Pubdate: Mon, 13 Oct 2014
Source: Independent  Florida Alligator, The (FL Edu)
Copyright: 2014 Campus Communications, Inc
Contact:  http://www.alligator.org/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/760
Author: Christopher Johns
Note: Christopher Johns is a third-year UF law student.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA AMENDMENT CONCERNS ABOUT CONSEQUENCES, MEANING UNFOUNDED

On Oct. 8, Lindsay Alexander wrote a column opposing the approval of
Amendment 2, which would legalize medical marijuana in Florida.
Alexander's concerns about Amendment 2 are misguided.

I have studied Amendment 2 and many other states' medical marijuana
legislation, and I can confidently say that she is mistaken about the
amendment's meaning and about the consequences for our state that
passing Amendment 2 will have.

California was the first state to pass medical marijuana legislation.
Proposition 215 passed in 1996, and it was a sparse bill that provided
little regulatory guidance. The predictable result, as Alexander
noted, was a poorly regulated system that allows virtually anyone to
obtain access to marijuana.

However, much has changed in the ensuing 20 years. Since the passage
of Prop 215, 22 other states have legalized medicinal marijuana. None
of them have suffered the adverse consequences that California did.
Florida waited patiently during that time and will benefit from the
wisdom garnered from watching 23 diverse legislative bodies provide
compassionate access to marijuana for their citizens who need it most.
Amendment 2 reflects that wisdom and will ensure that Florida does not
end up like California.

Amendment 2 draws on that wellspring of experiential wisdom to provide
Florida with a solid foundation and firm, clear guidelines for the
Department of Health to construct a safe, secure medical marijuana
system. The fine print will not open the floodgates to allow anyone
access to marijuana as Alexander fears.

The amendment would allow the use of medical marijuana for individuals
with "conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use
of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a
patient."

Those extra words, which Alexander seemingly ignored, are very
important. They build circumscribed flexibility into the amendment to
allow greater access with only a patient's doctor's carefully
considered permission. Proposition 215 lacked this language, and that
is but one of many reasons why Florida's medical marijuana system will
not turn out like California's.

Alexander is wrong to characterize Amendment 2 as "reactive." Florida
is employing a measured process that is similar to, albeit more
difficult to accomplish because amendments are difficult to pass in
Florida, the processes used by nearly every other state that has
legalized medical marijuana.

In addition, Florida will benefit from groups like Florida For Care
who bring together diverse experts to explain the regulatory process,
ensuring that Florida avoids pitfalls and unintended
consequences.

Alexander's concerns over the efficacy of Amendment 2 are admirable.
She echoes the concerns of many Floridians who agree that we should
allow compassionate use of medical marijuana but not at the cost of
our state's moral and social fabric. Her active engagement in this
issue bolsters the argument that Florida will not follow in
California's footsteps.

Amendment 2 anticipates the thoughtful concerns of Florida residents
like Alexander and provides opportunity for their concerns to be
addressed through the legislative and rulemaking process. Rather than
deny countless patients across Florida, like her mother, access to
beneficial treatment, Alexander should vote yes on 2, stay engaged and
help make Florida's medical marijuana system an exemplary model for
the rest of the country.

Christopher Johns is a third-year UF law student.  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard