Can the Arizona Legislature redirect Medical Marijuana Fund money to drug addiction treatment programs without putting it on the ballot?

Plain-English summary

Senator Sylvia Allen wanted to know whether the Legislature could tap the Medical Marijuana Fund (the pot of money Arizona's Department of Health Services collects from medical-marijuana fees, civil penalties, and donations) to pay for drug addiction treatment programs, and whether the people had to vote on it first.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich said yes, the Legislature could do it, and no, no public vote was required, but only inside a tight legal box.

The Voter Protection Act of 1998 (Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D)) put a fence around any fund created by ballot initiative. The Legislature can only "appropriate or divert" money from such a fund if two things are true: every change passes by a three-fourths vote of each chamber, and the new use "furthers" the original initiative's purpose.

Add Article IX, § 23(A), which says any initiative-created fund has to keep enough revenue on hand to cover its own current and future costs without leaning on the general fund. So the Legislature could not strip the Medical Marijuana Fund down to a level that left ADHS unable to administer the medical-marijuana program.

Then the AG looked at what the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) actually said its purpose was. The findings inside Proposition 203 listed two main purposes: drawing a clear line between medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana, and protecting patients (and their physicians and providers) from arrest, prosecution, and forfeiture. Drug addiction treatment, the AG concluded, could plausibly fit either purpose, as long as the program was actually tied to medical marijuana in some way (e.g., education programs aimed at distinguishing medical from recreational use). A generic addiction-treatment program with no medical-marijuana hook would have been a harder sell.

On question two, no ballot vote was needed. The Voter Protection Act spells out the procedure (three-fourths vote plus furtherance of purpose), and that procedure is the constitutional substitute for going back to the people.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Arizona's marijuana laws have changed substantially since then. In 2020 voters passed Proposition 207 (the Smart and Safe Arizona Act), legalizing recreational marijuana and creating its own separate funds. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis here. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the opinion meant in 2018

For the Arizona Legislature

The opinion gave legislators a green light to use the Medical Marijuana Fund for drug addiction work, but only if leadership could lock in a three-fourths vote in both chambers (a heavy lift) and only if the chosen program could be plausibly framed as serving an AMMA purpose. Pure addiction-treatment dollars with no medical-marijuana connection were not what the AG endorsed. Programs that taught the medical-vs-nonmedical distinction, or that protected patients from criminal exposure, were on safer footing.

For ADHS staff administering the Fund

ADHS administered the Fund and was the entity that would actually cut the checks. The opinion confirmed that ADHS could continue spending Subsection A money (fees, civil penalties) on AMMA implementation and administration, and that any legislatively-authorized addiction-treatment line would come on top, drawn from anticipated surplus.

For drug addiction program advocates

The opinion gave advocates a path to argue for state funding from a politically protected source, but it required them to design programs with a medical-marijuana nexus. A drug-prevention curriculum that explicitly addressed the distinction between medical and nonmedical use of marijuana fit. A generic anti-opioid program without that hook was much harder to defend.

For voter-initiative lawyers

The opinion is one of the cleaner expositions of how the Voter Protection Act and Article IX, § 23(A) interact. The two-part test (three-fourths vote and furtherance of purpose) plus the revenue-sufficiency floor sets a structural framework that applies to any initiative-created fund, not just AMMA's.

Common questions

Q: What is the Voter Protection Act?
A: A 1998 amendment to the Arizona Constitution (art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D)) that limits the Legislature's power to amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives. Once voters pass an initiative, the Legislature generally can't undo it; any change requires a three-fourths supermajority in each chamber, and the change must further the original purpose.

Q: Where does the Medical Marijuana Fund's money come from?
A: A.R.S. § 36-2817(A) lists three sources: fees collected under the AMMA (mostly dispensary application fees and patient registry card fees), civil penalties, and private donations. Subsection B separately allows ADHS to accept private grants and gifts.

Q: Why did the AG say drug addiction programs had to relate to medical marijuana?
A: Because the Voter Protection Act requires that any new use of the funds "further the purpose" of the original initiative. The opinion read AMMA's stated purposes (from the findings inside Prop. 203) to be drawing a line between medical and nonmedical marijuana use and protecting patients from prosecution. An addiction-treatment program had to plausibly serve at least one of those purposes.

Q: Did the Legislature need to put this on the ballot?
A: No. The constitutional procedure (three-fourths vote plus furtherance of purpose) is the substitute for a ballot vote. Once those steps are met, no public vote is required.

Q: What did "deplete the Fund" mean here?
A: Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 23(A) requires that any initiative-created fund have enough revenue to cover its current and future costs without drawing from the general fund. The AG read this as a floor: the Legislature could divert surplus, but it could not strip the Fund down to a level where ADHS could not administer the medical-marijuana program.

