A new strike all and amend everything, amendment sparked a heated debate at the state capital on Monday night. Over a proposal to shift funds from Arizona’s cannabis tax revenue toward increased enforcement against the illicit marijuana market.
What is a Striker Amendment?
A striker amendment (short for “strike everything amendment”) is a powerful tool lawmakers use to completely change a bill. Instead of making small edits, they erase all the original text and replace it with something entirely different—sometimes on a completely new topic. For example, a bill that started as a rule about roads could suddenly become a law about schools. The bill keeps its original number and title (at least for a while), but inside, it’s an entirely new law. It’s like taking a book, erasing all the pages, and writing a whole new story inside the same cover.
Lawmakers often use strikers to speed up the process or introduce urgent ideas without starting from scratch. However, critics argue that this tactic can make laws harder to track and limit public input since major changes can happen quickly and with little notice. While some lobbyists call it poor planning.
Lawmakers’ Arguments
Rep. Matt Gress, a Republican from LD4 and former staffer for Governor Doug Ducey, sponsored the measure, arguing that illegal sales are undermining the regulated market.
“We’ve heard from the cannabis industry that the illicit marijuana market is growing significantly,” Gress said. He pointed to revenue figures from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), noting that legal marijuana sales initially generated $132 million in tax revenue, later rising to between $169 million and $176 million. However, with retail sales now declining nearly 20%, industry leaders attribute the drop to unregulated competition and are calling for stronger enforcement.
The proposal would allocate $2.5 million from the Smart and Safe Arizona Fund—which supports community colleges, public health programs, and local governments—toward enforcement efforts. Some beneficiaries worry about potential funding reductions, but Gress maintained that cracking down on illegal sales is necessary.
“I am going to decline a reduction in revenue flowing into the Smart and Safe Arizona Fund, as it would result in lower distributions for all beneficiaries,” he stated. He emphasized that directing consumers to legal dispensaries, which follow state regulations, is essential to sustaining the legal market.
Opposition Raises Concerns Over Funding Priorities
AJ from Arizona NORML, a military veteran and former state trooper, pushed back against the proposal, arguing that public safety concerns have not significantly increased since legalization.
“This proposal would redirect $2.5 million, taking money away from community colleges and placing direct control over enforcement into the hands of a specific agency,” he said. He contended that the measure creates a self-sustaining enforcement mechanism, prioritizing cannabis-related crackdowns over other pressing law enforcement needs.
Tim from Arizona NORML echoed these concerns, outlining three primary objections:
Funding Diversion – The proposal redirects money from essential services, including fire departments.
Special Interest Influence – It could serve as a tool for certain industry players to target competitors through legally questionable enforcement actions, especially in regards to Hemp and hemp beverages.
Potential Legal Challenges – The measure may face litigation for contradicting the intent behind Arizona’s cannabis legalization laws.
The ACLU of Arizona, represented by Mary Lynn Rodriguez, also opposed the reallocation of funds. While the organization does not object to changes in funding distribution, Rodriguez stressed compliance with Prop 207 and the Voters Protection Act (VPA).
“We oppose the utilization of the Smart and Safe Fund for the purposes of allocating to DPS to send grants to local law enforcement when the act is very clear,” she stated. Rodriguez pointed out that enforcement funding is already addressed under ARS 36-2856(B)(1) and (2)(D)(5) and suggested that concerns could be resolved through amendments rather than a fund reallocation.
Advocates Push for Stricter Enforcement
In contrast, Pele Fischer for the Arizona Dispensaries Association advocated for stronger action against unregulated THC products, which she described as a public safety risk. She cited cases of children being hospitalized after consuming unregulated THC edibles, warning that these products are often “packaged attractively for kids and marketed to kids.”
Fischer highlighted Poison Control Hotline data showing hundreds of cases of accidental THC ingestion. She urged immediate action to remove these products from store shelves, emphasizing the need for enforcement funding. (Question: does poison control differ from illegally purchased THC and dispensary store products)
“We need to act quickly to remove these unregulated products from shelves and address this public health crisis,”she argued, maintaining that using cannabis tax revenue for enforcement aligns with Prop 207’s intent.
Lawmakers Cast Their Votes
Rep. Gutiérrez (D LD18) opposed the bill, citing community concerns. She referenced letters from Tucson residents and nonprofits, including Second Chance Tucson, which helps formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate into society.
“They are urging a no vote because Proposition 207 was intended, in part, to support community-based efforts that address the root causes of drug dependence—reducing the need for reactive law enforcement measures,” she explained.
Gutiérrez highlighted organizations like Hushabye Nursery, helps opioid-dependent women—both pre- and postpartum—recover and keep their infants healthy. and Family and Community Acupuncture, which provides trauma-informed care in Northern Arizona, including to the Havasupai Tribe. She argued that funds should support such initiatives rather than being redirected to law enforcement.
“For these reasons, I am voting no tonight,” she concluded.
Gress defended the proposal, acknowledging that the Justice Reinvestment Fund would see a $200,000 reduction but stressing that revenue could shrink further if illicit sales continue unchecked.
Leave it to a politician to throw numbers around like they belong in a swear jar.
“I would be worried… because we’re not in the proper marketplace,” he said, emphasizing that enforcement targets illegal businesses, not consumers.
Final Remarks from Leadership
Chair David Livingston (R-LD28) was the last to speak, reinforcing the need to combat illicit marijuana sales.
“This can be done, and it clearly should be done,” Livingston stated. After reviewing testimony and public feedback, he concluded that opposition largely came from those who “are currently getting money from the waterfall and trying to protect it.” Referring to the beneficiaries of the Smart and Safe Fund.
In The End
The vote in the Republican-heavy Appropriations Committee saw all 11 Republicans voting in favor, while Democrats split, with 6 voting against and 1 voting “passed.” The difference in opinion could stem from differing priorities: Democrats may prioritize reinvestment in local communities, which could involve allocating funds to social programs or infrastructure, while Republicans in favor of the measure may be more inclined to support increased funding for the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
If SB1299 isn’t significantly modified, it could lead to further division along party lines during the floor vote. This might make it difficult to secure the necessary ¾ majority vote for passage, as each party has different views on how funds should be distributed and what the priorities should be.