TALLAHASSEE— The Florida Supreme Court is giving no clear indication on how it will rule on the medical marijuana ballot initiative.
The court heard oral arguments Thursday on the proposed state constitutional amendment, which state Attorney General Pam Bondi is trying to block from the 2014 general election ballot. Her office argues the ballot summary is misleading.
The amendment calls for legalizing the use of marijuana under some medical circumstances and would require a 60 percent voter majority to pass.
The crux of the debate Thursday centered on the difference between “debilitating disease” and “debilitating medical condition.” The ballot summary uses the phrase “debilitating disease” to describe the conditions under which medical marijuana use would be allowed in the state. However, Parkinson's disease is the only mention of disease in the amendment’s language, said Solicitor General Allen Winsor, who represented Bondi’s office.
Winsor argued voters would view “debilitating disease” as narrow in scope — only ailments such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease — but the ballot initiative language allows for pot to be prescribed for a host of conditions, including football injuries and back pain.
But Justice R. Fred Lewis told Winsor that he was using “circular reasoning.” Lewis seemed sympathetic to the amendment and said regardless of phrasing, a doctor must adhere to the amendment’s provision that the “benefits outweigh the risks” when prescribing marijuana.
“That doesn’t seem to be a logical reading of — of much of anything,” Lewis told Winsor.
Need 685,000 signatures
People United for Medical Marijuana is pushing the amendment, led by prominent trial lawyer John Morgan. While the group works to round up nearly 685,000 signatures by February to get the amendment on the ballot, it must contend with the court battle. The court must rule by April 1.
People United’s lawyer, Jon Mills, said voters will understand that both diseases and other ailments qualify for marijuana prescriptions, once they read the title and summary together. The title states “Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions.”
Justice Barbara Pariente also had sympathy for the ballot initiative’s plight. She asked what the difference between “disease” and “condition” was and how it represented a “fatal flaw” that should keep the amendment off the ballot.
“If I’m debilitated because of something medical, whether I call it a condition or a disease, that’s what I’m concerned about,” she said.
Pariente said having “certain medical conditions” in the title is enough for voters to know marijuana could be prescribed for back pain.
Conversely, two judges had reservations about the amendment. Chief Justice Ricky Polston was worried it would open the door to widespread marijuana prescriptions.
“It would seem like … if a student’s just stressed over exams and they go in and see a doctor,” then they could be prescribed marijuana, he said.
Justice Charles Canady was more openly opposed. He was particularly critical of the ballot language’s reference to federal law. It concludes: “Applies only to Florida law. Does not authorize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana.”
Mills said the ballot sentences put voters “on notice” that nothing in the amendment violates federal law.
“But it does,” Canady replied, adding, “It certainly authorizes conduct under state law, which would be conduct that violates federal law.”
Canady said the federal law reference was a “confusing statement” and likely would lead voters to believe the amendment is in line with federal law.
Although all marijuana use is illegal under federal law, the U.S. Justice Department announced in August it would not sue to block marijuana laws in the 20 states and District of Columbia where use has been legalized.
Mills said there’s an expectation for the voter to bring some knowledge into the voting booth. He cited a previous state Supreme Court case dealing with casinos where the court ruled voters were expected to know that casinos were not authorized.
“I think we can expect the voters to understand something about the context of this,” Mills said.
The other judges on the seven-member panel were more restrained during the hearing, offering little indication on where they’d fall when the ruling comes down.
Gaetz, Weatherford oppose
Meanwhile, state Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, and state House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, have backed Bondi.
Floridavoters see things differently, supporting the legalization of medical marijuana 82 percent to 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last month.
The state attorney general’s office also has raised a third issue with the amendment: It violates the single-subject rule. Winsor briefly argued Thursday the amendment would accomplish multiple separate policy objectives, which would disqualify it. He said it would let doctors prescribe marijuana, outline a state health-department-managed regulatory structure, and give prescribing physicians immunity.
“The single-subject rule is a rule of restraint and the purpose was to stop things that don’t necessarily go together from being put into an amendment together, and it’s unique to the citizen initiative to protect against precipitous change,” Winsor said.
Supporters have argued in court filings the amendment does not violate the single-subject rule because “it has a specific and unified purpose” and would “not have a substantial effect on multiple provisions of the Constitution or multiple functions of Florida government.”