Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016)

Arizona Proposition 205
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Marijuana
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
May 17
Proposition 123 a
Proposition 124 a
November 8
Proposition 205 d
Proposition 206 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Arizona Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Proposition 205, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Arizona as an initiated state statute. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported legalizing the possession and consumption of marijuana by people 21 years old and up.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to legalize the possession and consumption of marijuana by people 21 years old and up.

This election was one of Ballotpedia's top 10 state-level races in 2016. Click here to read the full list.

Election results

Proposition 205
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,300,344	51.32%
Yes		1,233,323	48.68%

Election results from Arizona Secretary of State

Overview

Looking for more information about marijuana on the ballot in 2016? Explore other Ballotpedia articles on the subject below. Presidential candidates on marijuana • Marijuana laws in the U.S. Drug Policy Alliance • Marijuana Policy Project • NORML • SAM Action Recreational marijuana on the ballot Arizona Prop. 205 • California Prop. 64 • Maine Question 1 • Massachusetts Question 4 • Nevada Question 2 Medical marijuana on the ballot Arkansas Issue 6 • Florida Amendment 2 • Montana I-182 • North Dakota Measure 5

Status of marijuana in Arizona

In Arizona, the possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes is illegal. The passage of Proposition 200 in 1996 allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana and other Schedule 1 drugs. A battle ensued between the initiative's proponents and legislative opponents thereafter. The conflict came to a head in 2010, when voters approved a medical marijuana initiative titled Proposition 203. Although the Obama administration's Department of Justice decided not to prosecute most individuals and businesses consuming or selling marijuana in keeping with state and local laws, both medical and recreational marijuana were illegal under federal law in 2016. Proposition 205 would have made recreational marijuana legal in Arizona state law.

State of ballot measure campaigns

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol raised $6.5 million in funds. Opponents received about $6.4 million. The largest donor to the "Yes" campaign was the Marijuana Policy Project. The largest donor to the "No" campaign was Discount Tire. Insys Therapeutics, a producer of a synthetic painkillers, contributed $500,000 to the opposition, which set off a debate on whether the business opposes the initiative from the perspective of children's health or financial gain. Proposition 205 was the only initiative to legalize marijuana in 2016 in which opponents received more contributions than supporters. Kevin Sabet, the co-founder of SAM Action, said the measure's defeat provided opponents of marijuana legalization with a model. He stated, "The overarching lesson was that if we could raise enough money early, we can win. Arizona was the only state where we were toe to toe with the 'yes' side, and it's the only state we started early in." Polls showed a close battle between August 2016 and November 2016, with support and opposition both around 46 percent during this period.

Initiative design

Marijuana users

People aged 21 years or older would have been permitted to possess and use one ounce or less of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes.

Marijuana regulation

The measure would have established a Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control, which would have been tasked with regulating the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, transportation, and sale of marijuana. The Arizona governor would have appointed the department’s director.

Proposition 205 would have established fines for smoking or using in a public place, underage use, unauthorized production, and possession over legal limits. The maximum fine would have been $300 and community service.

Counties, cities, and towns would have been empowered to regulate and limit marijuana businesses. The measure was also designed to allow medical marijuana facilities to transition to recreational marijuana facilities.

Marijuana taxes

See also: Fiscal analysis of Proposition 205

A 15 percent tax would have been levied on the sale of marijuana. Revenue would have been deposited in a Marijuana Fund and distributed to the Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control and the Department of Revenue, localities where marijuana establishments exist, school districts and charter schools, and the Arizona Department of Health Services.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

ALLOWS INDIVIDUALS TO POSSESS, GROW AND PURCHASE MARIJUANA FROM STATE-LICENSED FACILITIES FOR PERSONAL USE. A “yes” vote shall have the effect of permitting individuals 21 years and older to privately use, possess, manufacture, give away, or transport up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up to 6 marijuana plants at the individual’s residence; generally declaring violations of the Act (including public use) a petty offense punishable by no more than a $300 fine; creating the Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control, which includes a 7-member Marijuana Commission appointed by the Governor, to regulate and license entities involved in cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, selling, and testing marijuana products; granting local jurisdictions limited authority to enact ordinances and rules to regulate marijuana and marijuana products; establishing licensing fees for marijuana establishments and levying a 15% tax on all marijuana and marijuana products; and declaring all marijuana establishment contracts enforceable notwithstanding any conflict with federal law. A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law, which prohibits individuals from using, possessing, growing or purchasing marijuana unless the individual is authorized by and doing so in compliance with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act: (1) establishes a 15% tax on retail marijuana sales, from which the revenue will be allocated to public health and education; (2) allows adults twenty-one years of age and older to possess and to privately consume and grow limited amounts of marijuana; (3) creates a system in which licensed businesses can produce and sell marijuana; (4) establishes a Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control to regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, transportation, and sale of marijuana; and (5) provides local governments with the authority to regulate and limit marijuana businesses.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be found here.

Fiscal analysis

See also: Fiscal analysis statement

An extended summary of the fiscal analysis statement can be found here.

Support

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, also known as Yes on 205, led the campaign in support of Proposition 205. The Marijuana Policy Project of Arizona sponsored the campaign.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-3)
• U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-7)
• U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3) of Oregon
• Sen. Martin Quezada (D-29)
• Jesus Rubalcava, President of the Gila Bend Unified School District Board
• Buck Crouch, President of the Sunnyside Unified School District Board
• Daniel Hernandez, Member of the Sunnyside Unified School District Board
• Devin Del Palacio, Vice President of the Tolleson Union High School District Board
• Channel Powe, Member of the Balsz School District Board

Former officials

• Senate Majority Leader Tom Patterson (R-26)

Parties

• Arizona Democratic Party
• La Paz County Republican Committee
• Arizona Liberty Caucus

Organizations

• Marijuana Policy Project
• NORML
• Las Adelitas Arizona

Businesses

• Dr. Bronner’s

Individuals

Yes on 205's "Regulation Works"

• Finn Selander, former special DEA agent
• Michael Capasso, former special DEA agent
• Jim McMahon, former NFL football player
• Rev. Sherman Fort, Senior Pastor, Canaan Missionary Baptist Church
• Rev. Terry Sims, Minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Sunrise
• Rev. Bart Smith, Pastor, St. Mark's Presbyterian Church
• Rev. Warren Stewart, Jr., Lead Pastor, Church of the Remnant
• Rabbi Dr. Schmuly Yanklowitz, President and Dean, Valley Beit Midrash
• Rev. Jim Wiltbank, Pastor, St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Church
• Rev. Alexander E. Sharp, Executive Director, Clergy for a New Drug Policy
• Susan Sarandon, actress

Medical professionals

Dr. Michael Alberti, MD, Scottsdale Dr. Jean Barton, MD, Sedona Kathleen Beeks, LPN, Tucson Janice Bell, NP, Camp Verde Dr. Ben Bennett, MD, Lake Havasu Dr. Gina Berman, MD, Mesa Bettina Bickel, RN , Phoenix Lisa Bilek, FNP, Bisbee Alecia Brouwer, RN, Scottsdale Adella Calusi, RN, Snowflake Dr. Albert Carlotti, MD, Scottsdale Dr. Michelle Carlotti, MD, Scottsdale Dr. Alan Citrin , MD, Phoenix Dr. Stephen Curtin, MD, Tucson Dr. Laura De La Torre, MD, Tucson Dr. Sam Durrani, MD, Phoenix Eric Dutchover, RN, Phoenix Randall Fallaha, CNA, Winslow Frances Falquez, RN, Winkelman Jane Fender-Lutzen, RN, Pine Dr. Diane Fordney, MD, Tucson Mary Frugoli, RN, Tucson Susan Fullerton, RN, Phoenix Elaine Goldberg, RN, Phoenix Dr. Melinda Hayes, MD, Patagonia Melissa Kelly, RN, Flagstaff Dr. David Kelsey, MD, Scottsdale Lilian Lombardo, RN, Sedona Dr. Brian McCabe, MD, Tucson Sandra McClendon, RN, Tucson John Mills, RN, Phoenix Dr. Hara Misra, MD, Phoenix Claudine Mora, RN, Phoenix Karen Moyle, LPN, Kingman Judith Murray, RN, Phoenix Robin Needham, RN, Scottsdale Sharla Orton, RN, Sun City Dr. Tom Patterson, MD, Phoenix Dr. Christopher Petro , MD, Oro Valley Diana Pryer, RN, Sedona Brenda Rae, RN, Phoenix Charrisa Riggs, FNP, Chandler Betty Rosenbaum, NP, Surprise Dr. Marcia Ruhl, MD, Tucson Kelly Lynn Schultz, NP, Phoenix Bonnie Senftner, RN, Mesa Dr. Laura Sherman, MD, Goodyear Dr. Jeffrey Singer, MD, Phoenix Cathy Tingey, RN, Mesa Paula Toman, LPN, Apache Junction Dr. Brian Trainor, MD, Phoenix Dr. Deborah White, MD, Scottsdale Melissa Zuege, RN, Surprise

