Ron DeSantis claims recreational pot measure creates ‘Big Weed cartel’ with legal immunity

Gov. Ron DeSantis alleged a recreational pot measure won’t actually decriminalize all marijuana. Instead, he said Amendment 3 will leave the entire cannabis market in the hands of a “Big Weed cartel.”

“The media will refer to it as marijuana, recreational legalization. That’s not entirely true,” DeSantis said at an Orlando news conference. “It’s a partial legalization because this has been put in by basically one big weed company that spent $75-$80 million.”

That was an apparent swipe at Trulieve, the state’s largest medical cannabis company, which has now put nearly $87.3 million behind the Smart & Safe Florida campaign promoting Amendment 3. The proposed constitutional amendment, if passed, would legalize recreational marijuana.

Of note, the amendment doesn’t address how the sale and distribution of marijuana would be regulated. The state’s medical marijuana program, governed by statutes passed by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature after a constitutional amendment passed in 2016, has a limited number of licenses. Vertical integration requirements say companies can only sell the marijuana that the same business grows.

That means homegrown marijuana, even for medical use, remains illegal in Florida. DeSantis said if backers of recreational marijuana want to legalize cannabis for personal use, they would allow more companies to sell it and for individuals to produce it on their own.

“I would say, instead of putting a big weed cartel in the Constitution, instead of telling people you can buy it from the and then you’re fine, but then it can be used in public, I would do the opposite,” DeSantis said. “I think it’s much more reasonable to say, you know, people want to grow in their backyard, using it in their house. That’s fine; just don’t bring it out in public, right? We don’t want it in our streets.”

DeSantis also slammed a Florida Supreme Court made up mostly of his appointees for approving the ballot language. “How the Florida Supreme Court let that summary on was a huge mistake and a bad decision,” he said.

Officials with the Smart & Safe campaign said the constitutional amendment says what DeSantis proposed could not be put on the ballot because it would violate a single-issue rule. The campaign also said the Legislature can approve homegrown marijuana, and Amendment 3 would do nothing to prohibit that. Indeed, a spokesperson for the campaign said Smart & Safe supports homegrown marijuana.

“Once again, we’re seeing the failing opposition attempt to mislead voters,” said Smart & Safe spokesperson Morgan Hill. “This is just another example of government overreach and the use of scare tactics by the opposition. Adults should have the freedom to make responsible choices for themselves, especially as it relates to activities in their own homes. The opposition’s attempt to scare Floridians into voting against their own individual freedoms is nothing but a desperate and baseless lie.”

Of note, many cannabis providers in Florida already sell cannabis seeds but say those products can only be used to make legal CBD.

DeSantis also alleged Amendment 3 would provide legal immunity for marijuana providers, something not reflected clearly in the plain language ballot summary.

“They’re giving themselves protection from any civil liability at all at any point in the distribution or cultivation process,” DeSantis said.

Smart & Safe officials said the immunity language in the amendment is identical to the legal protections in place for medical marijuana providers now.

“Amendment 3 does nothing more than apply the same state-law liability provisions currently existing for medical marijuana to adult use,” a Smart & Safe statement reads.

“The plain text and structure of Section (a), including the new provisions in Amendment 3, necessarily are designed to and have the sole effect of allowing the use, cultivation and sale of marijuana for adult use in light of its current illegal status under federal and state law. Without those provisions, the rights granted in Amendment 3 would be meaningless. However, those provisions do not and cannot provide immunity for other ancillary conduct such as negligent manufacturing, unlawful sales to minors, delivery vehicle accidents, or consumers driving while impaired. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and ignores long-standing law.”