Pubdate: Thu, 05 Dec 2013
Source: Tampa Bay Times (FL)
Copyright: 2013 St. Petersburg Times
Contact: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
Website: http://www.tampabay.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/419
Note: Named the St. Petersburg Times from 1884-2011.

SORTING OUT MARIJUANA BALLOT ISSUES

Opinion polls show Florida voters overwhelming support letting sick 
patients use marijuana as medicine, and at least 20 states have 
permitted it in some form. But when the Florida Supreme Court hears 
arguments today about the ballot language for a constitutional 
amendment that would permit medical marijuana, the justices won't be 
deciding whether the amendment is a good idea. The justices are 
addressing two narrow questions: Does the medical marijuana amendment 
involve a single subject? Do the ballot title and summary accurately 
reflect the purpose and impact of the amendment? As they listen to 
the arguments, the justices should focus on two key issues:

The amendment includes a broad grant of immunity from civil liability 
for the provision and use of marijuana. Does this violate the single 
subject rule?

Supporters of the medical marijuana amendment say it just asks voters 
to allow an individual afflicted with a debilitating condition to 
obtain permission from a licensed Florida physician to use medical 
marijuana for a limited period of time. The patient would have to 
submit to a full physical, and after the drug's use is approved by 
his or her doctor the patient or caregiver would have to obtain an 
identification card from the Department of Health. Patients could 
obtain limited amounts of the drug through facilities registered with 
the state, and the Legislature and state health department could 
write laws and rules setting tight controls.

That is the thrust of the amendment. But opponents say the impact of 
the amendment's language would reach further and violate the single 
subject rule. The amendment would grant civil liability immunity to 
patients, personal caregivers, physicians and treatment centers where 
medical marijuana is dispensed. The justices should explore whether 
this argument has merit.

Is the ballot title and summary misleading by incompletely describing 
the types of medical conditions where medical marijuana could be used?

Access to medical marijuana is limited to patients suffering from a 
debilitating medical condition, but how that condition is defined in 
the ballot and summary are not identical to the text of the amendment.

The amendment's title reads: "Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical 
Conditions." The summary states that persons with "debilitating 
diseases as determined by a licensed Florida physician" would be 
allowed to use medical marijuana. When read together, the upshot is 
that people can't get marijuana just because it would make them feel 
better. They have to be seriously sick as diagnosed by a doctor.

But opponents say the full text of the amendment defines a 
"Debilitating Medical Condition" so broadly that there would be no 
definitive limits on access to marijuana. Under the definition, 
physicians could recommend the drug for cancer, glaucoma and other 
specified conditions that most people would recognize as a serious 
illness. But it goes on to say patients with "other conditions" 
qualify for medical marijuana use if physicians believe "the medical 
use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for 
a patient."

Would voters reading the full text think they were misled by the 
title and summary? The justices should probe whether voters would 
understand what they were voting on.

Humanitarian considerations may be why more than 80 percent of 
Florida voters say they favor medical marijuana. But the justices' 
job is to protect the public from confusion and obfuscation - and 
that has nothing to do with the public policy merits.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom