Pubdate: Thu, 02 Oct 2014
Source: News Herald (Panama City, FL)
Copyright: 2014 The News Herald
Contact:  http://www.newsherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1018

OUR VIEW: AMENDMENT REVIEW: NO ON NO. 2

During the legislative session earlier this year, The News Herald
supported Florida lawmakers' efforts to make a tightly controlled
strain of cannabis available to patients suffering certain ailments.

We believe that government should not stand in the way of physicians
who think medical marijuana would ease the symptoms of patients
struggling with devastating illnesses.

Amendment 2 on the state's November ballot would loosen the
restrictions even further. We wish we could support it, as we did the
earlier legislation. But we can't.

Simply put, Amendment 2 is a mess.

he first line of the ballot summary says No. 2 "allows the medical use
of marijuana for individuals with debilitating diseases as determined
by a licensed Florida physician." There's more to the summary - and
much, much more to the full amendment - but serious problems lurk in
just those few words. What exactly is a "debilitating disease"? Senate
President Don Gaetz has said the wording is so vague it could apply to
conditions like "having a back that needs to be scratched."

And what about "determined by a licensed Florida physician"? Doctors
wouldn't be required to write prescriptions for medical marijuana; a
"physician certification" would do.

The nonpartisan PolitiFact pointed out that the amendment requires the
Department of Health to set limits on medical marijuana. But the
Department of Health shouldn't have to do the amendment's job.

A carefully crafted amendment to the Florida Constitution ought to be
a model of clarity and simplicity. Its backers should not ask state
bureaucrats to fill in the blanks.

If the Amendment fails we hope the fact that it got this far and that
a similar measure is already law in 22 states and the District of
Columbia serves as a wake-up call to Florida's Legislature. State
officials must act on the marijuana issue and come up with clear,
simple rules for doctors and patients to follow. If there is a problem
or "buyer's remorse" with state laws they can be changed quickly by
the legislature.

If there is a problem with a constitutional amendment it could lead to
serious problems on Florida streets and in our courtrooms that can't
be resolved without another constitutional amendment.

That was part of the argument made by seven former Florida Supreme
Court Justices who fear that the amendment would "endangers Floridians
by granting broad immunity from criminal and civil liability to
virtually everyone involved in the chain of custody of marijuana."

The language in the amendment gives criminal and civil immunity to
marijuana providers and users even if someone is harmed from its use.
No other drug is treated in this way nor should they be. We also share
their concerns that thanks to privacy protections and criminal
immunity, minors might have an easier time obtaining marijuana in Florida.

Ultimately, we believe that the decriminalization of marijuana is more
likely a matter of "when" rather than "if," as more and more
non-violent offenders clog up courtrooms and jails across the country
and given the shift in sentiment across the country. We also agree
that if marijuana is shown to have a medical benefit, doctors who wish
to prescribe it to treat serious medical issues should be free to do
so without fear from the federal or state government.

However, these things should be done the correct way; through the
legislature and with the appropriate amount of checks and balances
attached to the new rules. Marijuana should be regulated similar to
either other medications (if medical marijuana is approved) or to
other vices like cigarettes and alcohol (if it is to be
decriminalized).

This amendment, however, will cause more problems than it
solves.

Vote no on Amendment 2.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt