Gary Stein: ‘Vote No on 2’ is unwittingly helping the amendment work

tech4

In the process of doing what they believe is right, Microsoft unwittingly has given gifts to hackers and virus creators for years.

Anyone who has used a Windows operating system for the last 20 years is used to seeing an endless series of “Security Updates” constantly being downloaded and installed, even after Microsoft has already moved to the next-generation operating system. Each update is specifically written to address a security flaw or loophole in the system that hackers could attack.

Fortunately for the hackers, that gives them the heads-up on all the latest known flaws, even ones they didn’t know existed. However, only about 65 percent of Windows users actually use automatic updates or request regular updates, in part because there are millions of users around the world that have “non-updatable” copies of the software. So the hackers and virus creators take the vulnerability information from Microsoft and run with it, and systems are compromised, contact lists are unknowingly used and third-party applications and programs are attacked. The hackers don’t even thank them.

I recently noticed a similar situation that has occurred, courtesy of the “Say No to #2” coalition that is trying to get the constitutional amendment regarding medical marijuana to fail during the upcoming November ballot.

This week, they listed the “four major loopholes” in the ballot initiative’s language in a press release entitled “The Devil is in the Details.”

The title alone depicts their first mistake. The Florida Legislature has worked very hard to make certain the issue section of the ballot does not get too long. A long-winded issue that takes too long to read or understand will most likely be skipped by voters, especially if the voting lines have been long or they are not fully familiar with or enthusiastic about the issue. So ballot initiative writers know that inclusion of all the details in the ballot language would not be a winning strategy. So the framework is drawn and it is up to our Florida Legislature to fill in the details to make the amendment fully achieve the will of the people in the spirit in which the initiative was created. That’s their job. They even have the advantage of looking at the 22 states that have already legalized MMJ to look for flaws and best practices.

HB859/SB962, called “Medical Use of Cannabis” and also the “Cathy Jordan Act,” was written in the spirit of the constitutional amendment and confronts the details, but it is also 170 pages long. Stick that in your ballot box.

Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Palm Beach, sponsor of SB962, told me in a recent meeting “They’re assuming that we can’t do our job.” But, if the Legislature writes the rules and regulation as tightly as they did on the “Charlotte’s Web” bill, they will definitely prove VNO2 wrong.

Here are the four “loopholes” as described by the coalition.

(1) The Pill Mill Loophole

The amendment defines “Medical Marijuana Treatment Center,” but VNO2 claims this loophole places no restrictions on the location of “seedy” pot shops.  Like “pill mills,” they warn Floridians to look for “pot docs” to spring up next to restaurants, schools, churches and supermarkets. (Several states have already addressed the situation appropriately.)

(2) The Drug Dealer Loophole

Amendment 2 says “personal caregiver” means an individual at least 21 years old. However, VNO2 claims “Amendment 2 allows so-called ‘caregivers’ to dispense medical pot. Caregivers do not need medical training. They can be felons – even drug dealers. It will be easier to get a caregiver’s license than a drivers’ license.” (Considering that the protocols to get that license haven’t been written, that is a logical leap into an abyss.)

(3) Pot-for-Anyone-Who-Wants-It Loophole

Amendment 2 does not require a doctor’s prescription, since a prescription would violate federal law (cannabis is still considered an herb and not a medication), but will require “physician certification.” This refers to “a written document signed by a physician stating that in the physician’s professional opinion, the patient suffers from a debilitating medical condition or other conditions for which the physician believes medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh any potential health risks for the patient.”

VNO2 claims Amendment 2 authors have defined “debilitating medical condition” as nearly “any condition — everything from back pain to trouble sleeping” and will result in situations where anyone who wants pot will get it. (That is an interesting but unqualified statement, since that language is not in the amendment.)

(4) Teenager Loophole

Amendment 2 states that a “qualifying patient” means a person diagnosed to have a debilitating medical condition, who has a physician certification and a valid qualifying patient identification card.

VNO2 argues that there are no age restrictions on pot smoking, so teens and children will be able to purchase pot legally without parental consent. (I got a chuckle out of this one. Apparently, VNO2 believes that the parents of teenage patients with such afflictions as cancer, epilepsy, Crohn’s disease, and HIV/AIDS have no knowledge of their child’s health, and leave their teenager’s healthcare decision entirely in the hands of the child.)

Looking at the actual ballot language, many of the concerns of VNO2 are already addressed in section “c” (limitations) in the ballot language, such as “Nothing in this section shall affect laws relating to non-medical use, possession, production or sale of marijuana.”

Section “e” (legislation) states, “Nothing in this section shall limit the legislature from enacting laws consistent with this provision.” So the Legislature has the ability to make this amendment work for the benefit of those who truly need it.

Once you get past the vivid imagination and fairy-tale nature of these “loopholes,” each loophole has a nugget of information that can lead our Legislature to draft the rules and regulations for the Department of Health to follow (as ascribed in section “(d)Duties of the Department”) to avoid the apocalyptic scenarios of VNO2.

So, on behalf of all those who want to see the amendment pass, all those who truly need MMJ to ease their suffering, and all those who love them, I would like to thank VNO2 for “pulling a Microsoft” and giving our Legislature the tools that will make Amendment 2 a reality and a model for the rest of the country.

We truly thank you.

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.

Guest Author


One comment

  • John Alfino

    May 23, 2014 at 7:05 am

    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.

    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 an 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.

    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?

    Mr. Stien, you make the comparison between Florida and California. While I could explain, in detail, the difference between California Proposition 215 (1996) (and the resulting evolution of California law) , and Florida’s Amendment 2 (and the torturous descent Florida law will take as consequence of its passage) there is a simple question to ask: “Prop 215 was three sentences. Amendment 2 is three pages. Why?” Florida voters are being sold a bill of goods with Amendment 2. Amendment 2 is bad public policy. Voters will go to the polls having little understanding of the consequences of Amendment 2.

    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 than .

    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.

    Respected Florida Sheriffs have raised concerns about Amendment 2. But, there is moral imperative that those concerned Florida Sheriffs do not consider.

    Florida has some of the harshest criminal penalties for marijuana. We must stop unjust criminal prosecution for marijuana.

Comments are closed.


#FlaPol

Florida Politics is a statewide, new media platform covering campaigns, elections, government, policy, and lobbying in Florida. This platform and all of its content are owned by Extensive Enterprises Media.

Publisher: Peter Schorsch @PeterSchorschFL

Contributors & reporters: Phil Ammann, Drew Dixon, Roseanne Dunkelberger, A.G. Gancarski, Ryan Nicol, Jacob Ogles, Cole Pepper, Jesse Scheckner, Drew Wilson, and Mike Wright.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PeterSchorschFL
Phone: (727) 642-3162
Address: 204 37th Avenue North #182
St. Petersburg, Florida 33704