Arizona SB 1105: Dispensary Location Restrictions Close Preschool Loophole

Closing the Preschool Loophole—And Why It Barely Matters for Market Dynamics

The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025


The Bill at a Glance

FieldDetails
BillSB 1105
Session2025 (57th Legislature, 1st Regular Session)
TitleMedical marijuana dispensaries; location
SponsorsBipartisan
StatusSigned into law
EffectiveUpon signature (new licenses only)

Executive Summary

Arizona SB 1105 expands the existing 500-foot buffer zone around cannabis dispensaries to include childcare facilities and preschool programs. The bill responds directly to an October 2024 Court of Appeals ruling that created a legal loophole allowing dispensaries to operate near early childhood facilities.

CBDT Assessment: This is regulatory maintenance, not market-moving policy. SB 1105 scores neutral (0 to -0.5 percentage points) on legal market capture. Arizona's limited license model—not location restrictions—is the binding constraint on dispensary expansion. The bill imposes no operational burden on existing operators, creates no consumer access barriers, and grants no competitive advantage to the black market.

The more consequential Arizona cannabis legislation in 2025 remains HB 2179 (advertising restrictions) and the defeated SB 1702 (hemp regulation), along with federal hemp restrictions that take effect November 2026.


What Happened: The Court of Appeals Loophole

On October 18, 2024, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the state's medical cannabis law—the voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (Proposition 203)—bars dispensaries from locating near K-12 schools but not preschools or childcare facilities.

The court's majority held that interpreting "school" to include preschools would undermine the Arizona Department of Health Services' ability to issue licenses and "adversely affect" voter intent. The dissent argued location restrictions should protect all children from marijuana exposure, whether in preschool, elementary school, or high school.

The ruling opened a gap: cannabis businesses could legally locate within feet of facilities serving children ages 0-5 while being prohibited from the same proximity to facilities serving children ages 6-18.

SB 1105 closes that gap.


What SB 1105 Does

ProvisionBefore SB 1105After SB 1105
K-12 schools500 ft buffer required500 ft buffer required
Childcare facilitiesNo buffer required500 ft buffer required
Preschool programsNo buffer required500 ft buffer required
Existing dispensariesN/AGrandfathered
New license applicationsSchools onlySchools + childcare + preschools

Key provisions:

  • Includes childcare facilities and preschool programs in the list of prohibited locations within 500 feet of dispensaries and cultivation sites
  • Prohibits municipalities from enacting ordinances permitting cannabis establishments within 500 feet of schools, childcare facilities, or preschools
  • Applies only to dispensary registration certificates or marijuana establishment licenses issued after the bill's effective date
  • Existing dispensaries are grandfathered—no relocation required

The CBDT Framework Analysis

The Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework identifies five levers that determine legal market capture of total cannabis demand. SB 1105 affects only one—access density—and minimally.

Lever 1: Price Gap (g) — NO EFFECT

Weight: 4× (highest impact)

SB 1105 does not affect cannabis pricing. The bill imposes no new taxes, fees, or compliance costs on existing operators. Consumer prices remain unchanged.

Black market advantage: None gained or lost.

Lever 2: Access Density (D) — MINIMAL NEGATIVE

Weight: 1×

The bill restricts where future dispensaries can locate. However, this effect is nearly zero in practice because:

  1. Arizona operates a limited license model. Approximately 170 dispensaries serve 7.4 million residents (2.2 per 100,000 population). The state issues only one dispensary license per 10 pharmacy permits. New license availability—not location restrictions—is the binding constraint.
  2. Existing dispensaries are grandfathered. No current operators must relocate. Consumer access to existing stores is unchanged.
  3. Future licenses are scarce regardless. Even without SB 1105, few new licenses would be issued under Arizona's restrictive model.

CBDT impact: -0.1 to -0.3 percentage points (negligible)

Lever 3: Safety/Quality (S) — NO EFFECT

Weight: 1.2×

SB 1105 does not affect product testing, lab certification, or quality standards. Arizona's existing testing requirements remain intact.

Lever 4: Convenience (F) — NO EFFECT

Weight: 1×

The bill does not change operating hours, delivery availability, product selection, or payment options. Consumer convenience is unchanged.

Lever 5: Enforcement (E) — NO EFFECT

Weight: 0.6×

SB 1105 is a siting restriction, not an enforcement measure. It does not affect penalties for unlicensed operators, interdiction resources, or black market suppression.

Fragmentation Modifier (F_frag) — NO EFFECT

Weight: −0.8×

The bill maintains policy coherence. It does not create conflicting regulatory frameworks, federal preemption concerns, or stakeholder confusion. The change is narrow and prospective-only.


