How can the draft rules be improved? Open-Ended Response A recommending physician should not have to assume responsibility and routine care for a patient's qualifying condition if another physician is already providing routine care and responsibility. Would it be right for a doctor that isn't an oncologist to assume responsibility and routine care for a cancer patient? Doctors that aren't specialists may feel VERY UNCOMFORTABLE about providing care, as currently defined in the draft rules, for a patient that would require a specialist. A recommending physician should certify, though, that another doctor is assuming responsibility of the patient's routine care, if applicable. Also, the rules should clarify what will happen once patients are issued cards and dispensaries are built but not functioning due to growers not having completed growing marijuana plants. Also, persons in rural parts of Arizona will face a similar dilemma if a dispensary opens that was not present when their cards and approval to grow were issued. Any person that grows plants when no FUNCTIONING dispensary is within 25 miles should be allowed to continue to grow that plant, for however long it takes, even if a dispensary within 25 miles has begun to sell marijuana. It can take numerous months, lots of money, and effort to grow a plant. Don't waste the time and effort of patients during this gray period of time. The law does not allow for taking away this right! Also, what if a potential patient has no medical record within the last 12 months? Could older than 12 moth records be used? This should be clarified and there should be a way to allow patients without 12 months of previous medical records a way to get a recommendation. Limit the number of patients a physician can recommend for medical marijuana to no more than 100 per year. Limit the number of patients a physician can recommend for medical marijuana to no more than 100 per year. The draft rules can be improved through the removal of R9-17-306(A). The reason that I feel this way is that there are a number of legitimate reasons for a business to relocate, including, but not limited to natural disasters, changing market trends, issues with the landlord, and etc. Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! Add PTSD and ensure no taxation as it was the original law we voted for! R9-17-302 sections B2, D1, and D2 should be changed to allow a merit-based process. Issue 1: Well- intentioned applicants looking to open a legitimate health-based dispensary are put on equal footing with someone looking to open a head shop so long as they both have completed the application. Issue 2: Applicants with a well-thought-out business plan are put on equal footing with ones that have barely a business plan at all. According to Don Herrington from the Tempe Chamber of Commerce’s Business Luncheon on February 17,2011, AZDHS’s main motivation behind the current system of choosing a lottery system was to “ensure an equal opportunity a license award for those individuals who have money and those who do not have moneyâ€. It would be wholly inappropriate for completeness to be solely judged on physical location preparation. It would be a more prudent route to contrast each application against critera which is beneficial to the State of Arizona. Is the business going to be around for 5 years or more? Is the business structured to meet patient demands in an accountable fashion? Does the business have the appropriate medical staff to avoid ethically questionable dispensing? Does the business have a plan to operate on start-up or investment capital in the first year? Does the business have a plan in place to guarantee quality and reduce the threat to consumers associated with large scale cultivation (i.e. viruses, mold and fungi)? A merit-based criteria would be significantly more beneficial for the State of Arizona economically by spawning businesses prepared to do business for 5 or more years and bring revenue to the State. Additionally, the benefit to the patient would be equally as preferable. A dispensary that practices safe cultivation and dispensing is a help to the patient community instead of a threat to their health. R9-17-302 B-2b Random selection from the pool that meets the "minimum" qualifications is not a very good idea. This lottery type system will favor the deep-pocket investors that will treat it just like a lottery with good odds. The more applications, the better their chances. We've already seen the money from other states as evidenced in the community forum meetings that you held. Half the room are marijuana advocates, the other half are lawyers and investors. Please develop some sort of criteria to choose the applicants fairly. Please take into account the business plans that show an active interest and partnership with their communities, not just profits with an end-of-year donation to an anonymous charity in order to comply with the not-for-profit character. R9-17-303 #5 - You should require more than a sworn statement that the dispensary location is in compliance with local zoning restrictions. Individuals can easily download the information from a county assessors website and include the specific municipalities zoning guidelines in the application. Folks that are winging it with "commercial retail" properties are going to waste a lot of time and money. R9-17-306 There should be exceptions to changing dispensary locations during the first 3 years (i.e. building destroyed by fire, flood, or anything that would condemn the building and cause undue hardship to dispensary owner) R9-17-302 I am not apposed to to cities or towns having the opportunity to comment on redistributing dispensaries in their jurisdiction. However, there is no indication of when they will be allowed to do so. Furthermore, there are no provisions for providing that information to dispensary applicants. R9-17-302 CHAA distribution of dispensaries has a lot of flaws. Utilizing zones is a great idea, but the zones should match the population density and distribution of pharmacies, for which the law is based. Several CHAA's are not zoned for dispensaries. Are those to be reallocated to the population dense areas to allow more than one dispensary per zone?? Regarding the matter of issuing a dispensary certificate: Create a panel of individuals to grade each applicants submission based on a standard. I used the word "submission" instead of "application" because there is additional information attached to the application such as a detailed business plan, proof of solvency, dispensary lease and it goes on and on.... If you have problems finding the manpower to create an application grading panel let us know. There are many individuals that may not have supported this initiative but would certainly volunteer their time to ensure that the entities issued a certificate were the qualified based on specific criteria that is best summed up in Will Humble's letter dated February 14, 2011. Please refer to the previous comment above. There are many things that can and should be changed. Please consider the following ideas as starting points and make revisions before the 'final' guidelines are issued. There has got to be a way to have questions and answers on the program before it it finalized. So far AZDHS has overcomplicated a seemingly simple law. Medical Marijuana is now legal. Let the entrepreneurs get started doing business and the rules can be adjusted as it goes along. Remove the stigma and start dealing with it as any legal business. Regulations will surely follow. There is no need to delay patients receiving affordable, compassionate care now. DHS has not become experts in treatment and are not a regulatory body. We need to see the application before it becomes final. As the draft rules are being reviewed by the public, it is equally important to have the application be available for public review as well. The application is the initial step in reviewing the criteria AZDHS will be using in their due diligence. It is important to get public comments on the content of the application as it is just as critical as the rules used to create it. There is no reason for a monetization requirement that has been suggested in the application. It is arbitrary and the law makes no reference to it. As with most other business ventures, it is the responsibility of the certificate owner to obtain the funding needed. While there is no question some financial assets will be needed, requiring inordinate amounts, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is unreasonable and financially discriminatory. Entities and individuals having extraordinary financial backing does not make them better qualified to provide needed services to the community, it only makes them wealthier Some have begun introducing scare tactics including raising the possibility of 'Mexican drug cartels" being enticed if a significant financial floor is not instituted. This is ignorant at best. Precisely how and why would any respectable citizen choose to attach themselves to the dangers and risks of "cartel" association? If there is evidence to support these alarmist claims, it is imperative that the evidence be provided immediately and publicly and thoroughly reviewed for accuracy prior to accepting it as fact and designing guidelines to quell it.