Two medical associations are supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the medical marijuana electoral initiative that Mississippi voters passed by majority in November, arguing that this creates “public health risks” and represents a “burden” for doctors.
The American Medical Association (AMA) and its state affiliate, the Mississippi State Medical Association (MSMA), recently filed an amicus brief in support of the legal challenge being considered by the state Supreme Court, which was moved by the city of Madison just days before election.
The lawsuit argues that the proposed legalization is invalid because of a state law that determines the percentage of signatures required by district to qualify for an electoral initiative.
Although the Mississippi Secretary of State and the Attorney General have strongly criticized the process, calling it “woefully inopportune” and challenging the merits, AMA and MSMA are supporting the challenge, however.
“Ensuring that the constitutional amendment map is followed is always important, but given the nature of the initiative in question and the substantial ramifications it represents for Mississippi public health and the medical community, special care is guaranteed here,” says the document, according to a blog post published by the AMA on Friday.
The groups further argue that, out of the legal concerns outlined in the process, the medical cannabis legalization initiative “poses significant public health risks and burdens Mississippi doctors.”
“While it is possible that there may be beneficial medicinal uses for marijuana, several evidence-based studies demonstrate that significant harmful effects are abundant,” says the document, adding “without a doubt, the risks to public health are immense.”
In addition, as marijuana remains federally illegal, the voter-approved measure would put doctors “in a difficult situation,” she says. “Still, patients should expect doctors (although it may not be required by Initiative 65) to sign certifications to receive their supply. Perhaps no responsibility falls on state law, but what about federal law? “
In fact, federal courts have ruled that doctors have the First Amendment’s right to discuss medical marijuana with their patients without risking federal sanction.
“As everyone knows, a piece of paper and a deposit fee is enough to file a lawsuit, so even if a doctor is judged correctly and immunity is appropriate, the matter will still have to be litigated,” the AMA and MSMA document continued. “And with the increase in exposure and litigation, costs increase, including the increase in professional liability insurance premiums.”
Madison’s legal challenge cites a state law that states 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 an initiative petition for voting. ”But that policy came into effect when Mississippi had five congressional districts, and that was reduced to four, making it mathematically impossible to comply with.
Defenders see despair in the judicial process, with medical associations making a last-ditch effort to overturn voters’ will.
“These are cynical attempts to undermine the democratic process,” said Carly Wolf, state policy coordinator at NORML. “Opponents of legalization have repeatedly shown that they cannot succeed either in the court of public opinion or at the polls.”
“So they are now asking the judges to cast aside the votes of more than a million Americans in a desperate effort to overturn the undisputed election results,” she said. “Whether or not someone supports marijuana legalization, Americans should be outraged by these overtly undemocratic tactics.”
Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, said that “AMA’s position is woefully out of step with public opinion and scientific consensus, as well as with the opinions of most doctors.”
“It is unfortunate that this organization registered an attempt to annul the vote of a super majority of Mississippi voters,” he said.
It is also not particularly surprising that these specific groups joined this legal challenge, given their previous attempts to get voters to reject the reform initiative.
Weeks before the vote, AMA and MSMA circulated a sample ballot that instructed voters on how to reject the activist-led cannabis measure. Mailers said the associations were “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 obtain marijuana legally after obtaining a doctor’s recommendation. It includes 22 qualifying conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, and patients would be allowed to carry up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana per 14-day period.
Marijuana Moment contacted AMA and MSMA for additional information about the petition, which has not yet been published on the state court’s public agenda, but the representative did not respond immediately.
The Mississippi case is just one example of opponents of legalization asking the courts to overturn the will of voters who approve marijuana reform.
In South Dakota, another legal challenge against the constitutionality of a legalization initiative is underway. In this case, the plaintiffs – with the support of Governor Kristi Noem (R) – are claiming that the recreational marijuana measure violates a state statute that requires the proposals that appear on the ballots to address a single issue.
In Montana, opponents of a voter-approved initiative to legalize cannabis for adult use tried to get the state Supreme Court to invalidate the proposal before the vote, but the judges rejected the request, arguing that they failed to establish the necessary urgency to skip the first instance trial process. They have not decided on the merits, however.
The plaintiffs then announced that they were filing lawsuits at first instance, arguing that the statutory proposal illegally appropriated resources, violating a part of the state constitution that prohibits such allocations from being included in a citizen initiative.
Separately, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in September that a medical marijuana legalization initiative could not appear on the state’s November ballot box after a legal challenge, although activists have collected enough signatures to qualify.
The court ruled that the measure violated Nebraska’s one-person rule that limits the scope of what can be put to the vote before voters. Activists have already introduced a new initiative that they say will satisfy the court’s interpretation of state law – and are also working on a broader measure to legalize adult use.
New York Governor Releases More Details on Marijuana Legalization Proposal
Marijuana Moment is possible with the support of readers. If you trust our marijuana advocacy journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly promise from Patreon.