Q: Could the Legislature have used the Medical Marijuana Fund for an unrelated purpose, like building roads?
A: Not under this opinion. The Voter Protection Act required that the new use further AMMA's purposes. A road-building program would not survive that test no matter how it was packaged.

Q: Did this opinion apply to recreational marijuana?
A: No. Recreational marijuana was not yet legal in Arizona in 2018 (it became legal under Prop. 207 in 2020). The opinion is limited to the AMMA-created Medical Marijuana Fund.

Background and statutory framework

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), passed by voters in 2010 as Proposition 203, created the Medical Marijuana Fund and tasked the Arizona Department of Health Services with administering it. The Fund's revenue comes from dispensary application fees, patient registry card fees, civil penalties, and donations (A.R.S. § 36-2817(A)). The monies are continuously appropriated and do not revert to the general fund at the end of a fiscal year (A.R.S. § 36-2817(C)).

Two constitutional layers constrain how the Legislature can touch the Fund:

1. Voter Protection Act, Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D). The Legislature can "appropriate or divert" money from a fund created by initiative only with a three-fourths supermajority in each chamber, and only if the change furthers the initiative's purpose.
2. Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 23(A). Any fund established by initiative must maintain "an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the entire immediate and future costs of the proposal," without drawing on the general fund.

To determine an initiative's "purpose," courts and AGs look first at the initiative's findings (the legislative-style preamble inside the ballot measure) and then at the operative text. Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 221 Ariz. 467 (2009), and State v. Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018), are the leading purpose cases.

The AMMA's findings (Prop. 203, § 2(G)) name two purposes: distinguishing medical from nonmedical marijuana use, and protecting patients and providers from criminal and civil consequences when patients engage in medical marijuana use. The AG concluded that drug-addiction-related spending could plausibly serve either purpose if it was framed and structured to do so.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 36-2817 (Medical Marijuana Fund)
- A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 to 36-2819 (the AMMA generally)
- A.R.S. § 36-2803(A)(5) (fee-revenue requirements)

Constitutional provisions:
- Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D) (Voter Protection Act)
- Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 23(A) (revenue-sufficiency requirement for initiative funds)

Cases:
- State v. Gear, 239 Ariz. 343 (2016) (AMMA enacted by voter initiative)
- Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 221 Ariz. 467 (2009) (Voter Protection Act framework)
- State v. Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018) (AMMA's primary purpose to protect patients)
- State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 (2003) (statutory text is the best index of meaning)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i18-009-r18-002
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I18-009.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Senator Sylvia Allen
Arizona State Senate

Questions Presented

You have requested an opinion concerning the authorized uses of the fees and fines collected by the Arizona Department of Health Services ("ADHS") and maintained in the Medical Marijuana Fund ("Fund") that was established in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 36-2817. Specifically, you have asked:

Could the Legislature, through the budget process, direct the ADHS Director to appropriate some of the Fund monies to help people addicted to drugs?

Does this issue need to be placed on the ballot for a vote of the people?

Summary Answer

Yes. The Legislature may direct the ADHS Director to spend Fund monies for programs to help people addicted to drugs if: (1) the appropriation is passed with a three-fourths vote of each legislative chamber; (2) the appropriation does not deplete the Fund and leave insufficient revenues to cover the immediate and future costs of the initiative; and (3) the appropriation furthers the purpose of the AMMA, i.e., it relates, in some way, to medical marijuana.

No. If the proposed appropriation meets the requirements in question one, it is not necessary to place the question on the ballot.

Background

In 2010, Arizona voters enacted the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA") using the ballot initiative process. State v. Gear, 239 Ariz. 343, 344, ¶ 2 (2016); see also Proposition 203, 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws 2724, 2724-2750, codified at A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 to 36‑2819. The AMMA created the Fund and tasked ADHS with the implementation and administration of the AMMA. A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 to 36-2819. Because the Fund falls within one of the Voter Protection Act's enumerated categories of protected legislation, its monies cannot be "appropriate[d] or diverte[d]" unless the new use furthers the purposes of the AMMA and wins the approval of three-fourths of each house of the Legislature. See Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D).

Analysis

I. Arizona Constitutional Considerations.

The Voter Protection Act, added to the Arizona Constitution by voters in 1998, places limitations on the Legislature's authority to amend voter-approved initiatives. One of its provisions applies to "funds created or allocated to a specific purpose by an initiative." Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D). For funds of this sort, the Legislature can "appropriate or divert" money only if it has a three-fourths vote of each legislative chamber and if the Legislature's action furthers the initiative's purpose. Id.; Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer, 221 Ariz. 467, 469, ¶ 6 (2009).

The Arizona Constitution requires that any fund established by initiative for any specific purpose or to allocate funding for any specific purpose "must also provide for an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the entire immediate and future costs of the proposal," without drawing on the general fund. Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 23(A) (emphasis added). Thus, if the Legislature authorizes the ADHS Director to appropriate Fund monies, it must also ensure that sufficient revenues remain in the Fund to administer and implement the AMMA to meet not only immediate costs, but future costs as well. See Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 23(A).

