Subscribe Register Login
Wednesday, June 20, 2018, 12:31 a.m.

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Arkansas Daily Deal

Arkansas Supreme Court to hear dispute over medical marijuana rollout

By Hunter Field

This article was originally published June 4, 2018 at 4:30 a.m. Updated June 4, 2018 at 4:51 p.m.

file-this-sept-15-2015-file-photo-shows-marijuana-plants-a-few-weeks-away-from-harvest-in-a-medical-marijuana-cultivation-center-in-albion-ill-ap-photoseth-perlman-file

FILE - This Sept. 15, 2015 file photo shows marijuana plants a few weeks away from harvest in a medical marijuana cultivation center in Albion, Ill. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File)

The Arkansas Supreme Court this week will hear oral arguments on the controversial rollout of the state's medical marijuana program, but the legal issues before the justices reach beyond the drug that Arkansans voted to legalize nearly two years ago.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Print Headline: Justices to hear dispute over pot

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments on: Arkansas Supreme Court to hear dispute over medical marijuana rollout

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 17 total comments

Jump to last page >>

JMort69 says... June 4, 2018 at 7:48 a.m.

Here, once again, we see the dirty hands of the Ballinger/Story unholy alliance. Why did Speaker Gillam appoint Story to this commission to begin with? Was is because Story was defending Ecclesia College and, now convicted felon Woods was trying to divert some of the revenue to Ecclesia? Was Story trying to aid and abet the same bunch of crooks getting in on the ground floor of medical marijuana? It sure looks like it. Ballinger stated he saw nothing wrong with their firm representing their clients, the Truloves, in other matters, just not MM. I've worked with many attorneys in my career. The first thing a good one does is check for conflicts, and, if there are any, they don't take the case. I guess the difference is they are successful, good attorneys. Ballinger couldn't make it as an attorney, so he ran for office. I think most of the attorneys in our state house are the ones who failed in their chosen profession. So, they are desperate for income. That's a bad scenario for we the people. Now, thanks to Story, those of us who need this are now waiting. Lawsuits were expected in this process, but I don't think anyone expected the subterfuge perpetrated on us by Story who, apparently, doesn't feel that the rule of law applies to him. After all, God is with he and Ballinger. Not my God, they are a rotten, phony stench in the nostrils of my God. Until we rid our legislature of all of the underhanded dealers, the people of Arkansas will continue to pay for their misdeeds. How much more can we afford?

( | suggest removal )

JPRoland says... June 4, 2018 at 8:33 a.m.

I used to say, "please hurry" because it helped quell my son's severe seizures. He had at least five a day and as many as 40 a day for 17 years. Well, unfortunately, I lost my only son in January to a during a bad seizure episode. I have Parkinson's and my doctor would like to see me get some relief from marijuana, but I don't mind limping and shaking for a few more years until you fat cats figure it out. I'm not in a life-threatening situation like my boy, but there are those who are. Please move more quickly!!!

( | suggest removal )

GeneralMac says... June 4, 2018 at 8:52 a.m.

I see the headline used the word "pot"
This article mentioned " medical marijuana"

It seems whenever the doctors or lawyers who have invested in the growing and distribution ( and hope to get rich $$$$$$$$$$$$$$) prefer the term " cannabis".

I have listened to a radio ad by a doctor and never once was "pot" or " marijuana " even mentioned.

"Cannabis" is the term they use to distance themselves from pot smokers .
I guess when there is a ton of LEGAL money to be made, doctors and lawyers who invest like to "sanitize" the terminology..

( | suggest removal )

dunk7474 says... June 4, 2018 at 9:17 a.m.

It's taken over two years and Asa and Leslie have not given the people what they voted for. Both of these screwballs should be gone and voted out. I;m sick of these idiots trying to decide what WE want.

( | suggest removal )

LRAttorneyCrime says... June 4, 2018 at 9:28 a.m.

This was a decision made by the people of Arkansas in an Amendment from the people. Leslie is facing scrutiny now for denying, most if not all, Amendments proposed by the citizenry. However, if the Amendment comes from our illustrious General Assembly, then it is not scrutinized. For example, Issue 1 this November is touted to the citizenry as getting control of attorneys in Arkansas and not allowing them to fleece plaintiffs for money. However, the truth behind Issue 1 is to allow this so-called "illustrious" General Assembly of ours to make the rules (including rules of evidence) for our courts. This is insane, and the rules can change from one year to the next. The General Assembly in no way has the ability to determine what evidence should or should not be allowed in our Courts. In November, vote NO on Issue 1. Also, the cap on recovery is just another protection of companies, Walmart, from being penalized (punitive damages) for egregious violations. For Walmart to have to pay $250,000 to someone (because they are being punished) is a joke. If people believe that the Plaintiff should not receive a so-called windfall, then give the money to Legal aid r some other non-profit. Then a punishment (punitive damages) will actually punish the offender.

( | suggest removal )

LRAttorneyCrime says... June 4, 2018 at 9:36 a.m.

Just for clarification on Issue 1 and my soap box argument, I am not a personal injury attorney, nor do I plan on being one. However, I do practice criminal law and I definitely don't want some guy that has no experience in legal matters deciding rules of criminal procedure or rules of evidence for our courts. It is hard enough to navigate those waters when our Supreme Court sets them out.

( | suggest removal )

Illinoisroy says... June 4, 2018 at 12:24 p.m.

My condolences JP

( | suggest removal )

doggod says... June 4, 2018 at 12:42 p.m.

From USA today: "The verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage, ruling that a civil rights commission was biased against him. As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples."

( | suggest removal )

GOHOGS19 says... June 4, 2018 at 12:59 p.m.

Imagine an attorney being against Issue 1. Every profession in the state has to have rules approved by the legislative rules committee except attorneys. I see no reason for that to continue.

( | suggest removal )

LRAttorneyCrime says... June 4, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

Gohogs...The rules are not for attorneys, they are procedures for the courtroom. I would not want the legislature to rule on procedures for a doctor to follow in the operating room nor do I want the legislature to set the rules for the court room. Your argument is moot as not all professionals have rules set by the legislature...the nursing board makes their rules, the medical board makes their rules and so on and so forth. That is because the layman does not understand the intricacies of the court room, operating room etc...

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

SHOPPING

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Arkansas Daily Deal
Arkansas Online