吃瓜大本营

In a Phoenix courtroom, the future of medical marijuana dispensaries in Arizona hangs in the balance.

Last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case White Mountain Health Center v. Maricopa County. The central issue presented in the case is whether federal law 鈥� the Controlled Substances Act 鈥� invalidates the state-regulated dispensary provisions in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act through operation of the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 Supremacy Clause, which means federal law nullifies state law when there is an irreconcilable conflict.

Here鈥檚 a little background: The AMMA, which Arizona voters approved in 2010, requires those seeking to operate medical marijuana dispensaries to obtain certification from local authorities that the proposed dispensary location complies with all applicable zoning regulations. White Mountain Health Center, our client, sought this zoning certification from Maricopa County so it could open a dispensary. County officials refused to sign the zoning form, claiming that doing so would subject them to federal criminal prosecution for violating the CSA and, further, that the federal CSA invalidates the state AMMA. As a result, White Mountain filed this lawsuit, simply asking the court to force county officials to follow Arizona law. The state of Arizona intervened in the case and has argued that federal law invalidates the state law.

See, marijuana is still classified as a drug under the CSA, which means that federal law prohibits nearly all use, distribution, possession, and cultivation, and in the eyes of the federal government, marijuana has 鈥渘o鈥�currently accepted medical use in treatment.鈥� But a growing number of top policymakers and agree that this is an outdated and improper classification. Even former United States Attorney General Eric Holder recently expressed his belief that marijuana

Indeed, this position has become widespread and bi-partisan: show that of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana. And state law increasingly reflects public opinion on this issue. Since 1996, have enacted medical marijuana laws.

So does the federal prohibition on marijuana mean that Arizona can鈥檛 take a different approach for purposes of its own state law?

In making this determination, the court of appeals must consider Congress鈥檚 intent. In a 2006 decision, the Supreme Court recognized the CSA鈥檚 main objectives are reducing drug abuse and managing the traffic of all controlled substances, both legal and illegal.

Like many state medical marijuana laws, the AMMA requires patients who want to use medical marijuana to be diagnosed with a qualifying debilitating medical condition and to receive certification from a licensed . The law and its implementing regulations further require producers and distributors to receive annual and to be by the Arizona Department of Health Services. Given how tightly regulated the system is, the AMMA actually helps curb drug abuse and stops the flow of unregulated drug traffic, thus furthering the CSA鈥檚 objective and honoring Congress鈥� intent.

In April 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the CSA does not invalidate provisions in the AMMA that provide cardholding medical marijuana patients with immunity against state-level penalties based on marijuana activity that complies with state law. The court that 础谤颈锄辞苍补鈥檚 medical marijuana law does not conflict with, or 鈥渇rustrate the CSA鈥檚 goals of conquering drug use or controlling traffic.鈥�

In recent years, Congress provided very clear guidance about how it views the relationship between the CSA and state medical marijuana laws in the bipartisan to the federal budget (Sec. 542 on page 223). First approved in 2014, this amendment prohibits the Department of Justice from using money to interfere with the administration of medical marijuana programs in Arizona and 41 other states, territories, and D.C. Simply put, the passage of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment clearly demonstrates that Congress respects states鈥� medical marijuana laws, and it does not want the federal government to obstruct or impede them.

Courts are taking notice.

Last October, a federal district court judge allowing for of a California medical marijuana dispensary, finding that the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment demonstrates Congress鈥� intent 鈥渢hat States implement their medical marijuana laws in the ways they see fit,鈥� without federal intrusion.

And now it鈥檚 础谤颈锄辞苍补鈥檚 turn to determine how to implement its own medical marijuana laws鈥攁 decision that has the potential to influence medical marijuana laws nationwide given that courts may turn to other courts鈥� rulings when deciding such cases. As the Arizona Court of Appeals considers whether the CSA invalidates the dispensary provisions in the AMMA in White Mountain Health Center v. Maricopa County, the court has an opportunity to honor the will of Arizona voters and contribute to the growing number of court decisions ruling that states can choose a different path than the federal government鈥檚 outdated and irrational marijuana policies.