New York Governor Releases More Details on Marijuana Legalization Proposal

Two medical associations support legal action challenging the constitutionality of the medical marijuana voting initiative that Mississippi voters overwhelmingly approved in November, arguing it creates “public health risks” and imposes a “burden” on physicians.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and its state affiliate, the Mississippi State Medical Association (MSMA), recently filed an amicus brief supporting the legal challenge before the state Supreme Court, which was brought by the City of Madison just days before the election.

The lawsuit argues that the legalization proposal is invalid due to a state law that dictates the percentage of signatures required per district to qualify an initiative to vote.

While the Mississippi Secretary of State and Attorney General have sharply criticized the trial, calling it “terribly untimely” and disputing the merits, the AMA and MSMA nonetheless support the challenge.

“It is always important to ensure that the Constitutional Amendment card is followed, but given the nature of the initiative in question and the substantial ramifications it poses for Mississippi public health and the medical community, a special attention is warranted here, ”the brief said, according to a blog post posted by AMA on Friday.

The groups further claim that, aside from statutory concerns set out in the lawsuit, the medical cannabis legalization initiative “poses significant public health risks and burdens Mississippi physicians.”

“While it is possible that there may be beneficial medicinal uses for marijuana, there are many evidence-based studies that show that significant deleterious effects abound,” the brief states, adding “without question, the risks to public health are immense. “

Moreover, since marijuana remains illegal federally, the measure approved by voters would put doctors “in a pinch,” he said. “Yet their patients will expect physicians (although perhaps not required by Initiative 65) to approve the certifications to receive their supply. No liability may arise under state law, but what about federal law? “

In fact, federal courts have ruled that doctors have the First Amendment right to discuss medical cannabis with their patients without risking federal sanction.

“As everyone knows, all it takes to bring a lawsuit is a piece of paper and a filing fee, so even if a doctor is tried properly and immunity is appropriate, the issue will still have to be contested, ”said WADA and MSMA. keep on going. “And with the increase in exposure and litigation comes an increase in costs, including higher professional liability insurance premiums.”

Madison’s court challenge cites state law stating that “the signatures of qualified voters in any congressional district must not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify a first-person petition for placement on the ballot. But that policy came into effect when Mississippi had five congressional districts, and that has since been reduced to four, making it mathematically impossible to join.

Advocates see desperation in the court record, with medical associations now making a last ditch effort to reverse the will of voters.

“These are cynical attempts to undermine the democratic process,” said Carly Wolf, state policy coordinator for NORML. “Opponents of legalization have shown time and again that they cannot succeed either in public opinion or at the ballot box.”

“So they are now asking judges to put aside the votes of over a million Americans in a desperate effort to override the undisputed election results,” she said. “Whether or not we support the legalization of marijuana, Americans should be outraged by these blatantly undemocratic tactics.”

Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, said: “WADA’s position is unfortunately out of step with public opinion and scientific consensus, as well as with the views of the majority of physicians.

“It is unfortunate that this organization attempted to overturn the vote of a super-majority of Mississippi voters,” he said.

It is not particularly surprising that these particular groups are joining this legal challenge given their previous attempts to get voters to reject the reform initiative.

A few weeks before the vote, the WADA and MSMA circulated a sample ballot that told voters how to reject the activists’ cannabis measure. The shippers said the associations “are asking you to join us in educating and encouraging our people to vote against Initiative 65”.

Ultimately, however, nearly 74 percent of Mississippi voters approved the legalization initiative.

This will allow patients with debilitating medical conditions to legally obtain marijuana after obtaining a doctor’s referral. It includes 22 qualifying conditions such as cancer, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and patients would be allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in any 14-day period.

Marijuana Moment reached out to WADA and MSMA for additional information on the brief, which has yet to be released on the State Court’s public register, but the representative did not immediately respond.

The Mississippi case is just one example of opponents of legalization asking courts to overturn the will of voters who approve of marijuana reform.

In South Dakota, another legal challenge against the constitutionality of a legalization initiative is underway. In this case, the plaintiffs – backed by Gov. Kristi Noem (R) – claim that the recreational marijuana measure violates a state law requiring that proposals on the ballot be about only one subject.

In Montana, opponents of a voter-approved initiative to legalize cannabis for adults have tried to get the state’s Supreme Court to strike down the proposal before the vote, but judges have rejected the demand , arguing that they had not established the urgency necessary to skip the lower court arbitration process. However, they did not comment on the substance.

The plaintiffs then announced that they were pursuing a lawsuit in a lower court, arguing that the statutory proposal illegally appropriates funds, violating part of the state constitution that prohibits such allowances from being included in an initiative. citizen.

Separately, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in September that a medical marijuana legalization initiative could not appear on the November state ballot following a court challenge, even whether the activists had collected enough signatures to qualify.

The court ruled that the measure violated Nebraska’s one-matter rule that limits the scope of what can be entered on the ballot before voters. Activists have already introduced a new initiative that they say will satisfy the court’s interpretation of state law – and they’re also working on a broader measure of legalizing adult use.

New York Governor Releases More Details on Marijuana Legalization Proposal