"Medical marijuana passed by voter referendum - over 60% if I recall - twice. Here in AZ."
*Not through your duly elected elected representatives, which was my statement.*
Who cares? Arizona has a constitutional referendum process.
"Of course not. Proposition 200 made it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana, heroin, and Ecstasy -- how the patient would fill those prescriptions is a mystery. Since the FDA regulates prescriptions, doctors cannot prescribe Schedule I drugs unless allowed to do so by the federal government. Plus, Proposition 200 contained more than medical marijuana."
Actually prop 200 solved that problem.
in summary:
Approves all Schedule I drugs as safe and effective medicines \u201cto treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously or terminally ill patients.\u201d
Prohibits judges from sending newly convicted \u201cnonviolent drug offenders\u201d to prison until their third conviction.
Releases all nonviolent drug offenders currently in prison, places them on parole, and mandates them into drug treatment, education, or community service programs.
"You failed to mention that Arizona voters rejected a new drug policy reform bill, Proposition 203, in 2002. That bill would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, repealed mandatory minimums, set up a medical marijuana program, and removed court control of non-violent drug offenders."
Why even mention it, since you don't see the ballot initiative process as valid, even though it's constitutional in AZ?
"You were getting around to it. I know."
Meanwhile, prop 105 which tried to overturn the legislatures illegal overturning of Prop 200 passed. I'm sure you were getting around to mentioning that.
200 and the prev were to decriminalize it for medical use. 203 was broader - for personal use. Of course you were planning on making that distinction clear at any moment, right? Gosh knows you'd never purposefully obfuscate. Chortle.
Obviously you don't. But that still has nothing to do with my statement. Here. I'll make my statement one more time, and I'll put the relevant part in bold, just for you and all your friends on the short bus:
It's up to the majority of the voters, acting through their duly elected representatives, bound by both their State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution."
" Why even mention it, since you don't see the ballot initiative process as valid, even though it's constitutional in AZ?"
Take either side of the argument -- but take one, not both.
"Meanwhile, prop 105 which tried to overturn the legislatures illegal overturning of Prop 200 passed."
Oh baloney. That's not what Proposition 105 did. Proposition 105 changed the initiative process in general, requiring more votes from the legislature to overturn goofy propositions. The legislature acted legally.
"203 was broader - for personal use."
Yes. That's part of it. Another part changed medical marijuana "prescriptions" to medical marijuana "recommendations" and set up a medical marijuana program for patients and caregivers.
And it was defeated.
"Gosh knows you'd never purposefully obfuscate."
Of course not. Just like I know any time now that you're going to add that George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling funded all of these initiatives through the Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform and The People Have Spoken groups. Which, of course, is another drawback to the initiative process.
|
Funders
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||