Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412.01 (2026)

Prescribing controlled substances included in schedule I for seriously ill and terminally ill patients

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any medical doctor licensed to practice in this state may prescribe a controlled substance included in schedule I as prescribed by section 36-2512 or the rules adopted pursuant to section 36-2512 to treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient, subject to the provisions of this section. In prescribing such a controlled substance, the medical doctor shall comply with professional medical standards.

B. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a medical doctor shall document that scientific research exists that supports the use of a controlled substance listed in schedule I as prescribed by section 36-2512 or the rules adopted pursuant to section 36-2512 to treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or a terminally ill patient before prescribing the controlled substance.  A medical doctor prescribing a controlled substance included in schedule I as prescribed by section 36-2512 or the rules adopted pursuant to section 36-2512 to treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient, shall obtain the written opinion of a second medical doctor that prescribing the controlled substance is appropriate to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient or terminally ill patient. The written opinion of the second medical doctor shall be kept in the patient's official medical file.  Before prescribing the controlled substance included in schedule I as prescribed by section 36-2512 or the rules adopted pursuant to section 36-2512, the medical doctor shall receive in writing the consent of the patient.

C. Any failure to comply with the provisions of this section may be the subject of investigation and appropriate disciplining action by the Arizona medical board.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2013 · leading case: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). · cites it 2× “080 (2004); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3412.01 (West Supp.”
State v. Hardesty, 204 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “10 ¶ 38 Defendant nevertheless asserts that Arizona’s Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996, A.R.S. § 13-3412.01 (2001), demonstrates that the effects and harmfulness of marijuana are in dispute because it “allowed medical doctors to prescribe 116 Schedule I…”
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002). “080; Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 13-3412.01; Colo. Const.”
State v. Jones, 306 P.3d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 13-3412.01(A), (B) (2010) (“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412.01(A): 1 case
State v. Jones, 306 P.3d 105 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “, A.R.S. § 13-3412.01(A), (B) (2010) (“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3412.01(B): 1 case
State v. Hardesty, 204 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “10 ¶ 38 Defendant nevertheless asserts that Arizona’s Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996, A.R.S. § 13-3412.01 (2001), demonstrates that the effects and harmfulness of marijuana are in dispute because it “allowed medical doctors to prescribe 116 Schedule I…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.