Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions. Advi — Polston, J…

Summary

Chief Justice Polston's dissent would have rejected placement of the proposed medical-marijuana amendment on the ballot because its title and summary affirmatively misled voters about the breadth of qualifying medical conditions, the physician-benefit standard, immunity from liability, and the amendment's relationship to federal law. He concluded that the majority improperly narrowed the amendment's text through ejusdem generis and failed to disclose significant effects of the proposal. Justice Canady and Justice Labarga separately dissented, likewise concluding that the ballot summary was materially misleading, with Canady emphasizing federal-law deception and physician immunity and Labarga emphasizing confusion over qualifying conditions.