- The Florida Supreme Court will review a legal challenge by state Attorney General Ashley Moody regarding a proposed ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana, citing a violation of the state constitution.
- Opponents must submit their briefs by June 12, and the court will decide whether to hold oral arguments after the deadline.
- The proposed amendment, supported by the committee Safe & Smart Florida, aims to allow adults aged 21 and above to possess and use marijuana for personal non-medical purposes.
The Florida Supreme Court is set to review a legal challenge filed by state Attorney General Ashley Moody, asserting that a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana violates the state constitution.
According to the Florida Courts’ information system, opponents of the initiative must submit their briefs by June 12. Afterward, the court will decide whether to schedule oral arguments on the case.
Earlier this month, Moody formally requested the Supreme Court review the proposed initiative, signaling her intent to challenge its legal sufficiency for the 2024 ballot. The political committee behind the measure, Safe & Smart Florida, exceeded the required 222,881 petition signatures in April, triggering the mandatory review.
In her filing, Moody argued that the proposed amendment “fails to meet the requirements” of specific state laws, though she deferred providing further details, promising to elaborate “through a briefing at the appropriate time.”
The amendment, titled “Adult Personal Use of Marijuana,” would allow individuals 21 and older to “possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption.” This effort comes on the heels of a 2016 constitutional amendment that legalized medical marijuana in Florida.
Maintaining her stance from 2019, Moody contends that the amendment should not appear on the ballot, citing a state law that mandates constitutional amendments be confined to a single subject and comply with all technical requirements of state law.
If passed, the amendment would remove criminal liability and civil sanctions for the non-medical use of marijuana, while also authorizing all licensed Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers in the state to produce and sell recreational cannabis products.
Despite the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes in 2016, the non-prescription use of marijuana remains prohibited for Florida residents and visitors alike. Trulieve, Florida’s largest medical marijuana producer, has been a key financial backer of the push to legalize recreational use.
As of April, Trulieve had contributed a total of $38.5 million to Smart & Safe Florida, accounting for virtually all of the committee’s fundraising efforts. Other contributions totaled less than $125. Of the $38.4 million spent by the committee, nearly all has gone toward collecting and validating petition signatures.
With 786,747 signatures validated as of this month—just shy of the required 891,523—the initiative is nearing the threshold needed to qualify for the ballot. Should the measure pass, Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers estimates Florida’s recreational marijuana market could be worth as much as $6 billion annually.
Before any constitutional amendment can be enshrined in the Florida Constitution, it must pass review by the Florida Supreme Court and garner the support of 60 percent of voters in a general election. Previous attempts to legalize recreational marijuana in the state were rejected by the high court, citing concerns over conflicts with federal law, which continues to classify marijuana as illegal.
The “Free State of Florida” so called until it comes to passing Recreational Marijuana.
The issue was decided by the people in a ballot initiative. It seems to me that Republicans do not respect the wish of the voters. Same as the Restoration of Rights for ex-convicts they keep finding ways to nullify what the people want.
There is NO FREEDOM in Florida. A parent complain about the content of a book, REAL freedom would be if all the other parents are given a vote about the book content itself…that is not the case
Day after day, DeSantis and his crew start to look like fascists (nationalism, racism, stump individual rights, looking to restore perceived past “greatness”, bullying corporations to follow the party line, punishing opposing views and whistle blowers)
They just need some uniforms and a political police unit (never mind, they already have one) and they are poster child for Fascism Italian Style
I hope it goes down. This is a gateway drug.
You’re a total moron
That is the problem, uninformed people like you! Saying it is a gateway drug is ridiculous.
Florida voters have been trying to get it legalized for years but the courts change the rules. I find it absolutely hippocritical that Washington D.C. has legalized recreational marijuana and yet it is still illegal on a federal level.
The tax money alone should light a fire under these politicians.
Do your job and give the people what they want!
Moody is married to a DEA agent. Isn’t this a conflict of interest?
In order for a conflict of interest to exist, she’d have to get a benefit. What benefit would she derive from this, as it’s currently banned (except for medical) so she can’t get a benefit from keeping it off the ballot and thereby banned.
Deep, very deep.
(I simply made an ironic comment that provides background about Moody.)
Go figure! We the People of this State are repressed by legal challenges in which ever way we think! What happened to our representation? We The People have an opinion that needs to be represented!
If you disagree with Moody, you can file a brief with the Court and argue your position, just like Moody or anyone else can.
This proposal needs to go down in flames. Marijuana is a horrible drug that reduces the ability to think, causes cancer, mental health problems, and will increase state spending due to rising crime and health issues.
So many errors in this article. Here’s constructive criticism about the first one.
From the article:
“The Florida Supreme Court will consider a legal challenge issued by state Attorney General Ashley Moody that contends a ballot initiative seeking to legalize recreational marijuana violates the state constitution… Moody, maintaining a previously-established position from 2019, insists that the amendment should not reach the ballot, citing a law that mandates constitutional amendments to be limited to a single subject…”
Reality:
The article is not correct. A citizen initiative must pass two tests before it appears on the ballot. The first is found in the state constitution and requires the amendment to be limited to a single subject. The other is found in section 101.161 of the Florida Statutes and requires the amendment’s summary to be printed on the ballot in “clear and unambiguous language.” Moody’s letter to the Court cited a failure to meet the statutory requirement (clear and unambiguous language) and did NOT claim that the amendment fails the single subject test found in the state constitution. See the last three lines on page 8 of her letter to the Court, dated May 15th.
Here’s constructive criticism about the article’s second error.
From the article:
“Despite the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes in 2016, Florida residents and visitors are still prohibited from using marijuana without a prescription.”
Reality:
Incorrect. Under state law, there are no prescriptions for medical marijuana. Instead, a physician issues a certification to a patient who meets the qualifications to be treated with medical marijuana. That certification allows the patient to receive an identification card from the Dept of Health, and that I.D. card can then be used to purchase medical marijuana based on the physician’s certification. A prescription is never issued.
Here’s one final piece of constructive criticism.
From the article:
“Previous attempts to legalize recreational marijuana in Florida have faced rejection from the high court, citing concerns about decriminalization under state law while federal law continues to outlaw marijuana use.”
Reality:
That’s not what kept the previous amendment off the ballot. The Court doesn’t make decisions on these amendments based on such concerns. The justices focus only on the two tests the amendment must pass (single subject and clear and unambiguous language). The previous amendment cited in the article failed the latter test (clear and unambiguous language). The Court found that the summary language indicated to voters that the amendment would legalize recreational marijuana in a general sense, without stating that marijuana would still be unlawful under federal law, even if the amendment were enacted. A concern about state law conflicting with federal law did not keep the amendment off the ballot. It was the amendment summary’s ambiguous language that caused the Court to rule the way it did.
You’re welcome.
This is not a fair and balanced court — Ron DeSantis has seen to that. No reasonable person expects this court to allow the ballot measure this year. They are certain to find some flaw to cover their partisan points of view. (The implementation of the former felon voting measure also is a reminder that the Legislature is Ron’s creature,)
You seem unhappy with the implementation of the felon voting measure. What makes you feel that way?
My objection goes back to 1776: No taxation without representation.
Contextually, the post-Civil War South was heavily invested in keeping Black males from voting and, whenever the opportunity presented itself, renting them to “capitalists” and incarceration them.
MH/Duuuval wrote:
“My objection goes back to 1776: No taxation without representation.”
Reality:
Felons have representation, regardless of whether they can vote, via the local, state, and federal officials who are elected in the counties, cities, and states where they live. Lack of the voting franchise does not deprive them of representation. Citizens who are unable to vote, choose not to vote, or vote for a candidate who does not win the election, still have representation.
MH/Duuuval wrote:
“Contextually, the post-Civil War South was heavily invested in keeping Black males from voting and, whenever the opportunity presented itself, renting them to “capitalists” and incarceration them.”
Reality:
Your point has no bearing on the issue we’re discussing (implementation of the felon voting measure). If you’re referring to Jim Crow laws that were in effect in some form or other in the late 19th century through the mid 20th century, those laws (all of which were enacted, enforced, and perpetuated by a political party other than the current Governor’s party) are off the books and are therefore irrelevant. However, since you brought it up, I’ll delve into the issue further.
We’re discussing Florida, not the entire post-Civil War South. There is a specific court record that speaks to the issue you raised, and, in relation to the Florida Constitution, your claim is untrue, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. See the court’s opinion in Johnson v Governor of Florida (2005). The court did extensive research into Florida’s constitutional provisions for criminal disenfranchisement. Here are some excerpts from that opinion:
“There is no doubt that Florida’s decision to adopt a criminal disenfranchisement law in these early Constitutions [1838, 1861, and 1865] was based on a non-racial rationale. At that time, the right to vote was not extended to African-Americans, and, therefore, they could not have been the targets of any disenfranchisement law. The plaintiffs, however, point to 1868 as the critical date on which they allege Florida’s disenfranchisement law became motivated by racial discrimination.” (page 7 of the opinion)
“We do not doubt that racial discrimination may have motivated certain other provisions in Florida’s 1868 Constitution. … The existence of racial discrimination behind some provisions of Florida’s 1868 Constitution does not, however, establish that racial animus motivated the criminal disenfranchisement provision, particularly given Florida’s long-standing tradition of criminal disenfranchisement. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ own historical expert conceded that, prior to the instant case, no historian who had studied Florida’s 1868 Constitution had ever contemplated that the 1868 criminal disenfranchisement provision was enacted with discriminatory intent.” (starting on page 8 of the opinion)
“One hundred years after the adoption of the 1868 Constitution, Florida comprehensively revised its Constitution. Once again, Florida chose to maintain a criminal disenfranchisement law, a decision explicitly left to its discretion by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution]. The plaintiffs do not allege that racial discrimination motivated the adoption of Florida’s 1968 felon disenfranchisement law… and the plaintiffs concede that the 1968 provision was not enacted with discriminatory intent.” (starting on page 10 of the opinion, with the portion after the ellipsis appearing on page 17)