesses would net schools new tax revenue. Given the state’s budgets for school district, the county sets a tax rate to collect the amount allocated for school budgets. Collecting personal property taxes on dispensaries and growth facilities “produces a shift in collections to other taxpayers,” DeMenna said, not a net increase for schools.

In a statement, the Arizona Dispensaries Association vowed to pay its full, fair share of taxes, and if necessary, penalties for late payment, but that the medical marijuana community was not pleased to learn about the issue via a press conference.

“Arizona’s business personal property taxes are some of the most byzantine and complex aspects of Arizona’s tax system,” DeMenna said in an interview. “Taxation through press conference is not ideal. We have every intention of being in full compliance, and in fact, expect that with future dialogue and a better understanding of the system, we will be in full compliance immediately.”

Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association, said it’s not uncommon for a business to fail to pay those taxes based on honest confusion.

“They’re not the first entity that didn’t realize they had to pay their personal property tax,” McCarthy said. “Now, it is their obligation to know. In most instances in the tax realm, whether its property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes, it’s the individual’s or the business’ responsibility, right, to know what their tax obligations are.”

That explains why the Assessor’s Office wasn’t even aware medical marijuana businesses weren’t paying business personal property taxes until last year, following Petersen’s tour. Unless a business files personal property taxes, Petersen said his office might not be aware they’re supposed to be paying them.

Petersen said his office did reach out to the medical marijuana community prior to announcing a 10 percent penalty for late filings.

In an October op-ed published in the Arizona Capitol Times, Petersen wrote that he opposed a ballot initiative to legal recreational marijuana because “the marijuana industry in Arizona has failed to follow basic state law regarding the listing and reporting of their business personal property in Arizona.”

In January, Petersen sent staff to a marijuana industry networking session hosted by the Marijuana Industry Trade Association to talk about business personal property taxes. Demitri Downing, the association’s executive director, confirmed that officials with the Assessor’s Office attended and gave a brief announcement.

“We would love to have him back to explain how things are going to work,” Downing said.

DeMenna said the Arizona Dispensaries Association has no affiliation with the MITA, and that the lack of awareness among a majority of dispensary owners leading up to Petersen’s announcement should speak volumes about the assessor’s outreach efforts. Nonetheless, DeMenna said there will be “a race to full compliance” without hesitation on the part of medical marijuana businesses in Maricopa County.

That includes possibly paying millions in back taxes. Petersen announced that it’s likely his staff will conduct audits of medical marijuana businesses for failing to report personal property valuations from 2014 to 2016.

A Tucson Republican lawmaker wants people who are legally entitled to use medical marijuana to pay for a program to discourage drug use among others rather than lowering the excess fees they pay the state.

Rep. Vince Leach introduced HB 2066 which would let the state Department of Health Services use what it does not need to run the program for “education, awareness and prevention messaging.” He said the state is not doing enough.

Separately, Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, wants to take $5 million out of the funds to give to law enforcement agencies “for crimes related to drug trafficking and distribution.” His proposal is SB 1061.

There’s plenty of money to spend: At last count the health department had amassed more than $40 million.

And that situation is likely to continue. Figures obtained by Capitol Media Services show the state collected $24.9 million in fees last year from patients, caregivers, dispensaries and growers. Expenses during that same period to run the program were $11.2 million.

That annual surplus — and the ever-increasing bank account — exist solely because the $150 annual fee set by the health department after voters first approved medical marijuana in 2010 is bringing in far more than needed to administer the program. Will Humble who was health director at the time, acknowledged he underestimated how many people would qualify to be certified by the state to purchase the drug.

In fact, Humble was preparing to reduce the fees when he quit following the 2014 election of Gov. Doug Ducey.

But current Health Director Cara Christ has shown no interest in following through. So two patients have filed suit to force her to do so.

If either or both measures become law, that would undermine that lawsuit because it would cut into and possibly eliminate the surplus that the litigation hopes to have refunded to patients in the form of lower fees.

Central to the question is whether medical marijuana patients should be subsidizing anti-drug efforts.

Attorney Sean Berberian, who is pursing the legal action to reduce the fees, said it’s not right to force patients to pay more than necessary.

Leach, for his part, is not sympathetic to that concern. More to the point, he’s not convinced that all the people who are getting the drug legally really need it for legitimate medical purposes.

“If you break down the number of people that have (medical marijuana) cards, the preponderance, by far, is ‘chronic back pain,’ ” he said. And Leach sniffed at the fact that only those with a doctor’s recommendation can get the drug.

“We know there’s only a limited number of doctors issuing the vast majority of these,” he said. Leach also said he’s not convinced that the doctors are actually reviewing the medical records of patients — something they’re supposed to do — before issuing the recommendation that allows people to get the state-issued card to purchase and use the drug.

So from Leach’s perspective, if they want to use marijuana — something he and lawmakers are powerless to stop since the law was approved by voters — they should contribute to the cost of keeping others from taking it up. And he wants a “meaningful” campaign, “not just putting some sign up on a billboard.”

“We’re obviously not doing a good job of educating people about the harmful effects of drugs, whether they be alcohol, whether they be medical marijuana, whether they be opioids,” Leach said.

He also wants an extensive — and expensive — campaign to keep children from consuming the drug, whether intentionally or by accident.

“We should be spending more and more and more of the dollars that are coming in, the dollars that are available, to make sure that our children in school aren’t taking what they think are gummy bears or strawberries or candy when in fact it is medical marijuana,” Leach said.

Along the same lines, Leach also has introduced HB 2064 which would make it illegal to acquire, possess, manufacture or sell marijuana that is package or labeled “in a manner that is attractive to minors.”

That would outlaw cartoons on the label. Also forbidden would be putting any sort of symbol or celebrity image “commonly used to market products to minors.”

And the packaging could not have a design, brand or name that looks like a candy bar or anything else that minors might buy.

All three measures could have a significant hurdle.

Because the 2010 law was approved by voters, the Arizona Constitution allows changes only with a three-fourths vote of both the House and Senate. And even if Leach or Farnsworth can get that margin, any change is subject to the separate constitutional requirement that it “furthers the purpose” of the original law.

No date has been set for a hearing on any of the measures.

Out-of-state visitors and new residents may possess and use medical marijuana if recommended by a physician under another state’s laws, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

In the opinion issued on March 15, the court upheld the dismissal of an indictment against Stanley Kemmish, Jr., a California resident who was found in possession of marijuana, THC wax and a pipe during a traffic stop. He was charged with one count each of possession of narcotic drugs, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

But Kemmish also had a doctor’s recommendation permitting him to purchase medical marijuana in California, which he showed to officers during the stop. The letter stated that it was the doctor’s “professional opinion, [Kemmish] would significantly benefit from the use of medical marijuana” and “approved the use of cannabis as medicine” in compliance with California’s Compassionate Use Act.

The marijuana in Kemmish’s possession was purchased in California.

He argued the case should be dismissed in Superior Court, which it was, because the letter allowed him to possess the marijuana and THC wax in Arizona.

Under Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act, a non-resident or new resident who has only been in the state for less than 30 days is permitted to use medical marijuana if the patient holds a registry card, or its equivalent, issued under the laws of another state. The act does not permit qualifying patients to obtain marijuana in Arizona.

The state argued “or its equivalent” should only be read to mean other state-issued cards permitting medical marijuana use.

And by holding a physician’s letter as equal to such a card, the state further suggested, the court would be granting non-residents greater rights than Arizonans, which attorneys for the state called “an absurd result.”

“It is illogical to hold that Arizona residents in enacting the [Act]… would have voted to afford residents of California greater protections than what they were voting to grant themselves,” the state argued, according to the court’s opinion.

California’s Compassionate Use Act is broader than the law in Arizona, according to Arizona prosecutors, providing “no safeguards to prevent abuse.”

To support that, the state referred to an argument by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project’s campaign in favor of Arizona’s law: “Unlike California, where it’s possible to get a doctor’s recommendation to use marijuana for almost any condition, only patients with a limited number of serious and debilitating conditions… will be able to acquire medical marijuana in Arizona. Patients will also have to register with the state…”

The court rejected the state’s arguments on several grounds.

Judge Paul J. McMurdie wrote that while Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act requires patients to obtain a registry card to legally purchase and use medical marijuana, it did not impose such a requirement on out-of-state patients.

“Under the Act, visitors, and Arizona residents here less than 30 days, may possess and use marijuana purchased under the medical marijuana laws of another state,” he wrote.

And McMurdie repeatedly pointed out that the state agreed Kemmish received a physician’s recommendation according to California law, and that he would have been able to obtain a registry card in Arizona had he applied and paid the fee.

Without that card, he was only entitled to limited immunities to prosecution under Arizona’s law – he could possess marijuana but not purchase it here – and not to any other protections he may have had under California’s act.

McMurdie was joined in his opinion by Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell.

An effort to amend Arizona’s medical marijuana laws won’t include a measure lowering fees for patients.

Sen. Sonny Borrelli, the sponsor of a bill to give the Department of Agriculture the authority to test marijuana as the agency does other edible crops, told his Republican colleagues on Tuesday that he’ll strip a provision in the bill that would have dramatically lowered fees the state collects when issuing registration cards to patients.

SB 1420 would have lowered the cost of obtaining a state-issued medical marijuana ID card from $150 to $50.

Renewing the registration would have cost $25, rather than another $150 fee currently charged to patients.

That provision didn’t sit well with Borrelli’s Republican colleagues, most of whom were prepared to vote against the bill if the lower fees remained.

Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, said he was “trying to find a happy medium” with the bill, which initially drew bipartisan support — 78 of his 89 colleagues in the Arizona Senate and House of Representatives signed onto SB 1420 as cosponsors.

Democrats like Rep. Mark Cardenas, who worked closely with Borrelli to draft SB 1420, were pleased with Borrelli’s effort to test marijuana crops for safety and accuracy, and that the bill included language to lower fees, which have been criticized as exhorbitant given that the state’s Medical Marijuana Fund, which is used to administer the program, is flush with cash.

But Republicans began to question their support after hearing testimony from opponents like Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who criticized the lower fees in a Senate hearing on February 1.

Polk claimed that cheaper ID cards, available only to patients at least 18 years old, would make it easier for “ kids” to obtain marijuana once they are legally adults.

Any significant opposition spells doom for Borrelli’s chances of getting SB 1420 approved. Because the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act was approved by voters, it’s protected from most legislative efforts to meddle with the law. The act can only be changed by a three-fourths majority vote in the House and Senate.

“When you have Sheila Polk coming to the committee hearing and yelling at the sponsor, and then you have all those Republican cosponsors peeling off, that says something,” said Joe DeMenna, a lobbyist for the Arizona Dispensaries Association. “So we understand that Sonny has to deal with his base. That’s the political reality he’s dealing with.”

DeMenna said dispensary owners were disappointed that lower card fees are off the table. Initially in favor of the bill, the association is now taking a neutral stance, DeMenna said.

The association still has concerns over the Department of Agriculture’s involvement as yet another agency with oversight of medical marijuana — the program is currently administered by the Department of Health Services. But they generally support the changes Borrelli’s proposed.

“The Arizona Dispensaries Association is not going to get in the way of progress. These are needed changes, and we know this,” DeMenna said.

Demitri Downing, executive director of the Marijuana Trade Industry Association of Arizona, said it was disappointing that Borrelli’s GOP colleagues drew a line in the sand to break up what Downing described as a bipartisan compromise bill.

“We would not support a product that did not honor the process of Democrats and Republicans working together. And that’s what legislation governed by the Voter Protection Act calls for,” Downing said.

Democrats may still support the other measures in SB 1420, including requirements that the Department of Agriculture develop testing standards for cannabis crops and new packaging requirements. But Downing urged them to withhold their votes and shelve the bill, for now.

“If I was a Democrat, I would say come back to the table, let’s do this next year,” he said.

Cardenas, a Phoenix Democrat who’s also cosponsored legislation to legalize recreational marijuana in Arizona, declined to comment.

The Arizona Supreme Court won’t allow state and local officials to hide behind federal drug laws to throw roadblocks in the path of those who want to sell marijuana.

Without comment, the justices on Tuesday refused to review, much less overturn, a Court of Appeals ruling rejecting arguments that federal law trumps the 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The lower court said the fact that marijuana remains a felony under federal law does not preempt the state from deciding to decriminalize it for some.

That same ruling also specifically rebuffed contentions that having county officials issue the zoning permits required for dispensaries would mean they were illegally aiding and abetting in the violation of federal law.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeals pointed out that nothing in Arizona law — or in their ruling — protects dispensary operators or even medical marijuana users from being pursued and prosecuted by federal authorities under federal law.

But attorney Steven White who represented the dispensary that argued the case, said that, for all intents and purposes, that can’t happen — at least not now.

He pointed out that a provision in the budget, first inserted in 2015, precludes the U.S. Department of Justice from using any of its funds to prosecute providers of medical marijuana if they are complying with state laws. That provision was just renewed.

That extension, however, runs only through Dec. 8, meaning Congress will need to vote again if they want to keep Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his staffers in check.

The decision by the Supreme Court drew a slap from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery who had sought to use the federal law to not only block new dispensaries but effectively void the decision by voters to legalize the drug for medical use.

“It represents the latest failure of every level of the judicial branch in Arizona, from the trial court to the Court of Appeals to the highest state court of review, to fulfill their respective oaths of office,” he told Capitol Media Services.

The 2010 law allows those with a doctor’s recommendation and a state-issued ID card to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The law also set up a network of state-regulated privately run dispensaries to sell the drug.

Before issuing a permit for a dispensary, though, state health officials need certification from the local government that the site is properly zoned. White Mountain Health, seeking to locate in Sun City, which is unincorporated, sought the necessary certification from the county.

Montgomery, however, instructed county officials not to respond. He argued that doing so would make them guilty of violating federal laws which prohibit not only the possession and sale of marijuana but doing anything to facilitate either.

Most significant, he contended that anything the state enacts cannot preempt federal law. Montgomery said the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes federal laws supreme and says “the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

But Judge Donn Kessler, writing for the appellate court last year, said nothing in the federal Controlled Substances Act actually prohibits states from having their own drug laws.

Anyway, the judge said, the fact that Arizona has chosen to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana simply immunizes those involved from being prosecuted under Arizona law. He said there is no conflict with federal law because nothing that Arizona does precludes the federal government, if it wants, from enforcing its own laws.

“The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not otherwise purport to shield anyone or any act from federal prosecution,” Kessler wrote.

Nor was Kessler persuaded by that claim that county officials would be “aiding and abetting” those violating federal drug laws. He said county officials were not promoting the sale of marijuana but instead dealing with a simple zoning matter.

And Kessler said that budget provision limiting the Department of Justice from prosecuting people in compliance with their own state’s medical marijuana laws undermines Montgomery’s contention that state or county officials could find themselves prosecuted under federal law.

None of that convinced Montgomery that Arizona voters were ever free in the first place to legalize medical marijuana, saying that trial court acknowledged the conflict between federal law and what voters enacted.

“Accordingly, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act should have been held unconstitutional without regard for the method in which it passed into law,” he said. “Unfortunately, the court’s abdication of its duty leaves Maricopa County residents, who have consistently voted against legalizing any access to marijuana whether medicinal or recreational, at the mercy of the policy choices of the federal government.”

But while it’s true that voters in Maricopa County — and, in fact, in 12 others — opposed the 2010 initiative legalizing marijuana for medical use, there was strong enough support in Pima and Coconino counties to have the measure approved on a statewide basis.

The question of whether edibles and other extracts are protected under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act could come down to what is considered usable marijuana.

The Arizona Supreme Court considered the question during oral arguments Tuesday in State of Arizona v. Rodney Jones,  a case which will determine if the legality of hashish – the resin from the marijuana plant – is the same as the plant itself.

Yavapai County prosecutor Benjamin Kreutzberg, representing the state, said voters knew the difference between cannabis, which covers things like hashish and other extracts, and marijuana when they voted to legalize it for medical purposes in 2010 and they did not intend for extracts or edibles to be included.

Kreutzberg said the language in AMMA permits marijuana patients to use “usable marijuana,” meaning the marijuana flower and leaves of the plant. Anything else he says would be illegal.

Justice John Pelander, who is still involved in a handful of cases after his Feb. 28 retirement, said the distinction between cannabis and marijuana could not be determined from the materials voters were given in 2010. Pelander also said the definition of marijuana does include all parts of the plant, conflicting what Kreutzberg argued.

“It’s undisputed in this case that the resin that we’re talking about here is a part of the plant. So tell me again why the people of Arizona would have known that resin extracted from a marijuana plant would not be covered by AMMA?” Pelander said.

The case stems from the 2013 arrest of Rodney Christopher Jones for possession of 0.05 of an ounce of hashish, even though he had a valid medical marijuana card and bought the product from a state-licensed dispensary. Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, an ardent anti-marijuana crusader prosecuted Jones and he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. He got out of prison in June 2017.

The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded in a 2-1 decision in June that hashish is legally not the same as the plant itself.

If the state’s highest court upholds the decision, then that could affect dispensaries statewide, but one member of the Arizona Dispensaries Association isn’t too worried.

Moe Asnani, an ADA board member in Tucson, said because they don’t know where Jones got the hashish from, they won’t know if it would even affect the dispensaries since no proof has been provided he did obtain the hashish from a dispensary.

Asnani said the fact the Court of Appeals decision wasn’t unanimous is important.

“The deck is stacked against this being upheld,” Asnani said.

On Jones’ side, attorney Robert Mandel told the justices the whole purpose of AMMA was to give patients with Department of Health Services-approved medical conditions access to marijuana chemicals for medicinal purposes. He said it applies to children and adults.

“Nobody anticipated that two or three-year-old minors were going to be rolling joints and smoking them, because that’s absurd,” he said to the justices. He also explained how there are even situations where patients cannot smoke or eat it and rely on other ways of consumption.

Mandel then described the process of activating the ingredients, which led to Justice Ann Scott Timmer mentioning how one of the briefs filed went into detail about how to make pot brownies and quipped, “now I know exactly how to do this.”

The important part to take from the conversation is that a high temperature is necessary for the product to be medically effective and that crushing up flowers wouldn’t do anything as Timmer suggested.

Kreutzberg said “it can be done” and refused to concede the point to Timmer that without the heat, crushing the flower would not be an effective way to receive the medical benefits of the plant.

Chief Justice Scott Bales, who recently announced his impending retirement, also questioned the deputy county attorney on this matter.

Bales said reading the law the way Kreutzberg does would mean edibles and extracts are illegal, which would be irrational.

“… it would force people to use the least effective way of obtaining the therapeutic effects that are thought to be associated with cannabinoids,” Bales said.

Bales also took issue with Kreutzberg attributing to the voters knowing the differences between cannabis and marijuana in 2010.

“It’s hard for me to see how you can attribute to the voters an intent to preserve a broad prohibition on cannabis and only permit a more narrow definition of marijuana when the AMMA itself has a broader definition,” Bales said.

Asnani brought up what he thinks is a bigger issue that people don’t seem to be addressing.

“Everybody is worried about medical marijuana … but hemp is also going to be affected.” Asnani said.

He said if the state Supreme Court decides to uphold the ruling then you could say all hemp extracts are also illegal, which would make it stand alone as the only state with illegal hemp products nullifying Trump’s farm bill, which legalized hemp federally.

The court gave no indication when it will rule.