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 205:

• The proposition would replace the underground marijuana market and cartels with a regulated market and licensed businesses, making communities safer.
• The proposition would allow law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes than marijuana possession.
• The proposition would create thousands of new jobs and support local businesses.
• The proposition would provide revenue to schools and local governments.
• The proposition would repeal anti-marijuana laws that disproportionately impact racial minorities.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group sponsoring the initiative, argued four points:

“

Safer Communities It will replace a dangerous underground market with a tightly regulated system. Marijuana will be produced and sold by licensed businesses instead of cartels and criminals. Law enforcement officials will be able to spend more time addressing serious crimes instead of enforcing failed prohibition laws. There are approximately 13,000 adults arrested for marijuana possession every year, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and these cases take up time and resources that police, prosecutors, judges, and court staff could use on more important things. Regulation Works Marijuana businesses will be required to test their products and adhere to strict packaging and labeling requirements to ensure they are not contaminated and that consumers know what they are getting. Unlike illegal dealers, businesses that sell marijuana will ask customers for ID and only sell to adults. Marijuana consumers will not be exposed to other illegal products that are often found in the underground market. Money for Schools According to a fiscal analysis by the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the initiative will raise approximately $123 million in annual revenue for the state and localities, with more than $55 million dedicated to full-day kindergarten programs and general aid to K-12 schools. A regulated marijuana market for adults will foster new companies that create and support thousands of jobs and utilize the products and services of other local businesses. Social Justice Adults will no longer be punished for using a product that is objectively less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and to society. Possession of any amount of marijuana is a felony in Arizona, and according to the state’s Department of Public Safety, there were approximately 138,000 arrests for simple adult marijuana possession from 2005-2014. The initiative will repeal marijuana prohibition laws that disproportionately impact communities of color. African-Americans in Arizona are 2.4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites despite similar rates of use, according to a 2010 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

”

J.P. Holyoak, the Chair of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, contended:

“

The idea that this would cause insurance premiums to go up or workplace accidents, or some of the other arguments that they’re making, it ignores the fact that marijuana is already out there, it’s easily and readily accessible to anybody and everybody that wants it ... We are better off taxing it and regulating it.

”

Carlos Alfaro, a political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, stated:

“

A part of the opposition’s argument is that we’re trying to radically change the way we are doing things and we are. In a way we are ending prohibition that has been in place since the 1930s, but it's not going to look anything like they’re saying. They’re saying there is going to be a marijuana store on every corner and that it is going to be unregulated and that’s just not the case.

”

Ryan Hurley, an attorney, argued:

“

It's not a matter of people saying marijuana is good, or marijuana is bad. What we are making the decision to do is taking this away from the illegal criminal cartels and instead tax and regulate it for the benefit of Arizona's education and health care.

”

Arguments filed in support

The following arguments were filed with the Arizona secretary of state's office in support:

“ Marijuana prohibition has failed and it is time for a new approach to marijuana. Our government took a substance less harmful than alcohol and made it completely illegal. This resulted in the growth of an underground market driven by drug cartels and criminals operating in our communities. We have forced law enforcement to focus on the sale and use of marijuana instead of on serious, violent, and unsolved crimes. The “Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act” is a better way. It will eliminate the criminal market by shifting the production and sale of marijuana into the hands of tightly regulated Arizona businesses that will be required to comply with both state and local laws. Marijuana businesses will be required to: Test marijuana products to ensure that they are safe and properly labeled; Sell marijuana products in child-resistant packaging; and Check identification of customers to ensure marijuana is not sold to minors The initiative provides for a 15% sales tax on marijuana. This will cover the cost of enforcing regulations and generate tens of millions of dollars annually for full-day kindergarten and Arizona schools. It will also fund marijuana-related public education campaigns. To enhance public safety, the initiative: Leaves in place Arizona’s laws against driving under the influence of marijuana; Allows employers to have policies against the use of marijuana by employees; Prohibits the use of marijuana in public; and Maintains existing penalties for distribution of marijuana to minors. It’s time to stop punishing adults who use marijuana responsibly. This initiative will accomplish that goal in a manner that protects consumers, enhances public safety, provides for local control, generates tax revenue, and creates thousands of new jobs in the state. Please vote in favor of Proposition 205, the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act. ” —J.P. Holyoak, Campaign Chair, Paradise Valley and Carlos Alfaro, Campaign Treasurer, Scottsdale “ MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IS COMMON SENSE The War on Drugs has not made our neighborhoods safe. It has not prevented anyone, not even children, from getting their hands on marijuana. It has succeeded only in destroying countless lives through incarceration and collateral consequences such as creating bars to college education and careers. According to a recent Gallup poll, almost half of Americans admit to having tried marijuana. There has never been a recorded death caused by marijuana ingestion. Never. Cigarette and alcohol consumption result in countless thousands of deaths every year. Marijuana legalization will not result in any public health harm. During Prohibition, alcohol was still consumed, but the market was controlled by people like Al Capone. Because marijuana is illegal, that market is similarly controlled by Mexican cartels run by people like El Chapo. As more states take the inevitable step toward legalization, marijuana will be operated by businesses that settle disputes in the courtroom instead of with machine guns and beheadings. If Proposition 205 passes, driving under the influence of marijuana remains illegal. Do not believe anti-marijuana interest groups attempting to mislead voters into thinking that passing Proposition 205 will result in filling the roads with intoxicated drivers. Claims that children will have easier access to marijuana are unfounded. Law enforcement has a financial incentive to oppose this initiative. They will no longer be able to take the property of private citizens who are suspected of involvement in marijuana use or sales – known as forfeiture. Passage of Proposition 205 will reduce “policing for profit” and shrink prosecutors’ slush funds and police access to fancy cars and other toys. Let consenting adults use marijuana as they use alcohol, and expect and demand that adults act responsibly. Vote to legalize marijuana this November. ” —David Euchner, Tucson “ It is time to end Arizona’s misguided War on Marijuana. By voting to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, Arizonans have the opportunity to take marijuana production and sales out of the black market, create a much-needed revenue stream for our underfunded school system, and end felony prosecutions for possession of marijuana. The scare tactics of this measure’s opposition do not change the facts. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. Unlike alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine, marijuana use does not result in chemical dependence. It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. Marijuana legalization will not result in more traffic fatalities. Nor will legal marijuana result in more use by teens. In fact, marijuana legalization will make our communities safer. Crime rates will fall. Consumers will buy from well-regulated business, not criminal cartels, lowering the chance that our children and communities will be exposed to more dangerous drugs. And marijuana legalization has been reported to reduce addiction rates for other drugs like heroin. Tax revenue from legalized marijuana is projected to generate initially between $40 and $113 million annually. 40% of these funds will be spent on K-12 education. Another 40% will fund full-day kindergarten programs. The remaining 20% will be spent on drug- and alcohol-treatment programs and public-health education campaigns. Our elected officials will not be able to divert these funds for other uses. A “Yes” vote will also end felony prosecutions for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. Arizona voters have previously mandated that non-violent first-time drug offenders receive probation. However, marijuana possession remains a felony in Arizona. As a result, Arizona taxpayers spend too much money prosecuting and punishing people for possessing small amounts of marijuana. A vote to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol is a vote to support individual privacy rights, sound public policy, and education funding. ” —Kevin Heade, Phoenix “ By voting “Yes” to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, Arizonans will improve the safety of their communities, reduce government spending and costs of our overburdened criminal-justice system, and provide much-needed revenue for public education and drug treatment. Ending prohibition will put an end to the dangerous black market. With a system of licensed businesses, products will be tested, packaged, and labeled to ensure marijuana products are safe and not contaminated. Enabling the legal purchase of marijuana from licensed businesses will provide a safe environment in which adults can purchase marijuana while reducing exposure to other illicit drugs. Regulating marijuana like alcohol and tobacco also will decrease the financial burden on the state and counties from the cost of enforcing anti-marijuana laws, and it will reduce other crimes. Colorado, for example, saw a reduction in traffic fatalities, violent crime, and property after legalizing recreational marijuana. According to data released by the city of Denver, violent crime in Denver went down by 2.2% in the first 11 months of 2014, compared with the first 11 months of 2013. In the same period, burglaries in Denver decreased by 9.5%, and overall property crime decreased by 8.9%. Arizona also stands to generate much-needed revenues for public education without increasing property or income taxes. Best of all, our elected officials will not be able to divert these funds for other uses. By focusing on public health rather than criminalization, Arizona will be better positioned to address the potential harms of marijuana use, while diminishing many of the worst aspects of the war on drugs. A “Yes” vote to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol is a vote to reduce crime, increase public health and welfare, and fund education. Simply put, a “Yes” vote is sound public policy. ” —Sarah Mayhew, Tucson “ The Arizona Public Health Association, Arizona’s independent voice for public health for over 70 years, believes the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act poses public health risks and benefits. The public health benefits include decriminalization for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Possession of marijuana (even one marijuana cigarette) is currently a felony (excluding medical marijuana patients). Felony convictions result in a lifetime of lower earnings and poorer health outcomes for those convicted and their families. Regulating marijuana sales may also reduce violence within the current illegal marijuana trade. Other benefits include providing an opportunity to monitor and regulate production, potency, testing and labeling of marijuana before sale. Tax revenue from the retail sale of marijuana distributed to schools (80%) and for substance abuse education (20%) may also have a positive public health impact. Public health risks from the proposed Initiative include the potential for increased access to marijuana among adolescents, accidental marijuana ingestion among young children, increased potential for marijuana abuse among adults, and risks to the public from impaired driving and workplace accidents. How well the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act is implemented will affect the law’s net impact on public health. If the Act passes, Arizona residents, elected officials, and Arizona’s Executive Branch should ensure that the new state agency uses its full regulatory authority to strictly enforce the 21 year old purchasing age-limit, enforce robust product labeling, packaging, and potency standards, regulate advertising and place of use restrictions, engage employers to address workplace policies, and work with law enforcement regarding motor vehicle operation restrictions and penalties. The new state agency should also engage Arizona’s public Universities to better understand and measure public health outcomes related to marijuana use. ” —Will Humble for the Arizona Public Health Association, Phoenix “ All doctors are familiar with the phrase, “First, do no harm.” When it comes to marijuana policy in Arizona, it is marijuana prohibition that is causing us harm. It not only steers marijuana users into a dangerous illegal market, but it forces them to buy marijuana that is untested and potentially impure. The initiative to allow adults to use marijuana legally will improve public health by regulating the production and sale of marijuana, so that products are properly cultivated, tested, and packaged. Since marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, regulating marijuana may even reduce the number of serious injuries we see in emergency rooms on a daily basis. We do not see countless cases of marijuana overdoses like we see with alcohol. And, unlike with alcohol, we do not see people who have been injured by acts of violence associated with marijuana. In addition, teen use may actually decline with legalization. In Colorado, they have seen a small decrease in use among teens since voters allowed adults to purchase marijuana legally. Taking marijuana off of our streets and having in sold in stores that are required to check proof of age will make it harder for teens to get their hands on marijuana, which as doctors we applaud. Thousands of Arizonans use medical marijuana to reduce pain and cope with serious illnesses. They have collectively reduced their reliance on opiates, instead using a natural alternative that does not cause serious side effects or terrible additions. But the list of approved illnesses remains small. More people with serious diseases or conditions should have access to marijuana to help them deal with their pain and suffering. Please vote Yes on the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act. It is long past time to have a sensible marijuana policy in this state. ” —Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS General Surgeon, Phoenix and Alan Jay Citrin D.O., Anesthesiologist, Medical Director, Mesa “ You might not expect two federal drug agents with more than 40 years experience combating marijuana proliferation in America to support an initiative to legalize the drug’s sale in Arizona. But we do. And it is because of our experience. Each of us put in 20 or more years in the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement entities. And both of us realize that marijuana prohibition is a failed drug policy that should end. Prohibition doesn’t keep marijuana off our streets or decrease use. And it certainly doesn’t keep marijuana out of the hands of teens. But prohibition does result in billions of dollars in profits flowing to drug cartels. This drug money fuels lavish lifestyles among drug lords and deadly violence among rival cartels aiming to protect smuggling territory and street corners. We have seen the consequences of America’s marijuana prohibition policies. It is long past time to allow adults to legally buy marijuana. Taxation and strict regulation should be the mantra when it comes to marijuana. Now that we are retired from the DEA, we can speak out and say that marijuana should be taxed and regulated to keep profits from ruining our streets and causing mayhem south of the border. In addition to money headed to drug cartels, police forces throughout Arizona and the nation spend billions to combat marijuana trade. It’s all for naught. We were a part of that wasted effort. Playing cat and mouse games with cartels members in the U.S. and abroad proved to be a waste. Keeping a substance less harmful than alcohol out of the hands of adults continues to prove useless. We support Proposition 205 because cartels should not continue to rake in our dollars and create havoc on our streets. ” —Michael Capasso, DEA Supervisory Special Agent (Ret), Phoenix and Finn Selander, DEA Agent Ret, Phoenix “ As parents of children of all ages, we strongly support passage of the “Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act.” Marijuana prohibition has been a failed policy in every way and that is especially true with respect to teen use. Keeping marijuana illegal has not only made it easy for teens to acquire marijuana, but also steers them toward acquiring it in the most dangerous manner. We are unified in our desire to reduce teen marijuana use, but it is clear that marijuana prohibition is not the way to do that. For decades, the vast majority of teens have said in surveys that marijuana is “easy to get.” At the same time, we have seen rates of teen alcohol and tobacco use steadily decline over the past two decades due to public education and enforcement of regulations related to selling to minors. For those who may be concerned that regulating marijuana like alcohol will lead to an increase in teen use, there has been good news this year. In Colorado, the state with the most robust system of regulated distribution and sale of marijuana, a survey released in June showed that the rate of teen marijuana use in that state has not increased between 2011, just prior to marijuana becoming legal, and 2015. Of course, there is still the rational concern that under legalization some teens may acquire marijuana from older siblings and friends, as they sometimes do in the case of alcohol. We all hope that this does not occur frequently. But we must acknowledge that this is better than having teens seeking marijuana from strangers in an underground market, where they may be exposed to other more dangerous drugs. This is what happens today. Please join us in voting Yes on Proposition 205, the “Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act.” ” —Kathy Inman, Gilbert; Dave Inman, Gilbert and Sonia Martinez, Mesa

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol:

Yes on 205's "Money for Schools"

Yes on 205's “ Safer Communities”

Yes on 205's “ You Decide”

More videos can be revealed below:
Yes on 205's “Save Our Vets”	Yes on 205's “ Build Schools, Not Lies”	Yes on 205's “Regulation Means”
Yes on 205's “Susan Sarandon” telephone ad	Yes on 205's “Jim McMahon”	Yes on 205's “Dear Mom”

Opposition

Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, also known as No on 205, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 205.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Doug Ducey (R)
• U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-8)
• U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-5)
• Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-6)
• Sen. Nancy Barto (R-15)
• Sen. Andy Biggs (R-12)
• Sen. Judy Burges (R-22)
• Sen. Sue Donahue (R-5)
• Sen. David Farnsworth (R-16)
• Sen. Gail Griffin (R-14)
• Sen. John Kavanagh (R-23)
• Sen. Debbie Lesko (R-21)
• Sen. Steve Pierce (R-1)
• Sen. Don Shooter (R-13)
• Sen. Steve Smith (R-11)
• Sen. Bob Worsley (R-25)
• Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R-17)
• Sen. Kimberly Yee (R-20)
• Rep. John Allen (R-15)
• Rep. Sonny Borrelli (R-5)
• Rep. Russell Bowers (R-25)
• Rep. Paul Boyer (R-20)
• Rep. Noel Campbell (R-1)
• Rep. Regina Cobb (R-5)
• Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16)
• Rep. Mark Finchem (R-11)
• Rep. Rick Gray (R-21)
• Rep. Karen Fann (R-1)
• Rep. Anthony Kern (R-20)
• Rep. Jay Lawrence (R-23)
• Rep. Vince Leach (R-11)
• Rep. David Livingston (R-22)
• Rep. Phil Lovas (R-22)
• Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17)
• Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-13)
• Rep. Jill Norgaard (R-18)
• Rep. Justin Olson (R-25)
• Rep. Warren Petersen (R-12)
• Rep. David Stevens (R-14)
• Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-6)
• Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-16)
• Mayor John Suthers (R), Colorado Springs, CO
• Mayor Douglas J. Nicholls, Yuma
• Mayor Jerry Sanchez, San Luis
• Mayor Cecilia C. McCollough, Wellton

