Marijuana legalization supporters led by Leaden Democratic National Committee


Two medical associations are throwing their support behind a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the medical marijuana ballot, which Mississippi voters approved extensively in November, arguing that it poses a “risk to public health” And puts a “burden” on physicians.

The Mississippi State Medical Association (MSMA), affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) and its state, recently filed a brief regarding a legal challenge being considered by the state Supreme Court, which the city of Madison filed just days before Had brought Election.

The lawsuit argues that the statutory proposal is invalid due to state law that determines the percentage of signatures required per district to receive a ballot initiative.

Although the Mississippi Secretary of State and the Attorney General strongly criticized the suit, calling it an “untoward matter” and countering the merits, the AMA and MSMA are still challenging the challenge.

The brief statement said, “It is always important to ensure that the constitutional amendment map is followed, but given the nature of the initiative on this issue and the substantial disruptions to Mississippi’s public health and medical community, the special Care is taken. ” A blog post published by the AMA on Friday.

The group further argues that, outside of the statutory concerns outlined in the suit, the medical cannabis legalization initiative “poses significant risks to public health and places a burden on Mississippi physicians.”

The brief statement states, “While it is possible that marijuana may have beneficial medicinal uses, several evidence-based studies suggest significant lethal effects are abundant,” without question, public health risks. There are many more. “

Additionally, because marijuana is outlawed, the voter-approved measure would put physicians “in a considerable pinch”. “Yet physicians would be expected by their patients (though perhaps not required by Initiative 65) to sign certificates to obtain their supplies. Perhaps no obligation would be under state law, but regarding federal law what?

In fact, federal courts have ruled that doctors have the first amendment to discuss medical cannabis with their patients without risking federal approval.

“As everyone knows, all it takes to file a lawsuit is a piece of paper and a filing fee, so even if a physician is judged properly and immunity is appropriate, the case will still have to be settled. , “AMA and MSMA persist briefly. “And with increased risk and litigation comes increased costs, the least of which is increasing professional liability insurance premiums.”

The legal challenge brought by Madison cites a state statute that states “one-fifth (1 /) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an appointment petition on the signature ballot of qualified electors from any congressional district.” 5) shall not exceed. . “But when Mississippi had five congressional districts, the policy went into effect and has since been reduced to four, making it mathematically impossible to follow.”

Advocates see frustration in court filing, with medical associations now a last-ditch effort to reverse the will of voters.

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

“Thus, they are now asking judges to unquestionably attempt to separate the votes of more than one million Americans to pass the electoral results,” she said. “Whether or not marijuana supports legalization, Americans should be angry at these highly undemocratic tactics.”

NorML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, “The AMA’s position is understandably out of line with both public opinion and scientific consensus, as well as the opinions of most physicians.”

“It is regrettable that this organization will go on record in an effort to reduce Mississippi voters’ vote of one supremacy,” he said.

It is also not particularly surprising that these particular groups will join this legal challenge given their earlier efforts to get voters to reject reform initiatives.

The week before the vote, the AMA and MSMA circulated a sample ballot instructing voters to reject the active-led cannabis measure. Mailers said that the association was “asking to join you to educate and encourage our population to vote against Initiative 65.”

Eventually, however, about 74 percent of Mississippi voters approved the legalization initiative.

This would allow patients with debilitating medical issues to legally obtain marijuana after receiving a doctor’s recommendation. It includes 22 qualifying conditions such as cancer, chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, and patients will be allowed to keep 2.5 ounces of marijuana for a period of 14 days.

The Marijuana Moment reached out to the AMA and MSMA for additional information about the brief, which has not yet been posted on the public docket of the state court, but the representative did not immediately respond.

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

In South Dakota, another legal challenge is underway against the constitutionality of a legal initiative. In this case, Christie Noam (R) -Ray, in collaboration with Wadi-Gow, claims that the recreational marijuana measure violates a state statute requiring that the proposal appear on the ballot with the same subject.

In Montana, opponents of the voter-approved initiative to legalize cannabis for adult use attempted to invalidate the state’s further motion of vote to the state’s Supreme Court, but judges rejected that request, contending That they failed to establish urgency. Leave the decision process of the lower court. However, he did not rule by virtue.

The plaintiff then announced that they were taking action in a lower court, arguing that the statutory motion illegally appoints the money, violating a part of the state constitution that would allow such allocation in civil initiatives. Prevents inclusion.

Separately, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in September that a medical marijuana legalization initiative could not appear on the state’s November ballot following a legal challenge, even though activists gathered enough signatures to qualify.

The court determined that the measure violated Nebraska’s single-subject rule that limited the scope for voters to be placed on the ballot. Activists have already launched a new initiative that they say will satisfy the court’s interpretation of state law – and they are also working on a comprehensive adult-use legalization measure.

New York governor released more details on marijuana legalization proposal

Marijuana Moment has become possible with the support of readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly patron pledge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.