As a part of the 2019 Arizona Legislative Session, Representative Tony Rivero, a Republican in the state house of representatives, has authored a bill to change Arizona law to ensure that all forms of Cannabis that can be consumed, rather than smoked, will still be able to be sold in State regulated medical marijuana dispensaries and legally able to be purchased by patients.

This bill comes on the heels of a criminal case in Northern Arizona, which has become a hotbed of debate in the state. Rep. Rivero's bill now seeks to amend the Arizona criminal code to redefine the term “marijuana” so that the definition would include both the leaves and flowers of the Cannabis plant, as it does now, but also would now include the resin that is extracted from the plant, as well. 

Rep. Rivero's bill, numbered HB 2149, would be the new the definition of marijuana in the criminal code and therefore would override the Arizona Court of Appeals, which decided last year, to uphold a conviction of a patient in the Arizona medical marijuana program for possession of a small quantity of hashish. The reason this is an issue is because the appellate court judges construed the language of the law to protect only those patients who use the whole plant or parts of it without altercation as medicine, but that once the plant is altered into any other form, it is outside of the legal definition within Arizona.

Rep. Rivero's belief is that this is not what Arizona voters wanted when they approved the 2010 ballot measure to legalize medical marijuana in the state.

This ballot measure, named the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) created a state regulated system for qualifying individuals to be able to purchase medical marijuana from state regulated dispensaries and caregivers, if no dispensary was close enough to where they reside.

As a part of AMMA, the state licensed dispensaries have always legally sold both the dried leaves and flowers of Cannabis plants, but also the concentrates, oils and other products derived from these concentrates legally. At the appellate court level, these forms of concentrates and oils from the Cannabis plant are what would now be illegal and what the judges claim was never made legal.

This determination is highly significant for patients who, after these changes, can now only use the plant itself but no other products made from Cannabis.

The ruling of the appellate court is now up for review by the Arizona Supreme Court, which just recently heard oral arguments on the issue. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appellate court, the sale and possession of other forms of Cannabis than just the plant itself, would no longer be permitted as a part of AMMA.

Rivero's issue with the decision in the appellate court is that it is based on a definitional conflict in Arizona's criminal law as it is currently written. The law has a definition for marijuana, a substance that is now legal for medical marijuana patients, and another definition of cannabis, which is not allowed in the medical marijuana program.  This them becomes an issue because both of these terms come from attempting to describe products from the same plant.

Rep. Rivero's bill seeks to expand the definition of “marijuana” to its most broad interpretation, so that it would include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation” of the Cannabis plant. Finally, HB 2149, would remove the definition of the term "cannabis" from all state statutes so that there is only one definition under the term "marijuana" to remove any potential for confusion between these two similar but different definitions currently in Arizona law. 

Rivero, who actually voted against the attempt to institute a medical marijuana program in 2010, was quoted as saying, “[i]t’s my opinion that the voters approved the AMMA to define ‘marijuana’ as the extract or the separation,” instead of just the leaves and flowers, and he continued, "it’s about fairness — and ensuring that some people do not face charges simply because prosecutors in their own county take a much narrower view of the law."