Case against recreational cannabis doesn’t hold up

When a public official argues that she is smarter than just about everyone — including the Florida voters who elected her in the first place and the judges on the court she is trying to convince to stymie those voters — you have to conclude she has a pretty high opinion of herself.

Or that she is, well, high. In this case, that seems unlikely.

In fact, it seems obvious that Attorney General Ashley Moody didn’t smoke up before drafting her latest legal salvo against a citizen’s initiative supporting recreational use of marijuana. If she had, she’d have the practical knowledge that legal marijuana just isn’t that hard to get in Florida any more – for anyone. That’s been the reality for nearly eight years, yet the parade of horrible outcomes that briefs filed by Moody, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and other opponents of recreational pot envision haven’t materialized.

Her arguments might have made sense before Floridians became so thoroughly familiar with this issue. But this state’s residents understand the implications of expanding access to marijuana. They deserve the chance to make up their minds and Moody is wrong to try to sideline their opportunity.

Florida’s pot history

Then again, one symptom of marijuana use is absent-mindedness. Moody seems to have forgotten that the Florida Supreme Court pretty much wrote the script for a recreational-marijuana amendment that would pass its scrutiny, in its 2021 opinions striking down a prior attempt.

The supporters of the proposed marijuana-access amendment clearly paid close attention to that ruling, and have included language that makes it clear their amendment doesn’t change federal law (which still holds marijuana to be illegal under criminal statutes, and classifies it as a Schedule 1 drug with high potential for abuse and, officially, no authorized medical use).

Moody and her backers also have forgotten — or are deliberately ignoring — evidence that Floridians are perfectly capable of doing their own thinking on this issue. The first time medical marijuana made it to the ballot in 2014, it fell short of the 60% needed to become law. The objection, as reflected in polling and other gauges of public opinion: The wording of that amendment was so vague that an accommodating physician could authorize pot use for anyone who wanted it.

Story continues

Supporters of the medical cannabis initiative, led by attorney John Morgan, came back in 2016 with ballot language that was much more narrowly drawn. They ran a smart campaign featuring the very sick, suffering Floridians who would benefit from compassionate access to cannabis, and voters said yes.

Memory may be a little cloudy on that issue, because as soon as access to medical marijuana became legal under Florida law, debate in Tallahassee switched to vicious battles over who would profit. With increasing boldness, the industry started pushing at barricades the 2016 amendment set on medical-marijuana authorization. Questions like “Do you have cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Parkinsons?” gave way to “Do you have depression? Anxiety? How about stress? Uh … writer’s cramp?” And state officials did nothing about that.

Now, the key question seems to be “Do you have about $250, plus $75 for the state? Cool. Here’s your card.”

Voters aren’t dumb

Nobody can blame 2016 voters for that. State agencies and prosecutors could have enforced the narrower provisions. But now Floridians know what it’s like to live with increased access to marijuana. There have definitely been a fair amount of stems among the flower: People with the conditions listed in the 2016 amendment say usage has become so widespread that they sometimes can’t afford — or even find — enough to alleviate their symptoms. And there’s ample reason to be cynical about the way big-money interests managed to quickly freeze smaller players out of the industry, sparking extensive court battles.

(On that issue, Moody’s brief actually scores a fair point. By limiting legal possession to three ounces, the 2024 amendment could make it difficult for pot users to grow their own. It’s easy to see why cannabis dispenser Trulieve, the deep pockets behind the 2024 amendment campaign, wanted that language.)

The other horrendous outcomes Moody predicts seem unlikely, at best. She claims the proposed amendment, by “allowing” recreational use under state law, would blind voters to the possibility that they could be prosecuted under federal criminal law. “Voters need clear guidance before being asked to lift state-law penalties for the possession of a substance that would subject users to devastating criminal liability under federal law,” she argues.

But voters are capable of looking around. They see what’s happening in other states, where federal officials under both Democratic and Republican administrations stopped prosecuting possession, sale or usage of marijuana to the extent that any state law allows it. Floridians also drive past cannabis dispensaries on the regular, and never see them raided.

We assume members of the Florida Supreme Court occasionally do the same.

That leaves Moody with one argument: Courts — not just Florida courts, but courts in the 38 states that have authorized medical cannabis and the 23 states that allow recreational use — have all gotten this one wrong. Every single one of them, wrong.

That’s a mighty slender thread to dangle something as momentous as she’s proposing: That Florida justices toss all their previous decisions, ignore reality and set an impossible standard for future amendment proposals to meet. That justices strip from Florida voters the ability to make a decision that they’ve already proven themselves perfectly capable of handling.

We don’t rank her chances of prevailing very high. (And we’re going to forgo the chance to make one more pot joke here.)

We will add this: It must have been mighty stressful to craft the language that makes such a ridiculous argument sound even remotely reasonable. Fortunately, we are pretty sure the AG can find — within a few blocks of her Tallahassee offices — a friendly doctor and well-stocked dispensaries to get help with that.

Assuming, of course, that she can spare the $250.

——-

No Byline Policy

Editorial Guidelines

Corrections Policy

Source