In re Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. Re ex rel. Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions. Advisory Op. to the Attorney Gen. Re ex rel. Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions

Decision Date27 January 2014
Docket NumberNos. SC13–2006,SC13–2132.,s. SC13–2006
Citation132 So.3d 786
PartiesADVISORY OPINION TO the ATTORNEY GENERAL RE USE OF MARIJUANA FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL CONDITIONS. Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions (Financial Impact Statement).
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Gerry Hammond, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Allen Winsor, Solicitor General, and Rachel E. Nordby and Leah A. Sevi, Deputy Solicitors General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

Jon L. Mills of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Miami, FL, Timothy McLendon, Gainesville, FL, and John Morgan, Orlando, FL, for People United for Medical Marijuana, Sponsor.

George T. Levesque, General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL, on behalf of The Florida Senate and Don Gaetz, in his official capacity as President of the Florida Senate; and Daniel E. Nordby, General Counsel, on behalf of The Florida House of Representatives and Will Weatherford, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives; Susan L. Kelsey of Kelsey Appellate Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, and Kenneth B. Bell of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse, Pensacola, FL, on behalf of Florida Chambers of Commerce, Florida Medical Association, Florida Police Chiefs Association, Florida Sheriffs Association, and Save Our Society from Drugs, as Opponents.

Rupert E. Dunkum, Webster, FL, Responding with comments.

PER CURIAM.

The Attorney General of Florida has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to the validity of a proposed citizen initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution, submitted by an organization called People United for Medical Marijuana (the “proponent”), and the corresponding Financial Impact Statement submitted by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference. We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.

Our review of the proposed amendment is confined to two issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment itself satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution; and (2) whether the ballot title and summary satisfy the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2013). See Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation—Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So.3d 47, 50 (Fla.2013). For the reasons we explain, we conclude that the proposed amendment embraces a single subject, which is the medical use of marijuana, and therefore complies with article XI, section 3.

We also conclude that the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) because they are not clearly and conclusively defective. By reading the proposed amendment as a whole and construing the ballot title together with the ballot summary, we hold that the voters are given fair notice as to the chief purpose and scope of the proposed amendment, which is to allow a restricted use of marijuana for certain “debilitating” medical conditions. We conclude that the voters will not be affirmatively misled regarding the purpose of the proposed amendment because the ballot title and summary accurately convey the limited use of marijuana, as determined by a licensed Florida physician, that would be authorized by the amendment consistent with its intent. The interpretation of the proposed amendment offered by the proponent that “the intent is to allow [marijuana] use for a serious medical condition or disease,” rather than for any medical condition for which a physician personally believes that the benefits outweigh the health risks, is a reasonable one that is supported by accepted principles of constitutional interpretation.

Finally, we conclude that the accompanying Financial Impact Statement is in compliance with section 100.371(5), Florida Statutes (2013). We therefore approve the proposed amendment and Financial Impact Statement for placement on the ballot. We express no opinion as to the merits of the proposal.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2013, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an opinion as to the validity of a citizen initiative petition sponsored by the proponent and circulated pursuant to article XI, section 3, of the Florida Constitution. The proposed amendment would add a new section 29 to article X of the Florida Constitution. The full text of the proposed amendment states as follows:

ARTICLE X, SECTION 29. Medical marijuana production, possession and use.—

(a) PUBLIC POLICY.

(1) The medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient or personal caregiver is not subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law except as provided in this section.

(2) A physician licensed in Florida shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law for issuing a physician certification to a person diagnosed with a debilitating

medical condition in a manner consistent with this section.

(3) Actions and conduct by a medical marijuana treatment center registered with the Department, or its employees, as permitted by this section and in compliance with Department regulations, shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law except as provided in this section.

(b) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) “Debilitating Medical Condition” means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis or other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.

(2) “Department” means the Department of Health or its successor agency.

(3) “Identification card” means a document issued by the Department that identifies a person who has a physician certification or a personal caregiver who is at least twenty-one (21) years old and has agreed to assist with a qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana.

(4) “Marijuana” has the meaning given cannabis in Section 893.02(3), Florida Statutes (2013).

(5) “Medical Marijuana Treatment Center” means an entity that acquires, cultivates, possesses, processes (including development of related products such as food, tinctures, aerosols, oils, or ointments), transfers, transports, sells, distributes, dispenses, or administers marijuana, products containing marijuana, related supplies, or educational materials to qualifying patients or their personal caregivers and is registered by the Department.

(6) “Medical use” means the acquisition, possession, use, delivery, transfer, or administration of marijuana or related supplies by a qualifying patient or personal caregiver for use by a qualifying patient for the treatment of a debilitating medical condition.

(7) “Personal caregiver” means a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years old who has agreed to assist with a qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana and has a caregiver identification card issued by the Department. A personal caregiver may assist no more than five (5) qualifying patients at one time. An employee of a hospice provider, nursing, or medical facility may serve as a personal caregiver to more than five (5) qualifying patients as permitted by the Department. Personal caregivers are prohibited from consuming marijuana obtained for the personal, medical use by the qualifying patient.

(8) “Physician” means a physician who is licensed in Florida.

(9) “Physician certification” means a written document signed by a physician, stating that in the physician's professional opinion, the patient suffers from a debilitating medical condition, that the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the patient, and for how long the physician recommends the medical use of marijuana for the patient. A physician certification may only be provided after the physician has conducted a physical examination of the patient and a full assessment of the patient's medical history.

(10) “Qualifying patient” means a person who has been diagnosed to have a debilitating medical condition, who has a physician certification and a valid qualifyingpatient identification card. If the Department does not begin issuing identification cards within nine (9) months after the effective date of this section, then a valid physician certification will serve as a patient identification card in order to allow a person to become a “qualifying patient” until the Department begins issuing identification cards.

(c) LIMITATIONS.

(1) Nothing in this section shall affect laws relating to non-medical use, possession, production or sale of marijuana.

(2) Nothing in this section authorizes the use of medical marijuana by anyone other than a qualifying patient.

(3) Nothing in this section allows the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft while under the influence of marijuana.

(4) Nothing in this law section [sic] requires the violation of federal law or purports to give immunity under federal law.

(5) Nothing in this section shall require any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any place of education or employment, or of smoking medical marijuana in any public place.

(6) Nothing in this section shall require any health insurance provider or any government agency or authority to reimburse any person for expenses related to the medical use of marijuana.

(d) DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT. The Department shall issue reasonable regulations necessary for the implementation and enforcement of this section. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure the availability and safe use of medical marijuana by qualifying patients. It is the duty of the Department to promulgate regulations in a timely fashion.

(1) Implementing Regulations. In order to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Royal Palm Vill. Residents, Inc. v. Slider
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • January 12, 2023
    ......Florida law awards attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" in ... See, e.g., Smalbein ex rel. Estate of Smalbein v. City of Daytona Beach , ... by the Florida Supreme Court, see Advisory Opinion to Governor re Implementation of ..., § 723.068 embodies two necessary conditions to a fee award. First, the "proceeding" with ... (quoting Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions ......
  • Royal Palm Vill. Residents, Inc. v. Slider
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • January 12, 2023
    ...... law awards attorney's fees to the "prevailing. party" in ... discretion. See, e.g., Smalbein ex rel. Estate of. Smalbein v. City of Daytona ... by the Florida Supreme Court, see Advisory. Opinion to Governor re Implementation of ...conditions to a fee award. First, the. "proceeding" ... (quoting. Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for. Certain Med. ......
  • In re Implementation of Amendment 4, the Voting Restoration Amendment
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 16, 2020
    ... 288 So.3d 1070 ADVISORY OPINION TO the GOVERNOR RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF ...Jordan Jones, Staff Attorney, House Judiciary Committee, Tallahassee, Florida; ... requests advice regarding the meaning of certain language that was added to article VI, section 4 ... Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Voting Restoration Amendment , 215 So. 3d ... of voting rights under these specific conditions." It is beyond dispute that the Sponsor expressed ...to Att'y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions , 132 So. 3d 786, ......
  • State ex rel. Loontjer v. Gale
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • September 5, 2014
    ...N.W.2d 456 (2010), abrogated in part on other grounds, City of North Platte, supra note 51.62 See, Advisory Opinion re Use of Marijuana, 132 So.3d 786 (Fla.2014) ; Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 198 S.E.2d 151 (1973).63 Anderson v. Tiemann, 182 Neb. 393, 408–09, 155 N.W.2d 322, 332 (1967).6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT