Recreational pot use amendment going on November ballot

News Service of Florida — A divided Florida Supreme Court has approved placing on the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at allowing recreational use of marijuana. The ruling drew immediate praise from marijuana companies and cannabis proponents.

“We are thankful that the court has correctly ruled the ballot initiative and summary language meets the standards for single subject and clarity. We look forward to supporting this campaign as it heads to the ballot this fall,” said Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers. Trulieve is the state’s largest medical-marijuana company and has spent more than $40 million to get the constitutional amendment on November’s ballot.

Smart & Safe Florida, the political committee backing the proposal, said it had collected another $15 million to kick off the next phase of the pro-pot campaign.

“As we tour across the United States, we recognize that most Americans already enjoy this right in their respective states, and we are glad to see Floridians will soon be able to make this decision for themselves at the ballot box in November,” a release from Smart & Safe read.

A_er the amendment was approved for the ballot, Gov. Ron DeSantis lashed out against it, saying it would go beyond decriminalizing marijuana.

“It’s basically a license to have it anywhere you want. So no time, place, and manner restrictions. This state will start to smell like marijuana in our cities and towns,” he said. ““Every part of Florida, not just South Florida, I see marijuana stores. … but do we really need to do more? With that? Do we want to have more marijuana in our communities? I don’t think it’ll work out well, but it is a very, very broad amendment.” Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office urged the court to reject the measure, arguing it would be misleading to voters and was not limited to a single subject as required by Florida law. But the 5-2 decision, authored by Justice Jamie Grosshans, found that the proposal met the requirements of court review.

The majority opinion rejected Moody’s argument that the proposal violated the single-subject requirement because it would both decriminalize and commercialize recreational marijuana.

“Allowing businesses to distribute personal-use marijuana, and authorizing individuals to possess it, are logically and naturally related as part of a dominant plan or scheme. Legalization of marijuana presumes the product will be available for the consumer. Likewise, the sale of personal-use marijuana cannot be reasonably undertaken while possession is criminalized,” wrote Grosshans, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020.

Justices Meredith Sasso and Renatha Francis sharply disagreed with the majority opinion, writing in separate dissents that the proposal failed to meet requirements.

Sasso, who was appointed by DeSantis last year, said the amendment violated the single-subject requirement and is misleading because it would allow the state’s medical-marijuana operators to participate in the recreational market. Sasso also argued that the part of the amendment saying it would allow adults to use marijuana is “false” because marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

“A state has no power to authorize its residents to participate in conduct that would constitute a federal crime,” she wrote.

Francis, who was appointed by DeSantis in 2022, went further, saying that the court should draw a narrower line around the single-subject requirement than it has in the past.

“As it relates to this case, personal use and commercialization of marijuana aren’t even two sides of the same coin. If the matters directly connected to the ‘subjects’ are different, it’s plain to me that the subjects themselves are different,” Francis wrote. “At bottom, using marijuana as an individual and growing it for commercial sale and consumption implicate different criminal and regulatory schemes.” House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, said the issue will be “up to the voters” but isn’t needed.

“But the problem with some of these constitutional amendments is, it’s all rainbows and unicorns because it’s drafted by proponents. Which, in the case of both abortion and marijuana, it looks innocuous, but then you start asking yourself, well, can you smoke on a child’s playground, can you smoke in an elevator? Things that we’ve restricted when cigarettes are concerned,” Renner said. “The marijuana amendment is overly broad, to serve the self-interest of those who are going to grow it and make billions and billions of dollars off of it.”

Other News Service of Florida resources were included in this report.