THERE'S IRONY IN OBJECTIONS TO ACLU SUIT

There is a good deal of irony in objections from Arizona State
Attorney General Tom Horne to an American Civil Liberties Union
challenge of the state's lawsuit involving the voter-approved medical
marijuana law.

Implementation of the new law has been temporarily delayed because
Gov. Jan Brewer and Horne are seeking a ruling from the federal
courts about whether the marijuana law complies with federal law.
They say they fear state employees might be charged with a federal
crime if they go forward with it, but what some see is a disguised
attempt to thwart a law they do not agree with and did not support
before it was narrowly approved by voters last year.

The ACLU said the federal courts should reject the state request for
a ruling because it is mere speculation state workers might face
federal prosecution under the marijuana law. A number of other states
already have medical marijuana laws and federal prosecutions have not
been a problem there.

The ACLU says since no one in Arizona has yet faced federal charges,
there has been no "harm" that requires a court ruling on the law. A
challenge should have to wait for to the law to be implemented and
someone to actually be charged, the ACLU claims.

The irony is that it was only about a week ago that a federal judge
ruled that the state could go ahead with plans to remove tens of
thousands of recipients from AHCCCS because no one had yet been
"harmed" so there was no legal reason to prevent it from being
implemented. We don't remember objections from Horne or other state
officials to that ruling on a lack of harm. In fact. Gov. Brewer
praised the decision.

Undoubtedly, there are some points of legal distinction between the
two situations - and Horne stands by his contention that a
"declaratory judgment" on the marijuana law is proper.

Still, Horne's objections to the ACLU position seems a bit hypocritical to us.