Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/382721202/Arizona-v-Jones-Arizona-Court-of-Appeals
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:15:14+00:00

Document:
This appellate panel opinion says that cannabis extracts, "hashish" specifically, are not legal under Arizona's medical cannabis law because they are separate and distinct from medical marijuana.
Thomas C. Kleinschmidt1 joined, and to which Presiding Judge Kenton D.
prosecution under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), Ariz. Rev.
to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.
167, ¶ 6 (App. 2007)) (quoting State v. Slover, 220 Ariz. 239, 242, ¶ 4 (App.
2009)). We review the interpretation and application of statutes de novo.
236 Ariz. 39, 40-41, ¶ 6 (2014)); State v. Lindner, 227 Ariz. 69, 70, ¶ 6 (App.
Wade v. Ariz. State Ret. Sys., 241 Ariz. 559, 561, ¶ 10 (2017)).
of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.” A.R.S. § 13-3401(4).
ex rel. Cty. of Pima, 232 Ariz. 265, 269, ¶¶ 14-15 (App. 2013) (citing Fid. Sec.
129 Ariz. 56, 57 (1981)); see also Reed-Kaliher, 237 Ariz. at 123, ¶¶ 15-17.
from prosecution available under AMMA.
whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.” A.R.S. § 36-2801(8).
agree. We construe statutory language in light of existing understanding.
abuse.” State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358, 360 (App. 1978).
possession or use of hashish.
¶13 The dissent, citing State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn ex rel.
said so.5 We cannot conclude that Arizona voters intended to do so.
¶15 Jones’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
marijuana, obviously because of the greater potency of hashish.
adopted by a voter initiative is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.
Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cty., 241 Ariz. 230, 249, ¶ 68 (App.
medicinal purposes if he does not possess more than the allowable amount.
are defined, we apply that definition.”) (citing State v. Reynolds, 170 Ariz.
our analysis of the word within the context of its application.
AMMA, and subject to its protections.
defined within the statutory scheme. See Bell v. Indus. Comm’n, 236 Ariz.
Ariz. 327, 333 (1997), and A.R.S. § 1-213); see also People v. Mulcrevy, 182 Cal.
terms were defined almost identically).
construed together as though they constitute one law.”) (citing State v.
marijuana “incidental to medical use” — from the scope of its immunity.
(quoting Prop. 203, § 2(G), Ariz. Sec’y of State, 2010 Publicity Pamphlet 83).
more importantly, contravenes the spirit and purpose of the AMMA.
subject to penalty and prosecution.
of statutory construction, which controls resolution of the present appeal.
may be harsh, unjust or mistaken policy.”) (citation omitted).
reverse his convictions and sentences.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 § 36
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v.

 § 2