Medical Marijuana

Owners of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Arizona Wary of Legalization Campaign



Owners of medical marijuana dispensaries in Arizona are concerned about the effect that the legalization of marijuana could have on their businesses if a legalization campaign run by the Marijuana Policy Project is successful.

From The Arizona Republic:

Medical-marijuana dispensary operators are apprehensive about plans by a powerful marijuana-advocacy group to campaign for full legalization of the drug in Arizona.

The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates marijuana legalization and regulation, is a former ally of the dispensary owners, having played a key financial and public-relations role in passage of the state law that created the burgeoning medical-marijuana program.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at and tweet us at @reason247

NEXT: Biden Arrives in Mexico, Praises US-Mexico Relationship

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Aside from the obvious rent-seeking angle, trying to get dispensaries approved in AZ has been an uphill battle. We had to approve MMJ three times before the state government buckled. I would like to see the MMJ victory consolidated before we move on to a potentially high stakes legalization campaign and experience a backlash. We have the governor against us. The Maricopa County Attorney General, Bill Montgomery is fighting us every step of the way. I haven’t actually seen any clinics in AZ, whereas I see plenty in CA. People probably need to see that MMJ is working before they will be willing to legalize.

    On the other hand, if this initiative is successful, all that becomes academic. I might be worrying about nothing.

    1. The initiative is wildly successful in CA in that pot is essentially legal here now. Most of the stores only have a very thin veneer of “medicinality.”

      Somehow I don’t think that’s the kind of success that’s going to help you AZ, though.

    2. Agreed. I’ve seen one dispensary in Tucson, and Jan Brewer has been a complete POS on the issue (not that I expected much better from the likes of her).

      Learn to walk before you run, and all that.

    3. “The Maricopa County Attorney General, Bill Montgomery is fighting us every step of the way.”

      He’s not the one the feds are investigating along with sheriff Joe is he, or is that the Phoenix city prosecutor?

      1. That was Andrew Thomas, and he’s been disbarred and members of his staff punished.

    4. I can guarantee you they will come out in droves to vote for this. And the dispensaries just don’t want the competition. They already have a monopoly on growing rights. And the opposition from Jan Brewer and Bill Montgomery will be old news by the time this law passes. AZDHS does not want the workload associated with medical marijuana anyways, they just don’t want to deal with it. They want to sit on their fat asses and get paid to do nothing. And everyone in Arizona is oblivious to the medical marijuana law. You try to talk to the local sheeple about it and they will argue about medical use not being legal or they say they know nothing about it. You would be surprised how many people in Arizona are not connected to the grid of information these days. Their more worried about their prescription med’s and scoring some nasty ass spice.

      1. You’re right about people being disconnected.

        I was collecting signatures to reject the Obamacare Medicare/Medicaid expansion in AZ (Brewercare). I gave my spiel to one young lady, and she asked, in complete seriousness, “what’s Obamacare?” This was at ASU’s journalism school.

  2. It’s interesting to me how people who exist in a very narrow legal space, and are subject to random federal raids would be willing to remain in that space, risking long jail sentences just to keep their market share.

    I mean, sure, livelihood is livelihood, but if they’re good at what they do, if the product is widely legalized, they’ve already got a jump on the market by having a known distribution point, methodology, inventory, product– the whole shebang.

    1. Freedom is scary. Never underestimate that. Only fully informed consumers are in favor an unregulated free market, and there are damn few of those out there.

  3. Fuck them. I have no patience for that bullshit, like Humboldt county in California campaigning against prop 19. Letting petty personal preferences getting in the way of ending one of the most immoral public projects ever is not acceptable.

    Oh, and a bonus Fuck You to Reason for continuing to post mis-labeled links that send you to their own pathetic, useless 24/7 instead of where it should go.

    1. Yeah, here’s a link to our link to the story.

    2. Is having to click the mouse twice really that much of a burden?

      1. Little annoyances add up, and it seems like a slightly sleazy, self-serving SEO practice.

      2. It’s just using the internet wrong. If they labeled a link “as we reported in Reason 24/7” then I’d be only a little annoyed. But they are labeling links to specific sites, only the links don’t go to those sites. It’s lying. Or in the case of AM/PM links, the highlighted links imply that one would click on it to get more information. But you don’t, you get sent to another page that tells you… pretty much the same information you just read. That’s not lying, but it’s not entirely honest and again, it’s just bad internet form. IMHO.

        1. Virginia Postrel would have never put up with this happy-horse bullshit. Fuck.

          1. I’m drinking, I’m drinking….

            1. Reporting for duty!

        2. Maybe we should start a kickstarter event to fund proper linkage ….

          1. I wonder how hard it would be to make a user script that jumped straight to the (link) link in 24/7 articles.

            1. 80% of the time learning how to make a firefox / chrome script. 1% making it. 19% responding to all the assholes mad that you made it for FF or Chrome and not the other.

              1. Fuck anybody who doesn’t use Chrome.

                1. Chrome? FIREFOX?
                  I’m still using Lynx

                  1. I tried links (derivative of lynx, I believe) but it didn’t do H&R well.

                    I use it to browse reddit at work, so I never have to admit that I browse reddit.

                2. Doesn’t Google keep all the information about where you browse? I mean, why the hell would Google make a browser otherwise?

                  1. I’d guess they probably don’t keep much with the browser, just because they don’t have to. They get that when you search. and when you hit just about any site (analytics).

                    1. Google shares your search history across devices, independent of which browser you use (if you’re logged in)

                    2. I believe there are two things in Chrome that are privacy unfriendly. You can always use Chromium the open source basis for Chrome, or Comodo Dragon a revised version meant to be more security friendly. Reasonable should work with both.

                3. Fuck Chrome in the ear, sideways. I’m supposed to install an app that updates without even so much as asking for permission?

      3. It’s just Reason’s “GET OFF MY LAWN” Brigade.

  4. Fear of lower prices because of increased competition: surprise, surprise.

    1. “EXTRA, EXTRA! Established business fears new competition! Read all about it!”

    2. David E! Good to see you post – it’s been awhile. Peace

      1. shucks

  5. MMJ dispensaries are not the bad guy here; at least not yet. They are already besieged by the governmental apparatus here and having to claw for every legal right they have obtained. AZ is not like CA. We have been rebuffed three times by administrations of both parties in implementing MMJ when it has been voted for by the body politic.

    Small steps are appropriate in the face of the level of hostility we’ve seen.

    1. See my comment above. It would seem to me… SEEM to me that widening the legal space would be better for MMJ, not worse. I see the problem you describe as being a result of too narrow a legal space in which to exist.

      But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

      1. From what I’ve gathered, the fear is that the push for marijuana legalization will fail, and that the funding going towards that initiative detracts from the money and effort that will be needed to launch legal challenges, set up a favorable business environment, etc.

        If full legalization succeeds, I agree that it will have been worth it but for right now I doubt the ability of our state to legalize if for example CA wasn’t able to do so successfully.

    2. I could be sympathetic to that, and I’m not necessarily saying that they have to be outspokenly *for* it, but I would prefer that they not actively speak out against it. The people interviewed could have just said “I’m not taking a position, it will be for the voters to decide”.

      1. Probably would have been more appropriate, I agree.

  6. Cartels gonna cartel yo

  7. Legalized Pot?
    Budweiser Bud.

    Is that what you hippies really want?

    1. Let me get 10 Satoshis on pump 3, and a pack of Marlboro Greens. Oh yea… a bottle of your best Swiss Absinthe, too.

      1. Sure, just place your license on the scanner and place your hand on this fingerprinting machine and we’ll be good to… hang on, you’re on a No Buy List. Transaction denied.

        1. Nah, if we’re trading satoshi’s, that’s under the table.

          by then, they won’t have any federal reserve notes to pay anyone to enforce the laws.

    2. That does seem like the big hippie argument against it – it’s going to lead to evil corporations forcing us to consume cheap crappy weed filled with chemicals.

      I think our economy is well enough developed, though, that while certainly there will be a “Budweiser Bud,” I have no doubt there will still be a market for quality.

    3. Why the fletch not? Currently, I can buy weak-ass Budweiser/Miller/Coors, or I can buy real (craft-brewed or imported) beer. I’m really not seeing what’s wrong with going the same route with weed.

  8. Wow, an industry using laws and government to drive out competition. Who’d have thought?

  9. Via VODKAPundit:

    “Now, this debt ceiling ? I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up ? raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”

    Obama went on to suggest that “the average person” mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:

    “It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the ? taking the vote.”

    I think he was stoned, and I’m not kidding. Either Wiggleroom was stoned when he said those words, or stoned when he or his speechwriter wrote those words, because that is not how a non-stoned person speaks or thinks. As a young man I spent four years in the former Pot Capital of the World?, Humboldt County, CA ? and I know these things.

    1. Let me be… uh… clear… uh…

      1. “I never said there was a red line….the world said there was a red line

        How long till Bammy claims that he never supported Obamacare, it was those damn republicans that foisted it on congress.

  10. ‘Disgraceful:’ University suspends prof who hoped for murder of NRA children

    Look at the face of that creep. Looks like someone opposed to guns as they are a rape prevention device.

    1. staff picture for yearbook? Totally going for beady eyes, yea.

    2. J-school; someone told him his opinions matter.
      Turns out they do, just not the way he thought.

    3. *shrug*

      Let him speak, and let him speak louder. When we suppress people like him, we believe people like he don’t exist.

      1. “Let him speak, and let him speak louder. When we suppress people like him, we believe people like he don’t exist.”

        No one stopped him from speaking, they just took his ‘official license’ away.
        He’s yammering on, but not as a prof. I have no problem with that.

        1. Exactly right. He isn’t entitled to his job anymore than any other profession. It’s not just a political opinion he is expressing but a mentality that reflects badly on his employer.

    4. I wonder if the author of this piece would stand by her assertion that you can’t hide behind the First Amendment.

      Similar situation: blowhard cop in small Pennsylvania town loses job after sending off Tweet attacking ‘libtards’ with some violent rhetoric and posting videos of himself with guns.

      1. Per above; you’re welcome to say your piece, but tax payers are not required to pay your salary while you’re doing so.
        Who in hell was the ‘performance artist’ who claimed censorship when the feds decided not to fund her performances? Not censorship, just not paying you to ‘say’ that; keep talking on your dime.

        1. The US Supreme Court used to agree, but now, not so much:


        2. That’s really the problem with academia now – public funding, so that we feel like we should get to control what professors say.

          I used to teach at the college level and it was a nightmare. Whatever you said essentially had to be approved by the administration, and if people didn’t like what you said, they wouldn’t debate, they would just complain to the administration.

          Many years ago when I was a student, the whole idea of college was that you could say crazy ass shit to start a debate, and debate itself was considered a good and healthy thing. Great class discussions would start with a professor saying “what if I said something like . . .” and you the class have to actually show that a crazy idea is crazy.

          Now if you say something controversial, you get disciplined precisely in order to prevent further discussion.

          Don’t get me wrong – what this shithead said is small-minded and morally reprehensible. At a college, though, the proper response is to point out why he’s wrong.

    5. I’d like to see that fat face SOB try it, himself. But the same as with pussies like Lindsey Graham, he wouldn’t dare try it in his wildest dreams.

    6. “”Hell no, hell no, I do not regret that Tweet,” he said. “I don’t take it back one bit.”

  11. Maryland will be the last state in the union to legalize weed. There may be a few other outliers, but like the others, only national law will force such archaic and draconian law states to do so.

    I know we had an article a while back here about which states will be next to legalize weed, but I thought it was not very accurate.

    In my top 3, I would say Kentucky, Maine, and Oregon for the next 3.

    1. I suspect that Florida will linger on the fence until the bitter end as well.

      1. Florida will enact the death penalty for possession well before they legalize weed.Despite Fla. being about the most druggiest state.

    2. 28 Reasons Kentucky Is The Weirdest State In The Country

      1. I had a ~12 year old kid try to pull the $1,000,000 bill thing on me when I worked at McDonald’s in high school. I gave him a “you’ve got to be shitting me” look and he simply grabbed the bill back and walked out of the store.

