Pubdate: Fri, 15 Mar 2013
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR)
Copyright: 2013 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.
Contact: http://www2.arkansasonline.com/contact/voicesform/
Website: http://www2.arkansasonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/25
Note: Accepts letters to the editor from Arkansas residents only
Author: Cathy Frye
Page: 1A

MEDICAL 'POT' BACKERS FILE SUIT, SAY MCDANIEL WRONG TO AX BALLOT TRY

What's good for the goose - in this case, Arkansas legislators - also 
should be good for the gander, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday 
against state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel.

In this situation, the gander is a group of Arkansas residents - 
acting as a registered ballot-question committee - that made a few 
minor changes to an old Arkansas House of Representatives bill 
regarding the medical use of marijuana.

The group, known as Arkansans for Medical Cannabis, then submitted 
the modified House bill to the attorney general in the form of a 
proposed ballot measure for the November 2014 election.

McDaniel rejected the measure, saying that ambiguities in the text 
made it impossible for him to certify the proposed initiative in its 
current form. Those same ambiguities also prevented McDaniel from 
substituting a more appropriate popular name and ballot title, the 
opinion states.

The issue, according to the lawsuit, is this: A bill that has made it 
into legislative committees three times was found inadequate by the 
attorney general.

"All of the errors he's picking apart were approved by the General 
Assembly in 1999, 2001, 2003," said Robert Reed, chairman of 
Arkansans for Medical Cannabis, referring to House Bills 1043, 1303 
and 1321. All three were sponsored by state Rep. Jim Lendall, D-Mabelvale.

"Why do citizens have such a burden to get the same law on the ballot 
that the legislators do not have to meet?" Reed asked. "It's the 
right of the people to petition the government, so why are citizens 
being held to an extreme standard compared to our elected officials 
who are passing thousands of laws every few years - without the 
scrutiny of the attorney general?"

The attorney general's office declined Thursday to comment on the lawsuit.

In McDaniel's opinion, issued March 13, seven pages are devoted to 
passages he deems legally problematic.

Much of his concern about the ballot measure stems from the incorrect 
use of words or terms, as well as poor grammar, according to the opinion.

For example, in one subsection of the initiative, the "medical use of 
cannabis" is defined as "the production, possession, delivery or 
administration of Cannabis, or paraphernalia used to administer 
Cannabis, as necessary for the exclusive benefit of a person to 
mitigate the symptoms or effects of his or her debilitating condition."

In his opinion, McDaniel said the phrase "administration of Cannabis" 
is unclear because of the way in which the word "administration" is used.

"Within the context of medical treatment, the term "administer" 
usually denotes "giving" and not "taking," McDaniel states. 
"Ironically then, the very definition of the phrase "medical use of 
Cannabis," which your measure would allow, might be read as excluding 
the patient's use of the substance as needed at his own discretion or 
direction."

McDaniel continues: "Indeed, unaccountably, your definition of this 
term, which authorizes various activities, at no point expressly 
approves the actual ingestion of cannaboid products." Such products 
contain compounds present in cannabis. The correct term, however, is 
"cannabinoid," not "cannaboid."

The passage cited by McDaniel is worded exactly as it was in HB1043, 
with one exception - the term "marijuana" was changed to "cannabis" 
in the proposed ballot measure.

"What we submitted is this exact piece of legislation with 
refinement," Reed said Thursday. "That [bill] went through their 
vetting process and made it to committee three times. But we submit 
it and get tore up like a redheaded stepchild."

In the lawsuit, filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court, HB1043 is 
included as an exhibit. Also included are documents indicating what 
Arkansans for Medical Cannabis changed or added before submitting the 
bill as a ballot measure.

In its lawsuit, the group asks the court to force McDaniel to certify 
- - or to substitute and certify - the ballot measure's popular name and title.

"The Attorney General's opinion ... issued March 11, 2013, appears to 
hold the citizens of Arkansas to a higher standard than that required 
by the Arkansas General Assembly," the lawsuit states.

In the lawsuit, Reed also contends that only two of the 60-plus 
errors listed in McDaniel's opinion were made by Arkansans for 
Medical Cannabis.

The rest, he said, came straight from the Legislature's old bill.

In 2003, then-Attorney General Mike Beebe also rejected The Arkansas 
Alliance for Medical Marijuana's proposed ballot measure - which also 
relied on the House's earlier medical-marijuana bills as models for 
its initiative.

Like McDaniel, Beebe cited ambiguities as the primary reason for his decision.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom