Guest AuthorHere’s a quick quiz: the Charlotte’s Web bill that the Legislature passed in the last days of the session is:
a) An avalanche
b) A “Pandora’s box”
c) The first step to legalizing recreational marijuana in Florida
d) A harbinger of a vast industry that will let thousands of starry-eyed investors make a ton of money fast
e) A reason not to vote on Amendment No. 2 in November
f) None of the above.
The bill, which is sitting on Gov. Rick Scott’s desk awaiting a promised signature, has been called all of those things.
But the answer is a definite “f.”
Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had opposed connecting the Charlotte Web language in a bill that reduces minimum mandatory sentences that passed both houses. He did, however promise to allow the stand-alone bill to come before his committee, the last step before heading to the House floor.
However, he opposed it even though it passed in his committee and on the House floor, stating that “I pray that this bill does everything intentioned for it,” (end the suffering of thousands of children with intractable epilepsy) but worried that it may also be “the rifle-shot that begins an avalanche…I don’t have the stomach to pull that trigger.”
Rep. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg, who once had a drug addiction, also had reservations and worried that the bill may be a “Pandora’s box.” He recognized that it was not about marijuana and addiction as much as about quality of life.
“Against my own personal feelings about Pandora’s box…I hope that the message goes forth, not that it’s OK about opening Pandora’s box, but that we care about quality of life, and I’m willing to err on that side.”
Those two statements from one of the most conservative members of the GOP in the House and one of the more liberal Democratic members demonstrate why answers “c” and “d” are wrong.
Getting the bill passed was a massive feat of “threading the needle” by conservative Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Shalimar, and prime co-sponsor Rep. Katie Edwards, D-Plantation.
More than once, Gaetz said that the bill was a “cautious walk forward,” but that it provides a foundation that can be built upon.
Just before the House vote, Gaetz offered an amendment to include “cancer or a physical medical condition that chronically produces symptoms of seizures or severe and persistent muscle spasms that can be treated with low-THC cannabis.” Any doctor who orders the low-THC oil without a reasonable belief that the patient is suffering from such a disorder could face a first-degree misdemeanor charge.
Anyone knowledgeable about the bill knows that it’s the cautious walk the Gaetz described and that it has nothing to do with recreational marijuana. To those who think that this be will be the beginning of their chance to start singing, “Light Up, Everybody,” I’m sorry to be the bearer of reality.
To those who think that this bill is the start of a get-rich-quick industry, you either don’t know much about the Florida Legislature or you’re from out of state, which many of the potential marijuana growers are.
First, note how narrowly this bill was drawn. To have a dispensary, you would have to be a Florida nursery with at least 30 years of business in the state and the ability to grow 400,000 plants. Of 7,001 nurseries in Florida, only 21 qualify and only five will be chosen from five regions of the state.
These are the same legislators who will be working on the rules regulating medical marijuana if Amendment No. 2 passes, which polls show is likely.
Legislators’ eagerness to restrict the production and distribution of medical marijuana hasn’t stopped out-of-state companies like Cannabis-Rx (CANNA) of Scottsdale, Ariz. from buying nine acres and three buildings in Sarasota for $1.3 million. The company calls the site “an ideal location for a licensed grow facility and/or distribution center.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the legislators that are trying to create a Florida industry based on compassion. If this is to be Florida’s industry, Floridians need to profit from it, not businesses from California, Colorado or Arizona.
Jeremy Bufford, a 33-year-old IT consultant who opened the first marijuana university based in Florida, estimates the potential early market in Florida at 100,000 users and $6.5 million a week. He bases his estimates on results in California, which he believes operates under a system similar to the one allowed by Amendment No. 2.
But if you think that Florida is the same as California, you need to check your facts. You just failed my quiz.
Gary Stein, MPH, a native Detroiter, worked for the Centers for Disease Control, landed in the Tampa Bay area to work for the State Tobacco program and is now a health advocate and activist and blogger for the Huffington Post. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
One comment
John Alfino
May 22, 2014 at 8:33 pm
The discussion of medical marijuana in the State of Florida is propelled by a locomotive of misunderstanding and falsehoods. The flaw in the Florida medical marijuana debate is the fallacy of the false alternative. Although the public policy of strict prohibition is becoming politically unsustainable, Amendment 2 and the “Charlotte’s Web” bill are deeply flawed alternatives. There are other approaches to be considered.
Under the Anti-Commandeering Principle, the federal government does not have the power to force the states to criminalize marijuana. At the same time, under section 903 Controlled Substances Act, some proactive state marijuana laws are preempted by federal law. Florida Legislature neither has the authority, nor expertise, to be a medical gatekeeper for marijuana. To put this simply, commercialization of marijuana under state law will inevitably bring about conflict with federal law.
[Although, as a State Florida must move away from strict prohibition, let us look at the experience of other states. Is a commercialized marijuana industry in Florida necessary, or advisable? Is it good public policy?]
Reform of marijuana laws on the federal level is likely a generation away. Putting aside political assessments, it is in our national security interests that federal legalization be coordinated with our allies. There is not enough information to make marijuana policy decisions on Federal level. (See Rand). At the same time, moving away from a policy of strict prohibition on the state level is in the interest of the federal government. Strict prohibition is becoming politically unsustainable. Sativex, the first marijuana-based pharmaceutical, will soon be approved by the FDA. (Sativex will be a direct, FDA approved, competitor to Charlotte’s Web marijuana for many of the same conditions recognized by the Florida bill.). Because the South Florida marijuana market is dominated by smuggled Caribbean marijuana, providing a legal source of marijuana in Florida will serves our national and foreign policy interests of promoting stable foreign governments in the region. But, Amendment 2 is not the way.
[For explanation as to why Sativex will result in a re-scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, and for those interested in the effects of Sativex on politics and law, you may find my article here:
http://www.ssrn.com/en/
]
Both “Charlotte’s Web” bill and Amendment 2 are ill-advised because they are both written with the view of promoting commercial and economic interests in marijuana. Floridians should distinguish between the legalization of marijuana and its commercialization. Looking at other state models, it is possible for state law to legalize the production and use of marijuana (remove state prohibitions) without making marijuana a routine commercial product to be placed in the stream of commerce. A state law, which invites the concentration of capital in a commercial marijuana market, will also invite the eventual seizure of that capital by the federal government. Moreover, do we as Floridians want to create significant economic, and consequently political, business interests in the commercial trade of marijuana? Arguably, marijuana business interests should not have the same political influence as other businesses until there is a national consensus on legalization.
Mr. Stein, you make the comparison between Florida and California. While I could explain, in detail, the difference between California Proposition 215 (1996), and Florida Amendment 2, there is a simple question to ask: “Prop 215 was three sentences. Amendment 2 is three pages. Why?”
The less-than-esteemed highest law enforcement officer of the State of Florida, Atty. Gen. Bondi did not properly brief A2 before the Florida Supreme Court. It is the opinion of another, former, highest law enforcement officer of a state that I have greater respect for.
Besides dating Linda Rhonstat while he was governor (1975-83), before re-assuming the governorship 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown of California was the chief law enforcement officer, Atty. Gen., of California. Whatever his peculiarities, Gov. Brown is a brilliant attorney. As Floridians, we should listen to Gov. Brown and learn from the mistakes other states have made.
We have our Florida Sheriffs Association, particularly Sheriff Judd, raising concerns. Sheriff Judd is worthy of respect. But, there is moral imperative Sheriff Judd does not consider.
Florida has some of the harshest criminal penalties for marijuana. We must stop unjust criminal prosecution for marijuana.
Comments are closed.