Last November, over 70% of people voted for medical marijuana. Last month, the legislature created rules for medical marijuana that specifically banned smokable marijuana. Last week, John Morgan sued the state, arguing that these new rules were unconstitutional. Nathan Nevins Law has been able to get a copy of the lawsuit that was filed in Tallahassee and we are ready to break down the arguments made in the lawsuit for smokable medical marijuana in plain English.
First, the text of the constitutional amendment specifically does not allow for smoking in public. This suggests that smoking marijuana in private should be legal. Second, the text of the constitutional amendment defines marijuana the same as the criminal code, which includes a green leafy substance. The statute narrows the definition of marijuana and specifically excludes “marijuana in a form for smoking.” In other words, the constitutional amendment defines medical marijuana as A, B and C, while the statute tries to define it only as A and B. Last, the constitutional amendment defines the process as to qualifying for medical marijuana as up to a licensed physician. The lawsuit contends that the legislature is substituting their medical judgment for that of a licensed physician by banning smokable marijuana.
Remember, the Florida Supreme Court only has to agree with one of the three arguments presented in order to allow for smokable medical marijuana in the future. While it will take many months to get an answer from the Florida Supreme Court, Nathan Nevins Law will be tracking this and many other current legal issues along the way. Stay tuned!