By Brian Wright | Casa Grande Dispatch
Pinal County supervisors ignored a recommendation from the county attorney Wednesday and approved a special use permit for a medical marijuana dispensary just south of the city limits of Maricopa.
On a 4-1 vote, with Supervisor Cheryl Chase voting “no,” supervisors endorsed a Planning and Zoning recommendation to allow the Ponderosa Botanical Care medical marijuana dispensary to open.
In a press release issued after the vote, Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles said the supervisors’ vote creates a potential risk of federal prosecution for Pinal County employees.
Last week, Voyles sent the supervisors and County Manager Fritz Behring a letter recommending against county employees’ “accepting, processing or issuing permits or licenses for dispensaries” in order to avoid the risk of federal criminal prosecution.
On Wednesday, Voyles wrote: “As I stated in my letter to the board, if the federal government decides to prosecute those who facilitate in the cultivation, sale or distribution of marijuana, I cannot guarantee they will not pursue charges against our county’s employees, regardless of state law.”
In last week’s letter, Voyles said any county employee who issues permits or licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries “could be considered to be knowingly facilitating the possession, production and distribution of marijuana.”
Medical marijuana is legal in 18 states and Washington, D.C., but in a press release from Voyles’ office, a 2011 quote is referenced from U.S. Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, who said anyone cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana would be in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law.
That runs contrary to comments made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 and to what’s occurred in 17 states and D.C. where medical marijuana has been legal.
In 2009, Holder said, “It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.”
In a phone interview with the Maricopa Monitor on Friday, Voyles explained his reasoning for issuing the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
“My advice to them (is that) we have a conflict here,” he said. “Marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance. It’s defined as a drug with no current acceptable medical use. If a doctor was to prescribe this, I think they could be violating (the law).”
Voyles said any involvement by a county employee would be “helping someone else to commit a federal crime.”
Board Chairman Steve Miller and District 1 Supervisor Pete Rios said Voyles’ recommendation would have no bearing on how they vote about a medical marijuana dispensary. They said they didn’t know of any federal action taken for issuing permits for dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.
Voyles takes exception to a provision of Arizona law that prevents employers from penalizing qualified medical marijuana patients for a positive drug test for marijuana unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana at the workplace or during work hours.
Voyles said that goes against what is in the federal law, leaving an unavoidable conflict.
“We don’t normally get to pick and choose between the state and federal constitution, but this medical marijuana issue is forcing me to choose,” Voyles said, indicating it has been Holder’s inaction in upholding the law that has allowed the current situation to exist.
While one dispensary operates in Eloy, it’s in the city limits, with zoning governed by the city. A dispensary has been approved in the city limits of Casa Grande but hasn’t yet opened. With Wednesday’s action by the supervisors, a third dispensary is now coming to the county.
The county supervisors denied an earlier request for a dispensary in Dudleyville. At their March 27 meeting, supervisors voted 5-0 to not issue that permit. But the denial wasn’t based on moral or legal grounds. Rather, the board’s main concern was a lack of proper public notification, a building with minimal security and public opposition.
