Homeless in Arizona

the fees associated with medical marijuana registration cards violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by treating medical marijuana different from other treatments and by treating patients who use the drug different from other patients.

In addition to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, the Arizona Constitution also has it's own equal protection clause.

Here in Arizona you don't have to pay any fees if you get a normal prescription for a drug, but if you get a medical marijuana prescription you have to pay $150 if you don't get food stamps or $75 if you get food stamps.

Source

Lawyer to Nevada Supreme Court: Medical pot registry violates rights

By Wesley Juhl Las Vegas Review-Journal
April 4, 2017 - 11:54 pm

Nevada’s medical marijuana registration system violates several constitutional rights, including the right to due process, an attorney told the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Las Vegas attorney Jacob Hafter said state regulations on medical marijuana require patients to jump through hoops, and it’s the only doctor-recommended treatment to have so many obstacles.

Hafter told the full panel of justices they could be the first court in the United States to specify a fundamental right to access the doctor-recommended health care.

“I don’t want this to be a marijuana case,” he said. “This is a health care case.” Attorneys for the state disagreed strongly. “This case is, in fact, about marijuana,” said Kevin Powers, the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s chief litigator. He argued the state has to balance the patients’ needs with public safety needs.

Hafter filed the lawsuit in August 2015 — before medical marijuana dispensaries had opened for business locally. He is representing an anonymous marijuana patient and has argued the fees associated with medical marijuana registration cards violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by treating medical marijuana different from other treatments and by treating patients who use the drug different from other patients.

Justice Lidia Stiglich asked how the state’s medical marijuana registry differs from the database it uses to combat opioid abuse. Hafter responded that opioids are regulated “on the back end,” and the burden should fall on providers and not patients.

Powers told the justices there was a slippery slope in Hafter’s arguments: If there is a fundamental right to pursue the treatments recommended by a doctor, then all health care regulations would be subjected to the highest level of judicial scrutiny. That would also let a doctor prescribe any drug, even things like heroin and cocaine.

“The state needs to regulate dangerous drugs,” he said.

SNIP