Peter Schorsch
Writers like Carl Hiaasen have made careers pointing to the corruption and absurdity of Florida’s brand of government. But, despite our frequent failings, there have been a few bright shining moments when Floridians could point with pride to the innovations of their public officials.
On rare occasion, there has been a positive confluence of visionary leadership and powerful public sentiment that have propelled the Sunshine State onto the national stage as a model for other states.
Whether it’s accountability in education, the buying and protection of environmentally sensitive lands, or transparency in government, Florida has led on issues with national implications. Our state has this opportunity once again in the burgeoning movement of medical marijuana regulation. We need to get it right because Florida is uniquely positioned to become the national model for producing and dispensing this stigmatized class of potentially lifesaving drugs.
In a nutshell, here’s what makes Florida unique: It is the only large-population state that is striving to centralize, professionalize, and elevate what is usually a highly fragmented and — let’s be honest here — too often sketchy industry. Some small states like Connecticut get it mostly right, but its regulatory accomplishments can’t be easily applied in much larger states.
And then there are huge states like California that have allowed disastrously fragmented medical marijuana industries to evolve.
If we do this thing right, Florida can stand alone as the only state with a large and diverse citizenry that treated the medical marijuana industry as a serious business to be regulated for the benefit of participants at every level.
There are 23 states and the District of Columbia that allow some form of medical marijuana to be dispensed, and two states, Colorado and Washington, also allow for recreational use of the drug. In regulating marijuana, there is a critical decision that each state confronts: Do you allow the drug to be grown and dispensed by many people, or do you tightly limit the number of growers and dispensaries so you can exert more oversight?
I say the verdict is in. In those states where there is not a tight limit on the number of growers and dispensers, the system is chaotic, unreliable, and often corrupt. On the other hand, in those states with a limited and regulated number of growers and dispensers, the citizens are well served.
Let’s look at California. It’s almost 800 miles long and has 38 million people, the largest population in the United States. California has a regulatory strategy of virtually unlimited licensing for marijuana dispensaries, and the result has been a fragmented and uneven market.
Despite its enormous size, the largest medical marijuana dispensary chain in California employs fewer than 200 people. California’s regulatory framework has spawned a patchwork quilt of mom-and-pop dispensaries that sometimes test the limits of the law. Californians are poorly served by this arrangement.
Connecticut provides a useful contrast. It has issued only four grower licenses and six dispenser licenses. In this state the industry is stable and citizens are well served with uniformly high quality and reasonably priced medical marijuana that is tightly regulated.
Safe drugs are produced, citizens are protected, and taxes are collected. It is a productive and predictable pathway that loops from government to the private sector and back again, and ultimately this benefits each citizen.
Canada offers a cautionary tale. The regulation of medical marijuana there is a national initiative, and when it was first legalized the national government adopted a laissez faire approach. Soon the industry there descended into a maelstrom of small-time marijuana dealers who were unreliably dispensing an adulterated and sometimes potentially dangerous product.
Executing a sharp reversal, the Canadian government redesigned its regulatory system and limited the number of grower licenses to 20 highly regulated licensees throughout the entire nation. The quality and accountability of the production and distribution immediately increased, and today the Canadian system is a model for the rest of the world. One need only read about the commercial success of Canadian companies like Tweed to grasp the potential for creating jobs, revitalizing towns, and meeting the medical needs of Floridians.
Florida can learn from the mistakes and successes of governments that have ventured before it.
The Florida Legislature already demonstrated its wisdom by limiting the number of dispensary licenses to five. By limiting the number of licensees (but not the location or number of retail outlets for each licensee), Florida can ensure access to the drug at a reasonable price.
Simultaneously, it can ensure that the drug can meet FDA-like standards for human use, and that the drug is kept secure and not diverted for illegal consumption. These licensees should be selected on the strength of their applications, not a random process like a lottery. With these assurances in place, Florida can attract capital and bright businesspeople and keep out the charlatans and hucksters who chase the promise of medical marijuana from state to state.
The Charlotte’s Web law sets us on the right path. The Florida Department of Health and the Legislature must now stay the course.
