Michael Doyle Ruggles v. David Y. Ige, Governor of Hawaii, et al.

Does the State of Hawaii have a constitutional responsibility to draft laws that do not stand silent and create ambiguities? Hawaii’s medical cannabis law does not tell patients how to legally acquire cannabis plants and seeds to grow the cannabis medicine, therefore creating a legal problem for the created class. Is it constitutional for the State of Hawaii to create a vague and irreconcilably conflicted medical cannabis law and then allow a situation where for the last 21 years the Hawaii AG, Police and Prosecutors profit off of the conflict and commit racketeering crimes against sick people under the guise of federal prohibition of cannabis? How is it constitutional or equal protection of the law to draft a law that a separate class of 8 wealthy dispensary licensees can pay fees to the state and then have control of unlimited cannabis plants and medicine while after 21 years there is still no illegal way for the medical cannabis patients to obtain a cannabis seed or plant? Does a State have a responsibility to fix vague, ambiguous and conflicting laws or are they allowed to intentionally harm the created class indefinably for profit?