Pubdate: Thu, 14 Nov 2013
Source: Orlando Sentinel (FL)
Copyright: 2013 Orlando Sentinel
Contact:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/325
Author: Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

GOP'S COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM MISSING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

To supporters, the wording of a proposed constitutional amendment to 
legalize medical marijuana in Florida is clear.

"The proposed medical marijuana amendment poses a single and unified 
question to Florida voters," attorneys for a group backing the 
measure said in a legal brief Friday. "Should an individual with a 
debilitating disease or medical condition, who has been so diagnosed 
by a licensed Florida physician, be lawfully allowed to use marijuana 
for medical purposes so long as they meet a number of conditions?"

But to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Republican legislative leaders and 
some politically powerful opponents, the proposal isn't clear enough 
- - and should not be allowed on the November 2014 ballot.

"The proposal hides the fact that the amendment would make Florida 
one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states, allowing use for 
limitless 'other conditions' specified by any physician," Bondi's 
office said recently. "With no 'condition' off limits, physicians 
could authorize marijuana for anything, anytime, to anyone, of any 
age. But rather than tell voters of this extraordinary scope, the 
summary uses language to prey on voters' understandable sympathies 
for Florida's most vulnerable patients - those suffering 
'debilitating diseases.' "

The Florida Supreme Court will try to sort through the conflicting 
arguments during a hearing Dec. 5, a key step in deciding whether 
voters will see the issue next fall.

Justices are not supposed to consider the merits of constitutional 
amendments, such as whether decriminalizing medical marijuana would 
be a good thing for the state. Instead, they look at the ballot title 
and summary-the wording that voters see at the polls - to determine 
whether the proposed constitutional changes are accurately described. 
Also, justices look to make sure the proposals deal with single subjects.

Even if the Supreme Court signs off on the proposal, that does not 
mean the medical marijuana amendment will go on the ballot. The group 
spearheading the proposal, People United for Medical Marijuana, still 
would need to get 683,149 valid petition signatures.

Bondi and Republican legislative leaders gained more legal firepower 
this past Friday when a coalition of influential groups filed a brief 
with the Supreme Court seeking to keep the measure off the ballot. 
Those groups include the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida 
Medical Association, the Florida Police Chiefs Association and the 
Florida Sheriffs Association.

The briefs outline the key issues in the legal battle. Perhaps the 
biggest issue focuses on whether the wording accurately describes the 
breadth of the proposed changes.

The summary says, in part, that the amendment would allow the 
"medical use of marijuana for individuals with debilitating diseases 
as determined by a licensed Florida physician." The full text of the 
proposed amendment defines a debilitating medical condition by 
specifying diseases such as cancer, Crohn's disease, Parkinson's 
disease and multiple sclerosis and also includes "other conditions 
for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana 
would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient."

Bondi's office has focused on that final part of the definition, 
contending that it would open up "unfettered" authority for 
physicians to approve the use of marijuana. The attorney general's 
brief Friday said voters would not know that from the wording of the 
ballot title and summary.

"Although Florida's Constitution allows sponsors to propose such an 
expansive and permissive marijuana law, it also requires that they 
inform voters of the proposal's ' 'true meaning and ramifications.' 
. This summary does not do that," the brief said. "Instead, it 
promises a narrow and limited marijuana program - the precise 
opposite of what the amendment would deliver."

But attorneys for People United for Medical Marijuana wrote that the 
attorney general's office hasa"flawed interpretation of the 
initiative" that does not take into consideration a series of 
requirements that a patient would have to meet before receiving 
medical marijuana. Along with having a debilitating medical 
condition, those requirements would include undergoing a physical 
examination, getting a written certification from a physician and 
obtaining an identification card from the Florida Department of 
Health before being able to buy marijuana from a "registered 
treatment facility."

"(The) medical marijuana amendment does not attempt to define all 
possible debilitating conditions, nor should it because the 
Constitution is a document for now and the future," the group's brief 
said. "The text of the Constitution should not try to list all 
debilitating diseases and conditions, but should and does allow 
proper scope for medical judgment."

Another potentially important issue before the Supreme Court could be 
wording related to federal law. The ballot summary says the amendment 
"applies only to Florida law" and does "not authorize violations of 
federal law."

Bondi's office contends that the language is misleading because it 
suggests that federal law allows medical marijuana.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom