Pubdate: Tue, 12 Jul 2016
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Copyright: 2016 The Arizona Republic
Contact: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: Yvonne Wingett Sanchez

MARIJUANA FOES SEEK TO PREVENT VOTE

Opponents of the campaign to legalize recreational marijuana in 
Arizona filed a lawsuit Monday, asking a judge to bar the initiative 
from the November ballot.

The lawsuit comes as elections officials are verifying whether the 
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol submitted enough valid 
signatures to qualify for the ballot. The lawsuit was brought by 13 
individuals and groups, including Maricopa County Attorney Bill 
Montgomery, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, the Arizona Chamber 
of Commerce & Industry, Republican Rep. Paul Boyer, a Tempe school 
board member and others.

The measure would ask Arizona voters to legalize cannabis for 
recreational use and establish licensed shops that would tax sales of 
the drug, similar to the system established in Colorado. Among other 
things, the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act would allow 
adults 21 and older to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up 
to six plants in their homes.

"We make some very strong arguments we look forward to having the 
court review," attorney Brett Johnson told The Arizona Republic.

A spokesman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, 
which was reviewing the complaint, said the allegations are frivolous.

The lawsuit argues that marijuana legalization backers are deceiving 
voters in how they are pitching the measure.

"Because the Initiative is facially deficient and contrary to Arizona 
law, the Court should protect Arizona's voters and the legislative 
process from a fraudulent effort meant to upend a wide range of 
public safety, employment, landlord, child welfare, and other laws," 
the motion for preliminary injunction states.

The motion alleges the pro-campaign circulated "misleading" petition 
summaries, that the initiative's language is "incoherent," that its 
title "obscures the massive" number of state laws that would be 
affected by its passage and that it violates a provision of the 
Arizona Constitution that requires initiatives to immediately fund themselves.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom