The efforts behind SB 1713, “Marijuana; Dual Licensees; Rural Communities,” led by Republican Senator David Gowan of LD 19, will always be remembered.. Despite determined attempts to expand rural access to Arizona’s cannabis market, SB 1713 did not advance, but its mission carries forward as Striker SB 1057. SB 1713 sought to increase rural opportunities in Arizona’s cannabis industry, generating tax revenue and driving economic growth in underserved regions. It also created a rare opportunity for entrepreneurs—one that, without changes to current laws, may not arise again until 2100.SB 1713 applied to cities with fewer than 50,000 residents, no marijuana retail site within 25 miles, and no local opt-out. Licensed businesses would have remained in designated rural areas, with relocation allowed only to other unserved rural communities.
During its final days, SB 1713 underwent two amendments in the Committee of the Whole. Democratic Senator Hatathlie of LD 6 introduced a change excluding unincorporated areas completely surrounded by an Indian reservation from the definition of an “unserved rural community.” Meanwhile, the Gowan Amendment reshaped the bill by requiring the Department of Health Services (DHS) to issue a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary certificate to each business awarded a marijuana establishment license. It also capped Rural Opportunity Initiative licenses at 18, removed the automatic issuance of dispensary certificates, and imposed an 18-month deadline for businesses to open retail sites.
A Senate vote of 18-9-4 failed to secure the ¾ majority required by the Voter Protection Act, sealing SB 1713’s fate. Senator Gowan’s motion to reconsider briefly kept the bill alive, but time ran out, preventing it from advancing. With that, SB 1713 reached its demise.
Although the bill did not succeed, its objectives now fuel Striker SB 1057. A striker amendment (short for “strike everything” amendment) completely replaces a bill’s original text with new language. This legislative strategy, often appearing late in the process, surprises many because the bill’s initial topic may be entirely unrelated to its final content.
It’s like reaching for one CD in a case and finding another CD in that case. Striker amendments allow for the rapid introduction of new proposals, the revival of stalled ideas, or the bypassing of certain legislative steps. While effective, this method remains controversial due to its potential to limit public input and thorough review.
On Tuesday, SB 1057 made its debut in the House Commerce Committee. Initially titled “Working Animal; Harm; Classification,” the bill transformed first into “Commerce; Trade; Passport Identification” and now stands as “Marijuana; Dual Licensees; Rural Communities.” Despite multiple revisions, SB 1057 now centers on Arizona’s cannabis industry and rural communities.
The 13-page amendment, sponsored by Committee Chairman Rep. Weinger (R-LD 13), directs DHS to establish rules for the program. It enables qualified applicants to obtain licenses specifically for underserved rural communities. Each license holder may operate one retail location and one off-site facility for cultivation and manufacturing. Additionally, each license includes a nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary registration certificate to ensure continued patient access. The proposal allows up to 18 new licenses. Unlike past licensing programs, businesses approved under this initiative would be prohibited from relocating to urban areas, preventing a repeat of past dispensary migrations to metro regions like Phoenix and Tucson that left rural communities underserved.
Nick Simonetti, representing the Arizona Rural Opportunity Alliance, voiced support for the striker amendment on SB 1057. He emphasized the need to expand legal cannabis access in rural Arizona, highlighting the absence of dispensaries in many areas, which forces patients to travel long distances for medical marijuana. While advocates support the bill, opposition remains strong, particularly from the Arizona Dispensaries Association (ADA). Supporters argue that the measure provides a controlled approach by capping new licenses and restricting them to rural regions. During the committee hearing, lawmakers debated how Arizona’s original marijuana licensing system initially placed businesses in rural counties, only for many to relocate to larger cities after three years in pursuit of higher profits. This shift left rural communities without access, forcing residents to travel hundreds of miles for regulated cannabis. SB1057 directs DHS to issue up to 18 new dispensary licenses for businesses committed to remaining in rural areas. Each licensee may operate one retail storefront and one cultivation or manufacturing site, with no option to move into metro regions like Phoenix or Tucson.
The Economic Argument
During the committee hearing, Representative Blackman (R-LD7) emphasized that this bill is more than a measure to improve patient access—it represents a crucial economic opportunity for rural Arizona. Many small communities struggle to attract industries, but cannabis cultivation and dispensaries have already proven to be powerful economic drivers. A key example is Copperstate Farms in Snowflake, one of the largest cannabis operations in the U.S. The company generates over $75 million annually, employs over 700 people, and contributes to local schools, child care programs, and tax revenues.
“This type of organization contributes greatly to my community because it creates jobs—and that’s what we desperately need,” Blackman stated during the hearing.
Industry Pushback
Not everyone supports the expansion. Brett Mecum, representing JARS Cannabis, strongly opposed the bill, calling it a “resurrected” version of a similar measure that recently failed in the Senate.
“It didn’t have the votes, it didn’t have the support, and now we see it back again,” Mecum said.
Mecum pointed out that every Arizona county already has at least two dispensaries and that DHS has existing measures to address regional access needs. He also noted that marijuana delivery services are operational and could resolve accessibility concerns for rural patients. Additionally, Mecum contended that the bill violates the Voter Protection Act, which set limits on dispensary numbers based on the number of pharmacies in the state. According to Mecum, Arizona already exceeds the intended ratio of one dispensary per ten pharmacies, and prior legislation—including a 2019 rural backfill bill—has already addressed rural access concerns.
Breaking Barriers for Rural Communities
Jon Udell, representing the Arizona Rural Opportunity Alliance, urged lawmakers to remove obstacles preventing small towns from keeping dispensaries. He cited the recent relocation of a Bisbee dispensary to a metro area, leaving Douglas officials scrambling to find a replacement. Udell emphasized that the current licensing structure creates monopolistic barriers that drive up costs. He noted that securing a dual-license dispensary in Phoenix or Tucson can cost between $15 million and $20 million, making it nearly impossible for rural entrepreneurs to compete. Udell also stressed the need to improve medical cannabis accessibility in rural Arizona. Current restrictions force some patients, particularly those north of the Grand Canyon, to travel up to 12 hours round-trip for medication. Beyond patient access, Udell pointed to the economic benefits of expanding cannabis businesses in rural communities. Successful dispensaries in small towns have created stable jobs and generated significant tax revenue. While cannabis delivery remains an option, it remains costly and difficult to sustain in isolated regions, further limiting accessibility.
“If we wait for more licenses under the current pharmacy cap, we’re looking at decades before these communities see relief,” Udell warned.
Ongoing Debate
The debate over rural dispensary access remains intense. Pele “Peacock” Fisher, representing the Arizona Dispensaries Association, pushed back against the claim that additional licenses are necessary. Fisher stressed that every Arizona county already holds at least two dispensary licenses, which cannot be relocated. She argued that the legalization of adult-use cannabis had already addressed concerns about rural access and that existing laws allow licenses to be backfilled when needed.
“There are already 170 cannabis licenses statewide, many of which could move to areas with higher demand,” Fisher said.
Fisher also pointed out that the bill expands both medical and adult-use licenses, questioning whether its primary objective is patient access or market expansion. She emphasized that Proposition 207, which legalized adult-use cannabis, was designed to regulate the industry—not to continuously increase the number of dispensaries.
“We haven’t heard from patient groups or local jurisdictions saying they need more dispensaries,” Fisher stated. “If there was truly an access issue, we’d be hearing from them.”
However, Fisher appeared unaware of the Senate Minority Whips Senator Gadaldon’s (D-LD 21) March 13 remarks during the Senate’s third reading of SB 1713, where she outlined the challenges her community faces due to lack of access to cannabis. Not to mention when is the last time you saw Pele at an Errl Cup or a MITA?
Legislative Vote Breakdown
Despite concerns and calls for further clarification, Senate Bill 1057, as amended, passed with a 6-2-1 vote.
Representative Connolly (D-LD8) voted “nay,” stressing the need for additional information before fully supporting the bill on the floor. Representative Diaz a repubican preacher from LD19, voted “aye,” citing personal experiences with the benefits of medical marijuana. Meanwhile, Representative Wilmeth (R-LD2) also voted “aye,” highlighting the vast size of counties like Coconino and the significant challenges residents face in accessing cannabis.
As the debate continues, the future of cannabis accessibility in rural Arizona remains in the hands of lawmakers, with both supporters and opponents making their case for the impact of Senate Bill 1057. UP NEXT FOR THE MEASURE- RULES COMMITTEE. There the committee decides if it’s constitutional and in proper foam.