Do you want to know why medical marijuana is still not available to our patients?
Let me demonstrate.
Earlier this week, several media outlets reported on a ruling from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals that appeared to be a certain victory for the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission. The appeals court had dismissed the AMCC from a lawsuit brought by Jemmstone LLC., one of the many companies that had sued the commission over its botched licensing process.
The court ruled that the AMCC, as a state agency, enjoyed immunity in this particular case and the suit should be dismissed. However, the issue of the injunction preventing the AMCC from issuing licenses remained. This injunction was granted because the commission appeared to have violated the Alabama Administrative Procedures Act and other laws by implementing a licensing process that did not comply with basic state laws and regulations.
Regardless, the AMCC was happy to tell people that last week's ruling was a victory, and comments from an AMCC spokesperson made it seem like we were getting closer to the day when medical marijuana would finally be available to those who need it.
It was all nonsense.
In reality, the Court of Appeal's ruling was nothing more than the end of months of wasted time. It did not change the status of the case. It did not advance the process at all. It was just another example of a long line of delaying tactics used by the AMCC and its lawyers.
The reality is this: the AMCC, its commissioners and staff are still facing the same complaints from the same companies on the same issues, and we are no closer to a resolution.
The appeals court's opinion was the result of a motion challenging Jemmstone for naming the Commission by name in the lawsuit, rather than individual Commissioners and employees. It was one of several appeals filed for review – all aimed at criticizing the companies' lawsuits and preventing the Montgomery District Court from taking evidence in the cases – collecting testimony and documents – for as long as possible.
This particular objection was particularly petty. It basically achieved nothing and could have been submitted months ago.
The fundamental problem is that many lawsuits against the AMCC name the AMCC rather than the individual commissioners because state law requires the state agency to be named in certain types of lawsuits. But there is a well-known conflict because the Alabama Constitution specifically prohibits suing the state and its agencies and grants them immunity.
In a 2018 opinion, Alabama Court of Appeals Judge Scott Donaldson wrote about the conflict: “…it is indeed a strange procedure where a plaintiff must name both the state agency (knowing that it is immune and cannot be sued) and at least one state official in order for the court to have subject-matter jurisdiction…”
See? It's a stupid, time-consuming, technical problem.
After learning earlier this year that the AMCC might go down this path, other plaintiffs who had filed suit against the AMCC decided to take redress before anything happened. They voluntarily withdrew their lawsuits and then immediately refiled them, naming some commissioners as part of their suits.
The lawsuits are still the same. They still make the same arguments. They still make the same claims. The AMCC still failed to follow the law in developing its licensing process. The injunction remains in effect.
It's been nearly four years since the Alabama legislature passed the bill legalizing medical marijuana in the state, and we still sit there, helpless in the face of a botched process and a group of bunglers who refuse to fix the obvious problems and do it right.
And everyone loses.