CBDT Score Summary

LeverWeightSB 1105 ImpactContribution
Price Gap (g)None0
Access Density (D)Minimal negative-0.1 to -0.3
Safety/Quality (S)1.2×None0
Convenience (F)None0
Enforcement (E)0.6×None0
Fragmentation (F_frag)-0.8×None0
Net Effect0 to -0.5 pp

Arizona legal market share:

  • Current: 75-80%
  • Post-SB 1105: 75-80% (unchanged)

Comparison: State Buffer Zone Requirements

StateBuffer ZoneLicense ModelDispensaries per 100K
Arizona (post-SB 1105)500 ft (schools + childcare)Limited (~170 total)2.2
Colorado1,000 ft (schools)Open14.2
Oregon1,000 ft (schools)Open16.8
California600 ft (varies by locality)Limited3.8
Washington1,000 ft (schools, playgrounds, parks)Limited4.1

Arizona's buffer requirements remain comparable to or less restrictive than peer states. The childcare expansion aligns with standard practice rather than creating an outlier restriction.


Winners and Losers

Winners

StakeholderWhy
Public perception of legal cannabisProactive child safety regulation strengthens industry's social license
Existing license holdersGrandfathered in; marginal reduction in future competition
Families with young childrenNew dispensaries won't locate near early childhood facilities

Losers

StakeholderWhy
Prospective license applicantsReduced site selection options (marginal—few new licenses anyway)
Commercial landlords near childcareProperties within 500 ft lose eligibility for cannabis tenants

Neutral

StakeholderWhy
Existing dispensary operatorsNo operational changes, no compliance costs, no relocation
ConsumersNo change in access, pricing, or product availability
Black marketNeither helped nor harmed—illicit operators don't rely on storefront proximity to childcare

Political Context

SB 1105 represents the type of legislation that passes with minimal controversy. Bipartisan sponsorship. Narrow scope. Prospective-only application. No operational disruption.

The bill demonstrates that cannabis regulation can evolve incrementally without creating compliance crises or industry backlash. Legislators can claim they "protected children" while imposing zero burden on existing businesses.

This is the path of least resistance—and that's why it passed while more consequential reforms (SB 1702 hemp regulation) failed.


What SB 1105 Doesn't Do

The bill does not address Arizona's actual cannabis market challenges:

IssueSB 1105 Impact
Declining sales ($1.5B → $1.3B, 2022-2024)None
Employment crisis (20K → 10K jobs)None
Medical market collapse (-63% since 2021)None
Hemp-derived product competitionNone
280E federal tax burdenNone
Limited license oligopolyNone

SB 1105 is a child safety siting bill. It is not cannabis market reform.


BillTopicStatusCBDT Impact
HB 2179Marijuana advertising restrictionsSigned (effective July 2026)Neutral to +0.5
SB 1105Dispensary location restrictionsSignedNeutral (0 to -0.5)
SB 1702Hemp-derived product regulationDefeated-3 to -5 (hemp competition continues)
SB 1299Safe Community Enforcement FundPending+1 to +2 (illicit enforcement)
FederalHemp product restrictions (1mg cap)Passed Nov 2025+3 to +5 (effective Nov 2026)

The defeated SB 1702 and the federal hemp restrictions matter more for Arizona's market dynamics than SB 1105. The hemp loophole—unregulated intoxicating products sold outside licensed dispensaries—represents a 3-5 percentage point drain on legal market share that SB 1105 does nothing to address.


CBDT Verdict

Should Arizona have passed SB 1105? Yes. The bill closes an unintended legal gap without disrupting existing operations.

Does SB 1105 improve Arizona's legal market capture? No. The effect is within rounding error.

What would improve Arizona's market? Federal 280E elimination, SAFE Banking passage, hemp enforcement, consumption lounges, tribal compact expansion—not location restrictions on hypothetical future dispensaries.

SB 1105 is fine legislation. It's just not important legislation.


CBDT Framework Citation

This analysis applies the Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement Framework:

The Silent Majority 420, "Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework: A Behavioral-Utility Heuristic for Illicit-to-Legal Market Transition," Zenodo, 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17593077

Validation data: Harvard Dataverse, DOI: 10.7910/DVN/MDVDTQ


Related: Arizona Cannabis Market Analysis | Cannabis Bills Tracker


The Silent Majority 420 is an independent cannabis policy analyst. The CBDT Framework represents the first validated consumer-utility model for predicting market outcomes in vice legalization.

Analysis licensed CC BY 4.0

Read more

Oklahoma HB 1163: Enforcement Intensification Through Trafficking Threshold Reduction

CBDT Analysis: How a 97.5% Reduction in Trafficking Thresholds Strengthens Oklahoma's Legal Market While Protecting Compliant Businesses The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025 Bill at a Glance FieldDetailsBillHB 1163Session2025 Regular SessionTitleMedical marijuana; decreasing weight amount of marijuana for aggravated trafficking offensePrimary SponsorRep. Tom Gann (R-Inola)House VotePassed

By The Silent Majority