Lawmakers Could Revamp Black Farmer Marijuana Issue
Florida health officials have blamed delays in issuing new medical marijuana licenses on a court fight about a law requiring one of the coveted licenses to go to a black farmer who meets certain criteria.
February 01, 2018 at 02:56 PM
4 minute read
Florida health officials have blamed delays in issuing new medical marijuana licenses on a court fight about a law requiring one of the coveted licenses to go to a black farmer who meets certain criteria.
Now, some legislators are trying to fix the problem by changing the law, passed in June to help implement a voter-approved constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.
The House and Senate are advancing measures to address the issues and are expected to reach consensus before the legislative session is scheduled to end March 9.
“I think the House and Senate are going to come to an agreement,” Senate Majority Leader Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero, told The News Service of Florida on Wednesday.
The law, passed during a special legislative session, required health officials to issue 10 new medical marijuana licenses, including one license to a grower who had been part of settled lawsuits, known as Pigford cases, about discrimination against black farmers by the federal government. The law also requires the black farmer who receives a license to be a member of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association-Florida chapter.
The new House plan (HB 6049) would repeal the portion of the law that requires black farmer applicants to be members of the association.
The proposal aims to solve a problem raised in a legal challenge over the law.
Siding with a Panama City black farmer, a Tallahassee judge recently blocked the portion of the law dealing with the black-farmer license from going into effect. Lawyers for plaintiff Columbus Smith argued that, while he meets the qualification of being part of the Pigford litigation, he has not been allowed to join the black farmers association, effectively preventing him from receiving a license.
The Florida Constitution bars “special” laws, in part, that relate to a “grant of privilege to a private corporation.” The lawsuit alleges the medical-marijuana law violates that part of the Constitution. In stopping the health department from moving forward with granting a license to a black farmer, Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson ruled that Smith has a substantial likelihood of success of proving that the law is unconstitutional.
Lawyers for Smith hoped the Legislature, rather than the court, would address the issue during the current session.
The Senate is advancing a plan (SB 1134) that also would do away with the requirement that black farmer applicants be members of the association but goes farther than the House proposal by adding a provision that makes it easier for patients who have been approved for medical marijuana treatment to switch doctors.
The Senate measure would also require the black farmer applicants to have conducted business in Florida for at least five years.
But the Senate measure, in its current form, would not comply with a House rule that imposes strict restrictions on bills that repeal laws.
Senate bill sponsor Darryl Rouson, a St. Petersburg Democrat, told the News Service he plans to strip out the provision dealing with patients switching doctors because health officials have already solved the problem.
Rouson said he also wants to the law to go into effect immediately and not on July 1, the date the law currently goes into effect. And he wants to remove a provision in the law that exempts black farmers from a requirement that applicants for a medical marijuana license must have been in business in Florida for at least five years.
“The path forward is to respect the House rules, which means the repealer bill should be as clean as possible without an amendment train added to that,” Rouson said.
Rodrigues said the House will go along with the removal of the exemption.
“We can't add new policy, but we can go back and repeal existing policy,” he said.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250