Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Lawmakers fail Floridians on medical marijuana
For all their talk about “activist judges,” Florida lawmakers just created a pathway for judges to decide what voters intended last November in passing a state constitutional amendment that legalizes medical marijuana for patients with certain diseases.
And given the choices left standing at the end of the legislative session, perhaps the do-nothing outcome is not such a bad thing.
Let’s remember, most state lawmakers don’t really want medical marijuana in Florida. They’ve long resisted efforts to legalize its use. They only approved a non-euphoric strain called Charlotte’s Web, which provides remarkable relief to children with intractable seizures, to try to diffuse the drive to legalize full-strength cannabis.
But after approving Charlotte’s Web in 2014, lawmakers allowed the Department of Health to figure out how to regulate this new industry. And the agency decided to award licenses to just seven companies, allowing each to grow, distribute and dispense the drug in Florida.
It was an amazing abdication of responsibility, really. It also was remarkable to see Republican lawmakers turn their backs on free market principles that allow the companies offering the highest quality, for the best price, with the best customer service to come out on top.
Instead, the GOP-dominated Legislature let bureaucrats create a cartel and dash the hopes of entrepreneurs — including many minority-owned businesses — that sought entry to the marketplace.
From that flawed foundation came the stage on which this year’s debate played out.
It should be noted that Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican, pushed to create an open-market system. His was the best of about 12 bills filed because it reflected the people’s will. However, his bill was not the Senate’s favorite proposal.
The Senate’s favorite would have allowed 10 new companies to be licensed by this fall, with each limited to no more than 10 dispensaries. Then, as demand rose and companies reached the cap, more licenses could be awarded and the market slowly opened to new competitors.
The House proposal also would have allowed up to 10 new companies to be licensed by next July, but would have allowed each to operate up to 100 dispensaries. In other words, the House proposal would have protected the cartel’s monopoly and closed the door on competition.
In the end, the two chambers couldn’t come to terms.
So now, cities that don’t want pot shops on every corner are left without direction. Doctors are being told to guide themselves by the constitution. And patients with debilitating diseases who could benefit from cannabis don’t know where to go.
Also, because the amendment requires state rules to be in place by July 3, health department bureaucrats will again write the regulations outside the public eye. In January, the agency proposed:
■ Limiting license-holders to the seven already approved.
■ Giving the Florida Board of Medicine control over what new, debilitating conditions doctors can consider for prescriptions.
■ Requiring patients to wait 90 days between their first visit to a qualifying doctor and when they actually receive cannabis.
Once again, you can expect the health department’s proposals to end up in court. Already, the agency has spent more than $1.3 million in taxpayer money to defend today’s licensing system, according to the News Service of Florida.
It’s possible a special session could be held if the two sides privately work out an agreement, outside the public eye.
But as things stand, because lawmakers shirked their duty to write reasonable regulations that reflect the voter’s will, judges will likely guide the rules that regulate medical marijuana.
No matter what lawmakers say about activist judges, they have only themselves to blame.
And with judges guided by voter intent, we could all be better off.
Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O’Hara, Andrew Abramson, Elana Simms, Gary Stein and Editor-in-Chief Howard Saltz.