Court Finds That “Marijuana” Is Distinct And Separate From “Cannabis”
Download PDF- McCulloch, Timothy I.
- Industry Alerts
Want to get our alerts?
Click “Subscribe Now” to get attorney insights on the latest developments in a range of services and industries.
This week in State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones, the Arizona Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that marijuana concentrates do not fall under the protections of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). The court determined that the AMMA, by not specifically including a form of extracted resin, namely Hashish, within its description of marijuana, adopts a distinction between marijuana and its concentrates that the Arizona Supreme Court made in the seventies. See State v. Bollander, 110 Ariz. 84 (1973). In essence, the Appellate Court found that “marijuana” is distinct and separate from “cannabis,” which the court believes includes extracts. The court did, however, carve out “consumables” from the prohibited cannabis extracts. The protected consumables combine marijuana with non-marijuana elements and include “brownies and the like.”
We recognize the confusion this decision causes. This appellate ruling is inconsistent with the interpretation and function of the AMMA since its enactment and the Arizona Department of Health Services’ own regulations of the AMMA—a fact that the dissent in this case recognized. The court does not seem to understand the various forms and production of marijuana; —the distinction the court makes between concentrates and other forms of marijuana allowed by the AMMA is simply not tenable. Marijuana concentrates are not only a mainstream and acceptable present-day use of medical marijuana, they are also the most effective form of treatment for certain ailments.
At present, indications from the Arizona Department of Health Services appear to be that concentrates still fall under the AMMA. Still, we are engaging with the issues evolving from this decision and are presently conducting analysis regarding its implications. We are also considering legal recourse, including involvement in a reconsideration of the opinion and an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of cannabis law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in here.
We recognize the confusion this decision causes. This appellate ruling is inconsistent with the interpretation and function of the AMMA since its enactment and the Arizona Department of Health Services’ own regulations of the AMMA—a fact that the dissent in this case recognized. The court does not seem to understand the various forms and production of marijuana; —the distinction the court makes between concentrates and other forms of marijuana allowed by the AMMA is simply not tenable. Marijuana concentrates are not only a mainstream and acceptable present-day use of medical marijuana, they are also the most effective form of treatment for certain ailments.
At present, indications from the Arizona Department of Health Services appear to be that concentrates still fall under the AMMA. Still, we are engaging with the issues evolving from this decision and are presently conducting analysis regarding its implications. We are also considering legal recourse, including involvement in a reconsideration of the opinion and an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
This client alert is published by Dickinson Wright PLLC to inform our clients and friends of important developments in the field of cannabis law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. We encourage you to consult a Dickinson Wright attorney if you have specific questions or concerns relating to any of the topics covered in here.
Related Services
Contacts

Timothy McCulloch
Member and Aviation Practice Group Chair
Phoenix
Recent Insights
- Industry Alerts Builders Beware: The Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Is Set in Stone
- Industry Alerts ACC’s Permissive Power Allows ACC to Appoint an Interim Manager to Remedy Threats to Public Health and Safety
- Industry Alerts Caveat Contractor: Arizona Court Of Appeals Interprets Prompt Pay Act As “Prompt Billing Act” To Deny Relief To Unpaid Contractor
- April 11, 2022 In the News Elliot Vilders Joins Dickinson Wright Troy Office as a Member
- January 28, 2022 In the News Three Dickinson Wright Attorneys Named to 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers, Two Named Rising Stars
- December 16-17, 2021 Speaking Engagements Dickinson Wright Attorneys to Present at NCIA CannaVest West
- September 20, 2021 Industry Alerts Michigan's Marihuana Regulatory Agency Currently Reviewing New Rules
- August 18, 2021 Industry Alerts High Risks Remain If Operating Cannabis Business Outside Strict State Law
- July 16, 2021 In the News Twelve Dickinson Wright Attorneys Recognized in 2021 Mountain State Super Lawyers