Todays Cannabis Case Summary looks atan Arizona casethat held against making post-traumatic stress disorders a qualifying medical condition for medical cannabis and the lessons that can be learned from it.
Arizona voters approved Proposition 203 in 2010 to create a medical marijuana program to facilitate access to cannabis for patients afflicted with a debilitating medical condition defined by the law. The law as passed included a number of qualifying conditions, but also included a mechanism for adding conditions. A petition receiving the required amount of support triggers consideration forinclusion by the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS).
It was against this legal backdrop that the Arizona Cannabis Nurses Association (AZCNA) petitioned DHS to add post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to the list of qualifying debilitating medical conditions eligible for medical cannabis. The petition met all procedural and substantive requirements and it appropriately explainedthe availability of conventional medical treatments and summarizedthe evidence that marijuana will provide a therapeutic or palliative benefit. DHS denied the petition following a public hearing and an opportunity for public comment.
AZCNA appealed to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) appointed by the DHS Office of Administrative Hearings to evaluate appeals and recommend a decision to DHS. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that, based on the preponderance of the evidence, marijuana use provides a palliative benefit to those suffering from PTSD and recommended that DHS adopt PTSD as a debilitating medical condition.
DHS largely accepted the ALJs recommendation, but with two conditions. First, marijuana could be prescribed for palliative care but not for therapeutic purposes. In other words, marijuana could be recommended for symptom relief, but not to cure or treat any disease. Second, the physician recommending marijuana was required to attest that the patient was also pursuing a conventional course of treatment for PTSD.
AZCNA was unsatisfied and challenged the DHS rule in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on the basis that DHS exceeded its statutory authority and that the rule violated PTSD patients Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. That court rejected AZCNAs argument, and they subsequently appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The appeals courts decision is where todays Cannabis Case Study begins.
AZCNA was not legally aggrieved. The Court of Appeals found AZCNAs DHS authority arguments to be a non-starter. The gist of AZCNAs position was that DHS erred by distinguishing between a therapeutic or palliative benefit of cannabis because it lacked authority to do so. However, their brief conceded that there is no significant evidence that marijuana is therapeutic for PTSD. They also stated in a later brief that there is no cure for PTSD, which the court read as conceding that cannabis could not be therapeutic because it did not actually treat the disease itself. Accordingly, they were not aggrieved by the palliative condition because there was no basis for any other medical application for cannabis in their own petition.
Neither the physician certification nor conventional treatment conditions violated Arizona law. The court quickly dispensed with AZCNAs argument that the physician requirement violated or exceeded the law. AZCNA argued that the conditions violated Arizona law that limits the ability of the governor or legislature to amend or veto voter initiatives. The court reasoned that this did not preclude reasonable conditions or restrictions ...
