Amid the frenzy over the state Supreme Court’s twin blockbuster rulings on abortion access, Floridians might have overlooked the court’s other decisive action this week.
A second opinion will let Florida voters decide whether marijuana should be legalized for all Floridians over 21. The question, which will appear as Amendment 3, authorizes adults to buy up to three ounces of marijuana for personal use, even if they lack a qualifying medical condition.
Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana use, representing a majority of the U.S. population. Florida would be the first southern state to do so.
Justice Jamie Grosshans, who authored the majority’s 5-2 decision, produced a judicial smackdown of epic proportions.
She did not restrict herself to needling Attorney General Ashley Moody, who asked the court to block the marijuana amendment from the November ballot. In a separate concurring opinion, Grosshans effectively trolled her fellow justices who tried in vain to shore up Moody’s argument.
Nitpicking justice
Moody’s rationale for keeping the marijuana amendment off the ballot was as thin as rolling paper. She and like-minded interest groups who backed her challenge tried and failed to nitpick the ballot question to death.
Among their arguments: Florida voters might not understand that marijuana is still illegal under federal law, or that the state will have to write the rules under which pot can be obtained by Floridians over the age of 21.
Courtesy Photo
Jamie Grosshans was named to the Florida Supreme Court on Sept. 14, 2020, by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Grosshans’ response: Consult a dictionary, and she actually recommended a few.
Voters are perfectly capable of figuring this one out for themselves, she wrote, using the common meaning of words like “allow” and “license.”
She swept aside another baseless argument that the amendment fails to meet the single-subject requirement because it talks about sale and use of pot.
“Allowing businesses to distribute personal-use marijuana, and authorizing individuals to possess it, are logically and naturally related,” Grosshans wrote. “Legalization of marijuana presumes the product will be available for the consumer.”
The justice could have added a “Well, duh,” but she didn’t have to.
Where things stand
Nor did Grosshans need to recap marijuana’s current status in Florida: Recreational pot is available right now for anyone with the money and time to get it — and the moral ambiguity to lie about their own mental health.
Ironically, that means voters were essentially hoodwinked in 2016 when they signed off on a supposedly highly restrictive amendment allowing very sick Floridians to buy medical marijuana under tightly controlled conditions.
But that’s not the fault of voters or the organizers of the 2016 ballot question.
It’s entirely the fault of state regulators and legislators who determinedly looked the other way as Florida’s medical-marijuana industry cranked into high gear.
Instead, state leaders focused almost entirely on what they saw as the real issue with medical marijuana. That was all about money — which powerful interests would be allowed to get rich first and how much they could make.
But nobody was paying attention to how the 2016 ballot question was implemented, and the old law of unintended consequences returned.
The 2016 amendment required pot users to get approval from a doctor that they met the requirements specified in the amendment. They are debilitating health conditions, including cancer, multiple sclerosis and legitimate cases of post-traumatic stress disorder or other ailments “of a similar kind or class.”
The combination of a legitimate mental health issue and “a similar kind or class” meant a green light for anyone claiming to have mental health issues that could be treated by marijuana.
The industry has stretched that definition to the breaking point. As we noted in a July editorial: “Questions like ‘Do you have cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Parkinson’s?’ gave way to ‘Do you have depression? Anxiety? Stress? Uh … writer’s cramp?’”
The majority opinion didn’t go there, but Floridians can see that reality for themselves. Voter approval of the 2024 amendment is highly likely, and further underscores the essence of the court’s ruling — that voters have a right to be heard on this issue.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Opinion Editor Dan Sweeney, editorial writer Martin Dyckman and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson. Editorials are the opinion of the Board and written by one of its members or a designee. To contact us, email at letters@sun-sentinel.com.