{"id":2272,"date":"2019-01-09T23:06:20","date_gmt":"2019-01-09T23:06:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cannachronicle.com\/?p=2272"},"modified":"2019-03-06T12:53:30","modified_gmt":"2019-03-06T17:53:30","slug":"up-in-smoke-the-decision-to-allow-smokable-marijuana-still-in-limbo-as-floridians-wait-for-results-of-crucial-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannachronicle.com\/2019\/01\/09\/up-in-smoke-the-decision-to-allow-smokable-marijuana-still-in-limbo-as-floridians-wait-for-results-of-crucial-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"Up in Smoke? The Decision to Allow Smokable Marijuana Still in Limbo as Floridians Wait for Results of Crucial Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

All signs pointed to new Florida Governor Ron DeSantis withdrawing the State\u2019s appeal on allowing smokable marijuana yesterday after his inauguration, but the highly contested decision is still on hold.<\/p>\n

The appeal came after Tallahassee Circuit Court Judge Karen Gievers ruled a 2017 law banning the distribution and consumption of smokable cannabis was unconstitutional and was therefore overturned. However, immediately following that ruling the State of Florida filed its appeal.<\/p>\n

The case moved forward Tuesday with State attorneys arguing in favor of upholding the 2017 ban, commenting that it was the right decision to ban smoking due to its possible negative side effects. Deputy Solicitor General Jordan Pratt was quoted saying, \u201cThe amendment does not in any instance guarantee immunity for smoking marijuana\u201d. The Department of Health also had lawyers present defending the ban.<\/p>\n

One appellate Judge, Timothy Osterhaus did raise questions concerning the Legislature\u2019s authority to implement these changes to the amendment. He further inquired as to the distinction between smoking and other methods of consumption that have not been banned.<\/p>\n

Osterhaus questioned, \u201cCould they have decided that all ways are unsafe?\u201d<\/p>\n

Pratt retorted citing that the law currently allows for multiple other means of consumption and that it was unlikely that they would have been able to ban all types of treatment administration.<\/p>\n

Osterhaus was also concerned about the future for Florida\u2019s voters, asking, \u201cif they\u2019ve [voters] gone through the process of amending their Constitution, and the Legislature decides, \u2018No, we\u2019re not going to go for that and we\u2019re going to veto what you\u2019ve passed?\u201d. Raising possible red flags warning about what this could mean for legislation still to come.<\/p>\n

Pratt once again fired back stating, their focus \u201cbegins and ends with just one question, which is whether the amendment requires smoking of marijuana\u201d, adding, \u201cthere\u2019s simply nothing in the amendment that says that\u201d. Using the amendment\u2019s broad language regarding legalization against it, and leaving it up to interpretation.<\/p>\n

One person fighting the appeal also happens to be one of the people responsible for assisting in the writing of the amendment, Jon Mills. Once a dean for the law school at University of Florida, Jon is now claiming that the 2017 law written in response to the amendment is directly conflicting with the Constitution. He states that the Constitution clearly authorizes doctors to order prescriptions of smokable cannabis for qualifying patients, but the law restricts this entirely. He follows up by saying that this is no minor conflict and that if one treatment method could be banned, more could follow.<\/p>\n

Another advocate and plaintiff in this case for smokable marijuana is Cathy Jordan. She claims that doctors predicted she was going to die decades ago as a result of Lou Gehrig\u2019s disease, but says smoking cannabis on a daily basis is the reason she is still alive. Last year she testified to the fact that smoking as the method of consumption treats her ailments in a way that other methods simply do not.<\/p>\n

Mills added, \u201cCathy Jordan is not trying to have a good time, she\u2019s trying to live. And what works for her is what she and her doctor agreed upon, and that was smoking\u201d. Making it clear that this conflict is \u201cirreconcilable\u201d, end of story.<\/p>\n

DeSantis seems to have different views on the consumption of smokable marijuana than his predecessor, Rick Scott which had strongly opposed the subject. When DeSantis spoke with media outlets Monday he mentioned that he was \u201cnot committed\u201d to upholding the ban.<\/p>\n

He went on to say that he understands that roughly 72 percent of voters are behind this issue and his willingness to stand behind the decision of those voters; stating, \u201cwe are going to be taking actions that are consistent with what I said in the campaign\u201d and, \u201conce the vote happens, you\u2019ve got to move on. So we\u2019ll take some actions within a pretty short time\u201d.<\/p>\n

These statements by DeSantis seem to continue to point to his withdrawal from the appeal, but only time will tell as we continue to await this monumental decision in Florida.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n