    3. Pretty high chance of Oregon legalizing it in 2014. Local news anchors are talking about it like it’s fait accompli.

      1. The legislature needs additional tax revenue for their grandiose dreams. That’s the real driver.

        1. IIRC it’s going to be a ballot initiative, so the legislature won’t be involved.

          1. The legislature looks like it will roll out a legalization bill first, purportedly to head off the ballot measure, but my gut says it’s to fund the state pension reform scheme.

    4. I always thought Kentucky would be one of the first. Now I think they’ll be one of the last, because I’m not sure they realize it’s illegal.

  12. Victoria Azarenka twerking. You’ve been warned.

  13. So after Taken, why the fuck would anyone fuck with the family of Bryan Mills a second time?

    1. are you referring to Taken 2?
      I never made it past Act I.

      1. It isn’t THAT bad.

        1. yes, it was.

          1. Was not.

    2. I’d say there are three actors in Hollywood whose films suggest you shouldn’t mess with their families:

      Liam Neeson (Taken, Rob Roy, Clash of the Titans), Mel Gibson (Lethal Weapon 2, Ransom, Edge of Darkness), and Denzel Washington (John Q, Man on Fire, Two Guns).

      1. Which Denzel? Training Day Denzel or Pelican Brief Denzel?

        1. Never seen The Pelican Brief. I did get to watch Training Day in a college lecture. I was taking a class on the Bill of Rights in film and our professor had us watch it and try to point out as many Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations we could find in the movie.

      2. I liked Ransom. Probably not very realistic, but it made for a good story where the hero had great big brass balls.

        And I had a thing for Rene Russo.

        1. my bud’s jeep got stolen while we were watching Ransom. bad memories I guess.

      3. Yeah, and the thing about Man on Fire is that it’s not even his kid.

        So you’re like, “Geez, what if it had been his kid? Would there just not be a Mexico any more?”

    3. You know how many adventurers’ bodies went missing in Everest’s crevasses before Ed Hillary?

  14. Is it just me, or is Jimmy Fallon the human version of Gusto Gummi?

    1. Jennifer Morrison?

      1. I’m not getting this. Did I miss a memo?

        1. Am I not getting the joke? Your link is to a picture of actress Jennifer Morrison from ‘House’.

          1. My link goes to Gusto Gummi. Your cache is busted?

            1. I got Morrison too.

              1. Is this a cruel jape?

                1. Morrison again. Hitting the Canadian Club a bit hard tonight?

                  1. you’re just evil.

                    1. JSUT GIS GUSTO GUMMY

                    2. You realize, of course, that your failure has become funnier than the joke?

                    3. best show ever.

                    4. I preferred the pictures of Jennifer Morrison….

                    5. I still don’t know how pictures of Jennifer Morrison were posted.

                    6. Squirrels act in mysterious ways.

  15. Die Welt’ daily reports today that the upcoming IPCC AR5 is a de facto withdrawal of the scientific basis for climate regulation.

    1. I’m skeptical they’ll back down, but the salty ham tears of teh bleevers would be delicious. Tony would never be able to show his face again.

      Hey…I can dream.

    2. World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years

      The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean ? which has got hotter.

      Heat and mass transfer…how does it work?

      1. The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

        Wow, the Himalayas themselves were about to melt? Is the sun entering the red giant phase a few billion years early or something?

  16. Lawyer claims her ex-employer rescinded an offer of a permanent job because of her Muslim religion and Indian descent. The employer asks the suit to be dismissed because she isn’t covered by the discrimination law. Federal district court disagrees, allows her suit to go forward.

    The employer? The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.


  17. Legal complaint leads Reed College to examine one of its traditions. Upperclass(wo)men pressure fresh(wo)men to offer coffee and soft drinks as “libations to the gods” – some of the upperclass(wo)men are dressed as gods, others are naked. The complaint says this creates a hostile environment for fresh(wo)men who were previously victims of sexual assault.

    Strangely, there’s no challenge to the “libations to the gods” thing.…..ign=Buffer

    A description of the lame-ass hazing ritual from the college magazine. Going by the photo, the wrong people are naked.…..tions.html

  18. I needed a good laugh for this weekend. This is as funny as the “Tax My Marijuana Please” brigade complaining when their pot gets taxed.

  19. This is simply cronyism. The few existing dispensaries have the field to themselves for now, so they want to shut the door on any competition.

    Reason should call a spade a spade.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.