Pubdate: Tue, 16 Sep 2014
Source: Tampa Tribune (FL)
Copyright: 2014 The Tribune Co.
Contact: http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-letters/submit/
Website: http://tbo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/446
Authors: Parker Lee McDonald, Leander J. Shaw Jr., Stephen H. Grimes, 
Major B. Harding, Charles T. Wells, Raoul G. Cantero III, Kenneth B. Bell
Note: This commentary is by Parker Lee McDonald, chief justice 
1986-1988, justice 1979-1994; Leander J. Shaw Jr., chief justice 
1990-1992, justice 1983-2003; Stephen H. Grimes, chief justice 
1994-1996, justice 1987-1997; Major B. Harding, chief justice 
1998-2000, justice 1991-2002; Charles T. Wells, chief justice 
2000-2002, justice 1994-2009; Raoul G. Cantero III, justice 
2002-2008; and Kenneth B. Bell, justice 2003-2008.
Page: A7

FORMER JUSTICES: FIVE REASONS TO REJECT AMENDMENT 2

Special To The Tampa Tribune

As former Florida Supreme Court justices, we once took an oath to 
protect the constitution of the state of Florida. Today, we call on 
all Floridians to protect it by voting 'no' on Amendment 2. This 
amendment, promoted as a compassionate effort to legalize marijuana 
for medical purposes, should be rejected - regardless of one's 
position on the issue of medical marijuana.

Why should those who are both for and against medical marijuana vote 
no on Amendment 2? We offer five reasons.

First, the amendment is so broadly cast and vague, it will open the 
door to the general use of marijuana, not the carefully regulated 
medical use of a drug for those truly suffering.

When proposed amendments are placed on the ballot, voters only see a 
ballot title and ballot summary written by the amendment sponsors. 
Most voters don't have the time or inclination to read the full text 
of the actual amendment, much less study its impact. We have read the 
amendment and studied its impact. And, we are troubled by what voters 
are being told about Amendment 2. Voters are led to believe that 
medical marijuana could only be used for 'debilitating diseases.' But 
the full text of the amendment allows the use of marijuana for 
virtually any medical condition at the discretion of any recommending 
physician, and no actual prescription is required.

Second, Amendment 2 endangers Floridians by granting broad immunity 
from criminal and civil liability to virtually everyone involved in 
the chain of custody of marijuana. Today our criminal and civil 
justice systems protect citizens from harmful acts and compensate 
victims and families in cases of medical malpractice and negligence. 
But under Amendment 2, those providing and using medical marijuana, 
including every 'certifying physician,' would be immune from basic 
enforcement and accountability that protect our safety. This would 
make marijuana the only drug under Florida law for which providers, 
caregivers and users would be absolved from liability if someone is 
harmed from its use.

Third, Amendment 2 creates a right to use marijuana, coupled with a 
right to privacy for medical marijuana users, without regard to age. 
This could be construed to allow minors to obtain marijuana for 
purported medical reasons without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

Fourth, Amendment 2 creates the role of medical marijuana 
'caregiver.' There is only one requirement to be a caregiver - be at 
least 21. Amendment 2 requires no medical expertise, training or 
background checks for caregivers, who would have the authority to 
provide marijuana to multiple individuals.

This caregiver provision could be used as a legal shield to protect 
drug dealers from prosecution. The Florida Department of Health 
estimates that if Amendment 2 passes, there will be approximately 
250,000 caregivers and nearly 1,800 pot shops that would dispense 
marijuana. This calls into question the state's ability to adequately 
regulate the distribution of marijuana, since it would not be 
obtained from traditional pharmacies, but from shops run by the 
marijuana industry.

Fifth, if Amendment 2 is approved, it would be almost impossible to 
fix its many flaws because it would be enshrined in the Constitution, 
rather than being a general law that can be changed or improved as 
needed to respond to inevitable problems.

Whether marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes is an 
issue about which reasonable people disagree, and more study is 
needed. But anyone who reads the full text of Amendment 2 should 
readily agree that it is plagued by loopholes and vagueness that 
would lead to a myriad of unintended and undesirable consequences.

Amendment 2 doesn't belong in Florida's constitution. As former 
Florida Supreme Court justices who love Florida and its great 
constitution, we urge voters to protect Florida's constitution by 
voting 'no' on Amendment 2.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom