Justice Hears Arguments Related to Pot Ballot Question

The Massachusetts Prevention Alliance (MAPA) expects to learn in the next week or two whether its lawsuit calling for clarified wording in a potential November ballot question will be successful.

In May, of the ballot question itself as well as the voter information related to that question be modified for a potential question related to the legalization of medical marijuana in Massachusetts.

Robert J. Cordy, an associate justice on the tate Supreme Judicial Court, heard arguments in the lawsuit on Monday, and Heidi Heilman said she was overall pleased with how the hearing went.

"The [attorney general] essentially adopted the language proponents used in the ballot initiative and have been using all over the country," said Heilman, who serves as president of MAPA and director of WaylandCares. "But the term 'medical marijuana' in itself is disingenuous and misleading. As currently written, we do not accept the AG's endorsing, unproven assertion that marijuana is medicine as it's not regulated and safe guarded, nor has it gone through the [Federal Drug Administration's] rigorous research, study and controlled clinical trials that all other potential medicines are subject to by law."

According to MassLive.com, Cordy specifically challenged the current title of the ballot question, which reads "medical use of marijuana."

"What's your evidence there is a medical use of marijuana?" Cordy asked Assistant Attorney General John Sacks.

MassLive.com reports that Sacks argued that "the current title complies with state law by correctly identifying the main subject matter of the proposed ballot question in a fair, neutral and concise way."

But Heilman said the plaintiffs are concerned that the language does not adequately inform voters of the infrastructure that would be put in place by the law, which would allow up to 35 marijuana dispensaries to be erected throughout the Commonwealth.

"What was encouraging was that during the hearing the judge found this compelling enough to suggest the following alternative language for the yes statement 'producing, providing and possession of marijuana for medical use,'" Heliman said. "He seemed to agree that the lack of reference to the production, cultivation and distribution system in the ballot statement was substantive."

Arguments for the plaintiffs were presented by attorney John Scheft.

Cordy took the matter under advisement. Heilman said they expect a ruling before the July deadline for publishing the "Massachusetts Information for Voters" booklet.