Former officials

• Former U.S. Secretary of Education Bill Bennet (R)

Organizations

• Arizona Republican Party
• Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry
• Arizona Association of County School Superintendents
• Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
• Arizona Catholic Conference of Bishops
• Arizona Fraternal Order of Police
• Arizona Small Business Association
• Arizona State Troopers Association
• Arizona Rock Product Association
• Arizona Trucking Association
• Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Association
• Center for Arizona Policy
• Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association
• Associated General Contractors, AZ Chapter
• Arizona Manufacturers Council
• Teen Challenge of Arizona
• Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce
• Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Phoenix Chamber
• Marana Chamber of Commerce
• Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Gilbert Chamber of Commerce
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Office of the First Presidency
• Arizonans for Mindful Regulation

Businesses

• Insys Therapeutics
• Discount Tire
• U-Haul

Individuals

• Sheldon Adelson
• Larrie Fraley, Pastor of Christ's Church of the Valley

Arguments

Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy’s “Think Marijuana’s Harmless? Think Again.”

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 205:

• The proposition would give more power to Big Marijuana.
• The proposition would allow marijuana companies to profit by targeting children.
• The proposition would protect drivers under the influence of marijuana, making roads less safe.
• The proposition would create bigger and costlier government with a new state department.
• The economic costs of marijuana impacts, such as drug treatment and school dropouts, would outstrip potential increases in tax revenue.

Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, the group opposing the initiative, argued four points in one of their pamphlets:

“

Law creates marijuana monopoly The law will create and protect a massive for-profit monopoly selling addictive products, just like Big Tobacco. Big Marijuana special interests will get rich while the rest of us pay the price. Potent edibles endanger our children The law allows Big Marijuana to profit from marijuana-laced edibles in the form of candies, cookies and lollipops - all foods that are clearly targeted to our children. Even worse, accidental ingestion by youth is up over 600% in marijuana-friendly states. Marijuana makes our roads more dangerous The law will afford marijuana-impaired drivers with legal protections, despite statistics that show fatalities are on the rise in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. 20 pages of new laws protect Big Marijuana The law is over 20 pages filled with legalese that creates another state commission and another state department. All this means bigger and costlier government.

”

Mark Dannels, sheriff of Cochise County, said:

“

Anyone who isn’t seeing what’s going on in Colorado right now needs to understand what’s happening there so they know the impact of what could happen here. ... Not one sheriff I spoke to from Colorado had anything good to say about what’s happening in their state since this was legalized.

”

Arguments filed in opposition

The following are some of the arguments filed with the Arizona secretary of state's office in opposition:

“ Upending decades of serious substance abuse policy by making today’s high potency marijuana more available would constitute a youth health policy disaster. As more and more medical journals are finding, today’s high potency marijuana is a drug that specifically harms the teen and adolescent brain. In some cases, permanently. And there is no doubt that youth use will increase with legalization: In Colorado, youth use of marijuana is now 74 percent higher than the national average. Not only is marijuana much more potent than it was a generation ago, it is now sold as candy, lollipops, gummy bears, and brownies—everything attractive to a kid. Because children cannot distinguish between marijuana candy and regular candy, emergency room visits and hospital admissions for marijuana exposure and ingestion by our youth are on the rise—thousands of children a year end up in hospitals because of these products. The costs from more drug treatment, rehabilitation, counseling, traffic and workplace accidents, enforcement, criminal violations, dropouts, and education deficits will far outrun any potential tax revenue the state might take in—just like with tobacco or alcohol. If you want to make marijuana like alcohol, indeed, be prepared to see youth use of marijuana increase from where it is today, to the levels our youth use alcohol—which is far higher than marijuana. If you want to keep youth use of marijuana relatively low, where it is now, vote no. This proposition enriches dispensary owners at a dramatic cost to the rest of the state. That price is just too high to pay—for our children, for our businesses, for our health services, for our education system, and truly, for everyone else. Arizona does not need more substance abuse problems—our hands are full enough with the legal and dangerous products already available ” —Seth Leibsohn, Chairman: NotMYKid; Chairman: Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, Phoenix “ Arizonans should vote no on this proposition. It is written by out-of-state lobbyists and in-state special interest groups to promote a for-profit commercial industry to sell – and advertise – an addictive product. It is 20 pages of new laws and more government, full of legalese that creates marijuana monopolies, guaranteeing that a few get rich while the rest of us pay the price. This proposition will allow Big Marijuana companies to manufacture and sell marijuana-laced candies, cookies, drinks, and ice-cream. Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012. Today, their industry pumps out marijuana edibles with potency levels as high as 60%. Compare that to the marijuana of the 1970s with potency levels of less than 1%. The marijuana lobby wants voters to believe that our prisons are filled with nothing more than marijuana users. This is an absolute falsehood. Arizona has been a national leader for the last twenty years as a treatment - not incarceration – state for drug users. A person cannot be incarcerated for marijuana possession or use until a third conviction, with few exceptions. Instead, Arizona promotes treatment through our drug courts and diversion programs. The marijuana lobby also promised Colorado that legalizing the drug would make the drug cartels go away. This too is false. Today, drug cartels in Colorado are flourishing, hiding in plain sight, in this drug-friendly state. Marijuana is a mind-altering, addictive substance that is particularly harmful to the developing adolescent brain. Four years ago, the marijuana lobby promised Colorado they would regulate marijuana and keep it out of the hands of kids. The exact opposite happened. Teens in Colorado now use marijuana at the highest rate in the nation – 74% higher than the national average. The most effective way to keep marijuana out of the hands of our youth is to keep it illegal. ” —Sheila Polk, Yavapai County Attorney, Chair of MATFORCE & Vice-Chair of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, Prescott Valley “ Out of state and in state profiteers vested in selling more marijuana don’t care about the health, education, or the developing minds of Arizona children. Legalizing marijuana will ensure Arizona children will have easy access to a mind altering, pernicious drug. Serious, peerreviewed research suggests a particularly harmful effect of marijuana on children including: altered brain development, reduced IQ, memory and motor impairment, reduced life satisfaction, addiction, and, in heavy dosages or long term use, symptoms of bronchitis, and psychosis/mental health issues. As a teacher, and the House Education Chair, I can’t think of a more important vote than NO on legalizing marijuana. I cannot in good conscience, as a member of the State Legislature or school teacher, support this initiative in any way. This 21-page ballot measure benefits a handful of interested parties determined to create a bigger market for Arizona drug use. But, the true cost of legalizing recreational marijuana and putting the rights of users before those of non-users in our state is completely unknown. The tax revenue pro-pot advocates claim will bolster our state budget is deceptive. Schools will only get leftovers after the new Department of Marijuana and the new Commission has been fully funded, that is, if there’s anything left over. Nor do they take into account the cost of more school dropouts, reduced IQs, and the impact on the mental health system. I implore voters to read the 21 pages of legalese that out of state special interests are trying to sneak on to the ballot and to vote NO on Proposition 205 November 8. ” —Rep. Paul Boyer (R-20), Phoenix “ As former State Superintendents of Education, we take specific offense with the idea that legalizing marijuana will be good for our schools or our children. It will not; indeed, it will cause a great deal more harm and expense. Whether we are talking about college students or K- 12 students, more marijuana in our schools and in our students’ hands and brains is a terrible idea. First: make no mistake: legalizing an intoxicating substance for adults will mean more youth consumption, just as it has in Colorado and Washington, and just as it has for alcohol in every state. Second: every study on marijuana use and education shows students using marijuana are more likely to have lower education scores and outcomes, and far more likely to drop out. Teenagers who use marijuana are 60 percent less likely to finish high school while college students who use marijuana are at twice the risk of dropping out. Marijuana use by teens and college students affects “focus, working memory, decision-making and motivation,” and has “structural effects in the brain,” according to a recent study out of Northwestern University. None of this is good for students or better educational outcomes. As a Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern, put it: “If I were to design a substance that is bad for college students, it would be marijuana.” Third: revenue to schools? The guesstimates are mere pittances, like picking loose change out of a sofa. Given the damage more marijuana will cause our students, any revenue will never make up for the costs--those true education deficits. We have dedicated our lives to improving educational outcomes for Arizona students, and marijuana use negatively affects every single one. Legal marijuana is a bad idea for Arizona and has no place in the conversation of positive education reform. ” —Lisa Keegan, Peoria and Jaime Molera, former AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction, Phoenix “ Legalizing marijuana will greatly harm Arizona’s children - our future. I strongly urge Arizona voters to protect the health and safety of our children and VOTE NO on Prop 205 We need only to look at states that have already legalized marijuana to confirm the increased harm this drug causes children. Colorado now leads the nation in youth use of marijuana and all illicit drugs. Legalized marijuana does four things that put our kids at risk. Legalization: 1) increases supply, 2) increases ease of access to the drug, 3) decreases perception of risk and 4) increases the acceptance of the drug. Legalizing marijuana in Arizona means kids will think it is okay to use. Legalization will only result in more and more Arizona youth using the drug. In marijuana friendly states, accidental poisoning of children has increased 600%. Marijuana edible products, like candies in the form of gummy bears and suckers, are laced with high potency THC and are easily getting into the hands of children. The result is children are arriving in emergency rooms. Many of the people consuming this high potency THC are suffering from psychotic episodes. As Colorado has proven, legalization only opens the door for more marijuana use by youth. Don’t be misled just because the ballot initiative says that marijuana will be regulated like alcohol and only sold to adults. Far too many youth find a way around the alcohol laws already, alcohol is the number one drug that are Arizona youth are abusing. So please ask yourself this question: Will legalizing a mind-altering drug that reduces a young person’s chance for success make Arizona a better place to live? Do you want your child or grandchild to use this drug? Let’s keep Arizona kids safe and healthy – vote NO on Prop 205 ” —Merilee Fowler, Camp Verde “ I’m a lifelong liberal, but after thirty years practicing psychiatry, much of it with children and adolescents, I’m totally against legalizing marijuana. And it’s not just me. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and American Academy of Pediatrics also staunchly oppose legalization. Why? Because just like Big Tobacco, a legal marijuana industry would target teenagers. With both tobacco and marijuana, 90% of adult users start as teens. All the profit in both industries depends on adolescent use. Big Tobacco used Joe Camel to get teenagers started. Big Marijuana is even worse. In Colorado, they entice kids with marijuana candies, cookies and soda. Denver pot stores aren’t filled with green leafy weed; they’re filled with THC infused gummy bear, lollipops, and sweetened products called Reefer’s peanut butter cups, Hashey’s chocolate and Pot-tarts. Google them. As a result, Colorado now has the country’s highest rate of teenage marijuana use, and the number of dogs and toddlers overdosing on pot has skyrocketed. The pot industry is directly targeting kids, even though hundreds of scientific studies show that marijuana – especially today’s high-potency weed – permanently damages the teenage brain. Teens who smoke pot regularly drop out at twice the rate of non-users, and as adults they earn less and have lower IQ. No parent wants this for their kids. But does the marijuana industry care? No more than Big Tobacco cares about cancer and heart disease; it’s just part of doing business. Remember: this initiative wasn’t written by hippies who want to get high; it was written by businessmen who want to make money getting your kids started on drugs. That’s why doctors who work with children – pediatricians and child psychiatrists -- adamantly oppose this measure. As should we all. ” —Ed Gogek, M.D. Board-certified Psychiatrist, Prescott “ As an Arizona Pediatrician in practice for over 27 years and as a father and grandfather I write in opposition to the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. The evidence from the Colorado and Washington experiment is now indisputable. 1. Children’s use of marijuana skyrockets after it becomes legal for adults, not just because it’s more available but because young people erroneously perceive that if adult voters approve it, then it must not be harmful. 2. The edible formulations of marijuana contain such high concentrations of THC that they can cause serious medical problems in young children. These products are marketed as candy which dramatically increases the risk of accidental ingestion and is responsible for a marked increase in Emergency Room visits. 3. The younger a person starts using marijuana, the more likely they will become addicted, not graduate from high school, induce psychiatric disorders, negatively transform the anatomy of the brain and actually lose up to 8 IQ points. 4. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in an official policy statement reaffirmed its opposition to the legalization of marijuana "citing the potential harms to children and adolescents". The AAP represents over 62,000 pediatricians nationwide. To protect Arizona’s children I implore you to vote against this initiative. Our children’s health and future life fulfillment are too important to waste on this experiment. ” —Dale W Guthrie MD FAAP, Former President, Arizona Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics “ Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks. ” —Sally Schindel, Concerned Parent, Prescott

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy:

An opposition ad featuring Maricopa County Supervisor Denny Barney and Sen. Bob Worsley

An opposition ad featuring U.S. Rep. Trent Franks

An opposition ad featuring U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon

More videos can be revealed below:
No on 205 ad, titled "Bill Conner"	No on 205 ad, titled "Think Again"	No on 205 ad, titled "Boardroom"
No on 205 ad, titled "Law Enforcement On Arizona Legislation"	No on 205 ad, titled "Ron Castagna"	No on 205 ad, titled "A Very Bad Deal"
No on 205 ad, titled "Truth Is"	No on 205 ad, titled "Big Marijuana"	No on 205 ad, titled "Fine Print"
No on 205 ad, titled "68%"	No on 205 ad, titled "Mistake"	No on 205 ad, titled "Why I'm Voting No - Greg"
No on 205 ad, titled "Why I'm Voting No - Robin"	No on 205 ad, titled "Empty Promises"

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures

A total of five campaign committees were registered, with one in support and four against Proposition 205. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of January 16, 2017.

Kevin Sabet of SAM Action said the measure's defeat provided opponents of marijuana legalization with a model. He stated, "The overarching lesson was that if we could raise enough money early, we can win. Arizona was the only state where we were toe to toe with the 'yes' side, and it's the only state we started early in." Arizona Proposition 205 was the only marijuana legalization initiative in 2016 where opponents raised a similar amount of funds as supporters.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$6,547,688.96	$0.00	$6,547,688.96	$6,524,881.15	$6,524,881.15
Oppose	$6,368,195.67	$0.00	$6,368,195.67	$6,208,651.46	$6,208,651.46
Total	$12,915,884.63	$0.00	$12,915,884.63	$12,733,532.61	$12,733,532.61

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 205
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, Sponsored by Marijuana Policy Project, Yes on Prop 205	$6,547,688.96	$0.00	$6,547,688.96	$6,524,881.15	$6,524,881.15
Total	$6,547,688.96	$0.00	$6,547,688.96	$6,524,881.15	$6,524,881.15

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Marijuana Policy Project	$1,473,363.57	$0.00	$1,473,363.57
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps	$550,000.00	$0.00	$550,000.00
Drug Policy Action	$350,000.00	$0.00	$350,000.00
Holistic Patient Wellness Group	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Marijuana Policy Project Foundation	$241,972.38	$0.00	$241,972.38

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 205
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Arizonians for Responsible Drug Policy in Opposition to Prop 205	$6,359,490.78	$0.00	$6,359,490.78	$6,199,997.95	$6,199,997.95
Marijuana Consumers Against Fake Marijuana Legalization, No on Prop 205	$7,790.49	$0.00	$7,790.49	$7,739.11	$7,739.11
Just Vote No Arizona - No on Prop 205	$914.40	$0.00	$914.40	$914.40	$914.40
No on Prop 205 (in opposition to Prop 205)	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$6,368,195.67	$0.00	$6,368,195.67	$6,208,651.46	$6,208,651.46

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Discount Tire	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry	$585,247.80	$0.00	$585,247.80
Insy's Therapeutics, Inc.	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Sheldon Adelson	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Empire Southwest, LLC	$350,000.00	$0.00	$350,000.00

Media editorials

Support

• Aztec Pres said: "While it may be tempting to laugh at ridiculous arguments from the “no” side, it’s worth remembering the message may resonate with a demographic that votes. That’s why we think voting yes on Prop. 205 is vitally import to personal liberty. Whether or not you enjoy an occasional jazz cigarette, let’s end this nasty experiment with marijuana prohibition."
• Tucson Weekly said: "Is this initiative perfect? No, but it's better than the status quo. It creates a regulated system so that you won't have a pot shop on every corner. It generates tax revenues from marijuana sales that go to help with drug treatment and Arizona's schools, which could sure use the bucks. And you know what? It's your best chance to send a message that the laws against weed are archaic and unfair. It's a sure bet that state lawmakers aren't going to take any steps towards decriminalizing weed, so this is your only chance to make it happen."

Opposition

• The Arizona Republic said: "While we believe it is responsible to explore the legalization of marijuana, The Arizona Republic opposes Proposition 205 for several reasons:

It experiments with the health of our children.

It is a money grab by the medical marijuana industry.

It would set in concrete drug policy that would be hard to amend with corrective legislation.

And there is no urgency to do this now."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• In mid-April 2016, a poll commission by opponents of the ballot measure was released to The Arizona Republic. The poll found that a plurality of those surveyed opposed marijuana legalization in Arizona.
• Between August 17 and August 31, 2016, The Arizona Republic, in cooperation with Morrison and Cronkite News, found that 50 percent of those surveyed supported Proposition 205. The poll found that about 64 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents in the state favored marijuana legalization, while 56 percent of Republicans opposed it.
• OH Predictive Insights conducted a poll in late August, finding a simple majority in opposition to marijuana legalization. Pollster Mike Noble noted that "for every voter who pulls the lever for Donald Trump this November has a 72 percent likelihood they will vote ‘No’ on legalizing recreational marijuana. Conversely, Hillary Clinton voters have a 57 percent likelihood of voting ‘Yes’ on legalizing recreational marijuana."
• OH Predictive Insights released a poll on October 10, 2016, showing 44 percent of respondents supporting and 49 percent opposing Proposition 205.
• In mid-October 2016, HighGround Public Affairs surveyed 400 likely voters and found 49.8 percent of respondents supporting the initiative.
• The Arizona Republic, Morrison, and Cronkite News released a poll in mid-October 2016 showing 50.4 percent of respondents in support of Proposition 205.
• Data Orbital surveyed 550 likely voters on October 29 and October 30, 2016, and found support for the measure at 45 percent. Opposition was at 51 percent.
• On November 1 and November 2, 2016, Data Orbital surveyed 550 likely voters and found support for Proposition 205 at 48 percent, while opposition was at 47 percent.

Arizona Proposition 205 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Data Orbital 11/01/2016 - 11/02/2016	48.0%	47.0%	4.0%	+/-4.12	550
Data Orbital 10/29/2016 - 10/30/2016	45.0%	51.0%	4.0%	+/-4.12	550
The Arizona Republic, Morrison, and Cronkite News 10/10/2016 - 10/15/2016	50.4%	41.6%	8.0%	+/-4.0	811
HighGround Public Affairs 10/14/2016	49.8%	45.3%	4.9%	+/-4.88	400
Data Orbital 10/11/2016 - 10/12/2016	44.0%	45.0%	11.0%	+/-4.12	500
OH Predictive Insights 9/28/2016 - 9/30/2016	43.0%	47.0%	10.0%	+/-3.66	718
OH Predictive Insights 8/24/2016 - 8/27/2016	40.0%	51.0%	9.0%	+/-3.63	728
The Arizona Republic, Morrison, and Cronkite News 8/17/2016 - 8/31/2016	50.0%	40.0%	10.0%	+/-3.4	784
The Arizona Republic 4/11/2016 - 4/14/2016	43.0%	49.0%	8.0%	+/-4.0	500
AVERAGES	45.91%	46.32%	7.66%	+/-3.99	615.67
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Medical marijuana

Voting on Marijuana
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local marijuana Local marijuana tax

Arizonans approved Proposition 200, a measure designed to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana and other Schedule I drugs to treat patients, in 1996. Lawmakers in the Arizona Legislature passed a bill the following year requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve medical marijuana before doctors could prescribe the drug. Sam Vagenas, a backer of Proposition 200, contended, "There's no doubt they're gutting the will of the people." The Bill Clinton administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Director Barry McCaffrey lauded the legislature's move, saying, "The Legislature of Arizona has taken a very responsible course of action."

Voters rejected a referendum, titled Proposition 300, on the bill to require the FDA to approve marijuana and other drugs before doctors could prescribe the drugs. As voters rejected the referendum, they effectively voted to uphold the section of Proposition 200 allowing doctors to prescribe Schedule I drugs.

Proponents of Proposition 200 were involved in crafting Proposition 105 in 1998. Although Proposition 105 had nothing to do with medical marijuana, proponents saw the initiative as a means to decreasing legislative alteration with marijuana initiatives in the future. Supporters did not want a repeat of what the legislature did to Proposition 200. The measure was approved, and it required a three-fourths vote in the legislature to amend an approved initiative.

In 2010, proponents of medical marijuana celebrated a narrow victory in Proposition 203. The Arizona Republic reported that every year between Proposition 203's approval and 2016, the Arizona Legislature attempted to limit access to medical marijuana.

State legislation

Legalization bills

In January 2015, Rep. Mark Cardenas (D-19) introduced a proposal to legalize recreational marijuana. He argued that voters would pass an initiative in 2016 unless the Arizona Legislature first approved recreational marijuana. Referring to laws preventing the legislature from altering or repealing citizen initiatives, he said there were benefits to legislative approval that would not come with initiative approval. Cardenas noted, "We've seen issues with our medical-marijuana system ... but it's nearly impossible to come back at the Legislature and adjust it because we need 75 percent of the Legislature (to approve any changes to a voter-approved measure). This would give us more leeway. If there were unforeseen consequences, we could easily come back and adjust it the next year." He continued, "We have to be smart about governing. If it's going to happen, let's get ahead of it and make sure we have the conversations to come up with the best program possible." Cardenas' House Bill 2007 was designed to legalize the purchase, possession and consumption of marijuana for persons who are 21 years of age or older. The bill was also written to regulate and tax marijuana. HB 2007 was not approved in 2015. Cardenas compared his proposed system to Colorado's, which was approved by voters in 2012.

Blocking bills

See also: 2015 and 2016 changes to laws governing initiatives

Several laws were proposed by state legislators in 2015 and 2016 to directly impede initiatives legalizing marijuana or to indirectly make them more difficult by imposing additional restrictions on the initiative process. These efforts included both a failed bill proposed in 2015 and a 2016 bill designed to require a 75 percent and 60 percent supermajority, respectively, to approve any initiative that conflicted with federal law or proposed the legalization of a federally banned substance such as marijuana. Other laws were designed to impose distribution requirements for initiative signature gathering or allow the legislature more authority to alter or repeal citizen initiatives. For details about such laws proposed in 2015, click here, and, for details about changes to the Arizona initiative process proposed in 2016, click here.

Legalization initiatives

California Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana, appeared on the ballot in 2010. It was defeated, with 53.5 percent of voters casting "no" votes. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder came out against Proposition 19, saying President Obama's (D) administration would "vigorously enforce the (Controlled Substances Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law." Support for the proposition dropped drastically following Holder's statement. Mason Tvert, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, said the 2010 initiative was defeated because "it was done during a midterm election." He continued, "If it had been done in a presidential election, things might have turned out very differently. We find that the more people who vote, the more who favor ending marijuana prohibition."

In 2012, legalized recreational marijuana advocates saw their first statewide victories in Colorado and Washington. Two years later, voters in Oregon and Alaska approved marijuana legalization, and President Obama revised his position on recreational marijuana, stating, "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal."

Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada all had marijuana legalization measures appearing on the 2016 ballot.

The following map depicts the legal status of recreational marijuana in different states:

Current as of November 28, 2016.

Noteworthy events

Use of public resources to educate or influence

Brnovich's opinion

Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R)

Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) issued a formal legal opinion advising public officials they could use their public offices and resources to "educate" voters about recreational marijuana, despite laws prohibiting the use of public funds to influence elections. His May 2015 opinion came a few weeks after supporters officially submitted a request to circulate a marijuana legalization initiative. Brnovich's statement was in response to a request from Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who led an effort to kill the initiative proposal. While Polk organized a political action committee to collect private contributions, she was concerned about her legal capacities as a public official to argue against legalization now that an initiative exists.

The Marijuana Policy Project of Arizona, which led the initiative campaign, criticized Brnovich's opinion. Ryan Hurley, the group's attorney, contended, "If they [officials] want to say in their opinion that marijuana might be harmful to society, maybe that's something that they can do," but if officials argue marijuana legalization is bad "that's advocating a position on the initiative." Hurley said advocation was breaking the law. According to Christina Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute, state government spending on voter information was limited by statute to "neutral government-sponsored debates or forums, or election publicity pamphlets."

On May 14, 2015, Brnovich rescinded his formal legal opinion. His press aide, Kristen Keogh, said Brnovich did so in response to allegations that his opinion could be used in defense of "government abuse," an issue he took "very seriously." The attorney general said he would issue another statement about the issue, one that was "more clear" and protected taxpayers, according to the office's communications officer, Ryan Anderson.

In July 2015, Attorney General Mark Brnovich released his second opinion on the use of public resources to influence elections. He concluded that using public resources to oppose marijuana legalization becomes "influence" instead of "education" when "an official serial number is assigned to the petition."

Public funding of opponents

Partners Against Narcotics Trafficking (PANT), a drug-enforcement task force in Yavapai County, donated $50,000 seized in anti-racketeering operations to the anti-marijuana group MATFORCE. The organization had a website page captioned, "Let’s Stop the Push for Legalization."

Use of state email to share or influence

Tim Jeffries, director of the Department of Economic Security (DES), sent an email to thousands of the department's employees in September 2016. The subject line read, "Fwd: Alcohol "safer" than marijuana??????? You be the judge." Most of the email was a forwarded anti-marijuana article written by a member of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy named Seth Leibsohn. According to Tasya Peterson, director of Communications at DES, "Senior leadership regularly circulates articles and news stories regarding current events" and the memo was "sent purely for informational purposes."

A spokesperson at the attorney general's office reiterated that state employees were not allowed to use public resources "for the purposes of influencing the outcomes of elections." However, "[T]his appears to be a matter that could be addressed internally between Director Jeffries and his boss." Jeffries' boss was Gov. Ducey. The governor's office, addressing Jeffries' email, stated, "Our office has made it clear that electioneering using state resources is completely unacceptable. Based on our review, we do not believe this email meets that description."

J.P. Holyoak of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol reached out to Tim Jeffries, asking him to share pro-marijuana literature with his employees. In his message to Jeffries, Holyoak said, "In order to ensure that you are not attempting to influence the outcome of the election, we hope you agree it is appropriate to distribute to that same email list the information that we have compiled on the same topic covered in the email you forwarded from Seth Leibsohn of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy. ... To be fair, we have made the subject of this email similar to Mr. Leibsohn’s so that you can simply forward it in a similar manner. Thank you in advance for providing equal treatment to both sides in this debate."

State law

Arizona Revised Statutes §11-410 addresses the use of public resources by counties to influence the outcome of an election. The first three subsections of the law state the following:

“

A. A county shall not spend or use its resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a county may distribute informational pamphlets on a proposed bond election as provided in section 35-454 if those informational pamphlets present factual information in a neutral manner. Nothing in this section precludes a county from reporting on official actions of the county board of supervisors. B. This section does not prohibit the use of county resources, including facilities and equipment, for government-sponsored forums or debates if the government sponsor remains impartial and the events are purely informational and provide an equal opportunity to all viewpoints. The rental and use of a public facility by a private person or entity that may lawfully attempt to influence the outcome of an election is permitted if it does not occur at the same time and place as a government-sponsored forum or debate. C. Employees of a county shall not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.

”

Insys contribution to opponents

Insys Therapeutics, a producer of a synthetic fentanyl painkiller based in Arizona, contributed $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy on August 31, 2016. This was the largest contribution against any marijuana legalization initiative to date.

The business claimed to oppose Proposition 205 because "it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children."

In a briefing filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016, Insys Therapeutics argued that legalized marijuana would limit the "commercial success" of dronabinol, a synthetic cannabinoid that the company was developing. An excerpt from the briefing read:

“

Legalization of marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids in the United States could significantly limit the commercial success of any dronabinol product candidate. Currently, dronabinol is one of a limited number of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids in the United States. Therefore in the United States, dronabinol products do not have to compete with natural cannabis or non-synthetic cannabinoids such as GW Pharmaceutical’s Sativex®. Literature has been published arguing the benefits of marijuana over dronabinol. Moreover, irrespective of its potential medical applications, there is some support in the United States for legalization of marijuana. If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.

”

Leader of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol, J.P. Holyoak, slammed the company, contending, "You have a company using profits from the sale of what has been called 'the most potent and dangerous opioid on the market’ to prevent adults from using a far less harmful substance." He added, "It appears they are trying to kill a non-pharmaceutical market for marijuana in order to line their own pockets." In response, Adam Deguire, a campaign consultant for opponents, argued that the pro-legalization campaign was "overwhelmingly financed by marijuana special-interest groups who stand to make millions from its passage." His campaign "is grateful to have the strong financial support from many in the Arizona business community."

Insys Therapeutics was, at the time, facing federal and state investigations and a shareholder lawsuit "over allegations that it improperly marketed the drug to doctors in an effort to boost sales," according to the Washington Post. Additionally, an employee pleaded guilty to fraud related to fentanyl purchases. Other employees were arrested over similar charges. FBI Assistant Director Diego Rodriguez criticized such schemes, stating, "This case should be something the medical industry and the general public should pay close attention to because it’s one of the reasons we’re experiencing an epidemic of overdoses and deaths in this country."

Impact on drug trafficking

Arizonans were presented with conflicting headlines about Proposition 205’s estimated impact on drug trafficking and cartels. Fortune titled an Associated Press article, “Legalizing Marijuana in Arizona Could Strengthen Drug Cartels,” while PBS Newshour titled the same exact article, “Here’s how legal pot in Arizona could upend the drug cartels.” Some in law enforcement contended legalized marijuana would strengthen cartels, encouraging them to sell drugs more dangerous than marijuana. Others argued that legalize marijuana would undercut cartels, as the legal market would overcome the underground market.

According to Carlos Alfaro of Yes on 205, legalization of marijuana in other states, such as Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, decreased the number of marijuana seizures along the border with Mexico. He said, "Now cartels have competition. They have to compete with legitimate business in the U.S. with product that is more pure, with regulations on the shelf and prices." Finn Selander, a DEA agent, stated, "Sixty percent of the cartels’ revenues come from marijuana alone. Prop. 205 is going to actually take that money that would normally go the cartels, so to say, and it’s going to put it into the communities." Statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show marijuana seizures dropping 39 percent nationwide from 2011 to 2015 and 28 percent in the Tucson sector. In 2015, Border Patrol seized around 800,000 pounds of marijuana in Arizona.

Paul A. Beeson, chief of the Tucson sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, disagreed that cartels would be weakened under Proposition 205. Beeson argued, "[Cartels] are seeking to increase market share in other controlled substances, notably heroin and methamphetamine." In 2015, over 4,100 pounds of methamphetamine were seized in the Tucson sector, an increase of 46 percent in two years. Sergeant Jim Gerhardt, a drug investigator based in Denver, said that as marijuana is legal in Colorado but not other states, cartels and other drug organizations hide their drugs there. The sergeant contended, "People think that because marijuana is legal and you can grow it in your own home that it’s much harder for law enforcement to detect it. They’re right. It’s much harder. That’s why these drug organizations are coming to Colorado. They come to Colorado to essentially hide in plain sight. They will do the same in Arizona."

Impact on presidential election

See also: Presidential election in Arizona, 2016

In 2004, President George W. Bush was re-elected during an election that featured a wave of initiatives and referrals banning same-sex marriage. The New Republic, citing academic research, suggested that one such measure, Ohio Amendment 1, played a role in invigorating social conservatives and, in turn, aiding the incumbent Republican in securing a second term. With polls showing a tight race in Arizona, some pundits and activists thought ballot initiatives could help turn the state blue in 2016. Arizona Proposition 205 and Proposition 206, which aimed to increase the minimum wage, could have helped Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton gain traction in the traditionally red state.

Politico, NBC News, and Mother Jones all suggested that marijuana legalization measures, such as Proposition 205, could increase voter turnout among young people. Pollster Ann Selzer noted that exit polls in Colorado from the 2012 presidential election showed more men than women voting for President Obama. Defying the typical partisan gender gap, Selzer speculated that Amendment 64, an initiative legalizing marijuana, was responsible for Obama's surge among young men. FiveThirtyEight, however, contended that marijuana initiatives had not increased voter turnout among young people in the past.

John Burton, chairman of the California Democratic Party, has called marijuana-related initiatives the Democrats’ “secret weapon” to success. Matt Schlapp, former White House political director for President Bush, is skeptical that Clinton could mobilize voters interested in "far more populist" initiatives. He continued, "She’s going to have to say something about each and every one of them. If you avoid any press in the state and don’t make a comment that’ll upset these left wing supporters even more."

Lawsuits

Lawsuits overview
First lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; allegedly too unclear for voters to make an informed decision whether to sign or not
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, Sheila Polk, Bill Montgomery, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is vague and the initiative's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.	Defendant argument: The ballot summary is as clear as it can be in 100 words.
Second lawsuit
Issue: Ballot language; alleged inaccuracies in the text of the measure
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff on the issue of how age was presented, but not other issues
Plaintiff(s): J.P. Holyoak	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff arguments: Proposition 205's ballot text is inaccurate and downplays significant aspects of the initiative.	Defendant arguments: Changes are not needed

Leibsohn et al. v. Reagan

Opponents of Proposition 205 filed a lawsuit on July 11, 2016, alleging that the summary description on the signature petitions was vague and did not explicitly and sufficiently inform signers of the initiative's contents. The legal challenge also claimed that the measure was unconstitutional because of the provision that grants existing medical marijuana dispensaries the first of the initial limited opportunities to sell recreational marijuana. Co-plaintiff and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said, "You can’t pass a law that gives special advantages to just a particular corporation or group or individuals." Furthermore, the plantiffs argued that the funding mechanism violates the state constitution. The hearing was on August 12, 2016. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry dismissed the lawsuit on August 18, 2016, keeping the measure on the November 2016 ballot. The court agreed with a lower court ruling that the initiative petition complied with legal requirements.

Plaintiffs appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2016, the court rejected the appeal.

Holyoak v. Reagan

On August 29, 2016, J.P. Holyoak of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, filed a complain against Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R). Holyoak criticized the text of the measure that would appear on the ballot. Spokesman Barret Marson argued, “The description is deficient and erroneous.” As reported in the Phoenix New Times, the campaign “contends that the summary misstates the age at which it would be legal to use, grow, possess, and purchase marijuana; that it contains misleading language regarding proposed criminal statutes; and that it fails to state how tax revenue from recreational marijuana would be spent.” Judge James Blomo of the Maricopa County Superior Court sided with the campaign on how age was presented. The language was changed from "over 21 years old" to "21 years and older." However, he was not compelled to order changes to the other disputed passages.

Fiscal analysis statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the Arizona Legislature was required to file a fiscal analysis statement for Proposition 205. The committee estimated that an additional $53.4 million in government revenue would have been generated in fiscal year 2019 and $82.0 million in fiscal year 2020 if the measure had been approved. The revenue would have been distributed as seen in Table 1. The table excludes revenue that would be generated via existing state and local taxes.

Proposition 205 would have created a Marijuana Fund, which would have received revenue from a 15 percent tax on retail marijuana sales, licensing fees, and civil penalties associated with marijuana regulation. Revenue in the Marijuana Fund would have been distributed to the Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control, which would have regulated marijuana, and the Department of Revenue, which would have administered the marijuana tax. Localities with marijuana establishments would have received 50 percent of the revenue generated via licensing fees.

Revenue remaining after distribution to the departments and localities would have been distributed as follows:

• 40 percent to school districts and charter schools for education-related expenses.
• 40 percent to school districts and charter schools for full-day kindergarten.

• 20 percent to the Arizona Poison Control for educational campaigns about the harms of marijuana, alcohol, and other substances.

Chart 1 details how revenue would be distributed.

The committee also noted that legalizing recreational marijuana could have possibly increased expenditures of the Department of Health Services due to an increase in substance abuse treatment cases and emergency room visits. As a number of variables could have impacted this possibility, the committee did not assign an estimated cost.

A decreased number of arrests due to the legalization of marijuana could have possibly decreased government expenditures. In fiscal year 2014, 6.2 percent of all arrests in Arizona were related to marijuana possession or trafficking. During the same year, approximately 4.5 percent of the state's prison population was incarcerated with marijuana possession or trafficking being their most major offense. On the other hand, a decrease in the number of fines and forfeitures related to marijuana could have decreased government revenue.

The full text of the fiscal analysis can be read here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

Supporters of the initiative filed a statement of organization with the Arizona secretary of state on September 19, 2014. A petition to allow for circulation was filed on April 17, 2015.

Initiative proponents needed to collect 150,642 signatures by July 7, 2016, to land the measure on the ballot. In mid-January 2016, the supporters announced they had collected 140,000 signatures toward their goal.

The signature requirement for Arizona initiatives is tied to the number of votes cast for the office of governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. initiated state statute, such as Proposition 205, require signature equal 10 percent of the votes cast for gubernatorial candidates.

Arizona's Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol submitted 258,582 signatures on June 30, 2016. The Arizona secretary of state's office certified the measure on August 11, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Arizona Petition Partners to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $662,658.95 was spent to collect the 150,642 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $4.40.

See also: Ballot measure signature costs, 2016

A competing initiative called the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana Act was proposed by the Campaign to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana, but petitioners did not meet the signature requirements for 2016's election ballot. For details about the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana Act, click here.

If both initiatives would have reached the ballot and received majority approval from voters, the one with the most "yes" votes would have superseded the other wherever the initiatives conflicted. Any non-conflicting provisions of both initiatives would have been enacted.

State profile

Demographic data for Arizona
	Arizona	U.S.
Total population:	6,817,565	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	113,594	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	78.4%	73.6%
Black/African American:	4.2%	12.6%
Asian:	3%	5.1%
Native American:	4.4%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.2%	0.2%
Two or more:	3.2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	30.3%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	86%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27.5%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$50,255	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	21.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Arizona. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Arizona

Arizona voted Republican in six out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More Arizona coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Arizona
• United States congressional delegations from Arizona
• Public policy in Arizona
• Endorsers in Arizona
• Arizona fact checks
• More...

Related measures

See also: History of marijuana on the ballot and Marijuana on the ballot

The first attempt to legalize marijuana through the initiative process came in 1972, when California activists got an initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was defeated. Marijuana legalization advocates had their breakthrough election in 2012, when both Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana. Oregonians rejected a legalization measure that same year, but approved one two years later in 2014. As of the beginning of 2016, recreational marijuana had been legalized in four states and Washington, D.C. All legalizations came through the initiative process. As of the beginning of 2016, medical marijuana was legal in 25 states.

More than 60 statewide marijuana-related initiatives were submitted for the 2016 ballot. The table below shows the marijuana-related measures that qualified for the 2016 election ballot:

Marijuana measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Florida	Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization, Amendment 2 a
California	California Proposition 64, California Marijuana Legalization a
Arkansas	Arkansas Medical Marijuana, Issue 6 a
North Dakota	North Dakota Medical Marijuana Legalization, Initiated Statutory Measure 5 a
Montana	Montana Medical Marijuana Initiative, I-182 a
Maine	Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 a
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization, Question 4 a
Nevada	Nevada Marijuana Legalization, Question 2 a

The following table includes past initiative attempts in the United States to legalize marijuana:

State	Year	Measure	Status
Arizona	2016	Proposition 205	d
California	2016	Proposition 64	a
Maine	2016	Question 1	a
Massachusetts	2016	Question 4	a
Nevada	2016	Question 2	a
Ohio	2015	Legalization Initiative	d
Alaska	2014	Ballot Measure 2	a
Oregon	2014	Measure 91	a
Washington, D.C.	2014	Initiative 71	a
Colorado	2012	Amendment 64	a
Oregon	2012	Measure 80	d
Washington	2012	Initiative 502	a
California	2010	Proposition 19	d
Nevada	2006	Question 7	d
Alaska	2004	Measure 2	d
Nevada	2002	Question 9	d
California	1972	Proposition 19	d

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Arizona Marijuana Legalization Proposition 205. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• Arizona 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

External links

• Arizona 2016 Ballot Measures

Support

• Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
• Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Facebook
• Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Twitter

Opposition

• Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy
• Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy Facebook
• Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy Twitter