II. Statement of Findings

Assuming that the measure has passed each legislative chamber by a three-fourths vote and the appropriation would not deplete the Fund, the next question is whether the appropriation furthers the purpose of the initiative. We may look to both the statement of findings passed with the measure and the measure's text to determine its purpose. See Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd., 221 at 471, ¶ 14. According to the statement of findings contained within the measure, the purposes of the Act include: "mak[ing] a distinction between the medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana and . . . protect[ing] patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana." Proposition 203, § 2(G), 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws at 2725; see State v. Maestas, 417 P.3d 774, 778‑779, ¶ 20 (Ariz. 2018) (recognizing that the primary, but not necessarily the sole, purpose of the AMMA is to protect patients from prosecution). Simply put, the findings provide that Fund monies can be spent on actions or activities distinguishing between medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana or protecting patients and providers from criminal prosecution.

Accordingly, the Legislature can appropriate Fund monies to create a program to treat people addicted to drugs so long as the appropriation furthers one of the aforementioned purposes. Fund expenditures on drug addiction education, prevention and treatment would likely further both purposes if the proposed programs relate, in some way, to medical marijuana. A program on drug addiction education, prevention or treatment that has the stated purpose of "making a distinction between the medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana" would further the purpose of the AMMA.

III. Textual Limitations

In addition to examining the stated purpose of the AMMA, we need to examine the authorized uses of the Fund. A statute's text is "the best and most reliable index of a statute's meaning." State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64, 66, ¶ 6 (2003).

Arizona Revised Statutes § 36-2817 establishes the Fund. The statute provides:

The medical marijuana fund is established consisting of fees collected, civil penalties imposed and private donations received under this chapter. [ADHS] shall administer the fund. Monies in the fund are continuously appropriated.

The director of [ADHS] may accept and spend private grants, gifts, donations, contributions and devises to assist in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

Monies in the medical marijuana fund do not revert to the state general fund at the end of a fiscal year.

Subsection A identifies the sources of monies collected in the Fund (i.e., fees, civil penalties (fines), and private donations) and authorizes ADHS to "administer the [F]und." Subsection B allows ADHS to collect and spend additional private sources of money (i.e., grants, donations, gifts) to "carry out the provisions of this chapter." Subsection B contains limiting language regarding how such voluntary contributions can be used, but the limiting language applies only to "private grants, gifts, donations, contributions and devises." A.R.S. § 36‑2817(B). Subsection C makes it clear that the monies in the Fund accumulate over time and do not revert to the State general fund at the end of each fiscal year.

Because the question presented relates to "fees and fines," it is necessarily directed to the monies collected pursuant to Subsection A. Subsection A does not contain any language specifically directing the use of these monies, but it also does not contain any language limiting the use of these monies.

Other portions of the AMMA also provide guidance on how "fees and fines" monies in the Fund can be spent. Arizona Revised Statutes § 36-2803(A)(5)(a), (d) provides that "[t]he total amount of all fees shall generate revenues sufficient to implement and administer this chapter, except that fee revenue may be offset or supplemented by private donations[]" and "[t]he total amount of revenue from nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary application and renewal fees and registry identification card fees for nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary agents shall be sufficient to implement and administer the nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary provisions of this chapter, including the verification system, except that the fee revenue may be offset or supplemented by private donations." (Emphasis added.) This provision serves primarily to confirm that the AMMA complies with Article IX by assuring minimally sufficient revenue to cover current and future program costs. Of course, nothing in this section precludes "fee revenue" in excess of what is necessary to administer the AMMA. For funds in excess of the Article IX minimum, the law merely requires that they be used to further the AMMA's various purposes. Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, § 1(6)(D).

Turning to your second question, as discussed above, the Legislature has constitutional authority to authorize the ADHS Director to appropriate money from the Fund for purposes related to the AMMA. As a result, the Legislature does not have to place this issue before the voters.

A.R.S. § 36-2817(C) provides that excess monies do not revert to the general fund. The proposed appropriation would come out of anticipated surplus monies in the Fund.

Conclusion

The Legislature may direct the ADHS Director to expend monies from the Fund for programs to help people addicted to drugs if: (1) the appropriation is passed with a three-fourths vote of each house; (2) the appropriation does not deplete the Fund and leave insufficient revenues to cover the immediate and future costs of the initiative; and (3) the appropriation furthers the purpose of the AMMA. To that end, an appropriation for activities related to distinguishing between medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana, protecting patients and providers from criminal prosecution, or carrying out, implementing, or administering the AMMA would meet this criterion. If these requirements are met, it is not necessary to submit an appropriation request to Arizona's voters.

Mark Brnovich
Attorney General