Marijuana.com

xxdr_zombiexx

Medicinal Marijuana Ballot Initiative Fails
KAIT 8 | February 19, 2004 - Posted at 2:16 p.m. CDT

LITTLE ROCK, AR - The latest ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for medical use in Arkansas falls short of legal standards.

That's the decision by Attorney General Mike Beebe, who says the wording of the proposed initiative is too ambiguous to be placed before voters.

Beebe, who must certify ballot titles before initiated acts can move forward, says the wording of the proposed title did not fully summarize the proposal.

The proposal was submitted by Denele Campbell of West Fork, who has submitted numerous other ballot proposals for medical marijuana that were also rejected by Beebe. Campbell is the executive director of the Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas.

In response to Campbell's proposal, Beebe wrote that he rejected the ballot title because he could not "fairly or completely summarize the effect of the proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title without the resolution of the ambiguity."

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

__________________
Alien Space Signal

There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

Fear became the ultimate tool of this government - V.

 

Dennis

The article doesn't state the title of the iniative. Being that this Attorney General has rejected other similiar initiatives, the Drug Policy Alliance of Arkansas may need to take this Attorney General to court like they did in Alaska. Some of these Officials, and I use that term loosely, need to be force fed just like a child who refuses to take their medicine.


Dennis

Higher Self

Instituting change will best be accomplished by incorporating a couple of good strategies.

Highest(no pun intended) probable route to change occurs by working within a system (Federal, State, ect.).

Mass Reality will change when the consensus reality 'tips' the scale... This occurs by changing individual minds about an aspect of reality first, the aggregate will tip the scale.

This is universal harmonics, the way things work.

That's a great suggestion you had Dennis, and I will attempt to contact the head of the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana and offer your suggestion today.

All the creative power of an individual exists at the now-point.
Or The 'Now' is your point of power.

This AG is leveraging his power using a 'stall' tactic, he has rejected a proposal for a ballot intiative month after month on the grounds of ambiguity. So why doesn't Beebe(AG) offer some clarity for the ambiguous areas? Because it's not about ambiguity, it's about Beebe deciding what's right or wrong despite the will of the 66% of the voting population in Arkansas, which according to a poll on the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana website, are in favor of Medical Marijuana.

It's time to take'em to court and use 'his' system against himself.

I believe the MPP is also fixin to take on a more aggresive statagy in Arkansas. There is a massive medical community in Araknsas. Folks who are suffering already don't need the opinion of an AG to compound the problems. This man is heartless, and I hope he never has to endure the horrors of chemotherepy, nuerological dis(ease), ect., just to have compassion instilled within himself.

Karma like a Visa card, it goes everywhere you go...

xxdr_zombiexx

The issue in Alaska was not about medical pot, it was about the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition in that state.

Once the people in Alaska had the right to keep up to a quarter pound. Then after years of Reagan-era propaganda they simply held a referendum and people voted against it. Now the referendum is being undone becasue it violated Alaska's constitution and is - I think, could be wrong - a State's Rights issue as well.

The Gummint O-fish-alls need to be spoon fed - man is that right. I have had a county commisioner tell me the same thing when it came to trying to save the child psychiatry program the county axed. "You have to break it way down for them " she said.

All tooo often though, them gummint o-fish-alls are only going through the motions. They have NO INTENTION of allowing things to change.

I have decided that political power is the power to KEEP THINGS FROM HAPPENING.

When they build a road here we have to see these signs where the Commissioners tell everybody how great they are for building the road. They put off the road building - where it is desparartely needed - for years until they max out the most political benefit they can from each thing they drag their feet on.

I expect marijuana relegalization to be the same.

And...once Alaskans can have their QP's back, who will need a stinkin' doctors letter to smoike for medical reasons?? Nobody has to get a prescription to develop tobacco addiction, or have a "drink for their nerves".

it's very difficult not to see those who oppose medical marijuana and general relegalization as anything other than mean-spirited or ignorant.

Mamabudz

Before we all start tossing rotten fruit at this guy, let's tak a moment to review a few things:

1) This AG is a former public defender too.
2) He is limited to providing opinions based on the law as to how Ballot Initiatives can be written. He isn't "slowing the process" he is doing his job. Once that Initiative goes on the Ballot that is the way the Law will READ and will need to be enforced. Now is when all those fine lines need to be drawn so that when some poor sick person is brought up on charges, they have a solid LAW under them that can protect them and not be interpreted to bite them on the assets.
3) This guy is no dummy, he was head of his law school's law review, and that is no small feat.

With that said, I did some research and found the actual opinion letter that he sent to Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, Inc.

It is presented below for your perusal, edification...and general entertainment...

Let's read it and see how perhaps among us all we can assist Arkansas in getting this ballot Initiative re-written correctly...

...have a cookie

Hugz,

Mama Budz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Opinion No. 2004-039

February 18, 2004

Ms. Denele Campbell, Executive Director
Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, Inc.
1155 West Sixth Street PMB A17
Fayetteville, AR 72701

Dear Ms. Campbell:

This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2000), of the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed initiated act. You have previously submitted various similar measures, some of which this office rejected due to ambiguities in the text of the proposed act. See, e.g., Op. Att’y Gen. 2004-010. You have made changes to your measure and have submitted a revised popular name and ballot title for my certification. Your proposed popular name and ballot title state:

Popular Name

THE ARKANSAS MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT

Ballot Title

AN ACT PROVIDING THAT A "QUALIFYING PATIENT" OR "MARIJUANA PROVIDER" POSSESSING A "REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD" ISSUED BY THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (THE "DEPARTMENT") SHALL NOT BE ARRESTED, PROSECUTED, OR PENALIZED IN ANY MANNER UNDER STATE LAW FOR ENGAGING IN OR ASSISTING WITH THE "MEDICAL USE" OF MARIJUANA BY THE "QUALIFYING PATIENT," PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT POSSESSED BY THE "QUALIFYING PATIENT" OR "MARIJUANA PROVIDER" DOES NOT EXCEED SIX PLANTS AND ONE OUNCE OF "USABLE MARIJUANA" PER PERSON; A "QUALIFYING PATIENT" IS A PERSON WHO IS AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, WHO HAS RECEIVED A "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION," AND WHO POSSESSES A "REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD"; "WRITTEN CERTIFICATION" IS A STATEMENT SIGNED BY A PHYSICIAN, AFTER COMPLETING A FULL ASSESSMENT IN A BONA FIDE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP, DECLARING THAT THE PATIENT HAS A "DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION" AND THAT THE POTENTIAL THERAPEUTIC BENEFITS OF MARIJUANA FOR THIS PATIENT LIKELY OUTWEIGH THE HEALTH RISKS; "DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION" INCLUDES CANCER, GLAUCOMA, HIV, AIDS, A CHRONIC OR DEBILITATING DISEASE OR MEDICAL CONDITION THAT PRODUCES SEVERE PAIN OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE ACT; "MEDICAL USE" IS THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, USE, DELIVERY, TRANSFER, OR TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA OR RELATED PARAPHERNALIA TO ALLEVIATE THE SYMPTOMS OR EFFECTS OF A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION; A "REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD" IS A DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT IDENTIFIES A PERSON AS A QUALIFYING PATIENT OR “MARIJUANA PROVIDER”; A “MARIJUANA PROVIDER” IS A PERSON AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, WHO HAS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY DRUG OFFENSE, WHO POSSESSES A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD, AND WHO HAS AGREED NOT TO PROVIDE MARIJUANA TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE QUALIFYING PATIENT TO WHOM HE OR SHE IS CONNECTED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT’S REGISTRATION PROCESS; A QUALIFYING PATIENT MAY HAVE ONLY ONE MARIJUANA PROVIDER AT ANY ONE TIME, AND NO PERSON SHALL SERVE AS MARIJUANA PROVIDER FOR MORE THAN ONE QUALIFYING PATIENT AT ANY ONE TIME; A MARIJUANA PROVIDER MAY RECEIVE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES PROVIDED TO ASSIST WITH A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; “USABLE MARIJUANA” IS ANY MIXTURE OR PREPARATION OF DRIED LEAVES AND FLOWERS OF MARIJUANA, BUT NOT SEEDS, STALKS, OR ROOTS; A PHYSICIAN SHALL NOT BE ARRESTED, PROSECUTED, OR PENALIZED IN ANY MANNER UNDER STATE LAW FOR PROVIDING WRITTEN CERTIFICATION FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; ANY PROPERTY POSSESSED, OWNED, OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA, OR ACTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, SHALL NOT BE FORFEITED; WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DEPARTMENT’S CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR AND RENEWALS OF REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS AND ESTABLISH FEES TO GENERATE REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO OFFSET ALL EXPENSES OF IMPLEMENTING AND ADMINISTERING THIS ACT; THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ISSUE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS TO APPLICANTS AND THEIR PROPOSED MARIJUANA PROVIDERS WHO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS OR RENEWAL FEES AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT; THE DEPARTMENT SHALL VERIFY THE INFORMATION AND APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION OR RENEWAL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND MAY DENY AN APPLICATION OR RENEWAL ONLY IF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED OR IF THE INFORMATION WAS FALSIFIED; REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS SHALL EXPIRE WITHIN ONE YEAR; THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST OF PEOPLE ISSUED REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL, EXEMPT FROM THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, AND NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE, EXCEPT TO AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AS NECESSARY TO PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES, OR AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ONLY AS NECESSARY TO VERIFY LAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE CARD; THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO PERMIT ANY PERSON TO OPERATE, NAVIGATE, OR BE IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE, AIRCRAFT, OR MOTORBOAT WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA, WHICH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE LAW; THIS ACT SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA ONLY WITHIN PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT, WITH THE EMPLOYER’S CONSENT AND OUTSIDE PUBLIC VIEW; NOTHING IN THIS ACT REQUIRES A GOVERNMENT MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OR PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER TO REIMBURSE COSTS OF THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; THERE SHALL EXIST A PRESUMPTION THAT A QUALIFYING PATIENT OR MARIJUANA PROVIDER IS ENGAGED IN THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA IF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT OR MARIJUANA PROVIDER POSSESSES A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD AND AN AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA NOT IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT PERMITTED UNDER THIS ACT, AND, IN THE CASE OF A MARIJUANA PROVIDER, SUCH PRESUMPTION MAY BE REBUTTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDUCT RELATED TO MARIJUANA WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE QUALIFYING PATIENT TO WHOM HE OR SHE IS CONNECTED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT’S REGISTRATION PROCESS WITH THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; ALL ARKANSAS LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ACT ARE REPEALED; ANY INVALID PARTS OF THIS ACT ARE SEVERABLE FROM VALID PARTS; CURRENT FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA FOR ANY PURPOSE.

The Attorney General is required, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107, to certify the popular name and ballot title of all proposed initiative and referendum acts or amendments before the petitions are circulated for signature. The law provides that the Attorney General may substitute and certify a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title, if he can do so, or if the proposed popular name and ballot title are sufficiently misleading, may reject the entire petition.

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make legal determinations concerning the merits of the act or amendment, or concerning the likelihood that it will accomplish its stated objective. Consequently, this review has been limited to a determination, pursuant to the guidelines that have been set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court, discussed below, of whether the proposed popular name and ballot title accurately and impartially summarize the provisions of your proposed act.

The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of the proposed act. See Arkansas Women’s Political Caucus v. Riviere, 282 Ark. 463, 466, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984).

The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950). It need not contain detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title, but it must not be misleading or give partisan coloring to the merit of the proposal. Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958). The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title's sufficiency. Id.

The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed act that will give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented. Hoban v. Hall, 229 Ark. 416, 417, 316 S.W.2d 185 (1958); Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 223, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980). According to the court, if information omitted from the ballot title is an “essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed.” Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994), citing Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990); Gaines v. McCuen, 296 Ark. 513, 758 S.W.2d 403 (1988); Hoban v. Hall, supra; and Walton v. McDonald, 192 Ark. 1155, 97 S.W.2d 81 (1936). At the same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise (see A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b)); otherwise voters could run afoul of A.C.A. § 7-5-522’s five minute limit in voting booths when other voters are waiting in line. Bailey v. McCuen, supra. The ballot title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992). The title, however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy; it must not be tinged with partisan coloring. Id. A ballot title must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law. Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994). It has been stated that the ballot title must be: 1) intelligible, 2) honest, and 3) impartial. Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990), citing Leigh v. Hall, 232 Ark. 558, 339 S.W.2d 104 (1960).

Having analyzed your proposed act, as well as your proposed popular name and ballot title under the above precepts, it is my conclusion that I must reject your proposed popular name and ballot title due to a remaining ambiguity in the text of your measure. A number of additions or changes to your ballot title are, in my view, necessary in order to more fully and correctly summarize your proposal. I cannot, however, at this time, fairly or completely summarize the effect of your proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title without the resolution of the ambiguity. I am therefore unable to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b).

I refer to the following ambiguity:

Under your proposed act, a person who meets the definition of a “qualifying patient” may engage in the “medical use” of marijuana and not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty, so long as he or she “possesses an amount of marijuana which does not exceed” a specified amount. See Sections 4(a) (entitled “Protections for the Medical Use of Marijuana”). “Medical use” is defined as “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the consumption of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition.” (Section 3(f) (emphasis added)). It is my opinion that an ambiguity arises under the above-emphasized language in the case of a “qualifying patient” who has no “marijuana provider.” As I read the measure, the protections extend to a qualifying patient regardless of whether he or she uses the services of a “marijuana provider,” as the act appears to impose no requirement that a provider must be used. This leads to uncertainty, in my view, regarding the “acquisition” and/or “delivery, transfer, or transportation” of marijuana or paraphernalia. Specifically, I am uncertain how these activities might be implicated in the absence of a “marijuana provider.” One possibility is that this suggests that the “qualifying patient” can obtain marijuana from someone other than a “marijuana provider” and still be protected under the act. I am uncertain whether this was the intent, and advise clarification for proper reflection in the ballot title.

My office, in the certification of ballot titles and popular names, does not concern itself with the merits, philosophy, or ideology of proposed measures. I have no constitutional role in the shaping or drafting of such measures. My statutory mandate is embodied only in A.C.A. § 7-9-107 and my duty is to the electorate. I am not your counsel in this matter and cannot advise you as to the substance of your proposal.

At the same time, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court, through its decisions, has placed a practical duty on the Attorney General, in exercising his statutory duty, to include language in a ballot title about the effects of a proposed measure on current law. See, e.g., Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 793 S.W.2d 34 (1990). Furthermore, the Court has recently confirmed that a proposed measure cannot be approved if “[t]he text of the [proposal] itself contribute[s] to the confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the proposed measure.” Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000). The Court concluded: “[i]nternal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular name and ballot title and to confusion in the ballot title itself.” Id. Where the effects of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme Court without clarification of the ambiguities.

My statutory duty, under these circumstances, is to reject your proposed ballot title, stating my reasons therefor, and to instruct you to “redesign” the proposed measure and ballot title. See A.C.A. § 7-9-107(c). You may, after clarification of the matter discussed above, resubmit your proposed act, along with a proposed popular name and ballot title, at your convenience. I anticipate, as noted above, that some changes or additions to your submitted ballot title may be necessary. I will be pleased to perform my statutory duties in this regard in a timely manner after resubmission.

Sincerely,



MIKE BEEBE
Attorney General

MB/cyh

Enclosure

Arkansas Attorney General Site

 

Mamabudz

for those who want just the dirt:

"It is my opinion that an ambiguity arises under the above-emphasized language in the case of a “qualifying patient” who has no “marijuana provider.” As I read the measure, the protections extend to a qualifying patient regardless of whether he or she uses the services of a “marijuana provider,” as the act appears to impose no requirement that a provider must be used. This leads to uncertainty, in my view, regarding the “acquisition” and/or “delivery, transfer, or transportation” of marijuana or paraphernalia. Specifically, I am uncertain how these activities might be implicated in the absence of a “marijuana provider.” One possibility is that this suggests that the “qualifying patient” can obtain marijuana from someone other than a “marijuana provider” and still be protected under the act. I am uncertain whether this was the intent, and advise clarification for proper reflection in the ballot title."

Basically the Attorney General wants something saying that a Scummy Drug Dealer can't claim to be an Angel of Mercy Medical Marijuana Provider to a sick person... Please define a Medical Marijuana Provider.

That's about it...

Okay...(to quote Logos) "back to our regularly scheduled propoganda"

...and have a cookie

Hugz,

Mama Budz

xxdr_zombiexx

From the original legalese:What a tangeld, tangled web.

Cannabis NEVER should have been illegal in the first place. It was mean-spirited capriciousness and lust for power and control that started this mess.

Now people try to carve out some sort of "law" that purports to create a free space to allow something that SHOULD NOT be prohibited to occur.

Mamabudz is on top of it with the biographical info that the AG has some history of being a decent and intelligent dude. This infintesimally-specific objection of his - just doing his job, ya know - is simply a further impairment wrought by the mean-spirited ones who are STILL trying to make and pass laws to keep marijuana forever illegal, expensive, and eliminate it specifically for medical and industrial purposes.

At this level the marijuana prohibition is a massive logjam of laws intended to remain tangled, obfuscated, and impenatrable. Kucinich has the answer.... but...alas....

So what the AG is saying is they weren't spoon-fed clearly enough. It was supposed to be more thoroughly chewed up and my guess is they will want it to be clarified further forever.

Next will be an objection of "plant limits", given that the law likes to distract discussion with those and some attempt might be made to allow people to produce their own marijuana to get around the travesty of somebody smoking for the pleasure of it.

It's like reverse-engineering reality.


finally, it would be kewl to live someplace where the media was to presnet and transmit information, not give us 5% of a story, spun in a given direction to manage the status quo.

This lame TV channel newsite posting has 5 sentences and tells us jack about how it got there, who's behind it etc. Just that "these people tried something and they failed fair and square."


About Ms. Denele Campbell, the initator of this work: Groovy Person of the Month (from 1999)

And here is a Google Search because she has been busy, it seems! A quote from her:

Mamabudz

He is an Attorney General, his job is to be extremely anal about this stuff -- it's not impairment to pass the law, it's the natural action that occurs in getting a law passed.

You have to have faith...it's sometimes all we can afford to have in any kind of abundance.

Seen from this level, the law does appear to be a log jam -- it is a tangled web -- but it is also a Tapestry of a great on going human social contract. Being that Human is involved it is by its nature Flawed.

What the AG is saying is that he cannot write the ballot initiatative for them, he can only critique it for them and point out where there will be a problem when the law is applied.

He explains that he cannot be counsel for the group. That would be a conflict of interest and he would be replaced...possibly and probably with someone who is not as open minded. And he underscores that in no way is he making any value judgement about the legislation itself! He goes on record and let's a great Propoganda opportunity to pull the "Say No To Drugs" BS slip through his fingers.

He points out the specific issue that the Folks Against This Initiative would pick on...

He just warned this Pro Pot group of a huge propaganda missile they didn't see that was directed at their own heads and that would have blown their initiative right out of the water!

One of the best and brightest of Arkansas' law community provided that information to the Pro Pot folks FREE OF CHARGE!!!

Which seems to me that when this initiative does come to the Ballot, this AG wants to make sure he has done everything in his power -- without the possibility of a conflict of interest that would completely throw out what he subtley helped do -- to make sure this Ballot Initiative Passes. Even in conservative Arkansas.

Now here is where we come in....

We're a smart bunch...

Perhaps we can help correct this ambiguity, this semantic problem for Ms. Campbell.

As I read the measure, the protections extend to a qualifying patient regardless of whether he or she uses the services of a “marijuana provider,” as the act appears to impose no requirement that a provider must be used. This leads to uncertainty, in my view, regarding the “acquisition” and/or “delivery, transfer, or transportation” of marijuana or paraphernalia. Specifically, I am uncertain how these activities might be implicated in the absence of a “marijuana provider.” One possibility is that this suggests that the “qualifying patient” can obtain marijuana from someone other than a “marijuana provider” and still be protected under the act

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

...have some cookies...wouldn't want you working on an empty tummy

Hugz,

Mama Budz

xxdr_zombiexx

I am just too short-attention spanned to have picked up on all that, as you have presented here. I'm just totally impressed.

I never mastered diplomacy really.

I grapsed the significance of his maintaining what now does appear - in your portrayl - as professionalism in regards to his limits and demands of duty. It's just so often this sort of professioanlism - if it is there - seems covered in political agenda and the sheer meanness of prohibition.

Thanx Kindly for the illumination....

Mamabudz

Heck don't sweat it...

You should see me on a day when I'm off my meds...maybe that's why I don't actually practice anymore

...have a cookie

Hugz,

Mama Budz