Two medical associations support their support behind a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the medical marijuana voting initiative that overwhelmingly approved voters in Mississippi in November, arguing that it creates ‘risks to public health’ and a ‘burden’ on doctors instead.
The American Medical Association (AMA) and its state subsidiary, the Mississippi State Medical Association (MSMA), recently submitted an amicus letter supporting the legal challenge being considered by the state Supreme Court a few days before the election.
The lawsuit alleges that the legislative proposal is invalid because of a state law that determines the percentage of signatures per district to qualify a voting initiative.
While Mississippi’s Secretary of State and Attorney General have strongly criticized the case, calling it “deplorably untimely” and disputing the merits, AMA and MSMA nonetheless support the challenge.
“Ensuring compliance with the Constitution Amendment Card is always important, but given the nature of the initiative in question and the significant impact it has on the public health of Mississippi and the medical community, special care is needed,” the statement said. letter according to a blog post published by AMA on Friday.
The groups also argue that the medical cannabis legalization initiative “outside the legal issues set out in the case” poses a “major risk to public health and places a burden on Mississippi physicians.” ‘
“While there may be beneficial medicinal uses of marijuana, numerous evidence-based studies show that there are major significant adverse effects,” the letter reads, adding: “the health risks to humans are undoubtedly many.”
On top of that, since marijuana remains federally illegal, the voters who are approved would put doctors in a pinch. ‘Yet their patients are expected to require doctors (although this may not be required by Initiative 65) to log off patients in order to receive their supplies. Maybe there is no liability under the law of the state, but what about the federal law? ‘
In fact, federal courts have ruled that physicians have the right to discuss first-line medications with their patients without risking federal sanctions.
“As everyone knows, all that is needed to file a case is a piece of paper and a filing fee, so even if a doctor is properly assessed and immunity is appropriate, the case will still have to be sued,” the AMA and MSMA continued. “And with increased exposure and litigation, increased costs, which are not the least increase in professional liability premiums.”
The legal challenge posed by Madison calls for a state law that stipulates that ‘signatures of qualified voters from any congressional district need no more than one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures required to submit an initiative petition for ballot paper not capable. . But this policy came into force when Mississippi had five congressional districts, and it has since been reduced to four, making it mathematically impossible to comply with.
Advocates see desperation in the court request, while the medical associations are now trying one last time to overthrow 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 repeatedly shown that they do not succeed in public opinion or at the ballot box.”
“They are therefore asking judges to set aside the votes of more than a million Americans in a desperate attempt to dominate undisputed election results,” she said. “Whether one supports marijuana legalization or not, Americans need to be furious about this openly undemocratic tactic.”
Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, said: “Unfortunately, AMA’s position is out of step with public opinion and scientific consensus, as well as the opinion of the majority of physicians.”
“It is unfortunate that this organization will step on record in an effort to nullify the vote of a Mississippi – voting majority,” he said.
Nor is it particularly surprising that these particular groups would join this legal challenge, as they had previously tried to discourage voters from the reform initiative.
Weeks before the vote, the AMA and MSMA circulated a sample vote instructing voters to reject the activist-led cannabis measure. The mail messages said the unions “ask that you join us in educating the people and encouraging them to vote against Initiative 65.”
Eventually, however, nearly 74 percent of Mississippi voters approved of the legislative initiative.
This will allow patients with debilitating medical problems to get marijuana legal after receiving a doctor’s recommendation. It contains 22 qualifying conditions such as cancer, chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, and patients may possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana per 14 days.
Marijuana Moment contacted AMA and MSMA for additional information on the order, which has not yet been placed on the state court’s public deed, but the representative did not immediately respond.
The Mississippi case is just one example of opponents of legalization asking the courts to reverse the will of voters approving the marijuana reform.
In South Dakota, another legal challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative initiative plays out. In this case, plaintiffs – with the support of Governor Kristi Noem (R) – claim that the recreational dagga measure violates a state law and require that proposals appearing on the ballot paper deal with a single subject.
In Montana, opponents of an initiative approved by voters to legalize cannabis for adult use tried to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn the proposal before the vote, but judges rejected the request. and argued that they did not have the urgency needed to establish. skip the lower court’s decision process However, they did not rule on the merits.
The plaintiffs then announced that they were acting in a lower court, arguing that the legal proposal illegally appropriated money, which violates a part of the state constitution that prohibits such grants from being included in a civic initiative.
Separately, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in September that a medical marijuana initiative after a legal challenge could not appear on the state’s vote in November, although activists gathered enough signatures to qualify.
The court ruled that the measure violates Nebraska’s single-rule rule that limits the scope of what can be placed before voters. Activists have already introduced a new initiative that they believe will satisfy the court’s interpretation of constitutional law – and they are also working on a broader legalization measure for adults.
New York Governor Announces More Details on Marijuana Legislative Proposal
Marijuana moment is made possible with the support of readers. If you rely on our cannabis journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
