Video instructions and help with filling out and completing Who Form 2220 Amend

Instructions and Help about Who Form 2220 Amend

Wonderful is now section all right i'll simply from here pretend I'm Shelby heard God ladies United States Greta state of war and the slaughter before 34 104 springport purpose of the day as the advisory opinion to the Attorney General you may proceed good morning mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court I'm Alan Windsor on behalf of the Attorney General and we are here today on the Attorney General's request for a opinion mr. Mill's is here on behalf of the sponsor and he'll be arguing in favor of ballot placement and then with the court's permission I will return and present the arguments of those who have filed briefs opposing ballot placement including the Attorney General the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate and mr. nordby is here on behalf of the legislature and mr. Bell is here on behalf of the five other parties who have filed a brief the Florida Chamber of Commerce the Florida Medical Association the Florida police chiefs Association the Florida sheriffs Association and save our society from drugs thank you may it please the court my name is John Mills counsel for the proponent with me a counsel table is Tim mcclendon today this Court has asked to address two specific issues that is as the proposed amendment meet the single subject rule and does the proposed amendment and its title and summary accurately portray what its actual effects are to the voters of Florida if I may I'll address the issue of title and summary first we do directly to I mean really what seems to be a real artist the title and summary talking about the debilitating kinds of conditions yet the actual billets or the the language contains such a broad catch-all that anything basically that a doctor prescribes it for what it seems to be without the hook or the nexus do the debilitating aspect of a disease or condition yes sir be the issue of the actual determination of who may receive treatment is is determined in both the definition and the definition of how to certify a particular patient so putting that in context if I were patient or if a patient were in pain we're receiving treatment they would go to a doctor say my condition doctor I have propane I can't see I'm having a problem eating what are my options doctor said well perhaps we can do oxycodone that's a that's an option and if this amendment were in fact say you could consider medical marijuana now let's look at first in certification I must look at your condition which is the issue you're discussing so if I have one of the list conditions then I partially qualify because I still the doctor must assess in his professional judgment that the benefit outweighs the risk say for example if I were in cancer treatment but I wasn't in pain and there was nothing that those particular drugs could do for me it wouldn't the benefits would not necessarily outweigh the risk so that list is a starting point and those are diseases there is a there is an additional clause and that clauses or conditions as determined now the sponsors were focused on two things the patient and how best to make that determination for patient which is very much focused on physician decision so a list alone would not be adequate so the issue is how does this clause fit the clause fits it is it is in the definition of debilitating medical conditions you can't read a clause without reading it in context a matter of fact if you go to constitutional interpretation 101 it's text and context so you have to read that clause in the context of the provision it is the debilitating medical condition term is used in several places and most particularly and I think importantly in section 9 which is if I'm a certifying physician I must determine you have a double take medical condition and that the medical benefits outweigh the risks you seem to want to include the words or other similar conditions but that's not there well because of the context your honor the those words would actually not be necessary the the one it seems like the way I read it it would seem to be you know if a student's just stressed over exams and they go in and see a doctor and they said you know I'm really stressed out well I've got something I can help you with it prescribes marijuana wouldn't it be included in this no your honor and they're not in my opinion and of course the the issue is not my opinion the issue is the opinion of a doctor who has professional responsibilities to assess a condition and you must read into this condition I understand what you're suggesting and I understand the opponent's argument that this condition and the terms condition relates to the rest of the statute do you you've done that many times when when there are different clauses that relate you read them both we seem to be in an interesting dilemma here perhaps which is that the proponents are saying the intent of this constitutional amendment is not to have a open-ended use of marijuana for medical purposes for anything and you state that as I guess is the drafter or whoever directed that the intent was not that and that you've got to read one subsection 1 in conjunction with subsection nine so I was looking to see if there are any cases which really the summary is potentially misleading if this is meant to be an open-ended the doctor can just prescribe it like you know you take something for a headache or valium or for stress on or is it more narrow how do we if we if is it so we're into a constitutional amendment that may itself not