Pubdate: Wed, 19 Nov 2014
Source: Ledger, The (Lakeland, FL)
Copyright: 2014 The Ledger
Contact:  http://www.theledger.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/795
Author: Paula Dockery

MARIJUANA VOTE NOT THE DEFEAT SOME CLAIM

One big story to come out of the recent elections was the medical
marijuana effort failing to reach the 60 percent needed for passage.

To hear the pundits, opponents and media tell it, the defeat was
devastating for an effort that looked certain to pass early on.

Let's look at what transpired.

Attorney John Morgan initiated the difficult and costly task of
putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot, drafting the
amendment language, getting through the court review of the ballot
title and summary, obtaining enough petition signatures and getting
the signatures validated.

Why was this even necessary?

Despite individual lawmakers filing medical marijuana legislation for
years, the bills did not get as much as a committee hearing a=C2=80" with

one exception.

Last session, in a bid to blunt the enthusiasm for the constitutional
amendment heading for the ballot, legislators brought up and passed a
very limited non-euphoric form of medical marijuana known as
Charlotte's Web.

While a good small, first step, their legislation will not provide
compassionate relief for the majority of those who would benefit from
the type of medical marijuana that is now legal in 23 states and the
District of Columbia.

Unfortunately, it is not only the first step the Legislature is
planning to take in the medical marijuana issue but probably also the
last.

Opponents devised an effective strategy. They claimed the
constitutional amendment was not needed because the Legislature took
action and that the Constitution was not the correct place for this
issue. They used sheriffs, some of the most respected and trusted
elected officials, as their spokespersons.

Then, opponents played to the voters' fears by embellishing the
dangers of legalizing marijuana, which was not what the amendment did.
They claimed there would be pot shops on every corner and that
so-called caregivers were really drug dealers. Never mind that there
was no truth to the claims; they proved effective.

In order to get this carefully crafted message out to the masses via
television, they would need a sugar daddy.

Enter Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire from Las Vegas who wants to
expand gambling in the state of Florida. That's right, while the
opponents raised some money from Floridians, the majority of the
anti-medical marijuana television campaign was funded by one
out-of-stater with a vested interest in pleasing the governor and
Legislature.

Early polls showed an incredible 88 percent of Florida voters favored
legalizing medical marijuana. This transcended party, gender, age,
race a=C2=80" almost any demographic.

Opponents, including many Republican elected officials, claimed to be
for the compassionate use of medical marijuana, stressing the just
passed Charlotte's Web bill and insisted that the constitutional
amendment was a wolf in sheep's clothing, whose real intent was full
legalization.

Opponents attacked the wording and the messenger and ignored the pleas
of those who would be denied relief by their campaign of
misinformation. Republican voters peeled off in droves, believing this
was now a partisan issue.

Had the amendment passed, the Legislature would have to implement it
and assign a state agency, probably the Department of Health, to
regulate it.

The department would then promulgate rules that would further restrict
the implementation.

The so-called "loopholes" that opponents warned of would be addressed,
as is the usual practice.

Despite the well-funded ad blitz, a large majority of voters still
supported the amendment. Amendment 2 received 3,370,323 votes a=C2=80" mo
re
than the governor (2,865,075), the attorney general (3,222,251), the
agriculture commissioner (3,342,108) and the chief financial officer
(3,353,584).

Many voters hold out hope that the Legislature will look at the strong
support for medical marijuana and will take action, since their stated
opposition was geared to the amendment language instead of the issue
itself.

Legislators have the opportunity to pass a bill without the perceived
loopholes and questionable language. They can offer the compassionate
relief they claimed to support.

Will they show that their rhetoric was sincere or just a campaign
tactic?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt